We Should Be Allowed To Unlock Everything We Own 317
An anonymous reader writes "When cell phone unlocking became illegal last month, it set off a firestorm of debate over what rights people should have for phones they have legally purchased. But this is really just one facet of a much larger problem with property rights in general. 'Silicon permeates and powers almost everything we own. This is a property rights issue, and current copyright law gets it backwards, turning regular people — like students, researchers, and small business owners — into criminals. Fortune 500 telecom manufacturer Avaya, for example, is known for suing service companies, accusing them of violating copyright for simply using a password to log in to their phone systems. That's right: typing in a password is considered "reproducing copyrighted material." Manufacturers have systematically used copyright in this manner over the past 20 years to limit our access to information. Technology has moved too fast for copyright laws to keep pace, so corporations have been exploiting the lag to create information monopolies at our expense and for their profit. After years of extensions and so-called improvements, copyright has turned Mickey Mouse into a monster who can never die.' We need to win the fight for unlocking phones, and then keep pushing until we actually own the objects we own again."
AMEN! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:AMEN! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:AMEN! (Score:5, Informative)
I agree with your position on allowing unlocking. But your arguments are so wrong in so many ways that you'd really do better to shut up. "Our side" does not need such ignorant easily disproven drivel clouding the issue.
You OWN your home, even though its mortgaged. You are not leasing it. You are not renting it. It is yours to do with ANYTHING you please. The bank has a lien on your home if your are mortgaged. They do not own it, nor can they tell you in any way what to do with it. You can sell it for any price you wish or burn it down...
So, you've never actually read a mortgage and are completely unfamiliar with the laws pertaining to them...
Likewise, when I purchase a phone + contract, I own the phone immediately. The phone company counts it as an immediate sell on their books and all other accounting...
No, they do not--they recognize the revenue on the subsidized part of the phone as they receive it.
...which is why you pay taxes for it immediately rather than over time.
No, you do not. You pay taxes on the part you pay, not the part that is deferred.
If it was a lease, you would be required to buy it at the end of your contract ...
No, you would not--in fact you've got this one exactly backwards. A lease means you return the item (in good condition) without further obligation at the end of the contract.
...that is a LEGAL requirement for leases, they can't automatically be 'given' at the end.
It is a legal requirement in order to be able to deduct certain leases as business expenses that there be no pre-negotiated sales price at the end of the contract, that you pay fair market value at that time, that you receive no special consideration as the former lessee. Now you are right that if you get the item for free at the end, it's not a lease--because that's the very definition of a lease, that you don't take ownership. But getting this point only partly wrong still leaves your argument resoundlngly muddled.
They have early termination charges attached as an agreed on termination cost.
Yes, and that should be enough.
Not allowing your phone to not work on another provider ISN'T IN THE CONTRACT AT ALL, so its not something you agreed on ever.
Of course it is in the contract--the questions are: 1) whether or not such a term should be enforceable at all, and 2) if it should be enforceable, should it be a criminal act to unlock, or a civil issue between you and the carrier in the event you do not pay the early termination fee.
Re: (Score:3)
When you purchase a cellular phone in CA, you are charged sales tax on the non-subsidized price. Source: I recently purchased a Galaxy SIII for my mother and was charged a little more than $50 in sales tax although the out-of-pocket cost for the phone was $100.
That's an interesting point, that sales tax practices vary state-to-state. I'm pretty sure the last time I bought a phone, I was charged sales tax only on the out-of-pocket cost--in Colorado.
Re:AMEN! (Score:4, Informative)
You OWN your home, even though its mortgaged. You are not leasing it. You are not renting it. It is yours to do with ANYTHING you please.
Actually, that's completely incorrect. If you have a mortgage, go read what you signed and initialized (about 25 times in various places). A contract is a contract. They can put what they want in it if it's legal, and if you sign it you have to follow it.
