8 ms·

Here's a related thought: what if the law stated something along the lines of, if DRM/hardware locks/etc prevent you or a 3rd party of your choosing from repair

Here's a related thought: what if the law stated something along the lines of, if DRM/hardware locks/etc prevent you or a 3rd party of your choosing from repairing, then the party who owns the lock should be responsible for the repairs (including costs) Then a company can decide if they're in the business of licencing or selling, and make their decisions accordingly. it could also help establish a line between ownership of the device vs of the license.

freedomben 9y ago
I like this idea. I think it strikes a good balance between the rights of both sides and provides incentives for opening things up (which I believe is important to consumer freedom). But if a company doesn't want to open it up, they still have a reasonable path forward.
cconcepts 9y ago
Me: "My phone broke randomly" Them: "You dropped it in water didn't you?" Me: "No, I didn't" Them: "Yes, you did" Me: "Nope" Them: "Yep" Me: "Nope" .......
- Spivak 9y ago
  I don't see how it changes the situation. Even if the owner intentionally damaged the phone they would still be entitled to having it repaired for $parts + $labor.
  - cconcepts 9y ago
    Genuine replacement screen: $450 2 hours labour from highly trained apple certified screen replacement technician: $180. "....but I shouldn't have to pay these exorbitant fees - I didnt drop it in water...." "Yes you did"
    - kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
      Shouldn't a $1000 phone be waterproof?
      - burntrelish1273 9y ago
        <sarcasm because="Poe's law"> Owners of $1000 phones don't go near water or need cases. They never make mistakes. </sarcasm>
      - coldtea 9y ago
        Isn't this behind the point? For one, still not all $1000 phones are waterproof, and second, this can apply to all kind of other devices, like laptops, who can't be or is very difficult to make waterproof without major compromises (e.g. heat dissipation).
      - nsomaru 9y ago
        Anecdote: dropped an iPhone 6 to the bottom of a pool. Failed spectacularly bringing it back up a few times. Total about 2-3 minutes submerged at around 2m. Put the phone in a rice bag for 2 days, charged and it's working fine :)
        ams6110 9y ago
        I've seen the rice treatment work also, but chances for success are reportedly better if you do not try to turn the device on first.
- r00fus 9y ago
  Do iPhones still have the water sensitivity marker?
  - pls2halp 9y ago
    Yep. It became a lot more pertinent after the iPhone 7 was water resistant, as the markers seem less protected than the boards.
- burntrelish1273 9y ago
  That red strip on iDevices that changed in temporary high-humidity conditions. If Apple actually produced good PCBs and conformally-coated them and capped their JTAGs, water damage and corrosion would be much less likely.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >If Apple actually produced good PCBs and conformally-coated them and capped their JTAGs, water damage and corrosion would be much less likely. If? In what world they don't, and compared to which alternative?
    - everheardofc 9y ago
      They currently don't have conformal coating. The alternative is having conformal coating.
  - crispyambulance 9y ago
    Why do say they don't produce good PCB's? Conformal coating introduces problems too and, moreover, makes repair intractable. I don't know if conformal coating even works properly with the very fine pitch BGA's that cover much of the surface area of the PCB in an iPhone.
Spivak 9y ago
> (including costs) How about at a rate of $parts + $labor? If the device was defective and broke then it would still be the manufacturer's responsibility to fix it. But if it breaks due to wear and tear, accidental damage, or intentional damage then the user should reasonably foot but bill (either out of pocket or with insurance).
- fghvbnvbnfe 9y ago
  The idea here is to make a clear split between owning and licensing. If the company decides they are selling the items themselves then the items should be repairable by the new owner. If the company decides they are merely selling the rights to use the items then it is reasonable for the user to be unable to repair it, provided the owner (the company) is willing to keep it in working condition. That should absolutely include wear and tear as well as accidental damage. Intentional damage is an issue, but there shouldn't be much motivation for it under such a system.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  That doesn't work for the simple reason that there is no market, therefore there is no way to determine that price. The whole point is essentially that the manufacturer can only have the monopoly on repairs if they are free, if they want to charge for it, they have to allow competition. As for intentional damage, I think that should not be handled based on costs at all, but simply based on depreciation. Based on normal durability of the device, if you damage the device, you have to pay the remaining value in order to get a new device.
  - sokoloff 9y ago
