Just installed XBMC on my iPad

[shmokes]

Amazing.  It's the full monty.  If you've got any iOS device I seriously recommend checking it out.  You have to be jailbroken, unfortunately, because Steve Jobs is an ass.  But if you aren't jailbroken already, you now have a powerful reason to get it done.  Remember, jailbreaking is officially legal and so is XBMC.

It helps that there's now an untethered jailbreak for iOS 4.2.1.  XBMC requires at least 4.0

[wp34]

Good to know.  I haven't had any of my devices jailbroken since the App Store was implemented.  I was wondering if there was still a reason to do so. 

Is this the full version of XBMC or is it a remote to control another XBMC device?  I've seen some apps that supposedly allow your iPad to function as an XBMC remote but they have spotty reviews.  That seems like an awesome use for an iPad.

[shmokes]

Full version.  It's not like AirVideo.

[Ginsu Victim]

I want to upgrade my iPod Touch 2nd gen, but need to figure out where the Angry Birds savegame is kept. There's NO WAY I'm losing my progress again. This has kept me from updating my jailbreak.

[shmokes]

I was on a jailbroken 3.2 firmware.  I hooked up to iTunes, right-clicked my device and selected transfer purchases.  Then I did a full sync/backup within iTunes.  I upgraded to 4.2.1 firmware (not automatically, but by restoring with a firmware I downloaded (hold shift in Windows or command in Mac while clicking Restore (not upgrade)).  Once the new firmware was installed I was prompted to restore from my backup or set up my device as new.  The internet is conflicted about whether restoring is a good idea, but I figured there was no harm in trying since I could always just redo it if things went awry.  I restored and everything went fine.  It all runs fast and smooth, and all my applications, including app data got pushed over to my device.  I was really happy, as I've recorded myself as the narrater in a whole bunch of chidrens books for my daughter.  I figured that was likely to be lost.  Game saves all seem to be there.  YMMV, of course, but it was all painless for me.

[Ginsu Victim]

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind.

[shmokes]

Btw, when I say all my apps and data was pushed back to my device that includes apps and data for apps that were not acquired through the app store.  ITunes backed it all up and put it back on my device.

[shmokes]

I want to upgrade my iPod Touch 2nd gen, but need to figure out where the Angry Birds savegame is kept. There's NO WAY I'm losing my progress again. This has kept me from updating my jailbreak.

I got looking at it and I think maybe this is only compatible with the latest generation of iDevices.  I'm not sure, though.  I did see a Youtube video of someone supposedly running it on an iPhone 3G.

[ark_ader]

Amazing.  It's the full monty.  If you've got any iOS device I seriously recommend checking it out.  You have to be jailbroken, unfortunately, because Steve Jobs is an ass.  But if you aren't jailbroken already, you now have a powerful reason to get it done.  Remember, jailbreaking is officially legal and so is XBMC.

It helps that there's now an untethered jailbreak for iOS 4.2.1].  XBMC requires at least 4.0

Jail breaking is only legal on the Iphone.  Ipad (3G maybe), AppleTV etc. isn't.
Hint:

I suggest you do some research that you lawyer types like to do in your *cough* billable time.

[Donkbaca]

Um, how is repurposing hardware to run free software that is widely distributed (XBMC) illegal?

[SavannahLion]

I believe it's the jailbreaking and the designed use of the device. IOW, it's ok to daybreak a cell physicalne but not a similar device eg iPad that is not utilized as a cell phone.

That's my understanding on the matter, I don't really know. I also don't really care. His hardware, why shouldn't he jailbreak it to run alternate software?

[Donkbaca]

It's ok to run Linux on my pc designed to run windows

[shmokes]

I suggest you do some research that you lawyer types like to do in your *cough* billable time.

Even if I'm wrong, do you honestly think I care?  What . . . once you become a lawyer you can never say anything unless you first research it to make sure you understand it fully and haven't misunderstood anything?

For that matter, before I went to law school I was a network administrator for a government agency, but I also freelanced on the side.  Guess what, I charged my clients by the hour.  You know how I am charged by my mechanic whenever I need work done on my car?  That's right!  By the hour.  You know how people charge for labor even when they charge you a flat rate for something?  They estimate how long it will take them to complete.  Like . . . in what field are clients not charged for labor?

[SavannahLion]

It's ok to run Linux on my pc designed to run windows

You still have one of those Windows-Only CPUs? You should get rid of it.

[Donkbaca]

How is an iPad different from a Mac? It's a tablet pc

[opt2not]

How is an iPad different from a Mac? It's a tablet pc

Heh, more like a glorified iPhone... 

[shmokes]

Heh, more like a glorified iPhone... 

This is simultaneously true and largely irrelevant.  Despite its shortcomings, which are numerous and sometimes extremely annoying, it is probably my favorite computer of all that I've ever owned.  Of course, it can't be the only computer I own, but it is by far my favorite to use.  It could be a glorified turnip for all I care so long as it's awesome.  And it is awesome.

[shmokes]

I want to upgrade my iPod Touch 2nd gen, but need to figure out where the Angry Birds savegame is kept. There's NO WAY I'm losing my progress again. This has kept me from updating my jailbreak.

I got looking at it and I think maybe this is only compatible with the latest generation of iDevices.  I'm not sure, though.  I did see a Youtube video of someone supposedly running it on an iPhone 3G.

I take it back.  I jailbroke my mother in-law's 3rd gen iPod Touch today and XBMC runs perfectly fine on it.  I'm streaming a movie to it right now.  The interface is a bit frustrating right now, though.  It's just the standard Confluence skin and sometimes the buttons are too small to hit consistently with your fingers.  Setting up sources was particularly difficult, but at least that's a one-time thing.  Not to mention that the XBMC skin has already issued a challenge to the skinners to put together a gesture-based skin for these new touch-screen devices.  Even as-is, though, it's totally usable.  It's just not an ideal user interface.

[ChadTower]

Like . . . in what field are clients not charged for labor?

Midwifery?

[shmokes]

Heh . . . seems to me that midwifes charge for both senses of the word.   

[ark_ader]

I suggest you do some research that you lawyer types like to do in your *cough* billable time.

Even if I'm wrong, do you honestly think I care?  What . . . once you become a lawyer you can never say anything unless you first research it to make sure you understand it fully and haven't misunderstood anything?

For that matter, before I went to law school I was a network administrator for a government agency, but I also freelanced on the side.  Guess what, I charged my clients by the hour.  You know how I am charged by my mechanic whenever I need work done on my car?  That's right!  By the hour.  You know how people charge for labor even when they charge you a flat rate for something?  They estimate how long it will take them to complete.  Like . . . in what field are clients not charged for labor?

I think if you take the oath, you should abide by it.  Respecting the law as prescribed would be a good starting point.   

