responding to http://www.homeownershub.com/mainten...ho-734573-.htm
DA wrote:

The Daring Dufas wrote:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/aox7wq8

US Copyright Office issued an order on Saturday which will make Cell
Phone unlocking illegal. This order will be applied to all Cell phones
purchased after this Saturday. This order is mainly aimed at large scale
cell phone trafficking operations in which large quantities of cell
phones are purchased, unlocked & then sold in foreign markets at
lesser rates.

Interesting find, I was wondering why Verizon had started running strange PR ads recently in which they are talking only about how much good they have done for the country and not a word about the services they sell - very uncharacteristic of Verizon. They must have been anticipating a backlash from this.

By the way, I don't get why they cannot stop "large scale cell phone trafficking" on their own - supposedly their databases should have all the information about who purchased what and when. This cannot be a person - you only get a discounted phone once in two years (you'll never make it large scale at that rate) - and if they are selling large quantities of locked phones to businesses which then ship them overseas, they could have dealt with those using contracts with the said businesses and simply go after them in court.

It can also be implemented to individuals who unlock their
phones. People who unlock their cell phones may be subjected to a fine
of up to $2500. Large scale operations may be fined up to $500,000 &
may
be jailed for 5 years. Previously cell phone unlocking was not an
offense but this new order overturns that ruling. O_o

Who in the world would enforce such rule anyhow? Suppose someone unlocked their phone - the only reason you would do that is to attach it then to a different provider. The new provider might see your phone's serial number (is this possible, by the way?) and perhaps look it up in some database to see if it was sold previously and what the "lock" status is. But why would they do something about it and lose a customer and potentially have a PR nightmare on their hands when this becomes broadcasted over FB and Twitter? Given that the new provider is said to be "overseas" - chances of that are slim. And, by the way, US Copyright Office does not have jurisdiction "overseas" - wherever that supposed to mean - so who does this *really* aimed at?


By the way, the title of this message is ridiculous - if I remember anything from the social sciences classes (and they were mostly late classes, so I was fully awake) - nothing with the word "communism" in it would be compatible with the whole notion of "copyright" as we know it. In theory, there would have been no property, intellectual or otherwise, to which you would not have access to - i.e. free for all - and this is a move in the exactly opposite direction. If your intention was to just slander the sitting President of the U.S. of A. (a punishable offense http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...defamation_law ) you should have simply used curse words and man up to the consequences instead of muddying the meaning of your own message that followed.


--

/\_/\
((@v@)) NIGHT
()::) OWL
VV-VV