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

Unlocking smartphones without permission illegal in US after 01/25/13

Gmash said:
But from what I can tell, it doesn't require them to give you that permission, even if you buy the phone outright or complete your contract. Not saying they definitely won't, but it's up to them.
Click to expand...
Correct. It isn't a specific bill on the issue, which might address mutual obligations, but just the ending of an exemption from a very broadly drawn piece of catch-all legislation (the DMCA). So it leaves it entirely up to the carrier.

Check your contact terms before signing, I guess.
 
Hey, I'm 100% for people paying their debts!!! But perhaps this law is not the solution? Is it possible we already have a solution for that? I think most people here have heard of "credit".

This is the thing I think the supporters of this law "don't get". We already have a system for people who don't make their payments. When you don't pay your debts, you get a bad credit score, and you can't borrow more money for anything else.

What if we applied this "just make it illegal" rationality to an example like new home ownership. You buy a home, you're being a good citizen, making your payments, but one day you get laid off. You can't find another job and you can't make your mortgage payments anymore... what now? With a law like this, you would not only get kicked out of your house, you would get thrown in jail. As if being homeless wasn't bad enough- but hey, at least you get free meals in jail, right?



Imagine this scenario-
Someone buys a new phone on contract. In 6 months or a year they decide to have a 1 month vacation in another country. They think to themselves, "I have full intentions of paying in full my contract, and I do not want to buy another phone for one month use". They consider unlocking their phone...

You're the jury, you decide- should they be criminally prosecuted for this?
 
Bob Maxey said:
What do the papers you signed have to say about updates? My Zio documentation (as I recall, anyway) did not mention updates or their availability.

What makes you think all carriers are required to provide every update when a new OS arrives? I recall (?) only one update with the old Zio and I really do not remember what it was.

I come from a manufacturing background and trust me when I tell you we tend to keep updates and new models a secret for as long as possible. We were selling "underpowered" devices to an unsuspecting public knowing full well, the next version was the one people would go for. We did not want a warehouse filed with "obsolete" devices.

Like when we went from a black and white to color screen and offered more memory. And for less money, as I dimly recall.

I do not see the unfairness, frankly.
Click to expand...

I did not say it was unfair, just one sided making the legality of the 'contract' questionable.
 
mikedt said:
But it's not obsolete is it? It still works, you can make phone calls, you can browse the internet, play Facebook, install apps and games, or whatever you want to do with it? And they should fix or replace it under warranty if it goes wrong.



You'll probably find that the contract you signed has absolutely nothing about them providing OS upgrades. It'll be about you agreeing not to violate any applicable laws, and to paying your monthly bills in a timely and prompt manner, and about their obligations for providing you with service as wireless carrier.
Click to expand...

If the contract says nothing about the phone, then where do they get off locking it? I am still having major problems 'buying' a phone and finding it crammed full of unwanted crap apps one cannot remove. Would you buy a computer that restricted you to crap programs?
 
JIMV said:
I am still having major problems 'buying' a phone and finding it crammed full of unwanted crap apps one cannot remove. Would you buy a computer that restricted you to crap programs?
Click to expand...

Sim unlocking your phone won't do anything about that. You can still unlock bootloaders and root devices.
 
I see what they are saying but phone companies need to ease up if i paid for it :what:i should be able to do whatever i want . Or hell the phone companies need to extend free warranty for my problem free device and stop all this cap data bullshizzzzzt
 
I just think it is crazy to make it illegal

That makes me a criminal ...a crime ..police action

Taxpayer money wasted.. there much more important things to look into
 
dan330 said:
I just think it is crazy to make it illegal

That makes me a criminal ...a crime ..police action

Taxpayer money wasted.. there much more important things to look into
Click to expand...

Yup.

You're also a criminal, punishable by a huge fine and jail time if you rip your own DVDs and Blu-ray discs in the States, so you can watch them on your Android devices. Crazy isn't it?
 
other than child support and taxes...

owing money and not paying is not a crime. that is a civil issue.
if a company checks a person's rating and issues a line a credit. that company is taking a risk to earn some profit. that is the choice of that company.
if that person does not pay... it is that company's loss. NOT a CRIME.

carriers are in the same position. check a person's rating.. extend a discount deal for a 2 yr contract. with fees if it is cancelled. company chooses to offer that person a discount in exchange for future profits. they take the risk like any other company.

i see a very bad slippery slop .... this needs to be stopped!!
 
same kind of crap just like the Seat Belt law. tell me how me wearing my belt or not has any effect on the safety of the other driver in an accident? this is just another 'nanny' law meant to protect us from ourselves (or natural selection), just like the mandate of having GFCI outlets in your bathroom. am i wrong to assume that if one is foolish enough to use their hairdryer in the bath tub that they should get electrocuted?

i mean no one gains anything from such laws--unless cops actually do get a certain amount of pay for every ticket they write
 
Not wearing a seat belt affects EVERY other driver through increased insurance rates, they are not in business to lose money and pass any and all costs associated with injured drivers to ME!
 
nickdalzell said:
same kind of crap just like the Seat Belt law. tell me how me wearing my belt or not has any effect on the safety of the other driver in an accident? this is just another 'nanny' law meant to protect us from ourselves (or natural selection), just like the mandate of having GFCI outlets in your bathroom. am i wrong to assume that if one is foolish enough to use their hairdryer in the bath tub that they should get electrocuted?

i mean no one gains anything from such laws--unless cops actually do get a certain amount of pay for every ticket they write
Click to expand...

