9 ms·

Now legal in the U.S.: Jailbreaking your iPhone, ripping a DVD for education

325 points by yanw 16y ago

jordanroher 16y ago
I wonder if this means the activities of the "iPhone Dev Team" are now truly legal? (Not that I know whether they were before) If so, the Google Voice angle gives me a horrible idea: imagine if Google snatched up those iPhone jailbreak devs. Google could distribute a jailbreak program to get a true Google Voice app on the iPhone. The downside being that their war with Apple would immediately go nuclear.
- bruceboughton 16y ago
  Why would Google do this?
  - Samuel_Michon 16y ago
    That would depend on its business model. If Google Voice exists solely for the purpose of being a killer app, to differentiate Android phones from the rest of the pack, then there would be no reason to create a client for iOS. If however, the service itself is supposed to bring in revenue of its own, then I'd assume Google would try to make it available for every possible handset out there. As Google has already made a Google Voice app for the iPhone, I'd say their business model is closer to the second scenario. However, given that the percentage of jailbroken iPhones is quite low, I doubt that they'll bother.
- btilly 16y ago
  The first problem is that while jailbreaking is now legal, it is also legal for Apple to push a change that happens to break jailbroken phones. Apple doing this could create liability and/or negative publicity for any company that had sold such services on a wide scale. The second problem is that lawyers will be trying to find a way to create the old result, and are likely to succeed. For instance Apple's restrictions against jailbreaking are almost certainly in their shrinkwrap license contract. Therefore the fact that they can't throw the copyright book at you, doesn't mean that you're necessarily legally in the clear to do it.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    I think that the company that this would create liability and/or negative publicity for would be apple.
    - btilly 16y ago
      Apple has proven willing to brick jailbroken phones in the past. They didn't suffer any liability, and didn't get very much negative publicity. And it did wonders for maintaining the wall around the walled garden they are trying to create with the app store. Given this, I see nothing to suggest that they won't do it again. And any company who suggests otherwise is taking a definite risk.
      - ben1040 16y ago
        Apple has proven willing to brick jailbroken phones in the past. Have they? The famous case of "bricking" back in 2007 was not related to a jailbreak, but was a botched unlock tool[1] that corrupted data in the baseband firmware. The corruption then led to problems with an update. Apple issued a warning when the update was released saying it would affect unlocked phones, and I can't imagine this is out of malice so much as it is out of Apple's pre-release testing activities revealing problems. If it were an intentional attack against people who had jailbroken phones, why did it only affect those who used that particular flavor of unlock software? With a jailbreak being simply a software modification, when has strictly a jailbreak (not an unlock) led to a bricked phone? At worst, a software update from Apple will just lead to the phone being restored back to non-jailbroken state. http://code.google.com/p/iphone-elite/wiki/iPhoneBrick http://code.google.com/p/iphone-elite/wiki/iPhoneBrick
  - kragen 16y ago
    it is also legal for Apple to push a change that happens to break jailbroken phones Are you sure? That sounds like trespass to chattels to me, or if they hadn't tested their update on jailbroken phones, then reckless, possibly criminal negligence.
- dman 16y ago
  It would in practice be similar to the itunes compatibility that Palm tried. It was technically cool, but in the end the cat and mouse game with apple would mean few mainstream users would actually bother and it would make little business sense.
isamuel 16y ago
It would now be perfectly legal for T-Mobile to offer a service where you walk into any T-Mobile store and they unlock your iPhone for you, to use on their network.
- mdolon 16y ago
  There's a T-Mobile store in Queens, NY that was already doing this a week ago, they had a huge banner outside that said something to the extent of 'We sell and unlock iPhones.' I remember pointing it out to a friend and wondering how it was legal but I guess now it makes sense. If anyone wants to check it out, it's at the corner of 74th and Broadway in Jackson Heights.
  - starkfist 16y ago
