Keep unlocking legal. - Sprint Samsung Galaxy S III

In case you have not heard
this is important
We the people, have less than one week, to get 30,000 more votes.
lets prove to the world that democracy works.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cell-phones-legal/1g9KhZG7
This is what the petition says, if you don't feel so inclined to click the link.
The Librarian of Congress decided in October 2012 that unlocking of cell phones would be removed from the exceptions to the DMCA.
As of January 26, consumers will no longer be able unlock their phones for use on a different network without carrier permission, even after their contract has expired.
Consumers will be forced to pay exorbitant roaming fees to make calls while traveling abroad. It reduces consumer choice, and decreases the resale value of devices that consumers have paid for in full.
The Librarian noted that carriers are offering more unlocked phones at present, but the great majority of phones sold are still locked.
We ask that the White House ask the Librarian of Congress to rescind this decision, and failing that, champion a bill that makes unlocking permanently legal.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cell-phones-legal/1g9KhZG7

Related

Anyone care to discuss unlocked phones? I hope this isn't true.

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/01...ile-phones-becomes-illegal-in-the-us-tomorrow
I think it applies to a carrier unlock., not a bootloader for custom roms.
Sent from my LG-LS970 using xda app-developers app
"You have 48 hours."
Sent from my LG-LS970 using xda app-developers app
Carrier unlocking is what it's talking about. This is also further proof that the the United States is has become "by the corporation for the corporation".
" Unlocking a phone frees it from restrictions that keep the device from working on more than one carrier's network, allowing it run on other networks that use the same wireless standard. This can be useful to international travellers who need their phones to work on different networks. Other people just like the freedom of being able to switch carriers as they please. "
Assimilated using the interface that interacts with the advanced internet.
unlocking becomes the new jailbreaking lol
I didn't see this thread, hopefully a Mod will have mercy on me and delete my thread.
The basis of this law being passed is so weak that it really does make me quite concerned that the rooting community is going to come into focus before long. The judge ruled that unlocking a phone infringes on copyright laws, which it really doesn't, and I suspect that long term the rooting community will be a target. You can already see from companies like Motorola and now HTC that this is an area of concern for them.
Personally I am concerned for it, but would hope that companies that openly support rooting like Samsung and Google will come to our aid.
If the government DOES take action against rooting, I would hope that a judge would look at an OS like Android and rule that rooting cannot by definition be illegal since everything is open source. But we all know how that is likely to go.
I registered and signed the petition. Not sure if it'll do much, but hope it catches attention.
Sent from my LG-LS970 using xda premium
It only applies to carrier unlocking, it does not affect unlock bootloaders.
latindor17 said:
It only applies to carrier unlocking, it does not affect unlock bootloaders.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
With an immediate outlook you are absolutely correct. The problem here is the precedent that is being set.
If courts rule that simply unlocking a phone that is no longer "leased" per the terms of a contract is copyright infringement, there is not a huge jump for the courts to then apply this to the rooting community. Companies are already laying groundwork against custom ROMs, like HTC, Motorola, and to an extent Apple with the jailbreaking community. This could snowball in the future and make life really miserable for anyone wanting to root.
Copypasta from other thread.
Technically, the issue I see here is that you're 'leasing the phone' from the telco. This is apparent because if you cancel your service before the contract expires, you pay a 'fee' associated with a 'termination'. If you don't return the phone they 'gave' you, you are also charged another fee. They technically 'own' the phone until you've fulfilled the contract (afaik), therefore, they can legally tell you 'you can't use this phone on another service provider until you fulfill the terms you agreed to with us'.
Now if that contract later on specifies 'you shall not use software on your device unless it is specifically approved by acme telco.' or the like, then I could see a strong case for 'rooting is illegal' as you technically 'agree' to the service contract when you purchase service from that provider.
NOTE: You can still purchase unlocked phones from the service provider (or manufacturer) but they're usually more expensive (you know that discount you get from sprint? that's cause they pay for the rest of the phone, in the hopes that you won't default on the contract you sign.)
I like how you added in the part about "no longer "leased" per the terms of a contract" as that does change the argument you present, however, that's not what's at issue here. What's at issue here is you 'carrier unlocking' a phone that you specifically agreed to use on their network, so you can use it on another network (technically, this is a breech of contract, and technically you've defaulted if you do this by not following the terms of the contract).
benmatlock said:
Copypasta from other thread.
Technically, the issue I see here is that you're 'leasing the phone' from the telco. This is apparent because if you cancel your service before the contract expires, you pay a 'fee' associated with a 'termination'. If you don't return the phone they 'gave' you, you are also charged another fee. They technically 'own' the phone until you've fulfilled the contract (afaik), therefore, they can legally tell you 'you can't use this phone on another service provider until you fulfill the terms you agreed to with us'.
