Unlocking your cellphone without the permission of the original service provider has technically become a crime today. That said, the chance of a prosecution taking place, let alone being successful, seem slim.
The legalities are covered by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which brought the principle that it's illegal to circumvent a technological measure that's designed to protect copyright -- even if you don't actually breach copyright.
The Librarian of Congress has the power to decide which devices and systems are excluded from the DMCA. The list is frequently updated as new technologies arise.
Phone unlocking hasn't been mentioned in the past, most likely because there's no obvious link to copyright issues. However a group, which includes Consumers Union and MetroPCS asked the Library of Congress to add unlocking to the specific list of exemptions.
The Librarian of Congress agreed to the exemption with one major loophole. For the rather baffling reason that it was needed "to align the exemption of current market realities," it said the exemption would only apply to phones already bought up to and including 90 days after the exemption took effect. That 90 days period ends today.
According to the Librarian of Congress, there's no need for an exemption for future phone sales because there's so many unlocked phones available that banning unlocking doesn't harm consumer interests.
On a purely technical legal ground the exemption seems to be a gift to major carriers. Until now anyone arguing the DCMA outlaws phone unlocking would have to argue their case from scratch. Now lawyers could easily argue that if the Librarian of Congress has specifically limited the exemption of sales before a specific date, it's only logical that unlocking phones sold after this date should be legally considered as a breach of the DCMA.
What this actually means in practice is less clear-cut. It seems that if the carriers started threatening with DCMA many unlocking companies would be scared off. But it could also be a crapshoot in court if somebody wanted to challenge the scope of the law and send it to a judge to determine if they violated any copyright laws.
The legalities are covered by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which brought the principle that it's illegal to circumvent a technological measure that's designed to protect copyright -- even if you don't actually breach copyright.
The Librarian of Congress has the power to decide which devices and systems are excluded from the DMCA. The list is frequently updated as new technologies arise.
Phone unlocking hasn't been mentioned in the past, most likely because there's no obvious link to copyright issues. However a group, which includes Consumers Union and MetroPCS asked the Library of Congress to add unlocking to the specific list of exemptions.
The Librarian of Congress agreed to the exemption with one major loophole. For the rather baffling reason that it was needed "to align the exemption of current market realities," it said the exemption would only apply to phones already bought up to and including 90 days after the exemption took effect. That 90 days period ends today.
According to the Librarian of Congress, there's no need for an exemption for future phone sales because there's so many unlocked phones available that banning unlocking doesn't harm consumer interests.
On a purely technical legal ground the exemption seems to be a gift to major carriers. Until now anyone arguing the DCMA outlaws phone unlocking would have to argue their case from scratch. Now lawyers could easily argue that if the Librarian of Congress has specifically limited the exemption of sales before a specific date, it's only logical that unlocking phones sold after this date should be legally considered as a breach of the DCMA.
What this actually means in practice is less clear-cut. It seems that if the carriers started threatening with DCMA many unlocking companies would be scared off. But it could also be a crapshoot in court if somebody wanted to challenge the scope of the law and send it to a judge to determine if they violated any copyright laws.
Nope, same thing as the PS3. As long as you own the piece you have the right to alter it.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is when you are on a contract you buy the phone at a discounted contract price. The agreement stipulates that you will pay your bill for two years at which point the phone will be officially paid for. Otherwise you have to buy the phone at the "Unlocked" price of 700.00 or so
ReplyDelete