Related
http://www.androidcentral.com/library-congress-updates-dmca-rooting-given-exemption#comment-51125
The Library of Congress has seen fit to specifically exempt rooting and jailbreaking (for the iPhone) from the DMCA. This means that it is now 100 percent legal to root to your heart's content without fear of legal action taken against you. Check out the exact wording:
"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."
This does not mean that HTC, Motorola, and other manufactures can't (or won't) continue to try to keep their devices locked down; it just means they can't sic the lawyers on you if you do choose to root.
So, why not head into the Android Central forums and get your hack on? Check out the full legal wording after the break. [Copyright.gov via Engadget, NPR]
Statement of the Librarian of Congress Relating to Section 1201 Rulemaking
Section 1201(a)(1) of the copyright law requires that every three years I am to determine whether there are any classes of works that will be subject to exemptions from the statute's prohibition against circumvention of technology that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work. I make that determination at the conclusion of a rulemaking proceeding conducted by the Register of Copyrights, who makes a recommendation to me. Based on that proceeding and the Register's recommendation, I am to determine whether the prohibition on circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works is causing or is likely to cause adverse effects on the ability of users of any particular classes of copyrighted works to make noninfringing uses of those works. The classes of works that I designated in the previous proceeding expire at the end of the current proceeding unless proponents of a class prove their case once again.
This is the fourth time that I have made such a determination. Today I have designated six classes of works. Persons who circumvent access controls in order to engage in noninfringing uses of works in these six classes will not be subject to the statutory prohibition against circumvention.
As I have noted at the conclusion of past proceedings, it is important to understand the purposes of this rulemaking, as stated in the law, and the role I have in it. This is not a broad evaluation of the successes or failures of the DMCA. The purpose of the proceeding is to determine whether current technologies that control access to copyrighted works are diminishing the ability of individuals to use works in lawful, noninfringing ways. The DMCA does not forbid the act of circumventing copy controls, and therefore this rulemaking proceeding is not about technologies that control copying. Nor is this rulemaking about the ability to make or distribute products or services used for purposes of circumventing access controls, which are governed by a different part of section 1201.
In this rulemaking, the Register of Copyrights received 19 initial submissions proposing 25 classes of works, many of them duplicative in subject matter, which the Register organized into 11 groups and published in a notice of proposed rulemaking seeking comments on the proposed classes. Fifty-six comments were submitted. Thirty-seven witnesses appeared during the four days of public hearings in Washington and in Palo Alto, California. Transcripts of the hearings, copies of all of the comments, and copies of other information received by the Register have been posted on the Copyright Office's website.
The six classes of works are:
(1) Motion pictures on DVDs that are lawfully made and acquired and that are protected by the Content Scrambling System when circumvention is accomplished solely in order to accomplish the incorporation of short portions of motion pictures into new works for the purpose of criticism or comment, and where the person engaging in circumvention believes and has reasonable grounds for believing that circumvention is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the use in the following instances:
(i) Educational uses by college and university professors and by college and university film and media studies students;
(ii) Documentary filmmaking;
(iii) Noncommercial videos
(2) 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.
(3) 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.
(4) Video games accessible on personal computers and protected by technological protection measures that control access to lawfully obtained works, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of good faith testing for, investigating, or correcting security flaws or vulnerabilities, if:
(i) The information derived from the security testing is used primarily to promote the security of the owner or operator of a computer, computer system, or computer network; and
(ii) The information derived from the security testing is used or maintained in a manner that does not facilitate copyright infringement or a violation of applicable law.
(5) Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete. A dongle shall be considered obsolete if it is no longer manufactured or if a replacement or repair is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace; and
(6) Literary works distributed in ebook format when all existing ebook editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling either of the book's read-aloud function or of screen readers that render the text into a specialized format.
All of these classes of works find their origins in classes that I designated at the conclusion of the previous rulemaking proceeding, but some of the classes have changed due to differences in the facts and arguments presented in the current proceeding. For example, in the previous proceeding I designated a class that enable film and media studies professors to engage in the noninfringing activity of making compilations of film clips for classroom instruction. In the current proceeding, the record supported an expansion of that class to enable the incorporation of short portions of motion pictures into documentary films and noncommercial videos for the purpose of criticism or comment, when the person engaging in circumvention reasonably believes that it is necessary to fulfill that purpose. I agree with the Register that the record demonstrates that it is sometimes necessary to circumvent access controls on DVDs in order to make these kinds of fair uses of short portions of motion pictures.
wait... our government did this? lol wow haha
#1 rocks my world lol I hate the movie industry
For some reason I see it now that someone like NTP will patent rooting a phone and end up suing everyone that roots their phone.