Now if that contract later on specifies 'you shall not use software on your device unless it is specifically approved by acme telco.' or the like, then I could see a strong case for 'rooting is illegal' as you technically 'agree' to the service contract when you purchase service from that provider.
NOTE: You can still purchase unlocked phones from the service provider (or manufacturer) but they're usually more expensive (you know that discount you get from sprint? that's cause they pay for the rest of the phone, in the hopes that you won't default on the contract you sign.)
I like how you added in the part about "no longer "leased" per the terms of a contract" as that does change the argument you present, however, that's not what's at issue here. What's at issue here is you 'carrier unlocking' a phone that you specifically agreed to use on their network, so you can use it on another network (technically, this is a breech of contract, and technically you've defaulted if you do this by not following the terms of the contract).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What I have read on this legislation is that regardless of whether or not you are still in the contract you may not unlock the subsidized phone sold to you by the phone company. I am the first to admit my understanding of this is far from perfect, but what I have read indicates that you CANNOT unlock the phone regardless of whether or not you are in the contract. This is, in my opinion, an area that the telephone companies should not be able to regulate. I took the "lease" terminology from the post you referenced earlier. In reality this is not a lease as much as it is a "lease to own" situation. The company does not request the phone back after the contract expires and cedes ownership of the property at that point to the individual. Under these circumstances the contract to use the phone specifically on their network is fulfilled.
I agree with you completely that while still under contract this is a completely valid legislation, and users should understand the terms of the contract, but it has also been reported extensively that the legislation extends beyond the end of the contract and allows phone companies to enforce these copyright laws after the expiration of the contract. THIS is the precedent that concerns me for the rooting community.
Xiutehcuhtli said:
What I have read on this legislation is that regardless of whether or not you are still in the contract you may not unlock the subsidized phone sold to you by the phone company. I am the first to admit my understanding of this is far from perfect, but what I have read indicates that you CANNOT unlock the phone regardless of whether or not you are in the contract. This is, in my opinion, an area that the telephone companies should not be able to regulate. I took the "lease" terminology from the post you referenced earlier. In reality this is not a lease as much as it is a "lease to own" situation. The company does not request the phone back after the contract expires and cedes ownership of the property at that point to the individual. Under these circumstances the contract to use the phone specifically on their network is fulfilled.
I agree with you completely that while still under contract this is a completely valid legislation, and users should understand the terms of the contract, but it has also been reported extensively that the legislation extends beyond the end of the contract and allows phone companies to enforce these copyright laws after the expiration of the contract. THIS is the precedent that concerns me for the rooting community.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, what I have read on the legislation (just got done reading the jist of the part about phones) from the verbage, it implies that carriers (like AT&T for example) offer 'unlocking provisions' that allow you to unlock the device after the expiration of the contract.
benmatlock said:
Well, what I have read on the legislation (just got done reading the jist of the part about phones) from the verbage, it implies that carriers (like AT&T for example) offer 'unlocking provisions' that allow you to unlock the device after the expiration of the contract.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I will read some more at work tomorrow. Too late for me to put that thinking cap on.
Sent from my LG-LS970 using xda app-developers app
deleted
VoluntaryMan said:
It's not illegal for me since I'm using Ting which doesn't frown upon customers running custom ROMs or rooting routing their phones.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's not illegal to use custom ROMs yet for anyone.
Unlocking phones is still legal for phones purchased before the 27th. For most people, this law will only affect you with the next phone that you buy.
Thinking about this..
How would they ever be able to figure out you've done this? Are they going to call other Service Providers and ask "hey man, you got this imei on your network??"
They aren't going after the users. Just the sellers of unlocked phone as its the process of unlocking that's supposedly now illegal.
Sent from my LG-LS970 using xda app-developers app
I would say at this point for all of us here in this forum at least would understand that Sprint as our carrier as well as Verizon will not ever ever allow a non carrier specific ESN on there network , even if say someone were to flash one of our devices to cricket or metro they would no longer be allowed to switch that device back.
So this law that is highly geared towards aggravated theft and people being hurt even killed over there very expensive smartphone (let's be totally honest iSuck ) and with out any hassle putting it on a different carrier and not be traced, has nothing to do with the rooting community or custom ROMs especially here on xda where it is moderated to not allow copyright infringement or taking credit for any company's work
Sent from my LG-LS970 using xda app-developers app

Unlocking Now Illegal

So with this new legislation claiming that unlocking a cell phone infringes on copyright laws, how long before the question of rooting comes before a judge?
