How Unlocking Your Phone May Now Be A Crime: $500,000 Fines And 5 Years In Prison For First Offense
from the broken-copyright-laws dept
Last week, we warned about the impending deadline if you wanted to unlock your phone "legally." That's because the Librarian of Congress took away the DMCA anti-circumvention exemption that allowed phone unlocking. If you're wondering why we even have the Librarian of Congress deciding such things, that's a much longer discussion. In the meantime, though, Derek Khanna has written an interesting piece of at The Atlantic, in which he points out that, not only is it illegal now to unlock your phone, it's possibly criminal thanks to some broad and ridiculous readings of today's copyright law. Until now, most people had been regarding this as purely a civil matter -- and one where it seemed (mostly) unlikely that companies would take too many people to court.However, given how we've seen prosecutorial overreach on a variety of cases lately, including in the copyright realm, Khanna presents compelling evidence that unlocking a phone could trigger criminal charges. Specifically, he points to 17 USC 1204, which establishes what qualifies for criminal offenses for circumventing technical protection measures:
Any person who violates section 1201 or 1202 willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain...In case you don't know, 1201 is the anti-circumvention part of the DMCA/Copyright Act.
Now, I can already hear people complaining that unlocking your phone for personal use isn't "willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain." Except, well, it is. Khanna explains how easy it would be for a prosecutor on a mission to "send a message" to make this argument:
Given copyright laws broad interpretation by the courts, it could be argued that merely unlocking your own smartphone takes a device of one value and converts it into a device of double that value (the resale market for unlocked phones is significantly higher) and therefore unlocking is inherently providing a commercial advantage or a private financial gain - even if the gain hasn't been realized. In other words, unlocking doubles or triples the resale value of your own device and replaces the need to procure the unlocked device from the carrier at steep costs, which may be by definition a private financial gain. Alternatively, one can argue that a customer buying a cheaper version of a product, the locked version vs. the unlocked version, and then unlocking it themselves in violation of the DMCA, is denying the provider of revenue which also qualifies. There are several cases that have established similar precedents where stealing coaxial cable for personal use has been held to be for "purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain." (See Cablevision Sys. New York City Corp. v. Lokshin, 980 F. Supp. 107, 109 (E.D.N.Y. 1997)); (Cablevision Sys. Dev. Co. v. Cherrywood Pizza, 133 Misc. 2d 879, 881, 508 N.Y.S.2d 382, 383 (Sup. Ct. 1986)).Oh, so given all that, what kind of punishment could you get? It's a lot worse than the statutory maximum of $150,000 for willful infringement of a copyright work. No, now that we're talking circumvention and criminal penalties, a single offense can basically destroy your life:
(1) shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, for the first offense; andKhanna is right that it's unlikely that a prosecutor would choose to go this far, but just the fact that it's possible is absurd:
(2) shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both, for any subsequent offense.
If people see this and respond, well no one is really going to get those types of penalties, my response is: Why is that acceptable? While people's worst fears may be a bit unfounded, why do we accept a system where we allow such discretionary authority? If you or your child were arrested for this, would it comfort you to know that the prosecutor and judge could technically throw the book at you? Would you relax assuming that they probably wouldn't make an example out of you or your kid? When as a society did we learn to accept the federal government having such Orwellian power?And, while I doubt that prosecutors would straight up charge someone for merely unlocking their phone, if they're looking to pile on (or threaten to pile on) more charges against some "hacker" for a variety of other actions, it's not hard to see scenarios where this would be lumped in with other threats or charges.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anti-circumvention, copyright law, criminal law, dmca, unlocking
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Re: Consumer protection
It's due to the difference in goals.In the EU, their primary concern is to protect the citizens, at the cost of the citizens, even if that means treating them like children
In the US on the other hand, the primary concern is to protect the corporations, at the cost of the citizens.
Now you may notice that while the goals are different, in both cases the same group is getting screwed over, so really, it's not that different after all.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Hmm...
Must... Get... Smartphone and break it.
Now, where's that hammer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Antigua
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Antigua
I'm curious if it is illegal to import already unlocked phones into the U.S.?
