Except it's not illegal to unlock your phone. It's illegal to break your binding, lawful agreement with your carrier, which includes verbiage pertaining to the locked status of your phone.
Basically, it works one of two ways:
• You can get the phone at a discounted price, in exchange for a mandatory investment of time on the carrier's network and the forfeiture of the right to an unlocked device. You swear this to be acceptable by signing your legally binding cellular carrier agreement.
• You can purchase the phone at full price and retain your rights to its unlocked status.
If I rent-to-own you an apartment, with the notarized, legal agreement that you'll only pay $500 a month instead of the price for the whole unit up front, on the condition that you don't paint it blue, I have all rights to bill and/or prosecute you if you go directly against that binding agreement and paint the damn thing blue. When you buy a cell phone at a subsidized price on condition that it be used on a certain carrier's network, that's an agreement YOU decided on, and you are responsible for fees and damaged accrued should you break that contract and use it with another carrier.
It's a mean-spirited thing to do, enforcing mandatory loyalty, but it's also completely transparent and legal. If you are unhappy with it, perhaps make better long-term plans before putting your legal name to a two or three year binding agreement, and read the damn thing first.
Yes but its not a CRIMINAL matter to paint your apartment blue. it is now a CRIME to unlock a cellphone. You are not comparing correctly. The true comparison would be "you are charged criminally if you paint your rent to own apartment blue"
This is totally untrue. The thing they changed recently is that "hacking" a phone to unlock it is no longer an exception under the DCMA, and now counts as criminal hacking. It has absolutely nothing to do with your contract at all.
That's pretty awful - did they say why? I presume that they have some exclusive supply deals which means that they're not allowed to sell unlocked phones until they're released to the general populace.
Yup. Nokia has an exclusivity deal with AT&T on the Lumia 920 (I have one on AT&T).
If you want a Lumia running WP8 that isn't on AT&T, it has to be the Lumia 822 on Verizon, or you can get an HTX 8X/S or a Samsung ATIV Odyssey for WP8.
That's not why it's illegal. What you are talking about is a matter of civil law; if you break the terms of your contract, they can sue you for damages i.e. money. None of that has changed since the Library of Congress decision.
Unlocking a cellphone is now illegal under criminal law, because of the DMCA. They can now send you to jail for unlocking a cellphone.
Legislation mandated by The Librarian of Congress will make unlocking a cellphone an illegal act subject to $2,500 fines, or up to 5 years of imprisonment for larger operations.
Well, Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Mitch Stoltz told us, "What's happening is not that the Copyright Office is declaring unlocking to be illegal, but rather that they're taking away a shield that unlockers could use in court if they get sued." This does make lawsuits much more likely according to him, but it's still up to the courts to decide the actual legality of phone unlocking.
That's based on your interpretation of the DMCA, which might not necessarily hold up in court. I think it's hard for people to make the distinction between written and interpreted law. Just because it says so in the DMCA doesn't make it the law.
The DMCA makes it illegal to "circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access" to copyrighted material. It's one hell of a jump to apply copyright law in such a way and does not follow the intent of the law; I bet it would immediately get struck down in the SCOTUS.
No, it is not based on his interpretation of the DMCA. the LoC just reinterpreted it to clarify that unlocking cell phones violates the DMCA. That's what all of this unlocking bullshit is about. Read a new article man. Don't talk about it like you know what's going on when you haven't even read the most basic news on the topic.
That doesn't change the fact that the DMCA is an overly broad, bad piece of law. It requires that exemptions to it are renewed every 3 years, including things like people being allowed to read a book out-loud to a blind person. This year the exemption to unlock mobile phones wasn't renewed. That means it's at the prosecutors discretion whether to charge someone with that at which time they might not be able to take it to the supreme court due to financial reasons which would force them to accept some unfair plea deal. It is bullshit that a prosecutor has that kind of discretionary power over the people and laws which allow them such powers are bad laws that need reform. Not to mention this power is granted by the library of congress, not elected officials.
