New Gov't Rules Allow Unapproved IPhone Apps

hrm, this article about sounds fake to be honest. Too much change from people with no balls.
 
pxc said:
It depends what it fixes. If it's just a crack, there's not a new exception:
Click to expand...

This is still huge though. I will be interested to see how the cracking community argues their actions towards security. For example, you could argue that Ubisoft games phoning home are a security risk because they open up another port that hackers could piggy back on.

Securom.. Modifying drivers/kernal... yea..
 
God damn big government making rules changes that benefit consumers!! I blame Obama for this travesty.

Oh wait.. this is awesome for us.

God damn government putting those crappy rules in place to begin with!! I blame Obama for not doing shit about it until the freedom fighters stepped up and showed him what's what!!
 
The article doesn't cite the original source, so here it is: http://www.copyright.gov/1201/

Doesn't make cracks legal. You can crack and inspect the code but you can't distribute it since that would facilitate copyright infringement.

I like how all of the headlines read "New Gov't Rules Allow Unapproved IPhone Apps" when the rules don't apply to just Apple devices. I do get that this may have flown over peoples heads if it didn't.
 
pxc said:
It depends what it fixes. If it's just a crack, there's not a new exception:
Click to expand...

Hmmm... well, that's plenty of wiggle room then. :p

I suppose anyone could argue that disabling a process that has to phone home could be considered a security vulnerability. Interesting indeed. And if it's a patcher program, the .exe would not have to be copied. You would have to own an .exe before it gets patched.
 
Bgrngod said:
God damn big government making rules changes that benefit consumers!! I blame Obama for this travesty.

Oh wait.. this is awesome for us.

God damn government putting those crappy rules in place to begin with!! I blame Obama for not doing shit about it until the freedom fighters stepped up and showed him what's what!!
Click to expand...

uhhh, unless I'm missing something, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with obama or his administration.
 
Bgrngod said:
God damn big government making rules changes that benefit consumers!! I blame Obama for this travesty.

Oh wait.. this is awesome for us.

God damn government putting those crappy rules in place to begin with!! I blame Obama for not doing shit about it until the freedom fighters stepped up and showed him what's what!!
Click to expand...

This is called a WIN for the free markets.

This is called a LOSS for big Lobby.

Government is not getting bigger. On the contrary.
 
tesfaye said:
Doesn't make cracks legal. You can crack and inspect the code but you can't distribute it since that would facilitate copyright infringement.
Click to expand...
It's still a major thing. If crackers start shifting their efforts away from simply distributing cracks and instead focus their attention on making security vulnerabilities public (of which I'm sure they're numerous), they'll have the legal immunity now to do so. Eventually this could create a situation in which the security vulnerabilities in these copyright protection schemes to become so well-known that publishers would have no choice but to shy away from their implementation due to the negative press associated with them.

We can hope, anyway.
 
so can verizon put out a patch for my phone so I can uninstall all the shit that I don't want randomly starting every 5 minutes that is totally usless (like Amazon MP3 store)

I'd rather them just fix it and not have to break the phone.
 
tesfaye said:
The article doesn't cite the original source, so here it is: http://www.copyright.gov/1201/

Doesn't make cracks legal. You can crack and inspect the code but you can't distribute it since that would facilitate copyright infringement.

I like how all of the headlines read "New Gov't Rules Allow Unapproved IPhone Apps" when the rules don't apply to just Apple devices. I do get that this may have flown over peoples heads if it didn't.
Click to expand...

I mentioned it earlier, but wouldn't a pre-programmed binary (.exe) modifier be except from illegal redistribution?

To take an example, could someone write a patcher program that would modify the binaries of your purchased Assassins Creed 2 exe in order to make your exe match that of say, Skid Row's AC2 exe? The exe isn't distributed.
 
Modred189 said:
Not necessarily. The law, from the link, says that as the end user you CAN do these things and not create DMCA issues. That does not mean that the providers are barred from creating a contract in which you agree not to. It's the same with software. The EULA describes thing that, while legal, you agree NOT to do. The breach of that contract has legal ramifications.
Click to expand...

