Hacker News Reader

Comment by Diamons | Hacker News Reader

DMCA, as in the Digital Millenium COPYRIGHT Act? I can't believe what the fuck I'm reading here. I paid for the phone. I own it. I can do whatever I bloody please with it.

I'm furious right now.

View on HN

I agree it's total abuse of the DMCA, and a stupid idea.

But note, from TFA: "You can also pay full-price for a phone, not the discounted price that comes with a two-year service contract, to receive the device unlocked from the get-go. Apple sells an unlocked iPhone 5 starting at $649, and Google sells its Nexus 4 unlocked for $300."

You didn't buy the phone outright. You agreed to a massively subsidized price in exchange for a quid pro quo. At the very least, AT&T should be able to sue you for the breach of contract and get their $350 back.

But I think that's exactly what they should have to do, not have the government use the DMCA to enforce their contractual provisions for them.

> At the very least, AT&T should be able to sue you for the breach of contract and get their $350 back.

That's exactly what they do, except that a lawsuit isn't necessary. It's already part of the contract. Specifically, AT&T charges $350 - ($10 * <number of months used>).

And, I agree, that's actually quite fair.

http://www.wireless.att.com/learn/articles-resources/early-t...

Edit: Added link to AT&T termination fees

    $350 - ($10 * <number of months used>)

Weird; that would make more sense for a three year contract.

Seems like it's weighted to be more beneficial earlier in the contract, and later on makes more sense as the user to see the contract through to the end.

If you're unlocking your subsidized phone and moving to another carrier, you either have to keep paying your original contract or pay the early termination fee, both of which balance out the subsidy. If you're off-contract or have already completed your contract term, you've already bought the phone outright. As far as I am aware, there is literally no point of time where you can unlock your phone and leave your carrier high and dry.

I don't know what AT&T's reasoning is for not unlocking under-contract phones. They must make money off it somehow. Maybe they want to limit resale so people buy new phones, or limit hand-me-downs for use on other carriers. Who knows? See: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/theres-lots-of-mone...

The point is, that reasoning is built into the terms. You don't get to decide, after the fact, when you feel like AT&T has gotten the benefit of their bargain.

The quid pro quo was to sign a service contract. No part of that transaction made the phone any less mine, or gave them any rights to my hardware.

>>>I paid for the phone. I own it. I can do whatever I bloody please with it.

I keep trying to make that point to people who defend lock-in to specific app stores and so far it hasn't worked. It's your device. Not someone else's damned colony.

It is a lost fight. The moment you hear competent developers and tech savvy people telling you that the locked bootloaders and the ability of apple or microsoft to be total moral arbiters is "fine and good for the users", some of them people that have benefited greatly from the openness of the PC and WWW ... its is sad.

Yes. I understand their need to make a living, but it's the same shortsightedness that leads to the entire mess we're in with everything.

I have no problem with lockin to specific app stores, consoles that only run approved games etc. A company can sell what they like; it's their product

... but ... once purchased the owner should be free to do what they like with it. Jailbreak, hack, whatever. It's their physical device to do with what they like. Sure, this may not suit some business models (like consoles sold at a loss) but too bad. Those companies are free to make hacking/jailbreaking said device as dificult as they like, but if someone can bypass that then good. I don't believe the goventment should be involved at all, on either side

> I paid for the phone. I own it. I can do whatever I bloody please with it.

But you didn't pay for it. You paid for part of it. The phone provider paid for the other part of it. In exchange for the use of something you didn't completely pay for, you agree to certain conditions.

No, you completely paid for it. You get a discount on the phone when you agree to contractual obligations. You own the phone no matter what, irrelevant to the performance of your contractual obligations.

You're partially correct in that you would still be "paying" for the phone through your contract, but once you get the phone, you own it, but because most contracts state that if you were to cancel your contract before its completion, you would have to pay a cancellation fee, most of which would be the "subsidy" portion for your phone.

This is to prevent people from getting iphone 5s for free and then running off with them and selling them on craigslist or china for $1000 (which you'd probably still make money even if you paid the $600 or $700 cancellation fee)

Had you not heard of the DMCA? It puts all kinds of restrictions on what you can do with things you "own". For instance, playing a DVD in an unauthorized DVD player.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com