Congress Introduces Bill to Legalize Phone Unlocking

[Gahars]

The Library of Congress determined that consumers should not be allowed to unlock their cell phones. You might remember the decision. We had a thread all about it, and the internet collectively threw a shit fit over the whole ordeal.

Well, it looks like some Congressmen agreed with the internet, and they're taking action. Or, at least, they're trying to.

Congress has finally thought up a bill to make it legal to unlock your cellphone again.

Called the Unlocking Technology Act, it has a simple goal: to fix that silly section of U.S. law that says it’s actually a copyright violation to use your cellphone for a purpose besides what’s intended by its manufacturers.

And it’s backed by an Internet all-star team in the House. The bill was written by Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), known for asking Reddit for help in creating “Aaron’s Law,” in honor of the site’s late cofounder, Aaron Swartz. It’s also sponsored by two signers of the Declaration of Internet Freedom,Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) and Jared Polis (D-Colo.), as well as Thomas Massie (R-Ky.).

“Americans should not be subject to fines and criminal liability for merely unlocking devices and media they legally purchased,” Lofgren said inannouncing her bill. “If consumers are not violating copyright or some other law, there’s little reason to hold back the benefits of unlocking so people can continue using their devices.”

Salon

So much for being lock-blocked, am I right, fellas?

Now, this doesn't mean that anything has changed yet. The bill will have to make its way through both houses of Congress (the Republican controlled House and Democrat controlled Senate). After wading through procedures and committees, it'll also need the President's signature or it's back in Congress' hands. This is a positive sign, but don't take it as a definite just yet.

After all, as Mark Twain so famously said, "If pro is the opposite of con, then the opposite of progress must be Congress. Also, bitches ain't shit but hoes and tricks."

 

[Taleweaver]

Upon reading the title, I was thinking "Bill" meant Bill Gates. I should've known those connies don't make things THAT easy.

 

[TheCasketMan]

I thought this was already legal. I see thousands of unlocked phones in ebay

 

[Foxi4]

Thank God for that, the Congress thinking logically for once.

The way I see it, the moment you "buy" a phone, it's yours to do whatever you want with it. For all intents and purposes SIM Locks shouldn't even exist - if a phone is bought on a contract, the user will have to pay the monthly fee anyways. If it's Pre-paid then the phone was already paid for, ergo the user has no obligations towards the provider whatsoever.

If I can smash a phone with a hammer just because I feel like it, I should be equally entitled to put a different SIM card in it without having to face repercussions, especially if the contract ended.

 

[Rydian]

I thought this was already legal. I see thousands of unlocked phones in ebay

it was until recently. And people can still sell ones that were unlocked already. Or they might not give a shit.

 

[urbanman2004]

Congress has always been full of shit

 

[Qtis]

Congress has always been full of shit

When they're doing the good thing for the average Joe, that's all you've got to say?

On the actual bill, I welcome the US (back) to the 21st century in the tech business! About time (again) that the consumer has at least a bit of choice in the mobile sector.

ps. While I understand the need for monthly paid phones, the prices are absurdly high over there even with the better conversion for $/€.

 

[SifJar]

I thought this was already legal. I see thousands of unlocked phones in ebay

Outside of the US, it is (generally) legal (although that can't be guaranteed for all jurisdictions, obviously), and within the US, it was only recently made illegal. Plus "unlocked phones" aren't illegal, it's the unlocking process that is illegal. Phones can also be bought SIM-free and unlocked, albeit usually at a higher price than with a SIM and network lock, and these phones don't need to be unlocked and therefore there is no unlawful practice taking place.

 

[urbanman2004]

When they're doing the good thing for the average Joe, that's all you've got to say?

On the actual bill, I welcome the US (back) to the 21st century in the tech business! About time (again) that the consumer has at least a bit of choice in the mobile sector.

ps. While I understand the need for monthly paid phones, the prices are absurdly high over there even with the better conversion for $/€.

I was generally speaking: Congress takes more vacations than they are actually solving our nation’s governmental issues. When you watch the news, it's always some drama going on over there like a soap opera, and bill passages are then grid locked between the House and Senate. From the debt ceiling being capped to the risk of going over fiscal cliff to the sequestration, I ask myself is there anything that Congress are doing right especially since I paying even higher taxes since the beginning of this year? It's the citizens' (such as myself) tax paying dollars that provide Congress's income. I’m about results, and don’t see much they are showing for it.