    > As for intentional damage, I think that should not be handled based on costs at all, but simply based on depreciation. Based on normal durability of the device, if you damage the device, you have to pay the remaining value in order to get a new device. I think I'm not understanding your proposal here. It seems that under such a scheme I could take a $1000 phone that is reasonably expected to last 3 years, intentionally destroy it on day 1, and pay less than a dollar [1/(3*365)] to get a new device. How would manufacturers not be bled dry under such a system?
CamperBob2 9y ago
DRM has always represented an attempt on the part of content owners to seize more territory than the framers of US copyright law intended. Copyright was supposed to be a bargain between the creators and the commons. In return for the rightsholder's agreement to release the material into the public domain upon expiration, the government would grant a temporary legal monopoly. Unfortunately the first part of the copyright bargain is implicit, not part of the law. With DRM, rightsholders get to have their cake -- our cake -- and eat it too. Not only is the protection granted by copyright now effectively perpetual, but they've purchased additional legislation such as the DMCA and endless copyright term extensions that punish people who are trying to claim their half of the bargain. IMHO copyright should not apply to anything with DRM. Rightsholders should be forced to decide whether they want a temporary legal monopoly with no technical protection, or a permanent technical monopoly with no legal protection.
- smaddox 9y ago
  Copyright is not, and never was, for creators. It's for publishers.
  - ryandrake 9y ago
    More specifically, it's for copyright holders, who rarely might be creators, but are more often than not publishers.
  - cyphar 9y ago
    Copyright was for authors a very long time ago[1]. It's been slowly corrupted by the greed of publishers over a very long time, but it is important to remember where copyright actually comes from and to reject emotional arguments about the rights of publishers (in truth, they don't deserve rights over creators' works -- they abuse creators enough as-is). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne
    - monocasa 9y ago
      Uhhhh.... > These restrictions were enforced by the Stationers' Company, a guild of printers given the exclusive power to print—and the responsibility to censor—literary works.
userbinator 9y ago
That does not fix the e-waste problem. E.g. Apple has always been willing to repair or replace under warranty. See this item: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14175771 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14175771
- shakna 9y ago
  Apple has also fought consumer laws in other nations to ensure no more than a 12 month warranty. If they feel like including DRM in this hypothetical law situation, require the warranty be twice as long as otherwise.
  - 3131s 9y ago
    And there are many countries where iPhones are popular but there are still no official Apple-sanctioned repair centers.
esmi 9y ago
What counts as a repair and how would properitary components be made available for the repair? Under what markup do components need to be made available? An example: If I’m Apple and I’m supply constrained on fancy new FaceID sensors I’m not going to want to loose an iPhoneX sale because I have to make a sensor available to a repair depot (internal or external). And the customer that was supposed to get that sensor is not going to like waiting even longer for their phone.
- falcolas 9y ago
  In such a world, if they can’t repair or replace a broken device, they should offer a full refund.
- Nullabillity 9y ago
  > What counts as a repair and how would properitary components be made available for the repair? Under what markup do components need to be made available? The bare minimum would be to require an infinite warranty. So free, and with compensation to the customer for the repair time. Don't want to deal with that? Get rid of the damn locks already.
  - esmi 9y ago
    What is a lock and how does it prevent repair? I think we would both agree that iPhone 7 is DRM laden. However iFixit, who is quoted in the parent article and gives iPhone a repairability score of 7 of 10, seems to think there are some things which are repairable at the component level on an iPhone 7 even to a layman at home. https://www.ifixit.com/Device/iPhone_7 https://www.ifixit.com/Device/iPhone_7
    - Nullabillity 9y ago
      Do they glue stuff in? Use special screws and connectors just for the hell of it? Use software checks to prevent the system from operating correctly if components have been replaced?
      - 9y ago
reitanqild 9y ago
Could work for media as well: DRM? Then you have to provide clients, including bugfixes and security upgrades for all paying customers on all platforms. No DRM: Oh, you just sold a file? The customer can then run it in whatever SW they want.
- maccard 9y ago
  So a person who wants to release a game on steam now has to provide support for windows Mac and Linux, and provide support for whatever flavours they’re running?
  - gall0ws 9y ago
    You can release DRM-free software on Steam.
damontal 9y ago
Reminds me of how AT&T used to basically own your telephone and wouldn't allow other companies to make things you could attach to the phone to improve or augment it.

