5 ms·

> Louis Rossmann, who openly admitted to using illegally obtained schematics and internal documents from Apple? I wouldn't be throwing that name around as a tal

> Louis Rossmann, who openly admitted to using illegally obtained schematics and internal documents from Apple? I wouldn't be throwing that name around as a talking point at all in this discussion. So you're discounting someone's opinion because they were forced to use unauthorized repair manuals since the manufacturer stopped producing repair manuals for devices customers have paid for? That's the whole crux of the issue, that people have lost the "right to repair" their own devices due to suppressing information, suppressing reverse engineering efforts, and suppressing compatible replacement components (and software). Effectively you're saying that if someone supports and tries to uphold the "right to repair" their opinions should be ignored because they did something a large corporation told them not to. > Apple isn't doing this because they don't want people to repair their stuff See, I thought it was financially motivated. > but because for most consumers it isn't feasible without ruining the rest of the product. Someone has a broken device, they shouldn't be allowed to try and repair it themselves because they could make it worse? In either case they have a broken device. And Apple is well within their rights to refuse a repair after someone has tried a DIY repair, but often that isn't a financial possibility which is why a DIY repair was tried to begin with. You don't have to go far to find an anecdote of someone who took an older Macbook into an Apple store and the repair cost was nearly as high as a replacement cost.

urda 9y ago
> So you're discounting someone's opinion because they were forced to use unauthorized repair manuals because the manufacturer stopped producing repair manuals for devices customers have paid for? Yes, because it's a legal case we are discussing here and that's called "breaking the law". Failing to understand that means I cannot discuss this article with you at all since a really important common understanding has been missed on your part.
- smallnamespace 9y ago
  > that's called "breaking the law" Right, which is why people are advocating getting the law changed, because they believe the practical outcome of law as it current exists is not just (nor economically efficient, for that matter).
- Someone1234 9y ago
  > Yes, because it's a legal case we are discussing here and that's called "breaking the law". It is an issue for society at large, fair use should include repair materials, and if you look at judgements from vehicles and farm equipment cases you'll see that the legal side isn't clear cut anyway. Not least of all because you're conflating OWNING stolen materials and REDISTRIBUTING them. Copyright largely covers the latter and not the former. In this case they're simply owning a "stolen" document and using the knowledge from it, which isn't within itself a copyright infringement or illegal. Unless you can explain how simply owning a stolen document is "breaking the law." Which law? > Failing to understand that means I cannot discuss this article with you at all since a really important common understanding has been missed on your part. You don't wish to discuss it because it challenges your whole viewpoint. Which is in essence that Apple's rights extend into a device they sold to a user, and that a user shouldn't be legally allowed to "tamper" with their own property.
- landryraccoon 9y ago
  > Yes, because it's a legal case we are discussing here and that's called "breaking the law". Even if this is true, the law isn’t some divine fiat. Some laws are dumb and it is proper and patriotic to point it out and criticize. Just because something might be against the law doesn’t make it wrong. Your argument is the shallowest sort of moral argument, that things should be done a certain way just because that’s how they’re done.
- dang 9y ago
  Please don't cross into personal swipes. If you can't discuss something, it suffices not to discuss it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- PhasmaFelis 9y ago
  If his facts are correct, it's irrelevant that he also broke the law. Facts are facts.
dpkonofa 9y ago
>manufacturer stopped producing repair manuals for devices customers have paid for Why is a manufacturer in any way obligated to provide this information for customers (and for free, no less)? Apple is not stopping him from taking apart these devices and figuring out how to repair them but I don't see why they should shoulder any obligation to provide that information to people that refuse to become an authorized repair center (which is exactly what that authorization and certification gets them). >Someone has a broken device, they shouldn't be allowed to try and repair it themselves This is not at all the point of contention nor in any way what Apple is doing here. Stop spreading FUD.

urda 9y ago

> So you're discounting someone's opinion because they were forced to use unauthorized repair manuals because the manufacturer stopped producing repair manuals for devices customers have paid for? Yes, because it's a legal case we are discussing here and that's called "breaking the law". Failing to understand that means I cannot discuss this article with you at all since a really important common understanding has been missed on your part.

smallnamespace 9y ago
> that's called "breaking the law" Right, which is why people are advocating getting the law changed, because they believe the practical outcome of law as it current exists is not just (nor economically efficient, for that matter).
Someone1234 9y ago
> Yes, because it's a legal case we are discussing here and that's called "breaking the law". It is an issue for society at large, fair use should include repair materials, and if you look at judgements from vehicles and farm equipment cases you'll see that the legal side isn't clear cut anyway. Not least of all because you're conflating OWNING stolen materials and REDISTRIBUTING them. Copyright largely covers the latter and not the former. In this case they're simply owning a "stolen" document and using the knowledge from it, which isn't within itself a copyright infringement or illegal. Unless you can explain how simply owning a stolen document is "breaking the law." Which law? > Failing to understand that means I cannot discuss this article with you at all since a really important common understanding has been missed on your part. You don't wish to discuss it because it challenges your whole viewpoint. Which is in essence that Apple's rights extend into a device they sold to a user, and that a user shouldn't be legally allowed to "tamper" with their own property.
landryraccoon 9y ago
> Yes, because it's a legal case we are discussing here and that's called "breaking the law". Even if this is true, the law isn’t some divine fiat. Some laws are dumb and it is proper and patriotic to point it out and criticize. Just because something might be against the law doesn’t make it wrong. Your argument is the shallowest sort of moral argument, that things should be done a certain way just because that’s how they’re done.
dang 9y ago
Please don't cross into personal swipes. If you can't discuss something, it suffices not to discuss it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
PhasmaFelis 9y ago
If his facts are correct, it's irrelevant that he also broke the law. Facts are facts.

dpkonofa 9y ago

>manufacturer stopped producing repair manuals for devices customers have paid for Why is a manufacturer in any way obligated to provide this information for customers (and for free, no less)? Apple is not stopping him from taking apart these devices and figuring out how to repair them but I don't see why they should shoulder any obligation to provide that information to people that refuse to become an authorized repair center (which is exactly what that authorization and certification gets them). >Someone has a broken device, they shouldn't be allowed to try and repair it themselves This is not at all the point of contention nor in any way what Apple is doing here. Stop spreading FUD.