If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Network World)   Petition tops 100,000. White House will now need to explain why unlocking your cell phone is a crime   (networkworld.com) divider line 156
    More: Followup, SIM lock  
•       •       •

13034 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Feb 2013 at 10:33 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



156 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-02-21 09:50:02 AM  
"Unlocking phones ... is commonly used for those reselling phones, travelling internationally, and changing carriers, but also ourA service-membersA deploying abroad," Khanifar, who founded Cell-Unlock.com in 2004, wrote in an email. "

Reselling phones or changing carriers in violation of your contract, you mean. International travel is a reasonable argument. "But what about the troops?!" is not.
 
2013-02-21 09:50:34 AM  
They'll just pander and evade, as always.

FTFA: I just received a press alert from Derek Khanna, a former House Republican staffer who is leading an effort to get the government to reverse its interpretation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that criminalizes the unlocking of a cell phone.

Nice. This is what Republicans should be doing: speaking out against the government interfering with the life of the ordinary citizen. Meanwhile, though, in Jesusland...
 
2013-02-21 10:34:43 AM  
Because fark you, that's why
 
2013-02-21 10:35:19 AM  
Because corporations are people and unlocking phones hurts their feelings, and it is illegal to hurt people's feelings.
 
2013-02-21 10:36:42 AM  
Wait, a crime?  Not a civil offense stemming from breach of contract?

Oh, right.  farking DMCA.
 
2013-02-21 10:37:25 AM  

Theaetetus: International travel is a reasonable argument.


It's not, because then two carriers make even more money out of you.

Most phones are tri/quad band these days and can already hit the various network types prevalent across the world.
 
2013-02-21 10:37:44 AM  

Theaetetus: "Unlocking phones ... is commonly used for those reselling phones, travelling internationally, and changing carriers, but also ourA service-membersA deploying abroad," Khanifar, who founded Cell-Unlock.com in 2004, wrote in an email. "

Reselling phones or changing carriers in violation of your contract, you mean. International travel is a reasonable argument. "But what about the troops?!" is not.


Most carriers will provide unlock codes to a good customer who is traveling overseas. I'd assume most of them have procedures to accommodate the military. Hell, the Verizon iPhones used to be SIM-unlocked right out of the box.
 
2013-02-21 10:39:20 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Wait, a crime?  Not a civil offense stemming from breach of contract?

Oh, right.  farking DMCA.


See, what you all don't realize is how many foreign nationals like Chinese people and Iranians buy subsidized phones on contracts here, and then take massive shipments of the phones to other carriers, where they trade the phones for slight profits on the resale markets, and they use those profits to buy uranium, which they traffic exclusively passed US customs officials in bales of marijuana that are hidden in puppies and underage sex workers, which they then dowse in oil and burn without recapturing ANY of their carbon emissions.

So it's really for the children and the environment.
 
2013-02-21 10:40:29 AM  
Stories like this are the reason why posters who reflexively launch into their "America: free market, land of opportunity" song-and-dance routine need to be repeatedly kicked in the balls. Lobbyists bought and paid for this country  long time ago.
 
2013-02-21 10:40:33 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Wait, a crime?  Not a civil offense stemming from breach of contract?

Oh, right.  farking DMCA.


I have a hard time believing the DMCA applies.
 
2013-02-21 10:40:40 AM  

Mr Guy: Jim_Callahan: Wait, a crime?  Not a civil offense stemming from breach of contract?

Oh, right.  farking DMCA.

See, what you all don't realize is how many foreign nationals like Chinese people and Iranians buy subsidized phones on contracts here, and then take massive shipments of the phones to other carriers, where they trade the phones for slight profits on the resale markets, and they use those profits to buy uranium, which they traffic exclusively passed US customs officials in bales of marijuana that are hidden in puppies and underage sex workers, which they then dowse in oil and burn without recapturing ANY of their carbon emissions.

So it's really for the children and the environment.


/fap
 
2013-02-21 10:40:44 AM  
When you buy a phone through a carrier that carrier will can have custom software running on it. It's fully within their copyright to control its use.

Solution? Don't buy a phone through a carrier.
 
2013-02-21 10:40:45 AM  

Theaetetus: Reselling phones or changing carriers in violation of your contract, you mean.



So when the contract is up, the DMCA restrictions no longer apply? Does that also go for phones that were never under contract in the first place?
 
2013-02-21 10:40:45 AM  
Just double checked, and the SIM card is still unlocked for the iPhone 5, so you can pop in any SIM from around the world and it will work.
 
2013-02-21 10:42:43 AM  

Theaetetus: "Unlocking phones ... is commonly used for those reselling phones, travelling internationally, and changing carriers, but also ourA service-membersA deploying abroad," Khanifar, who founded Cell-Unlock.com in 2004, wrote in an email. "

Reselling phones or changing carriers in violation of your contract, you mean. International travel is a reasonable argument. "But what about the troops?!" is not.


Reselling your phone is a violation of the contract how?  Changing carriers is a violation how?

If you change carriers you still have to pay the Contract Termination Fee or continue to pay monthly for the original carrier.  Unlocking your phone so you can use it on the new carrier is not a violation and the new carrier will happily give you a contract.

Reselling your phone is likewise the same.  If you get a new phone you either signed a NEW 2-year contract or just left one.   If you want to unlock your phone so that you aren't locked into potential buyers that want a certain carrier, where is the contract violation?
 
2013-02-21 10:43:11 AM  
"No matter how stupid a law/rule is, someone somewhere is making money off it. That is the sole reason for the existence of said law/rule."
 
2013-02-21 10:43:37 AM  

Mr Guy: Jim_Callahan: Wait, a crime?  Not a civil offense stemming from breach of contract?

Oh, right.  farking DMCA.

See, what you all don't realize is how many foreign nationals like Chinese people and Iranians buy subsidized phones on contracts here, and then take massive shipments of the phones to other carriers, where they trade the phones for slight profits on the resale markets, and they use those profits to buy uranium, which they traffic exclusively passed US customs officials in bales of marijuana that are hidden in puppies and underage sex workers, which they then dowse in oil and burn without recapturing ANY of their carbon emissions.

So it's really for the children and the environment.


This is as cogent an argument for the DMCA as any I've heard.
 
2013-02-21 10:43:39 AM  

Mad_Radhu: Theaetetus: "Unlocking phones ... is commonly used for those reselling phones, travelling internationally, and changing carriers, but also ourA service-membersA deploying abroad," Khanifar, who founded Cell-Unlock.com in 2004, wrote in an email. "

Reselling phones or changing carriers in violation of your contract, you mean. International travel is a reasonable argument. "But what about the troops?!" is not.

Most carriers will provide unlock codes to a good customer who is traveling overseas. I'd assume most of them have procedures to accommodate the military. Hell, the Verizon iPhones used to be SIM-unlocked right out of the box.


You own the phone.  If it were set up that you were leasing it, or borrowing it, or even having it financed, then you would have a point.  But they gave you a discount on an item to get you to sign up for a service.  That's like saying Best Buy has control over my TV because I signed up for a Best Buy credit card when I bought it, for the 10% discount.
 
2013-02-21 10:44:38 AM  

Macinfarker: Jim_Callahan: Wait, a crime?  Not a civil offense stemming from breach of contract?

Oh, right.  farking DMCA.

I have a hard time believing the DMCA applies.


It does, because f*ck you, that's why.

/the fact that the Interstate Commerce Clause applies to the act of NOT participating in any sort of commerce, interstate or otherwise, doesn't help
 
2013-02-21 10:45:32 AM  

soopey: This is as cogent an argument for the DMCA as any I've heard.


I'm pretty sure there's a South Park Episode in there somewhere.

//Replace phones with music downloads, is what the MPAA and RIAA actually believe about how pirating works
 
2013-02-21 10:46:15 AM  

King Keepo: Theaetetus: International travel is a reasonable argument.

It's not, because then two carriers make even more money out of you.

Most phones are tri/quad band these days and can already hit the various network types prevalent across the world.


Yeah, but you still need to swap your SIM card if you don't want to face international roaming charges.
 
2013-02-21 10:46:51 AM  

Deoan: But they gave you a discount on an item to get you to sign up for a service. That's like saying Best Buy has control over my TV because I signed up for a Best Buy credit card when I bought it, for the 10% discount.


Especially when there's a clause that you repay the discount if you break the contract.  So in this case, they are claiming they have rights over the device they discounted you on at one time, but that you ended up paying full price for.
 
2013-02-21 10:47:10 AM  

the ha ha guy: Theaetetus: Reselling phones or changing carriers in violation of your contract, you mean.


So when the contract is up, the DMCA restrictions no longer apply? Does that also go for phones that were never under contract in the first place?


Yes, and yes. This specifically only applies to carrier unlocking of contract-subsidized phones  while they're under contract.
 
2013-02-21 10:47:23 AM  
Wait, I missed something... the Librarian of Congress now gets to make laws?
 
2013-02-21 10:47:26 AM  

Mad_Radhu: Just double checked, and the SIM card is still unlocked for the iPhone 5, so you can pop in any SIM from around the world and it will work.


Just where the hell can one pop ANYTHING into an iPhone? It's a sealed unit.
 
2013-02-21 10:47:46 AM  
Good luck with that.
 
2013-02-21 10:47:50 AM  
We can all thank Joe Biden for the DMCA.
 
2013-02-21 10:48:05 AM  

Dick Gozinya: "No matter how stupid a law/rule is, someone somewhere is making money off it. That is the sole reason for the existence of said law/rule."


Ding! Ding!  Ding!  Ding!  Ding!  Ding!  Ding!  Ding!  We have a winner!
 
2013-02-21 10:49:31 AM  

DoBeDoBeDo: Theaetetus: "Unlocking phones ... is commonly used for those reselling phones, travelling internationally, and changing carriers, but also ourA service-membersA deploying abroad," Khanifar, who founded Cell-Unlock.com in 2004, wrote in an email. "

Reselling phones or changing carriers in violation of your contract, you mean. International travel is a reasonable argument. "But what about the troops?!" is not.

Reselling your phone is a violation of the contract how?  Changing carriers is a violation how?

If you change carriers you still have to pay the Contract Termination Fee or continue to pay monthly for the original carrier.  Unlocking your phone so you can use it on the new carrier is not a violation and the new carrier will happily give you a contract.

Reselling your phone is likewise the same.  If you get a new phone you either signed a NEW 2-year contract or just left one.   If you want to unlock your phone so that you aren't locked into potential buyers that want a certain carrier, where is the contract violation?


If you wait for your contract to expire, this doesn't apply. This is really about unlocking and reselling phones on eBay, and then disappearing when the carrier comes after you for the termination fee and leaving them to chase you with a collection agency for pennies on the dollar. It also applies to unlocking and reselling  stolen phones, where the poor sap original owner is still farked with the contract fees.
 
2013-02-21 10:50:11 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: We can all thank Joe Biden for the DMCA.


Given the alternatives, it's a good thing the imperfect and not-infallible Biden was elected vice president in 2008 and 2012.
 
2013-02-21 10:50:23 AM  
I think Obama has a pretty good job so far but this petition response thing is crap.

I don't even have to read the press releases to know what they will say. Now, if a senator or representative were to start a program where citizens can submit actual legislation to consider for vote then that might be useful.
 
