Rooting and Jailbreaking Illegal? Huh? What?

[EarlyMon]

By definition, you don't own software, only a right to use it.

As jailbreaking for an iPhone has been found legal, and this is a matter of legal administration that could remove the right having to do with an owned device, I don't fully understand your objections. Ownership was considered in the first ruling.

And a subsidized phone is always paid in full, the ETF sees to that. And the retail prices are largely a fiction anyway. Phones are at best a hardware proposition taking the equivalent of an iPod Touch, and adding one or two radio chips and jacking the price up by hundreds of dollars to create the artificial value that makes a contract seem attractive.

I don't agree that it's the consumers trying to get full benefit of ownership who are the ones with unclean hands here.

 

[Bob Maxey]

I dislike that "rooting" and "jailbreaking" are linked. Jailbreaking involves unlocking what was never touted as an open-source OS. Rooting in this context is gaining core access to an open-source OS, implying that the "author" of that OS (Google in this case) has released what makes it "tick" to the public for them to use that information to customize it or make it better for their purposes. Android IS released under the GPL, no?

Regardless of what Google allows or does not allow, you still need to root to gain access to areas the developer/cell manufacturer forbids you to access. In my view, there is no fundamental difference between rooting and jailbreaking.

 

[IOWA]

Did you buy your phone outright or did you get it discounted with a 2 year plan? Discounted with a 2-year plan is SUBSIDIZED. Do you buy your cars with cash or do you get loans? If you get a loan, some things are dictated to you, such as required insurance coverages. OK, maybe not a GREAT analogy..


I dislike that "rooting" and "jailbreaking" are linked. Jailbreaking involves unlocking what was never touted as an open-source OS. Rooting in this context is gaining core access to an open-source OS, implying that the "author" of that OS (Google in this case) has released what makes it "tick" to the public for them to use that information to customize it or make it better for their purposes. Android IS released under the GPL, no?

One place I could see rooting being a concern, and why I haven't ventured there, is in the corporate world. Rooting could introduce a whole new level of security concern for IT security people when it comes to connecting those devices (with an un-vetted version of the OS) to the corporate servers (primarily mail). If the ROM developer missed something and left a hole open security-wise, that could pose trouble. right now, Exchange has no way to grab the OS version from the device, all it can grab is the version of the mail app, AirWatch can do this (I think) but it costs money and may not expose a rooted phone for what it is.

One doesn't need root to get paid apps for free, unless the app has market hooks to verify the license was purchased (does Google require this now?) All one needs to do is get the apk and enable app installation from untrusted sources (called sideloading, right?), as long as the phone or device allows that to be enabled (I don't do this, wouldn't know where to look for the APKs but I know it can be done). I admit, getting rid of the Vcast apps, Blockbuster, Rhaposdy, tunewiki would be WONDERFUL and would probably save a little battery life.

Does anyone read the EULA anymore? Has anyone read the EULA for iOS and Android? I seem to recall it being mentioned that in a lot of cases (not necessarily the previous-mentioned products but Windows may apply here) the EULA says you own the right to use the software, OS or application but you don't actually own the software, OS or application. This would make the "I own it, I should be able to do as I wish" argument somewhat moot.

You know how many times these "click through" EULA's have been invalidated in court? They are in no way the final word on the matter, and for the most part irrelevant, especially on an open source OS such as Android.

Further more, locking down root access also locks the hardware, thus inhibiting right of first sale rights.

 

[Zoandroid]

By definition, you don't own software, only a right to use it.

As jailbreaking for an iPhone has been found legal, and this is a matter of legal administration that could remove the right having to do with an owned device, I don't fully understand your objections. Ownership was considered in the first ruling.

And a subsidized phone is always paid in full, the ETF sees to that. And the retail prices are largely a fiction anyway. Phones are at best a hardware proposition taking the equivalent of an iPod Touch, and adding one or two radio chips and jacking the price up by hundreds of dollars to create the artificial value that makes a contract seem attractive.

I don't agree that it's the consumers trying to get full benefit of ownership who are the ones with unclean hands here.

