In the United States, a recent court ruling set legal precedent that modifying or “jailbreaking” your smartphone is legal. The court ruled that copyright law did not apply to “restrictive business models”, thus allowing users to change carriers without changing phones.
The argument that was originally tossed around pivoted on ownership. If you paid for an iPhone, you should be allowed to do with it as you like. It was a right of ownership. Many smartphone owners chalked this up to be a victory, however, I believe the courts ruling, although seemingly in the favor of the owner, skirted the fundamental issue of ownership. The ruling was based on copyright law, restrictive business model, blah-blah-blah … Ownership was never addressed.
Meanwhile:
Sony won a legal ruling designed to prevent PlayStation 3 (PS3) users opening up and adapting their consoles for additional uses … Sony says these uses include playing pirated software and being able to cheat when playing multiplayer games.
Many PS3 owners cry, “home-brew” while Sony (and myself included) say, “pirate-proof”.
So, do you really “own” your smartphone or game consule?
James Binns, head of Edge International and PC gaming at Future Publishing, made a comparison to owning CD’s:
If you own a CD you don’t own the right to copy that CD in lots of places. You own the physical form of the disk but not the content on it. It’s the same with a video console. You own the plastic and the metal but the software that runs on it is different from the device you own and Sony can claim some control over that.
I believe the same applies to smartphones.
Just because it’s legal to “jailbreak” your phone, doesn’t mean you “own” it and can do whatever you please with it. You still must keep to the “terms and conditions” spelled-out in the fine print, just as making modifications to an automobile you own must keep within environmental and safety regulations.
[via BBC]
Ben Miller says
I have to disagree. If I buy a game console, a mobile phone, or any other electronic device, I should be able to do anything I want to it, including run my own software or any software that I have obtained legally. Of course, I will be voiding the warranty, but that is my problem.
Apple and Sony (for example) I’m sure make the pricing for the hardware as reasonable as possible, knowing that they’ll make money from you later on in software. However, when they sell you the device, there is no guarantee that you’ll buy any additional software from them, and I am not forced to buy additional software. Let’s say I buy an iPod Touch and then never buy an app; if they have lost money on me, their business model is at fault, not me.
If I run illegally obtained software, then it is the software that I have stolen, not the device.
Here is another analogy for you: For about 100 years now, Gillette has been selling shaving razors. They sell the handles very cheaply, knowing that they’ll make lots of money selling you blades. Should it be illegal to buy the handle and put my own blade on it? What if I want to stick some bristles on the end of the handle and use it as a paintbrush? If I put my own blade on the end of the handle, I might hurt someone. Does that mean that Gillette should sue me just because of the potential for a crime?
Eric Dye says
I love your analogy … FTW!
BenJPickett says
I actually think that MS has a very good solution to this. On the X-Box there’s a hardware key, if it is removed or doesn’t match the software you lose access to X-Box Live. They know that once that device enters a user’s home, it is no longer in their complete control. So if you do hack the device and install Linux or whatever, they don’t chase you down and whip you. They let you use the device as you intend but not as they intend. This then becomes their responsibility, to make sure that only devices that are intact get supported, serviced and have access their other services. This is a large portion of what EULAs are for, to distinguish between the makers intended use and the consumers intended use and lay out consequences for going against the grain.
An example of this is the Blend-It guys. I don’t think Apple intended for the iPhone to be put into a blender and be ground into dust and shards of plastic and metal. But there was one that was purchased just for that. Just like I’m sure there were countless others to be jail broken the same day they were purchased. To me the problem lies with the manufacturers, they waste countless amounts time, money and effort trying to protect their devices from use that they don’t agree with instead of continuing to improve, support and enhance their product for those that use it appropriately.
Most people don’t care about warranty’s, they don’t care about how the product is supposed to be used, they only care about how they want to use the product and if the manufacturer says no, they will find way. Of course there are those who will do it just because they can and to say they did.
Eric Dye says
Good stuff, man.
You’re right about MS, I totally agree with you.