DMCA specifically protects the right to reverse engineer something for interoperability. There is no reason other than being cordial to request “permission”.
And that’s fine. Beeper and the 16yo hacker haven’t broken any laws, haven’t done anything wrong, and won’t go to jail. But that doesn’t mean Apple can’t close the hole they exploited. It is their messaging network, and they can make any changes to it that they want.
I never made that claim. I never said it wasn’t Apple’s prerogative to close any loopholes or backdoors. I didn’t claim any ethics on the part of Beeper or the original exploiter. I am asking for a provable viable instance where the law was broken and what law and how. The person who blocked me made a lot of claims that they failed to back up with factual information with sources and repeated themselves several times with claims of unlawful conduct. They didn’t explain which laws had been broken or how. I would like that information still.
I called myself a layman specifically because in the case of Apple products that’s what I am. I’m not criticizing apple for closing a potentially exploitable security flaw. I am saying that this tech company (like every other) is absolutely borrowing within the constraints of the law and outside it from other tech companies and that because that is the case there is some hypocrisy in the stance that somehow other companies are expected not to.
Has Beeper actually charged money for it? My understanding is that this rollout was planned to be paid eventually but nobody has paid anything as of yet for the functionality.
By your own admission though, beeper is using an exploit that they did not reverse engineer. They paid for someone else’s process which probably was covered under DMCA at the time. I will wait to see if Apple decides on litigation because so far I haven’t even heard a word about them suing beeper and I absolutely think they would if beeper has done something illegal.
You quote directly from the same source I was using (Cornell law) and your quote directly suggests that reverse engineering for the purposes of interoperability (in this case with iMessage and it’s use on iPhones and the interoperability with android phones) appear to both be covered. If they aren’t covered you haven’t explained why your suggestion that they are doing so to profit makes sense except they haven’t charged anyone that I can find for the service. Even their FAQ has been updated to say they will continue offering the service free of charge and will warn users when it moves to a paid service. I don’t dispute that they do plan to have a paid service but at this juncture they haven’t actually implemented that.
I don’t “misunderstand the purpose of DMCA”. I actually couldn’t care less about apple or beeper. I don’t use either brand or service and this is a solution to a problem I don’t have. I find the tech discussion around the interoperability of iMessage and RCS (assuming that actually happens) interesting, but again it doesn’t directly benefit me in any way. Pretty much my whole family use android phones. I don’t have any friends who appear to care about the blue bubble green bubble nonsense, though I am tangentially aware of it, mostly through tech articles.
Are beeper required to agree to Apple’s EULA? If so, why? Please explain that.
You assert that I am “defending”. I haven’t actually defended anything. I simply pointed out that wording in the DMCA would suggest that Beeper was exempt from certain restrictions. That’s not the same thing.
Did I hurt your feelings or something? Are you taking out your frustrations with other people on me? Because it does seem like it.
I read everything you wrote. I’m trying to understand and you come off as hostile and appear to be forgetting that not everyone has all the details you seem to be keeping in your head. Calm down and explain it for a layman, please.
Edit: Also, is Apple so exclusive that I can’t just have an interest in knowing about the tech? Because literally that’s why I am here.
But you’ve failed to draw the parallel here between Apple and their intellectual property being reverse engineered by a third party who’s motivations remain unknown, and Beeper who bought the reverse engineering code/process from that third party for the purpose of interoperability. Which I believe I said before but perhaps wasn’t clear about. Proving in court that the original engineer of this exploit did so for the purposes of interoperability, or if the intent was to make money will seemingly be between Apple, the courts, and that entity.
Apple device users are subject to the EULA. Beeper and their customers may or may not be depending on if they are Apple device users. There is some gray area here as far as the messaging because my understanding based on the articles I have read is that Beeper is calling their App “Beeper Mini”, and are simply marketing it as what it is. A way for Android users to interface with Apple iMessage users. They aren’t calling it iMessage for Android. They are calling it Beeper Mini. That being said, the tagline is “iMessage on Android” and yes it does bill itself as enabling Android users to send and receive imessages. The important thing to note here is they go on to say that it’s a stand alone app built to send and receive “blue bubble messages” on Android. They don’t claim it’s an apple product, just that it works with apple products (I’m reading directly from their website here).
The reflection in news sources isn’t the greatest point to be made specifically because news outlets have a history of creating taglines, nicknames and nomenclature for things that the original entity behind the story has no real say in. Serial killers are a good example. News networks are notorious for naming serial killers despite law enforcement avoiding giving them monikers like “golden state killer” etc.
I agree with you that Beeper is implementing a paid system and that this was always the intention. I believe I said that as well in my original statement. However I’m still trying to connect the dots as to how Apple has grounds against Beeper specifically. Surely they may potentially have grounds against the original exploiter. But against Beeper? Have they actually stolen Apple’s intellectual property?
I wouldn’t know a lot of things about Apple if I didn’t occasionally peruse communities like this one. There is only so much context you can get from Android users (even people who use both, or neither) about Apple products. I wouldn’t for instance understand why the original Beeper was such a big deal to some Apple users, until someone explained in a different thread that they like being able to answer messages from their work phone or work station (not an apple product), throughout their work day. I’ve worked in places where cell phones were absolutely not allowed, so I could see how this could be a big deal.
You yourself admit that Beeper did not reverse engineer. They paid a separate third party for something that third party had already reverse engineered.
