Stupid Congress. If I own it, it's mine. I should be able to hit it with a hammer, microwave it, unscrew all the widdly screws, or even unlock it.

The same for copy protection schemes: if I own a DVD, there is no sane reason to prevent me from looking at all the itty bitte ones and zeros. If I want to decrypt them, there's no sane reason to make this illegal.

The DMCA was bought and paid for by corporate interests, and the collective Congressional brain was (as usual) out for a four martini lunch.

Problem is, it's not really yours. You got it cheap in return for signing up to a contract. Effectively you're paying it off in installments.

I don't see why the DCMA needs to be involved at all here though, don't carriers include a financial penalty for breaking your contract that reimburses them for the phone subsidy if you switch carriers? That's perfectly reasonable and doesn't involve mucking around with the DCMA.

I once bought a phone from Telstra (Australian phone carrier) where they made that super-transparent by splitting the service charges and the phone repayments on the bill - this was a free up front deal. If you wanted to leave early you had to pay off the balance of the phone, plus an additional penalty (I think based on how many months you had to go) because you were getting a reduced per minute call rate in return for the 2 year sign up. Fair enough, you can't take a discount then welsh on your side of the deal.

It seems fair enough, I agree. If you buy the phone outright, do whatever you want with it. If you want a cheaper phone/data plan, then agree to use a certain carrier.

Although this point is moot in the case of certain phones only available on certain carriers. But if that is the case, somebody brought home a paycheck to make that deal of exclusivity.

Certainly you would agree that your own intellectual property ought only be used and payed for in a way that benefits you?

@Ltw: That's precisely the point. If you unlock a phone, or decrypt a DVD, or something similar: This *may* be a violation of a contract that you signed. In which case, the company can sue you to recover their financial damages. Since, in fact, there aren't any financial damages, they won't bother.

The DMCA makes these trivial contract issues into federal offenses. That is simply insane.

"The same for copy protection schemes: if I own a DVD, there is no sane reason to prevent me from looking at all the itty bitte ones and zeros. If I want to decrypt them, there's no sane reason to make this illegal."

Funny. I don't see this at all from people who make their living generating media.

Screw those people, huh?

@Kay: "Certainly you would agree that your own intellectual property ought only be used and payed for in a way that benefits you?"

Well, sure. I would also like a law that requires everyone in the world to send me a dollar.

What I want, and what I get are two different things. Once my "intellectual property" is public, there is no particular reason to suppose I have any control over it any more. Should I? How much? What terms?

This is precisely the debate about patents and copyrights. The media companies would like to have full control forever.

Let's look at the larger picture. Imagine if all classical music, all classic literature, etc were under copyright. Every time the school wants to use a Mozart piece, they have to pay; every time the church choir sings the Hallelujah Chorus, they have to pay. Our world would be a much poorer place - these things are part of our cultural heritage!

I submit that Mickey Mouse, the music of the Beetles, the Lord of the Rings, and many other creations from decades ago are also now part of our cultural heritage. All of these should be in the public domain, despite the interests of the individual corporations.

This post is my intellectual property. Can I charge you a dollar now that you've read it?

@Radwaste: Two points:

First, if I purchase a copyrighted work, I have an established right to make private copies. If I purchase a DVD, and the media company is customer-unfriendly enough to put copy protection on it, why should it be a federal crime for me to break that copy protection, in order to put the movie onto my media server?

Second, The purpose of both patents and copyrights is supposed to be to give the creator a *short* time of monopoly as an incentive to create new works. After this *short* time of monopoly, the works are supposed to be in the public domain. The current situation of copyright lasting over a century is perverse.

Funny. I don't see this at all from people who make their living generating media.

The same people who claim it is illegal for me to make an archival copy? or to even play their media on my chosen operating system that is otherwise unsupported?

The same people that have essentially turned copyright into a perpetual monopoly?

Fuck 'em. Of course, for the most part I'm not purchasing music (for years and years), and ebooks are dangerous (you may not really own your copy), and I go to movies infrequently. I wasn't put here to be a source of revenue - especially for people who treat me like I'm a thief from the start.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/the-danger-of-ebooks.html

Regarding Digital copy protections, buy blank media.

Compnaies got congress to include a hidden tax in the purchase of blank media under the notion that only those looking to subvert the copy protections would ever buy it.

