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".
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.
We own you. There is no other 'own'.
Politics, make it a policy issue. Get voters to tell politicians that it matters to them. Not as impossible as it seems, take for example the proliferation of Pirate Parties across Europe and the efforts of groups like the FFII, which have been highly effective in stopping software patents and other silliness in the EU to date. I don't think a dedicated technology party is going to be of much use in the US mind you, try an effective lobbying group instead. Lobbying works because lobbyists confine the knowledge of politicians to what they want them to know. Presenting a different view is often all it takes to shake things up a bit.
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.
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.
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.
Nope.
Unless there is a contract negotiation, there is no contract.
Therefore it is a personal property sale. Pretending that personal property is an implied contract is precisely the sort of NONSENSE that this article is complaining about. It's just a way for powerful corporations to subvert your property rights and abuse all of us.
It's high time that citizens started pushing back.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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.
Just some thoughts:
1) how does an organization mitigate its liability for subsequent services needed to pull users out of a drink that unlocked their stuff, changed something critical, and bricked the unit? Not all people are responsible with settings..... the unwitting, children, etc.
2) if we take ownership, do we also take responsibility for subsequent access? What happens if charges are incurred through the use of an unprotected device, say, a smartphone that gets hijacked and gets a texting malware that runs up charges? What of those charges?
3) can we then sell a device that's unlocked, and be free from subsequent liability incurred by the purchaser? What if they hurt themselves?
I'm not so sure these things are clear, and if people are willing to have the keys. Me, I rooted my phone, and find platforms that aren't open and transportable to be not my choosing. But I can take responsibility, and I'm not sure there's a cultural or legal standard that changes culpability so easily.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
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.
The problem is that there's no requirement that the ToS or EULA be understandable by a non-attorney, and even attorneys have an issue at times understanding what they're really being asked to agree to.
As long as the courts are under the delusion that we all have unlimited funds for attorneys, this will go on.
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.
You know it will be a cold day in ..... when that happens.... Unless we can get everybody to move to Android, Linux and other open sourced platforms for everything.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
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.
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.
I agree with this. Carriers should abandon "contracts" and call them leases. Then it would be more clear to consumers what they are doing when they sign a contract.
Add a clause analogous to break contract fees to allow the consumer to pay it off all at once if they wish to move to another carrier.
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.
Unlocking is not rooting....
Unlocked doesn't mean anything more than being allowed to change cell phone carriers.
I bought my phone unlocked, but I won't root it because I don't want to have to deal with the OS. I simply like the choice to change carriers. Honestly, with the nexus line of phones google has created the ability for us to change how carriers and phone makers do business. We simply need to buy unlocked phones from google. Everyone else will get the message.
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.
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.
Let's try another analogy: say you drive your U.S. car into Canada and the engine shuts off. You get a message on your car's HUD or on your registered cell number or whatever: for a greatly inflated monthly fee (which will be tacked onto your lease back in the U.S.), your car engine will be re-enabled and you can drive on Canadian roads. Or, you can just say "Acknowledge, Keep Driving" and pay a by-the-mile super-duper inflated fee (perhaps totaling $1000 for a road trip from the Bellingham-ish border to Vancouver). If, however, you owned your car outright and had unlocked it, you could pay tolls on Canadian roads as you go, not through some U.S. company, perhaps totaling as little as $10 in an entire month, but because you're leasing your car and have not road-unlocked its engine, you're forced to accept these absurdly high fees.
A lot of people want an unlocked phone and would be willing to finance it themselves, but you notice how the new iPhone comes out only as carrier locked versions, and then, when months later it comes out as a carrier-unlocked version, the price is still a couple hundred bucks more than it maybe ought to be? Other notes: your carriers now won't unlock your phone when you finish your contract, it is illegal for you to do so yourself, and note that they've only been so nice as to carrier unlock you for about two years now, anyways.
