“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?
It’s never been “illegal” to jail break a phone. I does however break the (EULA) agreement between the “end user” and manufacturer, as Fisherbln pointed out.
Apple has never stopped “end users” from jail breaking their phones and has stated publicly. Anyone who does so does at their own risk and Apple has the right NOT to cover any product under the warranty agreement.
Knock yourself out folks but afterwards don’t bitch when your phone doesn’t work or when your money or identify is stollen.
Have a great day!
I have no intention of jailbreaking my iPhones.
I also adamantly refuse to support lord Jobs’ – the control freak of all time – belief that he is all knowing and therefore qualified to decide what I can and cannot do with my property.
Does SJ statement about a “kill switch” apply whe there is jail breaking? Just asking.
@ Randy. Yes, the “kill switch” turns on during the jail break when you hit the electric fence.
@YES!
why are you even here? Don’t you have a xerox/ erm i mean windows phone to wait for?
this has nothing to do with the iPhone or iPad
not what they are intended to discuss
What the?…
How do you make something that was never “illegal” in the first place, suddenly become “legal”??
@fisherbin:
My thoughts exactly! If a person buys a device, it is their property and they can do pretty much whatever they want with it. The manufacturer does *not* have to support it, though. I would clarify that regardless of whether a device is jailbroken, an obvious hardware failure within the warranty period should be covered by the warranty. For example, if the volume control breaks on your jailbroken iPhone 3 months after you bought it, Apple should honor the warranty. If the phone won’t place calls any longer, but all hardware is functional, too bad on you. Apple should *not* have to fix it.
Does this mess with Motorola’s decision to lock down its Android phones?
As a content creator, I seriously object to the weakening of copyright laws in any shape, manner or form. Intellectual property is already under massive assault on all fronts. You can take issue with closed systems vs open all you like. But when they okay the breaking of content locks in e-books or DVDs they’ve gone too far. The decision you’re applauding (to legitimize jailbreaking) reaches farther than just the big rich corporations. It’s about my creative endeavors and my legal right to control what happens to them and to ensure that I get paid for them.
I’ve never heard of anyone going to jail or being fined for “jail-breaking” an iPhone. Didn’t realize it was “illegal” to do so previously…
@Synthmeister: “As long as no one assumes that Apple will support such devices, I’m fine with that.”
Don’t think that the gang in Washington and the cronies like the EFF won’t jump from this to that and the “that” is “TELLING” Apple they have to warranty a Jail Broke product!
You’ve heard of the Apple Tax. Well this is called the Federal Tax! The US Government’s Actions have Reactions in the Real World… There are some idiots in the Government and some of their followers too, that “Cheer” when the Government “Sticks it to the (Corporate) Man!” How does one think a business would pay a “Federal Tax” like this?
Apple Care will no longer be $69.00 but $469.00!
Have you hugged your child today?
Have you smacked the shit out of your politician today?!
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”LOL” style=”border:0;” />
What the hell are you even talking about?
“Lord” Jobs doesn’t care if somebody decides to jailbreak their iPhone/iPad and never has. As somebody else pointed out, selling Apple hardware is the important part. Not what people do to it after they buy it.
He doesn’t even seem to care about the OSX86 project.
I seriously can’t think of a single major player who has less interest in controlling the what end-users do than Jobs. Microsoft is the ultimate dictator when it comes to controlling users, Google is trying to force their services/software down everybody’s throats so they can have their privacy invaded for advertising purposes… And that leaves… What?
As usual, you’re just another troll claiming that up is down and black is white.
who ever thought it was illegal? was someone prosecuted?
…that said, jailbreaking still might be “stupid”….but there are a lot of legal things that are…
if jailbreaking was illegal then everyone who was using an iphone on tmobile would most likely be fined.
@ YES!
No.
And does anyone think they are going to buy a $199 iPhone WITHOUT a contract with a carrier? News for you: The unlocked iPhone will be $599. You want to buy one with a contract at $199 and then jailbreak it? Fine, just pay the $400 cancellation fee. To quote Bugs Bunny: “What a bunch of Maroons!”
Did anyone else catch that removing video game DRM is legal if you deem it a security risk? I deem it a sanity risk, most of the time…
I’m just waiting for all the dumbasses who get into all sorts of trouble and then come crying to Apple to save them. Apple should then give them the big middle finger.
Apple Care call the day after outside apps are allowed:
Apple: Hello, may I help you?
Cust: Yes, my iPhone just quit working.
Apple: Have you made any recent changes to your iPhone?
Cust: Well, I did download and install an app from some web site in Bulgaria so I could see their porn videos in HD.
Apple: Well, Sir, when you did that you voided all warranties except hardware failure. You’ll have to take your iPhone to the nearest Apple store to have the hardware checked.
At the Apple Store Genius Bar:
Genius: Well, Sir, there’s a $35 diagnostic fee that you’ll have to pay if it isn’t a hardware problem. We’ve been swamped with people who are exactly in your situation and we can’t do this for free.
Cust: OK, I’ll just use my credit card to pay for it…..What do you mean it’s declined for being maxed out?!!!
Apple management meeting after the first 10 days of the new rules:
Customer Service Manager: Support calls to Apple Care are up 3000%. Wait times are up from 2 minutes to an hour or more. We need to hire more support staff, increase our support budget, and charge more for Apple Care.
App Store Manager: We’re loosing sales to copycat applications that are half price or free. Most of them don’t work very well, but people don’t realize that because they never see the real app. Maybe we should rethink providing an App Store service. It’s going to get increasingly expensive as the volume diminishes and prices are cut.
iPhone Sales Manager: People are really objecting to the cost of an unlocked iPhone. Mostly they are going with the carrier and its contract anyway. Nobody wants to put out the additional $400 up front for an unlocked iPhone.
And so ends my story, friends and neighbors. We managed to screw up a pretty good system because of a few malcontents. And what did we gain? Nothing! But we sure taught Steve Jobs a lesson, right?
For those who were wondering Yes jail-breaking has been Illegal till now.
This is because all jail-breaks depend on copying and modifying Apple’s firmware.
Note its not illegal (criminal) anymore but its unlawful (civilly) at least using any Apple software afterwards.
“Did Symantec stock just went up?”
English as she is written. Pathetic!
@theloniousMac
Your level of cynicism is ridiculous. Go find an anarchist state and live there. Governments, in general, certainly do some ridiculous things, but they also do many good things. And there are many hardworking and productive people employed by the U.S. and state governments who deserve your praise, not your derision.
@YES!
Cell phones have been locked for years, you idiot. This is not a “Lord Jobs” situation. Besides, Apple can continue to intelligently manage the iPhone ecosystem for those who choose to remain within it.
It is true that relatively few people cared about locked until the iPhone. That just shows you how important Apple has become in consumer electronics design and policy. Apple is the rule changer, the Wilt Chamberlain of mobile devices.
Talking on T-Mobile and retrieving data over an EDGE network is no way to go through life. Apple didn’t lose here.
Finally, I can actually agree with a government decision.
And I hope T-Mobile gets the iPhone quick. I would order mine in a heartbeat.