EFF Asks To Make Jailbreaking Legal For All Devices 278
Diggester writes "Jailbreaking is a way to break off from the limitations imposed by the mobile vendor to download additional applications and themes etc. which aren't available otherwise. It provides root access to the device by use of custom kernels. It is common with the iDevices and has been rendered legal by the efforts of EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) in July 2010. The Electronic Frontier Foundation is now determined to make Jailbreaking legal for all the consumer electric goods. They have asked the US copyright office to declare it legal to jailbreak all the devices like smartphones, tablets, gaming consoles etc. no matter who the vendor is. The aim behind this plead is to change the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) which prohibits such an access to the user."
PC analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:PC analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine if you could only put Campbell's Soup in your soup bowl, or only put Folgers coffee in your Folgers-branded coffee mug.
If there's no reason for a restriction on what I can do with the hardware I buy, other than restricting consumer choice, there's no reason for the restriction. If I can make something do what it wasn't intended to do, and it's not negatively harming others, why should I be deprived of my right to make it do that thing it wasn't meant to do?
Re:PC analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
This is kind of like the Linus Torvald's view of things.
I think you should allow users to be able to do whatever they want to their devices. But I think that those companies should have the right to void the warranty if they do.
That way, if some dumb user jailbreaks his phone because he thought he could be cool, but royally messed it up, he can't go crying to the manufacturer for coverage.
Re:PC analogy (Score:5, Informative)
That's in place already. Jailbreaking = insta void.
Re:PC analogy (Score:5, Informative)
The Magnuson-Moss warranty act makes the legality of that questionable unless they can demonstrate that the jailbreaking caused or substantially contributed to the failure.
I just don't think anyone has bothered taking it to court, as it would really be cheaper just to buy a new phone than sue them over it.
Re: (Score:2)
Typically in cases like that it would likely wind up as a class action suit. And you'd still get basically nothing, if you're lucky you would get some trinket which is of little value to you several years later.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless the EULA requires you to agree to binding arbitration...
Oh wait, Sony pulled that after they got sued for removing OtherOS didn't they?
Re:PC analogy (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't give a crap about the warranty.
At the same time, I bought *HARDWARE*. Sony shouldn't be able to tell me that I can't load custom firmware on it with the ability to run Linux, for example. The PS3 would make a GREAT media center to stream from my TV recording box, save that I can't load a custom firmware package for Linux AND keep the ability to run current games.
I only wish we could get it a step further and actually make it illegal for companies like the phone companies to do what they've done - sure it's "legal" to root your phone, but they keep trying to make it *impossible* by fucking with the shipped/official firmware.
Re:PC analogy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:PC analogy (Score:4, Insightful)
Thats a kind-of where you're wrong, as much as I hate to admit Sony has a point.
What point might that be?
If you want to connect the hardware to their networks, they should be allowed to stop you running custom code.
I don't give a flying FUCK about their networks. Since the Sony break-in, I've had my box firewalled off from their fucking network, and it's never going near them again.
Also, although probably not the case now, but perhaps when it was first released they would have sold the hardware at a loss based on the fact that barring any illegal activity, the only way you can use the hardware is to purchase their 99% profit margin games.
I fail to see where shitty planning on their part constitutes an obligation on my part to buy ANYTHING from them. I bought a piece of hardware. If they sold it at a loss, and I don't buy "enough" games from them to make up for it, then they don't have enough games worth buying. There is no contractual obligation for me to buy anything else from them.
Phone again fall in to the same category. Buggy firmware could cause big problems to their networks, so restricting the ability to load custom firmware is in their best interests.
And oddly enough, with phones, the FTC already ruled that the benefit to consumers to open the phones OUTWEIGHS the benefit to the phone carriers to "secure their networks" in that sense. So you're already wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
No. That's not reasonable at all. That kind of thing should be explicitly illegal along the lines of other forms of network neutrality that should be enforced. Sony's network is not small enough and private enough such that it should be able to skirt the kinds of rules that meatspace public accomodations have to follow.
