Cell Phone Owners Allowed To Break Software Locks 305
An anonymous reader writes "The library of congress approved many copyright exemptions today. Among the exemptions were new rules about cell phones, DVDs, and electronic books." From the article: "Cell phone owners will be allowed to break software locks on their handsets in order to use them with competing carriers under new copyright rules announced Wednesday.
Other copyright exemptions approved by the Library of Congress will let film professors copy snippets from DVDs for educational compilations and let blind people use special software to read copy-protected electronic books.
All told, Librarian of Congress James H. Billington approved six exemptions, the most his Copyright Office has ever granted. For the first time, the office exempted groups of users. The new rules will take effect Monday and expire in three years.
In granting the exemption for cell phone users, the Copyright Office determined that consumers aren't able to enjoy full legal use of their handsets because of software locks that wireless providers have been placing to control access to phones' underlying programs."
How about not treating me like a criminal in the (Score:5, Insightful)
These exemptions are nice and all, and I know the Library of Congress does not have the authority to do more (only Congress itself or the SoC can repeal the DMCA) - but I feel I'm got punched in the face and the LoC is passing by and helpfully giving me a tooth back. What about all the other missing teeth?
How kind of them to smile upon us wretches. (Score:5, Interesting)
That pretty much sums it up. I was thinking of it more like you just got the shit kicked out of you by someone, and the LoC was too weak to do anything to help you, but now that you're lying facedown in a puddle of your own blood he'll helpfully get you an ice pack.
These concessions are great, but they're like the Warden giving you an extra ration of food, when you're not supposed to be in jail in the first place. We shouldn't have to have these concessions granted -- all the things mentioned in the summary are common sense, and ought not be protected by copyright in the first place.
Plus, these concessions are just three years. Since they're not permanent, if they're not renewed constantly, they disappear. That makes them hard to count on in the future. When the media lobby got its copyright extension last time, I can't help but notice that there wasn't an expiration or "lets revisit this in 5 years" date; it was permanent.
Re:How about not treating me like a criminal in th (Score:2)
Re:How about not treating me like a criminal in th (Score:4, Funny)
Re:How about not treating me like a criminal in th (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly. Nothing against rights holders protecting their rights, but if the DRM scheme prevents me from exercising my fair use rights, and I circumvent the scheme in order to exercise those rights, I don't feel _I_ should be the criminal.
Re:How about not treating me like a criminal in th (Score:5, Insightful)
Your business model is not a government entitlement program. The rest of us are not bound to rewrite our laws to support it.
Why exactly can't, for example, you and I come to some agreement that, for example, you write some song and I am allowed to listen to it exactly once since this we came to a mutually agreed upon price for which I agreed to listen to it only once?
You should certainly be able to do that under private contract law, but because your business model represents the grossest-imaginable violation of the Constitution's language authorizing copyrights, you should not be able to leverage Federal copyright law to enforce your terms.
Re:How about not treating me like a criminal in th (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow. What a load of crap. Here is the full extent of what the Constitution, which you cite, says about copyright:
"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."
Within this broad framework, it is the mandate of legislators to enact legislation and the judiciary to make ruilings that seek to best "promote the progress of science and useful arts" by balancing the needs for rightsholders to be motivated and the public's right to information. Some things, like national defense, are impractical or impossible to contract on a 1-v-1 basis. Likewise, it is impractical if not impossible to have a complete contract written every time any transfer or license of IP occurs. Therefore, much of what we think about IP is determined by judicious consideration of the balance. Now, you personally may not like where the balance was struck most recently. However, your statement of "grossest imaginable violation of the constitution's language" is hyperbole in the extreme, and, more to the point, absolute bollocks. Oh, I'm sorry, was I not actually supposed to cite the constitution and what it actually says? Was I supposed to take your bald assertion on faith?
Re:How about not treating me like a criminal in th (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you were supposed to actually read what you were cutting and pasting. Specifically, the part about a "limited time."
Does your DRM scheme contain an automatic sunset provision to ensure that you actually live up to your end of the copyright bargain... the part that says your work must revert to the public domain upon expiration? If it doesn't (and let me take a wild guess here: it doesn't), then you are not operating within the bounds of copyright law as envisioned by the framers.
