
Now legal in the U.S.: Jailbreaking your iPhone, ripping a DVD for education - yanw
http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/07/26/now-legal-in-the-u-s-jailbreaking-your-iphone-ripping-a-dvd-for-educational-purposes/
======
matthew-wegner
At first I wondered if modchips would now be legal, and CrunchGear and others
are just focusing on jailbreaking iPhones because it's topical to their
audience.

But, no, the wording really is zeroed in on handsets:

 _Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute
software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole
purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been
lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset._

In fact, it sounds like it's legal to jailbreak an iPhone but _not_ an iPod
touch...

~~~
flatulent1
"In fact, it sounds like it's legal to jailbreak an iPhone but not an iPod
touch..."

Perhaps one could extend the scope of this to the iPod touch by considering
the case of one with a bluetooth headset and VoIP software running. The iPod
touch may be much less well known as a telephone, but like the iPhone it is a
product with many possible uses. Talk on it and have someone try to prove it
isn't a phone.

~~~
Groxx
Be shown that there isn't a SIM card in it, and try to explain the difference
to a judge / jury.

~~~
yumraj
Verizon and Sprint phones don't have a SIM card and they're still phones, ask
anyone ;).

------
isamuel
It would now be perfectly legal for T-Mobile to offer a service where you walk
into any T-Mobile store and they unlock your iPhone for you, to use on their
network.

~~~
mdolon
There's a T-Mobile store in Queens, NY that was already doing this a week ago,
they had a huge banner outside that said something to the extent of 'We sell
and unlock iPhones.' I remember pointing it out to a friend and wondering how
it was legal but I guess now it makes sense.

If anyone wants to check it out, it's at the corner of 74th and Broadway in
Jackson Heights.

~~~
starkfist
Is there a list somewhere of the countries in which an unlocked iPhone will
work with a prepaid sim?

I read on Fred Wilson's blog that it works in the UK (and presumably the rest
of Western Europe). I am specifically wondering about Australia and Japan.

Can I buy an iPhone 4 in the USA, get it unlocked in Queens, and use it in
Australia with a sim?

Edit - I'm mostly wondering if the radio in the US version of the phone
supports the networks in .au and .jp.

~~~
Maktab
Any carrier unlocked iPhone will work with all the carriers in South Africa.
The frequencies available are GSM 900/1800 and UMTS/HSDPA 2100 and all the
carriers offer micro-SIMs if asked.

In fact, that's true for the rest of Africa too, where you're pretty much
guaranteed to find at least one GSM 900/1800 network wherever you go and in
many cases a UMTS/HSDPA 2100 3G network as well, though the coverage might not
be as comprehensive as it is in South Africa.

------
borisk
The awesome EFF can use some donations: <https://w2.eff.org/donate/index.php>

~~~
shajith
They have awesome swag too, I love my EFF cap:

[https://secure.eff.org/site/Ecommerce/267350841?VIEW_PRODUCT...](https://secure.eff.org/site/Ecommerce/267350841?VIEW_PRODUCT=true&product_id=1041&store_id=2441)

------
powrtoch
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this doesn't stop Apple from refusing to service
your jailbroken iPhone does it? Big news and all, but it seems to me the issue
was that Apple would make a fuss and void your warranty, not that people were
getting arrested.

~~~
patrickk
It's very, very easy to reset your iPhone to it's default state, you simply
plug it in to your computer, and click "Restore" in iTunes. Apple doesn't have
to know anything :-) I think you would have to be very silly to send a
jailbroken iPhone to Apple to be serviced if Apple claim it's "illegal" to do
so.

~~~
gojomo
A step that depends on ITunes still depends on Apple's forbearance -- if they
really wanted to stop this, they could have ITunes either (a) phone home
reporting each 'restore' of an iPhone, and its previous state, by its unique
ID; (b) leave a small notation in the 'restored' state about its previous
state.

It'd simply be the digital equivalent of the stickers that indicate if a unit
has been opened or exposed to moisture.

~~~
jrockway
Thing is, Apple's shareholders would like Apple to stay in business for a
while.

Apple's "it's a crime" talk is to scare casual users away from jailbreaking to
get pirated software. But they know that experienced users, the ones that
write the apps that draw the inexperienced users to the platform, want to
jailbreak. And, those users want a warranty. And, they don't want to piss off
those users, many of whom have hardware-review blogs.

So my guess is that Apple is not going to void warranties for jailbreaking. If
they start doing that, it's going to be really good for Android and really bad
for Apple.

------
jordanroher
I wonder if this means the activities of the "iPhone Dev Team" are now truly
legal? (Not that I know whether they were before)

If so, the Google Voice angle gives me a horrible idea: imagine if Google
snatched up those iPhone jailbreak devs. Google could distribute a jailbreak
program to get a true Google Voice app on the iPhone. The downside being that
their war with Apple would immediately go nuclear.

~~~
btilly
The first problem is that while jailbreaking is now legal, it is also legal
for Apple to push a change that happens to break jailbroken phones. Apple
doing this could create liability and/or negative publicity for any company
that had sold such services on a wide scale.

The second problem is that lawyers will be trying to find a way to create the
old result, and are likely to succeed. For instance Apple's restrictions
against jailbreaking are almost certainly in their shrinkwrap license
contract. Therefore the fact that they can't throw the copyright book at you,
doesn't mean that you're necessarily legally in the clear to do it.

~~~
jacquesm
I think that the company that this would create liability and/or negative
publicity for would be apple.

~~~
btilly
Apple has proven willing to brick jailbroken phones in the past. They didn't
suffer any liability, and didn't get very much negative publicity. And it did
wonders for maintaining the wall around the walled garden they are trying to
create with the app store.

Given this, I see nothing to suggest that they won't do it again. And any
company who suggests otherwise is taking a definite risk.

~~~
ben1040
_Apple has proven willing to brick jailbroken phones in the past._

Have they?

The famous case of "bricking" back in 2007 was not related to a jailbreak, but
was a botched unlock tool[1] that corrupted data in the baseband firmware. The
corruption then led to problems with an update. Apple issued a warning when
the update was released saying it would affect unlocked phones, and I can't
imagine this is out of malice so much as it is out of Apple's pre-release
testing activities revealing problems.

If it were an intentional attack against people who had jailbroken phones, why
did it only affect those who used that particular flavor of unlock software?

With a jailbreak being simply a software modification, when has strictly a
jailbreak (not an unlock) led to a bricked phone? At worst, a software update
from Apple will just lead to the phone being restored back to non-jailbroken
state.

<http://code.google.com/p/iphone-elite/wiki/iPhoneBrick>

------
billybob
"Defeating a lawfully obtained DVD’s encryption for the sole purpose of short,
fair use in an educational setting OR FOR CRITICISM." Sure, I'm going to blog
about this movie. Lemme in.

Seriously, "lawfully obtained" should be the only qualifier needed.

~~~
billybob
Next thing I want: to make it ILLEGAL to manufacture any DVD or player that
FORCES consumers to watch previews.

I'm serious. I just sat through 10 minutes of previews the other night for
movies like "Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakuel." If I don't have a legal
right to skip that, music execs shouldn't have the legal right to stop me from
playing high-decibel polka music on their front lawns.

~~~
sorbus
My understanding is generally that you can get out of it just before it starts
playing (by pressing the menu button, I think?) but once it starts playing it
uses the same flag for the anti-piracy warning (or something like that), which
prevents getting out of it. This issue does not appear on computers, of
course, only DVD players.

Of course, this could have changed in newer DVDs or DVD players; though I
haven't encountered any disk which has absolutely no way of getting out of the
previews, but I tend not to watch many movies.

Also, I think that I have to point out that you are entirely free to mute the
DVD and go off somewhere else until the previews are done, if you're unable to
find any other way out of them; "FORCES" is a bit of a strong word, given that
you were not (I assume) physically prevented from leaving. This is, of course,
not an acceptable solution, but it does eliminate the discomfort of sitting
through previews.

~~~
mbreese
There are some discs that make it mandatory to watch something first. One
example that kills me is the 2-3 minute long schpeal that plays in front of
"Elmo's World" DVDs telling us about all the great things Seasame Street does
around the world. On some discs, you can fast forward (not skip). On others,
it is mandatory to watch the entire thing. This does pose a bit of a problem
when your toddler needs his Elmo's World fix and you have to sit and wait...

~~~
jerf
A person that I know who most assuredly isn't me has a policy that the kid
doesn't touch original DVDs. That in the process of making non-original DVDs,
you can set the DVD to automatically start right at the movie upon insert is
just a bonus. (There's an age where setting the DVD to auto-loop is useful
too.)

It's just too easy for original DVDs to get destroyed. Also, this person has a
car DVD player that this person doesn't really trust not to destroy the DVD on
a particularly hard bump. (Ironically, this person's DVD player finds it
easier to play the burned DVD copies; the player refuses to play about 10% of
the original DVDs this person has put in it.)

~~~
riffer
Upvoted for consistently referring to yourself in the third person.

~~~
pingswept
I'd say he's actually inconsistently referring to himself in the third and
first persons.

------
teamonkey
Does anyone know what caused clause 4? It seems pretty specific to something.
A means to legally allow play of DRM'd games without having to pierce the work
firewall? Is there a history behind this?

