
Unlocking Cellphones Becomes Illegal Saturday in the U.S. - bluetidepro
http://mashable.com/2013/01/23/unlocking-cellphones-illegal/
======
kevinalexbrown
I'm wondering if anyone could help me explain why this is a bad idea to others
who might be sympathetic but don't really think about unlocking iphones. Like
most people, I don't care about unlocked cell phones per se, it's just a
consequence of a principle I very roughly characterize as "I want to do what I
want with the things I own so long as there's no detrimental social effect."

I've thought of the gas station metaphor: "Imagine owning a car and legally
not being able to fill your tank with gasoline from any vendor you chose." But
I'm not sure what works best.

Please: I'm not characterizing the people I mean as dumb. On the contrary,
they're smart people, who would otherwise see this as an obscure decision
(indeed, how many people in the US actually unlock a phone?). I'm not asking
how to dumb things down, I'm asking how to convey why decisions like this
matter.

~~~
jasonkester
You don't need a metaphor. You can use a real life situation:

"I want to go to Europe"

You can't do that next week. Well, you can, but you won't be able to use your
phone there without paying ridiculous roaming and data charges.

If you unlock your phone and hop a plane today, you can stop at any mobile
phone shop at your destination airport, give them five euro, and they'll give
you a new pre-paid SIM card with five euro worth of credit on it.

That's enough to use your phone as much as you like for the duration of your
two-week vacation. Top up with another fiver if you want a couple GB of data
while you're at it. And you're done. Just remember to pop your old sim back in
when you get home.

Travelling the rest of the world is all about picking up cheap local SIM cards
in every country you visit and enjoying cheap calls like a local. You're about
to lose that.

~~~
bhups
Yes, but if you foresee that you would need to travel, couldn't you just buy
an unlocked phone? (I normally just buy an entirely different phone, a cheap
Nokia brick handset, for travel use). This law doesn't prevent people from
using unlocked phones, it prevents people from taking advantage of the carrier
subsidy.

Carriers agreed to give you a shiny new smartphone for a massively subsidized
prize in return for you being locked to their network.

It seems rather exploitative to take advantage of this quid pro quo by
breaking free from that agreement. All this law seems to do is to prevent
people from taking without giving.

~~~
jasonkester
But you're not breaking your agreement.

You're still paying your monthly bill like a good customer. You're just
replacing the SIM for a couple weeks.

You could certainly achieve the same result by buying a second phone just for
traveling. But you already have a phone. In the rest of the world (and in the
US until tomorrow), that's all the phones you need.

~~~
tspike
When I went traveling, I called T-Mobile and they provided me an unlock code
without any bellyaching.

~~~
SwellJoe
It took me several days to get an unlock code from T-Mobile, for a phone I'd
paid for unsubsidized. And, they make a big deal out of the process, and make
a lot of noise about possibly being unable to provide unlock codes if they
don't have them.

That's not to say T-Mobile isn't better than some other carriers. As I
understand it, they are. But, I shouldn't have to ask permission to use my
phone, that I paid $600 for, in Mexico for a few weeks, while I continue to
pay for my US service.

Making unlocking a phone yourself illegal is anti-consumer and pro-corporate
in ways that I find extremely distasteful and it makes me angry that the US
state serves corporate interests so much more enthusiastically than individual
interests.

~~~
zem
if you paid for the phone unsubsidised, why was it even locked in the first
place?

~~~
SwellJoe
They are locked, by default. I bought it in a T-Mobile store, because my Nexus
1 died while I was travelling and needed something quick (it's an HTC
Sensation 4G, which is the worst phone I've owned, possibly ever). Maybe
they'll unlock it immediately if you ask them to, I dunno.

------
pg
Does it strike anyone as odd the the Librarian of Congress is deciding
critical technology policy? How did that happen? Is this just a random
anomaly, or a sign of some sort of sneakiness?

~~~
firefoxman1
What strikes me as more odd is how backward some of our laws are. Looking at
the comments on that page I was amazed to read this one:

> _"lol.. In Australia it's illegal to sell them locked (if they're factory
> locked then consumers only have to ask the carriers and they will unlock it
> on the spot free of charge)"_

And this one...

> _"...where I live they finally allowed us to unlock ours cellphones [...] it
> was fun seeing thousands of people trying to finally leave their company
> they hated to much (some cellphones carriers here are horrible). It has such
> a happy day lol. Now carriers have to try harder to get people to chose
> their company, because they can leave at any time, yaay! It's definitely a
> better system."_

Ironic how Capitalism seems to function much better in other countries, even
though the U.S. made Capitalism what it is today.

~~~
czr80
That's because too many in the US believe that free markets are defined by the
lack of regulation rather than by the quality of regulation.

~~~
Kerrick
This _is_ a regulation, though. A regulation on consumers. Anything that
restricts freedom and choice is a regulation.

~~~
illuminate
"Anything that restricts freedom and choice is a regulation"

A meaningless statement. Industry collusion (legal under free marketeerism),
for example, is not a regulation.

------
jdietrich
In most of the developed world, it's either illegal to sell a network-locked
phone, or there's a legal requirement for networks to provide an unlock code
at the end of your contract. Locking is generally seen as fundamentally anti-
competitive and permissible only under strict restrictions, in order to
maintain the economic viability of handset subsidies.

It's entirely reasonable that if your phone is discounted as part of a
contract, you should be obliged to complete the contracted term or pay an
early termination fee in order to keep the handset. What's not reasonable is
the idea that the subsidy arrangement gives a network complete control over
your device in perpetuity. Either the device is rented to you by the network,
in which case they are responsible for it, or it's sold to you at a discounted
price and is yours so long as you finish paying for it.

