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."
What's the problem? If you want to pay less for a locked in phone thats your buisness. If you want to have freedom to go to any network you want you have to pay a premium. I don't necessarily see a problem with the buisness model...
Is this one of those things where it must be bad because it contains the worst of the slashdot four letter words (DMCA)?
always buy unlocked phones and use them with whichever n/w you like.
Can I get a +1 DUH !
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
The difference between cracking software and unlocking a cell phone is that the software inside the phone has an option for unlocking. The key is having the code and entering it. If the cell companies don't like it then they should require the manufacturers to remove that functionality from their products. The fact of the matter is that no company will want to do that since the same phone can be used on many networks with the same QA'd software. Now when I sign that contract with the cell company, they say that I will keep my contract for X amount of months. If I break it, then I pay for termination fee. Whether I choose to unlock the phone prior to or after that point is not the right of the company to dictate. I didn't license the phone from them nor did I lease it. I bought a physical appliance that is in my possession. Where I go from there after fulfilling the termination free requirements of my contract is my business. If the cell companies don't like it, then they need to stop subsidizing phones at low prices, lease phones that the consumer never truely owns, or come up with a pricing model and service quality level that will keep customers. Using the law to prevent me from doing something with a piece of equipment that I own is not their right once they have sold it to me.
-----
Bored? Enjoy the Laughs. (best forum on the 'net)
Yes, but do you own your phone? A lot of people get their phone with their service contract rather than buying the phone itself.
I agree that if you buy a phone it should be your own property and you should be able to modify it as you wish, but I don't think the same holds true if you merely have your phone as part of a contract deal.
If you want the benefits of a contract phone - vastly reduced initial cost, free upgrades to newer phones, etc, then you should accept the downsides too, or actually buy a phone of your own.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Problem is, if you out and out buy your phone they still lock it. Which would be a good point to bring up in the suit because it would mean the lock doesn't have anything to do with the subsidy (it has everything to do with keeping you locked to the cell phone company).
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
I use a Motorola phone I got through Cingular. They sell the Motorola "World Phones" all unlocked.
Sure, the phone company subsidizes your phone hardware by locking you into a certain term length of contract... So, if you unlock your phone and use it with another provider, YOU'RE STILL STUCK WITH THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT. Therefore, what's the point of worrying about locking the customer out? A contract's a contract.
The REAL reason a lot of these cell companies worry about "unlocking" is the data transfer. I never paid for a single ringtone... I connect my data cable to my phone (or use my handheld with Bluetooth) and drop MP3s of my choice on the phone. I also "hacked" it (using a combination of the Programmer Service Tools and something called SIStorGSM) to remove the crap stock ringtones and images that I never used, thus freeing up more space for my own media. Great! Now, I'm a criminal?
This DRM stuff really pisses me off... I really do try to be a law-abiding person. I pay for my software, my movies, DVDs of TV series I love, even music CDs; all of which I COULD have pirated off the 'net... but the more DRM the Intellectual Property crowd puts in, the more they say to me "You're ALL guilty of being pirates" and the more I say "Well, if you're going to consider me guilty anyway, why do I care so much for trying to 'do the right thing'"
The Digital Sorceress
If Cingular (most likely culprit in this case, as T-Mobile will unlock phones for free as long as a customer has been in good standing for three months) doesn't feel subsidized phone buyers should be allowed to do what they want with their own hardware (note, Cingular's network does not constitute subsidized phone buyer's "own hardware", before anyone criticises me for suggesting that Cingular allow people to modify their phones to do crappy things all over Cingular's frequencies, that's not what I'm suggesting at all) then perhaps they shouldn't sell the phones, perhaps they should rent them out, and have their customers sign lease agreements.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Actually, unlocking can mean CDMA.
Sprint and Verizon's phones are locked, IIRC.
Sprint will not accept a pre-unlocked phone - it must have been locked to Sprint when it was new, AFAICT.
Verizon and Alltel will accept phones from any CDMA network, as long as they are unlocked, and (IIRC) Alltel will unlock a Verizon phone for you.