The basis of this law being passed is so weak that it really does make me quite concerned that the rooting community is going to come into focus before long. Would just like some thoughts from everyone.
Xiutehcuhtli said:
So with this new legislation claiming that unlocking a cell phone infringes on copyright laws, how long before the question of rooting comes before a judge?
The basis of this law being passed is so weak that it really does make me quite concerned that the rooting community is going to come into focus before long. Would just like some thoughts from everyone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Technically, the issue I see here is that you're 'leasing the phone' from the telco. This is apparent because if you cancel your service before the contract expires, you pay a 'fee' associated with a 'termination'. If you don't return the phone they 'gave' you, you are also charged another fee. They technically 'own' the phone until you've fulfilled the contract (afaik), therefore, they can legally tell you 'you can't use this phone on another service provider until you fulfill the terms you agreed to with us'.
Now if that contract later on specifies 'you shall not use software on your device unless it is specifically approved by acme telco.' or the like, then I could see a strong case for 'rooting is illegal' as you technically 'agree' to the service contract when you purchase service from that provider.
NOTE: You can still purchase unlocked phones from the service provider (or manufacturer) but they're usually more expensive (you know that discount you get from sprint? that's cause they pay for the rest of the phone, in the hopes that you won't default on the contract you sign.)

[PETITION] Make unlocking cell phones LEGAL.

The Librarian of Congress decided in October 2012 that unlocking of cell phones would be removed from the exceptions to the DMCA.
As of January 26, consumers will no longer be able unlock their phones for use on a different network without carrier permission, even after their contract has expired.
Consumers will be forced to pay exorbitant roaming fees to make calls while traveling abroad. It reduces consumer choice, and decreases the resale value of devices that consumers have paid for in full.
The Librarian noted that carriers are offering more unlocked phones at present, but the great majority of phones sold are still locked.
We ask that the White House ask the Librarian of Congress to rescind this decision, and failing that, champion a bill that makes unlocking permanently legal.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cell-phones-legal/1g9KhZG7
I believe this only applies to new phones.. and you have 90 days from the date of the law to unlock your phone without any penalties.
page 16 of the docket: https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2012-26308.pdf
so most of us are okay. but it sucks for people buying new phones. Might be okay on used phones, but I haven't gotten to that part yet.
chances are they'll revise the law in 2 years.
Seeing as T-Mobile is doing away with subsidized phones and the other carriers will probably follow suit much the same as international markets then one would no longer have a need to lock into a2 year contract unless of course there are to be plan discounts. That said there should be no reason for a carrier to refuse to unlock a phone that a consumer is now paying full price for, which is pushing $600 to $700 for the newest high end models.
I certainly don't agree that we should be paying upwards of $700 for something that has a realistic life span of 2 years, i would expect a laptop of the same price to last 5+. However i do agree that if you purchased a phone at a lower subsidized price and signed a two year contract then no you should not be able to Sim unlock it. Now if you pay your early term fees and are clear of your contact them there should be no reason for a carrier to deny unlocking said device.
If you are a person that travels abroad and need an unlocked phone them you should take that into consideration at time of purchase or contact the carrier to deal with it then.
Sent from my SGH-T989 using xda premium
I'm not sure but can this be posted in other threads without getting in trouble so we can make everyone know about this situation?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-T989 using xda premium
blakdrew said:
I'm not sure but can this be posted in other threads without getting in trouble so we can make everyone know about this situation?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-T989 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't see why not...but whats the point? Everyone should know about this by now, its been mentioned on various websites all over the internet.
Also, no offense to the OP but this petition is pretty useless, I mean, we all know how good petitions (ones pertaining to mobile phones) have worked before. Companies don't pay attention to it, so I doubt Congress will. The whole issue is redundant seeing as whoever wants to unlock their phone, will end up unlocking it, whatever the law may be. Its not like the government will set up random checkpoints to take your phone and make sure its not unlocked. People are just over reacting like they usually do. Its been illegal to download music and movies for a few years now and that doesn't seem to stop the people doing it. The only thing I see the this law harming are the various websites and ebay auctions that make money from unlocking phones. The truth is compared to the old Nokia days, smart phones(some, not all) are pretty easy to unlock.
One of the provisions is if you buy a phone from a 3rd party youre exempt.
My opinion? Its a sad day in this country when you dont have complete ownership of some you purchase.
Today its phones, tomorrow its......?
blackangst said:
My opinion? Its a sad day in this country when you dont have complete ownership of some you purchase.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know. Even the cell phone industry (CTIA) basically admitted in its arguments to the Library of Congress that the reason they want this is purely in order to protect their business model (based on subsidies) and has nothing to do with copyright. It's bizarre to claim that it can possibly be a violation of copyright to use a physical device that you fully own the way you want. And it's pathetic that the U.S. is so far behind the rest of the world in terms of having a rational competitive wireless market.
