Arbitrary regulations of Jailbreaking of terminals in USA: No more unlock mobiles...

According toan article of Arstechnica from now on jailbreaking tablets will be illegal in USA. Also the mobile phones bought after January 2013 won't be able to be unlocked, only will be able to be unlocked by the permission's carrier.

Also people won't be able to rip owned DVDs for personal use, for example to watch it in your own I-Pad.

All this according to the DMCA law. Do you agree with this restrictions to your freedom?

In all these aspect about the copyright, because here you are not the owner of the terminal, only you get a license of use, even with the hardware is pure restriction to your own freedom. And in this aspect I believe that the philosophy of Richard Stallman is the best. Stallman already advised about it long time ago. And here an extract ofStallaman's opinions:

I absolutely agree with him. And not using free software is becoming a slave, and here you have the prove, you are not free to do whatever you want with the things that you have bought. And as Stallman says free software is the best for any person of any ideology, for different reasons, but is the best choice for Libertarian, for any kind of Socialists for Anarchists of any kind of idea.

POLL: I am going to try a poll with multiple choices because it will be divided in two sections: One part only will ask do you agree with this restrictions of DMCA or not. And other will give a few options according to your ideology and your opinion about free software.

 

When Sony came out with the Betamax in 1975 the US movie and TV production companies filed suit in federal court alleging that the very existence of this home technology threatened the value of their products. People would tape movies, skip commercials on TV shows, therefore destroying the value of their copyright. Which of course turned out to be bull, they have a made fortune selling tapes and DVDs. The US Supreme Court ruled against them in 1984. Thirty years ago a wise friend told me that these advances in technology would undermine the very notion of 'private property'.
Here's the wiki on the court decision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betamax

 

I believe this quote from your article somes it up best for me.

Although I do have an issue with purchasing something and not owning it you cannot fault the companies for wanting their products protected from privacy. Buying an e'book and a traditional book are two different things. You can give the traditional book to one person to read but you can rip the e'book and sell it to as many people as you want. How is that possibly fair to the company?

I believe the end user license agreement is a necessity for the digital marketplace and even though I will be the first to admit that its a pain I can fully understand why its necessary.

I agree with the DMCA restrictions overall.

 

That goes both ways. Look at how much business the music industry lost when file sharing (I forget what the main site was called) was going on. They lost millions because of it.

 

As far as tablets and Phones and the OS capabilities I have circumvented all of that BS. I bought a PC based tablet and can run any OS I choose.

Companies like Apple and Amazon are shooting themselves in the foot over this BS and that is why many people will not touch them.

 

That is a lie. It has been debunked many times. But in summary they were considering as loses the downloaded music, considering that they would buy it. THat is a lie. And the loses are not cause of the piracy if not for other reasons like crisis, less quality of music, because look how the good groups fill their concerts.

 

why should someone be restricted from putting a free app on their tablet? phone or whatever, we already pay a ton for ringtones, if this passes expect the price of ringtones, ect to go up

printer companies are trying to say it's a violation of the DMCA to refill ink cartridges too

corporate bought and payed for law... Greed


.

 

You are absolutely right, I have mixed feelings about this myself. The artists, producers, writers, etc. deserve to be able to reap the fruits of their labors. It's time to look at the copyright laws and see what we can do to protect those interests while protecting the rights of the consumers. Not that I think that will be easy or simple. I also agree that the DMCA restrictions are the best we are going to able to do for the moment.

 

In my opinion the best system is the copyleft. It compromises between all positions.

 

The reason ink is so expensive is you buy cheap printers. I buy office grade machines with fax, scan, copy with doc feed and card slots. I have individual ink cartridges or toner and it is cheaper.

Some Smart device/phone manufacturers want you to buy their software only. If you go fad (Apple) or cheap (off the wall) you get screwed.

 

I think that these industries are not seeing the new business model. There are a lot of sucky musicians out there and a lot of good musicians not being heard. Music sharing only increases a band's popularity. The bands themselves see revenue from concerts, tshirts, etc. Moreover, with people moving away from CDs and to "itunes" the cost to the record company moves to minimal.

The idea of revenue loss is a bad argument because it supposes that someone would have bought the album, book, or movie if it was not free. Instead they might not have bought it at all. By testing something you learn who you like and are more apt to then want to see the concert or see the director's next movie when it comes out.

As to owning something you bought...this makes sense to me. What other product in the world does the seller continue to own after you pay for it? I have a million sweaters in the hands of other people and a red dress that I am going to wear that is my girlfriend's (wherever you are I promise not to get a stain on it).

They want their cake and eat it, too. This is all about control and restructuring how we feel about property.

Now, we truly own "nothing", we're just borrowing or renting.

 

Exactly copyright is license of use, as I've said before it is just a renting, leasing? You are not really owner of the product, mainly of the software. The only thing that gives you something closer to true ownership is the copyleft license, that creates the biggest example of it: free software.

 

Actually, their revenue didn't drop much, if at all. The "losses"they claimed assumed that every time a song was downloaded, it was eliminating a full-price album sale. That is like assuming that if you hadn't seen one episode of "Lost"at your friend's house, you would have gone out and bought the whole special-edition blu-ray set.

Many of the people who downloaded the music still bought albums-if the music was good. The ones who didn't buy the albums wouldn't have bought them even if they hadn't been able to download the song for free, and even if they had they often wouldn't have paid full price.

Remember that before CDs and MP3s, people used to record music off the radio and copy cassettes. The people who would have done that are the ones who did the file sharing.

The record labels just used a very inflated number to try to garner public support and justify massive punitive judgments. The numbers don't have anything to do with actual changes in revenue.