Myth. The methods used are already illegal under existing copyright law.
The idea that they were trying to get it made illegal comes from the EFF's attempt to get it specifically exempted (i.e. made legal). There is a triennial process for getting such exemptions made, which the EFF in 2006 called "fundamentally broken", but yet returned to participating in in 2009. Apple objected (using that same process) on the grounds that that the EFF's proposal did not meet the criteria required by that process. The EFF reported that as if Apple were trying to get the law changed, but it was in fact the EFF proposing a change. And from there the myth spread.
Even if you agree with the EFF, it's not accurate to say that anybody is trying to get it made illegal. To be frank, I don't agree with the EFF, but here I'm just trying to correct the facts. I would link to the specific documents, but the Copyright Office site appears to be down. If you're interested, look for the DMCA 2009 rulemaking comments and responses.
The EFF reported that as if Apple were trying to get the law changed, but it was in fact the EFF proposing a change.
I don't see that. The EFF's statement at http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/02/apple-says-jailbreaking... agrees with your account: they asked the Copyright Office for an exemption for jailbreaking (which probably is illegal under the DMCA), and Apple responded saying that jailbreaking is and should remain illegal.
To be frank, I don't agree with the EFF
Really. So anyone who jailbreaks their iPhone should be considered a criminal?
That's exactly the reporting I mean. I've seen that same article (or blog posts linking back to it) cited as evidence of that (false) claim many times. It's exactly how and why I informed myself in the first place.
Even the title of the story is "Apple says jailbreaking is illegal". But it is regardless of what Apple said. It's a half-truth, and the half that's left out changes the implication of what is left. The lede repeats this. They also leave out the relevant detail that Apple's filing was a response to a proposed class of exemptions, not an activist effort on their part. Indeed, the relationship between the two documents is not made clear at all. Where you say "and Apple responded" in your summary, you're not getting that from the EFF's article. Read it again.
If the EFF claimed to be an unbiased news organization, I'd believe that it was a simple mistake, but they don't so I don't. They want to make Apple look like a big bad bully (which is their right and natural from their position, of course), but the way they chose to do so has perpetuated misinformation. I think that sucks rather independently of my disagreement with them.
I don't think it was intentional deception, just a nasty side effect of opinionated reporting. The EFF even hosts a copy of the same document under the link title Apple Reply to Proposed Jailbreaking Exemption (on this page http://www.eff.org/cases/2009-dmca-rulemaking), which manages to say in six words that the blog post managed not to at all.
So anyone who jailbreaks their iPhone should be considered a criminal?
I said I don't agree with the EFF. If someone has a better argument, I might agree with that. In principle, I don't agree with the notion that buying a device means you have the right to infringe on the copyright of the software it came with any more than buying a book gives you the right to infringe on the copyright of the text.
The idea that they were trying to get it made illegal comes from the EFF's attempt to get it specifically exempted (i.e. made legal). There is a triennial process for getting such exemptions made, which the EFF in 2006 called "fundamentally broken", but yet returned to participating in in 2009. Apple objected (using that same process) on the grounds that that the EFF's proposal did not meet the criteria required by that process. The EFF reported that as if Apple were trying to get the law changed, but it was in fact the EFF proposing a change. And from there the myth spread.
Even if you agree with the EFF, it's not accurate to say that anybody is trying to get it made illegal. To be frank, I don't agree with the EFF, but here I'm just trying to correct the facts. I would link to the specific documents, but the Copyright Office site appears to be down. If you're interested, look for the DMCA 2009 rulemaking comments and responses.