It is now a crime to unlock your smartphone

[Spurminator]

The Most Ridiculous Law of 2013 (So Far): It Is Now a Crime to Unlock Your Smartphone


When did we decide that we wanted a law that could make unlocking your smartphone a criminal offense? The answer is that we never really decided.
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/615_Apple_iPhone_Flag_Apple_Reuters.jpg

Reuters
This is now the law of the land:

ADVISORY



BY DECREE OF THE LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS



IT SHALL HENCEFORCE BE ORDERED THAT AMERICANS SHALL NOT UNLOCK THEIR OWN SMARTPHONES.


PENALTY: In some situations, first time offenders may be fined up to $500,000, imprisoned for five years, or both. For repeat offenders, the maximum penalty increases to a fine of $1,000,000, imprisonment for up to ten years, or both.*


That's right, starting this weekend it is illegal (http://www.livescience.com/26541-unlocking-cellphones-becomes-illegal.html) to unlock new phones to make them available on other carriers.

I have deep sympathy for any individual who happens to get jail time for this offense. I am sure that other offenders would not take kindly to smartphone un-lockers.

But seriously: It's embarrassing and unacceptable that we are at the mercy of prosecutorial and judicial discretion** to avoid the implementation of draconian laws that could implicate average Americans in a crime subject to up to a $500,000 fine and up to five years in prison.

If people see this and respond, well no one is really going to get those types of penalties, my response is: Why is that acceptable? While people's worst fears may be a bit unfounded, why do we accept a system where we allow such discretionary authority? If you or your child were arrested for this, would it comfort you to know that the prosecutor and judge could technically throw the book at you? Would you relax assuming that they probably wouldn't make an example out of you or your kid? When as a society did we learn to accept the federal government having such Orwellian power? And is this the same country that used jurynullification (http://cei.org/news-releases/reins-act-introduced-house?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LibertarianBlog+(Libertarian+ Blog+Place)) against laws that it found to be unjust as an additional check upon excessive government power? [The only silver lining is that realistically it's more likely that violators would be subject to civil liability under Section 1203 of the DMCA, instead of the fine and jail penalties, but this is still unacceptable (but anyone who accepts payments to help others unlock their phones would clearly be subject to the fine of up to $500,000 and up to five years in jail).]


NEW ABSURD CRIME

When did we decide that we wanted a law that could make unlocking your smartphone a criminal offense?

The answer is that we never really decided. Instead, Congress passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in 1998 to outlaw technologies that bypass copyright protections. This sounds like a great idea, but in practice it has terrible, and widely acknowledged, negative consequences that affect consumers and new innovation. The DMCA leaves it up to the Librarian of Congress (LOC) to issue exemptions from the law, exceptions that were recognized to be necessary given the broad language of the statute that swept a number of ordinary acts and technologies as potential DMCA circumvention violations.

Every three years groups like the American Foundation for the Blind have to lobby (http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2011/initial/american_foundation_blind.pdf) Congress to protect an exception for the blind allowing for books to be read aloud. Can you imagine a more ridiculous regulation than one that requires a lobby group for the blind to come to Capitol Hill every three years to explain that the blind still can't read books on their own and therefore need this exception?

Until recently it was illegal (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/jailbreaking-now-legal-under-dmca-for-smartphones-but-not-tablets/) to jailbreak your own iPhone, and after Saturday it will be illegal to unlock a new smartphone, thereby allowing it to switch carriers. This is a result of the exception to the DMCA lapsing -- not as a result of a mistake but of an intentional choice by the Librarian of Congress that this was no longer fair use and acceptable. The Electronic Frontier Foundation among other groups has detailed the many failings of the DMCA Triennial Rulemaking process which in this case led to this exception lapsing.

Conservatives should be leading the discussion on fixing this problem. Conservatives are understandably skeptical of agencies and unelected bureaucrats wielding a large amount of power to regulate, and are proponents (http://cei.org/news-releases/reins-act-introduced-house?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LibertarianBlog+(Libertarian+ Blog+Place)) of solutions like the REINS Act (which has over 121 co-sponsors). However, if Congress truly wants to rein in the power of unelected bureaucrats, then they must first write laws in a narrow manner and avoid the need for intervention by the Librarian of Congress to avoid draconian consequences like making iPhone jail breakers and smartphone un-lockers criminals, or taking away readable books for the blind.

If conservatives are concerned of unelected bureaucrats deciding upon regulations which could have financial consequences for businesses, then they should be more worried about unelected bureaucrats deciding upon what is or isn't a felony punishable by large fines and jail time for our citizens. And really, why should unelected bureaucrats be choosing what technological choices you can make with your smartphone? These laws serve to protect the interests of a few companies and create and maintain barriers to entry.

But there is another matter of critical importance: Laws that can place people in jail should be passed by Congress, not by the decree of the Librarian of Congress. We have no way to hold the Librarian of Congress accountable for crazy laws. There are still plenty of crazy laws passed by elected officials, but at least we can then vote them out of office.