DMCA specifically protects the right to reverse engineer something for interoperability. There is no reason other than being cordial to request “permission”.
And that’s fine. Beeper and the 16yo hacker haven’t broken any laws, haven’t done anything wrong, and won’t go to jail. But that doesn’t mean Apple can’t close the hole they exploited. It is their messaging network, and they can make any changes to it that they want.
I never made that claim. I never said it wasn’t Apple’s prerogative to close any loopholes or backdoors. I didn’t claim any ethics on the part of Beeper or the original exploiter. I am asking for a provable viable instance where the law was broken and what law and how. The person who blocked me made a lot of claims that they failed to back up with factual information with sources and repeated themselves several times with claims of unlawful conduct. They didn’t explain which laws had been broken or how. I would like that information still.
I called myself a layman specifically because in the case of Apple products that’s what I am. I’m not criticizing apple for closing a potentially exploitable security flaw. I am saying that this tech company (like every other) is absolutely borrowing within the constraints of the law and outside it from other tech companies and that because that is the case there is some hypocrisy in the stance that somehow other companies are expected not to.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Has Beeper actually charged money for it? My understanding is that this rollout was planned to be paid eventually but nobody has paid anything as of yet for the functionality.
By your own admission though, beeper is using an exploit that they did not reverse engineer. They paid for someone else’s process which probably was covered under DMCA at the time. I will wait to see if Apple decides on litigation because so far I haven’t even heard a word about them suing beeper and I absolutely think they would if beeper has done something illegal.
You quote directly from the same source I was using (Cornell law) and your quote directly suggests that reverse engineering for the purposes of interoperability (in this case with iMessage and it’s use on iPhones and the interoperability with android phones) appear to both be covered. If they aren’t covered you haven’t explained why your suggestion that they are doing so to profit makes sense except they haven’t charged anyone that I can find for the service. Even their FAQ has been updated to say they will continue offering the service free of charge and will warn users when it moves to a paid service. I don’t dispute that they do plan to have a paid service but at this juncture they haven’t actually implemented that.
I don’t “misunderstand the purpose of DMCA”. I actually couldn’t care less about apple or beeper. I don’t use either brand or service and this is a solution to a problem I don’t have. I find the tech discussion around the interoperability of iMessage and RCS (assuming that actually happens) interesting, but again it doesn’t directly benefit me in any way. Pretty much my whole family use android phones. I don’t have any friends who appear to care about the blue bubble green bubble nonsense, though I am tangentially aware of it, mostly through tech articles.
Are beeper required to agree to Apple’s EULA? If so, why? Please explain that.
You assert that I am “defending”. I haven’t actually defended anything. I simply pointed out that wording in the DMCA would suggest that Beeper was exempt from certain restrictions. That’s not the same thing.
Did I hurt your feelings or something? Are you taking out your frustrations with other people on me? Because it does seem like it.
deleted by creator
I read everything you wrote. I’m trying to understand and you come off as hostile and appear to be forgetting that not everyone has all the details you seem to be keeping in your head. Calm down and explain it for a layman, please.
Edit: Also, is Apple so exclusive that I can’t just have an interest in knowing about the tech? Because literally that’s why I am here.
deleted by creator
But you’ve failed to draw the parallel here between Apple and their intellectual property being reverse engineered by a third party who’s motivations remain unknown, and Beeper who bought the reverse engineering code/process from that third party for the purpose of interoperability. Which I believe I said before but perhaps wasn’t clear about. Proving in court that the original engineer of this exploit did so for the purposes of interoperability, or if the intent was to make money will seemingly be between Apple, the courts, and that entity.
Apple device users are subject to the EULA. Beeper and their customers may or may not be depending on if they are Apple device users. There is some gray area here as far as the messaging because my understanding based on the articles I have read is that Beeper is calling their App “Beeper Mini”, and are simply marketing it as what it is. A way for Android users to interface with Apple iMessage users. They aren’t calling it iMessage for Android. They are calling it Beeper Mini. That being said, the tagline is “iMessage on Android” and yes it does bill itself as enabling Android users to send and receive imessages. The important thing to note here is they go on to say that it’s a stand alone app built to send and receive “blue bubble messages” on Android. They don’t claim it’s an apple product, just that it works with apple products (I’m reading directly from their website here).
The reflection in news sources isn’t the greatest point to be made specifically because news outlets have a history of creating taglines, nicknames and nomenclature for things that the original entity behind the story has no real say in. Serial killers are a good example. News networks are notorious for naming serial killers despite law enforcement avoiding giving them monikers like “golden state killer” etc.
I agree with you that Beeper is implementing a paid system and that this was always the intention. I believe I said that as well in my original statement. However I’m still trying to connect the dots as to how Apple has grounds against Beeper specifically. Surely they may potentially have grounds against the original exploiter. But against Beeper? Have they actually stolen Apple’s intellectual property?
I wouldn’t know a lot of things about Apple if I didn’t occasionally peruse communities like this one. There is only so much context you can get from Android users (even people who use both, or neither) about Apple products. I wouldn’t for instance understand why the original Beeper was such a big deal to some Apple users, until someone explained in a different thread that they like being able to answer messages from their work phone or work station (not an apple product), throughout their work day. I’ve worked in places where cell phones were absolutely not allowed, so I could see how this could be a big deal.
deleted by creator
You yourself admit that Beeper did not reverse engineer. They paid a separate third party for something that third party had already reverse engineered.