Develop Bugs

HTC opposing modding, but sure as hell they are willing to take your money!!!

I've been enjoying the custom ROM features for a short while, but when I came across the HTC's desicion to put shipped-roms down, I had to make a statement.
I've contacted HTC about the matter, and the answer I got did not please me, at all. They just ignored the fact that the success(and their money) comes greatly because of the open Android platform, and the eager programmer communities contributing to it. Which is the reason and soul, to promise, for the platform, to get success and long life, in the future.
Their claim stands on the corporate ignorance on that fact I mentioned. As the original binaries are not to be used in any other way, than to give a rescue route, if some customization route takes the wrong turn, and ends in bricking the device. In those occations we could take the step back and restore the original image, into a device, and keep hunting the bug's in custom cooked roms.
So I hope that more people will get in touch directly to HTC, and make them understand that keeping the binaries out in the open, does not steal any money or intellectual property from them, in any way, but is solely to keep supporting the device sales, and the life of the platform as a whole.
Yours truly
sawe
P.S. Sorry for the bad language, I'm not a native english speaker.

I personally think that response is reasonable. They can't guarantee that anything won't go wrong with ROMs other than their own and therefore won't support it.
They don't however try to actively stop it which is why there is such a great community of developers.
Sent from my HTC Desire using XDA App

They don't actively stop modding. They just want to keep their own ROMs safe.

I think they are not reasonable on the matter. Reasonable would be if they give us the possibility to download released ROMs from their web servers.
By taking that possibility away, they deny us to revert back to official version, and by that put a much bigger risk in testing the new mods.
No intellectual property is at risk because official packages are .exe binary files, so no way to missuse them, only ability to flash the device back to factory defaults.

Aren't they taking issue with the fact that the HTC Roms include their copyrighted Intellectual property? THe sense UI and the other apps the HTC develop to go with their devices for example? I don't agree with the HTC tactic here, but just wondering if thats their whole issue?

badgerarc said:
Aren't they taking issue with the fact that the HTC Roms include their copyrighted Intellectual property? THe sense UI and the other apps the HTC develop to go with their devices for example? I don't agree with the HTC tactic here, but just wondering if thats their whole issue?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Those binary coded .exe files are only usable to flash the device they are ment. You cannot use the file in any other way.

this thread is aload of crap, htc have the right to take whatever steps they feel are justified to protect there work, if you dont like it dont buy htc simple, but we all know people will buy htc because whatever you think of them they are that best smartphone manufacturer

HTC have more rights than they actually use, agreed this thread is pointless.
Xda could drown under 2 meters of dung and htc wouldn't even notice, or maybe they would just be happy to do away with all the idiots bogging down customer support with questions about froyo and then moaning it's not ready a split second after the android team released it.
not sent from an iToilet

saweboy said:
Those binary coded .exe files are only usable to flash the device they are ment. You cannot use the file in any other way.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry, but that just isn't true!
When you run an HTC Android RUU it extracts a file called ROM.ZIP into a temp directory before it starts to flash the phone and you can pull this out and do pretty much whatever you like with it.
Regards,
Dave

foxmeister said:
Sorry, but that just isn't true!
When you run an HTC Android RUU it extracts a file called ROM.ZIP into a temp directory before it starts to flash the phone and you can pull this out and do pretty much whatever you like with it.
Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thats true ive done that using ms process manager when i wanted the stock htc bootanimation.zip

I wonder how much information HTC have syphoned off these and other similar forums without acknowledging it? Essentially we are provided a beta testing service for them at no risk to themselves. They could just look through all the problems folks are reporting with various ROMs and RADIO files and use that info to make them stable.

SimonCraddock said:
I wonder how much information HTC have syphoned off these and other similar forums without acknowledging it? Essentially we are provided a beta testing service for them at no risk to themselves. They could just look through all the problems folks are reporting with various ROMs and RADIO files and use that info to make them stable.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I sincerely hope they don't, since 90% of the supposed beta testing here is unscientific at best and plain wrong at worst
not sent from an iToilet

I think HTC would have much more sophisticated testing methods than relying on comments like....
ZOMG!!! THE CAMERA APP FORCE CLOSES, THIS ROM SUX!!!
HTC have every right to protect their intellectual property. In fact they're being very nice with the modding community. If they full exercised their rights then there roms including HTC Sense would be illegal.

Interesting LEGAL question about ROOT

With the recent legal decision making it legal for users to "jailbreak" their iPhones (still at the risk of losing warranty, I assume), wouldn't that also carry over to ALL cell phones? Wouldn't it then be illegal for Sprint (or Verizon, Att, etc...) to develop code that would block or remove Root? I would assume, that just as in most parts of the legal system, once precedence is set, it should carry over all carriers.