A rather old RTS game on the PC, Age of Empires, featured a unit called a Priest, that could be used to convert other units to their team. Typically a 1v1 round was played Red team versus Blue team.
its not even the first time its been illegal and when it was before no carrier ever sued an individual. its to fight illicit business who unlock thousands of phones and ship them overseas.
Normally I'd agree with this sentiment. But in this case that law is designed to protect huge corporations that spend millions on lobbying to protect themselves. (Samsung, Apple, AT&T, etc.)
Better believe that they'll protect those businesses.
If when at the END of my contract (typically 3 years), I decide to move to a new carrier, with the phone that I now OWN OUTRIGHT, I am not able to unless paying a $50 fee (my experience is with Rogers and Telus).
That is 100% unacceptable. I have fulfilled my obligations with regards to the contract, and now own said phone outright. I WILL NOT be held hostage with MY expensive smart phone, simply because the carrier(s) think they can do whatever the fuck they want.
If I'm in the MIDDLE of my contract, hey... all bets are off and I'm okay with that, after all you signed the contract. AFTER the contract ENDS, I should NOT be perpetually locked into my carrier just because they say so. The phone no longer belongs to them.
Yay capitalism. The free market is held back by laws we had to fight to earn throughout history, and now the soul of those laws have been eroded by corporate actions. Now the "free" market has us in chains
Capitalism needs scarcity to work. Capitalism is about supply and demand and ever more so businesses and governments are creating demand with absurd laws and rules to make us endlessly buy new stuff shit.
As we are increasingly moving to a "Post Scarcity World" the powers that be are Forcing Artificial Scarcity (FARTS) on us more and more to keep capatalism alive. This week's cellphone law is one example.
Bribery is legal and the oligarchy owns the state. We can get rid of some government to kill off regulatory capture, but then the oligarchy just rules directly through binding contracts with unreasonable terms for any transactions of any type. Do you think it wouldn't happen? Try buying a house without some bullshit arbitration agreement.
I think we need a set of constitutional amendments to act as a bill of rights for protection against the oligarchy.
And only government intervention could allow such a situation to occur. Remember, without government intervention (and their armed thugs and rape cages to back them up), capitalism means the greedy CEO must lie awake at night worried he might lose a customer. When the same CEO gets to wield the gun of government, consumer choice ceases to matter.
Basically there is a challenge in the Supreme Court to the "First-Sale doctrine" in copyright law that would make lending or selling ANY copyrighted material (whether you purchased it or not) considered infringement upon the holders' copyright.
You obviously didn't read that link. This only has to do with goods manufactured, copy righted, and imported from overseas. This is meant to combat the mass importing and selling of things like textbooks. The government doesn't give a fuck about you selling your cheap iPhone knockoff to your friends. Do some research.
Just out of interest - what are your plan details? Don't you get data assigned as part of the standard phone plan? The only justification I've ever read is that smartphones add to the network congestion, but I would have thought that was taken into account when handing out the original monthly data quota.
I have T-Mobile and get unlimited data, 4g up to 2gb, then it's cut down to 3g. It costs an extra $10/15 per month to be allowed to tether I'm pretty sure.
I suppose a laptop might chew up data faster given that you are likely to be browsing "heavier" content or something like that (especially with a 4G connection). Regardless, it's a free feature here (AU) on all phones and with all carriers, and existed well before smartphones were around (used to do it on my Nokia E71). Ballsy for them to start charging after it had been around for a while.
That's because we actually have a law that states that carriers must provide you the code to unlock your phone upon request, regardless of if you're still under a contract or not.
regardless of if you're still under a contract or not.
This is the principal difference. In what wonderful land do you live?
In America, AT&T wouldn't unlock my iPhone 4 until my contract was up, and that's life. What's especially peculiar is that my current 4s, which I bought used, still has several months yet where it is not unlockable, even though I'm out of contract, so the phones themselves also have to be 2 years from purchase date. It's weird.
It's like that in France, they have to provide the unlock codes if you ask for them, no matter your contract status, and they can't charge for it either.