This.

I didn't go through the law in detail (unfortunately, they make me do real work here on occasion :) ), but this is the first thing I thought. Just because something is legal to do in a general sense doesn't mean two parties can't agree to a contract saying they won't do it.

A poor analogy for you (I know how much people love them on the internet): I can legally quit my job at anytime, but that doesn't mean my employer can't sue my ass for not fulfilling my contract.

All that being said, I would guess that this law will make companies a little more cautious about how aggressively they draft and enforce their EULAs.
 
The_Law said:
This.

I didn't go through the law in detail (unfortunately, they make me do real work here on occasion :) ), but this is the first thing I thought. Just because something is legal to do in a general sense doesn't mean two parties can't agree to a contract saying they won't do it.

A poor analogy for you (I know how much people love them on the internet): I can legally quit my job at anytime, but that doesn't mean my employer can't sue my ass for not fulfilling my contract.

All that being said, I would guess that this law will make companies a little more cautious about how aggressively they draft and enforce their EULAs.
Click to expand...

The difference is that a contract which violates law is unenforceable. There is no law stating that an employer cannot set a term of employment via contract, so they could sue you for violating contract. There is a law saying that you are permitted to modify your phone. The law always supersedes all contracts.

For example, someone cannot kill you even if you sign a contract permitting them.
 
Azhar said:
It may not even be their choice. Android on AT&T for example is restricted to Android Marketplace. You will not be allowed to install apps outside of it.
Click to expand...

Not to be picky, but ALL Android Apps come from the Android Market Place. And it is owned and ran by Google, not AT&T. It's really just a repository for the apps, though it does collect money for the non-free apps. Anybody can become an Android Developer and have their free apps hosted there.

Windows Mobile has a similar Market Place.

The big difference between those and Apple's App Store is the approval/requirements that Apple places on the apps and their download. If Steve Jobs thinks your app shouldn't be named "ShitStorm" then it won't be approved.

Apps for both Windows Mobile and Android can be downloaded from the web and installed, the marketplaces just make it more convenient . You can't do that with apps for Apple's products.

And up until Zune came along, Microsoft barely supported their Marketplace and almost all of the Windows Mobile apps were never even posted there.

Hopefully Windows 7 Mobile will change a few things.
 
demingo said:
The difference is that a contract which violates law is unenforceable. There is no law stating that an employer cannot set a term of employment via contract, so they could sue you for violating contract. There is a law saying that you are permitted to modify your phone. The law always supersedes all contracts.

For example, someone cannot kill you even if you sign a contract permitting them.
Click to expand...

I don't think this law states that it is unlawful for a phone carrier/manufacturer to lock down a phone though. It simply says it is not illegal to crack it. Much like it is not illegal for me to quit my job. However, that doesn't mean there aren't contractual limitations on either.

I could be wrong as I really haven't had a chance to read through the law. I will poke through later and maybe become more enlightened. :)
 
this will be fun, I wonder what will happen when unapproved apps that have exploits on the m surfance,lol, since Apple has little experience on these things how are they gonna handle them. lol
 
rodsfree said:
Apps for both Windows Mobile and Android can be downloaded from the web and installed, the marketplaces just make it more convenient . You can't do that with apps for Apple's products.
Click to expand...
Yet what many don't seem to realize is that jailbreaking was never illegal despite Jobs' claims to the contrary, just unsupported. So, yes, you can most certainly install apps on iPhones, iPods and iPads that aren't from Apple's curated marketplace, but you do so without Apple's support via jailbreaking. The only thing that changed here today is that it was made clear that, in the U.S., jailbreaking isn't illegal — which is something we've known all along.
 
phide said:
Yet what many don't seem to realize is that jailbreaking was never illegal despite Jobs' claims to the contrary, just unsupported. So, yes, you can most certainly install apps on iPhones, iPods and iPads that aren't from Apple's curated marketplace, but you do so without Apple's support via jailbreaking. The only thing that changed here today is that it was made clear that, in the U.S., jailbreaking isn't illegal — which is something we've known all along.
Click to expand...

