22 ms·

Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

1064 points by sinak 8y ago

xoa 8y ago
Great decision, though it'd be better if it was embedded into law and couldn't go away down the line. At the least DRM and legal protection should be either/or, like secrets vs patents. Part of the return the public is supposed to see for granting legal protection to IP is that the IP is then made widely available (as well as eventually entering the public domain) and can be built upon for personal use, commentated upon, etc. If somebody wants to just try to keep something secret or protect it with technology maybe that's fine to try to do indefinitely, but they shouldn't be able to do that and then also get the full benefit of IP law that was originally created around non-technically restricted information. This is also a good starting balance in that legal subsidies are removed but it doesn't require manufacturers to nerf their tech either, which is an area that needs to be navigated very carefully in law given the security implications and the risks of unintended consequences. I still wish "right to repair" was "right to have work" but this seems like an unalloyed Good Thing regardless. Maybe it can catalyze a bit of renewed fight against the worse parts of the DMCA and the like.
- craftyguy 8y ago
  > though it'd be better if it was embedded into law and couldn't go away down the line I'd go further and say that there's nothing of any significance in this decision since it will likely go away down the line since it was not codified in law.
  - xoa 8y ago
    >I'd go further and say that there's nothing of any significance in this decision since it will likely go away down the line since it was not codified in law. I don't believe you're correct here. If down the road the LoC and USCO did not continue this exemption, it still would have applied for the whole intervening time and anybody who took advantage of it during that time would be in the clear. At a bare minimum this is a specific material benefit to many people, and any knowledge, tooling and techniques developed to aid that during that time would still be valuable. That's not insignificant. More long term, ultimately this is politics and that can definitely be influenced by "temporary" measures which later become permanent. In general in politics it's much harder to take away something specific granted to people who gain a concentrated benefit from it then it is to not offer it in the first place. Before having it people may not be able to visualize a future benefit, but after getting used to it they'll resent having it removed if it was at all useful. Constituencies develop. So if for 3+ years some people were more easily and cheaply able to get something dealt with or saw more competition for it and in turn better quality/reliability/price, and then all of a sudden one day they walk in and get told "well the politicians just rescinded this so suddenly you can't but only because they said so" well that tends not to go over so well. Particularly if it seems like "common sense" and there is no harm any general member of the public can see from it either. Appeals to distant corporate profits tend to be curiously unmoving...
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - monocasa 8y ago
    Case law is law in our system, and having explicit legislation doesn't protect you anymore from future changes than case law does.
  - mathieuh 8y ago
    The US legal system is based on English common law, which uses precedent to make decisions. Companies will submit test cases to be judged to inform whether what they're doing is likely to be found legal or illegal.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- guelo 8y ago
  I would argue this is better than congress passing new legislation because congress is broken and corrupt. If congresss were to write new legislation on DRM it would make things worse since they always take the copyright maximalist position since that's what corporate lobbyists want.
  - drb91 8y ago
    Err, you like non-democratic rulings because they AVOID corruption? Worked great for the FCC!
    - Broken_Hippo 8y ago
      Something being non-democratic does not mean that it is corrupt. (Many companies are not democratic but also aren't subject to corruption). This is very much like a democratic ruling does not protect it from corruption. Both the corruption and lack of it can happen in most systems of creating rulings.
      - drb91 8y ago
        Maybe. It’s easier for me to imagine corruption stopping if it’s tied to an election. Who votes over changing out the patent office? Nobody. What comes out of that office might as well be random in the best case, and openly corrupt in the worst (again, see the FCC).
    - njharman 8y ago
      Its cute you think US congress/government is democratic.
      - a1369209993 8y ago
        Well the US[0] has a democratic government in the same sense that it has a capitalist/free market economy, namely <five straight minutes of mocking laughter>. 0: And the EU/most European countries/Australia/anywhere else that calls itself 'democratic' in a attempt to imitate the US rather than as a fig leaf for a dictatorship.
- jobu 8y ago
  > Part of the return the public is supposed to see for granting legal protection to IP is that the IP is then made widely available (as well as eventually entering the public domain) and can be built upon for personal use, commentated upon, etc. That's really well said. A bit of a tangent, but it's similar to how software patents should be as well. If you want to patent a software feature, then you have to include a working code sample and that sample code loses copyright protection forever.
  - 0xb100db1ade 8y ago
    This sounds interesting, but I don't completely understand. Does this mean that only that specific implementation may be used without a 3rd party infringing copyright?
    - Tyr42 8y ago
      It’d mean you have to provide a library which would just work when the patent expires in seven years, at the very least
    - olefoo 8y ago
      I read that as, you would be able to use the sample code verbatim once the patent expired and would be able to read and understand the principle behind the patent.
  - ajnin 8y ago
    Patents are already supposed to do that. They are required to describe embodiments of the claims, which can be used by anyone to implement the invention. However they are always redacted in the vaguest, most obscure way possible as to provide the legal protection without the disclosure part. That should be reason to reject any patent application in my opinion, but I'm not a patent examiner.
    - oconnor663 8y ago
      I don't think they use convoluted language to avoid disclosure. I think they use convoluted language to hide the fact that what's being patented totally fails the obviousness test. But I might have a biased sample here :p
- shmerl 8y ago
  Breaking DRM should be legal to begin with if done for any legitimate purpose. Stuff like DMCA 1201 should not even exist.
- joelx 8y ago
  I believe that the idea that patents are necessary for creativity and invention is false. I think patents are actually very detrimental to new invention since people often can't use past patented ideas. Like licenses in professions, the only true reason we have patents is to reduce competition for incumbents. This is why VCs like them so much... It creates a moat. At most patents should give a short head start in the market, not be a guaranteed competition crusher.
  - gdhbcc 8y ago
    You don't need to believe, those are verifiable facts. You can see the exact same cycle go through as industries develop. They start with no copyright/patents, they develop successful companies and business models, those companies lobby to increase protections for themselves resulting in lower amount of new competitors and a decrease in creative/technological development while increasing profits for existing entities. You saw it from the early beginnings with Watts engine, you saw it in the film industry in the US, you saw it in the German, Japanese, South korean development, and now you see it happening in China. Make a list of the most famous composers in the 1800s. How many of them made most of their work prior to the introduction of copyright in their place of business? How many did it after? You can see it clearly there.
davemp 8y ago
