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.

Previously in the Apple-Psystar legal battle, the clone maker amended its countersuit to charge that Apple was unfairly leveraging its copyright by binding Mac OS X to Mac hardware.

On Friday, the federal judge assigned to the case ruled that the amendment will be heard by the court, a small victory for Psystar. It's something of a reversal for the company, since they had federal antitrust allegations thrown out in November. Similarly, Psystar's assertion that Apple is in violation of California's antitrust laws was thrown out Friday as well.

Judge William Alsup said, "Psystar may well have a legitimate interest in establishing misuse [of copyright] independent of Apple's claims against it -- for example, to clarify the risks it confronts by marketing the products at issue in this case or others it may wish to develop." This isn't to say that the judge necessarily agrees with Psystar's point, but just that it's legally reasonable enough to be argued in court.

Apple has also not yet revealed its 10 "John Doe" defendants: alleged conspirators who worked on Psystar's technique for loading Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware.

The case will decide whether or not Apple can disallow other hardware makers -- including Psystar -- from including Mac OS X on computers shipped to end users. Last week, a company in Germany claimed that Mac OS X's End User License Agreement didn't apply to them, and is selling Mac clones to customers.

The case is scheduled to go to trial on November 9.

[Via Macworld.]

In what might be the most outlandish claim yet to surface in the case, Psystar now claims that Apple never registered Mac OS X with the U.S. Copyright Office, rendering its copyright invalid, according to InformationWeek. Note that registration isn't a condition of protection, but it is a condition of certain types of infringement actions and damages.

Psystar argues, thus, that since Apple doesn't own the copyright, there's no way for Apple to enforce its claims that Psystar violated its copyright. The claim was filed in U.S. District Court last week.

Although copyright registration number TX0005401457 describes a "computer program" named Mac OS X, it's unclear how Psystar argues this isn't the copyright Apple owns on its operating system. Moreover, contrary to what Psystar appears to argue, copyright is secured automatically in the United States when the work is created, and registration is not a condition of copyright protection (although it can help in fighting infringement). Our Engadget colleague Nilay Patel sums up this latest Psystar legal stratagem as "desperate." Plus, you can file suit while registration is pending, so even if there was some technical defect in the Mac OS X registration, Apple could fix it while pursuing its lawsuit.

If this long shot claim were true, it could undermine Apple's ability to restrict third parties from selling generic clones that run Mac OS X. The back-and-forth arguments are part of a lawsuit Apple originally brought against Psystar for selling Mac OS X with its clones, allegedly in violation of Apple's license agreement. According to InformationWeek, Apple now suspects that a larger company interested in selling Mac OS X-compatible computers is bankrolling Psystar's legal battle.

[Via Engadget.]

You have to admire Psystar's tenacity. Since Judge William Alsup's decision to disallow federal antitrust claims against Apple in Psystar's countersuit, Psystar is amending its countersuit, alleging the misuse of copyright based on different antitrust claims.

It boggles the mind.

Apple is already suing Psystar, of course, claiming that they are violating Mac OS X's End User License Agreement (EULA). Psystar, in its new set of counterclaims, says that Apple is improperly extending the scope of copyright law to include its argument that Psystar broke the EULA.

Psystar claims that -- while admitting that it can't make arguments based on federal antitrust law -- Apple has "leveraged" the power granted them by the Copyright Act and extended it to lock in users post-sale. This, Psystar says, is unlawfully monopolistic, and makes Apple's copyrights unenforceable.

Psystar is also seeking to prove that Apple's behavior is illegal under California's unfair competition statute.

The judge will decide in January if the new claims can be argued in court.

[Via Ars Technica.]

In yet another new facet to this already-draining legal battle surrounding Psystar's sales of non-Apple hardware that runs Mac OS X, Apple has amended its original suit after it discovered "additional information," according to Computerworld.

Apple now claims Psystar circumvented Apple's copyright protection code, in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Apple said in its original filing that Psystar was in violation of the Mac OS X End-User License Agreement, but tacked on this additional charge last week.

The amendment also names 10 "John Does" -- persons who were not part of the Psystar company, but broke the copyright protection scheme. Apple doesn't know who they are yet, but plans to name names when its lawyers find out who they are.

