Dixon Wrote:I would really like to use AnkiMini and hope it will be released in the AppStore. Are there plans to work on getting that done? In the face of the illegality and immorality of jailbreaking, it would be helpful for all of us who don't want to go down that same road to have the same access to the program.

Until then, I can continue using iAnki but only when I have access to the internet, not on the subway or whatever. Does anyone have any recommendations on flashcard app software, possibly using the Leitner system or something, available in the App Store for free or a good price?

Well, it's cool that you care so much about the "immorality" of jailbreaking, but just so you know, AnkiMini will probably never be available in the App Store since Apple only lets stuff in which follows their design principles strictly. As you might know, Anki is written in a programming language called Python. Apple on the other hand only lets people write iPhone apps in Objective-C or C/C++. Thus either:

1. Apple have to allow Python apps. Not likely in the foreseeable future.
2. All of Anki has to be reprogrammed from scratch.

My recommendation? Get off your high horse and jailbreak. You paid for the platform, why should Apple be able to dictate what software you run on it? People like you are the reason big corporations can poop all over our rights with their BS copyrights.

Dixon Wrote:I'm pretty sure they opened a business to make money.

And they are making money, a LOT of it, by selling those systems. They try to make EVEN MORE money by limiting the system, and most consumers are actually stupid enough to accept it.

Dixon Wrote:I fail to see why people "need" to violate copyright. Without Apple's "greed" you would have absolutely nothing, no iPod Touch and no iPhone. I'm pretty sure they opened a business to make money, and you are not entitled to everything simply because you feel like it.

It's a genius model, and I can only imagine how much money they made from those first billion app sales after squeezing their 30% from the blood and sweat of the developers. I'd be fighting to protect it too, but don't you think it's a bit backwards from our perspective? I shouldn't feel privileged to use their device. I already paid what is arguably too much money to own it, so I should at least be able to use it for the things it's capable of doing and get my money's worth.

A lot of people seem to associate jailbreaking with ripping the appstore. The people that rip off developers (who are already being milked like cows) like this deserve the bad press, but jailbreaking itself is about freedom of your device, not piracy. I use it for perfectly fine apps that Apple doesn't deem worthy (AnkiMini), and useful utils that should already be part of the OS (multitasking, folders, themes).

We'd be seeing many more awesome things if developers were given any freedom. I don't think you can really defend Apple's approach from a user's perspective, but you can admire the sheer capitalism of it.

Tobberoth Wrote:My recommendation? Get off your high horse and jailbreak.

My high horse of not wanting to be a thief? I never knew that was such a high ethical standard to uphold. Is this the general demeanour on this forum?

Quote:You paid for the platform, why should Apple be able to dictate what software you run on it?

The software people use to jailbreak their iPhones uses copyrighted Apple code without Apple's permission. Apple (or any other people, including myself) have a right to their own property. If you don't believe in a right to property, fine, let me come raid your house and don't say a thing. Let me suppose that you don't work in an intellectual field where copyrights or patents are important to your livelihood.

Quote:People like you are the reason big corporations can poop all over our rights with their BS copyrights.

Oh I forgot about my "right" to steal.

Quote:Current jailbreak techniques now in widespread use utilize unauthorized modifications to the copyrighted bootloader and OS, resulting in the infringement of the copyrights in those programs. For example, the current most popular jailbreaking software for the iPhone, PwnageTool (cited by the EFF in its submission) causes a modified bootloader and OS to be installed in the iPhone, resulting in the infringement of Apple's reproduction and derivative works rights.

http://news.cnet.com/apple-iphone-jailbr...copyright/

Quote:Is this the general demeanour on this forum?

Not my demeanor. I agree with you.

Dixon Wrote:

Tobberoth Wrote:My recommendation? Get off your high horse and jailbreak.

My high horse of not wanting to be a thief? I never knew that was such a high ethical standard to uphold. Is this the general demeanour on this forum?

Quote:You paid for the platform, why should Apple be able to dictate what software you run on it?

The software people use to jailbreak their iPhones uses copyrighted Apple code without Apple's permission. Apple (or any other people, including myself) have a right to their own property. If you don't believe in a right to property, fine, let me come raid your house and don't say a thing. Let me suppose that you don't work in an intellectual field where copyrights or patents are important to your livelihood.

Quote:People like you are the reason big corporations can poop all over our rights with their BS copyrights.

Oh I forgot about my "right" to steal.

Quote:Current jailbreak techniques now in widespread use utilize unauthorized modifications to the copyrighted bootloader and OS, resulting in the infringement of the copyrights in those programs. For example, the current most popular jailbreaking software for the iPhone, PwnageTool (cited by the EFF in its submission) causes a modified bootloader and OS to be installed in the iPhone, resulting in the infringement of Apple's reproduction and derivative works rights.

http://news.cnet.com/apple-iphone-jailbr...copyright/

Just my ten pence (British here ) as I have not read the whole thread and just want to comment on the issue of internet 'piracy'.

I don't believe in stealing when it comes to digital property. If you steal something then the person you stole from has one less of whatever you stole. With digital property there is an infinite amount, so stealing any finite amount will not decrease the original amount at all. There is a lot of information and educational videos around that mainly relate to piracy in the music and film industry but are relevant here as well.

Personally if I think something is worth it then I don't mind paying money for it. I've bought tons of games, music, films, etc... If something is not however, such as quite a few software programs I have 'pirated' then I would not have bought it anyway and thus does not equate to lost sales. In fact (although I am a very rare case I imagine) I have actually bought more things due to piracy, since I'm the type of person who doesn't buy things unless I really want/have to.

Moral posturing aside, it seems like an official version is coming along anyway http://groups.google.com/group/ankisrs/b...4d6211c3f1

Tobberoth Wrote:My recommendation? Get off your high horse and jailbreak. You paid for the platform, why should Apple be able to dictate what software you run on it? People like you are the reason big corporations can poop all over our rights with their BS copyrights.

Agreed. I wear my tin hat every day to stop the corporations being able to track me with their copywrite powered laser beams.

How would you feel if your car maker prohibited you from opening the bonnet in order to change the oil, and only authorized CarMaker brand oil changes at three times the price? Or if your stereo maker prohibited the playing of heavy metal music? Apple have sold you a machine. You paid them a lot of money for it. How is it that you're willing to let them dictate what you can do with that machine in your own home? It's not about stealing anything - it's about doing whatever you want with something they have happily sold you. If the devices were being rented, it would be a different matter.

As for your assertions that it's 'stealing' the code, that depends on if you're looking in a legal or moral sense. The users using that code have already paid for a license by buying the hardware. The law may say otherwise, but my own moral compass has no qualms with tinkering with things that I have legally bought. Having said that, I'd rather just avoid Apple products as much as possible in the future in favour of something more open.

resolve Wrote:How would you feel if your car maker prohibited you from opening the bonnet in order to change the oil, and only authorized CarMaker brand oil changes at three times the price? Or if your stereo maker prohibited the playing of heavy metal music? Apple have sold you a machine. You paid them a lot of money for it. How is it that you're willing to let them dictate what you can do with that machine in your own home? It's not about stealing anything - it's about doing whatever you want with something they have happily sold you. If the devices were being rented, it would be a different matter.

As for your assertions that it's 'stealing' the code, that depends on if you're looking in a legal or moral sense. The users using that code have already paid for a license by buying the hardware. The law may say otherwise, but my own moral compass has no qualms with tinkering with things that I have legally bought. Having said that, I'd rather just avoid Apple products as much as possible in the future in favour of something more open.

Androids the way mate. Got my HTC and never looked back.

There is no copyright theft involved in jailbreaking an iPhone. The end user has a license to the firmware and the jb software isn't distributed with it. The most you could be held accountable for is a DMCA violation, but it probably would fall under fair use if challenged.

I wish Apple would give power-users the choice to root their phones, but I also understand and accept why they do it.

Apple have copyright over the bootrom, but every person with an iPhone has purchased a copy of that bootrom. It would only be breaking copyright if every user modified AND distributed the bootrom, but that's not the case. At worst, I'm invalidating my warranty.

