iPhone hacker sues Apple for right to unlock his phone
Pablos sez, "I hacked my iPhone and now I'm suing Apple and AT&T for trying to stop me. This isn't a frivolous case, we want these companies to respect the legal limits on what they can do to their customers. I'm sad to be suing a company I've loved since third grade, but adopting the worst practices of other industries makes them a lot less lovable. The complaint for this class action suit was filed last Friday, and I encourage everyone interested to read it."
Link
(Thanks, Pablos!)
the latest
latest episodes
Well, the awful, awful harm caused to you certainly seems worth $5,000,000.
P.S. Thanks for the EULA-like PDF. A great read for sci-fi fans.
Let me guess - this is an individual who neither knows how to wisely spend his money nor his time.
isn't this the kind of jackassery we ridicule at boingboing?
a class action suit huh?
I would be interested to know how many people sign on for this...
I know a number of people that have iPhones.
Zero of them are interested in unlocking it.
and the analogy used in the link provided is really bad.
Its not like Ford forcing you to use their tires and their roads, its more like Ford voiding your warranty for modifiying the onboard computer that controls the vehicle. Hey, you should be able to rev as fast as you want, right? Who are they to put a rev limiter on there? Drop your own modded chip in there dude!
So you should sue Ford for locking you into a certain speed range.
But that would be crazy.
You deliberately mod your iPhone and expect an update from Apple to be compliant with your mod?
The website should have been:
www.mnttntnWhr.cm
Hold on. There are at least a hundred plaintiffs in this case, and they are expecting more. 5 mill would work out to, at the very most, $5000.
Second of all, I think the two named people in pdf are attempting to spend their money wisely. Both have complaints that they can not change there SIM cards out, and are having to shell out more money by using this phone they would have to with another phone (and to date, none are as feature rich as the iPhone -- according to the suit). One of them spent $381 dollars in roaming charges over a THREE day period.
Additionally, they are tied into only using Apple approved products, which means they have to spend more money to add features.
As to the Jackassery -- I don't think so. The complaint being made is that a person has purchased an item and the company will not allow that person to do what they want with that item. I believe we have the same problem with the RIAA and DRM.
Actually, Apple is not preventing anyone from "doing what they want to" with the iPhone - they can hack and modify it all they want, and Apple won't stop them.
Thing is, once you hack the firmware, DO NOT try to further update it with Apple firmware updates because those Apple firmware updates are expecting stock OEM firmware. If various bits and pieces are no longer there or are different, the firmware update will quite legitimately fail partway through when it runs off the rails.
Instant shiny, high-tech, lighted paperweight.
Welcome to the iBrick! It is not the Apple firmware that makes the iPhone a brick, but the hacks that make the update fail.
"Welcome to the iBrick! It is not the Apple firmware that makes the iPhone a brick, but the hacks that make the update fail."
You are assuming that Apple didn't brick the phones on purpose. If they did, then they are potentially libel. It is one thing for the update to reset the phone, it is another for it to brick the phone.
Imagine if installing fire fox caused your Mac to be bricked at the next Software Update. If that was Apple's intent I think you'd be blaming Apple, not Mozilla.
Still in this interesting discussion are things not clear
www.strs-kks.blgspt.cm
Oh, puh-leeze Skep. If you want to use a tech analogy, get the software level correct.
You should have written: Imagine if installing an unlicensed mod to my BIOS caused my machine to be bricked at the next BIOS update.
Hmmm, gee, thats EXACTLY what happens. And, no, ASUS doesn't do it deliberately.
Geeks with soldering irons. Spare me.
I think the most damning evidence in this case is that Apple knowingly (and probably intentionally) bricked the hacked phones.
They could have very easily displayed a message to the effect of "You've hacked your iPhone. No Update For You!" which seems like a reasonable response.
In fact, it's downright bad programming for a software patch not to validate the checksums of the files it's patching...