"Their network" is a public space, same as a mall.
Re:PC analogy (Score:4, Informative)
a piece of hardware that legally can only be used to play said games
WTF are you talking about? Sony advertised the PlayStation as being able to run Linux. What country does have a law which says "a PlayStation can only be used to play games on?"
Re: (Score:2)
so you to be like say Comcast you must a rent a PC (at high prices) say $20 /m for a basic pc going up to a $100+ for a pc with gameing hardware. from comcast to get on line and then it's all locked down and you can only rent apps and games from the comcast store.
Re: (Score:2)
Loss leader hardware consoles are a problem for the gaming industry, not a benefit. Consumers would be much better off if that were illegal.
Re: (Score:3)
Just look at the games on consoles. Vendor lock in has killed creativity in the industry.
The only bright spot is XBLA, and even there the censorship is a big problem.
Re:PC analogy (Score:4, Interesting)
Sony shouldn't be able to tell me that I can't load custom firmware on it with the ability to run Linux, for example.
100% agreed.
I only wish we could get it a step further and actually make it illegal for companies like the phone companies to do what they've done - sure it's "legal" to root your phone, but they keep trying to make it *impossible* by fucking with the shipped/official firmware.
100% disagreed. Any such law would be immediately leveraged to attack open source, in ways that are unpredictable at the moment. We must never, ever have government dictating technological design.
Re: (Score:3)
Problem is, Joe Average doesn't know a thing.
It's why Apple has to resort to using crappy pentalobe screws - anyone with half a clue can ea
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, I can do whatever the fuck I want with things that I buy. That's the purpose of ownership. Now there are a small number of things that the government tells me I can't do with my property, but those are typically things which affect other people.
If Sony doesn't like people doing what they will with the hardware, then they have the option of not selling it. They can rent it to people or they can withdraw completely from the market. They can't have it both ways either they're selling it or they aren't. Se
Re:PC analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Only within reason. Jailbreaking can't be the cause of say, physical manufacturing defects. The warranty should still apply in these cases.
Re:PC analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
what about putting in bigger HDD's / any SATA disk (Score:4, Insightful)
at least the ps3 took any laptop sata HDD.
But the xbox locked into high cost MS hdd's that can be hacked around but you get banned for hacking?
Re: (Score:3)
It's the companies fault for making their hardware so that anything other than official firmware bricks it.
Re: (Score:3)
It can be the cause of stressing components past the design limits. If the original firmware limited tx power to 50% due to thermal design and the custom firmware ran it at 100% and components failed, whos fault is it? What if the charging circuit was software controlled and the custom firmware wasn't set correctly for the manufactures design and the battery exploded, killing the cute little lolcat sitting next to it?
Good points. But what we're missing here is the potential for a 3rd party after market, similar to VARs and PC support businesses, who offer value-added services under their own warranty.
With vendor-locked devices, such a market can't easily exist, especially if they're hounded out of business by $VENDOR's lawyers.
But it should exist. More to the point it absolutely should have the right to exist. Because of that, I'm 100% in support of the EFF on this campaign.
Re:PC analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine if you change your own spark plugs and two weeks later the rear passenger wheel falls off. The manufacturer should have to show that what you did caused the problem, just like they have to with any other product. Now granted, if I try to overclock the processor to 2x its normal rate and melt the damn thing that's my own fault, but if I unlock WiFi tethering and get a row of dead pixels on my screen the two are almost certainly unrelated.
Re:PC analogy (Score:4, Interesting)
It needs to be more sophisticated than that.
For example, in the automotive industry, you DO NOT void your warranty (no matter what the dealer tries to pull on you) by installing a K&N air filter. But you DO void your warranty by reboring the cylinders and putting in oversized pistons. This is all regulated and the manufacturers don't get to just decide you void your warranty if you sneeze inside the car, the way computer industry manufacturers do.