I think what is being said by some is that they disagree with these conditions, having been already established or not. Some of us don't like the whole "you don't own the phone because it has OUR "licensed" software inside it" mentality. That's why you are seeing this kind of opinion. Although there is little we can do about it at the present time, we can still complain to those who will listen. So anytime the general topic of 'who owns the phone' comes up, these opinions will be voiced.

I see it much like this >> the fellow who drew the blueprints for my house has no claim to say it is "licensed" and therefore "his" just because the builder used his plans to build the house.

 

[EarlyMon]

OK.

But it's a fundamental concept to licensing, it can't change and ought not.

And it's not at issue here.

To argue on their terms validates their position, a position already found invalid legally.

The facts are simple. Those parties who did not previously agree that this use was unprotected have been found in error by law.

They don't get a do over, no matter if squeal like pigs.

That's the argument for this time, rather than the arguments from the first time.

 

[argedion]

You know how many times these "click through" EULA's have been invalidated in court? They are in no way the final word on the matter, and for the most part irrelevant, especially on an open source OS such as Android.

Further more, locking down root access also locks the hardware, thus inhibiting right of first sale rights.

I have to agree with this. I remember working for walmart and at the buggy Corrals they had a sign that said We are not responsible for damage done by buggies.

Do you know how many millions of dollars walmart has had to pay out do to damage from a buggy? Now the main difference is your actually supposed to "agree by clicking" but really I have never read a Licensing agreement. I have been playing on computers since DOS 5. I Use Linux mostly but do own a windows 7.

If I as in me goes and buys a computer, a phone, a tablet, or any other kind of device for my use I should be able to do with as I like. Yes I am made to get insurance on my car but that is not mandated by the dealer that is mandated by the state. And it is only mandated because Insurance companies paid big money to lobbiest to make sure we pay them big money.

In the end we are dictated to by them who have the money. I bought it but I'm not the owner yeah sounds about right. (oh thats not a jk)

 

[Zoandroid]

OK.

But it's a fundamental concept to licensing, it can't change and ought not.

And it's not at issue here.

To argue on their terms validates their position, a position already found invalid legally.

The facts are simple. Those parties who did not previously agree that this use was unprotected have been found in error by law.

They don't get a do over, no matter if squeal like pigs.

That's the argument for this time, rather than the arguments from the first time.

I agree they "shouldn't" get a do-over. But unfortunately they DO. The legal precedent you are referring to had only a 2 year provision. What I don't understand is why that happened, but I'll bet there was underhanded-ness involved between those making the legal decision and those against whom that decision worked. If the same result does not happen in the upcoming review, it will be as if the original decision to legalize jailbreaking and rooting had never existed. This issue is too important to have "temporary" decisions made about it. Whoever pushed to pass it the first time dropped the ball in my opinion. They should have spent the past 2 years getting a permanent decision to leagalize rooting made to overule the temporary one.

 

[zuben el genub]

I haven't bought a phone on contract since 2007. I'll either buy a used one or unlocked from Amazon. I did buy the SGS4G outright. TMO will support unlocked phones. I have inured myself to any kind of sales pressure - you can call that boycotting sales.

I'm not boycotting Android as right now it suits my purpose. I am boycotting Apple due to that POS Quicktime. I've had enough trouble with it. Like I said - a good working Nokia N900 in my hand locally, and I might drop android.

BTW - how would using Gmail on a Nokia or Blackberry affect this policy? Google can't monitor the phone.

I don't always read through all the EULA - I check privacy, though. We got a thorough grounding in copyright in publishing, so that's usually the consideration I give the company.

I wouldn't agree with Google setting up a + account for me and telling me I HAD to post or no Gmail If that came to pass I'd just quote the Jabberwock.

And there's this:
Retailers Resort To Offering Refunds To Customers For Positive Reviews Online - The Consumerist

If the product was good, or the retailer was good, they wouldn't have to do this. Sometimes word of mouth can be effective.

Amazon, Adorama, and B&H will post the negative views on a product.

Go check the TMO forum - going by the posts, you would think TMO had NO customer service at all. I assume the other carriers get the same.