[shmokes]

What, I took an oath to never be wrong?  For that matter, the lawyer's oath doesn't demand that I don't jailbreak iPads (even before jailbreaking was made officially legal).  Have you even read a lawyer's oath?

Anyway, jailbreaking iPod touches and iPads is legal.  I wasn't even wrong to begin with.  Apple would never file a suit against someone who created a jailbreak on the grounds that it'll jailbreak devices that are not telephone handsets, because there's nothing significant in it being a telephone.  The first question any court would ask Apple is, "Why should we rule that the DCMA prohibits jailbreaking an iPad when it would not prohibit the same on an iPhone."  The only thing Apple could say is, "Because it's a phone."  The judge would tell them to get the hell out of his court room.  Courts do not just close their eyes and play make believe based on the grammar used in various laws and regs.  They look at the purpose of the law.  Obviously the part about unlocking to enable connecting to a different wireless carrier than was originally intended applies only to phones or other devices that connect to a cell phone network.  The part about jailbreaking to allow unauthorized, but legally obtained software to run on the device applies to the other devices that are logically the same thing.  The law is not an ass.

[pointdablame]

I think if you take the oath, you should abide by it.  Respecting the law as prescribed would be a good starting point.   

Yeesh.  I hope your cowboy skills are up to par, because that's a mighty high horse you're on. 

[SavannahLion]

I think if you take the oath, you should abide by it.  Respecting the law as prescribed would be a good starting point.   

Yeesh.  I hope your cowboy skills are up to par, because that's a mighty high horse you're on. 

And on a forum that is dominated by MAME cabinets?

[ark_ader]

What, I took an oath to never be wrong?  For that matter, the lawyer's oath doesn't demand that I don't jailbreak iPads (even before jailbreaking was made officially legal).  Have you even read a lawyer's oath?

Anyway, jailbreaking iPod touches and iPads is legal.  I wasn't even wrong to begin with.  Apple would never file a suit against someone who created a jailbreak on the grounds that it'll jailbreak devices that are not telephone handsets, because there's nothing significant in it being a telephone.  The first question any court would ask Apple is, "Why should we rule that the DCMA prohibits jailbreaking an iPad when it would not prohibit the same on an iPhone."  The only thing Apple could say is, "Because it's a phone."  The judge would tell them to get the hell out of his court room.  Courts do not just close their eyes and play make believe based on the grammar used in various laws and regs.  They look at the purpose of the law.  Obviously the part about unlocking to enable connecting to a different wireless carrier than was originally intended applies only to phones or other devices that connect to a cell phone network.  The part about jailbreaking to allow unauthorized, but legally obtained software to run on the device applies to the other devices that are logically the same thing.  The law is not an ass.

Did you even read that link I posted?  Tell me where it says you can legally jailbreak or circumvent an iPad?  Just show me where it says that.  An iPhone, yes as it is a wireless device, but an iPad (except maybe the 3G version) isn't classified as the same under that ruling, neither is the Apple TV.  Just because Apple hasn't sued anyone yet, it does not give you license to circumvent that device's operating system.  To boast of it on this messageboard considering that you have passed the Bar and you are an officer of the courts, is a failure of ethics.
Lawyers Oath:
I solemnly swear (or affirm) I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of <Insert State Here>;

I will maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers;

I will not counsel or maintain any suit or proceeding which shall appear to me to be unjust, nor any defense except such as I believe to be honestly debatable under the law of the land;

I will employ for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to me such means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and will never seek to mislead the judge or jury by an artifice or false statement of fact or law;

I will maintain the confidence and preserve inviolate the secrets of my client, and will accept no compensation in connection with a client's business except from the client or with the client's knowledge and approval;

I will abstain from all offensive personality, and advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which I am charged;

I will never reject, from any consideration personal to myself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed, or delay any person's cause for lucre or malice.

So help me God.

The Constitution of the United States....That should ring some alarm bells in your head.

I think if you take the oath, you should abide by it.  Respecting the law as prescribed would be a good starting point.   

Yeesh.  I hope your cowboy skills are up to par, because that's a mighty high horse you're on. 

I am not a lawyer but I can ride a horse as well as any cowboy as my brother has a ranch out in Nevada.

[ark_ader]

I think if you take the oath, you should abide by it.  Respecting the law as prescribed would be a good starting point.   

Yeesh.  I hope your cowboy skills are up to par, because that's a mighty high horse you're on. 

And on a forum that is dominated by MAME cabinets?

You should hit that link too. 

Very interesting reading with regards to obsolete platforms. 

[pointdablame]

Every time a legality argument comes up here (which seems to be every week), I can't help but think "those in glass houses...."

Why do you even care if he jailbroke his iPad?  Have you ever downloaded a rom?  Gone over the speed limit?  Crossed the street outside of a crosswalk?  You broke the law.  If you haven't ever broken ANY law, good for you.  You are one in a billion.

The law is the law... until it changes, as it has thousands of times.  Jailbreaking an iPhone wasn't legal in the past, now it is... ok great.  I'm of the strong belief that if I buy a piece of hardware, I can do as I please with it as long as I don't harm others or don't plan to yell at the manufacturer when I ---fudgesicle--- it up.

but hey... everyone loves a nice anonymous internet argument, right?   I'll start the countdown on Godwin's law now....  

[shmokes]

The Constitution of the United States....That should ring some alarm bells in your head.

Wait . . . jailbreaking is unconstitutional now?  What can I say, con law was a tough class.  I totally missed that part.

By the way, the horse pointdablame referred to was of the metaphorical variety.  I don't think your experience at your brother's Nevada ranch will help you much. 

And yes, I read your link (obviously, based on my response).  And you, obviously, don't know how laws and other legal authority are read and interpreted. 

[ark_ader]

Every time a legality argument comes up here (which seems to be every week), I can't help but think "those in glass houses...."

Why do you even care if he jailbroke his iPad?  Have you ever downloaded a rom?  Gone over the speed limit?  Crossed the street outside of a crosswalk?  You broke the law.  If you haven't ever broken ANY law, good for you.  You are one in a billion.

The law is the law... until it changes, as it has thousands of times.  Jailbreaking an iPhone wasn't legal in the past, now it is... ok great.  I'm of the strong belief that if I buy a piece of hardware, I can do as I please with it as long as I don't harm others or don't plan to yell at the manufacturer when I ---fudgesicle--- it up.

but hey... everyone loves a nice anonymous internet argument, right?   I'll start the countdown on Godwin's law now....  

Oh I agree completely.  But I find this person's post the most amusing.  You see he has not done any research on his topic, just skimmed the internet.  The ruling on Jailbreaking also protects those who perform the service, so if you offer to jailbreak the iphone for a fee you cannot be punished.  But we are not discussing the iphone - we are discussing the ipad.  Totally different fish, under that ruling, and that the OP is a Lawyer is very much amusing.  It is a point of ethics, yes you can do pretty much what you want in life - nobody can stop you.  I just wouldn't be bragging about it on a well known messageboard.

