backtop


Print 45 comment(s) - last by knutjb.. on Jul 27 at 4:03 PM

Somewhere Steve Jobs is screaming in frustration

With the advent of modern smartphones, many users have sought to jailbreak their phones to allow them to use unauthorized code (such as controversial apps or services not officially allowed by hardware or service providers).  Many also have sought unlock the SIM cards on phones, allowing them to be used on networks which the hardware providers do not officially have deals with.

Apple has long contended that unlocking and jailbreaking is illegal under the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act [PDF].  Apple claims that it supports a vast variety of evils including gangs, drug dealing, and terrorism.  Other companies like Microsoft or Palm [now part of HP] have remained mum on the issue.  And yet others -- like Google -- have been mildly supportive/tolerant of unlockers, while stopping short of providing the tools to unlock phones themselves (which might endanger their valuable carrier contracts).

Some expected the U.S. Supreme Court or further legislation by Congress would eventually tackle the issue.  However, a surprising source appears to have, in essence, given unlockers and (phone) jailbreakers the legal green light -- the Library of Congress.

While not typically officially considered a part of the legislative branch, the Library of Congress is rather an independent research organization tasked with supporting Congress in a variety of ways, including legal research and preserving our nation's history.

The Library of Congress added the following passage to the DMCA, as a result of its research:

Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset. 

There are still some sticky legal issues, despite this seemingly liberal addition that opens the door to potentially legalizing unlocking/jailbreaking of smart phones in the U.S.  The DMCA still specifically forbids "technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof" used in breaking underlying access protections.  That is thought to include unlocking efforts such as the George Hotz/iPhone Dev Team's donation-financed iPhone hacks that allow the phone to jump ship to T-Mobile's GSM network in the U.S.

Also significant, the Library of Congress has amended the use of video excerpts from commercial film -- such as movies or television -- to include "documentary and non-commercial applications" as well as educational ones.  That potentially legalizes video montages, the likes of which oft pop up on YouTube and elsewhere, which the MPAA and others have long contended is illegal.  With the new language Google and others may gain grounds to fight takedown notices.

The Library of Congress's tweaks to the DMCA certainly seem a progressive step forward.  With new legislation like ACTA pending, it may only be a temporary one.  It remains to be seen whether the U.S. will continue to step forward in terms of customer and artistic freedoms, or whether this is merely a brief advance before a subsequent retreat.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: They act like we are leasing our phones.
By Iaiken on 7/26/2010 4:21:22 PM , Rating: 5
You might want to brush up on your consumer rights and retail law.

The service provider DOES NOT OWN THE PHONE no matter what the contract says. While they own the network, they cannot prevent you from using the phone of your choice on it unless it physically doesn't support their technology.

quote:
If they ended said ownership of the phone right after purchase, the ETF could not be used to recoup money paid for the phone. The phone companies claim this is so, except when you renew a contract and don't get a new phone, they do not suspend the ETF most of the time.


How far up your @$$ did you have to reach for that little diddy? The ETF is part of your contractual obligation to pay for the phone through contract financing (same as when you finance a car or anything else). There is only one difference in that used phones have no intrinsic value to the carrier and so they don't want to repo the phone, they want the remainder of the balance owing on the phone.

Read and understand your rights, read and understand your contract and most importantly; understand that no private contract can take away your rights, ANY OF THEM.


By rcc on 7/26/2010 5:14:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
they cannot prevent you from using the phone of your choice on it unless it physically doesn't support their technology.


Try not paying your bill and see how far that gets you.

But, by and large, they are so hungry for every account they'll take what they can get regardless of phone type, if it works. But I don't think there is a legal requirement that they let you sign up with a given phone.


"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki