Just FYI: Saturday Jan 26th It Will Be Illegal in the US to Unlock Your Phone

[dgstorm]

Here's a bit of news that might come as a shocker. Apparently, as of January 26th (tomorrow), it will be illegal to carrier unlock your phone in the United States. This means that there will be legal repercussions (such as fines and possibly jail-time) for anyone who unlocks their mobile phones to use on a carrier it was not intended for.

Now, to be clear, this does not make it illegal to unlock your bootloader or to root your device. Furthermore, it will not be illegal to purchase a factory unlocked phone outright and use it on other networks. Also, your carriers can still unlock, or give you permission to unlock your device. Basically, this new law only prohibits the process of unlocking your phone with a software action that allows your device to run on similar but different than original networks. Additionally, the ruling will let you arbitrarily unlock smartphones purchased prior to January 2013.

Supposedly, the reason for this is to curtail criminals from stealing devices, unlocking them and re-selling them on multiple networks. Of course, as frequently happens, when making things more difficult on criminals, some laws also make things more difficult for regular users who have no intention of doing anything criminal.

Update: Here's an interesting quote from AndroidAuthority with some additional detail on the matter,

In a statement to TechNewsDaily, Christopher S. Reed from the U.S. Copyright Office clarified that “only a consumer, who is also the owner of the copy of software on the handset under the law, may unlock the handset.” However, the Librarian of Congress had clarified that software in smartphones and other devices will remain the intellectual property of the developer. Meanwhile, users are only granted rights and licenses under the EULA. As such, it will no longer be within fair use to break network locks because you don’t own the phone’s software in the first place.

Update 2: Because it seems there is some confusion regarding this "new law," we thought it prudent to share some additional info that might clarify it to some degree. Here's a quote from the CTIA Blog that puts things in a simple perspective:

While this section of the DMCA, and the Library of Congress’ process for reviewing requests for exemptions, may be difficult to follow, the business practice behind the decision to protect the software used to “lock” a wireless phone to a carrier’s network is really no different than in selling a car.

If the car is fully paid for, the owner simply transfers the car’s title to the purchaser as soon as payment is received; however, if there is an outstanding loan on the car, the finance company has to be paid before the owner can transfer the title to the purchaser. In other words, until the loan is paid, the finance company has a “lock” on the transfer of the car to a new owner.

That’s all that is happening here: consumers who pay the full price for a phone can take that phone to the carrier (or carriers) of their choice. However, if a carrier subsidized the price of the phone in exchange for the consumer’s agreement to use the phone on that carrier’s network, the consumer can only transfer the phone to a new carrier once the terms of the contract (or the carrier’s unlocking policy) have been satisfied.

Let the rancor begin...

Thanks for the tip, AndroidIsTheTruth!

Source: Phandroid

 

[djsiva]

Not bootloader unlock, but carrier unlock. It still sucks though.

 

[jseah]

This is a reversal of the previous position the US government took with Apple when they told Apple that jailbreaking an iPhone was legal since the user owned the device.

 

[dgstorm]

Not bootloader unlock, but carrier unlock. It still sucks though.

I explained that in the story... "Now, to be clear, this does not make it illegal to unlock your bootloader or to root your device."

 

[mustangdroid]

So what happens if I want to use an at&t or T-Mobile phone with straight talk? They sell the sim to use it on their network and phone don't have to be unlocked.

 

[johnomaz]

I can see why this is put in place, it is a rather big issue. But if you have proof it is your phone and you are unlocking it, that should be legal. By proof, I mean a receipt or something. I have a feeling Apple was behind this considering how many of their phones have made their way to T-Mobile. Ya, I brought Apple into this.

 

[sl4sh3r]

This is blah blah blah. Stop me from unlocking

Sent from my DROID r4z3r running JB

 

[NeoPhoenixTE]

My understanding is this isn't a new law, but the expiration of an exemption to an old one.

This was part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act passed ages ago. The thing is, the copyright office had managed to jam an exemption in for digital phones that prevented this part of the DMCA from being enforced. That exemption is now expiring, meaning that law can now be enforced.

It was never legal to carrier-unlock phones. However, after the 26th, carriers can now do something about it.

Again, this is AFAIK.

 

[tjk629]

What a load of crap. All this does is further enforce the idea that your phone is not yours, but the carriers. Who the hell am I "harming" if I want to use my Bionic on AT&T or T-Mobile? The answer? Supposedly Everyone.

 

[combatmedic870]

Does this really matter?? if you own the phone....you should be able to do what you want with it...But not they are making it so you dont own aspects of the phone.

 

[SquireSCA]

Another law like the current push for an assault weapons or magazine ban law.... Criminals ignore them, as they are already ignoring lots of laws, like laws against rape, murder, assault, robbery, etc... So making a law saying that you cannot have the tool is utterly useless... It only effects the people who are not breaking the laws, because they are the only ones following the laws in the first place. This is the same mindset... Criminals who are out stealing phones... are they really concerned with getting in trouble for unlocking them? I mean, if laws against theft are ignored, what makes anyone think that these vermin will stop over an unlocking law?

It is amazing how stupid people are, to think that we can control behavior with a piece of paper...

 

[jseah]

It's the law of unintended consequences and unfortunately, every time the government passes a law, it screws over someone who the government never foreseen. Like the original post stated, the DMCA was originally passed to protect copyrights from being stolen (i.e. mp3's, movies, software). The intent was never to infringe upon the ownership rights of someone who legally purchased it. However, the way the law was written, it can be.

The big issue is while the government would most likely never enforce the DMCA against someone who is jailbreaking a phone that they legally paid for, the manufacturer such as Apple could sue the person in court, and would win given how the law was written. And knowing Apple, I'm pretty sure they're probably licking their lips with joy over this. Although it would be a public relations nightmare if they were to file a lawsuit against some individual for breaking the law by jailbreaking an iPhone that they purchased.

 

[jseah]

Another law like the current push for an assault weapons or magazine ban law.... Criminals ignore them, as they are already ignoring lots of laws, like laws against rape, murder, assault, robbery, etc... So making a law saying that you cannot have the tool is utterly useless... It only effects the people who are not breaking the laws, because they are the only ones following the laws in the first place. This is the same mindset... Criminals who are out stealing phones... are they really concerned with getting in trouble for unlocking them? I mean, if laws against theft are ignored, what makes anyone think that these vermin will stop over an unlocking law?

It is amazing how stupid people are, to think that we can control behavior with a piece of paper...

With the federal government pressuring the US carriers to develop a stolen/blacklisted device database that is to be shared among carriers to prevent stolen phones from being activated, a greater number of stolen devices are now being shipped outside the US to be sold anyways. This would also be outside the jurisdiction of the DMCA as well.

Off topic, but guns are an easy target to go after and they have a certain stigma attached to it. Some unbalanced individual could drive a car into a crowd and kill just as many people, and yet the government isn't going to start talking about banning cars. Just two days ago, an elderly man got into his car, drove the wrong way on the highway (driving northbound in the southbound lanes) near me and got into a head on collision with another car with his wife being killed in the accident as a result. Any sane individual could argue that due to age, he probably should not have been driving because he got confused, however seniors groups like the AARP has fought for years against legislation that could take away driving privileges from the elderly if they are not capable of safely operating a motor vehicle. Now what if he had gotten into a head on collision with a school bus full of elementary school kids and the bus burst into flames and killed all the kids? The death toll would have been higher than Sandy Hook, but yet they would just call it an accident and nothing would have happened to the old man except having it on his conscience that he caused the death of so many people.

 

[SquireSCA]

With the federal government pressuring the US carriers to develop a stolen/blacklisted device database that is to be shared among carriers to prevent stolen phones from being activated, a greater number of stolen devices are now being shipped outside the US to be sold anyways. This would also be outside the jurisdiction of the DMCA as well.

Off topic, but guns are an easy target to go after and they have a certain stigma attached to it. Some unbalanced individual could drive a car into a crowd and kill just as many people, and yet the government isn't going to start talking about banning cars. Just two days ago, an elderly man got into his car, drove the wrong way on the highway (driving northbound in the southbound lanes) near me and got into a head on collision with another car with his wife being killed in the accident as a result. Any sane individual could argue that due to age, he probably should not have been driving because he got confused, however seniors groups like the AARP has fought for years against legislation that could take away driving privileges from the elderly if they are not capable of safely operating a motor vehicle. Now what if he had gotten into a head on collision with a school bus full of elementary school kids and the bus burst into flames and killed all the kids? The death toll would have been higher than Sandy Hook, but yet they would just call it an accident and nothing would have happened to the old man except having it on his conscience that he caused the death of so many people.

Yeah, none of it makes any sense. Just casting wide nets that 99% of the time only affect the law abiding people, or victims, in the vain hopes that you accidentily catch one or two criminals, just doesn't work, and yet they keep trying...

Forget new laws and bans. Forget more useless policies that target victims and consumers. Take the existing laws, maximize the penalties and nail the people who break those laws to the wall.

 

[LoneWolfArcher]

You can thank the 51% that voted for 0bama.