Just in case Apple was reading, and decided to make an example of someone, especially someone who knows the law.  Heaven forbid.

Like I said hit that link, that glass house you refer to might be really made out of plexi.

But we have 3 years, then it might all change again. 

The Constitution of the United States....That should ring some alarm bells in your head.

Wait . . . jailbreaking is unconstitutional now?  What can I say, con law was a tough class.  I totally missed that part.

By the way, the horse pointdablame referred to was of the metaphorical variety.  I don't think your experience at your brother's Nevada ranch will help you much. 

And yes, I read your link (obviously, based on my response).  And you, obviously, don't know how laws and other legal authority are read and interpreted. 

Really? Well you haven't shown me where it says it is legal to jailbreak your ipad yet.  Did that slip your mind?

Pop quiz:  Why was the Constitution of the United States  created in the first place?  What did it protect in regards to our discussion?

By the way, the horse pointdablame referred to was of the metaphorical variety.  I don't think your experience at your brother's Nevada ranch will help you much.

As was mine on the Constitution.   

[shmokes]

By the way, the horse pointdablame referred to was of the metaphorical variety.  I don't think your experience at your brother's Nevada ranch will help you much.

As was mine on the Constitution.   

As was your what?  You were referring to a hypothetical constitution, or your brother's ranch was hypothetical?  I sincerely don't know what you're talking about.

And I did tell you where it says jailbreaking an iPad is legal.  When it comes to jailbreaking an iDevice there is nothing significant about the fact that there is a CDMA or GSM chip in it.  For unlocking, yes, for jailbreaking, none whatsoever.  An iPod touch is an iPhone aside from that one little chip.  I, and any competent lawyer, would counsel a jailbreaker that they were almost definitely perfectly safe to jailbreak those devices to their heart's content because it is now defacto legal.  Apple would never sue them (because Apple employs equally competent lawyers who know how to read laws and regs and cases, etc.) and if they did a judge would never side with them because to do so would be to make the law an ass. 

[ark_ader]

By the way, the horse pointdablame referred to was of the metaphorical variety.  I don't think your experience at your brother's Nevada ranch will help you much.

As was mine on the Constitution.  

As was your what?  You were referring to a hypothetical constitution, or your brother's ranch was hypothetical?  I sincerely don't know what you're talking about.

And I did tell you where it says jailbreaking an iPad is legal.  When it comes to jailbreaking an iDevice there is nothing significant about the fact that there is a CDMA or GSM chip in it.  For unlocking, yes, for jailbreaking, none whatsoever.  An iPod touch is an iPhone aside from that one little chip.  I, and any competent lawyer, would counsel a jailbreaker that they were almost definitely perfectly safe to jailbreak those devices to their heart's content because it is now defacto legal.  Apple would never sue them (because Apple employs equally competent lawyers who know how to read laws and regs and cases, etc.) and if they did a judge would never side with them because to do so would be to make the law an ass.  

References?  Lets see them.

Otherwise it is:

All heresay your honour.

All I see is your opinion, nothing tangible that one can read and relate to.  You have not submitted one scrap of evidence to back up your theory.  And you call yourself a lawyer?

I hope your mentor isn't reading this.  

Seriously, Shmokes I think you need to provide something that will provide some insight to your argument.  So far your responses are becoming predictable.

May I suggest you refrain from responding until you have found a firm foundation to base your argument on.  I want to see fact not fiction.

You did not answer my Consitutution question, let me know if I am asking too much of you at this time.  

As was your what?  You were referring to a hypothetical constitution, or your brother's ranch was hypothetical?  I sincerely don't know what you're talking about.

You knew very well what I was referring to.  

I will help you Shmokes.  I read my post and it was very much one-sided.  You have no responsibility to respond to me nor do I have the right to ask you to defend yourself as you have not actually demonstrated that you have done this act. As Pointdablame as pointed out it is all hypothetical.

So here is an excerpt of the ruling and if anyone can point out the related word, just dont keep it to yourself - just jump up and down and scream it out loud to the computer screen:



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.


 


Edit: cannot spell tonight.

[shmokes]

Pop quiz:  Why was the Constitution of the United States  created in the first place?  What did it protect in regards to our discussion?

Lol . . . this question?  I thought that was rhetorical.  Um, the First Amendment protects our freedom to have this discussion.  One section empowers Congress to legislate copyright.  LMAO.  If you have something to say why don't you just say it?

If the world worked the way you think it works there would be no need for lawyers.  Nobody would employ lawyers for legal advice.  And there would be no such thing as appellate courts.  Facts would be established by trial courts and the law would simply be applied to those facts.  Appellate courts do nothing other than correct errors of law (i.e. interpret the law).  They don't touch the facts as found by the lower court.  You don't get to introduce new evidence or just claim that the lower court drew the wrong conclusion from the facts.  The appellate court is there just to tell you whether the laws were interpreted and applied correctly by the lower court.  Honestly, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Also, you have no idea what hearsay is.  You might want to remedy that before using it in a sentence again--especially a sentence meant to convey your intellectual superiority.

[ark_ader]

Pop quiz:  Why was the Constitution of the United States  created in the first place?  What did it protect in regards to our discussion?

Lol . . . this question?  I thought that was rhetorical.  Um, the First Amendment protects our freedom to have this discussion.  One section empowers Congress to legislate copyright.  LMAO.  If you have something to say why don't you just say it?

If the world worked the way you think it works there would be no need for lawyers.  Nobody would employ lawyers for legal advice.  And there would be no such thing as appellate courts.  Facts would be established by trial courts and the law would simply be applied to those facts.  Appellate courts do nothing other than correct errors of law (i.e. interpret the law).  They don't touch the facts as found by the lower court.  You don't get to introduce new evidence or just claim that the lower court drew the wrong conclusion from the facts.  The appellate court is there just to tell you whether the laws were interpreted and applied correctly by the lower court.  Honestly, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Also, you have no idea what hearsay is.  You might want to remedy that before using it in a sentence again--especially a sentence meant to convey your intellectual superiority.

What I do know is that you have ducked my question several times and you have not provided any factual information or references to back up your claim that it is legal to jailbreak an iPad.  I have provided references.  I have shown you where your argument is void.  All I see is your incompetence in responding to my question.  All you can do is attack my responses, trying to change the subject, making me look small.  Shame on you.

Shmokes - are you really a lawyer or just an armchair Perry Mason?   

With your response the option of legal advice, I would have to be directed to someone with more legal experience.  If I had you representing me, I know I would be going into the court room half-cocked.

So far you have only proven your ignorance on the matter. Perhaps you should ask a colleague with more common sense experience on the subject, and again please provide references to your argument for the rest of us to follow.

Oh and please do remind us that an ipad is a telephone, by nature and by manufacture, with your evidence to back up your claims.

We await your informed answer.