That's not to say that the deal you're offering is necessarily a bad one for consumers, but in any reasonable world, the minute you take steps to ensure that your content can never enter the public domain, you should no longer be entitled to legal monopoly protection. You're just another looter looking for a free ride at public expense.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Most importantly, in 50 or 60 years when the copyrights actually expire, will you still even want your 128kbps mp3? Of course not. The public domain file will be provided in a superior format from a master recording.
Moreover, there's no fundamental
Re:How about not treating me like a criminal in th (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? How so? Are you aware that rightsholders are no longer required to deposit a copy of their work with the Library of Congress? That requirement was established precisely to ensure the eventual availability of protected works to the public domain, and it didn't actually go away until 1976, I believe. Without the requirement to deposit a copy in an accessible form, all of your suggested "avenues to leave the file behind" are entirely voluntary.
But I'm sure that almost everyone who takes advantage of the DMCA's anti-circumvention protection has deposited unprotected copies for release to the public domain at the appropriate time... right?
Most importantly, in 50 or 60 years when the copyrights actually expire, will you still even want your 128kbps mp3? Of course not. The public domain file will be provided in a superior format from a master recording.
Um. OK, I guess, if you say so.
Moreover, there's no fundamental reason why future DRM can't include a system which automatically disables DRM upon copyright expiration.
Then there's no fundamental reason why future laws can't be passed to take that into consideration.
Just though everyone should know... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:How about not treating me like a criminal in th (Score:5, Funny)
Technically it's not the fall itself that kills you, but the rapid deceleration experienced at the end of it... Of course, once the fall commences you're inevitably screwed unless you had the foresight to save your own ass by packing a parachute.
Wow, finally a Slashdot analogy that fits the situation! I never thought I'd see the day...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most importantly, in 50 or 60 years when the copyrights actually expire, will you still even want your 128kbps mp3? Of course not. The public domain file will be provided in a superior format from a master recording.
And where, pray tell, would this recording come from? All would be fine and dandy if the original master recording is still around. But for all we know, the company having done such recording may long have gone bust, or they might still be around, but unwilling to provide it for whatever reason. So, the only way to keep companies honest would be to force them to deposit an DRM-unencumbered copy at the Library of Congress. But, AFAIK, there is no such law. And even if there were, who's gonna check that all t
Re:How about not treating me like a criminal in th (Score:5, Insightful)
Heh... stick around, and someone will eventually trot out the tried-and-true, "B-b-but there's no such thing as unbreakable protection. A friendly hacker will eventually come along and deprotect the work!" argument, using lofty-sounding language worthy of Madison himself.
Re: (Score:2)
Heh... stick around, and someone will eventually trot out the tried-and-true, "B-b-but there's no such thing as unbreakable protection. A friendly hacker will eventually come along and deprotect the work!" argument, using lofty-sounding language worthy of Madison himself.
However, such hacker will be punishable under DMCA if he does this while there are still copyright-protected works around protected by that DRM scheme. And that's what we object to.
On the other hand, if all works protected by the scheme are out of copyright, it would theoretically be legal to crack the scheme, but with so much fewer people interested in the works by then, there will be too little motivation (glory) to do so...
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, that's easy. You sign up and pay a monthly fee in order to keep your un-DRM'd works "free"...
Re: (Score:2)
There were few enough copies of the original star wars movies around that extensive restauration was needed when a re-run was done in the nineties... Other such cases abund. Thing is, after the initial rush, companies have very little motivation to invest in conservation of works which are no longer major money makers.
If someone won't provide a DRM-free version of a public domain work, sue th
Re: (Score:2)
That had nothing to do with the number of copies; it was the condition that was a problem. Preservation is a global concern--how many albums from 50 years ago have been kept in good archival quality? It's not limited to masters or reproductions or consumer prints, and as filmmakers transition to keeping digital copies, condition of the physical masters wil
Re: (Score:2)
That had nothing to do with the number of copies; it was the condition that was a problem.
It does have something to do with the number of good copies though... Had they waited another 10 years, the few barely good enough copies might have degraded so much that everything that would have been left would have been lowres TV quality video tapes...
Preservation is a global concern--how many albums from 50 years ago have been kept in good archival quality?