    Is there a list somewhere of the countries in which an unlocked iPhone will work with a prepaid sim? I read on Fred Wilson's blog that it works in the UK (and presumably the rest of Western Europe). I am specifically wondering about Australia and Japan. Can I buy an iPhone 4 in the USA, get it unlocked in Queens, and use it in Australia with a sim? Edit - I'm mostly wondering if the radio in the US version of the phone supports the networks in .au and .jp.
    - mdolon 16y ago
      It should work fine as long as you carrier unlock the iPhone. I'm not sure if this is available for the iPhone 4 yet though (due to baseband changes), I know it's possible for older generations. Don't waste your money getting it unlocked at a store though, do some research and use one of the many available free (and now legal) programs like blackra1n and quickpwn.
    - hboon 16y ago
      Yes, in Australia, not in Japan. The latter don't accept GSM SIMs. But it will work of course if you use a SIM card that let you roam in Japan, with normal (read: ridiculous) charges.
    - Maktab 16y ago
powrtoch 16y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this doesn't stop Apple from refusing to service your jailbroken iPhone does it? Big news and all, but it seems to me the issue was that Apple would make a fuss and void your warranty, not that people were getting arrested.
- smokinn 16y ago
  Apple has maintained for quite a while that jailbreaking your iPhone is a criminal offence. So no, the fear was not only of a voided warranty.
  - jonhohle 16y ago
    > Apple has maintained… I don't recall Apple ever mentioning jailbreaking, let alone threatening that it was a criminal act. During the initial iPhone announcement there was talk about the supposed dangers of letting any particular app free on AT&Ts mobile network, but since then I can't recall a time when either a phone manufacturer or a service provider has said anything about the legality of jailbreaking, SEEM editing, etc.
    - orangecat 16y ago
      In Apple's response to the EFF's request for a DMCA exemption, they said that jailbreaking was and should remain illegal. http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/02/apple-says-jailbreaking-illegal http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/02/apple-says-jailbreaking...
      - jonhohle 16y ago
        I stand corrected. I had misunderstood the concern being the distribution of modified, Apple owned software (similar to the Psystar case), but this appears to be a system which patches the software in place, without requiring redistribution of Apple IP.
- patrickk 16y ago
  It's very, very easy to reset your iPhone to it's default state, you simply plug it in to your computer, and click "Restore" in iTunes. Apple doesn't have to know anything :-) I think you would have to be very silly to send a jailbroken iPhone to Apple to be serviced if Apple claim it's "illegal" to do so.
matthew-wegner 16y ago
At first I wondered if modchips would now be legal, and CrunchGear and others are just focusing on jailbreaking iPhones because it's topical to their audience. But, no, the wording really is zeroed in on handsets: Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset. In fact, it sounds like it's legal to jailbreak an iPhone but not an iPod touch...
- flatulent1 16y ago
  "In fact, it sounds like it's legal to jailbreak an iPhone but not an iPod touch..." Perhaps one could extend the scope of this to the iPod touch by considering the case of one with a bluetooth headset and VoIP software running. The iPod touch may be much less well known as a telephone, but like the iPhone it is a product with many possible uses. Talk on it and have someone try to prove it isn't a phone.
  - Groxx 16y ago
    Be shown that there isn't a SIM card in it, and try to explain the difference to a judge / jury.
    - yumraj 16y ago
      Verizon and Sprint phones don't have a SIM card and they're still phones, ask anyone ;).
    - jrockway 16y ago
      The Copyright Office's exemption guidelines should be read as a list of things that would get the law struck down in court, and hence the government isn't going to prosecute. I doubt a prosecutor is going to risk the entire DMCA on "wifi telephone" versus "AT&T telephone".
openfly 16y ago
I thought ripping DVDs for education was covered under the TEACH act.
billybob 16y ago
"Defeating a lawfully obtained DVD’s encryption for the sole purpose of short, fair use in an educational setting OR FOR CRITICISM." Sure, I'm going to blog about this movie. Lemme in. Seriously, "lawfully obtained" should be the only qualifier needed.
- billybob 16y ago
  Next thing I want: to make it ILLEGAL to manufacture any DVD or player that FORCES consumers to watch previews. I'm serious. I just sat through 10 minutes of previews the other night for movies like "Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakuel." If I don't have a legal right to skip that, music execs shouldn't have the legal right to stop me from playing high-decibel polka music on their front lawns.
  - sorbus 16y ago
