Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Cellphones Your Rights Online

DMCA Exemptions Don't Matter 146

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the exception-to-the-rule dept.
sbma44 followed up to the recent news that jailbreaking iPhones is now legal with an article about DMCA exemptions. He says "The American Prospect has an article up that argues that focus on specific DMCA exemptions is silly, the practical upshot is about zero, and the underlying law remains as rotten as ever."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DMCA Exemptions Don't Matter

Comments Filter:
  • by OrangeTide (124937) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @11:51AM (#33057146) Homepage Journal

    I had the same reaction myself. These kinds of laws just need to die.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      The DMCA is not going to die any time soon, and we need to accept that the battle was lost in 1998. Now we have to find a way to live with the DMCA and try to get as many exceptions to the anti-circumvention clause as possible, with a focus on the most relevant and pressing exceptions (jail breaking cell phones, freeing ebooks etc.). That, or we can try to get the majority of people to wake up and realize how their apathy has led to a situation where megacorps take advantage of them, and hopefully those p
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Thinboy00 (1190815)

        IIRC Universal v. Reimerdes [wikipedia.org] (the DeCSS case) failed to consider First Amendment and Fair Use, instead focusing on the fact that DeCSS itself was not intended for fair use. If they went after e.g. libdvdcss, they would IMHO (IANAL) be forced to overturn the DMCA due to those issues.

        • I think it is just as likely that the courts would find that since there are plenty of DVD players licensed by the MPAA, including software implementations, that the DMCA does not deny anyone their rights. "Reasonable and non-discriminatory" is the phrase that comes to my mind; most judges are not free software supporters.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by hedwards (940851)
            First off CSS isn't protected by the DMCA, it fails to be effective or a copy protection measure. Subsequently the anti-circumvention shouldn't apply in the first place. Secondly, it is neither reasonable nor non-discriminatory. One of the big drivers of DeCSS was the fact that there were no options for many platforms at all. If you use Windows or Mac, fine there's plenty of options, but FreeBSD for instance doesn't as far as I know have one even now that isn't based upon DeCSS.

            Secondly, it's an effort t
            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              Nay, let's just focus on the facts.

              We are in a political quagmire and should take any means necessary to protect our common interests. DMCA exemptions are basically our wedge into the crack, and if we hammer enough wedges, we can make the crack that much bigger. The exceptions really are our best bet right now.
              • Agree with parent whole-heartedly. Taking down the DMCA in one full swoop just isn't feasible in our current position. The more exemptions we can tack onto the law the more useless and bloated it appears to law makers. Place enough pebbles on a bridge and eventually it will crack.
            • Effectiveness of the Copyright protection system in question is not part of the DMCA's provisions. Circumventing a password-protected ZIP file could be held against you if the Copyright holder claimed it was an anti-circumvention measure.

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by schon (31600)

              First off CSS isn't protected by the DMCA

              The legal system disagrees with you. [harvard.edu] Seeing as they are y'know lawyers and judges, I hope you won't be offended that I believe them over you.

              it fails to be effective

              Incorrect. [harvard.edu] It may be ineffective from a technical perspective, but it clearly qualifies as effective under the definition in the DMCA.

              or a copy protection measure.

              Mu. [harvard.edu] It doesn't need to be a copy protection measure - it needs to "prevent access" - which it does.

              Subsequently the anti-circumvention shouldn't apply in the first place.

              Incorrect.

              Secondly, it is neither reasonable nor non-discriminatory.

              Which is pretty meaningless. Under the DMCA, technological measures have no such requirements. In fact, when addressi

          • by cynyr (703126)

            links to linux dvd players that are in the same price range($0) as mplayer, and vlc, or "reasonable and non-discriminatory" isn't in effect. IMO.

    • by bit9 (1702770) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @12:05PM (#33057294)
      When I look at the current state of IP law, the one thing that always strikes me is how far we've fallen since the Sony vs. Universal case in 1984. That wasn't that long ago, and yet in that relatively short amount of time, IP law has done a complete 180-degree turn. Well, seemingly, anyway - I'm sure if I went back and looked closer, I would probably find that things weren't quite as clear cut in 1984 as it felt like they were. Nonetheless, to go from having SCOTUS declare that timeshifting == fair use to having a federal law that criminalizes fair use (which is essentially what DMCA does, since you have to circumvent CSS et all these days in order to exercise your fair use rights) in such a short time is something I find difficult to wrap my mind around.
      • When I look at the current state of IP law, the one thing that always strikes me is how far we've fallen since the Sony vs. Universal case in 1984.

