Librarian Of Congress Shoots Back At White House Over Phone Unlocking: We're Just Doing Our Job
from the well,-that's-one-way-to-look-at-it dept
Following the White House officially coming out and saying that mobile phone unlocking should be legal, the Librarian of Congress has issued what feels like a passive aggressive response, basically saying that their job is not to consider the public policy, but just to follow the specific rules under the DMCA.Both the Librarian of Congress and the Register of Copyrights value our colleagues in the administration and the thoughtful discussions we have had with them on this issue. We also agree with the administration that the question of locked cell phones has implications for telecommunications policy and that it would benefit from review and resolution in that context.In other words, "hey, don't blame us -- we just did what we were supposed to do, and that's got nothing to do with policy." I find that a bit disingenuous. Clearly, a part of the DMCA triennial exemptions is to recognize when the law is creating a situation that makes little common sense, and to try to act as a valve to prevent the blocking of certain uses and technologies. Here, they failed to do so, and the White House has called them out on it.
The question of locked cell phones was raised by participants in the Section 1201 rulemaking conducted between September 2011 and October 2012 by the Register of Copyrights, who in turn advises the Librarian of Congress. The rulemaking is a process spelled out by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in which members of the public can request exemptions from the law to enable circumvention of technological protection measures. In the case of cell phones, the request was to allow circumvention of technological protection measures controlling access to copyrighted software on cell phones.
The rulemaking is a technical, legal proceeding and involves a lengthy public process. It requires the Librarian of Congress and the Register of Copyrights to consider exemptions to the prohibitions on circumvention, based on a factual record developed by the proponents and other interested parties. The officials must consider whether the evidence establishes a need for the exemption based on several statutory factors. It does not permit the U.S. Copyright Office to create permanent exemptions to the law.
As designed by Congress, the rulemaking serves a very important function, but it was not intended to be a substitute for deliberations of broader public policy.
Unfortunately, we're still left scratching our heads as to why the White House claims this should be fixed via telecom law, when the issue arose entirely out of copyright law. It looks like the White House is trying to do some tap dancing to avoid admitting that the DMCA anti-circumvention clause is seriously broken.
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: copyright, dmca, exemptions, librarian of congress, phone unlocking, policy making, white house
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I find it sad that most people will only think about the jailbreaking issue and will not connect with that real issue...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The Rich are Scared !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trample the individual
The rights of individuals are being trampled to suit corporations.
That's a non-trivial thing there.
It's high time the personal liberty aspect of this situation became more visible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trample the individual
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The tears streaming from my eyes laughing so hard won't stop.
"Public". I'm guessing this was the offering on the misspelled "phobic".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is a question of making the information needed to do that, most political entities lack. While an extremely limited influece in most cases, the public input is very essential for politicians to support raising concerns over these types of things.
So to the administrators: Please advertise how to influence these things better to the broad public, so people can voice their concerns during the creation of the horrible laws/rules instead of after they have been made!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This is part of the issues with these "public discussions". Rarely, if ever, does the public actually have a voice, despite being the majority of opposition.
I've seen this too many times to believe it's a coincidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It parsed fine once I made the change you suggested.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is no way in hell that bill should've ever passed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Holy cow-towing! Mike appears to think WH hasn't just done PR.
The simple fix is: DON'T BUY a locked phone. -- Why don't you "capitalists" follow your own notions? Vote with your credit card.
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up at same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Why aren't you fanboys helping out Mike with links back to here as I do? What a bunch of innovation-less freeloaders!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Holy cow-towing! Mike appears to think WH hasn't just done PR.
However, Blue, still reported because of your signature. I still don't know what it means. Or maybe that's your master plan: to drive us all insane in trying to figure out something that has no meaning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Holy cow-towing! Mike appears to think WH hasn't just done PR.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Holy cow-towing! Mike appears to think WH hasn't just done PR.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Holy cow-towing! Mike appears to think WH hasn't just done PR.
The Nexus 4 8 GB model cost $299. The Nexus 4 16 GB cost $349. The price on both of those is when purchased from Google directly through the Play Store, otherwise the price of either goes up dramatically.
