Apple, EFF square off over iPhone jailbreaking
By Ronald O Carlson
This is an issue that’s been debated so many times that one would expect the outcome to be a forgone conclusion. Sadly, however, it appears that our favorite fruit company is on the wrong side of history in this fight.
Wired reports that Apple iPhone boss Greg Joswiak and Fred von Lohmann of the Electronic Frontier Foundation have presented arguments before the US Copyright Office vis a vis the issue of handset jailbreaking. Of course, the EFF thinks people who own iPhones should be able to do whatever they want with their property.
“It is my automobile at the end of the day,” said von Lohmann, a reference that iPhone users should be allowed to do what they want with their phones, just like vehicle owners do.
Apple, backed by a predictable grouping of software, movie and music industry doomsayers, says that were it not for the digital rights management controls enforced by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act the thriving iPhone ecosystem wouldn’t exist—those 1 billion downloads of those 30,000 apps by 50,000 developers couldn’t have arisen.
“This would severely limit our ability to continue what we are doing as well as innovate for the future,” said Joswiak.
If that argument sounds familiar, you are right—AT&T used it, Microsoft tried it, the big four music labels spit into the wind too. It is the same spurious logic Hollywood used in their arguments against VCRs and audio cassettes — ‘If we lose control, then the jobs, taxes, profits, etc will be destroyed.’
Obviously, those technologies were allowed under fair use doctrine and they have come and gone, yet Hollywood not only remains, pugnacious and grasping as ever, but they’re even bigger, more pugnacious and grasping than ever.
It’s called “irony”
I will not argue that any and all forms of control are wrong—freetards be damned. However, the notion that companies need protection from customers wielding the power of the devices that the companies themselves create, sell and/or profit from should be an immediate red flag.
Morever, rather than whine about customers trying to best the company’s best efforts, Apple should just keep doing what it does best—innovate. After all, innovation brought the company to this point, which should be crisis of conscience and not a crisis of copyright enforcement.
Thereupon, isn’t it abundantly clear that Apple’s asking for protection from tinkerers? The people working out of their basements and garages, making what they can from the tools at hand simply because they can?
Ultimately, it’s these little people—the crazy ones, the free spirits, the Steve Wozniaks and Steve Jobs of lore—that most need society’s protection. Pathetically, it’s entirely predictable that the Copyright Office will likely side with Apple the corporation rather than the Apple of legend that spawned entire new industries and ways of life…
What’s your take?
Related:
Entry was posted
on Saturday, May 2nd, 2009 at 2:14 pm
under 
Print This Post
Read more entries by Ronald O Carlson.
Stumble It!
May 2nd, 2009
You are on shaky legal and moral grounds. While you can be said to own a particular iPod or iPhone’s hardware, you are merely renting the use of the operating system which runs it.
You are free to create your own operating system for an iPod or iPhone, but Apple’s intellectual property has conditions which limit its use. Jailbreaking software continues to use the iPhone OS but uses it in ways which break the conditions on which it was licensed to you.
When Apple sells the iPod or iPhone without the onerous conditions that you break, it always charges more for the privilege. Therefore, anyone who jailbreaks one is a thief.
You have no rights: you lie to yourself when you pretend that you do.
May 3rd, 2009
It is a problematic matter and I am not sure that the answer is as clear cut as you put it. The current arrangement where Apple works through an exclusive carrier is beneficial to the company and consumers in the short run. The iPhone was a significant risk for the company, and to mitigate the risks the management team have decided to deliberately limit the availability of the product. If it failed then, the impact would be contained.
Contractual negotiations are also significantly easier with one party, as opposed to many. Also, Apple had limited experience in the mobile phone business and by working with one partner they can experiment and refine their knowledge and practices. This helps them deliver a better user experience – a win for customers.
The success of the iPhone means that the pressure is on AT&T to deliver the necessary support to match the iPhone user experience. Apple could always go elsewhere. This encourages AT&T to invest in its network. It will also encourage other providers to invest in their networks as they seek to gain support for the iPhone or other similar products. Note, iPhone users tend to consume much more data then other users – providing a new and at this stage lucrative revenue stream. Improved networks – a win for customers.
Turning to jailbreaking. This disrupts the relationship between Apple and AT&T. If Apple did not discourage jailbreaking what incentive would there be for AT&T to invest in supporting and promoting the iPhone? Why work with Apple? Why share information? Why make changes to the network to support the iPhone? This relationship is worth protecting in the short run as it provides non-trivial benefits.
The user experience is likely to be less then what it currently is. It is, of course, not perfect. But the current strategy is for the short run. In the long run Apple will support other networks as not every customer will purchase AT&T services and AT&T will not be able to satisfy all customers.
The other side is that jailbreaking may accelerate the spread of the iPhone. After all, it is costly to continue to fend off attempts. The costs are not just financial either. Forums like this, portray Apple’s motives in a negative and stereotypical light (the big corporation versus the little guy).
May 4th, 2009
blah blah fucking blah, keep on whining apple pricks.