There are numerous other problems with the DMCA. As I explained in an essay for Cato Unbound (http://www.cato-unbound.org/2013/01/07/derek-khanna/the-way-forward-on-copyright-reform/):


"The DMCA bars developing, selling, providing, or even linking to technologies that play legal DVDs purchased in a different region, or to convert a DVD you own to a playable file on your computer. Because no licensed DVD playing software is currently available for the Linux operating system, if a Linux user wishes to play a DVD that they have legally bought, they cannot legally play it on their own computer.

In order to regulate this anti-circumvention market, the DCMA authorizes injunctions that seem to fly in the face of First Amendment jurisprudence on prior restraint. The DMCA also makes companies liable for copyright infringement if it doesn't remove content upon notification that someone believes the content infringes their copyright - this creates a very strong business interest in immediately taking down anything that anyone claims is infringing to not be liable. Christina Mulligan's essay for Copyright Unbalanced details how in mid-July 2012 a Mitt Romney campaign ad hosted on Youtube was forcibly removed from the site, and in 2008 Youtube blocked several John McCain ads for more than 10 days. As Mulligan details, the ads were legitimate under "fair use." Allowing individual people to veto political speech that they do not like stifles free expression and political dialogue and even if a rare occurrence under the DMCA should not be taken likely. There are also other examples of abuse, Mulligan details that one group had all Justin Bieber songs removed from Youtube as a prank."


And if you thought this was bad, provisions of the DMCA relating to anti-circumvention are part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Treaty - and the United States is the party asking for it as part of the negotiations. Placing it in the treaty will enact our dysfunctional system on an international level in countries that don't want it, and it will "re-codify" the DMCA in an international treaty making it significantly more difficult to revise as necessary. Copyright laws are domestic laws and they need to be flexible enough to adjust accordingly to not inhibit new innovation.

I for one am pro-choice with regard to my smartphone, ask your elected representative if they are as well.
__________________________

*Specifically this refers to Section 1204 of Public Law 105-304, which provides that "any person who violates section 1201 or 1201 willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain. . .[shall be subject to the listed penalties]." However, given copyright laws broad interpretation by the courts, it could be argued that merely unlocking your own smartphone takes a device of one value and converts it into a device of double that value (the resale market for unlocked phones is significantly higher) and therefore unlocking is inherently providing a commercial advantage or a private financial gain - even if the gain hasn't been realized. In other words, unlocking doubles or triples the resale value of your own device and replaces the need to procure the unlocked device from the carrier at steep costs, which may be by definition a private financial gain. Alternatively, one can argue that a customer buying a cheaper version of a product, the locked version vs. the unlocked version, and then unlocking it themselves in violation of the DMCA, is denying the provider of revenue which also qualifies. There are several cases that have established similar precedents where stealing coaxial cable for personal use has been held to be for "purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain." (See Cablevision Sys. New York City Corp. v. Lokshin, 980 F. Supp. 107, 109 (E.D.N.Y. 1997)); (Cablevision Sys. Dev. Co. v. Cherrywood Pizza, 133 Misc. 2d 879, 881, 508 N.Y.S.2d 382, 383 (Sup. Ct. 1986)).

**The Ninth Circuit recently explained in United States v. Nosal, 676 F.3d 854 (9th Cir. 2012) that under a "broad interpretation of the [Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) you could be prosecuted for personal use of work computers]." The court explained that under this approach "While it's unlikely that you'll be prosecuted for watching Reason.TV on your work computer, you could be [emphasis in original]. Employers wanting to rid themselves of troublesome employees. . . could threaten to report them to the FBI unless the quit. Ubiquitous, seldom-prosecuted crimes invite arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement." The Court rejected this interpretation which would have made regular activity by average citizens as a potential felony and ruled that running afoul of a corporate computer use restriction does not violate the CFAA. It's possible that here a court would use judicial discretion to narrowly interpret the DMCA and reject the broad definitions that are typically advanced by the government.


http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/01/the-most-ridiculous-law-of-2013-so-far-it-is-now-a-crime-to-unlock-your-smartphone/272552/#

[mavs>spurs]

These hoes got to go

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

What the fuck

[LnGrrrR]

I believe it was already a "crime" by going against the user agreement. Of course, it's all a bunch of stupid horseshit. If you buy the hardware, you should be able to do whatever the fuck you want with it. Is there any other similar example in the world? If I mod my car, will that put me in jail? How about a gun?

[Spurminator]

If I mod my car, will that put me in jail?

Absolutely, when they start making cars that only take specific brands of gasoline and you convert your car to run on a different brand.

[resistanze]

Absolutely, when they start making cars that only take specific brands of gasoline and you convert your car to run on a different brand.

More like, when your car can naturally take all kinds of gasoline but the company adds a lock code to restrict it to one brand.

[Creepn]

Wait a minute wait a minute, if I root my phone, I can go to jail? $500,000 fine?? No way.

[Drachen]

Not rooting, unlocking.

[Drachen]

Unlocking is taking an AT&T phone that is locked to the carrier, unlocking it and using it on T-mobile.

[Creepn]

Unlocking is taking an AT&T phone that is locked to the carrier, unlocking it and using it on T-mobile.

I see, thanks for the clarification. But what's the point of unlocking to switch carriers if you have a contract with the carrier? Why not do better research with the carriers to find the best plan for you in the first place?

