Slashdot Mirror
We Should Be Allowed To Unlock Everything We Own
An anonymous reader writes "When cell phone unlocking became illegal last month, it set off a firestorm of debate over what rights people should have for phones they have legally purchased. But this is really just one facet of a much larger problem with property rights in general. 'Silicon permeates and powers almost everything we own. This is a property rights issue, and current copyright law gets it backwards, turning regular people — like students, researchers, and small business owners — into criminals. Fortune 500 telecom manufacturer Avaya, for example, is known for suing service companies, accusing them of violating copyright for simply using a password to log in to their phone systems. That's right: typing in a password is considered "reproducing copyrighted material." Manufacturers have systematically used copyright in this manner over the past 20 years to limit our access to information. Technology has moved too fast for copyright laws to keep pace, so corporations have been exploiting the lag to create information monopolies at our expense and for their profit. After years of extensions and so-called improvements, copyright has turned Mickey Mouse into a monster who can never die.' We need to win the fight for unlocking phones, and then keep pushing until we actually own the objects we own again."
thats right brother yell it in the streets spread the good word
Our property is our property, and we should be able to do with it as we please. Further, breaking encryption is just math. Prohibitions on any sort of math amounts to thought crime. They want to make it illegal to figure things out.
The standard excuse for all this bad policy is that without DRM, our music, movies, and video gaming industries would collapse. I say, let them. It's just entertainment, which is a surprisingly small part of the economy (Google could buy the RIAA outright easily). Much better to let that happen than to enshrine bad policy as law for decades to come. And I'm willing to bet that people will find ways to entertain themselves anyway.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
>We Should Be Allowed To Unlock Everything We Own
I think there is a misconception here: You only own everything you are able to unlock.
If you can't do that, you don't "own" it, you're "owned".
How?
Sometimes reading the documentation with a "product purchase" can enlight you. The fact that you pay for something doesn't mean it's truly yours. Sometimes it means you are allowed to use it under some restrictions. It's called EULA. If you own an XBOX, an iPhone or a Wii, you'd already know about it!
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
Lets pass a law that says companies must release the source code to their apps they sell. That way consumers can have the freedom to improve the property that they buy.. And companies must also release the 3D CAD files used to create the physical hardware they produce as well. Freedom to all!
same thing for games be able to unlock them for local play and even off line use as well.
We own you. There is no other 'own'.
You mean in the the US? Because we don't have as draconian rules and laws, at least not here in northern Europe.
Unlocking phones? No problem, at least after the contract end, before that, risk loosing warranty for doing it yourself.
The worst you risk in most cases is loosing your warranty.
We do see that IP owners do want harsher laws, but there just aren't a legislative climate to do that. Rather, it's in many cases going towards more openness.
If you paid full price for a phone then yes, it should be unlockable. If you paid for a subsidized phone under a contract then no until that contract is over, then yes you should be able to.
While no human should reasonably be expected to read every word of the fine print, you are implicitly buying a license, and not a product, in the majority of applications that I can imagine. When it's software or hardware, you're typically buying the rights to operate them in a limited fashion (contingent upon the license wording). This is why it's perfectly legal to punish people for circumventing hardware features even when they "own" the hardware, because they technically are just paying for the privilege to use something they have in their possession.
None of that is good, but because people continue to buy these things despite the licensing agreements they [often unwittingly] are agreeing to, there's no market force to resist them. The market has no incentive to give you what the OP is demanding, save for the few that want to stand out from the crowd by offering less restrictive licensing.
Can someone explain to me what the fuss is about unlocking?
If I understand it right, you are not allowed to unlock a phone which you are buying with monthly contract.
Well, makes sense to me, you haven't paid the device fully, it's not yours to hack.
Once you've paid the (24 month?) contract you're free to do what you want with the device.
If you don't like those terms why did you even buy the phone with contract rather than directly with cash?
There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
0. The freedom to use software however you wish.
1. The freedom to change software to suit your needs.
2. The freedom to distribute the software to anyone else, and in
doing so "to help your neighbor".
