Legislators have introduced bipartisan bills in both chambers of Congress to reaffirm consumers' right to unlock their smartphones once they're off contract. But the bills stop well short of any serious, permanent change.

The Senate version of the legislation is S. 517, the Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act, which was introduced March 11 by Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Al Franken (D-MN), along with Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Michael Lee (R-UT) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), all members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The provenance of the bill is important, as the involvement of so many Judiciary Committee members means the bill is much more likely to actually get a vote on the Senate floor. The bipartisan (yes, it's still a real word) backing should help grease the wheels as well.

The bill is also very short, as bills go -- just 289 words. That's both good, in that there won't be much to argue about, and bad, because the bill won't actually do all that much. Here's how it breaks down:

• Section 2(a) repeals the specific interpretation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) made by the Librarian of Congress on October 28, 2012. That ruling let an exemption that permitted consumers to unlock their phones without legal retribution expire on January 26, 2013.
• Section 2(b) of the bill, though, sets a one-year limit on the repeal of the cell-phone unlocking exemption. So assuming this measure gets passed,  one year later the Librarian of Congress would again be free to let the unlocking exemption expire, thus bringing us right back to... where we are today.
• Section 2(c) emphasizes that nothing in the law usurps the overall authority of the Librarian of Congress.

That's the whole thing, in just 182 words less than the actual bill.

The issue at hand is really the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the 1998 law that Leahy helped create. This sweeping copyright protection law criminalized any efforts to bypass copyright protections and device access control. And buried within it is the authority given to the Librarian of Congress to periodically review new and existing technologies to make sure the DMCA is properly applied.

The Librarian's 2012 DMCA review allowed the unlocking exemption to expire, which in turn inspired a White House petition calling for the its reversal. The petition seemed to resonate, and received 14,000 more signatures than the 100,000 required to get an official response.

(See also: The White House Agrees: Unlocking Your Cellphone Should Be Legal)

Instead of a classic carefully worded response, the White House offered a blast at the Librarian's interpretation of the DMCA rule. U.S. carrier AT&T then responded that it never had any problems with customers unlocking cell phones, just so long as no one broke any contracts.

The White House's explicit call for unlocking legislation means this bill has a good chance to be a law. Plus, in the House of Representatives, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and Ranking Member John Conyers (D-MI) are also backing similar legislation.

(Check out: AT&T: You Can Unlock Your Cellphone, Really)

There is a chance, albeit a small one, that a one-year extension of cell phone unlocking will give the Librarian pause the next time the DMCA review rolls around. But it's hard to buy that this bill is anything but political theater, a quick spoonful of pablum to make voters happy for a while and perhaps dispel the perception of Congress as something than hyper-polarized.

Good luck with that. The fact that no one seems opposed to cell phone unlocking, even the carriers that could stand to lose a little business if a customer takes their device elsewhere once a contract is done, is likely why Congress is all gung-ho on these bills. No lobbying? No problem.

There is also an inherent problem with all of this unlocking discussion: many users won't care about unlocking. When their contract runs out, consumers are usually craving the latest new and shiny devices on the market. Even if they are looking to switch carriers, the thought of getting a new phone is compelling enough they won't even bother with trying to take their old phone with them.

Unlocking will be great for those users who need it, but thanks to the power of marketing, holding on to phones for as long as you can seems to be a bygone practice.

AT&T is telling its customers that the "recent hullaballoo" over unlocking consumer devices is all just a lot of needless hand waving, and that its customers were never affected by recent interpretations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

According to AT&T, the issue of unlocking cell phones was never going to be a problem for its customers.

Consumer concerns over prohibitions reached a fever pitch this year, after the Librarian of Congress performed a review of the DMCA back in October. In that review, the Librarian let the exemption that enabled consumers to unlock their phones without legal retribution expire on January 26.

This led to many in the mobile phone sector, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, interpret the clause's expiration as any attempt to unlock a phone would be deemed illegal to unlock a mobile device.

"If a court rules in favor of the carriers, penalties can be stiff - up to $2,500 per unlocked phone in a civil suit, and $500,000 or five years in prison in a criminal case where the unlocking is done for 'commercial advantage'," the EFF wrote back in January.

As part of a public response, a White House petition was created that called for making unlocked cell phones legal again. The petition garnered 14,000 more signatures than the required 100,000 needed to get an official response.

(See also The White House Agrees: Unlocking Your Cellphone Should Be Legal.)

This week, the issue came to a head again when the White House, instead of giving one of its carefully worded neutral responses, came out to blast the interpretation of the DMCA rule.