freedomben 9y ago

I like this idea. I think it strikes a good balance between the rights of both sides and provides incentives for opening things up (which I believe is important to consumer freedom). But if a company doesn't want to open it up, they still have a reasonable path forward.

cconcepts 9y ago

Me: "My phone broke randomly" Them: "You dropped it in water didn't you?" Me: "No, I didn't" Them: "Yes, you did" Me: "Nope" Them: "Yep" Me: "Nope" .......

Spivak 9y ago
I don't see how it changes the situation. Even if the owner intentionally damaged the phone they would still be entitled to having it repaired for $parts + $labor.
- cconcepts 9y ago
  Genuine replacement screen: $450 2 hours labour from highly trained apple certified screen replacement technician: $180. "....but I shouldn't have to pay these exorbitant fees - I didnt drop it in water...." "Yes you did"
  - kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
    Shouldn't a $1000 phone be waterproof?
    - burntrelish1273 9y ago
      <sarcasm because="Poe's law"> Owners of $1000 phones don't go near water or need cases. They never make mistakes. </sarcasm>
    - coldtea 9y ago
      Isn't this behind the point? For one, still not all $1000 phones are waterproof, and second, this can apply to all kind of other devices, like laptops, who can't be or is very difficult to make waterproof without major compromises (e.g. heat dissipation).
    - nsomaru 9y ago
      Anecdote: dropped an iPhone 6 to the bottom of a pool. Failed spectacularly bringing it back up a few times. Total about 2-3 minutes submerged at around 2m. Put the phone in a rice bag for 2 days, charged and it's working fine :)
      - ams6110 9y ago
        I've seen the rice treatment work also, but chances for success are reportedly better if you do not try to turn the device on first.
r00fus 9y ago
Do iPhones still have the water sensitivity marker?
- pls2halp 9y ago
  Yep. It became a lot more pertinent after the iPhone 7 was water resistant, as the markers seem less protected than the boards.
burntrelish1273 9y ago
That red strip on iDevices that changed in temporary high-humidity conditions. If Apple actually produced good PCBs and conformally-coated them and capped their JTAGs, water damage and corrosion would be much less likely.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >If Apple actually produced good PCBs and conformally-coated them and capped their JTAGs, water damage and corrosion would be much less likely. If? In what world they don't, and compared to which alternative?
  - everheardofc 9y ago
    They currently don't have conformal coating. The alternative is having conformal coating.
- crispyambulance 9y ago
  Why do say they don't produce good PCB's? Conformal coating introduces problems too and, moreover, makes repair intractable. I don't know if conformal coating even works properly with the very fine pitch BGA's that cover much of the surface area of the PCB in an iPhone.

Spivak 9y ago

> (including costs) How about at a rate of $parts + $labor? If the device was defective and broke then it would still be the manufacturer's responsibility to fix it. But if it breaks due to wear and tear, accidental damage, or intentional damage then the user should reasonably foot but bill (either out of pocket or with insurance).

fghvbnvbnfe 9y ago
The idea here is to make a clear split between owning and licensing. If the company decides they are selling the items themselves then the items should be repairable by the new owner. If the company decides they are merely selling the rights to use the items then it is reasonable for the user to be unable to repair it, provided the owner (the company) is willing to keep it in working condition. That should absolutely include wear and tear as well as accidental damage. Intentional damage is an issue, but there shouldn't be much motivation for it under such a system.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
That doesn't work for the simple reason that there is no market, therefore there is no way to determine that price. The whole point is essentially that the manufacturer can only have the monopoly on repairs if they are free, if they want to charge for it, they have to allow competition. As for intentional damage, I think that should not be handled based on costs at all, but simply based on depreciation. Based on normal durability of the device, if you damage the device, you have to pay the remaining value in order to get a new device.
- sokoloff 9y ago
  > As for intentional damage, I think that should not be handled based on costs at all, but simply based on depreciation. Based on normal durability of the device, if you damage the device, you have to pay the remaining value in order to get a new device. I think I'm not understanding your proposal here. It seems that under such a scheme I could take a $1000 phone that is reasonably expected to last 3 years, intentionally destroy it on day 1, and pay less than a dollar [1/(3*365)] to get a new device. How would manufacturers not be bled dry under such a system?

