Rooting and Jailbreaking Illegal? Huh? What?

[Zoandroid]

I am not sure you can be forced to sign away your rights. In the case of an OS, if you absolutely need an OS installed on your computer, their TOS must be agreed to or you cannot work.

No one forces us to buy and use these products. That's the whole problem. We do this voluntarily, and they know we will continue to do so, because we want or need their product. Another example of how boycotting 'could' make a difference, but I doubt everyone would band together and completely stop buying a specific product just to make the point. And they know that. Especially the vendors who cultivate a 'cult' style following in their customers. It's another way of building job security for their business. As long as there are hungry donkeys, the carrot on a stick principle works quite well. They will always do whatever it takes to get to the carrot.

 

[argedion]

There isn't anything illegal about reverse engineering, and a ToS can't prevent that.

Your right there isn't but that's more of the EULA side than a TOS. I have seen EULA's state by using the software you agree not to reverse engineer. However if you reverse engineer and copy the exacts. Then try to sell it as yours then that is a blatant. I guess that is what I was trying to say. Personally I think all of it should be open source

 

[Bob Maxey]

No one forces us to buy and use these products. That's the whole problem. We do this voluntarily, and they know we will continue to do so, because we want or need their product. Another example of how boycotting 'could' make a difference, but I doubt everyone would band together and completely stop buying a specific product just to make the point. And they know that. Especially the vendors who cultivate a 'cult' style following in their customers. It's another way of building job security for their business. As long as there are hungry donkeys, the carrot on a stick principle works quite well. They will always do whatever it takes to get to the carrot.

Actually, we are required to use computers. Therefore, we are forced to consider how we use them; what we can and cannot do, etc. We really do not have any choice. Since they have us where they want us, we must read and understand the rules.

If the rules are unfair, it is harder for us, or it can be.

I agree, these rules expressed in our TOS Agreements and the EULA are a bit much. And I'll admit that I 'click-through' these documents without reading them. But I also think when push comes to shove, we had better have a good reason for not reading the contracts we sign.

 

[argedion]

Actually, we are required to use computers. Therefore, we are forced to consider how we use them; what we can and cannot do, etc. We really do not have any choice. Since they have us where they want us, we must read and understand the rules.

If the rules are unfair, it is harder for us, or it can be.

I agree, these rules expressed in our TOS Agreements and the EULA are a bit much. And I'll admit that I 'click-through' these documents without reading them. But I also think when push comes to shove, we had better have a good reason for not reading the contracts we sign.

Thats just it though just because you push a button doesnt mean you actually sign the contract. As you stat

We are required to use computers

So its not so much as I "Agree" as I have to have it Its like giving me a car but charging me 5 dollars a gallan for gas I may not agree with it but i'm going to pump it in because the car is worthless with out it.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Thats just it though just because you push a button doesnt mean you actually sign the contract. As you stat So its not so much as I "Agree" as I have to have it Its like giving me a car but charging me 5 dollars a gallan for gas I may not agree with it but i'm going to pump it in because the car is worthless with out it.

I disagree. When you click, you are saying that you agree with the TOS or EULA. Not arguing how valid they are and I certainly do not know what would happen if you violated the TOS. Courts could invalidate the "contract" or hold you liable.

This needs to be addressed by the courts. We cannot simply refuse to honor the agreements we "Click Through" but we also cannot simply ignore the fact that these agreements are impossible to read and a bit too much in many cases. I seriously doubt many people read the many pages they agree to abide by.

I am sure Apple (and everyone else) knows that few people actually read every word and therefore, they might think they can slip something by us. We said "I Agree" and perhaps they think that is all they need.

I have not looked at what is required to create a binding e-document, but a quick look shows that electronic signatures are often upheld by the courts.

I did find this on Wikipedia: "Courts in various jurisdictions have decided that enforceable electronic signatures can include agreements made by email, entering a personal identification number (PIN) into a bank ATM, signing a credit or debit slip with a digital pen pad device (an application of graphics tablet technology) at a point of sale, installing software with a clickwrap software license agreement on the package, and signing electronic documents online. The first agreement signed electronically by two sovereign nations was a Joint Communiqu

 

[Bob Maxey]

we all have certain rights.. as humans and consumers... they can put any shiit they want in the contracts and blah blah blah... but you can not sign your rights away... especially when it is not reasonable that a person agrees to it.. before they even have a chance to read it. it is also not reasonable to assume consumers read a book of boring legal stuff before use.

sure they can put some things that are reasonable for warranty and product support. but to say I cant sue them for x y or z.. it is there to make it more difficult but i am sure it can be over ruled, if such contract breach your consumer rights.

