"You Bought It, but Do You Own It?"

While you own the device, you do not own the design.

The copywrite law allows you to tear it apart and make it part of another device, but it does not give you the excuse to reverse engineer the design and blast it all over the Internet.

I sympathise with some people's interest in make everything open source, but in this instance, I consider this activity to be theft, which is what the copywrite law was intended to prevent.

If you really want to show off your skills, I suggest that you independently duplicate the device.  Then you can give "your" work away if you want.  But just copying someone else's design and providing it to people who could then compete with the original manufacturer is wrong.  Hence the law.

Just my opinion.

DAB

I believe the purpose behind this call to action is not to distribute proprietary hardware designs for unathorized duplication but instead to make sure owners are able to run whatever software they choose on the devices they own.  I think this is incredibly important as we see hardware makers creating new measures to prevent the device owners from executing their own software.

I suppose the counter argument to "jailbreaking" would be that consumer who want freedom should only purchase devices free of such restrictions.  Personally, I try to purchase devices that don't restrict user freedom but it can be difficult for some genres of devices.  Unfortunately, most consumers are currently deaf to this issue. 

Recent news make me very nervous like Microsoft's demand that any Windows 8 approved ARM devices must be locked down from running other operating systems (this might be a large chunk of personal computing devices a few years from now).  And even for a platform like Android that offers a lot of freedom, many of the vendors lock down the bootloaders while ironically still releasing the source code to comply with open source licenses (to be fair, the lockdowns are often motivated by the carriers).

I read this compelling essay by Cory Doctorow last week which foreshadows some of the chilling consequences when we are no longer able to control the software on the devices we own:

Lockdown: The coming war on general-purpose computing

http://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html

Cheers,

Drew

there great reasons for jailbreaking, imagine a small research group wants to do some specialized computing research, spemding millions of dolars on designing, troubleshooting and building a large complicated system. instead they buy of theshelf hardware and adapt it with either hardware modifications or custom software. no supose that they want to publish thier findings and the hardware company wants toprevent them from publishing thier hardware modifications or software. now thier findings have no meaning because thier methods can't be reviewed by thier peers. this is just one example of how bad IP/copyright law can inhibit innovation.

the real question is how much copyright/IP protection is enough.

Yeah, I think the PS3 was a good example of researchers wanting to tap into the power of the Cell processor at a good price point.  Unfortunately, I believe Sony later removed the "other OS" option in a software update which prevented the PS3 from running Linux.

although replying to the 1`st post here, I have read the comments made thus far, and think there is or at least was just a level of missunderstanding, I am against this sort of activity where it is clearly to Profit from in terms of cash/finance where you`re too lazy to write your own code and so forth.

allow me to qualify this, a Long time ago I bought a BBC Micro (and many other computers too), back in those days you could pull the ROM out the machine and read it, even the VIC20 cartridges etc...

now to Copy those and use them or modify them for your own use and experimentation was perfectly fine back in the day, probably not Ecouraged, and certainly there was a level of Honor and Trust even with software (I have some here from 1993 that ASKS that you do not distribute this), Selling the stuff was just simply a NO-NO!

so I have to fall into the Open Source camp here, Yes it IS wrong to rip and sell the stuff, but if you can`t do Entirely what you want with a device that paid for, then NO, you do Not own it!

esp with all this new "Dial home" rubbish that will actively seek and destry anything You did, and still has the "right?" to disable your device remotely!

awww c`mon man! you can NOT seriously in good conscience say that it`s a Fair and Right thing!? can you?

I grew up with the philosophy that if you can`t fix a thing when it breaks, don`t buy it!

"No User servicable parts inside" was an open challenge to do just that, pop the lid and see just what nothing servicable really meant, and up until these silly TSSOP thingies and smaller came about, it remained False for the most part and ALL was quite fixable.

so yeah, theft is theft, and as such is completely wrong, but the idea of OWNing a thing that you`ve paid for in good faith should also mean just that, else it should be called leasing or Renting, and NOT Marketed as something other than this.

then folks could vote with their feet, and simply Not buy this rubbish to start with and force these lender/"indian givers" into a rethink.

and for the record, I would Gladly share ANY of my work and Code with anyone that wanted access no matter how long and hard I worked on it for, the worst it could do is confuse someone, and best there would be 2 or more devices like it on Earth

When you buy a bicycle you can mod it. You can you can add lights to it, change the brake, change the tires and wheels or paint it pink if you wish. You dont have the manufacturer forcing you to use the very same tires the bicycle came with or even tires from the same suplier.

Then why is it illegal to make some modifications to improve or remove anything that anoys you from your electronic hardware device? why on earth would it be illegal to change the opperating system that your hardware came with?.We are not talking about distributing or copying the design or anything, but just exercising your rights on your property.

Most people boasting about IP say they are protecting Intellectual property rights, but are actually damaging the property rights of the common people

Interesting dialogue, but I think most of you are confused as to what copyright means.

Under copyright law, you can open your device, pull chips, put new chips in, change the operating system and rewrite the software, but just to the device YOU bought.  Moding is OK by the law.

That said, in almost all cases, once you open the device you void the warrantee.  That means that the original manufacturer is not responsible to repair or service or replace the device if it no longer works as specified.  Basically, you mod it, you own it, don't bring it back.

As for demanding that a vendors software have sole access to a computer, this is a requirements and reliability issue.  It is very close to the warrantee issue.  The seller is just warning the user that they are only responsible to support their software if you do not comply with their stated requirements.  Again, this is not a copyright issue.  It has to do with their costs involved with trying to solve software problems on their product when you fail to properly install it on your computer.  They are not telling you that you can't, they are only warning you that once you fail to comply, its YOUR problem, not theirs.  Again, a reasonable request on their part.

