iPhone Jailbreaking, Cell Phone Unlocking Made Legal

12

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

endee

What the U.S. Copyright Office said was jail-breaking didn't violate copyright law, refuting Apple's argument that jail-breaking was circumvention of copy protection and therefore was a copyright violation as spelled out in the DMCA. Further, the Copyright Office went so far as to say that Apple could pursue other avenues in regards to jail-breaking and copyright, they just couldn't use the DMCA argument to do it. Apple could also use patent and contract law to convince the courts that jail-breaking isn't legal.

I don't support locked down phones and I think it's important to keep the facts straight: there's a big difference between making something legal, in effect a right, and saying that one approach to making something illegal is wrong.

 

avatar

burntjuggalas

took them long enough ><

avatar

jgrimoldy

Okay, I'm waiting...

Where are the comments from the Free Market supporters that insist that Government regulation is ALWAYS a bad thing, particularly for the consumers? 

Where's the battle cry of "Let the Free Market decide.  If you don't like your cell phone's rules, buy a different one... blah.. .blah... blah..."

Check.

avatar

someone87

I am one of those guys, and I 100% agree that the Free Market should decide, and that meaning I get to do whatever the hell I want with what I bought.

I don't see this as government regulations, I see it as creating a law saying users can do what they want with crap they bought without the fear of apple suing them.

Government regulations is an act that regulates the free market, this is an example of something that got de-regulated more than anything else.

If the Government made a law saying apple had to sell locked, and unlocked iPhones, then I would be complaining, because they are getting involved in a company's business and telling them how to run it. But if I buy something outright (not lease, rent or anything else) and I own it, I should be able to treat it as my own, and do what I want. That's the free market.

avatar

jgrimoldy

Free Market != ...and that meaning I get to do whatever the hell I want with what I bought....

From previous interactions with you, I thought that Free Market means that businesses get to do whatever they want, and consumers can choose to either buy or not.  If consumers choose not to buy, then companies need to change if they want to stay in around...

In this case, Apple was doing whatever they wanted.  Folks could have simply chosen not to buy if they didn't like that.  Myself, I exercised that right. 

Soooo you don't see this as "Regulations" per se... Instead, you see this as merely "creating a law"...

Sooo, regulations that you like and agree with that put controls on businesses are "laws".  Regulations that you don't like or agree with are "further expansions of big government by the oppressive leftist liberals"

I don't quite see the world thru the same funhouse prism.

avatar

someone87

Your last comment was quite jumbled, and not sure what you mean by it all. But let me offer this.

In general, business are for profit, there are some non profit, and some that don't care about profit, but in general they are for profit. Business employ people, people spend money and consume stuff, thus the economy goes round.

Regulations as I understand the word, and what it is to business today, mean the government tells them what to do, in some way shape or form. The government, as much as they like to tell you, doesn't know more about business than those who run it.

For instance, the government told Ford to sell X number of fuel efficient cars for every "gas guzzler" (SUV). Ford lost money on each focus they sold (GM lost money on Cobalst as well) but they were forced to sell them, just to sell the SUV's that provide a profit. It's obvious there was not a great demand for smaller cars by the free market, so the government stepped up in the name of "saving the earth" (what idiots), screwed up the free market, and helped cause the auto crash (that and government unions). That's all at the business level, I am in favor of business making, marketing, and offering products the consumer wants. Because the business is for profit, they will do what's most profitable. Now you can start a big long rant about what's profitable isn't good for the consumer, but there you have it wrong. If the consumer doesn't like it, they will buy elsewhere, the business will lose sales, and thus lose profit. Every for profit company in existence, in a true free market, wants to keep the customer happy, and will do so at all costs. Sometimes they chose to keep 90% of their customers happy, and dump the 10% who are a drain on profits, but that's a business choice.

Now before you jump up and go ape on me, let's look the ISP industry?

I have charter, because it's the only cable offered in my area. It happens to be very good, reliable, no throttling or capping. So I am happy. However, I would seriously look at AT&T U-Verse, I heard good things, and their price is very close if not better. Why is it not offered in my area? Because the government (county) signed an exclusive contract with Charter. Thus, Charter has a monopoly in the area for cable internet. (There is still dish or DSL if I wanted to die a painful death). Charter still is a good ISP, but they have little motivation because of no other cable competition. So in this instance, it's the government messing with the free market, and forbidding competition. Yes, Charter may have lobbied for that contract, but it's still the government that signed the contract, Charter is just doing what's good for business.

For the most part it's the same with unions. I love them, they are a great way for several workers to stand together and demand better pay, treatment, etc. However, the problem is when the government creates regulations, and protects the unions, and forces business to do what the unions say, or close up shop. Back before the government got involved, when a union grew too powerful, the business owner would say you will work for X amount, or I will fire you all and try to find more affordable help, or we will shut down the company. There was a balance, the owner had a recourse. With the UAW, there is no option, except pay. Even if Ford fires everyone, they are still paid 90% their wage to sit and do nothing for 3 years I think.