2013-02-21 10:51:09 AM  

DysphoricMania: Wait, I missed something... the Librarian of Congress now gets to make laws?


i548.photobucket.com

Fark yeah. Librarians secretly run the world, duh. That's why everyone is hard-wired with a hot librarian fetish, it's part of the mind control protocol. shhhhhhh.

/or it could be because the Library of Congress is involved as the Register of Copyright
 
2013-02-21 10:51:45 AM  

DysphoricMania: Wait, I missed something... the Librarian of Congress now gets to make laws?


Rules. And yeah, most agencies have rule-making powers. Those rules have to be within the bounds of the statute they're based on, but it prevents Congress from having to write laws for every little thing like the dress code at the IRS or whether post office internal communications should be on blue paper or red.
 
2013-02-21 10:52:11 AM  
The White House does not make the laws.
 
2013-02-21 10:53:39 AM  
Because you signed the contract.
 
2013-02-21 10:53:58 AM  

King Keepo: Theaetetus: International travel is a reasonable argument.

It's not, because then two carriers make even more money out of you.

Most phones are tri/quad band these days and can already hit the various network types prevalent across the world.


Uhhh...yeah, most phones can work everywhere....but unless you want to pay international roaming, you need an unlocked phone. Like when my wife and I went to Costa Rica for a few weeks recently; she used her old iphone3, I used my old galaxy s1. Both unlocked for the purpose of travel. Both are long out of contract. $5 prepaid chip gave us like...dunno, some unknown amount of minutes, data, and text...which hadnt been used up yet by the time we left.

Now, thanks to the new law, what we did is considered *criminal*. If we went now we'd have to use our in-contract phones at international roaming rates, risking having those phones stolen, or we'd have to buy all new phones while there. Both options are stupid...especially given the pile of out-of-contract phones we have.

And why the FARK should even those who are in-contract be guilty of anything other than civil breach of contract? All making it criminal does is puts the enforcement of the government's tab, versus the phone carrier's....
 
2013-02-21 10:54:06 AM  

DysphoricMania: Wait, I missed something... the Librarian of Congress now gets to make laws?


In practice, yes. The Library of Congress is responsible for defining what are "fair use exemptions" to the DMCA. Which means they are the sole body responsible for interpreting that law, at least in one narrow domain of what is a very broad law.

It's much like FCC's regulations over broadcast television. They can allow or prohibit whatever they like, and it takes an act of Congress to override them.
 
2013-02-21 10:54:24 AM  

lenfromak: Mad_Radhu: Just double checked, and the SIM card is still unlocked for the iPhone 5, so you can pop in any SIM from around the world and it will work.

Just where the hell can one pop ANYTHING into an iPhone? It's a sealed unit.


www.instructables.com
 
2013-02-21 10:55:14 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: We can all thank Joe Biden for the DMCA.


Why is it that we always seem to need to blame one person or one party... the bill passed with a massive number of votes. This, the sequester, it always seems like people are trying to pin down one person for bills that get 250+ votes. There's enough stupidity to share, it's not like we're doing something constructive by pretending all other morons aren't equally culpable.
 
2013-02-21 10:55:18 AM  

IamAwake: Like when my wife and I went to Costa Rica for a few weeks recently; she used her old iphone3, I used my old galaxy s1. Both unlocked for the purpose of travel. Both are long out of contract. $5 prepaid chip gave us like...dunno, some unknown amount of minutes, data, and text...which hadnt been used up yet by the time we left.

Now, thanks to the new law, what we did is considered *criminal*.


Not so.
 
2013-02-21 10:56:43 AM  

Lost Thought 00: Because you signed the contract.


This has been covered, repeatedly in this thread. The DMCA is not a subset of contract law, even if a contract could forbid you from modifying a device you own, which they can  try to enforce, but that kind of restraint generally doesn't fair well in the courts, not since the courts forced the telcos to allow third-party phones on their networks.

Man, remember those days? When you had to  rent a phone from the telco, because you weren't legally allowed to plug in one that you purchased?
 
2013-02-21 10:59:10 AM  
and yall keep voting Democrat...

www.afterdowningstreet.org
 
2013-02-21 10:59:19 AM  

Theaetetus: IamAwake: Like when my wife and I went to Costa Rica for a few weeks recently; she used her old iphone3, I used my old galaxy s1. Both unlocked for the purpose of travel. Both are long out of contract. $5 prepaid chip gave us like...dunno, some unknown amount of minutes, data, and text...which hadnt been used up yet by the time we left.

Now, thanks to the new law, what we did is considered *criminal*.

Not so.


... just in case that was unclear, it's that unlocking a phone "long out of contract" is not criminal under the new rule. Not that your phones were still under contract. :)
 
2013-02-21 11:01:56 AM  

Theaetetus: If you wait for your contract to expire, this doesn't apply. This is really about unlocking and reselling phones on eBay, and then disappearing when the carrier comes after you for the termination fee and leaving them to chase you with a collection agency for pennies on the dollar. It also applies to unlocking and reselling  stolen phones, where the poor sap original owner is still farked with the contract fees.


Yes, it does.

"The Librarian of Congress decided in October 2012 that unlocking of cell phones would be removed from the exceptions to the DMCA.

As of January 26, consumers will no longer be able unlock their phones for use on a different network without carrier permission, even after their contract has expired."
 
2013-02-21 11:03:35 AM  
and in Canada... our CRTC is looking to mandate cheaper unlocking, lowering roaming fees and other such awesome consumer stuff.
 
2013-02-21 11:06:43 AM  

Theaetetus: DoBeDoBeDo: Theaetetus: "Unlocking phones ... is commonly used for those reselling phones, travelling internationally, and changing carriers, but also ourA service-membersA deploying abroad," Khanifar, who founded Cell-Unlock.com in 2004, wrote in an email. "

Reselling phones or changing carriers in violation of your contract, you mean. International travel is a reasonable argument. "But what about the troops?!" is not.

Reselling your phone is a violation of the contract how?  Changing carriers is a violation how?

If you change carriers you still have to pay the Contract Termination Fee or continue to pay monthly for the original carrier.  Unlocking your phone so you can use it on the new carrier is not a violation and the new carrier will happily give you a contract.

Reselling your phone is likewise the same.  If you get a new phone you either signed a NEW 2-year contract or just left one.   If you want to unlock your phone so that you aren't locked into potential buyers that want a certain carrier, where is the contract violation?

If you wait for your contract to expire, this doesn't apply. This is really about unlocking and reselling phones on eBay, and then disappearing when the carrier comes after you for the termination fee and leaving them to chase you with a collection agency for pennies on the dollar. It also applies to unlocking and reselling  stolen phones, where the poor sap original owner is still farked with the contract fees.


Ok so there are laws to protect the carriers in those cases.   If THOSE laws aren't strong enough fix them.  Realistically that should work like, what?  3 times per person?  Once for each major carrier?  If those carriers continue to let people that breach contract get a NEW contract that is on them.

In the first case this is even more insane because at the criminal trial you could just pay the termination fee and now you aren't a criminal for unlocking the phone.  In the second case you're already a theif, adding charges doesn't change that.
 
2013-02-21 11:07:43 AM  
Up until about 5 years ago I was a hard Republican. I go to church and those guys always voted the way the church felt on issues. Then I grew up and started thinking for myself. I still go to church but I'm not a Republican anymore. They don't vote for anyone but themselves. If it won't make them or their friends money they will fight tooth and nail to stop it from happening.

The Republican party has sold itself to the highest bidder. They don't care what is being voted on, they automatically filibuster it unless a Republican brought it forward. If the president wants it they will do everything including political suicide to keep it from happening.The rot is not going to cure itself. The cell phone unlocking is just a symptom of the disease. Money is in charge of American politics. The people don't count anymore unless they have multiple millions of dollars to spend getting their voice heard. I don't care what kind of list I get put on. It's past time to remove these guys. Even if that means doing it by force. They refuse to listen to their constituents and what the people want. This kind of thing is the reason the 2nd amendment is there. Not for hunting or home protection. It's written to have a militia to remove government that no longer answers to its people.I'm disgusted by what is going on. I vote for people who say they will try to stop it, yet nothing happens. Their intentions are good but when they get to Washington they fall into the same trap the person before them did.The only way to stop it short of violence is to stop the money. Make lobbying illegal except by registered voting citizens from that persons district. It's pretty simple. Outlaw big business from throwing billions of dollars at our elected officials. Put in laws that stop lobbying from big business and put the people who break the law in jail and fine the hell out of the companies. This is the only peaceful way to stop it. Cut off the money. Stop letting companies with billion dollar profits get refunds instead of paying taxes. The money is the key to ending all the bullshiat.
 
2013-02-21 11:08:22 AM  

Theaetetus: Yeah, but you still need to swap your SIM card if you don't want to face international roaming charges.


IamAwake: ...but unless you want to pay international roaming, you need an unlocked phone.


That's my point though - you entered into a contract with a vendor and it most likely states somewhere that if you are abroad you pay roaming fees.

The argument that you may lose your phone or have it stolen is daft as that can happen anywhere in the world, not just "abroad". And it's not expensive to buy a phone and Pay-As-You-Go SIM, certainly here in the UK. They practically throw SIMs at you for free. Carrier free handsets can be bought for $20-30 - consider them part of your travel kit once purchased.

Having said that, I don't agree with this stance - I think I've unlocked and de-branded almost every phone I've owned and feel like I have a right to do it even though I know I don't. Criminalising it is a bit heavy handed IMO.
 
2013-02-21 11:08:57 AM  

Theaetetus: Theaetetus: IamAwake: Like when my wife and I went to Costa Rica for a few weeks recently; she used her old iphone3, I used my old galaxy s1. Both unlocked for the purpose of travel. Both are long out of contract. $5 prepaid chip gave us like...dunno, some unknown amount of minutes, data, and text...which hadnt been used up yet by the time we left.

Now, thanks to the new law, what we did is considered *criminal*.

Not so.

... just in case that was unclear, it's that unlocking a phone "long out of contract" is not criminal under the new rule. Not that your phones were still under contract. :)


Legal protection for people who unlock their mobile phones to use them on other networks expired last weekend. According to the claims of major U.S. wireless carriers, unlocking a phone bought after January 26 without your carrier's permission violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") whether the phone is under contract or not. In a way, this is not as bad as it sounds. In other ways, it's even worse.
 
2013-02-21 11:11:53 AM  

King Keepo: Theaetetus: Yeah, but you still need to swap your SIM card if you don't want to face international roaming charges.

IamAwake: ...but unless you want to pay international roaming, you need an unlocked phone.

That's my point though - you entered into a contract with a vendor and it most likely states somewhere that if you are abroad you pay roaming fees.

The argument that you may lose your phone or have it stolen is daft as that can happen anywhere in the world, not just "abroad". And it's not expensive to buy a phone and Pay-As-You-Go SIM, certainly here in the UK. They practically throw SIMs at you for free. Carrier free handsets can be bought for $20-30 - consider them part of your travel kit once purchased.

Having said that, I don't agree with this stance - I think I've unlocked and de-branded almost every phone I've owned and feel like I have a right to do it even though I know I don't. Criminalising it is a bit heavy handed IMO.


I'm in the UK and buy my phones at Carphone Warehouse. As long as you buy it in a store you get unlocked phones no matter what network you sign up to, even if you are upgrading. No network bloat and crapware, no network logo on the phone and unlocked so you can use any carriers SIM.
 