> Specifically, it allows breaking digital rights management (DRM) and embedded software locks for “the maintenance of a device or system … in order to make it work in accordance with its original specifications” or for “the repair of a device or system … to a state of working in accordance with its original specifications.” It would be interesting to know what "original specifications" means. How deep do these original specifications have to be adhered to? I'm sure DRM could be argued to be part of the spec at some level. I don't think this is quite the win Free Software Folks are looking for.
crwalker 8y ago
This is great! The push by large companies to replace personal asset ownership with perpetual rent is worth fighting against.
- imglorp 8y ago
  On that note, I wonder if the law will ever view misprepresenting the ownership of a device as fraudulent business practice. Suppose some hardware is sold to you, in the ancient ownership sense[1]. Then some time later, the maker decides that you must use only authorized parts, or they will not continue to provide a cloud service for it, or that it's just plain EOL. Then, you never really owned it - you were renting it. So was that original purchase actually a lease, but misrepresented? 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi
  - crwalker 8y ago
    Yeah. More broadly, I think digital devices should be loyal to their owners rather than a 3rd party like the manufacturer or a surveillance/credit/ad agency. Part of the solution may be legal, but I also think that the architecture of the device will need to change, e.g. to remove the technical ability of the manufacturer to remotely brick it.
  - pdkl95 8y ago
    While it would be hard to argue in court, a copyright holder attempting to extend copyright beyond the scope of that copy-related right could be misuse of copyright[1]. Based on the doctrine of "unclean hands", a judge could rule a copyright to be unenforceable if the copyright holder tries to enforce some type of property right clearly outside the scope of the copyright protected work. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_misuse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_misuse
  - anotherevan 8y ago
    This is not just with hardware. It annoys me no end that there's a big "BUY NOW" button on Amazon when you're looking at an ebook, but with their digital restrictions management, you are really only leasing the ebook.
michaelmrose 8y ago
Based on “the maintenance of a device or system … in order to make it work in accordance with its original specifications” can I or can I not legally unlock a device to use a different OS/apps on it?
- 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 ago
    Yeah, 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 ago
      Could 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 ago
        17 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.
chisleu 8y ago
This isn't enough. Make it illegal to put DRM on hardware for anti-competitive purposes.
- colemannugent 8y ago
  >Make it illegal to put DRM on hardware for anti-competitive purposes. Can anyone give an example of DRM that isn't anti-competitive?
  - ashelmire 8y ago
    DRM on a game, application, or media assets, for example? Which is most of the use of it.
    - TheCoelacanth 8y ago
      If the company putting the DRM on the media also sells devices that play the media, that is anti-competitive, because they are preventing competition in media players using their media content business.
    - josefx 8y ago
      Before widespread online DRM you could resell any of those used, which made them worth less over time as more used copies became available. Today you can buy many DRM riddled games for almost the same price you got them 5 years ago since the company selling them can maintain a monopoly.
  - Joeri 8y ago
    The Content Scramble System on DVD's isn't anti-competitive, since all players can obtain a license for it, it's just anti-consumer. The example I'd like to see is of a single work that wasn't pirated due to DRM. DRM is hidden behind this wall of lies where ostensibly it's about piracy but in reality it is not. The true purpose is to control legal playback behavior, like how all legitimate hardware DVD players respect the flag that marks ads as unskippable because that's a requirement to obtain a DVD-CSS license, even though that DRM was already cracked in the 90's.
skunkworker 8y ago
It doesn't mention it in this article but this could also have a profound effect on John Deere and allowing farmers to fix their own hardware. https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/xykkkd/why-american-farmers-are-hacking-their-tractors-with-ukrainian-firmware https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/xykkkd/why-americ... https://hackaday.com/2018/02/11/will-john-deere-finally-get-their-dmca-comeuppance/ https://hackaday.com/2018/02/11/will-john-deere-finally-get-...
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  I'm terrified. I saw John Deere code, and its tortuous. Nobody should try to fool with it without serious study.
  - smt88 8y ago
    This is also true of elevators. The vendors intentionally write awful code so that only they can fix it.
    - eveningcoffee 8y ago
      This is quite horrifying. I am not sure if the elevator ride will be the same again for me.
      - komali2 8y ago
        Other than the space shuttle, by measuring deaths vs distance traveled per person, the elevator is the safest form of transportation. https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/2qbjw2/request_in_deathsmeter_what_is_the_safest_form_of/cn4reyl/ https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/2qbjw2/requ... though I recommend reading more into it and doing your own math.
        cgio 8y ago
        Isn't soyuz better than space shuttle on this metric?
Multicomp 8y ago
For all the times the government does stupid things and we complain about it, this is a step in the correct direction. I hope that at some point, this exemption will be written into law, and not just an exemption by the LoC. OTOH, if you think of this as the government being able to attempt this as a 'Free Trial' for 3 years, we can show them that this exemption does not have oodles of unintended side effects. Edit: substantially clarify.
- lostlogin 8y ago
  It’s very much a paid trial, but I like this way of framing it.
- gnopgnip 8y ago
  Under common law, case law is the largest part of the law. Codified law is only a small part
yspeak 8y ago
How is the effort to require manufacturers to provide an unlock for repair different from law enforcement efforts to require an unlock for lawful searches ? Or isn't it ? Argument has been that any backdoor would make encryption vulnerable.
ChuckMcM 8y ago
This is nice, but it isn't as nice as it should be. This is a section 1201 exemption[1] which is where the Library of Congress decides there needs to be an exemption to the law and puts it into place for a period of 12 months. Every year they review these exemptions and they often fall off. If you go to the link below and replace 2018 with 2008 - 2017 you can see exemptions for the last 10 years that have been added and removed. If it isn't on the list in the following year, it is no longer an exemption. What we need is Congress to update copyright law to make these exemptions permanent. [1] https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2018/ https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2018/
- saagarjha 8y ago
  Exemptions last for three years I believe (your link doesn’t work for the other years, BTW), and the law has recently been changed to make them more permanent, requiring significant change in order to prevent automatic renewal.
  - ChuckMcM 8y ago
    That is awesome, I didn't know they had upgraded the exceptions to 3 years. For folks who want to look at previous exemptions 2015 - https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2015/ https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2015/ 2012 - https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2012/ https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2012/ 2010 - https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2010/ https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2010/ 2008 - https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2008/ https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2008/ 2006 - https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2006/ https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2006/ 2003 - https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2003/ https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2003/ 2000 - https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2000/ https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2000/