People must first understand what their rights actually are. YouTube is filled with stuff the posters claim they have the right to post under the "Fair Use" provision. They are 100% wrong.

I participate in a writer's group and of late, there is some debate about something called a "Work Fir Hire" agreement. There are writers that actually think they still own the rights to the articles they produce under the terms of a WFH agreement.

People need to become more educated about these issues. I fear many will learn the hard way.

 

[argedion]

People must first understand what their rights actually are. YouTube is filled with stuff the posters claim they have the right to post under the "Fair Use" provision. They are 100% wrong.

I participate in a writer's group and of late, there is some debate about something called a "Work Fir Hire" agreement. There are writers that actually think they still own the rights to the articles they produce under the terms of a WFH agreement.

People need to become more educated about these issues. I fear many will learn the hard way.

Actual problem is most are not educated about these issues or any other ones for that matter. Or they go and seek to be educated and all they end up with is someones Opinion or Interpretation which may be somewhere near the target or way off. Then there is the difference between Civil Laws and Common Law. Fact is most of us are not Lawyers so how can I "Agree" something that I really don't understand? I admit I have not read a EULU. Nor have I read a TOS. Rather I'm Liable for something or not I really don't know. I can only go by Educated Opinions or Educated Guesses of what I'm told. Fact is Most Lawyers cant tell you how something is going to turn out. I've seen cases where the Lawyers told the client the Law protects you and we have this case wrapped up then all the sudden some Paid off Judge says no thats not how the law is interpreted and your owe the court cost plus the cost of the Attorneys?

The simple truth is in the end We the People will Loose Why because we always do. But Please don't get me wrong I don't believe all Judges are paid off but there is corruption in the Judicial system.

I mean we elect people based on popularity and not on qualifications. Most of the Country don't even know how many "issues" we actually have. Myself included. I am a High School drop out who did go and get a GED but really there is so much I truely don't know and it seems when I finally do get to know something it changes.

 

[dan330]

People must first understand what their rights actually are. YouTube is filled with stuff the posters claim they have the right to post under the "Fair Use" provision. They are 100% wrong.

I participate in a writer's group and of late, there is some debate about something called a "Work Fir Hire" agreement. There are writers that actually think they still own the rights to the articles they produce under the terms of a WFH agreement.

People need to become more educated about these issues. I fear many will learn the hard way.

what I am talking about.. for example... if you buy a new car.. and in the long as contract.. down deep in the blah blah blah... it states that we can not sue them for bad design of the car that causes a harm or death. we sign it.. thinking it should be fine.

it would be hard for them to enforce that.. if they are negligence in their design and cause harm.. we can sue the F out of them! no court will enforce that part of the contract.

 

[argedion]

what I am talking about.. for example... if you buy a new car.. and in the long as contract.. down deep in the blah blah blah... it states that we can not sue them for bad design of the car that causes a harm or death. we sign it.. thinking it should be fine.

it would be hard for them to enforce that.. if they are negligence in their design and cause harm.. we can sue the F out of them! no court will enforce that part of the contract.

Correct Judges can determine that "Parts" of the Contract are UnConstitutional Its very hard to uphold anything that causes sever injury or death its not impossible but just very hard. You have to basically prove that the "Customers" knew that in this case design was harmful and death could occur because of it.
Generally though these are mostly class action law suites and not individual.

 

[sweller]

I satisfied myself years ago that rooting was not illegal. I'm equally satisfied that rooting won't void the warranty - though that would be a tough struggle if the manufacturer chooses to be hard-nosed about it. But there had better be something in writing that explicitly prohibits it, too. My Verizon TOS Agreement says NOTHING about rooting or flashing the ROM. It does specifically state that whatever *I* do with my phone cannot interfere with whatever *YOU* do with yours. That's pretty much in line with what the FCC says, too.

So to tell me I can't root and change the firmware/software on a device I OWN is a lot like telling me I can't flash the bios, or reformat the hard drive on my PC before I upgrade from XP to WIN7 or Linux. Indeed, from my perspective, they're exactly the same. The real problem as I see it, is that our legislators are so tech illiterate that they can't see it *MY* way.