2013-02-21 11:13:54 AM  

Flint Ironstag: Theaetetus: If you wait for your contract to expire, this doesn't apply. This is really about unlocking and reselling phones on eBay, and then disappearing when the carrier comes after you for the termination fee and leaving them to chase you with a collection agency for pennies on the dollar. It also applies to unlocking and reselling  stolen phones, where the poor sap original owner is still farked with the contract fees.

Yes, it does.

"The Librarian of Congress decided in October 2012 that unlocking of cell phones would be removed from the exceptions to the DMCA.

As of January 26, consumers will no longer be able unlock their phones for use on a different network without carrier permission, even after their contract has expired."


I find that in many cases, it's preferable to read the original document rather than a biased interpretation of it.
"The record demonstrated that there is significant consumer interest in and demand for using legacy phones on carriers other than the one that originally sold the phone to the consumer.  It also supported a finding that owners of legacy phones - especially phones that have not been used on any wireless network for some period of time - may have difficulty obtaining unlocking codes from wireless carriers, in part because an older or expired contract might not require the carrier to cooperate."
 
2013-02-21 11:15:00 AM  

Flint Ironstag: Theaetetus: Theaetetus: IamAwake: Like when my wife and I went to Costa Rica for a few weeks recently; she used her old iphone3, I used my old galaxy s1. Both unlocked for the purpose of travel. Both are long out of contract. $5 prepaid chip gave us like...dunno, some unknown amount of minutes, data, and text...which hadnt been used up yet by the time we left.

Now, thanks to the new law, what we did is considered *criminal*.

Not so.

... just in case that was unclear, it's that unlocking a phone "long out of contract" is not criminal under the new rule. Not that your phones were still under contract. :)

Legal protection for people who unlock their mobile phones to use them on other networks expired last weekend. According to the claims of major U.S. wireless carriers, unlocking a phone bought after January 26 without your carrier's permission violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") whether the phone is under contract or not. In a way, this is not as bad as it sounds. In other ways, it's even worse.


Theaetetus: I find that in many cases, it's preferable to read the original document rather than a biased interpretation of it.
"The record demonstrated that there is significant consumer interest in and demand for using legacy phones on carriers other than the one that originally sold the phone to the consumer.  It also supported a finding that owners of legacy phones - especially phones that have not been used on any wireless network for some period of time - may have difficulty obtaining unlocking codes from wireless carriers, in part because an older or expired contract might not require the carrier to cooperate."

 
2013-02-21 11:15:06 AM  

Theaetetus: Yes, and yes. This specifically only applies to carrier unlocking of contract-subsidized phones  while they're under contract.



Fair enough. Not that I agree with the law, but at least it's (so far) restricted to what essentially amounts to rented property (since the carrier technically owns the phone until the end of the contract).

That being said, I still don't see the need for civilian contract violations to have criminal punishments. To me, that places this whole thing just one step above debtors prisons.
 
2013-02-21 11:16:07 AM  
Also, Flint, why would you buy a new phone, not under contract, that wasn't unlocked?
 
2013-02-21 11:24:37 AM  
you can't force companies to offer you service.. you play by their rules or you dont play in their sandbox..

no law is broken here..
 
2013-02-21 11:25:41 AM  

the ha ha guy: Theaetetus: Yes, and yes. This specifically only applies to carrier unlocking of contract-subsidized phones  while they're under contract.


Fair enough. Not that I agree with the law, but at least it's (so far) restricted to what essentially amounts to rented property (since the carrier technically owns the phone until the end of the contract).

That being said, I still don't see the need for civilian contract violations to have criminal punishments. To me, that places this whole thing just one step above debtors prisons.


Oh, I agree with that... I also think that the DMCA and copyright is a really odd venue for this fight, since it's not really about copyright at all but network interoperability - no one's really copying anything - but the DMCA does have those provisions about disabling DRM. But, that said, it's not as big an issue as the petition authors and the EFF are making it out to be, since it really only applies in a few minor instances and questionable circumstances.

Also, as a pragmatic point, they aren't going to go after individuals who unlock their phones. They're going after unlock-service providers who provide unlocking commercially, and frequently for those stolen phone folks. So, it's less of a worry.
Mind you, that doesn't make it okay. I don't like laws that make people unprosecuted criminals, since that just seems ripe for "political prisoner"-type abuse where they can go after you whenever they want. I'd also rather see the theft issue solved by individually registering each device to an owner (assignable if you sell the phone), such that a stolen phone lacking authorization of the registered owner is a useless, unsellable brick.
 
2013-02-21 11:27:14 AM  

Theaetetus: find that in many cases, it's preferable to read the original document rather than a biased interpretation of it.


Although it would be better if you actually quoted the ruling, and not the commentary about said ruling:
In order to align the exemption to current market realities, it applies only to mobile phones acquired prior to the effective date of the exemption or within 90 days thereafter.

No, phones do not suddenly become unlockable after your contract expires. Legacy handsets, that is anything purchased prior to 90 days after this ruling goes into effect, are exempt from the DMCA. Future purchases are not.
 
2013-02-21 11:31:23 AM  

t3knomanser: Theaetetus: find that in many cases, it's preferable to read the original document rather than a biased interpretation of it.

Although it would be better if you actually quoted the ruling, and not the commentary about said ruling:
In order to align the exemption to current market realities, it applies only to mobile phones acquired prior to the effective date of the exemption or within 90 days thereafter.


... he says, quoting from the commentary about said ruling.

I didn't quote the rule for the same reason you didn't - it's that one paragraph in bold at the beginning of that section, and it's not very clear.

No, phones do not suddenly become unlockable after your contract expires. Legacy handsets, that is anything purchased prior to 90 days after this ruling goes into effect, are exempt from the DMCA. Future purchases are not.

Again, I ask why you would buy an unlocked phone under contract? Why not just buy an unlocked phone without signing up?
 
2013-02-21 11:41:36 AM  

Theaetetus: ... he says, quoting from the commentary about said ruling.


The sections in bold face  are the rules. Those are the explicit statements about exemptions. When deciding if an action is exempt or not, it is the bolded text which applies. The surrounding text explains the rationale for the rule. Further, you'll notice that the surrounding text never defines "legacy phone" as "phone outside of contract", in part because it never defines "legacy phone"  at all.

Further, from elsewhere in the commentary:
At the same time, in light of carriers' current unlocking policies and the ready availability of new unlocked phones in the marketplace, the record did not support an exemption for newly purchased phones

That's "newly purchased phones". Not "phones under contract." There is no basis in the document to conclude that phones out of contract are unlockable. At best, you can conclude that this protection is primarily being enforced to protect subsidies as a business model.

Theaetetus: I ask why you would buy an unlocked phone under contract?


And again, I point out, that the contract status of the phone is utterly irrelevant. If you buy a phone that is not unlocked, under contract or otherwise, you cannot legally unlock that phone.
 
2013-02-21 11:43:54 AM  

Theaetetus: Flint Ironstag: Theaetetus: If you wait for your contract to expire, this doesn't apply. This is really about unlocking and reselling phones on eBay, and then disappearing when the carrier comes after you for the termination fee and leaving them to chase you with a collection agency for pennies on the dollar. It also applies to unlocking and reselling  stolen phones, where the poor sap original owner is still farked with the contract fees.

Yes, it does.

"The Librarian of Congress decided in October 2012 that unlocking of cell phones would be removed from the exceptions to the DMCA.

As of January 26, consumers will no longer be able unlock their phones for use on a different network without carrier permission, even after their contract has expired."

I find that in many cases, it's preferable to read the original document rather than a biased interpretation of it.
"The record demonstrated that there is significant consumer interest in and demand for using legacy phones on carriers other than the one that originally sold the phone to the consumer.  It also supported a finding that owners of legacy phones - especially phones that have not been used on any wireless network for some period of time - may have difficulty obtaining unlocking codes from wireless carriers, in part because an older or expired contract might not require the carrier to cooperate."


Thank you for providing a link that backs me up. The issue is Copyright, not a carrier contract. Carrier contract is only mentioned once in that whole document and only in passing. Since the issue is Copyright violation in unlocking a phone then that lasts the life of the copyright. The Copyright on you phones software does not expire the day your two year contract ends, so the restriction on unlocking your phone carries on.
 
2013-02-21 11:44:53 AM  

lenfromak: Mad_Radhu: Just double checked, and the SIM card is still unlocked for the iPhone 5, so you can pop in any SIM from around the world and it will work.

Just where the hell can one pop ANYTHING into an iPhone? It's a sealed unit.


Funny, Apple used to include this in the box.

www.kaibader.de
 
2013-02-21 11:45:14 AM  

Theaetetus: Also, Flint, why would you buy a new phone, not under contract, that wasn't unlocked?


Where did I say I wanted to?
 
2013-02-21 11:46:48 AM  

Theaetetus: may have difficulty obtaining unlocking codes from wireless carriers, in part because an older or expired contract might not require the carrier to cooperate.


And I'd like to use your own words against you. Note  expired. An old phone, not under any contract, needs a DMCA exemption  because the carrier is under no obligation to allow an unlock. Again, as you read through the document, it's very clear that the exemption applies to phones purchased before the rule fully goes into effect, not after. The reason that older phones get an exemption is that those old phones were purchased under terms different from the mainstream terms today, and because there isn't a strong secondary market for those phones (so no one is going to abuse the subsidy system to make a profit).
 
2013-02-21 11:48:03 AM  
So if the white house handles legislation now, what does congress do?
 
2013-02-21 11:53:59 AM  
I don't even know what unlocking my phone entails, but dammit I plan on doing it now. Liberty or Death!!!  YAaaaaAAArrRRrrr!!!!
 
2013-02-21 11:59:59 AM  
I would rather hear an answer why the White House has yet to respond to the over 300k signatures on

Legally recognize Westboro Baptist Church as a hate group
 
2013-02-21 12:03:02 PM  

t3knomanser: Theaetetus: ... he says, quoting from the commentary about said ruling.

The sections in bold face  are the rules. Those are the explicit statements about exemptions. When deciding if an action is exempt or not, it is the bolded text which applies.The surrounding text explains the rationale for the rule.


Gosh, really?! Holy fark! You're so helpful! Why, if I had known that, I would have said something like "I didn't quote the rule for the same reason you didn't - it's that one paragraph in bold at the beginning of that section".

Everybody, let's have a big hand for t3knomansplainer.

 Further, you'll notice that the surrounding text never defines "legacy phone" as "phone outside of contract", in part because it never defines "legacy phone"  at all.

From the text: "However, with respect to "legacy" phones - i.e., used (or perhaps unused) phones previously purchased or otherwise acquired by a consumer - the record pointed to a different conclusion."

First hit for "legacy" in the document, in fact. Is this where you admit you don't know what "i.e." means?

Further, from elsewhere in the commentary:
At the same time, in light of carriers' current unlocking policies and the ready availability of new unlocked phones in the marketplace, the record did not support an exemption for newly purchased phones

That's "newly purchased phones". Not "phones under contract."


And those "new unlocked phones" are not under contract. Hence why I ask again why you would buy an unlocked phone but still sign up for the contract.

There is no basis in the document to conclude that phones out of contract are unlockable. At best, you can conclude that this protection is primarily being enforced to protect subsidies as a business model.

