• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Root Does new law stop blocking bootloaders?

No it only establishes that rooting/jailbreaking is in no way considered illegal so long as the software being installed is acquired by legal means.
 
Nope. Just like you now have the right to hack that phone, Motorola has the right to lock the phone before they sell it to you, as stupid as that is. Oh, and did I mention that I'm still really angry about that stupid, stupid decision? Screw you Motorola.
 
You have the right to any unlock codes for your phone for personal use according the Library of Congress, and this plays on top of that. You may have to fight for it, but if you demand that encryption key, they are supposed to give it too you. Now they could make you sign and NDA to get it, which would make distributing it trade secret violation.
 
supersaki said:
voiding warranty isn't the same as going to jail/being fined thousands of dollars :p
Click to expand...

I was never concerned about being put in jail for modding my property. I just dont think this whole thing makes much difference if any.
 
my personal opinion, its about time they made this into law, think about it, some of us pay how many hundreds of dollars for a smart phone just to have it be locked down to what the provider wants it to be, thats like buying a new car and having the dealer tell you you cant put any upgrades in it, like i said, its about time
 
nightelvesreasy said:
my personal opinion, its about time they made this into law, think about it, some of us pay how many hundreds of dollars for a smart phone just to have it be locked down to what the provider wants it to be, thats like buying a new car and having the dealer tell you you cant put any upgrades in it, like i said, its about time
Click to expand...

If you buy a phone at a subsidized price then I see nothing wrong with the provider limiting it to their network. They are giving you hundreds off the retail price of the phone under the assumption that you will be using their service.

If you are talking about paying full retail for a phone then I agree with you
 
OMJ said:
If you buy a phone at a subsidized price then I see nothing wrong with the provider limiting it to their network. They are giving you hundreds off the retail price of the phone under the assumption that you will be using their service.

If you are talking about paying full retail for a phone then I agree with you
Click to expand...
I almost agree with you, but at the same time, you sign a contract to stay on their network for 2 years with a huge ETF that prohibits you from leaving, almost. So I don't see a huge difference between buying on-contract or off.

As far as unlocking, I have always got my devices unlocked by just asking, but unlocked and rooted are 2 different things.
 
Honestly I'm just wondering if this will push Verizon away from non SIM card phones, or whether the other Carriers will move towards that model as a loophole to the law.

Also does this mean that phones must be unlocked on request or that hackers cannot go to jail for figuring out how to unlock a phone. seems like it doesn't eliminate the "battle" between hacker and developer but just keeps the law from interfering with a "fair" fight.
 
nb_mitch said:
I almost agree with you, but at the same time, you sign a contract to stay on their network for 2 years with a huge ETF that prohibits you from leaving, almost. So I don't see a huge difference between buying on-contract or off.

As far as unlocking, I have always got my devices unlocked by just asking, but unlocked and rooted are 2 different things.
Click to expand...

With the newer ETFs that is mostly true but in cases like buying a Droid right now you can get the phone for $50 and pay a $350 ETF and still have the phone for more than $100 off the retail price. Not sure why you would want to do that but you could.
 
OMJ said:
If you buy a phone at a subsidized price then I see nothing wrong with the provider limiting it to their network. They are giving you hundreds off the retail price of the phone under the assumption that you will be using their service.

If you are talking about paying full retail for a phone then I agree with you
Click to expand...


i see your point, but you kinda missed mine, i said "some of us pay hundreds of dollars" meaning that some people do pay full retail price for a phone (my bad for not being clear enough) but yes you are right as far as limiting a phone to just their network at a lower retail price
 
OMJ said:
I was never concerned about being put in jail for modding my property. I just dont think this whole thing makes much difference if any.
Click to expand...

Yeah, in the end, it won't affect us much at all. In the article I read, the author was hopeful it was a step in the right direction.
 
nightelvesreasy said:
i see your point, but you kinda missed mine, i said "some of us pay hundreds of dollars" meaning that some people do pay full retail price for a phone (my bad for not being clear enough) but yes you are right as far as limiting a phone to just their network at a lower retail price
Click to expand...

oh ok I see what you are saying now. I thought you meant when people pay $200 for a subsidized phone when I read your original post
 
The way I look at this is that it doesn't change much if anything. All they are doing is telling the manufactures (and I think this is aimed mainly at Apple) that they can not go after people for rooting or jailbreaking their phones. This does not however prevent the manufactures from voiding warantees or makes them obligated to help people root or jailbreak.

In other words, no Moto will still be able to release signed bootloaders and in no way will be obligated to help anyone un-sign them. They just can't prosecute or sue anyone if people try to get around it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom