One of the reasons that we're so concerned about the weak proposals introduced in Congress concerning mobile phone unlocking is that they all seek to add yet another layer of duct tape to outdated copyright law. As we've pointed out for years, every time technology bumps up against copyright, rather than fix the problem, Congress tries to rush in with some duct tape narrowly focused on just that issue. It creates a huge mess of a law and does little to nothing to fix the actual problem.

Kyle Wiens has an excellent opinion piece over at Wired that points out that the focus shouldn't be on unlocking mobile phones, but on our rights to unlock everything we own. This is what ownership is supposed to be about -- and it's that right of ownership that copyright maximalists, and companies abusing copyright law, have been seeking to strip from the public over and over again.

We really don’t own our stuff anymore (at least not fully); the manufacturers do. Because modifying modern objects requires access to information: code, service manuals, error codes, and diagnostic tools. Modern cars are part horsepower, part high-powered computer. Microwave ovens are a combination of plastic and microcode. Silicon permeates and powers almost everything we own.

This is a property rights issue, and current copyright law gets it backwards, turning regular people — like students, researchers, and small business owners — into criminals. Fortune 500 telecom manufacturer Avaya, for example, is known for suing service companies, accusing them of violating copyright for simply using a password to log in to their phone systems. That’s right: typing in a password is considered “reproducing copyrighted material.”

This is a big and important issue, and the fight over mobile phone unlocking is just one symptom of a broken system that is in desperate need of fixing. And yet, as we noted, this issue isn't even touched in the Copyright Office's call for copyright reform.

As Wiens points out, this is not what copyright law is supposed to to.

It hasn’t always been that way. Copyright laws were originally designed to protect creativity and promote innovation. But now, they are doing exactly the opposite: They’re being used to keep independent shops from fixing new cars. They’re making it almost impossible for farmers to maintain their equipment. And, as we’ve seen in the past few weeks, they’re preventing regular people from unlocking their own cellphones.

If we really believe in true property rights, there should never be a question about the legality of unlocking a product you legally purchased.

We've written plenty about the Librarian of Congress' decision to remove the DMCA anti-circumvention exemption that applied to mobile phone unlocking, along with the White House petition that got over 100,000 votes, and the White House's quick response to say that it agreed that phone unlocking should be legal. But for reasons that are not at all clear, it seemed to think it was something that could be fixed by telco law, even though it was copyright law that got us into the mess.

Lawyer Jonathan Band, who works for the Association of Research Libraries, has put out a really excellent short legal primer on the issue, which is a highly readable 8 pages, and covers all the necessary details and background, including a few things you probably have not read elsewhere (such as how some court cases had already narrowed the old "exemption" anyway). However, the most interesting part to me is where he talks about how the White House's position is likely in violation of existing international trade agreements and almost certainly against what the administration itself, via the USTR, is proposing in the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) discussions:

The White House position, however, may be inconsistent with the U.S. proposal in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) and existing obligations in the KoreaU.S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS) and other free trade agreements to which the United States is a party. This demonstrates the danger of including in international agreements rigid provisions that do not accommodate technological development.

KORUS obligates the United States and Korea to adopt provisions concerning the technological protection measures based on section 1201 of the DMCA. Furthermore, KORUS mandates that the parties "confine exceptions and limitations" to the circumvention prohibition to a specific list of exceptions that matches the specific exceptions in the DMCA. Cell phone unlocking, of course, is not on that list. KORUS does allow for administrative procedures like the DMCA's rule-making to adopt temporary exemptions, but not permanent ones. The challenge before Congress is to devise a permanent exception for cell phone unlocking that does not breach the obligations under KORUS and other similar free trade agreements.

The draft text for TPP is secret, but the U.S. proposal for the IP chapter was leaked two years ago. The leaked proposal contained KORUS's closed list of exceptions. Because TPP is currently under negotiation, there still is time to make sure that the TPP does not prevent national governments, including the United States, from amending their laws to permit the unlocking of cell phones and other wireless devices.

This is why we find international agreements like ACTA, TPP and now TAFTA so worrisome. Even when they do not directly change the law, they often lock us into bad laws such that we cannot easily fix them. This is one small example, but an important one. Hopefully, the White House and the USTR will (1) release the current negotiating text for the IP chapter on the TPP so that knowledgeable people can go through and it make sure these little "easter eggs" are not present (2) make a clear and definitive statement that it will not agree to any international agreement that would do something as ridiculous as tie Congress's hands when it comes to allowing people to unlock their mobile phones.

Ah, Congress. Even when they're doing something, they're good at not really accomplishing much. We've already written about some various proposals on Capitol Hill to respond to the White House's request for Congress to make phone unlocking legal, contrary to the Librarian of Congress' decision to remove it from DMCA exemptions. So far, as we noted, all of the bills really failed to tackle the real issue, and some were just poorly thought out entirely. At the end of that piece, we noted rumors that Rep. Goodlatte was introducing a bill. Late Monday, Senator Leahy (with Senators Grassley, Franken and Hatch) introduced his bill and it's believed to be the same one that Goodlatte is likely to push in the House. Since Leahy and Goodlatte lead the Judiciary Committees in the Senate and the House, it has to be assumed that this bill has the pole position in being the one likely to get traction.

If so, it's a disaster. It does nothing to fix the problem. Worse, it just kicks the can down the road in the hopes that people will forget about it. Here's what it does:

1. It tells the Librarian of Congress to "repeal" the existing failure to exempt phone unlocking and replace it with the exemption that was put in place back in the last rulemaking in 2010 (which was a weaker unlocking rule than the one before it). That "new" / "old" ruling will stick around until the next rulemaking in 2015 when the Librarian might decide to dump it again.
2. Within one year, the Librarian of Congress, with the help of the Register of Copyrights, is supposed to determine whether or not to extend the exemption further to things like tablets (as requested by the White House).
3. It explicitly states that nothing in the bill changes anything of importance.

In other words, "oh, gosh, someone noticed how totally screwed up the system is, and how the walls are crumbling, and let's just patch up this one little hole here with a bit of spackle." This is not a solution. This is a total punt by Congress. The other bills proposed so far have been bad, but this is worse.

Congress has a real chance to fix something here, but so far has chosen not to actually take a position of leadership and do anything. How typical.

Well, that was amazingly fast. The White House has already responded to the petition concerning unlocking mobile phones, and said that mobile phone unlocking should be legal. If you don't remember, the Librarian of Congress (who technically is a part of the executive branch, working for the President) decided to remove the DMCA exemption for mobile phone unlocking, turning it into a possible copyright infringement risk. There was plenty of outrage, which led to a White House petition getting the necessary 100,000 votes.

The White House has quickly sided with the petitioners:

The White House agrees with the 114,000+ of you who believe that consumers should be able to unlock their cell phones without risking criminal or other penalties. In fact, we believe the same principle should also apply to tablets, which are increasingly similar to smart phones. 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. It's common sense, crucial for protecting consumer choice, and important for ensuring we continue to have the vibrant, competitive wireless market that delivers innovative products and solid service to meet consumers' needs.

This is particularly important for secondhand or other mobile devices that you might buy or receive as a gift, and want to activate on the wireless network that meets your needs -- even if it isn't the one on which the device was first activated. All consumers deserve that flexibility.

The White House's response also points to the initial filing done by the Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), which had actually filed in support of keeping the exemption for mobile phone unlocking during the triennial review process. Unfortunately, the Librarian of Congress decided not to follow that recommendation.

So, now what? The White House seems open to having Congress fix the problem, but also seems to think that the FCC may be able to fix it as well, which is probably why the FCC started claiming it would investigate the situation last week.

The Obama Administration would support a range of approaches to addressing this issue, including narrow legislative fixes in the telecommunications space that make it clear: 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.

We also believe the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), with its responsibility for promoting mobile competition and innovation, has an important role to play here. FCC Chairman Genachowski today voiced his concern about mobile phone unlocking (.pdf), and to complement his efforts, NTIA will be formally engaging with the FCC as it addresses this urgent issue.