dwertz said:
For some reason I see it now that someone like NTP will patent rooting a phone and end up suing everyone that roots their phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Steve Jobs already has a Patent on that.
dwertz said:
For some reason I see it now that someone like NTP will patent rooting a phone and end up suing everyone that roots their phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the idea patent application is in the mail
j/k
My question is does this effect warranty status at all? In other words will rooting my device no longer void the manufacturer's warranty on parts?
nukedukem said:
My question is does this effect warranty status at all? In other words will rooting my device no longer void the manufacturer's warranty on parts?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Rooting can still void your warrenty
wildgillis said:
Rooting can still void your warrenty
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
rooting still does... and with sprint both you and sprint [in the TnC] agree to binding arbitration in case of a dispute. If you can prove rooting your phone didn't adversely affect the unability of your phone or violate fcc rules then they will lose. and if you come with that proof they probably won't waste their high priced lawyer's time
Seems as though it mainly protects the developers, (which is a great thing). The end users will benefit also.
it doesnt protect devs, it is still illegal to distribute rooting/jailbreaking methods, just not illegal to use them.
davebu said:
it doesnt protect devs, it is still illegal to distribute rooting/jailbreaking methods, just not illegal to use them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Says who? Do you have links? I ask because I had not heard this before. The ruling here actually quantified the amount of code that was being changed as trivial and not to be considered.
davebu said:
it doesnt protect devs, it is still illegal to distribute rooting/jailbreaking methods, just not illegal to use them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Where did you come up with this?!
I have lookout since i gut my tab, iv gut a mail from my google account, i dont really know how the gut my account name:S
If u look at the EUAL you can see that they are taking litterily all your information you gut on you phone and most likely are selling it.
Someone conferm for me?, several people is saying this, thats where i gut my info.
First thing i did yesterday was using droidwall and blocking the internet connection for the lookout, so now it should be OK, and yes i know if they have a update i cant take it, so i need to lock it up sometimes but then they take all my info, or i need to change.
I just wanna know what you others thinkg of this, and can rek a good antivirus software
They had a post on their blog explaining why they need the permissions
Sent from my GT-P1000 using XDA App
Thanks for your interest in Lookout. Stated boldly in our privacy policy is:
We don’t sell your personal information.
-It’s that simple: we don’t sell your personal information.
We don't barter, trade, share, swap, give access to, or allow shoulder surfing of your information. Full stop.
We produce revenue for the company by selling a premium version of the product and are a venture-capital backed firm. We just raised $19.5M to help provide for the free service we offer, you can read about that more it at venturebeat.com.
As far as why does Lookout need permissions to all aspects of my phone?
Lookout needs the level of access it does to keep your phone secure. As an analogy, think of someone protecting your home by installing an electronic security system. You have to let them in to your house to install the gear, they have to hook it up to your home's electronic system, they provide you with keys/codes/access to your home, they may even have the ability to open the door if you get locked out, and you probably hand them a credit card to pay for it all. Think of all the trust you put into that service to secure what is dear to you. You wouldn't let just anyone perform that service and the same goes for your smartphone. Lookout secures your device from malware and we have a strong reputation as being a security-based organization. You can see for yourself the press we've received on our website (mylookout dot com).
For a more thorough review of the permissions we employ, see our blog post about it at blog.mylookout.com/2010/11/android-app-permissions-dissected.
Let me know if you have more questions, you can always email me: support at mylookout dot com.
Cheers,
Brian
I've had Lookout on my OG Droid for months now, and even opted in on their $1 Premium offer, and I've always felt pretty safe in trusting them. It's good to be paranoid at times, but, in the end, it'd be pretty destructive for a security firm to destroy their revenue and dissipate their userbase for a little demographic info that's all to easy for advertisers to grab from other sources anyway.
Lookout FTW!
edit...wrong thread, sorry
Hey guys,
I'm writing an app to display comics from a website and I'm wondering what the laws are with this. If people use my app instead of going to the website, they would not see the ads, therefore costing the website money. Also, if I put ads in my app, I'm making money by using someone else's content. This doesn't sound right. At the same time though, one could argue that this is really no different from making a web browser. All I'm doing is displaying information that is publicly available to anyone. Anyway, any clarification would be excellent.
Thanks,
Samuel Maskell
Well, the way I see it is now in days its well...you could get a way with it...
I mean its the same as if someone were to make a website that copies from another website but the copy ends up being better then the original...
I mean, I am sure that their was meant to be copyright laws against this, but its way to late to start enforcing them because now in days most sites do copy other sites...
