Jailbreaking Ipod Touch / Iphone

[ex_banana-eater]

I'm wondering if any of you know anything about the legality and morality of jailbreaking an iPhone. "Jailbreaking" is a term for replacing the original software that comes with the iPod or iPhone with a different set of software that is more customisable.

I personally have an iPod Touch, and there is a program called AnkiMini which I want to get. It is just a flashcard program where you write flaschcards to study basically anything (I would use them for language study). The software is only compatible with jailbroken iPods. I actually got my iPod Touch mainly for this purpose, to study languages with AnkiMini, but didn't know it could be illegal or immoral to modify the software.

I did a bit of searching and Apple claimed that it is illegal to modify your iPod or iPhone by jailbreaking it. I'm not sure the details, but I think it would be a violation of your terms of use when you buy it. Does that make sense and if so, would it be immoral to jailbreak it? I often modify the software that originally comes on machines I buy, for example I changed the OS on my netbook from Windows XP to a Linux distro. How is somebody to know in such cases that what they're doing is wrong without spending time researching every product they buy.

[DavidOdden]

Legally, it is prohibited to thwart copy-protection. I suspect that if there is any substance to the claim that it's illegal, this is it -- that you would be removing copy protection hard- or software. Illegal copying is also (obviously) illegal: in principle, you could replace the pre-installed software with something that you have a right to copy. For yucks, let's assume that you have legal replacement software. You might be bound by some agreement, when you bought the hardware; I suppose you would know if you did that.

When you purchase hardware, your only obligation is to pay for the thing and not violate IP laws by copying the thing. Other than that, you can misuse it to your heart's content, and if you can manage to make it more functional by reformatting and re-sysing the thing, go for it. Thus you can legally and morally buy a Dell and turn it into a Linux box if you want to.

Obviously, this would void the warranty, but I assume you don't care.

[ex_banana-eater]

Thanks David. I found out more on the specifics:

As part of the 2009 DMCA rulemaking, EFF has asked the Copyright Office to recognize an exemption to the DMCA to permit jailbreaking in order to allow iPhone owners to use their phones with applications that are not available from Apple’s store (e.g., turn-by-turn directions, using the iPhone camera for video, laptop tethering).

Apple’s copyright infringement claim starts with the observation that jailbroken iPhones depend on modified versions of Apple’s bootloader and operating system software. True enough — we said as much in our technical white paper describing the jailbreak process. But the courts have long recognized that copying software while reverse engineering is a fair use when done for purposes of fostering interoperability with independently created software, a body of law that Apple conveniently fails to mention.

http://www.iphoneincanada.ca/iphone-news/a...one-is-illegal/

So it may not be illegal now, since it is currently being processed. The morality of the situation is that when people Jailbreak they replace the original iPod software with something that uses copyrighted Apple code. However the EFF claims that in cases like this has traditionally been called fair use.

I'm still unsure of what I should personally do. I'd like to Jailbreak to install that program but don't want to be stealing software.

[JASKN]

I'm still unsure of what I should personally do. I'd like to Jailbreak to install that program but don't want to be stealing software.

How would it be immoral if you paid for your language program? The only immorality may be with the program writers, who may have illegally copied Apple's code. But even that is disputed by courts already, right? Edited May 2, 2010 by JASKN

[DavidV]

I'm wondering if any of you know anything about the legality and morality of jailbreaking an iPhone. "Jailbreaking" is a term for replacing the original software that comes with the iPod or iPhone with a different set of software that is more customisable.

That's one way to do it, but you can also disable the bit of code that checks for an Apple signature before running software. No copying is involved in this case.

[Daniel Casper]

This thread has two different questions in it:

1. Is jailbreaking currently illegal?

2. Should it be illegal?

As for one, that's a question (I believe) the courts are still deciding, so assuming that's the case, it is not illegal.

As for two, the real question is: does a copyright holder of software have the right to determine what is done with his code? The answer is - absolutely. Code after copyright is intellectual property, and therefore the owner of the copyright may determine how and in what way his code is used.

Remember also, contracts are legally binding. If you sign a contract that say that you won't break your iPhone after purchase, or that you won't use the programmer's code in an app you are writing, then you are legally held to that.

So for anyone to use any part of the iPhone, whether the boot-loader, OS, even hardware (this might not be a copyright but could be legally established with a contract from Apple) against Apple's explicit permission would be an infringement of copyright if Apple wishes it so. The same would go of any product.

