Comments on: Jail Terms For Unlocking Cellphones Shows The True Black Heart Of The Copyright Monopoly

By: American Patriot

American Patriot — Tue, 10 Sep 2013 09:28:00 +0000

If you wish to save your seed patent, then DON’T SELL THE DAMN SEEDS!
When you SELL them, YOU lose ALL RIGHTS to CONTROL THEM, and the right of FIRST SALE goes to the BUYER…so SCREW GOVERNMENT!
WE WILL DO as WE PLEASE, and SHOOT the rest that hold opposing views!

By: American Patriot

American Patriot — Tue, 10 Sep 2013 09:24:00 +0000

First off, government owns NOTHING!
WE THE PEOPLE OWN IT ALL!
And if they want to TRY taking guns from us, GREAT!
We will gladly accept them as MOVING TARGETS and leave their rotting corpses on the street, where they DIED from being STUPID and IGNORING the WILL OF THE PEOPLE!

The U.K never had a REAL Constitution that LIMITED government and ALLOWED the PEOPLE to CONTROL IT, like WE HAVE, and THIS is the reason the U.K SUCKS!
Our Constitution also makes it the RIGHT and DUTY of ALL Americans to CRUSH the government when they become oppressive and tyrannical, and they WILL see the result of this if Obama does not LEAVE the White House soon, as WE THE PEOPLE are fast tiring of the FILTH that Washington is heapin upon us….WE WILL STOMP THE LIFE OUT OF WASHINGTON….GUARANTEED!

The 2nd amendment PROTECTS the FIRST amendment with REAL FIREPOWER and PATRIOTS!

By: American Patriot

American Patriot — Tue, 10 Sep 2013 09:15:00 +0000

We have purchased all our phones, and NONE are on ANY contract. We also have rooted them and modified them to OUR wants and needs, and we WILL keep doing this forever, and if you despise us for it….GOOD!
BTW: APPLE SUCKS!

By: American Patriot

American Patriot — Tue, 10 Sep 2013 09:11:00 +0000

Okay, they created the software, SOLD the software for use in my phone.
Now, I BUY said phone from the original software purchaser, so now I am also part of that singular copy of the software being programmed into MILLIONS of phones, and since his work got loaded into my phone wihout my prior knowledge, this person now has the right to take control of MY property simply because it has software programmed into it, that I did NOT authorize or agree to have programmed into it?
Do I now have to pay this person ABOVE the initial fee he received when he SOLD his software to the phone manufacturer?
Continued royalties for a singular act….This IS funny!

I guess all those CELL SITES I installed and tuned should pay ME continued royalties for KEEPING THEM ON THE AIR and TAKING IN MONEY!
You know, I LOVE this new math!

Make once, SELL it over and over and CRY about ONE lost sale, and get government to write a law that GUARANTEES THEFT in PERPETUITY….forever, NICE!

By: American Patriot

American Patriot — Tue, 10 Sep 2013 08:40:00 +0000

What I have ALWAYS asked is this: If anybody SELLS an item, be it a phone, or software, HOW can the SELLER sit back and force me to keep paying that person for continued use of the very thing he SOLD to me? Once you SELL a thing, YOU no longer OWN it, and you TRANSFER legal OWNERSHIP of that item to the BUYER, and it now becomes HIS or HER property alone, you accepted money as a legal form of exchange, and to expect me to continue paying long after the original sale, is nothing short of fraud.
I can not legally demand that a person that bought a car from me 2 years ago, is STILL liable to me as I sold the car to him under a false ‘license’ now?
If the license is NOT included in the ORIGINAL SALE, the LICENSE is NULL and VOID, which means ALL software EULAS are also ILLEGAL and AFTER THE FACT contracts, made AFTER the LEGAL SALE.
This fraudulent rick has been played on the people for far too long, attempting to force people into unlawful contracts that really have NO BASIS in ANY contractual law. You can NOT sign over your right of first sale because a company decided to force a contract upon you by merely opening a box, indicates your agreement with an unread document, granting full rights and control, when in any contractual law proceeding, you must SIGN a CONTRACT in order for it to be LEGAL and BINDING, no signature, NO CONTRACT!
This is WHY a gentleman’s agreement is NOT enforceable in 99% of the court cases brought by these very agreements, NO SIGNATURES, only he said, she said. and we all know how THAT plays out in the end….Just like the NAZI traffic cop that wrote you a ticket, and YOU were NOT even on the road…Cop said, You said….NAZI COP WINS…courts ALWAYS favor the NAZI COPS, YOU must have LIED, as NAZI COPS NEVER LIE….*puke*

By: American Patriot

American Patriot — Tue, 10 Sep 2013 02:44:00 +0000

As I WISH, some fool thinking they can come and take what I paid for….I say this, as a warning…TRY IT!
I need more moving target practice!

By: American Patriot

American Patriot — Tue, 10 Sep 2013 02:21:00 +0000

Whenever you place a PRICE on any item YOU are SELLING, you LOSE control over that item, just as sure as if you sold your car to me, or your home. Sale means LOSING CONTROL or the ability to control that which you SOLD, meaning you GIVE UP the legal control by SELLING the item!
Once I OWN a thing,I WILL do as I see fit, and NOBODY is going to tell me otherwise!

On the other hand, I think I will exercise control over those cars I sold, and the two homes as well. I know I have a copyright located in my folder at shadylawyers.org.

By: alexvoda

alexvoda — Fri, 07 Jun 2013 17:29:00 +0000

We should replace the notion of

subsidized phones with purchasing them in installments or in a leasing system.

Subsidizing is used to trick people into thinking the phone is cheap and to hide the price structures.

By: Was DRM really the reason for locked devices? - Page 5

Was DRM really the reason for locked devices? - Page 5 — Tue, 21 May 2013 01:46:44 +0000

[...] opinion piece mirrors my views about DRM in general. Jail Terms For Unlocking Cellphones Shows The True Black Heart Of The Copyright Monopoly This next piece gives you a glimpse of what we can expect in the future. 3D Printer DRM Patent [...]

By: Mikael Lindlöf

Mikael Lindlöf — Sat, 18 May 2013 19:05:00 +0000

I don’t get the fuss. Doesn’t the unlocking issue only affect devices that are under part-payment contract and simultaneously locked to a carrier? You would not actually own such device anyway.

Flashing/jailbreaking a cellphone seems to be allowed but not for unlocking/’carrier switching’ purposes.

There seems to be some confusion about this subject in internets. This seems to be mainly because unlocking term can be used in both contexts and because flashing may be required to perform an illegal act.