I believe, if you dig deep enough, talk with business owners, understand the dynamics at work, and truly grasp the situation (not saying you don't right now, just speaking in general) you will find the government, directly or indirectly, is at fault for causing industries to crash, business to fail, and ultimately the destruction of the economy. Because the free market will always even itself out.

Back to the subject at hand, I have never commented (that I know of) on what the consumer does with their own property. But I am always in favor of freedom, and letting anyone do what they want with their own stuff, so long as it doesn't endanger their neighbor. (Dumping toxic waste into a river is one example of something I don't approve of, even if the river does in fact go through your property.) So just like a business should have the right to discontinue something that'd not profitable (focus) or refuse integration with a third party *flash* (Nobody is suing Ford for not making mounts for GM engines), equally so, the consumer should have the right to do what they want with their own stuff.

The government should maintain order, provide personal protection, and make sure nobody is cheating, are upholding contracts, and so on. Not dictating how someone should operate, run, or otherwise manage their business in any way shape or form, or do with their own property. It pisses me off to no end I have to call a city inspector to check the construction I did *TO MY OWN FREAKING HOUSE*.

avatar

griffinii

jgrimoldy: Although I see your point, and as much as this is going to hurt me, I have to agree with someone87.

The EPIC FAIL that is Free Markets, as history has proven, is the point of keeping government out, for the seller AND BUYER. And as my nemesis someone87 points out this is the deregulation of regulations imposed on the buyers. So in essence, and as bad as this seems, it's actually Free Markets at work.

This in no way is imposing any kind of regulation or deregulation on Apple, they will continue to do their evil actions. This will however deregulate the consumer and give control of a product they bought to the consumer.

Don't lose hope, they may have one this battle but they haven't won the war. :)

avatar

someone87

Thanks.

avatar

griffinii

As long as you believe Free Markets work, we will always be mortal enemies(reading too many Comic-Con articles). :)

Free Markets are flawed due to one fundamental issue, human nature. It is an economic theory solely based on the assumption there is no greed, deception, or lies. If you could eliminate all that, then I would definitely believe it works.

avatar

someone87

Because of human nature and greed, the free market works.

The reason monopolies don't continue (now-days) under the free market is because someone else is greedy, creates a product and undercuts the big guy.

The reason companies create new and better products, is because they are greedy and want to dominate the market and keep all the sales to themselves.

The reason sales are run, adds are posted, flyers are distributed, is because more than 1 organization wants your money! That's why it works!

In short, the free market works because of greed, and human nature. The problem with government intervention is greed still exists, it's just unchecked.

Now I agree, the deception and lies are wrong, period. Those will also be prevalent no matter free market or communist/socialist. With a free market, if the government is doing their job, people will get sued for deception and lies, and wrongs will be righted. But it's foolish to think that the government getting involved will stop greed, deception or lies. Humans run the government as well, and they are just as sinful and fallen as business owns are, but they are not driven by the customer, to provide the best of the best. Both ententes are driven by "greed" (if you want to use that word) for business (in tech), it works out to new and faster CPU's, better video cards, and larger hard-drives. In the government it looks like voting for your own raise, not accounting for your own actions, and taking or giving bribes/payments for votes or favors.

The scary thing about the government is they are a monopoly in fact, and there are no checks, they do whatever the hell they want, and that's that.

I don't know you, or your background or were your coming from griffinii, but I have been in the work force for many years, in manufacturing, in engineering, design and development, construction, food, medical, and others. I have worked as upper management, run my own company, run other people's companies, hired, fired, developed new products for the market, and so on. I have seen the direct effects of the government and their regulations in industries such as food and beverage, defense, auto, medical and building (houses etc). No matter were you go, were you look, you constantly see government regulations that make no scene whatsoever, they cost the companies hundreds of millions of dollars each year, just to sign a piece of paper saying they did what the government told them to do. Because we have already established the fact companies are for profit, they simply mark up their goods, then you and I pay for it.

One simple example. How much cheaper would Intel CPU's be if they didn't have to pay the hundreds of millions of dollars to the EU and US governments because of the Anti-Trust suit? All Intel did was try to get HP, and others to use their product, and cut out AMD, gave them good deals, and offered exclusivity rights. I love AMD, and would never want to see them go under, but for crying out load, every company on the face of the earth does that, it's called business. It's not illegal (other than it being anti-trust which is BS), they were not lieing, being deceptive or anything. Just trying to grow and expand their market base.

I just signed, and am working on another multi million dollar agreement, because business is business. Sure, someone might loose some money, or even go bankrupt, but that's because they were not a viable market power. Adapt or die.

avatar

Xerloq

Next up - first sale doctrine for digital downloads!

Yeah, I know I'm dreaming...

avatar

IFLATLINEI

And its about time someone throw in the towel for these clowns thinking they can keep up this fight forever. Theres more to come Im sure of it. Too much money is being wasted to stop people from doing what they are going to do anyways and I see signs that those days are coming to an end. 

 

Really??? Captcha every time i post??? Seems as if Max PC is doing alot to deter posts. Why dont you just eliminate the ability to comment altogether. Theres no substitute for real mods. Quit being foolish.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.