[shmokes]

Shmokes - are you really a lawyer or just an armchair Perry Mason?  

Um . . . your bringing up legal qualifications?  That doesn't even make sense.  Are you a lawyer?

Anyway, I've explained my position to you.  The whole world, including Apple, behaves as though they agree with me.  And either way, I don't care any more than I care that I almost never come to a full stop in front of a stop sign before then rolling up to the intersection.  I didn't create this thread to talk about how you can easily steal software with a jailbroken iDevice.  We're talking about XBMC, which is legal and only compatible with jailbroken iDevices.

Stop acting like a ten year old.  Saint's a big boy.  He can take care of himself.

[ark_ader]

We are not talking about Saint, or me, we are talking about you and your inability to back up your statements.

You see, you made a bold statement, which you seem to have difficulty backing up otherwise you would have done so by now. 

This is a shame, as I thought you would be eager to prove your point.  The fact that you have not done so only proves that are in the wrong.  Not a good start is it?

Take some advice:  Do whatever you like, just don't brag about it on a website, which opens you up to criticism, especially ones you have difficulty proving.

Now whenever you respond to a post, I have to remind myself you might not be who you appear to be, except maybe a Perry Mason wannabe.   

How dissapointing.  I thought you had some legal insight, some legal mumbo jumbo to dazzle us with, yet you chose to duck and dive the answer time and time again.  Nothing referenced, nothing factual - just your opinion.

I suggest that you leave the tech legalities of the modern world to those who are more capable and go watch some Perry Mason episodes instead.

You might learn something 

[shmokes]

Seriously, are you fourteen years old?  You sound like a fourteen year old arguing with your parents.  You should seriously dial down the spaz factor in your posts.  Or dial down the sugar in your Cheerios.  

Here's Apple's official position on jailbreaking. They mention both the iPad and iPod multiple times.  They mention that jailbreaking violates the EULA. Interesting that they completely omit any hint of it violating the law.  When a company is actively trying to deter a behavior, you'd think it might occur to them how useful it could be to mention that the behavior is against the law.

There are links all over the web, on mainstream U.S. hosted websites, to software that is overtly advertised as iPad/iPod jailbreaking software.  How do you suppose this can be?

I'll show you the law that makes jailbreaking an iPad legal when you show me the law that makes it legal for you to drive your car with the window rolled down.  

What you are saying is idiotic.  You have no idea how our legal system works.  Courts do not have to play make believe when they're applying laws to fact patterns.  First, jailbreaking wasn't even illegal before these new DMCA exemptions were announced.  Many people just thought that they might be, but it had never been decided by the courts or legislature.  The Librarian of Congress issues exemptions to the DMCA when an access control is substantially hampering people's ability to use their devices in non-copyright-infringing ways.   That makes things much clearer.  But a court faced with a civil action or charges for jailbreaking an iPad does not have to (and won't) just read the text and make an asinine ruling based on an asinine issue of semantics.  They have access to the Library of Congress's process, hearings, advisory committee notes, briefs, etc.  They are able to look at the purpose of the law and see that the CDMA or GSM chip has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether Apple's access controls are hampering people's ability to use non-Apple-approved software on their devices.  

Jailbreaking an iPad is no more illegal than using an electric wheelchair in a park with posted signs that say, "No Vehicles In The Park."  Which is to say that a layperson who reads the ordinance might make a big fuss about it, but a lawyer will just roll his eyes and say, "You can use your wheelchair in the park.  They're talking about cars."

Apple are not laypersons.  That's why they don't claim jailbreaking is illegal and why they issue no cease and desist orders and bring no civil actions against the makers of jailbreak tools.  ark_arder, stop blustering for a second and just use your common sense.  Apple DOES NOT want people to jailbreak.  Just think about it for a few minutes.  Let that plant at least a seed of doubt in your position.  You may think I'm Perry Mason (who never lost a case as far as I know, but whatever), but ---fudgesicle--- . . . do you not think that Apple has an army of the highest paid, most talented lawyers that money can buy?  Do you seriously think that you're smarter than they are?  We've seen how aggressive Apple's legal team is.  They've sued fan blogs for posting details of rumored equipment.  They ---smurfing--- broke the door down of the Gizmodo editor's apartment who got a hold of an iPhone 4 that was left in a bar by a tester a couple months before release, and they confiscated all his computer equipment.  They sent a 3rd grader a cease and desist letter when she sent them a letter suggesting ways to make the iPod Nano better.  They cease-and-desisted an iPhone stand maker for naming their product the Podium iPhone Stand.  

Apple's legal department is notoriously aggressive.  They are notorious for being bullies.  ark . . . if jailbreaking the iPad was illegal, Apple would say so.  And they would pursue it.  Let me know when you can show me that driving with your window rolled down is legal.  Make sure you include references. Or it'll just be, "All hearsay your honor!"  

[Donkey_Kong]

Hey man, guess what? I got a SNAKE!!... On my ipad!

[ark_ader]

Seriously, are you fourteen years old?  You sound like a fourteen year old arguing with your parents.  You should seriously dial down the spaz factor in your posts.  Or dial down the sugar in your Cheerios.  

Here's Apple's official position on jailbreaking. They mention both the iPad and iPod multiple times.  They mention that jailbreaking violates the EULA. Interesting that they completely omit any hint of it violating the law.  When a company is actively trying to deter a behavior, you'd think it might occur to them how useful it could be to mention that the behavior is against the law.

There are links all over the web, on mainstream U.S. hosted websites, to software that is overtly advertised as iPad/iPod jailbreaking software.  How do you suppose this can be?

I'll show you the law that makes jailbreaking an iPad legal when you show me the law that makes it legal for you to drive your car with the window rolled down.  

What you are saying is idiotic.  You have no idea how our legal system works.  Courts do not have to play make believe when they're applying laws to fact patterns.  First, jailbreaking wasn't even illegal before these new DMCA exemptions were announced.  Many people just thought that they might be, but it had never been decided by the courts or legislature.  The Librarian of Congress issues exemptions to the DMCA when an access control is substantially hampering people's ability to use their devices in non-copyright-infringing ways.   That makes things much clearer.  But a court faced with a civil action or charges for jailbreaking an iPad does not have to (and won't) just read the text and make an asinine ruling based on an asinine issue of semantics.  They have access to the Library of Congress's process, hearings, advisory committee notes, briefs, etc.  They are able to look at the purpose of the law and see that the CDMA or GSM chip has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether Apple's access controls are hampering people's ability to use non-Apple-approved software on their devices.  

Jailbreaking an iPad is no more illegal than using an electric wheelchair in a park with posted signs that say, "No Vehicles In The Park."  Which is to say that a layperson who reads the ordinance might make a big fuss about it, but a lawyer will just roll his eyes and say, "You can use your wheelchair in the park.  They're talking about cars."

