EFF Wins Renewal of Smartphone Jailbreaking Rights(eff.org)
eff.org
EFF Wins Renewal of Smartphone Jailbreaking Rights
https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-wins-renewal-smartphone-jailbreaking-rights-plus-new-legal-protections-video
4 comments
DMCA is ineffective anyways in doing what it was designed to do. Don't know why they have kept it around. Just search for NFL on youtube and you'd know what I mean
If you bought your gadget, you own it, and you should be able to install whatever software you please without facing potential legal threat
Such a simple thing but the folks who bought DMCA would never get it. Sigh!
Such a simple thing but the folks who bought DMCA would never get it. Sigh!
Devil's advocate: what if locked-down devices can open up new businesses that would not exist otherwise? Say, free cell phones in the developing world which are forcibly tied to a particular carrier and ecosystem to make up the cost?
Ownership is a fuzzy concept, especially in the days of intellectual property. It's a mish-mash of natural law, social contract, precedent, and state violence. If I "own" an MP3, why can't I remix and share it? If I "own" a piece of software, how come I don't get its source code to alter as I wish?
We have a historical bias that customers own the atoms, but creators own the ideas. But this is an arbitrary line that culture invented as an economic compromise, not an intrinsic law of the universe.
Having said all that, I'd prefer our culture side more with consumer rights, even at the cost of closing business opportunities. I'd love it if Apple-style vendor lock-in was illegal, fair use was more rigorously defended, copyrights were shortened, etc. But in any case, we should take ownership of our cultural trade-offs, instead of assuming that our animal instincts regarding "property" are inherently correct.
Ownership is a fuzzy concept, especially in the days of intellectual property. It's a mish-mash of natural law, social contract, precedent, and state violence. If I "own" an MP3, why can't I remix and share it? If I "own" a piece of software, how come I don't get its source code to alter as I wish?
We have a historical bias that customers own the atoms, but creators own the ideas. But this is an arbitrary line that culture invented as an economic compromise, not an intrinsic law of the universe.
Having said all that, I'd prefer our culture side more with consumer rights, even at the cost of closing business opportunities. I'd love it if Apple-style vendor lock-in was illegal, fair use was more rigorously defended, copyrights were shortened, etc. But in any case, we should take ownership of our cultural trade-offs, instead of assuming that our animal instincts regarding "property" are inherently correct.
Selling humans as food would "open up new business that would not exist otherwise", but we're not going to do that, are we? So we might as well have phones that can run free software too. Not everything is about "business opportunities"; human rights come first.
That's the extreme end of the spectrum; a similar issue that is less obvious is whether the sale of human organs should be legal. Some claim that a legitimate market for organs would result in more saved lives, and less black-market violence; on the other hand, there is obvious potential for dehumanization and perverse incentives, to say the least.
> So we might as well have phones that can run free software too. Not everything is about "business opportunities"; human rights come first.
I agree with this on paper, but on a long timeline, human rights are best served by technological progress, which tends to be accelerated through well-balanced profit motives. (Note that this may or may not involve greed; sometimes a profit motive is simply "now I can afford to pay the 500 people needed to get this thing off the ground".)
All told, I agree with you; I'm deeply frustrated that democratic socialism is so thoroughly demonized in the US, and that corporate profits come first, with human rights as a distant second (or worse). But humans trading with one another has been an incredibly potent wealth generation machine, usually benefitting even the very poor. And trade cannot happen without ownership. I want Star Trek Communism as much as anybody, but we're not there yet.
> So we might as well have phones that can run free software too. Not everything is about "business opportunities"; human rights come first.
I agree with this on paper, but on a long timeline, human rights are best served by technological progress, which tends to be accelerated through well-balanced profit motives. (Note that this may or may not involve greed; sometimes a profit motive is simply "now I can afford to pay the 500 people needed to get this thing off the ground".)
All told, I agree with you; I'm deeply frustrated that democratic socialism is so thoroughly demonized in the US, and that corporate profits come first, with human rights as a distant second (or worse). But humans trading with one another has been an incredibly potent wealth generation machine, usually benefitting even the very poor. And trade cannot happen without ownership. I want Star Trek Communism as much as anybody, but we're not there yet.
Thanks for the comment and an appropriate precursor.
what if locked-down devices can open up new businesses that would not exist otherwise?
My personal opinion is that business should be based on needs not the other way around. I understand it's a very fine line but more often than I follow a thumb rule - if it is simple to explain I'm doing it right.
what if locked-down devices can open up new businesses that would not exist otherwise?
My personal opinion is that business should be based on needs not the other way around. I understand it's a very fine line but more often than I follow a thumb rule - if it is simple to explain I'm doing it right.
