What is Digg?59 Comments
- WiseWeasel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+33How is the software to lock a phone a 'copy protection device'? It's not preventing the copying of any copyrighted works, but merely limiting it to a particular carrier network. I don't see how the DMCA even applies, unless they're distributing someone else's code without permission.
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -0/+25It's legal to do it but illegal to provide the tools to do it? Isn't it kinda like saying it's legal to eat but illegal to buy/provide food to eat?
- woofers07, on 10/10/2007, -3/+24Nothing makes me happier than AT&T, an evil Bush loving corporation, getting screwed over by a few kids with some electrical engineering knowledge.
- ilikevag, on 10/10/2007, -3/+21More like its legal to smoke if you're underage but illegal to sell cigarettes to minors
- fanboydcs, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14its illegal to make profit off unlocking cell phones in the us, but it is legal to unlock your own cell phone and to use a unlocked phone.
- acr2001, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13All these morons at AT&T are going to do is prevent the product from being sold commercially - it will be free.
Do they even think before they sue people? And let's not forget that AT&T loves to spy on their customers for the government. - Sirbighands, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Absinthe is illegal to buy but not illegal to consume. Such a thing isn't so unheard of.
- ravenmuffin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Is there any actual evidence AT&T have threatened UniquePhones?
Last I heard, the guy claimed to have got a 3 am phone call. That's it. Now there's a dodgy video up on Engadget.
Yet, the press is reporting it as fact that AT&T is going after him. - n0xin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7I would venture to guess that AT&T's team of lawyers has been preparing this suit since they signed their exclusive contract with Apple...
- thedragon4453, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Indeed. AT&T trying to stop this from happening is probably going to have about as much success as the RIAA has with stopping file sharing.
More than likely, AT&T will just alienate current and potential customers, and the phones will continue to be unlocked. - Zizhou, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Watch out! This post has been encrypted with ROT26 protection! By reading and understanding this, you are in violation of the DMCA!
- Kappa00, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6At least in this case it would eventually become legal.
- adougherty, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5The DMCA also states that it's illegal to attempt to understand anything that has been encrypted. The idea was so companies could use basic encryption algorythms, and no worry about hackers, but the reality of the matter is it allows someone to effectively call something encrypted (like just using ROT-13), and sue anyone who even looks at it.
In this case UniquePhones most likely had to understand the iPhones locking mechanism in order to by pass it, so they are in violation... well if they were a US company, anyway - zhulien, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5hahaha, unlocking a phone WAS illegal?
- HappyScrappy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Again, there is no actual evidence AT&T threatened to sue these people over their unlock.
The people involved were already acting shady and upon being beaten to the punch by someone else stated that they were being sued.
It's ridiculous to write an article explaining the details behind something which there is no confirmation is true in the first place. - zitterbewegung, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6IANAL and IIRC there is a loophole in the DMCA that allows you to circumvent the protection on phones.
- kennybain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3yes!
- Wilddigi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Apple should have stayed in the Mac & iPod business instead of pulling this iPhone crap
- HonoredMule, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3So its legal to unlock phones, but illegal to profit by unlocking phones. How very...capitalist?? No, wait--monopolist by any means possible--yeah, that's the one.
Good old anti-anti-trust DMCA. - h4rdcor3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Ya know what, the lawyers and big wigs do know that it's legal, but they just can't sit on their asses and do nothing. They got to show their investors that they are doing something. What is easier than quick writing up a law suit.
- Xtopherous, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Does anyone have a copy of the contract that the iPhone people allegedly entered into (knowingly or not)?
- idean360, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Going to NY Buffalo to buy one tomorrow. Canada + iPhone = happy. Until then, there are hacks and a 1 hour trip to the border. Do it now.
- ljfrench, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2In actuality the iPhone can easily be purchased from Apple without requiring one to sign a contract. That inherently means you're not bound by an agreement with ATT. You may, however, by bound by the license agreement in iTunes or by Federal statutes such as the DMCA. It seems that there's a solid argument that the DMCA doesn't apply because you are not circumventing copy protection. It may also not apply because the circumvention is not being applied to allow copying copyrighted material. The original software is intact on the original device. Unlocking a phone may be looked at similar to installing new door locks in your car.
Someone should really do a complete legal analysis. Actually, I'd be pretty surprised if there aren't a whole bunch of people checking it out right now. - kodek, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3How about you leave phone preference out of your comment and keep your credibility?
When you buy an iPhone, you're not signing any contracts. - chewyfruitloop, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1i didn't know US law applied in northern ireland.........
wouldn't this be a civil case if they want to prosecute it, or would we end up with a similar situation to the dimitri skylov case with acrobat a few years ago? - TKn00b, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Thems fightin' werds round these parts boy.
- SirBotchness, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1keep on supporting AT&T by buying a 600 dollar phone.
- SyberMile, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2The prevailing consensus of interpretation of United States law and regulations among American absinthe connoisseurs is that it is probably legal to purchase such a product for personal use in the U.S. It is prohibited to sell items meant for human consumption which contain thujone derived from Artemisia species.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1erm no. at&t was the only one that offered to share a part of the profits with apple, which was what apple demanded.
- Tippis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Sif! I decoded it with Swedish ROT29, and there is nothing you can do about it! Bwahahaha.