    My understanding is generally that you can get out of it just before it starts playing (by pressing the menu button, I think?) but once it starts playing it uses the same flag for the anti-piracy warning (or something like that), which prevents getting out of it. This issue does not appear on computers, of course, only DVD players. Of course, this could have changed in newer DVDs or DVD players; though I haven't encountered any disk which has absolutely no way of getting out of the previews, but I tend not to watch many movies. Also, I think that I have to point out that you are entirely free to mute the DVD and go off somewhere else until the previews are done, if you're unable to find any other way out of them; "FORCES" is a bit of a strong word, given that you were not (I assume) physically prevented from leaving. This is, of course, not an acceptable solution, but it does eliminate the discomfort of sitting through previews.
    - mbreese 16y ago
      There are some discs that make it mandatory to watch something first. One example that kills me is the 2-3 minute long schpeal that plays in front of "Elmo's World" DVDs telling us about all the great things Seasame Street does around the world. On some discs, you can fast forward (not skip). On others, it is mandatory to watch the entire thing. This does pose a bit of a problem when your toddler needs his Elmo's World fix and you have to sit and wait...
teamonkey 16y ago
Does anyone know what caused clause 4? It seems pretty specific to something. A means to legally allow play of DRM'd games without having to pierce the work firewall? Is there a history behind this? >>> (4) Video games accessible on personal computers and protected by technological protection measures that control access to lawfully obtained works, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of good faith testing for, investigating, or correcting security flaws or vulnerabilities, if: (i) The information derived from the security testing is used primarily to promote the security of the owner or operator of a computer, computer system, or computer network; and (ii) The information derived from the security testing is used or maintained in a manner that does not facilitate copyright infringement or a violation of applicable law.
- mbreese 16y ago
  When I read that and I think Sony BMG's rootkit or SecuROM. Or maybe just examining the security implications of a game install without letting the manufacturer know about it by bypassing a phone-home feature. Actually, ArsTechnica has a good article up about this too: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/07/apple-loses-big-in-drm-ruling-jailbreaks-are-fair-use.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/07/apple-loses-... They specifically mention this clause: It turns out that the real target here is the DRM itself, specifically two controversial systems called SecuROM and SafeDisc. Professor Alex Halderman, a longtime security researcher in this area, begged the Library to let him investigate these kinds of invasive DRM without legal worries.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
borisk 16y ago
The awesome EFF can use some donations: https://w2.eff.org/donate/index.php https://w2.eff.org/donate/index.php
- shajith 16y ago
  They have awesome swag too, I love my EFF cap: https://secure.eff.org/site/Ecommerce/267350841?VIEW_PRODUCT=true&product_id=1041&store_id=2441 https://secure.eff.org/site/Ecommerce/267350841?VIEW_PRODUCT...
Benjo 16y ago
Does anyone have info on the other DMCA exceptions that were granted? My googlefu only reveals Apple stories.
- username3 16y ago
  http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/07/26 http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/07/26
- Samuel_Michon 16y ago
  Rulemaking on Exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention of Technological Measures that Control Access to Copyrighted Works: http://www.copyright.gov/1201/ http://www.copyright.gov/1201/
yellowbkpk 16y ago
What made this illegal before?
- latortuga 16y ago
  DMCA. Circumventing a DRM system for any reason is illegal under DMCA.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - daeken 16y ago
    No no no no no. Please guys, let's be very clear about what the DMCA does and does not do; misinformation hurts the case against it considerably. The DMCA, among many other things, makes the circumvention of copyright protection illegal -- that much is true. However, not "for any reason". There are numerous clear exceptions in this, e.g. for the purpose of interoperability. These are very important and often overlooked, but need to be taken into account when talking about the DMCA as a whole.
  - yellowbkpk 16y ago
    Thanks. I realized the answer to my question almost immediately after I posted it but I hope someone else will find the information useful.