- mindslight 8y ago
  What we need is for software that attempts to impose restrictions on its users to become ineligible for copyright protection in the first place! The output of a compiler is a mechanical result, not the creative work itself. A company should not be able to purportedly license a copy of a creative work to an end user under the copyright regime, while then stripping away the ability to utilize/service that copy via computational complexity.
ocdtrekkie 8y ago
Would this apply to say, a third-party bought Cisco device? For those who don't know, Cisco devices have software that is non-transferable, despite being required to use the hardware, which can be freely sold. So technically if you sell a Cisco device to someone else, it can no longer be legally used because the software on it is pirated. Wouldn't this exemption arguably guarantee your ability to use the hardware you own in accordance with its original specifications, provided you can acquire the software somewhere?
- hathawsh 8y ago
  Interesting. It seems like Cisco's attempt to make their firmware non-transferable is not enforceable because it's in conflict with first sale doctrine, which is part of the copyright act of 1976: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    I read it as an attempt at a workaround for first sale. That they can't stop you from selling the hardware, but can prevent you from selling the license. IANAL, if it's invalid, great. AFAIK Cisco doesn't actually "enforce" this, so much as uses it to withhold providing updates. You need a support contract to download updates yourself, and while you can request an update be sent to you if there's a vulnerability you need to patch while not under a support contract, that is only applicable if your license is legitimate (i.e., that you are the original owner). In practice, most old third party hardware just gets used for homelab purposes, since it's not "legitimate". Which, as a side perk, actually keeps the resale prices of old Cisco hardware super low, which is nice for people who want enterprise class hardware at home.
    - jandrese 8y ago
      IMHO (not a lawyer), this is one of those things the companies put in a EULA that won't stand up in an actual court of law. It's basically bullying their own consumers. If pressed on it they would probably fold, but not before making you spend a ton of money on lawyers.
cestith 8y ago
This is one step in ending the hurtling of all of us into digital sharecropping. We need more steps taken.
gjsman-1000 8y ago
YEAH!!!
berbec 8y ago
With this allow people to hack iPhones to disable "brick if 3rd party screen"?
- ericabiz 8y ago
  This isn’t a thing currently. (I run repair shops and the #1 thing we do is fix iPhone screens.) Independent, non-Apple-authorized repair shops do significant enough volume that Apple has been forced to fix anything that trended toward this. Exception: The home button on iPhone 5s and above cannot be replaced by anyone except Apple. If third parties replace it, Touch ID won’t work. On iPhone 7/8, the button won’t work at all. However, it doesn’t brick your phone.
  - muzika 8y ago
    Reason: this prevents someone from opening your phone and replacing the home button with the one that has been trained on someone else’s fingers (or hacked to work with any fingerprint?) please correct me if this is wrong.
    - sjwright 8y ago
      As an iPhone owner, I'm glad that this part has this restriction. I don't mind paying a little bit more for repairing parts that are integral to the security of my phone, because the security of my phone is important to me. It's worth a LOT more than the value of the phone itself. That bears repeating. The security of my phone is worth a lot more to me than the dollar value of the phone.
      - akvadrako 8y ago
        And this is why the government mandating repairability is dangerous - it infringes on the consumer's freedom to buy locked down products.
        sjwright 8y ago
fipple 8y ago
This isn’t enough because DRM is actually winning and lots of devices are approaching “unjailbreakable.”
- voltagex_ 8y ago
  Nah, have a look at what's happening with Apple II cracking. Now that people don't have to worry about going to jail over it, archivists (well, one archivist going by 4am) has automated it so that copies can be preserved for the future.
ddingus 8y ago
!YES! Basically I've been doing those kinds of things my entire life. Good thing I'm not illegal. It is just nice to have a little good news.
gammateam 8y ago
proposed new rules? thats not a decision.
nimbius 8y ago
As an automotive mechanic, this is awesome. You have no idea how many sensors/controllers in a car can only be reset by violating the DRM. Example: the suspension control computer for newer fords (so far just raptor and newer commercial F series) is separate from the ECU, and if it faults out you need to buy a new $2500 computer and sensor pack. You can, however, replace a commonly blown diode or fuse on the computer but opening the case causes the device to stay "in fault/service" With a raspberry pi and a bit of python however you can reset this tamper code once the whole assembly is closed. but since it "violates the DRM" most shops generally just bill for the part and labor.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- mito88 8y ago
  i2c.
- jedberg 8y ago
  > With a raspberry pi and a bit of python however you can reset this tamper code once the whole assembly is closed. This sentence is interesting to me. It tells me that now mechanics need to learn programming skills to be successful. Software really is eating the world...
  - ngngngng 8y ago
    I'm convinced most successful mechanics could be successful programmers. The skill set of looking at a problem and debugging until you really understand the architecture and design of what you're looking at is very similar in both fields.
    - dleslie 8y ago
      American McGee is probably the most famous example of this. > Dead-end jobs followed – washing dishes, polishing rings at a jewelry store, ringing orders at a record store and, finally, fixing Volkswagens at Uncle J.O.'s auto repair shop. > The tinkering that's required of mechanics appealed to the teenage hacker. The $6-an-hour job "was the first time I ever felt like I accomplished something at work," McGee said. > On breaks, covered in grease, he'd write inventory and customer tracking applications for the shop. https://www.wired.com/2000/12/the-great-american-mcgee-game/ https://www.wired.com/2000/12/the-great-american-mcgee-game/
super3 8y ago
This is a pretty big win for everyone.
WalterBright 8y ago
As the owner of a very heavily modified muscle car, I wholeheartedly agree with this. Half the fun of a muscle car is modifying it. This was easy to do with the older ones, there's an entire industry catering to it. With modern cars, manufacturers only make parts for them for 10 years or so. What are you going to do after that when the computer system in it fails? Aftermarket parts would be illegal, etc. The whole car just becomes trash.
- awalton 8y ago
  > The whole car just becomes trash. It's a fairly safe argument it was trash before it was purchased. Planned Obsolescence should be the last thing on a car manufacturer's mind. But they see the phone companies making disposable hardware and charging a thousand bucks every year for it, and their mouth drools with the prospect of those kinds of returns... Vote with your dollars folks.
  - tlrobinson 8y ago
    > Vote with your dollars folks. Unfortunately the vast majority of people don't realize or care about this, but out of curiosity, do you know which manufacturers are less guilty of this?
  - WalterBright 8y ago
    It's not just planned obsolescence. Recall Cash for Clunkers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_Allowance_Rebate_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_Allowance_Rebate_System
- perl4ever 8y ago
  I have a 30 year old car with an ECU that has been repaired, so I think your perspective on electronics is incorrect. There are also replacement ECUs with custom electronics available for my car. People can and do repair, modify, or develop replacements for old electronics on cars. The practical aspect with old cars is that most of them are not beloved enough that there will be much support in the aftermarket. But that's not specific to the electronics.
- 8y ago
just_steve_h 8y ago
I'm so grateful to EFF and the iRepair folks and everyone else who is out there "fighting the good fight" on behalf of us regular end-users! Great news!
- sinak 8y ago