Here's one specific statute (Maine... it was first on Google search :) -
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/33/title33sec769.html [mainelegislature.org]
Provided nevertheless, except as otherwise specifically stated in the mortgage, that if the mortgagor, his heirs, executors or administrators pay to the mortgagee, his heirs, executors, administrators or assigns the principal and interest secured by the mortgage, and shall perform any obligation secured at the time provided in the note, mortgage or other instrument or any extension thereof, and shall perform the condition of any prior mortgage, and until such payment and performance shall pay when due and payable all taxes, charges and assessments to whomsoever and whenever laid or assessed, whether on the mortgaged premises or on any interest therein or on the debt or obligation secured thereby; and shall keep the buildings on said premises insured against fire in a sum not less than the amount secured by the mortgage or as otherwise provided therein for insurance for the benefit of the mortgagee and his executors, administrators and assigns, in such form and at such insurance offices as they shall approve, and, at least 2 days before the expiration of any policy on said premises, shall deliver to him or them a new and sufficient policy to take the place of the one so expiring, and shall not commit nor suffer any strip or waste of the granted premises, nor commit any breach of any covenant contained in the mortgage or in any prior mortgage, then the mortgage deed, as also the mortgage note or notes shall be void, otherwise shall remain in full force.
Re:AMEN! (Score:5, Informative)
Therefore you don't really own it, but rent it from the state.
Not really true. Just because the government can take something of mine if I don't pay a fee, that doesn't mean that I don't really own it. Any of my posessions can be confiscated by the government if it's used to commit a crime.
If you don't pay your license fee, you are no longer allowed to drive it.
Also not true. If you don't pay the fee, you are not allowed to drive it on public roads. I can buy a car and drive it on my private property without paying any fees, without needing a driver's license, and even without paying some taxes on fuel.
Re:AMEN! (Score:4, Insightful)
What a stupid argument. By that logic, I don't really "own" the salary I make because the government only permits me to have it if I pay my income taxes on time.
Property rights and phone costs (Score:3)
People actually believe that property rights still exist? Ever since that VT Eminent Domain ruling, property rights is virtually dead, since anybody can cite that as a precedent for making the case that it doesn't exist, before proceding to confiscate someone's property.
So with property rights alreay pawned, this issue should come as no surprised. But honestly, the way cell phones are sold by carriers is an exercise in sophistry. The reason for locking is so that the subscribers can't switch carriers
Re:AMEN! (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know about you, but it seems more like I live in the Land of the Fucking Owned. A land owned by fucking assholes, totalitarian politicians, selfish and infinitely greedy (and incredibly crooked) multi-national corporations, and foreign laws like the recent cell phone unlocking, which was conveniently signed away from American citizens, giving foreign countries the 'right' to dictate what we can and cannot do.
Why doesn't the U.S. just fully sell themselves out? It seems like they desperately want to. Most goods are already produced and/or manufactured in China. Most support calls to American companies already connect you to people from India or some other cheap country, who not only can't even speak or understand English worth shit, they don't seem to know a fucking thing about the question at hand.
The U.S. is excellent at outsourcing, incarceration, taking money, and generally just fucking over its citizens. Too bad those are not really the kinds of things you would want your home country to excel at.
Re:AMEN! (Score:5, Informative)
This is only because we the citizens of the United States have allowed it to become so. Write and call your reps in Congress. Tell them how you feel. Get all your friends and family to do it. Get them to get all their friends and family's to do it. I can almost guarantee that if over 100 million emails are sent tomorrow to Congress saying we want to own our devices fully. A bill will be introduced and most likely will be passed within a week.
The public of the United States is the largest lobbyist group in the United States. See my latest blog post in my sig.
Obviously (Score:5, Insightful)
Our property is our property, and we should be able to do with it as we please. Further, breaking encryption is just math. Prohibitions on any sort of math amounts to thought crime. They want to make it illegal to figure things out.
The standard excuse for all this bad policy is that without DRM, our music, movies, and video gaming industries would collapse. I say, let them. It's just entertainment, which is a surprisingly small part of the economy (Google could buy the RIAA outright easily). Much better to let that happen than to enshrine bad policy as law for decades to come. And I'm willing to bet that people will find ways to entertain themselves anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
google can't buy RIAA, its not a company. its a lobbying organization made up of member companies
Re: (Score:2)
So buy the member companies.
Re:Obviously (Score:4, Interesting)
Not without gathering a army of lawyers like never before seen, first to dot every I and cross every T; and I say that well aware Google probably has more lawyers than I could count. The content industry types are experts at separating even the most sophisticated investors from their money and leaving them with nothing to show for it.
