Sprint PCS - Gov - carriers can't lock phones to their systems

Author

Gov - carriers can't lock phones to their systems

P.Schuman

2006-12-11, 10:33 pm

Just read an article indicating that the Copyright Office (WHY THEM ?)
declared that the wireless carriers can't lock a phone
to their specific system....
I don't have a link or other info - it was a blurb in my IT magazine

Pegleg

2006-12-11, 10:33 pm

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 21:52:07 GMT, "P.Schuman"
< pschuman_NO_SPAM_ME@
interserv.com> wrote:

>Just read an article indicating that the Copyright Office (WHY THEM ?)
>declared that the wireless carriers can't lock a phone
>to their specific system....
>I don't have a link or other info - it was a blurb in my IT magazine
>
What magazine? It is most appropriate to name the source of an article
you reference here.

SmokeDiver

2006-12-11, 10:33 pm

Pegleg wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 21:52:07 GMT, "P.Schuman"
> < pschuman_NO_SPAM_ME@
interserv.com> wrote:
>
> What magazine? It is most appropriate to name the source of an article
> you reference here.

Just do a Google search for ""Library of Congress" cell phone locks" or
click this link:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...G=Google+Search

Also, click this link to go straight to the Library of Congress'
Copyright Office website regarding this issue. Look for exemption
number 5.

http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2006/71fr68472.html

max@dontspam.me

2006-12-11, 10:33 pm

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 15:01:29 -0800, Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil>
graced this newsgroup with:

>On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 21:52:07 GMT, "P.Schuman"
>< pschuman_NO_SPAM_ME@
interserv.com> wrote:
>
>What magazine? It is most appropriate to name the source of an article
>you reference here.

I read that as well..

http://tinyurl.com/ya4vkm

David M. Moore

2006-12-11, 10:33 pm

"P.Schuman" < pschuman_NO_SPAM_ME@
interserv.com> wrote in
news:bqkfh.1371$yC5.463@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net:

> Just read an article indicating that the Copyright Office (WHY THEM ?)
> declared that the wireless carriers can't lock a phone
> to their specific system....

Sorry to burst your bubble, but no, that is not what they ruled.

The copyright office ruled that if you use software to unlock your
phone, you cannot be held in violation of US copyright law, and the
wireless companies cannot prosecute you under the DMCA (Digital
Millenium Copyright Act). And that is all they ruled. Wireless
companies can still lock their phones all they want, they can still make
it hard for you to unlock their phones, and they can (and most likely
will) refuse to unlock a phone for you. They simply cannot haul you in
to court if you do unlock your phone or you buy and use an unlocked phone
from someone else.

And the reason its the Copyright Office is because they are the office
that is empowered by the DMCA and other copyright law to create
exemptions to that law.

David

Isaiah Beard

2006-12-11, 10:33 pm

P.Schuman wrote:
> Just read an article indicating that the Copyright Office (WHY THEM ?)
> declared that the wireless carriers can't lock a phone
> to their specific system....

No, you read wrong.

The Library of Congress has ruled that it is not a violation of
copyright law for a user to unlock their phones. It does not prohibit
carriers from initiating the locks, or from restricting phones based on
ESN numbers or other means.

Basically, you can break the locks, and cell phone carriers can't use
copyright law to go after you.

Here's a link:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/11/23/...t.ap/index.html

--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

Phil Schuman

2006-12-11, 10:33 pm

tnx all - I didn't have the specifics or application of the law,
just the basic news blurb

trippy

2006-12-13, 4:33 am

In article <bqkfh.1371$yC5.463@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, P.Schuman
took the hamburger meat, threw it on the grill, and I said "Oh Wow"...

> Just read an article indicating that the Copyright Office (WHY THEM ?)
> declared that the wireless carriers can't lock a phone
> to their specific system....
> I don't have a link or other info - it was a blurb in my IT magazine
>

This is pretty significant. See, for all intents and purposes, you're
basically renting your phone. I say that because you can't take your
phone to another carrier. I don't know all the details. Something to do
with the programming on the phone. It was their code, the software being
their property, so nobody could touch it. Now the government's let the
copyright on all that code lapse. Now people can modify the programming,
which before could be actionable in court. One of the things that people
would be interested in is using their cell phone with another carrier.