  - _delirium 16y ago
    I don't think that's entirely true. The DMCA has a bunch of exceptions for things like "interoperability" and "research" that are somewhat vaguely defined, which someone who was subject to a DMCA suit could use as a defense. This rulemaking process carves out a subset of those where the Copyright Office has determined that the activity definitely falls under those exceptions. But unless I'm mistaken, I think it's possible to argue other uses as well--- but you'd have to argue in court why your use was primarily for interoperability purposes. The advantage of doing things that the Copyright Office already declared to fall under those exceptions is that you wouldn't have to argue that point at all, because the issue was already decided.
caxap 16y ago
Now it is legal to do what everyone was doing already--to hack our own stuff. It is fascinating to see how laws catch up to the norm. Just wonder why it was illegal in the first place?
iends 16y ago
Does this mean that watching DVDs on Linux is finally legal as long as it's for education or criticism?
- _delirium 16y ago
  It looks like the exemption is pretty narrow: ripping DVDs for the purposes of extracting a short excerpt that meets fair-use criteria, for use in another, larger work of commentary or criticism. Essentially, it's now okay to rip a Disney movie for the purposes of grabbing a clip for use in your video podcast discussing representation of gender in Disney movies or something. There's more general interoperability language in the DMCA though, so it's possible that if the creator of a Linux DVD player were prosecuted, they'd be acquitted. Falling under one of the Copyright Office's explicit exceptions is safer but I don't believe exhaustive.
seldo 16y ago
What I want to know is: if Apple knowingly brick your jailbroken phone now, are they breaking the law? Or is jailbreaking still at your own risk? (I assume the latter)
- bad_user 16y ago
  I'm sure they would lose some customers this way though ... for example I was going to buy a Motorola Droid, but seeing how it bricks itself now I'm going to pass. Wanting to unlock/mod your phone is not only for an IT crowd ... I see normal people wanting to do that all the time.
- rmc 16y ago
  I'd assume it's at your own risk, and I'd assume jailbreaking voids your warrenty. It's perfectly common for things to be legal but void your warrenty (e.g. It's legal for me to intentionally hit my iPhone with a hammer, but that voids my warrenty)
- ErrantX 16y ago
  I doubt they would be allowed to do that - unless the warranty/contract you have with them allows them to do this (unlikely). On the other hand check your phone contract; there could be something in there about denying you network access. (or they could try to introduce it). Similar to what Microsoft (was is MS or Sony? I forget) did with cracked consoles.
sprout 16y ago
http://www.copyright.gov/1201/ http://www.copyright.gov/1201/ Looks like it's more than just education and criticism: > (i) Educational uses by college and university professors and by college and university film and media studies students; > (ii) Documentary filmmaking; > (iii) Noncommercial videos. Looks like so long as you're looking to use a clip, and your use would qualify as fair use, you can rip a DVD. That can't be what the librarian meant to write though, that would actually encourage people to make backups and then further copy a fair use bit into a different work.
yumraj 16y ago
Apple may not like the ruling, but the funny thing is that this may actually cause an increase in the sales of iPhone.
- CamperBob 16y ago
  Apple may actually be fine with it. They may have had a contract clause with AT&T that required them to defend the exclusivity clause in any legal action, possibly including this sort of thing.
callmeed 16y ago
I use an iPhone 3G on T-Mobile (because I'm boycotting AT&T). I wasn't aware that jailbreaking was illegal–I thought Apple was trying to make it so, but it wasn't yet (under the DMCA). Either way, this is great.
jackfoxy 16y ago
Does this open up 3rd party support of jail-broken phones as a legitimate business?
apower 16y ago
Good news for Apple or bad news for them? It would definitely help the IPhone ecosystem but breaks Apple's control.
tsally 16y ago
It was already legal under the DMCA (at least, according to the spirit of the law). Apple and the RIAA just wanted you to believe otherwise. The language has simply been clarified so overzealous companies can't easily scare consumers.
etherael 16y ago
Why would it not make sense now to use this as an amicable excuse to axe the AT&T deal from apple's end saying it's clearly no longer legal to do so and just getting on with the business of competing on the basis of product instead of who has the better team of lawyers?