        If you think a ruling in a case between two major multinational corporations in any way represented a high point in fair use doctrine, you'd want to start thinking again. IP law has always been and will always be structured and modified, for and at the behest of corporations only. No other group has ever or will ever have its interests considered. Read up on the [google.com]

        • by bit9 (1702770)
          Are you just a karma whore, or do you have reading comprehension problems. Why else would you waste your energy pointing out something I already conceded in my original post?
      • It's also interesting to note that Sony have gone from the people helping to enable fair use, to the evil overlords of the copyright dominion.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by MasterOfMagic (151058)

          When you go primarily from a content reproducer (Walkman, Discman, VHS VCR) to content producer (Sony Picture Studios, Sony Computer Entertainment), your view on fair use changes. Fair use is good when you are primarily a content reproducer as it ensures that people have a reason to buy your product. Fair use is no good when you are primarily a content producer as it gives people a reason to not buy another copy of your product.

      • by elrous0 (869638) *

        how far we've fallen since the Sony vs. Universal case in 1984

        I think 1984 has pretty much become synonymous with "freedom."

      • by sjames (1099)

        It's always been a mess, it's just that it didn't matter as much then.

        As with many things applied to human decisions and behavior, as long as the rules are seen as a guideline rather than an absolute and the default is to cut everyone a little slack, things can work OK. The more you try to tighten up the rules, the more obvious it becomes that the rules haven't really captured the spirit of the public's views and don't really fit well with human behavior.

        The DMCA was exactly that ill-fated attempt to tighte

  • Screw CSS (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pojut (1027544) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @11:53AM (#33057170) Homepage

    FTFA:

    "...the exemption now specifically applies only to CSS, the technology used to encrypt DVD contents. There's no mention of AACS, the equivalent technology for Blu-ray discs, or of HDCP, the DRM system most likely to make installing your next TV a nightmarish ordeal"

    The CSS portion of that is a HUGE positive. I would imagine that Blu-Ray and HDCP are too new to be considered for this kind of exemption...but knowing that I'm legally allowed to circumvent CSS is extremely noteworthy.

    The CSS change and the "unlock phone for any network" change are both huge. WTF is the title talking about, that the exemptions don't matter? People have been wanting just those two for years.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The CSS change and the "unlock phone for any network" change are both huge. WTF is the title talking about, that the exemptions don't matter? People have been wanting just those two for years.

      The title is implying that whilst people have been wanting just those two for years, now that it has happened it's too little too late. In other words, it's pandering to public perception whilst pocketing from the industry, who are in fact looking to the next 3 years, not the last (Blu-ray, HDCP, and what have you).

    • Re:Screw CSS (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jedidiah (1196) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @12:00PM (#33057250) Homepage

      This stuff matters for the reasons that the MPAA and RIAA complained about.

      These exceptions carve out rights for individuals in a law that otherwise tries to screw individuals.

      It's a far from ideal situation but it is a start.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by metiscus (1270822)

      The author is arguing that the DMCA legislates to private citizens the disallowed behaviors that they have with technology devices that they have purchased themselves which may be necessary to simply use the device. The author disagrees with the premise that there should be laws that dictate to private citizens what they can do with their own technology. The final line in the article sums that point up pretty well:

      "The exemptions are fine; they hardly matter. It's the fact that we need them at all that's th

      • Re:Screw CSS (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Pojut (1027544) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @12:03PM (#33057270) Homepage

        Agreed, but downplaying successes, regardless of how small (or pandering) they may be, sounds very childish.

        Too little, too late? I don't know about you, but my DVD collection is still an order of magnitude larger than my Blu-Ray collection.