Just look at every tech firm that has ever attempted to buy a content company. Its almost universally the case that some how the former owners manage to outright abscond with or otherwise impair any intellectual property or talent. Hollywood folk CAN'T BE TRUSTED to deal fairly; the tech industry never gets what they think they are buying. Which is why Netfix is smart to build their own content production capabilities rather than try and buy an existing studio.
Google would more likely be better off simply out record company-ing the record companies. Google has access to eyeballs to promote talent; they have outlets to market product directly to consumers, and can afford to let the artists have a bigger cut. If they really smart they make that cut almost 100% of the direct revenue (sales of music files; licensing of content to other media companies) and just draw their own profit from ads. The existing record industry probably could not match the dollars, Google with get the artists, and the RIAA ilk will get court dates for the bankruptcy hearings.
Google, Amazon, and Apple or some combination there of is well positioned to simply gut the existing record industry. Google probably the best because they have the least to loose in terms of reprisals.
Re: (Score:3)
Labels and publishers (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
True it would not give them access to existing stuff and its true lots of revenue is derived from the back catalogs, so no its not as if the existing record companies would collapse over night but as Google becomes the producer/publisher for an ever growing slice of new content; and lands more and more of the contracts with the already big name artists; the revenue to old records companies will slowly start to dry up.
Additionally Google probably snap up rights valuable back catalogs from struggling labels i
Re:Copyrighted musical compositions (Score:4, Informative)
"Even if Google starts its own record label, that doesn't automatically give Google the right to distribute recordings of copyrighted musical compositions."
Uhhh, they have every right if said copyrighted recordings are MADE BY THEM.
Re: (Score:3)
Done it, plenty of times, all of them on youtube.
They've all survived DMCA requests.
I can copyright my particular performance of any song, especially when changes are made (Playing major instead of originally-composed minor, shifted tunings that affect the entire timbre and pitch of the song, etc.)
Re: (Score:3)
So, what's to stop Google from getting into the music publishing business too?
They could cover all the bases on media, from publishing, to distribution, etc, and all new media going forward could have the old way, or the new Google way going forward.
Re:Obviously (Score:4, Informative)
That was shorthand for "Google could buy the companies that comprise the RIAA". e.g. the RIAA "big three" are Sony Music Group, UMG, and Warner. I could only find market capitlization for Warner (1.3bn [thestreet.com]), but the entirety of Sony (not just the music group) is valued at 16bn [google.com]. Google has $50bn cash on hand.
Re:Obviously (Score:4, Informative)
One of those members now includes Comcast. Comcast, the company that went, cash in hand, and tried to buy Disney outright a few years ago. all of it. the studio, the subsidieries, the parks. All of it. Cash. In. Hand.
Disney said no.
So they bought NBC instead.
Disney meanwhile bought Marvel outright. And that oncluded their movies too.
So ya, sure, they can be bought, these RIAA and MPAA members....But I'm not so sure google has the money to do so.
And if they did have that much, it's like tying an anchor around your neck, in the sense they then become beholden to the means and methods those members have been using to make that much money.
Universal != Universal (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed. Sony, who used to make great products, started going downhill the moment they "bought" Columbia Pictures. Now they only seem to be able to produce DRM-laden crap.
Talk about the tail wagging the dog.
Re:Obviously (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. I can take the dozens of CDs that I own, rip them into MP3 format, and put them on a large hard drive on a network in my house in such a way that my kids could easily select which song they want to listen to. Penalty for doing this? Nothing. It's fair use.
However, if I take the dozens of DVDs that I own, rip them and put them on a large hard drive on a network in my house in such a way that my kids could easily select which movie they want to watch, I could (theoretically) be sued for thousands of dollars (if not more). I could find myself bankrupt over it.
Note that in neither example did I put the ripped CDs or DVDs on the Internet or give them to anyone else. Neither did I borrow CDs/DVDs (from Netflix, the Library, a friend, etc) and rip them. I legally own a CD and a DVD. I bought them from a store with my own money. Why can I copy one set of those bits to a format/medium that works better for me but not another set? Especially because ripping DVDs to a hard drive in this purely theoretical manner would make owning DVDs a lot more desirable (because it would be easier to watch them) and thus would lead to more DVD purchases.
