Hats off to the White House for responding to an online petition by saying that it “agrees with the 114,000+ of you who believe that consumers should be able to unlock their cellphones without risking criminal or other penalties.”

Monday, a blog post on Whitehouse.gov went even further in stating, “In fact, we believe the same principle should also apply to tablets, which are increasingly similar to smartphones. 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.”

White House senior advisor for Internet, Innovation & Policy David Edelman said it is “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.”

The petition and White House response was in reaction to a decision by the Library of Congress, which originally supported consumers’ right to unlock a phone. but last fall issued an order that took effect on Jan. 28 prohibiting the practice as a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

The unlocking question has nothing to do with the contracts that carriers often require consumers to sign, agreeing to pay for two years of service in exchange for a subsidized phone. That’s a contractual agreements between two parties. The Library of Congress’s action and the president’s response involve a consumer’s right to do what he or she pleases with a piece of hardware vs. potential criminal penalties for those who unlock a phone that they own.

It’s a grand gesture on the part of the White House, but the president doesn’t get to be the decider when it comes to copyright issues. The Library of Congress works for the legislative branch, not the executive branch, so it is likely that any change in policy would have to come as a result of congressional legislation. Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski also issued a statement that the Library of Congress ruling “raises serious competition and innovation concerns, and for wireless consumers, it doesn’t pass the common sense test.” He said that the FCC “is examining this issue, looking into whether the agency, wireless providers, or others should take action to preserve consumers’ ability to unlock their mobile phones” and he is encouraging “Congress to take a close look and consider a legislative solution.”

The CTIA, which represents cellphone carriers, supported the Library of Congress’s decision. In a blog post, CTIA’s Senior Vice President and General Counsel Mike Altschul reminded consumers that “The penalties for unlocking a subsidized wireless phone without carrier consent can be severe. Civil penalties are based on the carrier’s actual damages and any additional profits of the violator, or a court can award statutory damages of not less than $200 or more than $2,500 per individual act.” Criminal penalties are even more severe: any person convicted of violating section 1201 willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain (1) shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both, for the first offense; and (2) shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both, for any subsequent offense.

If this policy had been in place a year ago, I could have been dragged into court, because I had a phone unlocked so I could use it in Germany by purchasing a SIM card for use in that country. Instead of paying $2 or $3 a minute to roaming charges through my U.S. carrier, I was able to call back to the States for as little as 14 cents a minute through a German carrier. I saved a lot of money, but not nearly enough to risk a fine or time in jail, or the implications and hassle of being accused of a federal crime.

Email Larry Magid at larry@larrymagid.com.