Enough because enough of them having been around. If there are millions of albums sold to begin with, chances are, at least 1 of them will still be in usable quality 50 years later. However, if the public only gets sold DRM'ed albums (which might be unusab
Re: (Score:2)
This is still a non-issue. There are hundreds of reproductions and multiply redundant copies of major works. CDs aren't going anywhere; reproductions of masters used by radio stations and satellite/XM/cable music feeds are scattered all around the globe. Cinema prints used by theaters cover videos. All of this is physical media. Digital media will be even easier to preserve. If a compan
Re: (Score:2)
The issues are too "complicated" for the commoners to understand, so they basically don't care while they are being fleeced.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Negative media attention is a HUGE factor when it shows up on their radars.
But they are quite successful at making sure that it doesn't show up on their radar. Easiest way: buy the media that could badmouth you (wonder why so many "entertainment" companies also own news media?). Second easiest: if you shaft your customer, be sure to do it in such a way that most won't understand. Then, chances are that newspeople won't understand it either, or, if they do, that they're afraid of boring their readers/viewers, and sell less paper.
It may not have an apparent effect on their status, but that's mostly because they're quite successful at mitigating the impacts.
Exactly
It is very costly for a big company to endure a pummeling in the press, and they spend a great deal of money to fix the problem.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:How about not treating me like a criminal in th (Score:5, Insightful)
If you have to validate the licence by contacting a remote server, not only is it an invasion of privacy, but if the remote server is inaccessible you lose the ability to use the content that you have licenced. So if the licensor goes out of business, you have ultimately lost access to everything you have paid for. I've brought up this comment with regards to DRM schemes like iTMS before, and invariably I get a comment like "There's no way a big company like Apple would go under" - what a naive claim. Big companies go under all the time, you only have to look at Enron for a recent example.
For me, this is the big deal - if my entire music library that I have *paid* for suddenly stops working, I'm going to be pretty pissed off.
Also, the ability to use DRM'd content *now* is a big deal. If I have paid for some content, why must I also be required to pay a licence fee to the owner of the DRM technology? This is usually going to either tie me to specific hardware (e.g. I'd have to buy a commercial BluRay player and HDCP capable TV), cost me an infeasable amount of money (wanna try asking Microsoft for a licence to decode WMP's DRM in your personal project?) or tie me to a specific operating system (why should I be required to buy Windows - an operating system that is completely useless to me - and a new computer to run it on, just so I can play some Microsoft DRM protected content? Seems rather anticompetetive to me - what we effectively have is a cartel of corporations who are doing their level best to lock anyone else out of the market.
Here is a real world example: I use MythTV as my PVR with a DVB-S card. I cannot use this system to pick up much of the satellite programming here in the UK because it is broadcast using NDS-Videoguard encryption. The *only* way you can use such broadcasts with a PVR (without going through the analogue hole) is to buy Sky's own Sky+ PVR system. Sounds anticompetetive doesn't it? Sky have a monopoly on satellite enabled PVRs in the UK because noone else can legally produce a PVR system that can receive many of the satellite channels. This doesn't just apply to Sky's own channels either - many channels that are touted as "free" are still encrypted using this system and you still have to buy Sky licenced equipment to receive these channels. (And before anyone suggests that Sky own the satellite, they don't - SES own the Astra 2 constellation.)
Re:How about not treating me like a criminal in th (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me point you back to the first clause in your sentence, specifically: "In practice, works that lose their protection are in the public domain". Then you go on to create a hypothetical argument to justify yourself, because apparently YOU know what the framers intended, and WE don't. Again - In practice, works that lose their protection are in the public domain. This wasn't any different back then. They knew that, otherwise an amendment would have been tacked on really quickly - when the first copyrights began to expire.
We're talking about DVD's and music and other DRM'd stuff here anyway. I doubt very much that everyone wearing a Jar-Jar T-shirt with an image illegally ripped from a Star Wars DVD is going to stop Hollywood from "innovating" and making movies, so the progress argument is mostly moot in this case. Still-
You think that copyright promotes progress - this is not true. Oh, it promotes progress for the author in terms of advancing the bank account. This does not guarantee, however, that this author is the best person to take a "next step" with that invention and create something else, however. The more information is shared (a great example being education, where knowledge is shared) the more likely you are to stimulate more individuals who have the potential to have their own stroke of genius.
Copyright law as it currently stands exists to protect revenue streams. Not "progress in science and the arts". It's logical that a copyright owner wants to maximize this revenue. But that doesn't mean it's a good thing for society. A lot of us would love to know how certain things are done - at a software level for example - out of curiosity. But if we know how to do 'X' efficiently, some of us might be able to come up with Y, Z, or even a whole different alphabet. We're called criminals now, however. How dare we 'reverse engineer' stuff...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How about not treating me like a criminal in th (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the way we'd do it if you were a wandering minstrel and I was a local lord of the manor, five hundred years ago. So am I supposed to phone Paul McCartney if I want to play Mull of Kintyre?