        • Re:Screw CSS (Score:5, Informative)

          by AndersOSU (873247) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @12:48PM (#33057994)

          Unless you're putting together movie clips for commentary, you're still not allowed to break CSS. The library of Congress didn't say you're allowed to break DRM for any fair-use purpose, they said you can break it in order to accomplish the following activities

          the incorporation of short portions of motion pictures into new works for the purpose of criticism or comment, and where the person engaging in circumvention believes and has reasonable grounds for believing that circumvention is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the use in the following instances:

                  (i) Educational uses by college and university professors and by college and university film and media studies students;
                  (ii) Documentary filmmaking;
                  (iii) Noncommercial videos.

          You'll note that backing up your movies or shifting the media of your movies is conspicuously absent.

          • by hedwards (940851)
            Actually, the anti-circumvention rule doesn't apply to CSS.

            1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems
            (a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures.—
            (1)
            (A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.

            I don't think that anybody would seriously suggest that CSS is an effective means of controlling a work. Considering that any number of licensed implementations exist and that you can easily do it yourself with DeCSS.

            • by AndersOSU (873247)

              The DMCA helpfully defines "effective" as "well, we gave it a shot."

              (B) a technological measure “effectively controls access to a work” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.

          • by cynyr (703126)

            seems like those would fall under "(iii) Noncommercial videos" to me, it's a video, that i'm not doing anything commercial with.

            • by AndersOSU (873247)

              read it again.

              It doesn't say noncommercial videos are ok, it says that if you break DRM solely to incorporate short portions of motion pictures into new works for the purpose of criticism or comment, AND it's non-commercial, it's ok.

              http://www.copyright.gov/1201/ [copyright.gov]

              • by satoshi1 (794000)
                Each of those points is a separate instance. It applies if you're breaking it for 1) education uses OR 2) documentary filmmaking OR 3)noncommercial videos. How they define "noncommercial videos" is up to them, but it's not all three together, it's any of the three. If this were not the case, the word "instances" would not have been used to describe the list.
                • by AndersOSU (873247)

                  no.

                  here let me paste the whole thing in:

                  (1) Motion pictures on DVDs that are lawfully made and acquired and that are protected by the Content Scrambling System when circumvention is accomplished solely in order to accomplish the incorporation of short portions of motion pictures into new works for the purpose of criticism or comment, and where the person engaging in circumvention believes and has reasonable grounds for believing that circumvention is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the use in the follow

      • Re:Screw CSS (Score:5, Insightful)

        by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @12:04PM (#33057280)
        A great argument...and 12 years too late. The DMCA is already signed into law, and there is no indication that anyone with any power is going to repeal it. It enjoys the support of democrats and republicans, and both Presidents Bush and Obama are pushing for similar laws to be passed in other countries, as well as for the DMCA to be strengthened here in the USA. The likelihood that this law is going to be repealed or overturned is effectively nil, and that is a reality that we have to live with for the time being.

        Exemptions are the new battle, and we need to get as many of them passed as we possibly can.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by metiscus (1270822)

          The DMCA is another example of the widening disconnect between the citizenry and the special interest dollars that drive our politics, particularly with respect to matters of IP. I assert that, had the law been brought to a vote by the average citizen in terms of its implications, it would never have become law.

          • by hedwards (940851)
            It would've almost certainly passed. The populace has been willing to vote for politicians that openly flaunted their opposition to basic human rights, what on Earth would make you think that something more abstract would get a no vote?
            • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

              by metiscus (1270822)

              People don't care about Africa but don't get between them and their Heroes season 1 dvd set.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by BassMan449 (1356143)

          I think this is the wrong attitude to take. You are conceding that the special interests are too powerful to ever get this law overturned. While I agree that that is likely the case right now, if you aren't willing to fight against it that will never change.

          Are Constitution/Government was designed to make it possible to recover from this situation. If we can elect the right people (much easier said than done), it is possible to take back control of our government. We just need people to start taking a m

          • Honestly, if you think that the institution of total, coercive government can ever be "taken back" or used in any sustainable way that benefits anyone other than that government itself, then you have not yet grasped the full nature or extent of the problem.

            It isn't that the wrong people are in charge. They do suck, but even if you can get different people elected, in time they will get corrupted too.

