4 ms·
I don't think so, FTA: "“I read it as the ability to reset to factory settings,” Nathan Proctor, head of consumer rights group US PIRG’s right to repair efforts
by colemannugent 8y ago
I don't think so, FTA: "“I read it as the ability to reset to factory settings,” Nathan Proctor, head of consumer rights group US PIRG’s right to repair efforts, told me in an email.
Although you could make an argument that the device never performed according to its specifications and your unlocking the device is merely an attempt to repair a fundamentally broken product, but that seems like it'd be a hard sell.
- pishpash 8y agoYeah, sounds very narrow. Basically you can take things apart for repair, but not to turn them into something else, or modify them for interoperability. But it does create a gray market for the information obtained by people who legally break DRM for "repair and maintenance." Information set free can be used for anything, wink wink.
- harimau777 8y agoCould interoperability be argued to be returning them to their original specifications in some cases? E.g. the product could interact with most computers when it came out, but since then a competitor has come onto the scene and the manufacturer hasn't implemented features to make it work with them. Therefore, jailbreaking and making it work with them would sort of be returning to what the situation was when you first purchased.
- yellowapple 8y ago17 U.S. Code § 1201 (f) already seems to provide some protection for reverse-engineering (including the circumvention of "technical measures") if it's done for the purpose of making a program interoperable with other programs.