Dixon Wrote:If you don't believe in a right to property, fine, let me come raid your house and don't say a thing. Let me suppose that you don't work in an intellectual field where copyrights or patents are important to your livelihood.

If you steal my car, I have no car.
If I use code from your software to open up a machine I own, you do not lose your code, you can use it fine afterwards. In fact, you do not lose ANYTHING, all that happens is that I get freedom to do what I want with the things I own.

Please don't make fallacious analogies which have been spouted by cash-hungry corporations for ages. There might be a fine line between stealing and file sharing, but removing BS locks on your machines isn't even CLOSE to stealing in any form.

And I DO work in an intellectual field, but I know of tons of companies which aren't dicks about it. Hell, look at google. A HUGE company making LOADS of money. Have they locked android to a google store? No, because they aren't dicks to their consumers, most of the time at least.

Well, it sounds like eventually it will be moot with respect to Anki, if indeed an iPhone-compatible app is under development. I will gladly pay for that version of Anki.

And yes, it certainly voids one's warranty to jailbreak. More than that: it's breach of contract by the user. Breach isn't a crime, nor is it always necessarily immoral, but it's unlawful in the civil sense. ("Illegal" is a word that implies criminality, so "unlawful" is a safer term with respect to breach.) In theory, jailbreaking can bring about more than just loss of your warranty-related rights; it can also subject you to money damages or injunctive relief. In reality, either possibility is remote, since it would hardly be worth the cost to Apple to pursue. But I don't see any way around the conclusion that jailbreaking is breach of contract. You'd have to try to argue that the anti-jailbreaking provisions in your Contract with Apple are void as against public policy, and that seems unlikely in light of the existence of the DCMA and other copyright-protective public policy. Or you'd have to try to argue that the contract term is unconscionable, but that's an even tougher claim to sustain in this context, especially with the statutory background.

Also, the Copyright Office has under consideration a motion to exempt the iPhone from certain copyright protections. It was filed by an organization that supports jailbreaking. The Copyright Office is expected to rule on that by the end of the year. As far as I know, it has not done so yet. Perhaps the Copyright Office's decision will shed some light on the legal question. (Violating copyright law, unlike breach, *does* have possible criminal consequences, so if Apple prevails, the proper word for jailbreaking would be "illegal," not just "unlawful.") Personally, I think Apple has the better legal argument, but we shall see. Apple's response to the motion can be found here: http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2008/respo...inc-31.pdf

Quote:If you steal my car, I have no car.

But you're assuming that all forms of property are tangible, and that's plainly not the case. Theft of intellectual property is theft even if you leave me with the original. Your analogy would seem to suggest you don't think anyone has a right to protect their intellectual property. If that were the case, then incentives to innovate would plummet.

If I write a blockbuster novel and you copy the text, publishing it yourself and pocketing money that would have otherwise gone to me, is that not theft? It matters not that you've left me with my own copy. If I make a profitable operating system, and you steal (and perhaps modify slightly) a copy of the code, publish it yourself, and make your own phones or PCs with it, taking money that otherwise would have gone to me, is that not theft?

Apple may be right or may be wrong, but the car analogy is inapt. Again, we shall see what the U.S. Copyright Office has to say about it, perhaps later this year.

It's very simple: If Apple does not want it's devices jail broken, then Apple needs to stop selling phones that can be jail broken. Don't want your movies to be digitally pirated? Stop releasing the stuff in a digital format that's easily pirated.

I've said this before: Apple and Media corporations want their cake and eat it too. They have a means to rapidly make money (iPhones and DVD's/Digital Media), but then bitch because of the faults inherent in both systems.

I have NO PROBLEM if Apple released an iPhone that's impossible to jailbreak. I have NO PROBLEM if Miramax released movies in a manner that prevented the ability to copy and distribute it on the internet. It's their intellectual/physical property after all. Thing is, to do such a thing not great business sense at the moment due to cost or low sales involved.

