Don't like your cell network? Legal unlocking ends TONIGHT in US
Unlocking a phone to use it with another carrier will be illegal in America from midnight tonight unless the cellphone is already in your hands. Freeing a phone from a particular network used to be allowed, but under last October's reinterpretation of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act that right disappears from all …
This topic is closed for new posts.
Not as big a deal as you make it out to be.
Most manufacturers and even carriers in the US will now happily sell you an unlocked device; this exemption was probably considered no longer necessary.
Re: Not as big a deal as you make it out to be.
And one of the reasons they would sell you an unlocked device was that you could legally jailbreak a locked one.
Re: Not as big a deal as you make it out to be.
Not really... try getting Verizon to even acknowledge the existence of unlocked devices, much less sell you one.
Re: Not as big a deal as you make it out to be.
> Not really... try getting Verizon ...
Most != All
Ok, I buy most of my phones unlocked on the neutral anachromatic import market anyway. I suspect anyone who really cares will do the same unless five Supremes decide it's illegal to sell/buy something imported through alternate channels.
So is it illegal to unlock your own but network operators can still unlock them???
Yes, because you paid for a subsided phone. Unlocking before the end of the contract period is the same as stealing money.
Are all Americans this stupid?
> Yes, because you paid for a subsided phone. Unlocking before the end of the contract period is the same as stealing money.
How's that? Unlocking the phone doesn't get you out of the contract with the carrier. You still have to pay the monthly bill (or pay an early termination fee) so therefor still have to pay the subsidy.
@Shitpeas - The first rule of giving abuse on the internet - make sure your point is correct, or you really come over as a self-righteously wrong arsehole.
Operators use contracts to claw back the subsidy. Unlocking does not end a contract.
BS
"Operators lock phones to give them enough time to recover the subsidy they pay"
No, that's what the contract is for. This is so you can't switch to another provider without getting a new phone/contract too. It's just lock-in.
Looking out for No. 1
"Operators lock phones to give them enough time to recover the subsidy they pay when the contract is signed [...]"
If I'm under contract then I have to pay the agreed fee until the end of the contract or pay an "early termination fee." Which is perfectly fine; I signed the contract fully understanding that it is a binding legal document. So why do they need to lock the phone as well?
My theory is that they're trying to make switching providers as difficult as possible whilst simultaneously destroying the used phone reseller market.
Re: Looking out for No. 1
As a pure guess, I'd say it would be to encourage people to not default on their contracts. Litigation costs...
Top 2 cell phone companies spent 25.5 million on lobbyist in 2012
I buy a phone I agree to use the provider for 2 years. The provider calculates cost recovery and profit and sets my price for 2 years. On year 3 I'm still prevented on unlocking my phone because my government believes it could be a terrorist plot if I changed to a carrier of my choose. Why should a law written to prevent terrorist be used to prevent me to use my phone with a carrier I choose after I met all my obligation with my contract.
Re: Top 2 cell phone companies spent 25.5 million on lobbyist in 2012
"A law written to prevent terrorist"?
I don't agree with preventing end users unlocking their phones (or even phones being locked in the first place) but what the fuck has it got to do with terrorism?
Re: Top 2 cell phone companies spent 25.5 million on lobbyist in 2012
In the US, everything has to do with terrorism... it's the new "but think of the chillldrennnnn!"
Jailbreaking has always been illegal under DCMA
It just add I happened that it was part and parcel of carrier unlock on iphone (which upto today was legal)
Even when the contract has ended?
Surely it's your phone, you've fully paid for it through your subs, but now you can't unlock it legally?
Hmmm, not sure I lilke that, but I expect we'll have it in the UK soon...
Another Constitutionally protected right goes down the tubes!
(Yes I am being sarcastic) Can anyone tell me when citizens in the US and elsewhere gave up our rights to property ownership?
Obviously, you really can't legally or ethically change providers when the phone is still under contract but once that contract is up, I can do whatever the F@$k I want to do with the hardware because I have paid enough "rent" on it to pay for the real cost many times over.
F@$k the government and everyone associated with it, especially those involved with the DMCA.
Re: Another Constitutionally protected right goes down the tubes!
Obviously, you really can't legally or ethically change providers when the phone is still under contract but once that contract is up...
Why not? If I subscribe to an X month contract and am given a phone in return it is mine and the first sale doctrine would naturally seem to apply. It is my phone, so I may use it for the contracted service, put in in a drawer, flush it down the toilet, sell it to someone else... you get the idea.