Finally, we would encourage mobile providers to consider what steps they as businesses can take to ensure that their customers can fully reap the benefits and features they expect when purchasing their devices.

This is definitely a victory for those of us who are against the overreach on copyright, though there is still a ways to go. We haven't actually seen the problem get fixed yet, just that the White House is supporting fixing the issue.

Separately, it's a bit disappointing that the White House focused on narrowly targeting just this particular problem, rather than recognizing that this is just a symptom of the broken DMCA anti-circumvention setup. A truly bold statement would have been to go even further and recognize that the law itself is broken. Passing a "narrow legislative fix in the telecommunications space" just duct tapes on a way to attack this particular symptom of the broken system, but does nothing to attack the disease at the root of it.

Derek Khanna, who helped lead the charge on this petition and has rallied support behind this issue, says that this is a success that should be celebrated. In a statement to Techdirt, he noted:

This is terrific news. It shows the power of the people to affirmatively act to fix policy rather than just stop bad policy. We the people have this power when we come together to fight for positive, common-sense solutions. This is a major affirmative victory for the digital generation that stood up against censorship of the internet through SOPA a year ago. The work of this movement is not done, now Congress must follow through -- and it will require continued activism and engagement from average people who made this possible.

A free society should not require its citizens to petition their government every three years to allow access to technologies that are ordinary and commonplace. Innovation cannot depend upon a permission-based rulemakings requiring approval every three years from an unelected bureaucrat. A free society should not ban technologies unless there is a truly overwhelming and compelling governmental interest

I agree that this is a "narrow" victory, but again I worry about the White House just looking to duct tape up a solution to this one issue, rather than looking at what caused this problem in the first place.

This one is so odd I almost wonder if there were some key points lost in translation (not in language, but from "policy wonk speak" to "journalist speak"). We've talked plenty about the recent move by the Librarian of Congress not to renew the DMCA exemption for unlocking your mobile phone. That story kicked up a lot of anger and protests from people. And while there has been some talk of trying to convince the administration to change the ruling, the general sense seemed to be that the issue would just wait for the review period, which happens ever three years.

However, Greg Ferenstein at TechCrunch is reporting that FCC boss Julius Genachowski claimed that not only were there "concerns" about the ruling, but also that the FCC was going to investigate the matter:

The "ban raises competition concerns; it raises innovation concerns."

Of course, he also admitted that he might not have any actual authority over this particular issue (he doesn't). As great as it would be for some other agency within the same administration to come out and counter another agency concerning this issue, that still seems unlikely. The FCC's mandate almost certainly doesn't stretch so far as to permit unlocked phones, but it sounds like Genachowski is interested in seeing if he can find some way to find that authority somewhere, somehow.

Genachowski isn't sure what authority he has, but if he finds any, given the tone of the conversation, it's likely he will exert his influence to reverse the decision. "It's something that we will look at at the FCC to see if we can and should enable consumers to use unlocked phones."

In the end, I can't see how the FCC has a legitimate say in the matter, even if I agree with their stance that consumers should be able to unlock their phones.

Earlier this month, we wrote about a White House Petition, asking to make unlocking mobile phones legal again, since it had been made infringing again, thanks to the Librarian of Congress omitting it from the list of DMCA exceptions last year. As we noted, the White House had recently bumped up the number of signatures needed for it to respond from 25,000 to 100,000, making it difficult to get over that barrier.

However, overnight, that petition finally got over the hurdle, hitting 100,000 signatures. I believe this may be the first petition to hit that threshold under the "new" system. Of course, getting it to that point is merely step one. The real issue is in how the White House will respond, and they have an incredibly easy out: they just point out that the exemption process happens on a schedule, and that those who are concerned about this issue should file to have the Librarian of Congress reconsider in three years...

If you haven't seen the news yet, President Obama is going to do a Google Hangout on Thursday in which he'll answer some presubmitted questions. The White House and YouTube have set up a ridiculously clumsy submission system, allowing people to submit questions by text or by video and then anyone can vote on them, though browsing the questions or even linking to any particular question appears to take a Herculean effort. That said, a few people have asked some questions about copyright (you can do a search on the submission page). One interesting one, comes from Public Knowledge, in which they directly ask him about fixing the problems with anti-circumvention rules in the DMCA, such as those we've been talking about concerning phone unlocking. That link above should allow you to vote for the question. You can also see the video of the question below. It would be nice to see that question get a lot of votes, and to see if the President would be willing to actually answer the question.

Last month, we wrote about how the White House had bumped up the number of signatures it requires to get on "We the People..." petitions from 25,000 to 100,000 before it is "required" to respond (though, its response rate on qualifying petitions has been dismal). Around the same time, we also talked about how unlocking your mobile phone, so it could be used on other carriers, was switching from being legal to being illegal, thanks to the Librarian of Congress choosing not to renew an exemption to the DMCA's anti-circumvention rules for unlocking mobile phones.

While the reasoning for not renewing the exemption was that many carriers now allow unlocking anyway, that's not true across the board, and there are plenty of limitations. Just the fact that you need to ask permission to do what you want with a device you legally purchased and own should be troubling enough. Lots of people were reasonably angered by this story, and a petition sprung up on the White House site, urging the President to reinstate the exemption:

We ask that the White House ask the Librarian of Congress to rescind this decision, and failing that, champion a bill that makes unlocking permanently legal.

The petition itself was actually set up by Sina Khanifar, who used to run a business around unlocking phones, and was threatened by Motorola back in 2005. It was that experience that led to the original attempt to convince the Librarian of Congress to establish the unlocking exemption from the DMCA. He has explained why the exemption is important, and how this simple change not only makes something perfectly reasonable against the law, but how it effectively kills off the business he had built around unlocking phones and helping consumers actually use what they want. And, contrary to what some claim about the need to keep phones locked, he points out that there are already contractual ways to incentivize people to keep their phones locked. Lots of carriers have long term contracts with large early termination fees. They don't need the threat of copyright penalties on top of that as well.

Motorola's cease and desist letter didn't claim that I was illegally distributing their copyrighted software. Instead, it claimed that I was "distributing software ... for the purpose of circumventing the protection measures" associated with their copyrighted software. There is a subtle but meaningful difference.

The DMCA includes anti-circumvention provisions that are intended to protect music and movie owners who want to distribute their work digitally, but are afraid of piracy. The provisions prohibit anyone from circumventing the locks that control access to copyrighted works. For example, DVDs are protected by a Digital Rights Management (DRM) system that attempts to prevent anyone from easily making copies of movies. The DMCA prohibits circumventing that type of protection system.

But unlocking a phone has nothing to do with copyright infringement, and using the DMCA to prosecute unlocking cell phones is not what the law was intended for. If Motorola's interpretation of the DMCA were valid, companies would be able to create simple software security mechanisms that legally prevent a customer from using a device in any way except that in which the manufacturer intended.

As we've noted time and time again, the DMCA anti-circumvention clause has little to do with basic copyright, and everything to do with big companies trying to control what you thought you had purchased.

The petition needs to get to 100,000 signatures by February 23rd, and is currently sitting at about 62,000. It's possible, but it may be difficult. And, of course, it's not even clear what (if anything) the administration can really do. The DMCA exemption rulemaking only comes around every three years. Having them jump in with an "off-year" change would be unprecedented -- and could potentially lead to legal challenges. Congress, however, could step in and fix things with a bit of regulation, but it's unclear if they have the appetite to do that. Still, having people speak out and show that they think this bit of copyright law is crazy and restrictive seems like a good thing.

Last week, we warned about the impending deadline if you wanted to unlock your phone "legally." That's because the Librarian of Congress took away the DMCA anti-circumvention exemption that allowed phone unlocking. If you're wondering why we even have the Librarian of Congress deciding such things, that's a much longer discussion. In the meantime, though, Derek Khanna has written an interesting piece of at The Atlantic, in which he points out that, not only is it illegal now to unlock your phone, it's possibly criminal thanks to some broad and ridiculous readings of today's copyright law. Until now, most people had been regarding this as purely a civil matter -- and one where it seemed (mostly) unlikely that companies would take too many people to court.

