Classic Nook hacked to run a browser and other Android Apps.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by jcar302

I'll bet sooner or later someone gets the nook to run joikuspot on 3g, then BN is in serious trouble. It will be laptop tethering through wifi for free.

As far as I know Joikuspot is not available as source code or as Linux binaries. The same functionality is of course easily configured on a Linux machine.

[rdfry]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Is the service "free"? It's being paid for by B&N for the specific purpose of using the B&N bookstore, isn't it? If you use it for any other purpose, aren't you making unauthorised use of a service which is costing B&N real money? That surely constitutes obtaining a service by deception, don't you think? I'm no lawyer, so I may of course by wrong, but it certainly looks to me as though it "ought" to be a criminal act, given that such usage actually costs B&N money.

The service is being provided to you the user for free. It is not a criminal act because the provider is not charging you for the service. Under United States law Barnes & Noble, AT&T would have to charge you for the service for it to be theft.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Is the service "free"? It's being paid for by B&N for the specific purpose of using the B&N bookstore, isn't it? If you use it for any other purpose, aren't you making unauthorised use of a service which is costing B&N real money?

The TOS/EULA may or may not forbid using it for other purposes. Since B&N don't provide software for other methods of accessing the internet, they may not have put any notes about it in the user agreements. Very likely, hacking the device ends B&N's agreement to provide any service, but that doesn't mean it's against the contract, just that the user loses access to the B&N bookstore.

The Nook probably doesn't have a list of forbidden uses or a specific list of "only the following are authorized; any other use is forbidden by law." (If they could make that work, they'd insist you don't read pirated ebooks on it.)

That surely constitutes obtaining a service by deception, don't you think? I'm no lawyer, so I may of course by wrong, but it certainly looks to me as though it "ought" to be a criminal act, given that such usage actually costs B&N money.

"By deception" probably means something other than "paid retail price for it." Most customers don't tell stores how they're going to use their purchases; B&N doesn't require a statement of intent before selling Nooks.

A user who browses the B&N store constantly and never buys, is also costing B&N money, and they don't have any rules about that. Buying a device with the intent/hope of getting more use from it than the seller expected to provide is not illegal.

[stangri]

So far all homebrew on nook uses WiFi. Why don't we wait until it's at least technically possible to use nook's 3g from homebrew before we jumo into legal debate?

[Nitrousoxide]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Is the service "free"? It's being paid for by B&N for the specific purpose of using the B&N bookstore, isn't it? If you use it for any other purpose, aren't you making unauthorised use of a service which is costing B&N real money? That surely constitutes obtaining a service by deception, don't you think? I'm no lawyer, so I may of course by wrong, but it certainly looks to me as though it "ought" to be a criminal act, given that such usage actually costs B&N money.

You want breach of contract to be a criminal offense?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Nitrousoxide

You want breach of contract to be a criminal offense?

No, but I thought that taking money from somebody without their agreement (which is what you'd be doing) already was one. Obviously I was mistaken.

[Nitrousoxide]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, but I thought that taking money from somebody without their agreement (which is what you'd be doing) already was one. Obviously I was mistaken.

There is no taking of money from another without an agreement. The user is making use of a service in a way that is ARGUABLY not allowed by the EULA. If it is allowed (or not banned) under the EULA then perhaps B&N should have done a better job drafting their contracts. If it is banned under the EULA presumably they have recourse, like banning that device or its SIM card. If they don't allow it under the EULA but have no recourse if the user does misuse the product, perhaps they should have hired decent transactional attorneys to do their drafting.

Any way you look at it, it's entirely a contractual issue, not a criminal issue.