What we need here is common sense regulatory involvement. Apple needs to be told to quite the ridiculous arms race and just let 0.01% of people run weird software on their hardware - just like GM needed to be told that bolt-on upgrades don't void the powertrain warranty.
Re:PC analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
it's not negatively harming others
In the case of geohot and the PS3 hacking, Sony might argue that it is harming their business. Because corporations are people, after all.
Re: (Score:3)
In the case of geohot and the PS3, I say Fuck Sony. They played bait-and-switch with console features, after they falsely advertised "Linux" and only delivered a stripped down version without full hardware access.
What harmed their business is the fact that they're a bunch of fucking soulless, criminal asshats who pulled those two things, then let their customers' personal information into the wild. Fuck them.
Re: (Score:2)
That was entertaining, kind of like "damning with faint praise". What you're saying is that you're harming me because you won't give me money for nothing.
What's worse, considering the OtherOS nonsense, it's like my selling you a car, removing the tires, then claiming you harmed me because you replaced the tires.
Re: (Score:2)
"I bought this car because it has Bluetooth. It's not a feature every owner of this model will use, but it is one of the reasons I chose THIS car over other cars."
And then the manufacturer remotely bricks the Bluetooth because I got my oil changed somewhere other than the dealership.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:PC analogy (Score:4, Insightful)
Because lots of people with more influence and money than you have spent decades convincing the government that allowing you freedom of mixing&matching your coffee and mug brands could potentially cause a direct reduction on their maximum possible profits. You see, they've furthermore convinced said government that this potential reduction constitutes you harming them. Since you just inferred you agree that people shouldn't be allowed to harm others while using their consumer goods in an unintended fashion they've invalidated your argument in favor of allowing this type of behavior using an extension of your very own reasoning. Sucks huh?
Re: (Score:3)
Imagine if you could only put Campbell's Soup in your soup bowl, or only put Folgers coffee in your Folgers-branded coffee mug.
If there's no reason for a restriction on what I can do with the hardware I buy, other than restricting consumer choice, there's no reason for the restriction. If I can make something do what it wasn't intended to do, and it's not negatively harming others, why should I be deprived of my right to make it do that thing it wasn't meant to do?
There is a reason and it is a simple one. Apple (and their co conspirators) would make less money.
Re:PC analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
If I can make something do what it wasn't intended to do, and it's not negatively harming others, why should I be deprived of my right to make it do that thing it wasn't meant to do?
Short answer - You shouldn't.
A slightly longer answer - In a perfect world, where you couldn't hurt others, you shouldn't.
A longer, but probably more realistic answer - Given that the network operators cannot absolutely secure their network and that rogue applications and third-party OSes have the potential to wreak havoc on their networks and other subscribers, it is in their best interests to keep the same off their network. Because the vendor of the device needs to provide support, a minimal set of software configurations will lower support costs. More importantly, rogue apps having access to the OS level of a device may very well allow the device to operate out of specification, causing interference to other devices (i.e., damage to their users) around them. I know that you are the exception and would never let your device's code have a bug but, frankly, with the level of software assurance anywhere, I sure wouldn't trust you.
So, yeah, most of these systems were designed to keep you from changing things for monetary reasons. But they also keep you from using your programmable RFI generator from f*cking up my access. So I'm not so hot to change that, if you know what I mean.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've heard this argument before, and frankly it's a complete load.
If this was true, then they would deny access to any device they didn't recognize. Yet the GSM networks are obligated to allow any compliant device on their network.
car analogy (Score:2)
with say ford only said you can use BP gas or locked out jiffy lube and other non dealer service centers?
Re:PC analogy (Score:4, Insightful)
> What if they sold you a soup bowl for less than the cost to make it?
That's too bad then.
That doesn't give a corporation the right to strip an individual of all of their personal property rights.