It doesn't matter what is "practical" or "impractical" from a business or technological stand-point. The person who has a copyright controls the copies, which he has given you permission to use. You now own the copy and you may use the copy as how the original owner stipulates via contract. This is why when you buy a copy of the Fountainhead, you don't own the Fountainhead, but a copy of it, and you just can't print a million copies for your friend.

Enforcement may be next to impossible, but the principal remains if you want property rights.

Edited May 4, 2010 by Daniel Casper

[DavidOdden]

As for two, the real question is: does a copyright holder of software have the right to determine what is done with his code? The answer is - absolutely. Code after copyright is intellectual property, and therefore the owner of the copyright may determine how and in what way his code is used.

In a very limited way this is true. The owner of copyright only her the right to determine how the code is copied; he has no right to determine whether his code is deleted, and he has no right to determine what functions you use the code (plus hardware) for.

Remember also, contracts are legally binding. If you sign a contract that say that you won't break your iPhone after purchase, or that you won't use the programmer's code in an app you are writing, then you are legally held to that.

Not being an iPhone guy, I don't know if this applies -- when you purchase an iPhone, what contract do you sign? When I bought my Dell, there was no contract, but of course Apple is much more controlling so maybe there is a contract.

So for anyone to use any part of the iPhone, whether the boot-loader, OS, even hardware (this might not be a copyright but could be legally established with a contract from Apple) against Apple's explicit permission would be an infringement of copyright if Apple wishes it so.

Well, no, if you buy an iPhone and scrub it and stick whatever new software on it (assuming that you have that software legally) then that cannot be a violation of Apple copyright. I also doubt that there can be a contract requiring you to not scrub your iPhone, since that would imply that you don't actually buy an iPhone, you buy a perpetual license to use their iPhone.

I'm betting that the real illegality / immorality of jailbreaking comes from installing a pirated copy of Apple software on the iPhone.

[Wotan]

Ex-babana eater: Hacking various cheap hardware devices by a single person for private use is such a trivial "crime" that in reality it constitutes no crime at all. In the history of man, has anyone ever been prosecuted for such?

De minimis non curat lex.

[JASKN]

Ex-babana eater: Hacking various cheap hardware devices by a single person for private use is such a trivial "crime" that in reality it constitutes no crime at all. In the history of man, has anyone ever been prosecuted for such?

De minimis non curat lex.

This is unhelpful. It neither tells him what he should do morally in principle, nor legally as the current laws stand. It is merely an opinion of yours with no supporting facts.

[parasitius]

As for two, the real question is: does a copyright holder of software have the right to determine what is done with his code? The answer is - absolutely. Code after copyright is intellectual property, and therefore the owner of the copyright may determine how and in what way his code is used.

Honestly this doesn't make much sense to me — I don't see how it is different from saying that the author of a book has a right to determine how the text is disposed of, and therefor I am in the wrong should I chose to take a pair of scissors to the pages and rearrange the paragraphs as I see fit. What is so special about code that endows it with a right that no book has yet been imparted with?

Please do not confound two different matters. When we are talking about cracks or modifications to existing software products, it is very analogous to cutting a book up and rearranging the paragraphs in a way that is more useful to the person using the modification. A crack or modification might simply be additional instructions injected in the middle somewhere which instruct the computer to jump over a bit of existing code or use an alternate piece of code in place of what originally would have been done.

The second matter, which I fear is being confounded here, is the violation of Apple's copyright by having bits of code that Apple created within a crack or modified version. While technically illegal, I have no idea how it could me morally wrong simply from the fact that it is only of use to people who surely already have paid Apple for the product and code. It is a matter of expedience and convenience only, it is the difference between me simply pasting a paragraph comprised of sentences taken from various parts of Atlas Shrugged here, with the original text, and me saying:

[insert sentence 3 from page 203 here][insert sentence 52 from page 703 here][insert sentence 9 from page 5 here]

With a few more programming steps, I could make a program that would follow the above instructions and extract the text I want from the privately licensed copy for any individual owning an electronic copy of Atlas Shrugged, and thereby be sure that only those having purchased a copy are able to see my 'arrangement'. But when it comes to software, most people won't bother — because it is just one more step that proves nothing and is invisible to almost everyone anyway.

[Just to be clear: my last paragraph is not to say it is "okay" or justifiable or should be legal because it is trivial, I'm simply saying this point is not an essential in any argument on this subject, because any argument that talks about violating Apple's copyright is easily invalidated by slightly more complicated code that doesn't copy anything Apple made but uses the individual user's copy and recreates what it needs from that with substitutions like I've shown above.]

Edited May 22, 2010 by parasitius