Again the last two posts even though they stated the point they missed it. The carriers offer phones at a subsidised price to get subscribers to sign two year contracts not because they want to give you a good deal but because they want you to use and pay for their services fort that time. Prior to this law anyone could go and purchase a phone at a lower price and a month later decide to jump ship, sim unlock their phone and go to another carrier or worse stay with said carrier and sell the new phone for a profit. I could feasibly add a line to my account for an extra $5 a month which comes to $120 over two years, get a $600 phone for around $200 sim unlock it and sell it on eBay at the $600 price. That's a $280 profit in my pocket.
So the carriers shouldn't protect themselves from this type of activity.
Don't get me wrong i think all the carriers rape their customers every chance they get and i don't agree with 95% percent of what they do but trying to petition Congress over this is totally dumb. Maybe petition Congress to get reasonable cell phone pricing. Or how about the fact that i pay the same rate in an area with sketchy service as a person that live in Seattle and had great service.
Sent from my SGH-T989 using xda premium
yeah, but all carriers have ETF's (Early Termination Fees) that you have to pay if you jump ship before fulfilling your contract. That should take care of the subsidized cost of the phone.
mike-y said:
yeah, but all carriers have ETF's (Early Termination Fees) that you have to pay if you jump ship before fulfilling your contract. That should take care of the subsidized cost of the phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes if those fees actually get paid. Or most likely someone who is being shady in the first place will just let those fees go to collection and later written off in bankruptcy or simply forgotten about for years and years.
Take me for example, i got my phone for $99 (2 of them actually) and i am very unhappy with T-Mobile but still have 18 months on my contract well my thought is to unlock the phone, jump ship, and worry about the early term fees at a later date which by the way wouldn't be in my name anyway. So really if i break up with my girlfriend then I'm not responsible and i just made a $400 profit. Now i have two reasons not to do all that 1I'm not a shady person and 2 its now illegal.
My point is that all one needs to do is ask the carrier to unlock the phone and if there are no contact obligations then the carrier has no reason not to. The only ones that should have issue are those trying to be shady.
Sent from my SGH-T989 using xda premium
explodingboy70 said:
Again the last two posts even though they stated the point they missed it. The carriers offer phones at a subsidised price to get subscribers to sign two year contracts not because they want to give you a good deal but because they want you to use and pay for their services fort that time. Prior to this law anyone could go and purchase a phone at a lower price and a month later decide to jump ship, sim unlock their phone and go to another carrier or worse stay with said carrier and sell the new phone for a profit. I could feasibly add a line to my account for an extra $5 a month which comes to $120 over two years, get a $600 phone for around $200 sim unlock it and sell it on eBay at the $600 price. That's a $280 profit in my pocket.
So the carriers shouldn't protect themselves from this type of activity.
Don't get me wrong i think all the carriers rape their customers every chance they get and i don't agree with 95% percent of what they do but trying to petition Congress over this is totally dumb. Maybe petition Congress to get reasonable cell phone pricing. Or how about the fact that i pay the same rate in an area with sketchy service as a person that live in Seattle and had great service.
Sent from my SGH-T989 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
explodingboy70 said:
Yes if those fees actually get paid. Or most likely someone who is being shady in the first place will just let those fees go to collection and later written off in bankruptcy or simply forgotten about for years and years.
Take me for example, i got my phone for $99 (2 of them actually) and i am very unhappy with T-Mobile but still have 18 months on my contract well my thought is to unlock the phone, jump ship, and worry about the early term fees at a later date which by the way wouldn't be in my name anyway. So really if i break up with my girlfriend then I'm not responsible and i just made a $400 profit. Now i have two reasons not to do all that 1I'm not a shady person and 2 its now illegal.
My point is that all one needs to do is ask the carrier to unlock the phone and if there are no contact obligations then the carrier has no reason not to. The only ones that should have issue are those trying to be shady.
Sent from my SGH-T989 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, sir, I believe YOU are missing the point if you honestly believe this is about carriers trying to recoup their $$$ from subsidized phones. Seriously? NOTHING in the bill states carriers can unlock phones after a contract is fulfilled, or that they have to. Therefore, after said contract is fulfilled, you STILL own a device you dont have control over.
