“The decision to allow the practice commonly known as ‘jailbreaking’ is one of a handful of new exemptions from a federal law that prohibits the circumvention of technical measures that control access to copyrighted works,” Tessler reports. “Another exemption will allow owners of used cell phones to break access controls on their phones in order to switch wireless carriers.”
Full article here.
Statement of the Librarian of Congress, James H. Billington, Relating to Section 1201 Rulemaking, verbatim:
Section 1201(a)(1) of the copyright law requires that every three years I am to determine whether there are any classes of works that will be subject to exemptions from the statute’s prohibition against circumvention of technology that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work. I make that determination at the conclusion of a rulemaking proceeding conducted by the Register of Copyrights, who makes a recommendation to me. Based on that proceeding and the Register’s recommendation, I am to determine whether the prohibition on circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works is causing or is likely to cause adverse effects on the ability of users of any particular classes of copyrighted works to make noninfringing uses of those works. The classes of works that I designated in the previous proceeding expire at the end of the current proceeding unless proponents of a class prove their case once again.
This is the fourth time that I have made such a determination. Today I have designated six classes of works. Persons who circumvent access controls in order to engage in noninfringing uses of works in these six classes will not be subject to the statutory prohibition against circumvention.
As I have noted at the conclusion of past proceedings, it is important to understand the purposes of this rulemaking, as stated in the law, and the role I have in it. This is not a broad evaluation of the successes or failures of the DMCA. The purpose of the proceeding is to determine whether current technologies that control access to copyrighted works are diminishing the ability of individuals to use works in lawful, noninfringing ways. The DMCA does not forbid the act of circumventing copy controls, and therefore this rulemaking proceeding is not about technologies that control copying. Nor is this rulemaking about the ability to make or distribute products or services used for purposes of circumventing access controls, which are governed by a different part of section 1201.
In this rulemaking, the Register of Copyrights received 19 initial submissions proposing 25 classes of works, many of them duplicative in subject matter, which the Register organized into 11 groups and published in a notice of proposed rulemaking seeking comments on the proposed classes. Fifty-six comments were submitted. Thirty-seven witnesses appeared during the four days of public hearings in Washington and in Palo Alto, California. Transcripts of the hearings, copies of all of the comments, and copies of other information received by the Register have been posted on the Copyright Office’s website.
The six classes of works are:
(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; and
(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 access controls that prevent the enabling either of the book’s read-aloud function or of screen readers that render the text into a specialized format.
All of these classes of works find their origins in classes that I designated at the conclusion of the previous rulemaking proceeding, but some of the classes have changed due to differences in the facts and arguments presented in the current proceeding. For example, in the previous proceeding I designated a class that enable film and media studies professors to engage in the noninfringing activity of making compilations of film clips for classroom instruction. In the current proceeding, the record supported an expansion of that class to enable the incorporation of short portions of motion pictures into documentary films and noncommercial videos for the purpose of criticism or comment, when the person engaging in circumvention reasonably believes that it is necessary to fulfill that purpose. I agree with the Register that the record demonstrates that it is sometimes necessary to circumvent access controls on DVDs in order to make these kinds of fair uses of short portions of motion pictures.
Source: U.S. Copyright Office
MacDailyNews Take: So, if we’re reading this correctly, it’s legal to jailbreak an iPad Wi-Fi + 3G, but not an iPad Wi-Fi?
As long as no one assumes that Apple will support such devices, I’m fine with that.
this will be challenged, a lot of people jail break in order to get apps for free.
I completely misread that headline. I thought it said “Illegal.” I was about to launch into a tirade, but I’m pleased to see that the government got it right this time, even if for the wrong reasons. (They never do anything right for the right reason.)
Did Symantec stock just went up?
hmmmm did i miss it, when is the carrier comply date on this?
As Synthmeister said, I hope people don’t expect apple to support this new “freedom”. In other words, do this at your own risk and don’t come crying when your shit breaks.
The Feds finally did something that I can support. Telling lord Jobs that he cannot control everything is a good thing. A very good thing.
Now, through his incomparable arrogance, he will attempt to find another way to control everything. The day he finally realizes he can’t will be a good day.
Okay, we need legal expert to convert this stuff to plain joe English.
Does “legal” mean free from civil or criminal prosecution? Or does it mean that Apple must now honor warranties on screwed-up equipment due to bad jail breaking? Or both?
And who will be the first to cry to Apple & demand a fix when their device is broken, because they downloaded some App that wasn’t tested.
It will be interesting to see how the wingnuts spin this.
Great, so, the government is getting involved in business again. Stupid.
So if hack my PS3 is that legal now? Or a Droid phone? Or Microsoft Windows?
Jailbreaking should never be a question of legality. However, it can and should be listed in the user agreement (EULA) as an item that voids the warranty and/or will not be supported.
It is your device, do with it as you wish. Just don’t expect the manufacturer to support it.
My concern about jailbroken apps has always been a concern about criminal activities. What if someone develops a jailbroken app that appears to be something good, but takes your PayPal or credit card data.
I’ve looked over the non-approved apps out there, and very few would be on my like to buy list. None on my “must buy” list, except for some tethering app.
And let’s remember, a huge percentage of iPhone users could care less about jailbreaking. Really, it’s a geek thing, not a real person thing. This is a non-story.
The real question is who is going to compensate the developers who start having their Apps stolen? Apple’s tight control is only a pain to .01% of iPhone users and developers, but a huge benefit to all the rest.
Ok, so I can rip a small part of a DVD for commentary / fair use purposes.
I believe the exact wording of the DMCA says that it is illegal to make a software application who’s *primary purpose* is to bypass encryption. This means that, theoretically, you should legally be able to rip DVD’s with VLC, since its obvious primary purpose is to play media, not overcome encryption.
@eric:
Nothing new here by the govt. This is changes to the copywrite laws which been a govt function for probably 200 years.
@YES!
If you think this one-ups Steve Jobs, think again. He already sold you the hardware. Jailbreak away.
I don’t remember it ever being illegal to jailbreak the device. But apple does mention that it voids warranty if you do. Government cant change that one 😀
maybe I wasn’t the only one to submit this article to mdn.. but it seems they dont always post the source who sent it 🙁
OMG Obama is oppressing us!!! His government is taking our freedom!! Ruuuunnn…
Wait… What? They are making it legal for us to modify stuff we own?
Opps sorry, my mistake. Must be that OTHER government I was thinking of.
I give Bush full credit for this.
With the iPhone 4, my only reason to jailbreak is some sort of lockscreen info.
It should be illegal to pirate apps, I have no problem with that.
A non approved app should never harm the hardware of the iPhone, I do see the steal cc# issues, but cydia is good about the apps it has listed.
As far as void the warranty… Just reset the iPhone to factory and the jailbreak is gone.
Unlock… Now that’s messing with the contracts with the manufacturer and carrier. Not sure how that would stand.
@YES!
There is a difference between “control” and “support”. Apple does not have to support jailbreaking. Period.
When people start crying because their iPhone isn’t working like it should, or they start to get viruses…..