~~~
halvsjur
I'm always amazed at what Americans let slide of governmental abuse as long as
big private companies profit. I find it difficult to comprehend that even hard
core libertarians will defend laws like these.

~~~
icelancer
Why would hardcore libertarians defend laws like these? It's an obvious market
restriction.

~~~
halvsjur
Just an observation on my part. Americans who call themselves libertarian
often seem to be reflexively pro-corporate, even when it flies right in the
face of their professed ideals.

~~~
jiggy2011
My primitive reading of libertarian philosophy in this case would go something
along the lines of: Companies _should_ lobby for whatever
regulation/deregulation benefits them because they are rational actors in a
free market.

However the government should not have the power to actually grant this.

I suppose a hardcore libertarian might allow a contract clause which allows
the phone network to hire someone to shoot you in the face if you unlock your
phone.

~~~
icelancer
"Should" is a little loaded; I would say "Companies would be expected to
lobby..."

But yeah I think your interpretation is correct.

------
Diamons
DMCA, as in the Digital Millenium COPYRIGHT Act? I can't believe what the fuck
I'm reading here. I paid for the phone. I own it. I can do whatever I bloody
please with it.

I'm furious right now.

~~~
rayiner
I agree it's total abuse of the DMCA, and a stupid idea.

But note, from TFA: "You can also pay full-price for a phone, not the
discounted price that comes with a two-year service contract, to receive the
device unlocked from the get-go. Apple sells an unlocked iPhone 5 starting at
$649, and Google sells its Nexus 4 unlocked for $300."

You didn't buy the phone outright. You agreed to a massively subsidized price
in exchange for a quid pro quo. At the very least, AT&T should be able to sue
you for the breach of contract and get their $350 back.

But I think that's exactly what they should have to do, not have the
government use the DMCA to enforce their contractual provisions for them.

~~~
jmj42
> At the very least, AT&T should be able to sue you for the breach of contract
> and get their $350 back.

That's exactly what they do, except that a lawsuit isn't necessary. It's
already part of the contract. Specifically, AT&T charges $350 - ($10 * <number
of months used>).

And, I agree, that's actually quite fair.

[http://www.wireless.att.com/learn/articles-
resources/early-t...](http://www.wireless.att.com/learn/articles-
resources/early-term-fees.jsp)

 __Edit: Added link to AT &T termination fees __

~~~
cbr

        $350 - ($10 * <number of months used>)
    

Weird; that would make more sense for a three year contract.

~~~
brodney
Seems like it's weighted to be more beneficial earlier in the contract, and
later on makes more sense as the user to see the contract through to the end.

------
Claudus
I'm an even tempered person, but seeing a law like this passed really makes me
angry.

Dear government, how about passing a law that benefits me for a change? It's
been a while.

~~~
clarkmoody
Even worse is that the "Librarian of Congress [...] decided that unlocking
mobile phones would no longer be allowed" seemingly without an input from the
people.

The regulatory agencies, dubbed the "fourth branch of government," are able to
pass regulations with criminal penalties without passing a law through
Congress.

This increase in arbitrary government authority threatens the very nature of a
Republic.

~~~
tokenadult
It's a basic principle of administrative law that administrative regulations
can only be adopted with legislative authority, which in this case was granted
by a statute Congress passed. It should be possible to look up the second step
taken on this issue as an administrative regulation, which was a public notice
and comment period. I have read the official notices and public comments for
other administrative regulations on other topics, and generally regulators get
plenty of commentary from the public (with "public" of course including
interest groups, but also private citizens) whenever a new regulation is in
the notice and commment period. "The life of the law has not been logic; it
has been experience... The law embodies the story of a nation's development
through many centuries, and it cannot be dealt with as if it contained only
the axioms and corollaries of a book of mathematics." Oliver Wendell Holmes,
Jr. The Common Law (1881), p. 1.

~~~
jivatmanx
The quote refers to experience gained in the process of the development of
common law.

"Common law, also known as case law or precedent, is law developed by judges
through decisions of courts and similar tribunals, as opposed to statutes
adopted through the legislative process or regulations issued by the executive
branch."

[1]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law>

------
tokenadult
As phones become[1] no longer subsidized by network operators in the United
States, this will become a non-issue.

[1] EDIT: I changed the former word "are" to "become" for clarity. What I
mean, as some readers picked up and some did not, is that I expect United
States mobile phone networks to get out of the business of selling mobile
handsets at a heavily subsidized price (as is current practice in the United
States), and thus get out of the business of needing to lock in contracts to
gain revenue to cover the up-front cost of the subsidy. When handsets are sold
at near full list price, the networks can charge just their network costs to
customers who are free to shop with unlocked phones. The United States market
is confusing in having different technical standards for basic voice phone
service on different networks, but the networks are converging on similar
technical standards for their data networks, so eventually most smart phone
users will be able to shop for networks here.

~~~
pragmatic
Do you mean as time goes on, we'll have more unsubsidized phones like the
Nexus 4?

~~~
mikecane
Likely yes. China wants in here and what better way than to offer cheaper
phones that you can use with any carrier? To fend off that competition, the
big name brands will have to do it first. I keep asking how much of a carrier-
free phone's "price" is actually too fat a margin built in to soak carriers,
who can seemingly afford to pay up.