Microcars writes: "Its not like Ford forcing you to use their tires and their roads, its more like Ford voiding your warranty for modifiying the onboard computer that controls the vehicle. Hey, you should be able to rev as fast as you want, right?"
Incorrect. the best car analogy would be a car with an in-car computer that only allows you to drive normally on Apple roads, and charges you a "roaming" fee if you use anyone else's roads. Modifying it to work with any road, as you expect when you buy a car, requires a hack that voids your warranty. Warranties, and the ability to upgrade, are worth money: so you either lose money in losing the warranty, or you lose money through the roaming fee.
Lose-lose for the buyer.
Personally, while I think they have a case, I still hope the judge says "Haha, unless you're retarded, you *knew* you were buying a $600 DRM-enabled, provider-locked crippleware iBrick, but you still just *had* to have it because it was the latest thing, and you believed the hype about Apple being the 'good-guy underdog', just like you probably believe Google's 'do no evil' mantra. Come back when you have a real phone, you ignorant, pretentious, artsy twat."
Dng dng dng.... ppl tkng rspnsblty fr thr ctns? n mrcn? N wy!
Thgh Cry's ffbs shrll whnng bt ppl nd DRM nnsns ws ld frm hs frst nnsnscl rtcl whr h ld t hs ght yr ld ntcs sns fcts f thngs (lk hw ppl hd sgnd th dls wth bg lbls, ltr T&T wntd dl, bt Cry nvr lts fcts gt n th wy f hs ppl whnng), n wy ths ppl my hv hd cs... F THY HD BRNS! Whch gss prtcts thm frm zmbs, tht's gd thng spps.
Thy knw tht ppl's Phn ws, rght r wrng, lckd t th T&T ntwrk (nd why rn't thy sng T&T, wh s prt f th cntrct t s th phn, hmmm, cnvnnt), thy knw ppl hd md th Phn clsd systm, thn thy knw hckng th Phn cld sppsd brck t, thn ppl wrnd tht th pdt my brck t, thn t brckd t, thn thy'r sng fr rdcls mnt f mny lk whnng chlds, rght p Cry's lly, nd lwyrs, bt nt rlly th ntrst f tr lgl cs. 'm gssng ths sm lgnts fr brns n nthr pln f xstnc wld chg bttl f Drn wth t's bg "CTN: D NT DRNK," drnk t, d, cm bck s ghsts nd s th mkrs f Drn fr nt llwng thm t drnk t, gnrng th fct f thr's bg gnt yllw lblng vrywhr tllng ppl nt t drnk t.
nthr lttl nt, cnvnntly vrlkd by whnrs lk Cry/ths sshts sng, lst tm chckd, thr wr thr phns n th mrkt, crrct? Lk f y dn't lk Tns (Cry gn nd hs ffbs ssptns t's Jbs/ppl, ctlly t's th dls wth th dvl, .. lbls, NT ppl) g t mzn, dn't lk mzn, g t tht FGLY P..S. Mcrsck bndls wth t's glr P..S. Zn. Dn't lk Mcrsck's plyr? s Lmwr. r hr's cncpt... BY CDs! Dn't lk th Phn's clsd systm... BY NTHR PHN! Thr's tn f smrt phns t thr, mny, rgbly, hv bttr ftr st thn th Phn nd, ys, y cn nlck, pt thrd prty pps, tc.
Snc whn s t bsnss's bsnss t kss th ss f vry ssht cnsmr? 'm bt f sclst/cptlst myslf, bt th cptlst nd f thngs s tht, f thr's chc, tht's prbbly gd fr cnsmrs, nd N by chc, dn't mn cnsmr shld b fr t hv mnfctrr X, Y, Z, mk vry dvc t mks t tht whny cnsmrs whms nd wnts. Hy, my Tyt Rv4 wn't tk th ngn frm Lmbrghn Gllrd. h ns! Ths s Tyt's flt! shld b bl t pt th ngn f Gllrd n my Tyt nd Tyt shld mk t s cn, t's my rght!!!