It does carry over that you're allowed to root your phone... but nothing in the ruling said the carrier can't put code in to prevent it. They just can't sue you for cracking their protection.

Ok, Makes sense, but lends another question...
If a law is passed allowing something, and someone takes measures to prevent people from doing what has already been deemed legal, they can be sued for infringing on that person's rights. Wouldn't that, in effect, be the same thing as a carrier writing code to block Root? I understand if they put in a "Safety" feature, so people can't just accidently Root, but anything beyond, would technically be a violation of our rights as the owners of the phones....

And before it gets said, I am not saying we should all run out and Sue Sprint or our individual carriers, for "Breaking Root" on our phones. I am just putting a thought out there for conversations sake. Sometimes getting other peoples opinions on a subject helps put things in perspective.

thenewguy821 said:
And before it gets said, I am not saying we should all run out and Sue Sprint or our individual carriers, for "Breaking Root" on our phones. I am just putting a thought out there for conversations sake. Sometimes getting other peoples opinions on a subject helps put things in perspective.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The ruling was that jailbreaking / rooting a phone does not fall under bypassing encryption through the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. That's all. They didn't say that companies can't protect their IP.
Realistically you can expect that cellular providers will start entering provisions in their contracts that make it a violation to modify your phone's software (just as it's, for example, illegal to modify pollution controls on a motor vehicle).

phobos512 said:
The ruling was that jailbreaking / rooting a phone does not fall under bypassing encryption through the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. That's all. They didn't say that companies can't protect their IP.
Realistically you can expect that cellular providers will start entering provisions in their contracts that make it a violation to modify your phone's software (just as it's, for example, illegal to modify pollution controls on a motor vehicle).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I understand what you are saying, but your examples don't apply. By modifying your vehicles pollution controls, you are finding a way around a law, therefore making it illegal. By adding provisions in their contracts, the company would be making their own laws, stricter than the ones the courts have already allowed.
A better example, In Chicago, it was recently decided (At the Supreme Court level) that the 2nd amendment applies to the entire country, not just the government. Any laws made by the states/cities trying to block the 2nd amendment rights, would be unconstitutional, and could not be enforced.
By the Courts deciding that Jailbreaking/Rooting the phones is Legal, any action by the carriers to block the unlocking of the phones, would be a violation of that court decision.

My 2 cents worth:
They can choose to block it if they want to, but they cannot penalize you for seeing that your device is rooted or jailbroken.
That's just my take on it.

Veritas06 said:
My 2 cents worth:
They can choose to block it if they want to, but they cannot penalize you for seeing that your device is rooted or jailbroken.
That's just my take on it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They cannot sue you for violating DMCA since it is now an exception.
They can still:
- void your warranty
- add an verse in contract that you can be penalized for modifying to gain root
- do pretty much anything they want beyond sue you for violating DMCA until there is a lawsuit or court ruling to decide otherwise.

I think you have to remember that rooting is basically bypassing encryption the encryption. There is no where that says that Sprint/AT&T etc cant change there encryption or fix holes in it. By changing the encryption and fixing holes this often "breaks root" however you are not forced to update so i don't think you can say they are taking away your "right" to root.
Even if they put out a stealth patch that fixed the current root methods and put your phone back at stock and unrooted. They still havent infringed on your right to root your phone. You can always re root once a new method is found. While it can make it difficult for you or take away your root access they haven't actually taken away your right to root... they just arent making it easy for you which is an entirely different thing.

It would be a PR nightmare and would possibly lose some customers, but they really don't have any legal reason not to add a section in the contract to say that in order to run a phone on their network, you must you a phone with software APPROVED by them. By rooting you would lose approval.
It wouldn't be that difficult from a their perspective to allow them to cut service or even penalize you for doing so.

thenewguy821 said:
Ok, Makes sense, but lends another question...
If a law is passed allowing something, and someone takes measures to prevent people from doing what has already been deemed legal, they can be sued for infringing on that person's rights. Wouldn't that, in effect, be the same thing as a carrier writing code to block Root?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No. They can write their software to be whatever they want. They are under no obligation to make it easy for you to hack. The law just makes it lawful for you to hack it. It does not make it unlawful for the companies to make it difficult or impossible. The law allows you to try, it does not gaurantee you success.