Re:Obviously (Score:4)
Why can I copy one set of those bits to a format/medium that works better for me but not another set?
Simple. Because the RIAA doesn't own a time machine. Otherwise they'd go back in time and make sure that copy-protection gets built into the CD standard too.
Re:Obviously (Score:4, Interesting)
Red book (CD Audo) does have copy protection, there is a bit in the subcode you can set to disallow copying. It could probably be argued that any cd drive that can rip audio is in violation because it is ignoring the copy protect bit in the subcode.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
On that note, I feel it should be said that I do not agree with the RIAA, MP
Re: (Score:3)
Actually both industries believe that ripping to another format is illegal. The music industry just at some point realized that calling all their customers criminals and suing joe downloader into bankruptcy wasn't going to guilt them into buying cds again.
"Believe," sure. But the difference in Jason Levine's example comes from the fact that DVDs are encrypted. This is considered an "access control" protecting a copyrighted work. Even though the password to this encryption is now public information, the DMCA makes it illegal to rip to another format, even when you don't distribute it. CDs have no such access control. While copyright law still applies to music, the DMCA does not apply, and the type of copy Jason describes falls under the fair use exception in
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It is 100% legal to rip CDs and DVDs, DMCA not withstanding. As decryption technologies for DVDs were available prior to the DMCA, those products and technologies were grandfathered in.
Got a cite for that? Also, you may be interested to know that the DMCA was enacted in late 1998. DeCSS didn't come out until about a year later.
Sure - got a cite for that it is not? Or is it now illegal to photocopy books? Because copyright was never about copying, only about distributing. Go read the original documentation.
Furthermore, it greatly expands and oversteps the original Constitutional clauses related to copyright. (someone would have to show me how the DMCA does not violate the copyright clause as it originally was stated in the Constitution, nor in what way the federal government has any right to interfere with individual actions that are akin to cutting up, say, a book for excerpts)
On the rare ocassions that it has seriously been discussed, the DMCA was generally felt to have been enacted pursuant to the commerce clause, rather than the copyright clause, IIRC. Post Eldred I don't think there have been or are likely to be serious attacks on its constitutionality.
The DMCA greatly restricts various aspects of established copyright law, and makes various obvious and legal activities potentially crimes. e.g., you're filming your kid's first steps. Mickey Mouse is in the background on an HDTV. That's already a violation. You post your kid's first steps on youtube because he falls face first
Re: (Score:3)
There's short fiction that explored this concept. It played with the idea of fully extening all the rights.... and responsibilities to coprorations that natural persons have.
For this short story, when they imprisioned corporations, they would not let the executives leave the company for the duration of the sentence, nor could they hire new people either.
Death sentences for corproations already exist, its called revoking a charter, but it rarely happens.
Re: (Score:3)
Corporation is our common shorthand for "Limited Liability Corporation." It started as a legal trick for owner of a business so that if their company got sued then they wouldn't be responsible or thrown in jail.
It's that "Limited Liability" part that is the root of some pretty tremendous evil in the modern world.
Blame allocation as per US corporate SOP, then. (Score:3)
"Which drone shall we send to prison for this one, Sir?"
"Hmmm.... who is that simian at the console there in Sector 7G?"
Re:Obviously (Score:5, Insightful)
Limit this 'obviously' to consumer goods. There are whole classes of embedded items that should not be unlocked - medical devices, utility meters, safety systems, casino games, ATMs, airplane navigation systems........ Anything that a third party is being held liable for it accuracy. You can't have it both ways - third party liability and unlocked devices.
Security is built into hardware not copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
There's nothing 'obviously' about this. It's not a grey area. Either you limit everything or you limit nothing.
Medical devices, utility meters, safety systems, casino games, ATMs, airplane navigation systems should all be secured, by the hardware, in such a way that NOBODY can unlock them once they leave the manufacturer's hands. Pretending that some copyright law will protect these devices does nothing more than feed homeless lawyers.
Re:Obviously (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Obviously (Score:5, Insightful)
There are whole classes of embedded items that should not be unlocked...
Why? If I buy a medical device or a utilty meter, its mine, I own it, why shouldn't I be able to open it? I think you're mistaking regulated service providers with consumer markets. For example, if I buy a casino game there's no reason in the world I shouldn't be able to open it and modify the hell out of it. If I were to try to install it in a public place to actually make money off of it, modified or not, I'm going to get stopped in my tracks. Gambling is regulated by each state, you can't just set up a gambling machine and go to business. Same thing with all the other devices you mentioned. If your not a state licensed provider of the service connected to the device in question, all the pristine, above board, fully functioning devices in the world aren't going to do you any good.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd need some kind of system for individually unlocking the devices. If you want your device unlocked you'd call up the manufacturer, agree to release them from liability for the device's function and then they'd give you the key to unlock the device. But as long as the manufacturer is being held liable for the function of the device it is reasonable for them to keep it locked.
Note that this is far different than locking down consumer devices. Apple isn't making any guarantees to you about the performanc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't this backwards? (Score:4, Insightful)
Especially sensitive devices such as medical and safety relevant devices should not be a black box where it is illegal to look into the inner workings. While third-party liability is nice this is still just based on trust and not on tests. My trust into these system would increase quite a bit if a hacker plays around with a utility meter and finds no obvious vulnerability.
I want all my devices unlocked, the liability can be linked to a tamperproof soft/hardware seal as it is already done today. This is fine with me, I do not expect the manufacturer to be liable if I took it apart, hacked it and reassembled it but I do not see any advantage in making hacking illegal.
Re: (Score:3)
I would take the opposite side. It is more important to have access to the machines that drive the real economy then to consumer toys. Locked out devices help lock in customers – from the costs to business to the impediment to innovation (all of which will trickle down and hit us) – would be much higher.
I would argue that it is much more invidious that only Oracle can service oracle machines then unlocking Blue Ray disks. Do we want 3D printers that can only run the manufactory’s OS
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, no. If *I* own the smart meter, I should be free to hack it (but not if the power company owns it).
There are, of course, consequences to that. If you replace the firmware, it's misbehavior becomes your responsibility. If you want the third party to remain on the hook, leave it as it was. But that should still be my decision. Perhaps I have an old casino game and want to hack on it for personal use. That should be just fine.
So you can't fairly have it both ways, but you should be free to choose whi
Re:Obviously (Score:4, Insightful)
Should the owner of the casino gaming machines, ATM, utility meters be able to tamper with the devices after their accuracy has been verified by the manufacturer? Should the owner of a gas station have easy access to the software on his pumps so that he can modify the accuracy of metering with a button on his iPhone? How are you as a consumer ever going to detect that this is going on?
Just because some entity owns a devices doesn't mean that society wants them tampering with it. There are a lot of measuring devices owned by entities that have a large incentive to tamper with their proper functioning. Locking the software does a great deal to stop these owners from tampering with the devices.
If you make the rules such that everything you own has to be unlockable, you're just going to get big piles of EULA's saying that you don't really own the device instead you are indefinitely renting the use of it.
Re: (Score:3)
It is illegal to rob banks, but they still keep the money in a vault. Nothing is 100% secure amd every layer of security helps. Code signed embedded systems are pretty effective at keeping people from tampering with them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
EU disagrees (Score:2, Offtopic)
Our property is our property [...]
Apparently the EU disagrees with your statement [businessinsider.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Prohibitions on any sort of math amounts to thought crime. They want to make it illegal to figure things out.
Of course they want to make it illegal to figure things out. Smart people are always a danger to those in power. Almost every time some power-hungry bastard takes over a country by force, some of the first people they get rid of is the intelligentsia.
And I'm willing to bet that people will find ways to entertain themselves anyway.
Also something they want to prevent. The idea is to keep people miserable and thinking that the only way they can sooth their misery is to buy stuff, ideally going deeply into debt at 26% interest to do so. Otherwise, the masses might start having wealth, and t
Re: (Score:2)
It's NOT illegal to unlock your phone.
Under the DMCA, it is illegal to circumvent an access control mechanism, which unlocking a phone is. Even if you own your phone, it is illegal to unlock it.
You only own everything you are able to unlock (Score:5, Insightful)
>We Should Be Allowed To Unlock Everything We Own
I think there is a misconception here: You only own everything you are able to unlock.
