No one will be arrested, no one will be prosecuted and no one will go to jail for releasing the inner freedom of their cell phones. It's much the same as cell phone jammers. I use one in my high school classroom. They are illegal under FCC regulations. No one has ever been arrested for owning one, no one has ever been prosecuted for using one and no one has ever done jail time. That said, I completely agree with you. Everytime you turn around in this country you're breaking some law, usually one you have no idea you're in violation of. Keep up the good fight Amy.

I think this blog post is desperately wrong-headed. Free people sign contracts for DISCOUNTS on phone service; those contracts stipulate configurations, allowing everyone to achieve the value they want.

Bad things happen when Americans demand value for nothing. Because Congress almost always tries to give it to them. Remember McGog's "a href="http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/02/21/links_of_bratwu.html">brilliant link from yesterday?.... A blessedly rare exception.

The fact that things aren't priced as low as you like doesn't mean there's a policy problem.

Gog's link here.

I wish I hadn't bungled that link, because this is important to get right. This impulse to involve congress in petty pricing as left us here.

Crid, I'm betting the fine print doesnt differentiate between new phone people who signed a contract and new phone people who didnt.

Also failing to adhere to a civil contract with a business should not carry FEDERAL PRISON TIME, nor a fine payable to the governemnt who was not a party to your contract

Crid, a lot of those contracts have a "reserve clause" that prohibits unlocking the phone even after the contract is up. Further, the clause applies even if you obtained the phone independently of the service. And luljp's right; unlocking is at worst a tort, not a felony. The whole being captive to a service provider issue is the main thing that's preventing me from getting a smart phone of some kind.

(Actually, I kind of hope some people do get prosecuted, and the resulting uproar results in service providers having to fully disclose the terms and conditions of those "discount" phones. A lot of people don't realize that they really aren't saving any money with those deals. If it became more difficult to market phones that way, the service providers couldn't control the supply of phones any more, and buying a phone from the manufacturer or an independent dealer would get a lot cheaper.)

Come on crid, whenever those uppity homos agitate for marriage you are quick to chime in that no one gives a shit and doenst want to sit on juries dealing with their personal lives when it comes to divorce - not to mention overburdening the courts with a whole extra 1% of cases

Wouldnt the same disinterest and overburdening arguments hold true for government prosecutions of $200-$300 civil contracts between one guy and a phone company?

You're in love with me, and you won't be ignored. We know this...

> a lot of those contracts have a "reserve clause"
> that prohibits unlocking the phone even after
> the contract is up.

Whose? Specifically... I want to know which contracts for which companies with which phones. What judge or jury would side with a phone company after a guy has completed two or three years of monthlies on an old telephone?

> Wouldnt the same disinterest and overburdening
> arguments hold true for government prosecutions
> of $200-$300 civil contracts between one guy
> and a phone company?

Not sure of your point... Can you rephrase that?

I think if every consumer smugly decided that they ought to be able to return rental cars with badly dented fenders, Congress would probably take steps on behalf of rental car companies, especially if those companies were the shining star of a torpid economy, as telecom is during this recession. And yes, congress would overstep and fuck things up.

But to presume this is about free expression is deeply pathetic.

'Oh, but all the disappointment in the
world is wrapped up in a bundle, and only the 
playful Boing Boing can show us the way home....!'

IOW, people have weird & emotionally-clouded (& perhaps indefensible) meanings for the phrase "my phone."

What judge or jury would side with a phone company after a guy has completed two or three years of monthlies on an old telephone?

Maybe the one who awards morons for spilling coffee on themselves, or those juries that have sided with the TSA. Plenty of people eager to be slaves to/for the government

The carrier provides a contracted length of service because the carrier is subsidizing the cost of the phone. That's why you get the latest smart phone for nearly half price if you sign a two-year contract.

Those contracts carry a penalty clause for ending the service before the contracted time - so the carrier can get the phone subsidy back ... and to discourage switching.

So, if I pay the penalty and unlock my phone - it's my phone. I've paid for it.

And if I pay full price, why can't I unlock it?

This is nothing more than another buggy whip manufacturer seeking government protection for a business model that is becoming outdated.

The music and entertainment industry is undergoing dramatic change, leaving the middlemen scrambling to find a place in a delivery system that no longer needs them. The phone industry is poised to undergo that same sort of change.

And the publishing industry, too.

Coney gets it... The whole tone of this thing is cheesy. More later.

Isn't this a rerun?

Not that it's not an issue. Still, if I tell a judge my phone is 5 years old and show him that Apple SELLS iPhones unlocked, how can this be upheld?

It's similar to that old RIAA suit about copying. The major player was Sony - who, all the while, SOLD DVD Duplicators to the general public.

Yes, the law should be dismissed, and with prejudice.