Someday they'll have an easy method to remotely determine if a phone is rooted and instantly void all our warranties, saving the company money.
If we want to run their software updates then we agree to lose root, since they were intended to run on non-rooted devices.
Posted via XDA Android app from Evo

thenewguy821 said:
I understand what you are saying, but your examples don't apply. By modifying your vehicles pollution controls, you are finding a way around a law, therefore making it illegal. By adding provisions in their contracts, the company would be making their own laws, stricter than the ones the courts have already allowed.
A better example, In Chicago, it was recently decided (At the Supreme Court level) that the 2nd amendment applies to the entire country, not just the government. Any laws made by the states/cities trying to block the 2nd amendment rights, would be unconstitutional, and could not be enforced.
By the Courts deciding that Jailbreaking/Rooting the phones is Legal, any action by the carriers to block the unlocking of the phones, would be a violation of that court decision.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're misunderstanding the concept of something being legal and something being your right...
No law was made saying that companies have to allow you to bypass their protections. The only thing that happened was that you can now not be prosecuted for bypassing protections to install 3rd party applications or remove bundled software.
I thought of an analogy... If you wanted to post on a forum like this one, you are allowed to. If the owner of the forum doesn't want you here, they can do all kinds of things to stop you. Ban your account, ban your IP, etc. If you go to a new computer at some wifi hotspot you can create a new account and sign up. That is not illegal. It's also not illegal for them to ban you again. It's not your RIGHT to go on the site but it is still LEGAL for you to do so.

ViViDboarder said:
You're misunderstanding the concept of something being legal and something being your right...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am not trying to say We have a right to do this... What I meant, was by the courts decision to allow jailbreaking/rooting of phones, we now have that right. I don't think that is a misunderstanding at all.
BTW, I hope the rest of your post wasn't to imply that I should be banned from posting here, just because I started this thread. I just thought it might be an interesting topic, and to get different views on it. I could have just made another thread about Froyo coming out next week... lol

So, it sounds like not too many people here understand the recent decision. First, it was, in no way, a new law or a change to an existing law. The Library of Congress (who oversees the DMCA) issued a ruling, pretty much on a whim. That sharply distinguishes it from a court decision (that would set any kind of legal precedent).
What this means for us:
According to the Library of Congress, it is not a violation of the manufacturer's (copy)rights for users to bypass protections (rooting/jailbreaking) for the purpose of installing legally obtained software. Hence, rooting your phone to install something you legally obtained, like an app that requires root (SetCPU, Root Explorer, etc.) or a completely open-sourced ROM (CyanogenMod) is perfectly acceptable. This means that HTC cannot sue you over it AND they may not automatically brick rooted phones (Disclaimer: the process of rooting may brick your phone due to the nature of the process, I am not telling you that rooting is 100% risk-free. I am only saying that HTC may not brick your phone for that specific reason. This applies a little bit more directly to Apple and their absurd anti-jailbreaking practices). HTC can, and will, void your warranty if they discover that you rooted your phone. Likewise, Sprint may not refuse to provide network coverage to people who root for the purpose of installing legally obtained software. However, they can, and likely will, refuse to provide any warranty-style services for your phone (i.e. that $7 per month Total Equipment Protection Plan).
However, rooting your phone to install illegally obtained software is still illegal. This applies to the vast majority of ROMs available that reuse Sprint or HTC code without the express permission of those companies. CyanogenMod uses the same open-source code for Android that Google freely provides to anyone who wants it (like HTC). The CM team then works to use the open-source code provided by Google and the manufacturer (HTC's kernel is open-source and publicly released (eventually) according to the open-licensing terms that Google forces them to accept) and make that into a working ROM for your phone. Most other ROM developers take the closed-source code provided by the manufacturer (e.g. the code from the recent OTA) and manipulate or modify it to become a new ROM for your phone.
Although, while that practice is, technically, illegal, it is also very similar to a foul/penalty in sports -- it's only against the rules if you get caught. And, in this case, manufacturers have not cry foul because the developer community that is, basically, stealing their code is also driving their profit (and they are too smart to bite the hand that feeds them, unlike Apple).
So, I hope that this helps people better understand the decision and the fact that it really does not change anything in terms of the actual risks of rooting -- it only removes the extraordinarily unlikely risk of HTC suing you just for rooting. But, given their ongoing legal battles with Apple, I'd say that HTC is not worried about you or me right now anyway.

the decision doesn't specifically make root/jailbreaking legal or illegal, it just ruled that it's not a violation of the DMCA. the swat team won't be kicking down any htc execs doors just because you jumped the gun and lost root by applying an OTA

So in all reality, which ROMs aren't illegal software? Example: CM?
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App

thenewguy821 said:
I am not trying to say We have a right to do this... What I meant, was by the courts decision to allow jailbreaking/rooting of phones, we now have that right. I don't think that is a misunderstanding at all.
BTW, I hope the rest of your post wasn't to imply that I should be banned from posting here, just because I started this thread. I just thought it might be an interesting topic, and to get different views on it. I could have just made another thread about Froyo coming out next week... lol
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Haha, no. I wasn't implying that. Sorry. It was just the only example I could think of at the time.