~~~
eli
That only works if the carriers do indeed offer a lower price for not taking
the subsidy. AFAIK, T-Mobile is currently the only one to do that explicitly
(I guess you could go PAYGO on other carriers, but it's not quite the same).

If you have to pay the same every month whether you take the subsidy or not,
then you'd be a sucker to not take it.

~~~
mikecane
>>>If you have to pay the same every month whether you take the subsidy or
not, then you'd be a sucker to not take it.

Yes. But I think rates will change too. I think everything will sink to PAYG-
like levels in the next few years. Maybe Sprint, being desperate, will change
the industry.

------
tburch
If you need to unlock your GSM Samsung Galaxy S3 or Note 2, here's how:

Dial the following keys _#197328640#

Main Menu > [1] UMTS > [1] Debug Screen > [8] Phone Control > [6] Network Lock
> Options [3]Perso SHA256 OFF > (after choosing this option, wait about 30
seconds, then go back one step by pressing the Menu button then select Back,
now you are in [6] Network Lock then choose [4] NW Lock NV Data INITIALLIZ
..... wait for a minute then reboot your phone... enjoy!!!

_This is a PERMANENT UNLOCK, and does NOT trigger anything for warranty

/standard disclaimer: I am not responsible if you don't follow directions and
what you do with your phone. Credit goes to [http://forum.xda-
developers.com/showpost.php?p=34661189&...](http://forum.xda-
developers.com/showpost.php?p=34661189&postcount=1)

~~~
shrughes
Your post is missing the asterisk in the key listing -- it ended up
italicizing the text.

------
Irregardless
If I remember correctly, Sprint, T-Mobile and AT&T have all settled class-
action lawsuits regarding their locked down handsets after consumers claimed
it was anti-competitive.

1 step forward, 10 steps backwards. How is this happening?

> Born in Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, on June 1, 1929, Dr. Billington was. . .

Oh, the guy who just decided unlocking smartphones should be illegal was born
in 1929? Cool. That's how rotary phones used to work, right?

~~~
pbhjpbhj
> _Oh, the guy who just decided unlocking smartphones should be illegal was
> born in 1929? Cool. That's how rotary phones used to work, right?_ //

Rotary [dial] phones weren't locked to a particular provider were they? You
could buy anyone's phone and connect it to your line and indeed buy any line
and connect it to your phone - post network standardisation at least.

~~~
colomon
For a long time they weren't just provided by the phone company, they were
owned by the phone company. The theory (at least as presented to the public)
was you couldn't let ordinary people hook anything they wanted to the phone
lines -- think of the potential for chaos!

------
dmix
"Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so
many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without
breaking laws."

~~~
vvpan
Heh, I thought it was Emma Goldman. Interesting how similar opposites are
sometimes.

------
kunai
I don't give a rat's arse if it becomes illegal, I'm going to do it anyway.

Even so, the government has no right to declare what users can or cannot do
with their mobile phones. Another "victimless crime" on the books. How has the
war on drugs been working out for you, Congress? So much money and so many
resources wasted on a crime that has no direct victims.

Seriously, someone needs to keep these loonies that run our country in check,
because our masses are so stupid that they keep electing the idiots back into
office. Ridiculous.

~~~
n3rdy
> Seriously, someone needs to keep these loonies that run our country in
> check, because our masses are so stupid that they keep electing the idiots
> back into office. Ridiculous.

The electing isn't the problem, the voting is. If nobody voted, these
politicians couldn't justify their actions with "we're just representing the
people!"

~~~
kunai
It's impossible to say, even THINK that people would stop voting as a form of
silent protest. With all the propagandist lies being shoved down our throats
--

"Rock the vote!" "Your vote counts!" "If you don't vote, you will be doing
your country a disservice! Blahbedyblahbedyblah"

And all this propaganda is more bipartisan lies. The root cause of this entire
problem is that people think they can only decide between the lesser of two
evils because of naivety or misguidedness and delusion. The bipartisan system
is corrupt. Third parties, particularly the Libertarian and Green parties,
embody the true meaning of Americanism and are perhaps the only way to get
this hellhole of a country back on track. The only way to do that is to raise
awareness of the lies and evil in our current administration and other
administrations of the past, and to increase awareness of a third, even fourth
choice. It is difficult, however, with the entertainment industry shamelessly
supporting big government and limited rights. The RIAA, anyone?

~~~
n3rdy
As it is today you're absolutely right. If there were a campaign equal to
those "rock the vote" campaigns, it could be interesting.

I'm also realistic. If voter turnout was even 1%, it would still be considered
a legitimate election. It wouldn't matter if any law on the books says
otherwise.

~~~
jiggy2011
What happens in the US if nobody turns out to vote at all?

In the UK we would defacto go back to being an actual monarchy.

------
programminggeek
It's ironic that unlocked phones benefit carriers arguably as much as locked
phones do. An unlocked phone makes it easier to switch carriers, thus cheaper
for carriers to acquire customers, but maybe they'd all rather have it be
expensive to acquire customers so that it's harder for smaller providers to
compete.

Either way, I don't think that the DMCA was designed to ensure a telecom
oligopoly.