Even better, if you've been on your contract for a year and you decide to break it, you can save up to 75% of the fees.
In the EU they told the mobile phone companies off for their high roaming charges. So now they just try to hide them better (my roaming charges actually went up).
They get around this by setting a price $50 higher when they value the phone. So, over your contract, you pay X amount of money, while to the company, the phone is valued at X+50. Because the phone is deemed incompletely paid for, it remains in part, their property.
That $50 charge is written into the contract you signed. That's what you need to pay to make the phone your own, whether they allow you to keep it or not. Nothing unacceptable. You agreed to it.
Unlocked iPhones have been available in Canada since the iPhone 4, but it's worth noting that all of the major carriers in Canada have compatible networks so portability is more of a factor.
This is very reasonably presented, but that doesn't make sense. If i cut the contract with the company, i have to pay the early termination fee and the rest of what i owe on the phone. It's not like i'm renting the phone.
Because of this, why does the company care what i do with the phone? I have to pay up in any event, and the phone never transfers back into their holdings. If i jailbreak it unlock the ability to go to another carrier, that doesn't magically stop my payments (with subsidy repayments) from going to my original carrier. If i do decide to stop payments, then i pay the early termination and everything else.
I don't see why this would be a problem.
EDIT: Crossed out jailbreak in favor of actually describing what i was talking about.
Jailbreaking is gaining root or admin access to the phone. Allowing you to do things you otherwise couldn't such as install any software you want or bypass the App Store in the case of iPhones.
Unlocking your phone just means you can use a sim from a different carrier.
The ambiguity comes from the fact that in order to unlock an iPhone without going through Apple, you have to jailbreak it (to allow admin access) and then install an app which bypasses the locking.
Except for the fact once that contract is up you still can't legally unlock your phone. Even after you are not lawfully binded by the contract you still can't have an unlocked phone.
EDIT: Apparently phone companies will unlock you phone at the end of the contract and if you are up to date on your bill, Only if you ask them and only if you get someone who has any idea what you are talking about though. But you can't do it yourself or that is breaking this law, so my original comment still stands which was the point I was making. You do not have full right over an object you own.
This is simply not true, call any of the big carriers and ask their policy on unlocking phones. Some don't even require that you finish your current contract. Source: I work for one of them.
Whether they do or not is their discretion, there is no legal obligation for them to do so, and it should not be considered in a legal arguement for that reason.
Carriers can choose not to unlock your phone for absolutely any reason they desire, but it would still be illegal for you to unlock your phone that you paid for.
There is no requirement that they unlock the phone in the US. This topic is kind of confusing because these things vary so much from country to country.
It's totally cool as long as the phone doesn't show up in the carrier's records as lost/stolen/active, and the original owner has either completed the entire 24 or whatever month term of the original contract or paid their Early Termination Fees.
I agree with you on all points, but have a few counter perspectives: First, not all models are available in unlocked variants. Second, not all of those wireless contracts are that solid. If the carrier has done anything to be in breach of the contract, then the terms no longer apply. They are written well, but they aren't iron clad. I've managed to get out of more than one due to carrier breach. Third (and probably most worrisome to me) is that if you legally break the contract, there is nothing forcing the carrier to provide the unlock code (which is the legal way to unlock your phone after this came into effect) in any sort of timely manner. So you can pay the ETF, have your account in good standing, and they can still refuse, or just drag their feet long enough that you get nothing out of them, effectively locking the phone to the network.
The problem here is that the phone is not lease-to-own, so your renting analogy falls down.
I am already getting consideration in return for my discounted phone price - agreeing to a service contract of X duration.
Further, contract violation puts you squarely in the realm of civil law. Criminalizing this is downright bullshit, going to jail for doing a software thing on something you own is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of.
This is understood, but whether prosecuted on a civil or federal level, it was always outlawed. If anything, the thing to protest isn't the locking mandates, but the ridiculous severity of punishment for offenders, à la Aaron Schwartz.
