News iPhone hackers banned from App store

What? Whose store?

Sorry but if I buy a phone, it will do what I want it to do not what someone else decides it can do for me.

Comprende?

P.S) I have a BlackBerry not an iPhone lol, and yes my BlackBerry does what I want it to do not the other way round.

 

Do you even know what jailbreaking is..? It IS for the benefit of users as jailbroken phones can use Cydia and all the applications on there which generally have more functionality than the stuff found on the AppStore because they're not restricted by Apple's app limitations.


I find it a bit amusing that they're just resorting to a ban.. the only reason I can see it as a security issue is because jailbreaking allows easier ripping of paid apps, however banning those making the jailbreaks doesn't change the fact that Apple's implementation of protecting paid apps is piss-poor.

 

The only way I'd consider having an iPhone is a jailbroken one. See, for all AT&T;s bluster about having the "fastest 3G network", they have NO 3G coverage AT ALL in my area (even according to the map on their own website), I have to drive almost 40 mins for that. However, Verizon does have 3G coverage in my area.

 

iPhone doesn't work on Verizon

 

Ravenheart, I support getting rid of piracy on the iPhone and if that means people are unable to jailbreak their phones then so be it. We can all be selective and use highlighting to point out what we are responding to, so let me make it clearer for you seeing as you totally over-looked the important part to me.

 

I jailbroke my ipod just for the fact that I can theme it the way I want. I do not use illegal items such as ports of games, emulators, and such. If Apple ultimately decides to ban jailbreak users then I shall tell them to sod off and find an alternative.

 

Do you enjoy being an arrogant pompous person? Who said I overlooked anything? God forbid the most important part to you!

So let me make it clearer for you seeing as you obviously didn't read my post properly, see the higlighted section of my post so it's clearer for you, that would be the bit below the post by Wuyanxu which I've also posted for clarity and to make it even clearer for you, notice the highlighted BOLD section clearly says A good reason for apple to stamp pirating out YES so I agreed with you but like I have said IF I wanted a phone that someone else decided I should have because it's customized to them I would have but I don't! So therefore I would modify any phone to make it do what I want it to do but NOT FOR PIRACY! Is that clearer for you?

A good reason for apple to stamp pirating out YES, but Wuyanxu said jailbreaking NOT pirating! And he's right anyway it's about freedom of expression, you buy a phone for £200 or more and damn right you should be able to do and have whatever you want on the phone, why comply to some big corporations rules? If I bought something and it didn't do what I wanted it to do exactly how I want it to be done then I'd do something about it NO MATTER WHAT I'd have to do.

 

Freedom to chose your service provider for a device you own I support!

I have great respect for the guys that spent so much time working on freeing the device.


Pirating apps is not what they intended to make possible.
Allowing third party apps and open development (especially pre-app store) is what they intended.
Giving you service provider choice is what they intended.

Might I point out you could jailbreak an iphone OS device before there was such thing as the app store.

 

You can't have jailbreaking without piracy - end of. It was the same story on the PS1, the PS2, the original Xbox, the Xbox 360, the PSP, the DS etc.

Jailbreaking, unlocking, hacking, modchipping, etc (call it what you want) ultimately comes down to one thing: allowing you to do things with the device that the manufacturer doesn't want you doing. In most cases, it is done to allow unsigned/unauthorised code to be run - i.e. programs/apps that the manufacturer has not approved. Once you allow custom code to run, you inevitably invite piracy - whether you wanted to or not. Most cases, sure - you might want to customise the device beyond what the manufacturer allows, or "unlock it's full potential", but this is all irrelevant. Because you are removing the protection against unauthorised software, you are removing the piracy protection. This is why Sony effectively had PS1/2 modchips made illegal. This is why Microsoft banned loads of Live users. This is why Apple banned these hackers from the App store.

If you want to do whatever you want with device, don't buy into a closed-source system/platform. Alternatives are available.

 

Did you guys all just happen to find the font size option?

Calm down, kids. Jailbreaking ain't about piracy but it comes with it. Just like mod chips weren't solely made to run pirated copies but that's their main purpose now.

Basically repeating what BLC said, if you bother reading instead of just hitting the font drop down and pick amazingly-huge-yet-completely-useless.

 

The App Store, the thing the two people mentioned were banned from.

 

@blc

and that is the problem i have with "legally" closed systems. i purchased the hardware, and i bought the rights to the software. according to traditional copyright laws i can now do whatever i want with it, include reverse engineering. it only becomes a legal issue if i attempt to make any kind of money off of it. there is also no legal liability if i make my work public knowledge, as it will be up to the consumer to abide by the law, and it is their legal liability if they do not, not mine. if they purchase the software and hardware they are legally allowed to do whatever they want with it as well.

denying someone access to something they already purchased is either theft or breach of contract (typically implied contract, you paid for the rights, its yours to use how and when you see fit). if apple chooses not to do business with you anymor because of how you choose to use the software they sold you that is their choice, but they cannot take back anything they already sold you, or intentionally break it because they do not like how you are using it. same goes for MS and Sony.

as a matter of fact i think pushing out a patch that intentionally bricks modded hardware is pretty sketchy as well. i can understand them cutting off access to their network, but the hardware is yours. if you put it on another network that is none of their concern (unless the can show you are actually doing something illegal anyway, then it is their right to prosecute you.)

of course the whole copyright law has been turned on its head by the DMCA in the US and by all the stupid lawsuits by the EU. too many companies trying to control what consumers do with their products, in my opinion. if i release a file that does not contain copyrighted material, but does modify copyrighted material that someone already has, then that in and of itself and regardless of what the code actually does, is not (or should not be , depending on current interpretations) illegal.

