Really? Then perhaps you might want to explain how websites are able to moderate messages from their users if the First Amendment is applicable to private actors. If I tried to apply the First Amendment to a private actor on my Bar exam, I would've gotten a 0 on the essay question. As a licensed attorney, the First…

Because the First Amendment applies only to governmental entities and not private parties?

Thank you for keeping guys like me in business.

That's akin to having the best junkyard in the country. Sure, you're #1, but it's still full of junk.

Of every game listed as being a reason that the 3DS is the best platform for gaming I did not see one that really interested me. Wake me up when western developers make games for the system - I'm sick and tired of the same old tired Japanese game tropes.

It's a pretty slam dunk case for SquareEnix. Translating the game's script is a derivative work of a copyrighted work and, therefore, would violate the WIPO treaties.

Things like DeviantArt thrive on copyright holders ignoring the derivative work. They'd have to change the names, the likenesses, the sound-alike voice actors and more to qualify under the Fair Use exception. Keep in mind that fair use is determined on a case-by-case basis so "parody law" does not cover almost all…

If they did that, they'd be sued. And they would lose. You can't create a derivative work without permission of the copyright holder. The EVO tournament was definitely the straw that broke the camel's back - Hasbro's not going to let that fly.

"Anime" and "stunning" should never be used in the same sentence.

The first time I saw the art direction for Ni no Kuni I said "ugh". Anime crap was tolerable back in the days when realistic people couldn't be rendered in video games, but now it's horribly passe.

The exemptions aren't codified in 17 USC 1201, therefore they're not part of the law but, rather, exceptions to enforcement.

There's no judicial review - the law is exactly the same as it was for the past 15 years. The EXCEPTION to the law, as granted by the Librarian of Congress, changed - those aren't subject to judicial review. The reason no one has been prosecuted is that, for most of the cell phone era, the exception was in place. …

Directed by Alan Smithee. He's a busy guy!

No, it doesn't fall under "fair use" - Fair use is limited in scope and bypassing protection schemes doesn't fall under it.

It has been legal for a number of years due to the exception that just recently expired. Therefore there are no prosecutions for it...yet.

It's not that the government is doing work for them, the base standard is that unlocking a phone is illegal. It's only been given special dispensation the past number of years, and that is going away. The rule pre-dates the rise of cell phone usage.

Bypassing any copyright protection scheme (which the "locking" of a phone is) violates 17 USC 1201(a)(1)(A) and makes you an unindicted federal felon.

The major problem is the pre-paid phones, as the article states.

The First Sale Doctrine is based in COPYRIGHT law. Devices aren't covered by copyright law...they sometimes contain copyrighted works, but the actual devices are not copyrighted.

The end-user can sell the phone to anyone else who wants to use the phone on that carrier's network.