[Drachen]

Let's say I have a really nice T-mobile phone. Now lets say I that I run out my contract with tmobile and don't want a new phone. I can take my phone to ATT. This deprives ATT of a phone sale. Also, If you go to another country and want to just buy a prepaid sim and stick it in, you can't unless unlocked. Now you would have to pay roaming with your provider.

[Creepn]

Man that is ridiculous. Ok so how does one get caught? ATT snitches you out to the authorities because you don't want to buy their phones? I smell blackmail as a new marketing technique.

[Drachen]

Man that is ridiculous. Ok so how does one get caught? ATT snitches you out to the authorities because you don't want to buy their phones? I smell blackmail as a new marketing technique.

I have not had to unlock a phone, so I am unsure

[Oh, Gee!!]

this is Obama's fault.

[boutons_deux]

The intrusion of the mega-corporations into fixing the rules to prevent competition and consumer choice should have, as the Atlantic notes, Republicans in an uproar – but Capitol Hill Republicans (as is the case with many Dems on the Hill) are not really pro-free market; they are pro monopolizing corporations.

Democracy cannot flourish without economic democracy.

If a group of corporations that have crossed a threshold into being like their Wall Street counterparts, too big to be denied assistance in fixing markets and stifling competition, then democracy as a political force is diminished; it runs the danger of becoming an extension of a marketplace that protects the virtual economic monopolies.

It will probably get worse, as the Atlantic points out: "And if you thought this was bad, provisions of the DMCA relating to anti-circumvention are part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Treaty -- and the United States is the party asking for it as part of the negotiations."

http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/17772-corporate-bondage-of-smart-phone-users-legalized

the mega-multinaitonal corporations are now supra-national and running the planet. They will continue to extract wealth from wherever it can be extracted.

[admiralsnackbar]

I believe it was already a "crime" by going against the user agreement. Of course, it's all a bunch of stupid horseshit. If you buy the hardware, you should be able to do whatever the fuck you want with it. Is there any other similar example in the world? If I mod my car, will that put me in jail? How about a gun?

I dunno about your analogy, man...

You don't actually buy a phone from most carriers, you buy access to a service and, in return, are allowed access to a selection of discounted devices which are subsidized by the carrier -- the classic loss-leader. So it would be like leasing a car, but welching on paying your bill, and instead paying another dealership that offers a more favorable rate, which is a little more dodgy. Don't get me wrong -- the penalties are absurd -- but the principle that jailbreaking is a victimless crime (especially given competition among telecoms) is not entirely accurate.

[TheMACHINE]

"what you in for?"
"double-homcide. you?"
"unlocking my iphone"

[resistanze]

I dunno about your analogy, man...

You don't actually buy a phone from most carriers, you buy access to a service and, in return, are allowed access to a selection of discounted devices which are subsidized by the carrier -- the classic loss-leader. So it would be like leasing a car, but welching on paying your bill, and instead paying another dealership that offers a more favorable rate, which is a little more dodgy. Don't get me wrong -- the penalties are absurd -- but the principle that jailbreaking is a victimless crime (especially given competition among telecoms) is not entirely accurate.
I don't think this analogy works because no one is welching on their bill. You are still responsible for your contract whether you unlock your phone or not. I can put my phone in the drawer for 2 years and I still have to pay the $70/month bill I signed up for.

The biggest complaints isn't coming from the initial carrier, it's actually coming from the carrier you leave for. They don't want you to bring a phone from the other company - they want you to buy THEIR phone, either through a 'subsidized' rate or outright for full price.

[Borat Sagyidev]

The DMCA was introduced and largely supported by conservative scum. Billington, who heads the Library of congress was a Reagan appointee.


Those people have good moral values don´t cha know.

[admiralsnackbar]

I don't think this analogy works because no one is welching on their bill. You are still responsible for your contract whether you unlock your phone or not. I can put my phone in the drawer for 2 years and I still have to pay the $70/month bill I signed up for.

The biggest complaints isn't coming from the initial carrier, it's actually coming from the carrier you leave for. They don't want you to bring a phone from the other company - they want you to buy THEIR phone, either through a 'subsidized' rate or outright for full price.

I'm inclined to disagree somewhat. Carriers make their money being carriers and lose money selling phones below cost to get you to sign and lock you in -- hence loss-leader. A carrier-subsidized iphone costs $199. An unlocked one goes for $649. There are economies of scale involved, but the bottom line is that a carrier invests heavily in its devices for the sole purpose of selling its services.

A jailbroken smartphone allows a person to use apps that enable VoIP (bypassing profitable voice service in wifi hot-spots, for example), disable or distort tracking and user metrics (like how much data you are using or where you are), etc. That said, you're right to point out that it isn't just carriers who are threatened by jail-breaking smart-phones -- when developers start working outside the closed retail space of a company like Apple, manufacturers (who take a 20%+ cut for hosting and maintaining the developer community ecosystem in exchange for protection and promotion) and developers (especially those who play according to closed-system retailers like Microsoft and Apple) are exposed to losing money by being pirated or having their intellectual property otherwise mis-used.

But all this is kinda moot in light of how egregious and venal a law this promises to be. It's a shame the telecoms were so utterly deregulated in the early 2000's and intellectual property law is so stacked in favor of the multinational corps.