Sure. I think I even said that above.

Theaetetus: I ask why you would buy an unlocked phone under contract?

And again, I point out, that the contract status of the phone is utterly irrelevant. If you buy a phone that is not unlocked, under contract or otherwise, you cannot legally unlock that phone.


Or, you could buy an unlocked phone. Is that really so difficult?
 
2013-02-21 12:06:47 PM  

t3knomanser: Theaetetus: may have difficulty obtaining unlocking codes from wireless carriers, in part because an older or expired contract might not require the carrier to cooperate.

And I'd like to use your own words against you.


That's the Register of Copyright's "own words". You can tell because it was in that document, in which the sections in bold face are the rules. Those are the explicit statements about exemptions. When deciding if an action is exempt or not, it is the bolded text which applies. The surrounding text explains the rationale for the rule.

Note  expired. An old phone, not under any contract, needs a DMCA exemption because the carrier is under no obligation to allow an unlock.


And said exemption exists.

Again, as you read through the document, it's very clear that the exemption applies to phones purchased before the rule fully goes into effect, not after.

Yes - hence the point above about not applying to phones "long out of contract". It's quite literally impossible to have a phone that was purchased  after the law went into effect that is currently "long out of contract". At least, not without a time machine.

The reason that older phones get an exemption is that those old phones were purchased under terms different from the mainstream terms today, and because there isn't a strong secondary market for those phones (so no one is going to abuse the subsidy system to make a profit).

And because new, unlocked phones are readily available. That's in the surrounding text which explains the rationale for the rule, just in case you hadn't realized what that text was for.
 
2013-02-21 12:08:36 PM  
I paid for my phone up front so I wouldn't have to sign a contract.

I own it. I shall do with it what I please.

The legislation is simply another symptom of our federal government/fcc overstepping its boundaries.

10th amendment:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

All it would take is getting your state reps to call bullshiat and this problem goes away.
 
2013-02-21 12:08:41 PM  
t3knomancer complaining about me being condescending, after doing the same exact thing, in 3... 2... 1...
 
2013-02-21 12:09:36 PM  
He Who Shall Not Be Named:Make lobbying illegal except by registered voting citizens from that persons district. It's pretty simple. Outlaw big business from throwing billions of dollars at our elected officials. Put in laws that stop lobbying from big business and put the people who break the law in jail and fine the hell out of the companies. This is the only peaceful way to stop it. Cut off the money. Stop letting companies with billion dollar profit ...

I had to make sure I wasn't still reading the healthcare thread for a moment, since essentially this exact same argument could be made there.  First step towards putting any sort of justice back into our government: farking end lobbying .
 
2013-02-21 12:11:34 PM  

fknra: 10th amendment:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


The Congress shall have Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

/but that said, this should be under interstate commerce, not copyright
 
2013-02-21 12:25:13 PM  

The Irresponsible Captain: lenfromak: Mad_Radhu: Just double checked, and the SIM card is still unlocked for the iPhone 5, so you can pop in any SIM from around the world and it will work.

Just where the hell can one pop ANYTHING into an iPhone? It's a sealed unit.

Funny, Apple used to include this in the box.

[www.kaibader.de image 300x199]


They still do on units that are sold to AT&T and I think T-mobile.  Verizon doesn't (well up until 4s) support the removeable sim on any phone so they don't have them.

/iPad2 on AT&T has the SIM, 4S on Verizon does not.
 
2013-02-21 12:42:17 PM  

t3knomanser: Theaetetus: may have difficulty obtaining unlocking codes from wireless carriers, in part because an older or expired contract might not require the carrier to cooperate.

And I'd like to use your own words against you. Note  expired. An old phone, not under any contract, needs a DMCA exemption  because the carrier is under no obligation to allow an unlock. Again, as you read through the document, it's very clear that the exemption applies to phones purchased before the rule fully goes into effect, not after. The reason that older phones get an exemption is that those old phones were purchased under terms different from the mainstream terms today, and because there isn't a strong secondary market for those phones (so no one is going to abuse the subsidy system to make a profit).


Here's a novel concept: Write a law that prohibits abusing the subsidy system.  They're restricting everyone in the US in an attempt to prevent the actions of a handful.

One day legislators will understand how to write a law with the same scope as their intent.
 
2013-02-21 12:42:21 PM  

clane: and yall keep voting Democrat...

[www.afterdowningstreet.org image 414x285]


th17.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-21 12:42:39 PM  
Is unlocking a phone the same as rooting a phone to get rid of bloatware and/or customize the software?

Also, if you are still under contract then yeah, you are supposed to play by the rules. If you terminate your contract and pay the fee, you are free to do what you will.
 
2013-02-21 12:46:02 PM  
Ok quick question:

Did Obama/The White House ask for this provision or something? Because if they didn't, shouldn't we be yelling at Congress?

Or do we absolve Congress and blame the president as soon as he signs a law that has anything wrong with it?
 
2013-02-21 12:49:30 PM  

kieran57: Ok quick question:

Did Obama/The White House ask for this provision or something? Because if they didn't, shouldn't we be yelling at Congress?

Or do we absolve Congress and blame the president as soon as he signs a law that has anything wrong with it?


This is a rule promulgated by the Register of Copyrights, an Executive Dept. agency.

Basically, Congress passes legislation that's at the 10,000 foot level, like the Copyright Act, the Patent Act, the Tax code, etc. Then the individual agencies pass rules that are at the 1 foot level. They're within the legislation, but deal with all the day-to-day business of applying that legislation that Congress left up to the agency.
 
2013-02-21 12:50:29 PM  
(hence why it's not Congress, but the President that we should be yelling at)
 
2013-02-21 12:52:52 PM  

Deoan: Mad_Radhu: Theaetetus: "Unlocking phones ... is commonly used for those reselling phones, travelling internationally, and changing carriers, but also ourA service-membersA deploying abroad," Khanifar, who founded Cell-Unlock.com in 2004, wrote in an email. "

Reselling phones or changing carriers in violation of your contract, you mean. International travel is a reasonable argument. "But what about the troops?!" is not.

Most carriers will provide unlock codes to a good customer who is traveling overseas. I'd assume most of them have procedures to accommodate the military. Hell, the Verizon iPhones used to be SIM-unlocked right out of the box.

You own the phone.  If it were set up that you were leasing it, or borrowing it, or even having it financed, then you would have a point.  But they gave you a discount on an item to get you to sign up for a service.  That's like saying Best Buy has control over my TV because I signed up for a Best Buy credit card when I bought it, for the 10% discount.


They didn't really give you a discount. It just appears that way because a lot of the rest of the cost of the device is hidden in those monthly payments people make.
 
2013-02-21 12:53:58 PM  

Theaetetus: (hence why it's not Congress, but the President that we should be yelling at)


And Congress has oversight over any regulations that are put in place, plus the power to limit those regulations.  Not to mention they were the ones that granted the power in the first place without proper limits in place.
 
2013-02-21 12:58:59 PM  

fknra: I paid for my phone up front so I wouldn't have to sign a contract.

I own it. I shall do with it what I please.

The legislation is simply another symptom of our federal government/fcc overstepping its boundaries.

10th amendment:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

All it would take is getting your state reps to call bullshiat and this problem goes away.


It's cute that you believe this.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-02-21 12:59:19 PM  

He Who Shall Not Be Named: Up until about 5 years ago I was a hard Republican. I go to church and those guys always voted the way the church felt on issues. Then I grew up and started thinking for myself. I still go to church but I'm not a Republican anymore. They don't vote for anyone but themselves. If it won't make them or their friends money they will fight tooth and nail to stop it from happening.

The Republican party has sold itself to the highest bidder. They don't care what is being voted on, they automatically filibuster it unless a Republican brought it forward. If the president wants it they will do everything including political suicide to keep it from happening.The rot is not going to cure itself. The cell phone unlocking is just a symptom of the disease. Money is in charge of American politics. The people don't count anymore unless they have multiple millions of dollars to spend getting their voice heard. I don't care what kind of list I get put on. It's past time to remove these guys. Even if that means doing it by force. They refuse to listen to their constituents and what the people want. This kind of thing is the reason the 2nd amendment is there. Not for hunting or home protection. It's written to have a militia to remove government that no longer answers to its people.I'm disgusted by what is going on. I vote for people who say they will try to stop it, yet nothing happens. Their intentions are good but when they get to Washington they fall into the same trap the person before them did.The only way to stop it short of violence is to stop the money. Make lobbying illegal except by registered voting citizens from that persons district. It's pretty simple. Outlaw big business from throwing billions of dollars at our elected officials. Put in laws that stop lobbying from big business and put the people who break the law in jail and fine the hell out of the companies. This is the only peaceful way to stop it. Cut off the money. Stop letting companies with billion dollar profit ...


Funny, we are in the same boat and I haven't yet bumped into you on my way to my oar........

Seriously though, you make a lot of sense. Which probably means you are just as frustrated as I am.

/love of money,root of evil and all that shiat
 
2013-02-21 01:00:16 PM  
Anything that increases competition lowers costs and is good for the consumer, therefore illegal.
 
2013-02-21 01:02:01 PM  

clane: and yall keep voting Democrat...

[www.afterdowningstreet.org image 414x285]


7/10
 
2013-02-21 01:02:15 PM  

Girion47: Theaetetus: (hence why it's not Congress, but the President that we should be yelling at)

And Congress has oversight over any regulations that are put in place, plus the power to limit those regulations.


Yes, but their way of doing that would be to pass an amendment to narrow the scope of the statute to exclude rules that have this effect. Changing a rule is a lot faster, since it only requires one person rather than both houses. It's like if you want an installation charge taken off your cable bill - you can try customer service first, 'cause they can do that and it's quick and easy, or you could appeal to the board of directors of the company. The latter may well work, but it's going to take a year or two.

Not to mention they were the ones that granted the power in the first place without proper limits in place.

Yes and no... That gets into division of Article I and Article II powers, which is a hugely messy topic.
 
2013-02-21 01:07:21 PM  
Tax Boy:
Fark yeah. Librarians secretly run the world, duh.

Eeeevil Librarians
 
2013-02-21 01:07:21 PM  
I have no problems to not being allowed to unlock a phone while it's still under contract (well, except that as I understand, one must effectively unlock an Android phone in order to root it or install a custom ROM, right?).

My objection is that the ban on unlocking extends indefinitely.  Once your contract is up and the carrier has recoups its subsidy cost, it should be within your rights to unlock your phone to move to a different carrier, even if your carrier does not wish to provide the unlock code.  In fact, carriers should be required to unlock phones as soon as a contract expires (assuming said account is in good standing).

The petition was worded poorly.  It should have been worded so as to force the White House to respond to the issue of phones no longer under contract.  As written, the WH will probably respond with some bullshiat about how allowing subsidized phones to be unlocked undermines carriers' incentive to offer affordable phones to consumers.
 
2013-02-21 01:12:42 PM  

Theaetetus: t3knomanser: Theaetetus: may have difficulty obtaining unlocking codes from wireless carriers, in part because an older or expired contract might not require the carrier to cooperate.

And I'd like to use your own words against you.

That's the Register of Copyright's "own words". You can tell because it was in that document, in which the sections in bold face are the rules. Those are the explicit statements about exemptions. When deciding if an action is exempt or not, it is the bolded text which applies. The surrounding text explains the rationale for the rule.