Cayniarb said:
I am only saying that HTC may not brick your phone for that specific reason.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How would this apply to the Moto Droid X? Not 100% sure.......but isn't that what Moto is doing?......bricking your phone if you try to root? Will they have to change that?

bluebeast213 said:
How would this apply to the Moto Droid X? Not 100% sure.......but isn't that what Moto is doing?......bricking your phone if you try to root? Will they have to change that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No. Motorola has put together some clever programing that makes the process of attempting to root the Droid X result in bricking your phone (but only sort of -- you can reinstall the stock, unrooted ROM and be all good, without root). They aren't bricking phones that are successfully rooted, they are just making it impossible (so far...) to root it in the first place.
Again, the process of rooting your phone may cause it to not work/get bricked. That is very different than being able to root, then the manufacturer bricking it after the fact (like, say, a jailbroken iPhone that you accidentally connect to iTunes -- nice, expensive paperweight).
So, no, Motorola will not have to change that for any legal reason. They may change it though because the developer community that largely drives the android platform will not be too happy with them, and that could affect their bottom line.

[Q] xda approved flashers license idea

I am open to all and any comments within the xda rules of online behavior.
DEFINITION:
I define the flashers license as either a online certificate or printable document stating that the owner is a capable and mostly successful flasher of multiple phones whether custom or stock roms.
APPLICATION OF CONCEPT:
Basically for the people that flash peoples phones as a side business, meaning that for a person with little or no knowledge of the flashing aspect of phones to feel safe knowing that the person is recognized by the worlds biggest forum as a flasher with respects to legal rules.
THE EXAM:
The exam should be an online timed application to test off hand knowledge (timed to prevent people from just checking the forums for answers).
A visual and worded test could also be done.
PROS:
A licensed flasher should have enough knowledge to actually work on xda. And the license could be part of a resume of sorts (flashers license, poster of frequently used roms apps and ideas, member of xda tv ect) with respects to becoming a senior member or a moderator.
A licensed flasher should be very able to answer bootloader and flash error posts to the people of xda that may have made and error with the flashers license as assurance.
A licensed flasher would have a custom icon next to their xda login name.
the flasher license would be the first of many licenses to come if the idea is approved ie crb (custom rom builder) license, pia (Phone Information and Assistance) license, ab (app builder license) ect. all of which could give recognition to xda and other companies, for example consider i want build paid apps for android the license ensures that this is a premium application from a recognized builder.
A license system would filter the people with basic knowledge and the people with approved knowledge to assist the site users and also a notification of insurance ie whatever they do is not harmful to the phone and is always removable or could be undone.
As one of the largest mobile phone fora the system of licenses would widen the gap in terms of order, due respect and also make things in xda more official within the site itself.
CONS
Somebody or a group of people have to build the testing app(easy).
The test application would have to be upgradeable due to future os, phone and application type releases.
The license should be renewed due to con 2.
MY OPINION
i honestly think the system would be nice to have and also push the site foward, other than pushing the site foward it actually gives some people opportunities... big example consider you want a job ( a real one not side job) within the skills you got at xda... phone repairs... hardware and software mods ect , xda the license would look good considering that no phone lover that works in a phone company doesnt know about xda itl be cool to know the site approved you as a licensed whatever on the resume. Ontop of that if a person wants something done to thier phone they could contact an licensed person on xda to tackle the job( paid obviously).
YOUR OPINION: (comment below as a reply )

DMCA wants to stop us from rooting our device PLEASE HELP

The DMCA want to make it illegal for us to root or jailbreak phones, tablets and gaming consoles. If this happens then we lose the ability to customize, fix bugs, and correct security issues on our devices that we pay money for. Xda developers will go away , and so will software innovation. Think about what we will lose Cyanogenmod, Miui, Juggernaut, Beastmod all of it gone and so will the money developers make selling root apps on the market this is important. If you think this is silly tell Steve Kondik AKA cyanogen hes the one who brought this to light for many people.
the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
https://www.eff.org/pages/jailbreaking-not-crime-tell-copyright-office-free-your-devices
Do some homework before blowing this off this is serious! Device manufacturers claim Root/jailbreaking violates Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which carries stiff penalties.

Are you seriously concerned about this? They can't stop us, and if ever we need to send our devices back we just return to stock...simple as that.