In addition, for those who may be unaware, the Nexus 4 is Google's flagship device (for the Nexus lineup, insofar as it's their only phone) and provides a completely untouched/stock Android experience. It is completely friendly to tinker with/hack and it receives updates directly from Google as they are released/made available. No waiting for the manufacturer to release an update, which has to then be approved by a carrier and eventually sent out OTA (over the air) to any given phone(s).
For the price there is literally no better phone you can be. It has the most recent cutting edge technology/hardware in it and it's life expectancy is for about 18/24 months (based on a comparison to previous Nexus device, and by life expectancy I mean how long it will continue to receive updates from Google, not how long the hardware will actually last/work)
As has been pointed out above by the other AC, it is also sold completely unlocked and works on any GSM carrier (meaning any carrier that utilizes SIM cards). More specifically, the SIM card for the Nexus 4 is of the "micro" variety.
Just fyi, as a semi-disclaimer, I am an Android enthusiast (and tinkerer/hacker) and have owned various Nexus devices (the Nexus S 4G with Sprint previously and I currently own a 16 GB Nexus 4 with service through T-Mobile, as well as a 32 GB WiFi Nexus 7). I work in IT and I routinely have to setup/fix various phones/tablets as part of my daily routine (which isn't counting all the work I do on both outside of work) and I can say that the Nexus 4 is hands down the best device I've had the pleasure of owning/working with. Doesn't disappoint at all in my opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy cow-towing! Mike appears to think WH hasn't just done PR.
And the Nexus 4 does not work on Verizon or Sprint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy cow-towing! Mike appears to think WH hasn't just done PR.
Keep in mind by "I believe" that I mean "rumor has it". I've heard it from enough reliable sources that their is potential it'll happen. When would be the more important question. As for Verizon, never ending up there. Verizon botched their Galaxy Nexus to the point that it's about 4 updates behind all other Nexus devices, as far as software goes. (Although there's been a leak of the 4.2.2 software, which is insane coming from Verizon. That'll put it up to date with the very latest Nexus devices.)
If you want the Nexus 4 for Sprint, get the LG Optimus G. Same hardware, but not the same software. (Meaning the LG versions isn't the "stock" Android experience.) Of course, it's already been "unlocked" (as far as the bootloader is concerned), and I believe work has already begun on custom AOSP ROMs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Holy cow-towing! Mike appears to think WH hasn't just done PR.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy cow-towing! Mike appears to think WH hasn't just done PR.
I tend to have spare USB cables everywhere I am throughout the day (as in left there or there for work). The other thing is, the N4 has pretty great battery life. I'm a power (and heavy) user. At the the very worst, I'll be at 35% or so by 1 PM and I charge it for a short while and I'm at 100% by 3 (at the latest).
I also tend to flash ROMs on a regular basis or do beta testing of various apps for a few developers (I volunteer to help the Android community and app selection grow, as well as just be helpful in general). The lowest amount of memory I've had thus far (with a few discographies on the phone, as well as multiple ROM backups, hundreds of pictures/screenshots/image downloads, etc) has been about 4 GB of free space out of the 16 GB.
What helps is T-Mobile where I live has great coverage, so I keep lots of things in the cloud. I have thousands of songs in Play Music I uploaded from my personal collection. Keep various documents/videos in Google Drive. Etc.
To each their own I say. I'm an Android purist, so I prefer the stock Android experience. If replaceable battery and expandable memory is what you need, I'd recommend the Galaxy S III or Note II. (Although if you want the former and don't have it already, just wait. The Galaxy S IV is getting unveiled on March 14th.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy cow-towing! Mike appears to think WH hasn't just done PR.
I actually do need replaceable batteries and memory. I use my current phone (an Infuse running Cyanogenmod) heavily, both in terms of battery usage and storage, and I'm allergic to the cloud. I'm currently using more than 20 gigs on the phone!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Holy cow-towing! Mike appears to think WH hasn't just done PR.
So, another deliberate understanding of the point by ootb, followed by an attack on anyone complaining about their rights being stripped. Nice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Holy cow-towing! Mike appears to think WH hasn't just done PR.
So basically he's full of bs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Holy cow-towing! Mike appears to think WH hasn't just done PR.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Holy cow-towing! Mike appears to think WH hasn't just done PR.
As far as which phones come with only the essential apps, the Nexus lineup from Google is completely bloat free. Overall though, the vast majority of phones come with some bloatware. Luckily, any Android device running Jelly Bean (4.1 at the minimum) allows for the easy disabling of any applications by the user. It's literally a one-click process to disable an app. (Then, as an added extra/customization. You can hide apps you don't wish to see through the use of non-stock launchers, like Nova or Apex.)