David Edelmen, senior advisor for the Internet, innovation and privacy at the White House, wrote:

"The White House agrees with the 114,000+ of you who believe that consumers should be able to unlock their cell phones without risking criminal or other penalties. In fact, we believe the same principle should also apply to tablets, which are increasingly similar to smart phones. And if you have paid for your mobile device, and aren't bound by a service agreement or other obligation, you should be able to use it on another network. It's common sense, crucial for protecting consumer choice, and important for ensuring we continue to have the vibrant, competitive wireless market that delivers innovative products and solid service to meet consumers' needs.

Today, however, AT&T is clouding the issue somewhat by saying that as it sees the Librarian's October ruling, the question about unlocking cell phones was never a problem. Joan Marsh, AT&T Vice President of Federal Regulatory, wrote:

"While we think the Librarian's careful decision was reasonable, the fact is that it has very little impact on AT&T customers. As we make clear on our website, if we have the unlock code or can reasonably get it from the manufacturer, AT&T currently will unlock a device for any customer whose account has been active for at least sixty days; whose account is in good standing and has no unpaid balance; and who has fulfilled his or her service agreement commitment. If the conditions are met we will unlock up to five devices per account per year. We will not unlock devices that have been reported lost or stolen."

So, was all of the fuss about cell phone unlocking much ado about nothing? Perhaps. For its part, AT&T doesn't seem to have a problem with the unlocking policy.

"We believe this policy is fully consistent with the White House statement from earlier this week – namely that if a customer has paid for his or her device and is no longer bound by a service agreement or other obligation, the customer should be able to use the device on another network. We hope this clears up any confusion," Marsh added.

When reached for additional comment, an AT&T spokesperson simply replied, "The blog post simply reiterates our standing policy."

It may not clear up the confusion, because one has to wonder what would happen if a carrier decided to not let its customers unlock their phones. Would the DMCA, then, have the teeth that the EFF and others have warned us about?

For now, we have AT&T's word that it will allow phone unlocking for its customers, and one should expect clarifying statements from the other carriers soon. The DMCA could still be a problem in other ways, but as long as carriers don't care, the ruling from the Librarian will not affect the status quo.

Image courtesy of Shutterstock. With thanks to Dan Rowinski for reporting help.

Earlier this year, the Library of Congress allowed an exemption to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act to expire, effectively making it illegal to unlock cellphones purchased after Jan. 26. A group of citizens outraged at the unlocking ban started a petition on the White House’s “We The People” website to fight the new law, garnering more than 114,000 signatures in 30 days.

Today, the White House responded. The verdict? The administration is firmly in support of ending the unlocking ban. Unfortunately, it can't do very much about it on its own.

David Edelmen, senior advisor for the Internet, innovation and privacy at the White House, wrote:

The White House agrees with the 114,000+ of you who believe that consumers should be able to unlock their cell phones without risking criminal or other penalties. In fact, we believe the same principle should also apply to tablets, which are increasingly similar to smart phones. And if you have paid for your mobile device, and aren't bound by a service agreement or other obligation, you should be able to use it on another network. It's common sense, crucial for protecting consumer choice, and important for ensuring we continue to have the vibrant, competitive wireless market that delivers innovative products and solid service to meet consumers' needs.

Which is great. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has to kick the can to Congress to really fix things. For instance, Edelman wrote, the White House would support a variety of legislative fixes:

The Obama Administration would support a range of approaches to addressing this issue, including narrow legislative fixes in the telecommunications space that make it clear: neither criminal law nor technological locks should prevent consumers from switching carriers when they are no longer bound by a service agreement or other obligation.

The odds of that at the moment? Probably not great.

In the short term, the best chance for quick action might lie with the Library of Congress itself. The LoC also released a statement today that, depending on how you squint at it, either seemed to open the door to reconsideration of the unlocking issue or to simply hedge its bets. Key sentence:

We also agree with the administration that the question of locked cell phones has implications for telecommunications policy and that it would benefit from review and resolution in that context.

The White House said that any users that own their cellphones and are not hindered by service contracts should be able to do what they please with their devices.

This is particularly important for secondhand or other mobile devices that you might buy or receive as a gift, and want to activate on the wireless network that meets your needs -- even if it isn't the one on which the device was first activated. All consumers deserve that flexibility.

The petition was started by Sina Khanifar, an entrepreneur that once owned a website called Cell-Unlock.com. Here is Khanifar's response to the White House's response:

A little earlier I received a call from David Edelman at the White House, and he gave me the news. I'm really glad to see the White House taking action on an issue that's clearly very important to people. As the White House said in the response, keeping unlocking legal is really "common sense," and I'm excited to see them recognizing this. David was enthusiastic about getting this fixed as quickly as possible.