 

[TheCasketMan]

Outside of the US, it is (generally) legal (although that can't be guaranteed for all jurisdictions, obviously), and within the US, it was only recently made illegal. Plus "unlocked phones" aren't illegal, it's the unlocking process that is illegal. Phones can also be bought SIM-free and unlocked, albeit usually at a higher price than with a SIM and network lock, and these phones don't need to be unlocked and therefore there is no unlawful practice taking place.

Oh that sucks. I was about to unlock my phone to sell it on ebay. It was time to upgrade to a better phone, but I guess now I have to save money.

 

[Pleng]

Surely all a carrier has to do to get around this is convert their deals so that instead of getting a free phone with a contract, you're just renting a phone (thus it remains their property and they can do whatever they want with it) with an option to buy it at then end of the contract for, like, a cent?

 

[Veho]

Surely all a carrier has to do to get around this is convert their deals so that instead of getting a free phone with a contract, you're just renting a phone (thus it remains their property and they can do whatever they want with it) with an option to buy it at then end of the contract for, like, a cent?

Yes, but you have to pay the contract either way. Even if you unlock the phone, you still have to make the monthly payments to them, that bit is not the issue. Making unlocking illegal means you have to stay with the provider even after your contract runs out (or buy a new phone).

 

[Kouen Hasuki]

Called the Unlocking Technology Act, it has a simple goal: to fix that silly section of U.S. law that says it’s actually a copyright violation to use your cellphone for a purpose besides what’s intended by its manufacturers.

Wait, what? Since when is it against copyright? Going by that definition then unlocking should not be an issue since its the Service Provider who gets locks and branding put on it not the Manufacturer lol

 

[Veho]

Wait, what? Since when is it against copyright? Going by that definition then unlocking should not be an issue since its the Service Provider who gets locks and branding put on it not the Manufacturer lol

The "explanation" goes as follows: the part of the code that locks the phone is copyrighted and owned by the provider, and changing the code in any way infringes on the copyright.

 

[the_randomizer]

Wait, what? Since when is it against copyright? Going by that definition then unlocking should not be an issue since its the Service Provider who gets locks and branding put on it not the Manufacturer lol

You can thank the convoluted DMCA of 1998 for that. Either way, I never cared about it being illegal or not, I'd still do it if I had a smartphone irrespective of what those Congress wankers would do. Who are they to dictate what's right and wrong? For them to call it copyright infringement is spurious at best. There is no evidence that unlocking a phone makes providers lose money.

The "explanation" goes as follows: the part of the code that locks the phone is copyrighted and owned by the provider, and changing the code in any way infringes on the copyright.

Still don't give a tin schilling. I should be able to do whatever I want with a phone I spend hard earned cash on, like the Galaxy S4, regardless of what Big Brother says. Big Brother can sod off for all I care

 

[air2004]

And in other news http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/u...he-associated-press-seized-by-us.html?hp&_r=0 Phone Records of Journalists Seized by U.S.
Is this what they meant by unlocking ???

 

[the_randomizer]

And in other news http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/u...he-associated-press-seized-by-us.html?hp&_r=0 Phone Records of Journalists Seized by U.S.
Is this what they meant by unlocking ???

Oh, that's easy getting around. Make up fake, but legit-seeming information. That's what I did on Facebook and other...never mind.

 

[air2004]

Oh, that's easy getting around. Make up fake, but legit-seeming information. That's what I did on Facebook. Fake address, fake names, problem solved.

You might want to read the article ....I'm all about making jokes , but .....

 

[the_randomizer]

You might want to read the article ....I'm all about making jokes , but .....

But it isn't a joke, that's the sad thing. Those government douchebags need a swift kick to the balls with a steel-toed boot. If such asininity for "our safety" is being compromised like this, I might defect. I've connections in Australia, Japan, Brazil and New Zealand, one of those places might be viable.

 

[Kouen Hasuki]

The "explanation" goes as follows: the part of the code that locks the phone is copyrighted and owned by the provider, and changing the code in any way infringes on the copyright.

Aye that makes more sense though it should be worded Modifying the Service Provider locks is against blah blah spose doesn't matter I am not a American so these laws dont really effect me so much

You can thank the convoluted DMCA of 1998 for that. Either way, I never cared about it being illegal or not, I'd still do it if I had a smartphone irrespective of what those Congress wankers would do. Who are they to dictate what's right and wrong? For them to call it copyright infringement is spurious at best. There is no evidence that unlocking a phone makes providers lose money.

oh aye I am with ya on that especially since with say the iPhone you have to pay for the code to the service provider unless your out of contract

All that said mind you I unlocked a Blackberry Bold 9700 I was given to mess with, without a shred of guilt though my main phone is still my iPhone btw xD