 

Not necessarily, you choose to use paid for apps or pirated apps, I would choose paid for apps so it's not inevitable that you invite piracy if you have a choice.

 

You're missing out the software licence; commonly called the EULA. These are usually worded to effectively say, "You can only use this software in the way that we allow you to use it". With the majority of cases, they would specifically prohibit the use of security exploits - you violate this EULA when you use these exploits. You can argue that there is some question as to whether a EULA would hold up in court, but nevertheless it is an agreement that the consumer has to agree to in order to use the product. In any case, a legal case on the validity of a EULA would probably be beyond the financial means of most people (I sure as hell couldn't afford to go up against Apple), so we're pretty much stuck with it.

I think you're missing my point: I'm not talking about end users, I'm talking about the platform as a whole. I'm sure that probably the majority of end users will still choose paid-for apps - whether this is a philosophical or financial decision. However, the methods that these hacks use specifically bypasses the need for signed/authorised software. These methods can and will then be used to pirate software. Even if only a tiny minority of users pirate App Store apps, it is irrelevant: it will still happen and the same exploits will be used. The hackers who discovered the flaws and released exploits are indirectly responsible for the piracy - it might not have been their intentions, but it is their work that is responsible for allowing piracy. This is why Apple, Microsoft, Sony, et al, keep continually updating the software/firmware for their devices: to stop exploits like this and reduce the possibility of piracy.

 

You really need to sort out your issues then come back and try again.

 

Looks like someone needs a chill pill.. damn

 

Hey BLC

Just FYI, the important distinction is no matter what contract you sign, you can't sign away your statutory rights.

They are within their rights to impose terms on the use of their service, but would common law dictate purchases on iTunes as your property? It's the same as if you cheated in a Steam game but then got banned access to all your legally purchased stuff.

Even if they say 'you're just renting, this is just a service', it comes down to what is normal in this situation. No vendor has the right to take away from you your legally paid for content as a punitive measure. I think really it needs a test case to have the law clarified exactly, I don't like the idea of content distributors being able to instantly cut you off from everything you own. The law is supposed to be there to protect us, not them, despite how many T&C they make us tick 'I have read and accept these' they can't take away our statutory rights to keep what we have bought.

 

The point I was trying to make regarding bank charges is that you have already given your agreement that they are able to impose charges on you in the manner that they do - when they take the money from your account for charges, it's not your money any more. I'm not saying I agree with the way in which they do it, but this is the current state of affairs. Bank charges are one of the most unfair systems and the bank I work for are really bad for it. If you have a charge due to come out of your account, that always comes out first - no matter how much money you have in there. If charge this takes you beyond your overdraft limit, they don't charge you for that - what they do charge you for is any subsequent transactions that take you past the limit or any payments that bounce because you're now past your limit. It becomes especially hard if you get into this cycle every month: I got to the point where I was getting charged almost £200 every month, and it was very difficult to absorb that cost.

Anyway, I digress - back to the point. You are right that, under traditional consumer protection laws, you're entitled to the goods and services that you have paid for. This has worked really well up until the point where digital purchases are now becoming mainstream. This isn't a problem unique to iTunes, Apple or the App Store either; going back to the Steam comparison, what would happen if they shut down the servers suddely with no support - your legally paid for games would no longer work as they can no longer authenticate with the Steam servers.

We do need a test case in each legal jurisdiction (and international law, for that matter) to test the validity of things like EULAs, software licenses, digital purchases (or rentals) etc. As the music industry has proved, the technology is changing faster than the law, government and "old" industry can keep up. However the average consumer has got nowhere hear the resources to go up against big companies - until this is legally tested, we're stuck with the systems we have, no matter how much they suck.

That being said, Apple probably do have the right - under their current terms/agreements - to do what they did. I'm no legal expert (just an interested amateur/proletariat), but this is way I understand the system - the system just happens to suck.

For the record, the biggest problem I have with the iPhone is exactly this subject (a point I have made in the past): Apple dictate exactly what software you can and cannot run on your phone, thus restricting your freedom. Neither Google nor Microsoft do this with Android or WinMo (though in WinMo's case, this may change to some degree). I'm a big opponent of the software licensing that Microsoft popularised. Before that (which is way before my time!), software was freely traded/exchanged among computer users - Microsoft changed all that with MS-DOS and got very upset (read: litigious) when people started making & sharing copies of MS-DOS in computer clubs, as they had always done with previous OS's/software. This ethos is still alive with things like open-source or the FSF, and is exactly why my netbook runs Linux (it was supplied with a WinXP license, so cost wasn't a factor in the decision to use Linux).

 

Apple are not stopping them from accessing the content they've already bought - just stopping them from using the app store to purchase/download any more.

 

According to the article they do exactly that: Stopping them from using what they may have bought legally.

In the end I don't care either way.