  Links to two of the main organizations involved in case anyone wants to donate: https://repair.org https://repair.org https://www.eff.org https://www.eff.org
cmurf 8y ago
>“I read it as the ability to reset to factory settings,” OK so what if the factory default is "does not work" and it requires an authenticated command to put it in the non-default mode of "working"? I do not put it past any manufacturer to work around such a ruling, not least of all Apple whose entire history has been: we do not sell hardware, we sell experiences. And they have always insisted they have the exclusive right to repair (or not, and you just have to buy a new one, but here's a $10 credit toward a new purchase, thanks).
larrymcp 8y ago
I was curious about one of the exceptions that he mentioned: > Our game console repair petition was denied, meaning repairs of PS4 and Xbox One systems are going to stay expensive. Wonder why game systems were excluded? They're basically computers too.
- bubblethink 8y ago
  Likely related to the third point in that list. >An exemption request by Bunnie Huang and EFF to bypass HDCP ... was denied. Both of these are too close to real money that it would be hard to get exemptions. All the conventional blu ray (i.e., not 4K) DRM stuff and HDCP has been broken for a while. If you can replace the optical drives in game consoles legally, you can circumvent DRM too. There are/were non compliant dvd and blu ray players that don't give a shit about DRM or geo blocking (region locked media).
- matheusmoreira 8y ago
  Same reason repairs that required bypassing HDCP were denied: it would weaken the effectiveness of the DRM implemented by current high definition media formats. The billion dollar copyright industry won't stand for that.
shmerl 8y ago
Great, but DMCA 1201 should be repealed completely. Patching it with exceptions is just fixing the symptoms, not curing the disease.
- Endy 8y ago
  Realistically, the whole DMCA needs to be repealed, not just one piece.
  - freeone3000 8y ago
    DMCA is also the source of Safe Harbor provisions, which are fairly important to anybody running a site for which users can post content.
cwbrandsma 8y ago
I have a feeling John Deere will be pissed to no end...and I will laugh endlessly.
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  Why do you believe they would be pissed?
  - sevensor 8y ago
    Deere infamously has a EULA for their equipment that forbids farmers from breaking DRM, thereby locking them into first-party parts and service. Notwithstanding the jacked-up costs of first-party parts and service, this policy idles farm equipment at very inconvenient times, occasionally ruining the luckless owner of Deere equipment.
    - DoreenMichele 8y ago
      Thank you.
joemi 8y ago
That's a really great overview of the situation. I much preferred this to the Vice article that's also on the HN frontpage.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  I think both posts have been merged?
rdiddly 8y ago
Two-word comment: "Thank you"
- dwighttk 8y ago
  that's five.
  - rdiddly 8y ago
    Fine, three-word metadata header, two-word comment!
nmstoker 8y ago
This is obviously applicable only in the US jurisdiction, but do any IP experts know how similar or different the self-repair situation is in the EU? Am just interested if this may have the momentum to become a somewhat global "norm"
mikhailt 8y ago
But these are just temporary exclusions that needs to be renewed every three years, right? Can someone explain why three years? It feels like it is not even worth the risk of "breaking" the laws in 4 years not knowing if they're renewed or has been revoked.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  I think the rule has been changed so that exemptions continue to stay in effect unless something significant changes and an argument can be made the the exemption may have been made in error.
- saurik 8y ago
  They actually (mostly) fixed this recently (in no small part due to being beaten down pretty hard by iFixIt a few years ago filing a crazy number of new exemption requests ;P). Now existing exemptions have a streamlined renewal process where the opposition needs to demonstrate that there was an important shift in the underlying evidence during that time. https://clinic.cyber.harvard.edu/2017/10/25/update-on-the-2018-triennial-1201-rule-making/ https://clinic.cyber.harvard.edu/2017/10/25/update-on-the-20... https://www.copyright.gov/1201/1201_streamlined_renewal_transcript.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/1201/1201_streamlined_renewal_tran...
deckar01 8y ago
You can legally bypass the DRM on a 3D printer to use generic filament from suppliers other than the printer's manufacturer. I'm not sure there are many manufacturers doing this anymore. The rise of cheap, open source 3D printer changed the market pretty drastically over the last few years.
femto 8y ago
This sounds like a niche for a small Pacific island. Islands like Jersey and the Cook Islands tailor their legal systems to cater for those who want a looser financial system. A small state could tailor their laws for those who want to repair things and potentially make a very nice "high tech" economy out of reverse engineering, importing broken stuff and exporting fixed stuff. Copyright holders might try and block an import, but they would be fighting a harder battle against "parallel import" laws. -- Edit: And they could set up a network of embassies around the world, with integrated repair shops. Instead of visiting the Kiribati embassy to get a visa, you might visit to get your device fixed.
- TimTheTinker 8y ago
  Brilliant. This is indeed a huge opportunity waiting to be taken by an otherwise stable country that is in need of some cash. Botswana, perhaps?
- EvangelicalPig 8y ago
  Give me a place with good reverse engineering/copyright laws, legal medical cannabis (long story) and I'll move tomorrow (if only)
- ThrustVectoring 8y ago
  A tribal nation makes more sense for the US market. >Copyright holders might try and block an import, but they would be fighting a harder battle against "parallel import" laws. They can claim that it's counterfeit, have customs seize it, then force you to file legal action to reclaim your property. Not really the best place to be TBH.
  - Analemma_ 8y ago
    Good thinking, but US courts have established that you can’t use tribal nations for IP shenanigans: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/judge-throws-out-allergan-patent-slams-companys-native-american-deal/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/judge-throws-out... (The linked case concerns “evil shenanigans”, in contrast to your proposed “good shenanigans”, but I doubt that argument would carry much sway in court.)
matheusmoreira 8y ago
I think it's sad that people have to go beg some "copyright office" for permission to do this in the first place.
illiac_1962 8y ago
Oh let us bow down and give thanks for being "allowed" to fix shit we own. What. The. Serious. Fuck. The fact that someone has the power to restrict this and or grant us the right makes me absolutely sick. The fact that there has to be a hearing means the forces of evil have won.
- shard972 8y ago
  But sir, have you ever considered why Apple would ever make a phone if you could just replace the battery yourself? Think of all the innovation that would have been lost without copyright laws! /s
baddash 8y ago
Anyone have any thoughts about now investing in the industries that this ruling has removed the chains off of? From the article, you got smartphone, home appliance, and home system repairs, and also repairs of motorized land vehicle software. Also, the market for repair tools.
dis-sys 8y ago
I watched the following video last week and I was shocked. APPLE charges its customer up to almost $2k ($1200 for the motherboard and $780 for the screen) to repair something a small laptop repair shop did for free. What is more shocking is the fact that dozens of such cases happen everyday in that small laptop repair shop. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2_SZ4tfLns https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2_SZ4tfLns
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Jedi72 8y ago
I would argue that for software right to repair implies open-source.
carapace 8y ago
Does anyone know how this interacts with 17 U.S. Code § 117 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117 IANAL, but to me it would seem you're already allowed to copy and modify e.g. tractor firmware to make repairs, eh?
solarkraft 8y ago
Now it's time to outlaw setting DRM in place in order to prevent people from fixing their electronics.