Maybe your business could ship the phones over the border, unlock em, ship em back and charge a fee? heh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Antigua
Poor Antigua, even with WTO approved sanctions against the US allowing Antigua to ignore US copyrights, they may never make back their $21 Million judgement.
First Antigua would have to set up a store to sell US copyrighted property. Then Antigua would need to set up various government agencies that bill "fees" to the store, thus causing the store not to be profitable.
Those stores might have to sell Billions and Billions of dollars worth of US IP before they become profitable enough to recoup the WTO award of $21 Million. I mean Star Wars still isn't profitable.
The US might object, but under Hollywood Accounting rules, this is acceptable practice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh no! The people who own these devices...MUST NOT BE ALLOWED to raise their value! The horror! Why, such a thought is heresy, it sounds so...capitalistic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.zimmreed.com/Property-Transfer-Fees/34430/
I hate when reality nut punches a good analogy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're can't honestly tell me that replacing a fan in a desktop computer to make it quieter, cooler, or anything would violate a DMCA/Copyright Act?
Then with a straight face fine me $500,000 and throw me in jail for 5 years...
And if that's not illegal someone explain what the difference is cause I sure as hell don't see it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, if you want to jailbreak your device so you can install software to make a totally legal backup of your system, you have now committed a CRIMINAL violation of the DMCA because you disabled a form of DRM to do something totally legal but impossible because of the DRM.
Something along the lines of: it's legal to own it, it's legal to use it, it's legal to sell it, but - well, we will make it illegal to purchase it so none of that other stuff matters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Apparently, in newer laptops, with Windows 8 installed at the OEM, they no longer include the Product Key for Windows on the machines themselves. By this I mean on a sticker (usually located on the bottom of the laptop) and instead, thanks to SecureBoot, it is embedded in the UEFI BIOS. (Which if you screw around with, depending on the OEM, will no longer let you boot into Windows at all. Of course doing this grants you access to boot from the disc drives and/or usb drives, which is what I wanted and how I discovered this.)
So discovering that I had no Product Key I kind of thought, "Well that f*cking sucks.) So I started looking into it and apparently it is illegal and voids your warranty to try and transfer your Windows Activation Product Key from say one drive to another. Yeah, shocking and stupid. The only LEGAL way to do so is at the manufacturer level and if for some reason you need to reinstall Windows due to say a motherboard replacement or hard drive upgrade, you better let the OEM do it (assuming what you're replacing/upgrading is being done under warranty) or else it'll be illegal (possibly under the DMCA or even the CFAA) to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Read the link in my earlier post. Lexmark won that case (it was overturned on appeal). If this case were to happen today, I would have serious doubts about having such a favorable appellate ruling again.
They only have to win once, and we're screwed. We have to keep winning over and over again. Who do you think is going to win in the long run?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
tl:dr while technically a possibility within the scope of the law I don't think it's a real world threat, at least not in the near future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They have not yet called it a DRM system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry for that but thanks for mentioning it. Same here actually, installed Windows 8 on two older laptops and they booted just fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Those little bits of paper tape connecting the side panel with the frame, the ones that state Warranty Void if Removed, are probably sufficient under law to qualify as DRM as they are clearly intended to discourage users altering the internal design of the computer system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The DMCA anti-circumvention clause has an exception for computers? Or it only specifically applies to a list of certain things?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How so? You can't do this unless you have legitimate service from T-Mobile, so it wouldn't be "unauthorized".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Also, since the release of the first iPhone, T-Mobile has been rather cavalier about unlocking, going so far as to have setups in some stores where they would actually jailbreak and unlock the iPhone for you. (I remember going with my younger brother to get service with them on his iPhone and they asked if he'd need them to unlock his phone, he'd already done so himself so he declined. But someone else there that day went and had them do it.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Khanna is right that it's unlikely that a prosecutor would choose to go this far
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pretty soon (if not already) everybody's going to be guilty of something--they'll just have to dig deep enough.
What a contradiction. Our government has military personnel all over the world, ostensibly fighting for other people's freedom, but here at home they keep taking our freedom away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You aren't listening to the politicians, they are not taking away our freedom, they are protecting us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Did you keep your receipt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Even if you root your phone add a boot loader and change the ROM you don't do a carrier unlock. So you can still do all of that, but if you carrier unlock your phone then you are in trouble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I don't even understand the rationale for making unlocking illegal. The carrier who had it locked does not suffer anything -- you're still bound by the terms of the service contract, so they'll still get their money in any case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Rooting a phone is really nothing more than gaining administrator privileges on the phone. I believe there was a case a few years ago where the courts basically said you can't prevent someone who owns a device from getting admin rights to the device. (Sorry I don't have a cite for you.)
Changing the boot loader and ROM doesn't really violate DRM. It is no different than buying a computer with Windows and choosing to format the hard drive and install Linux. now someone *COULD* choose to install a ROM that would be a violation of DRM (for instance installing MAC software on a PC), but that is not likely to be a problem for Android based devices (it does depend on the ROM though).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't have a cite as well, but I'd like to add to this point. This indeed was the case and arose from iPhones being jailbroken by Apple, specifically it arose due to Warranty Agreements. Namely, Apple basically was saying (at the time) that jailbreaking your phone was illegal, because it was running additional software on your phone that they didn't allow or put there themselves, and as such they would not honor warranties on any phones that were returned for warranty purposes and found to be jailbroken. Eventually this went to court and they found that jailbreaking/rooting is not illegal, but may indeed void your warranty. Thereby clarifying and settling the issue.
Of course, at the time, jailbreaking was the only way to eventually unlock your iPhones. Thus the confusion between the two terms. "Jailbreaking" and "unlocking" that is.
As a followup to the rest of your comment, well said in all regards. However, additionally, changing ROMs and what have you is not a violation of DRM, but it is a violation insofar as voiding warranty goes. No change really, just want to clarify that and explain how the manufacturers feel about it. Of course for the more savvy out there, any change can easily be reverted and workarounds are released almost daily for actions taken by manufacturers and/or carriers (looking at your Verizon) that prevent people from doing what they will (insofar as unlocking bootloaders, rooting and/or installing custom ROMS, aka "firmware") with their devices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I understand that's the argument they're making, but it's a nonsensical one. The entire purpose of early termination fees is to reimburse the carrier for the subsidy should a customer bail early. So the carrier gets their money regardless.
But in many cases DRM is still being circumvented to do this. I don't understand how this case can be OK but unlocking is not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As far as jailbreaking a phone goes, here is a link to an article about that from WIRED (There is a link to the decision as well:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/feds-ok-iphone-jailbreaking/
Note that while it is legal to Jailbreak an iPhone it is not legal to Jailbreak an iPad (This is true even after last Octobers update http://www.cultofmac.com/198298/new-copyright-office-ruling-allows-you-to-legally-jailbreak-your-iph one-but-not-your-ipad/), which shows just exactly how little those making decisions understand technology, which is of course the root of the problem.
Rooting is different still and as far as I know is not illegal since it is performed on Android devices, which are a much more open platform overall.
So if you were confused before, I hope I just didnt' cause your head to explode.
;^)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Rooting a phone is really nothing more than gaining administrator privileges on the phone.
But in many cases DRM is still being circumvented to do this. I don't understand how this case can be OK but unlocking is not.
"
Probably because there is no commercial or private financial gain to merely unlocking a phone to install an app not approved by the carrier.
For example, to be able to use VPNs on some phones might reqquire to root the phone. There is no way that unlocking a phone for the purpose of installing VPN software could be for commercial of financial gain.
I do expect, howevr, to see the requirement of commercial or financial gain possibly be eliminated after TPP comes into force.
TPP will end the requirement for commercial or financial gain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That actually depends on what you do and how you do it. Before the days of companies like HTC providing an authorized unlocking method that allowed you to install the su binary, you had to use an exploit that replaced the default boot loader which would technically be removing a digital lock. Although, simply installing su to gain root privileges may be legal, but what about flash a custom ROM on the device removing all traces of the stock one loaded by the carrier? Wouldn't that also classify as removing a digital lock as well?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course there is. Take my phone, for example, an Android-based device. When I bought it, it had the manufacturer's flavor of Android installed, which prevented me from tethering unless I paid an insane fee to turn the feature on.
I rooted it and replaced the OS entirely with Cyanogenmod. That flavor of Android does not have tethering disabled, so I can do it now without paying the surcharge.
