6 ms·

Unlocking and jailbreaking are now legally protected in the U.S.

266 points by isamuel 16y ago

isamuel 16y ago
This is an enormous ruling. The full rulemaking order, which includes additional protections for DVD ripping and other things, is here: https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/dmca_2009/RM-2008-8.pdf https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/dmca_2009/RM-2008-8.pdf
win_ini 16y ago
Finally, now I can stop worrying about a cop seeing that my iPhone is running on T-Mobile....whew!
- isamuel 16y ago
  It's more that now legitimate businesses can do these things without fear of legal action. It's legal now for Google to post a custom app on the web that unlocks your iPhone and installs Google Voice. It's legal for T-Mobile to unlock your iPhone for you. These things have existed on the grey market for a while, but legitimate businesses can't trade in such things. Now they can.
  - jasonlotito 16y ago
    Curious as to why this wasn't possible before, seeing as you could buy an unlocked phone from Apple? Edit: I think I'm confusing jail breaking with just untying a phone to a carrier. You can, of course, buy phones untied to a carrier already from Apple. However, you must still install apps via the App Store.
    - drewcrawford 16y ago
      Apple's not going to sue itself. So they can of course unlock their own phones (barring a contractual restriction with AT&T or similar). The change means that, i.e., Google, or TMobile, or some other legitimate competitor to Apple could use jailbreaking or unlocking as a competitive strategy in a way that Apple wouldn't like. For instance, Google could operate their own app store, and consumers could use Google software to unlock their device and install Google's app store. While Apple does offer unlocked phones in some countries, they typically don't do so willingly. All of the unlocked phones that I am aware of come from countries that forbid locked phones to be sold.
  - mcn 16y ago
    Are you sure? The Librarian of Congress's statement says that: > Nor is this rulemaking about the ability to make or distribute products or services used for purposes of circumventing access controls, which are governed by a different part of section 1201. http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2010/Librarian-of-Congress-1201-Statement.html http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2010/Librarian-of-Congress-120...
jim_h 16y ago
What does this mean for eFuse, on the Droid x/2 phones, which is supposed to protect the system from unauthorized updates? edit - Why was I voted down? Is it bad to ask questions? I thought others might be curious about this too. (BTW, thanks for the answer.)
- isamuel 16y ago
  Nothing in this ruling (based on my relatively quick read) stops companies from implementing countermeasures. It's not illegal to make it hard to do something legal; for example, DVDs are protected by CSS, which although it's laughably easy to break, does stop you from exercising some of your fair use rights (which this ruling also recognizes). Whether companies can implement things like eFuse or whatever is generally the realm of antitrust law, which is another ball of wax entirely.
- flabbergasted 16y ago
  This last sentence, from the article, indicates that this ruling is actually a step backward: "On EFF's request, the Librarian of Congress renewed a 2006 rule exempting cell phone unlocking so handsets can be used with other telecommunications carriers. Cell phone unlockers have been successfully sued under the DMCA, even though there is no copyright infringement involved in the unlocking. Digital locks on cell phones make it harder to resell, reuse, or recycle the handset, prompting EFF to ask for renewal of this rule on behalf of our clients, The Wireless Alliance, ReCellular and Flipswap. However, the 2009 rule has been modified so that it only applies to used mobile phones, not new ones."
- chaosmachine 16y ago
  Droid X has already been rooted, so I guess it wasn't much of a problem. http://www.intomobile.com/2010/07/22/verizon-motorola-droid-x-gets-root-superuser-is-here-efuse-be-damned/ http://www.intomobile.com/2010/07/22/verizon-motorola-droid-...
mikecane 16y ago
According to an attorney on Twitter, although it's now legal to jailbreak an iPhone, Apple can still state it's a violation of their warranty and deny service -- as recently seen with someone who jailbreaked their iPad (which heated up) and was denied service: http://snurl.com/zv7gc http://snurl.com/zv7gc
- mortenjorck 16y ago
  If, somehow, hardware manufacturers were required to extend warranty coverage to unsanctioned modifications, we'd see a lot of push-back against this in the near future. The extra burden to vendors would make a good argument against it, but the great thing is that as it stands, it's hard to argue against this without sounding anti-consumer.
  - mikecane 16y ago
    This is getting a lot of play in the MSM. TV news is even talking about it -- local, not just network (just like Consumer Reports and the iPhone 4 antenna). If this leads to a lot of people jailbreaking, I wonder if this could lead to a growing alternate market for iPhone apps vs the App Store.
    - sp332 16y ago
      Unfortunately, the App Store developer agreement means that devs can't sell on Apple's App Store if they ever use a third-party store.
  - saurik 16y ago
    They may actually already be required to do this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty_... It would really be interesting for someone to try to make an argument under this law that Apple must show that jailbreaking the device caused the malfunction before refusing service. That said, mentioning the guy who dropped his iPad and was pretty much asking for a favor (Apple does not cover accidental damage) is silly. In practice, Apple actually /does/ ignore jailbroken-nes ls of phones when it comes to serious hardware errors, and they have even stated as much in their DMCA commentary.
ck2 16y ago
I'd guess this really isn't proven law until it survives a lawsuit escalated to the supreme court. (and given their decisions lately, I'd rather not see this particular court address these issues)
- sp332 16y ago
  "Proven law"? The DMCA explicitly calls for these rulings to be made every 3 years. If the rest of the DMCA is "proven law," then so is this ruling.
- isamuel 16y ago
  This is administrative rulemaking; perfectly ordinary. It could be set aside by a court if it were arbitrary or capricious, but that's pretty unlikely.
tzs 16y ago
Saying its "legally protected" is slightly misleading. Rather, it is not prohibited by copyright law and the DMCA. However, the manufacturers are free to use technological means to stop you from jailbreaking, to refuse to provide service for jailbroken devices, and to use other legal means besides copyright/DMCA such as contracts to stop you. Law is often tri-state. For instance, at one time it was not legal to sell property to black people in certain neighborhoods in the US, because of legally binding covenants. This is the first state: prohibited. The law was changed so that such covenants were not enforceable. However, that didn't mean black people could actually buy property in those neighborhoods. The property owners were still free to refuse to sell to black people. This is the second state: not prohibited. The law was again changed, so that discrimination in real estate on the basis of race was illegal, and a seller could get in trouble if the seller used race to decide who to sell to. This is the third state: protected.
- moron4hire 16y ago
  Could one consider protection of a certain action as prohibition of its anti-action, and thereby we recognize only two states? So, instead of the buying of property itself being protected, it's the refusal to sell is prohibited.
  - philwelch 16y ago
    Yes, exactly. This is how libertarians prefer to few things because it recasts things like equal housing opportunity laws from "protecting the rights of minorities" to "infringing upon the rights of property owners".
- seanalltogether 16y ago
  Hopefully this provides ammunition though to combat companies that continue to use technological locks. A decision like this helps to muddy any corporate arguments used to claim that locking mechanisms are ethical.
  - edge17 16y ago
    Technological locks aren't always about ethics. Often times it's about being practical. As much as people love bashing Apple, Apple works hard to give people a stable environment to build apps in. If you think it's not stable, then you've certainly never built apps in the jailbreak environment. Sure there are cool things you can do which you can't in Apple's sandboxed environment, but it's also the wild west. It's cool if people want to jailbreak and invent cool stuff, but expecting Apple to support it doesn't really support the community at large in a scalable way. Jailbreaking is a good thing, but most people don't really consider the business implications of it.
stcredzero 16y ago
Would someone like to sell me a Canadian iPhone 4?