A few giant media companies control copyright on most of what we listen to or watch. They don't "come to agreements" with us. They use lobbyists to get laws made to legalsie the conditions they want. There is no negotiation, unless you count "take it or leave it".
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright is a "temporary" monopoly. Free market rules do not apply.
They are not forcing you to play, but they have as a common rule, the custom of forcing you to pay for content you do not desire to use, when you want some particular content for which they are the sole suppliers.
Were there a free market, you would be able to buy just the stuff you want, and nothing else, even if it was expensive.
I'm thinking pop albums where you get 10 filler songs and pay for 12 to listen to 2, cable
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do not equate "free market" with "infinitely granular market".
A free market exists when producers can sell their wares whenever, however, and to whomever they wish, with a view towards maximizing profit. Maximum profit often means bundles, bargains, wheeling, dealing
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to keep paying for the lamp. And you can do what you want with it. There's no EULA for lamps, IIRC - of course, I haven't been in the US for a while, things may have changed...
sweet (Score:2, Funny)
what a good day
As if anyone cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
The more laws you have, the more crime you create.
Re:As if anyone cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't care so much about DRM - because I don't re-share files. If I purchase music, I'd like the opportunity to do with it as I see fit - and might even put the digital music on a family member's computer/music player.
Take Peanut Press for example. They encrypt(ed?) their books with your full name and credit card #. I didn't mind putting that on a few trusted friend's PDA's - but I'm not going to re-distribute it across hell and back.
I wouldn't even mind some kind of secure but un-protected form of music / content.
The digital content I purchased is watermarked in some un-removable way. If I share that music, then I'm liable in some form. Or I lose my ability to purchase more. That would work even better than losing my rights to what I already have. I'd be careful about my files if that were the case..
Re:As if anyone cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
Now the company sues you.
I sure can imagine it. CC info theft is nearly trivial and not uncommon.
There are also holes in your other thoughts - files on a Windows computer can be distributed without owner's knowledge. I can imagine bots that spefically look for those files after they infect their host. And then send them into the ether.
About you not minding DRM - that's noble of you. But I want to wait on you decision after you change a couple of music players, the formats of your videos change, and E-books become the norm but not a standard. When your friends can't swap movies, music, etcetera with you because you all have different players that are completly incompitable with each other not because of a hardware problem (being digital) but as a programmed in limitation.
Great ideas you have. Very noble, sacrificing your rights to the poor corporations in all our names so you can have some shortterm convenience. Thanks for playing the idiot game. Please come again.
Think of the implications (Score:3, Insightful)
There are so many opportunities for (and cases of) data theft that being liable for the leaking could well be a can of worms you don't even want to think about opening.
Re: (Score:2)
Consider this. There is one law (I'll steal a commandment): Thou shalt not kill.
Every soldier, police officer, self-defending individual, hunter, hell--anyone who's ever stepped on an ant has broken the law. It doesn't say anything about killing other humans, or whether the killing was intentional or justified. Law is complicated; there are many good reasons why lawyers are specialized professionals--a lot of la
Re: (Score:2)
That's the reason why we have judges, not judging machines. The theory behind it is that a judge can sensibly apply a law and, given some leeway, can come up with sensible verdicts that make sense in the context of the case at hand.
But the legislative doesn't want to hand over that much responsibility to the third power. So we get more laws with more except
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let me change that - the more laws you have, the more you have an illusion that the system is acting rationally.
Thou shalt not kill has been around quite a while. Ever since there were laws, in fact. Tell me - has it worked?
Re: (Score:2)
Has 'thou shalt not kill worked'? For 99.9999% of the population, yes (given 16,000 murders for 290 million people in 2001 in this country). I imagine if there were no consequences for killing someone else, there would be a dra
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So we are bound by your imagination? In actual fact - perhaps you should look at some poorer countries that have less ability to enforce. You'll find that the murder rates are not much higher and in some cases even lower. And look at Iraq - where there's a cop or soldier on virtually every street corner. How is THEIR murder rate?
See not killing peop
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that copyright laws are too complicated. I don't even believe in the idea of copyright, although I do follow it solely because it's law.
