What I don't understand is: how does the DMCA apply here at all? The DMCA's anti-circumvention clauses apply only to mechanisms which control access to a copyrighted work. I fail to see how jailbreaking a phone, tablet, game console, etc passes that test -- it's not controlling access to anything.
"The regulators said that the controls were necessary to prevent software piracy and differentiated gaming consoles from smart phones, which legally can be jailbroken:
[T]he record demonstrated that access controls on gaming consoles protect not only the console firmware, but the video games and applications that run on the console as well. The evidence showed that video games are far more difficult and complex to produce than smartphone applications, requiring teams of developers and potential investments in the millions of dollars. While the access controls at issue might serve to further manufacturers’ business interests, they also protect highly valuable expressive works – many of which are created and owned by the manufacturers – in addition to console firmware itself.
On the plus side, the regulators re-authorized jailbreaking of mobile phones."
It's so infuriating that the lawmakers just don't get it. If I buy a console, I should be free to root it and run Linux or whatever. There are already laws against piracy, we don't need to throw freedom out to stop it.
It is frustrating and at the same time one of the reasons why the traditional PC as we know it has a special position.
If you think about it, the traditional PC is one of the - and it's sad to say so - few devices where the hardware really is yours (one could argue that firmware is locked down etc, but i guess everybody knows what i mean).
There are not so many devices left that you can:
-) install custom software on
-) root without great efforts
Game consoles, Tablets, ebook Readers, and Smartphones (no matter if it's legal - still great effort to jailbreak it) - you are locked in everywhere...
> It's so infuriating that the lawmakers just don't get it.
It's you who doesn't get it. Despite the whole election facade, the government is not working for you or your benefit. It's working for the benefit of a very small minority, that cares not about your freedom, and believes that they are served by enforceable DRM.
To play the devil's advocate here, since there are already laws against assault and homicide, would you say that there should be no regulation of weapons?
And before you argue that weapons have no purpose except to break other laws, like jailbreaking there are many lawful or sporting uses of swords, firearms, explosives, etc.
We have laws against murder/assault, and we also have laws against making threats and reckless endangerment which I think should cover the other cases of bad things done with guns.
I'll go further and say that DUI laws are also redundant. Of course we don't want people driving drunk, but all we really need is some case law that establishes drunk driving as endangerment.