Quoting only the Boing Boing guy:

> This is a violation of our property rights.

That's what I was saying about the mistaken meaning of "my phone"... Conan understands: These contracts are essentially big, smelly leases.

> if you can't alter the settings on your phone,
> do you even own it?

And since you can't paint a rented sedan, should you call it "my car" when you offer to drive half the family to Denny's after Aunt Bessie's funeral, while your brother-in-law carries the rest in his minivan? I say call it whatever you want, but remember to gas it up before you get back to the airport.

It feels like this columnist badly wants to be admired...

> On January 27, 2013, I published an article in the
> Atlantic, The Most ridiculous law of 2013 (So Far):
> It is Now a Crime to Unlock Your Smartphone,
> which brought more attention to this issue and was
> read by more than a million people. Despite this
> attention, Congress refused to act.

...and to be remembered for holding his breath and turning blue:

> At the time, I called their failure to address
> this issue a 'dereliction of duty.' The SOPA generation...

Suddenly I've been sucked into some sort of family quarrel... Or identified as the generational adversary!... Yet this exclusion brings no chill. I want people who slip extraordinary power into my sports coat to be well-paid.

> …sparked a White House petition to allow

This guy can't imagine responding except through government. Specifically, he can't imagine influencing events by taking his business elsewhere, or expressing his concern more convincingly. He moves directly to authoritarian change, the kind that comes from people with guns who levy taxes.

> Signed,
> The people

The people can be silly. The silliest passage may be this:

> The decision created even higher thresholds
> to entry for new market participants, which
> hinders competition and leads to less innovation.

The number of competitors in the cell market is limited for very good reasons, with punishing levels of regulation being foremost. A few small carriers plow onward, and God Bless 'em.

Perhaps more importantly, Android is a (mostly) open-source platform, one derived from Linux, history's proudest exemplar of open-source development. The big players continue to squabble in court, but if you build a cellphone, you can build it around Android for close to free. And as if that weren't enough, a more-direct Linux platform hits the streets this year. The people in that project are doing their damnedest to make smartphones cheaper and better. But all that begs the question:

Is there any product in 2013 with MORE innovation than cell phones?... A market so eager and lucrative that consumer desires are LESS confounded by law and policy, even in the tumble of a hideous —and perhaps permanent— recession?

The guy sitting next to me at work had a three-year-old Android when I (finally) bought a modern smartphone in November. He's a brilliant tech who'd unlocked his old one years ago, and was running the latest software on a slow handset... But when he saw mine, he had to run out and buy one. (I paid full price for an unlocked handset, and check the market for service prices every month. He went with AT&T for a subsidized unit. Neither of us carries a shred of regret.)

How many cell users weep with resentment because they can't unlock three-year-old phones? Have you met anyone who wanted to unlock a phone —one for which the contract had expired— but didn't? (And if the contract hasn't expired, then there's no issue on the table, right?)

The sad part of this is that I could have gone either way in the 2:46 PM comment. We can all imagine Congress doing market-suppressive things on behalf of phone companies... But with three seconds' reflection, we can as readily imagine Congress doing market-suppressive things on behalf of consumers, who relentlessly demand more for their money than its worth. (See health care, education, real estate, insurance of all kinds, investment markets, etc.)

What we CAN'T imagine is Congress staying the fuck out of the way of people who're getting their needs met.

"Intellectual property law" isn't what's "run amok." The problem is in the hearts of Americans on each side of the transaction.

C'mon, that was a good one. You may applaud if you wish.

Anyone have any experience with these peeps? I've heard I can keep my full G4 (T-Mo) bandwidth, but it never says so explicitly on the site.

Also, can someone please admire me for using "beg the question" correctly, i.e. petitio principii? That almost never happens. But I came through for you, Amy's humble blog visitors. Buy me a glass of cab.

Crid, this law applies to those who PURCHASE the phone as well.

And you can paint a rented car - and the car company can sue you - the car company should not be allowed to have the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT JAIL YOU

But please, explain why you think its a good idea to jam federal dockets and jail cells and fine half a fucking million dollars over civil contracts that are worth less than a grand if breached?

You won't be ignored!

You won't name anyone who's been jailed for this, either.

I like how Boing Boing people have exotic names. It shows that they're free thinkers… Daring and original… Ready to cast off yesterday's strictures of cant and tradition to embrace new forms of living, of loving, of being… They're blazing a trail, and they want us to follow…

…Or maybe they're full of shit.

Seriously, an author who describes his work as "controversial"—

Yale Law Fellow, columnist and policy expert Derek Khanna authored the controversial House Republican Study Committee memo “Three Myths about Copyright Law.”

The law passed less than a month ago, even if charges were filed on someone the same day they wouldnt have gone to trial yet

Must we wait for someone to be pinched by an unjust law before we protest?