I don't think more laws create more crime.
More Laws : More Crime
Lowering The Passing Grade : Smarter Students
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That may be true of natural persons, but companies can't have such a lax attitude. Before you know it, you have an audit on your hands...and if things aren't in order, you could lose everything you've built up, perhaps more.
Also, I'm not sure wholesale copyright violation is a Go
This sets a bad precedent (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's whitelisting actions which are/were categorically illegal at the present time. Whether or not they should have been made illegal in the first place is a separate issue. This isn't a bad precedent; in fact, it's not a precedent at all, really.
Actually, I don't agree. How exactly was unlocking the SIM lock on a phone contravening the DMCA? It's is not, and was never, a copy protection measure. It was not implemented that way and does not function that way. It was intended to be a measur
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Technicalities (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I might buy a phone for $1 and pay it off over 24 months. If I break the lock I am not paying for the phone. If I buy a CD of music the supplier doesn't lose anything if I shift it to a different format.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Presumably you signed a contract to pay or subscribe to some service. The contract is still enforcible legally, they just can't hold your phone hostage by locking it up.
Re:Technicalities (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying that's the way it should be, but since nobody has bothered to answer your question technically, there it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes you do, you own a copy of the music just as you own a copy of the phone.
>you didn't pay for the rights to use it "to the fullest extent."
You ojnly need to pay for rights you don't have to start with. Those are, if we talk music, typically copyright which covers a few specific rights as, almost, exclusive to the copyright holder. Other actions or things you do are not restricted or illegal and you don't need to pay for doing them.
>You paid for a license granti
Re: (Score:2)
Not the only lockout. (Score:2)
This is done firstly to encourage sales of their third-party phone management software, and secondly to increase their revenues from the likes of reverse SMS services for ringtone purchases and the like.
Telcos are only interested in giving you a feature rich handset in so far as they benefit from your use of those features. Features that allow you to enjoy the phone with
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, this is the usual practice in the UK. In Belgium the practice (and law) is that all phones sell at full price and are unlocked.
And in Luxembourg you have the choice. Either pay full price, and have free choice of provider, or subscribe with shop's affiliated provider, and pay less (... and have to stay for a set amount of time with a plan with non-zero monthly due).
If you actually use your phone for a non-trivial amount and switch back to a zero-monthly-due plan as soon as possible, you'll usually come out ahead taking the plan.
AFAIK, there are no technical locks, only contractual obligations (i.e. you can actually switch to anot
Smart phones? (Score:2, Interesting)
Cellphone locks (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It would also be possible to make the IMEI (the hardware ID) of the phone really immutable, but in practice it seems to be easier for manufacturers to put it in flash memory where after shorter or longer time it becomes possible to change it via hacker tools.
There are different parties involved. Equipment manufacturers, service providers, service technicians, customers. Each ha
Oh, you're being granted "use" back again. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Other copyright exemptions approved by the Library of Congress will let film professors copy snippets from DVDs for educational compilations"
In my day, we called this "fair use", and were allowed to do this as an exemption from general copyright rules.
From TFA:
"let blind people use special software to read copy-protected electronic books."
In my day, we called this "use". It's why we buy the item in the first place - in order to use it. Not in order to sign a scarecrow EULA once the box is open.
Well done America - granting temporary rights to people that they should already have.
Re:Oh, you're being granted "use" back again. (Score:4, Interesting)
Low opinion of government notwithstanding, the fact that this is coming under mandatory review in 3 years is a good thing. Once again, Slashdot attacks people in government for doing the right thing (in this case, taking steps to correct a previous wrong). Do you honestly think that Congress got together and said, "let's take away our own rights and the rights of our constituents, too!" or is it possible that the DMCA simply fell victim to expert lobbying and a level of severity that simply wasn't anticipated?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not sure about the situation in the States, but in the Netherlands (as well as other EU countries), "fair use" is more than just "exemptions from general copyright rules": these cases are actually written in the law as rights of the public.
The EUCD (EU equivalent of the DMCA) explicitly overrides these rights, by stating that effective technical measures that prevent you from doing certain
Requirements for usage restricted equipment (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually its predatory marketing.
The recent LoC ruling states that you can buy a Locked phone, break the lock and go scot-free.
Am sure this "mistake" would be corrected by Telcos when the next congress convenes, making it illegal to unlock any phone.
