10 ms·

Jailbreaking now legal under DMCA for smartphones, but not tablets

• daeken 14y ago
  What I don't understand is: how does the DMCA apply here at all? The DMCA's anti-circumvention clauses apply only to mechanisms which control access to a copyrighted work. I fail to see how jailbreaking a phone, tablet, game console, etc passes that test -- it's not controlling access to anything.
  • mmanfrin 14y ago
    Jailbreaking/rooting generally makes piracy a lot easier.
    • jlgreco 14y ago
      So do other things, like having an internet connect, owning a usb cable, possessing a rudimentary knowledge of technology, etc. There are already laws against piracy. Additional laws covering things merely leading up to that act should not be necessary nor desired.
      • JoshTriplett 14y ago
        > There are already laws against piracy. Additional laws covering things merely leading up to that act should not be necessary nor desired. That sounds like entirely sensible reasoning, so you shouldn't find it surprising that the lawmaking process never considered it.
      • eigenvector 14y ago
        To play the devil's advocate here, since there are already laws against assault and homicide, would you say that there should be no regulation of weapons? And before you argue that weapons have no purpose except to break other laws, like jailbreaking there are many lawful or sporting uses of swords, firearms, explosives, etc.
        • TheGateKeeper 14y ago
          I would say that's entirely reasonable. There's no reason to dump on more laws to try and enforce (and poorly I might add) already existing laws.
        • jlgreco 14y ago
          Yeah, I would be okay with saying that. We have laws against murder/assault, and we also have laws against making threats and reckless endangerment which I think should cover the other cases of bad things done with guns. I'll go further and say that DUI laws are also redundant. Of course we don't want people driving drunk, but all we really need is some case law that establishes drunk driving as endangerment.
  • tlrobinson 14y ago
    Maybe you could argue it's controlling access to media you purchase and download onto your device?
  • ari_elle 14y ago
    Quote from Wired article (linked below): "The regulators said that the controls were necessary to prevent software piracy and differentiated gaming consoles from smart phones, which legally can be jailbroken: [T]he record demonstrated that access controls on gaming consoles protect not only the console firmware, but the video games and applications that run on the console as well. The evidence showed that video games are far more difficult and complex to produce than smartphone applications, requiring teams of developers and potential investments in the millions of dollars. While the access controls at issue might serve to further manufacturers’ business interests, they also protect highly valuable expressive works – many of which are created and owned by the manufacturers – in addition to console firmware itself. On the plus side, the regulators re-authorized jailbreaking of mobile phones." Source: -) http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/10/dmca-exemptions-rejected/all/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/10/dmca-exemptions-rej... -) http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4699962 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4699962 I am aware that this does not fully answer your question, but this is at least their justification.
    • krickle 14y ago
      It's so infuriating that the lawmakers just don't get it. If I buy a console, I should be free to root it and run Linux or whatever. There are already laws against piracy, we don't need to throw freedom out to stop it.
      • ari_elle 14y ago
        It is frustrating and at the same time one of the reasons why the traditional PC as we know it has a special position. If you think about it, the traditional PC is one of the - and it's sad to say so - few devices where the hardware really is yours (one could argue that firmware is locked down etc, but i guess everybody knows what i mean). There are not so many devices left that you can: -) install custom software on -) root without great efforts Game consoles, Tablets, ebook Readers, and Smartphones (no matter if it's legal - still great effort to jailbreak it) - you are locked in everywhere... Sad future ahead
        • 14y ago
  • binarybits 14y ago
    The idea is that the phone or tablet's copy protection scheme controls access to the low-level firmware/ROM that makes the device operate.
  • baddox 14y ago
    It sounds like you're making the common mistake of projecting your own reasonable expectations onto a piece of legislation like the DMCA.
• britta 14y ago
  It sounds like this news would be more accurately titled "Jailbreaking continues to be exempt for smartphones and non-exempt for tablets".
  • giftedmunchkin 14y ago
    Even that isn't strictly true, since the exemption for smartphones only applies to phones purchased before January 2013.
    • britta 14y ago
      I think you are conflating the jailbreaking/rooting exemption and the carrier unlocking exemption. The exemption for jailbreaking phones will apply for the next three years (until it comes up for renewal again), while the exemption for unofficially carrier unlocking phones will only apply to phones purchased before January 2013.