I was aware that you could install unsupported apps on the iPhone after Jailbreaking it. My point was that Android and Windows Mobile allowed you to install whatever you wanted, whenever you wanted to, right out of the box.

Now, Apple is going to have to open up their OS for everybody, without jailbreaking the phone!!!
 
Parmenides said:
I mentioned it earlier, but wouldn't a pre-programmed binary (.exe) modifier be except from illegal redistribution?

To take an example, could someone write a patcher program that would modify the binaries of your purchased Assassins Creed 2 exe in order to make your exe match that of say, Skid Row's AC2 exe? The exe isn't distributed.
Click to expand...
I didn't see your post and I didn't take this scenario into consideration. I think you would be right, this should be true but I'm sure there's an army of attorneys that would find a way to get a ruling stating otherwise.
 
rodsfree said:
Now, Apple is going to have to open up their OS for everybody, without jailbreaking the phone!!!
Click to expand...

I am not so sure about that. An excerpt from the law:

Persons making noninfringing uses of the following six classes of works will not be subject to the prohibition against circumventing access controls (17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)) until the conclusion of the next rulemaking. [It then goes on to list the topics already discussed (phone hacking, DRM hacking, etc.)]
Click to expand...

My reading of that is that you can do these things legally. That doesn't mean DRM and locked down phones are going to disappear. Only that you can hack them and not worry about breaking any copyright infringement laws.
 
tesfaye said:
I didn't see your post and I didn't take this scenario into consideration. I think you would be right, this should be true but I'm sure there's an army of attorneys that would find a way to get a ruling stating otherwise.
Click to expand...

lol, true. Although it might only take one court case with a strong precedent to be set before the attorneys will have to find other fish to fry.
 
phide said:
It's still a major thing. If crackers start shifting their efforts away from simply distributing cracks and instead focus their attention on making security vulnerabilities public (of which I'm sure they're numerous), they'll have the legal immunity now to do so. Eventually this could create a situation in which the security vulnerabilities in these copyright protection schemes to become so well-known that publishers would have no choice but to shy away from their implementation due to the negative press associated with them.

We can hope, anyway.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

rodsfree said:
Now, Apple is going to have to open up their OS for everybody, without jailbreaking the phone!!!
Click to expand...
I don't think this will happen at all. I think they can and will refuse support if the device has been modified. They don't have to open anything, it's up to the end user to modify the device's software.

And, as far as the carriers go, I don't think any of this will mean that they have to accept "cracked" devices on their network. The terms in the ammendment say "used" device, how are operators supposed to differentiate the unused devices from the used ones? That's a verification process they probably won't want to implement. I'm guessing that since the rule states USED device, the carrier could be on the hook for providing service to new devices designed to work for another carrier.
 
tesfaye said:
Agreed.

I don't think this will happen at all. I think they can and will refuse support if the device has been modified. They don't have to open anything, it's up to the end user to modify the device's software.

And, as far as the carriers go, I don't think any of this will mean that they have to accept "cracked" devices on their network. The terms in the ammendment say "used" device, how are operators supposed to differentiate the unused devices from the used ones? That's a verification process they probably won't want to implement. I'm guessing that since the rule states USED device, the carrier could be on the hook for providing service to new devices designed to work for another carrier.
Click to expand...

It all really does depend on the legal definition of "used". It doesn't necessarily mean out of contract. For example, a car is used if it is purchased and driven off the lot.

By and large this is going to create the opportunity for LOTS of legal wrangling that the Phone makers/ Service Carriers/ OS Makers would be better off not participating in, from a financial standpoint.

Google will continue with the open source thing and become even more attractive by letting Apple bang it's head against the legal wall. And Microsoft will probably follow in Google's tracks, at least partially, as demonstrated by past actions with Windows Mobile.

And I think all of this is "A Good Thing!" ;)
 
rodsfree said:
It all really does depend on the legal definition of "used". It doesn't necessarily mean out of contract. For example, a car is used if it is purchased and driven off the lot.