As far as intellectual property, I'm still in favor of the concept. I personally don't think it should go beyond 20 years from initial release (definitely not life of artist plus 75 years aka the Disney law). However, I shouldn't bitch if I post something on my blog (or here) then get uppity that every one is copying the idea and words for their own use. It's my own choice to distribute my ideas/effort instead of keeping them close and selling for a profit (such as being a one-on-one tutor).

The governments should only step in when people are using the intellectual property of others to make a profit. Suing grandma for sharing the Daily Show is as stupid as suing my daughter for whistling "Poker Face" in public.

Groot Wrote:Well, it sounds like eventually it will be moot with respect to Anki, if indeed an iPhone-compatible app is under development. I will gladly pay for that version of Anki.

I hope to have something out within a month.

Quote:You'd have to try to argue that the anti-jailbreaking provisions in your Contract with Apple are void as against public policy, and that seems unlikely in light of the existence of the DCMA and other copyright-protective public policy.

Public policy? The DMCA et al are not voted in by the people. Big corporations exert a disproportionately large influence over the making of new bills.

Quote:It matters not that you've left me with my own copy. If I make a profitable operating system, and you steal (and perhaps modify slightly) a copy of the code, publish it yourself, and make your own phones or PCs with it, taking money that otherwise would have gone to me, is that not theft?

You're turning this into a discussion of piracy, which I really don't think it is. The jailbreaking software I know of takes a copy of the iPhone OS which Apple has distributed to the user, and modifies it. There are people who leak the modified version on various networks, but most people who jailbreak do not. And most people who jailbreak aren't doing it to pirate apps - they're doing it to get full access to the device they paid for.

Nukemarine Wrote:Don't want your movies to be digitally pirated? Stop releasing the stuff in a digital format that's easily pirated.

Sorry, I can't agree with this reasoning. It's the same as saying "Don't want your house burgled? Buy bigger locks". The issue here should be whether jailbreaking is legally and morally justified, not whether it's easy or not.

resolve Wrote:

Nukemarine Wrote:Don't want your movies to be digitally pirated? Stop releasing the stuff in a digital format that's easily pirated.

Sorry, I can't agree with this reasoning. It's the same as saying "Don't want your house burgled? Buy bigger locks". The issue here should be whether jailbreaking is legally and morally justified, not whether it's easy or not.

No, we're talking about intellectual property and digital media here. Like it's pointed out above, this cannot be easily compared to someone that takes a physical item. Hell, this isn't even about stealing effort (theft of service, such as not paying a cab driver).

We're in this legal area where Coca Cola can plaster their ugly ass sign all over the place, but can demand I blur out their "trademarked image" because it happens to be in an area I'm filming. This is the area that somehow made it to where something I made can be controlled by my estate 75 years after my death. It's a perverted area of law that's in no way a reflection of the concept being talked about when codified in early form in the US Constitution and other legal documents over 200 years ago.

Yeah, I think in this case, it is as simple as the electronic version of 'buying a bigger lock'. This is not about keeping one guy from one product that's not easy to obtain. This is keeping millions from getting a product that's extremely easy to obtain. If you want to profit for each and every time your intellectual property is enjoyed, you must not release it in a form that's easily digitized and distributed.

You want an easy profit buy using a media that everyone can use (DVD's, PC CD-ROMs, Internet streams), then don't bitch when that media gets copied and distributed by others and stop using my tax dollars to try to limit it. Want less profit, but guarantee that each and every time your intellectual property is enjoyed, invest in technology that'll guarantee it.

Groot Wrote:

Quote:If you steal my car, I have no car.

But you're assuming that all forms of property are tangible, and that's plainly not the case. Theft of intellectual property is theft even if you leave me with the original. Your analogy would seem to suggest you don't think anyone has a right to protect their intellectual property. If that were the case, then incentives to innovate would plummet.

If I write a blockbuster novel and you copy the text, publishing it yourself and pocketing money that would have otherwise gone to me, is that not theft? It matters not that you've left me with my own copy. If I make a profitable operating system, and you steal (and perhaps modify slightly) a copy of the code, publish it yourself, and make your own phones or PCs with it, taking money that otherwise would have gone to me, is that not theft?