When I delivered a system to an overseas country and showed them how to change my software.  At first they were very unhappy when I told them that they did not need to call me if they changed the code.  When asked why not, I informed them that I was not responsible for helping them debug THEIR code from eight thousand miles away.  Once they change a single line of MY code, it became THEIR code and my legal responsibility ended.

That is the main issue here.  All vendors, both hardware and software have to make it clear to the buyer the limits of their responsibility to their product.  Again, they are not telling you that you cannot change it or use it in a alternative fashion.  They are just telling you that their responsibility is over as soon as you do.  I think this is a fair response.  You would not believe what shenanigans some people pull and then expect the vendor to pay for their mistakes.  It is not about copyright, its about legal liabilities.

I fail to understand the need to change the copyright law.  It does not prevent any legitament use of a product.  You are free to mod the device or software anyway you want.  They cannot stop you and most likely won't care.  What they are concerned about is you making changes to their products and then claim that their devices are defective because of something YOU did.  This is fair, you should know up front that if you change the device or software that it is now your responsibility to fix it or buy another.  Nor should you expect the manufacturer to help you solve a problem that YOU created.  It all falls into the fair use clause of the licensing agreements.

So I don't think any of us should grouse about the copyright law.  It does not prevent any of us from experimenting with things we buy.  So feel free to mod away, just don't expect the vendor to be happy about it.  They have lots of lawyers laying around worrying about being sued because their product is implicated in any event not favourable to their sales.

Personally, I think many of them are happy to have their devices repurposed.  They get free publicity, ideas for product enhancement and they become aware of issues they had not thought of when they first designed the device.  They just can't admit that publically because of the lawyers.  Some countries have horendous product liability laws that are usually the kiss of death to a manufacturer.  Look at the Billions lost by Toyota over a "suspected" defect.  Granted they deserved a lot of the bad press when they tried to hide it, but still, they had people pulling all kinds of stunts to get an excuse to sue.  Sad, but true.

This is my view of the facts.  I had to sit with my companies lawyers for many hours as they "impressed" upon me what copyrights did and did not protect and which issues were true legal liabilities.  They have valid points from the companies point of view.  Law suits are expensive, even if you win.

From my perspective, there is nothing in the copyright law that prevents moding.  So investigate devices and software to your hearts content, just know that once you break it, its your boat anchor.

Just my opinion

DAB

imagine dell coming to your front door and seizing your hardware because you upgraded your memory in you computer, but did not use dell authorized memory instead you bought somthing half the price elseware.

the exceptions to the DMCA are important to prevent some of the injustices that have and could occur again. and to prevent even worse things from being allowed to happen.

Dear DAB,

I suspect you have not read about Andrew Huang, nor the link on the opening post or Andrew's letter. The DMCA anti-circumvention provisions have been used to bring legal threats against innovators or hackers (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/10/xbox-modder-tria/). In 2010 an exeption to the anti-circumvention provition has been allowed that allows anyone to modify his cell phone. The current goal is to expand its provition so noone can be prosecute for jailbreaking (circunventing protections) on other electronic devices.

Hi Zeta,

In part you are right, but I just completed a review of Andrew and the issues involved with DMCA.  Most of my original points are still valid.  What you all have to understand is that the law does not prevent you from moding hardware as long as you do not infringe upon the copywrited material contained within the device.

Using the term "Jailbreak" was an extremely unfortunate way to phrase the issue.  It immediately invokes the image of illegal activity when you are dealing with lawyers.  In the incident cited, the kid in California was ok until he took money for breaking into other peoples property and enabled them to circumvent the copywrite law.  Big no no.

I full sympathise and understand the ideas behind your wanting to freely do what you want with anything.  Unfortunately, there are unforseen consequences to this activity that you may not fully understand.  Moding something is a very challenging and exciting part of learning about technology.  Moding simple devices usually only affects your device.  With the new integrated world of the Cloud and mobile devices you are now tampering with devices that cross dozens if not hundreds of laws, rules and regulations enacted for public safety and protection.

Many modern devices have the potential to wreck havoc with other systems, especially if they emit RF energy.  How would you feel if you moded your cell phone and caused an airliner to crash and kill hundred of people?  These are the issues involved with the law.  You may think you know enough to mode things safely, but unless you fully comply with all of the regulations applying to the device in the public environment, you might want to reconsider.

In my early years, you had to pass an extremely rigorous test before you were allowed to work with any device that emitted RF energy.  Unfortunately, they let those requirements to become obsolete.  The potential result could be deadly.  The idea of making a phone call and killing someone near you because you scrambled his pacemaker is both real and has happened in the past.  That is why you see the warning labels on microwave ovens.  They were not originally needed until the first accident.

So it is not that I am against moding, I just understand the unforseen consequences of making changes to complex systems.  The law is not an impingment upon your freedoms or rights, it is about public safety.  Please be careful with what you change.  If someone dies then it is no longer funny.

So I ask each of you to consider your actions very carefully.  Try not to confuse your rights with your obligations.  No one can fully forsee the results of making changes to devices which they do not fully understand.  Even brilliant MIT graduates can make fatal mistakes.  I know, I have worked with a number of them.  They are just human like the rest of us and sometimes their intelligence overrides their humility.  All I ask is that you be careful.

Just my final opinion on this subject.

DAB