Manipulate Morally Magnificent? Part II

[Andy Sjostrom]

<a href="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5397">http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5397</a><br /><br />Here's another moral dilemma that I'd like to throw into the debate. I posted the <a href="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5397">"The Orange SPV Smartphone Lock Down"</a> article in December last year and it explained why and how the Orange SPV Smartphone is locked in the sense that users can't install "unsigned" applications to it. In the public Smartphone developer newsgroup discussions surrounding this issue seem to be endless. But go and check out the post "We have disabled driver signing requirement" that might turn things around and perhaps even lead to legal ramifications.<br /><br />I must admit that I would love to see "open" Smartphones, but following these steps obviously risks breaking the phone. Question: for those daring out there I wonder if it is morally or legally ok to break the way the phone is supposed to work?

[denivan]

Doesn't posting stuff like this
(overriding protection in the orange and
xda phone) violate the dmca act or
something ? No visiting the US for you !
:-)

[Andy Sjostrom]

Doesn't posting stuff like this
(overriding protection in the orange and
xda phone) violate the dmca act or
something ? No visiting the US for you !
:-)

I don't think so, but don't want to risk anything. So, I edited the post and reference to the newsgroup instead... :)

[Andy Sjostrom]

Doesn't posting stuff like this
(overriding protection in the orange and
xda phone) violate the dmca act or
something ? No visiting the US for you !
:-)

The xda phone part: I am only discussing something that someone else made public! :)

[denivan]

Well, I didn't really want you to edit your posts ;)

Just thought it was funny to point out that even every day news posts can be effected by the dmca. Reading about what the dmca does is one thing, but seeing it effect your favourite web site is another thing ;-)

Greetz,

Ivan

[PlayAgain?]

I must admit that I would love to see "open" Smartphones, but following these steps obviously risks breaking the phone. Question: for those daring out there I wonder if it is morally or legally ok to break the way the phone is supposed to work?

In my opinion, unless Orange advertise the phone as being locked down and restricted from installing [some] third party software (something I haven't noticed in my local phone shops), the user has every right to try and find a way of unblocking it.

Where Orange have capitalised is the fact that all reviews of the phone have said how wonderful it is and how you can install software over the air and so people go and buy it only to find out later that they can't do all that they thought.

It's one thing to realise that a device you bought can't do something because it isn't capable, but it is infuriating when you realise that the reason your device can't do something is that someone somewhere has deemed it unecessary to allow you to do it.

As for the way these folks are unblocking their phones, why not? Microsoft has a long history of describing bugs and security holes as 'design decisions'...... therefore, these users are just using a feature of their phone to allow them to install extra software.

Power to their elbow and let's fight the control that corporations are looking to have over our lives!

It also shows the sad state our world is in when we can discuss whether something is morally or legally ok. These two should go hand in hand, if the law is to reflect what is good, but it doesn't and that is what makes the question valid.

Just my opinion, I hope nobody's upset.

[TopDog]

I think Orange has made a product that was ment to be a Phone/PDA that you can adjust to your needs, but they want to controll and make money of your needs...

This is a little bit like DVD's. If I buy a DVD on a visit to USA, I can't play it at home in Norway... in my book, this is a violation of my rights. I've bought a product and should have the right to do what I want with it!

Solutions:

1. Buy the product and accept that your'e controlled!
2. Buy the product, crack your SmartPhone, DVD-player, etc... and probably break the law (not here in Norway though :-), we have the right to break codes as long as we only use it with bought products).
2. Don't buy the product...

[FredMurphy]

I don't see any moral problem with breaking the lockdown.

Orange have, I presume, justified this as stopping you installing flaky applications and then calling them for support when the phone doesn't work. If you circumvent the code-signing I can see how they would consider your warranty to be invalid and refuse to help you sort out any problems. However, you haven't broken it or stolen anything from Orange.

From a personal point of view I don't think they should have done it at all. If you buy a PC you'd expect to be able to install your own software on it; not any different IMO.

Fred

[vetteguy]

I don't think this is the same as a DVD or CD. The copy protection laws are supposed to prevent me from giving away a movie or song, someone else's intellectual property. A phone is different-it's a consumer product. If I buy a toaster and decide I want to rewire it so it heats twice as hot, that's my business and my right (it's my toaster). If I want to hack in and allow my phone to have unsigned software run on it (accepting the fact that I probably void my warranty) that's my right. Jason had someone install 128MB of RAM into his XDA. Isn't that technically the same thing? He "broke" their design in order to get more utility out of it. But he can because it's his once he purchases it. Just the same as I could drop my XDA out a window if I wanted to, because I own it. If Orange truly wants to pursue legal action against anyone opening up their product then I hope they can also accept the fact that they will shortly go out of business, as no one will support a company that sues its customer. Well, at least I hope they won't.

[denivan]

Actually , what I was trying to say was : If I understand the article on the dmca act correctly, then rewiring your toaster is not your right, if that means you circumvent a built in protection. So orange has built in protection for only running signed applications and going around this protection (even with a built in bug) seems like it's violating the dmca act if I read it correctly. Even posting news about it seems violating the act and that's what worries me the most. Vetteguy, you can honestly feel that it's your property and your right to do so (I think the same way), but I feel that the dmca act prohibits you of doing so. Just like sony said it wasn't that guy's right to hack his own Aibo to learn it a few more tricks...