If you can't do that, you don't "own" it, you're "owned".
Re:You only own everything you are able to unlock (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why sometimes they say you are licensing it.......you've licensed the right to use it but not the right to unlock it........
Re: (Score:2)
Then sue for false advertising.
The ads say "BUY IT TODAY!!!", not "BUY A LICENSE TO IT TODAY!!!!"
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And in that lies the legal answer. If something is 'sold' to you but it's locked such that you can't modify it, the seller is guilty of fraud just as if they took the money and gave you a box with a rock in it (unless you were knowingly buying a pet rock, of course).
As long as you really really OWN it! (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
We *should* own all of those things. EULA's are a joke, you should either own it or lease it (or rent it), there should be no middle area.
Also your sig makes no sense whatsoever.
Re:As long as you really really OWN it! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's sort of the point, though, isn't it? An EULA that governs a service is one thing, but an EULA that governs a physical product is something else entirely. A manufacturer exercising ownership rights over a piece of hardware that you have purchased outright, to which said manufacturer holds no obligation beyond addressing manufacturing defects, is patently (heh) absurd. That we're even having this discussion is a testament to the sad state of affairs in which we currently find our copyright/patent laws.
Re:As long as you really really OWN it! (Score:4, Insightful)
Now that Joe sixpack has happy bent over and submitted to this state of affairs, corporate giants are free to expand this subscription model to everything from your refrigerator to your clothing. And if you're a citizen of the US, your tax dollars are paying for FBI and other law enforcement agencies against the likes of you. As Irish comedian Tommy Tiernan put it, "We have billionaires to protect!"
Re: (Score:2)
It's called EULA [wikipedia.org]. If you own an XBOX, an iPhone or a Wii, you'd already know about it!
Some may not already know, but EULA's provide the terms under which you can use the intellectual property your latest gadget is dependent on. You may own the hardware, but software is not usually "sold" but licensed, and sometimes licensed only on the *hardware* you purchased. Of course, your hardware is likely useless without the licensed software so you are pretty much stuck with the EULA....
I'm not sure this is necessarily a bad thing.
Re:As long as you really really OWN it! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:As long as you really really OWN it! (Score:5, Informative)
And that's what this is all about. What is valid and enforceable in a EULA and what is not. Hopefully the pendulum is swinging back to a common law conception of ownership, and damn all the restrictive EULAs. And if Apple or Microsoft or anyone else with restrictive EULAs wants to bow out of the marketplace because they can't fathom how to make a phone or a videogame console without restrictive EULAs, I say let them take their toys and go home. Their market shares will be taken up in a microsecond by plenty of companies willing to make a buck actually **selling** such things.
What is this 'own' thing you speak of? (Score:2)
We own you. There is no other 'own'.
What's the fuss about unlocking? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I understand it right, you are not allowed to unlock a phone which you are buying with monthly contract.
Well, makes sense to me, you haven't paid the device fully, it's not yours to hack.
Once you've paid the (24 month?) contract you're free to do what you want with the device.
If you don't like those terms why did you even buy the phone with contract rather than directly with cash?
Re:What's the fuss about unlocking? (Score:4, Informative)
You are actually not free to do with your phone as you like after the contract runs out in th US, it is still a violation to unlock your phone yourself. You need the carrier to do it for you.
Re: (Score:2)
You own it at that point, the contract termination fee is there to recover the cost that hasn't yet been paid.
And, you pay that fee whether or not you get a phone in most cases. The whole thing is a scam designed to make it hard to change carriers.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no release after the contract is up.. It doesn't matter if you have owned it for one month or 10 years, you NEVER gain the right to do what you want with the device.
Re: (Score:2)
Whilst your argument hold water to a certain extent the fact exists that once you enter into a contract you are bound to pay the monies due under the contract regardless of what you do to the phone.
If the phone is uninsured and you lose or break it, you still have to pay the contracted fees. So, what loss is there to the supplier if you unlock your phone?
As for the fuss of unlocking - well, if you own a device you should be able to use it unfettered. It would be like purchasing a chest of drawers only
Re: (Score:2)
>Once you've paid the (24 month?) contract you're free to do what you want with the device.
