3 ms·

I think the trend of reclassifying popular commodities or opportunities as "rights" is pretty tacky, and ultimately counterproductive. What you should really w

I think the trend of reclassifying popular commodities or opportunities as "rights" is pretty tacky, and ultimately counterproductive. What you should really want, if you like reparability, is a market for reparable goods. In general, it will be more costly than mass-produced integrated goods, but foisting repair opportunities onto every consumer product will ultimately make people less satisfied with the products on the market, and it will make those products less accessible (and more expensive). As for cars, I think there's a real market opportunity to make your cars exceptionally open to repair, but I don't think mandating it is a good idea. Especially as powertrain designs become more and more complex, the likelihood that you will be able to correctly reassemble them dwindles. The onus must remain on the customers and technicians to meet the technical demands of repair. A line in the sand must be drawn between "difficult to repair" and "illegal to repair". The first is at the hands of the customer, the second, the legislature. As for software, sure, the DMCA is unfair, it should have been struck down long ago. It is being abused constantly, and serves little or no practical purpose except to enable abuse.

LambdaComplex 9y ago
Nothing is being "reclassified." Look at John Deere tractors - thanks to the licensing of the software running on those tractors, combined with the DMCA, people do not have the right to repair them. Yes, they bought the tractor, but they will be breaking the law if they fix the tractor themselves. Being able to work on a machine you own sounds much more like a "right" than an "opportunity" to me.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  I'm specifically not arguing for the DMCA provisions which legally protect physical objects based on the copyright on data encoded in them. That is not the whole of what is being argued for, though. Repair is not a right, ownership is. The problem here is that the DMCA allows something that you consider your property to be ultimately owned by somebody else even after you purchase it. The problem with smartphones is entirely separate, it's a question of convenience and practicality for third-party repair shops and people who can afford repair tooling for their own devices. I object to the idea that manufacturers should have a duty to package and sell separately replacement parts for their goods on the open market.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
wfo 9y ago
It is natural to phrase it as a right. People have been able to do this for the entirety of human history, every moment in every civilization repairing things has been legal. In fact, it has been celebrated, respected as something obviously good. It is not good for the profit of some large corporations so it is now, for the first time, being banned. It was never thought of as a right before because it is so obviously acceptable and good that nobody had even conceived that somebody might try to deny it.

LambdaComplex 9y ago

Nothing is being "reclassified." Look at John Deere tractors - thanks to the licensing of the software running on those tractors, combined with the DMCA, people do not have the right to repair them. Yes, they bought the tractor, but they will be breaking the law if they fix the tractor themselves. Being able to work on a machine you own sounds much more like a "right" than an "opportunity" to me.

microcolonel 9y ago
I'm specifically not arguing for the DMCA provisions which legally protect physical objects based on the copyright on data encoded in them. That is not the whole of what is being argued for, though. Repair is not a right, ownership is. The problem here is that the DMCA allows something that you consider your property to be ultimately owned by somebody else even after you purchase it. The problem with smartphones is entirely separate, it's a question of convenience and practicality for third-party repair shops and people who can afford repair tooling for their own devices. I object to the idea that manufacturers should have a duty to package and sell separately replacement parts for their goods on the open market.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

wfo 9y ago

It is natural to phrase it as a right. People have been able to do this for the entirety of human history, every moment in every civilization repairing things has been legal. In fact, it has been celebrated, respected as something obviously good. It is not good for the profit of some large corporations so it is now, for the first time, being banned. It was never thought of as a right before because it is so obviously acceptable and good that nobody had even conceived that somebody might try to deny it.