[J-Caum]

Hello CB users/abusers,

I've recently purchased a 16Gb Playbook for ~$230 and have been pleasantly delighted in this device. Now at this price, it is the best in its price range - in every category. I've also already converted and signed a few .APK files I could scrounge online of the apps I can't do without. However, my conscience is kicking in now.

I know this isn't modifying the code of the writer's app, and I'm not selling it on Appworld, so is there any harm in packaging, signing, and installing these apps on a PB without the author's consent?

I know I'm not the only person doing this , but I do want to know the legality of it.


Thanks!

[SCrid2000]

Depends on the ToS. For most apps that are being spread on CrackBerry, probably not because they're free in the Android Market. But paid apps, ESPECIALLY if you don't own a copy, are likely illegal to sideload.
Granted, the only penalty you'll have to face are the loss of self respect and the judgement of God

[pcguy514]

Only if it's for sale (not free apps) in Google play and you didn't buy a copy. I can blame the dev all day for not making available to playbook but honestly its still piracy if the app cost$ and you didn't buy a copy.

[kill_9]

I cannot speak to the legality because I have not read the licenses which presumably accompany the software but from a moral / ethical perspective you should at least ask permission of the software developer. You can report your success or failure pertaining to functionality so the developer can make an informed decision about converting their applications to work with the BlackBerry Android Player. Be forewarned that not every Android application plays nicely with the BlackBerry Android Player subsystem, and some developers might decide to file a criminal and/or civil complaint, as appropriate, for misappropriated or unauthorized use of their software.

[J-Caum]

OK, thanks. I didn't mention above, but I am only converting the free apps, and haven't even considered to try the few I've purchased in the past yet for fear of legal issues.

[Innovatology]

I am no lawyer, but...

Copyright is copyright, whether it is a free publication or not.

Repackaging and sideloading an .APK for personal use might be legal. It depends on the license terms, including but not limited to whether you have permission to install it on more than one device.

Repackaging an .APK and publishing the .BAR on a site is certainly not legal. Just as it's illegal to copy a photo from a (free or purchased) magazine and using it in your own publication.

Frankly I'm surprised that CB allow such things to happen here.

[SCrid2000]

No, you're not a lawyer (although neither am I, yet, and this isn't legal advice).
A lot of it is dependant on the ToS, but if it's a free app then, in general, I can't see how distributing the .apk isn't legal in almost every case, especially with attribution. Even packaging it into a .bar should be fine, the process doesn't actually modify the .apk; essentially all it does is package it in a renamed .zip with some meta data.
If you argue it's not legal, what crime is it a violation of?
Paid apps, almost certainly illegal unless you own it, in which case it depends on whether the developer allows you to install it on multiple android devices. Free apps, almost certainly legal.

[FSeverino]

No, you're not a lawyer (although neither am I, yet, and this isn't legal advice).
A lot of it is dependant on the ToS, but if it's a free app then, in general, I can't see how distributing the .apk isn't legal in almost every case, especially with attribution. Even packaging it into a .bar should be fine, the process doesn't actually modify the .apk; essentially all it does is package it in a renamed .zip with some meta data.
If you argue it's not legal, what crime is it a violation of?
Paid apps, almost certainly illegal. Free apps, almost certainly legal.

I agree in most cases, but i dont know how kindle works for example. I understand you pay for the books and the app is free, but maybe you arent allowed to use it on an device that is not authorized by kindle... which means a lot of people are breaking the law.

To me i have NO IDEA why amazon would see this as being 'wrong' because it only brings MORE money to them. I would gladly sign up for kindle on my pb as it is the only kindle capable device i have, and if i pay for the books i dont think it should matter how i use them as long as I AM THE ONE USING THEM. But of course, that is just MY thoughts and what i think and what is legal may be different. (also, the same may be said for any media streaming app... if you pay to use Z on devices A - X then using it on device Y is against the contract/ToS)

[SCrid2000]

Amazon is an intersting case. To that, I would just say that the Android player is literally an Android device.

[FSeverino]

Amazon is an intersting case. To that, I would just say that the Android player is literally an Android device.

