I can argue exactly that, because it’s demonstrably untrue. Show me where in the proposed exemption where the EFF says they want to stop Apple from “protecting their content?”

The only thing the EFF is asking for is an exemption to allow people to modify their own copy of the iPhone’s firmware for the “sole purpose” of loading and executing applications that Apple did not distribute.

You are conflating “allowing people to modify the iPhone to load applications that aren’t signed” with “protecting Apple’s content” That’s not at all what the EFF is asking.

In no way would this exemption make Apple’s ability to enforce their copyright less powerful (actually or virtually).

“What “allowing an exemption to the DMCA” does that is new is allow companies to wholesale steal Apple’s software and give the company no alternative but to try to push copyright claims, as it has to do with Pystar.

I don’t understand how you go from an exemption that says “modifying your own copy of the iPhone firmware so that it allows loading and executing of applications not signed by Apple is not a criminal offence” to companies can steal Apple’s software? Even if the copyright office grants this extension, it doesn’t give anyone the right to distribute Apple’s software. If a company was distributing Apple’s firmware, they’d be just as guilty of copyright infringement under the EFF’s proposal as they are now. Pystar is modifying *and distributing modifies copies of* Apple’s software.

What it would allow companies to do is sell me a program that I can run on my computer that modifies my copy of the iPhone firmware.

“It also facilitates widespread piracy of iPhone apps by organizations that can claim they are doing something legal. ”

The EFF explicitly says that the exemption should be granted for only “lawfully obtained software”. So, I’m not sure how it “facilitates” anything. Just because someone might claim something is legal doesn’t make it so, and even if they do, I don’t see how granting this exemption makes the situation any worse.

“MacBooks aren’t connected to or subsidized by a mobile network. ”

You’re arguing that because iPhones can use a cellular network, then the operators of the network need to control which applications can connect to them and if they don’t, chaos will ensue. This is the same argument that Ma Bell made to prevent people from plugging in a third-party telephone into AT&T’s landline network in the 1960s. It meant you could only get a phone from AT&T, you could only rent it, not own it, and nobody else was allowed to compete with AT&T on the price or capabilities of telephone. It also meant, as an example, that deaf people couldn’t use the phone because AT&T wasn’t interested in making telephone equipment for a niche market and nobody else could either.

“They also do not have a software model like the App Store that enables rapid deployment of potentially viral software were there no security in place. ”

Again, how does granting an exemption that allows me to legally modify my own iPhone lead to Apple’s App Store becoming a distribution point for viral software? You are conflating the security of the iPhone to prevent unsigned applications with the security of the App Store. They’re two entirely different things.

“Apple has no real software business on the Mac. It gives away most software at shareware prices apart from its Pro software. The Mac software market is actually pretty weak compared to what Apple has created for the iPhone, which is why there are Mac developers talking about abandoning Mac efforts to do iPhone apps.”

This is government protectionism. You’re arguing that the government should continue to make it illegal for people to be able to modify their iPhones so they can install Apps that Apple doesn’t sell because Apple makes money selling those Application. Well, Ford makes money selling spare parts for their cars, but that doesn’t mean other companies should be prevented from supplying aftermarket spark plugs for Ford engines.

“The government makes it a crime to circumvent encryption to hold back the tides of vast scale piracy. If things aren’t locked up, people steal them. If it isn’t possible to legally stop people who are defeating your locks, there’s no recourse to stop them from wholesale raiding of your content. This is frigging obvious.”

It would be “frigging obvious” if that’s what the EFF was asking the government to do. They are not asking for any exemption that allows people to break the locks in order to steal any content. If that’s what people do (which they can do today) then Apple will have just as many legal options to stop them as they do now.

Nothing in the EFF’s proposal would make it legal to steal anyone’s content. Nothing in their proposal would make it legal to bypass any security that would prevent stealing of content.

Perhaps you should let your readers find what the EFF is *actually* asking for and let them decide:
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/dmca_2009/EFF%2BRM%2Bproposals.pdf

The EFF is arguing that the owner of a device should not be committing a federal crime by modifying their own property to run applications not distributed by Apple.

