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."
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.
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.