325 points by yanw 16y ago

I wonder if this means the activities of the "iPhone Dev Team" are now truly legal? (Not that I know whether they were before) If so, the Google Voice angle gives me a horrible idea: imagine if Google snatched up those iPhone jailbreak devs. Google could distribute a jailbreak program to get a true Google Voice app on the iPhone. The downside being that their war with Apple would immediately go nuclear.

bruceboughton 16y ago
Why would Google do this?
- Samuel_Michon 16y ago
  That would depend on its business model. If Google Voice exists solely for the purpose of being a killer app, to differentiate Android phones from the rest of the pack, then there would be no reason to create a client for iOS. If however, the service itself is supposed to bring in revenue of its own, then I'd assume Google would try to make it available for every possible handset out there. As Google has already made a Google Voice app for the iPhone, I'd say their business model is closer to the second scenario. However, given that the percentage of jailbroken iPhones is quite low, I doubt that they'll bother.
btilly 16y ago
The first problem is that while jailbreaking is now legal, it is also legal for Apple to push a change that happens to break jailbroken phones. Apple doing this could create liability and/or negative publicity for any company that had sold such services on a wide scale. The second problem is that lawyers will be trying to find a way to create the old result, and are likely to succeed. For instance Apple's restrictions against jailbreaking are almost certainly in their shrinkwrap license contract. Therefore the fact that they can't throw the copyright book at you, doesn't mean that you're necessarily legally in the clear to do it.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  I think that the company that this would create liability and/or negative publicity for would be apple.
  - btilly 16y ago
    Apple has proven willing to brick jailbroken phones in the past. They didn't suffer any liability, and didn't get very much negative publicity. And it did wonders for maintaining the wall around the walled garden they are trying to create with the app store. Given this, I see nothing to suggest that they won't do it again. And any company who suggests otherwise is taking a definite risk.
    - ben1040 16y ago
      Apple has proven willing to brick jailbroken phones in the past. Have they? The famous case of "bricking" back in 2007 was not related to a jailbreak, but was a botched unlock tool[1] that corrupted data in the baseband firmware. The corruption then led to problems with an update. Apple issued a warning when the update was released saying it would affect unlocked phones, and I can't imagine this is out of malice so much as it is out of Apple's pre-release testing activities revealing problems. If it were an intentional attack against people who had jailbroken phones, why did it only affect those who used that particular flavor of unlock software? With a jailbreak being simply a software modification, when has strictly a jailbreak (not an unlock) led to a bricked phone? At worst, a software update from Apple will just lead to the phone being restored back to non-jailbroken state. http://code.google.com/p/iphone-elite/wiki/iPhoneBrick http://code.google.com/p/iphone-elite/wiki/iPhoneBrick
- kragen 16y ago
  it is also legal for Apple to push a change that happens to break jailbroken phones Are you sure? That sounds like trespass to chattels to me, or if they hadn't tested their update on jailbroken phones, then reckless, possibly criminal negligence.
dman 16y ago
It would in practice be similar to the itunes compatibility that Palm tried. It was technically cool, but in the end the cat and mouse game with apple would mean few mainstream users would actually bother and it would make little business sense.

isamuel 16y ago

It would now be perfectly legal for T-Mobile to offer a service where you walk into any T-Mobile store and they unlock your iPhone for you, to use on their network.

