Thread: Unlocked Phone? Jail Time!

Originally Posted by Warflagon

Not at all. I know nothing of this subject

Perhaps I was unclear. My comment of "you know this" was aimed at clearing up my perception of your stance; That this one thread and that one Live Science article was the sum total of the knowledge on the topic present. I merely pointed out that you know that to not be the case...citation or not.

Originally Posted by Warflagon

My argument is with the title of this thread (sure to bring outrage) and the article cited (pure garbage) upon which this entire thread seems to be concerned with.

Very well. I'm not even arguing that.
Where's your critique of other equally bad and/or nonsensical topics? More to the point; Why must the poor title and OP article invalidate the real meat of the discussion. Why are you not able to simply step passed that and move into a meaningful discussion on the implications of an update to a DMCA exception that is arbitrary and/or poorly understood on its face? Why even spend the keystroke making the discussion about poor sourcing or hyperbolic title? If that's the key element here then we can shutter this forum entirely due to the overwhelmingly high quantity of absolute shit posting.

Originally Posted by Warflagon

I don't have a dog in the hunt, I really don't care, just trying to point out the silly contrivances that some folks will argue over.

I know you've read this forum enough to know that ^this is part and parcel of what takes place here by a "well above zero" count of the posters here. You're not just noticing this. And arguing over silly contrivances....welcome to the world of humanity (note: this is not "said" in a shit eating grin douche manner).


As to the source(s) in the article I linked...I can't imagine why you're complaining about tech news reporting on something highly related to technology....
You comment about a site linked to Amazon.....did you bother to look at the link from Amazon? It links to this document:

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Copyright Office
37 CFR Part 201
[Docket No. 2011-7]
Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access
Control Technologies
AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
ACTION: Final rule.

That is fairly germane to the discussion no? Specifically beginning on page #8.

Pg 8 - Literary works distributed electronically - assistive technologies

Pg 12 - Wireless telephone handsets - software interoperability (also where they make a, imo, poor distinction between smartphones and tablets as it relates to jailbreak and software interoperability)

Pg 16 - Wireless telephone handsets - interoperability with alternative networks (no surprise the CTIA is claiming losses or failure to recoup subsidized device costs - however key to their complaint is that the large culprit there is "“large scale phone trafficking operations” that buy large quantities
of pre-paid phones, unlock them, and resell them in foreign markets"....so how in the hell does this protect the consumer or the carriers from the traffickers - it doesn't because those traffickers are unconcerned with the legality in the first place and the DMCA is not applicable/enforceable outside of the US - it just further protects their fiefdom at the expense of legitimate consumers) - nevermind the facts that the reasoning(s) for this ruling are all over the map and that the "law" it's based on is unclear at best...

Pg 21 - Motion Picture excerpts - commentary, criticism and educational use

Pg 34 - Motion pictures and other audiovisual works - captioning and descriptive audio (all over the place - with the proponents arguing for the exemption based on need/difficulty of creating/developing accessibility improvements for the disabled and the "industry", imo, handwaving it away saying that the market would take care of these concerns on its own and previously stating that voluntary captioning of a limited amount of programming would "take eight years to phase in".....yes clearly the market is taking care of the situation)

Pg 40 - Classes considered but not recommended
Pg 41 - Literary works in the public domain - digital access
Pg 42 - Video game consoles - software interoperability (another, imo, place that badly missed the mark to the detriment of consumers/hobbyists propped up by exaggerated claims of piracy)
Pg 52 - Personal computing devices - software interoperability
Pg 58 - Motion pictures and other works on DVDs and other media - space shifting (yet more stoopid issues with "fair use" of digital media....I really dislike the MPAA/RIAA/ESA et all for their stance(s) on "fair use" in this regard - I think it's anti-consumer and props up old (and lucrative commodities) at the expense and detriment to emerging and disruptive technologies)

So there's a synopsis for you of the source (actual ruling) contained in the quoted section I provided earlier. Hard to beat the actual ruling as a source isn't it?

The "issue" being discussed stems from a false premise, as does the majority of the arguments in this sub forum.

That is not a conducive way to discuss anything, it's only an argument for arguments sake based on the straw man argument that wouldn't suffice in an elementary school debate and shouldn't (IMO) be enjoined among a mature and educated population that I assume (perhaps wrongly) comprises the majority of the TPG forum members.

The legal ramifications of the legal injunction are beyond me, I will admit. But the thread title and article linked in the OP are utter garbage, and unworthy of this august body

Sigh...so as I mentioned either ignore the OP thread title and link and steer the discussion in a more meaningful manner, as some of us have been attempting to do, or start a new thread for the serious discussion you find lacking in this one.

But complaining that there are bad arguments on the internet..........

You wanted a verifiable source. I provided it.

Sent via highly charged bolt of electricity.

No one says you must Participate in this Forum....