Sure, I've signed a contract and I have an obligation to uphold that contract. That generally means covering the cost of my subscription and any non-inclusive calls. Nothing about the device I use to make use of the contracted service, nor indeed whether I even make use of that service at all.
Can I unlock it when I go abroad on vay cay shun then bring it back in the country unlocked?
I had hoped given the severity of the financial crisis the guberment would be working on more important matters than this, like perhaps the shonky tax code?
"Can I unlock it when I go abroad on vay cay shun then bring it back in the country unlocked?"
You really want to chance giving the TSA even more of an excuse to abuse your personal 'rights' ??
I never understood how this can be legal
Currently, you can get an iPhone 4 for free (well, $1), if you take it with a two-years plan of $60 per month — That is $1440 in total. The phone itself costs about a third of that price. Each month, $40 of what you pay for the plan pays for the actual service, and $20 pays for the phone.
Which means that if you don't get a new phone, you are paying 50% more than what you should. How is this not bundling? Isn't bundling normally illegal?
Imagine if Microsoft suddenly announced that from now on, Windows costs 50% more, but with any purchase of Windows, you get the possibility to buy Word for $1… What are the chances this would fly?? I thought that was exactly what got them in trouble with Internet Explorer…
Re: I never understood how this can be legal
What got them in trouble with Internet Explorer was abusing their monopoly position to prevent competition.
Re: I never understood how this can be legal
"Which means that if you don't get a new phone, you are paying 50% more than what you should. How is this not bundling? Isn't bundling normally illegal?
Imagine if Microsoft suddenly announced that from now on, Windows costs 50% more, but with any purchase of Windows, you get the possibility to buy Word for $1… What are the chances this would fly?? I thought that was exactly what got them in trouble with Internet Explorer…"
In the UK, each particular contract type typically has a choice of phones (at varying monthly prices) along with a "SIM only" deal, so we aren't forced to go for a bundled option unless we prefer to (some people without a phone may prefer to get their iphone on contract for £20 or whatever a month more, than buy one outright and then take the cheaper sim-only deal)
Re: I never understood how this can be legal
What got them in trouble with Internet Explorer was abusing their monopoly position to prevent competition.
So why then is it ok to bundle Notepad and Calc without first offering the user the chance to choose an alternative?
Sorry, off-topic.
Re: I never understood how this can be legal
There no market for Notepad and Calc? Actually, the bundling wasn't that big a deal, it was the OEM contracts.
I have no words to express my feelings on this decision. Instead, allow me to indulge in a fitting, if slightly juvenile, visual demonstration for the Library of Congress' decision.
....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...
allow me to indulge in a fitting, if slightly juvenile, visual demonstration for the Library of Congress' decision
It's the office of the Librarian of Congress, not the Library, which establishes the DMCA exemptions.
The LoC has upheld the far more important DMCA exemptions. Frankly, I'm happy to let this one go. The Librarian is charged with granting and renewing these exemptions only when there are strong arguments in favor of them, and letting the weak ones slide validates the Librarian's role in the process. If the LoC granted every exemption anyone asked for, there'd be enough pushback from industry to get Congress to amend the DMCA to remove the exemption process. It's critical that the LoC show diligence in weighing and ruling on exemptions. The exemption review is long and difficult (I have a friend who was instrumental in getting some exemptions renewed last time, and I've looked at some of the transcripts, so I have some second-hand familiarity with it), and that's part of what preserves it; it's as onerous for the industries that would like to eliminate exemptions as it is for the side of the angels.
And to be honest, this could be good in the long run, if word gets around and persuades more people to buy phones from independent vendors rather than get subsidized ones, or if customers start pressuring carriers to offer free unlocking. If some carriers advertise free unlocking, that could bring significant pressure against the rest, as has happened with various other contract features ("rollover", free in-network calling, etc).
Unlocking and jailbreaking should be completely outside the scope of the DMCA as they are not for defeating copyright protection mechanisms. This isn't like banning the crowbar, this is like banning the key.
Re: Guns!
Yes, but you can't use a semi-auto rifle to facilitate a serious criminal activity like unlocking a phone. Guns are harmless! - it's people that kill people.
Re: Guns!
Guns don't kill people, rappers do...
Yes, Welsh Rap act Goldie Lookin Chain...
So who gave this Librarian so much power,anyway ?
In case you were wondering about the penalties for unlocking your new phone:
**********************************************************************************
In General. — Any person who violates section 1201 or 1202 willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain —
(1) shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, for the first offense; and
(2) shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both, for any subsequent offense.