~~~
rdtsc
> An unlocked phone makes it easier to switch carriers

But this also means losing customers, and losing that predictable 2 year
revenue. They know their own services and prices and customer service is utter
crap (at least here in US), I don't think any of them are delusional, so they
don't want people to leave on a whim, because (gasp!) they might have to
actually start competing (lowering prices, better customer services etc.).

~~~
thisone
Carriers have an escape clause fee in their contracts.

If you cancel your contract, you get hit with the fee.

I don't think phones should be locked to any carrier. Instead change the
contract rules. If you cancel after the cooling off period and in the first 30
days you pay (blah), and every month there after it's (blah) -
(something)*number of Months. Only if the phone was subsidized by the
contract, of course.

I say this as someone who needs to be able to change out sims when I travel.

~~~
girvo
That's exactly how it works in Australia, and I believe that is fair.

------
pla3rhat3r
I love the part where the article says, "this wasn't what the DCMA was
supposed to do." Is anyone else shocked that intention and expectations change
when someone is given enormous power to change the rules? Come on guys! Stop
being so gullible!

------
grandpa
I couldn't figure out from the article what exactly it is that's illegal.
Which of these situations cause me to break the law as an American?

1\. I travel to Canada, unlock my cellphone there where it is legal, and bring
it back to the U.S.

2\. My Canadian nephew unlocks my phone while I am not looking.

3\. I unlock my phone, but then never turn it on so it never connects to a
carrier.

4\. I buy a phone in New York, then move to Canada never to return. On arrival
in Canada, I unlock my phone.

If it's really true that "unlocking cellphones is illegal in the U.S.", then
only 3 should be illegal.

~~~
darkarmani
It sounds like you are crossing state lines (and international lines) for the
purpose of committing a felony. I'm half joking. I think you can get fined for
smoking a cuban cigar overseas, so I think you need to hand the phone off to a
Canadian and let them unlock it.

~~~
saurik
There is further discussion about this started from a comment I made elsewhere
on this article; the replies seem to clarify that only specific laws
(including, apparently, this cigar issue you bring up, looking into it; that
is apparently new as of 2004) have extra-territorial application.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5111405>

~~~
darkarmani
Thanks for the link. Those are some surprising insights.

------
arbuge
I hear that Carmen Ortiz is already gearing up her office to enforce this.
Unlock your phone, get charged with 13 felonies and up to 50 years in jail.
But you'll be able to plead guilty and get away with just 6 months or so.

------
redwood
We really need to reflect on the slippery slope, America.

I recommend checking out this TED talk because it's very inspirational:
<http://on.ted.com/Stevenson> The focus of the talk is a bit more on
inequality in the justice system than tech laws, say. But it's relevant since
a) we need to be mindful of the "other" who's persecuted, as we're reminded by
some of our own who are persecuted. and b) this talk highlights how we accept
the _moment_ as _normal_ even when the moment is unjust. The talk reminds us
to stand up and fight for what's right, rather than accept the new normal.

Finally, I'm reminded of the Martin Niemöller quote that we should always
remember:

"First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a
communist.

Then they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a
socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I
wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the catholics, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a
catholic.

Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me."

EDIT: I do apologize for the hyperbole folks... it was more inspired by the
TED talk I linked to than the article above and the feelings caused by the
Schwartz case and others. I went off topic, sorry!

~~~
tokenadult
I'm sorry, but you have an extremely warped sense of history if you think
contractual arrangements between mobile phone network operators and their
customers are comparable to the restrictions on freedom in Nazi Germany. This
is a really bleak example of Godwin's Law in action.

<http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/godwins-law>

AFTER EDIT: Seeing the kind reply from the person with whom I am disagreeing
here, I note from the dates of Martin Niemöller's life (14 January 1892 – 6
March 1984)

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller>

that his quotation was surely about the Nazis, and it couldn't possibly have
preceded the presence of the National Socialist German Workers (Nazi) Party in
Germany "by half a century," so you were referring to the Nazis whether your
knowledge of history included that realization or not. I have known that
quotation since 1969, when I learned it from my elementary school teacher that
year, when Niemöller was still alive.

~~~
jack-r-abbit
I don't believe the OP was actually comparing a 2-year contract to getting
killed in a gas chamber. But rather comparing how easy it is for many people
to just look away and not care about things that happen to others since it is
not happening to them... only to find that one day it DOES happen to them and
then they're screwed. This happens on many levels less than genocide. Getting
involved should not be reserved for only combating genocide.

------
felipeko
This is sad.

In Brazil, my home country, is illegal for a carrier to not unlock your phone
if you ask.

~~~
rayiner
In Brazil, it's illegal for carriers to subsidize their phones. It's the
carrier subsidy that gives rise to network locking here in the U.S. If you buy
the phone at retail price, the carrier will unlock it if you ask.

~~~
felipeko
Not true. We also have contract subsidized phones, and you can still unlock
and use your phone however you want, you still have the contract to fulfill,
or you can pay the ETF and be done with it.

~~~
rayiner
Is this inaccurate? [http://www.androidauthority.com/brazil-carriers-stop-
selling...](http://www.androidauthority.com/brazil-carriers-stop-selling-
subsidised-smartphones-99432/)

------
drucken
Original ruling (Section III.C of 77 FR 65260) from Copyright Office, Library
of Congress available at,
[https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/10/26/2012-263...](https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/10/26/2012-26308/exemption-
to-prohibition-on-circumvention-of-copyright-protection-systems-for-access-
control)

------
eliben
It may be marginally off topic, but this is exactly why it makes me sad seeing
people claiming that monopolies are why capitalism doesn't work. The only
reason monopolies _really_ succeed is because of government regulations like
this one. Without government regulations, all monopolies would crash very
quickly.

~~~
simonh
Without government regulation cartels wouldn't be illegal.

Instead we have a regime where cartels and monopolies are illegal, unless
specifically created by law. Which is what we have here.