Apple are not laypersons.  That's why they don't claim jailbreaking is illegal and why they issue no cease and desist orders and bring no civil actions against the makers of jailbreak tools.  ark_arder, stop blustering for a second and just use your common sense.  Apple DOES NOT want people to jailbreak.  Just think about it for a few minutes.  Let that plant at least a seed of doubt in your position.  You may think I'm Perry Mason (who never lost a case as far as I know, but whatever), but ---fudgesicle--- . . . do you not think that Apple has an army of the highest paid, most talented lawyers that money can buy?  Do you seriously think that you're smarter than they are?  We've seen how aggressive Apple's legal team is.  They've sued fan blogs for posting details of rumored equipment.  They ---smurfing--- broke the door down of the Gizmodo editor's apartment who got a hold of an iPhone 4 that was left in a bar by a tester a couple months before release, and they confiscated all his computer equipment.  They sent a 3rd grader a cease and desist letter when she sent them a letter suggesting ways to make the iPod Nano better.  They cease-and-desisted an iPhone stand maker for naming their product the Podium iPhone Stand.  

Apple's legal department is notoriously aggressive.  They are notorious for being bullies.  ark . . . if jailbreaking the iPad was illegal, Apple would say so.  And they would pursue it.  Let me know when you can show me that driving with your window rolled down is legal.  Make sure you include references. Or it'll just be, "All hearsay your honor!"  

My goodness.  You have been busy.  You went digging around to find something tangible that would silence my point about jailbreaking the iPad and exconerate yourself at the same time.

Well Shmokes you didn't hit paydirt, no you didn't even come close.  That link is very interesting. What is the first word used?  Unauthorized.  You may have the right to use the device and modify it as you see fit to the physical device (add stickers etc) but you do not have the right to change the software.  You do not own the software - Apple does.  You agreed to honour the rights of Apple when you accepted the EULA, then installed a program to jailbreak the software which you broke your agreement.  Do you think Apple has a right to restrict the apps you install?  It doesn't?  Why not?  The software or IOS is not yours - the physical device is yours.  Thus the Library of Congress ruling about jailbreaking - to allow the user to change the carrier and only if the Carrier authorizes it.  Advise which carriers do authorize it?    What?  Oh, silly me the iPad is not a phone.

I want to know if it is legal to change the OS.  If I want to put Android on the iPad or Linux, but I would have to circumvent the device's protection to do that.

But this is all moot as the Ipad is not a telephone. <sigh>.

With regard to Apple taking legal action, the process you be costly and have a negative impact on PR.  Apple goes for big companies not small potatoes.

But let us get back on topic.  My argument is that you knowing circumvented a device to by pass and installed applications that was not sanctioned by Apple.  So if you are not liable for criminal prosecution, are you not liable for civil damages as you have broke the EULA?  You did this being an officer of the court.  Thus entering in DMCA waters.  Let us not get side tracked with pointless arguments of open window laws and wheelchair vs vehicle nonsense.

Then you bang on about jailbreakers not being prosecuted....

My goodness Shmokes have you not read that Library of Congress link, that exempts those who jailbreak iPhones.  You keep throwing that out there, jeez.

I thought you would have brought some sound judgements and a host of referenced material that would provide without a shadow of a doubt that it is legal to jailbreak an iPad.

Maybe in the next three years you will be able to, who knows.

Nice try Perry, but no cigar.

[Donkbaca]

THe point about "carriers authorizing it" is about you trying to hook up a phone to a network without paying for it.  In other words, you can't jailbreak a phone for the purpose of using a cell phone carriers network without the cell phone carrier giving you permission.

I think you are confusing, "change the software" with making changes to the software.  Its fine to change OSes, it is NOT okay to hack the code and use it to make your own OS.  As far as I know, its the former happening, not the latter.

The Library of Congress does not have the ability to make law, I don't know why you keep referring to it as a "ruling".

Your point about apple not taking action because it is costly is laughable.  They have lawyers on staff who's job it is to vigorously protect their copyrights.  I am sure Apple could afford to send out "cease and desist" letters if this truly was an issue.  On top of that Apple is one of the more litigious companies out there and they sue ALL the time.  For example, they sued about the jail break, they sued a blogger for posting pictures of an iphone four before launch. 

How would be he be liable for civil damages for breaking an EULA?  How has Apple been damaged? Usually breaking a EULA results in a revocation of service,  If you viuolate the terms of service for say a WoW account.  Blizzard shuts down your account and denies you service.  They don't sue you, because frankly what basis would they have to sue you for?

You will not find a law that says "thou shaly jail break an ipad".  Generally laws restrict behavior, not condone it. Find me a law that says its okay to eat beef for dinner.  Find me a federal law that says its okay to watch free tv over an antenna.  Find me a law that says its okay to mow my lawn.  They don't exist.

[shmokes]

Then you bang on about jailbreakers not being prosecuted....

My goodness Shmokes have you not read that Library of Congress link, that exempts those who jailbreak iPhones.  You keep throwing that out there, jeez.

I don't know if you're being deliberately idiotic, but I've quoted myself below and put the important parts in bold to aid your reading comprehension.

There are links all over the web, on mainstream U.S. hosted websites, to software that is overtly advertised as iPad/iPod jailbreaking software.  How do you suppose this can be?

Apple's legal department is notoriously aggressive.  They are notorious for being bullies.  ark . . . if jailbreaking the iPad was illegal, Apple would say so.  And they would pursue it.

Apparently you're not sophisticated enough to grok the significance of the wheelchair in the park or the driving with your window rolled down parallels.  Donkbaca already mentioned it.  In a free society you are able to do as you please unless that action is proscribed by law.  Our legislatures don't pass a law for every thing we can do.  That would be an absurd, not to mention impossible, task.  And lawmakers generally don't write airtight laws that account for everything they're meant to on their face, both because lawmakers don't typically have perfect language skills and because they simply can't think of everything.  That's why the simple law No Vehicles in the Park doesn't bar tricycles and No Motorized Vehicles doesn't bar electric wheelchairs and No Cars does bar Dune Buggies and Golf Carts--because judges have to decide on the cases before them based on the imperfect applicable legislation, and the judge has to decide not only what the law makers explicitly said, but what they intended.

We're not getting side-tracked at all.  We're giving you an education.

[shmokes]

That link is very interesting. What is the first word used?  Unauthorized.  You may have the right to use the device and modify it as you see fit to the physical device (add stickers etc) but you do not have the right to change the software. 

LMAO.  I'm serious . . . are you fourteen years old?  Add stickers?  That link is talking about adding stickers?  It says:

This article is about adverse issues experienced by customers who have made unauthorized modifications to the iOS (this hacking process is often called "jailbreaking")

I don't think they're talking about stickers.  Also "unauthorized" means "unauthorized by Apple," not by the U.S. Government.  Violating the EULA means your warranty is void, not that you are guilty of criminal copyright violations.

