phone rom - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: p.larner
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2024, 04:19:14 am
content: i hope this is the rite section,i need a stock uk rom for a samsing galaxy s5 900f,can anyone give me a download link?.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2024, 11:08:34 am
content: Preumably it contains c0py rited warez?P1r8 is against the r00ls here.

author: thephil
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2024, 11:14:32 am
content: This may not be the right forum for that. There are several android and Samsung forums out there. They typically maintain lists of stock ROM images for phone recovery. Try googling for "samsung rom images".

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2024, 01:21:18 pm
content: Who would actually want to use a stock ROM for something that old nowadays? See if there's a decent LineageOS port for it.

author: DavidAlfa
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2024, 01:48:22 pm
content: https://galaxyfirmware.org/model/SM-G900FD/Quote from: Zero999 on March 25, 2024, 11:08:34 amHuh? Since when it's ilegal to reinstall the factory Android system made for your own phone?

author: golden_labels
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2024, 02:05:15 pm
content: Quote from: DavidAlfa on March 25, 2024, 01:48:22 pmSince intellectual property exists. You have a license for a single copy of firmware exclusively to be used with your particular phone. This doesn’t extend to having license for obtaining other copies or using any copy in any other way.

author: DavidAlfa
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2024, 02:10:55 pm
content: OK then, I'll send the phone and pay $50 when the phone dies when something goes wrong during an OTA update.Sorry I won't.

author: golden_labels
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2024, 09:39:37 pm
content: And what’s the point of mentioning this? We may like it or not, but that doesn’t change how things are.I’m in strong opposition to the concept of IP, but that’s irrelevant, when I have to evaluate whether something “contains c0py rited warez”.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2024, 09:58:41 pm
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on March 25, 2024, 01:21:18 pmhttps://wiki.lineageos.org/devices/klte/

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 26, 2024, 02:53:51 am
content: Quote from: golden_labels on March 25, 2024, 02:05:15 pmI'm not so sure that's entirely true. Companies like Cellebrite package their own software with custom ROMs for various handsets and also have the capability to back up things like software and application from a target device. I'm sure they are not paying any royalties to third parties.Sure, the software might be either partly or fully Copyrighted, but that doesn't mean you can't make copies of it.Another example is Copyright Law in Australia. If you own a licenced copy of something, you are allowed to reproduce it for backup purposes.

author: golden_labels
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2024, 08:56:53 am
content: By this logic: I uploaded unauthorized copies of many things and nobody sued me for that, therefore it’s legal. Faulty logic, isn’t it? Or are you saying I can start sharing movie rips here?I believe we both agree this isn’t how it works.As for the concrete examples, which you have given: neither of them include distributing ROMs to others, obtaining them from other sources, or putting on devices other than from what they came. The Australian law exception — and similar ones elsewhere — permit you to backup and backup only (and preasumably restore it back on the same device). Cellebrite also does nothing more than backing up and it does that under law enforcement’s protective shield.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 26, 2024, 09:23:52 am
content: Quote from: golden_labels on March 26, 2024, 08:56:53 amNo. I think you're confusing several issues and assuming they are the same thing. The point I was making is I'm sure a huge international company such as Cellebrite (and others) will have done their legal due diligence before they start distributing their software. Considering some parts of Android are actually open source, you may wish to do some homework.I'll also mention again, Copyright does not equal "not able to make copies of", because that's demonstrably false.If you insist on using your example, in Australia, it's not illegal to download a movie, it's illegal to distribute it. If I make a copy of a DVD for my own use, that's not prohibited under law. But this is an entirely different discussion.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2024, 09:31:43 am
content: Whether it's legal to redistribute or not depends on the licence. For example, open source software is copyrighted under a permissive licence which allows redistribution.It's true individuals are allowed to make backup copies, but that's completely different to uploading it to a website or giving it to anyone else, which are considered to be redistribution.

