8 ms·

Can someone from the American Libertarian cadre on HN chime in on this? I see some examples of people talking about how this might be 'necessary' (see gt_'s com

Can someone from the American Libertarian cadre on HN chime in on this? I see some examples of people talking about how this might be 'necessary' (see gt_'s comment(s)) but I'm interested in an ideological assessment of this situation.

freedomben 9y ago
This is an issue that kind of splits Libertarians. However there are a few fairly commonly accepted points: 1. This is a big issue because of DMCA requirements, and DMCA should not exist (that is enough to address the problem according to many Libertarians) 2. The government should not be getting in between transactions between two private entities (public corporations are considered private entities in this context, because they are not government controlled), unless there are externalities that warrant such intrusion. It could well be argued that there are externalities in this (the waste created as a result of it is a great example), though I think that's a slightly different argument. Here's a couple of brief but interesting discussions on reddit: 1. https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/4spfwf/the_fight_for_the_right_to_repair/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/4spfwf/the_fig... 2. https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/36c857/thoughts_on_digital_right_to_repair_acts/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/36c857/thought...
pitaj 9y ago
A lot of the issues people have seem to relate to two things: licensing as opposed to ownership, and IP law. Some licensing schemes may just count as ownership under common law, so would be unenforceable. The really awful ones only exist because of a lack of competition, most likely due to patents and copyright, which I holistically oppose, along with copyright and most copyright law (some exceptions, like certain trademarks, exist because they are essentially fraud).
KGIII 9y ago
There are many, many varied beliefs in Libertarianism - even within America and within the Libertarian Party. On the political compass, it is opposite authoritarianism. Taken to extremes, it is anarchy. It can have left or right components. It's quite a spectrum. That said, the commons must be protected. The right to repair would qualify as the commons. At the same time, forcing companies to excessive standards isn't always the best answer. In a perfect world, we'd have perfect information and rational buyers. We don't have that. As the other poster suggested, getting rid of the DMCA would be a good start. I'd say companies should not be allowed to actively prevent repair or modification, but doing so renders the warranty invalid. I'm pretty far over in the left side. I'm probably best defined as a libertarian socialist, not too far from the social democrats of Europe.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  > I'd say companies should not be allowed to actively prevent repair or modification, but doing so renders the warranty invalid. I absolutely don't agree. Why should the fact that I use your product in ways that you didn't explicitly allow mean that you are not responsible for defects in your product? A really important aspect of ownership is that I can actually do with what I own whatever I want to do, and not just in the sense that it is legal to do so, but in the sense that it causes no disadvantage for me. Just because I install an additional wall socket in my house, does not mean that you can disclaim responsibility for all defects in the house that I paid you to build, and the same should apply to IT devices. You are obviously not responsible for any defects that I cause by modifying your product, but that's it, you should still be fully responsible for the quality of your product.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    Too difficult to judge once it has been tampered with. The courts don't have time to judge each case on its merits and there's no reasonable surety that your modification didn't harm the product. The line has to be drawn somewhere.
    - freedomben 9y ago
      I agree. I would also rather have clear rules up front than have to rely on the (often arbitrary and subjective) decision of the judge.
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
        So, you prefer clear rules that say "fuck you" over unclear rules that say "whoever caused the damage has to bear the costs"?
        freedomben 9y ago
        No, but thanks for consistently straw-manning my arguments. I prefer clear rules that say, "You can unlock your bootloader and flash whatever you want to the device, but if you do we aren't going to fix your screw-up" If it's a hardware defect that has nothing to do with flashing software, that's a different story. But the libertarian perspective (which is what was asked for) is that it's between you and the company. If it's not a mutually beneficial exchange of goods (money for a product) then it shouldn't take place. If you don't like the rules, you should buy from a different manufacturer.

freedomben 9y ago

This is an issue that kind of splits Libertarians. However there are a few fairly commonly accepted points: 1. This is a big issue because of DMCA requirements, and DMCA should not exist (that is enough to address the problem according to many Libertarians) 2. The government should not be getting in between transactions between two private entities (public corporations are considered private entities in this context, because they are not government controlled), unless there are externalities that warrant such intrusion. It could well be argued that there are externalities in this (the waste created as a result of it is a great example), though I think that's a slightly different argument. Here's a couple of brief but interesting discussions on reddit: 1. https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/4spfwf/the_fight_for_the_right_to_repair/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/4spfwf/the_fig... 2. https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/36c857/thoughts_on_digital_right_to_repair_acts/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/36c857/thought...

pitaj 9y ago

A lot of the issues people have seem to relate to two things: licensing as opposed to ownership, and IP law. Some licensing schemes may just count as ownership under common law, so would be unenforceable. The really awful ones only exist because of a lack of competition, most likely due to patents and copyright, which I holistically oppose, along with copyright and most copyright law (some exceptions, like certain trademarks, exist because they are essentially fraud).

KGIII 9y ago

There are many, many varied beliefs in Libertarianism - even within America and within the Libertarian Party. On the political compass, it is opposite authoritarianism. Taken to extremes, it is anarchy. It can have left or right components. It's quite a spectrum. That said, the commons must be protected. The right to repair would qualify as the commons. At the same time, forcing companies to excessive standards isn't always the best answer. In a perfect world, we'd have perfect information and rational buyers. We don't have that. As the other poster suggested, getting rid of the DMCA would be a good start. I'd say companies should not be allowed to actively prevent repair or modification, but doing so renders the warranty invalid. I'm pretty far over in the left side. I'm probably best defined as a libertarian socialist, not too far from the social democrats of Europe.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
> I'd say companies should not be allowed to actively prevent repair or modification, but doing so renders the warranty invalid. I absolutely don't agree. Why should the fact that I use your product in ways that you didn't explicitly allow mean that you are not responsible for defects in your product? A really important aspect of ownership is that I can actually do with what I own whatever I want to do, and not just in the sense that it is legal to do so, but in the sense that it causes no disadvantage for me. Just because I install an additional wall socket in my house, does not mean that you can disclaim responsibility for all defects in the house that I paid you to build, and the same should apply to IT devices. You are obviously not responsible for any defects that I cause by modifying your product, but that's it, you should still be fully responsible for the quality of your product.
- KGIII 9y ago
  Too difficult to judge once it has been tampered with. The courts don't have time to judge each case on its merits and there's no reasonable surety that your modification didn't harm the product. The line has to be drawn somewhere.
  - freedomben 9y ago
    I agree. I would also rather have clear rules up front than have to rely on the (often arbitrary and subjective) decision of the judge.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
      So, you prefer clear rules that say "fuck you" over unclear rules that say "whoever caused the damage has to bear the costs"?
      - freedomben 9y ago
        No, but thanks for consistently straw-manning my arguments. I prefer clear rules that say, "You can unlock your bootloader and flash whatever you want to the device, but if you do we aren't going to fix your screw-up" If it's a hardware defect that has nothing to do with flashing software, that's a different story. But the libertarian perspective (which is what was asked for) is that it's between you and the company. If it's not a mutually beneficial exchange of goods (money for a product) then it shouldn't take place. If you don't like the rules, you should buy from a different manufacturer.