U.S. Copyright Office issues new rules supporting smartphone jailbreak 17
After a rulemaking process lasting more than a year, the U.S. Copyright Office (which is part of the Library of Congress) has issued new rules about the types of activities, which includes some smartphone-related ones, that it feels do not violate the anti-circumvention rules of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA").
By way of background, the DMCA, in addition to clarifying how online activities would be treated under U.S. copyright law, created a new prohibition against circumventing (going around) a copyright holder's protections, whether code-based or otherwise, in addition to any claims of infringement. Not only is it illegal to do this circumvention, but it's also illegal to "traffic" in technologies for doing so (which is how the people who published the DeCSS Linux DVD decryption algorithm also got into trouble). The problem is that, while the anti-circumvention rules may help to prevent piracy, they can also make it harder to do things that are otherwise legal, such as excerpting a small portion of a copy-protected DVD movie to show as part of a review, or creating tools that work well on locked-down smartphones. As a result, the Copyright Office proposed and has now finalized carveouts for some of these activities.
Among the six exceptions to the DMCA (to be published on Tuesday, July 27 in the Federal Register) are two that are of immediate relevance to our community:
(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.
How does this affect webOS? Well, there are already plenty of open source components in webOS and beyond that, it's much more accessible than, say, iOS. While Palm and HP have been substantially more friendly to patchers, there are still elements of the operating system and especially the third-party applications bundled with it whose interoperability and background function is, shall we say, of interest to some. Having this new guidance from the Copyright Office may provide some comfort to our developer community that their exploration might not be as potentially hazardous to their legal health as they'd previously thought.
Still - it's fun to note that webOS is more open than some open source projects and that the very idea of having to jailbreak or root a webOS is kind of silly - that access is baked in and documented for any and all to use right out of the box.
More coverage: Android Central & What jailbreaking/unlocking DMCA means for end users at TiPb




























17 Comments
Interesting indeed
Hey, I think you have a typo in the second to last sentence of the second paragraph:
"The problem is that, while the anti-circumvention rules may help to prevent piracy, they can also make it harder to do things that are otherwise **illegal**, such as..."
I think that you meant "legal" there.
what are you a fucking english teacher?
it's a valid point. I had to read that sentence a few times to make sure I understood it.
otherwise, very interesting article.
Um, no, I'm not, but you see, the word used is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what I think was intended, so it seems pretty important to fix to clarify the meaning.
Clearly you have some bad memories from your English class or something, but I would ask that you don't take it out on me, as I'm just trying to help Jonathan out.
Bad day? Let's talk about it...
Mr. Costanza I presume.
Quite right; corrected. Thank you! {Jonathan}
No problemo.
I love webOS. I think I might move to cali and see if the would let me merry webos. :)
I think equally as important is you can break locks that tie a phone to a network, so you can change cell service providers. The carrier you are moving to has to approve the connection of course. I don't see how the exclusivity contracts for service can be enforced. Let's see if the industry in the US is sensible and starts using sim cards like the rest of the world.
I think I read it right:
http://m.forums.precentral.net/other-handhelds/256612-ruling-allows-jail...
They can be enforced because Apple can choose to sell phones exclusively to ATT and ATT can make them available only with a contract.
So I just read a carrier unlock was already legal. So what was the brouhaha about Apple giving AT&T exclusivity over phones for five years, even if it is paid off?
I'll take this to the forums. There is something I don't understand.
Apple's contract with ATT is exclusive. You may be legally able to take your iPhone to VZW, but whether VZW will accept it and whether it will function technologically are other issues (primarily the latter).
That said, the news on smartphone hacking is good. In the immortal words of 'Sean Connery'... "Suck it Jobs, suck it hard."
You could unlock your iPhone and put it on... well, the only network that an unlocked iPhone can work on besides the beloved AT&T would be T-Mobile. The iPhone has a GSM radio, not a CDMA radio, and the only GSM carrier in this country besides ATT is T-Mobile. Verizon and Sprint use CDMA. I know that's all kind of cellphone technical jargon and it's not something consumers need to know about, but it's the only way to explain this. Now, even if you were on T-Mobile with an unlocked iPhone, which by the way all that rare, you wouldn't be able to use 3G on your phone. The iPhone's radio doesn't work on T-Mo's 3G bands/frequencies- it works on the 3G bands that ATT uses, which are the same ones used by carriers in Europe.
And I agree, the more hacking the better!
G.O.B.: Well, we should
Does anyone know what this means for the "legality" of tethering on Sprint? I assume that since it still violates the Terms of Service, it's still technically not OK?