~~~
eliben
My point is that without government regulation cartels wouldn't arise in the
first place. Cartels are vulnerable to competition from outside. No industry
has a high enough barrier of entry these days, since many huge corporations
shoot all over the place for new business opportunities.

------
diminoten
> Christopher S. Reed from the U.S. Copyright Office noted in an email to
> TechNewsDaily that "only a consumer, who is also the owner of the copy of
> software on the handset under the law, may unlock the handset."

So if I flash the firmware with a copy of software I own, am I then free to
perform the unlocking action?

~~~
saurik
It should be noted that the baseband typically runs unrelated software to the
actual phone, and one usually has to modify the software of the baseband to
unlock it; thereby, when they say "software" they don't, for example, mean
something like "CyanogenMod". If, however, your device doesn't have any
protection mechanisms on it keeping you from flashing the baseband, and you
own the rights to the software you are flashing to the baseband, and that
software doesn't keep you from unlocking the phone, then I do not see any way
in which the DMCA is relevant. (That said, while I have a vested interest in
this sort of thing, I am not a lawyer.)

------
darkstalker
Totally the opposite on how is my country (Chile). Here it's illegal to sell
locked phones.

------
drucken
Long term, the locked business model due to smartphone subsidies will die
anyway since it largely benefits the manufacturers and app developers.
Carriers are the ones currently taking the considerable risks facing
consumers.

So, it is really a question whether it is appropriate to have semi-random
administrative laws being applied by a "Librarian" at any time being good for
society or progress.

The EFF and others who argued for how these exemptions to draconian laws are
applied may yet rue the day the asked for this opening on their effective
rights. At least the passed law was a static target that could be outpaced by
technology.

------
SageRaven
From TFA: "The DMCA only permits you to unlock your phone yourself once you've
asked your carrier first."

This struck me as odd. Not having read it myself, I didn't realize the DMCA
was that particular.

So, is this "illegal" in the sense that ripping your own DVDs is "illegal"?
Will we have "cellphone johns" under fire from phone maker and phone-unlocking
code on t-shirts in a few weeks/months?

I've never owned a phone fancy enough to warrant unlocking, but this news irks
me nonetheless. Seems plain as day that once you buy hardware, you have the
right to modify it and use it as you see fit, so long as you own it outright.

Let the game of whack-a-mole begin...

~~~
eli
Yes, it is illegal in very much the same way that ripping your own DVDs is
illegal (no need for scare quotes -- it really is illegal, even if you think
it shouldn't be)

~~~
pbhjpbhj
> _ripping your own DVDs is illegal_ //

That's not true in the USA is it - I understood that Fair Use terms meant that
you could rip _your own_ DVDs for backup, format shifting and such personal
activities.

Perhaps the person using the scare quotes considers that perfectly moral
activities that are classified in statute as being illegal are overridden by
the _demos_ ' agreed morality of the actions. Does anyone find making/using a
backup - even if it's format shifted, even if you torrent the backup - to be
immoral given you paid your share of the copyright license already?

~~~
dtparr
If the dvd is protected by a technical mechanism which you are circumventing
in ripping it, then yes, it is unless you meet one of the LoC exemptions. In
the current phase they allowed it only for disability access and for short
clips for documentaries, educational use, etc.

They specifically denied an exemption for space-shifting, so ripping a DVD to
view on a tablet, for instance, is still a DMCA violation.

[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/jailbreaking-
now-...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/jailbreaking-now-legal-
under-dmca-for-smartphones-but-not-tablets/)

------
Xuzz
Removal of a specific exemption from a law is not the same as "becomes
illegal". Do we have any clear reasons that this becomes illegal, or is it now
just more of an unexplored gray area of the law?

~~~
cheald
Because it's circumvention of an access control mechanism which is not
exempted under the DMCA, making it illegal under the DMCA which bans all
circumvention of all access control mechanisms, except those specifically
exempted.

~~~
saurik
So, some context: Xuzz (whom I work with) possibly brings this up as I often
make such an argument for the jailbreaking exemption in reverse. Specifically,
that people who say it is "now legal" under an exemption are incorrect, as it
might still be the case that there are other laws that apply; it just means
that this one law now doesn't.

Additionally, I tend to make the argument that we didn't consider it to be
"illegal" in the first place, but with jailbreaking the situation is somewhat
different: the people opposing the exemptions actually cite as one of their
reasons "you don't need an explicit exemption as you are covered by the
blanket interoperability clause already".

With regards to unlocking, I have not read all of the relevant history (I have
generally avoided working on the unlocking tools for various reasons; if
nothing else, I simply haven't personally needed them); the DMCA, though, is
mostly supposed to apply to cases of clear copyright infringement, which this
is not; it isn't quite "interoperability", though, either.

In particular, there was a case I was interested in, with General Electric as
the _defendant_ (yay! ;P), which was hinging on the argument of whether the
DMCA could apply to cases unrelated to copyright infringement (GE, by way of a
company it acquired, apparently was doing unauthorized field service on a UPS
made by a company that required a hardware security dongle to access the
software it was running).

The Harvard Journal of Law & Technology publishes the JOLT Digest, where they
summarize various cases. This case was summarized there.