Expect a hidden bill whose story would splashing in YRO Slashdot in Fe
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But if the claim that they are losing money on the phone is true, then why won't the activate a phone the customer supplies. The carrier is not losing money on the sale of the phone. The carrier is still getting a contract. The
hard questions (Score:3, Insightful)
Sign up now to be a faculty member in the film department of my brand new internet university!
Beginning to look like tax law... (Score:2, Insightful)
DeCss now legal? (Score:4, Insightful)
Which you can only do by bypassing the copy protection. Does this make DeCSS [wikipedia.org] legal, and the "no breaking encryption" clause of the DMCA void?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Don't understand (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't really follow the bit about being allowed to copy snippets from a DVD. How exactly are you allowed to do that legally? Does that mean it's okay to use DeCSS for such a purpose? Can decss now be legally shipped with distros "for the express purpose of only copying snippets" ?
If cracking a DVD is still illegal, then does is this kinda like the right for a man to bear children. We can't actually do it, but we now have the right
In Soviet Russia... (Score:4, Informative)
I did so recently with an old SonyEricsson from T-Mobile when I discovered that my Orange Windows Mobile powered PDA was useless as a phone.
The mobile market in the US seems a bit peculiar generally.
No payola? (Score:3, Insightful)
I Knew I Slept Long... (Score:3, Funny)
Cellphone locking (Score:4, Informative)
This is more meaningful than most seem to realize (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, all of these explicitly-authorized activities arguably fall in the domain of fair use, and should have been allowed to begin with, and most of the exceptions seem like they don't directly affect most people, but they create a huge crack in the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions.
See, the big problem for consumers isn't so much that the DMCA outlaws circumvention, but that it outlaws circumvention *tools*. If you read the text of the law, it actually doesn't prevent you from circumventing copy protection (because it specifically allows Fair Use). What it does is prevent you from creating or distributing anti-circumvention tools.
But with these explicit exceptions in place, the tools needed to achieve the allowed circumvention become legal. It's possible, for example, that allowing DVDs to be ripped for educational purposes makes libdvdcss legal, because it now has a legal use. And if you can legally acquire a copy of the tool needed to break DVD encryption, you can then legally exercise your full Fair Use rights.
Can someone explain to us non-Americans? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm used to the US governing system being a bit impenetrable (Gore getting more votes than Bush but still losing, for example) but this one really is rather perplexing to an outsider, could anyone explain what's going on here?
What about disabled features on Cell phones? (Score:3, Interesting)
When my 6620 got lost, instead of getting another phone from my provider, I went to http://www.celluloco.com/ [celluloco.com] and purchased an unlocked Motorola A780 [celluloco.com] that let me do all the bluetooth mp3 ringing goodness that I wanted. It was a little harder to setup as Cingular doesn't support that model and settings won't automagically download from the network, but I was able to get network settings and voicemail number from tech suppport and it works fine now.
How about others here? what carrier and what features does your phone have turned off?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Read or Die? (Score:5, Informative)
That sorts it all out in one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You pay once to have a phone number assigned to you and get a SIM-locked handset (for cheap due to big subsidy from the telco) but if you actually want to talk on it, you have to buy creditcard sized vouchers with a taped over code. Remove the tape, type the long keycode into the handset and send it in SMS short message to a service number. The voucher is invalidated and your SIM card is credited with the amount of money or talktime.
Yeah, I have one --- I spend maybe 15 UKP a year on call charges. But su
Re: (Score:2)
Is Costa Rica richer than eastern europe then? Here, you pay full price for your phone - $150 or so. Then you pay a sign up fee for your phone line, and pay by the minute. And everyone and their dog has a cell phone here. The relative wealth of a country does not come into it!!! Subsidizing phones is a lock-in scheme by cell phone companies, nothing more, and nothing less.
Re:Read or Die? (Score:4, Informative)
I live in Europe and I have never seen or heard of anyone who has their phones functionality locked down. Most people don't buy phones here, they get them for "free" when they sign up to a years contract. At the end of the year you get an upgrade to a new handset and can keep the old one and do what you like with it including using it on other networks.
Re:Read or Die? (Score:5, Informative)
It was quite usual to have a "SIM lock" on phones provided for free, especially with pre-paid contracts (where you pay a certain amount for a number of call minutes, can call for that amount of time, and then have to pay again to continue using the phone).