However, all of your arguments make is sound as if the EFF is asking that Appple be stopped from protecting their content or removing any sort of security system. And you accuse the EFF of dramatic hysteria!

[The solution the EFF proposes (a DMCA exemption) is intended (and explicitly worded) to strip Apple of any rights to sue over circumvention of its security system. But every action has unintended consequences. Apple is not suing users who jailbreak their own iPhones, so the EFF's remedy is political, not practical. Assigning everyone the right to circumvent the iPhone's security would also give companies the right to take actions that would make it impossibly difficult for Apple to maintain its business model.

Why do you think it is dramatic and hysterical to say the EFF is against Apple "protecting their content or removing any sort of security system" when that is exactly what the EFF is requesting? This isn't even controversial. You can word things in a way that sound nice, but you can't argue that the EFF isn't working to circumvent Apple's security system and make the appropriation of its software virtually unenforceable when that's exactly the EFF's goal!]

Allowing an exemption to the DMCA to let people modify their own property does not mean people can suddenly install cracked iPhone applications or pirate the iPhone OS itself.

[No, people can already do that. What "allowing an exemption to the DMCA" does that is new is allow companies to wholesale steal Apple's software and give the company no alternative but to try to push copyright claims, as it has to do with Pystar. It also facilitates widespread piracy of iPhone apps by organizations that can claim they are doing something legal. ]

Apple’s Macbooks don’t prevent users from installing whatever software they like. Macbooks are not riddled with viruses, nor is the Macbook software market flooded with inferior and/or pirated titles.

[MacBooks aren't connected to or subsidized by a mobile network. They're also installed behind NAT firewalls, rather than operating in a wildly open network environment. They also do not have a software model like the App Store that enables rapid deployment of potentially viral software were there no security in place. Macs are not iPhones. They also do not browse 50% of the world's desktop web traffic. Without security, the iPhone would be in the position of Windows, not the Mac.]

And, de-criminalising the jailbreaking of iPhones does not mean Apple’s business will be destroyed. That’s a ridiculous argument. People can buy OSX applications from anywhere. That hasn’t destroyed Apple’s software business. Or perhaps more pertinent, people can buy CDs and MP3s from many places. That hasn’t destroyed Apple’s iTunes Music store.

[A "ridiculous argument" is making a fiat statement without backing it up.

Have you noticed the vast billions Apple earns from selling iPhone software? No, iPhone Apps are similarly a self-sustaining charity to prop up iPhone sales. How well has "choice" worked out for PlaysforSure and Android? ]

Most people won’t jailbreak their phones because they don’t want to void the warranty or risk problems or, even, want applications Apple hasn’t certified. But, that doesn’t mean the government should make it a crime for someone to do so.

[The government makes it a crime to circumvent encryption to hold back the tides of vast scale piracy. If things aren't locked up, people steal them. If it isn't possible to legally stop people who are defeating your locks, there's no recourse to stop them from wholesale raiding of your content. This is frigging obvious.

There aren't any. That's why Apple is taking on content piracy with low prices and heavy marketing. The EFF is trying to prevent Apple from having any defenses to secure its content so that low cost, high volume software sales are impossible. If that were a good idea, it would have worked elsewhere. It hasn't. - Dan]

Knowing you are a specialist of pundits and tech industry media, I am curious to get your take on Leo Laporte and his opinions on the Mac. I know that he uses them, likes them, etc. and he has even had you on his show. I do like his personality, but sometimes I think he just helps hype up some of the most unworthy technology, acting like someone’s “me too” junk technology is as good as some of Apple’s best innovations. It drives me crazy when he does this. Anyway, just wanted your take. Thanks.

Please exercise some reading comprehension. Your points are addressed specifically and comprehensively in the article.

I’m sure you would have intelligent new things to say if you realized your current points had no merit.

But Apple also owns the iPhone itself, which includes Safari, which can be used to view the exact same “objectionable” content. If they’re not going to let the EFF app in because it would make them liable for the objectionable content, then they should also block the site that the app got its content from in Safari.

I don’t understand why they’re liable one way but not the other, when they provide BOTH methods of viewing the content.