My dad sent me a link to this article from the EFF in which they are trying to vilify Apple for protecting their intellectual property rights. The EFF has filed a claim with the US Copyright office trying to get an exception granted to the DMCA that would make it legal for people to jailbreak their iPhone and violate the EULA that they freely entered into when they activated said phone. Apple is contesting their exemption request (note: this is very different than threatening to take individuals who jailbreak their phone to court, RIAA-style) stating that they are well withing their rights to protect their intellectual property in any manner formally agreed to between them and the people who license said IP.
Keyword there, folks. License.
You may own your iPhone, just like you own your other hardware, but you license the software on it. When you install or activate that software, you enter into an End User License Agreement, by your own volition and without coercion, and are then bound by the terms of the agreement, just like any other contract. Even open source software, which the EFF loves like the Virgin Child, has legal restrictions on it, albeit looser ones by comparison.
The EFF seems to think that people should be allowed to enter into a legal agreement and then for some reason, that they don’t seem to want to explain, should be allowed to violate that agreement just because doing so would allow people to do “really cool shit.” An agreement that is entered into freely, without coercion or duress and violates no existing laws or statutes is a legally binding agreement. Period.
Now last I checked my iPhone didn’t magically meld to my hand the moment I clicked the “I agree” button. I was free to read the EULA and not agree to it and return my phone. I am free to determine now, after the fact, that the terms of the EULA are too restrictive for my taste and ditch my iPhone for a less restricted device. I am free to call bullshit on the EULA to anyone who will listen. What I am not free to do is violate the terms of the agreement I entered into without the consent of all involved parties. I almost got a D in Business Law and even I know that (maybe the EFF will hire me).
To cap it off, they revisit the very tired “modifying your engine” metaphor that has been defeated over and over. Yes, if you own your car you can do whatever the hell you like to it, stupid or dangerous as it may be. If you are leasing it, or it is financed and actually owned by the bank your rights are a little different though, aren’t they? Can you get a nice flame job on that Altima you’re leasing and then just turn it back in at the end of your lease without rebuke? Don’t bother looking that one up; the answer is ‘no’. The metaphor is defeated as simply as this: you don’t own your OS and you don’t have rights to modify it if you have explicitely agreed not to do so. And yet, nobody complains about not being able to get the flame job on their Altima.
When you jailbreak your iPhone you willfully violate the terms of the agreement you entered and you have no legal right to do so. Apple is 100% justified in trying to legally preserve the sanctity of that agreement and the fact that the EFF is trying to nullify it is, legally speaking, reprehensible, regardless of their motives.
Of course, having said all that, most modern EULAs, including the iPhones, are a pile of horse shit, but that’s another post. Last I checked they don’t sell phones to todlers. We’re all big boys and girls. If you don’t like the terms of the agreement, don’t agree to them. If you agree to them, adhere to them.