I would agree...
and can you access kindle online? bc if you can then the argument can be made that using the app is just making it easier to access the content, and also wouldnt be illegal because if the device has access to kindle through the internet then it is considered a kindle capable device.

like i said, i dont see the problem... i just dont want to be the YEA ITS FINE guy that turns out to be the YOU GOT ME SUED guy. lol

[peter9477]

Innovatology's not a lawyer, and neither am I, but I've researched this stuff for years and I'll just point out one simple fact. The question of whether or not distributing these things is permitted has nothing to do with what it costs.

Copyright is about the right to copy, not the right to sell. (In other words it's not about the money.) You have no more right to copy and distribute these APKs than you do to pick off arbitrary photos on the web and use them in your own web site.

If you believe what you're doing is a permitted action, just prove it by contacting the author and asking. If he or she says no, then you likely don't have the right, free or not. (Note: many app authors will be as ignorant of the relevant laws as most everyone else is, so take that into account, too, but at least if you've asked you can show due diligence in your efforts to do the right thing.)

As was also said, copying some of these things for personal use *may* be permissible, but that almost certainly depends on many variables not the least of which is where you live.

[SCrid2000]

If that's the case, please elucidate me and cite the statute or case law that supports your theory.

[FSeverino]

If that's the case, please elucidate me and cite the statute or case law that supports your theory.

exactly!

law isnt a guessing game, it is WRONG or it is RIGHT and until we find THE answer we will only be guessing.

I do know that i looked at the hookt ToS to check something out and it says there that you cannot change the original source code IN ANY WAY... which i believe converting it to a .bar would do. but again, this is one app and if others dont have that then it is different

[SCrid2000]

Nah man, converting an .apk to a .bar just puts it in a .zip with meta data so the Playbook knows it's signed and to run it in the android emulator.
Also, in most countries (at least in the US) it's legal until a judge/legislature with authority over your area says it's illegal, it's legal.

[FSeverino]

Nah man, converting an .apk to a .bar just puts it in a .zip with meta data so the Playbook knows it's signed and to run it in the android emulator.
Also, in most countries (at least in the US) it's legal until a judge/legislature with authority over your area says it's illegal, it's legal.

thats a great point, but (just playing devils advocate, because i totally agree with you) the company/owner can easily say that adding the .apk to the .zip is 'changing' the source code/app because it was not originally a .zip

again, it seems that paying lawyers to come up with these ToS and to argue in favour of them is a pretty HUGE waste of money when you consider the fact that, in the case of kindle, you arent even paying for the APP you are paying for the content that you PAID FOR and have access through that app and many others.

It is almost like netflix trying to sue me for watching a movie on my girlfriends computer... if i can 'stream from anywhere' then not letting me 'stream from anywhere' goes against your advertising

[kennyliu]

Also, in most countries (at least in the US) it's legal until a judge/legislature with authority over your area says it's illegal, it's legal.

Copyright in the States is governed by Federal law.

[EricB1968]

I'd say a developer of a free app for android could start a legal battle against those who are converting their app to a .bar and re signing them. To my clients defense your honor, He relies on star ratings and feedback for his free app to feed his wife and kids. Without that he's nothing.

[docfreed]

You may want to read the following TOS from Google Play:


You agree that Google and/or third parties own all right, title and interest in and to Google Play and the Products available through Google Play, including without limitation all applicable Intellectual Property Rights in the Products. "Intellectual Property Rights" means any and all rights existing under patent law, copyright law, trade secret law, trademark law, unfair competition law, and any and all other proprietary rights worldwide. You agree that you will not, and will not allow any third party to, (i) copy, sell, license, distribute, transfer, modify, adapt, translate, prepare derivative works from, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble or otherwise attempt to derive source code from the Products, unless otherwise permitted, (ii) take any action to circumvent or defeat the security or content usage rules provided, deployed or enforced by any functionality (including without limitation digital rights management or forward-lock functionality) in the Products, (iii) use the Products to access, copy, transfer, transcode or retransmit content in violation of any law or third party rights, or (iv) remove, obscure, or alter Google's or any third party's copyright notices, trademarks, or other proprietary rights notices affixed to or contained within the Products

