5,594,805 Members 36,893 Now Online
XDA Developers Android and Mobile Development Forum

EFF Regulatives for "jailbreakin"

Tip us?
 
NielDK
Old
#1  
NielDK's Avatar
Retired Forum Modertor / Recognized Developer - OP
Thanks Meter 102
Posts: 470
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Farum

 
DONATE TO ME
Default EFF Regulatives for "jailbreakin"

www.eff.org/issues/dmca-rulemaking

now how can Google/HTC justify legality of avoiding warranty by unlocking our devices......
 
Jack_R1
Old
#2  
Senior Member
Thanks Meter 931
Posts: 4,277
Join Date: Aug 2009
Very easily - there are no regulations. This is a proposal - which also wasn't accepted, if I read correctly.

Moreover, quoting:
"Another proposal requests a DMCA exemption for cell phone "jailbreaking" -- liberating iPhones and other handsets to run applications from sources other than those approved by the phone maker".
Where do you see anything about warranty? Android's equivalent of "jailbreaking" is going into "Settings/Applications" and selecting a checkbox. Nobody talks about warranty anywhere.
 
NielDK
Old
#3  
NielDK's Avatar
Retired Forum Modertor / Recognized Developer - OP
Thanks Meter 102
Posts: 470
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Farum

 
DONATE TO ME
I dont quite agree. This is a clarification. That removing DRM Pprotection is OK.
I know that it not directly gives attention to other than DRM, which in itself is positive. BUT it recognizes the legality of modyfing our phones and I would say this is a step forward.
I guess it will not go without a fight....
 
Jack_R1
Old
(Last edited by Jack_R1; 27th July 2010 at 07:40 AM.)
#4  
Senior Member
Thanks Meter 931
Posts: 4,277
Join Date: Aug 2009
Gotta love how people manage to read what they want to read...

Quoting:
"In 2003, EFF filed for four exemptions, all seeking to allow consumers to repair DRM-crippled CDs and DVDs. All four exemptions were denied."
"In 2009, EFF is seeking three exemptions: One to allow video remixing, and two to allow cell phone unlocking."

Let me explain something. DRM protection is stated in LAWS (which vary from country to country, BTW). Laws are made by GOVERNMENTS. EFF is NO GOVERNMENT, it CAN'T CHANGE LAWS, it CAN'T CREATE LAWS, it CAN'T REMOVE LAWS.

Specifically in this case - it ASKED for several exemptions to be made, and they were DENIED. How do you deduce anything of what you wrote here from what you read?


And again, how is that about warranty at all? The warranty isn't void because you install non-certified applications on the phone, or "bypass" DRM. Nobody prevents you from doing that. The warranty is void if you deliberately choose to alter the firmware of the phone - for obvious reasons, which aren't connected to DRM in any way.

On a side note - you might as well be grateful that it is made this way. GPL v2, under which Linux and this phone's FW reside, states that you have to release the software that falls under it, but in no place it says anything about protection mechanisms, and if the platform wasn't designed for tinkering with - you might very well have been stuck with ROMs that you can't flash with anything but provider-signed ROMs with keys that you couldn't have, and it would still be perfectly legal.
 
NielDK
Old
#5  
NielDK's Avatar
Retired Forum Modertor / Recognized Developer - OP
Thanks Meter 102
Posts: 470
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Farum

 
DONATE TO ME
A more comprehensive decision from Library of Congress
https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/d.../RM-2008-8.pdf

A big document, but overall, the conclusion is that circumventing DRM is OK as long as other copyright infringements are not violated.

As for the copyright issue. As you stated Android is GPL, so, as we know, we cant diatribute or even change HTC/Google copyrighted material. However, this is not the case for unlocking, jailbreaking etc.

