Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Followup, SIM lock  
•       •       •

13053 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Feb 2013 at 10:33 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-02-21 09:50:34 AM  
9 votes:
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 10:43:11 AM  
7 votes:
"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 10:43:39 AM  
6 votes:

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 11:01:56 AM  
5 votes:

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 10:36:42 AM  
5 votes:
Wait, a crime?  Not a civil offense stemming from breach of contract?

Oh, right.  farking DMCA.
2013-02-21 10:35:19 AM  
5 votes:
Because corporations are people and unlocking phones hurts their feelings, and it is illegal to hurt people's feelings.
2013-02-21 11:07:43 AM  
4 votes:
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 10:59:10 AM  
3 votes:
and yall keep voting Democrat...

www.afterdowningstreet.org
2013-02-21 10:42:43 AM  
3 votes:

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 10:40:29 AM  
3 votes:
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 10:34:43 AM  
3 votes:
Because fark you, that's why
2013-02-22 11:22:34 AM  
2 votes:

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?
2013-02-21 01:34:10 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:21:44 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:20:26 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:07:21 PM  
2 votes:
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 11:08:57 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:03:35 AM  
2 votes:
and in Canada... our CRTC is looking to mandate cheaper unlocking, lowering roaming fees and other such awesome consumer stuff.
2013-02-21 10:54:24 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:54:06 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:53:58 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:50:23 AM  
2 votes:
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 10:50:11 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:47:23 AM  
2 votes:
Wait, I missed something... the Librarian of Congress now gets to make laws?
2013-02-21 10:45:32 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:39:20 AM  
2 votes:

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.
2013-02-22 11:47:55 AM  
1 vote:
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.
2013-02-21 02:56:46 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:22:08 PM  
1 vote:

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?
2013-02-21 01:19:27 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:42:21 PM  
1 vote:

clane: and yall keep voting Democrat...

[www.afterdowningstreet.org image 414x285]


th17.photobucket.com
2013-02-21 12:42:17 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:25:13 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:11:34 PM  
1 vote:

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 11:59:59 AM  
1 vote:
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 11:46:48 AM  
1 vote:

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 11:43:54 AM  
1 vote:

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 11:41:36 AM  
1 vote:

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 11:27:14 AM  
1 vote:

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 11:15:06 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:55:14 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:51:09 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:47:50 AM  
1 vote:
We can all thank Joe Biden for the DMCA.
2013-02-21 10:47:26 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:46:51 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:44:38 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:43:37 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:40:45 AM  
1 vote:

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?
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments

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