Main > Everything Else

Just installed XBMC on my iPad

<< < (8/15) > >>

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:

--- Quote from: shmokes on February 14, 2011, 01:21:26 am ---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!"   ;)

--- End quote ---

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:

--- Quote from: ark_ader on February 14, 2011, 03:15:07 pm ---
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.


--- End quote ---


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.



--- Quote from: shmokes on February 14, 2011, 01:21:26 am ---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?

--- End quote ---


--- Quote from: shmokes on February 14, 2011, 01:21:26 am ---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.

--- End quote ---

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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version