Note  expired. An old phone, not under any contract, needs a DMCA exemption because the carrier is under no obligation to allow an unlock.

And said exemption exists.

Again, as you read through the document, it's very clear that the exemption applies to phones purchased before the rule fully goes into effect, not after.

Yes - hence the point above about not applying to phones "long out of contract". It's quite literally impossible to have a phone that was purchased  after the law went into effect that is currently "long out of contract". At least, not without a time machine.

The reason that older phones get an exemption is that those old phones were purchased under terms different from the mainstream terms today, and because there isn't a strong secondary market for those phones (so no one is going to abuse the subsidy system to make a profit).

And because new, unlocked phones are readily available. That's in the surrounding text which explains the rationale for the rule, just in case you hadn't realized what that text was for.


Theaetetus, what happens in this scenario:

1) I buy a new phone, with a new carrier, and only pay a subsidized price in June 2013 (after the 90 day exemption window) and enter into a two year contract.

2) In July 2015 (one month after the end of my two year contract) I decide I want to take my phone over to a new carrier.

3) In July 2015 I "jailbreak" my phone to allow the move and switch SIMs.

Have I broken the law?
 
2013-02-21 01:15:40 PM  

Priapetic: 1) I buy a new phone, with a new carrier, and only pay a subsidized price in June 2013 (after the 90 day exemption window) and enter into a two year contract.

2) In July 2015 (one month after the end of my two year contract) I decide I want to take my phone over to a new carrier.

3) In July 2015 I "jailbreak" my phone to ...


Yes... You should check your contract to see if it requires them to unlock your phone after expiration of the 2 years prior to doing step 3. Or step 1, for that matter.
 
2013-02-21 01:17:16 PM  

tarthrin: Is unlocking a phone the same as rooting a phone to get rid of bloatware and/or customize the software?

Also, if you are still under contract then yeah, you are supposed to play by the rules. If you terminate your contract and pay the fee, you are free to do what you will.


Unlocking is freeing up your phone to be able to use another network. You can do so without breaking your contract or by paying the agreed ETF if you wish, or you can do so to just go abroad for a week.  But this law prohibits it forever (on phones bought after January), it does no just apply while you are under a two year contract.

Rooting or jailbreaking is not the same. That is to gain access to the OS and/or install software the network don't want you to.
 
2013-02-21 01:19:27 PM  

Deoan: Mad_Radhu: Theaetetus: "Unlocking phones ... is commonly used for those reselling phones, travelling internationally, and changing carriers, but also ourA service-membersA deploying abroad," Khanifar, who founded Cell-Unlock.com in 2004, wrote in an email. "

Reselling phones or changing carriers in violation of your contract, you mean. International travel is a reasonable argument. "But what about the troops?!" is not.

Most carriers will provide unlock codes to a good customer who is traveling overseas. I'd assume most of them have procedures to accommodate the military. Hell, the Verizon iPhones used to be SIM-unlocked right out of the box.

You own the phone.  If it were set up that you were leasing it, or borrowing it, or even having it financed, then you would have a point.  But they gave you a discount on an item to get you to sign up for a service.  That's like saying Best Buy has control over my TV because I signed up for a Best Buy credit card when I bought it, for the 10% discount.


Or that DirecTV/Comcast/etc can lock down my TV so that I can't use Netflix or a DVD player.
 
2013-02-21 01:20:26 PM  

Theaetetus: And said exemption exists.


For all phones purchased before 90 days after this rule goes into effect, regardless of whether or not they are under contract. For all phones purchased after that point, regardless of their contract status, there is no exemption.

Theaetetus: From the text: "However, with respect to "legacy" phones - i.e., used (or perhaps unused) phones previously purchased or otherwise acquired by a consumer - the record pointed to a different conclusion."

First hit for "legacy" in the document, in fact. Is this where you admit you don't know what "i.e." means?


I think you might want to review what "previously" means. I'll give you a hint, it's a relative measure, and in this case, it is relative to  when this rule goes into effect.

Theaetetus: Or, you could buy an unlocked phone. Is that really so difficult?


The  point is that I have purchased a device, and if I want to unlock the device, I should be able to do so. Again, DMCA exemptions have nothing to do with contract law, so let's remove that canard from the conversation. The DMCA says that  no newly purchased phones can be unlocked. I own the device. I should be free to modify its software or hardware as I see fit. The anti-tampering provisions of the DMCA are utterly absurd in their "whitelist" approach to rights- you only have the right to do what you are specifically told you may do. The majority history of jurisprudence in the US has been the reverse- all things not explicitly permitted are allowed.

Theaetetus: t3knomancer complaining about me being condescending, after doing the same exact thing, in 3... 2... 1...


Were you  trying for condescension? Because I'm pretty sure you missed. I  was, so I'm glad I was at least on target. Look, we agree on something!
 
2013-02-21 01:20:55 PM  
As an aside, if it doesn't, then that's good evidence that could be used to get this rule changed. Part of the rationale was that it's the policy of the carriers to unlock the phones:
CTIA-The Wireless Association ("CTIA"), a trade association comprised of various 
commercial wireless service providers, objected to the proposals as drafted.  Overall, CTIA 
maintained that an exemption for unlocking is not necessary because "the largest nationwide 
carriers . . . have liberal, publicly available unlocking policies," and because unlocked phones are 
"freely available from third party providers - many at low prices."  Nonetheless, CTIA indicated 
that its members did not object to a "narrowly tailored and carefully limited exception" to permit 
individual customers of wireless carriers to unlock phones for the purpose of switching networks.
...The Register further concluded that the record before her supported a finding that, with 
respect to new wireless handsets, there are ample alternatives to circumvention.  That is, the 
marketplace has evolved such that there is now a wide array of unlocked phone options available 
to consumers.  While it is true that not every wireless device is available unlocked, and wireless 
carriers' unlocking polices are not free from all restrictions, the record clearly demonstrates that 
there is a wide range of alternatives from which consumers may choose in order to obtain an 0
unlocked wireless phone.  Thus, the Register determined that with respect to newly purchased 
phones, proponents had not satisfied their burden of showing adverse effects related to a 
technological protection measure.

So, if the carriers start saying "no unlocking for you, suck it," that would destroy that rationale.
 
2013-02-21 01:21:44 PM  

Theaetetus: Yes... You should check your contract to see if it requires them to unlock your phone


*headdesk*

That is what I have been saying. Phones cannot be unlocked, even if they are outside of contract.
 
2013-02-21 01:22:08 PM  

Theaetetus: Priapetic: 1) I buy a new phone, with a new carrier, and only pay a subsidized price in June 2013 (after the 90 day exemption window) and enter into a two year contract.

2) In July 2015 (one month after the end of my two year contract) I decide I want to take my phone over to a new carrier.

3) In July 2015 I "jailbreak" my phone to ...

Yes... You should check your contract to see if it requires them to unlock your phone after expiration of the 2 years prior to doing step 3. Or step 1, for that matter.


Again, you are refusing to accept that this law applies even after the two year contract has ended. It even says so in the petition. The document you linked to made no mention of this law expiring when the contract does.

If you are right they will reply to the petition pointing out that "error", right?
 
kab
2013-02-21 01:24:26 PM  
If I purchase a phone, and meet my contractual obligations, good luck trying to enforce what I can and cannot do with it.
 
2013-02-21 01:28:16 PM  

t3knomanser: Theaetetus: And said exemption exists.

For all phones purchased before 90 days after this rule goes into effect, regardless of whether or not they are under contract. For all phones purchased after that point, regardless of their contract status, there is no exemption.


See above. The CTIA showed that there wasn't an exemption necessary, since the carriers would unlock it for you after the contract was up.

Theaetetus: From the text: "However, with respect to "legacy" phones - i.e., used (or perhaps unused) phones previously purchased or otherwise acquired by a consumer - the record pointed to a different conclusion."

First hit for "legacy" in the document, in fact. Is this where you admit you don't know what "i.e." means?

I think you might want to review what "previously" means. I'll give you a hint, it's a relative measure, and in this case, it is relative to  when this rule goes into effect.


I think you might want to review what "Further, you'll notice that the surrounding text never defines "legacy phone" as "phone outside of contract", in part because it never defines "legacy phone"at all" means.

Theaetetus: Or, you could buy an unlocked phone. Is that really so difficult?

The  point is that I have purchased a device, and if I want to unlock the device, I should be able to do so. Again, DMCA exemptions have nothing to do with contract law, so let's remove that canard from the conversation.


Except that they have to do with rights management, and what you have a license to falls under contract. These things are all intertwined, so it's unreasonable to shove your fingers in your ears and ignore half of it.

The DMCA says that  no newly purchased phones can be unlocked.

By anyone? No, it doesn't. As noted, the carriers can and will unlock them for you.

I own the device. I should be free to modify its software or hardware as I see fit.

You own the hardware. The software is licensed. As the Register noted, "Proponents made only a cursory attempt to respond to Vernor and failed to offer relevant agreements to support their view of software ownership." Take that one up with the EFF.

Theaetetus: t3knomancer complaining about me being condescending, after doing the same exact thing, in 3... 2... 1...

Were you  trying for condescension? Because I'm pretty sure you missed. I  was, so I'm glad I was at least on target. Look, we agree on something!


Have you figured out the definition of "i.e." yet, or would you like a hand?
 
2013-02-21 01:30:25 PM  

Flint Ironstag: Theaetetus: Priapetic: 1) I buy a new phone, with a new carrier, and only pay a subsidized price in June 2013 (after the 90 day exemption window) and enter into a two year contract.

2) In July 2015 (one month after the end of my two year contract) I decide I want to take my phone over to a new carrier.

3) In July 2015 I "jailbreak" my phone to ...

Yes... You should check your contract to see if it requires them to unlock your phone after expiration of the 2 years prior to doing step 3. Or step 1, for that matter.

Again, you are refusing to accept that this law applies even after the two year contract has ended. It even says so in the petition. The document you linked to made no mention of this law expiring when the contract does.

If you are right they will reply to the petition pointing out that "error", right?


[eyeroll]
 
2013-02-21 01:32:49 PM  

Theaetetus: (hence why it's not Congress, but the President that we should be yelling at)


Umm, if I am not mistaken, the petition IS proof we are yelling at the President.
 
2013-02-21 01:34:10 PM  

Theaetetus: Have you figured out the definition of "i.e." yet, or would you like a hand?


I caught you repeating the exact point you've been disagreeing with me on. We're done. You admitted I was right, and you're just being a petulant ass.
 
2013-02-21 01:38:52 PM  

He Who Shall Not Be Named: Then I grew up and started thinking for myself. I still go to church


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
 
2013-02-21 01:44:18 PM  

t3knomanser: Theaetetus: Have you figured out the definition of "i.e." yet, or would you like a hand?

I caught you repeating the exact point you've been disagreeing with me on. We're done. You admitted I was right, and you're just being a petulant ass.

 
2013-02-21 01:46:36 PM  

Theaetetus: (hence why it's not Congress, but the President that we should be yelling at)


Its good to know that we're yelling at the correct, faceless uncaring bureaucracy.

However, I actually think we may need to yell at the 9th Circuit of appeals, which appears to have muddied the case law with regards to the phone OS
 https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2012 -26 308.pdf (pp16-21)


TL;DR, the 9th Circuit ruled that you don't own the phone's OS, you just license its use. Which apparently restricts your rights with regards to 'fair-use.'
 