So actually it is just a matter of if it would bother you that the owner of the site looses a tiny bit of money.
Since you aren't displaying the website in its original form, you are pulling copyrighted content off their website and displaying it in your app without their consent. I doubt anyone would bother suing you, but at most I could see the website trying to get the app pulled from the Market.
add144 said:
Since you aren't displaying the website in its original form, you are pulling copyrighted content off their website and displaying it in your app without their consent. I doubt anyone would bother suing you, but at most I could see the website trying to get the app pulled from the Market.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
On that note a question comes to mind is it the site owners comic as in did he make it? Because if hes not even the original maker of it hes problem not going to even try to get ur app taken off mainly because overall he would have done the same thing; plus I dont see the app effecting the website to much...Well, unless ur making 4-5 apps(iphone, ipad, android, android honeycomb, windows 7).
The site only displays original content, but yeah, I don't think they would care too much. I'm not particularly worried about getting sued or anything. I really don't see that happen. I just figured I'd ask to see if anyone had had a similar experience in order to avoid running into any problems they might have seen. Anyway, I'll just publish it when it's done and if he asks me to remove it, I'll do just that. Or maybe I'll send the guy an email and see how he feels about it..
Anyway, thanks everyone. You've been very helpful.
In the US it's illegal. The following refers to web sites but an app is really the same thing...
http://mason.gmu.edu/~montecin/copyright-internet.htm
When creating a Web page, you CANNOT:
* Put the contents of another person's or organizations web site on your Web page
* Copy and paste information together from various Internet sources to create "your own" document. [You CAN quote or paraphrase limited amounts, if you give credit to the original source and the location of the source. This same principle applies to print sources, of course.]
* Incorporate other people's electronic material, such as e-mail, in your own document, without permission.
* Forward someone's e-mail to another recipient without permission
* Change the context of or edit someone else's digital correspondence in a way which changes the meaning
* Copy and paste others' lists of resources on your own web page
* Copy and paste logos, icons, and other graphics from other web sites to your web page (unless it is clearly advertised as "freeware." Shareware is not free). Some organizations are happy to let you use their logos, with permission - it is free advertising. But they want to know who is using it. They might not approve of all sites who want to use their logo.
There is no law stoping you from creating an app that would display a specific part of a website. If this was the case a browser would be illegal.
You need to think of this from its simplest case...the website that is being copied is YOURS.
Say you design a web page of some sort. A blog, some graphic icons, some CARTOONS. How would you like to see some Apple or Android app that all of a sudden has YOUR web page creations on it for profit? I would be pretty pissed And find a way to stop you. LOL
I would carefully check the web page for something like "No portion of this page may be reproduced or copied without consent of "blah, blah" in the fine print.
Similar to re-broadcasting sports game, or more common, DRM with regards to music files.
I would error on the side of caution
whiteguypl said:
There is no law stoping you from creating an app that would display a specific part of a website. If this was the case a browser would be illegal.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Bingo. Show me one case involving iphone or android and I will bow down.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
A browser displays the whole website - a major difference.
sent from my SGS, CM7 2.3.3
Not true. What about a browser that supports Flash vs. one that doesn't? What about a browser that doesn't even support CSS? I don't see how this law could hold up without making a browser illegal.
I have an idea I will share with you all now (hopefully some one will steal it and make a billion dollars, as I will probably never do it and I want to use this app). My idea is for a new kind of webbrowser that rips out all formatting (no css), and instead just grabs content and formats it according to user-submissions (3rd party css pulling content from multiple sites).
According to some here, this app would be illegal, however, I call it a new form of webbrowser, I do not include any content/pages, users do by creating a page format and linking it to content from any online source. To call this illegal is to kill innovation and is unfair since it is just a new form of page rendering and many different webbrowsers have much different page rendering for the same site.
If someone is serious about working with me on this project, please send me a PM.
EDIT: If you think about it, my idea really is what APPs are. Many people make many apps for 3rd party websites like Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter, etc. My idea is one app to rule them all... a browser that works more like an app, and people make html scanners + page layouts instead of making full apps. The idea makes any and every webpage work like an app.
The world is not fair - so why are you complaining?
You can do what you want, but live with the consequences.
Pulling content with the aim to alter it, is as a fact in most western countries illegal. If someone would want to provide only content, he would made an API, e.g. via Rest, SOAP or alike.
sent from my SGS, CM7 2.3.3
What about FireFox with Ad block plus? Is that illegal? It modifies webpages and prevents them from getting ad revenue.
What about simply blocking ads by adding "ads.* 127.0.0.1" to your hosts file? Is that illegal too?