            It isn't just the Constitution is inadequate, or that it isn't being followed. Both of those things are tru

        • Ok, do that. But also vote against the Republicans and Democrats. Getting it repealed should never be taken off the table, and anyone who runs for Congress without that on their agenda, needs to be told that they're running on the "fuck the public" platform.
          • You could abandon the idea of independence, and become part of the British Empire, which would entitle you to vote for Screaming Lord Such, and his Monster Raving Loony Party", who are not likely to be influenced by commercial bribes - not least because Screaming Lord Such is dead. (Being dead does not disbar you from being a member of the UK government, but may reduce your voting rights marginally). Indeed there are many, including myself, who suspect "the only good politician is a dead politician".
        • by russotto (537200)

          Exemptions are the new battle, and we need to get as many of them passed as we possibly can.

          Exemptions are worthless because as they legitimize the act of circumvention, they do not legitimize the tools for doing so. There's no point in wasting effort fighting over worthless scraps. If the law is evil and can't be overturned or repealed, then the place to spend effort is in devising ways to violate it without getting caught.

    • by Andy Dodd (701)

      They don't matter. All they mean is that a carrier/phone manufacturer team can't use the DMCA to go after jailbreakers and SIM-unlockers.

      However:
      They can still put the anti-jailbreaking and SIMlocking technical measures in place
      They can still legally put in measures that "brick" phones in response to trying to defeat the above if they wish
      They can still structure their service contracts in a manner such that SIM-unlocking doesn't buy you that much.
      They can still structure their warranties such that if anyt

      • by flitty (981864)
        To be fair, the exemption did add a provision for using very small amounts of code from the manufacturer, which is a pretty big deal for any modding community. Most of the issues that i've seen come from distribution of the code to end users, because that code usually involved a minor amount of manufacturer code (or didn't involve it and required some work on the end user's part). Now, as long as that code is small enough portion of the overall code, distribution of jailbreaking code is now less of a legal
    • I think the author of TFA expects for the law to be written correctly, rather than made up on the fly as it is written now.
    • HDCP was only a nightmare when I turned my PS3 on first, THEN my TV initially after plugging it in.

      Every subsequent power on, it can go on in any fashion I'd like. same with my cable box.

      HDCP is like the diet coke of DRM solutions; doesn't actually solve anything and at the same time doesn't really hinder life.

      OTOH, AACS is a different story.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Just because it hasn't hindered you, doesn't mean it hasn't for anybody.

        A lot of HDTV early adopters have been burned because the first generation sets don't support HDCP. So, even though your TV can do 1080p, your PS3 won't.

        You can argue if that's really hindering anything since it will still play at a lower resolution, but I still think it sucks. It certainly curbed my urge to be an early adopter of anything now.

        And it certainly did make piracy more difficult. Without HDCP, it would be almost trivial to m

        • BluRay has only been broken because of software players.OTOH, large numbers of people are convinced BluRay a waste of time and money. HDCP has contributed substantially to this. Here in the UK, research shows that although most people have HD capable kit, hardly any own an HDMI cable, and have never seen HD anyway.
          • For a large number of people, BluRay is a waste of time and money. As more people get broadband, I think even DVD may become a waste of time and money.

            I've been watching a lot of steaming video from Netflix lately and I'm very impressed. The only thing it's missing for me are subtitles.

            There is still a market of people who want very high quality audio and video or who want to collect physical disks. I think that market will grow a bit more, before it collapses in the same way that the market for music on ph

        • If you have a TV that does 1080p but doesn't do HDCP then you really must be an early adopter. My lousy projection CRT set from early 2004 supports HDCP, and the protocol's been around since 2001.

          • It's been around since at least 2001, but it wasn't approved for use by the FCC until sometime in 2004.

            BTW, if you have a non-hdcp set, I think you will be limited to analog signals by hdcp-enabled devices that limit digital output. There are hdcp strippers out there, but I think they tend to get their certificates revoked, so they stop working on newer content.

            • Given that in 2004, 1080p TV sets were by and large way more expensive than comparable 1080p sets now?

              Unless you've lost your job recently; there's largely no excuse.

    • ...add to this the fact that while the "exceptions" apply only to CSS...that does not in any way mean the same logic *cannot* be used to argue fair use for AACS...or whatever floats your boat.