[LnGrrrR]

I dunno about your analogy, man...

You don't actually buy a phone from most carriers, you buy access to a service and, in return, are allowed access to a selection of discounted devices which are subsidized by the carrier -- the classic loss-leader. So it would be like leasing a car, but welching on paying your bill, and instead paying another dealership that offers a more favorable rate, which is a little more dodgy. Don't get me wrong -- the penalties are absurd -- but the principle that jailbreaking is a victimless crime (especially given competition among telecoms) is not entirely accurate.

Except that when you purchase those subsidized phones, you still have the contract for however many years of service. If you decide to break that contract, cool.

The hardware isn't "free" by any means. It may be subsidized, but it's not free. If they say you can buy the hardware for $200, and you do, it should be up to you what you do with the hardware. And if you decide to break the 2 year contract, there are penalties and whatnot for doing so.

Also, when you lease a car, you obviously don't own the car. You can't sell it to someone else, after all. But if I went to AT&T today, and bought a smartphone, AT&T won't come after me if I decide to sell that to my friend for whatever price I feel is fair. You know, because I OWN the phone.

[resistanze]

I'm inclined to disagree somewhat. Carriers make their money being carriers and lose money selling phones below cost to get you to sign and lock you in -- hence loss-leader. A carrier-subsidized iphone costs $199. An unlocked one goes for $649. There are economies of scale involved, but the bottom line is that a carrier invests heavily in its devices for the sole purpose of selling its services.
This doesn't change whether or not you've unlocked your phone or left the carrier or not - once you've signed the 2 year (3 year in Canada) agreement, they've made their money back. If I leave my carrier mid-contract, I'm not only responsible for all the hefty cancellation fees, I'm also responsible for paying back the 'subsidy' they offered you on your phone during your contract. There's no money lost on the carrier side.

And you'd be surprised on how the 'subsidized' system has been much more beneficial to the carrier than to the customer. Charging $60-70/month on a 2-3 year contract and providing a subsidized phone is more attractive than having you pay the phone in full and charging you $30/month for the same service (as is the case in many European nations). It's not like these carrier are offering you better plans if you pay full price for a phone at their stores - not only to you get a locked phone you spent $600 for, but month-to-month plans are typically not any better. In essence, they're encouraging you sign the contract and get a 'cheaper' phone with them.


A jailbroken smartphone allows a person to use apps that enable VoIP (bypassing profitable voice service in wifi hot-spots, for example), disable or distort tracking and user metrics (like how much data you are using or where you are), etc. That said, you're right to point out that it isn't just carriers who are threatened by jail-breaking smart-phones -- when developers start working outside the closed retail space of a company like Apple, manufacturers (who take a 20%+ cut for hosting and maintaining the developer community ecosystem in exchange for protection and promotion) and developers (especially those who play according to closed-system retailers like Microsoft and Apple) are exposed to losing money by being pirated or having their intellectual property otherwise mis-used.
Jailbreaking is still perfectly legal. This is simply about unlocking a device to be used by any carrier (can be done through an unlock code; doesn't require jailbreaking).


But all this is kinda moot in light of how egregious and venal a law this promises to be. It's a shame the telecoms were so utterly deregulated in the early 2000's and intellectual property law is so stacked in favor of the multinational corps.I'm in agreement on this one. And the total lack of understanding of new technologies by lawmakers is hilarious.

[DMC]

Not rooting, unlocking.

He's black, you have to grade him on a curve.

[DMC]

Except that when you purchase those subsidized phones, you still have the contract for however many years of service. If you decide to break that contract, cool.

The hardware isn't "free" by any means. It may be subsidized, but it's not free. If they say you can buy the hardware for $200, and you do, it should be up to you what you do with the hardware. And if you decide to break the 2 year contract, there are penalties and whatnot for doing so.

Also, when you lease a car, you obviously don't own the car. You can't sell it to someone else, after all. But if I went to AT&T today, and bought a smartphone, AT&T won't come after me if I decide to sell that to my friend for whatever price I feel is fair. You know, because I OWN the phone.
It's risk mitigation for corporate America. There's a risk in giving away a phone in exchange for a contract. The risk is you have to go after the customer for the fees of breaking the contract. I think that's where their authority should end. We cannot be put in jail for failure to pay a debt (other than child support and taxes) but we can be for thwarting a loss-leader?

I've always said that if you don't support rights you don't use no one will support rights you do.

But it depends on the ramifications of allowing it to go unaddressed. If I am given a printer on the premise that I puchase proprietary ink cartridges only, and I modify that printer so I can just use cheaper cartridges, I am breaking an agreement and also stealing from a company their built in revenue from the printer/ink service. I think that, if you acquire a device on false premises, you're stealing. If you are caught, you should be charged with theft. I don't think that should be a 1M dollar fine. Pedos don't get that much.

[admiralsnackbar]

Jailbreaking is still perfectly legal. This is simply about unlocking a device to be used by any carrier (can be done through an unlock code; doesn't require jailbreaking).


Aha... this is at the heart of my misunderstanding. Thanks for zeroing in on it.

