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
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".
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.
... 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.
boingboing linked to the Wired article. So of course they would have the exact same quote.
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)
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 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
I'm getting so frustrated over all these DMCA issues that I have to get up and do something physical. So, now I sing the Y.M.C.A. song and dance the dance, but using the DMCA acronym and ending it with a big pelvis thrust.
After I started doing that, I stopped posting silly comments on slashdot... oh wait..
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.
[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
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
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.
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.
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.
1) Sign up for cell phone service with the provider you want to stick with.
2) For your free (or super-discounted) phone, get the most expensive one they have.
3) Unlock that phone.
4) Sell it on eBay as an unlocked phone for possibly more than retail price.
5) PROFIT!!
6) Buy the unlocked phone you really want from an online retailer.
See, instead of your provider giving you some phone you don't want, they gave you its value in $$ which you applied to a phone you really wanted. That's what I did with T-mobile, and it got me $140 off a $230 phone I wanted.
Hooray!
With the first link, the chain is forged.
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.
Try submitting it again in a few hours. I'm sure it will get posted again.
(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.
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.