>>>

(4) Video games accessible on personal computers and protected by
technological protection measures that control access to lawfully obtained
works, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of good faith
testing for, investigating, or correcting security flaws or vulnerabilities,
if:

(i) The information derived from the security testing is used primarily to
promote the security of the owner or operator of a computer, computer system,
or computer network; and

(ii) The information derived from the security testing is used or maintained
in a manner that does not facilitate copyright infringement or a violation of
applicable law.

~~~
mbreese
When I read that and I think Sony BMG's rootkit or SecuROM. Or maybe just
examining the security implications of a game install without letting the
manufacturer know about it by bypassing a phone-home feature.

Actually, ArsTechnica has a good article up about this too:
[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/07/apple-
loses-...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/07/apple-loses-big-in-
drm-ruling-jailbreaks-are-fair-use.ars)

They specifically mention this clause:

It turns out that the real target here is the DRM itself, specifically two
controversial systems called SecuROM and SafeDisc. Professor Alex Halderman, a
longtime security researcher in this area, begged the Library to let him
investigate these kinds of invasive DRM without legal worries.

------
seldo
What I want to know is: if Apple knowingly brick your jailbroken phone now,
are they breaking the law? Or is jailbreaking still at your own risk? (I
assume the latter)

~~~
rmc
I'd assume it's at your own risk, and I'd assume jailbreaking voids your
warrenty. It's perfectly common for things to be legal but void your warrenty
(e.g. It's legal for me to intentionally hit my iPhone with a hammer, but that
voids my warrenty)

------
iends
Does this mean that watching DVDs on Linux is finally legal as long as it's
for education or criticism?

~~~
_delirium
It looks like the exemption is pretty narrow: ripping DVDs for the purposes of
extracting a short excerpt that meets fair-use criteria, for use in another,
larger work of commentary or criticism. Essentially, it's now okay to rip a
Disney movie for the purposes of grabbing a clip for use in your video podcast
discussing representation of gender in Disney movies or something.

There's more general interoperability language in the DMCA though, so it's
possible that if the creator of a Linux DVD player were prosecuted, they'd be
acquitted. Falling under one of the Copyright Office's explicit exceptions is
safer but I don't believe exhaustive.

------
tsally
It was already legal under the DMCA (at least, according to the spirit of the
law). Apple and the RIAA just wanted you to believe otherwise. The language
has simply been clarified so overzealous companies can't easily scare
consumers.

------
sprout
<http://www.copyright.gov/1201/>

Looks like it's more than just education and criticism:

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

Looks like so long as you're looking to use a clip, and your use would qualify
as fair use, you can rip a DVD. That can't be what the librarian meant to
write though, that would actually encourage people to make backups and then
further copy a fair use bit into a different work.

------
yellowbkpk
What made this illegal before?

~~~
latortuga
DMCA. Circumventing a DRM system for any reason is illegal under DMCA.

~~~
_delirium
I don't think that's _entirely_ true. The DMCA has a bunch of exceptions for
things like "interoperability" and "research" that are somewhat vaguely
defined, which someone who was subject to a DMCA suit could use as a defense.
This rulemaking process carves out a subset of those where the Copyright
Office has determined that the activity _definitely_ falls under those
exceptions. But unless I'm mistaken, I think it's possible to argue other uses
as well--- but you'd have to argue in court why your use was primarily for
interoperability purposes. The advantage of doing things that the Copyright
Office already declared to fall under those exceptions is that you wouldn't
have to argue that point at all, because the issue was already decided.

------
yumraj
Apple may not like the ruling, but the funny thing is that this may actually
cause an increase in the sales of iPhone.

~~~
CamperBob
Apple may actually be fine with it. They may have had a contract clause with
AT&T that required them to defend the exclusivity clause in any legal action,
possibly including this sort of thing.

------
etherael
Why would it not make sense now to use this as an amicable excuse to axe the
AT&T deal from apple's end saying it's clearly no longer legal to do so and
just getting on with the business of competing on the basis of product instead
of who has the better team of lawyers?

------
caxap
Now it is legal to do what everyone was doing already--to hack our own stuff.
It is fascinating to see how laws catch up to the norm. Just wonder why it was
illegal in the first place?

------
apower
Good news for Apple or bad news for them? It would definitely help the IPhone
ecosystem but breaks Apple's control.

------
Benjo
Does anyone have info on the other DMCA exceptions that were granted? My
googlefu only reveals Apple stories.

~~~
Samuel_Michon
Rulemaking on Exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention of Technological
Measures that Control Access to Copyrighted Works:
<http://www.copyright.gov/1201/>

------
jackfoxy
Does this open up 3rd party support of jail-broken phones as a legitimate
business?

------
callmeed
I use an iPhone 3G on T-Mobile (because I'm boycotting AT&T). I wasn't aware
that jailbreaking was illegal–I thought Apple was trying to make it so, but it
wasn't yet (under the DMCA).

Either way, this is great.