[ark_ader]

I think you are losing the plot.

I think you have also lost credibility.

The resorting to taunts, when I have asked repeatedly for you to come up with a legal representation, that if your client was up against such alligations, you could create a defense.

Then you go on a tangent about driving with your window down or using a wheelchair where vehicles are prohibited.  It is just nonsense.  We are discussing the jailbreak on iPads.  Please do not confuse the issue.

The add stickers refers to modding the physical device, not the software.  I cannot think why you would mod the iPad as it is perfect in its design.  If I had a suggestion to anyone with an iPad is to look into some type of rubber skin, I'm always frightened of dropping my friends iPad. 

What you do not have the right to is to circumvent the protection on the iPad.  Apple has deemed this unauthorized access, and breaks any warranty, not to mention any EULA you have.  The iPad is not a dead platform - like the Xbox1 (poor example), so the obsolete platforms ruling does not help, neither is it a telephone <sigh again> so we cannot say that the iPad is an iPhone.  I didn't see iPod listed anywhere either, so that argument is crud.

Also "unauthorized" means "unauthorized by Apple," not by the U.S. Government.  Violating the EULA means your warranty is void, not that you are guilty of criminal copyright violations.

I think I touched on that before - I am sure you just skim my posts.  I was referring to DMCA as the said ruling that opens up the door for iPhone Jailbreaks, has no wording to include any other IOS devices like the iPad or The AppleTV or the iPod.  People read what they want to believe.  Journalists promote this and sell newspapers or get revenue streams via content. If it doesn't come from a credible source I discount it.  There are so many pages saying the same thing as it is the same article, same wording, everything, repeated.  If you have to circumvent the OS to put said app without Apple's permission then you are in DMCA shark infested waters.

If you are saying that you were given the wrong impression and you made a mistake - that would be better than you trying to put a square peg in a round hole.

Your authorizing comment above is not exactly true is it?  Say you wanted to Jailbreak your iPad so you can download an app like XBMC.  XBMC is really cool, and should be available to everyone, but Apple says you cannot have it on their App Store because it has security issues with your carrier's servers (hypothetical).  Something like that happens and your iPad is tracked to you causing an outage - which world of hurt would you be in if caught?  Its the ethical argument I am having with you.  Something you have not heeded or acknowledged.

All these responses by you, and not one with any references to back you up.  Just your opinion of what you think is right.

What I have learned during this tirade is Ethical Practice for lawyers >>> >>link >>

Very interesting reading.

There are links all over the web, on mainstream U.S. hosted websites, to software that is overtly advertised as iPad/iPod jailbreaking software.  How do you suppose this can be?

 

And lawmakers generally don't write airtight laws that account for everything they're meant to on their face, both because lawmakers don't typically have perfect language skills and because they simply can't think of everything.

The lawmakers just write laws that prohibit actions detremental to moral implications.  Something I am trying to impress on you.

THe point about "carriers authorizing it" is about you trying to hook up a phone to a network without paying for it.  In other words, you can't jailbreak a phone for the purpose of using a cell phone carriers network without the cell phone carrier giving you permission.

Obviously we have not read the same paragraph.  Like I said before - we read what we want to see.  The paragraph regarding authorization of the carrier - is for the circumventing of the phone protection (unlocking) to use on another carrier, if the carrier authorizes such behaviour.  I do not believe any iPhone carrier would be in the position to authorize anything without Apples' permission or contract obligations.  Its legal for you to sell the software to do the circumvention.  I know that you can unlock phones, the mechanics escape me.  I used to work for a major Mobile Telecom.  The Telecom had to bind the phone to the network, so getting the phone to work on a provider would be  very easy.  You just replace the Simm.  Plenty of simms that work on locked phones, especially international ones.

Nice to see Apple closing that door with its new Smaller iPhone.

[polaris]

ethical practice for lawyers, thats hilarious in itself.
good luck at the pearly gates shmokes, looks like gods disciple has judged you and youre going down

[shmokes]

I know that you can unlock phones, the mechanics escape me. 

All phones have a keyhole on them.  Unlocking requires putting the correct skeleton key in the keyhole and turning.  God knows you don't have to alter any software to unlock the phone.

p.s. You can't switch carriers by simply changing the sim card.  An AT&T phone will not accept a T-Mobile or Orange sim card unless the phone is unlocked first.

p.p.s.   

[ark_ader]

p.s. You can't switch carriers by simply changing the sim card.  An AT&T phone will not accept a T-Mobile or Orange sim card unless the phone is unlocked first.

I didn't imply that.  Yet I can use an authorized (you don't know what that word means do you?) international sim instead of paying my provider international rates.  If you cannot do that in the US - well you can in the UK.

It appears that we cannot resolve this iPad ethical discussion in the formal way like adults do.  I have tried to provide examples of my argument to you in laymans terms, yet all you do is try to change the subject.

So I will defer to a higher power.  I am sure they will concur with your opinions.

If I am wrong about the jailbreak and the iPad I will apologise. 

If I am correct, then we can look at this hypothetical issue again with the knowledge gained.   

[Donkbaca]

I don't think apple authorizes international sims

[SavannahLion]

I never thought it could happen but I've to re-rank my opinion of xiaou to make room for someone else.

[shmokes]

So I will defer to a higher power.  I am sure they will concur with your opinions.

Not exactly the most objective source on the matter . . .

Whether in the U.S. or U.K. locking and unlocking work the same.  A locked phone won't work with unauthorized sims.  The fact that providers in your country have authorized certain international sims is irrelevant.  In any case, U.S. carriers do not allow you to use "international sims" in their phones.  You either use your regular sim or you unlock your phone.  I strongly recommend the latter.

[javeryh]

Does this allow streaming over 3G or Wifi (outside of the network you are hooked up to)?  I just want to be able to stream my entire iTunes library to my iPhone wherever I am.  Is there anything out there that will work (for free)?

[shmokes]

Does this allow streaming over 3G or Wifi (outside of the network you are hooked up to)?  I just want to be able to stream my entire iTunes library to my iPhone wherever I am.  Is there anything out there that will work (for free)?

My first instinct is no.  If you could set up some persistent VPN on your device, and if XBMC would browse through that . . . maybe.  When I go into add sources and browse the options I have are:

SAP Streams
UPnP Devices
Windows Network (SMB)
Zeroconf Browser

I don't know what SAP Streams or Zeroconf Browser are, so maybe you could look into those.  UPnP won't do you any good.  Windows Network might work over VPN, but I sort of doubt XBMC is set up to work over VPN on an iOS device.

[crashwg]

What a riveting discussion.  Ark you're wrong, Shmokes is right. 

Disclaimer: This is my opinion based solely on the arguments being made in this thread.  I have done no research of my own on the subject.

[knave]

Not only is Ark wrong but he is acting like a jerk. Shmokes, I am amazed at your patience.

[Donkbaca]

So.... is it worth it to install XBMC on it?