[http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/software/mge-ups-
systems-...](http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/software/mge-ups-systems-inc-
v-ge-consumer-and-indus-inc)

The good news:

> The Fifth Circuit held that the DMCA’s provisions apply to protections
> designed to prevent infringement of copyrighted material and not protection
> from mere access to that material.

> In so holding, the court limits the DMCA to those cases where a defendant
> circumvents a protection that is designed to prevent infringement of
> copyrighted material.

The bad news:

> Barry Sookman provides an overview of the case and an analysis of the
> court’s ruling. Info/Law has a critical discussion of the DMCA in light of
> this case’s holding.

> As pointed out by Barry Sookman, such a limitation is inconsistent with
> prior circuit court decisions and fails “to consider [] legislative
> history.”

(I had actually forgotten about this case, and thereby had never actually seen
the final court opinion. I guess I now have some reading to do this week ;P.)

------
ceesiren
Also, let's say you are with AT&T and your phone breaks or you lose it a few
months before you qualify for a new phone. You are forced to pay for a new one
at full price even though you've already decided you are going to switch to
T-Mobile or a prepaid service when your contract is up.

If you can unlock it and the new carrier is also GSM, you can take the phone
with you. Or, if you want a new phone with your new carrier, you can sell your
existing phone that you just paid full price for. If it's unlocked (or
unlockable) you can sell it to ANYONE if it's unlocked and might get a better
price since the potential customer pool is larger than if you HAVE to find
someone on the AT&T network to buy it.

I just bought a currently locked AT&T phone because I was told I can unlock it
for use with T-Mobile. Then I discovered that when it arrives tomorrow I have
EXACTLY ONE DAY to unlock it before that becomes illegal. In my case, the
scenario described above is exactly what happened to the guy I bought the
phone from. Only he wanted to stay with AT&T but when his contract renewed (3
months after buying the phone I just bought from him) he was eligible for a
new higher end phone (actually an iPhone 5).

I just can't get over how freaking BIG BROTHER-ESQUE this new law is. I HAS to
be unconstitutional, right???

------
wwwtyro
What is the name of the person ultimately responsible for this decision?

~~~
kunai
There is no single party responsible. There are many. The entire government is
to blame. We are talking about people, bureaucrats, who haven't the slightest
idea of how a hard disk works or how their computer connects to the internet,
and they think that they know everything about computers and can single-
handedly swipe technological rights out of the American people. See Carmen
Ortiz above.

It's the entire government. The sooner people understand this, things like
these won't happen.

~~~
afterburner
Without corporations wanting this to happen in the first place, this specific
example of corruption doesn't happen. Let's not forget the party to whom this
benefits the most.

~~~
kunai
How's about instead of calling out a specific party, we all try and fight the
onslaught of corporate influence and the government bending over and answering
to the companies' every whim?

Seriously, calling out political parties does NOTHING unlessy you're prepared
to fight against those parties. See my other comment about "misguidedness and
delusion" for more details.

~~~
afterburner
Well, I mean corporations in general, so I certainly endorse reigning in their
influence in general, not just a specific company.

------
ratherbefuddled
I can think of no good reason to enter into a contract for cell phone use.

It always seems to me to be at least as cheap to buy the phone outright and
use a prepaid sim. You pay more up front but less monthly.

You have more freedom, you can still buy on credit with a credit card if you
wish to (and benefit from additional protections by doing so usually). You can
change networks if you relocate or have signal problems, you can keep your
number and you can sell your phone and buy a new one if you fancy it.

I use a prepay in the UK, I bought my own Note 2 which was expensive (~£400),
but now I pay £12 a month for unlimited data and text and more minutes than
I'll use by an order of magnitude.

Even in the US, where airtime charges are comparatively high, it seems to be
cheaper to do this overall. Why save $400 on the phone by agreeing to pay
$20-30 a month more than you need to for two years?

Am I missing something? Why do people get sucked in?

~~~
DanBC
Phones are shiny and easy to buy, especially if they have a "Free with this
contract" sticker.

Phone plans are baffling, and boring. You don't fondle your phone plan. You
don't buy a case for your phone plan.

------
nichochar
The problem here is way deeper than just the possibility to unlock a phone
(which obviously is already quite a big practical problem, you just have to
read a couple of comments above who explain why very well). The problem is the
culture in which we live in, and the transition that we are experiencing,
going from `free culture`(read more about this here:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_culture_movement>) towards a 'permission
culture`, in which big companies basically control assets which should be
creative commons.

This transition will not pull through, it will most probably lead to a
revolution of some kind (this is a pattern seen throughout history).

------
cupcake-unicorn
This article is frustrating, it doesn't really explain the implications.

In what sense is this "illegal"? Could I be jailed or fined for doing this? I
doubt it's going to be enforceable, unless somehow the carriers care enough to
keep a database of phone ids and actually go after people? If a friend unlocks
a phone for me, or I buy an unlocked phone unknowingly, am I now implicated?

It just seems to me that this is going to effect businesses that repair phones
and phone companies with bring your own phone plans, not individuals, because
people will go on modding regardless. Or is it somehow going to be "illegal"
to the extent that roms will be modified and forum posts referring to
"illegal" activities like unlocking the phone will be blocked?

------
chintan
If you do the math, unlocked phones turn out to be cheaper over 2 years.

[http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/prepaid-phone-
plans...](http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/prepaid-phone-plans/)

I hope people start avoiding the contracts because of this stupid law.