[BuzzStarField]

No, you're not a lawyer (although neither am I, yet, and this isn't legal advice).
A lot of it is dependant on the ToS, but if it's a free app then, in general, I can't see how distributing the .apk isn't legal in almost every case, especially with attribution. Even packaging it into a .bar should be fine, the process doesn't actually modify the .apk; essentially all it does is package it in a renamed .zip with some meta data.
If you argue it's not legal, what crime is it a violation of?
Paid apps, almost certainly illegal unless you own it, in which case it depends on whether the developer allows you to install it on multiple android devices. Free apps, almost certainly legal.

When you used RIM's signing keys, you agreed to all of the terms of the SDK licencing agreement. Here is a link to the form where you indicated that you read the agreement:
https://www.blackberry.com/SignedKeys/

Note the following words beside the checkbox: "I have read and agree to the RIM SDK License Agreement"

Here is a link to the document that you apparently read, and now choose to ignore:
http://us.blackberry.com/legal/SDKLA_English.pdf

Let me make this clear: when you signed the .bar file you explicitly agreed to only distribute the work via RIM's App World. You also stipulated that you owned the copyrights to the .apk file that was included in the .bar file that you signed.

[SCrid2000]

Violating Google's ToS (which is remedied easily anyway by getting the apk from elsewhere) doesn't inform on a discussion about whether repackaging is illegal. Unless you intend to say that Google, and not developers, owns the apps on Android Market. I think that's a bit of a stretch.
RIMs ToS for the packaging and signing tool also don't inform the subject (although I suppose RIM could revoke your signing keys for violation of it) because RIM has no interest in the .apk.

I don't think a lot of people understand what exactly the process of creating a .bar from an .apk does.

[peter9477]

Violating Google's ToS (which is remedied easily anyway by getting the apk from elsewhere) doesn't inform on a discussion about whether repackaging is illegal. Unless you intend to say that Google, and not developers, owns the apps on Android Market. I think that's a bit of a stretch.
RIMs ToS for the packaging and signing tool also don't inform the subject (although I suppose RIM could revoke your signing keys for violation of it) because RIM has no interest in the .apk.

I don't think a lot of people understand what exactly the process of creating a .bar from an .apk does.

1. The developers own the apps, not Google, but the ToS clearly refers to "Google and/or third parties", and the third party is the developer, not you.

2. I totally understand what the repackaging process does, and it's irrelevant what it does. The issue is not the price you (or anyone else) paid for access to the APK, nor in what way you repackage or modify or don't modify it, but the copying and distribution itself.

[SCrid2000]

Ok, that's your opinion, now again, do you have ANY statutes or case law to back it up?
And no, I don't have anything to back my opinion because AFAIK there is nothing on the matter. Which makes it legal.

[zzbsb]

Hey, why are you guys making it so complicated? Just sideload whatever you can find and be happy using them.

I'm sure that is what the majority of Playbook users doing

[BuzzStarField]

Hey, why are you guys making it so complicated? Just sideload whatever you can find and be happy using them.

I'm sure that is what the majority of Playbook users doing

We are attempting to answer the OP's question which was:

"I know this isn't modifying the code of the writer's app, and I'm not selling it on Appworld, so is there any harm in packaging, signing, and installing these apps on a PB without the author's consent?"

For some reason, this has become complicated by some developers who say that they might have a problem with this practice. To them the response "Don't worry, be happy" just doesn't cut it.

The point that they are trying in vain to make, is that the person who made the .bar file available to you has broken the SDK Agreement that all RIM developers must comply with. By doing so, they are doing an end run around a principle held dearly by creative talent around the world. The principle is is as follows: It is not nice for random people to sign my work and claim that it their own and then hand it out to everyone will-nilly.

At very least, consumers who sideload these pirated works should feel a little bit guilty about doing so.

[Chaddface]

It is not nice for random people to sign my work and claim that it their own and then hand it out to everyone will-nilly.

I would imagine some would not use such kind words

At very least, consumers who sideload these pirated works should feel a little bit guilty about doing so.

I did and that's why now I don't.