Unlocking smartphones is illegal?

[BigBallinStalin]

According to the librarian of congress.

http://www.livescience.com/26541-unlock ... legal.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... ne/272552/
http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/28/surpr ... -carriers/

[_sabotage_]

In Hong Kong it's illegal to lock a smartphone, or any phone, that's why the first factory unlocked iphone was sold there.

[DoomYoshi]

I hate all laws against technology. From now, I only buy open-source.

It's just fucking bullshit. If I buy a computer, I can put whatever the hell software on it I want. f*ck these fucking assholes.

This is more evidence why we need the right to bear arms. It is a perfect instance in which everyday Joes should be storming Congress with bazookas.

List of Apple Armaments:

1,458,697 People armed with $500 billion worth of weapons, including 5 000 nuclear missiles.

If all these people are working for Apple to take away my rights, who is working for me?

Absolutely nobody.

Spamming and Quadruple postings are not cool. Next time edit your posts to include new information if someone has posted yet.

[_sabotage_]

Doom, If you live in Halifax, come to a meeting I'm hosting at Dal tomorrow.

[DoomYoshi]

Doom, If you live in Halifax, come to a meeting I'm hosting at Dal tomorrow.

Sorry, I'm in South Ontario.

[xeno]

I heard a petition was recently passed to make unlocking phones legal. I bought the damned thing why wouldn't I control the software on it. I've switched to a galaxy anyway, apple scares the shit out of me.

http://www.ubergizmo.com/2013/02/illegal-smartphone-unlocking-white-house-petition-receives-100k-signatures/

[Haggis_McMutton]

I find pleasure in watching these behemoth inflexible companies ineffectually flailing against the merciless technological progress.

Basically:


And with 3D printers coming along soon that might change.

[Timminz]

Just another example of the awesome amount of freedom citizens of the US have, compared to the rest of the world.

[AndyDufresne]

More things should be locked. I'm going to start locking my cereal so it can only be used with chocolate milk.


--Andy

[TA1LGUNN3R]

I feel similarly about gaming consoles. Or anything you purchase that the manufacturer tries to retain control over.

-TG

[Fruitcake]

I hate all laws against technology. From now, I only buy open-source.

Boom, 100% spot on. I am a member of the UK open source community and personally think Bill Gates is the Anti Christ (but then I am mad)

[BigBallinStalin]

I feel similarly about gaming consoles. Or anything you purchase that the manufacturer tries to retain control over.

-TG

I want to agree, but would you lend me your ear eyes?

When one purchases a gaming console, presumably they exercise full property rights over the product. Property rights include use rights, which means that you may use your product however you see fit. Therefore, one should be able to do as they please with a gaming console.

However, suppose we have a voluntary exchange between you and a seller. The product traded is a gaming console for x-amount of your money. Generally, there is some contract which you agree to that curbs your use rights (e.g. when signing onto Playstation network, the console asks if you agree to the terms, which IIRC prohibit tampering with the console's hardware).

If you agree to the Playstation Network contract, tamper with the hardware, and they discover this, then what happens?

(1) You can no longer use the Playstation network.
(2) Some people are sued or IIRC issued a 'stop and desist' court order, or something to that effect.


I have no problem with #1 because it's their network, the contract was voluntarily agreed to, and then it was violated. Exile is an appropriate punishment.
I have a problem with #2 because although the contract was violated, the individual still retains the property rights of the gaming console. The punishment of #2 goes too far.


Are we in agreement so far?

[TA1LGUNN3R]

I feel similarly about gaming consoles. Or anything you purchase that the manufacturer tries to retain control over.

-TG

I want to agree, but would you lend me your ear eyes?

When one purchases a gaming console, presumably they exercise full property rights over the product. Property rights include use rights, which means that you may use your product however you see fit. Therefore, one should be able to do as they please with a gaming console.

However, suppose we have a voluntary exchange between you and a seller. The product traded is a gaming console for x-amount of your money. Generally, there is some contract which you agree to that curbs your use rights (e.g. when signing onto Playstation network, the console asks if you agree to the terms, which IIRC prohibit tampering with the console's hardware).

If you agree to the Playstation Network contract, tamper with the hardware, and they discover this, then what happens?

(1) You can no longer use the Playstation network.
(2) Some people are sued or IIRC issued a 'stop and desist' court order, or something to that effect.


I have no problem with #1 because it's their network, the contract was voluntarily agreed to, and then it was violated. Exile is an appropriate punishment.
I have a problem with #2 because although the contract was violated, the individual still retains the property rights of the gaming console. The punishment of #2 goes too far.


Are we in agreement so far?

I'm in full agreement with you. I've got no problem with (1). If, e.g., Microsoft wants to provide an online service like Xbox Live, then I understand they want to keep it free from detrimental hacks. You agree to "rent" that service. I personally think it's a bit excessive- I've heard of incidents where even hacks that have no effect on multiplayer or DLC (like single player hacks), and they just routinely ban those users as well, even though they may be on the Silver service. Basically, just connecting to Live will shut you down.

I could only support (2) if they could prove that the hack was used to steal property or service from the online service (movies, games, etc.). Otherwise it's just Microsoft, Sony, et al being intrusive.

-TG

[BigBallinStalin]

I feel similarly about gaming consoles. Or anything you purchase that the manufacturer tries to retain control over.

-TG

I want to agree, but would you lend me your ear eyes?

When one purchases a gaming console, presumably they exercise full property rights over the product. Property rights include use rights, which means that you may use your product however you see fit. Therefore, one should be able to do as they please with a gaming console.

However, suppose we have a voluntary exchange between you and a seller. The product traded is a gaming console for x-amount of your money. Generally, there is some contract which you agree to that curbs your use rights (e.g. when signing onto Playstation network, the console asks if you agree to the terms, which IIRC prohibit tampering with the console's hardware).

If you agree to the Playstation Network contract, tamper with the hardware, and they discover this, then what happens?

(1) You can no longer use the Playstation network.
(2) Some people are sued or IIRC issued a 'stop and desist' court order, or something to that effect.


I have no problem with #1 because it's their network, the contract was voluntarily agreed to, and then it was violated. Exile is an appropriate punishment.
I have a problem with #2 because although the contract was violated, the individual still retains the property rights of the gaming console. The punishment of #2 goes too far.


Are we in agreement so far?

I'm in full agreement with you. I've got no problem with (1). If, e.g., Microsoft wants to provide an online service like Xbox Live, then I understand they want to keep it free from detrimental hacks. You agree to "rent" that service. I personally think it's a bit excessive- I've heard of incidents where even hacks that have no effect on multiplayer or DLC (like single player hacks), and they just routinely ban those users as well, even though they may be on the Silver service. Basically, just connecting to Live will shut you down.

I could only support (2) if they could prove that the hack was used to steal property or service from the online service (movies, games, etc.). Otherwise it's just Microsoft, Sony, et al being intrusive.

-TG

RE: your exception to #2. In other words, the punishment of #2 is acceptable if someone tampered with the gaming console so that they could steal duplicate PS3 games from the interwebz and then play them on the gaming console, right?

[TA1LGUNN3R]

ummm.... I guess. If we are to assume that PS3 games' software is licensed property.

-TG