Slashdot Mirror
Mobile Phones Locked By DMCA
wellington map writes "A mobile phone company is arguing that companies that unlock their handsets violate the DMCA. They argue that the software on the phone is a copyrighted work, and the unlocker is breaking DRM in a way that violates the statutory prohibition on circumvention. A similar claim by Lexmark, which tried to apply it to people who refilled printer cartridges, has recently been rejected by the courts." From the Wired article: "The financial motive behind this claim is obvious. Companies have been using the razor blade business model to guarantee a steady stream of revenue ever since, well, the razor blade. Cell phone companies sell you a phone at a discount, and then make up the difference by requiring you to sign a multi-year contract promising to pay monthly fees for mobile phone service or to fork over a hefty termination penalty if you break the deal. But many customers, particularly those who travel internationally, want more choice."
When every object we posess contains some amount of copyrighted material, will companies successfully argue that we don't actually "own" anything?
Yep. Yet another example of right wing activist courts advancing their socialist adgenda. Yes, socialist! Except it's corporate socialism: only corporations can own property in that system. The average person can't be trusted to use property in a responsible manner, so they're not allowed to own it. For the greater good of the economy they must be denied ownership.
So the next time Bush mentions the "ownership society," you know what he really means...
You have an equal chance of booting someone off. So here's the thing, if you're a talking whore you can always get a landline.
The bandwidth is a finite resource. So why should I be left off because you're talking on the phone? Or put it in your terms. What if I got on the phone first. Why should YOU be left off because I simply must talk to the ever important client every waking moment of my life...
I mean I fly internationally doing business and I wait to get to the clients to talk with them. I don't see why others think themselves soo important that they can't wait 30 minutes to get to the hotel to check their email, they must call, and use a blackberry, etc...
Since we're already sharing the damn bandwidth why not share the cost too?
If you're in a NAT with [say] your neighbour. You both can't use 100% of the bandwidth at once, but you both pay 50% of the cost. So you have to either deal with always getting 50% or you have to share [e.g. tell your neighbour you need to download an ISO]. Why is that such a bad idea? For basically 99% of the time you get a speedy service [I shared my cable modem between 5 people and still managed 100% bandwidth most of the time] and you don't pay through the nose.
How is this any different than a co-operative cell network?
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
So what? Because you want to drive up the use of a network *I* have to pay for it?
First off, cell towers are rarely full in most areas outside of perhaps airports. So you're not going to get bumped unless a lot of people are trying to make a call on the particular tower you're on.
Second, you're sharing it already. It is possible that you pick up your cell phone, try to dial and you get rejected. That's entirely possible [goes hand in hand with the first].
Third, it's possible I stay on the phone long enough to piss you off anyways. With my scheme you'll have a chance to bounce me.
So what it boils down to you either think cell towers are always busy or you want to be able to take time away from me to access the network. In short, you're self-important.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.