| Time to arrest the developer of the program. The developer is hacking Verizon phone and should be arrested for it. |
|
| Once I sign the contract, it ceases to be Verizon's phone. The device is mine, and I'm legally entitled to do with it as I please. Hence the iPhone jailbreaking decision. |
|
| said by Rambo76098:Once I sign the contract, it ceases to be Verizon's phone. The device is mine, and I'm legally entitled to do with it as I please. Hence the iPhone jailbreaking decision.
No the phone is still Verizon unless you outright purchased it. It 's your phone once the contact ends or you just buy it out. The contract that you signed with Verizon defines who owns the phone and what you can do with it. |
|
| I don't have a Verizon contract in front of me, but seems that the ETF fee would make the phone yours once you sign the contract. There is not an option to return the phone and skip the ETF fee...is there? |
|
| reply to silentlooker
Haha!! Now you...Have a sense of humor!! |
|
| reply to silentlooker
Wow... You must be a genius, Before you actually made this post, I am sure you have extensively researched criminal law to let us know exactly what law was broken here, Can you let us know what statute they will be using to prosecute. |
|
 LightSPremium
join:2005-12-17
Greenville, TX | reply to silentlooker
Are you serious? LOL |
|
|
|
Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·VOIPo
| reply to silentlooker
said by silentlooker:The developer is hacking Verizon phone and should be arrested for it.
Sometimes the BS I read online makes me just shake my head in embarrassment. |
|
| reply to LightS
said by LightS:Are you serious? LOL
Yes and no. I didn't see DMCA exemption for jailbreak getting renewed this year. If that is still the case then technically what this developers are doing is illegal. |
|
LightSPremium
join:2005-12-17
Greenville, TX Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to silentlooker
Have you ever even read a contract that you sign for a mobile carrier? It states, nowhere in it, that they own the phone that you buy.
When you sign the contract, you are signing a service agreement. They are to provide you service, and they essentially give you a general list of limitations / general contract terms.
Why do people sign contracts? Purchasing a phone outright is very expensive. When you sign a contract, you are committing to pay X amount per month, for (usually) a 24-month term.
When you sign, you are also taking ownership of a phone for a subsidized price. This means that, in exchange for paying $199 for a phone (instead of $649) you are paying $199, and also promising you will be a customer for the terms established in your contract. |
|
 skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2
·Cox HSI
 ·Clear Wireless
| reply to silentlooker
Defeating DRM isn't in itself illegal. MGE UPS Systems, Inc. v. GE Consumer and Indus. Inc., No. 08-10521 (5th Cir. July 20, 2010)
You can defeat DRM if the result isn't illegal (such as installing legal software on a phone).
Even if in the contract, that would be a simple tort, not criminal. VZ would have to sue you, in which case they have zero damages since you simply restore the phone and give it back. |
|
| reply to LightS
Technically it don't need to say anything in contract. Just read DMCA law, the exemption for jail breaking seems to have expired this year. So technically it's illegal again. |
|
Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
 ·AT&T Midwest
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to silentlooker
said by silentlooker:said by Rambo76098:Once I sign the contract, it ceases to be Verizon's phone. The device is mine, and I'm legally entitled to do with it as I please. Hence the iPhone jailbreaking decision.
No the phone is still Verizon unless you outright purchased it. It 's your phone once the contact ends or you just buy it out. The contract that you signed with Verizon defines who owns the phone and what you can do with it. Wrong. I see you either don't have a postpaid phone, or haven't read your contract. The ownership of the phone is transferred at the time you sign the agreement, which is why if it breaks outside the mfg warranty, you have to pay for the repair or replacement, not the carrier. Same if you lose it or physically damage it, you are on the hook.
If the carrier retained ownership, we would all be paying device lease fees like you do with most dsl/cable/satellite equipment. We pay a lease fee, the company owns the equipment, and is responsible for proper function of the device in case of equipment failure (not caused by physical damage) without regard to manufacturer warranty.
The phone becomes yours, but you agree to the prorated ETF if you break the contract prior to the end of the contract term. Hence why we don't have to return phones when we change service or end a contract early. |
|
skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·Clear Wireless
| reply to silentlooker
DMCA is irrelevant when it comes to circumventing DRM when the result is legal (such as installing legal software), so sayith the 5th Circuit. Circumventing DRM is illegal when the purpose is copyright infringement, which obviously isn't the case with the VZW phone.
»www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5C···.wpd.pdf |
|
| 5th circuit ruling only applies to Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. There are 47 other states which it do not cover. |
|
Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
·AT&T Midwest
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to silentlooker
said by silentlooker:Technically it don't need to say anything in contract. Just read DMCA law, the exemption for jail breaking seems to have expired this year. So technically it's illegal again.
True, but Verizon was fined for having Google take down tethering apps, if there's an app out there to do this (which assumably can be downloaded over the LTE frequencies with the conditions on non-restriction), Verizon can't have it removed. |
|
skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·Clear Wireless
4 edits | reply to silentlooker
VZW has presence in each of those states.
In any event, the DMCA reads "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title"...
Circumventing DRM must result in a Title 17 violation to violate the DMCA. Adding apps to a phone or changing its behavior doesn't violate any part of Title 17. It's no different than defeating cell phone carrier locks. |
|
 The LimitPremium
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2 | reply to silentlooker
Are you trolling? Or do you really think developers that mod Verizon phones should be thrown in jail? |
|
| reply to silentlooker
said by silentlooker:said by LightS:Are you serious? LOL
Yes and no. I didn't see DMCA exemption for jailbreak getting renewed this year. If that is still the case then technically what this developers are doing is illegal. Just because something isn't specifically said to be legal doesn't mean it's illegal. The jailbreaking exemption expiring doesn't mean that jailbreaking is illegal. All it means is that the exemption, which specifically said that there could be no DMCA claims against jailbreaking, isn't there anymore.
By your logic, wearing a bright yellow shirt would be illegal unless there is a specific statute saying that wearing it is legal. |
|
| reply to The Limit
said by The Limit:Are you trolling? Or do you really think developers that mod Verizon phones should be thrown in jail?
They are technically violating the law are they not? It's up to local prosecutor to decide the question of prosecution. |
|