That's just it, you're not. Unlocking a phone which you paid for free and clear still requires circumventing DRM, which is illegal under the DMCA
Re: (Score:2)
Phones from cell phone companies are sold locked regardless of if they are with a contract or not. At least one provider (t-mobile) forced me to subscribe 6 months before they would unlock it.
Re: (Score:2)
2) Even after the phone has been "paid back", you're still disallowed to unlock it. Even if you buy the phone in
Re: (Score:2)
The Four Freedoms (Score:3)
0. The freedom to use software however you wish.
1. The freedom to change software to suit your needs.
2. The freedom to distribute the software to anyone else, and in
doing so "to help your neighbor".
3. The freedom to distribute altered versions of the software,
and in doing so cultivate a community centered around the evolution of the
software.
Call it what you will, unlocking is an expression of Freedoms 1 and 2.
Umm.. (Score:2)
Fortune 500 telecom manufacturer Avaya, for example, is known for suing service companies, accusing them of violating copyright for simply using a password to log in to their phone systems. That's right: typing in a password is considered "reproducing copyrighted material."
I'd like to see a valid citation for this example, it smacks of hype. How do you copyright a single word? This isn't a logo or trademark. I don't see that flying well in court.
Other than that, I agree cellphones should be unlockable once the contract term is up, or if the phone is bought outright.
Sort your own house first. (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously Boycott Apple and Microsoft, that are locking hardware. Its not hard to support companies that have open hardware. The fact that your xbox, and iDevices are locked down is only part of the problem...and soon your general purpose computer.
I'm sorry your favourite abusive mega corporation wants to lock you into their self styled ecosystem. Its easy to walk away...I did.
You Are So Wrong (Score:5, Funny)
This sentiment is so wrong on so many levels. Stuff should not be "locked" in the first place.
Agree with the sentiment, but details are off. (Score:2)
"Manufacturers have systematically used copyright in this manner over the past 20 years to limit our access to information. Technology has moved too fast for copyright laws to keep pace, so corporations have been exploiting the lag to create information monopolies at our expense and for their profit."
It's been more like 15 years for most of the abuse, and the majority of the problem is due to bad recent laws like the DMCA and CFAA. Granted, CFAA is from 1984 law but it has been amended several times, even recently.
In the case of CFAA, I agree that the law is outdated and needs serious change. But (as clearly shown by DMCA), it is NOT a matter of technology moving too fast for law to keep up. On the contrary: corporate lobbying has deliberately twisted the law into a corporate profiteering tool, rathe
Not new, not even 20 years old (Score:4, Interesting)
This tactic of hoarding information and claiming copyright - aka Divine mandate - is called shamanism. It's a very VERY old tactic. Copyright is just a new twist on the tactic that lets opportunists without a Divine birthright get in on the action.
Information has always been a commodity, for better or worse and "right" or wrong.
This is similar to UV (Score:2)
The UltraViolet movement of the movie industry is an attempt to control your ownership of the DVD you purchased.
Finally, but let's go further (Score:2)
I feel like the blurb (at the bottom) from http://fixthedma.org/ [fixthedma.org] is just not enough. This article goes further...
Let's go even further.
Anti-circumvention technologies should be ILLEGAL in general consumer devices. They are anti-competitive, restrict consumer choice, and usually have to spy on users. The LAW already protects those corporations copyright interests (and to an insane degree, but that is a slightly different rant).
It seems like we've given up on what a government for and by the people is su
Tit for tat (Score:2)
Provide a EULA with your payment that explicitly defines the terms in which they may use the monetary service you are providing them in exchange for their goods and/or services.
Then file claim when they fail to comply.
eWaste tax discount-- if you're open & repaira (Score:2)
The real question is.. (Score:2)
My guess is we would have a squeel-fest if the price was a real market retail price for these items.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Politics, make it a policy issue. Get voters to tell politicians that it matters to them. Not as impossible as it seems, take for example the proliferation of Pirate Parties across Europe and the efforts of groups like the FFII, which have been highly effective in stopping software patents and other silliness in the EU to date. I don't think a dedicated technology party is going to be of much use in the US mind you, try an effective lobbying group instead. Lobbying works because lobbyists confine the knowle
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Just some thoughts:
1) how does an organization mitigate its liability for subsequent services needed to pull users out of a drink that unlocked their stuff, changed something critical, and bricked the unit? Not all people are responsible with settings..... the unwitting, children, etc.