In other Apple legal news, Apple won a trademark infringement case in China against New Apple Concept Digital Technology Co., Ltd., based in Shenzen. Judges decided that the Chinese company had a logo too similar to Apple's. New Ap -- aw, eff it -- NACDTCL was ordered to pay 400,000 yuan (≈ US$58,000) to Apple, Inc.

[Via Cult of Mac.]

We noted yesterday that the Mac clone maker, Psystar, was sued by Apple for copyright infringement, among other things. According to a recent ZDNet post, Apple wants Psystar to recall all of the Mac clones sold since April. "Psystar's actions have been committed with intent to damage Apple and to confuse and deceive the public," Apple claims.

"As a direct and proximate result of Psystar's infringing conduct, Apple has suffered and will continue to suffer lost sales and profits in an amount not yet fully ascertained in an amount to be proven at trial," Apple notes.

I really don't see how Psystar will be able to recover all of the Mac clones sold since April. But, if you bought one, would you send it back? I certainly wouldn't. Engadget, our sister blog, is also looking deeply into this high-profile lawsuit. They take a look at what each allegation means for both Apple and Psystar.

For years, legislators in Japan have wanted a portion of the price of a digital recording device (up to 3%) to go to recording companies, songwriters and artists. The so-called "iPod tax" has met opposition from electronics manufacturers, as you could imagine.

However, it looks like it's not going to happen. A group failed to create an agreement yet again this week, prompting official Masafumi Kiyota to say that "...there is virtually no hope for getting the legislation passed." Certainly good news for consumers.

Other electronic devices like minidisk players and DVD recorders have a copyright tax built into the price tag in Japan. The logic (if you want to call it that) is that consumers will use these devices to illegally acquire copyrighted material, so why not have them pay for it before hand, as a preemptive strike? Sounds to me like someone has contempt for their customers.

A firm named Man and Machine is suing both Apple and CBS for trademark infringement for using the Mighty Mouse name to describe a computer input device. Man and Machine makes hygenic water- and chemical-resistant keyboards and mice for hospitals and laboratories.

Man and Machine claims CBS (who owns the cartoon property, which may or may not be pictured) did not have the legal authority to license the name to Apple. Man and Machine holds a trademark for use of the Mighty Mouse name in conjunction with an interface controller. It claims it first used the term in 2004, but only filed for the trademark in December 2007. CBS's trademark (which covers Apple's device) was filed in July 2007, indicating its first use was in 2005 (when the Mighty Mouse came out).

Thus the tension. It's unclear if Man and Machine licensed the Mighty Mouse name (as Apple did) and whether or not that will influence the outcome.

[via 9-to-5 Mac]

The latest news in the NBC/Apple battle? NBC is going to make their own iTunes. With blackjack! And women! In fact, forget the blackjack and the women-- they're calling it "NBC Direct," and a brand new player (not available on Mac for a little while, go figure) will be used to download and play television shows just as soon as they finish airing on television.

Sounds cool, right? What's the catch? The player is NBC only, and heavy DRM in there keeps it from playing anything else at all, including that scary "stolen copyrighted material." If you're going to use their player, you'll have to watch their shows, or else. I'd make a prediction that someone will hack it to play other stuff, but frankly, who cares. If NBC wants to go play in their own (non-Mac pool) let 'em, I say.

They also say that, in the future, they may even offer download-to-own, rental, and subscription business models. If only there was a well-designed, very established and compatible, widespread piece of software out there that let them easily do that right now. Oh well. Good luck, NBC. Say hi to Tina Fey for me, and tell her I'll see her on bittorrent.

[via MacRumors]

We've just received word via Engadget that you may not use iTMS-purchased music or previews as ringtones.

Engadget's awesome Nilay Patel addressed the issue this morning, clarifying that although you can legally install ringtones ripped from your personal CDs, iTMS tracks and previews are off-limits. He writes that the iTMS EULA prohibits the use of downloaded files as ringtones, probably due to its contracts with the music industry. Music ripped from CDs, however, are not derivative works and do not infringe copyrights.