m, n, jst lk n, Cry, t's nt YR rght t tll mnfctrrs hw t mk thr prdct, s STF wth yr ntcs, thy'r trd nd lwys llnfrmd, dl wth cptlsm whn t wrks. nd n, rdcls lw st ppl lkng fr fr rd nd mny mny tms mr thn yr Qs, f y cn't rd th fn prnt nd s ths tny lttl thngs n yr hd, sm lk t cll thm brns, d th wrld fvr, stp brthng! n ths rdcls ltgs g whr ppl s t f stpdty, ths s clrly n f thm, nd hp th jdg lghs ths n t f crt, ddng "dd y try Tr? Hw bt Blckbrry? Dd y s tht nw (crppy M$ Mbl) dvc? Hw bt tht Cntr? NW GT TH HLL T F MY CRTRM!!!"
hhh dr t drm.
#10 said: Incorrect. the best car analogy would be a car with an in-car computer that only allows you to drive normally on Apple roads, and charges you a "roaming" fee if you use anyone else's roads. Modifying it to work with any road, as you expect when you buy a car, requires a hack that voids your warranty. Warranties, and the ability to upgrade, are worth money: so you either lose money in losing the warranty, or you lose money through the roaming fee.
Isn't the neat thing about building robust and flexible IP rules that people can contract into and out-of all kinds of things? I'm sorry Apple is being lame about their service options, but the trick is just not buy the product.
@BXRGUY:
You make one assumption that isn't valid - there are motherboards that once bricked can be unbricked by the consumer
I consider it a recall worthy flaw that any consumer device could be bricked by consumer actions without opening the case. There needs to be enough ROM to allow a clean flash.
Analogy truly is the weakest from of reasoning.
I think what people forget here is that since the ouster of Gil Amelio and the restoration of Steve Jobs to the throne, Apple's business model has been to control every aspect of their products to the greatest extent possible, and this has extended to the iPod and iPhone.
This isn't necessarily greed. For example, Apple could make a pile of money licensing OSX to run on non-Apple hardware, especially since switching to x86. (People might argue this might hurt their core business, but Microsoft hasn't done too poorly in the OS business.) But one contributing factor to why OSX is far superior to Windows is that Apple does control the hardware OSX runs on, or at least that is what Apple seems to believe.
So while iTunes is tightly integrated with Apple software (apart from the reasonably priced iLife, all free) people scream "proprietary" and "greed," but I'm more likely to believe that Apple is trying to control the total user experience, which they believe they can do better than anyone else, and they may be right.
Likewise, tying the iPhone to a service plan with AT&T isn't necessarily a money-grubbing deal with the devil, albeit not necessarily the best choice of carriers. And frankly, I expected much more from the iPhone, but I didn't expect it to be unlocked, and I don't expect any company to warranty or support a product if I go at it with a soldering iron. What's more, early adaptors of new products always get screwed one way or another.
But look at it this way: if you laid out six C-notes for a cell phone, you must be doing pretty well, and if you had the balls to hack a $600 phone, you are either doing exceptionally well or are dangerously compulsive. In the second case, you have bigger problems, but you should all get a better grasp of reality and perhaps give thanks that you can afford to be so stupid.
Installing software shouldn't void a warranty. Installing software shouldn't be cause for a manufacturer to destroy a device. It's all well and good for Apple to want to disable hacks. It's all well and good for Apple to void warrantees on phones with hardware modifications. But if they start saying that the way you _use_ a device is cause for them to break and refuse to fix it, that's just wrong.
I've designed some flashable embedded firmware and dealt with some flashing mechanisms designed by others. I believe it would take effort to make an upgrade procedure as brittle as the Apple fans claim this one is. The background fits better in a blog post than a comment: http://bear-cat.livejournal.com/8890.html
#4: Short analogies seldom help because relevant parts differ. Of course disabling the rev limiter would allow physical damage. See below for an attempt at a true analogy.
On preview:
#12: I thought the contract was with AT&T. Apple intended to ship a device that wouldn't work with other service, but apparently they failed.
