The Most Ridiculous Law of 2013

[teh603]

Originally Posted by slex

The magnitude of the punishment is simply astonishing - if you unlock your phone, I don't see how you can cause damages amounting to more than $1000. And then you face $1 million in fines and up to 5 years in jail (which is a foregone income of at least $50 000, even if you are a low-skilled, low-paid worker). Even if we assume that this should be made illegal and is resolved through criminal, instead of civil law, where is the principle that punishment should fit the crime?

Like I thought I mentioned earlier- most EULAs include an "irreparable damage" clause which suggests the company wants to be able to receive unlimited civil damages because of the "irreparable damage" caused by abusing "their" software. The actual damages are pretty irrelevant given contract language like that.

[slex]

Originally Posted by teh603

Like I thought I mentioned earlier- most EULAs include an "irreparable damage" clause which suggests the company wants to be able to receive unlimited civil damages because of the "irreparable damage" caused by abusing "their" software. The actual damages are pretty irrelevant given contract language like that.

They can claim whatever they want to, but smartphones are mass produced and for all practical purposes they are alike. So even if there is an "irreparable damage" done to one smartphone, it can be replaced by another. It is not a Picaso original, after all. Even if it were, irreparable damage per se still doesn't justify ridiculously high financial penalties, exceedings thousands of times the value of the damage (not to mention prison time). It is absurd to claim that you value a good or a service for $1 million when you actually sell it for $500.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by slex

I don't know, actually. But if it is, then a rational individual without internal moral restraints would prefer to steal a smartphone, instead of buying and unlocking one.

The magnitude of the punishment is simply astonishing - if you unlock your phone, I don't see how you can cause damages amounting to more than $1000. And then you face $1 million in fines and up to 5 years in jail (which is a foregone income of at least $50 000, even if you are a low-skilled, low-paid worker). Even if we assume that this should be made illegal and is resolved through criminal, instead of civil law, where is the principle that punishment should fit the crime?

Since you are in Bulgaria, you may not be familiar with the sense of proportion in the USA government. To get up to speed, look into the prosecution of Aaron Swartz and the (non) prosecution of those that nearly destroyed the world financial system.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

I have had no contract phones that I paid for outright that were locked to a carrier. I have also been accused of having an illegally unlocked phone, even though I bought a phone that was never locked to a carrier. Me thinks that "sufficient competition" claim is a tad too optimistic in the current marketplace because the industry is still getting away with whatever it can.

What forced you to buy those phones? Did someone put a gun to your head? Literally force you to? No. You chose to. You wanted that phone, and what it did, suffiently to accept the terms. So long as the majority of consumers are willing to do so, there is sufficient competition. If enough people refused to play that game, there would be other companies show up with more favorable terms.

[Namekuseijin]

well, if it's in the best interest of the people who got them elected...

Originally Posted by taustin

What forced you to buy those phones? Did someone put a gun to your head? Literally force you to? No. You chose to. You wanted that phone, and what it did, suffiently to accept the terms. So long as the majority of consumers are willing to do so, there is sufficient competition. If enough people refused to play that game, there would be other companies show up with more favorable terms.

Yes, somebody did hold a gun to my head. At least, figuratively speaking. There comes a point where you either have to accept terms laid out by other people or become disconnected from the rest of society. In my case it was being accessible in order to maintain employment. For other people, it will be to stay in the loop socially.

[UnderControl]

not even 100% sure what this entails, but fight the power!

[taustin]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

Yes, somebody did hold a gun to my head. At least, figuratively speaking.

In other words, no.

[Ajax]

Originally Posted by wodin

Thus iPhones were frequently “jailbroken” (unlocked) and a T-Mobile SIM was installed to get better service.

Had to respond to this since jailbreaking is not the same thing as unlocking.

Jailbreaking allows the installation of third party apps, whether they be ones freely made on the internet or sold from the Cydia app store. Apps in the Cydia store can be of amazing quality and are sometimes only there due to arbitrary Apple rules in denying apps such as allowing too much customization of iOS like putting icons where you want (gridlock) or allowing too many apps in a folder (infinifolder)!

Unlocking is completely separate and allows for the use of the phone on other carrier's service.