As there is no fixed-term contract with monthly payment in this construction, the only way to cover the cost of the phone is/was for the provider to hope that you buy enough call minutes.
To prevent you from changing the SIM to one of another provider (with cheaper call minutes, for example), they "had" to lock the phone to the SIM.
However, after a certain amount of time you could request a code to release this lock. Or you could use a hack and have it released immediately.
Re:Read or Die? (Score:4, Interesting)
I have some experience developing applications for Microsoft Windows mobile smartphones. They have always allowed vendors to choose what level the OS is locked down. By default the Windows Mobile OS is not locked down, which is something I must commend Microsoft for, however vendors of mobile phones can choose to change this such that the Windows Mobile OS is either totally locked down i.e. doesn't allow any 3rd party applications to be installed or run, or locked in such a way that the user is prompted to verify software should be run that has not authorised by the mobile phone vendor.
This is a discussion about whether or not small DEVELOPERS can get into developing applications for the mobile market or whether it is going to be left to the big players to decide what software we're allowed to have on our handsets.
As mobile phones become increasingly more like mobile pcs, this is a big issue. If the day comes when this is the platform on the market, and XP, Linux and all other desktop flavours of operating systems are history, which is actually quite a likely scenario, then how locked down a system is to 3rd party developers becomes a major issue for personal liberty and freedom of choice. If we cannot choose what software we can develop and run on our computers we have lost our ability to communicate freely.
Basically I simply don't think any locked down system is going to prevail simply because the market will ultimately reject it in favour of who ever supplies a system that is not locked down. In terms of features no locked down system is going to compete with another that allows any developer in the world to create new applications for it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm talking about installing new software on your phone. Most mobile phones are locked down and don't allow you to install new software on it. With the Microsoft Mobile OS you just make an activesync connection from your PC the
Re: (Score:2)
I, and the article were talking about locking the phones functionality e.g. not being allowed to use bluetooth to synch with your computers address book and therefore being forced instead to use an expensive alternative service provided by the telco.
I know the sim card on phones is locked but in most cases you can have it unlocked by cancelling your contract and paying some cash to the provider. You can also probably unlock the sim yourself or find someone to do it for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Without speaking to what a particular carrier contract says or does not say, hacking a phone in and of itself to work with another carrier before the initial contract expires doesn't seem to violate the spirit of the subsidy. Hacking the phone doesn't mean I'm not still paying the original carrier fees for the duration of the initial contract. It just means the phone is no longer lo
Re: (Score:2)
You buy a subsidised product based on paying for it over an N-month contract, and you either stick to that contract or you don't.
If you break the contract, they should sue you for that. Period.
The mobile phone market took off in the EU long before the EUCD broguht anything like the DMCA, and the "lock-down" is completely ineffective even now.
That the US mobile market is behind the EU is nothing to do with copyright
Re: (Score:2)
My daughter reached the end of her contract with T-Mobile, renewed and got a new phone. She wanted to give her sister the old phone, to use with a Cingular account. Even though T-Mobile has a policy that allows customers to get the unlock codes after about 90 days (I think) of starting a contract, she can't get an unlock code for that old phone. I took it to a local cellphon
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Otherwise, I thought USA is governed by President, Representatives and Senate. The only Library that had government power was in the japanese anime "Read or Die" and that was the British Library. Who is a library to decide what can be hacked? That is a matter of legislation, reserved for the authority of elected officials only.
The Library of Congress houses the U.S. Copyright Office. Thus, the current Librarian of Congress had the Copyright office pass the following regulation: Exemption to Prohibition against Circumvention [loc.gov]. They did so with the authority given to them in Title 17 of the US Code Section 1201(a)(1)(C) [copyright.gov]. So yes, they were within their legal bounds... too bad it only lasts for 3 years though.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm getting tired of hearing this you know. It's the same argument companies make with game consoles, for instance. "Oh but you can't do that, because we're actually selling the console at a loss so we can profit from selling you games".
Wake up and find a new business model. Which idiot though
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1998.
Where'd they get this authority????
From the DMCA, which gets its authority from the US government, which in turn gets its authority from the voters of the US.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There, all fixed...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Funnily enough, they sell phones in the same way. Most phone unlocking is done by a guy at a street stall, for £10, and most people probably assume it isn't quite legal. The carriers aren't stopping subsidies pf phones, because they know if they don't the other carriers will.
What they do dictate however is the featu