Why are the phone companies concerned w/ the phone being locked or not. If I bought a one cent phone, and had to sign up for a two year contract to get it, then I am stuck in a two year contract. If I mod the phone, I am still stuck in a two year contract. If I jump up and down on the phone, I am still stuck in a two year contract. If I play some skeet shooting w/ the phone as the pigeon, I am still stuck in a two year contract. If I sign up for service with another provider in another country w/ the same phone, how is this hurting the first company? In other words, they are still getting the money from me according to the contract, so why do they care?
Won't hold up, same as the Lexmark case.
Further.. if it does hold up, this is just further evidence that the DMCA is very badly written.
Even if you are a very strong proponent of stricter copyrights, this is outside the intended scope of the DMCA.
The locking mechanism is there to prevent using competing SIM cards on the phone, not to protect access to a work under copyright.
What these companies are doing is selling a VERY useful item at an incredible loss, and attempting to legislate the consumers' USE of the product. In a very real sense they are attempting to use social controls to *force* the public into doing business their way.
This is, to my mind, outright evil for fairly obvious reasons. But from a strict business sense, it's idiocy. Look at Microsoft and the X-box. They sell a repackaged PC with crackable hardware at (we think) a loss... so they use laws and threats and intimidation to stop people from using their purchased X-Box as they see fit.
That's not the razor blade model. I can't convert my razor blade handle into a hammer or screwdriver or something. But I CAN convert a mobile phone or an X-Box into something entirely useful that negates their business model. And all they can use are laws to force me to play the game their way. Laws that undermine the very definition of legal possession that is a requirement for a capitalist system to function.
For if we don't have the right to use products we purchase as we please, what worth are they?
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
Phone handsets (at least the latest on the market) cost hundreds of dollars. When you sign up for a contract or buy a pre-pay handset you generally get them for a fraction of that price as the network makes the money back on the calls.
If you allow customers to unlock their handsets then the neworks will put handset prices up sigificantly as they have to try to make a profit.
So complain all you like about your rights - either you get stuck with one network for a period of time or you pay a lot more for handsets up front.
You live in the UK, I live in the US. Makes a difference.
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
(and if people won't agree to that prospect, then perhaps it's not a good deal and people acting in their own best interest are right to avoid it.)
What I have a problem with is Congress passing sweeping laws dictating things I, the consumer, CANNOT do with my own property... which then allows companies to prop up faulty business models with legal threats.
There is no - absolutely ZERO - reason that I should not be legally allowed to mod the X-Box I paid $200 for to run Linux, and never buy a MS-licensed game title in my life. Yet I am not. And therefore MS can sell these highly useful mini-computers at a loss (we think) and use legal threats to keep me from using my own property.
THAT is what I have a problem with. Laws that strip me of my rights as a consumer so that businesses can implement flawed plans which are backed up, not by good logic or economics, but by the FBI.
That way leads madness.
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
Of course it makes good business sense for the the cell providers to try to make sure that the phones they sell stay locked. But is it ethical for them to try to control someone else's property once the contractual obligations are satisfied? Should it be okay for companies to (ab)use the DMCA to prop up their business models at the expens of the public?
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
I'm Belgian, living in Finland andI go from one country to the other at least once a year. I live roughly 11 months a year in Finland, and buy a prepayed SIM card (fixed value at purchase, but rechargable) and use that during the time I'm in Belgium. This entire locking phones buisness seems to be a rther typical Anglo-saxon problem. I have never purchased a phone that was locked.. EVER! All I need o do, when I go ANYWHERE in the world, is take out my Nokia, open it up and put in a prepayed card I buy in whatever country I am. I've done this all over Europe, and never had any problems whatsoever, since the introduction of GSM standards. Then again, I've always had Nokia, so my experience is rather limited.
I was under the impression that the purpose of the SIM chip what that you could activate a number/SIM chip independant of the phone. I know at Best Buy they sell SIM chips by themselves. I figured if you had your own phone, you could go to BB and buy a SIM chip and activate your phone for $25.
-TheDawgLives suckitdown