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.")
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.
>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
> 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.
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."
"What part of "the DMCA was passed in 1998" is a personal attack?"
The part where he says projecting or trolling. I guess I have a pretty similar reaction to you, where when I say I'm walking away because he's not listening to me, you infer mental illness.
Sometimes it's best to keep it a little calmer. Someone doesn't have to be mentally ill to walk away from someone accusing them of being a troll.
I hope you'll consider whether that phrasing was actually appropriate. Please have a good day.