Yes, they can't stop us. But the current position on rooting and jailbreaking is only a temporary exemption from the DMCA. This exemption needs to be periodically renewed or it will expire and we will be subject to he DMCA which makes it easy to argue we are breaking the law. That alone would probably have a chilling effect on the rooting communities as the unofficial support from manufacturers dries up. I doubt Samsung will openly support a community perceived as breaking the law.
That said... yes, we need to speak up and help the larger rooting/jailbreaking community to renew this exemption. If we don't speak up, it will die and the FTC will not renew the exemption.

iLeopard said:
Are you seriously concerned about this? They can't stop us, and if ever we need to send our devices back we just return to stock...simple as that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well the question really is if providers have the ability to accurately see what your phone is running and will they be forced to block our service if the DMCA threatens to sue the actual companies.

The real concern here isn’t about our ability to root/jail break our OWN devices or not. It’s about control! These scumbags along with the a**holes that support SOPA and PIPA simply want to keep us in check so they can shove their BS down our throats for the price of whatever they want.

If this happens then no one would ever upgrade phones and the market would take a big hit. We true rooter would aways stay on old phones to keep root.

xile6 said:
If this happens then no one would ever upgrade phones and the market would take a big hit. We true rooter would aways stay on old phones to keep root.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'd rather have a 100% stock sII than a modded up g1
anyway if google and the manufacturers want us not to root they will remove the ability to let us.

Smartphones = computers. Its legal to do whatever you want with a computer so long as you do not commit cyber crime.
Desktop pc -> laptop -> notebook -> netbook -> tablet -> smartphone
All these devices are the same... the only difference between them is the size & spec. They are all essentially computers.

If you don't support this by educating yourself and then registering your comments with the US Copyright Office within the next 8 days, like the Software Freedom Law Center has, what do you think will eventually happen to websites like xdadevelopers? Making jailbreaking/rooting illegal would apply to all instances, on devices both old and new. So you would be liable if you used such a device, (although it would be difficult to catch everyone), disseminated information on how to do this to your device, (goodbye all websites that help folks root), or sold services or software that helped someone root their device.
And tri4life's comments are accurate. With these kinds of laws in place, service providers would want, or may be forced to, develop systems which could tell if your smartphone is rooted and then turn off service, and likely put you into a queue for a visit from an "RIAA type" lawsuit. BTW, the "lock-in AppStore you can't change the OS" model is coming to personal computers as well. So not only is this a stand against this behavior on the smartphone front, but also in case this starts to creep into the PC world, as well. The Software Freedom Law Center comments go into some interesting details on this.
If you don't think it's serious than you should actually read the law that's in question here. For fun, you can skip down to the end where it describes the civil and criminal penalties that apply if the exemption is not in place. So not only do we need to support this strongly now, we need to work to make this exemption permanent.
Good Luck..

jordanishere said:
Smartphones = computers. Its legal to do whatever you want with a computer so long as you do not commit cyber crime.
Desktop pc -> laptop -> notebook -> netbook -> tablet -> smartphone
All these devices are the same... the only difference between them is the size & spec. They are all essentially computers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's not entirely true. Some parts of all those devices might contain firmware that is copyrighted and encrypted. The DMCA would make it illegal to circumvent that firmware encryption. The only reason it's legal right now is because of the FTC exemption who ruled it's OK if we're not breaking any IP copyrights.
IMHO, SOPA/PIPA are all expansions on this kind of heavy handed lawmaking and is driven by the RIAA and MPAA. They've been going after 8 year olds and grandmothers just because they'll probably settle and pony up even tho they didn't do anything wrong. But don't misunderstand me. Piracy of IP is a big issue and should be dealt with but siphoning granny's bank accounts and making it illegal to mod your devices is not the way to do it.
We should be asking why we still need these laws if they can still go for an off-shore target like MegaUpload. I think they already have the tools they need and should stop legislating what I do with and to my technology. The scary thing is SOPA/PIPA are NOT DEAD... just tabled for now. I'd bet (not much) that once it's out of our recent memory they'll pass it so fast it'll be law before we can even fight it.

All this recent laws worry me more and more that we are loosing what so many fought and die for over the decades, it's being forgotten that it is By the People for the People not By the People for a few.
"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
Patrick Henry

why in the world would android continue to be open source then? as Well, HTC allows rooting of devices pretty easily, As well as samsung has their new open to the public Dev programs, so their probably gonna follow HTC with open rooting. I really doubt Android phone manufacturer's will let it go on for very long if it did end up being illegal. Why else does anyone else buy android phones? I think they know that.