Do you own a house? Do you have a mortgage? If so, you know that just by paying off the mortgage it doesnt give you any more property ownership rights that you didnt have when you signed the mortgage. Once you've signed it, you legally own it, even though you still owe money on it. Until this overreaching law took effect, it was that way for phones (for the most part).
explodingboy70 said:
Again the last two posts even though they stated the point they missed it. The carriers offer phones at a subsidised price to get subscribers to sign two year contracts not because they want to give you a good deal but because they want you to use and pay for their services fort that time. Prior to this law anyone could go and purchase a phone at a lower price and a month later decide to jump ship, sim unlock their phone and go to another carrier or worse stay with said carrier and sell the new phone for a profit. I could feasibly add a line to my account for an extra $5 a month which comes to $120 over two years, get a $600 phone for around $200 sim unlock it and sell it on eBay at the $600 price. That's a $280 profit in my pocket.
So the carriers shouldn't protect themselves from this type of activity.
Don't get me wrong i think all the carriers rape their customers every chance they get and i don't agree with 95% percent of what they do but trying to petition Congress over this is totally dumb. Maybe petition Congress to get reasonable cell phone pricing. Or how about the fact that i pay the same rate in an area with sketchy service as a person that live in Seattle and had great service.
Sent from my SGH-T989 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You forgot an important point in your comment. YOU HAVE TO PAY 20-30USD PER MONTH FOR DATA! Therefore, your cost of adding a line is 120$+20x12=360$. So the profit is not as great as you mentioned.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-T989 using xda app-developers app
What's next? Putting restrictions on oxygen?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-T989 using xda premium
Signed and reposted on Hackforums.
http://www.hackforums.net/showthread.php?tid=3226550
Hope you don't mind.
I linked this thread, and quoted the contents of the OP.
Figure it'd be good to get it out to a broader audience.
45,000 more signatures needed.
Go ahead and put my name on it. I'm too lazy to register, and I don't want a bunch of new e-mails trying to get me sign a bunch of other petitions.
And to the debate: Use an Obama phone, Save your money, and BUY a phone outright. The faster they see that this hurts the big TWO (AT&T, Verizon), it will change.
If you're impatient and want a phone NOW, understand the consequences. You are licensing that phone, and may never own it. And you'll also be advertising for whatever company you go with.
Yes, I know I'm advertising for T-Mobile in my signature. That's because I think they are honest, and very beneficial to the XDA community.
explodingboy70 said:
Again the last two posts even though they stated the point they missed it. The carriers offer phones at a subsidized price to get subscribers to sign two year contracts not because they want to give you a good deal but because they want you to use and pay for their services fort that time. Prior to this law anyone could go and purchase a phone at a lower price and a month later decide to jump ship, sim unlock their phone and go to another carrier or worse stay with said carrier and sell the new phone for a profit. I could feasibly add a line to my account for an extra $5 a month which comes to $120 over two years, get a $600 phone for around $200 sim unlock it and sell it on eBay at the $600 price. That's a $280 profit in my pocket.
So the carriers shouldn't protect themselves from this type of activity.
Don't get me wrong i think all the carriers rape their customers every chance they get and i don't agree with 95% percent of what they do but trying to petition Congress over this is totally dumb. Maybe petition Congress to get reasonable cell phone pricing. Or how about the fact that i pay the same rate in an area with sketchy service as a person that live in Seattle and had great service.
Sent from my SGH-T989 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
WELL SAID! BRAVO! This I would support as well as many others!
I have been on this side of things for a long time! I used to live in Seattle, had Sprint and Verizon because ATT and T-Mobile are both very sketchy up there, Verizon is top dawg and since Sprint uses Verizon's towers and is cheaper than anyone else, you get the best phones (imo) and best value, not to mention unlimited data.
That being said, I recently moved to Dallas, and Sprint/Verizon down here are really terrible! I mean Seattle, West Seattle I was pulling upwards of 70mb down and 50-60's up, ridiculous speeds, but made it a lot better when you paid your bill because you felt like you were getting something! Down in Dallas I never saw it go past 10-15mb. Not to mention my signal bars never reached full unless I was under a tower.
Tmobile, my current provider (only for another week or so) is just terrible everywhere. Best I have seen them anywhere is 6-10mb, and I'm sorry but they claim to have better call quality than ATT now, which is horse$hit! Dropped calls, taking over a minute just to start dialing, and when you do talk, lets just say its not good.
I just think that payment plans should be based on where you are at in their coverage area. (If you leave state/town for a trip that's on you). That's like car companies making you pay retail price for a used car same as a new one! Would you do it?
I hope you guys know they unlocking your device is legal. What's illegal is buying an unlock code from online sources. You can no longer just go online and pay a small fee (like $10) for the unlock code. You can call your service provider (T-Mobile as an example) and ask them for the code. (They shouldn't have a problem giving it to you.) Another way of legally unlocking your device is by doing a method like the one in this thread:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2024514
Or you could have someone that knows coding and have then do it for you. (As long as it is not through an online coding site you are good.)
