Root Rooting now legal?

[gamby]

AP: New government law makes it legal to unlock your phone, load 3rd party apps on iPhone Boy Genius Report

Hit up the article for the info, im a bit lazy to rehash it.

Anyone think that this new exemption could extend to the DX and force Moto to give us the encryption key so we can access the bootloader?

 

[aleis]

AP: New government law makes it legal to unlock your phone, load 3rd party apps on iPhone Boy Genius Report

Hit up the article for the info, im a bit lazy to rehash it.

Anyone think that this new exemption could extend to the DX and force Moto to give us the encryption key so we can access the bootloader?

was coming to post this?
well...any legal people out there with an X??

 

[Paznos]

It doesn't require the phone manufacturers to make the phones unlockable/jailbrakeable I guess they can't take legal action against you for doing so.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[whec716]

What does the below story mean for the droid x?

The U.S. government on Monday announced new rules that make it officially legal for iPhone owners to "jailbreak" their device and run unauthorized third-party applications. In addition, it is now acceptable to unlock any cell phone for use on multiple carriers.


AppleInsider | US government legalizes iPhone 'jailbreaking,' unlocking

 

[majorcovert]

It was never really illegal to do it in the first place. The problem has always been that people doing so were never protected from Lawsuits or from carriers bricking their devices because the agreement that they signed saying they wouldn't try to hack the API and system files. Now, they are protected.

This doesn't mean that Apple or Android partners are going to start leaving the door unlocked, or show you how to get inside and unlock it. It just means that it is your property and they can't punish you for doing so.

A good example for this is when Sherif Hashim got banned from Apple from unlocking iPhone OS 3.1.3 should not be happening anymore since it is okay to unlock and root your devices withouth being punished for doing so by a company or the law.

 

[SerialTurd]

EDIT: Nevermind

 

[Center]

My question about this is does this essentially make the much balleyhooed "eFuse" essentially a non-issue to anyone who roots their Droid X's?

 

[bigshotproducer]

here's the story from the AP


BC-US-TEC--Digital Copyright, 1st Ld-Writethru,117
URGENT
New gov't rules allow unapproved iPhone apps
Eds: Updates headlines, makes minor edits. APNewsNow. Will be
updated.
By JOELLE TESSLER
AP Technology Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Owners of the iPhone will be able to break
electronic locks on their devices in order to download applications
that have not been approved by Apple. The government is making that
legal under new rules announced Monday.
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. Every three years, the
Library of Congress authorizes such exemptions to ensure that
existing law does not prevent non-infringing use of copyrighted
material.
Another exemption will allow owners of used cell phones to break
access controls on their phones in order to switch wireless
carriers.


(Copyright 2010 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

AP-NY-07-26-10 1058EDT

 

[whec716]

If we are not breaking the law by rooting, how can the government allow them to brick our phone by doing something legal.

that's akin to Verizon/Motorola bricking our phone for making a phone call. It's simply just another feature of the phone.

 

[RichSz]

Stopping someone from doing something has little to do with legality. If you want to get money at a bank, you stand in line. There is nothing illegal about not standing in line and just walking up to the counter but the bank can choose not to serve you.

There is nothing illegal about stepping on your phone, but if you do it, Verizon doesn't have to replace it; it's a fragile electronic device. So if you alter and manage to break your phone (by rooting), Verizon doesn't have to replace it.

To my mind, this just means that those who are trying to hack the phones aren't going to get sued, which is a good thing.

 

[J03]

PC World begs to differ: U.S. Government: iPhone Jailbreaking Is Fair Use - PCWorld

"the new rules stipulate that Apple may not actively prevent attempts to "Jailbreak" the iPhone to allow extra functionality with either hardware or software measures."

 

[Eryl Flynn]

I haven't had a chance to read it in depth but I honestly doubt that any thing in this says it is illegal to stop us from rooting. It is legal for them to do all they can to stop us, but we now are fully in the right to try and circumvent what they do.

Now if there is anything in there, it won't matter until some one sues and wins.

 

[Martimus]

PC World begs to differ: U.S. Government: iPhone Jailbreaking Is Fair Use - PCWorld

"the new rules stipulate that Apple may not actively prevent attempts to "Jailbreak" the iPhone to allow extra functionality with either hardware or software measures."

While it's true that they cannot legally prevent you from attempting to modify your phone, there's no provision requiring them to replace it when you accidently brick the device.

 

[CriticalMass]

PC World begs to differ: U.S. Government: iPhone Jailbreaking Is Fair Use - PCWorld

"the new rules stipulate that Apple may not actively prevent attempts to "Jailbreak" the iPhone to allow extra functionality with either hardware or software measures."

That would mean that down the line motorola might have to unlock the bootloader. But it will end up in court first. Guaranteed.

This is just for Apple right now. Someone will have to go to court and make the case for other phones.

 

[whec716]

While it's true that they cannot legally prevent you from attempting to modify your phone, there's no provision requiring them to replace it when you accidently brick the device.

I agree that if you mess it up it is your problem. I do see a problem if the phone bricks itself as a result of software (efuse?) installed by the maker of the device as an attempt to thwart your desire to root the phone.

 

[ozzie2132]

AP: New government law makes it legal to unlock your phone, load 3rd party apps on iPhone Boy Genius Report

Hit up the article for the info, im a bit lazy to rehash it.

Anyone think that this new exemption could extend to the DX and force Moto to give us the encryption key so we can access the bootloader?

Nope this doesn't force them to do anything. You can also still void your warranty, so think about that. Just because it's legal doesn't make it a good idea.

 

[colornshape]

If you don't want your phone to be rendered inoperable by a measure motorola took, buy someone else's product. Next people will be demanding a law requiring phone makers include specific features unrelated to safety.