~~~
leejoramo
Are they really cheaper? Last I looked if I purchase an unsubsidized and
unlocked phone, I still pay the same monthly service fees to AT&T, Verizon or
Sprint. They don't give me a discount. So the only benefit is the ability to
stop service at anytime. But since I can't use their phones on another service
where does that get me?

Yes, T-Moblie or the service resellers (Virgin, Credo, SmartTalk, etc) may
provide cheaper monthly service with your unsubsidized phone. However, I have
found them to be inferior in their service (technical, coverage and/or
administrative) compared to the big three

At least, that has been my direct experience and research. I am actually
hopeful that this will change in the coming year. I would very much like to
take this path with my next phone.

~~~
jdechko
Exactly, for someone like me who doesn't make international trips, the only
benefit is not "being in a contract" which gains me practically nothing other
than being able to leave on a whim. But to whom would I switch really?

Unlocked phones are a big deal to people in Europe, people who travel
internationally a lot and people who just want to have an unlocked phone.

That said, when my contract goes up, I will be getting AT&T to unlock my phone
because it makes it easier to sell should I desire.

~~~
leejoramo
I forgot to mention the international travel angle. I think that I will get my
old iPhone 3GS unlocked for use in Europe if I need it in the next couple of
years.

------
vy8vWJlco
_The petition:_ [https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-
cel...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cell-phones-
legal/1g9KhZG7)

 _The HN discussion of the petition_ (in short, it's not nearly enough, but
it's a start): <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5112020>

I'm at a loss for words over this one. All I can think to say is: money talks
ladies and gentlemen. Freedom is the only thing that's ever been worth paying
for.

------
pharrington
Apparently I'm totally confused and don't understand this at all.

"III. The Designated Classes Upon the recommendation of the Register of
Copyrights, the Librarian has determined that the following classes of works
shall be exempt from the prohibition against circumvention of technological
measures set forth in Section 1201(a)(1)(A):

...

C. Wireless telephone handsets – interoperability with alternative networks
Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable a wireless
telephone handset originally acquired from the operator of a wireless
telecommunications network or retailer no later than ninety days after the
effective date of this exemption to connect to a different wireless
telecommunications network, if the operator of the wireless communications
network to which the handset is locked has failed to unlock it within a
reasonable period of time following a request by the owner of the wireless
telephone handset, and when circumvention is initiated by the owner, an
individual consumer, who is also the owner of the copy of the computer program
in such wireless telephone handset, solely in order to connect to a different
wireless telecommunications network,and such access to the network is
authorized by the operator of the network."[1]

As far as I can tell, software unlocking your cell phone was _already_ illegal
under the DMCA; in October this exemption was enacted, saying that software
unlocking old phones will no longer be illegal; new phones purchased between
then and this upcoming Saturday are also legally software unlockable; it's
only _new_ phones purchased after the 90 day period that don't fall under the
exemption."

Is this interpretation accurate?

e: And of course there's the whole issue that software unlocks are primarily
illegal because of their use to circumvent contracts after buying subsidized
phones, but I don't have a well-reasoned opinion about that :\

[1]<http://www.scribd.com/doc/111227035/DMCA-Rules-2012>
[https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/10/26/2012-263...](https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/10/26/2012-26308/exemption-
to-prohibition-on-circumvention-of-copyright-protection-systems-for-access-
control)

------
tvladeck
My view is that requiring the user _not_ to unlock the phone is a perfectly
reasonable element of the agreement between the user and the phone provider.
It's all about what both sides are getting -- and it's certainly true that you
are not getting an unrestricted device. But, I would dare say that everyone
has a certain price at which they would find a restricted device to be
worthwhile. So, the qualitative aspects of such a transaction are absolutely
fine and it's perfectly reasonable for the law to uphold that.

~~~
Zak
Most of the time, contract law is sufficient to handle such agreements between
service providers and their customers. Why should unlocking phones be given
special treatment under the law? Early termination fees are very enforceable
and generally seem to be sufficient to stop people from breaking their
contracts.

~~~
tvladeck
Good point. This has certainly complicated my thinking.

------
jawngee
I don't work for them, or am associated with them in anyway other than being a
customer, but I did get an unlock through them: <http://applenberry.com/>

Was flawless, though I did have to buy a nano sim from T-Mobile to make it all
happen.

I spend about half the year in Vietnam. My first trip there, I had a locked
iPhone and had to use a Gevey Ultra-Sim to get my phone to work on Viettel. It
worked OK, but just OK. Had to fiddle with it a lot.

I've unlocked an iPhone 4s and an iPhone 5 with them.

------
berlinbrown
Is this like Aaron Swartz illegal or something else? Is it a felony?

~~~
homosaur
well it would be a DMCA violation, so you'd be subject to those penalties
[http://www.chillingeffects.org/anticircumvention/faq.cgi#QID...](http://www.chillingeffects.org/anticircumvention/faq.cgi#QID122)

------
bluetidepro
Maybe this is just my ignorance on Unlocking vs Jailbreaking, but will you
still be able to Jailbreak your iPhone (legally) to get access to things like
Cydia?

~~~
kunai
It's in the article:

>(Note that unlocking is different from "jailbreaking," which opens the phone
up for running additional software and remains legal for smartphones.)

So, yup, that's still okay... For now.

------
meaty
I don't see this being a major problem. It's technically been illegal in the
UK for years as you don't own the handset until your contract has paid up.