- KSUdesigner, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"It's ridiculous to write an article explaining the details behind something which there is no confirmation is true in the first place"
You must be new here. Welcome to digg. - Mizzike, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2If you didn't know, the only reason AT&T has an exclusive contract with Apple is because AT&T is the only network that said they'd invest in the R&D to create the visual voicemail backend. No other carrier would support Apple in its little endeavor. So, AT&T decides to spends lots of dollars on creating this visual voicemail backend in exchance for Apple's commitment to an exclusive 2-year agreement.
Interesting story, since it's totally LEGAL to unlock the iPhone. The main difference, it seems, is that the iPhone is devoid of the visual voicemail feature when used with other carriers such as T-Mo. - pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1correct me if i'm wrong, but drug busts seem to always be about possession and/or distribution, not consumption. seems like the same idiocy.
- locojones, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1AT&T will not lose. THe DMCA is on their side.
- locojones, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Not anymore it's not. A license has been granted for the first US made brand of absinthe since the prohibition - Lucid.
- locojones, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yes, but only when the sole purpose for the unlocking is to use it on a wireless carrier's network. When you choose to profit from doing so, the purpose is no longer a solitary one, and therefore no longer exempt from the DMCA prohibitions.
- Genma, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2at&t just wants to say "dammit if we can't profit off this phone no one can."
- s1mph0ny, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1For those too lazy to read the links...
"When we spoke to AT&T on Friday to get comment for the iPhoneSimFree.com story, not one, but two spokespeople told us that the company had no comment. "No comment," in this case, apparently meant that they were lawyering up."
"The purpose of the software lock appears to be limited to restricting the owner’s use of the mobile handset to support a business model, rather than to protect access to a copyrighted work itself."
So yes, AT&T is suing them, and they will lose. - aliguana, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1unlocking may be legal, if you follow legal means to do it. thing is, if you're using a software hack, you're modifying the firmware, surely? How is that any more legal than modifying OSX to run on vanilla PCs? (both of which you shouldnt' HAVE to do, ideally)
- thedragon4453, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I don't think your reasoning applies here. You may be coming into my house, but you didn't pay me to own my house. I would say its more akin to buying the shoes you wore into my house. If I loan you my shoes, or even rent them, then I still own them and I still say what you can do with them. Want to go running? Too bad, I don't want my shoes scuffed.
However, if I sell you the shoes, what right should I have to tell you what to do with them? Its like if Ford sells you a car, and then tells you you may only drive the car on roads named after trees, because they get a quarter every time you do. So if I buy an iPhone from Apple, just because they would prefer I use AT&T doesn't mean I should, or even have an obligation to. Of course, if you sign a contract saying that you will only use the phone on AT&T as a condition of buying the phone, then you are pretty much stuck with AT&T. - Scheissen, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2By your bad grammar I assume you think AT&T will lose. I hope they do, the justice system should not be occupied dealing with a company's restrictive system that they couldn't keep under wraps. It is the company's fault not to protect it and it is just unlocking it, nothing is violating the copyright protection.
- solidsquid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0This is why people are talking about subsidising the product. Since you have bought the phone and neither company is paying you anything to stay on their side, it is your property to do with what you want. This includes unlocking it. It doesn't matter what the policies are either, since there was a similar case with the Xbox and linux which resulted in it being pointed out that the customer owns the product, they don't rent it, so they have every right to put a different OS on it if they want.
- zippy757, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1As usual...facts don't matter for the DIGGERS:
1- unlocking a cell is only legal until 2009, when the provision expires, at which time it will be illegal, if not renewed
2 - You can't make profit from the activity...selling unlocking software, or selling your unlocked phone on ebay are illegal
3 - AT&T isn't suing anyone. "NO COMMENT" means no comment...it doesn't mean their suing anyone.
4 - AT&T has spent a GREAT DEAL OF MONEY promoting the iphone to the EXCLUSION of other phone providers... they want their ROI on those funds.
5 - When you bought the iphone, you entered into a CONTRACT. Have some ethics and balls and honor the damn thing. If you don't want to, dont buy the iphone.
, - ohyeahilovegirl, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0In need of an iPhone.... i got the software to unlock it all i need now is the Phone! Will pay $300-400 for a used iphone, prefer 8GB one
- solidsquid, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Only if the company releases it in the US, and even then it's questionable. Since the company is based outside the US the DMCA might not apply, and if it doesn't then there's no case for AT&T. The only provision in the DMCA on the side of AT&T is the decryption of the code on the iphone, not the unlocking of the phone or the distribution of tools to unlock it. Since the company made the software in a country outside the juristiction of the DMCA they could quite feasably get to release it without staying within the guidelines
- codered1322, on 10/10/2007, -0/+01 - It's 2007.
The rest of your points don't matter then. - harrygoaz, on 12/12/2007, -0/+0In the story "iPhone is 'in a Completely Different League'", the review discusses option of going the official route or "picking one up in the US, like I did". I guess Apple is more interested in selling phones than they are worried about phone hackers.
http://www.reviewsofcellphones.com/samsung - jonr, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1his is soooo stupid. It's like buying an iHammer and only allowed to use AT&T nails. Do marketers and lawyers even think before they make this stuff up?
Thank EU for banning silly things like this. - AlienEric, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0You guys can buy the unlocked iPhone online, free international delivery. The Apple’s iPhone is a piece of revolutionary mobile phone and years ahead of other PDAs and Smartphones. For iPhone pictures and iPhone videos and buy iPhone online, please visit http://www.iPhone-Singapore.com/?r=dae
-
Show 51 - 60 of 60 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is