 

[EarlyMon]

I want to note loudly that this entire issue frustrates me, and if it's coming across as me being frustrated with any of you pals here, that's just not the case and not my intention whatsoever.

 

[Zoandroid]

I want to note loudly that this entire issue frustrates me, and if it's coming across as me being frustrated with any of you pals here, that's just not the case and not my intention whatsoever.

Da Nada, friend. I think we all feel your pain.

 

[IOWA]

I want to note loudly that this entire issue frustrates me, and if it's coming across as me being frustrated with any of you pals here, that's just not the case and not my intention whatsoever.

Ditto. I think this has happened to me many times on this board. My frustration about the issues gets the best of me. I think I've curbed it pretty well on my comeback though.

 

[argedion]

I want to note loudly that this entire issue frustrates me, and if it's coming across as me being frustrated with any of you pals here, that's just not the case and not my intention whatsoever.

An apology is not needed here. Your passionate about what you see as right. As most of us do. I never take things personally unless it's a personal attach on me and not the issue at hand. I feel we must allow ourselves to get out the stench that boils deep with in when we see an injustice happening. I really only get offended when and injustice is happening and no one seems to care. Those moments remind me that people are to wrapped up at looking at themselves and not spending time to look at others that have a need.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Does anyone read the EULA anymore? Has anyone read the EULA for iOS and Android? I seem to recall it being mentioned that in a lot of cases (not necessarily the previous-mentioned products but Windows may apply here) the EULA says you own the right to use the software, OS or application but you don't actually own the software, OS or application. This would make the "I own it, I should be able to do as I wish" argument somewhat moot.

\


It is a fact, you do not own the software, just the right to use it. Just like you do not own the music or book; just certain rights. The CD belongs to you, not the content.

Consider one of the terms I agreed to when I activated my Virgin Mobile phone. In simple language, it tells me I am forbidden to use my Triumph for business. In very un-lawyer like language: (that is to say, it is in human readable verbiage) I cannot use my phone for business, just personal use.

If the restriction were made more prominent, how would that affect sales?

Is it fair for VM to forbid this use or are there some things every user has the right to assume, like you can use the phone for business?

I use mine for business, by the way.

 

[mplevy]

\


It is a fact, you do not own the software, just the right to use it. Just like you do not own the music or book; just certain rights. The CD belongs to you, not the content.

Consider one of the terms I agreed to when I activated my Virgin Mobile phone. In simple language, it tells me I am forbidden to use my Triumph for business. In very un-lawyer like language: (that is to say, it is in human readable verbiage) I cannot use my phone for business, just personal use.

If the restriction were made more prominent, how would that affect sales?

Is it fair for VM to forbid this use or are there some things every user has the right to assume, like you can use the phone for business?

I use mine for business, by the way.

Some of that may come from BB's. With a BB, on Verizon anyway, you pay for either BIS or BES. BIS is for personal use, BES is for business use. If you sign for a BIS plan (which costs less and is directed at people getting BBs for personal use) I can see them wanting to restrict it to personal use only. I wonder if VM is the same....

 

[Bob Maxey]

Some of that may come from BB's. With a BB, on Verizon anyway, you pay for either BIS or BES. BIS is for personal use, BES is for business use. If you sign for a BIS plan (which costs less and is directed at people getting BBs for personal use) I can see them wanting to restrict it to personal use only. I wonder if VM is the same....

It just struck me as odd because it seems so unreasonable. I guess if I complain, not much will happen. According to my TOS, I have waived my right to a jury trial. Not sure what that means or how common it is. Perhaps standard boilerplate.

anyone care to shed a little light on that provision?

 

[9to5cynic]

^ I think companies limiting your right to take them to court is becoming more popular. I seem to recall Sony among other companies rolling that 'feature' out with their latest software versions (and the TOS that follow...)

 

[Zoandroid]

Unfortunately the world seems to have evolved into consumers just blindly accepting reams of documents without ever reading them when we buy things, because it would take a week to read them all. As such, they have found a new way to screw the consumer. We are so eager to use our new purchase that we do so blindly.

