Forget the Cellphone Fight — We Should Be Allowed to Unlock Everything We Own

<i>Meanwhile, progress is being made to legalize cellphone unlocking. With grassroots groups leading the charge, the Obama administration announced its support for overturning the ban last week. </i><p>I'm astonished that people overwhelmingly believe this falsehood. The White House response <i>opposes</i> legalized phone unlocking, except to phones already out of contract. When they <i>say</i> they "support unlocking", they have a different interpretation of what that means:<p><i>And if you have paid for your mobile device, and aren't bound by a service agreement or other obligation, you should be able to use it on another network.</i><p><i>[...] neither criminal law nor technological locks should prevent consumers from switching carriers when they are no longer bound by a service agreement or other obligation.</i><p><a href="https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cell-phones-legal/1g9KhZG7" rel="nofollow">https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cel...</a><p>A (very) few journalists are paying attention:<p><a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/obama-s-stance-on-unlocking-cell-phones-comes-with-a-very-big-catch-20130304" rel="nofollow">http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/obama-s-stance-on-unlock...</a>

"...once we buy an object — any object — we should own it."<p>Sure, but a purchase often comes with restrictions that you agree to before deciding on the purchase. If you don't agree to the restrictions you can avoid the purchase altogether. I can buy a six hundred thousand dollar house and still not have the right to put a garden gnome on my lawn if I bought in a community with by-laws that prohibit that.<p>"Because manufacturers have copyrighted the service manuals, local mechanics can’t fix modern equipment. And today’s equipment — packed with sensors and electronics — is too complex to repair without them. That’s a problem for farmers, who can’t afford to pay the dealer’s high maintenance fees for fickle equipment."<p>So farmers are buying "fickle" equipment that is expensive to repair and the blame is put on copyright abuse? Copyright is just the mechanism used to enforce the business model. The equipment manufacturer made a business decision and this is part of their business model by choice. Any other manufacturer is free to supply equipment and compete on a different business model. If the issue is really that significant to the market then farmers will flock to the competition that provides manuals with their equipment.

Vote with your wallet. Don't buy locked phones.<p>Once the consumers know the power they have in their hands, change will come easier.

Cellphone unlocking is a step in the right direction.<p>For this "movement" to work, long-term, we will need these small wins first.

<i>Copyright laws were originally designed to protect creativity and promote innovation. But now, they are doing exactly the opposite... </i> This is a problem with many laws. Even if unintended consequences don't ruin the effect from the start, changes in the situation a law was meant to address will likely cause problems in the end. And this is assuming the law actually passed with an intention to benefit the whole, and not just some powerful subset of it. I think laws should come with expiration dates.

One "owns" (free and clear) very little in real life. Most people -- house, car, etc -- are financing their lives with debt. In these cases, ownership is a bit of a myth -- your legal rights are only contingent on your credit. With your data and your free speech-- also, this is very circumscribed in reality. Soon, the idea of "ownership" will just be made fully synthetic. We will rent the assets of our lives...just like our homes...wether this is good or bad...or just another level of clarity...is in the eye of the beholder. This will solve any debate on who "owns" a phone, or a piece of software...there will just be no more "sales"...just "leases" of the same...without the residual legal rights of true ownerhsip...nor the notion that denying such rights will be anything less than what is otherwise suspected...

I'd like to know why Sony was allowed to turn off our ability to install other OS'es on the PS3's we had _already_ bought. That's like if the dealership showed up with a mechanic and said they changed their minds and want the turbocharger back.

Anyone tried to request the manual/technical documents for a UConnect so you could flash your console and tinker with it?<p>Customer service told me tampering in any way would void the warranty on my entire vehicle.........<p>Needless to say I they didn't send me a copy of the manual.

And this is precisely why GPLv3 was invented.

Actually, companies should not be allowed to lock stuff in the first place.<p>Or more precisely, they should be able to lock stuff, but doing so should automatically license all their copyrights, patents and trademarks used in the thing they locked for everyone to use for free forever in any way without limits.<p>If they are out to fuck the public in the ass, there's no reason the public's courts and police should assist or protect them.

I'm not sure exactly what people are asking for here. There's a lot of complexity in the phone network implementations out there (scroll to the bottom of this page to get an idea of what's out there: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_HSPA" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_HSPA</a> )<p>I've owned a few unlocked phones and found that switching networks is largely useless as my phone is unlikely to support the best data features from another provider.