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."
Story lifted directly from BoingBoing. Even the quote from Wired was lifted directly from the BoingBoing story.
See the BoingBoing story here.
As for the 'razor blade' argument cited in TFA, the reason it works for razor blades is because they're cheap...too cheap for people to 'mod' their razors to be able to accept other, cheaper razor blades. This model simply doesn't apply in the world of printer cartridges and cell phones...since it's worth the expense. Lexmark increased the expense by implementing the 'handshake' between the cartridge and the printer, but circumventing that proved to be worth the expense as well. When Lexmark attempted to invoke DMCA they got slapped down, and rightly so.
The point is, if I own a product, be it cellphone, printer, or razor, it is mine. The courts ultimately ruled against Lexmark in this matter, and I expect (and hope) that they will rull against the cellphone companies as well.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
boingboing linked to the Wired article. So of course they would have the exact same quote.
Mobile phone companies means manufacturers. Why then, was mobile phone service providers talked about in the article? They actually lose money on the phones or make such a small amount they would prefer to just sign you up for the contract. It's the phone manufacturer that wants to be able to sell you the phone for a different service provider. I just felt I needed to say that. I really dislike disinformation...which is why I don't watch the news.
Back when there was but one Bell telephone, there arose an issue with "Other than Bell" equipment on a Bell phone line. If I understand how the story goes, it went to the supreme court and they said "people have the right to use any phone they like and should not be locked into buying from a monopolistic vendor."
These locked phones are essentially the same thing where they are using this practice as a means to keep people from migrating from one service to another. It also serves to prevent any resale value for any equipment that someone may own which is also bad for the consumer.
This situation, if tested is court, will be an easy win for the consumer. I have no doubt on that.
I've had two phones from Vodaphone and two from T-mobile, my girlfriend has had one from Vodaphone & 2 from O2. None of these phones was ever locked and we were free to put a SIM from another network into these phones at anytime. The only time I've seen locked phones on contracts is with Orange and Virgin. A good rule of thumb is that if the handset your buying/getting on contract has a network providers logo printed on it the its more than likely locked. This seems to be the case with all Pay As You Go phones and Orange contract phones.
To err is human. To forgive is not company policy.
if you ask them.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
have any of you ever tried to buy a phone from motorola directly? You can't. They don't sell them like that. Personally I'd rather buy phones from the makers, instead of the insanely marked up phones they sell the contracts with.
Phone's cost, 50-100 dollars.
Mark up to make profit 10-20 dollars.
Mark Up by companies to make contracts appealing, 50-100 dollars.
It's a bullshit industry because every cellular company is out there to get you into contracts by offering new phones instead of keeping a good old phone. That's one of the reasons T-mobile appeals to me and others, because they offer short 1 year contracts. Hopefully that one company won't change.
Interesting, the nameless operator is most likely NOT T-Mobile, as I have been a customer with them for several years, and they will unlock your phone FOR you for FREE, just by emailing them and asking them to do so.
There are some limitations, like you have to have been a customer for 90 days, in good standing, etc. but if you email them and ask them to send you the unlock code, they will do so in a couple of days.
They have unlocked several Nokias for me in the past.
Just my experience.
Ocean is land, covered with water.
I am in the States and I wouldn't consider a non-GSM phone. If you don't choose to use a better GSM provider using GSM phones, that's your own problem. I've been with Voicestream and now T-Mobile for years. I've taken my phone all over the world and used it on carriers in other countries with prepaid SIM cards when I've been away on longer trips. It's not locked and works on any GSM network in the world and can be serviced by any GSM provider's service.
-N
I've nothing to say here...
Because it's not just unlocking your phone to use other networks, it's unlocking features such as custom ring tones, unrestricted bluetooth, and etc., which the networks normally charge hefty fee for limited use of.
I hope that this gets slapped silly in court. If the networks want to control my phone they need to either rent it to me, actually sell me a phone which isn't capable of doing the things they don't want me to be capable of, or actually write into the contract that I won't do certain things while the contract lasts.
If I don't use the copyrighted part, then no problem, correct?
That depends on the primary use of the object, and the degree to which the copyrighted part exists as central to the use of the object.
With a stick, the DNA might count as absolutely unavoidably bound to the object, but the specifics have very little bearing on the stick's functionality.
With a CD, the music on it, although potentially removeable (in the case of a CD-RW, anyway), counts as the entire reason you would buy the CD in the first place. Its form as a 12cm plastic disc with a hole in the middle very, very rarely matters.
Now, with a cell phone? Not many people care about the specific software it runs, only about its function. But without some software, it doesn't function.
Personally, I would put cell phones in the CD category - Legitimate posession of the physical device should (but all to often doesn't) count as an implied, irrevokeably license to use the copyrighted content contained therein, including the right to change that content at will. If a company doesn't want customers to use feature-X of their product, they need to leave feature-X out rather than just disabling it in software.
But, we live in this world, not a perfect one.
No. As has been stated earlier, whether or not you unlock your phone has no effect on still being bound by the terms of your contract. If you unlock your phone for the purposes of changing carriers before your current contract is up then you still have to pay the early termination fee where the carrier would recoup their subsidy (and then some, I'm guessing).