I'd also like to add that while the manufacturers don't care about root, beyond unlocking the bootloader, insofar as voiding warranties is concerned, the carriers do. Or better said, some do (like AT&T and Verizon, ESPECIALLY Verizon). And they will void the warranty status/coverage on your device (at their discretion) if they find it is rooted.
If I can clear up any further questions you may have, let me know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Holy cow-towing! Mike appears to think WH hasn't just done PR.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Holy cow-towing! Mike appears to think WH hasn't just done PR.
Way to combine two sports in to one metaphor!
“Why aren't you fanboys helping out Mike with links back to here as I do? What a bunch of innovation-less freeloaders!”
Your linking people already here back here, big help thanks Capt. Redundant! Your innovation we single handed end world hunger!
Point us to your Tech Blog so we can all come to your house eat your food and shit on your floor!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Holy cow-towing! Mike appears to think WH hasn't just done PR.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Holy cow-towing! Mike appears to think WH hasn't just done PR.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Holy cow-towing! Mike appears to think WH hasn't just done PR.
Or, just unlock it anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why is it not automatic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why is it not automatic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why is it not automatic
How is the lock justified to cover the subsidised cost? If i unlock my phone it does not invalidate my contract. I still have to pay them the same amount of money every month weather my phone is locked or not. They make no less money if i have a unlocked phone and continue to pay for there service. If i cancel my contact i still have to pay an early termination fee to cover the cost of the subsidised phone so again they get there money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why is it not automatic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why is it not automatic
There's still the issue of whether this should be covered by law at all - if the person paying the contract still pays it to the end of its term, then who cares whether there's a lock? If the person fails to pay till the end of the contract, then surely that's something best left to the contract itself (termination fees) or contract law (breach of contract measures), not copyright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why is it not automatic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder just who they think the 'other interested parties' might be..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I.e., anyone interested enough in this issue to participate in the legally mandated public comment and review process to actually try and make a difference, rather than simply whining on an Internet blog which will do absolutely no good.
You know, those people . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's like saying you can't re-use a canvas and frame that contains a copyrighted painting, even if you own this copy completely. Illegal to get rid of the copyrighted part of your property? That's insane.
Once you've sold a copy of something you don't own it any more. You own the right to copy it, but not that particular copy, and you have no say in what happens to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The DMCA provision is about Technological Protection Measures.
"No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."
Given what hapend with Aaron Swartz are how many small businesses are willing to take the risk that nothing in the phone is covered by the DMCA.
Also remember, there are two different types of unlocking. Jailbreaking, where the phone's operating system is changed, and carrier unlocking. That's where you can now use even your dumb phone on a different network.
The fun thing to think about is console modding. It's almost identical to jailbreaking a phone, especially for the PS3. This is one of the big reasons why any proposed law is going to be extremely narrowly tailored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You ask the question, but then you answer it yourself.
In short, it's about control.
Control of the hardware you paid for.
Control of your ability to sell physical products you own.
Control of your ability to sell non-physical purchases -- games, music, movies, e-books, etc.
Control of your speech online.
Control of the public domain -- by re-copyrighting it.
Control of your photos taken in public spaces.
Control of your online videos that contain fleeting and incidental, but copyrighted, background noises or images.
Control of your ability to play music that can be heard by the public.
Control of your ability to hum, sing, whistle or use lyrics on your answering machine.
Control of your ability to inform someone else of a major news event.
It's also about restrictions and extortion:
Restricting your playing of the radio in a space where members of the public might overhear it.
Restricting/extorting nightclubs / bars into overpaying for bundles licenses over performance of a single copyrighted work.
Restricting/extorting playing TV's in public spaces.
But all of this is necessary in order to promote the useful arts and sciences. For limited times. Heh, heh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because software (including firmware) is copyrighted and unlocking the phone requires changing the software or firmware (circumventing) to enable features the carriers/manufacturers don't want you to use. If they didn't care, all phones would already be unlocked, even on subsidy.