Therefore one could argue that you've already paid a civil/criminal fine and are subsequently judgement proof under double jepordy

> You got it cheap in return for signing up
> to a contract. Effectively you're paying
> it off in installments.

LTW is precisely correct: It's not your hardware until the end (or the lawful termination) of the contract. Renters, as a rule, are not allowed to rebuild the properties they rent to suit their tastes.

I purchased my own smartphone at full price for just that reason: I can save money by having the liberty to juggle vendors and configurations as I see fit. It's an advantage of being a techy person (or at least of having a lot of techy friends.)

Get this— Garage mechanics can acquire and maintain a good car for less money than you can, jewelry store owners save money on a engagement rings, and airline pilots can often find a bargain flight.

IJS, people shouldn't think they have a right to the lowest "price" they've ever heard, regardless of context.

I am reminded of a joke online the other day of a child reading a book with his grandmother....

"Look Johnny, an i-pad made of trees!"

This is why I prefer books to e-readers, land-lines to cell phones, and dvd's to downloads. Too many things to pay for, fix and upgrade.

They getcha comin, they getcha goin.

The DMCA was an abortion of the commercial interests.

I have a friend with a 28 month old and 12 month old child. They have lost more than one DVD to normal child negligence. That he has to break copyright laws to make copies to stand up to the rigors of parenthood bothers me. He doesn't care because he knows that he is technically breaking the law as well, but will probably never be persecuted for it.

But even some know the reality such as the Great Ormond Street Hospital and realize that copyright doesn't live forever. Disney hasn't.

As far as phones -- I have no problems with the no unlock because the corporation is paying the difference in the "discounted" price. The only issue I have is that the phone comes with foolbook and totaltwits built in and wants to upgrade at the cost of my monthly download bytes. I have to root the phone to uninstall the shit. That irritates the fuck out of me.

ltw, I had to fight for over a month with ATT to unlock my iPhone 3G to sell it. I had to leave them because my new place had no towers close enough to give me a signal so when my contract expired they didn't want to do shit for me, they tried to give me a free booster instead so I could use my phone in the house but nowhere else knowing that I was not tying up one of their towers, couldn't use it in my entire home, and still wanted to charge me the full price (no discount due to no phone payments) bullshit.

My friend in Japan has to pay full price for phones but pays a low price for the contract, if they matched that price post-subsidy then I would consider the plan a deal.

Well, yeah, NakkiNyan, simply don't buy a locked phone. I didn't because I knew it was dumb. Actually, once I did, but it was prepaid and the purchase contract had a fixed price ($50) for unlocking. Read. The. Fucking. Contract.

Don't start hypothesising deals that don't exist. Choose from what is being offered. The price of liberty (i.e. being able to shop around for rates) is paying for the phone upfront.

I didn't say it was wrong to unlock it. a_random_guy, and I believe I pointed out it shouldn't be a federal crime, but a contract matter. So it appears I agree with you.

The only thing that really irritates me about phone plans is that if I want to legally use the bandwidth I've already paid for on another device, I need to pay extra. I'm already paying for the data plan I'm using on my phone. I don't use nearly as much as I'm paying for. I shouldn't have to pay again to use that same data plan if I want to tether my phone -- or risk bricking the thing.

> I had to leave them because my new place had
> no towers close enough to give me a signal
> so when my contract expired they didn't want
> to do shit for me

I don't understand.

When the contract expired, what control did they have over your phone at all? At that point you owned it free and clear, correct?

When the contract expired, neither of you had obligations to the other, right? I mean, you weren't planning on doing "shit for" them either. Correct?

Nor did the contract specify that they were going to surrender any value if it turned out that your life plan required a move to someplace without towers. Correct?

Complaints of this type remind me of what brought us to the housing meltdown. Americans decided that no matter what contracts they'd signed or what risks they'd taken, corporate forces were expected to deliver as much value as possible. Meanwhile, those corporations (who had better access to politicians that individual voters do) insisted on being paid, no matter their loses to irate consumers.

And here we are.

This is why I bought my phone outright. I took the risk of paying today more rather than blaming future loses on a "contract" should I need to leave California in the next two years.

And once again I look back to see that LTW has this covered:

> Read. The. Fucking. Contract.
>
> Don't start hypothesising deals that
> don't exist.

moar