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
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
... 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.
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".
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
[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.
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.
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.