A browser downloads HTML, and then downloads pictures and renders them on the page. Why can't an "alternate browser" download the same pictures and use them in an alternate html layout?
There are a ton of "fake" apps in the Android market that simply open a page in a "lite" webbrowser. Almost every "Chrome App" is just a link to a webpage that loads them fullscreen. Are they all illegal if from a 3rd party?
I think linking to any portion of web content is a free for all as long as you do not store and re-distribute the content. I think my argument would stand up in court.
Adblocker are an infringement against most AGB/ Eula / Usage agreements.
And yes, I there are many offensive apps in the market. If you are in iran, mostly any violation against foreign law is legal - it depends on the country.
Better example: YouTube - most content violates local law, but YouTube, now Google has sufficient influence and money to deal with it. Do you?
sent from my SGS, CM7 2.3.3
Your browser argument is stupid. The browser is displaying the original website. Hes talking about pulling copyrighted content off of a website, for his own profit. Those are completely different.
This is definitely illegal, but you probably won't get in trouble for it.
Lakers16 said:
Your browser argument is stupid. The browser is displaying the original website. Hes talking about pulling copyrighted content off of a website, for his own profit. Those are completely different.
This is definitely illegal, but you probably won't get in trouble for it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually he was using the browser as kind of an example I believe...And what you just said sounds a lot like what other sites do(aka arcade sites, autoblogs).
It's someone else's content. It's as simple as that.
If you want to make an app to display content you didn't create, then contact them the creator. Maybe you can write the app in excahnge for driving traffic to his cartoons.
The browser argument doesnt apply because browsers are general purpose applications that display any content the user requests, not specific content.
What it comes down to is intent. The same can be said for linking to pirated content.
Law is about nuance. Intent matters -- and this holds true in the digital age. You can't shoe-horn analogies of a broswer or linking or adblock onto this. Each of those holds a different purpose and accomplishes different goals by different means and most importantly for different REASONS.
Motive and intent matter.
I think I might write about this subject in my blog!
Legally, you're breaking copyright laws in several countries by taking other people's copyrighted material and showing it in a context they didn't authorise you to.
Whether they'll sue - who knows - whether they'll get your app removed - who knows - the law, app rules and reality don't always meet. You can do something quite legitimate and have your app remove anyway and apps which break the law are often ignored.
The idea of context is quite important - as is intent - but generally speaking, taking someone's work and doing ANYTHING with it, without their consent, is violation of copyright (the 'right' to 'copy' their work).
p.s. if you were charging for your app, that would be worse again (arguably, you're passing-off someone else's work as your own).
Even if he states the copyright - he uses a digital copy for his own good, fame, money - doesn't matter. It's an violation of copyright.
sent from my SGS, CM7 2.3.3
Some of you may be familiar with the community website 'CouchSurfing' http://www.couchsurfing.org/
There is no doubt a demand for an Android app to facilitate for users of the website. My research indicates that there are others who are keen to do this, however the Couchsurfing website doesn't have an API to facilitate for the creation of an app.
I suggest visiting this thread on the CS wiki and help to encourage CS to implement an API in their website.
Any further suggestions welcomed!
Update:
For anyone interested, the CS team replied to my email saying:
Thank you for your suggestion.
We have this on our list for quite a while now but it isn't a priority for our Tech Team at this time.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you want it, then let them know there's a demand
an api costs time, an app to take advantage of that api costs time.
and as time is money, unless you're willing to fund it, why should the website owners care? it depends on how it could be monitised. simple as.
something that wiki article completely overlooks. it's like... it was wrtten by people with no concept of costing.
CouchSurfing is a non-profit organisation so it doesn't have a business-orientated model (thankfully there are still some things out there like that).
It may cost some time & effort to API the website, but the return is that CS would be brought into the future of mobile computing which is invaluable really. Many apps, particularly on Android, are not developed on a monetary basis. I don't see why this would be any different.
wrapper said:
CouchSurfing is a non-profit organisation so it doesn't have a business-orientated model (thankfully there are still some things out there like that).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you're missing the point. even a non-profit has costs. how many trustworthy developers are going to work for free?
It may cost some time & effort to API the website,
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
no, it will cost, money. and, not "may", it will. you've obviously never done any api work to know that it's not simple. once completed, there are ongoing security problems, additional bandwidth problems, updating...
but the return is that CS would be brought into the future of mobile computing which is invaluable really.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"invaluable really"? wtf. again, you're missing the point, it's about ROI. "being brought into the future of mobile computing" doesn't pay dev bills. face it, it's just a "cool".