This is a big victory for consumers, and I'm glad to have played a part in it. A lot of people reacted skeptically when I originally started the petition, with lots of comments to the effect of "petitions don't do anything."  The optimist in me is really glad to have proved them wrong. The White House just showed that they really do listen, and that they're willing to take action.

While I think this is wonderful, I think the real culprit here is Section 1201 of the DMCA, the controversial "anti-circumvention provision." I discussed with the White House the potential of pushing to have that provision amended or removed, and they want to continue that conversation. I'll have exciting news on the campaign to make this happen tomorrow.

Tinkerers, open source ideologues, mobile developers and enthusiasts and even plain old mobile consumers who want a bit of choice, you got some bad news earlier this year: It is now illegal to unlock your smartphone. 

Through a decree from the Library Of Congress through the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, as of Jan. 26, 2013, the exception explicitly allowing consumers to unlock any new smartphones they purchase has been ended.

Unlocking smartphones is a way for consumers to change the SIM cards in their devices so they can use it on a different carrier. For instance, if you unlocked your Samsung Galaxy S 3 you could then change carriers from AT&T to T-Mobile by replacing the SIM card.

What Is The Unlocking Petition All About?

A petition has been presented to the White House on its “We the People” website, which allows U.S. residents to entreat the U.S. government to address particular concerns. The White House is committed to respond to any petition that gets 100,000 signatures.

Here is the text of the petition:

The Librarian of Congress decided in October 2012 that unlocking of cell phones would be removed from the exceptions to the DMCA.

As of January 26, consumers will no longer be able unlock their phones for use on a different network without carrier permission, even after their contract has expired.

Consumers will be forced to pay exorbitant roaming fees to make calls while traveling abroad. It reduces consumer choice, and decreases the resale value of devices that consumers have paid for in full.

The Librarian noted that carriers are offering more unlocked phones at present, but the great majority of phones sold are still locked.

We ask that the White House ask the Librarian of Congress to rescind this decision, and failing that, champion a bill that makes unlocking permanently legal.

The petition is now nearly a month old, having been started on Jan. 24 this year. It has until Feb. 23 to garner 100,000 signatures. As of the afternoon of Feb. 20, the petition was still about 12,000 votes short of obliging the White House to respond. 

Why Is Unlocking Important?

Consumers can face financial hurdles and loss of choice if the unlocking ban remains in effect. The most obvious problem is for overseas travelers who want to unlock their phones so they can use a local SIM card and avoid the exorbitant voice and data charges that domestic carriers like AT&T charge for foreign use. Consumers may also want to unlock their phones to switch carriers or if they want to sell their phones to independent third parties. 

The carriers and manufacturers, meanwhile, stand to benefit from the unlocking ban. If consumers are forced into contracts when they buy their phones, they cannot easily switch carriers without hefty early termination fees. Manufacturers benefit because if somebody wants to join a new carrier, they have to buy a new phone. Wireless trade groups like the CTIA look out for the interests of manufacturers and carriers (especially the carriers) and have endorsed the unlocking ban.

Who's Behind The Unlocking Petition?

One of the petition’s organizers is Sina Khanifar. He started a website while at college in 2004 called Cell-Unlock.com that sold software that unlocked consumers’ cellphones. Shortly thereafter he was hit by a cease-and-desist letter from Motorola alleging that he was circumventing DMCA rules that prohibit unlocking phone.. With the help of the founder of Stanford's Cyberlaw Clinic, Jennifer Granick, an exemption was created in the DMCA that specifically allowed consumers to unlock their phones. That exemption expired on Jan. 26.

Khanifar does have some incentive to make cellphone unlocking legal. The Cell-Unlock website is still active and is being run by his brother, Sohail. 

The other organizer of the petition is Derek Khanna, a former staff member of the Republican Study Committee who was infamously terminated from the group after releasing a memo on copyright and intellectual property legislation that was not well received by the Grand Old Party. Before his termination, Khanna was regarded as a tech-savvy young member of the Republican party. He is now a visiting law fellow at Yale University.

Want to end the unlocking ban? Sign the petition by Friday to ensure the White House responds. 

NOTE: This story has been updated from its original version to clarify some points about the "Birdsong" takedown in the second item.

No matter where you stand on copyright issues, it's hard to argue that the current system is working. In few places are the flaws of modern copyright law more apparent than when it comes to Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown requests. 

Sure, plenty of legitimate DMCA are received and honored by sites like YouTube, Rapidshare and Grooveshark all the time. But every now and then we hear about a takedown notice that leaves us scratching our heads: Is that really a copyright violation? If not, why was the content removed? Is the system that easily gamed? Oh, it was a violation? How weird. 