Don't be ridiculous. If the premise is whatever creates business opportunity is good, why on Earth should we legally protect selling below cost and trying to make up on service charges, but not a business unlocking those devices and selling software for them? In fact, businesses can already accomplish the former through contract law. The only purpose that is served by creating laws against jailbreaking a device (in addition to laws against distributing others' copyrighted work) is vendor lock-in and monopolism.
I'm not saying that creating businesses is always good; I'm saying it's not always bad. It's a significant distinction. :) I'm also firmly against anti-circumvention laws; I see the debate as being whether Amazon, Apple, etc. should be allowed to try to lock down their products.
I don't see why there should be a double standard with bits vs. atoms: that software is allowed to be closed as part of your business model, but hardware is not. And if we're going to insist on user freedoms for hardware, we should also insist on them for software; however, that carries a risk of reduced wealth creation if there are too few property protections for creators.
(It is admittedly awkward to take a firm stand that says "This is a complex issue with no perfect answers".)
I don't see why there should be a double standard with bits vs. atoms: that software is allowed to be closed as part of your business model, but hardware is not. And if we're going to insist on user freedoms for hardware, we should also insist on them for software; however, that carries a risk of reduced wealth creation if there are too few property protections for creators.
(It is admittedly awkward to take a firm stand that says "This is a complex issue with no perfect answers".)
>I see the debate as being whether Amazon, Apple, etc. should be allowed to try to lock down their products.
That's not really on the table. The very big players might get some monopolist/consumer protection heat for certain things, but I can't think of any general legislation. (And I think it would violate the first amendment.)
Anyone can make software or hardware that does one set of things and is intentionally difficult to use for something else. I know of no law remotely approaching something that would make it illegal to produce an audio player that can only play one proprietary encrypted format.
Interesting idea though.
That's not really on the table. The very big players might get some monopolist/consumer protection heat for certain things, but I can't think of any general legislation. (And I think it would violate the first amendment.)
Anyone can make software or hardware that does one set of things and is intentionally difficult to use for something else. I know of no law remotely approaching something that would make it illegal to produce an audio player that can only play one proprietary encrypted format.
Interesting idea though.
The traditional market solution to that is to lease or rent phones to people. That's openly admitting that you're retaining ownership of the device, and would also bring to bear [overly] powerful laws to prevent running unauthorized software.
Simple financing is also a potentially honest method.
Simple financing is also a potentially honest method.
There are no ideas involved in the fact that something is locked down.
The locking down is what allows people to protect the execution of their ideas. (For what it's worth, I actually would prefer secrets to the "openness" of the patent system.)
I'm not in favor of hardware lockdowns or DRM, but I don't like knee-jerk reactions to anything. There is a tension between a consumer's freedom to learn your secret recipe, and a creator's freedom to keep their recipe secret to financially enable them to produce in the first place; I don't think any answer to that tension is axiomatic or obvious.
I'm not in favor of hardware lockdowns or DRM, but I don't like knee-jerk reactions to anything. There is a tension between a consumer's freedom to learn your secret recipe, and a creator's freedom to keep their recipe secret to financially enable them to produce in the first place; I don't think any answer to that tension is axiomatic or obvious.
There is a tension between a consumer's freedom to learn your secret recipe, and a creator's freedom to keep their recipe secret to financially enable them to produce in the first place; I don't think any answer to that tension is axiomatic or obvious.
I actually think it is. In the online world, lockdowns are driven more by "greed" than "need". For example, in the OP I am not sure why an owned piece of hardware should be allowed to be controlled by the product manufacturer. It has a price and it is sold to me; I am free to do anything what I want to with my iPhone.
I actually think it is. In the online world, lockdowns are driven more by "greed" than "need". For example, in the OP I am not sure why an owned piece of hardware should be allowed to be controlled by the product manufacturer. It has a price and it is sold to me; I am free to do anything what I want to with my iPhone.
But what if we were talking about software? If the creator of Braid or Minecraft wants to keep the source closed in order to get paid for their time, it may not be noble, but it is at least understandable.
So what's different between closed-source software, and Amazon encrypting Kindle firmware in order to sell each unit at a loss? Should we also force Gillette razors to be compatible with all blades? Where does the line get drawn, and on what basis?
Note: I'm not defending anti-circumvention laws. No one should ever see a courtroom due to exploration and curiosity. I am simply arguing that it might be beneficial, in some cases, to allow creators to keep secrets (or at least, to try).
So what's different between closed-source software, and Amazon encrypting Kindle firmware in order to sell each unit at a loss? Should we also force Gillette razors to be compatible with all blades? Where does the line get drawn, and on what basis?
Note: I'm not defending anti-circumvention laws. No one should ever see a courtroom due to exploration and curiosity. I am simply arguing that it might be beneficial, in some cases, to allow creators to keep secrets (or at least, to try).