CamperBob2 9y ago

DRM has always represented an attempt on the part of content owners to seize more territory than the framers of US copyright law intended. Copyright was supposed to be a bargain between the creators and the commons. In return for the rightsholder's agreement to release the material into the public domain upon expiration, the government would grant a temporary legal monopoly. Unfortunately the first part of the copyright bargain is implicit, not part of the law. With DRM, rightsholders get to have their cake -- our cake -- and eat it too. Not only is the protection granted by copyright now effectively perpetual, but they've purchased additional legislation such as the DMCA and endless copyright term extensions that punish people who are trying to claim their half of the bargain. IMHO copyright should not apply to anything with DRM. Rightsholders should be forced to decide whether they want a temporary legal monopoly with no technical protection, or a permanent technical monopoly with no legal protection.

smaddox 9y ago
Copyright is not, and never was, for creators. It's for publishers.
- ryandrake 9y ago
  More specifically, it's for copyright holders, who rarely might be creators, but are more often than not publishers.
- cyphar 9y ago
  Copyright was for authors a very long time ago[1]. It's been slowly corrupted by the greed of publishers over a very long time, but it is important to remember where copyright actually comes from and to reject emotional arguments about the rights of publishers (in truth, they don't deserve rights over creators' works -- they abuse creators enough as-is). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne
  - monocasa 9y ago
    Uhhhh.... > These restrictions were enforced by the Stationers' Company, a guild of printers given the exclusive power to print—and the responsibility to censor—literary works.

userbinator 9y ago

That does not fix the e-waste problem. E.g. Apple has always been willing to repair or replace under warranty. See this item: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14175771 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14175771

shakna 9y ago
Apple has also fought consumer laws in other nations to ensure no more than a 12 month warranty. If they feel like including DRM in this hypothetical law situation, require the warranty be twice as long as otherwise.
- 3131s 9y ago
  And there are many countries where iPhones are popular but there are still no official Apple-sanctioned repair centers.

esmi 9y ago

What counts as a repair and how would properitary components be made available for the repair? Under what markup do components need to be made available? An example: If I’m Apple and I’m supply constrained on fancy new FaceID sensors I’m not going to want to loose an iPhoneX sale because I have to make a sensor available to a repair depot (internal or external). And the customer that was supposed to get that sensor is not going to like waiting even longer for their phone.

falcolas 9y ago
In such a world, if they can’t repair or replace a broken device, they should offer a full refund.
Nullabillity 9y ago
> What counts as a repair and how would properitary components be made available for the repair? Under what markup do components need to be made available? The bare minimum would be to require an infinite warranty. So free, and with compensation to the customer for the repair time. Don't want to deal with that? Get rid of the damn locks already.
- esmi 9y ago
  What is a lock and how does it prevent repair? I think we would both agree that iPhone 7 is DRM laden. However iFixit, who is quoted in the parent article and gives iPhone a repairability score of 7 of 10, seems to think there are some things which are repairable at the component level on an iPhone 7 even to a layman at home. https://www.ifixit.com/Device/iPhone_7 https://www.ifixit.com/Device/iPhone_7
  - Nullabillity 9y ago
    Do they glue stuff in? Use special screws and connectors just for the hell of it? Use software checks to prevent the system from operating correctly if components have been replaced?
    - 9y ago

reitanqild 9y ago

Could work for media as well: DRM? Then you have to provide clients, including bugfixes and security upgrades for all paying customers on all platforms. No DRM: Oh, you just sold a file? The customer can then run it in whatever SW they want.

maccard 9y ago
So a person who wants to release a game on steam now has to provide support for windows Mac and Linux, and provide support for whatever flavours they’re running?
- gall0ws 9y ago
  You can release DRM-free software on Steam.

damontal 9y ago

Reminds me of how AT&T used to basically own your telephone and wouldn't allow other companies to make things you could attach to the phone to improve or augment it.