Results 1 to 17 of 17
  1.    #1  
    Excuse me, and i don't want to detract from MOL's original thread and start another debate on the legalities, morality of unlocking one's personal device... BUT, IMHO the service providers DO NOT subsidise the cost of a handset. Orange UK charge £220+ for the device with a plan at £15/month = 280. Now, I can buy an unlocked phone for £419, so tell me, where is the discount/subsidisation? Our EU friends have to pay upwards of 750euros for this item.
    You're entitled to your opinion for sure, but please don't tell me I am screwing the SPs by unlocking my unit. I am still paying my dues to Orange UK for the 12 months I have the contract, I just choose to use O2 as I get a better deal. Our USA pals also get better service as they have unlimited access to GPRS on some service providers deals, and more power to them, it aint ever going to happen here as long as there is a cartel... and believe me, there are agreements...
    Thanks for your comment, but I for one think this is highly legal, and that locking devices for 12 months or denying the customer the right to unlock (or charging vast sums) is negative customer service, and discourages me for one to ever use their service again...

    Oh, and by the way. I took my orange contract out with a Nokia phone and unlocked that for £4.99 online then gave it away. The search for a Nokia unlock resulted in many links willing to do the business. I imagine that Nokia and Orange would be taking action against this if it were illegal... I just do not understand why the Treo is any different? I am guessing that Nokia don't have a problem with SP handcuffs, and Handspring are struggling, therefore they bow to the SP power to keep us locked to their service.

    This was moved from MOL's thread out of respect for avoiding debate about unlocking in the Hardware room...
  2. #2  
    this was a reply to Mr. hugo in Mols new tread and moved here on scudder request

    Year's ago I was a member of a dss forum, there we exchaged codes for satellite dss carriers cards, all freeware, then came the greedy peolpe ( like gsmlockers)that wanted to benefit from our work and started to sell the codes, thats illegal,dss found out and then sued those people.

    In this case, Mol is helping out to unlock our own phones, my phone,he is not selling the procedure, he is not unlocking a code to steal the carriers signal which is illegal, it is up to me to choose a signal carrier, they dont choose me, my phone was not purchased from at&t it was purchased thru Ebay and I have no written agreement which states I can not unlock my phone, like me theres a lot of members here and elsewhere that bought the treo from at&t because they were cheap ,thinking it could work with their carrier, now thanks to Mol I am very happy with my treo and my carrier.
  3. #3  
    My main reason for wanting to have an unlocked Treo is being able to use prepaid cards when I'm abroad. International roaming charges for voice but in particular for data are absurd: when I'm in the UK it's 1 euro per 100K. I want to be able to plug in a local SIM card, get all my mail, and then switch back to my Orange France card so that people can reach me on my regular number again.

    I ended a more than 5 years old SFR contract and went through the hassle of changing mobile numbers, solely for having an Treo 600. Also, I easily rack up 200 to 300 euro bills per month. So, I think Orange is having its fair share already.

    Apart from all this, I'm enjoying the technical challenge and as a side effect I'm at the point where I can start coding for the Palm OS, something I'd have never thought of 6 months ago.
  4. #4  
    What I am about to say is for the USA only (I know Mol is not in the US, so this may not apply to him, although it may depending on various trade agreements etc.):

    According to the DMCA (the Digital Millenium Copyright Act) defeating any sort of computerized security mechanism is ILLEGAL. Linking or providing knowledge of how to defeat a security mechanism is also ILLEGAL. This means that Treocentral is in violation of the DMCA for posting links to cracks or serving as a forum where methods are discussed. If anybody doubts this I will find the section in the code, I am just too lazy to do it now.

    This law has mostly been applied to cracking the CSS encryption on DVDs. It is a very controversial law that many programmers/free speech advocates do not like, but as of now it is the law.

    Yes, this means that you can buy a product, such as a DVD or Treo 600, and breaking a built in security mechanism is illegal. Even if you own the item in question. I will not get into the argument that you do not technically own the software embedded in the Treo but are merely licensing it for use.

    I don't stand behind the DMCA, but it exists.

    Rob

    Further more, if Mol were to come to the US he could be arrested. This happened to a Russian Programmer named Dmitri Skylarov (sp?) who was arrested by the FBI while attending a conference in Vegas, he had broken the protection on Adobe Acrobat files.
    Last edited by rgreene07; 01/29/2004 at 04:22 PM.
  5. #5  
    [i]

    According to the DMCA (the Digital Millenium Copyright Act) defeating any sort of computerized security mechanism is ILLEGAL. Linking or providing knowledge of how to defeat a security mechanism is also ILLEGAL. This means that Treocentral is in violation of the DMCA for posting links to cracks or serving as a forum where methods are discussed. If anybody doubts this I will find the section in the code, I am just too lazy to do it now.

    This law has mostly been applied to cracking the CSS encryption on DVDs. It is a very controversial law that many programmers/free speech advocates do not like, but as of now it is the law.


    Rob [/B]
    Your statement is inaccurate. The law prohibits circumventing security mechanisms that protect otherwise copyrighted material. It goes further to delineate measures that circumvent access to copyrighted material and those that prevent copying. It does this because the second is allowable when applied to the fair use doctrine. That is why, as of now, there are any number of still legal programs that let individuals copy DVDs for personal archival use. The recording and movie companies are trying to come up with arguments which move such copying to the first area, but have so far been unsuccessful.

    The analogy to DVD protection is not pertinent. The material on the DVD is what is copyrighted and protected. The lock on the phone is not to prevent access to or use of the software contained therein, but only restricts the use of the instrument itself. A better analogy would be if someone came up with a hack to defeat a coded automobile security device and used it to steal the car. You might be guilty of larceny, but would not be prosecuted under the DMCA.

