| reply to LightS
Re: Time to arrest the developer of the program. said by LightS:Are you serious? LOL
Yes and no. I didn't see DMCA exemption for jailbreak getting renewed this year. If that is still the case then technically what this developers are doing is illegal. |
|
| said by silentlooker:said by LightS:Are you serious? LOL
Yes and no. I didn't see DMCA exemption for jailbreak getting renewed this year. If that is still the case then technically what this developers are doing is illegal. Just because something isn't specifically said to be legal doesn't mean it's illegal. The jailbreaking exemption expiring doesn't mean that jailbreaking is illegal. All it means is that the exemption, which specifically said that there could be no DMCA claims against jailbreaking, isn't there anymore.
By your logic, wearing a bright yellow shirt would be illegal unless there is a specific statute saying that wearing it is legal. |
|
|
|
| said by ISurfTooMuch:said by silentlooker:said by LightS:Are you serious? LOL
Yes and no. I didn't see DMCA exemption for jailbreak getting renewed this year. If that is still the case then technically what this developers are doing is illegal. Just because something isn't specifically said to be legal doesn't mean it's illegal. The jailbreaking exemption expiring doesn't mean that jailbreaking is illegal. All it means is that the exemption, which specifically said that there could be no DMCA claims against jailbreaking, isn't there anymore. By your logic, wearing a bright yellow shirt would be illegal unless there is a specific statute saying that wearing it is legal. To make jailbreaking work you have to hack the phone software correct? If so the DMCA make hacking illegal. |
|
 skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2
 ·Cox HSI
 ·Clear Wireless
| said by silentlooker: To make jailbreaking work you have to hack the phone software correct? If so the DMCA make hacking illegal.
The Copyright Office says that jailbreaking isn't a copyright violation. Jailbreaking is "fair use".
»drm.web.unc.edu/relevant-law/dmc···s-chart/
said by Register of Copyrights, Library of Congress exemptions to the DMCA :
(2) 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.
|
|
| said by skeechan:said by silentlooker: To make jailbreaking work you have to hack the phone software correct? If so the DMCA make hacking illegal.
The Copyright Office says that jailbreaking isn't a copyright violation. Jailbreaking is "fair use". » arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010···air-use/ said by Register of Copyrights, Library of Congress exemptions to the DMCA :
(2) 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.
Old news, it have expired this year. |
|
 The LimitPremium
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2
 ·Windstream
| reply to silentlooker
That's quite a slippery slope. Like what has been said already, the phone belongs to the user (not the company). The user can mod the phone as he/she sees fit (there was also a case regarding jailbreaking being legal/illegal, wasn't the end result that jailbreaking is legal?).
I don't get your position in the matter. Your argument doesn't make any sense to me.
--
"We will evaluate these integrals rigorously if we can, and non-rigorously if we must".
---Victor Moll, invited talk, Tom Osler Fest (April 17, 2010) |
|
| said by The Limit:That's quite a slippery slope. Like what has been said already, the phone belongs to the user (not the company). The user can mod the phone as he/she sees fit (there was also a case regarding jailbreaking being legal/illegal, wasn't the end result that jailbreaking is legal?).
I don't get your position in the matter. Your argument doesn't make any sense to me.
There is never realy been a case about jail breaking being lega. There was rulling that DMCA do not cover it in 2010. That was only for 2 years and it expired this year. Yes there was case from 5th circuit but it only apply to the state that it covers. By jailbreaking the phone, you can put anything and everything and keep revenue out of cell phone company hands. To me that is a big no, no and phone company should fight back. |
|
skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 | reply to silentlooker
New news...it has not expired YET. New rules aren't expected until October. |
|
| said by skeechan:New news...it has not expired YET. New rules aren't expected until October.
Not from all the articles I read. In February it was announced that it would expire at the end of the month. It was declared legal in February of 2010 and it's was for 2 years. Got anything that says it been extended? |
|
 CheesePremium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1 | reply to silentlooker
How so? You still need service to make calls? That isn't taking revenue anywhere. And Apps? Verizon doesn't make money on those? So that's not taking revenue? |
|
| reply to silentlooker
said by silentlooker: To make jailbreaking work you have to hack the phone software correct? If so the DMCA make hacking illegal.
No, the DMCA does not make hacking illegal; it makes circumventing an anti-circumvention device for the purpose of copyright infringement illegal. |
|
skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·Clear Wireless
| reply to silentlooker
Copyright office website says rules are valid for 3 years and the rules about phone DRM were issued July 26, 2010. So technically they shouldn't expire until July 26, 2013. But new rules are expected in October which would supplant those made in 2010, thus nullifying them early if the copyright office were to reverse itself.