xile6 said:
If this happens then no one would ever upgrade phones and the market would take a big hit. We true rooter would aways stay on old phones to keep root.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sammy has been kicking out Android phones with unlocked boot loaders from the get go (IN YOUR FACE HTC), so rooting and customizing is almost a given from the manufacturer, but not from the carriers. If it becomes illegal, then it becomes a slippery slope for all of us!
Sent from my SGH-T989 using xda premium

lawalty said:
Sammy has been kicking out Android phones with unlocked boot loaders from the get go (IN YOUR FACE HTC), so rooting and customizing is almost a given from the manufacturer, but not from the carriers. If it becomes illegal, then it becomes a slippery slope for all of us!
Sent from my SGH-T989 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/26/dmca-update-makes-new-phone-unlocking-illegal/

This makes me really sad... thanks op for bringing this up to attention. Not being able to root an Android device sucks a lot of fun outta it all.
Sent from my SGH-T989 using xda app-developers app

It was just ruled that it is not illegal to Jailbreak an iphone, tablets may be a different story though. I haven't heard anything regarding android devices.. I would assume it falls under the same category.. Either way it's not gonna stop anyone from doing it
Sent from my SGH-T989 using xda premium

"Every generation needs a new revolution" -Thomas Jefferson
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-T989 using xda app-developers app

Here is a guide for those who may be confused:
Rooting/Jailbreaking:
Smartphones - YES
Tablets - NO
Unlocking
If your phone was purchased prior to January 2013 - YES
New Phone - NO
Phones purchased after January 2013 can be unlocked with carrier's permission​
Unrelated:
Blind people can now use DRM stripping software to enable read-allowed function on eBooks purchased legally. However, to supply blind people with the software necessary to do so violates the "trafficking" provision under the rule, and is illegal.

What is not clear....
Carrier unlocking or bootloader unlocking...
Sent from my SGH-I747 using xda premium

Carrier unlocking will be illegal, unless carrier approval.
C. Wireless telephone handsets – interoperability with alternative
networks
Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that
enable a wireless telephone handset originally acquired from
the operator of a wireless telecommunications network or
retailer no later than ninety days after the effective date of this
exemption to connect to a different wireless
telecommunications network, if the operator of the wireless
communications network to which the handset is locked has
failed to unlock it within a reasonable period of time following
a request by the owner of the wireless telephone handset, and
when circumvention is initiated by the owner, an individual
consumer, who is also the owner of the copy of the computer
program in such wireless telephone handset, solely in order to
connect to a different wireless telecommunications network,
and such access to the network is authorized by the operator of
the network.​
Bootloaders fall under the purview of jailbreak/root:
B. Wireless telephone handsets – software interoperability
Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to
execute lawfully obtained software applications, where
circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling
interoperability of such applications with computer programs
on the telephone handset.​
sdlopez83 said:
What is not clear....
Carrier unlocking or bootloader unlocking...
Sent from my SGH-I747 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

Legal action -Samsung Knox- need 400 users lawyers will take case

Spoke with my lawyer. Says I have a case against samsung.
1.) Samsung faild to password protect update option
As my almost 2 year old managed to update me to 4.4 from JB 4.1.2. When I did not want 4.3 or 4.4 due to knox.
2.) The knox feature was not advertised when selling the note 2 and other phones sold prior to introducing knox to our phones.
I don't have the money to fork over legal expenses. So lawyer said if I can find more then 400 samsung users who are stuck with knox they would take the case.
If you wish to join reply to post. Once we reach 400 will contact you all with an for proper information.
Pls only use this to count yourself in. Add a comment if you wish when adding yourself but pls no chating. Will make it easy to count who's in this way.

I'm in

rogersb11 said:
I'm in
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They should have given the option when introducing 4.3 and 4.4 of having knox secure boot or not having knox at all.
I'm sure they could have introduced jb 4.3 and kk 4.4 and any other updates without knox and knox secure boot.

droideastcoast said:
They should have given the option when introducing 4.3 and 4.4 of having knox secure boot or not having knox at all.
I'm sure they could have introduced jb 4.3 and kk 4.4 and any other updates without knox and knox secure boot.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Bingo. Option is what it should be

Count on me

Throw me in the mix, can I go in twice? I have 2 notes dueces.

I'm in too.
Sent from my SGH-I317 using Tapatalk

So am I.
Tap, tap says the wicked Note +₩● ?

Kind of sad that ppl are complaining about knox secure boot and trip but no one is willing to step up and take samsung to court?
Come on guys.
This could also be the answer to removing the secure boot.
If noone steps up then samsung will continue to do this kind of crap.

In bit my Knox is tripped

I like Knox... I don't see what the big deal is. Lose the ability to root like Apple so devs have to pull a jailbreak every new version that comes out by vulnerability hunting? I've come to the conclusion that there is no need for me to root anymore. I have become the normal smartphone user who doesn't need more than what comes stock after all these years rooting and bug hunting. It is now a waste of time for me.
And you know what else?
There are millions of people who are just like me who could give a rat's ass about how Knox stops me from rooting my phone.
Before you go flaming, understand that I am talking about myself and the other millions who have no clue that XDA even exists. You can do what you need to feel better about yourself by gathering a class action lawsuit against a multi-billion corporation. Good luck with that.