mdolon 16y ago
There's a T-Mobile store in Queens, NY that was already doing this a week ago, they had a huge banner outside that said something to the extent of 'We sell and unlock iPhones.' I remember pointing it out to a friend and wondering how it was legal but I guess now it makes sense. If anyone wants to check it out, it's at the corner of 74th and Broadway in Jackson Heights.
- starkfist 16y ago
  Is there a list somewhere of the countries in which an unlocked iPhone will work with a prepaid sim? I read on Fred Wilson's blog that it works in the UK (and presumably the rest of Western Europe). I am specifically wondering about Australia and Japan. Can I buy an iPhone 4 in the USA, get it unlocked in Queens, and use it in Australia with a sim? Edit - I'm mostly wondering if the radio in the US version of the phone supports the networks in .au and .jp.
  - mdolon 16y ago
    It should work fine as long as you carrier unlock the iPhone. I'm not sure if this is available for the iPhone 4 yet though (due to baseband changes), I know it's possible for older generations. Don't waste your money getting it unlocked at a store though, do some research and use one of the many available free (and now legal) programs like blackra1n and quickpwn.
  - hboon 16y ago
    Yes, in Australia, not in Japan. The latter don't accept GSM SIMs. But it will work of course if you use a SIM card that let you roam in Japan, with normal (read: ridiculous) charges.
  - Maktab 16y ago

powrtoch 16y ago

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this doesn't stop Apple from refusing to service your jailbroken iPhone does it? Big news and all, but it seems to me the issue was that Apple would make a fuss and void your warranty, not that people were getting arrested.

smokinn 16y ago
Apple has maintained for quite a while that jailbreaking your iPhone is a criminal offence. So no, the fear was not only of a voided warranty.
- jonhohle 16y ago
  > Apple has maintained… I don't recall Apple ever mentioning jailbreaking, let alone threatening that it was a criminal act. During the initial iPhone announcement there was talk about the supposed dangers of letting any particular app free on AT&Ts mobile network, but since then I can't recall a time when either a phone manufacturer or a service provider has said anything about the legality of jailbreaking, SEEM editing, etc.
  - orangecat 16y ago
    In Apple's response to the EFF's request for a DMCA exemption, they said that jailbreaking was and should remain illegal. http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/02/apple-says-jailbreaking-illegal http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/02/apple-says-jailbreaking...
    - jonhohle 16y ago
      I stand corrected. I had misunderstood the concern being the distribution of modified, Apple owned software (similar to the Psystar case), but this appears to be a system which patches the software in place, without requiring redistribution of Apple IP.
patrickk 16y ago
It's very, very easy to reset your iPhone to it's default state, you simply plug it in to your computer, and click "Restore" in iTunes. Apple doesn't have to know anything :-) I think you would have to be very silly to send a jailbroken iPhone to Apple to be serviced if Apple claim it's "illegal" to do so.

matthew-wegner 16y ago

At first I wondered if modchips would now be legal, and CrunchGear and others are just focusing on jailbreaking iPhones because it's topical to their audience. But, no, the wording really is zeroed in on handsets: Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset. In fact, it sounds like it's legal to jailbreak an iPhone but not an iPod touch...

flatulent1 16y ago
"In fact, it sounds like it's legal to jailbreak an iPhone but not an iPod touch..." Perhaps one could extend the scope of this to the iPod touch by considering the case of one with a bluetooth headset and VoIP software running. The iPod touch may be much less well known as a telephone, but like the iPhone it is a product with many possible uses. Talk on it and have someone try to prove it isn't a phone.
- Groxx 16y ago
  Be shown that there isn't a SIM card in it, and try to explain the difference to a judge / jury.
  - yumraj 16y ago
    Verizon and Sprint phones don't have a SIM card and they're still phones, ask anyone ;).
  - jrockway 16y ago
    The Copyright Office's exemption guidelines should be read as a list of things that would get the law struck down in court, and hence the government isn't going to prosecute. I doubt a prosecutor is going to risk the entire DMCA on "wifi telephone" versus "AT&T telephone".

openfly 16y ago

I thought ripping DVDs for education was covered under the TEACH act.

billybob 16y ago

"Defeating a lawfully obtained DVD’s encryption for the sole purpose of short, fair use in an educational setting OR FOR CRITICISM." Sure, I'm going to blog about this movie. Lemme in. Seriously, "lawfully obtained" should be the only qualifier needed.