3. The freedom to distribute altered versions of the software,
and in doing so cultivate a community centered around the evolution of the
software.
Call it what you will, unlocking is an expression of Freedoms 1 and 2.
should be able to own the cable box as well cable card sucks (mainly the cable system don't care to much)
I lease a car. I don't get to tinker with my car. It says so in the lease. Somehow, I don't see that as a gross violation of my rights. I read the contract and chose it over paying cash and buying the car outright.
In addition, every lease financing company has the same "no modifications" provision, as if they were acting as a cartel. I still don't see that as a problem.
What is the big deal? If you want an unlocked phone, buy one. If you want to finance your phone, you need to adhere to the contract terms, and all the companies have the same terms. It's the same with cars.
Fortune 500 telecom manufacturer Avaya, for example, is known for suing service companies, accusing them of violating copyright for simply using a password to log in to their phone systems. That's right: typing in a password is considered "reproducing copyrighted material."
I'd like to see a valid citation for this example, it smacks of hype. How do you copyright a single word? This isn't a logo or trademark. I don't see that flying well in court.
Other than that, I agree cellphones should be unlockable once the contract term is up, or if the phone is bought outright.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
That's what the contract break fee is for, to pay that back. The customer owns the phone at all points along there, if they didn't, then the carier would have to pay to replace it if it broke. The customer owns the phone, they're just financing it via a non-optional rider to their plan.
what about roaming? pre paid sims cost a lot less
I see absolutely no reason why a customer should be allowed to unlock a phone during the time when, for all intents and purposes, the carrier still owns a portion.
Absolutely right.
Just like you shouldn't be allowed to open the hood of a car you're leasing, because it still really belongs to the manufacturer.
Seriously Boycott Apple and Microsoft, that are locking hardware. Its not hard to support companies that have open hardware. The fact that your xbox, and iDevices are locked down is only part of the problem...and soon your general purpose computer.
I'm sorry your favourite abusive mega corporation wants to lock you into their self styled ecosystem. Its easy to walk away...I did.
Well lets change the terminology then:
Consumers don't buy phones and have to pay an ETF, they lease phones and if they want to keep it they have to pay the remaining balance. There, now the carrier clearly legally owns the phone up until the lease is over, at which point the consumer now owns it and can unlock it because they own it.
How?
...buy open hardware.
if the customer buys the phone under that stipulation, and the carrier binds them to a contract who cares what happens with the phone its the contract they care about, which is independant of the device, they still signed a contract they have to honor even if the phone is sitting at the bottom of a lake, in a volcano or for some reason unlocked and used on another carrier, possibly even sold to someone on another carrier.
This sentiment is so wrong on so many levels. Stuff should not be "locked" in the first place.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
"Manufacturers have systematically used copyright in this manner over the past 20 years to limit our access to information. Technology has moved too fast for copyright laws to keep pace, so corporations have been exploiting the lag to create information monopolies at our expense and for their profit."
It's been more like 15 years for most of the abuse, and the majority of the problem is due to bad recent laws like the DMCA and CFAA. Granted, CFAA is from 1984 law but it has been amended several times, even recently.
In the case of CFAA, I agree that the law is outdated and needs serious change. But (as clearly shown by DMCA), it is NOT a matter of technology moving too fast for law to keep up. On the contrary: corporate lobbying has deliberately twisted the law into a corporate profiteering tool, rather than something intended to protect consumers and enforce freedom and privacy.
What we need to do, among other things, it get the lobbying out of politics. There are ways. We just have to suck it up and get it done.
This tactic of hoarding information and claiming copyright - aka Divine mandate - is called shamanism. It's a very VERY old tactic. Copyright is just a new twist on the tactic that lets opportunists without a Divine birthright get in on the action.
Information has always been a commodity, for better or worse and "right" or wrong.
The UltraViolet movement of the movie industry is an attempt to control your ownership of the DVD you purchased.