»www.copyright.gov/laws/rulemaking.html
The way I read it, the "designations" are the classes of works referred to in the rules, e.g., the first section on DVDs, then the one on wireless handsets, etc. |
|
 NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to silentlooker
said by silentlooker: To make jailbreaking work you have to hack the phone software correct? If so the DMCA make hacking illegal.
So cracking the region coding of my DVD player, creating an "Open Region" player is illegal. Damn, I am barred from playing import (Region 2) DVDs. Why?
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
| reply to silentlooker
said by silentlooker:said by The Limit:That's quite a slippery slope. Like what has been said already, the phone belongs to the user (not the company). The user can mod the phone as he/she sees fit (there was also a case regarding jailbreaking being legal/illegal, wasn't the end result that jailbreaking is legal?).
I don't get your position in the matter. Your argument doesn't make any sense to me.
There is never realy been a case about jail breaking being lega. There was rulling that DMCA do not cover it in 2010. That was only for 2 years and it expired this year. Yes there was case from 5th circuit but it only apply to the state that it covers. By jailbreaking the phone, you can put anything and everything and keep revenue out of cell phone company hands. To me that is a big no, no and phone company should fight back. Precisely. The legality of jailbreaking has never been tested, so your presumption that it is illegal is premature. |
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | said by ISurfTooMuch:said by silentlooker:said by The Limit:That's quite a slippery slope. Like what has been said already, the phone belongs to the user (not the company). The user can mod the phone as he/she sees fit (there was also a case regarding jailbreaking being legal/illegal, wasn't the end result that jailbreaking is legal?).
I don't get your position in the matter. Your argument doesn't make any sense to me.
There is never realy been a case about jail breaking being lega. There was rulling that DMCA do not cover it in 2010. That was only for 2 years and it expired this year. Yes there was case from 5th circuit but it only apply to the state that it covers. By jailbreaking the phone, you can put anything and everything and keep revenue out of cell phone company hands. To me that is a big no, no and phone company should fight back. Precisely. The legality of jailbreaking has never been tested, so your presumption that it is illegal is premature. And I have my doubts it ever will be, This is why for example the government has not struck against the ability for people to by AnyDVD-HD from Slysoft as well. The media giants do not want the DMCA to be put on trial, As they fear if it meets the wrong judge it could be dragged to the SCOTUS and nullified.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
| reply to silentlooker
said by silentlooker: There is never realy been a case about jail breaking being lega. There was rulling that DMCA do not cover it in 2010. That was only for 2 years and it expired this year. Yes there was case from 5th circuit but it only apply to the state that it covers. By jailbreaking the phone, you can put anything and everything and keep revenue out of cell phone company hands. To me that is a big no, no and phone company should fight back.
Me think you be trolling. Why you no like people who jailbreak? |
|
Reviews:
 ·exede by ViaSat
·McDonald County ..
·Millenicom
·HughesNet Satell..
| reply to silentlooker
You are opening a can of worms you really don't want to mess with by pushing this whole illegal hacking thing. When you sign a contract and get a subsidized phone, it is exactly the same as getting a loan to buy a car or anything else. Would you care to have your auto loan place to be allowed to tell you what tires and oil you have to use on your car or that you can not eat or drink in your car, or a mortgage company telling that the land you just bought can not be used to produce hay or raise cattle? When you sign that contract, the phone is yours, just the same as signing a loan contract for anything else and it is not possible for them to tell you what you can or can not do with the item purchased and that is the way it should stay.
--
HughesNet elite plan/.74 dish w/1watt trans. / 9000 modem / 3 computers on a linksy's wired network |
|
Reviews:
·World Lynx
·Cox HSI
| reply to Jim Kirk
said by Jim Kirk:said by silentlooker: There is never realy been a case about jail breaking being lega. There was rulling that DMCA do not cover it in 2010. That was only for 2 years and it expired this year. Yes there was case from 5th circuit but it only apply to the state that it covers. By jailbreaking the phone, you can put anything and everything and keep revenue out of cell phone company hands. To me that is a big no, no and phone company should fight back.
Me think you be trolling. Why you no like people who jailbreak? No kidding....sheesh....Silentlooker needs to get a hobby...  |
|
The LimitPremium
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2 | reply to silentlooker
If we want to get really ridiculous, how do you know that your avatar doesn't have some kind of copyright claim attached to it? |
|