[email protected] said:
I like Knox... I don't see what the big deal is. Lose the ability to root like Apple so devs have to pull a jailbreak every new version that comes out by vulnerability hunting? I've come to the conclusion that there is no need for me to root anymore. I have become the normal smartphone user who doesn't need more than what comes stock after all these years rooting and bug hunting. It is now a waste of time for me.
And you know what else?
There are millions of people who are just like me who could give a rat's ass about how Knox stops me from rooting my phone.
Before you go flaming, understand that I am talking about myself and the other millions who have no clue that XDA even exists. You can do what you need to feel better about yourself by gathering a class action lawsuit against a multi-billion corporation. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This post convinced me to join the lawsuit. That's you opinion and it'a fair,
However I like having choice, freedom, and ownership as a consumer. I don't like having updates remove and change features that I orginally paid for

Cryingmoose said:
This post convinced me to join the lawsuit. That's you opinion and it'a fair,
However I like having choice, freedom, and ownership as a consumer. I don't like having updates remove and change features that I orginally paid for
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm In

I am sorry but after reading this thread everyday I have to finally say something. You guys are trying to sue Samsung for adding security to your phone to prevent it from being easily hacked, your personal and banking information being stolen, unauthorized use, and not being able to root it and put unauthorized software on it? Got a little bit of news for you, you better start looking for some old phones on swappa and ebay because there are talks that Google is incorporating some of Knox into L OS version. Also Sprint and T-mobile have no issues rooting with the same version of Knox...so maybe you should be looking at what your carrier is doing.
And as for a 2 year old accepting the update, you had options to lock your phone with many different methods. This 2 year old accepted the option to first download it, wait while the file downloaded, then also accepted the option to install now? I do not think this lawyer has all the information. Especially when Google and Samsung on the devil's advocate side would face a much larger lawsuit if doing nothing to try and prevent the millions of non-XDA users from getting their phone hacked. Knox and locked bootloaders have nothing to do with trying to prevent the 100,000 XDA AT&T or Verizon Samsung users from rooting. It is to make the phones as secure as possible for military and business applications.
Here is sammobile's report on "L" and Knox: http://www.sammobile.com/2014/06/25...egrate-knox-into-androids-next-major-release/

KennyG123 said:
I am sorry but after reading this thread everyday I have to finally say something. You guys are trying to sue Samsung for adding security to your phone to prevent it from being easily hacked, your personal and banking information being stolen, unauthorized use, and not being able to root it and put unauthorized software on it? Got a little bit of news for you, you better start looking for some old phones on swappa and ebay because there are talks that Google is incorporating some of Knox into L OS version. Also Sprint and T-mobile have no issues rooting with the same version of Knox...so maybe you should be looking at what your carrier is doing.
And as for a 2 year old accepting the update, you had options to lock your phone with many different methods. This 2 year old accepted the option to first download it, wait while the file downloaded, then also accepted the option to install now? I do not think this lawyer has all the information. Especially when Google and Samsung on the devil's advocate side would face a much larger lawsuit if doing nothing to try and prevent the millions of non-XDA users from getting their phone hacked. Knox and locked bootloaders have nothing to do with trying to prevent the 100,000 XDA AT&T or Verizon Samsung users from rooting. It is to make the phones as secure as possible for military and business applications.
Here is sammobile's report on "L" and Knox: http://www.sammobile.com/2014/06/25...egrate-knox-into-androids-next-major-release/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's a gulf of difference between a device being advertised with a feature and shipping with it and a mandatory update installing said feature.
The carriers didn't even disclose the ramifications of installing OTAs containing Knox.
I don't have an issue with updates changing features over time but something that alters your relationship with your property in such a fashion should be opt-in and after disclosing the ramifications.