[DMC]

I'm in agreement on this one. And the total lack of understanding of new technologies by lawmakers is hilarious. Almost rivals the lack of understanding firearms by the same people.

[ElNono]

There's more to this story than the mere DMCA anti-circumvention provisions.

Basically, the software that comes with the hardware is not sold to you, but licensed. And due to a few recent rulings about shrink-wrapped licenses and strict limitations on licensing and re-sale (ie:Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc.), the "first sale doctrine" is basically going by the wayside. This actually is opening a brand new can of worms, which is the re-sale of used software (or the lack of legality to do so). I was actually bummed the SCOTUS didn't take on the certioriari on that case.

[ElNono]

BTW, jailbraking is also forbidden by the DMCA, since it also applies to the same anti-circumvention clause. The DMCA however, allows the Library of Congress to provide exceptions, and jailbreaking is one of them. Unlocking was also an exception up to this year. The Library of Congress issues updates on this exceptions pretty much yearly. Don't be surprised if jailbreaking loses it's exception status down the road too.

[Creepn]

This doesn't change whether or not you've unlocked your phone or left the carrier or not - once you've signed the 2 year (3 year in Canada) agreement, they've made their money back. If I leave my carrier mid-contract, I'm not only responsible for all the hefty cancellation fees, I'm also responsible for paying back the 'subsidy' they offered you on your phone during your contract. There's no money lost on the carrier side.

And you'd be surprised on how the 'subsidized' system has been much more beneficial to the carrier than to the customer. Charging $60-70/month on a 2-3 year contract and providing a subsidized phone is more attractive than having you pay the phone in full and charging you $30/month for the same service (as is the case in many European nations). It's not like these carrier are offering you better plans if you pay full price for a phone at their stores - not only to you get a locked phone you spent $600 for, but month-to-month plans are typically not any better. In essence, they're encouraging you sign the contract and get a 'cheaper' phone with them.


Jailbreaking is still perfectly legal. This is simply about unlocking a device to be used by any carrier (can be done through an unlock code; doesn't require jailbreaking).

I'm in agreement on this one. And the total lack of understanding of new technologies by lawmakers is hilarious.

But would it be cheaper to buy a phone phone full price and paying $30 a month or would it be the same as buying a phone subsidized with the 80 bucks a month?

[LnGrrrR]

It's risk mitigation for corporate America. There's a risk in giving away a phone in exchange for a contract. The risk is you have to go after the customer for the fees of breaking the contract. I think that's where their authority should end. We cannot be put in jail for failure to pay a debt (other than child support and taxes) but we can be for thwarting a loss-leader?

I've always said that if you don't support rights you don't use no one will support rights you do.

But it depends on the ramifications of allowing it to go unaddressed. If I am given a printer on the premise that I puchase proprietary ink cartridges only, and I modify that printer so I can just use cheaper cartridges, I am breaking an agreement and also stealing from a company their built in revenue from the printer/ink service. I think that, if you acquire a device on false premises, you're stealing. If you are caught, you should be charged with theft. I don't think that should be a 1M dollar fine. Pedos don't get that much.

The phone companies could get away from this by just not subsidizing their phones. But of course that would cut into profits, so they won't do that. Which goes to show that unlocking can't be taking away THAT much money...

I personally wish there was no law regarding what you do with property you purchase, contract or not. And as others have mentioned, if that printer company isn't stupid, it would lock in the customer to paying a certain amount of years no matter what they did with the printer.

[LnGrrrR]

There's more to this story than the mere DMCA anti-circumvention provisions.

Basically, the software that comes with the hardware is not sold to you, but licensed. And due to a few recent rulings about shrink-wrapped licenses and strict limitations on licensing and re-sale (ie:Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc.), the "first sale doctrine" is basically going by the wayside. This actually is opening a brand new can of worms, which is the re-sale of used software (or the lack of legality to do so). I was actually bummed the SCOTUS didn't take on the certioriari on that case.

It would have been an interesting case, for sure. When you purchase a book from Barnes and Nobles, you're not purchasing the "license" to read the book, you're actually purchasing the book, and can do what you wish with it. However, all that common sense goes by the wayside due to ease of duplication for software. It would be nice to see what the court had to say about some of these nonsensical rules.

[ElNono]

It would have been an interesting case, for sure. When you purchase a book from Barnes and Nobles, you're not purchasing the "license" to read the book, you're actually purchasing the book, and can do what you wish with it. However, all that common sense goes by the wayside due to ease of duplication for software. It would be nice to see what the court had to say about some of these nonsensical rules.

Except when you're buying a book from Barnes and Nobles in digital format... then you're purchasing a license. The problem is most people have no idea what they're paying for.

[admiralsnackbar]

Except when you're buying a book from Barnes and Nobles in digital format... then you're purchasing a license. The problem is most people have no idea what they're paying for.
Don't get me started...

I quickly discovered just how ridiculous and procrustean ebook licenses can be when I went back to school a few years back. My final project was based around an e-textbook I'd bought precisely so I could copy and paste passages into my paper and everything was going swimmingly... until I got a nag-screen from the book's DRM telling me I had exceeded the allotted (and extremely low) amount of characters my license allowed to be copied. Lawrence Lessig needs to start trying a little harder.

[diego]

just as an anecdote... here in Chile the law just changed to the opposite- carriers are legally obliged to unlock your phone for you at no cost. If the phone was on a subsidized plan you must pay the outstanding payments, but the point of the law is that carriers can no longer lock people in to their service. the same law also makes your phone number yours, so if you want to change carriers you keep your number as well.
in the first month this law was implemented huge swaths of people changed carriers as carriers scrambled to improve their offered services.

[DMC]

The phone companies could get away from this by just not subsidizing their phones. But of course that would cut into profits, so they won't do that. Which goes to show that unlocking can't be taking away THAT much money...

I personally wish there was no law regarding what you do with property you purchase, contract or not. And as others have mentioned, if that printer company isn't stupid, it would lock in the customer to paying a certain amount of years no matter what they did with the printer.

The truth is though that no one needs to do that to a phone so it shouldn't be an issue. This generation brought this on themselves. They think other people's intellectual property should be theirs if they can figure out a way to take it. From Napster, Morpheus and more to this phone thing, corporations are finding they need laws to protect their electronic property.

[boutons_deux]

"no law regarding what you do with property you purchase,"

the corps, finance, and 1% have turned USA in to a rentier society

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rentier_capitalism

[Drachen]

He's black, you have to grade him on a curve.

Not necessary, the guy I talk to most about android/rooting/etc is black. (no this wasn't a "my best friend is black" either, just that it isn't an impediment). Go look at the thread in the tech forum, there are several non-black people making the same mistake.

[DMC]

Not necessary, the guy I talk to most about android/rooting/etc is black. (no this wasn't a "my best friend is black" either, just that it isn't an impediment). Go look at the thread in the tech forum, there are several non-black people making the same mistake.

Are you serious? No way.

[DMC]

"no law regarding what you do with property you purchase,"

the corps, finance, and 1% have turned USA in to a rentier society

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rentier_capitalism

It's been illegal for a long time to make certain alterations to firearms. That's ok though, right?

[symple19]

Are you serious? No way.

:lmao

whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooosh

[boutons_deux]

It's been illegal for a long time to make certain alterations to firearms. That's ok though, right?

totally different, but that obviously escapes your "maranic" ass

Regulation of deadly/dangerous material is for the general welfare and public health.

Renting/licensing, rather than selling into 100% ownership, is exclusively for extracting wealth indefinitely.

See how the Gun Religion makes you just as stupid as any Religion?

[DMC]

totally different, but that obviously escapes your "maranic" ass

Regulation of deadly/dangerous material is for the general welfare and public health.

Renting/licensing, rather than selling into 100% ownership, is exclusively for extracting wealth indefinitely.

See how the Gun Religion makes you just as stupid as any Religion?

Totally different because it doesn't affect liberals who don't own guns. My property, I should be allowed to alter it as I see fit.

Standards Deux

[resistanze]

But would it be cheaper to buy a phone phone full price and paying $30 a month or would it be the same as buying a phone subsidized with the 80 bucks a month?

Well let's use AT&T $70/month for 450 minutes and 3GB of data as an example:

Subsidized: iPhone 5 for $199 + ($70 * 24) = $1879
Outright: iPhone 5 for $649 + ($30 * 24) = $1369

They're not doing anyone any favours with these subsidized plans and like I said, once you break that contract you have to have the phone in full; don't think you can walk away with just paying cancellation fee.

Hell, in Canada it's $179 + ($70 * 36) = $2699. You can see easily why the 2 biggest telecom companies joined forced to buy our NBA, NHL, and MLS teams.

[Drachen]

Well let's use AT&T $70/month for 450 minutes and 3GB of data as an example:

Subsidized: iPhone 5 for $199 + ($70 * 24) = $1879
Outright: iPhone 5 for $649 + ($30 * 24) = $1369

They're not doing anyone any favours with these subsidized plans and like I said, once you break that contract you have to have the phone in full; don't think you can walk away with just paying cancellation fee.

Hell, in Canada it's $179 + ($70 * 36) = $2699. You can see easily why the 2 biggest telecom companies joined forced to buy our NBA, NHL, and MLS teams.

Also, Tmobile is the only of the big 4 who give you a lower monthly price for bringing your own phone

[leemajors]

Well let's use AT&T $70/month for 450 minutes and 3GB of data as an example:

Subsidized: iPhone 5 for $199 + ($70 * 24) = $1879
Outright: iPhone 5 for $649 + ($30 * 24) = $1369

They're not doing anyone any favours with these subsidized plans and like I said, once you break that contract you have to have the phone in full; don't think you can walk away with just paying cancellation fee.

Hell, in Canada it's $179 + ($70 * 36) = $2699. You can see easily why the 2 biggest telecom companies joined forced to buy our NBA, NHL, and MLS teams.

Thank bejeezus for my discount. I've got 3 iPhones, 2 with the lower end data plan, one unlimited and one dumbphone for $200/mo.

[resistanze]

Also, Tmobile is the only of the big 4 who give you a lower monthly price for bringing your own phone
Exactly. They absolutely want you to get a subsidized phone, they make far more money that way. Bring your own phone/buy a phone outright? Good for you, you get the same plan.

