In response to:
This is a ridiculous argument, and speaks to the "I'm entitled" mentality of our society. Phones ARE subsidized here in the US. The carriers take huge losses (in the case of smartphones), and make it up on the monthly fees. Anyone can buy an unlocked phone if they're willing to pay full-price for the phone.
I hope conservatives and libertarians don't sign on to this thing. We need less entitlement, not more.
On January 26, 2013, the Librarian of Congress issued a ruling that made it illegal to unlock new phones. Unlocking is a technique to allow your phone to use a different carrier. Doing so could place you in legal liability for up to 5 years in jail and a $500,000 fine (specifically the Librarian of Congress allowed the existing exception to lapse). This prohibition is a violation of our property rights, and it makes you wonder, if you can’t alter the settings on your phone, do you even own your own phone?
The ruling is a clear example of crony-capitalism, where...
Hardly. It speaks to the greed an duplicity of businesses that don't want you to know what they're selling you. You want to be FAIR? Force these companies to declare in clear terms that the product will only ever work with their service at the time of sale.
Every one of these phones comes with an expensive contract that recoups the cost of the phone. Once the contract is up, the consumer thinks they own the phone. Many are surprised to find that they cannot switch to a cheaper provider once their obligation is up.
If people violate their contracts then they are in breach of their contract and face the consequences of that.
ALL OTHERS ARE Owned by those who carry them.
Your answer reveals that you DON'T understand what Entitlements really are.
So, Which World, or Alternate Dimension are you from where this is TRUE???
The argument in the article is anarcho-capitalist. I will agree with the A-C's that copyright law has gotten a bit out of hand. Should Apple be able to patent the shape of their smart phone? Only Apple can have rectangular phones with a screen? Of course not. Reforms are needed, certainly, but is this phone unlocking complaint reasonable? Maybe not..
However (always a however), TANSTAAFL. That "discount" you receive on the hardware is no discount. You pay for the hardware over the two year contract. Funny that ALL the carriers have similar if not identical "deals". Hmmm. Perhaps the real issue is anti-trust law.
If it was a contract issue there wouldn't be this article. Contracts can pretty much do whatever. No one is petitioning against contracts saying anything with their service providers. Penalties against violating contracts may make sense to make the provider whole of course.
The problem here is that the federal government is dictating that a whole class of technology is illegal based upon "copyright law."