author: golden_labels
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2024, 10:42:37 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on March 26, 2024, 09:23:52 amYes, I am also pretty sure they did. And evaluated what is the financial cost of being sued versus profits from taking the risk. That doesn’t imply much about legality, in particular in a completely different scenario.Quote from: Halcyon on March 26, 2024, 09:23:52 amI certainly must do some homework, if I didn’t know how including open source parts leads to the entire collection of works not being covered by copyright. /sQuote from: Halcyon on March 26, 2024, 09:23:52 amYes, it does equal exactly that, unless you are licensed to make copies or your local law provides specific exceptions.Quote from: Halcyon on March 26, 2024, 09:23:52 amAnd so is in Poland. But can you explain to me, how does this exception is of relevance to the problem discussed here?Before you respond: what’s the goal? Because I’m not going to xkcd 386 myself. IrespondedtoDavidAlpha denial. In my view this slowly diverges from the initial subject. Of course this is permitted and natural on a forum, but I can’t be expected to provide responses when the talk becomes tangential.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 26, 2024, 11:43:57 pm
content: Quote from: golden_labels on March 26, 2024, 10:42:37 amThat's an exceptionally poor way of doing business and further demonstrates that you don't seem to understand how these things work in reality.Do you honestly believe a company such as Cellebrite would simply take the risk against a company such as Google or Apple? I think not.Rather than continuing a back and forth about this, I'll let you do your own reading about how Copyright can be applied to various things, its utility and what its limitations are.

author: golden_labels
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2024, 10:41:21 am
content: I choose to stay with my current beliefs or otherwise I’d be forced to believe I can just upload abackup copyof “The Art of Electronics” to the forum (which I will not do).Facing no response to the request I made at the end of my previous post, I also feel freed from any obligation to continue this. Cheers

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2024, 11:57:31 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on March 26, 2024, 09:31:43 amYes. That's pretty much all there is to it.Unauthorized redistribution of copyrighted material is normally by default illegal, unless indeed there is an explicit license allowing otherwise.Private copies are, as you said, not redistribution, by definition, and legal in some jurisdictions, probably not even all.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 28, 2024, 12:17:07 am
content: Quote from: golden_labels on March 27, 2024, 10:41:21 amThis goes to show how one's "beliefs" are completely disconnected from "reality". Regardless of what you believe, rules are rules. You can choose to ignore them, but you then also accept the consequences.As myself, Zero999 and SiliconWizard have already stated, you are confusing different issues.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2024, 12:41:39 am
content: I think this confusion has been relatively popular; in particular regarding the distribution of "ROM" content. Many authors of emulators, for instance, have distributed original ROM contents stating that the user could use them as long as they owned the original device. I don't think it ever really had any legal ground, and I seem to remember a few of them getting asked to just stop doing that, after which they would instruct their users how to get the ROM contents themselves with some program (which would, in turn, become a "private copy".)Now if there's any law explicitly allowing this, I'll be happy of course to have a look and be proven wrong.

author: thephil
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2024, 09:27:40 am
content: Peace everyone. ;-)I know way too little about law to comment on the question of legality in various regions of the globe, so I won't.Do I find it ethically acceptable to download a ROM image to restore your own phone? Yes I do. Is that legal ? I don't know. Will I point someone to a possible source if he asks nicely? Yes.

author: golden_labels
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2024, 03:12:10 pm
content: Oh, I wasn’t even trying to comment on this from the perspective of ethics!To be clear: I criticize neither the person requesting the ROMs nor those providing links. My response should be read only as a reaction toDavidAlfa’s negation. My ethical stance on this subject, which is a completely subjective thing, is in strong disagreement with the current legal status and trends.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 28, 2024, 11:54:15 pm
content: Quote from: thephil on March 28, 2024, 09:27:40 amYes (in my opinion), and most likely (in Australia) are my answers to those questions.Copyright is a bit messy and is examined on a case-by-case basis. It's also not a criminal offence to merely breach Copyright, it comes down to damages in a civil matter. Mere downloading isn't illegal, sharing might be (depending on what it is). I'll use the Dallas Buyers Club fiasco as an example. There wasn't a single person in this country that was sued because they simply downloaded the movie. It's was those sharing and distributing it that copped a "please explain".I'd be more worried about download a dodgy copy that has been tampered with.