[Drachen]

Exactly. They absolutely want you to get a subsidized phone, they make far more money that way. Bring your own phone/buy a phone outright? Good for you, you get the same plan.

T-mobile doesn't want you to go subsidized. In fact, if I remember correctly, they are getting rid of their subsidization.

(or maybe you are talking about the other three. I am unclear what you are getting at)

[resistanze]

Thank bejeezus for my discount. I've got 3 iPhones, 2 with the lower end data plan, one unlimited and one dumbphone for $200/mo.

That's good, tbh. I just got on a corporate plan for $50/mo with 6GB data and + unlim text & minutes + CID/VM. They even gave me $150 credit to port over my number and take care of cancellation fees.

But yeah, plans are horrendous here. $75/mo for unlimited minutes + 3GB data and no CID/VM :lol

When I was in Glasgow I couldn't believe they had unlim voice +data pay-as-you-go plans for $30/mo.

[resistanze]

T-mobile doesn't want you to go subsidized. In fact, if I remember correctly, they are getting rid of their subsidization.

(or maybe you are talking about the other three. I am unclear what you are getting at)

Yes, the other 3 (and most carriers historically) I was referring to. The others are not following suit, unless 'it gets popular' or whatever AT&T said.

[leemajors]

That's good, tbh. I just got on a corporate plan for $50/mo with 6GB data and + unlim text & minutes + CID/VM. They even gave me $150 credit to port over my number and take care of cancellation fees.

But yeah, plans are horrendous here. $75/mo for unlimited minutes + 3GB data and no CID/VM :lol

When I was in Glasgow I couldn't believe they had unlim voice +data pay-as-you-go plans for $30/mo.

I get a flat 20% off thru either att, verizon/sprint occasionally pop up in employee offers too every once in a while

[Blake]

Is there a phone company out there that refuses to unlock the phone, even if you ask nicely?

[leemajors]

I think they all will provided you're off contract.

[Drachen]

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cell-phones-legal/1g9KhZG7?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl

Go sign it

[Winehole23]

But among the DMCA’s many flaws is a significant one of which most people aren’t aware: For more than a decade, the act has imposed a barrier to access for people with disabilities. It hinders access to books, movies, and television shows by making the development, distribution, and use of cutting-edge accessibility technology illegal.

Making creative works accessible often involves transforming content from one medium to another—such as adapting the audio of a television show to closed captions to make it accessible to people who are deaf or hard of hearing. Copyright law ordinarily vests authors of creative works with the exclusive right to create adaptations, such as translations to foreign languages. But making works accessible to people with disabilities is arguably exempt from copyright law (http://www.arl.org/bm%7Edoc/accessibility-chafee.pdf) under the fair use doctrine and other laws like the Chafee Amendment to the Copyright Act (http://www.loc.gov/nls/reference/factsheets/copyright.html). Congress, federal courts, the U.S. Copyright Office, and even the World Intellectual Property Organization have begun to recognize that it’s (http://laboratorium.net/archive/2012/10/10/hathitrust_wins) bad policy (http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2009/74fr52507.pdf) to block (http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/general/sccr_ss_13.html) efforts to create accessible versions of copyrighted works.




At least, that’s the case with physical and analog media. But publishers, video programmers, and other copyright owners lock down digital content with digital rights management technology designed to limit users’ ability to access, copy, and adapt copyrighted works to specific circumstances. And copyright owners frequently fail to account (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jep/3336451.0010.106?rgn=main;view=fulltext) for the need to adapt DRM-encumbered works to make them accessible to people with disabilities. For example, e-books often include DRM technology that prevents (http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2011/initial/american_foundation_blind.pdf) people who are blind or visually impaired from running e-books that they have lawfully purchased through a text-to-speech converter that reads the books aloud. Similarly, Internet-distributed video and DVD and Blu-ray discs include DRM features that prevent (http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2011/initial/IPR_TDI_gallaudetU.pdf) researchers from developing advanced closed captioning and video description technologies that make movies and television shows accessible. (For example, some Internet-delivered videos don't include closed captions at all, and subtitles on DVD and Blu-ray discs can be incomplete, riddled with errors, or so badly formatted that they can't be read.)



Bypassing this DRM technology is often trivial from a technical perspective. But the DMCA makes it illegal—even if the person bypassing DRM is doing so for a noninfringing use like making it accessible to people with disabilities. If you want to get around the DMCA, there is no fair use; instead, you must petition (http://www.copyright.gov/1201/docs/Understanding1201Rulemaking.pdf) the librarian of Congress for a special exemption to circumvent a class of works, such as e-books. The proceeding to consider exemption petitions, known as the “triennial review,” takes place only once every three years (http://www.copyright.gov/1201/docs/Understanding1201Rulemaking.pdf) and requires petitioners to navigate a complex bureaucratic process, satisfy an incredibly high burden of proof, invest months of effort, and overcome opposition from copyright lobbying groups with nearly bottomless resources. It’s no wonder the vast majority of exemption petitions are denied.



