  AlakarFacts do not cease to exist when ignored
join:2001-03-23
Milwaukee, WI | Because they don't get it The people running Verizon (and most of the other major players) just don't understand the tech they are marketing. They think by locking it down they will keep customers locked in. They don't realize they just alienate some customers.
--
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom; it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." William Pitt the Younger | |
|
| | Time to arrest the developer of the program. The developer is hacking Verizon phone and should be arrested for it. | |
|
 | | | Re: Time to arrest the developer of the program. Once I sign the contract, it ceases to be Verizon's phone. The device is mine, and I'm legally entitled to do with it as I please. Hence the iPhone jailbreaking decision. | |
|
| | | | Re: Time to arrest the developer of the program. said by Rambo76098:Once I sign the contract, it ceases to be Verizon's phone. The device is mine, and I'm legally entitled to do with it as I please. Hence the iPhone jailbreaking decision.
No the phone is still Verizon unless you outright purchased it. It 's your phone once the contact ends or you just buy it out. The contract that you signed with Verizon defines who owns the phone and what you can do with it. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Time to arrest the developer of the program. I don't have a Verizon contract in front of me, but seems that the ETF fee would make the phone yours once you sign the contract. There is not an option to return the phone and skip the ETF fee...is there? | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Time to arrest the developer of the program. said by gworkman7:I don't have a Verizon contract in front of me, but seems that the ETF fee would make the phone yours once you sign the contract. There is not an option to return the phone and skip the ETF fee...is there?
There is not an option to return your house or car without it destroying your credit either, but you don't own those until they are paid off. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Time to arrest the developer of the program. Of course you own your house and car before they're paid off. The bank has absolutely no say in how I modify my house provided I do not destroy the value of their collateral in doing so. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: Time to arrest the developer of the program. This is the best way to explain it, thank you | |
|
| | | | | Wow... You must be a genius, Before you actually made this post, I am sure you have extensively researched criminal law to let us know exactly what law was broken here, Can you let us know what statute they will be using to prosecute. | |
|
| | |  LightSPremium
join:2005-12-17
Greenville, TX
 ·Time Warner Cable
·RoadRunner Cable
| Have you ever even read a contract that you sign for a mobile carrier? It states, nowhere in it, that they own the phone that you buy.
When you sign the contract, you are signing a service agreement. They are to provide you service, and they essentially give you a general list of limitations / general contract terms.
Why do people sign contracts? Purchasing a phone outright is very expensive. When you sign a contract, you are committing to pay X amount per month, for (usually) a 24-month term.
When you sign, you are also taking ownership of a phone for a subsidized price. This means that, in exchange for paying $199 for a phone (instead of $649) you are paying $199, and also promising you will be a customer for the terms established in your contract. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Time to arrest the developer of the program. Technically it don't need to say anything in contract. Just read DMCA law, the exemption for jail breaking seems to have expired this year. So technically it's illegal again. | |
|
| | | | |  skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2
·Cox HSI
 ·Clear Wireless
| Re: Time to arrest the developer of the program. DMCA is irrelevant when it comes to circumventing DRM when the result is legal (such as installing legal software), so sayith the 5th Circuit. Circumventing DRM is illegal when the purpose is copyright infringement, which obviously isn't the case with the VZW phone.
»www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5C···.wpd.pdf | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: Time to arrest the developer of the program. 5th circuit ruling only applies to Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. There are 47 other states which it do not cover. | |
|
| | | | | | | skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·Clear Wireless
4 edits | Re: Time to arrest the developer of the program. VZW has presence in each of those states.
In any event, the DMCA reads "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title"...
Circumventing DRM must result in a Title 17 violation to violate the DMCA. Adding apps to a phone or changing its behavior doesn't violate any part of Title 17. It's no different than defeating cell phone carrier locks. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Go look up something called "precedent." | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Time to arrest the developer of the program. said by treyatl2006:Go look up something called "precedent."
another court out of jurisdiction don't have to follow that precedent or no appeal court would ever disagree with each other. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Time to arrest the developer of the program. No worries........
Q: The US incarcerates the largest percentage of its citizens as compared to other countries in the world. What's a few hundred thousand (or million) more DRM-evading phone-rooting criminals added to that?
A: A new world record!!!!
USA!
USA!
USA!
USA! | |
|
| | | | | | | | skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 | Circuit court precedent is only binding to courts below THAT circuit. While other circuits may cite the opinion they are not bound to it. We saw this with rulings on the Healthcare affordability act. Only a SC ruling is binding to all the courts. | |
|
| | | | | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
 ·AT&T Midwest
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| said by silentlooker:Technically it don't need to say anything in contract. Just read DMCA law, the exemption for jail breaking seems to have expired this year. So technically it's illegal again.
True, but Verizon was fined for having Google take down tethering apps, if there's an app out there to do this (which assumably can be downloaded over the LTE frequencies with the conditions on non-restriction), Verizon can't have it removed. | |
|
| | | | |  RRedlineRated RPremium
join:2002-05-15
Williamsport, PA | It is NOT illegal to jailbreak/root a phone. It does not belong to Verizon, AT&T, etc. They have no more right to tell me what I can do with my phone as Comcast has to tell me what to do to my television. Calm down and allow rationality to overcome your authoritarian nature.
