Jailbreaking now legal under DMCA for smartphones, but not tablets (ars technica)
The new batch of exemptions illustrate the fundamentally arbitrary nature of the DMCA's exemption process. For the next three years, you'll be allowed to jailbreak smartphones but not tablet computers. You'll be able to unlock phones purchased before January 2013 but not phones purchased after that. It will be legal to rip DVDs to use an excerpt in a documentary, but not to play it on your iPad."
Posted Oct 26, 2012 16:29 UTC (Fri)
by xnox (guest, #63320)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Oct 26, 2012 17:36 UTC (Fri)
by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Nov 4, 2012 1:48 UTC (Sun)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link] (1 responses)
A smartphone is a handheld computer that can perform telephone functions. "Smartphone," by the way, is the author's word, not the law's. The law says "telephone handset."
It seems bizarre that the presence of a telephone function makes a difference, but as a practical matter it does severely limit the kinds of computers that are subject to the exemption. The Librarian of Congress said we shouldn't exempt tablets, because by every definition of tablet that was proposed, it included a wide variety of devices and some of those might not deserve exemptions. Requiring the computer to have a telephone ap, on the other hand, excludes as a practical matter all of those debatable classes of device.
Posted Nov 12, 2012 20:43 UTC (Mon)
by Baylink (guest, #755)
[Link]
Posted Oct 26, 2012 16:59 UTC (Fri)
by Rudd-O (guest, #61155)
[Link] (11 responses)
Posted Oct 26, 2012 17:03 UTC (Fri)
by skvidal (guest, #3094)
[Link] (10 responses)
Posted Oct 26, 2012 20:48 UTC (Fri)
by drago01 (subscriber, #50715)
[Link] (9 responses)
Sure he can. A government shouldn't do everything because "lobbyists say that this should be done" ... they should use their brains and at least apply some common sense.
But as long as people like you think "it is the lobbyists's fault" the government will remain the way it is.
Posted Oct 26, 2012 22:41 UTC (Fri)
by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
[Link] (8 responses)
Posted Oct 27, 2012 13:53 UTC (Sat)
by drago01 (subscriber, #50715)
[Link] (1 responses)
Which is exactly my point ... the voters just shift the blame to the lobbyists instead of voting the people which don't use there own brain to make decisions out. Hence nothing changes.
Posted Oct 27, 2012 15:33 UTC (Sat)
by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
[Link]
You can't expect numbers of people to consistently work against their own interests as you seem to. What you can do is change the game so that legislators and civil servants can do their job without interference.
Posted Oct 27, 2012 15:41 UTC (Sat)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link] (5 responses)
You can't take the corruption out of the system. The corruption _IS_ the system.
One thing people need to understand is that a state government is as much a business as any other large commercial entity. The reason it exists is purely economic in purpose and everybody involved in government is operating on a personal profit motivation. Without lobbyists and 'special interests' there wouldn't be any reason at all for it's existence.
The purpose of state government, which is government via central authority with a monopoly on the use of violence and court systems (among other things), is to use the political means (ie, use of force) to secure economic means (whatever resources is needed to fulfill your goals) for the members of people in the government and running the government.
People will argue that it's a necessary evil because of this or that factor, which can be a entirely plausible argument, but it doesn't change the nature of the beast. The more power it has the more 'corruption' you will see.. there is no way to fix it and there is nothing you can do except limit it by limiting it's power.
Posted Oct 27, 2012 15:48 UTC (Sat)
by skvidal (guest, #3094)
[Link] (4 responses)
also - you seem to have an incredibly cynical view of government that may match up with some governments but certainly not all.
Posted Oct 27, 2012 19:52 UTC (Sat)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link] (1 responses)
Power is almost certainly the attractant more than money. (Not that everybody is motivated by power any more than everybody is motivated by money -- but it is certainly *not* true that money is the root of *all* evil.)
Posted Oct 28, 2012 12:12 UTC (Sun)
by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167)
[Link]
The history of government reform shows that even when reform is against the short and medium term interests of some individuals in government, they will often support it if they see that it's the right thing overall. If you squint hard enough you might imagine that they see reform as preferable to some sort of bloody revolution, but in the case of a lot of historical UK reforms, at least, there was no realistic prospect of such a revolution. The Suffragettes for example, could have continued to be annoying, to cause unpleasant spectacles, march in the streets, but they did not have the means, nor any hope of securing the means, to overthrow the government of the day. Nevertheless they eventually succeeded in their aims, an all male government passed a bill giving (some) women the vote.
Women's suffrage also provides illustration that a government regulation can be arbitrary and unfair without being ill-meant. In 1929 a young woman (Jennie Lee) was able to stand for election (and win) but couldn't vote for herself because although a bill equalising the voting age for men and women had passed it had not come into force before the by-election at which she won her seat and so she was too young to vote but not too young to be elected. This situation obviously makes no sense, but you can't point your finger at any individual who planned for things to work out this way, it was an accident.
Posted Oct 28, 2012 17:25 UTC (Sun)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link] (1 responses)
That's putting it mildly.
> that may match up with some governments but certainly not all.
Generally speaking most people can't imagine things being any different anymore then people could imagine life without the Catholic church or a the king a thousand years ago. Only incremental improvements are thought possible, but nothing could ever be completely different.
There are lots of ways to have government and many ways to have government would be very positive. I think the "state government", which is the form of government that is most common in the world due to it's militarism, is fundamentally corrupt in nature. It's not something that can be fixed through voting and if you end up with some sort of armed revolution you just end up with the same thing ruled by different people.
Posted Oct 28, 2012 19:18 UTC (Sun)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
The same is true of quite a lot of revolutions. Sure, power suckers will always suck power -- but that doesn't mean the way in which they suck power will always be the same, nor that every government is the same as every other government, and most certainly not that they are all as bad as each other! (I happen to believe that e.g. France, headgear bans or no, is a considerably better place to live than, say, North Korea, even though both have fairly large state sectors. I suspect most people would agree with me on this. You really do need to look at more than 'size of government'.)
Posted Oct 26, 2012 23:16 UTC (Fri)
by ncm (guest, #165)
[Link] (5 responses)
Posted Oct 27, 2012 16:25 UTC (Sat)
by zlynx (guest, #2285)
[Link] (4 responses)
I use my tablet as a video phone all the time with Skype and Google Hangout. I could install VOIP software or pay for a Skype phone number and then ... it's a phone. Isn't it?
I suppose lawyers would argue that only devices sold with the intent to be a phone count.
Perhaps that argument could be countered by the government's claim that VOIP software cannot use hard encryption because phone conversations have to be wire tappable. If the VOIP software has to contain a wiretap backdoor because it is a phone, then any device using VOIP must *be* a phone, right Mr. Lawyer?
Heh.
Posted Oct 29, 2012 23:19 UTC (Mon)
by klbrun (subscriber, #45083)
[Link] (2 responses)
The courts, in all societies, need a procedure for deciding when precedent no longer applies.
Posted Oct 30, 2012 3:48 UTC (Tue)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (1 responses)
However, limiting the tax to only ONE device per one human should be in order.
Posted Oct 30, 2012 9:49 UTC (Tue)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link]
Actually, the German statutory TV/radio media fee is supposedly payable only for live feeds, which state TV in Germany does not in fact provide. Hence, internet-enabled PCs basically count as radios, as state radio does offer live feeds. The fee for TV sets is higher than that for radios.
The whole issue is becoming moot since the per-device fee will soon be replaced by a per-household levy that everyone will have to pay regardless of whether they actually own, or use, a TV/radio/internet-enabled computer.
Posted Nov 4, 2012 2:26 UTC (Sun)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link]
It may very well be a phone in that case, and subject to the "telephone handset" exemption. On the other hand, if you can't get one hand around it, maybe that makes it not a handset.
In any case, I don't think the Librarian of Congress would be upset if your tablet were exempted. The devices that people argued against giving an exemption were ones that you couldn't run Skype on, like an e-reader designed for the specific purpose of giving limited access to e-book content. Those would have been covered in the proposed definitions of tablet.
