In a world of digital sharing, movie and music downloads and computer hackers, it can be hard to define copyright infringement. Digital property is protected in three ways, patent, copyright and trademark. The Copyright Act of 1976 gives the owner exclusive rights to reproduction, to prepare derivative works, to perform the work publicly and to distribute the material. The material becomes the property of the author as soon as it is finished. When applying this law to the Apple case, it can be seen that the company created software that could only be used exclusively on their phones. When Apple’s software is broken through by users and another kind of software is downloaded, it is a display of copyright infringement.
Apple argues that the entire case is infringing on its copyright. Its argument rests on the case that its reputation could be tarnished and potential customers could be lost. This could happen if a person who has “jailbroken” from the Apple software, began to experience problems with the “bugs” of the new software. These security flaws, that are not experience with Apple’s software, will become prevalent and disuay people from buying an iPhone. This could hurt Apple’s trusted product and of course profit. Under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, many things can be seen as infringement when pertaining to software. The iphone is being changed and used in a way it should not. Through Apple’s eyes, breaking the code and using different software and a different network undermines it. AT&T and Apple are losing out on customers because people are using their creation and slightly altering it for their own good. Apple’s agreement at the beginning of use can be made to protect it from many things and allow it to sue those who are not abiding by it. This includes copyright infringement. If they “jailbreak,” Apple could be entitled to actual damages and the person may face criminal charges. “It should be clear that the iPhone ecosystem Apple has built is good for developers, good for iPhone users, good for Apple, and good for the policies underlying the copyright laws to encourage the creation of works of authorship” (Hansell).
When arguing against Apple, it can be questioned whether there is copyright infringement or if it is demanding p
rotection of its profits and revenue. From this standpoint, a person who has already paid for the phone should be able to alter it in any way he or she wishes. Using a phone that can only run sufficiently on its own software could bring up some very questionable issues. A point that reveals great concern for consumers is if this worked in the same way for different products in an array of markets. It seems absurd in a sense that a person can buy the phone but only use one type of software. One blogger put it best, “Automakers could, conceivably create "software" in their cars that only lets you fill up at their approved stations. Breaking that "software" to allow for "interoperability" would then be seen as infringement. Hopefully the Copyright Office sees through this claim and makes it official that jailbreaking is perfectly legal” (Mike Masnick).Either side can be taken in this case. It is hard for me to agree with either one. I can see how Apple is upset with people breaking the codes and using different software and cellular networks. It can give it an image that they do not necessarily want and can also damage its revenue. As a member of Apple, it would feel like something was being stolen from me, and I am not able to reap the benefits of my product. It can also be frustrating to Apple when the software that users are downloading is ruining the product with “bugs” and viruses. If they just utilized the software given to them, there would be no problems. If I were a member of the Apple team, I would feel as if our partner AT&T was also losing out. People who reprogram the phone to different networks are essentially taking business away from AT&T. The joint venture is now broken and unbeneficial for the affiliate.
From the standpoint of a person who is “jailbreaking,” it can seem as if the entire copyright infringement issue is ridiculous. After paying for the phone, I could feel as if I had already paid my dues to Apple. Apple is not legitimately concerned if I get viruses or if have security problems with my phone. Its major concern is if it and its affiliate AT&T are getting paid. Through the eyes of the consumer, it seems as if its marketing department also has concerns whether or not bad word-of-mouth is being spread because of its poor security from the alien software that was downloaded. It is hard to imagine that if I did “jailbreak,” I could be punished with fines and possibly up to five years in jail. This could happen after I paid my fee to Apple for the phone legally and was just trying to make the iPhone fit my needs.
This case is still going on and will have hearings in the upcoming months. A decision is expected to be made this fall. Both sides have a good argument, but it will be interesting to see which wins the case. It is funny to think whether the Copyright Law of 1976 had ever planned for something like this.
Sources:
Hansell, Saul. “Could you go to jail for jailbreaking your iPhone?” New York Times. 13 Feb. 2009.
Masnick, Mike. “Apple claims jailbreaking the iphone is copyright infringement.” 13 Feb. 2009.
Lohmann, Fred von. “Apple says iPhone jailbreaking is illegal.” Electronic Frontier Foundation. 12 Feb. 2009.