1064 points by sinak 8y ago

xoa 8y ago

Great decision, though it'd be better if it was embedded into law and couldn't go away down the line. At the least DRM and legal protection should be either/or, like secrets vs patents. Part of the return the public is supposed to see for granting legal protection to IP is that the IP is then made widely available (as well as eventually entering the public domain) and can be built upon for personal use, commentated upon, etc. If somebody wants to just try to keep something secret or protect it with technology maybe that's fine to try to do indefinitely, but they shouldn't be able to do that and then also get the full benefit of IP law that was originally created around non-technically restricted information. This is also a good starting balance in that legal subsidies are removed but it doesn't require manufacturers to nerf their tech either, which is an area that needs to be navigated very carefully in law given the security implications and the risks of unintended consequences. I still wish "right to repair" was "right to have work" but this seems like an unalloyed Good Thing regardless. Maybe it can catalyze a bit of renewed fight against the worse parts of the DMCA and the like.

craftyguy 8y ago
> though it'd be better if it was embedded into law and couldn't go away down the line I'd go further and say that there's nothing of any significance in this decision since it will likely go away down the line since it was not codified in law.
- xoa 8y ago
  >I'd go further and say that there's nothing of any significance in this decision since it will likely go away down the line since it was not codified in law. I don't believe you're correct here. If down the road the LoC and USCO did not continue this exemption, it still would have applied for the whole intervening time and anybody who took advantage of it during that time would be in the clear. At a bare minimum this is a specific material benefit to many people, and any knowledge, tooling and techniques developed to aid that during that time would still be valuable. That's not insignificant. More long term, ultimately this is politics and that can definitely be influenced by "temporary" measures which later become permanent. In general in politics it's much harder to take away something specific granted to people who gain a concentrated benefit from it then it is to not offer it in the first place. Before having it people may not be able to visualize a future benefit, but after getting used to it they'll resent having it removed if it was at all useful. Constituencies develop. So if for 3+ years some people were more easily and cheaply able to get something dealt with or saw more competition for it and in turn better quality/reliability/price, and then all of a sudden one day they walk in and get told "well the politicians just rescinded this so suddenly you can't but only because they said so" well that tends not to go over so well. Particularly if it seems like "common sense" and there is no harm any general member of the public can see from it either. Appeals to distant corporate profits tend to be curiously unmoving...
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- monocasa 8y ago
  Case law is law in our system, and having explicit legislation doesn't protect you anymore from future changes than case law does.
- mathieuh 8y ago
  The US legal system is based on English common law, which uses precedent to make decisions. Companies will submit test cases to be judged to inform whether what they're doing is likely to be found legal or illegal.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
guelo 8y ago
I would argue this is better than congress passing new legislation because congress is broken and corrupt. If congresss were to write new legislation on DRM it would make things worse since they always take the copyright maximalist position since that's what corporate lobbyists want.
- drb91 8y ago
  Err, you like non-democratic rulings because they AVOID corruption? Worked great for the FCC!
  - Broken_Hippo 8y ago
    Something being non-democratic does not mean that it is corrupt. (Many companies are not democratic but also aren't subject to corruption). This is very much like a democratic ruling does not protect it from corruption. Both the corruption and lack of it can happen in most systems of creating rulings.
    - drb91 8y ago
      Maybe. It’s easier for me to imagine corruption stopping if it’s tied to an election. Who votes over changing out the patent office? Nobody. What comes out of that office might as well be random in the best case, and openly corrupt in the worst (again, see the FCC).
  - njharman 8y ago
    Its cute you think US congress/government is democratic.
    - a1369209993 8y ago
      Well the US[0] has a democratic government in the same sense that it has a capitalist/free market economy, namely <five straight minutes of mocking laughter>. 0: And the EU/most European countries/Australia/anywhere else that calls itself 'democratic' in a attempt to imitate the US rather than as a fig leaf for a dictatorship.
jobu 8y ago
> Part of the return the public is supposed to see for granting legal protection to IP is that the IP is then made widely available (as well as eventually entering the public domain) and can be built upon for personal use, commentated upon, etc. That's really well said. A bit of a tangent, but it's similar to how software patents should be as well. If you want to patent a software feature, then you have to include a working code sample and that sample code loses copyright protection forever.
- 0xb100db1ade 8y ago
  This sounds interesting, but I don't completely understand. Does this mean that only that specific implementation may be used without a 3rd party infringing copyright?
  - Tyr42 8y ago
    It’d mean you have to provide a library which would just work when the patent expires in seven years, at the very least
  - olefoo 8y ago
    I read that as, you would be able to use the sample code verbatim once the patent expired and would be able to read and understand the principle behind the patent.
- ajnin 8y ago
  Patents are already supposed to do that. They are required to describe embodiments of the claims, which can be used by anyone to implement the invention. However they are always redacted in the vaguest, most obscure way possible as to provide the legal protection without the disclosure part. That should be reason to reject any patent application in my opinion, but I'm not a patent examiner.
  - oconnor663 8y ago
    I don't think they use convoluted language to avoid disclosure. I think they use convoluted language to hide the fact that what's being patented totally fails the obviousness test. But I might have a biased sample here :p
shmerl 8y ago
Breaking DRM should be legal to begin with if done for any legitimate purpose. Stuff like DMCA 1201 should not even exist.
joelx 8y ago
I believe that the idea that patents are necessary for creativity and invention is false. I think patents are actually very detrimental to new invention since people often can't use past patented ideas. Like licenses in professions, the only true reason we have patents is to reduce competition for incumbents. This is why VCs like them so much... It creates a moat. At most patents should give a short head start in the market, not be a guaranteed competition crusher.
- gdhbcc 8y ago
  You don't need to believe, those are verifiable facts. You can see the exact same cycle go through as industries develop. They start with no copyright/patents, they develop successful companies and business models, those companies lobby to increase protections for themselves resulting in lower amount of new competitors and a decrease in creative/technological development while increasing profits for existing entities. You saw it from the early beginnings with Watts engine, you saw it in the film industry in the US, you saw it in the German, Japanese, South korean development, and now you see it happening in China. Make a list of the most famous composers in the 1800s. How many of them made most of their work prior to the introduction of copyright in their place of business? How many did it after? You can see it clearly there.

davemp 8y ago

> Specifically, it allows breaking digital rights management (DRM) and embedded software locks for “the maintenance of a device or system … in order to make it work in accordance with its original specifications” or for “the repair of a device or system … to a state of working in accordance with its original specifications.” It would be interesting to know what "original specifications" means. How deep do these original specifications have to be adhered to? I'm sure DRM could be argued to be part of the spec at some level. I don't think this is quite the win Free Software Folks are looking for.

