It’s Illegal to Unlock Your OWN Cell Phone!

The Public Has Spoken – 100,000 Americans Sign WH Petition on Cellphone Unlocking – Derek Khanna – Page 1.

There’s a new regulation issued by the Librarian of Congress which makes it illegal to unlock your cellphone.

As of January 26, if you unlock a new cell phone  in order to use it with a different carrier, it could land you in jail for 5 years and cost you a half million dollars.

The big phone companies interests are protected by preventing you from changing the settings of your phone.

Who is harmed by this?  Everyone who wants to use a different carrier.  This would include military personnel who unlock their phones to use them wherever in the world they might be serving.

The article linked at the top contains some good language for a short letter to your congressman, if you’re a techie and like to jailbreak and unlock your gadgets.  Check it out!


Greenies Should be Losing Their Minds Over This

Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley and and Sons is a case before the Supreme Court this fall which threatens aspects of the 1908 First Sale Doctrine. That older ruling allows people who own a copyrighted item to resell the item without getting permission from the copyright holder. This new case before the court, depending on how broadly the Court writes the ruling, could require resellers of copyrighted items made in Europe, or Asia to get permission from the copyright holders before they sell such products. It could affect resale of numerous products and items which bear copyrighted programming, content and logos.

This case is touched off by the fact that books published outside the country, by American publishers, for use in other countries, are being purchased and brought back into the U.S. for resale.

The publishers, for example, of Pharmer’s son’s anatomy and biochemistry texts, have a version in the U.S., priced more than double that of the version they sell in other countries. Obviously students, who are being bilked unconscionably for tuition costs, are trying to save hundreds of dollars each semester on their book bills, and buying versions published in Southeast Asia or India, etc.

A Court decision against the right of first sale in this case could have far reaching implications:

1) It could impede the ability of individuals to recycle textbooks, and electronic devices, or buy international versions for cheaper prices.
2) It will encourage manufacturers and publishers to produce shoddier merchandise and/or increase planned obsolescence in order to push new items to a consumer less inclined to buy new if they can’t sell the old one.
3) Most significantly, it will exacerbate the problem of often toxic waste and mountainous landfills.

The greenies ought to be camped outside the Supreme Court building throughout the fall over this.

Your right to resell your own stuff is in peril – Jennifer Waters's Consumer Confidential – MarketWatch.

Marshals ordered to seize Righthaven assets – Tuesday, Nov. 1, 2011 | 7:54 p.m. – VEGAS INC

Marshals ordered to seize Righthaven assets – Tuesday, Nov. 1, 2011 | 7:54 p.m. – VEGAS INC.

Righthaven LLC exists to derive parasitic benefit from copyright law.   The company spots what it thinks are copyright violations, then buys the copyright of the articles in question, then it sues the supposed violators,  in that order.  It has filed hundreds of lawsuits against websites and bloggers for supposed infringement of  articles from the Las Vegas Review Journal, and the Denver Post.

Some of those being sued are fighting back now, and there have been a number of court rulings against Righthaven.  A suit against Wayne Hoehn has resulted in dismissal, with a court order for Righthaven to pay legal fees.

Righthaven is likely to appeal execution of the court order for collection of its assets, but the problem of paying $63,000 has caused the company to ponder bankruptcy.