Unlocking your smartphone will be illegal

[pr_capone]

http://bgr.com/2013/01/24/smartphone...llegal-303627/

The Librarian of Congress determined in October of last year that certain actions involving mobile phones were illegal under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The rules were revised to state that while it is legal to jailbreak smartphones, it is illegal to jailbreak tablets and illegal to unlock phones without permission from your wireless provider. A 90-day window was put in place that allowed consumers to purchase a phone and unlock it, however that window closes on January 26th, TechNewsDaily noted. Most carriers lock their phones to prevent them from running on competitors’ networks. Starting next week, U.S. consumers will no longer legally be allowed to unlock their carrier-locked devices without permission, though some smartphones such as Verizon’s iPhone 5 and the Nexus 4 are unlocked to begin with.

So... I pay $300 for a piece of equipment and it is illegal for me to modify it to my liking?!??!! I have yet to root my Note II. I will purposely wait for it to be illegal before rooting it.

Then... I'm pulling the tags off of my mattress & pillows. The Govt has no business telling me what I can and can't do with any of my property if I'm not causing harm to another.

[BigRedChief]

You sign the contract, its already illegal. Is that not right?

[KC native]

Sorry it was lifehacker

http://lifehacker.com/5978956/unlock...=recirculation

Unlocking Your Phone Without Permission Becomes Illegal Tomorrow: Here’s Why You Should Care
Kevin Purdy

After this upcoming weekend, you have to ask your phone company if you want to use the phone you (kind of) bought from them on any other carrier's network. You used to be able to ask for, or purchase, or hack your way to an "unlocked" phone, but that will be illegal after Saturday, Jan. 26, 2013.
The Librarian of Congress believes cellphone companies are doing a good enough job of fostering competition in their market, so the era of third-party unlocking is coming to a close.

Back in October 2012, the Librarian of Congress was asked by the Register of Copyrights to examine the exemptions made for certain classes of work under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or DMCA. I know what you may be thinking. "This Librarian, and this Register—do they live in giant vine-strewn towers? Do have any special powers if they leave Washington?" That is a good question, but first we must address other things.

The DMCA is an oft-referenced 1998 bill that, while tightening and specifying certain online and digital copyright laws, also allows for certain exceptions. It is the bill that allows YouTube and other sites to avoid never-ending lawsuits over copyright infringement, so long as they take down infringing materials once notified. The DMCA also makes it illegal to circumvent encryption and protection measures on copyright-protected materials—with exceptions.

In October 2012, that Librarian of Congress, tasked with regularly reviewing and determining whether the exceptions to the DMCA are still valid, changed course from previous decisions in 2006 and 2010 and determined that, in short, there exists enough unlocked phones, carrier unlocking options, and other options for consumers, such that unsanctioned unlocking of cellphones no longer needed to be a protected right.

The Librarian's decision is not a casual or short read. In its writing, the Librarian weighs the arguments of consumers' groups, digital rights advocates, and generally smaller and pre-paid carriers that would benefit from unlocking against a trade group that represents most major cellular carriers.

On the pro-unlocking side:

Proponents noted that "huge numbers" of people have already unlocked their phones under the 2006 and 2010 exemptions and claimed that ending the exemption will lead to higher device prices for consumers, increased electronic waste, higher costs associated with switching service providers, and widespread mobile customer "lock-in." Although proponents acknowledged that unlocked mobile devices are widely available for purchase, they contended that an exemption is still warranted because some devices sold by carriers are permanently locked and because unlocking policies contain restrictions and may not apply to all of a carrier's devices.

On the cellular side:

CTIA explained that the practice of locking cell phones is an essential part of the wireless industry's predominant business model, which involves subsidizing the cost of wireless handsets in exchange for a commitment from the customer that the phone will be used on that carrier's service so that the subsidy can eventually be recouped by the carrier. CTIA alleged that the industry has been plagued by "large scale phone trafficking operations" that buy large quantities of pre-paid phones, unlock them, and resell them in foreign markets where carriers do not subsidize handsets.

So the Librarian decided in October 2012 to no longer provide a safe space for third-party phone unlocking tools for phones purchased as new. A 90-day window was provided, so those who bought a new phone could still unlock it however they would like, legally. That window is closed on Jan. 26.

You may be able to get your carrier to unlock your phone, either after a 90-day period or when your contract is up. You might discover the pathways to unlocked phones, already well tread by those who broke their glass-backed iPhone 4 or 4S. Or you might just decide that it's not worth the hassle and just ask your smartphone carrier how much it costs to replace or upgrade your phone on their schedule, or to travel abroad at their pricing.

I think that expecting the carriers to maintain a consistent unlocking policy for transactions they've already processed is like asking the scorpion not to sting. I think that the unlocking exception in the DMCA can be revised to prevent "large scale phone trafficking operations" from exploiting loopholes, without cracking down on the guy who broke his $200 phone after 3 months and can't afford a $600 replacement. I think it stinks that the end of this 90-day window garnered only 12 articles that Google News could see today (now there are 13). Maybe there were just too many aspects of Apple's quarterly earnings and stock price to fit in fundamental device rights this week.

[bevischief]

Originally Posted by KC native

The reasoning behind it is that Note II costs more than $300. The phone companies subsidize your hardware in exchange for long term contracts.

Gizmodo had a good article on this. The previous rulings were in favor of unlocking because there wasn't much competition. Now that there is prepaid with 4G phones, all the companies offering multiple types of phones, etc they felt jailbreaking no longer needed to be protected.

This is how you get those free/cheap phones. If most people knew how much their cell phones cost they would take better care of them.

[PaulAllen]

If you're getting a four hundred dollar subsidy on a device why would that company let you take it somewhere else? It's really not that big of deal unless you want to take it over seas and in that case Verizon sells all their phones globally unlocked anyways.

[Thig Lyfe]

wait can i still tape a fork to my phone so i can eat spaghetti with my phone

[PaulAllen]

Originally Posted by pr_capone

So... I pay $300 for a piece of equipment and it is illegal for me to modify it to my liking?!??!! I have yet to root my Note II. I will purposely wait for it to be illegal before rooting it.

Then... I'm pulling the tags off of my mattress & pillows. The Govt has no business telling me what I can and can't do with any of my property if I'm not causing harm to another.

HAHA, you think a Note 2 actually costs 300?

[Brando]

Originally Posted by pr_capone

http://bgr.com/2013/01/24/smartphone...llegal-303627/



So... I pay $300 for a piece of equipment and it is illegal for me to modify it to my liking?!??!! I have yet to root my Note II. I will purposely wait for it to be illegal before rooting it.

Then... I'm pulling the tags off of my mattress & pillows. The Govt has no business telling me what I can and can't do with any of my property if I'm not causing harm to another.

It's not illegal to root it. It is illegal to unlock the phone to use it on another carrier without your carriers permission.

AT$T and T-Mobile will usually assist you in unlocking your phone so that you can use prepaid Sim cards overseas.

[SLAG]

Originally Posted by Brando

It's not illegal to root it. It is illegal to unlock the phone to use it on another carrier without your carriers permission.

AT$T and T-Mobile will usually assist you in unlocking your phone so that you can use prepaid Sim cards overseas.

this is really a non issue from sprint users perspective

their world band phones are already unlocked outside the US when you get them

[PaulAllen]

Once the contract is over or you pay the ETF, then you can unlock the phone legally. Why don't YOU learn how to read dipshit. And don't hide behind rep comments either pussy. If you want to say something say it out in the open.

[PaulAllen]

I prefer lasagna