By and large this is going to create the opportunity for LOTS of legal wrangling that the Phone makers/ Service Carriers/ OS Makers would be better off not participating in, from a financial standpoint.

Google will continue with the open source thing and become even more attractive by letting Apple bang it's head against the legal wall. And Microsoft will probably follow in Google's tracks, at least partially, as demonstrated by past actions with Windows Mobile.

And I think all of this is "A Good Thing!" ;)
Click to expand...
Right, I should have said previously activated devices. I'm assuming "Used" to mean devices that have been previously activated on the network it was originally designed to work with.

ShadowStriker said:
I feel like there's a catch somewhere. Afterall, there's no such thing as a free lunch.
Click to expand...
Oh, there's always a catch, and we'll probably have to read more of the laws to find it. I don't recall ever reading the entire DMCA so the catch could very well be in there somewhere.
 
ShadowStriker said:
I feel like there's a catch somewhere. Afterall, there's no such thing as a free lunch.
Click to expand...

The only "catch" I can see is that this law is just legalizing everything people have been doing anyway.

The fun part is going to be watching all of the providers/manufacturers/OS makers.

What are they going to do???? Hmmmmm


Apple/Steve Jobs won't just roll over on this, he'll end up in court with somebody. And he'll start lobbying to get the law amended/rewritten to what he want's it to say. I just don't think he's got deep enough pockets to succeed.
 
Or the catch is a new tax. Or the deficit is actually higher. Anything to draw attention away!

"Look a distraction!"
 
Modred189 said:
Keep in mind that though means it's legal, that does not mean that the provider can't prohibit it via the EULA.
Click to expand...
You mean the one where I have my trained monkey press the checkbox and hit the "OK" button? So, who's gonna sue my monkey?

I'm certainly not bound by any stupid EULA that's not an actual negotiated and NOTARIZED signed contract between two parties, you shouln't think you are either. Shrink wrap my ass.

But wow, amazing, the government not coming down against "The People", finally. About time, I thought this government was "Of The People, By The People, and For The People [not The Corporation]".

:D
 
rodsfree said:
Apple/Steve Jobs won't just roll over on this, he'll end up in court with somebody. And he'll start lobbying to get the law amended/rewritten to what he want's it to say.
Click to expand...
It's not a law, but a ruling that gets (re)evaluated or considered every 3 years. If Steve-o doesn't like it, too bad. What Apple can do is get more nasty about the license terms or altering future models to make them harder to crack.

In 2 more years when exemptions are considered again, it's possible that this ruling could go away.
 
Am I seeing some more loopholes here?

New DMCA rules said:
(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

Does this mean that I can legally make a backup copy of my own legally purchased movies as long as I don't distribute it, thus classifying my copy as a "non commercial video"?
Click to expand...
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
Does this mean that I can legally make a backup copy of my own legally purchased movies as long as I don't distribute it, thus classifying my copy as a "non commercial video"?
Click to expand...

And how exactly does making a backup of a commercial video automagically classify it as a "non commercial video?" :confused:
 
ir0nw0lf said:
And how exactly does making a backup of a commercial video automagically classify it as a "non commercial video?" :confused:
Click to expand...
"Non-commercial" is an extremely broad word. Anything that is produced but NOT sold could be classified as "non-commercial." That's why I am asking if that producing a backup copy of my own legally purchased movies can be classified as "non-commercial."
 
This is not a law people, so I don't see why Apple or any company could not prohibit this activity via an EULA. The law was from 1998, and this merely adds exemptions to that law. Think of it this way: by default, everything is legal. The government can only make things illegal, or expressly say that something cannot be made illegal (protecting the legality), which is done by defining the terms under which something must operate (thus making everything else illegal).

I haven't read this thoroughly, but it appears to me that the law from 1998 made certain activities illegal, and this ruling merely adds a subset of those activities to a list of exemptions that don't have to comply with the law. In other words, this ruling doesn't say it's illegal to ban jailbreaking, it just says that jailbreaking is not considered illegal by default.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top