Even the legitimate takedowns tend to lead a cat-and-mouse game and may not have a meaningful impact on the piracy they're intended to thwart, research suggests. But either way, some of the headline-grabbing copyright-related content takedowns we've seen raise major questions about the state of copyright law, the DMCA and digital piracy. 

Five prominent examples are listed below, but there are undoubtedly others. If you've heard of an outrageous Web content takedown request, let us know in the comments section.  

1. Buffy vs. Edward vs. Bogus Takedown Notices

In 2009, Jonathan McIntosh posted a video to YouTube that seemed ripe to go viral. "Buffy vs. Edward: Twightlight Remixed" riffed on two popular vampire-related entertainment franchises by cleverly mashing up scenes from both into one cohesive, six-minute video. Sound like a copyright violation? It's not. In fact, the U.S. Copyright Office cited the remix video as a shining example of fair use. 

In October 2012, McIntosh received an email from YouTube explaining that his video had been pulled due to a copyright complaint from Lionsgate Entertainment, which owns the rights to the Twilight movies. McIntosh challenged the takedown on fair use grounds and a frustrating back-and-forth between YouTube, Lionsgate and McIntosh ensued. At one point, McIntosh was even locked out of his YouTube account and forced to take lessons in copyright infringement from Google. 

As of today, Buffy vs. Edward is back online. For now. 

2. Rumblefish And Birdsong

This one was just an honest mistake and didn't actually lead to a takedown, but it still shows how things can go wrong with the current system. Somehow YouTube's Content ID system got confused and thought that the sound of a bird singing in the background of a video about a man making salad was the same thing as a song called "Birdsong" that was recorded by an artist whose songs are licensed by Rumblefish, a music licensing company, and send a "music claim" to the confused salad man. Content ID is a system that automates the process of spotting copyrighted work that's been used without permission. If your video gets flagged for copyright violation, you can dispute that, which is what the salad-maker did. Rumblefish reviewed the dispute but "mistakenly reinstated the claim," its CEO later explained. Still, the video was never actually taken down. Nevertheless, salad man made a stink in the press, and the story went viral. Two days later Rumblefish realized the mistake it had made in reinstating the claim, and released the claim. The whole thing was a misunderstanding. But to be clear: Salad man never had to take down his video; it remained up through all of this, and still is up; and no takedown notice was ever issued.

A spokesperson for Rumblefish says there were two mistakes. First, Content ID screwed up. Second, Rumblefish "did a poor job of reviewing the video manually." The issue, she says, is that there are more than 5 million videos online that use Rumblefish songs, and keeping up with so much material is a huge challenge. Bottom line: Rumblefish's CEO owned up to the error and the video remains online, but the affair raises some questions about the manageability of the copyright enforcement system. [This item has been updated from its original version.]

3. Universal Targets Pro-Megaupload Video Just Because

A few weeks before the now infamous raid that took down Megaupload and its top brass, Kim Dotcom was involved in yet another copyright-related dispute. Shortly after the music video for "Megaupload Song" was uploaded to YouTube, it was taken down due to a copyright complaint from Universal Music Group.  This was despite the fact that the song and video were original, non-infringing content. UMG apparently didn't like the fact that a video promoting Megaupload featured on-camera cameos by major label mega-stars like Kanye West, Mary J Blige, P Diddy and Will.i.am. 

4. Universal Goes Crazy Over A Prince Song

When Stepahnie Lenz uploaded a short clip of her kids dancing to "Let's Go Crazy" by Prince, the last thing she expected was a copyright takedown notice. Apparently, 26 seconds of low-quality audio was too much for Universal Music Group, which owns the copyright to Prince's catalog. The resulting legal case, Lenz v. Universal, established a precedent stating that copyright owners would need to take the parameters of fair use into consideration before issuing DMCA takedown notices. 

5. Minecraft + Gangnam Style = Copyright Violation?

Taking two things beloved by the Internet and mashing them up is often a surefire recipe for a viral video. It's also apparently an open invitation for accusations of copyright infringement. YouTube user CaptainSparklez learned this the hard way after he uploaded "Minecraft Style," a video that parodies the world's most viewed YouTube Video by merging it with the ever-popular Minecraft video game. 

After being yanked from YouTube, "Minecraft Style" returned in mid-December, only to be pulled again. The jury is still out on whether this video falls under the fair use exception to copyright law. Either way, it's hard to imagine a clever mash-up parody video eating into the massive success wrought by PSY since his bizarrely catchy song went viral. 

Images courtesy of Shutterstock.