I've moved between countries many times, and having to deal with the carrier locking shit is infuriating, especially when, say, I want to update my version of something like iOS to get a security patch but don't want to lose my carrier unlock in the process. (Yes, I also use Android phone sometimes, but alas~.) Granted, carrier unlock is more meant to keep people domestically stuck to one carrier, so that everyone doesn't migrate to T-mobile (Science Bless!).
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.
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'
You OWN your home, even though its mortgaged. You are not leasing it. You are not renting it. It is yours to do with ANYTHING you please. The bank has a lien on your home if your are mortgaged. They do not own it, nor can they tell you in any way what to do with it. You can sell it for any price you wish or burn it down, but before the government will grant the deed to someone else, they must verify the lien has been removed.
Likewise, when I purchase a phone + contract, I own the phone immediately. The phone company counts it as an immediate sell on their books and all other accounting, which is why you pay taxes for it immediately rather than over time. The sell of the phone is complete at that time in every legal way that matters.
Its not a lease, its a sale. If it was a lease, you would be required to buy it at the end of your contract ... that is a LEGAL requirement for leases, they can't automatically be 'given' at the end. The purchase price can be one dollar (which you'll find on all sorts of deals, Lease at XXX amount, buyout for $1, great corp accounting cheat ;), but a new transaction must take place for the lease to become a sell. They aren't doing that, again making it clear the sale happens at the start of the contract.
If I were renting or leasing, the price of my monthly bill would go down when I stopped leasing or renting, like if I bought a unlocked, no contract phone. But it doesn't. My bill remains the same regardless of where my phone comes from. Again, it can't be a lease or rental if there is no transaction and length of terms.
They have structured it as a sell in every way for their accounting purposes, but they want to pretend its not, again for their own financial interests (keeping you tied in to their service).
As far as 'defaulting', they are not the legal framework designed to deal with that situation. They are not supposed to be enforcers either. They have early termination charges attached as an agreed on termination cost. Not allowing your phone to not work on another provider ISN'T IN THE CONTRACT AT ALL, so its not something you agreed on ever.
If I pay $600 cash in $100 bills to Joe Smith who happens to own an unlocked iPhone on the street corner, the phone company treats me the same in EVERY SINGLE WAY as the guy who gets a contracted iPhone. So you get treated like you bought it ... again, they treat it as a sell for their benefit.
Only when it may benefit you is it suddenly not a sale to you but some other rental term bullshit they made up.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
when i bought my xbox / ps3 i was not presented with a contract to sign, they simply took my money and handed me a box..
Yes. But then you get to pay if there's an accident. Seems reasonable. How is that different from if you open the case, you void the warranty? (Which is also totally reasonable. You can do what you like, the company just won't clean up after you if you do.)
Sure there is. Cars have been bought, sold and modified (sometimes to extremes) for nearly a century now. Cars have a lot more potential to harm someone than a typical consumer electronics product.
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).
I think it's car analogy time
1) how does an organization mitigate its liability for subsequent services needed to pull users out of a drink that unlocked their stuff, changed something critical, and bricked the unit? Not all people are responsible with settings..... the unwitting, children, etc.
Depends on what it was and how "reasonable" it was, if your brakes go out because you put a CD in the CD player then clearly that's the car manufacturer's liability. If your brakes go out because you've done a shoddy repair, they're not liable. Why would "taking ownership" have such a crazy meaning for digital goods as opposed to real world goods?
2) if we take ownership, do we also take responsibility for subsequent access? What happens if charges are incurred through the use of an unprotected device, say, a smartphone that gets hijacked and gets a texting malware that runs up charges? What of those charges?
Last I checked none of the hardware manufacturers take one iota of liability for anything wrong their phone will do, so what's new? Would a car manufacturer cover the damage if your car got carjacked? Nah.
3) can we then sell a device that's unlocked, and be free from subsequent liability incurred by the purchaser? What if they hurt themselves?