When that other driver gets a manslaughter charge because you go flying through the windshield.
 
mikedt said:
Yup.

You're also a criminal, punishable by a huge fine and jail time if you rip your own DVDs and Blu-ray discs in the States, so you can watch them on your Android devices. Crazy isn't it?
Click to expand...

I think that's not entirely true. It's when you share them that the trouble begins. Our laws are crazy, what else is new? :)
 
EarlyMon said:
I think that's not entirely true. It's when you share them that the trouble begins. Our laws are crazy, what else is new? :)
Click to expand...

I know...however I'm sure the DMCA actually criminalises the cracking/ripping of DRM copy protected DVDs and Blu-ray discs. Same with attempting to remove the DRM from iTunes Store movies, so you can play them on your Android devices. We've had people asking about that a few times on here.

But I don't think anyone has actually been arrested, tried, convicted and jailed for removing the DRM from their own legitimately purchased stuff, like for format shifting or transcoding or something. Crazy laws indeed. :) Indeed, it's when they're sharing and uploading, that's when the trouble really should begin.

To quote the wiki.

Digital Millennium Copyright Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself.
 
Yep.

We also have preceding laws that state that consumers can make copies for personal use. Those laws specifically discuss copy protection, and are in conflict with the DMCA. As I recall, courts have ruled in some cases that selling the Blu-ray copy software is illegal, but using it it is not. Like I say, our laws are nuts on this. If this ever makes it to a higher court, it should prove interesting to say the least.

PS - remember Lotus 1-2-3? And its famous copy protection? Because of consumer outcry on that decades ago, congress passed laws that said we could bypass copy protection to make personal copies. It's directly at the heart of the DMCA controversy.
 
nickdalzell said:
same kind of crap just like the Seat Belt law. tell me how me wearing my belt or not has any effect on the safety of the other driver in an accident? this is just another 'nanny' law meant to protect us from ourselves (or natural selection), just like the mandate of having GFCI outlets in your bathroom.
Click to expand...

And I think the UK laws about power outlets in the bathroom are even stricter. NO power outlets at at, except for a shaver only outlet on an isolating transformer.

Now in China on the other hand, they like having plenty of outlets in bathrooms, and not an RCD or isolation transformer in sight. :rolleyes:

nickdalzell said:
am i wrong to assume that if one is foolish enough to use their hairdryer in the bath tub that they should get electrocuted?
Click to expand...

IANAL but whomever provided the unsafe/unprotected outlet in the bathroom, will be looking at a lawsuit for non-compliance of building codes and electrical regulations.

Remember the McDonald's hot coffee story? Woman scalded herself because she spilled McDonald's coffee on her lap while driving a car. She sued McDonald's for serving coffee that was too hot, and won.

Where I am, if you're foolish enough to use a hair dryer in the bath tub, or spill hot coffee on yourself through stupidity....well that was you're own silly fault.
 
EarlyMon said:
PS - remember Lotus 1-2-3? And its famous copy protection? Because of consumer outcry on that decades ago, congress passed laws that said we could bypass copy protection to make personal copies. It's directly at the heart of the DMCA controversy.
Click to expand...
You know what bugs the hell out of me? Paying for the same music over and over again! I have albums--yes, albums, as in LPs :eek: --from my youth; some of them I later bought on 8 track tapes--yes, 8 track tapes :eek: ; some of those I later bought on cassette tapes; some later on CD; some later by downloading. So in the case of some albums, such as Beatles, Moody Blues, Queen, Pink Floyd and others, I've paid for FIVE iterations of the same album over the years. How come there isn't some kind of 'lifetime upgrade' feature available for music?! :confused:
 
MoodyBlues said:
You know what bugs the hell out of me? Paying for the same music over and over again! I have albums--yes, albums, as in LPs :eek: --from my youth; some of them I later bought on 8 track tapes--yes, 8 track tapes :eek: ; some of those I later bought on cassette tapes; some later on CD; some later by downloading. So in the case of some albums, such as Beatles, Moody Blues, Queen, Pink Floyd and others, I've paid for FIVE iterations of the same album over the years. How come there isn't some kind of 'lifetime upgrade' feature available for music?! :confused:
Click to expand...

i think if you had the $$ to have the equipment to duplicate from one media to another .. you could do that.

from LP to 8track
from LP to cassette
from LP to CD
from LP to mp3

you just choose to purchase the new media.. because that was cheaper and more convenient at the time. :o:o
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom