The Library of Congress and the Registry of Copyright have enacted changes to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which, among other things, officially makes the act of unlocking and jailbreaking your phones fair use. Yesterday's new rulings for DRM circumvention included two exemptions that concern mobile phones.
The first one, which relates directly to the jailbreaking issue, states that "Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset." Yep, that's the exact ruling in legalese, so it's a little tough to read.
After straining your head a little, though, the point is pretty clear: you can circumvent Apple's (or any other manufacturer's) DRM to enable interoperability of legally-obtained software applications (that means jailbreak-friendly apps you didn't steal) with the phone's native code. During the hearings, the Register concluded that "when one jailbreaks a smartphone in order to make the operating system on that phone interoperable with an independently created application that has not been approved by the maker of the smartphone or the maker of its operating system, the modifications that are made purely for the purpose of such interoperability are fair uses."
The second exemption, which relates to unlocking, goes "Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable used wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is initiated by the owner of the copy of the computer program solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and access to the network is authorized by the operator of the network." Stripping the obtuse language, the essence is that you can unlock your phone to use a different network than the default carrier, provided that "access to the network is authorized by the [new] operator."
Apple actually showed up at the hearings, claiming that jailbreaking was, to summarize, terrible and illegal. The Register, however, sided against their case, stating that "such alleged adverse effects are not in the nature of the harm that the fourth fair use factor is intended to address."
What does this mean? Other than the fact that jailbreak-related businesses can now set up shop without fear of getting sued, not much. Apple has reiterated that jailbreaking can still void warranty. However, everyone can now do it without having to sit through Apple's baseless threats.
[via Ars Technica]