Even if a petitioner can successfully make a case for an exemption, a separate part of the DMCA still bars her from distributing accessibility technology with circumvention components to people with disabilities. Worse, the exemption will last for only three years, after which it will expire unless the petitioner successfully renews it. Making the same case over and over again isn’t just a waste of time and resources—it puts at risk any progress toward accessibility achieved under the previously granted exemption, which can be wiped away by the whim of the librarian of Congress and the U.S. Copyright Office. (The librarian’s October decision to ban cellphone unlocking after exempting it for nearly six years is a prime example of such a whim.)

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/03/dmca_copyright_reform_u_s_law_makes_digital_media_ inaccessible.single.html

[boutons_deux]

I note how the BigMedia industry can put you in prison for decades, fine you $100Ks if your tool just enables others to DL copyrighted media

I note how dickless BigGun industry if fully shielded for any responsibility if their "tools" are used to commit crimes.

[Winehole23]

Ian Hickson, the googler who is overseeing the HTML5 standard at the W3C, has written a surprisingly frank piece on the role of DRM. As he spells out in detail, the point of DRM isn't to stop illegal copying, it's to stop legal forms of innovation from taking place. He shows that companies that deploy DRM do so in order to prevent individuals, groups and companies from innovating in ways that disrupt their profitability:


The purpose of DRM is to give content providers leverage against creators of playback devices.
Content providers have leverage against content distributors, because distributors can't legally distribute copyrighted content without the permission of the content's creators. But if that was the only leverage content producers had, what would happen is that users would obtain their content from those content distributors, and then use third-party content playback systems to read it, letting them do so in whatever manner they wanted.
Here are some examples:
A. Paramount make a movie. A DVD store buys the rights to distribute this movie from Paramount, and sells DVDs. You buy the DVD, and want to play it. Paramount want you to sit through some ads, so they tell the DVD store to put some ads on the DVD labeled as "unskippable".
Without DRM, you take the DVD and stick it into a DVD player that ignores "unskippable" labels, and jump straight to the movie.
This is the first third of my recent Guardian column, What I wish Tim Berners-Lee understood about DRM (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2013/mar/12/tim-berners-lee-drm-cory-doctorow), but there's two other important points to make, apropos the W3C:
1. DRM always involves patents with onerous licensing terms that are incompatible with the W3C's patent policy, because patent licensing is the hook by which those disruptive -- but legal -- features can be prohibited
2. DRM can't be implemented in free/open code. For DRM to work, anyone who implements it has to design their implementation to prevent users from changing it. This is reflected in the "robustness" rules that always accompany DRM licensing, which always prohibit "user modifiability."
In other words:
1. DRM's purpose is to prevent legal innovation
2. DRM requires onerous patent licenses
3. DRM is incompatible with free/open code and systems
Discussions about DRM often land on the fundamental problem with DRM: that it doesn't work, or worse, that it is in fact mathematically impossible to make it work. (https://plus.google.com/107429617152575897589/posts/iPmatxBYuj2) (via /. (http://slashdot.org))
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back." - Robert A Heinlein, Life-Line (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0450040054/downandoutint-20)http://boingboing.net/2013/03/20/html5s-overseer-says-drms.html#more-219730

[LnGrrrR]

What's crazy about DRM, and the whole "you're only buying a license to use, not actual hardware" is that it's only come about due to the ease of copying. No one really had an issue with it when it was VHS tapes, or cassette tapes, or even CDs. (Of course, there were issues with it in the early Americas, where "authors" would nearly wholesale copy famous works of English authors... but that's another topic.)

Anyways, imagine if we took the whole "license" thing to other purchases? Bought a dress and thinking of modifying it? Only if the license allows you to! Bought a car and want to put in new speakers? Not if the DRM doesn't allow it! Etc etc. It's obviously far-fetched, but I think it works for a thought experiment.

[boutons_deux]

Leaked! MPAA Talking Points On Copyright Reform: Copyright Is Awesome For Everyone!


http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130321/18271522414/leaked-mpaa-talking-points-copyright-reform-copyright-is-awesome-everyone.shtml


Another case is BigPharma tweaking a drug to extend its patent another 17 or whatever years, with no improvement in drug effectiveness.

Another case is BigPharm's "pay-to-delay" scam where their expired-patent drugs are denied competition from generics (1/6 or less the cost) and kept on the market by BigPharma paying a generic mfr not to sell the generic.



BigPharma whines that it must cover the expenses of (fudged, bogus, dishonest, ineffective) drug testing, BUT! :

Pharmaceutical Companies Spent 19 Times More On Self-Promotion Than Basic Research


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/09/pharmaceutical-companies-marketing_n_1760380.html

[Winehole23]

It's that time again: every three years, the Copyright Office allows the public to ask for exceptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's ban on "circumvention," which prevents you from unlocking devices you own.

As it usually does, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has asked for exemptions to be granted: this time around, it's asking for permission to unlock your car's diagnostic software so that you can choose who fixes it; for permission to play abandoned video games that you've bought, but that won't play in emulation (and for which no viable hardware can be readily had); and to renew the jailbreaking exemption that lets you unlock your phone, and to extend that to tablets and other devices; and also to renew the right to jailbreak your DVDs, Blu-Ray discs, and streaming videos to let you take excerpts from them. http://boingboing.net/2014/11/04/eff-asks-us-copyright-office-f.html