However, given how we've seen prosecutorial overreach on a variety of cases lately, including in the copyright realm, Khanna presents compelling evidence that unlocking a phone could trigger criminal charges. Specifically, he points to 17 USC 1204, which establishes what qualifies for criminal offenses for circumventing technical protection measures:

Any person who violates section 1201 or 1202 willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain...

In case you don't know, 1201 is the anti-circumvention part of the DMCA/Copyright Act.

Now, I can already hear people complaining that unlocking your phone for personal use isn't "willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain." Except, well, it is. Khanna explains how easy it would be for a prosecutor on a mission to "send a message" to make this argument:

Given copyright laws broad interpretation by the courts, it could be argued that merely unlocking your own smartphone takes a device of one value and converts it into a device of double that value (the resale market for unlocked phones is significantly higher) and therefore unlocking is inherently providing a commercial advantage or a private financial gain - even if the gain hasn't been realized. In other words, unlocking doubles or triples the resale value of your own device and replaces the need to procure the unlocked device from the carrier at steep costs, which may be by definition a private financial gain. Alternatively, one can argue that a customer buying a cheaper version of a product, the locked version vs. the unlocked version, and then unlocking it themselves in violation of the DMCA, is denying the provider of revenue which also qualifies. There are several cases that have established similar precedents where stealing coaxial cable for personal use has been held to be for "purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain." (See Cablevision Sys. New York City Corp. v. Lokshin, 980 F. Supp. 107, 109 (E.D.N.Y. 1997)); (Cablevision Sys. Dev. Co. v. Cherrywood Pizza, 133 Misc. 2d 879, 881, 508 N.Y.S.2d 382, 383 (Sup. Ct. 1986)).

Oh, so given all that, what kind of punishment could you get? It's a lot worse than the statutory maximum of $150,000 for willful infringement of a copyright work. No, now that we're talking circumvention and criminal penalties, a single offense can basically destroy your life:

(1) shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, for the first offense; and

(2) shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both, for any subsequent offense.

Khanna is right that it's unlikely that a prosecutor would choose to go this far, but just the fact that it's possible is absurd:

If people see this and respond, well no one is really going to get those types of penalties, my response is: Why is that acceptable? While people's worst fears may be a bit unfounded, why do we accept a system where we allow such discretionary authority? If you or your child were arrested for this, would it comfort you to know that the prosecutor and judge could technically throw the book at you? Would you relax assuming that they probably wouldn't make an example out of you or your kid? When as a society did we learn to accept the federal government having such Orwellian power?

And, while I doubt that prosecutors would straight up charge someone for merely unlocking their phone, if they're looking to pile on (or threaten to pile on) more charges against some "hacker" for a variety of other actions, it's not hard to see scenarios where this would be lumped in with other threats or charges.

You may remember, back in 2006, one of the DMCA "exemptions" granted by the Librarian of Congress was for jailbreaking or unlocking mobile phones, for the purpose of moving them to a different carrier. This move was most seriously fought by one company: Tracfone, which offers prepaid phones at a steep discount. Its business model only works if you can't jailbreak phones -- but copyright law was never about protecting one company's bad business model. Tracfone has even claimed that allowing such jailbreaking is a matter of national security. What they really mean is that it's a matter of protecting their business model.

Tracfone actually sued the Librarian of Congress for allowing jailbreaking but, in 2007, quietly dropped the lawsuit because it found that courts were simply ignoring the exemption. Instead, Tracfone just kept suing people for jailbreaking and many caved and settled. What was really troubling though, was that people were being put in jail for this. Now, in the first trial involving such a case, a guy (who has already spent over a year in jail for unlocking phones) has been found guilty of violating the DMCA.

This is according to a press release put out by the lawyers representing Tracfone and they sort of bury the key point: the guy pled guilty. So it's not as if a court judged the overall situation on the merits. But what's scary is that this seems to clearly go against the very exemption the Librarian of Congress made for jailbreaking phones. And we're not even talking about a civil copyright complaint here, but a criminal one... for doing something that the Librarian of Congress has already said is legal.