2013-02-21 01:47:38 PM  
i.istockimg.com
Well, okay then, t3kno, whatever helps you sleep better at night, right?
 
2013-02-21 01:51:54 PM  

kieran57: TL;DR, the 9th Circuit ruled that you don't own the phone's OS, you just license its use. Which apparently restricts your rights with regards to 'fair-use.' the first sale doctrine.


But yeah, basically.
 
2013-02-21 01:53:52 PM  

lenfromak: Mad_Radhu: Just double checked, and the SIM card is still unlocked for the iPhone 5, so you can pop in any SIM from around the world and it will work.

Just where the hell can one pop ANYTHING into an iPhone? It's a sealed unit.


I have no problem switching out SIM cards in my iPhone, which I do when traveling to/from Europe and the US.
 
2013-02-21 01:58:34 PM  
clane:
and yall keep voting Democrat...

Begoggle:
7/10

clane:
omg, lol, no kidding!!!
 
2013-02-21 02:00:00 PM  

xkillyourfacex: So if the white house handles legislation now, what does congress do?


Circle jerks and play sequestration chicken.
 
2013-02-21 02:07:53 PM  

Flint Ironstag: Theaetetus: Priapetic: 1) I buy a new phone, with a new carrier, and only pay a subsidized price in June 2013 (after the 90 day exemption window) and enter into a two year contract.

2) In July 2015 (one month after the end of my two year contract) I decide I want to take my phone over to a new carrier.

3) In July 2015 I "jailbreak" my phone to ...

Yes... You should check your contract to see if it requires them to unlock your phone after expiration of the 2 years prior to doing step 3. Or step 1, for that matter.

Again, you are refusing to accept that this law applies even after the two year contract has ended. It even says so in the petition. The document you linked to made no mention of this law expiring when the contract does.

If you are right they will reply to the petition pointing out that "error", right?


I am actually amazed that someone has not challenged this rule yet.  I could go out today and buy a subsidized phone, terminate contract, pay fee, unlock it in front of the media and say come and get me.  Challenge it in court.

There seems to be enough people outraged about the ruling that there has to be someone willing to put up a fight.  Me I am more meh on the whole thing so not really outraged, just curious.
 
2013-02-21 02:21:47 PM  

Theaetetus: Except that they have to do with rights management, and what you have a license to falls under contract. These things are all intertwined, so it's unreasonable to shove your fingers in your ears and ignore half of it.


So their software licence rights "just expire" when your two year contract ends? Their Copyright no longer applies?


See above. The CTIA showed that there wasn't an exemption necessary, since the carriers would unlock it for you after the contract was up.

So if the Police promise not to search your home without a good reason you don't need those pesky rights against unreasonable search, right?
 
2013-02-21 02:24:47 PM  

Theaetetus: Flint Ironstag: Theaetetus: Priapetic: 1) I buy a new phone, with a new carrier, and only pay a subsidized price in June 2013 (after the 90 day exemption window) and enter into a two year contract.

2) In July 2015 (one month after the end of my two year contract) I decide I want to take my phone over to a new carrier.

3) In July 2015 I "jailbreak" my phone to ...

Yes... You should check your contract to see if it requires them to unlock your phone after expiration of the 2 years prior to doing step 3. Or step 1, for that matter.

Again, you are refusing to accept that this law applies even after the two year contract has ended. It even says so in the petition. The document you linked to made no mention of this law expiring when the contract does.

If you are right they will reply to the petition pointing out that "error", right?

[eyeroll]


So, no actual answer then? You are claiming this only applies to phones under contract. The actual petition claims otherwise. You think the White House will respond but not correct or dispute that point?
 
2013-02-21 02:28:01 PM  

Flint Ironstag: Theaetetus: Except that they have to do with rights management, and what you have a license to falls under contract. These things are all intertwined, so it's unreasonable to shove your fingers in your ears and ignore half of it.

So their software licence rights "just expire" when your two year contract ends? Their Copyright no longer applies?


Yes, that's exactly what I said there, and isn't at all a non sequitur.

See above. The CTIA showed that there wasn't an exemption necessary, since the carriers would unlock it for you after the contract was up.

So if the Police promise not to search your home without a good reason you don't need those pesky rights against unreasonable search, right?


If the police never performed an unreasonable search and you couldn't show a single instance of them ever doing so, in the history of man, then don't you have that right de facto?
 
2013-02-21 02:29:55 PM  

Flint Ironstag: Theaetetus: Flint Ironstag: Theaetetus: Priapetic: 1) I buy a new phone, with a new carrier, and only pay a subsidized price in June 2013 (after the 90 day exemption window) and enter into a two year contract.

2) In July 2015 (one month after the end of my two year contract) I decide I want to take my phone over to a new carrier.

3) In July 2015 I "jailbreak" my phone to ...

Yes... You should check your contract to see if it requires them to unlock your phone after expiration of the 2 years prior to doing step 3. Or step 1, for that matter.

Again, you are refusing to accept that this law applies even after the two year contract has ended. It even says so in the petition. The document you linked to made no mention of this law expiring when the contract does.

If you are right they will reply to the petition pointing out that "error", right?

[eyeroll]

So, no actual answer then?


Me: "The sky is blue."
You: "You're refusing to accept that the sky is blue!"
Me: [eyeroll]
You: "No actual answer then, huh?!"

You've gone loopy, you have.
 
2013-02-21 02:31:59 PM  
Not a crime but because you agreed to in the contract to get a rebate.

Part of the agreement. You signed it, get a violin.

After the contract is over? Kind of depends, again on the contract.

What cheeses me off when you go in and say you want an unlocked phone paying full price.

They will sell you one full price but it is locked to the network in the US. Fark that. I paid for the phone I own it outright.

Buy your phone from one of the big Internet resellers already unlocked and then go for the SIM card.(Except for Verizon Wireless but fark CDMA.)
 
2013-02-21 02:56:46 PM  

Flint Ironstag: The actual petition claims otherwise.


He went on to make the same claim as the petition later in this thread. He agrees that newly purchased phones are only unlockable if the carrier decides to let you unlock them, or you purchased them unlocked to begin with.

Gimli_Gloin: Not a crime but because you agreed to in the contract to get a rebate.


And the contract has an early termination clause, which carries penalties that tend to amount to or exceed the subsidy.

Gimli_Gloin: After the contract is over? Kind of depends, again on the contract.


In a sane contract, when the contract is terminated, neither party has any ongoing commitment to honor the terms of the contract. That's what "over" means.
 
2013-02-21 02:58:50 PM  

DerAppie: Deoan: Mad_Radhu: Theaetetus: "Unlocking phones ... is commonly used for those reselling phones, travelling internationally, and changing carriers, but also ourA service-membersA deploying abroad," Khanifar, who founded Cell-Unlock.com in 2004, wrote in an email. "

Reselling phones or changing carriers in violation of your contract, you mean. International travel is a reasonable argument. "But what about the troops?!" is not.

Most carriers will provide unlock codes to a good customer who is traveling overseas. I'd assume most of them have procedures to accommodate the military. Hell, the Verizon iPhones used to be SIM-unlocked right out of the box.

You own the phone.  If it were set up that you were leasing it, or borrowing it, or even having it financed, then you would have a point.  But they gave you a discount on an item to get you to sign up for a service.  That's like saying Best Buy has control over my TV because I signed up for a Best Buy credit card when I bought it, for the 10% discount.

They didn't really give you a discount. It just appears that way because a lot of the rest of the cost of the device is hidden in those monthly payments people make.


By that logic, the monthly payments should be lower when the contract expires or if you buy a non-contract phone. Go ahead and try it and let me know how that works out for you...
 
2013-02-21 03:00:42 PM  

Theaetetus: See above. The CTIA showed that there wasn't an exemption necessary, since the carriers would unlock it for you after the contract was up.


So, if I have a phone that my carrier simply decides not unlock after the contract is up, can I then unlock it myself (since, this ruling is largely based on the fact that they supposedly do unlock them)?  What if the representative lies to me and tells me my phone can't be unlocked (when it most certainly can be), and uses that as their basis for not helping me?

My concern, after reading the rules, is that it (at least partially) justified the new rulings by saying that carriers readily are unlocking phones, but did not explicitly say what happens if the carriers refuse to for various reasons.  As it is, if the carrier simply doesn't want to unlock your phone, you are stuck with an expensive paperweight unless you remain with them.

For what it's worth, I do have an anecdotal evidence of my concern: I owned an iPhone 4S that was most certainly fully capable of being unlocked and I wanted to bring it to a different carrier since I moved and Verizon sucked in my new area, but was told by a Verizon representative that it simply cannot be unlocked, despite my attempts at convincing her otherwise...so...I just unlocked it myself.  Would that make me a criminal today--despite my attempt to do it "legally" with the carrier, since as the ruling stated, they supposedly unlock phones?
 
2013-02-21 03:01:54 PM  
Ah! America... Land of the free (to do as you are contractually obliged to by the current monopoly)

Free Market Capitalism. Y'know what other economic social strategy ends up limiting consumers to this kind of thing? Communism.
 
2013-02-21 03:04:18 PM  

Theaetetus: "Unlocking phones ... is commonly used for those reselling phones, travelling internationally, and changing carriers, but also ourA service-membersA deploying abroad," Khanifar, who founded Cell-Unlock.com in 2004, wrote in an email. "

Reselling phones or changing carriers in violation of your contract, you mean. International travel is a reasonable argument. "But what about the troops?!" is not.


So prosecute it as a breach of contract in civil court. What possible argument could you have (other than shilling) that this should be a separate, criminal offense?
 
2013-02-21 03:05:34 PM  

Theaetetus: Flint Ironstag: Theaetetus: Except that they have to do with rights management, and what you have a license to falls under contract. These things are all intertwined, so it's unreasonable to shove your fingers in your ears and ignore half of it.

So their software licence rights "just expire" when your two year contract ends? Their Copyright no longer applies?

Yes, that's exactly what I said there, and isn't at all a non sequitur.

See above. The CTIA showed that there wasn't an exemption necessary, since the carriers would unlock it for you after the contract was up.


So it is against the law, but it's okay because the nice networks will unlock it for you.

So if the Police promise not to search your home without a good reason you don't need those pesky rights against unreasonable search, right?

If the police never performed an unreasonable search and you couldn't show a single instance of them ever doing so, in the history of man, then don't you have that right de facto?


No. Because if there wasn't a right against unlawful searches an officer could do so and it would be legal, and would be legal until the government got around to making a new law against it.

You are saying this law does not apply after the contract expires, but you then say it doesn't matter the law exists because the nice carriers have promised to waive that right to enforce the law. Never mind that since it is a criminal law the carriers could do nothing but the state could still prosecute you. The carriers cannot waive the law, they can only waive their right to enforce the law. They can't speak for others.
 
2013-02-21 03:09:02 PM  

Theaetetus: Flint Ironstag: Theaetetus: Flint Ironstag: Theaetetus: Priapetic: 1) I buy a new phone, with a new carrier, and only pay a subsidized price in June 2013 (after the 90 day exemption window) and enter into a two year contract.

2) In July 2015 (one month after the end of my two year contract) I decide I want to take my phone over to a new carrier.

3) In July 2015 I "jailbreak" my phone to ...