My previous iPhone was jailbroken for the 2 years I used it but was still locked into AT&T. I can't wait for upcoming jailbreak compatible with iOS 6.

[HansTWN]

I just got my first phone on contract a few days ago --- since I wanted unlimited data it made no sense not to get the phone at a big discount as rates are not cheaper when you use the BYOD option. And the phone is unlocked, which I need since I have SIMs from 3 different countries. The discount on the phone was reasonable, I even went for a plan with more voice minutes than I could ever use. The additional discount on the phone was greater than the additional payments on the calling plan over 2 years.

Originally Posted by taustin

In other words, no.

Sorry, but some of us need to put food on the table. If you are unwilling to accept that I needed the phone for my job, there is really no point in discussing matters further.

[wizwor]

Originally Posted by taustin

What forced you to buy those phones? Did someone put a gun to your head? Literally force you to? No. You chose to. You wanted that phone, and what it did, suffiently to accept the terms. So long as the majority of consumers are willing to do so, there is sufficient competition. If enough people refused to play that game, there would be other companies show up with more favorable terms.

Which brings right back where we started. Don't buy their phones, don't use their service, don't buy their music, don't buy their movies, don't buy their books until they figure out fair use and modify their licenses.

That doesn't mean doing without. Leverage the exempted class. Get movies and books from your public library. Watch broadcast television. Get an unencumbered phone and be selective about the service you choose.

No big deal. We're not talking about food or gasoline -- it's entertainment. A lot of people do it for free.

[Teknikal]

The first carrier that does that to someone in my opinion is going lose far more customers than it's worth to them, at least if people have any sense it was bad enough with the RIAA suing kids, grandmas and people who didn't even own computers.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

Sorry, but some of us need to put food on the table. If you are unwilling to accept that I needed the phone for my job, there is really no point in discussing matters further.

As I said, you wanted the service enough to accept the terms that came with it.

So long as most people do so, there's no reason for alternate service terms to be available.

If enough people want service under different terms, somebody will show up offering it.

It sucks to be part of a minority too small to be a viable market, but if you are, you are.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by taustin

What forced you to buy those phones? Did someone put a gun to your head? Literally force you to? No. You chose to. You wanted that phone, and what it did, suffiently to accept the terms. So long as the majority of consumers are willing to do so, there is sufficient competition. If enough people refused to play that game, there would be other companies show up with more favorable terms.

So, it isn't monopolistic if you can choose to do without? Problem is, with many things now, it is such an ingrained part of culture that go with out at your own peril. That's why Germany just had a ruling that the internet is considered essential to the modern way of life. Some things you need to have if you want to take part in society. Cell phones can be considered part of that.

Now, the way things are in the US, you're pretty much limited to just a small small select number of devices that are unlocked. For smart phones, excluding foreign imports (which have a whole other mess of legal issues, such as potentially the lack of right of first sale), about your only options are the Nexus phones and select iPhones. And those are both relatively new options (iPhones weren't always available as unlocked, and Nexus phones have only been out for 2 or so years, and had technical carrier restrictions for much of that time). Much of my company is BYOD, but there are restrictions in place on what you can use, for compatibility reasons. So, in my case, the option would be go with the device (and by extension, carrier), my company requires, or find a new job. This ends up being akin to BWinmill's situation. Having an unlocked phone is handy, as if you go out of the country, or are in an area that your particular carrier doesn't cover well, you can pop in a sim card for another carrier that works where you are. Just seems silly that it was perfectly legal for me to unlock the phone I paid for last week, but not now. Part of the reason for the removal of the exemption?

the marketplace has evolved such that there is now a wide array of unlocked phone options available to consumers

Yeah, that's a direct quote from the ruling. I'd like to see where two choices are a "wide array of options".

In other, related funny business due to the DMCA and exemptions, the part of the exemption that wasn't struck down was the ability to unlock your phone's bootloader, aka rooting or jailbreaking. What's bizarre about that, is that only cellphones are exempt. It technically is illegal to root tablets. The reason for this, is the LoC Librarian stated that "tablet" was too vague of a term, so they didn't want to allow just anything to be rooted.

I'm rambling at this point, so I'll just end it for now.