Earlier this week, the three companies filed amicus briefs in support of Google and YouTube, which are defending themselves against a $1 billion copyright lawsuit by Viacom. In the briefs, they urge the judge presiding over the case to dismiss Viacom’s suit, claiming to do otherwise is to violate protections given Google under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

From the briefs:

[Viacom's] legal arguments, if accepted, would retard the development of the Internet and electronic commerce, create uncertainty for service providers regarding their legal exposure for alleged infringements, and inhabit the growth and development of user-centric online models that, day after day, make the Internet and the world more democratic.

The expression of support by Yahoo (YHOO), Facebook and eBay (EBAY) for Google follows a similar move by Hollywood. Earlier this month, Warner Bros., NBC Universal, Disney, the Screen Actors Guild and Directors Guild of America filed amicus briefs of their own arguing, as Viacom (VIA) has, that Google (GOOG) is not protected by the DMCA, which shields Internet service providers from liability for copyright violations committed by users.

The friends of the court in this case, then, are aligned on both sides. All that remains is to determine whether the DMCA protects YouTube. And Viacom is confident that the court will determine that it does not.

“The courts have been clear that creating and building a Web-based business on the intellectual property of others is illegal,” a Viacom spokesperson told Bloomberg. “That is exactly what YouTube did in its formative years. Nothing in this case threatens the principles of the DMCA or the ability of legitimate Internet-based businesses to flourish.”

We hold these truths to be self evident:

That as long as Apple’s iPhone is locked, there will be those who wish it open. And that as long as this is the case, iPhones will be jailbroken and outfitted with third-party applications not vetted by Apple. And this will remain so regardless of whether or not Apple manages to convince the U.S. Copyright Office that jailbreaking an iPhone is copyright infringement and a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. So all this jawing over Apple’s legal stance on iPhone jailbreaking is ultimately for naught.

So the Electronic Frontier Foundation can argue that jailbreaking is protected under fair-use doctrines. And it can urge the Copyright Office to add a jailbreaking exemption to the DMCA on the grounds that “the culture of tinkering (or hacking, if you prefer) is an important part of our innovation economy.” And Apple (AAPL) can insist that such an exemption is “an attack on Apple’s particular business choices with respect to the design of the iPhone mobile computing platform and the strategy for delivering applications software for the iPhone through the iPhone App Store.”

And they can go round and round and round. But their sparring and bloviating will ultimately be meaningless. Because if Apple’s history with iPhone jailbreaks (see stories below) has taught us anything, it’s that they’re essentially unstoppable.

PREVIOUSLY:

• Apple HQ on Defcon 1 Tantrum Alert After iPhone 2.0 Crack
• iBrokeIt
• Latest Use for $100 iPhone Credit: Replace Inoperable iPhone

We hold these truths to be self evident:

That as long as Apple’s iPhone is locked, there will be those who wish it open. And that as long as this is the case, iPhones will be jailbroken and outfitted with third-party applications not vetted by Apple. And this will remain so regardless of whether or not Apple manages to convince the U.S. Copyright Office that jailbreaking an iPhone is copyright infringement and a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. So all this jawing over Apple’s legal stance on iPhone jailbreaking is ultimately for naught.

So the Electronic Frontier Foundation can argue that jailbreaking is protected under fair-use doctrines. And it can urge the Copyright Office to add a jailbreaking exemption to the DMCA on the grounds that “the culture of tinkering (or hacking, if you prefer) is an important part of our innovation economy.” And Apple (AAPL) can insist that such an exemption is “an attack on Apple’s particular business choices with respect to the design of the iPhone mobile computing platform and the strategy for delivering applications software for the iPhone through the iPhone App Store.”

And they can go round and round and round. But their sparring and bloviating will ultimately be meaningless. Because if Apple’s history with iPhone jailbreaks (see stories below) has taught us anything, it’s that they’re essentially unstoppable.

PREVIOUSLY:

• Apple HQ on Defcon 1 Tantrum Alert After iPhone 2.0 Crack
• iBrokeIt
• Latest Use for $100 iPhone Credit: Replace Inoperable iPhone

On information and belief, PSYSTAR alleges that APPLE intentionally embeds code in the Mac OS that causes the Mac OS to malfunction on any computer hardware system that is not an Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware System. Upon recognizing that a computer hardware system is not an Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware System, the Mac OS will not operate properly, if at all, and will go into what is colloquially known as ‘kernel panic.’

PSYSTAR is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that APPLE is engaged in anticompetitive conduct that prevents the proper operation of the Mac OS on any computer hardware system that is not an Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware System–a Mac OS Capable Computer Hardware System–thereby forcing customers of the Mac OS to purchase–and only purchase–an Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware System if they wish to have the Mac OS operate sans kernel panic or an infinite loop.”

That’s an intriguing allegation. Risky though, since it’s also an admission that Psystar has circumvented the technological copyright-protection measures built into OS X, just as Apple claims in its amended complaint against the company. Apple contends Psystar has done so illegally, in violation of The Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Psystar says that’s impossible because the kernel panic-forcing code at issue here isn’t a copyright-protection measure.

Who’s right? Who knows? But if it’s Apple, then Psystar presumably is guilty of circumventing Apple’s copyright protection systems under the DMCA. And that’s a felony, because Psystar profited from the circumvention.