Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 29th Jul 2009 17:10 UTC
Apple The discussion around whether or not jailbreaking iPhones should be exempt from the DMCA has just reached a level of ridiculousness that words can't really describe any longer. As some of you might know, Apple and the Electronic Frontier Foundation are in a tussle with one another over whether or not the US Copyright Office should put an exemption in the DMCA allowing the jailbreaking of iPhones. Apple's reasoning for why no exemption should be made is rather... Over-the-top.
Thread beginning with comment 376043
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Before calling this fud...
by mrhasbean on Wed 29th Jul 2009 21:33 UTC
mrhasbean
Member since:
2006-04-03

...answer one simple question.

Could the things that they claim occur?

If the answer to this question is yes - regardless of the LIKELIHOOD of it occurring - then Apple have every right to use the points as arguments for their case. The likelihood of any or all of these things happening will be taken into consideration by the authority making the decision. If their claims are impossible then you can rightly call them fud. If, however, their claims could be substantiated it isn't them using fud for their own agenda...

Reply Score: -1

RE: Before calling this fud...
by reflect on Wed 29th Jul 2009 21:47 in reply to "Before calling this fud..."
reflect Member since:
2007-07-10

Not many are calling this FUD.. (seriously, FUD is the practice of discouraging customers from competitors products, for the most part by spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt about it). Of course it *could* lead to the transmission tower going down. If you drive your car, or take a walk in the park, it *could* happen then too. Hell, it COULD happen by just using your phone, if you just happened to trigger some NASTY bugs in the firmware of that transmitter tower.

And no, just cause it *could* happen doesn't give apple the right to use it as arguments in their case. Sorry, but it has to be a reasonable chance for it to happen, and then you have to weight it against the consumers *right* to use their product they bought, against the damage it could potentially do. Once you've done that, you PLUG the hole that the potential damage can do and then.. voila, no problem what-so-ever.

Edited 2009-07-29 21:48 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Before calling this fud...
by sbergman27 on Wed 29th Jul 2009 22:05 in reply to "Before calling this fud..."
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Could the things that they claim occur? If the answer to this question is yes - regardless of the LIKELIHOOD of it occurring - then Apple have every right to use the points as arguments for their case.

I think you're a child molester.

Edited 2009-07-29 22:06 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Before calling this fud...
by jhoo on Thu 30th Jul 2009 08:56 in reply to "Before calling this fud..."
jhoo Member since:
2006-03-24

Could the things that they claim occur?

If the answer to this question is yes - regardless of the LIKELIHOOD of it occurring


Okay, lets take the 'Inappropriate Content' line just as an example. Yes a jailbroken iPhone could all installation of apps which contain inappropriate content - so what? The iPhone includes a pornpipe^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H web browser and Internet connection.

Reply Parent Score: 2