#13: When designing a flashable device, I always make sure there's a way to recover from a bad load. This involves a (preferably write-protected) boot block that tries to obtain and install a new load if the current load is corrupt or if the user sets a jumper/hits ESC/whatever.
Here's an attempt at a better analogy (too bad it's so long; normal automotive business models aren't quite as slimy as cellular ones, so there's a lot of extra exposition):
Some car companies have remote access to a diagnostic bus as part of a telematics service (you can call in when the "check engine" light comes on and find out what it means, etc). Suppose Acme Motors runs such a service that also does firmware upgrades, so they can avoid the inconvenience of having to get all owners of copies of a bad load to drive to the dealer for an upgrade.
Suppose further that someone releases a software patch to allow Acme cars to burn non-Firemaster fuel, which they can't do when they leave the factory. (To buy Firemaster fuel, you have to sign a contract with a kickback to Acme, but you can buy an Acme car without signing a contract.)
Acme could use the remote-diag feature to probe each car for the patch and then disable all those they found with it.
The strawman Acme-fanboy position would be something along the lines of "you voided your warranty by modifying your software, so of course anything that happens is your fault, even though Acme did it on purpose."
Can someone who defends Apple but thinks Acme is in the wrong explain how the situations differ?
I think some of the posters here are missing the point, which is that if you purchase a piece of technology, (i.e. a car, a phone, a computer) you should be able to modify your property. As long as the modifications aren't causing harm to anyone, or infringing on a service received by others you should have the right to do what you please to it. It's your property. That's in large part what a lot of the iphone hackers want. They want to do what they please to their own property. By saying they have the right to make the devices non-functioning, Apple and AT&T are really infringing on the rights of others. It's like saying you can buy our car, but you can only drive it on our roads--and we're going to charge you a toll to drive there.
While I agree that Apple should have some way of noticing that the firmware is not the Apple certified firmware, who is expected to pay Apple come up with a workaround to detect hacked firmware? At what stage in the process does the firmware get recognized? Does Apple need samples of all the firmware hacks to be able to properly detect them to prevent the updater from working?
If Apple did detect the hacked firmware and say "no update for you", would these suit-happy folks then sue Apple because they could not access the iTMS like everyone with an unhacked phone?
I don't get it. You hacked your phone. You knew you hacked your phone by applying firmware, knowing that the hacked firmware might have bricked your phone. But luckily it worked. Now you are going to apply another firmware. Why do you think that this might not brick your phone? Why is Apple responsible for this? Were they responsible for allowing you to hack the firmware in the first place?
Case in point - I have a 1st Generation 1 GHz 17-inch Powerbook G4. Apple's firmware for the SuperDrive only allowed it to burn DVD's at 1X even though the drive specs said it was a 2X drive. It worked as advertised with all DVD-R media I threw at it. SOmebody made a program to flash the drive's firmware so that it would burn at 2X. It worked great with name-brand DVD's but not with cheap DVDs. Is Apple responsible for this? No.
I am sure all the iPhone hack creator/distributors said - "We are not responsible if you brick your phone". But if the poor innocent consumer is not responsible for the firmware installation (twice!) and resultant bricking, it seems to me that the hacked firmware providers are next in line for liability BEFORE Apple.
One more question: Did the iPone firmware update automagically install itself? If not, then Apple is not liable. You make the decision to hack, you deal with the consequences. But if the iPhone firmware downloads and installs without the user's knowledge, then PERHAPS the brickees have a case.
I don't have an iPhone, but I just read that before you do the update, Apple did provide a warning about hacked phones not working on the screen of the host computer. One word: DOH!
Cory, I'm disappointed (but maybe I'm just not getting the joke) that you're giving that jackass[*] publicity and even thank him for submitting a scan of a print-out of the legalese description of his nutty scheme. That case is frivolous.