crwalker 8y ago

This is great! The push by large companies to replace personal asset ownership with perpetual rent is worth fighting against.

imglorp 8y ago
On that note, I wonder if the law will ever view misprepresenting the ownership of a device as fraudulent business practice. Suppose some hardware is sold to you, in the ancient ownership sense[1]. Then some time later, the maker decides that you must use only authorized parts, or they will not continue to provide a cloud service for it, or that it's just plain EOL. Then, you never really owned it - you were renting it. So was that original purchase actually a lease, but misrepresented? 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi
- crwalker 8y ago
  Yeah. More broadly, I think digital devices should be loyal to their owners rather than a 3rd party like the manufacturer or a surveillance/credit/ad agency. Part of the solution may be legal, but I also think that the architecture of the device will need to change, e.g. to remove the technical ability of the manufacturer to remotely brick it.
- pdkl95 8y ago
  While it would be hard to argue in court, a copyright holder attempting to extend copyright beyond the scope of that copy-related right could be misuse of copyright[1]. Based on the doctrine of "unclean hands", a judge could rule a copyright to be unenforceable if the copyright holder tries to enforce some type of property right clearly outside the scope of the copyright protected work. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_misuse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_misuse
- anotherevan 8y ago
  This is not just with hardware. It annoys me no end that there's a big "BUY NOW" button on Amazon when you're looking at an ebook, but with their digital restrictions management, you are really only leasing the ebook.

michaelmrose 8y ago

Based on “the maintenance of a device or system … in order to make it work in accordance with its original specifications” can I or can I not legally unlock a device to use a different OS/apps on it?

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 ago
  Yeah, 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 ago
    Could 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 ago
      17 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.

chisleu 8y ago

This isn't enough. Make it illegal to put DRM on hardware for anti-competitive purposes.

colemannugent 8y ago
>Make it illegal to put DRM on hardware for anti-competitive purposes. Can anyone give an example of DRM that isn't anti-competitive?
- ashelmire 8y ago
  DRM on a game, application, or media assets, for example? Which is most of the use of it.
  - TheCoelacanth 8y ago
    If the company putting the DRM on the media also sells devices that play the media, that is anti-competitive, because they are preventing competition in media players using their media content business.
  - josefx 8y ago
    Before widespread online DRM you could resell any of those used, which made them worth less over time as more used copies became available. Today you can buy many DRM riddled games for almost the same price you got them 5 years ago since the company selling them can maintain a monopoly.
- Joeri 8y ago
  The Content Scramble System on DVD's isn't anti-competitive, since all players can obtain a license for it, it's just anti-consumer. The example I'd like to see is of a single work that wasn't pirated due to DRM. DRM is hidden behind this wall of lies where ostensibly it's about piracy but in reality it is not. The true purpose is to control legal playback behavior, like how all legitimate hardware DVD players respect the flag that marks ads as unskippable because that's a requirement to obtain a DVD-CSS license, even though that DRM was already cracked in the 90's.

skunkworker 8y ago

It doesn't mention it in this article but this could also have a profound effect on John Deere and allowing farmers to fix their own hardware. https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/xykkkd/why-american-farmers-are-hacking-their-tractors-with-ukrainian-firmware https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/xykkkd/why-americ... https://hackaday.com/2018/02/11/will-john-deere-finally-get-their-dmca-comeuppance/ https://hackaday.com/2018/02/11/will-john-deere-finally-get-...

JoeAltmaier 8y ago
I'm terrified. I saw John Deere code, and its tortuous. Nobody should try to fool with it without serious study.
- smt88 8y ago
  This is also true of elevators. The vendors intentionally write awful code so that only they can fix it.
  - eveningcoffee 8y ago
    This is quite horrifying. I am not sure if the elevator ride will be the same again for me.
    - komali2 8y ago
      Other than the space shuttle, by measuring deaths vs distance traveled per person, the elevator is the safest form of transportation. https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/2qbjw2/request_in_deathsmeter_what_is_the_safest_form_of/cn4reyl/ https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/2qbjw2/requ... though I recommend reading more into it and doing your own math.
      - cgio 8y ago
        Isn't soyuz better than space shuttle on this metric?

Multicomp 8y ago

For all the times the government does stupid things and we complain about it, this is a step in the correct direction. I hope that at some point, this exemption will be written into law, and not just an exemption by the LoC. OTOH, if you think of this as the government being able to attempt this as a 'Free Trial' for 3 years, we can show them that this exemption does not have oodles of unintended side effects. Edit: substantially clarify.

lostlogin 8y ago
It’s very much a paid trial, but I like this way of framing it.
gnopgnip 8y ago
Under common law, case law is the largest part of the law. Codified law is only a small part

yspeak 8y ago

How is the effort to require manufacturers to provide an unlock for repair different from law enforcement efforts to require an unlock for lawful searches ? Or isn't it ? Argument has been that any backdoor would make encryption vulnerable.

ChuckMcM 8y ago

This is nice, but it isn't as nice as it should be. This is a section 1201 exemption[1] which is where the Library of Congress decides there needs to be an exemption to the law and puts it into place for a period of 12 months. Every year they review these exemptions and they often fall off. If you go to the link below and replace 2018 with 2008 - 2017 you can see exemptions for the last 10 years that have been added and removed. If it isn't on the list in the following year, it is no longer an exemption. What we need is Congress to update copyright law to make these exemptions permanent. [1] https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2018/ https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2018/

saagarjha 8y ago
Exemptions last for three years I believe (your link doesn’t work for the other years, BTW), and the law has recently been changed to make them more permanent, requiring significant change in order to prevent automatic renewal.
- ChuckMcM 8y ago
  That is awesome, I didn't know they had upgraded the exceptions to 3 years. For folks who want to look at previous exemptions 2015 - https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2015/ https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2015/ 2012 - https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2012/ https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2012/ 2010 - https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2010/ https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2010/ 2008 - https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2008/ https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2008/ 2006 - https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2006/ https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2006/ 2003 - https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2003/ https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2003/ 2000 - https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2000/ https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2000/
mindslight 8y ago
What we need is for software that attempts to impose restrictions on its users to become ineligible for copyright protection in the first place! The output of a compiler is a mechanical result, not the creative work itself. A company should not be able to purportedly license a copy of a creative work to an end user under the copyright regime, while then stripping away the ability to utilize/service that copy via computational complexity.

ocdtrekkie 8y ago

Would this apply to say, a third-party bought Cisco device? For those who don't know, Cisco devices have software that is non-transferable, despite being required to use the hardware, which can be freely sold. So technically if you sell a Cisco device to someone else, it can no longer be legally used because the software on it is pirated. Wouldn't this exemption arguably guarantee your ability to use the hardware you own in accordance with its original specifications, provided you can acquire the software somewhere?