(b) Limitation for Nonprofit Library, Archives, Educational Institution, or Public Broadcasting Entity. — Subsection (a) shall not apply to a nonprofit library, archives, educational institution, or public broadcasting entity (as defined under section 118(f)).
(c) Statute of Limitations. — No criminal proceeding shall be brought under this section unless such proceeding is commenced within five years after the cause of action arose.
**************************************************
I propose a little bit of perspective
Apparently, an industry that can charge real money from 1.08 billion individual communication devices now needs legal protection from a librarian. Is this really justified?
If I could earn 1 cent from each of these phones tomorrow (one time), I would already bank 10,800,000 USD.
If I could charge each of those phones 1 cent/per second for 1 minute of communication per year I would bank 648,000,000 USD
If I could charge each of those phones for 1 hour of communication per year (at 1 ct/sec).
I would make 30,888,000,000 USD.
Yes, more than 30 BEELION dollars for 1 hour per year,
So how much do you think providers are actually charging the world's mobile consumer market? How much do you spend on mobile phone calls each day/month/year ? Do you think the providers might be losing out?
Anti-trust legislation and hanging need to come back into fashion. At the very least, legislative priorities need to be re-adjusted, real fast.
Re: So who gave this Librarian so much power,anyway ?
Ook!
Re: So who gave this Librarian so much power,anyway ?
The financial gain \ commercial gain sounds like its aimed at shops doing it. If i unlock my own phone just so i can use it on another network wouldn't seem to come under those right?
Re: So who gave this Librarian so much power,anyway ?
Sigh.
The Librarian of Congress authorizes exemptions to the DMCA. They're the good guys. Without this role, unlocking would always (since the passage of the DMCA) have been illegal, as would numerous other things.
No longer a united state but 'The Corporate State'...
I pledge allegiance to the Corporate States of America, and to the Fortune 500 for which it stands, one Nation under Hollywood, indivisible, with liberty and justice for the one percenters...
American Congress...
Taking US out of the USA one right at a time.
Belgium 1 USA Nil
Phone locking is unlawful in Belgium.
No idea why, because they actually have some of the worst consumer rights in Europe.
We need to lobby the EU to make this law across the market and then to force the separation of hardware sales from airtime, so that both are transparently priced.
The EU has already demonstrated its readiness to take on the telcos by curbing roaming extortions -- I suspect because lots of EU officials and Euro MPs have been burned themselves.
Re: Belgium 1 USA Nil
Actually, the EU overturned the Belgian law, so petitioning the EU seems futile. I have just checked, and posted the (very short) list of countries that disallow locking in a separate post (before I saw yours).
Re: Belgium 1 USA Nil
@T.F.M. Reader
That's very worrying.
However I am reliably informed that a lot of EU-types are convinced that the telcos are getting too rich and too powerful and need bringing to heel.
Re: Belgium 1 USA Nil
Last time i checked, locking phones is unlawfull in Brazil too. It wasn't - but the law was changed about... dunno, two years ago.
Wrong Place For a Standoff
Im a simple man with a simple expectation. If i hold it in my hand, keep it in my home, and use it in my daily life then I own it. I really would murder the first person to challenge my right to ownership to goods I have already paid for, taken home, and thoroughly used. On the other hand, if the seller wants to buy back the item, they can ask nicely. It isn't anyones business who services a device that someone owns, subsidized or not, because when the user is not happy with how it is serviced, that is a failure of the provider. When someone is held unwillingly in a position by another, it is called being trapped, and Americans deserve protection from being trapped.
Regardless of whether it is a corporate policy or a new law, further resistance to our creative, expressive, and material rights as men and women of freedom will only fan the flames of dissent until everyone is considered either a criminal for creativity or a human commodity, devoid of the right to choose.
Re: Wrong Place For a Standoff
" I really would murder the first person to challenge my right to ownership to goods I have already paid for, taken home, and thoroughly used"
Then you're a pretty worrying person, and I think you should probably work on your sense of proportion before going out in public again.
Yeah, I know, you're probably just being macho for effect, but if you tell me you "really would", then I have to assume you like to imagine you really would.
Aside from this, I actually agree with your sentiment - but if people are going to take our point of view seriously, it's probably not a great plan to make earnest-sounding comments about murdering people over a legal challenge.
Correction
"...under last October's reinterpretation (sic) of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act..."
"...under last October's misinterpretation of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act..."
There -- fixed it for you.
Hadley
The librarians name is Hadley & he looks exactly like what I expect a Hadley to look like. A smug gray haired old coot in a very outdated but nicely tailored suit. I bet he carries a pipe & doesn't smoke it too.
This topic is closed for new posts.