We could just as well sue everyone who already bought an iPhone, as these people are making the device profitable for Apple, in its current, limited form, thus discouraging Apple from making improvements and selling a proper, uncrippled version. Oh, and all those horrible people who agree to the terms and conditions attached to iPods and iTunes! We have to sue them, otherwise Apple will never learn to listen to the smart customers and give up DRM!
#18 - your firmware update for the car was applied without the driver's knowledge. The Acme remote diagnostic thing pressed the install button. Responsibility: Mostly Acme, some user. Acme should provide some way of fixing firmware issue at driver's cost.
The The iPhone update was applied with the user's knowledge. The iPhone user clicked the install button. Responsibility: Mostly user, some hacked firmware provider. Hacked Firmware provider should provide some way of fixing firmware at user's cost.
"I know a number of people that have iPhones.
Zero of them are interested in unlocking it."
Anecdotal statistics. the trump card of internet comment sections.
weeeeeeeeeee.
imagewrangler, you're a douche.
srry fgt yr thrtn yr ld by. mgwrnglr yr dch.
That very well may be so MSCOT, I haven't tried decipher his post to figure that out by myself, but if his comment is a canidate for disemvoweling, so is yours.
as for the moderating. I'm not going to get into the shoulds or should nots of it, but is there just a dunce hat icon we could place on those posts or something? because even if its garbage, i'd still like to read what was said without inadvertantly saying Ia ia Cthulhu fhtagn!
I just don't understand how the Apple firmware update could have possibly bricked the phones without it being intentional or a terribly written piece of software. If there's no way to rescue the phone from a failed firmware upgrade, they need to fix that. They should fix that regardless of whether the phone is hacked.
it was a terribly written piece of software. If they wanted to intentionally brick hacked iphones they could have easily. and reports tend to show that similar numbers of hacked and non hacked iphones were bricked in the process.
I know Pablos. He's an intelligent person that does what he thinks is right. Are you guys outraged because the target is Apple rather than Microsoft?
or you could address the numerous points cited by people here rather than saying "my friend is smart, you must be apple fanboys."
this is from someone who hasn't picked a side on the issue. but just so you know, your postulate is bogus.
Tim, who are you addressing?
sorry, if my post is immediately consecutive i tend not to address it. my last post was addressing Michaela.
29 was in reply to the honorable dculberson.
and the name calling related posts were to MSCOT
I haven't picked a side on the issue, either CPT. I love Apple. I don't have an iPhone, nor am I interested in having one. I'm only questioning some of the reactions here, which appear to be to be ad hominem attacks rather than debate if he is wrong or if Apple is making poor choices in business. It's easy to shoot at the person on the parapet, to mock the person who is standing up for what he thinks is right.
I know, it's the nature of the internet, and I see your point, but I wanted to add to the comments that I don't think he's a nutjob.
What's an iPhone?
Michaela, I'm not outraged, but I can tell you what irks me about the case: The above-linked document makes some allegations that aren't completely without merit. Where I come from, ideally some EU official, NGO or competitor of Apple would bring these to court in order to determine whether the law is really being broken and, if yes, ensure that Apple change their ways, and monetary claims would be made mostly in the form of a penalty only in case Apple don't comply. (This is exactly what happened to Microsoft, btw.) Pablos' case, on the other hand, smacks of someone seeking lots of money (rather than justice) because the love of his childhood turned out to give him grounds for bitching and moaning after he bought a luxury phone and was willfully ignorant of the attached terms and conditions. He's practically begging for schadenfreude. It just doesn't gel with the claim made in the above write-up that he's an "iPhone hacker". A hacker would just attempt to hack the new firmware version again, maybe even welcoming the challenge. If you want to have an open phone that is actually hacker-friendly, you can always buy an OpenMoko. Apple don't have a monopoly on capable PDAs with included telephone component by any stretch. So, some measure of skepticism is justified, and I find it understandable that it tends to take the form of mockery. However, I am absolutely in favor of staying clear of ad hominems and really don't think it would be constructive to assume Pablos is a nutjob. My gut feeling is that the case is frivolous, but when I say so, I do it to open up the possibility of being proven wrong.
