Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Hardware, Software, Hacks, Odds and ends, Open Source, Apple, Jailbreak/pwnage
Apple says jailbreaking is illegal
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has posted the news that Apple has filed comments with the US Copyright Office stating that the act of jailbreaking your iPhone is a copyright infringement and a DMCA violation, and therefore illegal. The EFF says that Apple is claiming that jailbreak apps still require modified versions of Apple's software, and Apple apparently believes that those versions are infringing on their copyrights. The EFF responds, in turn, that "reverse engineering is a fair use when done for purposes of fostering interoperability with independently created software," saying that yes, even though jailbreakers are using Apple's copyrighted code, they are doing so in a way that allows them functionality that Apple doesn't provide access to on their own.
At this point, of course, this is just a complaint in the copyright office, and Apple hasn't made any legal moves yet against anyone responsible for jailbreaking. As the EFF states, it would be extremely hard for them to go after individual jailbreakers -- if you buy an iPhone, it should be your right to "get under the hood," as they say, and do what you want.
But (and keep in mind that this is TUAW, not The Unofficial Legal Weblog, and we are not lawyers) it seems Apple may be able to try and make a case against anyone offering software that does modify or otherwise "misuse" their copyrighted code. We'll have to see if they explore that position more in the future. You can read Apple's full response here (27 pages). You can see the EFF's initial filings here.
Stay tuned for more news and analysis on the issue.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)
Andre said 2:09PM on 2-13-2009
And why should Apple even care? They're selling more phones aren't they? A jailbroken phone can still use the App Store.
Reply
falcon5768 said 2:16PM on 2-13-2009
Apples contract with ATT is why they care. Their contract is very particular in that Apple must prevent any attempt by users to bypass ATT service otherwise Apple must pay a fine to ATT.
iDarbert said 2:34PM on 2-13-2009
@falcon5768
Jailbreak != Unlock
jonathan said 2:36PM on 2-13-2009
@falcon again another person that doesnt get it. jailbreaking is NOT unlocking. to jailbreak is simply the process to all a user to have write access to the root folder on the iphone, something that is sandboxed in a out-of-box iphone, thus the jailbreak term. u can and i have jailbroken my phone and still have a vaild att contract using all of att services.
KA said 5:35PM on 2-13-2009
Apple should care because of the massive amounts of revenue they get from the app store, and the amount they likely lose to pirates and people who simply get free alternatives from the jailbreak world. Ethics are evidently debatable, but the business is sound.
Nick Catalano said 6:10PM on 2-13-2009
@falcon
EPIC iFAIL
Bootes said 6:44PM on 2-13-2009
I wouldn't buy an iPhone if I couldn't jailbreak it. I'm sure they're making a lot more money off of the purchase of my families 2 iPhones and AT&T family plan than they supposedly lose from me using apps that they don't allow on their store.
Level 5 said 11:17PM on 2-13-2009
@Jonathan
Jailbreakers can tether for free. This absolutely DOES make ATT lose money. Sad, true.
PSM said 11:49PM on 2-13-2009
If AT&T is concerned with people tethering for free, I welcome them to take my money for the service. However, as they don't seem to want to take it, and I wouldn't be an AT&T customer if they didn't have the iPhone, and I wouldn't have an iPhone if I couldn't tether with it... then they can shut down tethering and lose my business entirely, or they can take my $30/month or whatever for it, and chill the fark out. /Rant off
falcon5768 said 5:02AM on 2-14-2009
Jailbreaking absolutely IS unlocking. You can not unlock the phone without jailbreaking it, This is a absolute fact.
You might not like this, but stop trying to cover it up with semantics when the WHOLE point of jailbreaking was always to 1) add apps Apple wouldnt allow and 2) USE THE PHONE ON ANOTHER SERVICE.
The epic fail is coming from any commenter whos coving up the truth behind the reason jailbreaking even EXISTS.
eerie quark doll said 9:00AM on 2-14-2009
@falcon You need a short course in logic: "Jailbreaking absolutely IS unlocking. You can not unlock the phone without jailbreaking it, This is a absolute fact." fails logically.
