iPhone jailbreaking violates our copyright: Apple

Apple recently told the U.S. Copyright Office that it believes iPhone jailbreaking is a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and infringes on its copyright, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

The EFF is trying to get the Copyright Office to grant a DMCA exemption on behalf of iPhone owners who have chosen to jailbreak their iPhones, or bypass the restriction Apple places on standard iPhones that only allows the installation of applications from approved sources: the App Store. In its response to the Copyright Office (click here to view the PDF), Apple disagreed that such an exemption was proper because the very act of jailbreaking the iPhone results in copyright infringement.

Current jailbreak techniques now in widespread use utilize unauthorized modifications to the copyrighted bootloader and OS, resulting in the infringement of the copyrights in those programs. For example, the current most popular jailbreaking software for the iPhone, PwnageTool (cited by the EFF in its submission) causes a modified bootloader and OS to be installed in the iPhone, resulting in the infringement of Apple's reproduction and derivative works rights.

The EFF's argument is that jailbreaking your iPhone is protected under fair-use doctrines, and that the Copyright Office should grant an exemption because "the culture of tinkering (or hacking, if you prefer) is an important part of our innovation economy." But Apple's response is that few users of jailbroken iPhones actually jailbroke it themselves; instead, they downloaded software created by other parties to make that happen.

Don't expect Apple to come knocking on your door if you're using a jailbroken iPhone;They used a similar argument in the Psystar case and no one has confiscated my open computer yet. But Apple could be trying to build momentum behind the recognition of jailbreaking that does more harm than good; already this week, iPhone developers have been discussing writing software that only works on jailed iPhones as a way of preventing application bootlegging....Or will that just encourage it?

Thoughts?

Music industry moves to disconnect file sharers in U.S.

As a follow up to a story I posted here yesterday.

The U.S. recording industry is shifting away from suing file sharers and toward working out deals with internet service providers that could see downloaders have their access cut off, but the issue in Canada is still muddy because of a lack of clear copyright law.

The Recording Industry Association of America (or RIAA) on Friday said it was changing its approach to one it hopes will be more effective in persuading people to stop downloading music illegally.

More than 35,000 Americans have been sued since 2003, but the percentage of internet users who pirate music has stayed relatively steady at around 20 per cent, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Under the new approach, the RIAA will send an e-mail to an ISP when it believes one of the service provider's customers is downloading music illegally. Depending on the deal set up with the service provider, customers will receive warnings, possibly followed by a slow-down in their connection speed and ultimately a cancellation of their access (If you think your connection is slow now...just keep downloading, you'll see what slow is!) .

The RIAA said it has agreements in principle with some U.S. ISPs, but it didn't name them. Service providers have in the past been reluctant to act as copyright police, but some are becoming more co-operative with the entertainment industry as they seek to sign more deals for content with those same companies.

The move would follow similar developments in other countries including France and Britain, where ISPs are working with the entertainment industry to curtail illegal downloading.

Canadian ISPs have so far successfully lobbied the federal government against forcing them to intervene in downloading. The government's controversial Bill C-61 copyright reform legislation, introduced in the summer, contained a "safe harbour" provision that would have let ISPs off the hook for what their customers downloaded. Bill C-61, however, died when the fall election was called.

Lawsuits against music downloaders have not materialized in Canada to the same level as in the United States. The Canadian Recording Industry Association in 2004 sued 29 unnamed alleged file-sharers but the case was defeated when the Federal Court of Canada ruled that making digital music files available to others for download did not constitute copyright infringement.

Some lawyers and internet law experts also argue that a private copying tax on blank media is intended to compensate artists for revenue lost to file-sharing.

The Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA) , however, says the levy was never intended to legalize file-sharing. CRIA president Graham Henderson said it is not OK for a person to walk into a store, physically steal a CD, make copies of it and then have those copies considered legal. File-sharing of digital copies is the same thing, he asserted.

