Mobile Phones Locked By DMCA 255
wellington map writes "A mobile phone company is arguing that companies that unlock their handsets violate the DMCA. They argue that the software on the phone is a copyrighted work, and the unlocker is breaking DRM in a way that violates the statutory prohibition on circumvention. A similar claim by Lexmark, which tried to apply it to people who refilled printer cartridges, has recently been rejected by the courts." From the Wired article: "The financial motive behind this claim is obvious. Companies have been using the razor blade business model to guarantee a steady stream of revenue ever since, well, the razor blade. Cell phone companies sell you a phone at a discount, and then make up the difference by requiring you to sign a multi-year contract promising to pay monthly fees for mobile phone service or to fork over a hefty termination penalty if you break the deal. But many customers, particularly those who travel internationally, want more choice."
Sounds good to me (Score:4, Insightful)
Is this one of those things where it must be bad because it contains the worst of the slashdot four letter words (DMCA)?
always pay upfront (Score:4, Insightful)
always buy unlocked phones and use them with whichever n/w you like.
Can I get a +1 DUH !
I disagree (Score:3, Insightful)
-----
Bored? Enjoy the Laughs [audiworld.com]. (best forum on the 'net)
Re:Another BoingBoing story... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but do you own your phone? A lot of people get their phone with their service contract rather than buying the phone itself.
I agree that if you buy a phone it should be your own property and you should be able to modify it as you wish, but I don't think the same holds true if you merely have your phone as part of a contract deal.
If you want the benefits of a contract phone - vastly reduced initial cost, free upgrades to newer phones, etc, then you should accept the downsides too, or actually buy a phone of your own.
Re:Sounds good to me (Score:3, Insightful)
The first is that they are trying to leverage a law intended to protect copyright for the purpose of supporting their business model which has nothing to do with copyright.
The second is that they are trying to prevent people from using the hardware that they have paid for in the way they see fit. I think it's fine if the terms of your contract with them say that you must use their service with the cell phone that they sold you for the period of the contract. The problems come when the contract runs out or you terminate the contract prematurely (and pay the associated fine), some providers are still trying to control what you do with the phone.
Re:Another BoingBoing story... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unlocked Phones Exist... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, the phone company subsidizes your phone hardware by locking you into a certain term length of contract... So, if you unlock your phone and use it with another provider, YOU'RE STILL STUCK WITH THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT. Therefore, what's the point of worrying about locking the customer out? A contract's a contract.
The REAL reason a lot of these cell companies worry about "unlocking" is the data transfer. I never paid for a single ringtone... I connect my data cable to my phone (or use my handheld with Bluetooth) and drop MP3s of my choice on the phone. I also "hacked" it (using a combination of the Programmer Service Tools and something called SIStorGSM) to remove the crap stock ringtones and images that I never used, thus freeing up more space for my own media. Great! Now, I'm a criminal?
This DRM stuff really pisses me off... I really do try to be a law-abiding person. I pay for my software, my movies, DVDs of TV series I love, even music CDs; all of which I COULD have pirated off the 'net... but the more DRM the Intellectual Property crowd puts in, the more they say to me "You're ALL guilty of being pirates" and the more I say "Well, if you're going to consider me guilty anyway, why do I care so much for trying to 'do the right thing'"
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Which mobile phone company? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sprint and Verizon's phones are locked, IIRC.
Sprint will not accept a pre-unlocked phone - it must have been locked to Sprint when it was new, AFAICT.
Verizon and Alltel will accept phones from any CDMA network, as long as they are unlocked, and (IIRC) Alltel will unlock a Verizon phone for you.
I don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
Won't hold up. (Score:2, Insightful)
Further.. if it does hold up, this is just further evidence that the DMCA is very badly written.
Even if you are a very strong proponent of stricter copyrights, this is outside the intended scope of the DMCA.
The locking mechanism is there to prevent using competing SIM cards on the phone, not to protect access to a work under copyright.
No, it's NOT the "razor blade" model (Score:5, Insightful)
What these companies are doing is selling a VERY useful item at an incredible loss, and attempting to legislate the consumers' USE of the product. In a very real sense they are attempting to use social controls to *force* the public into doing business their way.
This is, to my mind, outright evil for fairly obvious reasons. But from a strict business sense, it's idiocy. Look at Microsoft and the X-box. They sell a repackaged PC with crackable hardware at (we think) a loss... so they use laws and threats and intimidation to stop people from using their purchased X-Box as they see fit.
That's not the razor blade model. I can't convert my razor blade handle into a hammer or screwdriver or something. But I CAN convert a mobile phone or an X-Box into something entirely useful that negates their business model. And all they can use are laws to force me to play the game their way. Laws that undermine the very definition of legal possession that is a requirement for a capitalist system to function.
For if we don't have the right to use products we purchase as we please, what worth are they?
Either accept it is locked in or pay full price (Score:3, Insightful)
If you allow customers to unlock their handsets then the neworks will put handset prices up sigificantly as they have to try to make a profit.
So complain all you like about your rights - either you get stuck with one network for a period of time or you pay a lot more for handsets up front.
Re:Another BoingBoing story... (Score:4, Insightful)
No no, THAT'S fine. (Score:3, Insightful)
(and if people won't agree to that prospect, then perhaps it's not a good deal and people acting in their own best interest are right to avoid it.)
What I have a problem with is Congress passing sweeping laws dictating things I, the consumer, CANNOT do with my own property... which then allows companies to prop up faulty business models with legal threats.
There is no - absolutely ZERO - reason that I should not be legally allowed to mod the X-Box I paid $200 for to run Linux, and never buy a MS-licensed game title in my life. Yet I am not. And therefore MS can sell these highly useful mini-computers at a loss (we think) and use legal threats to keep me from using my own property.
THAT is what I have a problem with. Laws that strip me of my rights as a consumer so that businesses can implement flawed plans which are backed up, not by good logic or economics, but by the FBI.
That way leads madness.
Re:Oh yeah? Was: Re:Sounds good to me (Score:3, Insightful)
International oppinions (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Another BoingBoing story... (Score:2, Insightful)
I was under the impression that the purpose of the SIM chip what that you could activate a number/SIM chip independant of the phone. I know at Best Buy they sell SIM chips by themselves. I figured if you had your own phone, you could go to BB and buy a SIM chip and activate your phone for $25.