However, every handset I've ever had is either "SIM-free" or has been
unlocked.

I now however only buy SIM-free unlocked handsets so I can give my telco the
finger or throw another SIM in if they go down.

~~~
illuminate
You don't see it as a problem because you find it easy to buy pre-unlocked
phones. This is not as easy in the US. Possible? Yes. Common? Hell no. And
until very recently, it was near-impossible to find cheaper service for
unsubsidized phones.

~~~
illuminate
To add on, you're also effed if you want to buy used phones. They're locked,
and since you were never a customer, they won't unlock them for you. Even if
you were to "become" a customer for a month with no contract, they still
wouldn't unlock them for you, I think you have to be a "customer in good
standing" for three months or so according to most providers' policy? That's
also only for the carriers who have policies that allow their agents to
unlock.

Myself, yesterday I paid a person in India ~$2.00 to unlock an iPhone so I
could use the gift on another service. People on Craigslist or local GSM
repair shops are less lucky, I've seen demands of 40-100 bucks for the same
privilege.

------
mikebracco
B2C businesses (like mobile carriers) that require customer contracts and/or
other "lock in" tactics are destined to die through market disruption. "Lock
in" is an artificial way to increase LTV of a customer. Market innovations
that reduce cost of customer acquisition will displace these archaic business
models.

------
Goose90053
I have a Samsung Galaxy S3 with AT&T Wireless. I went on their website and
found their "Online Chat" support. I told the support person that I needed to
unlock my phone so I could use a prepaid SIM while traveling overseas. Three
minutes later I had my unlock code, no questions asked.

------
zceid06
Carriers must have lobbied for that in order to kill the second hand market.
Locked phones have very little resell value so it makes their bundles much
more attractive. Needless to say, telecom operators had to innovate to
continue growing !

------
jimktrains2
Why would they just switch their stance?
<https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/07/26> Something's rotten in the
state of Denmark^H^H^H^H^H^HC

(Yes, I know DC isn't a "state")

------
joejohnson
>>For example, Verizon's iPhone 5 comes out of the box already unlocked, and
AT&T will unlock a phone once it is out of contract.

Can someone explain to me why AT&T is allowed to unlock phones if unlocking
phones is illegal?

~~~
fpgeek
Unlocking phones isn't illegal. Unlocking phones without permission (of the
manufacturer and/or the carrier the phone is locked to) is what will become
illegal.

------
jakeonthemove
Well, damn... No worries, it will just make these things:
<http://www.gsmserver.com/shop/gsm/sigma_key.php> cheaper, more popular and
reliable...

------
jemeshsu
It is illegal for telcos to sell locked phones in countries like Hong Kong,
Malaysia, Singapore and I believe some more Asian countries. I take it as a
pro-consumer or a pro-business decision by a government.

------
cicloid
Funny story. Since october, If you own your cellphone on Mexico (not
subsidized or contract has ended), according to the NOM-184-SCFI-2012 you can
ask your carrier to unlock it for you, free of charge.

------
cafard
Eh? The WMATA buses in Washington, DC, have advertisements on the side from
one carrier (Verizon?) offering deals for users bringing in unlocked phones
from another carrier (AT&T)?

~~~
illuminate
It'd be legal for the carriers to do it themselves, I imagine.

------
scottbartell
The power of lobbying. The legislation that can bring candidates the most
money always seems to take priority. This goes to show that the common man has
far less power then is ideal.

------
shaydoc
Prohibition on unlocking cellphones, unreal, who lobbied for that, When I hear
stories like this, Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations", springs into mind!

------
fnl
My condolences to all US travelers who now will have to either pay outrageous
roaming bills, be criminalized, or buy a second (unlocked) phone...

------
Sami_Lehtinen
I haven't ever had locked phone, and I won't have one in future either. What's
the problem. If you don't want locked phone, don't buy one.

------
DanBC
Why is locking a phone to a particular carrier covered by the DMCA? What part
of the DMCA covers it, and why?

------
darasen
I still want to know why a completely unelected government official gets to
decide what is and isn't illegal.

------
thisismyname
Wow, who got paid to make this law?

------
GigabyteCoin
New Title: Unlocking Cellphones Becomes a Much More Lucrative Endeavor
Saturday in the U.S.

------
shaaaaawn
There is little or no way for this to be actually be regulated.

------
ommunist
OMG> Should I open "mail me your phone to unlock" e-store?

------
ck2
Just another way to make sure your are felon.

Unless you knowingly launder drug money in a major bank chain, then you are
fine and no-one will go to prison, you'll only lost a month of profit and
everyone is fine.

------
segmond
only buy unlocked phones. people need to wise up, stop signing contracts. make
these companies bend to our will.

------
enemtin
Another big step backwards for the U.S.

------
transfire
STOP CORPORATE TYRANNY!!!

------
ForFreedom
That is plain stupid and only supports Apple

------
spiritplumber
Dear law,

no.

Signed, Users

------
acuity12
faithInUSGovernment--;

~~~
pekk
And your faith in private industry is increasing, right?

~~~
jimzvz
Private industry isn't elected.

~~~
dvhh
What about voting with your wallet

~~~
rooshdi
What about extorted wallet votes?

------
eriksank
Since the politicians and their servants invented these new regulations to
please their friends and intend to enforce it at gunpoint, my question is now:
what respect-instilling reprisals should be inflicted -- thoroughly -- to
discourage them from trying this again? It is not possible to make an omelet
without breaking eggs. So what's next?