- Unlocking is absolutely jailbreaking? True (you cannot unlock a phone that has not been jailbroken (ignoring the phones that are sold from Apple which are unlocked)).
- Jailbreaking is absolutely unlocking? False (you can jailbreak a phone without unlocking it).
(You are correct that one of the reasons that jailbreaking was developed was to get an ability to unlock the phone but it definitely was not the only reason as developers wanted a way to write their own apps for the phone.)
Bootes said 11:23AM on 2-14-2009
It really doesn't matter, because there is an exemption to the DMCA to allow unlocking. http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2006/11/8280.ars
Andre said 3:09PM on 2-14-2009
If creating software hacks to unlock a phone is legal, and jailbreaking is the only way to unlock an iPhone, then jailbreaking must be legal by default.
Simple legal argument, and Apple wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Unless of course Apple supplies another means for people to unlock their phones.
threegs said 8:50AM on 3-03-2009
Given the timing (or belated timing) this seems to relate most to demonstrating active defense of Apple's IP for what seems to be an inevitable showdown with Palm's Web OS. Had this been a true concern for Apple they could have taken this action many months ago.
LinuxMacWindows Fanboy said 3:54PM on 3-03-2009
I don't know but if jailbreaking means I could install a good app like iSteamy that isn't in the App Store.
- or I could rather go to the App Store and get a fart app.
or another fart app.
or another fart app.
or another fart app.
just copy and paste that 1200 times then you must see why i wish iPod touch 2nd gem would be Jailbroken.
Dave said 2:12PM on 2-13-2009
Apple would have better luck taking a software approach to inhibit this. Of course we know they haven't been successful in doing that, but it would be more successful than this. People will just up and move their file servers hosting these applications to countries with laws that are more lax.
Personally I think Apple is doing this just to get "on the record" with their protest, in the event that situations change down the road.
Reply
falcon5768 said 2:14PM on 2-13-2009
The EFF responds, in turn, that "reverse engineering is a fair use when done for purposes of fostering interoperability with independently created software," saying that yes, even though jailbreakers are using Apple's copyrighted code, they are doing so in a way that allows them functionality that Apple doesn't provide access to on their own.
Unfortunatly going to be really hard to prove this, as the App store and its ability to off software for free makes this argument not entirely accurate.
And they have no argument against ATT being the only service to offer the phone. US courts have ruled exclusive deals like that legal.
The good I see though is perhaps this will loosen Apples requirement on getting on the App store.
Reply
jonathan said 2:42PM on 2-13-2009
once again...read my earlier post. you're getting two and 3 different arguments confused here. the act of jailbreaking does not constitute UNLOCKING your device, nor does it allow for the cracking of legal app store apps. it is POSSIBLE to do these things once the phone's file system has been released from its apple confines, but the actual process of jailbreaking does NOTHING to the effect of what ur describing and defending. Like @William Buckley said, apple currently does not offer copy/paste or MMS functionality. therefore that is "functionality that Apple doesn't provide access to on their own."
fair use!
Unknown said 2:53PM on 2-13-2009
In other words, Apple says that Copy & Paste is illegal !!!
I jailbroke my iPod Touch so I could install Clippy, which provides me with basic copy/paste functionality. Apple refuses to provide this functionality, yet wants to make it illegal to have it? They are f%^&* in the head.
Reply
William Buckley said 2:19PM on 2-13-2009
Let me first start by saying that I love Apple products. The very first computer I saw and touched was an Apple IIe. I am loyal to them and look forwards to new products. That being said, the company is starting to really piss me off by their stance. Lately they have been a little too hard line for me.
I pay for a phone and it is mine. If Apple can't get their act together for something like copy and paste, why can't I get it myself by whatever means I deem necessary? Could my car manufacturer tell me that making mods on my vehicle is illegal?
Reply