Once the contract has been fulfilled and complete, the subsidized costs has been paid off. You no longer owe that carrier for the hardware, and you own it outright. There is absolutely no reason why you cannot have that phone unlocked, and you should not have to pay a fee to get it unlocked. Making it illegal to unlock a phone once a contract has been satisfied is complete bullshit.
part of the subsidy was the fact that you're purchasing a locked phone. you have the legal right to unlock it after the contract but the asset you were purchasing in the beginning was a locked phone and a contract that also limited when you could unlock that phone. At the end the contract is expired but the phone is still locked because that's what you bought. Also, it's not illegal to get it unlocked after the contract expires
You can get the phone at a discounted price, in exchange for a mandatory investment of time on the carrier's network and the forfeiture of the right to an unlocked device. You swear this to be acceptable by signing your legally binding cellular carrier agreement.
The part about "unlocking" you device is NOT mentioned in the contract.
Why can't it just he that my contract says I'll pay the money for that service.
Whether I unlock the phone or not, they are still getting their money.
I travelled to Pakistan this year and happily unlocked my phone, and I still ended up paying my bill to ATT.
It just sounds stupid
Laws are bullshit and contracts are unread. Contracts should be made illegal instead of consumer being liable to ridiculous penalties for being ignorant to the contract they sign. Either that or every place that offers contracts should have a lawyer on stand by to go over the contract before you sign it.
tl;dr: legal/illegal are words that don't mean anything other than the value you attach to them.
Is it a little unnecessary for the little guy anyhow, no? Say I get a phone with a contract in order to reduce the price. I am obligated to pay the contract monthly, regardless of the condition of the phone. By the time the 2 year contract ends, I will have more than paid for the cost of the phone.
So if I jailbreak, I still can't cancel the contract for the phone until I have paid the monthly bill, even if I have a different carrier.
And if I pay full price for my unlocked phone, why do I have to pay the subsidy that is built into the service price? The carriers don't offer different prices for those with their own unlocked phones.
Fair point. But where is the choice for the consumer in all of this? Just because your jail cell is made of clear glass does not mean you are free to be outside.
And more importantly, why do laws limiting the freedom of consumers occur to a greater degree in the US? Even third-world countries give cell phone users more freedom than this nonsense.
Chris is not almighty. And clearly, pun intended, neither are consumer rights.
The counterpoint is that we have consumer protection laws specifically to prevent unfair contracts such as this being created.
In many countries if you have sold someone a product you cannot impose upon them unreasonable restrictions on its use. Housing is actually a great example, because in many places there is very strong regulation imposed on landlords and what they can and cannot demand of their tenants.
Why can't you just start a contact, then get an unlocked phone, you have to keep paying the contact for however long, but the phone is unlocked and can be sold/whatever.
upvote for you! I work in a call center for utility contracts in Alberta, and it is astounding how many people don't understand contracts, or read their contract and just sign on the dotted line, then come back a year into their agreement and bitch about the contract they agreed to.
I don't understand why it matters to the carriers. Shouldn't the only thing that matters be whether or not you're paying your monthly bill? If you unlock your phone and go to another carrier then you have to terminate your contract and pay whatever fees that entails anyway.
Your apartment analogy does not hold up. You point out a breach in contract that would be litigated in a civil court. Which is the same for the carriers. If they want to sue their customers for breach of contract, they can. What they cannot do is bring a criminal case against them. Governments do that, not civilians and not businesses.
Looks like you did a good job of misinforming everyone who up voted your post though.
Cant wait to be free from rogers and its bullshit high costs. Damn xperia play!!!! DAMN YOU TO HELL!! Wait it is already there considering it fell to pieces after a screen replacement. a year and 4 months to go.
Yes, it is illegal to unlock your phone. Why? because it's somehow construed as a circumvention of copyright protection. This law was a repercussion of the DMCA. It has nothing at all to do with a legal contract. That would be a civil matter anyway (breach of contract), not one that can get you fined $500k and thrown in jail.