Don't do potentially stupid things if you can't handle the consequences.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine if it were illegal to reformat your harddrive on your PC.
It's not really a fair comparison. When you buy a hard drive, you are generally buying the actual hard drive. But when you buy software, you aren't usually buying the software, but rather a license to use the software, and the license can include terms which may prohibit modification of the software or using a modified version of the software.
Many of the hardware devices we buy, such as smart phones and video game consoles, contain a good deal of sophisticated software or firmware (which is just software
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot: home of bad car^H^H^H desktop computer analogies?
Re:PC analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:PC analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
When you buy such a device, you are buying hardware, as well as a license to use the included software or firmware often under the condition that the software not be modified by the end user. This is where many of the physical good analogies break down.
Thus, it should be my RIGHT to install an open source version of software, any software OS or package, that runs on the device.
And it should be CRIMINAL behavior on the part of the asshat corporations, to interfere with this right.
Re:PC analogy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:PC analogy (Score:4, Insightful)
I gave you money, you gave me a product. If I buy a book, the publisher can't sue for me for crossing out the paragraphs I don't like and writing in the margins and nothing the publisher puts in the front cover of the book will convince me otherwise. What I do with the information contained in the product I purshase is my business, so long as I'm not distributing those changes to other people the makers of the software should have absolutely no standing to say what I do with it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Nothing about copyright gives them the right to prevent me from modifying their copyrighted products for my personal use. They merely have the ability to keep me from making a copy for commercial purposes.
The license BS has got to go, it doesn't work for books, movies, music, or anything else really. Software is not some special snowflake in this regard.
Re: (Score:2)
The point still stands. When you buy a phone, you're buying the hardware in addition to the software.
Which means that you should be able to swap the software loaded into the hardware at your pleasure.
But that's not necessarily the jailbreaking issue. Jailbreaking is not, say, Rockbox. Jailbreaking entails swapping the software with certain restrictions for a 3rd-party modified form of the software that does not have the same restrictions. The modification of the software is really the core of the jailbreaki
Re: (Score:2)
See Galoob v. Nintendo on whether or not private modification is actually illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that what Windows Secure Boot does on a practical level?
Wasn't this already done? (Score:5, Interesting)
I vaguely recall a judge pretty much saying that jailbreaking is not illegal, but may void the warranty. I only remember due to the large number of jokes of how Steve Jobs was just loving it since he now didn't have to support millions of jailbroken phones.
Legislative action would be nice, but if it's already done, then let's not waste the time.
Re:Wasn't this already done? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wasn't this already done? (Score:5, Informative)
In the US it is illegal to require a consumer to only use the vendor's services in order to maintain your warranty (Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act)
Re:Wasn't this already done? (Score:4, Interesting)
Because the firmware on your phone is not (yet) a monetized product distinct from the phone itself, I suspect requiring a specific vendor's firmware does not fall afoul of the spirit of the law. Also note that the vendor is allowed to void the warranty because of damage caused by incorrect service or modification, which I would assume can be extended to damage caused by buggy third-party firmware.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Wasn't this already done? (Score:5, Informative)
This is seeking to legitimize on most consumer devices rather than just phones.
An action that would more than piss off executives at companies like Sony.
Consoles (Score:2)
(I'm one of the few Slashdotters who's anti-piracy because I think stopping piracy increases the incentive for developers to invest time and money creating software for the platform. No wonder all the huge growth in game-sales over the past ten years has been in consoles, while PC sales
Re:Consoles (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The rise of consoles as a gaming platform has squat to do with DRM, or rather it does but not in the way you think it does. Nonsense DRM on PCs KILLS the usability of that platform for games. It makes a PC even more of a bother than it would be otherwise.
DRM breaks PC games.
DRM magnifies the usability gap between PCs and consoles.
People use consoles simply because they are less bother.