[polaris]

So.... is it worth it to install XBMC on it?

in the first post of this thread the first word is 'amazing'  , but we're way past wether its any good and are currently on shmokes' abilities as a lawyer in areas he doesn't practice (i'm guessing) but seems to understand, and his overall ethical status and validity as a lawyer for using jailbreak software which seems to everyone to be fine apart from ark. to bring you up to speed, ark thinks he has shmokes in a moral noose, shmokes thinks the whole argument is ridiculous but keeps coming back because between me and you he just loves arguing, guess its lawyer practice

[SavannahLion]

Ethical noose? That may work with someone like Mother Teresa but a lawyer?

Not saying that lawyers are unethical but IP law isn't necessarily about ethics, its about money. There's a whole lotta wrong and not much right there.

Sorry ark, +1 goes to Shmokes.

[polaris]

Ethical noose? That may work with someone like Mother Teresa but a lawyer?

Not saying that lawyers are unethical but IP law isn't necessarily about ethics, its about money. There's a whole lotta wrong and not much right there.

i refer you to post no 42 your honour

[ChadTower]

Wait . . . jailbreaking is unconstitutional now?  What can I say, con law was a tough class.  I totally missed that part.

Only if the phone is gay.  A gay phone has the right to marry any service provider regardless of physical protocols.

[Blanka]

Does it also work on Android?
I run Android on my iPad as iOS stinks.

BTW Apple is playing ass again, if you have iBooks, you can't view them on jailbroken iThings any longer with the latest update.

[shmokes]

Glad I never jumped on iBooks.  It made no sense with the platform agnostic Kindle on the market.  I've already got a bunch of Kindle books which I've read on my Kindle (sold to get the iPad), Blackberry and PC.  I use the Ipad and Blackberry regularly since my wife and I are frequently reading the same books.  Anyway, it's nice to know that when I dump the iPad for an Android or Windows or Blackberry tablet my library will follow me.


Hey Ark . . . here's something fun.  Sony finally released a public statement about the new(ish) PS3 jailbreak:

"Notice: Unauthorized circumvention devices for the PlayStation 3 system have been recently released by hackers. These devices permit the use of unauthorized or pirated software. Use of such devices or software violates the terms of the 'System Software License Agreement for the PlayStation 3 System' and the 'Terms of Services and User Agreement' for the PlayStation Network/Qriocity and its Community Code of Conduct provisions. Violation of the System Software Licence Agreement for the PlayStation 3 System invalidates the consumer guarantee for that system. In addition, copying or playing pirated software is a violation of International Copyright Laws. Consumers using circumvention devices or running unauthorized or pirated software will have access to the PlayStation Network and access to Qriocity services through PlayStation 3 system terminated permanently.

"To avoid this, consumers must immediately cease use and remove all circumvention devices and delete all unauthorized or pirated software from their PlayStation 3 systems."

Let's see what they're saying here:

- Jailbreaking violates the system software license agreement?  Check
- Jailbreaking violates the terms of services and user agreements?  Check
- Violating the license agreements voids your warranty?  Check
- Jailbreakers will be banned from PSN?  Check
- Copying/playing pirated software is illegal?  Check Check Check  (three checks seeing as they're going out of their way to tell you what is illegal)
- Jailbreaking is illegal?  Hmm . . . maybe they just forgot to include it.  Probably just an oversight.

[shmokes]

So.... is it worth it to install XBMC on it?

If you want to stream media to your device, without question.  It streams flawlessly.  However, the interface is not where it needs to be yet.  There is almost no gesture control implemented.  You can swipe to jump back a level while browsing or double-tap something to get the equivalent of a right-click, but otherwise your finger just acts like a mouse.  It makes scrolling through lists of media difficult as you have to use the scroll bar at the side of the list, which is too small to grab consistently.  Other things are too small as well, particularly a few buttons you use when setting up your sources.

The quirks are substantial, but most of the frustrations involve initial setup, so at least it's not an ongoing thing.  And it's gonna be a matter of weeks before it's skinned with a proper, gesture-driven skin.  You might want to wait for that to happen, especially since I'm sure it's right around the corner.  But if you just want good streaming without having to run a transcoder on another PC, you may as well hit it now.  The streaming is super solid and there's no degradation of quality (though on a screen the size of an iPod/iPad this may not be an issue).  Also, upgrading is a apparently a one-button affair in Cydia, so when a newer, better version comes out you shouldn't have to do a bunch of work all over again.

[ark_ader]

Glad I never jumped on iBooks.  It made no sense with the platform agnostic Kindle on the market.  I've already got a bunch of Kindle books which I've read on my Kindle (sold to get the iPad), Blackberry and PC.  I use the Ipad and Blackberry regularly since my wife and I are frequently reading the same books.  Anyway, it's nice to know that when I dump the iPad for an Android or Windows or Blackberry tablet my library will follow me.


Hey Ark . . . here's something fun.  Sony finally released a public statement about the new(ish) PS3 jailbreak:

"Notice: Unauthorized circumvention devices for the PlayStation 3 system have been recently released by hackers. These devices permit the use of unauthorized or pirated software. Use of such devices or software violates the terms of the 'System Software License Agreement for the PlayStation 3 System' and the 'Terms of Services and User Agreement' for the PlayStation Network/Qriocity and its Community Code of Conduct provisions. Violation of the System Software Licence Agreement for the PlayStation 3 System invalidates the consumer guarantee for that system. In addition, copying or playing pirated software is a violation of International Copyright Laws. Consumers using circumvention devices or running unauthorized or pirated software will have access to the PlayStation Network and access to Qriocity services through PlayStation 3 system terminated permanently.

"To avoid this, consumers must immediately cease use and remove all circumvention devices and delete all unauthorized or pirated software from their PlayStation 3 systems."

Let's see what they're saying here:

- Jailbreaking violates the system software license agreement?  Check
- Jailbreaking violates the terms of services and user agreements?  Check
- Violating the license agreements voids your warranty?  Check
- Jailbreakers will be banned from PSN?  Check
- Copying/playing pirated software is illegal?  Check Check Check  (three checks seeing as they're going out of their way to tell you what is illegal)
- Jailbreaking is illegal?  Hmm . . . maybe they just forgot to include it.  Probably just an oversight.

Here is something more fun, Sony allowed the PS3 to dual boot linux, in order to pass the PS3 as a computer, thus making it a tax dodge .  So if they remove this feature , isn't Sony liable for all that tax money as the PS3 isn't deemed a computer anymore, or never intended to be?  Sony did this already with the PS2.  Funny that this facility is still possible with the Fat PS2s....

I do not know where you got that quote from, but why should a company point out a procedure like jail breaking is illegal, when that fact might not be illegal in the county where the disclaimer declares the act is illegal.  It would be like Microsoft saying that xbox1 mod chips are illegal on a global website accessible in Australia , when it is not illegal in Australia to mod xbox1(s).