    Having said all that, if the law was as clear as you claim or I suggest there would be no need for courts or lawyers.

    But if someone was asking my advice, I would say this particular unlock hack is not a violation of the DMCA.
  6. #6  
    Very good argument boardoe, you are obviously well versed in the DMCA. Here is a section of the DMCA and my analysis...

    (1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--

    ` (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;

    `(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof; or

    `(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof.
    So the real question from subparagraph (A) is wether or not Palm(or a licensee) holds the right to say what service provider the software is used with, or if this would fall under fair use. It is something that may not have ever been tested, and the courts would have to decide. I don't think the copyright holder's would necessarily hesitate to file suit though, in wich case I'd avoid publicising the efforts so much.

    The lock on the phone is not to prevent access to or use of the software contained therein,
    I disagree, the lock on the phone is to prevent the use of the software contained therein in a certain manner, so it is protecting a copyrighted work, the question is just if the copyright holder has the right to the restrict the use of the software.
  7. #7  
    As an author/inventor,Mol has the right to do with his invention what pleases him the most, in this case he his the author of the procedure to unlock the treo 600.


    Congress shall have the power to promote progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited times to Authors and Inventor the exclusive right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.


    This means all software I have in my treo 600 ended their copyright protection in 2003, hence I can do what ever I want with them.
  8. #8  
    I don't think that by protected for a limited time meant less than a year, copyrights are valid for much longer.... I'm not sure where you get that by limited times" it means a few months. Not meant to be a personal attack...
  9. #9  
    Originally posted by rgreene07


    I disagree, the lock on the phone is to prevent the use of the software contained therein in a certain manner, so it is protecting a copyrighted work, the question is just if the copyright holder has the right to the restrict the use of the software.
    If I wanted to argue the case for an expansive application of the law, this is exactly the argument I would use, too. Where something like this is very likely to come up is if, say, Sony music were to encode their CDs so that they could only be played on a Sony branded CD player and someone came up with a code crack so that it could be played on a Panasonic. The key point being that the crack would still require the original CD, just allow its use on other players. The copyright of the material itself (the songs) would arguably not be infringed because buying the CD gave you the right to listen to it. Would restricting how you listened be protected by the act? In my opinion, no. This is not to say, by the way, that P1 for the Treo, or Sony in my example, couldn't restrict the use contractually upon purchase. They just couldn't use the DMCA.

    Whatever...what we say doesn't amount to a hill of beans. But thinking about it beats working.
  10. #10  
    Bottom Line...It doesn't matter. if the carriers didn't like this, believe me they would shut this down.

    Besides, Handspring just sends out a firmware update with a cool fix/upgrade, they put in a secret unchangeable code of some sort, then bam, you are relocked. It is not that unimaginable really.
  11. #11  
    This whole situation with locked phones is similar to the DVD region coding issue. Just like it is not illegal to hack DVD players to play DVDs from all regions, I would say it is not illegal to hack the Treo to be able to be used with other service providers. By the way it is illegal for DVD player manufacturers to make and sell DVD players that play DVDs of other regions than the one's that hey are sold in. This is because of the DVD licensing terms that a manufacturer agrees to before they can make and sell DVD players. The funny thing is that here in India all the companies (Sony, Panasonic, Phillips, Samsung etc.) all sell DVD players that have been modified by the companies themselves to play DVDs from all regions. Anyhow, as illegal as it might be for the manufacturers to make "All" region players, it is not illegal for anyone else to modify the player to become an "All" region player.
  12. #12  
    This is not to say, by the way, that P1 for the Treo, or Sony in my example, couldn't restrict the use contractually upon purchase.
    And this is where shrink wrap licenses could come in, hoever I looked through all the material I got with my phone, and couldn't find any such license agreement. It will be interesting to see ig P1 ever makes any comment to treocentral...

    boardoe, are you a lawyer (out of curiousity.) You would make a good one.
  13. #13  
    I'm not sure where you get that by limited times" it means a few months. Not meant to be a personal attack...
    Library of Congress
    Copyright Office
    101 Independence Avenue, S.E.
    Washington, D.C. 20559-6000

    Computer Programs
    A “computer program” is a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result.

    Copyright protection extends to all the copyrightable expression embodied in the computer program. Copyright protection is not available for ideas, program logic, algorithms, systems, methods, concepts, or layouts.

    For details on how to register computer programs, please see Circular 61, Copyright Registration for Computer Programs.

    Games
    The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The name or title given to the game and the methods for playing it are not protected by copyright.

    Some parts of a game may be subject to copyright if they contain a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, you may be able to register the text describing the rules of the game or the graphic art appearing on the gameboard or container.

    Form TX can be used to register all copyrightable parts of the game, including any pictorial elements. When the copyrightable elements of the game consist predominantly of pictorial matter, Form VA should be used.
  14. #14  
    I'm not sure what you are trying to say... Please elaborate if you don't mind. Are you trying to say that computer programs are not copyrightable?
  15. #15  
    This is not what I want to say, it is, in black and white in the library of congress, what I posted is what I copied from their site.
  16. #16  
    Originally posted by rgreene07


    boardoe, are you a lawyer (out of curiousity.) You would make a good one.
    I take the fifth. And thanks...I think
  17. #17  
    I bought mine from Best Buy without any "re-baits", and my Sprint store gave me my MSL with no questions asked.

    I think that all carriers must now provide unlock codes due to number portablilty. If not, that goes against the purpose of number portability.

    I'm sure there's some lawyer that would love to sue Mol, if he could. But I don't see what he is doing to be illegl. There's nothing he can share on Kazaa that will allow someone to use something they didn't pay for.

    I think the best thing to do is to inform the FCC/FTC of our opinion of locked phones.
    I have the world in my Palm

Posting Permissions