For safety reasons, some things need to stay locked.
I feel like the blurb (at the bottom) from http://fixthedma.org/ is just not enough. This article goes further...
Let's go even further.
Anti-circumvention technologies should be ILLEGAL in general consumer devices. They are anti-competitive, restrict consumer choice, and usually have to spy on users. The LAW already protects those corporations copyright interests (and to an insane degree, but that is a slightly different rant).
It seems like we've given up on what a government for and by the people is supposed to do. We need a government that helps make markets better and more competitive. The law should protect consumers from these unethehical practices, and they are unethical.
I just sent that to my representatives, you can do the same... (http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml)
Provide a EULA with your payment that explicitly defines the terms in which they may use the monetary service you are providing them in exchange for their goods and/or services.
Then file claim when they fail to comply.
Our property is our property [...]
Apparently the EU disagrees with your statement
If it's in my possession, I own it. The authors of those EULAs can go fuck themselves. The alternative is that every product will be sold with some kind of customer-fucking clause, first-born slavery provision, etc. Did you sign the EULA? No? Then they can take a flying leap. And no, I don't think requiring people to sign before purchasing everything makes it right either. They want everything. Sorry. They can't have everything. If they can't figure out how to make a profit without perverting the whole concept of ownership, then they should raise their prices or take their ball and go home.
Everybody follows
Speedy bits exchange
Stars await to gl@ow"
The preceding key is copyrighted by Oracle Corporation.
There's nothing 'obviously' about this. It's not a grey area. Either you limit everything or you limit nothing.
Medical devices, utility meters, safety systems, casino games, ATMs, airplane navigation systems should all be secured, by the hardware, in such a way that NOBODY can unlock them once they leave the manufacturer's hands. Pretending that some copyright law will protect these devices does nothing more than feed homeless lawyers.
If you bought a phone on a two year contract with a wireless company, I'd argue that you don't actually own the phone until you complete the contract and pay off the "mortgage." By unlocking the phone you are undermining the contract you made. You are defaulting on the interest-free loan that you used to transform your $600 iPhone into a $200 iPhone. If you don't like that and don't hyave $600 handy, pay full price for the iPhone through a credit card loan instead.
I'm going to start a company that manufactures dinnerware. In the box will be included an EULA that states that the dinnerware contained in the box may only be used to eat Lean Cuisine frozen entrees purchased directly from my company. Use of the dinnerware constitues agreement to the EULA. The dinnerware will be provided for free, and the Lean Cuisine entrees that are sold by my company will typically cost about $2.00 more than those found in grocery stores. If you dare to so much as cut a thread on your t-shirt with one of my knives, you're going to jail.
Especially sensitive devices such as medical and safety relevant devices should not be a black box where it is illegal to look into the inner workings. While third-party liability is nice this is still just based on trust and not on tests. My trust into these system would increase quite a bit if a hacker plays around with a utility meter and finds no obvious vulnerability.
I want all my devices unlocked, the liability can be linked to a tamperproof soft/hardware seal as it is already done today. This is fine with me, I do not expect the manufacturer to be liable if I took it apart, hacked it and reassembled it but I do not see any advantage in making hacking illegal.
Making drugs? Depends on the drug, and you're creating something, so quite a bit different.
Making bombs? Only illegal if it becomes a safety hazzard for others. You have to prove it is so beyond a small amount. Gun owners making their own rounds are "making bombs".
Other weapons? Again, almost every weapon you would make is fine. When you go shooting them at people, it's a problem.
But, moreover, NOTHING in what you bought to do all these naughty deeds was made impossible by the person who sold you these things. The person selling you the assault rifle did not make it so that it was not actually possible to retrofit it to full auto.
And if you were re-boring your gun, it's legal.
But your phone is made not illegal, but IMPOSSIBLE. And if your modification was legal, as in the end product did not break the law, YOU WOULD STILL BE A CRIMINAL for merely doing it.
It would be like making filling the barrel of your illegal gun so that you could keep it for display purposes (or historical re-enactments) actually illegal to do.
you've already lost.
We've been dealing with these problems for quite a while already with computers - putting a computer in your pocket, car, etc doesn't fundamentally change the problem, though it does make it more pervasive. Moreover given the amount of malware available in the official app stores it's hard to argue that the companies locking down the devices are doing a credible job of protecting us anyway, so we're trading freedom for... what exactly? We already have standard boilerplate that virtually all software is not warranted suitable for any purpose, including the one it was sold to perform.
If we do want to go down that road and hold manufacturers responsible we could do it in exactly the same way we do for computerized medical devices: the device is only warranted to work properly if it's not tampered with. Your choice, leave it locked down and liability for malfunction resides with the manufacturer, unlock it and on your own head be it. Make the unlocking process difficult/impossible to accidentally or surreptitiously perform, and ideally reversible (complete wipe and reinstall performed by a minimalist hard-coded BIOS), and you've got all the infrastructure you need. Nobody expects a car with extensive aftermarket modifications to be as safe or reliable as a stock one, and manufacturers are specifically protected from liability for such modified vehicles unless the fault can be proven to be in a system unaffected by them. Why should computers be any different?
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
One approach which would encourage companies to do the right thing would be to tax products based on the amount of e-waste they produce but then allow for a small discount if the product is open and repairable. And no I don't care about Apple's and similar company's greenwashing "recycling" campaigns, their 8-12 month planned- obsolescence cycle is an enormous and unnecessary impact on the environment. All I ask is that the companies which benefit enormously from irreparable short-lived products pay for this necessary damage.
hello,
I (hypotheticaly) own a google self driving car... Should I be allowed to install joe blow's app on it which might potentially make the car unsafe?
Since most likely google will be the one responsible for paying the insurance cost in case of accident it is normal that they would block me from installing crap on it...
Cyrille
Would you pay (guesstimates) $1200 for an xbox or $700 for a cell phone.. I am as against this locking crap as much as the next guy but you have to realize the hardware, software, support and infrastructure cost a few more dollars than the free phone or the $199-$399 you pay for xbox etc..
My guess is we would have a squeel-fest if the price was a real market retail price for these items.
Just like that book you may have read was OPEN SOURCE (assuming it is in a language you understand). I.e. you can take every word and replicate it or reuse and modify yourself to produce a copy or new work.
However, you don't get the copyright, so if the copy or new work is a violation of the copyright of the book source, you need a license.
Books being open source hasn't stopped people being able to sell books or stop rip-offs.
Apples and oranges.
Opening the hood on a car is necessary simply to put in windshield washer fluid... a very mundane tasks that the manufacturer does not need (nor want) to be involved with.
If you insist on car analogy, it would be more like you shouldn't be allowed replace engine components with your own on a car you are leasing.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
So? Get a prepaid sim phone then, leave the more expensive one within its active zones or don't get that phone in the first place.
They just pretend that you haven't and rely on you being too poor, too ignorant of the law, too lazy or just uninterested to ensure that this happens.
Yes, you've completely misunderstood unlocking. This refers only to the lock tying the phone to a specific carrier. This doesn't having anything to do with jailbreaking or rooting (unlocking the phone's software to run unauthorized programs).
Don't believe the lie that AT&T will always unlock off contract phones when asked. I own an iPhone 3G. This was a hand-me-down from a relative. The phone contract that was connected to the purchase was satisfied nearly two years ago. I am also a AT&T (prepaid) customer. According their own rules, they should unlock my phone, but they denied my request. My guess is that they don't recognize me as the owner.
I shouldn't need AT&T's cooperation to unlock my phone, but as it stands now, unlocking it without their permission is a DMCA violation.
The submitter seems to have the optimistic misconception that turning regular people into criminals is not the raison d'être of the current crop of laws being created in this country.
Anyone who has even the slightest knowledge of current US drug laws can attest to this fact - morality laws exist for the explicit purpose of transforming otherwise law-abiding people into income streams.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Even if Google starts its own record label, that doesn't automatically give Google the right to distribute recordings of copyrighted musical compositions. The music publishers control that.
On the surface, the argument that we should be able to unlock anything we own is simple: to put it as a syllogism, if we own something we can do w/it as we please; we own our phones/tablets/etc.; therefore we can do with them as we please. But... it's not as simple as that. For many phones, the price we pay is heavily discounted by the carrier- in effect, we're paying a substantially discounted price b/c the carrier is assuming that they will make back the money they spend on the discount in subscription fees. In effect, we're paying off the true cost of the device as we pay the monthly fee. At least, that would likely be the argument that the carriers would make.
Now, in my opinion, possession is 9/10 of the law, you possess it, QED. But, sadly, that doesn't fly in most courts, where the bigger bucks tend to win. One potential compromise is to say that, after X number of months, you own the device, and it's yours to do w/as you please. This would allow the carriers to make back the "investment" that they made in the discounted phone, and also allow the owner to *really* own the phone and do w/it as s/he pleased. Eventually.
This would really make neither side happy. And that's the essence of compromise: it makes neither side really happy, but also makes neither side want to start shooting.
-Z
NBC isn't one of the major record labels. Like Warner, Universal spun off its music operation years ago. The only major record label owned by a movie studio nowadays is Sony Music.
So why can't I use a phone that I bought up front from Virgin Mobile USA on another carrier?
Then which maker of a set-top video gaming device should we patronize instead of Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo?
That's possible only if such open hardware exists. What's the closest open hardware to a PlayStation Vita or Nintendo 3DS, a handheld video game system with physical buttons and at least some AAA games?
Strange, I'm paying a mortgage on my home, and many people pay for their car in instalments. So should we then be prevented from renovating or modifying the a vehicle with after-market components?
If you break it, you still have to pay for it.
Moreover given the amount of malware available in the official app stores
App stores, plural? Watch BasilBrush or some other iOS fan claim there is negligible malware on Apple's App Store.
I prefer open/unlocked as well. But I don't see any legal or ethical reason to rule out "managed subscriptions", which is often what those who lock have in mind.
That is: your phoneco doesn't want to undertake support for phones running random stuff, and at least in their mind, they're packing all sorts of valuable stuff onto your phone to make their product more attractive than competitors. I'm OK with that, except that by locking it down, they should be LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE for any and all problems caused by the system they're promulgating. For instance, if some idiot gets their locked phone trojaned, they should be able to sue the pants off the phoneco, since their product has malfunctioned. If my locked phone dies, the phoneco should present me with a replacement - already reconfigured with all my settings, contacts, music, etc.
Currently, phonecos manage to offload the risk to the customer, and don't permit the customer to fix the problem. That's just wrong.
Ever tried to set up a wireless network? ppff.. Previously with WiFiFoFum one could see all the relative networks in terms of signal strength an then manually pick a wireless frequency that was as of yet unoccupied. This worked like gold! I'm not an expert but hidden networks aren't really hidden but are just asking to remain hidden as part of a wireless protocol. Apple decided this legitimate network analysis tool broke into people " hidden networks " and banned it overnight. Now we are in this ridiculous state of affairs where none can work properly because somebody once somewhere abused something at least as it was reported to be. If I was a network administrator I would have to have a broken iPhone. The alternative would be stumbling blindly throughout the internet. Caveat I don't own a hacked iPhone but sometimes I wish i did!
We need to stop thinking like this.
The GOVERNMENT does not have the right to restrict us from unlocking our devices. We never needed their permision to do something; they require OUR permission to restrict us.
You are taking the standard excuse far too seriously; the argument never need get anywhere as far as "let them collapse." We already know from centuries of history, that copyright works just fine without DRM, and that the greatest explosions of its viability occured without DRM.
Who was Jack Valenti?
You probably answered that question as, "He was some ignorant fuckwit who lied to people for a living."
