Thursday, January 26, 2012

Net Advocacy

Alright US Citizens it is the year of net advocacy apparently, so this time up here is a decently informative article on some action of the US Copyright office.  You may have heard a year or so ago that the Copyright office declared that jailbreaking devices is not a illegal.  I thought it was a perpetual ruling, turns out it was a temporary ruling and it is due for renewal.  The EFF has a link to the page you need to submit a response to the Copyright office, and some helpful info for what you should write about.  I've included my response for further inspiration on how to write them.  Now get to clicking, it might become a crime to run that custom rom on your Android phone.

I am writing in support of the exemption for jailbreaking of Tablets and smartphones.  As a hobbiest and consumer, I feel that the capabilities of the hardware that I purchased should not be artifically limited by companies that either lack the ambition or know-how to unlock the power of general purpose computers.  In releasing arbitrarily locked devices they are saying that we don't have the ability to modify for our own purposes, hardware that we have lawfully purchased.  For me this is a question of ownership, if I own the product I feel that I should be able to modify with out impediment of law the devices that I own so long as it doesn't interfere with public spaces (ie interfere with publicly licensed spectrum ect).  I personally own several android devices and have experienced great improvements in the function and performance of the devices that I have jailbroken and installed custom roms on.  In the case of my cellular phone I have seen significant increases in battery life over the course of the day, the piece of mind that Carrier IQ is not installed and the without corporate junk installed almost 2x's the amount of free memory to install programs from the App store that I actually want.  This saved me from having to upgrade to a new device just to have more memory to use the features I need.  In the case of the Barnes and Noble Nook Color, by jailbreaking and installing a custom rom I now have full access to the android market and am not subject to the "curated market" that Barnes and Noble is now offering.  The device is quite capable, but B&N only want it to be used as a portal for buying books from them.  They would prevent me from installing competing book sellers offerings, and having the benefit of expanded choices as a consumer.  This type of lock-in on a consumer device that I am expected to purchase before I am able to reap the benefit of buying books from them is akin to Shell selling cars that only run on Shell gasoline.  It is preposterous on its face and should not be allowed.  Thank you for your consideration on this very important matter.


  1. Yea, I agree. I should be up to the user what he or she does with the phone once it's been bought.

  2. This BS has been going on longer then you think! Please watch this movie! Its very informative!

    incase the link doesn't work its called: Pyramids of Waste.

  3. I'm guessing that for every DRM inclusion made, they will be cracked within a month. They're fighting an uphill battle, it seems.

  4. i agree with you 100% about companies limiting their software. i feel its pure laziness on their part and the least they could do is leave it up to the users to fill in the gaps where they fail to meet the standards