Premise: You are owner of a computer-based product.
You don't like some of the features of the product's firmware so you take it upon yourself to modify that firmware.
Later, an update for the manufacturer's original firmware comes out, but contains clear warnings that it will ONLY work correctly if the original firmware was not modified.
You decide to apply the update to the modified firmware anyway.
Your attempt to update your modified firmware fails.
What part of the warning did you fail to understand?
How is this the fault of the manufacturer?
DID YOU MAKE THE CHOICE TO MODIFY THE FIRMWARE?
DID YOU MAKE THE CHOICE TO IGNORE THE WARNINGS?
I'm not impressed by a person making those sorts of decisions, then bringing suit.
Tom
I agree with Tom in that respect. I'm the owner of an ipod touch which i will hack. If apple deliberately tries to break modifications i make to it, that will annoy me. And i will proceed with caution before doing any updates on a hacked piece of equipment.
I don't think apple should try to break the hacks, but they're under no obligation to make sure that their updates don't interfere with every 3rd party modification out there.
After reading all the posts it appears that we (me included) are fixated on the fact the modified firmware caused the phones to "brick" and that the bricking is caused intentionally by Apple. So lets go beyond the bricking issue and look at the earlier allegations of the law suit. Now I am not a lawyer or Apple user and encourage you to discuss this so here is my view.
Hopefully all of the outspoken posting here are familiar with the DNCA or Digital Millennium Copyright Act, if not you should be. Starting on Line 10 of Page 8 of the complaint linked above is a clear and concise reference to the case of Lexmark Int Inc v. Static Controls components where an exemption was granted by the Librarian of Congress when the purpose of circumventing hardware locks was to legally connect to a wireless network (see Page 8 again). Combined with the details of the agreement between Apple and AT&T where they would, using legal or allegedly illegal methods (Page 10), and both parties knew it then folks we have a problem. Based solely on these allegations I see this as a worthwhile suit, add the fact that they unlock all the other “exclusively” AT&T phones and there you you have a lawsuit.
The Magnuson-Moss Warranty act is also clear, you cannot base a warranty on the use of only Apple Products or only AT&T service. I think Apple has a few lawyers who review this stuff. Car guys that’s why using Mobile1 doesn’t void your car warranty and why Ford can’t smash it up when you bring it to a Ford d Dealer with Mobile1 in it. Nuff said? This was bad.
The fact that they may or may not have illegally bricked the phones doesn’t make it right to send you packing when you ask them to restore it. As pointed out numerous times, backed up by design best practices and just plain common sense there was/is a way for Apple and AT&T stores to un-brick the phones, they just told them not to do it, then told consumers “they can buy a new phone”. Illegal, I would hope so, definitely greedy, crappy and downright idiotic.
Apple also lied to us, the public. They said they take a neutral stand. However it seems unlikely, if Apple had no problem with the iphones being hacked then they would have done a couple of things that are simple and would have added to Apples cherished overall user experience. 1. Back up the old configuration before restoring the new one. 2. Do a quick hash of the key files on the device or the files to be updated, if validation says these aren’t the originals warn, warn again and warn again. 3. Have the Apple/AT&T stores restore the phones.
This suit has more than enough merit. Win or lose we need suits like this to ensure companies (and governments) are in check. I am not advocating frivolous law suits, but this complaint makes some good points. Before ridiculing the suit or the plantiffs, read it, do some research. When reading these posts make sure the author, including me, has his facts and sources in line and make informed judgments, then get pissed.
I can't hope to respond to all the fiery comments here, but a few things to consider...
You can run your own code on any other "smart phone" from AT&T without violating your warranty.
AT&T will give you the unlock code for any other phone if you call and ask them for it.
Every other time AT&T requires a contract, they give you something (a free phone, a cheaper rate plan, etc.). With iPhone, you get nothing but the privilege of buying a phone.
A class action suit won't make me rich in any scenario. The court would award any damages or settlement to all members of the class, which could be everyone with an iPhone.
