HELIOLITH

If you sell technology that has the ability to serve a given function, it is a little weird to disable or ‘nerf’ that function.

For example, if I buy a dvd over the internet from Spain –which I did a few years back– I expected it to work out-of-the-box (it was one by Alejandro Sanz). When it came, and get it in the mail only to find out it won’t play in 99% of dvd players because the MPAA devised an global copyright release scheme known as “region codes.” I bought the movie, I own it, I get to watch it. Period. I don’t sympathize with multi-nationals trying to save a dollar in their last-ditch efforts to stop international film piracy, especially not when it limits my (albeit priveledged) freedom to use a product to its fullest. Some theorize that region-coding may also be set up to facilitate regional price-fixing. Fortunately I was able to download a simple hack to enable my computer dvd drive to view the disc. Similar hacks for consumer (TV-connected) dvd players can be expensive or very difficult. Just a month ago we were given a simple, inexpensive dvd player (by Phillips) that refuses to play by the increasingly restrictive rules. It is macrovision free, region free (after a simple ‘hack’) ntsc and pal compatible, and plays DivX formatted discs. There too few companies resisting the pressures of the copyright cartel to universally restrict what consumers use their technology for.

It’s not surprising then, that people reject this interference with their use of things they own. According to Wi-Fi Networking News, Verizon customers recently filed suit against the company for disabling Bluetooth file transfer. To people who aren’t in the market for a fancy cell phone, Verizon’s attempts to charge their customers for access to the photos they take with their own camera-phones may not seem like a big deal. But Bluetooth is technology that enables direct computer to cell phone dialogue, among other things. Why would they disable it? So that you are forced to pay for fancy subscriptions to upload your images to their server, and then download them onto your computer, rather than just sending them wirelessly at home from your phone to your computer. To me, this seems asinine.

Motorola & Verizon are claiming they didn’t say you could use the Bluetooth that way, but that’s like saying, “I’ll sell you this great boom box, but I disabled the AC power cord feature, and uh, sorry but it only uses disposable proprietary batteries that you can buy from us.” Granted, the analogy is loose, since a boom box is for making music and a cell phone’s primary function is for talking, but plenty of folks use camera-phones to document reality without having to pack two gadgets. Many see these as selfish, extremist tactics. I certainly hope they lose.

The suit may hinge over whether Verizon Wireless misled customers, which it appears prima facie that they did not. As a Motorola spokesperson said, quite amusingly to my ear, “Nobody in the industry has ever said that Bluetooth would always be cost free. It will vary from operator to operator.”

Hmm. Glenn Fleishman opines,

It’s amusing because it implies that files stored on your phone don’t belong to you. It’s akin to the increasingly common argument made by companies that design devices to play or store media that you purchase or create that the content that you own or have rights to use doesn’t really belong to you.

via b-boing in a post that Xeni aptly titled, “All your phonecam pics are belong to Verizon” obscure wordplay doesn’t ring a bell? See wikipedia on the reference.

Update: See this boingboing post for a great artistic satire of drm & permission culture… a chair that requires permission to sit in, aquiring a temporary license over the internet, withdrawing spikes so you can sit down.