Wireless companies should just focus on delivering voice and data services and quit trying to micromanage HOW people use those services. The reason they gave for locking the bootloader doesn't even make sense. People make a conscious decision to unlock it because there is something they WANT to do with their device that having it locked prevents.
--
One nation, under Zod! | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: Time to arrest the developer of the program. said by RRedline:It is NOT illegal to jailbreak/root a phone.
You can root a phone without unlocking the bootloader. Unlocking the bootloader allows more control over custom ROMs and allows things like overclocking. | |
|
| | | | | | | Sounds like someone has a iPhone ha ha. Yes we do have custom roms! | |
|
| | | | | | skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·Clear Wireless
| Re: Time to arrest the developer of the program. Good thing because Samsung totally abandoned my Galaxy S Wifi 5.0 the day it came out. No OS upgrades without resorting to custom firmware. Moto has been much more supportive with my Xoom but the difference in support between the two keeps me from investing in any Android handset. | |
|
| | | |
| | | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
·AT&T Midwest
·AT&T U-Verse
| said by silentlooker:said by Rambo76098:Once I sign the contract, it ceases to be Verizon's phone. The device is mine, and I'm legally entitled to do with it as I please. Hence the iPhone jailbreaking decision.
No the phone is still Verizon unless you outright purchased it. It 's your phone once the contact ends or you just buy it out. The contract that you signed with Verizon defines who owns the phone and what you can do with it. Wrong. I see you either don't have a postpaid phone, or haven't read your contract. The ownership of the phone is transferred at the time you sign the agreement, which is why if it breaks outside the mfg warranty, you have to pay for the repair or replacement, not the carrier. Same if you lose it or physically damage it, you are on the hook.
If the carrier retained ownership, we would all be paying device lease fees like you do with most dsl/cable/satellite equipment. We pay a lease fee, the company owns the equipment, and is responsible for proper function of the device in case of equipment failure (not caused by physical damage) without regard to manufacturer warranty.
The phone becomes yours, but you agree to the prorated ETF if you break the contract prior to the end of the contract term. Hence why we don't have to return phones when we change service or end a contract early. | |
|
| | |  JamesonPremium
join:2004-05-28
Fallbrook, CA
kudos:1 | said by silentlooker:said by Rambo76098:Once I sign the contract, it ceases to be Verizon's phone. The device is mine, and I'm legally entitled to do with it as I please. Hence the iPhone jailbreaking decision.
No the phone is still Verizon unless you outright purchased it. It 's your phone once the contact ends or you just buy it out. The contract that you signed with Verizon defines who owns the phone and what you can do with it. Wrong. The only reason why you sign a contract in the 1st place is to get a discount on the cell phone. Once you sign that contract, Verizon gives you a discount on the phone and you pay the difference making the phone yours. | |
|
| | | | | |  Re: Time to arrest the developer of the program.
said by Jameson:Wrong. The only reason why you sign a contract in the first place is to get a discount on the cell phone. Once you sign that contract, Verizon gives you a discount on the phone and you pay the difference making the phone yours. Couldn't agree more. Well, you kind of have to take it easy on the phone during the buyer's remorse period. Most carriers have a thing where if you don't like the phone and/or service, you can return it within X amount of days without having to pay ETF (you'd still be charged pro-rated service and non-refundable activation fees). The number of days varies from carrier to carrier. However, once you have kept the phone/service past that period, you must either pay monthly bills or pay ETF and jump ship early. Either way, the phone is yours to keep.
--
Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies...
A MESSAGE to the RIAA and the MPAA: You shouldn't wound what you can't kill... | |
|
| | | | | said by silentlooker:said by Rambo76098:Once I sign the contract, it ceases to be Verizon's phone. The device is mine, and I'm legally entitled to do with it as I please. Hence the iPhone jailbreaking decision.
No the phone is still Verizon unless you outright purchased it. It 's your phone once the contact ends or you just buy it out. The contract that you signed with Verizon defines who owns the phone and what you can do with it. this has to be one of the most ignorant comments ever, not to mention a giant troll. I work in wireless, hell I worked for ATT, your contract does not state that your phone is part of it. Thats why when you loose your phone they don't replace it and thats why they sell you insurance. The contract is just for service, it has nothing to do with the phone, that is why providers lock the phone down because they don't want you on other networks.
I can't believe you trolled this whole thread defending large companies and that you thought people who jailbreak should be locked up. That's basically saying anybody who adjust Windows or OS X on their computer should be locked up. | |
|
| | |  GorkOu812ic
join:2001-10-06
Bountiful, UT
 ·magicjack.com
| said by silentlooker: No the phone is still Verizon unless you outright purchased it. It 's your phone once the contact ends or you just buy it out. The one thing which doesn't make sense with regard to this argument is that if you buy the phone outright from Verizon it will still be locked and they will not unlock it for you. If you purchase it via a contract agreement after the contract is met they will still not unlock the phone for you. | |
|
| | | Haha!! Now you...Have a sense of humor!! | |
|
| LightSPremium
join:2005-12-17
Greenville, TX | Are you serious? LOL | |
|
| |
See 19 replies to this post |
|
| |
| | RRedlineRated RPremium
join:2002-05-15
Williamsport, PA | Re: Time to arrest the developer of the program. said by motoracer:Sometimes the BS I read online makes me just shake my head in embarrassment.