Apple may be right or may be wrong, but the car analogy is inapt. Again, we shall see what the U.S. Copyright Office has to say about it, perhaps later this year.

Personally I don't care much for the U.S Copyright office, hell, there are some really stupid copyright laws already in the U.S so who would expect them to do a good job?

If someone copies your book, you lose POTENTIAL money. If someone steals my car, I lose my car. If I jailbreak my phone Apple loses... wait, nothing? Yeah, the analogy does makes sense. The point isn't that it's fine to copy someone's book and profit from it, the point is that stealing something tangible, "stealing" intellectual property and removing freedom from your users are three different things. Using the term "stealing" and "thief" when it comes to copyright infringement makes no sense, I'm not stealing anything from you, I'm profiting on your ideas, this doesn't stop you from profiting on your original. It's not stealing.

Protecting intellectual property is one thing, abusing the right is another.

+1 to Tobberoth. I'm glad to live in Europe where it seems we are much more lax on digital piracy than in the USA where people are fined $10,000 an mp3 download.

Tobberoth Wrote:If someone copies your book, you lose POTENTIAL money.

If someone copies my book without my permission, I lose one rightfully owned instance of my property being distributed. I don't potentially lose my property--that IS my property and it is taken from me without payment. That is an instance of an actual loss, not a potential one.

Quote:Using the term "stealing" and "thief" when it comes to copyright infringement makes no sense, I'm not stealing anything from you, I'm profiting on your ideas, this doesn't stop you from profiting on your original. It's not stealing.

You are stealing something from me: my intellectual property. Just because you didn't take something material from me doesn't mean you didn't take some item of property from me: an intellectual piece of property.

Applying the standards of theft from material property to intellectual property is a mistake of failing to see class distinctions at best, to a pathetic attempt to rationalize immoral behaviour at worst. With material property, taking the material product from someone without their permission constitutes theft. You can't go on and say, "Taking a material product is the sole qualifier of theft" because that is a distinction that only applies to one class of property. There is another class of property, intellectual property, which will have different standards based on its nature.

Quote:Protecting intellectual property is one thing, abusing the right is another.

Your view is that any protection whatsoever of intellectual property rights is "abuse" and that intellectual property rights don't exist.

Illegal copying isn't even theft in the eyes of the owners. Otherwise the punishment for stealing one song would be roughly equal to the punishment for stealing a snickers bar from the gas station, instead of being tens of thousands of dollars.

Violating someone's copyright is not theft, period. That isn't a comment on its legality or morality. You wouldn't call murder or arson a theft would you? You are still taking something away from another person.

Wait wait wait, Jail-breaking and downloading a movie from torrent are 2 completely separate issues. Jail-breaking is more like modifying your car in a way somewhat violates a contract with your leasing company. It's totally not stealing a car. Yea it's bad, but if you are that strict, you can't even use Youtube or maybe even Google.

For the average person, I think the ability to profit from copyright abuse is what'll get agreement that it's wrong.

Example: Most won't care about the idea of me taking a tape and making a copy of it for safe keeping. Most won't care that I record a movie, edit out the commercials, and watch it over and over again. Most won't care that I rent a movie and make a dupe of it. Most won't care if I made a video recording of a concert I went to to watch at home. Etc, etc. It's not that big a stretch that downloading off the internet is viewed as mostly harmless by most people. Yes, I'm diluting the market partially

Now, include a profit motive in the above where I record the resell everything. I'm making money selling the talent of others without compensating them. I get the feeling (perhaps polling will back this up) that many will think this is wrong.

Yeah, I'm vague about it. We're not talking about actual laws here but on what's right and what's wrong based on how you feel about it. In my mind, don't go after people copying your stuff. Go after people that are trying to profit off of copying your stuff. Yeah, that means making copying your stuff harder in most cases either by format or limitation which impacts your profit. It's up to you to balance that.

Okay, so I just wanted to know if there's (after so much time) finally an update for either iAnki or AnkiMini that allows you to synchronize your deck (or exchange decks) between your mobile decive (ipod touch in my case) and your computer WITHOUT a wifi connection???!!!!