It's our broken system that allows this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I believe they confused the name of the law in question with the name of the (euphamism alert:) corporate sponsors for the issue at hand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Buy Unlocked phone...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Buy Unlocked phone...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Buy Unlocked phone...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up at same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Why aren't you fanboys helping out Mike with links back to here as I do? What a bunch of innovation-less freeloaders!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/12500917012/riaa-doesnt-apologize-year-long-blog-cen sorship-just-stands-its-claim-that-site-broke-law.shtml
(and thanks for COPYING me with you new sig OOTB way to be "original"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is a sad but ugly truth. In the US, it's perfectly normal to have 'temporary' measures that are effectively never ending because they're constantly renewed.
On the positive side, this will hopefully be solved with a more permanent solution that doesn't rely on one man's whim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
True, but it's entirely within their power to grant a DMCA exception for unlocking the phones, lasting three years. And then do it again every three years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The question that has to be answered is, who's paying you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Translation; "I'm bought and paid for asshole, piss off!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
President can replace Librarian of Congress
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: President can replace Librarian of Congress
umm...how can we hold him responsible for this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good to See
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The 1996 Senate and Clinton are to blame for this mess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Riiiiight....
Like how subsidized phones lock people into a carrier's service?? It seems that magic accounting is going to strike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oldest Excuse in the Book
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They shoved combersome tools into the Librarian of Congress and the Register of Copyrights' laps and said 'The tools suck, but be happy we give you power'.
So I assume that instead of being completely inept at any mental processes, they just hoped problems wouldn't come up. I just can't see that they just now realized they were used as a scapegoat so that others didn't have to work or take blame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But they assuming someone wants to unlock the phone to 'circumvent' technological protections.
There could be numerous reasons one would want to do this - including wiping it's OS and installing something custom on the hardware - that's not at all 'circumventing software'.
While the DCMA may cover various things - if it doesn't restrict what you can load on a Laptop; why a cell phone?
Many Laptops are designed for 'Windows 7' - does that make loading Linux on it illegal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You vote for this
In an environment where people desiring power use "unfairness", "injustice for certain groups of people", "blame 'that successful guy' for your own lack of success", and foster an environment of people depending on government to take care of them, and you are surprised that when they gain power they actually don't have your interests in mind?
I hope you realize what the purpose of the KoolAid they feed you really is.
There is a reason why this country was originally set up with a minimal government, because big ones hurt everyone in the end. The government changed about 100 years ago (since yesterday), and has been getting worse, and bigger ever since.
It doesn't matter if you're liberal, conservative, or all around libertarian. Large governments repress and control everyone, and utopian ideas can never be realized if you think a group of bureaucrats that make the rules will make your dreams come true, ever. Alice, welcome to Neverland.
You voted for this. Suck it up and live with it, or finally realize that a big government never grants you a better life, but only makes your liberty disappear.
Want to know why these bureaucrats are screaming "the sky is falling!" about this so-called "sequester"? It's a mere $85 billion out of multitrillions. They want you to be scared at any notion of a shrinking government.
Be good sheeple and stop whining
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Today I learned things like the Library of Congress (LOC) was in fact (like its name implies) a part of the Legislative division of government. Of which I have no opinion atm.
However I still cannot fathom why they get to decide what is a basic right amid the lamely titled 'exceptions' to copyrighted items/works. (cell phones? Gimmie a break!)
The LOC is so huge and diverse they are more worried about the size of the next appropriation hearings than some obscure law with annoying and time consuming 'exceptions' complete with public input (protests?) and the mostly hated (by who?) special interest lobbing. There is no absolute way they will want to risk pissing off the very funding cash flow which nourishes them.
It was kinda sweet that Congress tried to keep its bureaucracy from the digital device and other provisions but its more likely the LOC will end up tainted in much the same way as the FCC, FDA or whatever zar named position.
Any law that prohibits circumvention of DRM be it hard or soft coded is a waste of legislative manpower and precious fed money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where were you when it mattered?
But where were you when the LOC & Copyright Office were taking public comment on this exemption? You had a chance to have your voices heard when it could have made a difference -- so what did you do about it? If you chose not to participate, then you basically chose to live with the results. And don't complain that you didn't know about it -- it seems like many of you are self-proclaimed copyright experts. That being the case, you should have been aware of this.
With all the info on the web, ignorance is a choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DMCA
If I remember correctly, you where complaining that the white house danced around that issue in responding to the petition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DMCA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]