5 ms·

Jailbreaking != phone unlocking. Phone unlocking means unlocking the SIM to be able to use different carriers. The DMCA, strangely, doesn't let people unlock th

by randall 14y ago

Jailbreaking != phone unlocking. Phone unlocking means unlocking the SIM to be able to use different carriers. The DMCA, strangely, doesn't let people unlock their SIM slot to use it with different carriers. (FWIW, this seems like a strange thing to make illegal, but it's what happened.) Jailbreaking still is legal, and is unrelated to this DMCA exception.

eurleif 14y ago
Good point. But the reason jailbreaking is legal is because of a DMCA exception.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- JohnHaugeland 14y ago
  The only citation you gave regards unlocking phones. There is no jailbreaking exemption under DMCA. There doesn't need to be; it was never illegal in the first place, thanks to the first sale doctrine (in some states reinforced under the name "doctrine of first ownership.")
  - eurleif 14y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_jailbreaking#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_jailbreaking#United_States
    - JohnHaugeland 14y ago
      Did you read that link? It doesn't argue with me. That's two in a row. Don't stop reading at the first half of the sentence, please. What that actually is about is the Copyright office saying "yes, you can edit your own phone to remove the restrictions that allow you to take it to another carrier, then take it to another carrier." The decision is not about jailbreaking; it's about editing the software then putting it on a network. The issue was whether that was seen as a form of sharing of the edited contents. The decision says "of course it isn't, but we're going to put it in black letter law, so that Apple can't take this to some podunk court in Texas, and spin them until they don't understand the issue." Jailbreaking has never been illegal in the United States. If you just make it to the middle of that same paragraph: "Apple's request to define copyright law to include jailbreaking as a violation was denied as part of the 2009 DMCA rulemaking." Please actually read the links you give when arguing. It's especially important because the links you're giving should be your first hints that you're wrong. However, you're so certain that you're right that you aren't even checking.
      - eurleif 14y ago
        >If you just make it to the middle of that same paragraph: "Apple's request to define copyright law to include jailbreaking as a violation was denied as part of the 2009 DMCA rulemaking." Wikipedia's wording isn't very clear (although it would be clearer if you didn't quote a single sentence out of context), but that sentence is talking about a DMCA exemption, not saying the Library of Congress made a statement that jailbreaking was never a violation. Here's the EFF discussing the jailbreaking exemption created by the 2009 DMCA rulemaking: https://www.eff.org/cases/2009-dmca-rulemaking https://www.eff.org/cases/2009-dmca-rulemaking
        JohnHaugeland 14y ago
        > but that sentence is talking about a DMCA exemption No, that sentence, which talks about things that happened while the DMCA was being written, before it was a law at all, is not in fact talking about an exemption. Apple tried to have this made illegal; they got laughed at. And now you've posted a third link which agrees with me as evidence that you're right. I think I'm going to stop responding now, because you're pretty obviously on auto-pilot.
        eurleif 14y ago
        >which talks about things that happened while the DMCA was being written, before it was a law at all "as part of the 2009 DMCA rulemaking" is talking about something that happened before the DMCA was passed? Hint: the DMCA was passed in 1998. >I think I'm going to stop responding now, because you're pretty obviously on auto-pilot. I don't know if you're projecting or trolling.
        JohnHaugeland 14y ago
        Ah, personal attacks.
        pessimizer 14y ago
        What part of "the DMCA was passed in 1998" is a personal attack? It's not like he said: "Please actually read the links you give when arguing. It's especially important because the links you're giving should be your first hints that you're wrong. However, you're so certain that you're right that you aren't even checking." OR "I think I'm going to stop responding now, because you're pretty obviously on auto-pilot." Are you in a manic phase or something?

by randall 14y ago

eurleif 14y ago

Good point. But the reason jailbreaking is legal is because of a DMCA exception.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
JohnHaugeland 14y ago
The only citation you gave regards unlocking phones. There is no jailbreaking exemption under DMCA. There doesn't need to be; it was never illegal in the first place, thanks to the first sale doctrine (in some states reinforced under the name "doctrine of first ownership.")
- eurleif 14y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_jailbreaking#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_jailbreaking#United_States
  - JohnHaugeland 14y ago
    Did you read that link? It doesn't argue with me. That's two in a row. Don't stop reading at the first half of the sentence, please. What that actually is about is the Copyright office saying "yes, you can edit your own phone to remove the restrictions that allow you to take it to another carrier, then take it to another carrier." The decision is not about jailbreaking; it's about editing the software then putting it on a network. The issue was whether that was seen as a form of sharing of the edited contents. The decision says "of course it isn't, but we're going to put it in black letter law, so that Apple can't take this to some podunk court in Texas, and spin them until they don't understand the issue." Jailbreaking has never been illegal in the United States. If you just make it to the middle of that same paragraph: "Apple's request to define copyright law to include jailbreaking as a violation was denied as part of the 2009 DMCA rulemaking." Please actually read the links you give when arguing. It's especially important because the links you're giving should be your first hints that you're wrong. However, you're so certain that you're right that you aren't even checking.
    - eurleif 14y ago
      >If you just make it to the middle of that same paragraph: "Apple's request to define copyright law to include jailbreaking as a violation was denied as part of the 2009 DMCA rulemaking." Wikipedia's wording isn't very clear (although it would be clearer if you didn't quote a single sentence out of context), but that sentence is talking about a DMCA exemption, not saying the Library of Congress made a statement that jailbreaking was never a violation. Here's the EFF discussing the jailbreaking exemption created by the 2009 DMCA rulemaking: https://www.eff.org/cases/2009-dmca-rulemaking https://www.eff.org/cases/2009-dmca-rulemaking
      - JohnHaugeland 14y ago
        > but that sentence is talking about a DMCA exemption No, that sentence, which talks about things that happened while the DMCA was being written, before it was a law at all, is not in fact talking about an exemption. Apple tried to have this made illegal; they got laughed at. And now you've posted a third link which agrees with me as evidence that you're right. I think I'm going to stop responding now, because you're pretty obviously on auto-pilot.
        eurleif 14y ago
        >which talks about things that happened while the DMCA was being written, before it was a law at all "as part of the 2009 DMCA rulemaking" is talking about something that happened before the DMCA was passed? Hint: the DMCA was passed in 1998. >I think I'm going to stop responding now, because you're pretty obviously on auto-pilot. I don't know if you're projecting or trolling.
        JohnHaugeland 14y ago
        Ah, personal attacks.
        pessimizer 14y ago
        What part of "the DMCA was passed in 1998" is a personal attack? It's not like he said: "Please actually read the links you give when arguing. It's especially important because the links you're giving should be your first hints that you're wrong. However, you're so certain that you're right that you aren't even checking." OR "I think I'm going to stop responding now, because you're pretty obviously on auto-pilot." Are you in a manic phase or something?