> But what if we were talking about software?
But, in this case are we talking about software? We are actually not.
Lets assume we are talking about software - it still makes sense to me. For example, if Microsoft sells MS Word to me I am free to make custom modifications for myself. Of course, making modifications and reselling it is unethical but the lines are pretty clear - you've got to make the user have more control over the product he pays for. Otherwise, you are just violating fundamentals of living.
But, in this case are we talking about software? We are actually not.
Lets assume we are talking about software - it still makes sense to me. For example, if Microsoft sells MS Word to me I am free to make custom modifications for myself. Of course, making modifications and reselling it is unethical but the lines are pretty clear - you've got to make the user have more control over the product he pays for. Otherwise, you are just violating fundamentals of living.
> Otherwise, you are just violating fundamentals of living.
[citation needed] :)
If a user voluntarily chooses to buy a closed product, what's the harm? Freedom includes the right to make self-detrimental decisions.
Also, I don't see an obvious way to allow users to change your code without allowing competitors to steal your work, whether directly or indirectly. (And don't say patents, because those are far worse for innovation.) While there do exist successful business models for FOSS, they don't necessarily work well for every market need.
All I'm saying is, there are many ways to skin the macro-economic cat. There is not a default state of nature to revert to; there are only the cultural norms which we choose to establish.
[citation needed] :)
If a user voluntarily chooses to buy a closed product, what's the harm? Freedom includes the right to make self-detrimental decisions.
Also, I don't see an obvious way to allow users to change your code without allowing competitors to steal your work, whether directly or indirectly. (And don't say patents, because those are far worse for innovation.) While there do exist successful business models for FOSS, they don't necessarily work well for every market need.
All I'm saying is, there are many ways to skin the macro-economic cat. There is not a default state of nature to revert to; there are only the cultural norms which we choose to establish.
> [citation needed] :)
What I mean is that a product manufacturer sells something to me and that's it. I should have complete control over it. Just like a fruit vendor can't decide on how I should eat it similarly a product manufacturer can't decide on how I want to consume a product. I am just customizing a product for me and not competing with the product manufacturer. So, I do not see anything wrong in it.
> Also, I don't see an obvious way to allow users to change your code without allowing competitors to steal your work, whether directly or indirectly.
That's a fair point but let me assert here that the onus is on the product manufacturers to do this without violating basic principles of purchasing goods. Any good once purchased is in the hands of the purchaser and he/she may choose to customize to good as per his/her needs. Of course, the purchaser should not be allowed to compete by putting up a layer on the existing platform which should be illegal or unethical. However, if he is not doing so no entity should allow to control how he wants to use it.
> If a user voluntarily chooses to buy a closed product, what's the harm? Freedom includes the right to make self-detrimental decisions.
:-) This is not an appropriate assertion. We are discussing whether a closed product should be allowed in the first place. I do not think we have come up to a conclusion as yet.
What I mean is that a product manufacturer sells something to me and that's it. I should have complete control over it. Just like a fruit vendor can't decide on how I should eat it similarly a product manufacturer can't decide on how I want to consume a product. I am just customizing a product for me and not competing with the product manufacturer. So, I do not see anything wrong in it.
> Also, I don't see an obvious way to allow users to change your code without allowing competitors to steal your work, whether directly or indirectly.
That's a fair point but let me assert here that the onus is on the product manufacturers to do this without violating basic principles of purchasing goods. Any good once purchased is in the hands of the purchaser and he/she may choose to customize to good as per his/her needs. Of course, the purchaser should not be allowed to compete by putting up a layer on the existing platform which should be illegal or unethical. However, if he is not doing so no entity should allow to control how he wants to use it.
> If a user voluntarily chooses to buy a closed product, what's the harm? Freedom includes the right to make self-detrimental decisions.
:-) This is not an appropriate assertion. We are discussing whether a closed product should be allowed in the first place. I do not think we have come up to a conclusion as yet.
You're not defending anti-circumvention laws? Then you shouldn't have said 'devil's advocate' in reply to a comment only talking about consumer actions.
I don't really agree with most of what I've been saying; my point was that there is a legitimate argument to be made on the opposing side, and that there is nothing fundamentally different between locking down hardware and locking down software.
The problem is the way you introduced yourself made me think you were arguing a different issue than you were.
Here's another discussion from a couple days ago about these DMCA exemption rulings: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4700010
Except tablets, because herp derp DRM
The whole "rights renewal" celebration just reinforces to me how sinister the DMCA actually is - all these "rights" depend on Library of Congress administrative rulings and thus are inherently revocable, in contrast to how they ought to be; inalienable and all that.