View Single Post
Old 01-28-2013, 08:22 PM   #1
wizwor
Wizard
wizwor ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.wizwor ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.wizwor ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.wizwor ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.wizwor ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.wizwor ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.wizwor ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.wizwor ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.wizwor ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.wizwor ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.wizwor ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
wizwor's Avatar
 
Posts: 1,001
Karma: 22212131
Join Date: Nov 2011
Device: kindle, fire
The Most Ridiculous Law of 2013

From the Atlantic...

The Most Ridiculous Law of 2013 (So Far): It Is Now a Crime to Unlock Your Smartphone

Quote:
Originally Posted by the Atlantic
ADVISORY

BY DECREE OF THE LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS

IT SHALL HENCEFORCE BE ORDERED THAT AMERICANS SHALL NOT UNLOCK THEIR OWN SMARTPHONES.

PENALTY: In some situations, first time offenders may be fined up to $500,000, imprisoned for five years, or both. For repeat offenders, the maximum penalty increases to a fine of $1,000,000, imprisonment for up to ten years, or both.*
The gist of the article has been done to death here, but I wanted to quote the footnotes for discussion...

Quote:
Originally Posted by the Atlantic
* Specifically this refers to Section 1204 of Public Law 105-304, which provides that "any person who violates section 1201 or 1201 willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain. . .[shall be subject to the listed penalties]." However, given copyright laws broad interpretation by the courts, it could be argued that merely unlocking your own smartphone takes a device of one value and converts it into a device of double that value (the resale market for unlocked phones is significantly higher) and therefore unlocking is inherently providing a commercial advantage or a private financial gain - even if the gain hasn't been realized. In other words, unlocking doubles or triples the resale value of your own device and replaces the need to procure the unlocked device from the carrier at steep costs, which may be by definition a private financial gain. Alternatively, one can argue that a customer buying a cheaper version of a product, the locked version vs. the unlocked version, and then unlocking it themselves in violation of the DMCA, is denying the provider of revenue which also qualifies. There are several cases that have established similar precedents where stealing coaxial cable for personal use has been held to be for "purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain." (See Cablevision Sys. New York City Corp. v. Lokshin, 980 F. Supp. 107, 109 (E.D.N.Y. 1997)); (Cablevision Sys. Dev. Co. v. Cherrywood Pizza, 133 Misc. 2d 879, 881, 508 N.Y.S.2d 382, 383 (Sup. Ct. 1986)).

** The Ninth Circuit recently explained in United States v. Nosal, 676 F.3d 854 (9th Cir. 2012) that under a "broad interpretation of the [Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) you could be prosecuted for personal use of work computers]." The court explained that under this approach "While it's unlikely that you'll be prosecuted for watching Reason.TV on your work computer, you could be [emphasis in original]. Employers wanting to rid themselves of troublesome employees. . . could threaten to report them to the FBI unless the quit. Ubiquitous, seldom-prosecuted crimes invite arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement." The Court rejected this interpretation which would have made regular activity by average citizens as a potential felony and ruled that running afoul of a corporate computer use restriction does not violate the CFAA. It's possible that here a court would use judicial discretion to narrowly interpret the DMCA and reject the broad definitions that are typically advanced by the government.
wizwor is offline   Reply With Quote