No, he's a guy whose name no one ever would have heard, if not for the viability of non-DRMed media sales, rentals, and tickets.
Like Led Zeppelin, Marlon Brando, Stephen King, Bill Gates. Obscure underground names living on the margins of a dying-without-DRM industry, huh? (Yes, Bill Gates. How old do you think Windows' phone-home "genuine advantage" stuff really is?)
Simply saying Valenti lied, understates the dishonestly. He lied in a way where the very speaker's voice was heard due to the lie being a lie. If he were telling the truth, you never would have heard him. The word "Hollywood" did not not enter America's vocabulary in 1998; believe it or not, the place was already on the map and well-known before then.
The idea that any of the copyright industries need DRM in order to thrive, is so preposterously over-the-top absurd, that talking about the consequences ("let them collapse") is silly. It's not just a wrong argument; it's an obviously dishonest one. Don't play into it. Once you drink that koolaide and the discussion comes down to how much a certain industry is valued, you lose.
The big question is whether or not the industries can survive in spite of DRM. How urgent is it, that Congress not merely repeal DMCA, but outlaw DRM itself? Can it wait until next year, or should it be done immediately, or as a rider on the very next must-pass bill?
I think we all have anecdotal evidence, at least, by now that when there's a recurring pattern where when you can't play the legitimately purchased copy of something, whereas the pirate copy works great, you feel an economic pressure against purchasing things. (But how many people act on that pressure, vs don't? I don't know.)
So let's hear arguments about how the presence of this pressure isn't important, and that these are mere isolated anecdotes. Let's hear how there actually are legal patches to mplayer which reliably play all Blu-Ray discs, how cablecards actually do work with MythTV, and that all the internet discussion about these things not existing, are lies spread by pirates. Show me the URLs.
Let's hear how the routine piracy caused by some publishers' use of DRM, doesn't change peoples' habits into piracy-be-default, thereby infecting the non-suicide-by-DRM publishers, endangering the entire industry. Yes, tell me how someone using Sickbeard to record Game of Thrones (since that's on HBO and HBO isn't compatible with conventional PVRs), didn't make it so that The Big Bang Theory (on PVR-compatible broadcast TV) wasn't just a couple clicks away in Sickbeard too, and that people won't start watching that without the local TV station's or the network's ads. Explain how giving incentives to consumers to remain in contact with black markets, doesn't have consequences for the white markets.
Valuing the entertainment industry, is an argument for repealing DMCA, not against it.
"Which drone shall we send to prison for this one, Sir?"
"Hmmm.... who is that simian at the console there in Sector 7G?"
There are two separate copyrighted works involved: a "musical work", or the composition itself, and a "sound recording", or a performance of that composition fixed in a medium. Record labels are owners of copyright in sound recordings; music publishers are owners of copyright in musical works. I think I understand much of copyright law, but I'll admit that I'm unaware of the specific contract grants that are commonplace between music publishers and record labels.
Ok, I am too busy with a real life to do it, but I like this hypo. So Say you send an email to an "Intellectual Property Owner" of some device, and said more or less such... " If I were to ever own one of your devices, I would jailbreak it, modify it, and generally use it to my own designs." Would their legal team attack you for a "thought crime"? Will it become shouting Fire in a theater style stuff? I've rarely owned something I didn't modify at least a little.
I'd settle for being able to unlock my own (US) government.
as Google becomes the producer/publisher for an ever growing slice of new content
But who would write this "new content" for the recording artists on Google Records? Record labels own recordings; another company owns the underlying compositions.
Record a cover version of an existing copyrighted song. It's your recording, but it's still an infringement on the underlying composition's copyright.
what's to stop Google from getting into the music publishing business too?
That depends on a risk assessment. What's to stop the incumbent publishers from flooding Google Music Publishing and its songwriters with lawsuits alleging unintentional infringement, along the lines of Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music (the "My Sweet Lord" case)?
if you own you have a chance for capital gains. That can be a pretty big difference.
Arguing that you are just 'renting from the government' doesn't make much sense.
Valve.
People actually believe that property rights still exist? Ever since that VT Eminent Domain ruling, property rights is virtually dead, since anybody can cite that as a precedent for making the case that it doesn't exist, before proceding to confiscate someone's property.
So with property rights alreay pawned, this issue should come as no surprised. But honestly, the way cell phones are sold by carriers is an exercise in sophistry. The reason for locking is so that the subscribers can't switch carriers and keep the same phone, the expense of which is borne by the original carrier. But a cleaner way to do that - and get unlocked phones would be to pay the full price of the phone, whatever it is - $500, $800, $1000, whatever it is, and then get an unlocked phone which one can use with any carrier whatsoever. The way it is done in other countries.
Problem here - since the average American can't afford those sort of prices, they get the discounted phones, and then the carriers have to lock those to ensure that they don't take a bath in red ink. Are the advocates of 'freedom' and 'property rights' gonna put their money where their mouth is, and pay whatever an actual phone costs, which would satisfy their desire that it be unlocked?
It is already bad enough that people immersed in material possessions end up being owned by them. Now these material things listen, watch and monitor us with legal precedent that you can't take control of what you own.
"A democracy which makes or even effectively prepares for modern, scientific war must necessarily cease to be democratic
don't give them any ideas.
as they can make it that way and bill you $10 per fillip of windshield washer fluid with a hard sell on other work.
Dumbass
You mean like my oil, air filter, power steering fluid, transmission fluid, or brake fluid?
Except... I am allowed to replace those, and pretty much all other components that are designed to suffer routine wear.
The problem is the phones are intentionally designed to have /no/ user replaceable components -- up to and including not just the operating system, but applications themself.
This is exactly the thing for which Microsoft was sued and had nasty antitrust sanctions years ago -- you can't just intentionally structure your software to needlessly and unnecessary couple with your own components to pursue market advantage.
(Except of course, you can when you don't have a monopoly. Or at least, you can and not run afoul of antimonopoly regulations... But you really should not legally be able to do such. This was commonly referred to as unlawful bundling, and there are and were laws againstit that go wholly unenforced).
IIRC, Coleco with the Colecovision tried to lock down cartridge creation by tying recognizing valid cartridges to the cartridge sending a copyrighted string to the console. Other companies fought it and won in court.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
It's wrong to view this as "having the right" to unlock things we own.
This entire debate needs to be recast as: People who sell things shouldn't be allowed to put restrictions on how you can use them. If they lease, rent, or license something to you, then yeah go nuts with whatever restrictions both parties agree to. But if it's a sale, as in the previous owner gives up all rights and claims to the item, and the new owner gains all all those rights, then locking must be impossible and illegal.
If we allow the carriers to have their way on this, it opens up the door to all sorts of silliness: Cars you buy but are required to fill up with gas purchased only at "partner" gas stations. Computer hardware that you're not allowed to install Linux onto. Food purchased from one grocery store which you're not allowed to mix with food from a different grocery store while preparing a meal. etc.
Avaya support isn't what it should be. I've worked in places that had Definity, Prologix and Audix systems. One thing I found is that when the guys are out in the field doing repairs, they'll tell you the craft access password. From there you can administer the switch you own.
But an example - had an issue where we had two systems, the Definity and the Prolofix with numbering plans set so all 12xx was one office, all 34xx another etc. But we could carve out space to move a user from one switch to another.
Moved the user to the other switch - extension ported perfectly. But the message waiting light would never illuminate. Changed out the phone set, still same problem. Contacted Avaya, they dialed in and couldn't figure it out.
I happened to think about it and realized it's the Audix system that sets the light. Looked in the second page and there's a system-id field. Just change it from 221 to 222 and all of a sudden the light works. Thanks Avaya - you were useless as always.
The simple answer is yes, you can unlock anything you own. The problem is that you don't own it until its paid for, regardless of what you idiots want to think. Your carrier also has the right to deny you service if you want to use an unlocked phone on *their* network. ( or rooted, etc ).