This is about getting the industry to change its practices. Beyond voting with dollars, one of the tools mere consumers have to shape industry practices is the courts.
Thanks, pablos.
Good work Pablos! I agree wholeheartedly.
Playing devil's advocate again (but absolutely not auditioning for a role as Apple apologetic): Running your own code by installing a Java archive of code that will be executed in a sandboxed JVM is not comparable to running your own code by mucking about with the firmware.
It's nice of a carrier to give out unlock codes through its help-line, but it's not a big deal, as you could just look the codes up on the web just as well. For the iPhone, no such code is known, so you can't look it up, and AT&T can't help you with that either, but they just have no choice in the matter, it's not like they're actually treating iPhone users differently. Furthermore, there's no plan of non-locked iPhones being available anytime soon, so it's not that surprising that the devices don't seem to support this 'feature'. Other phones are available in expensive contract-free versions, which are bought by a tiny fraction of consumers. But, again, it's not surprising that Apple is not offering this alternative, for many years they've been very focused on streamlining their product line-up and not offering any special models for fringe groups.
When AT&T requires a contract, they (hopefully) give you what the contract says they have to give you. There ain't no such thing as a free phone, you're paying for it through your monthly fees. (Actually, the Nokia I have was once offered here in Austria for practically nothing by Hutchinson, with a cheap contract, and it came already unlocked. Hutchinson Austria slid very, very deep into the red numbers that quarter.) Others cost a couple hundred bucks to buy with a contract, but still are significantly more expensive without contract. The iPhone is not an iota different in this regard, there just is no more expensive contract-free version available for comparison.
This sucks, but it's been widely publicised months before iPhones were available for purchase. Being mad at Apple for fulfilling their part of a contract you signed is just stupid. When you find a product inacceptable, boycot the manufacturer and urge others to do the same! Lawsuits are for when someone actually did something wrong, such as not keeping their part of a contract.
Most people don't even know that there are phones, PDAs and handheld gaming consoles that run Open Source/Free operating systems and software; buying more Apple products is not the solution. Am I a horrible person for not having any empathy for people who buy a web-surfing, music-playing, movie-playing, photo-showing über-phone and then complain that it doesn't do enough? Going for the manufacturer famed for their closed, proprietary systems of legendary out-of-the-box-it-just-works-ease-of-use and then complain that it's not the best device for hackers and home-brewers?
Whoops, sorry about the raving loony pathos, it's just that my heart bleeds when people are fighting for a very worthy cause, but only after they've given tons of cash to a big corporation that can now hire the best lawyers in the country.
@anon #14: "Want an other example? If someone hadn't hacked the "itune+ipod" combo to get it to work without DRM, majors would probably not be dropping DRM right now."
I don't know what revisionist history you've been smoking, but the iTunes+iPod combo was DRM-free from day one -- no hacking required.
Plain old mp3, aac, aiff and wav until the iTunes store came around, and that just added protected aac to the list of existing formats.
@anon #14: "Want an other example? If someone hadn't hacked the "itune+ipod" combo to get it to work without DRM, majors would probably not be dropping DRM right now."
No hack needed. You have always been able to remove the DRM from DRM AAC files purchased from iTunes Store by burning them on to a CD and re-importing them back into iTunes. Apple actually told you how to do this so you can convert the DRM ACC files purchased from iTune Store to play on the MP3 player of your choice. There goes your other misconception on how Apple locks your iTunes Store purchase to an iPod.
Majors labels are dropping DRM because over 90% of the music sold are DRM free in the form of CD's. It makes no sense to support DRM in downloaded music and MP3 players when you can get it on a CD DRM free, without MP3 compression. Most illegal music on the internet originally came from CD's. It was the major labels that required the DRM in iTunes Store purchased music in the first place. Apple agreed to DRM to get the contract to sell the music. They now want to get rid of DRM and may now have enough clout to get the label to do so. Or at least ease up on its' restrictions.