SFLC have a good submission too (Score:5, Informative)
SFLC's request would be a bigger win. Here's their submission:
https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2011/SFLC-proposed-DMCA-exemption.pdf [softwarefreedom.org]
And their press release gives an introduction:
http://softwarefreedom.org/news/2011/dec/02/proposed-dmca-exemption/ [softwarefreedom.org]
Summary of SFLC's submission (Score:5, Informative)
They've asked for a DMCA exception for:
So, for any device you buy, you can install GNU/Linux, or Rockbox, or OpenWRT, or Sugar, OpenMoko, etc.
Their argument is based on recognising the value of the jailbreak-exemption which was granted in 2009, and saying that SFLC's suggested exemtion is what's needed in 2012 and beyond to achieve that same sort of goal.
There's no dense legalese in the document. It's a readable set of arguments with numbers and examples to back them up.
Are there any geeks in Congress? (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a bit of a side question, but it begs to be asked: I've often wondered if there is a rep or senator that actually knows what the difference between "computer" and "CPU" without help from his staff.
I've actually considered running for office for these types of laws to be passed (REAL net-neutrality, get rid of software patents, etc). The more I get older, the more I'm convinced that most politicians are just mouthpieces of a PR firm that has voting privileges.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a bit of a side question, but it begs to be asked: I've often wondered if there is a rep or senator that actually knows what the difference between "computer" and "CPU" without help from his staff.
No. In fact, there's no one who is even halfway bright.
I've actually considered running for office for these types of laws to be passed (REAL net-neutrality, get rid of software patents, etc).
Unless you can convince large corporate donors, trial lawyers, unions, etc. that this is in their best interest, you haven't a prayer of getting elected, much less enacting any legislation.
If you want to change the way things work, you need to become very rich first. After which, you'll have a vested interest in making sure things don't change. This is true in all democracies.
Jailbreaking consoles (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It means nothing except that a company couldn't threaten to get you thrown in a real jail for jailbreaking your devices. They'll still be able to do whatever they want to the hardware and software to prevent you from doing it.
Re:Jailbreaking consoles (Score:4, Informative)
Honestly, I can't imagine it'll be that huge an implication. Just because it'll be legal doesn't at all mean Microsoft, Nintendo, or Sony need to make it easy, nor does it stop them from ruining old jailbreak methods with new firmware, like what they do now, to whatever effectiveness it does.
It just means fewer people get arrested for it. And I don't think I've heard about many arrests in that area lately.
Re: (Score:3)
Think of it as if modding an Xbox was legal. There would be tons of companies providing quality mod chips and services with healthy competition instead of having to go to someones shady friend who bought a shady mod chip from a shady website from China.
Re: (Score:3)
Honestly, I can't imagine it'll be that huge an implication. Just because it'll be legal doesn't at all mean Microsoft, Nintendo, or Sony need to make it easy, nor does it stop them from ruining old jailbreak methods with new firmware, like what they do now, to whatever effectiveness it does.
If it's legal it can be widely advertised and freely undertaken. If jailbroken phones are desirable, their legality will create a market for jailbreakable phones and (with time) vendors will try to expand into that market.
Re: (Score:3)
It just means fewer people get arrested for it. And I don't think I've heard about many arrests in that area lately.
Wouldn't it also mean fewer people get sued under the DMCA for it? Like, say, Geohot?
Warranty (Score:2)
Recycling (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If you cannot do what you like with you hardware then you obviously do not own it.
You can't legally saw the barrel off your shotgun, remove the airbags from your car, or torture your dog. We give government the power to make laws abridging our use of our own possessions. I think modding should be legal, with exceptions as necessary (reselling a car without disclosing modded brake-control firmware, for example), but I don't think the definition of ownership is the right way to argue the point.
Re: (Score:2)
So the jailbreaking the DRM on a game console or phone is like a having a sawed off shotgun or torturing household pets.
Nice corner you've painted for yourself there.
Maybe you should get an "Edison Prize" or some such.
All I can say is (Score:2)
good EFF'ing luck with that.