TerryMathews said:
There's a gulf of difference between a device being advertised with a feature and shipping with it and a mandatory update installing said feature.
The carriers didn't even disclose the ramifications of installing OTAs containing Knox.
I don't have an issue with updates changing features over time but something that alters your relationship with your property in such a fashion should be opt-in and after disclosing the ramifications.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
At no point did Samsung or AT&T guarantee the rootability of a device. And remember, the other millions of owners don't know about these "ramifications" as I am sure they are happy to know that their phone is more secure. Windows updates your system constantly for security updates. If that suddenly stops a Pr0n site from showing up on your PC because it is now considered malicious should they have notified you? The updates do nothing to prevent the out of the box use intended by the device. I am merely stating that this suit has no legal grounds. If you know about rooting and know about hacking, you know not to accept updates until you find out what they are. You should know ways of preventing those updates, and you should know how to secure your phone from anyone using it to accept those updates without your permission. The other millions of users out there can keep moving along blissfully happy that their phone is constantly being updated and not left in the dust.
Why should the carriers disclose that your device be more difficult to root? Rooting is not an authorized procedure supported by the carriers at all! I missed the disclosure by Sony on my PS3 that accepting the update which will allow me to access the Playstation Network is also to prevent jailbreaking it on the current revision. Add to that, read the OP...it states nothing about the carrier. It is a suit directed at Samsung. Knox does not prevent any use of the device which is authorized and supported by the carrier. Also Knox does not prevent rooting as seen on T-Mobile and Sprint forums as well as the international forums.
But I wish you guys luck with the suit and hope the lawyer is accepting this Pro Bono and no one has to dish out any non-refundable legal fees. I just wanted you all to be better informed of what you are asking.

If I'm not mistaken, the Federal government (USA) guaranteed end users the right to root access of our phones, and recently upheld that law. But does Knox really stop you from rooting it? Luckily I have avoided it because I haven't had a stock ROM for more than a few minutes on my phone since I bought it

KennyG123 said:
At no point did Samsung or AT&T guarantee the rootability of a device. And remember, the other millions of owners don't know about these "ramifications" as I am sure they are happy to know that their phone is more secure. Windows updates your system constantly for security updates. If that suddenly stops a Pr0n site from showing up on your PC because it is now considered malicious should they have notified you? The updates do nothing to prevent the out of the box use intended by the device. I am merely stating that this suit has no legal grounds. If you know about rooting and know about hacking, you know not to accept updates until you find out what they are. You should know ways of preventing those updates, and you should know how to secure your phone from anyone using it to accept those updates without your permission. The other millions of users out there can keep moving along blissfully happy that their phone is constantly being updated and not left in the dust.
Why should the carriers disclose that your device be more difficult to root? Rooting is not an authorized procedure supported by the carriers at all! I missed the disclosure by Sony on my PS3 that accepting the update which will allow me to access the Playstation Network is also to prevent jailbreaking it on the current revision. Add to that, read the OP...it states nothing about the carrier. It is a suit directed at Samsung. Knox does not prevent any use of the device which is authorized and supported by the carrier. Also Knox does not prevent rooting as seen on T-Mobile and Sprint forums as well as the international forums.
But I wish you guys luck with the suit and hope the lawyer is accepting this Pro Bono and no one has to dish out any non-refundable legal fees. I just wanted you all to be better informed of what you are asking.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is a difference between guaranteeing a product's suitability for given task and actively working to reduce that capability.
For instance, let's look at car recalls. Some of them impact how your car behaves, its gas mileage, or its service schedule. Ever notice how the dealer needs your consent before modifying your vehicle?
Your example of Windows Update is equally flawed. Windows Update is an opt-in service which in fact reinforces my earlier point that Knox or system updates in general should be opt-in or at least have a provision for opt-out that doesn't involve rooting your device.
Court cases aren't decided on popularity. If they were, Roe v. Wade would have gone a very different direction (as an example).
I hope you're not a lawyer Kenny...

Honestly... there's no point in arguing. Whomever goes and does this lawsuit, have fun, good luck, and I hope no money comes out of your own pocket. Your XDA soap box will get you nowhere so go out and do what you have to do to get your rocks off. Even if you even do succeed, enjoy the years of counter-suits and appeals.

TerryMathews said:
There is a difference between guaranteeing a product's suitability for given task and actively working to reduce that capability.
For instance, let's look at car recalls. Some of them impact how your car behaves, its gas mileage, or its service schedule. Ever notice how the dealer needs your consent before modifying your vehicle?
Your example of Windows Update is equally flawed. Windows Update is an opt-in service which in fact reinforces my earlier point that Knox or system updates in general should be opt-in or at least have a provision for opt-out that doesn't involve rooting your device.
Court cases aren't decided on popularity. If they were, Roe v. Wade would have gone a very different direction (as an example).
I hope you're not a lawyer Kenny...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is no further point in arguing with you as clearly you are not a lawyer either. No one mentioned popularity. Your arguments are misconstrued and have nothing to do with the focus of the lawsuit. You should reread the "opening statement" a 2 year old "accepted" the update meaning optional, not mandatory, and there are ways for anyone who can search to not accept the OTA or update.
Have a nice day and good luck. As I stated earlier, Knox is now moving to Google and the next version of Android and it also does not prevent rooting if you would just check out the other carriers. This is the main flaw in this law suit. Lawyered