266 points by isamuel 16y ago

This is an enormous ruling. The full rulemaking order, which includes additional protections for DVD ripping and other things, is here: https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/dmca_2009/RM-2008-8.pdf https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/dmca_2009/RM-2008-8.pdf

win_ini 16y ago

Finally, now I can stop worrying about a cop seeing that my iPhone is running on T-Mobile....whew!

isamuel 16y ago
It's more that now legitimate businesses can do these things without fear of legal action. It's legal now for Google to post a custom app on the web that unlocks your iPhone and installs Google Voice. It's legal for T-Mobile to unlock your iPhone for you. These things have existed on the grey market for a while, but legitimate businesses can't trade in such things. Now they can.
- jasonlotito 16y ago
  Curious as to why this wasn't possible before, seeing as you could buy an unlocked phone from Apple? Edit: I think I'm confusing jail breaking with just untying a phone to a carrier. You can, of course, buy phones untied to a carrier already from Apple. However, you must still install apps via the App Store.
  - drewcrawford 16y ago
    Apple's not going to sue itself. So they can of course unlock their own phones (barring a contractual restriction with AT&T or similar). The change means that, i.e., Google, or TMobile, or some other legitimate competitor to Apple could use jailbreaking or unlocking as a competitive strategy in a way that Apple wouldn't like. For instance, Google could operate their own app store, and consumers could use Google software to unlock their device and install Google's app store. While Apple does offer unlocked phones in some countries, they typically don't do so willingly. All of the unlocked phones that I am aware of come from countries that forbid locked phones to be sold.
- mcn 16y ago
  Are you sure? The Librarian of Congress's statement says that: > Nor is this rulemaking about the ability to make or distribute products or services used for purposes of circumventing access controls, which are governed by a different part of section 1201. http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2010/Librarian-of-Congress-1201-Statement.html http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2010/Librarian-of-Congress-120...

jim_h 16y ago

What does this mean for eFuse, on the Droid x/2 phones, which is supposed to protect the system from unauthorized updates? edit - Why was I voted down? Is it bad to ask questions? I thought others might be curious about this too. (BTW, thanks for the answer.)

isamuel 16y ago
Nothing in this ruling (based on my relatively quick read) stops companies from implementing countermeasures. It's not illegal to make it hard to do something legal; for example, DVDs are protected by CSS, which although it's laughably easy to break, does stop you from exercising some of your fair use rights (which this ruling also recognizes). Whether companies can implement things like eFuse or whatever is generally the realm of antitrust law, which is another ball of wax entirely.
flabbergasted 16y ago
This last sentence, from the article, indicates that this ruling is actually a step backward: "On EFF's request, the Librarian of Congress renewed a 2006 rule exempting cell phone unlocking so handsets can be used with other telecommunications carriers. Cell phone unlockers have been successfully sued under the DMCA, even though there is no copyright infringement involved in the unlocking. Digital locks on cell phones make it harder to resell, reuse, or recycle the handset, prompting EFF to ask for renewal of this rule on behalf of our clients, The Wireless Alliance, ReCellular and Flipswap. However, the 2009 rule has been modified so that it only applies to used mobile phones, not new ones."
chaosmachine 16y ago
Droid X has already been rooted, so I guess it wasn't much of a problem. http://www.intomobile.com/2010/07/22/verizon-motorola-droid-x-gets-root-superuser-is-here-efuse-be-damned/ http://www.intomobile.com/2010/07/22/verizon-motorola-droid-...

mikecane 16y ago

According to an attorney on Twitter, although it's now legal to jailbreak an iPhone, Apple can still state it's a violation of their warranty and deny service -- as recently seen with someone who jailbreaked their iPad (which heated up) and was denied service: http://snurl.com/zv7gc http://snurl.com/zv7gc

mortenjorck 16y ago
If, somehow, hardware manufacturers were required to extend warranty coverage to unsanctioned modifications, we'd see a lot of push-back against this in the near future. The extra burden to vendors would make a good argument against it, but the great thing is that as it stands, it's hard to argue against this without sounding anti-consumer.
- mikecane 16y ago
  This is getting a lot of play in the MSM. TV news is even talking about it -- local, not just network (just like Consumer Reports and the iPhone 4 antenna). If this leads to a lot of people jailbreaking, I wonder if this could lead to a growing alternate market for iPhone apps vs the App Store.
  - sp332 16y ago
    Unfortunately, the App Store developer agreement means that devs can't sell on Apple's App Store if they ever use a third-party store.
- saurik 16y ago
  They may actually already be required to do this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty_... It would really be interesting for someone to try to make an argument under this law that Apple must show that jailbreaking the device caused the malfunction before refusing service. That said, mentioning the guy who dropped his iPad and was pretty much asking for a favor (Apple does not cover accidental damage) is silly. In practice, Apple actually /does/ ignore jailbroken-nes ls of phones when it comes to serious hardware errors, and they have even stated as much in their DMCA commentary.

ck2 16y ago

I'd guess this really isn't proven law until it survives a lawsuit escalated to the supreme court. (and given their decisions lately, I'd rather not see this particular court address these issues)

sp332 16y ago
"Proven law"? The DMCA explicitly calls for these rulings to be made every 3 years. If the rest of the DMCA is "proven law," then so is this ruling.
isamuel 16y ago
This is administrative rulemaking; perfectly ordinary. It could be set aside by a court if it were arbitrary or capricious, but that's pretty unlikely.

tzs 16y ago

Saying its "legally protected" is slightly misleading. Rather, it is not prohibited by copyright law and the DMCA. However, the manufacturers are free to use technological means to stop you from jailbreaking, to refuse to provide service for jailbroken devices, and to use other legal means besides copyright/DMCA such as contracts to stop you. Law is often tri-state. For instance, at one time it was not legal to sell property to black people in certain neighborhoods in the US, because of legally binding covenants. This is the first state: prohibited. The law was changed so that such covenants were not enforceable. However, that didn't mean black people could actually buy property in those neighborhoods. The property owners were still free to refuse to sell to black people. This is the second state: not prohibited. The law was again changed, so that discrimination in real estate on the basis of race was illegal, and a seller could get in trouble if the seller used race to decide who to sell to. This is the third state: protected.

moron4hire 16y ago
Could one consider protection of a certain action as prohibition of its anti-action, and thereby we recognize only two states? So, instead of the buying of property itself being protected, it's the refusal to sell is prohibited.
- philwelch 16y ago
  Yes, exactly. This is how libertarians prefer to few things because it recasts things like equal housing opportunity laws from "protecting the rights of minorities" to "infringing upon the rights of property owners".
seanalltogether 16y ago
Hopefully this provides ammunition though to combat companies that continue to use technological locks. A decision like this helps to muddy any corporate arguments used to claim that locking mechanisms are ethical.
- edge17 16y ago
  Technological locks aren't always about ethics. Often times it's about being practical. As much as people love bashing Apple, Apple works hard to give people a stable environment to build apps in. If you think it's not stable, then you've certainly never built apps in the jailbreak environment. Sure there are cool things you can do which you can't in Apple's sandboxed environment, but it's also the wild west. It's cool if people want to jailbreak and invent cool stuff, but expecting Apple to support it doesn't really support the community at large in a scalable way. Jailbreaking is a good thing, but most people don't really consider the business implications of it.

stcredzero 16y ago

Would someone like to sell me a Canadian iPhone 4?