If it was from someone else who doesn't post that often, you might even have thought it was sarcasm. Unfortunately in this case, it's serious.
--
One nation, under Zod! | |
|
| | | | Jail broke rooted unlocked whatever you care to call it irrelevant. In case you dont understand "fixing" I mean jailbreak a phone is not illegal. The equipment I purchase making it mine . Is exactly that mine whether I mod it flush it in the toilet whatever. I am paying a very expensive price for network access nothing more. If you try to declare otherwise I invite you to pay my mortgage car payment cell bill . Then you may
dictate how and what I do with my physical property. | |
|
|  The LimitPremium
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2 | Are you trolling? Or do you really think developers that mod Verizon phones should be thrown in jail? | |
|
| | | | Re: Time to arrest the developer of the program. said by The Limit:Are you trolling? Or do you really think developers that mod Verizon phones should be thrown in jail?
They are technically violating the law are they not? It's up to local prosecutor to decide the question of prosecution. | |
|
| | | skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·Clear Wireless
| Re: Time to arrest the developer of the program. No. It is not illegal to defeat DRM unless it results in a Title 17 violation. If they were defeating DRM to get access to software they would have had to purchase (basically copyright infringement), that is different.
Simply put, the DMCA does not make defeating DRM in and of itself illegal. | |
|
| | | | | It would not be the local prosecutor making that decision.
Also, the lack of an exemption doesn't implicitly mean it is illegal. | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | said by silentlooker:The developer is hacking Verizon phone and should be arrested for it.
Why? nothing illegal was done.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| | Jelly Bean release "rumblings suggest Verizon will be pushing the Jelly Bean Android 4.1 update sometime later this month or early next"
You can pretty safely double or triple that timeframe based on the historic trends. | |
|
|  Camelot OnePremium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Greenwood, IN
kudos:1 | Re: Jelly Bean release said by Prototype5:"rumblings suggest Verizon will be pushing the Jelly Bean Android 4.1 update sometime later this month or early next"
You can pretty safely double or triple that timeframe based on the historic trends.
Well sure, because now they have to spend 3 months writing something into the new boot loader that will prevent the current software from rooting it. And it will take "developers" all of a month to crack that too.
--
Intel i7-2600k /ASRock P67 Extreme4 /4x 4Gb G.Skill /2x Intel 510 series 250Gb SSD /3x WD20EADS 2TB /2x PNY GTX 260 /Silverstone 850W /Custom water cooler /Antec Twelve-Hundred | |
|
| | Reviews:
·Charter
| Re: Jelly Bean release said by Camelot One:Well sure, because now they have to spend 3 months writing something into the new boot loader that will prevent the current software from rooting it. And it will take "developers" all of a month to crack that too.
more like, once they have the unlocked bootloader installed, you dont have to root it again, you can simply get updates from google directly, and then just download the verizon update and rip what you need from it as far as carrier specific stuff goes. If they do force an update of the bootloader(which I doubt), it probably wont take more than a week to crack it. Once its open, its open. For examples, look at the iOS hacking/jailbreaking. Once its initial jailbreak, it nearly always takes only a few days from the updates to jailbreak them again. Case in point, iOS 5.0.1 to 5.1. Apple didnt even bother to fix the flaw they used to jailbreak the software, they just patched some files and moved on. | |
|
HossSauters A Walrus
join:2000-10-05
Tulsa, OK | How to get around it? Buy a damn Nexus. Problem solved.  | |
|
| | Who Cares... It's our phone and a waste of resources for someone to come after you. I have a rooted Galaxy S III with a custom rom. Come and get me booo hoooo ha ha. | |
|
| | Jelly Bean hooray! Mmmm unlocked bootloader with Jelly Bean running on my GS3. Thank you devs!!
--
| |
|
 ronnie
join:2001-02-17
34. N 84.7 W | Sounds like Apple Lock it so we can "help maintain a quality user experience." | |
|
|  DavidNow accepting new patientsPremium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:78 | Re: Sounds like Apple +1... I mean if they are going to give the hot blog poker to verizon they should also give it to Apple as well. Just as well give it to blackberry as well.
If you are going to single out one, you just as well single them all out. | |
|
 netwirePremium
join:2001-04-27
Shelby, NC
kudos:1 | Re: Bootloader unlock What's criminal is that Verizon wanted to lock the bootloader on this phone then sell the same phone for $600 without the lock. | |
|
| | | Re: Bootloader unlock said by netwire:What's criminal is that Verizon wanted to lock the bootloader on this phone then sell the same phone for $600 without the lock.
uhh verizon isn't selling the unlocked version. Samsung themselves are in order to by pass the ridiculousness of verizon. But no matter now anyways since it's been unlocked for some time now. | |
|
|
|