Also, doing so let me get rid of the spyware that the manufacturer added to their version of Android, thus depriving them of commercially valuable data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Another reason is that subsidized phones generate the majority of their revenue. In America, at least, people don't like the upfront cost of buying unsubsidized phones, not realizing they still pay those cost when they sign up for their 2 year contracts and higher line fees.
But because they see the upfront cost as low as free in some cases or as high as $200 for what are normally $600+ phones, they think they are getting a deal.
It is not to the advantage of carriers to sell unlocked non-subsidized phones primarily because the higher upfront cost associated with them will give the majority of customers pause and result in fewer outright purchases, which has the negative effect of eventually getting customers away from the 2 year contract agreements they sign up for, which in turn leads to them turning to various pre-paid options or non-contract agreements (like T-Mobile has begun promoting heavily) which of course leads to a reduced revenue stream for carriers.
Put simply, unlocked phones cost them more in the long run than subsidized phones. As such, they do their best to not want you to be able to unlock your phones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You DO NOT have to unlock an Android device to root or ROM it. FACT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now, the one-click APK took advantage of an exploit in the kernel of the phone to gain root, but it DID NOT have to unlock the phone at all, or even come close to doing anything that might even be close to being called "unlocking", to do so.
Which is proof that UNLOCKING AN ANDROID DEVICE IS NOT NECESSARY TO GAIN ROOT. And that's just one device, the APK does the same thing to various other Samsung devices with the Exynos chipset. But it's essentially a variation of how to achieve root on any device. The only reason for unlocking is to get away from a particular carrier, but just gaining root is something usually much easier and is usually done first before fully unlocking a phone.
I seriously wish people would do research before posting such nonsense as I just had to correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You are guilty, probably of many things you weren't even aware of. The only battle left is in trying to stop domestic surveillance being ratcheted up to the point where the governments can pick on anyone they choose "legally" because they have the "proof". Sadly that battle's all but lost too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because sheep are stupid. They want to be controlled. They want to be led. And they'll be led right to the slaughter, where politicians & telcos have lamb chops on the menu.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Older Phones
Confirm??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Older Phones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Older Phones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Older Phones
BTW How entirely screwed up is it that this classifies as a felony?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Older Phones
[Good Bog, I'm starting to sound like a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy nut.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Older Phones
"Ya gotta receipt for that unlocked phone on ya?"
It changes the justice system from the prosecutors having to prove your guilt, to you having to prove your innocence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Older Phones
When was it the other way around?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Older Phones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Older Phones
A much better explanation on all this can be found here:
http://www.androidcentral.com/what-you-need-know-abut-cell-phone-unlocking
I read the article and like most things Android/cell phone related, Android Central always gives a well reasoned and put response to things that sites tend to spin as, "WANT TO UNLOCK YOUR PHONE?! YOU ARE CRIMINAL SCUM!!!"
They also are quite good at responding to any comments, the staff or readers. So there's also some explanation on the differences between unlocking a phone, unlocking a bootloader (which is something completely different) and jailbreaking/rooting (which quite often gets twisted into "unlocking").
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Older Phones
"So, what do we need to do? Pretty much the same thing we always have done. If you need to unlock your phone, call AT&T or T-Mobile and ask them. They'll probably say yes, so long as your account is in good standing. (How new your phone is might affect things, too.) And it won't cost you anything if you give them a legitimate reason. Legit reasons are things like going on a trip and want to use a local SIM, or you need to use the phone in an area where they have poor coverage for work, or anything that sounds reasonable that doesn't make them think you're going to end your contract or sell the phone. I'm not saying you should lie to them, just deliver the truth the same way they do when they say unlimited.
T-Mobile has a simple, easy to read unlocking policy as you can see here. AT&T's policies are not so simple, but Dan over at WP Central managed to do it over the phone for his Lumia 900.
If they still say no, well I can't advise anyone to break the law, but I know what I would do -- head happily into that gray area like the honey badger.
A few more things worth mentioning
While the law covers all phones, it only really applies to GSM phones. CDMA phones (Verizon and Sprint) aren't "locked" on the device, and instead use a database that the carrier controls to decide if you can or can not use a particular phone on their network.
This does not apply to phones that are purchased unlocked. AT&T can't lock your Nexus 4 or any other unlocked device.
Finally, this only applies inside the US. If you're reading from elsewhere, you can feel free to sit back and smugly laugh at our laws."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously, this is just another selectively enforced law to get at whomever the government wants to get at.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
100% unlikely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 100% unlikely.
Tell that to Jamie Thomas.
http://www.guidethroughthelegaljungleblog.com/2007/10/recording-indus.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just elect a different Congress.
(Laughs manically...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PLEASEEEEEEE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Consumer protection
Hell if I walk outside I will see high street stores advertising that they will unlock my phone. I own it. Why should I not be able to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Consumer protection
In the EU, their primary concern is to protect the citizens, at the cost of the citizens, even if that means treating them like children
In the US on the other hand, the primary concern is to protect the corporations, at the cost of the citizens.
Now you may notice that while the goals are different, in both cases the same group is getting screwed over, so really, it's not that different after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Consumer protection
Have a first word!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Consumer protection
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Consumer protection
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Consumer protection
It is more than irritating that those are the only two options in the developed world (unless southeast Asia has a better system I'm not aware of, which is quite possible).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Consumer protection
As I understand it the U.K. carriers don't offer subsidized phones. That is why it is a problem here. The carrier sells the phone to you at a reduced rate (say $99 for a phone worth $599). If I buy a subsidized phone for $99, unlock it, I can then sell it for say $500. I make a $400 profit and use my old phone for the next year or so, then repeat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Consumer protection
Unlocking, rooting, or otherwise the phone is quite legal. The phone companies don't like it, but like the ability for Aussies to legally copy DVD's, timeshift etc for personal use there is nothing they can do about it.
Though this could be becasue we have a very comprehensive and equitable based Consumer Trade Laws that are very strictly applied to all goods and services. ie: Statutory warranty on all products of at least 12months. Consumer choice (not manufacturer) of Repair, Refund, or Replacement on faulty goods to name a few.
I'm struggling to figure out as "That One Guy" said above how this protect[s] the citizens, at the cost of the citizens when instead it enhances consumer laws, gives confidence in all purchases within Australia, and is very unambiguous in respects of warranties, misleading practices, false advertising, third-line forcing, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Consumer protection
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Consumer protection
(I was under the impression that the US didn't do this so much. I was in NYC a few years back and needed a local phone number. Went into a phone shop looking for a $10 PAYG phone or SIM, and they had no idea what I was talking about. Cheapest phone was about $80!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Consumer protection
You probably won't find them in phone stores, though. Phone stores are where you go when you feel like getting gouged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Consumer protection
"Free phone with our 24/36month contract" is the usual clause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Consumer protection
That's the thing, they don't want to be competitive. They want to be massively profitable without having to compete with anyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow!
Pro tip: say it out loud...outdoors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When schools started teaching situational ethics and stopped teaching civics.
When Critical thinking was removed from the curriculum of all public schools.
Now all schools teach is progressivist clap trap like the story of stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its just like those out there who may legally purchase software, and then bypass the DRM to protect their investment in the software. Doing it for non-commercial personal usage would not qualify was any kind of financial or personal gain.
The "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain" would would not apply to someone who did it for private non-commercial use.
In other words, you have to be making some kind of profit off it in order to be a felony crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
had the people known more about DMCA and what the entertainment industries were up to, what they wanted and the lengths they were prepared to go to to get Congress to introduce new laws, amend old laws and get civil charges changed to criminal charges, perhaps none of this would have happened, or at least not gone so far. as it is now, what is desperately needed is for someone of wealth, fame, position or power to get charged with this and threatened with a massive fine and long term in prison. until it happens to someone other than an ordinary person, no one is going to give a shit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course, if you do the act of actually ublocking your phone while in the DPRK, I don't see how you could be charged with a crime in the United States.
For example, if KoryoLink jailbreaks, roots, or unlocks your phone to make your phone work on their network, while in the DPRK, I don't see how a US prosecutor could have a case against you, since the act of unlocking, in this case, would have been done in the DPRK, and which would also be legal for KoryoLink to do so, under DPRK law.
In such a case, a prosecutor could not argue a case of "commercial or personal financial gain", Since it would be KoryoLink doing the unlocking to install one of their sim cards to make your phone work on their network.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No big deal, just lie to a customs agent! What's the worst that could happen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sadly, I think this is where society is now. It's OK to lie as long as you don't think you'll get caught.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Am I missing something?