billybob 16y ago
Next thing I want: to make it ILLEGAL to manufacture any DVD or player that FORCES consumers to watch previews. I'm serious. I just sat through 10 minutes of previews the other night for movies like "Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakuel." If I don't have a legal right to skip that, music execs shouldn't have the legal right to stop me from playing high-decibel polka music on their front lawns.
- sorbus 16y ago
  My understanding is generally that you can get out of it just before it starts playing (by pressing the menu button, I think?) but once it starts playing it uses the same flag for the anti-piracy warning (or something like that), which prevents getting out of it. This issue does not appear on computers, of course, only DVD players. Of course, this could have changed in newer DVDs or DVD players; though I haven't encountered any disk which has absolutely no way of getting out of the previews, but I tend not to watch many movies. Also, I think that I have to point out that you are entirely free to mute the DVD and go off somewhere else until the previews are done, if you're unable to find any other way out of them; "FORCES" is a bit of a strong word, given that you were not (I assume) physically prevented from leaving. This is, of course, not an acceptable solution, but it does eliminate the discomfort of sitting through previews.
  - mbreese 16y ago
    There are some discs that make it mandatory to watch something first. One example that kills me is the 2-3 minute long schpeal that plays in front of "Elmo's World" DVDs telling us about all the great things Seasame Street does around the world. On some discs, you can fast forward (not skip). On others, it is mandatory to watch the entire thing. This does pose a bit of a problem when your toddler needs his Elmo's World fix and you have to sit and wait...

teamonkey 16y ago

Does anyone know what caused clause 4? It seems pretty specific to something. A means to legally allow play of DRM'd games without having to pierce the work firewall? Is there a history behind this? >>> (4) Video games accessible on personal computers and protected by technological protection measures that control access to lawfully obtained works, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of good faith testing for, investigating, or correcting security flaws or vulnerabilities, if: (i) The information derived from the security testing is used primarily to promote the security of the owner or operator of a computer, computer system, or computer network; and (ii) The information derived from the security testing is used or maintained in a manner that does not facilitate copyright infringement or a violation of applicable law.

mbreese 16y ago
When I read that and I think Sony BMG's rootkit or SecuROM. Or maybe just examining the security implications of a game install without letting the manufacturer know about it by bypassing a phone-home feature. Actually, ArsTechnica has a good article up about this too: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/07/apple-loses-big-in-drm-ruling-jailbreaks-are-fair-use.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/07/apple-loses-... They specifically mention this clause: It turns out that the real target here is the DRM itself, specifically two controversial systems called SecuROM and SafeDisc. Professor Alex Halderman, a longtime security researcher in this area, begged the Library to let him investigate these kinds of invasive DRM without legal worries.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

borisk 16y ago

The awesome EFF can use some donations: https://w2.eff.org/donate/index.php https://w2.eff.org/donate/index.php

shajith 16y ago
They have awesome swag too, I love my EFF cap: https://secure.eff.org/site/Ecommerce/267350841?VIEW_PRODUCT=true&product_id=1041&store_id=2441 https://secure.eff.org/site/Ecommerce/267350841?VIEW_PRODUCT...

Benjo 16y ago

Does anyone have info on the other DMCA exceptions that were granted? My googlefu only reveals Apple stories.

username3 16y ago
http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/07/26 http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/07/26
Samuel_Michon 16y ago
Rulemaking on Exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention of Technological Measures that Control Access to Copyrighted Works: http://www.copyright.gov/1201/ http://www.copyright.gov/1201/

yellowbkpk 16y ago

What made this illegal before?

latortuga 16y ago
DMCA. Circumventing a DRM system for any reason is illegal under DMCA.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- daeken 16y ago
  No no no no no. Please guys, let's be very clear about what the DMCA does and does not do; misinformation hurts the case against it considerably. The DMCA, among many other things, makes the circumvention of copyright protection illegal -- that much is true. However, not "for any reason". There are numerous clear exceptions in this, e.g. for the purpose of interoperability. These are very important and often overlooked, but need to be taken into account when talking about the DMCA as a whole.
- yellowbkpk 16y ago
  Thanks. I realized the answer to my question almost immediately after I posted it but I hope someone else will find the information useful.
- _delirium 16y ago
  I don't think that's entirely true. The DMCA has a bunch of exceptions for things like "interoperability" and "research" that are somewhat vaguely defined, which someone who was subject to a DMCA suit could use as a defense. This rulemaking process carves out a subset of those where the Copyright Office has determined that the activity definitely falls under those exceptions. But unless I'm mistaken, I think it's possible to argue other uses as well--- but you'd have to argue in court why your use was primarily for interoperability purposes. The advantage of doing things that the Copyright Office already declared to fall under those exceptions is that you wouldn't have to argue that point at all, because the issue was already decided.