Source: T-Mobile employee and target mobile employee.
----------------------------------------------
I'm full of great idea's, but don't have the time to create them or learn the coding to create them. If you want to make one of my ideas a reality just message me and I will give you my idea as specific as possible.
ideas:
Spoiler
-launcher/lock screen
-line rider type game where you control the character
-2d fighting game like art of fighting for the SNES
-multiplayer fps where you create your own map with a creative mode (minecraft style)
-roller coaster tycoon style game
-many more!
Just message me which idea you want info on and I'll tell you!
----------------------------------------------
Well said Ariana....
Service provider must ... unlock the device at any time and at no charge.
At least that's what the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) is recommending.
It's warm day in February when I have something good to say about the CRTC but they do finally appear to cracking down on service provider fees, lengthy contracts, and cell phone locking.
I mention this because the title of this thread sounds like the opposite of ongoing discussions in Canada about how North American consumers are paying more than cell phone customers the world over.
More information by search for "Buyer's remorse" and CBC or go to the Canadian governments CRTC website to download a full pdf of current proposal.
(I'd give you the links, but I'm newly registered here

▀▄► Unlocking Any Phones in USA 100% illegal ! ◄▀▀▄▄ READ!!! ALERT!!

▀▄► Unlocking Any Phones in USA 100% illegal ! ◄▀▀▄▄ READ!!! ALERT!!
Unlocking Phones Now Illegal in USA
In October, 2012, the US Librarian of Congress changed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to prevent users from unlocking their phones and using them to access multiple service providers. However, the change also allowed for a temporary, 90-day period before the new legislation would be put in place, during which users would be free to unlock their devices.
That period ended on Saturday, 26 January, and it is now illegal for American smartphone users to unlock their phones without permission from their service providers.
Unlocking phones allows people travelling in foreign countries to access local mobile networks and avoid large bills from their domestic providers.
However, in its ruling on the changes to the DMCA, the US Federal Register explained that since several providers offered unlocked versions of phones already, there was no reason that users should be legally allowed to unlock phones themselves. In it's original ruling, the Federal Register explained:
"While it is true that not every wireless device is available unlocked, and wireless carriers' unlocking polices are not free from all restrictions, the record clearly demonstrates that there is a wide range of alternatives from which consumers may choose in order to obtain an unlocked wireless phone.
"Thus, the Register determined that with respect to newly purchased phones, proponents had not satisfied their burden of showing adverse effects related to a technological protection measure."
US service provider Verizon sells pre-unlocked versions of each phone it stocks, while AT&T unlocks any device which is out of contract. Many Us phone users unlock their devices in order to be able to use them abroad with a different network, allowing them to make big cost savings.
In response, Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Mitch Stoltz told Engadget that the changes to the DMCA would deprive users who unlock their phones themselves of any legal defence, and reduce the value of the used phone market, where locked devices sell for less money:
"What's happening is not that the Copyright Office is declaring unlocking to be illegal, but rather that they're taking away a shield that unlockers could use in court if they get sued," Stoltz said. "This shows just how absurd the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is: a law that was supposed to stop the breaking of digital locks on copyrighted materials has led to the Librarian of Congress trying to regulate the used cellphone market."
An online petition to the White House to make the unlocking of phones legal again has already received more than 25,000 signatures:
"As of January 26, consumers will no longer be able unlock their phones for use on a different network without carrier permission, even after their contract has expired," the petition explains. "Consumers will be forced to pay exorbitant roaming fees to make calls while traveling abroad. It reduces consumer choice, and decreases the resale value of devices that consumers have paid for in full.
"We ask that the White House ask the Librarian of Congress to rescind this decision," the petition continues "and failing that, champion a bill that makes unlocking permanently legal."
The worst-case scenario for an individual or civil offense could be as much as a $2,500 fine. As for those planning to profit off of the act or a criminal offense -- such as a cellphone reseller -- the fine could be as high as $500,000 and include prison time.
Cellphone Websites Based in USA or OWNERS living in USA of offshore websites will be Prosecuted to full extent of the law.. Customer's unlocking phones from now will be charged.. FBI will start raiding these people for the customer invoice list.
Education and knowing the new laws will prevent any accidental jail time..
Just want to let everyone know this...
This is all true, no B u l l $ h i t...
Be safe!!