If you can't open it... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You already don't own most of your Windows software.
Now they're moving towards the hardware.
See also Window Secure Boot, and the ramifications thereof...
Isn't there a complication for phones? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Isn't there a complication for phones? (Score:5, Informative)
Let me tell you a story about an FCC-approved transmitter. It ran on an open frequency at burst data, 12ms at 50mW. The harmonics and power were too high for the FCC. The FCC suggested that I put in a delay of 87ms then a 1ms burst. They would then average out the signal strength over 100ms and use the average power for the transmission for the tests.
I changed the code, it passed the tests, and microchip sends the chips pre-programmed by the reel.
So that's how software can change your FCC compliance.
Cisco (Score:2)
What if windows locked you into IE and app store (Score:2)
What if windows locked you into IE and windows app store only apps? So no open source apps, no steam games, no adult apps or games, no non MS office, no firefox, and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
What if windows locked you into IE and windows app store only apps? So no open source apps, no steam games, no adult apps or games, no non MS office, no firefox, and so on.
I'd be more concerned over the Mac on this front.
Just in time for Windows 8. (Score:2)
Given the whole bios thing, we'll probably need to jailbreak our Dell machines soon enough...
I have no problems with locked systems (Score:2)
that the manufacturers right and its my right to not have to buy what is locked. I have a huge issue with being called a criminal, pirate, goat fucker or what ever for wanting to modify hardware to make it perform better or do something it wasn't intended to like say the bomb trigger to blow up the White House or Pentagon.
Stop calling use users! (Score:4, Informative)
lessee, perhaps? (Score:3)
That's rather the whole goal, though, now isn't it... that you don't own your hardware, but lease all of it, with the root level control not in your own hands. It makes life much simpler (and thus profitable) for the producers of said hardware. It also ensures that they can grab whatever data they want, whenever they want, without any control over it by you, the lessee of said device.
What about pirates? (Score:2)
But... what if someone is able to pirate something!? The fact that some artist may or may not have lost potential profit will bring about the apocalypse!
Therefore, paying customers must suffer.
Re:Question (Score:4, Informative)
They've already done it for the iPhone.
Re:Question (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, are you saying that the DMCA is in some way good?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
the depressing part is, this was the 5th comment and the first one to actually try to RTA
Re: (Score:2)
You come to Slashdot to read the articles?
You must be new here.
Re:Subsidized Devices (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Subsidized Devices (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
The real problem is that devices are Subsidized. If you don't pay for all of the device, should the company be able to lock you in on the device? I think they should.
Why? You're still in a contract with them. In fact, it's even more beneficial to them if you jailbreak - you still have to pay them for their services, but if you go to another carrier as well, they don't have to provide them. Free money.
Make their money back? (Score:2)
Horseshit. If someone quits paying for your services and they've jailbroken an associated product, then bill them for the device and add any subsidization costs onto the early termination fees.
Re:Subsidized Devices (Score:5, Insightful)
The real problem is that devices are Subsidized. If you don't pay for all of the device, should the company be able to lock you in on the device? I think they should. If they can't then it becomes harder for them to make their money back and they will stop subsidizing devices. Once the contract is over, or if you paid full price, then you should be able to do whatever you want.
The contract obligates you to maintain service for 1 or 2 years or else pay for the phone. Once you've signed the contract it's your phone. Hint: who's on the hook to repair it if it breaks?
Re: (Score:2)
Once the contract is over, or if you paid full price, then you should be able to do whatever you want.
Where do I go to pay full price for a PS3?
Re: (Score:2)
And none of them give you the option to buy the phone at full cost in return for lower payments for service.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Manufacturers won't have to void warranties for jailbroken devices. They can just deny owners access to online services like Xbox LIVE and the App Store because security can't be guaranteed if modded devices are allowed into a walled garden.
I am 100% ok with that scenario. I don't think the EFF will manage to get that far, though.