Meanwhile, progress is being made to legalize cellphone unlocking. With grassroots groups leading the charge, the Obama administration announced its support for overturning the ban last week.
I'm astonished that people overwhelmingly believe this falsehood. The White House response opposes legalized phone unlocking, except to phones already out of contract. When they say they "support unlocking", they have a different interpretation of what that means:
And if you have paid for your mobile device, and aren't bound by a service agreement or other obligation, you should be able to use it on another network.
[...] neither criminal law nor technological locks should prevent consumers from switching carriers when they are no longer bound by a service agreement or other obligation.
> I'm astonished that people overwhelmingly believe this falsehood.
Maybe that "falsehood" doesn't conform to your beliefs about what sort of unlocking should be allowed, but I think the quote you highlighted is a reasonable one.
There are legitimate reasons to allow restrictions on what can be done with subsidized devices which are still bound by a service agreement. Your comment suggests that you're astonished that people are swayed by those reasons, which comes across as a bit insulting.
They may have a "different interpretation" of what it means than you do, but it's consistent with what the article claims. The White House supports "overturning the ban," "the ban" being the categorical ban on unlocking. The fact that the opposition is narrower than you would like it to be is neither here nor there.
Hey, petition author here. I've wondered about the White House's language on this, but my understanding of it is that the White House isn't requiring that the consumer's service agreement be complete, but rather that they not break their service agreement by unlocking.
Afaik there aren't any service agreements that prevent consumers from unlocking. As such, I think they're advocating for the ability to unlock at any time.
"...once we buy an object — any object — we should own it."
Sure, but a purchase often comes with restrictions that you agree to before deciding on the purchase. If you don't agree to the restrictions you can avoid the purchase altogether. I can buy a six hundred thousand dollar house and still not have the right to put a garden gnome on my lawn if I bought in a community with by-laws that prohibit that.
"Because manufacturers have copyrighted the service manuals, local mechanics can’t fix modern equipment. And today’s equipment — packed with sensors and electronics — is too complex to repair without them. That’s a problem for farmers, who can’t afford to pay the dealer’s high maintenance fees for fickle equipment."
So farmers are buying "fickle" equipment that is expensive to repair and the blame is put on copyright abuse? Copyright is just the mechanism used to enforce the business model. The equipment manufacturer made a business decision and this is part of their business model by choice. Any other manufacturer is free to supply equipment and compete on a different business model. If the issue is really that significant to the market then farmers will flock to the competition that provides manuals with their equipment.
The traditional U.S. philosophy on property tends to be skeptical of these kinds of restrictions, and a number of them aren't enforceable, though it's gotten less skeptical lately (hence the emergence of things like homeowners' associations).
European property law was full of encumbrances on property: you could own all sorts of sub-holds and fiefdoms and whatnot. Much of that was thrown out in early U.S. law, in favor of a principle that each plot of land has one owner, who owns it fully in the clear, subject only to the superior sovereignty of the governments with jurisdiction. And then that person can sell the land fully, or rent it, but can't sell the complex kinds of partial ownership and sub-ownerships that were common in the UK. That persisted for a while, until contract law reinvented some of them a century or two later.
Any other manufacturer is free to supply equipment and compete on a different business model.
I think we should call this the "Just-market Fallacy" (I just Googled it and I'm not the first person to use the phrase), analogous to the Just-world Fallacy.
I doubt that Wired thinks I can buy a copy of their (print) magazine and then, since I own it, I can do whatever I want with it (like scanning it and putting it online).
That is fallacy. Carriers are oligopoly with high cost of entrance. So if all carriers provide only locked phones there may not be enough devices on the market.
There should be laws preventing forced vertical integration. If you sell hardware you cannot restrict the os(you are free to provide os, but locking of the bootloader should be left to the user). If you sell OS you cannot limit what applications the user can run and from where to obtain them etc ...
I'm torn on the issue of buying locked vs unlocked. I have a family to support, so I don't have $500 or more to spend on an unlocked iPhone. Even if I had the money, I live in the US, and I haven't traveled outside of the country in over 10 years. Finally, there is no monthly discount on service if you bring an unlocked phone to a carrier, so that's the third strike. I'll continue to buy a new locked device every couple of years and take the subsidy, thanks. I'll also be having my 4S unlocked when this contract is up.
Having said that, I agree that it should be easier to unlock phones in the US, even if it's just for international coverage (which would be something).
It's sad that this is at the bottom of the stack. Big victories are typically built on a foundation of smaller victories, and the American legal system tends to be an incrementalist one. The 'forget X, because we want X^Y!' argument of the article is self-defeating.
Copyright laws were originally designed to protect creativity and promote innovation. But now, they are doing exactly the opposite...
This is a problem with many laws. Even if unintended consequences don't ruin the effect from the start, changes in the situation a law was meant to address will likely cause problems in the end. And this is assuming the law actually passed with an intention to benefit the whole, and not just some powerful subset of it. I think laws should come with expiration dates.
One "owns" (free and clear) very little in real life. Most people -- house, car, etc -- are financing their lives with debt. In these cases, ownership is a bit of a myth -- your legal rights are only contingent on your credit. With your data and your free speech-- also, this is very circumscribed in reality. Soon, the idea of "ownership" will just be made fully synthetic. We will rent the assets of our lives...just like our homes...wether this is good or bad...or just another level of clarity...is in the eye of the beholder. This will solve any debate on who "owns" a phone, or a piece of software...there will just be no more "sales"...just "leases" of the same...without the residual legal rights of true ownerhsip...nor the notion that denying such rights will be anything less than what is otherwise suspected...
