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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 156 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report