I rest my case

Quote:
Final Regulations
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 37 CFR part 201 is amended as
follows:
<REGTEXT TITLE="GENERAL PROVISIONS" PART="201">
Part 201GENERAL PROVISIONS
1.The authority citation for part 201 continues to read as follows:
Authority:
17 U.S.C. 702
2.Section 201.40 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
201.40 Exemption to prohibition against circumvention.
(b)Classes of copyrighted works. Pursuant to the authority set forth in 17
U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(C) and (D), and upon the recommendation of the Register of
Copyrights, the Librarian has determined that the prohibition against
circumvention of technological measures that effectively control access to
copyrighted works set forth in 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(A) shall not apply to
persons who engage in noninfringing uses of the following five classes of
copyrighted works:
(1)Motion pictures on DVDs that are lawfully made and acquired and that are
protected by the Content Scrambling System when circumvention is accomplished
solely in order to accomplish the incorporation of short portions of motion
pictures into new works for the purpose of criticism or comment, and where the
person engaging in circumvention believes and has reasonable grounds for
believing that circumvention is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the use in
the following instances:
(i)Educational uses by college and university professors and by college and
university film and media studies students;
(ii)Documentary filmmaking;
(iii)Noncommercial videos.
(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.
(3)Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable used
wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telecommunications network,
when circumvention is initiated by the owner of the copy of the computer program
solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and access
to the network is authorized by the operator of the network.
(4)Video games accessible on personal computers and protected by technological
protection measures that control access to lawfully obtained works, when
circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of good faith testing for,
investigating, or correcting security flaws or vulnerabilities, if:
(i)The information derived from the security testing is used primarily to
promote the security of the owner or operator of a computer, computer system, or
computer network; and
(ii)The information derived from the security testing is used or maintained in a
manner that does not facilitate copyright infringement or a violation of
applicable law.
(5)Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction
or damage and which are obsolete. A dongle shall be considered obsolete if it is
no longer manufactured or if a replacement or repair is no longer reasonably
available in the commercial marketplace.
(6)Literary works distributed in ebook format when all existing ebook editions
of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized
entities) contain accesscontrols that prevent the enabling either of the
book&rsquo;s readaloud function or of screen readers that render the text into a
specialized format.
Dated: July 20, 2010
James H. Billington,
The Librarian of Congress.
 
Jack_R1
Old
(Last edited by Jack_R1; 27th July 2010 at 09:07 AM.)
#6  
Senior Member
Thanks Meter 931
Posts: 4,277
Join Date: Aug 2009
Excellent, but looks like your case is worth nothing. Here's a quick summary:
  • You can legally SIM-unlock the phone under Exemption 3. Oh, wait, if there is a SIM-locked Android handset - that definitely won't be Nexus. Useless.
  • You can run legally obtained SW not provided by your Market / cellular provider / other predefined "allowed" entity, that wouldn't install on your phone otherwise, under Exemption 2. Oh great, that's what the "Unknown sources" checkbox in Application Settings stands for. Again, useless.
All the other DRM in question are completely irrelevant, from CSS which is circumvented since years ago to obsolete dongles.

Now, again, what would be your argument connecting this and warranty?
 
NielDK
Old
#7  
NielDK's Avatar
Retired Forum Modertor / Recognized Developer - OP
Thanks Meter 102
Posts: 470
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Farum

 
DONATE TO ME
Look, all Iam saying is It is my opinion this is at least a step in the right direction.
I get all of your points, and they are all valid. I also agree on your statement for specific country laws. However, lots of countries are following directions set by US laws and regulations.
We will see what this brings for the future.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack_R1 View Post
Excellent, but looks like your case is worth nothing. Here's a quick summary:
  • You can legally SIM-unlock the phone under Exemption 3. Oh, wait, if there is a SIM-locked Android handset - that definitely won't be Nexus. Useless.
  • You can run legally obtained SW not provided by your Market / cellular provider / other predefined "allowed" entity, that wouldn't install on your phone otherwise, under Exemption 2. Oh great, that's what the "Unknown sources" checkbox in Application Settings stands for. Again, useless.
All the other DRM in question are completely irrelevant, from CSS which is circumvented since years ago to obsolete dongles.

Now, again, what would be your argument connecting this and warranty?

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


TRENDING IN THEMER...