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."
A mobile phone company is arguing that companies that unlock their handsets violate the DMCA
So I gues that makes thos of us who hack mobile phones terrorists or something?
I would think that if you follow this logic, Verizon crippling their handsets so that customers can't access their own copyrighted works (pictures they've taken and messages they've received) without paying $0.25 is also a terrorist. I can live with that.
Um...here in the States, such a phone is more like the mythical Unicorn. We don't have the luxury of taking our phones with us when we switch providers. heck we've only had number portability for a couple years now!
And no one is suggesting that if I 'unlock' my phone to use Provider B at some point, that I stop paying Provider A as my contract requires.
If I have finished my service contract, why shouldn't I be able to use the phone on a different network if I so desire? Do the companies offer 'unlocking' services at the end of contract? (by which time they have been 'paid' for the 'cheap' phone)
So it's just another tactic to prevent free market forces by using the DMCA, yes it's a Bad Thing(TM). Hopefully with exposure and some intelligent court rulings this too shall pass.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
So, unless I do a bunch of secret-squirrel digging/haxoring, I have a dead-end product.
... in many countries already. And soon (I hope) it may be in the US. We're working with a few congressmen who asked us to help with a bill that's been drawn up.
I hope they do so as well, but it probably won't be the end of it. The cell phone company simply needs to change the contract to say that if you unlock your phone then you have to pay xxx dollars to the cell phone company. Should be legal, and if they make it prominent they might not even piss off their customers, who knows. Personally, if the company gives me the choice, I would rather pay for the phone up front and not sign a contract. Contracts mean the companies can concentrate on new sales and not existing customer support or quality of service (most of us change cell companies because we are dissatisfied with our existing company, not because the new company is better). As long as we have contracts, we lose in service and quality.
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
Is this one of those things where it must be bad because it contains the worst of the slashdot four letter words (DMCA)?
Actually, yes. I have yet to see a "good" occurrence of that four-letter word (acronym). At best, ironic or just-desserts, but never actually "good".
What's the problem? If you want to pay less for a locked in phone thats your buisness.
You miss the point - Yes, the phone comes cheap as part of signing a 2-year contract (usually), but after that?
This doesn't involve people trying to get out of their contracts. Just people trying to keep using their phone once they have satisfied whatever contractual obligations exist that might justify calling it "not theirs".
When every object we posess contains some amount of copyrighted material, will companies successfully argue that we don't actually "own" anything? "Sorry, that pointy stick contains DNA for which Monsanto owns the copyright. Using it to defend yourself against a non-Monsanto-approved bear violates the DMCA".
[U]nlock[ing ...] handsets violate the DMCA. [...] Those who travel internationally, want more choice.
So unlock them in a country that doesn't have the DMCA. No problem.
Registering accounts later than some other chrisb since 1997
By the way, and I'm not saying this to be mean or anything because I do enjoy reading your opinions here but... do you live here? I almost always see your comments as FP (or first +0 or better comment) or damn near it.
Reviews with a twist! http://www.sardonicbastard.com
Most US operators know that they'd be no better or worse off if there was a culture of unlocking that still limited US phones to US customers. What they'd lose by someone switching to Verizon from Sprint after two years without forcing Verizon to pay out a phone subsidy, they'd gain in having an ex-Verizon customer do the same thing. Where it becomes problematic is where people are able to sign up for contracts (or just prepaid service, which is also subsidized, only to a lesser degree), and then skip out of the country, reselling the phone in a market where economic conditions are substantially different. If the subsidies are leaving the country, and are essentially unrecoverable, then you lose.
It's not impossible of course. This could be as simple as a company being bloody-minded. But right now I think it's substantially more likely that it's Cingular, or maybe - at a stretch - T-Mobile. Cingular doesn't usually unlock phones (and contrary to some reports, while they shipped some world phones unlocked, most of their phones including their world phones certainly are locked, I've read a number of "sob-stories" from people who bought Cingular RAZRs and planned to use them outside the country using prepaid GSM SIMs and found they couldn't), T-Mobile has a policy that it will after someone's been a customer in good standing for three months.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
In Finland, it is illegal to sell a locked phone. Once again -- manufacturers in Finland cannot legally sell a phone that is locked to one carrier.
Hmm.