Looks like Steve Jobs has found allies in the form of Yahoo! Music and Monster Cable executives in the quest to banish DRM. An executive from competitor Yahoo! Music, Dave Goldberg chimes in with: ``I've long advocated removing DRM on music because there is already a lot of music available without DRM, and it just makes things complicated for the user." Claiming Microsoft's brand of DRM ``doesn't work half the time", the exec claimed Yahoo! made several attempts to offer music with or without DRM, and the removal of DRM has improved sales.

Additionally, Monster Cable backed up Jobs with a statement from head Noel Lee: ``Monster Cable shares Mr. Jobs' vision of breaking constraints for legal music downloads.... DRM is a complex and political issue, but digital music compatibility is even more complicated to consumers and limiting to the industry.... We are proud to support an open format and leaders like Steve Jobs who are making the efforts to get us there." The Monster Music branch offers a music format known as SuperDisc, which contains high definition surround tracks and DRM-free files. So... what now? Will other companies continue to stand up, or will Apple and the others buckle under the continued pressure from major labels to keep the DRM system intact?

Bad news for our buddies up north: Canada's Private Copyright Collective (CPCC) is hoping to tax consumers who purchase portable MP3 players, planning to compensate musicians for money lost due to copyright infringement and music copying. The Canadian federal court turned down the previous lobbying attempt made by the CPCC last year, because their law did not recognize portable players' hard drives and memory storage among its list of recording media. However, this hasn't stopped the CPCC from trying again, with a new proposal that suggests taxes on MP3 players in the amounts of $5CAD for players with up to 1GB of storage, $25CAD for players up to 10GB, $50CAD for players holding 10GB-30GB, and $75CAD for any player holding more than 30GB. Steep. In addition to MP3 players, the CPCC hopes to include memory cards (SD, MMC, Memory Sticks, etc.) to the list of taxable items. (Insert eye rolling here.)

(via MacNN)

Grubs (that's what I call Daring Fireball's John Gruber, we're cool like that) posted Star Wars TSG to his Linked List and it is a winner. And by winner I mean a small, free application that wastes far more of your time than it should, but for some reason you're not upset about all that lost time.

Star Wars TSG does one thing: lets you create your very own 'Star Wars title crawl.' If you don't know your Ewoks from your Klingons you might not be aware that the opening title sequence to each Star Wars movie follows the same basic format. This is the format that Star Wars TSG allows you to create for yourself. It even outputs your creation in a number of different sizes. One word of caution: this application renders a sequence of bitmaps that you can stitch together using QuickTime (or another movie editing suite). This means that you should be careful where you point the 'Destination Folder' in the Generate section. You're going to be generating around 800 images to create your masterpiece, and something tells me you don't want them all cluttering up your desktop.

I used the question mark because nothing is set in stone here, but TUAW reader Ann-CA tipped us off to a report at the DVD Newsroom that Hollywood might actually be close to lifting some of their over-the-top restrictions on DVD burning. This slightly loosened grip on their content could allow for things like DVD burning kiosks (it better be a darn fast burner), and it could also give the green light to vendors like the iTunes Music Store to allow burning of purchased videos.

The panel in charge of making and (finally) rewriting these rules is called the DVD Copy Control Association, according to DVD Newsroom. This DVDCCA is currently working on licensing the encryption technology (Content Scrambling System, or: CSS - nothing to do with web design) to digital distribution services, which is the key to allowing video burning.

No ETA is offered on when these rewritten rules could see the light of day, or when video burning could arrive in the iTMS. If Hollywood's reaction times of the past are any indication (and I genuinely hope they aren't), however, we might all be using 7th or 8th gen iPods before we can watch iTMS video on something besides Apple-branded devices.

First off, I would like to note that this post is an opinion piece, and though it contains facts, the opinions contained therein are definitely biased towards open source, open standards, the freedom of software programmers, and technological innovation.

France's Assemblé Nationale voted in yesterday evening the DADVSI, a rather hideous proposal which will most likely become law when France's Sénat deems it constitutional and President Chirac signs it. Both of the latter are likely as the president is of the same majority right party (UMP) as the Assemblé Nationale. The New York Times (and Slashdot) have noted incorrectly that the law will contain clauses for interoperability required of iTunes and iPods, but those amendments did not make it into the final proposal voted on Thursday night. Read on for a breakdown of the law as it currently awaits, almost certain, approval.