Yes... You should check your contract to see if it requires them to unlock your phone after expiration of the 2 years prior to doing step 3. Or step 1, for that matter.

Again, you are refusing to accept that this law applies even after the two year contract has ended. It even says so in the petition. The document you linked to made no mention of this law expiring when the contract does.

If you are right they will reply to the petition pointing out that "error", right?

[eyeroll]

So, no actual answer then?

Me: "The sky is blue."
You: "You're refusing to accept that the sky is blue!"
Me: [eyeroll]
You: "No actual answer then, huh?!"

You've gone loopy, you have.


Read it again. The first part if you claiming it doesn't matter this law exists because the carriers have promised to waive their right to enforce it. That is not the same as your original claim, that this law did not apply after the contract expired.

Can you clarify? Does this law apply after the two year contract is up?

If not why do we need the carriers permission to unlock the phone?

If yes, then that is what we are complaining about. The law does exist and we cannot use phones we have paid for in full.
 
2013-02-21 03:14:38 PM  

dwyw: By that logic, the monthly payments should be lower when the contract expires or if you buy a non-contract phone. Go ahead and try it and let me know how that works out for you...


They do here. Big time.

EE have a plan that is £21 a month for 12 months for SIM only.  For that plan with a 'free' phone it is £41 a month for 12 months.
 
2013-02-21 03:16:36 PM  

dwyw: DerAppie: Deoan: Mad_Radhu: Theaetetus: "Unlocking phones ... is commonly used for those reselling phones, travelling internationally, and changing carriers, but also ourA service-membersA deploying abroad," Khanifar, who founded Cell-Unlock.com in 2004, wrote in an email. "

Reselling phones or changing carriers in violation of your contract, you mean. International travel is a reasonable argument. "But what about the troops?!" is not.

Most carriers will provide unlock codes to a good customer who is traveling overseas. I'd assume most of them have procedures to accommodate the military. Hell, the Verizon iPhones used to be SIM-unlocked right out of the box.

You own the phone.  If it were set up that you were leasing it, or borrowing it, or even having it financed, then you would have a point.  But they gave you a discount on an item to get you to sign up for a service.  That's like saying Best Buy has control over my TV because I signed up for a Best Buy credit card when I bought it, for the 10% discount.

They didn't really give you a discount. It just appears that way because a lot of the rest of the cost of the device is hidden in those monthly payments people make.

By that logic, the monthly payments should be lower when the contract expires or if you buy a non-contract phone. Go ahead and try it and let me know how that works out for you...


Very well actually. Saves me about 20 euros a month.
 
2013-02-21 03:42:23 PM  

He Who Shall Not Be Named: Up until about 5 years ago I was a hard Republican. I go to church and those guys always voted the way the church felt on issues. Then I grew up and started thinking for myself. I still go to church but I'm not a Republican anymore. They don't vote for anyone but themselves. If it won't make them or their friends money they will fight tooth and nail to stop it from happening.

The Republican party has sold itself to the highest bidder. They don't care what is being voted on, they automatically filibuster it unless a Republican brought it forward. If the president wants it they will do everything including political suicide to keep it from happening.The rot is not going to cure itself. The cell phone unlocking is just a symptom of the disease. Money is in charge of American politics. The people don't count anymore unless they have multiple millions of dollars to spend getting their voice heard. I don't care what kind of list I get put on. It's past time to remove these guys. Even if that means doing it by force. They refuse to listen to their constituents and what the people want. This kind of thing is the reason the 2nd amendment is there. Not for hunting or home protection. It's written to have a militia to remove government that no longer answers to its people.I'm disgusted by what is going on. I vote for people who say they will try to stop it, yet nothing happens. Their intentions are good but when they get to Washington they fall into the same trap the person before them did.The only way to stop it short of violence is to stop the money. Make lobbying illegal except by registered voting citizens from that persons district. It's pretty simple. Outlaw big business from throwing billions of dollars at our elected officials. Put in laws that stop lobbying from big business and put the people who break the law in jail and fine the hell out of the companies. This is the only peaceful way to stop it. Cut off the money. Stop letting companies with billion dollar profit ...


I was gonna sponsor you for this comment and got distracted - now I come back and you're a TFer?  Was I imagining it?
 
2013-02-21 03:50:42 PM  

imgod2u: Theaetetus: "Unlocking phones ... is commonly used for those reselling phones, travelling internationally, and changing carriers, but also ourA service-membersA deploying abroad," Khanifar, who founded Cell-Unlock.com in 2004, wrote in an email. "

Reselling phones or changing carriers in violation of your contract, you mean. International travel is a reasonable argument. "But what about the troops?!" is not.

So prosecute it as a breach of contract in civil court. What possible argument could you have (other than shilling) that this should be a separate, criminal offense?


Did you mean to reply to someone else? When have I argued "that this should be a... criminal offense" at all? Shiat, if you're going to call me a shill, I insist you at least  try to base your accusation on something I've said, rather than something you pulled from your ass.
 
2013-02-21 03:52:03 PM  

Flint Ironstag: If yes, then that is what we are complaining about. The law does exist and we cannot use phones we have paid for in full.


Any phone you've paid for in full is one you purchased prior to this rule, and therefore this rule does not apply. Come whine at me in two years when your comments are at least somewhat relevant.
 
2013-02-21 04:00:54 PM  

Theaetetus: Flint Ironstag: If yes, then that is what we are complaining about. The law does exist and we cannot use phones we have paid for in full.

Any phone you've paid for in full is one you purchased prior to this rule, and therefore this rule does not apply. Come whine at me in two years when your comments are at least somewhat relevant.


Oh shiat, there's a cliff a mile down the road!

Should we stop, or turn around, or do something?

Naw, keep driving, I'm sure something will happen between now and then and it won't be a problem.
 
2013-02-21 04:54:16 PM  
This is awesome. What else can we make a crime?

Installing Linux on your home computer? Refilling a printer ink cartridge? Changing your car's tires? Using a no-name brand dust cloth with your Swiffer?

As somebody who is concerned for the economy I look forward to the increase in prison guards and court officials that these will be needed to process and lock up all these new criminal scum.
 
2013-02-21 04:55:00 PM  

Theaetetus: imgod2u: Theaetetus: "Unlocking phones ... is commonly used for those reselling phones, travelling internationally, and changing carriers, but also ourA service-membersA deploying abroad," Khanifar, who founded Cell-Unlock.com in 2004, wrote in an email. "

Reselling phones or changing carriers in violation of your contract, you mean. International travel is a reasonable argument. "But what about the troops?!" is not.

So prosecute it as a breach of contract in civil court. What possible argument could you have (other than shilling) that this should be a separate, criminal offense?

Did you mean to reply to someone else? When have I argued "that this should be a... criminal offense" at all? Shiat, if you're going to call me a shill, I insist you at least  try to base your accusation on something I've said, rather than something you pulled from your ass.


Or, you know, because this is being made illegal as part of the DMCA and prosecuted as part of criminal law and that's what both the OT and the petition is complaining about; a complaint you're thinly trying to condescend about. Existing civil contract laws already cover breach of contract; that had nothing to do with the Library of Congress ruling.

But yes, please, play the "but but I didn't say it directly" victim game.
 
2013-02-21 04:58:56 PM  

Theaetetus: Flint Ironstag: If yes, then that is what we are complaining about. The law does exist and we cannot use phones we have paid for in full.

Any phone you've paid for in full is one you purchased prior to this rule, and therefore this rule does not apply. Come whine at me in two years when your comments are at least somewhat relevant.


So are you finally admitting that there is a law that will apply to phones even when they are out of contract?
 
2013-02-21 05:05:04 PM  

imgod2u: Theaetetus: imgod2u: Theaetetus: "Unlocking phones ... is commonly used for those reselling phones, travelling internationally, and changing carriers, but also ourA service-membersA deploying abroad," Khanifar, who founded Cell-Unlock.com in 2004, wrote in an email. "

Reselling phones or changing carriers in violation of your contract, you mean. International travel is a reasonable argument. "But what about the troops?!" is not.

So prosecute it as a breach of contract in civil court. What possible argument could you have (other than shilling) that this should be a separate, criminal offense?

Did you mean to reply to someone else? When have I argued "that this should be a... criminal offense" at all? Shiat, if you're going to call me a shill, I insist you at least  try to base your accusation on something I've said, rather than something you pulled from your ass.

Or, you know, because this is being made illegal as part of the DMCA and prosecuted as part of criminal law and that's what both the OT and the petition is complaining about; a complaint you're thinly trying to condescend about. Existing civil contract laws already cover breach of contract; that had nothing to do with the Library of Congress ruling.

But yes, please, play the "but but I didn't say it directly" victim game.


I think you're confused, Spanky. I'm not pleased about this rule. As I said waaaaaay back towards the start of the thread, I think there are better methods to prevent theft or ducking out of the contract, and there's no need for this to be squeezed under copyright law.

Got it?

No?

Sigh...

Me not like law! Me not like criminal penalty! Me think copyright stupid here! But me not go into hyperbolic rant and claim this law kill firstborn child or make everyone who blinks criminal!
 
2013-02-21 05:48:03 PM  

Hobo Jr.: I think Obama has a pretty good job so far but this petition response thing is crap.

I don't even have to read the press releases to know what they will say. Now, if a senator or representative were to start a program where citizens can submit actual legislation to consider for vote then that might be useful.


Yeah, you can't expect the knob-sucker-in-chief to actually perform his job.

Especially on a program, said silly petitions, that he sponsored.
 
2013-02-21 05:56:38 PM  

Theaetetus: imgod2u: Theaetetus: imgod2u: Theaetetus: "Unlocking phones ... is commonly used for those reselling phones, travelling internationally, and changing carriers, but also ourA service-membersA deploying abroad," Khanifar, who founded Cell-Unlock.com in 2004, wrote in an email. "

Reselling phones or changing carriers in violation of your contract, you mean. International travel is a reasonable argument. "But what about the troops?!" is not.

So prosecute it as a breach of contract in civil court. What possible argument could you have (other than shilling) that this should be a separate, criminal offense?

Did you mean to reply to someone else? When have I argued "that this should be a... criminal offense" at all? Shiat, if you're going to call me a shill, I insist you at least  try to base your accusation on something I've said, rather than something you pulled from your ass.

Or, you know, because this is being made illegal as part of the DMCA and prosecuted as part of criminal law and that's what both the OT and the petition is complaining about; a complaint you're thinly trying to condescend about. Existing civil contract laws already cover breach of contract; that had nothing to do with the Library of Congress ruling.

But yes, please, play the "but but I didn't say it directly" victim game.

I think you're confused, Spanky. I'm not pleased about this rule. As I said waaaaaay back towards the start of the thread, I think there are better methods to prevent theft or ducking out of the contract, and there's no need for this to be squeezed under copyright law.


Ahh, ok. So your Boobies (the one I'm replying to) was nothing but thinly veiled condescension at something (criticism of phone unlocking while under contract being made a criminal offense by the Library of Congress) you agree with? Got it! In that case, you and I don't disagree; we merely differ in degrees of self-satisfying douchiness.
 
