Unlocking phones in US illegal from Jan 26

[Fat Tone]

http://www.technewsdaily.com/16514-unlocking-cellphones-becomes-illegal.html

Not the best peice of journalism perhaps, but if that was true here in the UK I would be outraged.

If I own the bloody phone surely I can choose whose airtime service I buy???

And what the hell has this got to do with copyright?

[Umfriend]

I'm on the fence on this one. If you want to choose the service provider then buy an unlocked phone to begin with. But what I do find outrageous is that it apparantly is a criminal offense? I believe it should be seen as a breach of contract for which the seller of the phone should sue the user.

[Fat Tone]

I disagree.

The seller gets their money through the duration of the contract. What happens after contract expires is none of their business.

[UtwigMU]

Here phones come unlocked by both major providers.

You need to either be subscriber for 2 years or pay penalty.

Most people prefer convenience of using another SIM card if/when abroad (abroad is here 1h drive away at most).

[Umfriend]

I disagree.

The seller gets their money through the duration of the contract. What happens after contract expires is none of their business.

I disagree. What you propose is enforcing your will on a contract that you entered into. It's a breach.

Like you can not own a car after you rented it for a while.

[Fat Tone]

Maybe we are at cross purposes here.

In the UK you get a phone on contract for say 12-24 month. You might pay £0 or £400 for the phone.

At the end of the contract the phone is paid for and you no longer have any obligation to the provider.

All I am saying is that at that point you should be able to do whatever you like with your own property.

Cheers

Tony.

[Umfriend]

I think I understand but I do not necessarily agree that you no longer have any obligation to the provider or that the provider does not have any rights at termination of the contract. That really depends on the contract itself: if it states, for example, that they provided the phone under the condition that you would never seek to unlock it than that obligation of your survives.

I know little about the DMCA but believe that under that act, actions such as deeds would be subject to police investigation / criminal penalties. That I would have a huge issue with.

[Brian Ellis]

As I see it, if a phone company gives you a deal like $1 down and $25/month, this is a form of leasing and the phone is not your property until the contract is completed. You therefore have no right to modify its firmware in the meanwhile. Any more than you can soup up a leased car. Read the small, light grey print before signing.

As for copyright, I'm not au fait with US law but it could be that modifying firmware code may well be a breach of some form of intellectual property.

[Umfriend]

As I see it, if a phone company gives you a deal like $1 down and $25/month, this is a form of leasing and the phone is not your property until the contract is completed.

And even then, limitation to use can have been agreed.

As for copyright, I'm not au fait with US law but it could be that modifying firmware code may well be a breach of some form of intellectual property.

That, I think, would be an extension of protection to IP-holders that I think is unjust.

[VJ]

At the end of the contract the phone is paid for and you no longer have any obligation to the provider.

All I am saying is that at that point you should be able to do whatever you like with your own property.

I agree with Umfriend that unlocking during the contract could be considered a breach of contract (depending on the fine print). However, even if you unlock it, you are still continuing to pay the subscription, and nowhere in the contract is listed that you *have* to use the phone a minimum amount of time on their network. So in that sense, I think it is dubious to not allow it.

At the end of the contract, things change even more. The way I see it:either the phone is not yours when the contract terminates (e.g. if it is considered that you rented it, and thus it should be returned to the operator), or the phone is yours (in which case you can do whatever you want). Saying the the phone is yours but you are not allowed to unlock it is stupid. And making unlocking it a criminal offence is really surprising...

So, yes, I'm with Fat Tone on this...

I have a contract with Orange in Poland, and the phone is simlocked. But Orange unlocks it for a fee of approx 15 euro, even during the contract, but it cancels the warranty. I have an other unlocked phone, and at the end of the contract (which also is the end of the warranty) with Orange I'll evaluate the phone: if it is good, I would have it unlocked, if it is not good anymore, I can use it as a wifi handset/control/micro tablet/....

[JTD]

Here in Denmark you bind yourself for 6 months if you buy a phone through your phone company. After the 6 months the company must open your phone for free. I even think most phones are unlocked from the start, as you'll still pay for the phone even if you use it through another company.

I bought my current phone through my phone company and had a contract for 6 months. After that I was free to find another company (I haven't as the one I have is great).

[Umfriend]

At the end of the contract, things change even more. The way I see it:either the phone is not yours when the contract terminates (e.g. if it is considered that you rented it, and thus it should be returned to the operator), or the phone is yours (in which case you can do whatever you want)

This is not true and should not be true in the sense that a seller should be free to negotiate post-transfer provisions. Don;t like it? Don't buy it.

Saying the the phone is yours but you are not allowed to unlock it is stupid.

It may be stupid but one should be free to contract (unharmful) stupid things.

And making unlocking it a criminal offence is really surprising...

With this, I agree. Criminal justice generally (there are exceptions) has no place in the enforcement of civil contracts.

[VJ]

This is not true and should not be true in the sense that a seller should be free to negotiate post-transfer provisions. Don;t like it? Don't buy it.

I remember some time ago that a guy bought a famous painting only to be buried with it. It took some law cases, but in the end he lost... even though he owned the painting. So I know those things happen.

Of course, suppose the phone just self destructs at the end of the contract, the operator still honoured it. So having the phone afterwards is just a benefit you get. And even if it is locked; you can still use it with the same operator - which is even better than the self destruct.

It may be stupid but one should be free to contract (unharmful) stupid things.

True... but while I agree that the guy could not be buried with the painting, I still feel it wrong not to allow people to unlock it.
If I get a loan from the bank to buy a car, but the bank says: you are not allowed to change the colour. After the loan is paid, why should the bank care what I do with it? They got their money.

Luckily, it seems more and more operators are not using simlocks anymore, so I am thinking this problem will solve itself. But it is interesting from a discussion point of view. A bit like the discussion about how your children cannot inherit music you bought on iTunes...

[Brian Ellis]

I have a smartphone which looks like one named after an aggregate edible fruit, composed of small drupelets, in the Rubus genus in the Rosaceae family. It was made in China and its model number is the same as that of the original. It is, indeed, sufficiently similar in appearance that a vendor in the Cyprus Telecommunications Authority believed it was the real McCoy, which she sold. That is until I told her the price I paid for it (EUR 40.00, free postage). It has two SIM slots; she said hers had only one and was locked, even when sold without a contract. I asked her for a second SIM card for my prehistoric Nokia which was hands-free in the car, on the same number. She said that they sold SIM cards only for locked phones. I said nonsense, because the Nokia, bought in this country, was not locked and had a CYTA SIM. She had a look in her computer and said that indeed I was right, that my number was in an unlocked phone (amazing what they know about their clients!). She therefore decided I could have a second SIM on the same no. on an unlocked phone and I've been happy with it since. The only hic is that only 1 phone is active at a time and there are codes to switch between them.

[Umfriend]

This is a nice example of where I feel that criminal persecution might be just. Not of you, Brian, but of the people producing that device.

@VJ: Yes, the general/public interest is an argument which may be used to void contracts like in the case of the painting IMHO.