The Government Might Want To Legalize Phone Unlocking, But Unfortunately It Signed Away That Right
from the oops dept
We've written plenty about the Librarian of Congress' decision to remove the DMCA anti-circumvention exemption that applied to mobile phone unlocking, along with the White House petition that got over 100,000 votes, and the White House's quick response to say that it agreed that phone unlocking should be legal. But for reasons that are not at all clear, it seemed to think it was something that could be fixed by telco law, even though it was copyright law that got us into the mess.Lawyer Jonathan Band, who works for the Association of Research Libraries, has put out a really excellent short legal primer on the issue, which is a highly readable 8 pages, and covers all the necessary details and background, including a few things you probably have not read elsewhere (such as how some court cases had already narrowed the old "exemption" anyway). However, the most interesting part to me is where he talks about how the White House's position is likely in violation of existing international trade agreements and almost certainly against what the administration itself, via the USTR, is proposing in the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) discussions:
The White House position, however, may be inconsistent with the U.S. proposal in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) and existing obligations in the KoreaU.S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS) and other free trade agreements to which the United States is a party. This demonstrates the danger of including in international agreements rigid provisions that do not accommodate technological development.This is why we find international agreements like ACTA, TPP and now TAFTA so worrisome. Even when they do not directly change the law, they often lock us into bad laws such that we cannot easily fix them. This is one small example, but an important one. Hopefully, the White House and the USTR will (1) release the current negotiating text for the IP chapter on the TPP so that knowledgeable people can go through and it make sure these little "easter eggs" are not present (2) make a clear and definitive statement that it will not agree to any international agreement that would do something as ridiculous as tie Congress's hands when it comes to allowing people to unlock their mobile phones.
KORUS obligates the United States and Korea to adopt provisions concerning the technological protection measures based on section 1201 of the DMCA. Furthermore, KORUS mandates that the parties "confine exceptions and limitations" to the circumvention prohibition to a specific list of exceptions that matches the specific exceptions in the DMCA. Cell phone unlocking, of course, is not on that list. KORUS does allow for administrative procedures like the DMCA's rule-making to adopt temporary exemptions, but not permanent ones. The challenge before Congress is to devise a permanent exception for cell phone unlocking that does not breach the obligations under KORUS and other similar free trade agreements.
The draft text for TPP is secret, but the U.S. proposal for the IP chapter was leaked two years ago. The leaked proposal contained KORUS's closed list of exceptions. Because TPP is currently under negotiation, there still is time to make sure that the TPP does not prevent national governments, including the United States, from amending their laws to permit the unlocking of cell phones and other wireless devices.
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: congress, copyright, dmca, exceptions, exemptions, free trade agreements, korus, limitations, mobile phones, tpp, unlocking
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
More criminals = more money for the privatized prison system, and more lobbyist money going towards passing more criminalizing laws.
[ 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: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's too bad...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's too bad...
The new world order loves citizens like that. They come pre-brainwashed!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'temporary' solutions aren't a problem
"KORUS does allow for administrative procedures like the DMCA's rule-making to adopt temporary exemptions, but not permanent ones."
That shouldn't be a problem, thanks to the helpful example of the copyright maximalists.
All we need to do is to craft a solution that's _limited_ to infinity minus a day.
If the Supreme Court says that's good enough to keep copyright terms 'limited', it should be just fine for some ol' treaty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'temporary' solutions aren't a problem
The federal government has absolutely no problem extending a temporary measure indefinitely, what's one more on the pile?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I break the digital lock to pirate something, I have already committed copyright infringement so I can be sued/charged over that with no need of the additional provision. If I break the digital lock to do something that is completely legal this is the ONLY time the provision will come into play. It is like making all gun ownership illegal because they can be used to rob and murder. Last time I checked robbing and murdering is already illegal so why would you punish gun owners that don't violate the law.
The digital locks provision is all about Hollywood getting to run its own little fascist scheme where they get to decide what you can do with your own personal electronics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously..
They must have had a reason when they put it in there ,but I can't fathom it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chinese Knockoff Maker Reportedly Copies, Patents iPhone 5 Design
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/09/goophone-apple-iphone/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020487915_apcolegalizingmarijuanaun2ndldwriteth ru.html
This appears to be the setting up for a major test of states rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anticircumvention rules in the DMCA should apply to entertainment content, movies, songs, books, and the antipiracy protection applied thereto. What has unlocking or "jailbreaking", both of which are civil contract violations at worse, got to do with copyright? Someone had best take a long hard look at what Congress has done to us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No-one would need to be circumventing the technical measures prevented by the DMCA and treaties, because it would be done legally for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Weird turn of events
That's ironic, because in their country it is ILLEGAL for a cellular carrier to subsidize a phone at all.
However, with big companies like Samsung, LG, and Pantech selling phones to the USA, why would Korea want to extend the life of phones beyond 2 years by unlocking them to a second-hand market?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get rid of the treaties if they're no good.
The US has abrogated lots of treaties in the past. And not long ago, either. I believe G W Bush actually abrogated a treaty, which is now dead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Broken URL for J Band's paper
The newly redesigned ARL website has broken the link for his paper. Mr. Jonathan Band, Esq., graciously sent me a copy in response to my request. I will happily upload it, if you wish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
business mobile
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Business Mobiles
[ link to this | view in chronology ]