If you are leasing it, you only get to open that hood if they allow it in your contract. They can easily lock that hood and require you to go to their authorized stations.
Its not your car until its paid off, get over it.
None of those are engine components.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
If you can't open/unlock/reprogram it, you don't own it.
Organization? You must be joking..
I mean, I don't OWN a copy of Windows or really probably any piece of software I [didn't really] pay for.
I license it. Even if you made a law saying unlocking is ok, all the phone companies would have to do is retain ownership of the phone and simply license its use to you.
Remember kids: Ownership is not a real thing. It's a thing made up by naked apes so they can fight.
The customer owns the phone at all points along there, if they didn't, then the carier would have to pay to replace it if it broke.
Just like how when you lease a car, the car manufacturer is responsible for all maintenance, and even for replacing the car if you lose it or break it.
Oh, wait...
This is all backwards and I still wonder why people don't seem to argue it much.
Once an item is sold, then the companies themselves must make a solid, factual reason they should have any say over it after that.
Once I buy it, it's mine. I don't need permission to unlock anything I own. THEY need permission to DENY my use.
It's just that simple.
"A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
If you can't open it, you don't own it.
gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.
When you get a cell phone on contract, the low price you pay for the hardware reflects the fact that the phone company will be able to earn so much from you over the course of your contract. That includes calling plan fees, revenue from apps and so on. You don't hand an open-ended right to unlock the phone if your contract said you don't. You Dan always buy the full-price hardware and do what you want with it. Private contracts should not be over-ridden by general law. Some of us like the current system and don't want to pay higher prices that would result from blowing up the business model.
Our rights were sold to Korea, i.e. the phone company manufactures, as a bargaining chip during the 'Regional Free Trade Packs' negotiations by the Bush and Obama administration's FCC (DoC), DoJ, DoS, and WH (George (Johnny) Walker Bush and his love child Barak Hussein Obama II signed the treaties !
Signed, Sealed, and Delivered ... We Are Screwed !
It isn't illegal to unlock the phone, if you own it. The real question is, when you get a phone on contract, who owns the phone? The current claim is you don't own it, and that is why you can't modify it.
Now some Joe Shmoe takes your code and puts it in his car. Then he drives around and has accident and kills someone, because the brakes failed.
Are you now liable for the accident?
...richie - It is a good day to code.
Avaya, for example, is known for suing service companies, accusing them of violating copyright for simply using a password to log in to their phone systems. That's right: typing in a password is considered "reproducing copyrighted material."
Maybe I should read the linked article... but this doesnt sound anything like copyright. You cant be sued by coca cola simply from writing the letters onto paper or even typing it into your word processor. If anything, a password might be considered a trade secret. And if the service companies signed an agreement not to reveal the secret but did so, then Avaya would probably have a valid point. In any case, if Avaya is suing people for copyright over password typing then it seems largely irrelevant... I mean anyone can sue anyone for anything really. But unless a court rules in favor it certainly doesnt matter.
Once again... sorry for not reading the article, but the whole discussion seems mute to me.
It is not illegal to unlock cell phones.
It is illegal to unlock cell phones you purchased at a subsidized price from a carrier if you have not completed the term of the contract you signed up for.
There's a big difference there. If I sell you a phone for $200 and that phone cost me $600, I've put myself $400 in debt. I don't want you to break that phone or be able to use that phone with any other carrier until I recoup that $400 from you (because in both instances, I've lost my primary motivating factor to get you to continue paying me). Once I recoup the full cost of the phone from you, you can do whatever you want with it.
It's just like renting a computer from one of those appliance rental places. You pay $15/week until you've paid it off. Until you pay it off, it doesn't belong to you so you can't sell it or modify it. Once it's paid off, you can do whatever you want to it.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Phone companies could solve this problem overnight by changing their contracts to say that they retain full ownership of all phones they sell you at a contract subsidized price until the contract is satisfied.