2013-02-21 06:07:15 PM  
As much as I think the restrictions are stupid and shady, I don't really see how it is a big deal to most people. Although making it illegal is certainly troubling.  Most cell phone networks are not interchangeable anyway. You can't use a Sprint or Verizon phone interchangeably, even if you could "unlock" the CDMA phones. And even if you could, Sprint (or any other carrier) isn't obligated to activate your "unlocked" phone.  Sprint doesn't even allow you to use an old Sprint phone on Boost or Virgin (both owned by Sprint), but that is their call. Nor can you use either companies' phone on AT&T or T-Mobile, since they are GSM, save for maybe some of the expensive dual-band phones, which are usually already unlocked anyway. Some of the prepaid carriers will let you use either-or (Straight Talk had an either 'AT&T' network or 'Tmobile' network option, but I heard they are now dropping AT&T coverage).

T-mobile is really encouraging people to bring their own phone now though, instead of signing up for a contract with a subsidy. So who else thinks AT&T has a..um..big influence on this law passing?
But after your 2 year contract is up, your phone is probably 'out of date' or damaged to the point where you can either/want to  a.) get a new one by signing up with the same company b.) go to a different company and get a phone from them, at a high discount if there is a contract involved.
There are enough subscribers on both AT&T and T-Mobile that there is still a good resale market for a locked, old phone.
 
2013-02-21 06:44:24 PM  
for a second i thought "unlocking" meant sliding that thing on the bottom of your iphone so you can place a call.  and i was like "why is that illegal"

then i thought "MY LITTLE PONY!!""
 
2013-02-21 06:53:44 PM  
contract =/ terms of service
 
2013-02-21 07:24:57 PM  

MBZ321: As much as I think the restrictions are stupid and shady, I don't really see how it is a big deal to most people. Although making it illegal is certainly troubling.  Most cell phone networks are not interchangeable anyway. You can't use a Sprint or Verizon phone interchangeably, even if you could "unlock" the CDMA phones. And even if you could, Sprint (or any other carrier) isn't obligated to activate your "unlocked" phone.  Sprint doesn't even allow you to use an old Sprint phone on Boost or Virgin (both owned by Sprint), but that is their call. Nor can you use either companies' phone on AT&T or T-Mobile, since they are GSM, save for maybe some of the expensive dual-band phones, which are usually already unlocked anyway. Some of the prepaid carriers will let you use either-or (Straight Talk had an either 'AT&T' network or 'Tmobile' network option, but I heard they are now dropping AT&T coverage).

T-mobile is really encouraging people to bring their own phone now though, instead of signing up for a contract with a subsidy. So who else thinks AT&T has a..um..big influence on this law passing?
But after your 2 year contract is up, your phone is probably 'out of date' or damaged to the point where you can either/want to  a.) get a new one by signing up with the same company b.) go to a different company and get a phone from them, at a high discount if there is a contract involved.
There are enough subscribers on both AT&T and T-Mobile that there is still a good resale market for a locked, old phone.


So here's the thing. It's not. Not really. But this is the line in the sand that tech people are drawing. And they've chosen a good place to stand their ground. People care about their phones and some theoretical freedom. The issues is that DMCA exemptions being whitelisted is actively detrimental to progress. Especially on the 3 year cycle that they're on. Imagine having a great idea for  something that you could do with electronics, and having to wait 3 years for it to even come up for review. That's the problem.
 
2013-02-21 07:28:33 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Wait, a crime?  Not a civil offense stemming from breach of contract? Oh, right.  farking DMCA.


I wonder if anyone could actually be criminally prosecuted for this.
 
2013-02-21 08:04:39 PM  
Corporations own the phones and the politicians.

/ that is all...
 
2013-02-21 09:43:36 PM  

Mad_Radhu: Just double checked, and the SIM card is still unlocked for the iPhone 5, so you can pop in any SIM from around the world and it will work.


A lot of times they have sim checking such that yes, international ones will work, but domestic not. For example, even though I am now out of contract, I cannot pop a t-mobile sim into my Sprint Photon (it has a gsm radio in addition to CDMA) but could pop in a european sim. So I cannot use my out of contract phone on whatever carrier I want.
 
2013-02-21 10:34:37 PM  
I don't like it but you buy the hardware and license the software. Sort of like you buy a disk and license the movie on said disk. I can see how some scummy lawyers would dream this up.
 
2013-02-21 10:42:37 PM  

Loadmaster: Jim_Callahan: Wait, a crime?  Not a civil offense stemming from breach of contract? Oh, right.  farking DMCA.

I wonder if anyone could actually be criminally prosecuted for this.


Haven't we learned anything from Aaron Swartz?

Plus, having a populous that's almost entirely guilty of something might be nice for control.
 
hej [TotalFark]
2013-02-21 11:08:46 PM  

Theaetetus: "Unlocking phones ... is commonly used for those reselling phones, travelling internationally, and changing carriers, but also ourA service-membersA deploying abroad," Khanifar, who founded Cell-Unlock.com in 2004, wrote in an email. "

Reselling phones or changing carriers in violation of your contract[...]


No contract prevents you from changing carriers.  There might be a ETF involved, but you can still do it.
 
2013-02-22 12:54:42 AM  

NutWrench: Stories like this are the reason why posters who reflexively launch into their "America: free market, land of opportunity" song-and-dance routine need to be repeatedly kicked in the balls. Lobbyists bought and paid for this country  long time ago.


Corporations attempting to use government to rent-seek is more of an argument for smaller, less intrusive government than it is against capitalism. Take away government power to intrude into every aspect of life and it makes it tougher for corporations or anyone else (I'm looking at you, "environmentalists", who employ or threaten to employ government to tie up pretty much every major construction project) to use it as a weapon against consumers, competitors, employers, etc.
 
2013-02-22 12:55:00 AM  
Thank you GJA for a month of Total Fark.

Being loud and opinionated on the internet always pays off.  J/k Thanks againg gja
 
2013-02-22 04:55:43 AM  
Don't hold your breath.  They still have yet to respond to "Legally recognize Westboro Baptist Church as a hate group" even though that one had well over 100k by January 13 at a time when 25k was the threshold and now has over 340k
 
2013-02-22 05:11:32 AM  
in other news 100,000 names added to terrorist watch lists.
 
2013-02-22 06:30:56 AM  

clane: and yall keep voting Democrat...

[www.afterdowningstreet.org image 414x285]


because it was the republicans who eroded most of the rights in favour of security in response to 9/11 and a manufactured fear of an eternal unseen enemy...

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"
George Santayana
 
2013-02-22 06:32:38 AM  
If you have signed a contract and the contract says you can`t do something then you can`t do it. Once the contract is over you are free to do whatever you want within the law.

It`s that simple and also that encompassing.
 
2013-02-22 11:09:38 AM  
In the comments, someone mentions that Trakfone from Walmart is a better deal.

Anyone got a Trakfone from Walmart? How good is the reception and service?
 
2013-02-22 11:14:32 AM  

FarkGrudge: For what it's worth, I do have an anecdotal evidence of my concern: I owned an iPhone 4S that was most certainly fully capable of being unlocked and I wanted to bring it to a different carrier since I moved and Verizon sucked in my new area, but was told by a Verizon representative that it simply cannot be unlocked, despite my attempts at convincing her otherwise...so...I just unlocked it myself.  Would that make me a criminal today--despite my attempt to do it "legally" with the carrier, since as the ruling stated, they supposedly unlock phones?


Aaaand there we have the problem.  It's fine to claim the carriers "can and will" unlock a phone after the contract period, when requested, but I simply don't trust them.  Some cariers are asshats and will refuse in some attempt to keep you locked into their network, and others undertrain their staff so morons just refuse.  Either way, why not just have a requirement that carriers MUST unlock at termination of contract?  It's not a very hard language change to make  and it ensures there's some legal avenue to prevent abuse by the carriers.

You can trust the carriers, Thaeatetus, but I don't.  Let's put the whole lock/unlock thing back in the contract where it belongs.
 
2013-02-22 11:18:51 AM  

Mr Guy: See, what you all don't realize is how many foreign nationals like Chinese people and Iranians buy subsidized phones on contracts here, and then take massive shipments of the phones to other carriers, where they trade the phones for slight profits on the resale markets, and they use those profits to buy uranium, which they traffic exclusively passed US customs officials in bales of marijuana that are hidden in puppies and underage sex workers, which they then dowse in oil and burn without recapturing ANY of their carbon emissions.

So it's really for the children and the environment.



I KNEW IT!
 
2013-02-22 11:22:34 AM  

dready zim: If you have signed a contract and the contract says you can`t do something then you can`t do it without incurring some penalty for breach of contract, usually only economic and subject to the terms of the contract. Once the contract is over you are free to do whatever you want within the law, but if you break the law (DMCA in this case) by unlocking, you will now be taking a risk of criminal prosecution resulting in both economic and criminal (jail) sanctions that are entirely extra-contractual.

It`s that simple and also that encompassing.


Fixed that for you.  And how is the consumer better off after this determination by the Library of Congress?
 
2013-02-22 11:47:55 AM  
So let's cut through some of the bullshiat in this thread. This is the original Librarian of Congress decision from October, 2012. Unlocking any phone purchased after January 28, 2013 is illegal. Period. It has nothing to do with your contract, or your carrier, or whether you paid full price or it was subsidized. These are all collateral issues that have no impact to how the DMCA works and what this means.

The DMCA, for those in this thread who obviously don't know, prohibits circumventing the DRM on copyrighted material or producing "tools" that allow for the circumvention of DRM on copyrighted material. The penalties for this are severe - half a million dollars and/or five years in federal prison. How does this apply to my phone, you ask? Well, your phone has software on it that includes protections to keep it from working on just any network. The protections on this count as DRM, and the software on the phones is copyrighted material. So, the Librarian of Congress has said that circumventing these protections ("rooting" the phone) to gain access to and modify the copyrighted material (unlocking - removing the network restriction in the firmware) counts as violating the DMCA.

Now, here's the rub - in 2010, the Librarian found the opposite. The idea was that when you bought the phone, you owned it and all of the software installed on it. So, mucking around with the software on the phone was your own privilege - it didn't matter that somebody else had copyrighted it, they'd sold it to you and could no longer restrict what you wanted to do with it. Therefore, pulling the crapware out and unlocking the network-sharing provisions was just fine.

So what's changed? This bullshiat about software being "licensed" instead of "sold" is what. The courts are still dickering over whether first sale doctrine actually applies to software and whether licensing agreements for copyrighted material exist in perpetuity. There's too much money on the software side of things trying to hammer down the consumer and make them a copyright slave - which is why court cases have redefined "ownership" of software and why the Librarian reversed her decision on this exemption.

TL;DR:
- this is DMCA bullshiat - they say unlocking your phone is violating the DRM on the copyrighted firmware now
- the reason it's different now is because of bullshiat about software being "licensed" and not "sold" to consumers
- there's too much money from the telco side to give me much hope on this crap
- legality has nothing to do with contracts, purchase price, or anything else - if you bought a locked phone after 1/28/13, it's illegal to unlock it, period.
 
2013-02-23 11:38:44 AM  
Seriously, ya'll? SERIOUSLY??? This is why no one takes us seriously in politics. IT'S CRAP LIKE THIS.

/maybe don't click "I AGREE" if you don't agree??

xkillyourfacex: So if the white house handles legislation now, what does congress do?


Stand up for helpless, Patriotic, Real Americans being crushed under the President's Law-Making Heel?
 
Displayed 156 of 156 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report