If you can stop people from doing it, you can sell them the phones they
need to use the network. New cell phone company doesn't have any
incentive to buck the system, since they get to sell you a phone too. Oh
too bad, other company locked the phone. Them's the breaks. See our nice
models over here. The ability to take your phone with you levels the
field a little. First, equipment doesn't need to be so tied into the
service.It could lead to more flexible contracts since companies
wouldn't have to recoup the cost of a phone.

Secondly, this could lead to more adaptable, and hopefully more durable
equipment. They make you take the two year contract and have NE2 because
your phone won't last 3. Now I know there's people that have had the
same wireless phone since the dawn of time but realistically, it's not
the norm. That could change if companies think that you're going to take
your phone and put new programming on it, with of course different
functionalities associated with that programming. It would be to a
company's advantage to make a phone that could handle that.

--
trippy
mhm31x9 Smeeter#29 WSD#30
sTaRShInE_mOOnBeAm aT HoTmAil dOt CoM

NP: "The American Way" -- Sacred Reich

"Now, technology's getting better all the time and that's fine,
but most of the time all you need is a stick of gum, a pocketknife,
and a smile."

-- Robert Redford "Spy Game"

Bill Marriott

2006-12-13, 10:33 pm

A carrier is not obligated to provide service to an unlocked phone. In fact,
good luck trying to persuade any CDMA carrier to do so. As other people in
this thread have explained, this is basically non-news.

"trippy" < silverbells@tacoshel
ls.com> wrote in message
news:MPG. 1fe957f05a0a69f89898
47@news.alt.net...
> In article <bqkfh.1371$yC5.463@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, P.Schuman
> took the hamburger meat, threw it on the grill, and I said "Oh Wow"...
>
>
> This is pretty significant. See, for all intents and purposes, you're
> basically renting your phone. I say that because you can't take your
> phone to another carrier. I don't know all the details. Something to do
> with the programming on the phone. It was their code, the software being
> their property, so nobody could touch it. Now the government's let the
> copyright on all that code lapse. Now people can modify the programming,
> which before could be actionable in court. One of the things that people
> would be interested in is using their cell phone with another carrier.
>
> If you can stop people from doing it, you can sell them the phones they
> need to use the network. New cell phone company doesn't have any
> incentive to buck the system, since they get to sell you a phone too. Oh
> too bad, other company locked the phone. Them's the breaks. See our nice
> models over here. The ability to take your phone with you levels the
> field a little. First, equipment doesn't need to be so tied into the
> service.It could lead to more flexible contracts since companies
> wouldn't have to recoup the cost of a phone.
>
> Secondly, this could lead to more adaptable, and hopefully more durable
> equipment. They make you take the two year contract and have NE2 because
> your phone won't last 3. Now I know there's people that have had the
> same wireless phone since the dawn of time but realistically, it's not
> the norm. That could change if companies think that you're going to take
> your phone and put new programming on it, with of course different
> functionalities associated with that programming. It would be to a
> company's advantage to make a phone that could handle that.
>
> --
> trippy
> mhm31x9 Smeeter#29 WSD#30
> sTaRShInE_mOOnBeAm aT HoTmAil dOt CoM
>
> NP: "The American Way" -- Sacred Reich
>
> "Now, technology's getting better all the time and that's fine,
> but most of the time all you need is a stick of gum, a pocketknife,
> and a smile."
>
> -- Robert Redford "Spy Game"
>
>
>

SMS

2006-12-13, 10:33 pm

Bill Marriott wrote:
> A carrier is not obligated to provide service to an unlocked phone. In fact,
> good luck trying to persuade any CDMA carrier to do so. As other people in
> this thread have explained, this is basically non-news.

I have used unlocked phones with Verizon, but only when they also
support the locked version of the same phone.

LinkBot