caxap 16y ago

Now it is legal to do what everyone was doing already--to hack our own stuff. It is fascinating to see how laws catch up to the norm. Just wonder why it was illegal in the first place?

iends 16y ago

Does this mean that watching DVDs on Linux is finally legal as long as it's for education or criticism?

_delirium 16y ago
It looks like the exemption is pretty narrow: ripping DVDs for the purposes of extracting a short excerpt that meets fair-use criteria, for use in another, larger work of commentary or criticism. Essentially, it's now okay to rip a Disney movie for the purposes of grabbing a clip for use in your video podcast discussing representation of gender in Disney movies or something. There's more general interoperability language in the DMCA though, so it's possible that if the creator of a Linux DVD player were prosecuted, they'd be acquitted. Falling under one of the Copyright Office's explicit exceptions is safer but I don't believe exhaustive.

seldo 16y ago

What I want to know is: if Apple knowingly brick your jailbroken phone now, are they breaking the law? Or is jailbreaking still at your own risk? (I assume the latter)

bad_user 16y ago
I'm sure they would lose some customers this way though ... for example I was going to buy a Motorola Droid, but seeing how it bricks itself now I'm going to pass. Wanting to unlock/mod your phone is not only for an IT crowd ... I see normal people wanting to do that all the time.
rmc 16y ago
I'd assume it's at your own risk, and I'd assume jailbreaking voids your warrenty. It's perfectly common for things to be legal but void your warrenty (e.g. It's legal for me to intentionally hit my iPhone with a hammer, but that voids my warrenty)
ErrantX 16y ago
I doubt they would be allowed to do that - unless the warranty/contract you have with them allows them to do this (unlikely). On the other hand check your phone contract; there could be something in there about denying you network access. (or they could try to introduce it). Similar to what Microsoft (was is MS or Sony? I forget) did with cracked consoles.

sprout 16y ago

http://www.copyright.gov/1201/ http://www.copyright.gov/1201/ Looks like it's more than just education and criticism: > (i) Educational uses by college and university professors and by college and university film and media studies students; > (ii) Documentary filmmaking; > (iii) Noncommercial videos. Looks like so long as you're looking to use a clip, and your use would qualify as fair use, you can rip a DVD. That can't be what the librarian meant to write though, that would actually encourage people to make backups and then further copy a fair use bit into a different work.

yumraj 16y ago

Apple may not like the ruling, but the funny thing is that this may actually cause an increase in the sales of iPhone.

CamperBob 16y ago
Apple may actually be fine with it. They may have had a contract clause with AT&T that required them to defend the exclusivity clause in any legal action, possibly including this sort of thing.

callmeed 16y ago

I use an iPhone 3G on T-Mobile (because I'm boycotting AT&T). I wasn't aware that jailbreaking was illegal–I thought Apple was trying to make it so, but it wasn't yet (under the DMCA). Either way, this is great.

jackfoxy 16y ago

Does this open up 3rd party support of jail-broken phones as a legitimate business?

apower 16y ago

Good news for Apple or bad news for them? It would definitely help the IPhone ecosystem but breaks Apple's control.

tsally 16y ago

It was already legal under the DMCA (at least, according to the spirit of the law). Apple and the RIAA just wanted you to believe otherwise. The language has simply been clarified so overzealous companies can't easily scare consumers.

etherael 16y ago

Why would it not make sense now to use this as an amicable excuse to axe the AT&T deal from apple's end saying it's clearly no longer legal to do so and just getting on with the business of competing on the basis of product instead of who has the better team of lawyers?