"[The levy] is one of the muddiest of the muddy waterers. (Is waterers a word?) I don't see it as having a role in legalizing it at all, but it certainly is one of the many excuses floated for why it's OK to do this in Canada," Henderson said. "You can't take something in an unauthorized way, copy it and then that copy is somehow legal."

University of Ottawa internet law professor Michael Geist said the analogy is irrelevant because the courts have been clear that the original source of the copy doesn't matter.

"It's certainly an arguable case that some of the personal non-commercial downloading that takes place falls within the ambit of the levy," he said.

Henderson said the CRIA has had a policy of not suing downloaders since he took the group's reins four years ago, despite people such as Barenaked Ladies frontman Steven Page warning that it was considering doing so. The CRIA has instead focused on getting copyright law straightened out so that it would be clear what people could and couldn't do with their music, he said.

Geist said the industry group has avoided lawsuits because of the negative publicity the 2004 case attracted. He also said that moves to involve ISPs as copyright cops in several countries have been hugely controversial and could backfire on both the industry as well as the service providers.

"It's viewed by many as a draconian step and we've seen push back against it in many countries," he said. "The ISPs that do that risk a serious backlash from their customers."

Henderson applauded the RIAA's move toward negotiating with ISPs and would like to do the same in Canada, but said the copyright situation needs to be sorted out first.

"Then we could give Canadians a fair chance to obey the law because, as I've said many, many times, I believe Canadians are fundamentally law abiding," he said. "The problem in Canada is we don't have laws to abide by. People are confused."

The Conservatives promised to reintroduce copyright reform legislation as part of their election platform, but those plans were put on hold with the eruption of parliamentary turmoil in November.

Although the CRIA praised Bill C-61 for its tough stance against file-sharing, the legislation was widely opposed by numerous other industry groups as being too heavily skewed toward copyright owners.

Geist said the only way the music industry can combat file-sharing is to provide a compelling legal alternative.

"The industry chose to sue rather than innovate," he said. "They're starting to come around, but it's pretty late in the game."

RIAA axes P2P file-sharing lawsuits

Those of you who regularly share music over the Internet, Whether legally or illegally, might have by now heard the news that the Recording Industry Association of America is shelving the practice of filing lawsuits against most individuals it suspects are pirating copyrighted music online.

I say most because the RIAA still reserves the right to sue heavy file sharers or those who ignore warnings to stop. Now, the RIAA has a new tactic. It’s made agreements with several Internet service providers in which the ISPs will help them police alleged law-breakers.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the RIAA will send a letter to an ISP (internet service provider) when it thinks one of its customers is illegally sharing copyrighted music. The ISP will then either forward the letter to the alleged offender or ask him or her to stop.

If the file-sharer ignores the warning, he/she risks having his/her Internet service terminated or his/her bandwidth squeezed to the point where it takes watching the entire “Lord of the Rings” trilogy before all 11 tracks of Beyonce’s “Sasha..I am Fierce” are illegally in his/her possession. Ouch...that's slow!

So why the change of heart? The RIAA has sued some 30,000 people over the past five years, a tactic that’s proved expensive and , critics argue, has been largely ineffective. I mean, has anyone really stopped sharing their music library since the lawsuits began? I didn’t think so, And they’re not alone.
While CD sales continue to decline, the number of people sharing files online continues to increase.

This new deal makes me a little nervous because now, your ISP is poised to become an uptight hall monitor who'll narcs on every kid who smokes in the bathroom, instead of looking the other way even though it knows what you’re doing is against the rules.

I think ISPs should remain neutral.

Nervous? Maybe you should be. Maybe you shouldn’t.

You could continue to share copyrighted songs online, hoping you’ll never be caught.
At the very least, perhaps you should look to the Electronic Frontiers Foundation’s advice on how to avoid trouble (at least take a peek?).

There’s a decent chance you’ll never feel the RIAA’s tap on your shoulder. Plus, the way things are, I have no doubt word will spread quickly on how to cloak file-sharing so the ISPs and the RIAA can’t see what you’re up to.

The bottom line is: Sharing copyrighted material online is against the law.

To quote Dirty Harry, “You’ve got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?”