 

[mplevy]

Unfortunately the world seems to have evolved into consumers just blindly accepting reams of documents without ever reading them when we buy things, because it would take a week to read them all. As such, they have found a new way to screw the consumer. We are so eager to use our new purchase that we do so blindly.

In a lot of cases, you need to accept the TOS or EULA in order to read it. Look at the iPhone and iPad, the wrap on the device says that by breaking the seal on the wrap over the device itself you agree to the EULA, which is then presented once you turn the device on. Not to mention it would take a month to read the darn thing, on the iPad one of the items you agree to is SIXTY THREE PAGES!! When people get a new toy like that they don't want to have to read a book from a law library just to start using the thing. A lot of the wording is legalese, setup for the meat. What they need to do is also publish a "short version" that outlines the rights you do and don't have based on accepting the agreement, in layman's terms.

 

[EarlyMon]

I thought that the secret EULA/TOS was found unconscionable in court and became the subject of a South Park episode. The second I'm sure of, the first, less sure... (must remember to search for that)

 

[dan330]

we all have certain rights.. as humans and consumers... they can put any shiit they want in the contracts and blah blah blah... but you can not sign your rights away... especially when it is not reasonable that a person agrees to it.. before they even have a chance to read it. it is also not reasonable to assume consumers read a book of boring legal stuff before use.

sure they can put some things that are reasonable for warranty and product support. but to say I cant sue them for x y or z.. it is there to make it more difficult but i am sure it can be over ruled, if such contract breach your consumer rights.

 

[Zoandroid]

we all have certain rights.. as humans and consumers... they can put any shiit they want in the contracts and blah blah blah... but you can not sign your rights away... especially when it is not reasonable that a person agrees to it.. before they even have a chance to read it. it is also not reasonable to assume consumers read a book of boring legal stuff before use.

sure they can put some things that are reasonable for warranty and product support. but to say I cant sue them for x y or z.. it is there to make it more difficult but i am sure it can be over ruled, if such contract breach your consumer rights.

For now............... This is clearly leading up to something. I hate to think what.

 

[Bob Maxey]

I thought that the secret EULA/TOS was found unconscionable in court and became the subject of a South Park episode. The second I'm sure of, the first, less sure... (must remember to search for that)

LOL . . . I think of the "HumanCentiPad" episode every time this topic rears its ugly iHead. Apparently, the idea came from Trey's issue with Apple and the huge TOS Agreement he had to sign when he updates iTunes.

I am not sure you can be forced to sign away your rights. In the case of an OS, if you absolutely need an OS installed on your computer, their TOS must be agreed to or you cannot work.

I'll be interested to read more about just what a company can do via their EULA and TOS. Not so sure they can enforce such terms.

I recall Microsoft's Clip Art agreement. You could not use their artwork for any use they (Microsoft) disagrees with. Such an open end EULS/TOS could be abused by MS. Especially since there are no examples of what things MS could object to.

 

[Bob Maxey]

For now............... This is clearly leading up to something. I hate to think what.

This:

Rem, It's The End Of The World As We Know It (and I feel fine). - YouTube

 

[argedion]

The problem with most EULA's / Tos is that one its subject to interpretation. Lawyers draft up these EULA problem is that they are generic. Different states have different laws that govern what companies can do. In most cases Breaking the term or the conditions of an agreement like an EULA will not result in much for the end user. However if the end user is grossly violating the agreement ( mass distribution with out authorization, reverse engineering the software and producing a new system as your own )
This type of behavior is in direct violation. Meaning you knew what you was doing was illegal

 

[IOWA]

The problem with most EULA's / Tos is that one its subject to interpretation. Lawyers draft up these EULA problem is that they are generic. Different states have different laws that govern what companies can do. In most cases Breaking the term or the conditions of an agreement like an EULA will not result in much for the end user. However if the end user is grossly violating the agreement ( mass distribution with out authorization, reverse engineering the software and producing a new system as your own )
This type of behavior is in direct violation. Meaning you knew what you was doing was illegal

There isn't anything illegal about reverse engineering, and a ToS can't prevent that.