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.