Depends on the condition you sold it as, I suppose. It's not even illegal to sell a car that's defective and not road-worthy, so as long as you've informed them of the unlocked state I don't see the problem.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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
Often, such modifications are on the surface and can be seen or easily detected. A bug in a ROM for a turbocharged car might be disasterous, but undetectable. The engine over-revs, and things break. Should the modified ROM be disclosed to a subsequent purchaser? Or is it caveat emptor?
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
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
Unless there is a contract negotiation, there is no contract.
You should ask for a refund on your law degree.
Contracts without negotiation are called "contracts of adhesion". They are still contracts.
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.
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.
There's no reason the phone hardware has to be tied to the service contract. As long as I keep paying AT&T my $X/mo, why should they care if I also want to pay T-Mobile $Y/mo to use my phone with their service instead? The Early Termination Fee is designed to cover the cost of subsidized hardware in the event that you cancel your contract. Why should AT&T care if I buy the $200 contract phone, then pay a $400 ETF to break the contract vs. just buying the $600 phone to begin with?
Secondly, this law makes no distinction between having your contract phone one day or if you've already completed your full contract term. Circumventing the carrier lock is now illegal once again, period.
The only justification I can see for the carrier lock on the hardware itself is that it helps to make the phone less useful if you try to break the contract without paying the ETF. Think of it as a lien on the hardware, but in that case it should automatically be removed once the contract obligations have been met.
So why can't I use a phone that I bought up front from Virgin Mobile USA on another carrier?
You can just look at an engine and see if I bored the jets and put in a racing cam? AMAZING! Same for re-grinding the pistons, boring the cylinders, etc.
Yes, it should all be disclosed.
Then which maker of a set-top video gaming device should we patronize instead of Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo?
Negotiation is not a required element of a contract, so requiring "negotiation" accomplishes nothing. Further, you create a false dichotomy between a contract and "personal property sale"--a sale of property is ITSELF a contract. There has never been a time in industrialized society in which the sale of a manufactured good has ever been as simple as "with this money, I buy all your rights and now you have none and I have them all."
It's not a creation of "powerful corporations", either, though they undoubtedly benefit from having the resources to defend their rights better than the individual craftsmen of years past.
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!
"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.
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.
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.
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?
What if you buy a car? No leasing, no financing... cash money straight up.
Now you own the car, and it's still illegal to modify it. Want to install new headers? Dual Carbs? Conversion to biodiesel ... all illegal in your car analogy. And if the car breaks down, you can either buy a new one, or use the old one offroad only.
P.S. on the subject of cars, don't even bring up the concept of "Street legal." The state has set certain rules and restrictions to limit the amount and severity of modifications you can make to a car. Those laws do not prevent you from making any changes whatsoever, only from making drastic changes that specifically endanger other drivers or the environment. Switching my phone from ATT to Verizon doesn't endanger anything, except a CEOs bottom line.
This signature is false.
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
Done it, plenty of times, all of them on youtube.
They've all survived DMCA requests.
I can copyright my particular performance of any song, especially when changes are made (Playing major instead of originally-composed minor, shifted tunings that affect the entire timbre and pitch of the song, etc.)
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
1) the same way PCs makers have been doing it for decades. You bork the box, its your fault. Learn to fix it or pay up.
2) dont sign up for services that dont allow you to cap the amount spent. Pretty stupid to walk around with a comms device that has the potential to financially ruin you without taking proper precautions.
3) As long as I tell you 'hey i altered this phone, it is sold as is' everything is A-OK. If i tried to pass it off as a brand new unaltered phone, you could of course sue me later, civilly. There is no need to put rubber bumpers on the world to solve these minor issues.
Good-bye
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.
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
A writing is not always necessary for a contract (IIRC, only for real property), but it makes life easier later on.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
If you can't open it, you don't own it.
gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.
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.
It even goes beyond that, if you buy the phone and unlock but continue to pay the contract over time (or pay the ETF) they still get their money, but they get it without you loading their network.
This is actually better for them than if you continued actually using it through the contract period...right?
--- Mercutio was right.
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.