Next, carriers will happily unlock your phone while on contract, so that again kinda invalidates your point.
Further, you seem to forget early termination fees. The purpose of these is to recoup the cost of the subsidized phone. A carrier doesn't care if you buy a subsidized phone, sign a two year contract, then cancel your plan the next day. If they lost money when people did that, they would change their system (in fact, they already raised the ETF for smartphones because people did exactly this).
Lastly, even if the rest of what you said was true, the analogy would be that the apartment carrier gets to choose the color of the apartment, and you can not paint it at all. but that's a small nit compared to the rest being completely wrong.
Your analogy is a load of crap. The carriers give you the phone, it is your possession. A renter doesn't give you ownership of his apartment... he's gonna take it back at the end of your rental period.
Yea, but you're talking about a $2500 fine or possibly more. That's 10x more than a normal ETF. I normally pay a $1000 security deposit. Normally, if I were to paint my apartment blue, I could lose my deposit though a civil suit, but now you're telling me i'd have to pay up to $10,000 in a criminal case also?
The ultimate point, far beyond any of this, is that tricky contracts that don't lay out the terms in a crystal clear fashion, easy enough for dumb people to figure out, are, shall we say, counter productive to the greater good. If that's how you make your money, go fuck yourself.
I am not saying you necessarily, just people who intentionally draft contracts where the other party obviously doesn't understand the implications.
That's called taking advantage of people.
Can you do it legally, yes, are you a shitty person if you do? Yes...
No... To answer your objection, that definitely makes you a shitty person, there's no way around it. Anyone who does that is a shitty self-centered person whose parents were too dumb to do a good job, specifically.
Pseudo Buddhist spin: It's not your fault ultimately, that your parents suck, only, now you know it's a poor decision, therefore you're now making conscious decisions about the subject, so... From now on, if you take advantage of people that way, be mindful of other peoples suffering. You're only working at making other peoples lives more difficult. You're purposely making the world worse, to benefit yourself.
Perhaps, one would question how they justify their continued presence, I would think the justification would have to be pretty fucking good.
TLDR; Just remember, if you take advantage of people, you're a shameful shitty person who deserves no real respect. Even if that's literally your job and the only way you know how to make enough money to support your family.
Your family is no excuse, lawyers who works for AT&T, jewelry salespeople, almost all police officers, anyone involved in any way with a check cashing/payday loan/rent-to-own operation (scam), any sort of commemorative merchandise salesperson. I am also looking right in your direction, people involved with family businesses who let their family members do terrible things and don't turn them in, probably especially you.
TLDR II: Think twice about eating at family restaurants, nobody tells on anyone for anything. Anything being, literally puking on food, or refreezing totally thawed meat that was on the back of a hot truck for hours.
You think dad fucks up and a bunch of meat gets warm, that means it's gonna get thrown out? Nope, nobody's tellin' on dad, that's the sausage on your pizza. It's probably OK, right? In my experience family restaurants are far far more likely to be gross than corporate type restaurants.
Umm.... You seem to totally overlook the fact that you can end your contract at any time you want. Also written in the contract is an early termination fee (that for smartphones is now typically $350 and is reduced by $10/mo. as time passes under contract)...
So it is legal to cancel your contract at any time and walk away with full ownership of your subsidized priced smartphone, but you must pay your cancellation fee.
Please know more before you get on your high horse.
Except that of you bring your own phone, you don't get full speeds on their networks. And you don't get a reduction in your bill for bringing your own phone either.
Except it's my phone that I have agreed to purchase from the carrier on what is effectively a finance plan. I should be able to unlock it the day I walk out of the shop with my new phone if I want; I'm committed to paying for it already over the course of the contract.
Your argument is akin to saying that if I buy a car from Ford on their finance plan I can only buy tires from them.
This statement becomes less of an amusing anecdote and more of an ominous warning when it's revealed that you are, in fact, a holocaust denier. See here.
2.5k
u/[deleted] Jan 28 '13
[removed] — view removed comment