I'd like to know why Sony was allowed to turn off our ability to install other OS'es on the PS3's we had _already_ bought. That's like if the dealership showed up with a mechanic and said they changed their minds and want the turbocharger back.
Actually, companies should not be allowed to lock stuff in the first place.
Or more precisely, they should be able to lock stuff, but doing so should automatically license all their copyrights, patents and trademarks used in the thing they locked for everyone to use for free forever in any way without limits.
If they are out to fuck the public in the ass, there's no reason the public's courts and police should assist or protect them.
I'm not sure exactly what people are asking for here. There's a lot of complexity in the phone network implementations out there (scroll to the bottom of this page to get an idea of what's out there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_HSPA )
I've owned a few unlocked phones and found that switching networks is largely useless as my phone is unlikely to support the best data features from another provider.
[+] [-] uvdiv|13 years ago|reply
I'm astonished that people overwhelmingly believe this falsehood. The White House response opposes legalized phone unlocking, except to phones already out of contract. When they say they "support unlocking", they have a different interpretation of what that means:
And if you have paid for your mobile device, and aren't bound by a service agreement or other obligation, you should be able to use it on another network.
[...] neither criminal law nor technological locks should prevent consumers from switching carriers when they are no longer bound by a service agreement or other obligation.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cel...
A (very) few journalists are paying attention:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/obama-s-stance-on-unlock...
[+] [-] bostonpete|13 years ago|reply
Maybe that "falsehood" doesn't conform to your beliefs about what sort of unlocking should be allowed, but I think the quote you highlighted is a reasonable one.
There are legitimate reasons to allow restrictions on what can be done with subsidized devices which are still bound by a service agreement. Your comment suggests that you're astonished that people are swayed by those reasons, which comes across as a bit insulting.
[+] [-] rayiner|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mseebach|13 years ago|reply
You don't own a subsidised cell phone until your contract is out.
[+] [-] sinak|13 years ago|reply
Afaik there aren't any service agreements that prevent consumers from unlocking. As such, I think they're advocating for the ability to unlock at any time.
[+] [-] grannyg00se|13 years ago|reply
Sure, but a purchase often comes with restrictions that you agree to before deciding on the purchase. If you don't agree to the restrictions you can avoid the purchase altogether. I can buy a six hundred thousand dollar house and still not have the right to put a garden gnome on my lawn if I bought in a community with by-laws that prohibit that.
"Because manufacturers have copyrighted the service manuals, local mechanics can’t fix modern equipment. And today’s equipment — packed with sensors and electronics — is too complex to repair without them. That’s a problem for farmers, who can’t afford to pay the dealer’s high maintenance fees for fickle equipment."
So farmers are buying "fickle" equipment that is expensive to repair and the blame is put on copyright abuse? Copyright is just the mechanism used to enforce the business model. The equipment manufacturer made a business decision and this is part of their business model by choice. Any other manufacturer is free to supply equipment and compete on a different business model. If the issue is really that significant to the market then farmers will flock to the competition that provides manuals with their equipment.
[+] [-] mjn|13 years ago|reply
European property law was full of encumbrances on property: you could own all sorts of sub-holds and fiefdoms and whatnot. Much of that was thrown out in early U.S. law, in favor of a principle that each plot of land has one owner, who owns it fully in the clear, subject only to the superior sovereignty of the governments with jurisdiction. And then that person can sell the land fully, or rent it, but can't sell the complex kinds of partial ownership and sub-ownerships that were common in the UK. That persisted for a while, until contract law reinvented some of them a century or two later.
[+] [-] nitrogen|13 years ago|reply
I think we should call this the "Just-market Fallacy" (I just Googled it and I'm not the first person to use the phrase), analogous to the Just-world Fallacy.
[+] [-] unwind|13 years ago|reply
I doubt that Wired thinks I can buy a copy of their (print) magazine and then, since I own it, I can do whatever I want with it (like scanning it and putting it online).
[+] [-] baddox|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Thiz|13 years ago|reply
Once the consumers know the power they have in their hands, change will come easier.
[+] [-] venomsnake|13 years ago|reply
There should be laws preventing forced vertical integration. If you sell hardware you cannot restrict the os(you are free to provide os, but locking of the bootloader should be left to the user). If you sell OS you cannot limit what applications the user can run and from where to obtain them etc ...
[+] [-] jdechko|13 years ago|reply
Having said that, I agree that it should be easier to unlock phones in the US, even if it's just for international coverage (which would be something).
[+] [-] betterunix|13 years ago|reply
That gives poor people less of a vote than rich people.
[+] [-] 650REDHAIR|13 years ago|reply
For this "movement" to work, long-term, we will need these small wins first.
[+] [-] anigbrowl|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davidroberts|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 001sky|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jebblue|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] frankydp|13 years ago|reply
Customer service told me tampering in any way would void the warranty on my entire vehicle.........
Needless to say I they didn't send me a copy of the manual.
[+] [-] npsimons|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] uribs|13 years ago|reply
Or more precisely, they should be able to lock stuff, but doing so should automatically license all their copyrights, patents and trademarks used in the thing they locked for everyone to use for free forever in any way without limits.
If they are out to fuck the public in the ass, there's no reason the public's courts and police should assist or protect them.
[+] [-] tiglionabbit|13 years ago|reply
I've owned a few unlocked phones and found that switching networks is largely useless as my phone is unlikely to support the best data features from another provider.