I would say that these companies like Apple and Sony do not have to say that circumvention of their copyright devices are illegal, when the country that makes the laws determine if the circumvention is illegal.  Sony or Apple do not have the power to throw you in jail, but the government can if you break the law.  That sounds logical right?  Sony and Apple can sue you for civil damages, which might be worse than facing the slammer.

The DMCA still has teeth in this argument.  It is up to you Shmokes to provide an adequate defense, with references.  Not silly musings that either change the subject (or at least try to) and avoid presenting a factual response.  I do not subscribe to the Ethical Noose suggestion, as Shmokes can change and see the errors of his ways.  I like Ethical Hook better, as we all can get snagged on it.

I yet have to determine if I should wake up a sleeping giant. 

[shmokes]

I yet have to determine if I should wake up a sleeping giant. 

What do you mean, "yet have to determine?"  You didn't say you were just considering it.  What are you waiting for?

Also, LMAO.  The "quote" was from Sony's own US-specific blog.  Nice try, though.  And by nice try, I mean lol wut?

And I suppose you're right.  Sony does not have to say that jailbreaking is illegal in their official statement telling users not to jailbreak.  Though, they didn't have to say that copying/playing pirated software is illegal.  Didn't stop them from saying that:

In addition, copying or playing pirated software is a violation of International Copyright Laws.

 

[ark_ader]

I yet have to determine if I should wake up a sleeping giant. 

What do you mean, "yet have to determine?"  You didn't say you were just considering it.  What are you waiting for?

Also, LMAO.  The "quote" was from Sony's own US-specific blog.  Nice try, though.  And by nice try, I mean lol wut?

And I suppose you're right.  Sony does not have to say that jailbreaking is illegal in their official statement telling users not to jailbreak.  Though, they didn't have to say that copying/playing pirated software is illegal.  Didn't stop them from saying that:

In addition, copying or playing pirated software is a violation of International Copyright Laws.

 

I do see where they deem this circumventing promotes piracy.  Playing backups is not illegal, but the circumvention is deemed to be again via DMCA.

I noticed you fail to enter that debate with the DMCA.  Why is that Shmokes?  Feeling guilty? 

What do you mean, "yet have to determine?"  You didn't say you were just considering it.  What are you waiting for?

Good point, glad to know I have your blessings.  It was my only concern. Thanks. 

[shmokes]

Oh sweet, holy mary mother of god . . . I haven't entered the DMCA debate?  WTF have we been talking about this whole time?  What exactly do you think the Library of Congress exemptions are exemptions to?

[knave]

If Ark has appointed himself "ethics enforcer" and resorts to threats against members he should be banned. We do not need that on this board where we just want to talk about our cool projects and events.

[shmokes]

Aww . . . Ark's harmless.  Helpless, but harmless. 

[ark_ader]

If Ark has appointed himself "ethics enforcer" and resorts to threats against members he should be banned. We do not need that on this board where we just want to talk about our cool projects and events.

You haven't been reading this thread have you?

We are discussing Shmokes and his ethical responsibilities, with regard to iPad jailbreaking.

Have I mentioned anyone else?  No?  Hmmm.  This is a hypothetical discussion.

Maybe you need to get some reading glasses, or a good night's sleep.

Aww . . . Ark's harmless.  Helpless, but harmless. 

   There is nothing wrong with your sense of humour Shmokes.  Perhaps you have devote some of that energy into something that is credible to this argument.  Like how Ipad Jailbreaking is not DMCA actionable under the given circumstances. 
You must have a set of law books you can borrow from the library.

[Donkbaca]

The biggest flaw with your argument ark is that there is the presumption of innocence we have here in this country.  It is you that have the burden of proof to show that jailbreaking an ipod is illegal.  If Apple were to come down on Shmokes for jailbreaking an ipad, they couldn't just file a lawsuit that said, "He jailbroke his ipad, he is violating the DMCA, he has to prove he is not breaking the law."  Quite the contrary, the burden would be on Apple to show that the what he is doing is in violation of the DMCA and the DMCA applies to the matter at hand.  You have failed to do that. Shmokes doesn't have to prove anything is legal, someone has to prove that what he is doing is illegal, and frankly you just have not convinced me, or others that is the case

[shmokes]

You haven't been reading this thread have you?

We are discussing Shmokes and his ethical responsibilities, with regard to iPad jailbreaking.

Have I mentioned anyone else?  No?  Hmmm.  This is a hypothetical discussion.

Maybe you need to get some reading glasses, or a good night's sleep.

He's talking about your veiled threat to turn me in to Apple's legal dept.  Which, of course I welcome and think is utterly hilarious.  Still, it is kind of tasteless.  As much as we argue around here, we're a pretty close-knit community.  Threatening to do something to bring serious real-world consequences to someone is pretty lame.  While the reality of your threat is laughable, the sentiment is pretty ugly.

[ark_ader]

You haven't been reading this thread have you?

We are discussing Shmokes and his ethical responsibilities, with regard to iPad jailbreaking.

Have I mentioned anyone else?  No?  Hmmm.  This is a hypothetical discussion.

Maybe you need to get some reading glasses, or a good night's sleep.

He's talking about your veiled threat to turn me in to Apple's legal dept.  Which, of course I welcome and think is utterly hilarious.  Still, it is kind of tasteless.  As much as we argue around here, we're a pretty close-knit community.  Threatening to do something to bring serious real-world consequences to someone is pretty lame.  While the reality of your threat is laughable, the sentiment is pretty ugly.

I know what he is implying in that comment above Shmokes.  Like Duh!  Again you fail to read anything I post, you just skim it and make yourself look superior, if I make an error. That is lame.

Sounds like you are regretting your actions.  I do not think you should.  If you think I am going to turn you in to the Apple Cops, then you are one mixed up dude.  I just want the answer to my question, which you evaded time and time again, choosing to berate my responses than giving hard facts.  Then you go and quote from some website, which was quoted from another website.  Not very good factual references to your statements are they?

Then you start making that weeping statement above.  Personally I think you have lost the plot.  But do not worry I shall get the answer to my question, without your input.  Then when I get it, you can start denying it all over again.  Nobody gives a ---steaming pile of meadow muffin---.  You haven't committed a crime, but if you have circumvented the iPad you have an ethics issue.   My guess jailbreakers represent 5% of the Apple user base.  Either it promotes a product or kills it.  But you think I am going to the cops about little old you?....  

You are starting to sound bored and clueless.  Sleepless nights can do that to a person.  Still feeling guilty?  Is your conscious bothering you yet?  Awwww.

[shmokes]

You haven't committed a crime . . .

Wait . . . I jailbroke my iPad.  I thought you said that was against the law.

Also:

Then you go and quote from some website, which was quoted from another website.

What in god's name are you talking about.  Swear to god you write in stream of consciousness.