hathawsh 8y ago
Interesting. It seems like Cisco's attempt to make their firmware non-transferable is not enforceable because it's in conflict with first sale doctrine, which is part of the copyright act of 1976: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  I read it as an attempt at a workaround for first sale. That they can't stop you from selling the hardware, but can prevent you from selling the license. IANAL, if it's invalid, great. AFAIK Cisco doesn't actually "enforce" this, so much as uses it to withhold providing updates. You need a support contract to download updates yourself, and while you can request an update be sent to you if there's a vulnerability you need to patch while not under a support contract, that is only applicable if your license is legitimate (i.e., that you are the original owner). In practice, most old third party hardware just gets used for homelab purposes, since it's not "legitimate". Which, as a side perk, actually keeps the resale prices of old Cisco hardware super low, which is nice for people who want enterprise class hardware at home.
  - jandrese 8y ago
    IMHO (not a lawyer), this is one of those things the companies put in a EULA that won't stand up in an actual court of law. It's basically bullying their own consumers. If pressed on it they would probably fold, but not before making you spend a ton of money on lawyers.

cestith 8y ago

This is one step in ending the hurtling of all of us into digital sharecropping. We need more steps taken.

gjsman-1000 8y ago

YEAH!!!

berbec 8y ago

With this allow people to hack iPhones to disable "brick if 3rd party screen"?

ericabiz 8y ago
This isn’t a thing currently. (I run repair shops and the #1 thing we do is fix iPhone screens.) Independent, non-Apple-authorized repair shops do significant enough volume that Apple has been forced to fix anything that trended toward this. Exception: The home button on iPhone 5s and above cannot be replaced by anyone except Apple. If third parties replace it, Touch ID won’t work. On iPhone 7/8, the button won’t work at all. However, it doesn’t brick your phone.
- muzika 8y ago
  Reason: this prevents someone from opening your phone and replacing the home button with the one that has been trained on someone else’s fingers (or hacked to work with any fingerprint?) please correct me if this is wrong.
  - sjwright 8y ago
    As an iPhone owner, I'm glad that this part has this restriction. I don't mind paying a little bit more for repairing parts that are integral to the security of my phone, because the security of my phone is important to me. It's worth a LOT more than the value of the phone itself. That bears repeating. The security of my phone is worth a lot more to me than the dollar value of the phone.
    - akvadrako 8y ago
      And this is why the government mandating repairability is dangerous - it infringes on the consumer's freedom to buy locked down products.
      - sjwright 8y ago

fipple 8y ago

This isn’t enough because DRM is actually winning and lots of devices are approaching “unjailbreakable.”

voltagex_ 8y ago
Nah, have a look at what's happening with Apple II cracking. Now that people don't have to worry about going to jail over it, archivists (well, one archivist going by 4am) has automated it so that copies can be preserved for the future.

ddingus 8y ago

!YES! Basically I've been doing those kinds of things my entire life. Good thing I'm not illegal. It is just nice to have a little good news.

gammateam 8y ago

proposed new rules? thats not a decision.

nimbius 8y ago

As an automotive mechanic, this is awesome. You have no idea how many sensors/controllers in a car can only be reset by violating the DRM. Example: the suspension control computer for newer fords (so far just raptor and newer commercial F series) is separate from the ECU, and if it faults out you need to buy a new $2500 computer and sensor pack. You can, however, replace a commonly blown diode or fuse on the computer but opening the case causes the device to stay "in fault/service" With a raspberry pi and a bit of python however you can reset this tamper code once the whole assembly is closed. but since it "violates the DRM" most shops generally just bill for the part and labor.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mito88 8y ago
i2c.
jedberg 8y ago
> With a raspberry pi and a bit of python however you can reset this tamper code once the whole assembly is closed. This sentence is interesting to me. It tells me that now mechanics need to learn programming skills to be successful. Software really is eating the world...
- ngngngng 8y ago
  I'm convinced most successful mechanics could be successful programmers. The skill set of looking at a problem and debugging until you really understand the architecture and design of what you're looking at is very similar in both fields.
  - dleslie 8y ago
    American McGee is probably the most famous example of this. > Dead-end jobs followed – washing dishes, polishing rings at a jewelry store, ringing orders at a record store and, finally, fixing Volkswagens at Uncle J.O.'s auto repair shop. > The tinkering that's required of mechanics appealed to the teenage hacker. The $6-an-hour job "was the first time I ever felt like I accomplished something at work," McGee said. > On breaks, covered in grease, he'd write inventory and customer tracking applications for the shop. https://www.wired.com/2000/12/the-great-american-mcgee-game/ https://www.wired.com/2000/12/the-great-american-mcgee-game/

super3 8y ago

This is a pretty big win for everyone.

WalterBright 8y ago

As the owner of a very heavily modified muscle car, I wholeheartedly agree with this. Half the fun of a muscle car is modifying it. This was easy to do with the older ones, there's an entire industry catering to it. With modern cars, manufacturers only make parts for them for 10 years or so. What are you going to do after that when the computer system in it fails? Aftermarket parts would be illegal, etc. The whole car just becomes trash.

awalton 8y ago
> The whole car just becomes trash. It's a fairly safe argument it was trash before it was purchased. Planned Obsolescence should be the last thing on a car manufacturer's mind. But they see the phone companies making disposable hardware and charging a thousand bucks every year for it, and their mouth drools with the prospect of those kinds of returns... Vote with your dollars folks.
- tlrobinson 8y ago
  > Vote with your dollars folks. Unfortunately the vast majority of people don't realize or care about this, but out of curiosity, do you know which manufacturers are less guilty of this?
- WalterBright 8y ago
  It's not just planned obsolescence. Recall Cash for Clunkers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_Allowance_Rebate_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_Allowance_Rebate_System
perl4ever 8y ago
I have a 30 year old car with an ECU that has been repaired, so I think your perspective on electronics is incorrect. There are also replacement ECUs with custom electronics available for my car. People can and do repair, modify, or develop replacements for old electronics on cars. The practical aspect with old cars is that most of them are not beloved enough that there will be much support in the aftermarket. But that's not specific to the electronics.
8y ago

just_steve_h 8y ago

I'm so grateful to EFF and the iRepair folks and everyone else who is out there "fighting the good fight" on behalf of us regular end-users! Great news!

sinak 8y ago
Links to two of the main organizations involved in case anyone wants to donate: https://repair.org https://repair.org https://www.eff.org https://www.eff.org

cmurf 8y ago

>“I read it as the ability to reset to factory settings,” OK so what if the factory default is "does not work" and it requires an authenticated command to put it in the non-default mode of "working"? I do not put it past any manufacturer to work around such a ruling, not least of all Apple whose entire history has been: we do not sell hardware, we sell experiences. And they have always insisted they have the exclusive right to repair (or not, and you just have to buy a new one, but here's a $10 credit toward a new purchase, thanks).