2) if we take ownership, do we also take responsibility for subsequent access? What happens if charges are incurred through the use of an unprotected device, say, a smartphone that gets hijacked and gets a texting malware that
Re: (Score:2)
Unlocking is not rooting....
Unlocked doesn't mean anything more than being allowed to change cell phone carriers.
I bought my phone unlocked, but I won't root it because I don't want to have to deal with the OS. I simply like the choice to change carriers. Honestly, with the nexus line of phones google has created the ability for us to change how carriers and phone makers do business. We simply need to buy unlocked phones from google. Everyone else will get the message.
Computers (Score:2)
We've been dealing with these problems for quite a while already with computers - putting a computer in your pocket, car, etc doesn't fundamentally change the problem, though it does make it more pervasive. Moreover given the amount of malware available in the official app stores it's hard to argue that the companies locking down the devices are doing a credible job of protecting us anyway, so we're trading freedom for... what exactly? We already have standard boilerplate that virtually all software is no
Re: (Score:2)
The scope seems to be all devices. Already people have found interesting ways to mod automotive computers, by "chipping" them. The next owner doesn't necessarily know that the program of their car has been changed, and maybe or maybe not with bad results that might otherwise shorten the life of the vehicle or change its responsiveness in one way or another.
Tampering might not be known. Maybe there's a way, perhaps an icon, or another sign that a device isn't "stock" in some way, so that a purchaser is advis
Consumer Power (Score:2)
How?
...buy open hardware.
Re:You never really "owned" those things (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope.
Unless there is a contract negotiation, there is no contract.
Therefore it is a personal property sale. Pretending that personal property is an implied contract is precisely the sort of NONSENSE that this article is complaining about. It's just a way for powerful corporations to subvert your property rights and abuse all of us.
It's high time that citizens started pushing back.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that there's no requirement that the ToS or EULA be understandable by a non-attorney, and even attorneys have an issue at times understanding what they're really being asked to agree to.
As long as the courts are under the delusion that we all have unlimited funds for attorneys, this will go on.
Re:Yes and no. (Score:4, Insightful)
That's what the contract break fee is for, to pay that back. The customer owns the phone at all points along there, if they didn't, then the carier would have to pay to replace it if it broke. The customer owns the phone, they're just financing it via a non-optional rider to their plan.
Re: (Score:2)
I see absolutely no reason why a customer should be allowed to unlock a phone during the time when, for all intents and purposes, the carrier still owns a portion.
Absolutely right.
Just like you shouldn't be allowed to open the hood of a car you're leasing, because it still really belongs to the manufacturer.
Re: (Score:3)
Apples and oranges.
Opening the hood on a car is necessary simply to put in windshield washer fluid... a very mundane tasks that the manufacturer does not need (nor want) to be involved with.
If you insist on car analogy, it would be more like you shouldn't be allowed replace engine components with your own on a car you are leasing.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what the contract break fee is supposed to be for. If you don't pay the carier back for their loan, then you cut them a check to cover it. And it absolutely is my property, they don't have the right to take it back and can't to tell me what apps I can and can't use from the appstore..
Re: (Score:2)
Why should it matter whether the contract is over or not? As long as you fulfill your end of the contract (pay for a minimum level of service for 2 years), it shouldn't matter whether you've unlocked the phone any time before that contract ends. Even if I turn around and sell the hardware (locked or unlocked) while under contract, it shouldn't matter as long as I pay the 2 years of service.
* insert "or pay the cancellation fee" wherever appropriate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You OWN your home, even though its mortgaged. You are not leasing it. You are not renting it. It is yours to do with ANYTHING you please. The bank has a lien on your home if your are mortgaged. They do not own it, nor can they tell you in any way what to do with it. You can sell it for any price you wish or burn it down, but before the government will grant the deed to someone else, they must verify the lien has been removed.
Likewise, when I purchase a phone + contract, I own the phone immediately. T
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. But then you get to pay if there's an accident. Seems reasonable. How is that different from if you open the case, you void the warranty? (Which is also totally reasonable. You can do what you like, the company just won't clean up after you if you do.)