White House Petition On Legalizing Unlocking Of Mobile Phones Tries To Pass 100,000 Signature Threshold

from the getting-closer... dept

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.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: anti-circumvention, dmca, exceptions, mobile phones, petition, sina khanifar, unlocking, white house


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Feb 2013 @ 5:08am

    Re: Re: Response to: Mr. Applegate on Feb 11th, 2013 @ 7:08pm

    If you are talking about subsidized phones the initial price is $99, but there is a monthly fee added to that contract, that doubles the total in the end of the contract for what you actually paid for the phone.

    They do charge for the phone in gentle monthly fees, that are disguised as minimum usage fee per month, which includes the value necessary to cover the phone full retail price and in some cases double that, the termination fees are also calculated with base on that full retail price, that is why they go down the longer you use that plan.

    Quote:
    Now T-Mobile’s gearing up to try to compete by changing the game. They’ve finally secured a deal to put the iPhone on their network. They have made the radical and perhaps brilliant decision to sell it and other smartphones without subsidy. That’ll make the devices a lot more expensive. Consumers will be surprised to learn that the $199 iPhone 5 actually retails for $649. AT&T and Verizon essentially pay Apple the full price, sell it to you for the low price, and make it up by charging you more every month.

    Source: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/12/t_mobile_end_smartphone_subsidies_paying_mor e_for_your_phone_is_good_for.html


    http://www.prepaid-wireless-guide.com/subsidies.html
    http:// www.mobiletechreview.com/editorials/Cell-Phone-Deals-Beware.htm
    http://gigaom.com/2012/12/06/t-mobi le-ceo-confirms-the-iphone-and-the-death-of-phone-subsidies/

    A $99 phone actually is the carrier mining the fools pockets.
    You could have a $0 smartphone all you have to do is divide the full retail price by 24 months and save that much every month it will cost you less than if you let other do it and administer it for you.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.