      *Way* too many people are taking this rulemaking to mean, "This is Legal...everything else is not". Problem is, that is possibly the most incorrect way to interpret this. Fair Use is not about making blanket statements like that. Fact is, any of his talk could be over-ruled in court...today. Fair Use is decided on

    • by AndersOSU (873247)

      It's stupid is what it is, and they know that it's stupid. They're basically saying that we know there's a good reason that consumers want to break DRM, ans what's more we agree that it's a good reason and you should be able to break the DRM, but we're still only going to let you do it on outdated tech.

    • by sbma44 (694130)
      My point is that *in practice* the specifics of the exemptions don't matter. They establish a foothold, and a gray zone of consumer use in which even tools that violate the DMCA are available. Put another way: how many people reading this thread will now be ripping DVDs that weren't before Monday's announcement?

      Yes, the law matters, and no, it's not good to break it. But the point is that the DMCA's mechanisms create a situation where consumers aren't prosecuted for circumventing DRM, but rights-holde
  • by jra (5600) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @11:56AM (#33057198)

    The 5th Circuit ruled the other day that "circumvention" isn't a "crime" *if you're doing it in order to exercise rights you already have -- like watching a movie you bought, or sharing a clip of it with your students as Fair Use...

    or doing a Downfall parody, presumably.

    Even *more* to the point; this means that jailbreaking your iPhone isn't "a crime"... but it does *not* mean Apple's forced to support you now, when they would have cut you off before.

    • by jra (5600)

      I believe this wlil cover the AACP and HDCP issues mentioned above.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mea37 (1201159)

      Yeah, I remember reading about that ruling. I remember my first thought being "ok, if that's applied universally then what does the anti-circumvention clause actually mean?" So far I haven't been able to find a solid answer to that question, so I wouldn't be surprised to see that particular ruilng overturned sooner or later. I don't know how it is in the lower courts, but the Supreme Court isn't supposed to allow an interpretation that renders part of the statute meaningless.

      Don't get me wrong, I'd like

      • by unix1 (1667411)

        ok, if that's applied universally then what does the anti-circumvention clause actually mean?

        The judge said the anti-circumvention provision can only apply to what is protected by the Copyright Act. i.e. DMCA doesn't on its own extend outside of the bounds of the copyright law. What does this mean? To me it means (IANAL, not a legal advice):

        If you are circumventing but not violating copyright, you are clear.

        If you are circumventing and violating copyright, you are on hook for at least 2 violations:
        - DMCA anti-circumvention
        - Copyright infringement

        Disclaimer: IANAL, this is not a legal advice, consul

      • by AndersOSU (873247)

        Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see anti-circumvention struck down entirely; but barring a constitutional problem that would have to come from the legislature, not the courts.

        Not necessarily, fair-use is codified, and where the law conflicts, it's up to the judiciary to sort it out. I wouldn't hold my breath for SCOTUS to overturn the anti-circumvention statute, but it doesn't have to raise a constitutional issue to be brought up.

        • by mea37 (1201159)

          Two things:

          First, there isn't an inherant conflict in the law between fair use and anti-circumvention. Even before the DMCA, fair use only meant "it isn't infringement to do X, Y, and Z"; it never meant that content providers were required to make it easy for you to do X, Y, and Z, nor that other provisions of law couldn't make it harder to do X, Y, and Z. Anti-circumvention under the DMCA makes it harder to do X, Y, and Z; but that doesn't conflict in a legal sense with X, Y, and Z not being copyright in

      • by pruss (246395)

        It wouldn't render the statute meaningless. It would mean that if you circumvent for non-fair use, you end up breaking two statutes: the regular copyright laws, plus the DMCA. It's pretty normal to have a law that says that if you commit a certain crime in special circumstances, you thereby commit another crime.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by BassMan449 (1356143)

      The problem is that the law states otherwise. Technically this ruling should be sound as what we call "fair use" is simply the First Amendment restricting copyright. However, it is still very possible this ruling could be overturned. DMCA 1201 (a)(3)

      (A) to circumvent a technological measure means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner;

      By the reading of

    • by dkleinsc (563838) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @01:14PM (#33058364) Homepage

      or doing a Downfall parody, presumably.

      Cue the Downfall parody [youtube.com] in which Hitler finds out that Downfall parodies have been removed from Youtube.

