2 ms·

> So you're discounting someone's opinion because they were forced to use unauthorized repair manuals because the manufacturer stopped producing repair manuals

by 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.

by urda 9y ago

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.