Greetz,

Ivan

[vetteguy]

Actually , what I was trying to say was : If I understand the article on the dmca act correctly, then rewiring your toaster is not your right, if that means you circumvent a built in protection. So orange has built in protection for only running signed applications and going around this protection (even with a built in bug) seems like it's violating the dmca act if I read it correctly. Even posting news about it seems violating the act and that's what worries me the most. Vetteguy, you can honestly feel that it's your property and your right to do so (I think the same way), but I feel that the dmca act prohibits you of doing so. Just like sony said it wasn't that guy's right to hack his own Aibo to learn it a few more tricks...

Greetz,

Ivan
Well, then if the DMCA truly prohibits it, then it is one of the most dangerous laws ever enacted, and everyone should do whatever they can to make sure it is brought down. It starts with this, but willl keep going until they tell us what we can buy and how we will use it. Oh wait, they already are.

[denivan]

Well, then if the DMCA truly prohibits it, then it is one of the most dangerous laws ever enacted, and everyone should do whatever they can to make sure it is brought down.

Exactly... :( Btw, vetteguy, what does your nickname mean ? I see you're from Michigan, but in Dutch 'vetteguy' means something like 'a man named guy who is fat' ;-)

[vetteguy]

[quote="vetteguy]Well, then if the DMCA truly prohibits it, then it is one of the most dangerous laws ever enacted, and everyone should do whatever they can to make sure it is brought down. quote]

Exactly... :( Btw, vetteguy, what does your nickname mean ? I see you're from Michigan, but in Dutch 'vetteguy' means something like 'a man named guy who is fat' ;-)
I used to have a Corvette (actually two) so that's where it comes from. Not really happy to hear what it means elsewhere though. :( Since I don't have that car anymore maybe I should get a new nickname.

[denivan]

Feel free to check first if your new nickname would also mean something odd in dutch ;)

[JMountford]

I would say Morally Speaking, that if I pay my hard earned very budgeted money for something, then, by all that's right and just, I have a god given right to do whatever the heck I want with that thing...

Now Legally whatever I do may be subject to scrutiny. Like using a digital camera to take compromising pictures.. And then posting them on the internet.

My theory is this, you have a right to do whatever you want with your proerty, but once it effects someone else it is not just subject to what is with in your rights. Do you and your wife have a right to take pictures? Absolutely! Do you then have the right to post them. Well, Sure, because you both aggreed and it is your property, but now those pictures are affecting others, so they are open to scrutiny.

I think this fine line is where this digital law comes into play. Because you purchased the original media, but what happens when what you make goes public..? I think there should be deffinate destinctions made between right for personal use and wrong for public use. And I think that this is all any of use want..

[Kaber]

NO MORE SECRETS! :twisted:

[Joff]

I can't believe this crap :evil:
The SPV is locked?!!! It should surely be specified when advertised. I was considering buying one (yop I'm a geek) but now, no chance! This is getting ridiculous. This kind of conservative approach is really not good for the economy. Do you have to be a close friend of Orange to have the privilege to sell your SW appl. on their phone?

Man, can someone shoot the guy who put these sort of things into place? He will do everyone a favor. :wink:

[JMountford]

the idea, I believe is that Orange can sell whatever app they chose. If you want an App for their phone it has to be purchased through them.

[seanturner]

The digital millenium copyright act has really been used to try and justify a lot of scarry stuff. (that 16 year old kid who wrote DECSS comes to mind), I mean, you can't take away years of his life for htat....

Furthermore, it is my opinion that the US constitution was written was written to protect the property rights of individual citizens and these laws like the DMCA are a direct violation of that...

I also believe that we need a trial by jurry for cases like this with jurrors who are aware of the right to jury nullification. It is one of the last great defences of freedom in this country. If a jury finds a law unjust they can aquit the defendent effectively nullifying the law. Prosecurtors don't want to try cases they know won't win and the law becomes pointless.

[seanturner]

Wow Andy... 666 posts... Although it doesn't quite go with that black and white picture of you...

[someppcuser]

I would say Morally Speaking, that if I pay my hard earned very budgeted money for something, then, by all that's right and just, I have a god given right to do whatever the heck I want with that thing...

Now Legally whatever I do may be subject to scrutiny. Like using a digital camera to take compromising pictures.. And then posting them on the internet.

My theory is this, you have a right to do whatever you want with your proerty, but once it effects someone else it is not just subject to what is with in your rights. Do you and your wife have a right to take pictures? Absolutely! Do you then have the right to post them. Well, Sure, because you both aggreed and it is your property, but now those pictures are affecting others, so they are open to scrutiny.

I think this fine line is where this digital law comes into play. Because you purchased the original media, but what happens when what you make goes public..? I think there should be deffinate destinctions made between right for personal use and wrong for public use. And I think that this is all any of use want..

Some corporations and at least a governor of your country do not agree with you ;). THEY have to control your hardware and prevent you from doing what THEY don't want you to do.
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html

[seanturner]

yeah, wasn't it on PPCT where there was a post a day or so ago listing a bunch of abuses of the DMCA?

[cherring]

I have no qualms cracking software or opening hardware to do whatever I want with it. I bought it, I own it. I don't care what the original manufacturer wanted it to be used as. Forget being a moral issue, it isn't an issue at all. I guess just don't post your results anywhere.

[FredMurphy]

Feel free to check first if your new nickname would also mean something odd in dutch ;)
A friend of mine recently found out that his surname (Kimber) meant "clitoris" in Sri Lanka. :lol: That explained the giggles and shocked looks when he was on holiday (and the unexpected visitors to his home page).

[FredMurphy]

Just spotted an article on InfoSync (http://www.infosync.no/news/2002/n/2920.html) regarding Microsoft and Orange's position on this.