    • But selling a home DVD-ripping set-top-box/media-server is still in muddy legal water, at best. The whole world isn't made of geeks who can do-it-themselves, and people being able to have this technology in their homes shouldn't be dependent on the MPAA's say-so!
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Any developer who wants to work on jailbreaks and do so publicly, with presentations and writing, can do so without fear of prosecution. Companies can also now get involved without fear of supporting something illegal. If Mozilla wanted to release a Firefox for the the jailbroken iPhone, they now can.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by AndersOSU (873247)

      Um, no.

      While you have a right to jailbreak your phone, or break CSS on your movie (for certain purposes), it is not clear that you have the right to distribute tools to allow others to do the same. If you do this openly you might ultimately prevail in court, but you should definitely plan on being sued, because this issue has not been settled.

      • by jra (5600)

        Well, in fact, it probably is: it's only "criminal" to distribute tools to help other people "break laws".

        Which this decision makes clear you are *not* doing by jailbreaking. Since *me jailbreaking my phone* is no longer a "crime", then you're not contributing to one by publishing such tools.

        QED.

        • by AndersOSU (873247)

          According to the DMCA [cornell.edu];

          (2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that—
          (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
          (B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a w

      • by mea37 (1201159)

        I decided to thumb through the statute in hopes of proving you wrong... and found that you are actually correct, except perhaps in one regard.

        You say it's unclear whether you can legally distribute tools to help others with circumvention; but actually, if I understand the structure of the statute correctly, it looks to me like Title 17, Chapter 12, sec 1201 subsec (a) par (1) subpar (E) makes it clear that it is still illegal to distribute such tools. From the statute:

        (E) Neither the exception under subpar

        • by AndersOSU (873247)

          I think you're right about the meaning of the law, but who knows which way it would go if it were ever brought to court. On the one hand the language of the statute is clear-ish. On the other, Congress and the library of congress have clearly recognized the need for certain exceptions to the anti-circumvention rule, and it's completely unreasonable for every film professor and cell phone wielder to crack the DRM on their own.

          It's sort of like legalizing the possession of marijuana but not the growing, sal

        • by jra (5600)

          A friend of mine is a paralegal with way too little to do; I'll ask her to Shepardize 17USC1201 tomorrow, and see what she finds.

  • by Joe The Dragon (967727) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @11:58AM (#33057216)

    What do they say a phone is? any thing that can be used as one? any thing with a phone jack? / slot for a modem?

    How far does jail breaking go? How about using a PAYED FOR COPY OS X on any pc?

    • by AndrewNeo (979708)

      The law is clear. The text is something along the lines of 'mobile cellular phone'. Also, jailbreaking is specifically in the context of cellphones, involving making said devices interoperable. It has nothing to do with PCs, and jailbreaking has nothing to do with violating the OS X EULA.

  • by i_ate_god (899684) on Wednesday July 28, 2010 @12:02PM (#33057264) Homepage

    Now that it's legal, it's no where near as much fun...

  • In America.. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by brxndxn (461473)

    If the majority of Americans ignore a law, then that law is wrong.

    • by Rob Riggs (6418)
      Now we just need Sammy Hagar to write a song about it [wikipedia.org].
    • by westlake (615356)
      If the majority of Americans ignore a law, then that law is wrong.

      How many phones are actually "jailbroken?"

      I doubt the numbers keep anyone at AT&T or Apple awake at night. The same can probably be said about the full litany of complaints the geek has about DRM.

      It's far too easy to become convinced that you are in the majority, when all you really have is a chance to gripe on a forum like Slashdot.

  • The problem (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    The problem with DMCA rulemaking is that it's made by bureaucrats, not elected representatives, and the small concessions that we got recently may be taken back at any time

    - seanmichelson@yahoo.com

  • On July 26 the librarian of Congress announced six ways you can legally violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

    Somebody is not clear on the meaning of the terms "legally" and "violate."

    • by selven (1556643)

      Google search for "define: violate":

      # transgress: act in disregard of laws, rules, contracts, or promises; "offend all laws of humanity"; "violate the basic laws or human civilization"; "break a law"; "break a promise"

      legally:

      # As permitted by law; not contrary to law; From a legal perspective

      On July 26 the librarian of Congress announced six ways you can, in a way permitted by law, act in disregard of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

      'permitted by law' means permitted by the whole system of laws, not p

We are not a loved organization, but we are a respected one. -- John Fisher

Working...