larrymcp 8y ago

I was curious about one of the exceptions that he mentioned: > Our game console repair petition was denied, meaning repairs of PS4 and Xbox One systems are going to stay expensive. Wonder why game systems were excluded? They're basically computers too.

bubblethink 8y ago
Likely related to the third point in that list. >An exemption request by Bunnie Huang and EFF to bypass HDCP ... was denied. Both of these are too close to real money that it would be hard to get exemptions. All the conventional blu ray (i.e., not 4K) DRM stuff and HDCP has been broken for a while. If you can replace the optical drives in game consoles legally, you can circumvent DRM too. There are/were non compliant dvd and blu ray players that don't give a shit about DRM or geo blocking (region locked media).
matheusmoreira 8y ago
Same reason repairs that required bypassing HDCP were denied: it would weaken the effectiveness of the DRM implemented by current high definition media formats. The billion dollar copyright industry won't stand for that.

shmerl 8y ago

Great, but DMCA 1201 should be repealed completely. Patching it with exceptions is just fixing the symptoms, not curing the disease.

Endy 8y ago
Realistically, the whole DMCA needs to be repealed, not just one piece.
- freeone3000 8y ago
  DMCA is also the source of Safe Harbor provisions, which are fairly important to anybody running a site for which users can post content.

cwbrandsma 8y ago

I have a feeling John Deere will be pissed to no end...and I will laugh endlessly.

DoreenMichele 8y ago
Why do you believe they would be pissed?
- sevensor 8y ago
  Deere infamously has a EULA for their equipment that forbids farmers from breaking DRM, thereby locking them into first-party parts and service. Notwithstanding the jacked-up costs of first-party parts and service, this policy idles farm equipment at very inconvenient times, occasionally ruining the luckless owner of Deere equipment.
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    Thank you.

joemi 8y ago

That's a really great overview of the situation. I much preferred this to the Vice article that's also on the HN frontpage.

saagarjha 8y ago
I think both posts have been merged?

rdiddly 8y ago

Two-word comment: "Thank you"

dwighttk 8y ago
that's five.
- rdiddly 8y ago
  Fine, three-word metadata header, two-word comment!

nmstoker 8y ago

This is obviously applicable only in the US jurisdiction, but do any IP experts know how similar or different the self-repair situation is in the EU? Am just interested if this may have the momentum to become a somewhat global "norm"

mikhailt 8y ago

But these are just temporary exclusions that needs to be renewed every three years, right? Can someone explain why three years? It feels like it is not even worth the risk of "breaking" the laws in 4 years not knowing if they're renewed or has been revoked.

saagarjha 8y ago
I think the rule has been changed so that exemptions continue to stay in effect unless something significant changes and an argument can be made the the exemption may have been made in error.
saurik 8y ago
They actually (mostly) fixed this recently (in no small part due to being beaten down pretty hard by iFixIt a few years ago filing a crazy number of new exemption requests ;P). Now existing exemptions have a streamlined renewal process where the opposition needs to demonstrate that there was an important shift in the underlying evidence during that time. https://clinic.cyber.harvard.edu/2017/10/25/update-on-the-2018-triennial-1201-rule-making/ https://clinic.cyber.harvard.edu/2017/10/25/update-on-the-20... https://www.copyright.gov/1201/1201_streamlined_renewal_transcript.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/1201/1201_streamlined_renewal_tran...

deckar01 8y ago

You can legally bypass the DRM on a 3D printer to use generic filament from suppliers other than the printer's manufacturer. I'm not sure there are many manufacturers doing this anymore. The rise of cheap, open source 3D printer changed the market pretty drastically over the last few years.

femto 8y ago

This sounds like a niche for a small Pacific island. Islands like Jersey and the Cook Islands tailor their legal systems to cater for those who want a looser financial system. A small state could tailor their laws for those who want to repair things and potentially make a very nice "high tech" economy out of reverse engineering, importing broken stuff and exporting fixed stuff. Copyright holders might try and block an import, but they would be fighting a harder battle against "parallel import" laws. -- Edit: And they could set up a network of embassies around the world, with integrated repair shops. Instead of visiting the Kiribati embassy to get a visa, you might visit to get your device fixed.

TimTheTinker 8y ago
Brilliant. This is indeed a huge opportunity waiting to be taken by an otherwise stable country that is in need of some cash. Botswana, perhaps?
EvangelicalPig 8y ago
Give me a place with good reverse engineering/copyright laws, legal medical cannabis (long story) and I'll move tomorrow (if only)
ThrustVectoring 8y ago
A tribal nation makes more sense for the US market. >Copyright holders might try and block an import, but they would be fighting a harder battle against "parallel import" laws. They can claim that it's counterfeit, have customs seize it, then force you to file legal action to reclaim your property. Not really the best place to be TBH.
- Analemma_ 8y ago
  Good thinking, but US courts have established that you can’t use tribal nations for IP shenanigans: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/judge-throws-out-allergan-patent-slams-companys-native-american-deal/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/judge-throws-out... (The linked case concerns “evil shenanigans”, in contrast to your proposed “good shenanigans”, but I doubt that argument would carry much sway in court.)

matheusmoreira 8y ago

I think it's sad that people have to go beg some "copyright office" for permission to do this in the first place.

illiac_1962 8y ago

Oh let us bow down and give thanks for being "allowed" to fix shit we own. What. The. Serious. Fuck. The fact that someone has the power to restrict this and or grant us the right makes me absolutely sick. The fact that there has to be a hearing means the forces of evil have won.

shard972 8y ago
But sir, have you ever considered why Apple would ever make a phone if you could just replace the battery yourself? Think of all the innovation that would have been lost without copyright laws! /s

baddash 8y ago

Anyone have any thoughts about now investing in the industries that this ruling has removed the chains off of? From the article, you got smartphone, home appliance, and home system repairs, and also repairs of motorized land vehicle software. Also, the market for repair tools.

dis-sys 8y ago

I watched the following video last week and I was shocked. APPLE charges its customer up to almost $2k ($1200 for the motherboard and $780 for the screen) to repair something a small laptop repair shop did for free. What is more shocking is the fact that dozens of such cases happen everyday in that small laptop repair shop. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2_SZ4tfLns https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2_SZ4tfLns

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Jedi72 8y ago

I would argue that for software right to repair implies open-source.

carapace 8y ago

Does anyone know how this interacts with 17 U.S. Code § 117 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117 IANAL, but to me it would seem you're already allowed to copy and modify e.g. tractor firmware to make repairs, eh?

solarkraft 8y ago

Now it's time to outlaw setting DRM in place in order to prevent people from fixing their electronics.