I just read an article that basically alludes to the fact that the iPhone has been hacked. While I’m all in favour of this, there seems to be some question as to whether or not it is actually legal to do so. To that end, I’m a fairly certain it could be argued that the iPhone “lock” is a form of copy protection, in which case it would fall under the DMCA, and hence be illegal to circumvent.
We’ll have to see how it all plays out, but I suspect the guys are gonna be in for a few legal headaches.
— Update
So, the DMCA was updated last year with the following provisions:
Exemptions are allowed for 1) the educational library of a university’s media studies department, in order to watch film clips in class; 2) using computer software that requires the original disks or hardware in order to run; 3) dongle-protected computer programs, if the the dongle no longer functions and a replacement cannot be found; 4) protected e-books, in order to use screen-reader software; 5) cell phone firmware that ties a phone to a specific wireless network; and 6) DRM software included on audio CDs, but only when such software creates security vulnerabilities on personal computers.
The provision likely to be of most interest to consumers is the one allowing cell phones to be unlocked and used on other networks. The Copyright Office allowed this exception because the software that prohibits users from accessing their phone’s firmware has little to do with copyright and much to do with a business model.
So, it appears unlocking cell phones is currently legal. That being said, there is still some question about whether or not profitting from the unlocking of a phone is legal:
The U.S. District Court in Orlando, Florida, found that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act exception did not apply to those unlocking a phone with the intent to resell it.
Most people seem so far to think it’s legal. There’s an exemption under the DCMA for unlocking cell phones.
Hmm, I’ll have to go reread the DMCA. That’s strange that it would be ok to crack on type of device, but not another (not that I doubt what you are saying, but it seems like an odd double standard).
If AT&T is subsudizing the phones at all, then I suspect they are going to have something to say about all of them being unlocked and not tied to their network. I’ll have to look into that as well.
I’ll call you from my cell if it’s illegal…the iPhone isn’t subsidized at all so as far as most can tell it should be do as you please with it.
I’m also surprised everyone is making such a big deal about this particular device being unlocked too….it’s a fairly common practice in most parts of the world to have unlocked phones not to mention the ease of getting any other kind of phone unlocked in any major city in North America.
I’ve been using an unlocked Treo for 2 1/2 years and Roger’s didn’t even care that it wasn’t from them.
Pun not intended: cell = jail 😉
Yeah if it’s not subsidized at all, then I don’t think anyone will really care. I haven’t been keeping up with the whole situation, but it sounds fairly typical then.