Posted Oct 29, 2012 12:33 UTC (Mon)
by dps (guest, #5725)
[Link] (1 responses)
In the EU their are stupid restrictions but they are different: almost anything, including a look and feel, can be protected by copyright but with lots of complications. Thankful the some decisions made by the EU have stopped various people removing fair use from copyright law.
I would like the law to go further: it *should* be illegal to erect barriers that limit my ability to exercise my rights under copyright law, period.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.
Posted Nov 1, 2012 12:24 UTC (Thu)
by etienne (guest, #25256)
[Link]
Posted Oct 29, 2012 13:02 UTC (Mon)
by njwhite (guest, #51848)
[Link] (1 responses)
The idea that the only way to get a digital version of a book is to do so with phone-home drm is awful. The idea that removing that misfeature is an offense is so much worse.
DRM pushes many more towards unregulated p2p redistribution, which is probably a good thing, except that it doesn't address the question of compensating the creators (though for some industries, such as music, apparently nor do the traditional distributors).
Posted Oct 29, 2012 14:34 UTC (Mon)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link]
Not everyone. Individuals often don't care, but businesses have no choice: it's way too easy to bring down any business if it does something illegal. Dura lex sed lex. Of course this approach is very dangerous long-term: when you teach the whole country to ignore some [crazy] law you in effect teach that it's Ok to ignore law in principle - and this is extremely dangerous. Does the future inability to keep control over country worth some additional $$ for Hollywood now - that's the question.
Jailbreaking now legal under DMCA for smartphones, but not tablets (ars technica)
Jailbreaking now legal under DMCA for smartphones, but not tablets (ars technica)
Jailbreaking now legal under DMCA for smartphones, but not tablets (ars technica)
Jailbreaking now legal under DMCA for smartphones, but not tablets (ars technica)
Jailbreaking now legal under DMCA for smartphones, but not tablets (ars technica)
Jailbreaking now legal under DMCA for smartphones, but not tablets (ars technica)
Jailbreaking now legal under DMCA for smartphones, but not tablets (ars technica)
Jailbreaking now legal under DMCA for smartphones, but not tablets (ars technica)
Jailbreaking now legal under DMCA for smartphones, but not tablets (ars technica)
Jailbreaking now legal under DMCA for smartphones, but not tablets (ars technica)
Jailbreaking now legal under DMCA for smartphones, but not tablets (ars technica)
Jailbreaking now legal under DMCA for smartphones, but not tablets (ars technica)
Jailbreaking now legal under DMCA for smartphones, but not tablets (ars technica)
Jailbreaking now legal under DMCA for smartphones, but not tablets (ars technica)
Jailbreaking now legal under DMCA for smartphones, but not tablets (ars technica)
Jailbreaking now legal under DMCA for smartphones, but not tablets (ars technica)
if you end up with some sort of armed revolution you just end up with the same thing ruled by different people
Study the Glorious Revolution and its effect on the governance of what shortly became the UK and say that. It really did change things, for good.
Jailbreaking now legal under DMCA for smartphones, but not tablets (ars technica)
Jailbreaking now legal under DMCA for smartphones, but not tablets (ars technica)
Jailbreaking now legal under DMCA for smartphones, but not tablets (ars technica)
Jailbreaking now legal under DMCA for smartphones, but not tablets (ars technica)
Jailbreaking now legal under DMCA for smartphones, but not tablets (ars technica)
Jailbreaking now legal under DMCA for smartphones, but not tablets (ars technica)
I use my tablet as a video phone all the time with Skype and Google Hangout. I could install VOIP software or pay for a Skype phone number and then ... it's a phone. Isn't it?
Jailbreaking now legal under DMCA for smartphones, but not tablets (ars technica)
Jailbreaking now legal under DMCA for smartphones, but not tablets (ars technica)
not everywhere, only where usefull, counter-example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp
Jailbreaking now legal under DMCA for smartphones, but not tablets (ars technica)
Jailbreaking now legal under DMCA for smartphones, but not tablets (ars technica)
Eugh, what horrible legislation. The only sane response to such laws is to ignore them. Which it seems everybody does anyway.