-----------------
unlock baseband htc galaxy s3 prepaid iphone 3 4 5 6 4s ipad jailbreak rtsa samsung flashing firmware Samsung note 2 root tab unlocking androidnck CMEA unlocking codes 5.0.1 6.0 6.0.1 6.1 BlackBerry (Torch/Storm/Curve/Bold/Pearl), Samsung, Motorola, LG, Sony Ericsson, HTC, Huawei, Toshiba. Unlock AT&T Tmobile Vodafone Telus Digicel MetroPCS Orange Sprint Verizon unlock apple h20 Net10 Virgin Mobile Nextel Cingular Alltel Boostmobile pageplus Telcel MysimpleMobile Simple Mobile Network Unlocking NCK Calculator
gsm1999 said:
Unlocking Phones Now Illegal in USA
In October, 2012, the US Librarian of Congress changed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to prevent users from unlocking their phones and using them to access multiple service providers. However, the change also allowed for a temporary, 90-day period before the new legislation would be put in place, during which users would be free to unlock their devices.
That period ended on Saturday, 26 January, and it is now illegal for American smartphone users to unlock their phones without permission from their service providers.
Unlocking phones allows people travelling in foreign countries to access local mobile networks and avoid large bills from their domestic providers.
However, in its ruling on the changes to the DMCA, the US Federal Register explained that since several providers offered unlocked versions of phones already, there was no reason that users should be legally allowed to unlock phones themselves. In it's original ruling, the Federal Register explained:
"While it is true that not every wireless device is available unlocked, and wireless carriers' unlocking polices are not free from all restrictions, the record clearly demonstrates that there is a wide range of alternatives from which consumers may choose in order to obtain an unlocked wireless phone.
"Thus, the Register determined that with respect to newly purchased phones, proponents had not satisfied their burden of showing adverse effects related to a technological protection measure."
US service provider Verizon sells pre-unlocked versions of each phone it stocks, while AT&T unlocks any device which is out of contract. Many Us phone users unlock their devices in order to be able to use them abroad with a different network, allowing them to make big cost savings.
In response, Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Mitch Stoltz told Engadget that the changes to the DMCA would deprive users who unlock their phones themselves of any legal defence, and reduce the value of the used phone market, where locked devices sell for less money:
"What's happening is not that the Copyright Office is declaring unlocking to be illegal, but rather that they're taking away a shield that unlockers could use in court if they get sued," Stoltz said. "This shows just how absurd the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is: a law that was supposed to stop the breaking of digital locks on copyrighted materials has led to the Librarian of Congress trying to regulate the used cellphone market."
An online petition to the White House to make the unlocking of phones legal again has already received more than 25,000 signatures:
"As of January 26, consumers will no longer be able unlock their phones for use on a different network without carrier permission, even after their contract has expired," the petition explains. "Consumers will be forced to pay exorbitant roaming fees to make calls while traveling abroad. It reduces consumer choice, and decreases the resale value of devices that consumers have paid for in full.
"We ask that the White House ask the Librarian of Congress to rescind this decision," the petition continues "and failing that, champion a bill that makes unlocking permanently legal."
The worst-case scenario for an individual or civil offense could be as much as a $2,500 fine. As for those planning to profit off of the act or a criminal offense -- such as a cellphone reseller -- the fine could be as high as $500,000 and include prison time.
Cellphone Websites Based in USA or OWNERS living in USA of offshore websites will be Prosecuted to full extent of the law.. Customer's unlocking phones from now will be charged.. FBI will start raiding these people for the customer invoice list.
Education and knowing the new laws will prevent any accidental jail time..
Just want to let everyone know this...
This is all true, no B u l l $ h i t...
Be safe!!
-----------------
unlock baseband htc galaxy s3 prepaid iphone 3 4 5 6 4s ipad jailbreak rtsa samsung flashing firmware Samsung note 2 root tab unlocking androidnck CMEA unlocking codes 5.0.1 6.0 6.0.1 6.1 BlackBerry (Torch/Storm/Curve/Bold/Pearl), Samsung, Motorola, LG, Sony Ericsson, HTC, Huawei, Toshiba. Unlock AT&T Tmobile Vodafone Telus Digicel MetroPCS Orange Sprint Verizon unlock apple h20 Net10 Virgin Mobile Nextel Cingular Alltel Boostmobile pageplus Telcel MysimpleMobile Simple Mobile Network Unlocking NCK Calculator
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This belongs elsewhere...
gsm1999 said:
Unlocking Phones Now Illegal in USA
In October, 2012, the US Librarian of Congress changed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to prevent users from unlocking their phones and using them to access multiple service providers. However, the change also allowed for a temporary, 90-day period before the new legislation would be put in place, during which users would be free to unlock their devices.