      • beagle3 14y ago
        How does carrier unlocking figure out into DMCA? Is it in any way related to copyrights? I'm sure the librarian has an opinion, but how can they have jurisdiction?
        • britta 14y ago
          Looking at the official statement about the unlocking exemption (pages 16-20 of https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2012-26308.pdf https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.g...), it sounds like the software on the phone controlling its access to the carrier is a copyrighted work. So if you want to circumvent protections against modifying it, you have to wrangle with the DMCA.
          • beagle3 14y ago
            > protections against modifying it Silly me. And I thought that "effective technical measure" was against copying, not modification. I'm no copyright scholar, but this seems like they lack jurisdiction about this, and/or are trying a power grab. E.g., Bunnie Huang's NeTV device modifies an HDCP encoded signal in-flight, adding an image overlay. If what you state about unlocking is true, then the NeTV is also illegal, and the DMCA is even worse than everyone thinks.
• clobber 14y ago
  Let's start calling these "smartphones" and "tablets" what they are: computers. It's not okay to tell someone what they can or cannot do with the 1's and 0's on their machines. DRM sucks and so do companies that would seek to restrict rights on how you can use your computer.
  • bo1024 14y ago
    Agreed. I don't see how copyright comes into the picture if I buy a piece of hardware, erase whatever is in its memory, and put what I want there instead. Of course, I could see hardware going the way of e-books: You don't own your phone/tablet/laptop, you merely license it from the Corporation who reserves the rights to control what you install or not and to erase it/take it back at any time.
  • saurik 14y ago
    FWIW, during this same round, the Software Freedom Law Center was attempting to push an exemption covering "personal computing devices" (which I submitted supporting comments for, along with these exemptions) and failed (largely due to claims that the arguments were too speculative, and seemed quite hurt by Microsoft announcing a $99 "sign your own OS" option). "The Register additionally observed that granting an exemption for such a sweeping class would be without precedent in the history of Section 1201 rulemakings." One of the specific issues with relation to these classes is that they be narrowly defined so that it can be fully understood; I was at the hearing in LA when one of the people on the panel seemed almost angry, asking whether the "tablet" class applied to "e-readers", such as a Kindle he personally owned (and seemed to feel would benefit from not having such an exemption).
  • cageface 14y ago
    I'm ok with DRM if it's confined to a particular application and the content it manages, like the Kindle app, for example. You can always choose not to install that app. But I reject system-wide DRM for the same reasons you describe. More and more people interact online primarily through mobile devices so these rights are more important than ever.
    • 14y ago
• seacond 14y ago
  I thought the exception for DVD ripping was interesting. There are many references to "video quality" as a persuasive factor. This point might be useful in further requests for exceptions sent the Register.^1 Strategy: Complain about low quality. Apparently, screen captures are "not good enough" but Blu-Ray is "too good". Under the exception individuals are entitled to extract a small portion of the DVD for commentary, criticism or educational purposes. What if enough individuals independently choose unique excerpts, so that together they cover the entire motion picture? Sites could be set up to catalog which portions of a DVD have already been extracted and reviewed. Commentary might be something as simple as subtitles of the type vlc or mplayer can handle; these are nothing more than text files - removing subtitles is a matter of not loading the text file. Then one simply downloads all the clips and combines them into the full film using ffmpeg. Implausible? What do you think? 1. Why are people not organising mass mailing campaigns to the Register to seek DMCA exceptions? Am I missing something here? It seems like she only receives a relatively small number of requests for exceptions considering the large audience of people affected by her decisions.
  • mweinbergPK 14y ago
    re: 1. I work at Public Knowledge, the group that requested the general DVD ripping exception. We did organize a campaign around our exemption request and included the response in our reply comments. Going forward, our plan is to push Congress to pass laws that make it explicitly clear that "space shifting" is fair use. Of course, for that we will need the help of a broad coalition of people, including here at HN.
    • seacond 14y ago
      When I was typing out 1. I was thinking of the response that SOPA got. It seemed like it mobilised people to make phone calls and send emails. I think that had an impact. I'm just guessing here. In any case, it would be very interesting to see how LOC would respond to a surge in constituent participation in the DMCA exception process.
      • saurik 14y ago
• yk 14y ago
  I used to believe, that legislators used a outdated model of intellectual property. Unfortunately I am wrong, after all if I buy a book I am allowed to modify the content, by writing in the margins or by tearing out pages. ( I may even make a collage, using several pages of the book.) At least as long as I do not sell or perform my modifications. So I wonder, why I am not allowed to do the same things with software? Linking another library is simply not different than gluing the first half of Lord of the Rings to the second half of the Cryptonomicron.
• tambourine_man 14y ago
  If it's legal to jailbreak it, shouldn't the company be oblige to provide an official way to do so? Why is it expected that the users come up with the means? What if it's next to impossible due to hardware encryption and whatnot. It's already not trivial on most devices.
  • jbbeats 14y ago
    If it's legal for me to carve a smiley face onto my garden gnome shouldn't the garden-gnome seller be oblige[sic] to provide an official way to do it? Why should I need to figure out how to use a chisel? What if the gnome is very fragile so I can't do it without breaking it? Just as carving a garden-gnome is not intended, manufactured, or expected behavior, there's absolutely NO reason for a phone manufacturer to go out of their way to offer jailbreaking tools. Your statement is completely illogical. Just because it is legal for a user to do something does not mean a company should have to do it. Even if it is legal for a user to do something doesn't mean that they must be able to reasonably do it, it just means if they do there won't be legal ramifications. Your post reeks of self-entitlement and a deep misunderstanding of the actual issue in question. Another ridiculous example to round it out: Since it is legal for me, as a user, to attempt to install visopsys (an operating system made by one man which is obviously incompatible with everything) on my macbook apple provide drivers and support for installing this OS even though supporting it would likely take thousands of developer hours and gain Apple nothing. Users likely won't be able to install it on their own and developing drivers for it is probably near impossible. See how your argument is exactly the same as the above? Jailbreaking, just like that OS, is the product of users and as such need only be supported by users. If a company wants to support jailbreaking, such as google allowing chromebook unlocking, that's their prerogative, but there is NO reason to expect or insinuate that a company should actually provide support for some random operation a user has come up with that in fact is to the company's detriment. Honestly, considering the quality of your argument, I question your ability to function in society. If you're not underage (on the order of 7 or so) I highly encourage you to check yourself into the nearest mental facility due to an obvious mental disability manifesting itself as borderline retardation. At the very least I encourage you to GET THE FUCK OFF HACKER NEWS FOREVER because reading your idiotic statements, opinions, and retard-spew is roughly as pleasant, and just as enlightening, as self castration while gargling shit. Save us all the pain of dealing with you and deal with yourself, fatally if necessary.
• bluegeek 14y ago
  Let's face it: the technological literacy of the average user of smartphones/tablets/game consoles/etc. is such that being a script kiddie makes people think they're digital superheroes. DRM and DMCA are more likely to be mistaken for sporting goods manufacturers, record labels, or any number of things other than being known for what they are. The community that this is relevant to is still a minority - a shrinking one - but a minority nonetheless. And while it is a reason and logically minded community by nature, legal protection acts typically have an emotional component from those lobbying for their creation, because it has to do with their security. And income security lobbyists in particular tend to disregard anything but black numbers or red numbers until forced to do otherwise. Right or wrong, it seems the higher the income, the squeakier the wheel. I think it's a Ben Franklin quote: "If you forego freedom in favor of security, you will eventually lose both." If there's a solution down the road, I hope someone finds it before someone else takes it to heart that irrationality doesn't respond to rationality - but fear - and does something to hurt what chance there is at more digital freedom for the rest of us. I'd very much like to be and remain in control of what is or isn't allowed on my expensive and increasingly necessary technological equipment.
• ghoul2 14y ago
  It seems clear enough. Quote from the article: What about tablets? No dice. The Librarian "found significant merit to the opposition’s concerns that this aspect of the proposed class was broad and ill-defined, as a wide range of devices might be considered 'tablets,' notwithstanding the significant distinctions among them in terms of the way they operate, their intended purposes, and the nature of the applications they can accommodate. For example, an e-book reading device might be considered a 'tablet,' as might a handheld video game device or a laptop computer." Read this not as "smartphones yes but tablets no" but as "smartphones yes but kindle no".
  • pbhjpbhj 14y ago
    >The Librarian ruled that "the record lacked a sufficient basis to develop an appropriate definition for the 'tablet' category of devices, a necessary predicate to extending the exemption beyond smartphones." // This just say secondary-legislation-fail to me. Like man this stuffs hard (we can't do it logically and satisfy industry) lets just not bother.