 

[Old Man]

I think you'd really have to see the whole ruling and get an interpretation by someone properly qualified.

What I'm seeing is that this is from the Library of Congress and is specifically addressing copyright issues. It is discussing exclusions from electronic protection based on protecting copyright and the relevant portions seem to be:

(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.

Since they are apparently talking in terms of allowing circumventing access control to copyrighted works within the existing laws, I'm not sure just what this means. It does seem to potentially lead to an interesting scenario of ownership of the program versus the hardware. I'm also curious how the "for the sole purpose of interoperability" aspect might be interpreted. Even if it is saying that the ability to circumvent any electronic protection is allowed, it does not mean it can't be in place or that the circumvention is only allowable in certain situations. Definitely need someone with better legal chops to really give any valid interpretation.

I also don't think this addresses anything that is in an agreement you may make at the time of purchase. Even if the law allows you to do something, if you willfully enter into a contract that states differently that could still take precedence.

 

[ghamden]

If we all remember correctly the Government tried to allow unlimited broad band use without restrictions all that did was move into the courts which ruled against the Government Now we have Tiered broadband being forced on the user.

Don't be suprised if the same happens to us again

Because this Fair Use ruling is going to effect more than just phones

it can be applied to any device if that device is limiting our use

So i think all this did was to bring another ruling that is not going to be benficial for the user

First off Devices will greatly increase in price because Manufacturer will claim the bloatware helped offset their expenses.

Google will charge premium for android because most of thier income form this OS and most of thier software comes from ad revenue either embeded or acctual

So don't get to happy yet this case will be in court.

 

[sic0048]

Because this Fair Use ruling is going to effect more than just phones

it can be applied to any device if that device is limiting our use

So i think all this did was to bring another ruling that is not going to be benficial for the user

First off Devices will greatly increase in price because Manufacturer will claim the bloatware helped offset their expenses.

Google will charge premium for android because most of thier income form this OS and most of thier software comes from ad revenue either embeded or acctual

So don't get to happy yet this case will be in court.

Actually this ruling has nothing to do with other uses of fair use. These exceptions to existing law are very specific. This is not a new law or a major rewrite of an existing law. It is simply some very specific clarifications on the existing law. Therefore you cannot simply apply these rulings to other devices.

The exceptions are only valid for the next three years. They must be specifically renewed in three years when the process is gone through again. Therefore I doubt there would be any court rulings (if that is even a possibility) since it would realistically take longer than three years to go full circle. Instead, the parties will simply continue to lobby to change the rulings in three years.

 

[Old Man]

Because this Fair Use ruling is going to effect more than just phones

it can be applied to any device if that device is limiting our use

"Fair Use" relates to copyright and the use or reproduction of copyrighted material for specific uses. It is not related to the ability to use a device.

In my very amateur interpretation, in the past the DMCA has been used as a basis to prohibit access to a phone's software and firmware, the argument being that the protection schemes are in place to protect rights in the software and firmware. All this rulemaking is apparently doing is saying that for the specific situations noted, copyright protection is no longer an accepted basis for limiting access to the software or firmware. It is not saying that manufacturers cannot put such protection in place or that there may not be another basis for prohibiting access and it is not saying that phones have to be offered open. In addition, distributing to the public technology, products or services intended primarily to circumvent software or firmware protection is still prohibited by the DMCA.

Based on that, the one line item seems more aimed at allowing developers access to a device's software and firmware in order to insure compatibility with apps, provided they are legally developed and obtained. It actually seems to support the carrier and device neutral Android app approach over the Apple approach.

The other line item almost seems to be aimed at allowing used phones to be activated on a different carriers. The limitation to used phones seems to not actually prohibit any new phones being locked down and I see this being intended to allow someone that has fulfilled their obligation to the original carrier to take their phone to another carrier. It seems limited in doing anything much more than that.

From other interpretations I have read, this does not make rooting "legal" or prohibit manufacturers limiting access to any software or firmware as much as it prevents DMCA being used as a basis for suing someone who does circumvent that access control under the conditions listed, such as to load a legally obtained, third party app or to activate a used phone on a different carrier.

Like I said, just one very amateur personal interpretation by someone not an attorney, but I think that many people are reading more into this than there really is.

 

[kejar31]

"Fair Use" relates to copyright and the use or reproduction of copyrighted material for specific uses. It is not related to the ability to use a device.

In my very amateur interpretation, in the past the DMCA has been used as a basis to prohibit access to a phone's software and firmware, the argument being that the protection schemes are in place to protect rights in the software and firmware. All this rulemaking is apparently doing is saying that for the specific situations noted, copyright protection is no longer an accepted basis for limiting access to the software or firmware. It is not saying that manufacturers cannot put such protection in place or that there may not be another basis for prohibiting access and it is not saying that phones have to be offered open. In addition, distributing to the public technology, products or services intended primarily to circumvent software or firmware protection is still prohibited by the DMCA.

Based on that, the one line item seems more aimed at allowing developers access to a device's software and firmware in order to insure compatibility with apps, provided they are legally developed and obtained. It actually seems to support the carrier and device neutral Android app approach over the Apple approach.

The other line item almost seems to be aimed at allowing used phones to be activated on a different carriers. The limitation to used phones seems to not actually prohibit any new phones being locked down and I see this being intended to allow someone that has fulfilled their obligation to the original carrier to take their phone to another carrier. It seems limited in doing anything much more than that.

From other interpretations I have read, this does not make rooting "legal" or prohibit manufacturers limiting access to any software or firmware as much as it prevents DMCA being used as a basis for suing someone who does circumvent that access control under the conditions listed, such as to load a legally obtained, third party app or to activate a used phone on a different carrier.

Like I said, just one very amateur personal interpretation by someone not an attorney, but I think that many people are reading more into this than there really is.

X2 very well said