Many apps, particularly on Android, are not developed on a monetary basis. I don't see why this would be any different.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i'm sure more are than you realise. ever notice those ads in the 'free' apps.
after running a few websites where the readers felt that they had a share in the site and demanded that i do xyz to improve it in their eyes, i completely understand both points. however, unless you're going to pay for the dev work, why should the owners care? you're just - to them - a mouthy user who wants more than you're getting - for free.
I appreciate your concerns. There is a monetary value attached to this, and clearly you see that as the most important issue.
You don't, however, speak on behalf of the CouchSurfing team. Their website is run off donations. If there is demand for improving the website to allow for features like this, a push can be made for further donations. There is also the possibility to profit from the app via advertising or a paid/donation app.
Thank you for highlighting some of the potential issues. I didn't post this to have an debate about the viability of such an application, rather to encourage anyone who is interested in the website and the progression of an Android app to contribute.
I'm a User Experience and Interface Designer, so if anyone starts work on an app, I'd be very happy to help with UX, usability and overall design.
Yes, please
Just adding my support for a mobile CouchSurfing app. I'd gladly make a $10 or more "donation" for a paid app of this sort. It would really be beneficial for Surfers who are on the road as the desktop site is rather clunky on a mobile browser.
I've just contacted them and told them I'd be willing to develop an API for them. For free. I don't care, I want to do Android development and I need a project to work on in order to learn.
If they let me (that's still the question), I would love to discuss with anyone above interested in developing an app, in return for sharing information about and source code of said app (ie. I want to peek in your code).
I also want to do a similar thing for Eurostop, a European carpooling website. The German counterpart "mitfahrgelegenheit" has an app that's worth imitating.
Best type of ad to promote mobile apps
When advertising your app to other countries start from the grass roots level which is pinpointing the countries which you will advertise first. This is important so will have a much clearer picture on who you would will to sell you app to.
Once you establish the list of countries the next thing that you should do is to localize your app. English may be the medium where individuals from different countries understand each other but what else could you do to attract more people to your app? Incorporate their local language in your app. Not all people can thoroughly understand English and are drawn to pay more attention to things that they could understand.
Now after doing all those things, you need to find a DSP (demand side platform) which has self-serve RTB(real time bidding) capabilities like Bluagile and start creating mobile web and in app campaigns. This is the most affordable, convenient and efficient way to run your campaigns. Using a DSP lets you connected with more or less 30 differennt ad exchages which means accessing more traffic than you can ever imagine over 200 countries worldwide. The cost wouldn't be a problem since it's a self-serve RTB you can bid whichever rate you would think would be best suitable for the campaign. Another great thing about this is that they have a brand safe inventory which is accessible through static banners. DSPs usually providereportings on their platform which is far better than getting separate reports from various blogs, article and sites. Creating a buzz in the world wide web is the best way to get more people interested in something new and investing in CPM (cost per 1000 impressions) is the perfect fit to achieve that goal.
To sum it all up, you're creating a mobile campaign using static banners to ensure bot free traffic at a very cheap and affordable cost and you can view the reportings on one area which is very convenient. Learn more about Bluagile by visiting the site:
bluagile . com
Dear colleagues!
In this text below, I want to warn you about the scam danger from "Advertze" company.
We signed the traffic purchase agreement, made the prepayment of $2000 and after that Advertze disappeared.
I'll give you a summary of the situation that happened while negotiating with Advertze.
Our company, Hotger, is the user of MyMediaAds platform, which was the reason of finding and choosing Advertze.
We contacted Aaron Lopez, a manager of the company and the dialogue was started right away.
We have signed the document and received signed invoice for $2000. We did the payment for this invoice by bank transfer and sent the Swift payment confirmation, then we asked them to confirm the payment receiving. After that our partners disappeared, no one answered the phone or email.
We decided to contact Advertze the other way. Our manager added Aaron Lopez( the one who disappeared after payment) on skype. He answered surprisingly quick, started asking about work details and about prepayment!during the discussion Aaron Looez asked for email address. Because we all have same domain it was probably familiar to him. As soon as he saw the email address Aaron disappeared within 2 minutes and deleted our manager from skype and never contacted us again.
This second situation left no doubt, that Advetze is a scam company. They steal not only money but your precious work time.
This is why we want to spread this information as much as possible. Dear colleagues, our company Hotger is warning you, to avoid any contact with Advertze company. Beware of scammers never discuss any prepayments. We, Hotger company, strongly believe that this text should be spread as much as possible in order to avoid the same situation that happened to us.
Wishing you peace, happiness and good honest partnerships.