[ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/05/apple-v-eff-the-iphone-jailbreaking-showdown/ ]
May 2, 2009
To jailbreak or not to jailbreak the iPhone. That was the heated topic of discussion
late Friday between Apple’s iPhone marketing czar Greg Joswiak, Fred von Lohmann,
the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s copyright genius, Copyright Office officials
including registrar Marybeth Peters, the record labels, movie studios and software
industry.
Apple vigorously opposed authorizing jailbreaking, saying copyright protections
is what gave birth to the iPhone, the 1 billion app sales, 50,000 app developers
and 35,000 apps. The EFF vigorously urged the Copyright Office to authorize jailbreaking,
which in this case is hacking the phone’s OS, and hence allowing consumers to run
any app on the phone they want, including those not authorized by Apple. “It is
my automobile at the end of the day,” von Lohmann said, a reference that iPhone
users should be allowed to do what they want with their phones, just like car owners
do.
[PJ: It may be your automobile; but it's Apple's business, associated with the apps,
not the gadget alone, and it's Apple's brand. Brand matters, and brand is built
on quality. If, for example, someone passed a law that everyone could put whatever
they wish on Groklaw and I lost control over that, I'd shut Groklaw down rather
than see it ruined. From dealing with spammers, I know exactly how ruined it would
quickly be. Apple says they block bandwidth hog apps and porn and other things they
don't want to be associated with, like Baby Shaker. I'd want to be able to do that
too, because it affects the brand, not just the business model. At the end of the
day, this will be decided on the basis of the legal issues the EFF has raised, but
common sense tells me that Apple won't sell certain gadgets that people really love
if this exemption is approved. This is part of the periodic review of the DMCA,
and the article has a link to the 9 proposed exemptions [ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/12/hackers-others/
] being considered now.] - David Kravetz, Wired
"Ignore copyright law for a moment"
By Anonymous [ http://tinyurl.com/o9osml ]
May 02 2009
Ignoring the law has gotten a lot of people in trouble. Take, for example, the legal
claim that the GPL is invalid. So far, any Judge faced with that has pointed out
to those making such a claim that if the GPL is invalid then the individual/company
has Copyright law to deal with.
To ignore the law is to ask for a lot of trouble to occur.
RAS
04:33 AM EDT
"Ignore copyright law for a moment"
By Anonymous [ http://tinyurl.com/ol6qwj ]
May 02 2009
I agree with you on the point that ignoring EULA is dangerous. We should avoid software
that require you to agree to an EULA and stick with FOSS instead. But I don't like
your analogy with the GPL. The GPL is 100% based on copyright law, but I don't think
its true for most EULAs.
12:05 PM EDT
"Ignore copyright law for a moment"
By PJ [ http://tinyurl.com/qsfvl7 ]
May 02 2009
It is different in one way, in that you enforce the GPL differently. But in reality,
the Psystar case, as best I can make out, is precisely targeting the GPL, only they
don't want to say it out loud.
They seem to hope to establish Dan Wallace and Terekhov's "legal" theory that you
can undermine the GPL by doing essentially what Psystar is doing. Look around the
internet and you'll see it.
12:37 PM EDT
A real attack against the GPL
By Anonymous [ http://tinyurl.com/ramf4z ]
May 02 2009
Psystar is a troll, I think you made that case clear. But the GPL is a solid
license, I'm sure it will stand in front of any attack that may come from them.
I'm a lot more afraid of Apple. They put on the market (With a huge success) a new
platform (iPhone, iPod touch) totally incompatible with the GPL, thanks to a melting
pot of EULAs, DRM and restrictive interpretation of the DMCA. I'm sure other companies
like MS are watching and learning. We will probably see more of those platforms
in the future. Apple has shown the way to kill the GPL by making future platforms
incompatible with it. That more dangerous than any thing that may come out of the
small troll Psystar.
07:45 PM EDT
A real attack against the GPL
By PJ [ http://tinyurl.com/qrf7ab ]
May 02 2009
But people are free to do proprietary gadgets if they want to.
Just like you are free to do free ones. And we're free to use an Android phone instead
of iPhone.
That will be my solution, frankly. I can live just fine with that. I would not be
comfortable with a world where you *had* to be open if you wanted to be proprietary.
And here's why you should be more afraid of Microsoft than Apple, in my opinion:
at least Apple isn't trying affirmatively to kill off the GPL. It does really good
gadgets, in ways that are very, very hard to duplicate with phony Brand X gadgets.
It doesn't take GPL code and then do smarmy things with it. Now, truthfully, given
my preference for openness, I won't buy their gadgets, probably, but I surely will
uphold their right to do them any way they want to.
08:30 PM EDT
Re: Groklaw and The iPhone Jailbreaking Showdown
By ...
May 3, 2009
Funny, seems to me that most auto makers manage to maintain their brand and make
cars people really love, despite the small bands of "hackers" who modify them. In
fact, if I have my history right, those "hackers" actually made advances that the
car companies later added to their mainstream products.
Apple doesn't have to like them, it doesn't have to support them, and it can modify
the gadgets to make it harder on them, but it shouldn't also be able to invoke laws
like the DMCA to get protections that car makers have never had.
And, as for the "bandwidth hog" nonsense, it's a simple matter for AT&T to cut people
off who hog bandwidth. But to say "no one can have tethering because some idiot
might abuse it," well, that's exactly the kind of paternalistic nonsense that people
shouldn't have to put up with. As I recall, that was exactly what the old Ma Bell
used to say about connecting "unapproved devices" to the phone network before the
Carterfone decision. And we know how that came out.
6:43 PM
A real attack against the GPL
By Anonymous [ http://tinyurl.com/of3a39 ]
May 08 2009
Cheers, PJ. You are always fair and even handed, and that is one of the joys of
reading Groklaw. Apple is wrong on somethings to be sure, but this is not one of
them as you rightfully recognize. And to the extent that a competitor can be seen
as one's enemy (making Apple an enemy of FOSS), you are very astute in observing
that the "enemy of my enemy" is not always my friend.
02:52 PM EDT
A real attack against the GPL
By PJ [ http://tinyurl.com/q9v48z ]
May 08 2009
Thank you. I try hard to be fair. As I've written, I no longer buy proprietary products,
to the extent I can control it, including Apple, but fair is fair. I would do the
same for SCO, actually, if there was ever a basis. It's why I wrote that Singer
does a really good job, even though it annoyed some readers, because he does.
03:02 PM EDT
Copyright 2009 http://www.groklaw.net/