That period ended on Saturday, 26 January, and it is now illegal for American smartphone users to unlock their phones without permission from their service providers.
Unlocking phones allows people travelling in foreign countries to access local mobile networks and avoid large bills from their domestic providers.
However, in its ruling on the changes to the DMCA, the US Federal Register explained that since several providers offered unlocked versions of phones already, there was no reason that users should be legally allowed to unlock phones themselves. In it's original ruling, the Federal Register explained:
"While it is true that not every wireless device is available unlocked, and wireless carriers' unlocking polices are not free from all restrictions, the record clearly demonstrates that there is a wide range of alternatives from which consumers may choose in order to obtain an unlocked wireless phone.
"Thus, the Register determined that with respect to newly purchased phones, proponents had not satisfied their burden of showing adverse effects related to a technological protection measure."
US service provider Verizon sells pre-unlocked versions of each phone it stocks, while AT&T unlocks any device which is out of contract. Many Us phone users unlock their devices in order to be able to use them abroad with a different network, allowing them to make big cost savings.
In response, Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Mitch Stoltz told Engadget that the changes to the DMCA would deprive users who unlock their phones themselves of any legal defence, and reduce the value of the used phone market, where locked devices sell for less money:
"What's happening is not that the Copyright Office is declaring unlocking to be illegal, but rather that they're taking away a shield that unlockers could use in court if they get sued," Stoltz said. "This shows just how absurd the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is: a law that was supposed to stop the breaking of digital locks on copyrighted materials has led to the Librarian of Congress trying to regulate the used cellphone market."
An online petition to the White House to make the unlocking of phones legal again has already received more than 25,000 signatures:
"As of January 26, consumers will no longer be able unlock their phones for use on a different network without carrier permission, even after their contract has expired," the petition explains. "Consumers will be forced to pay exorbitant roaming fees to make calls while traveling abroad. It reduces consumer choice, and decreases the resale value of devices that consumers have paid for in full.
"We ask that the White House ask the Librarian of Congress to rescind this decision," the petition continues "and failing that, champion a bill that makes unlocking permanently legal."
The worst-case scenario for an individual or civil offense could be as much as a $2,500 fine. As for those planning to profit off of the act or a criminal offense -- such as a cellphone reseller -- the fine could be as high as $500,000 and include prison time.
Cellphone Websites Based in USA or OWNERS living in USA of offshore websites will be Prosecuted to full extent of the law.. Customer's unlocking phones from now will be charged.. FBI will start raiding these people for the customer invoice list.
Education and knowing the new laws will prevent any accidental jail time..
Just want to let everyone know this...
This is all true, no B u l l $ h i t...
Be safe!!
-----------------
unlock baseband htc galaxy s3 prepaid iphone 3 4 5 6 4s ipad jailbreak rtsa samsung flashing firmware Samsung note 2 root tab unlocking androidnck CMEA unlocking codes 5.0.1 6.0 6.0.1 6.1 BlackBerry (Torch/Storm/Curve/Bold/Pearl), Samsung, Motorola, LG, Sony Ericsson, HTC, Huawei, Toshiba. Unlock AT&T Tmobile Vodafone Telus Digicel MetroPCS Orange Sprint Verizon unlock apple h20 Net10 Virgin Mobile Nextel Cingular Alltel Boostmobile pageplus Telcel MysimpleMobile Simple Mobile Network Unlocking NCK Calculator
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow that's crazy
This is not related to Note 2 directly. I've already moved a handful of these types of threads to XDA General, I suggest you take this conversation there OR in the Off Topic thread here.
Locked

Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal

The Librarian of Congress decided in October 2012 that unlocking of cell phones would be removed from the exceptions to the DMCA.
As of January 26, consumers will no longer be able unlock their phones for use on a different network without carrier permission, even after their contract has expired.
Consumers will be forced to pay exorbitant roaming fees to make calls while traveling abroad. It reduces consumer choice, and decreases the resale value of devices that consumers have paid for in full.
The Librarian noted that carriers are offering more unlocked phones at present, but the great majority of phones sold are still locked.
We ask that the White House ask the Librarian of Congress to rescind this decision, and failing that, champion a bill that makes unlocking permanently legal.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cell-phones-legal/1g9KhZG7
Socializing the Cause
If you really want your support to count then be sure to promote this petition by linking it to your Facebook and/or Twitter accounts.
*bump*
Just two days left...I know we can do this! Please promote the petition on your Twitter and Facebook. We are so close!
:good:
We Did It!
100k signatures and climbing. Boom!
Thanks to everyone who supported this petition!
Qapla'!
Success!
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/its-time-legalize-cell-phone-unlocking

Categories

Resources