A Year And A Half Later, Unlocking Your Phone One Step Closer To Being Legal
from the congress-moves-in-mysteriously-slow-ways dept
A year and a half ago, unlocking your mobile phone became illegal thanks to a combination of ridiculous factors, mainly predicated on the DMCA and the way some people interpret its anti-circumvention provisions. For years the Librarian of Congress had carved out a special exemption for phone unlocking -- but what the omnipotent copyright gods of the Librarian of Congress giveth, they can also taketh away, and they did. The situation was so ridiculous that over 100,000 people quickly signed a White House petition protesting this, and the White House (with surprising speed) agreed that phone unlocking should be legal. Though, somewhat bizarrely, the White House seemed to think it was an issue for the FCC to fix, rather than recognizing the underlying fault of copyright law.Various proposals were raised, but thanks to ridiculous international trade agreements, some of the best proposals ended up on the cutting room floor. I spoke to two separate Congressional staffers who had written up bills to legalize phone unlocking, only to have their international trade experts come in and reject them as likely violating a whole bunch of secretly negotiated trade agreements (and you wonder why we're concerned about things like TPP and TTIP limiting Congress...).
It took about a year before the House finally came up with a bill that had some significant limitations and problems. Despite some last minute protests, that bill passed. Since then, there's been a fair bit of negotiating in the Senate, and it appears that a compromise deal has been struck that should, hopefully, finally legalize phone unlocking a year and a half later. The Senate bill is not perfect (almost no legislation ever is), but it's a big step forward in the right direction.
It still is ridiculous that we're in this situation in the first place, and it should be a sign to look more closely at the problems of the DMCA's anti-circumvention laws. It's equally ridiculous that it's taken a year and a half to "fix" this specific problem, but at least it finally appears that a solution is at hand for the specific issue of unlocking your mobile phone.
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, dmca, phone unlocking, senate
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No affect on US law at all... until you try and change it
And yet the ones pushing so hard for those 'trade' agreements always insist that nothing in them would prohibit the US from crafting or modifying it's own laws, dismissing such concerns as 'unrealistic' or 'overblown'.
You'd think by now they'd drop such an obvious lie, but I suppose there's still enough gullible and/or bought politicians around that they can continue to get away with such claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No affect on US law at all... until you try and change it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No affect on US law at all... until you try and change it
So the question has to be asked.. Who screwed over America so bad on a one sided trade deal and can they teach everyone else this neat trick?
Or maybe the trade experts were confabulating? nah... they would never lie to anyone /sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No affect on US law at all... until you try and change it
There is a maxim we have here to guide to an answer to a question like this. That maxim is:
"Who stood the most to gain by the passing of such a one-sided trade deal?"
When you figure out who gains in a situation like this, you have your answer as to who screwed over the public and consumer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now when are they going to put some teeth into the DMCA law for abusive use?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trade agreement ratification
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trade agreement ratification
* Treaties must be ratified by 2/3 majority of the Senate.
* Trade agreements must be ratified by a majority of both houses of Congress.
* Executive agreements can be just signed by the President.
Figuring out the difference between the three... well, that requires lawyers.
And, yes, in *theory* Congress need not feel bound by any of those. But, in reality, Congress would get attacked left, right and center by special interest groups about "violating our international agreements," and it could then potentially lead to sanctions via the WTO, creating some other headaches.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Trade agreement ratification
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How useful is it?
What happened to Zoe Lofgren's unlocking bill? That was the real deal. Is it a lost cause or something is still going on with it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How useful is it?
"Latest Major Action: 6/14/2013 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet."
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d113:6:./temp/~bdyFNJ::
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can't fix a house while its foundation is crumbling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it always illegal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is it always illegal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is it always illegal?
Android has nothing to do with this. This is a separate subsystem that is opaque to the operating system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ditching the cell phone to regain your privacy is pretty much just pissing into the ocean.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
... nothing up my sleeve....
"Appears" is the operative word.
And "appearances" can be, and usually are, deceiving.
Especially when it comes to taking candy out of the mouths of any of the Legacy Industries - a near impossible task.
My money is one at least 2 more years of standard "beating around the bush", followed by a really complex set of "lawyered" legislations that look meaningful, but which actually keeps the silly laws intact and probably raises the penalty.
Or to put it another way - business as usual.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]