Could someone doing a reasonable lawyer impression (therefore preferably not average_joe) explain how the same agument can't be applied to, say, ripping your own DVD to disk? Or, well, almost every other kind copyright infringement going...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Am I missing something?
The same thing when the first online music stores started 10 years ago. The tracks had DRM, but you could plug a tape recorder into your computer, and record the tracks onto cassette tape. That is not illegal under the DMCA, since you are not attacking the DRM directly, but merely capturing the analog output to a cassette tape.
[
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Am I missing something?
I don't think that's true. Some DVD rippers can't handle encrypted DVDs, and in such cases you have to use another program to decrypt them. Though if you have a reference on this topic I'd be interested. As for the analog hole, I'm pretty sure DVD rippers don't exploit that. The signal doesn't turn analog until it leaves the video card and audio card, at the earliest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Am I missing something?
It includes language that covers traditional "breaking" of the DRM, but it also says "avoid, bypass, remove" which I think can have VERY different interpretations. Most liberally, avoiding or bypassing DRM would cover ANY method, no matter the technique behind it, based solely on the concept of copying something that had some kind of DRM.
More simply, if someone puts a "do not copy" sign on something and your technique results in a copy of it, you broke the law. I think it's pretty ridiculous that such an interpretation seems feasible; both in that it exists and in the fact that we as citizens have no idea what laws we are bound by mean.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Am I missing something?
Check out the part I bolded at the end. "Limits the exercise of a right", like if my right to free speech was limited I would be unable to express myself in every way I desire. So my point hinges on the question "What are the rights of a copyright holder?" If theirs is the right to exclude others from using something, it turns the whole thing on its head, we get a statute that makes it illegal to circumvent something that makes it harder to prevent infringement.
Does... does that make DRM illegal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Am I missing something?
Yeah that's tenuous, but then the whole argument is tenuous. Bets that wouldn't stop some gung-ho prosecuter trying to nail someone they didn't like with it though...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Break The Law
This is your decision to make as a consumer, not the decision of the big Telco's, the Librarian of Congress or any other copyfascist.
Please break the law. You most certainly have my permission to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legal proportion
But now I can get the same fine by jail-breaking a $500 phone, albeit with a longer prison sentence.
Is America a great place or what? Look at the progress we've made in less than 30 years - a multi-thousand-fold reduction in the capital required to totally ruin your life!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Legal proportion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unusual Punishment much?
The first person to convict someone guilty with the maximum charge should buy a plane ticket to Hawaii, then jump into lava.
I suggest that juries, judges, and police should protest this by civil disobedience.
For what, essentially, hurts nobody at all, you can get a Felony charge, 5 years in federal prison, or if they get multiple counts, 15, 25, essentially life and from $500,000-many millions of dollars in fines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why is this comparable to manslaughter or armed robbery?
The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:
[N]or [shall] excessive [be] fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.[1]
So, does the punishment fit the crime?
does ruining someones life equate to them continuing to pay for and using an alternative carrier for a cell phone?
Another comparison, poisoning food and water supplies for the purpose of terrorism in Connecticut has a 5-10 year sentence. THE SAME as this charge. One is trying to use chemical weapons on an innocent population, the other is unlocking a stupid cellphone!
I don't claim to be an expert in the complex issues of ethics in lawmaking, but it would seem that trying to poison the food or water supply might be a little bit more serious THAN UNLOCKING YOUR PHONE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why is the US law backwards?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Educational Analogies
Then, once they've fixed the problem using skills that they find normal and commonplace, tell them there's a federal statute against fixing problems and they could face criminal charges, 5 years in prison and half a million dollar fines; all because blender companies like to sell more blenders and car companies like to sell cars.
Since they're not willing to learn how their laws effect those who use technology, start applying their concepts to areas they do use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Educational Analogies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Educational Analogies
But they've got to be people. There's got to be something they like doing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tyranny at work, Right Before your eyes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tyranny at work, Right Before your eyes
Tip: don't make blatantly racist comments if you want to be taken seriously. Preferably not even subtly racist comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
my comment to that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]