9 ms·

When you buy a physical object, such as a home, a car, a shirt, or a smartphone, shouldn't you be be able to repair it, modify it however you want, use it for d

• econcon 7y ago
  I think if this law is passed, companies will start subscription service where you'll be renting phones instead of owning then. Then onus and exclusive right for repair/replacement will stay with the smartphone company.
  • danShumway 7y ago
    If you're currently licensing the software on your phone instead of buying a copy of it, then the situation today isn't really better. You pay the full cost of the device, but you don't own it, and companies retain the exclusive right for repair/replacement. But, they don't have any onus for repair/replacement, and you need to pay full price for a new device if your current one gets damaged. An honest rental system might be preferable. At least then people would know what they're getting into. At least when I rent a device, there's some real obligation for the actual owner to fix it when it breaks. At least then companies who legitimately sell their devices and don't block repair efforts would have a marketing edge. By all means, let people rent software. Just make sure companies are correctly marketing that as a rental.
    • numpad0 7y ago
      Aren’t we just allowing the idea of licensing contract overwhelm ourselves for little reasons? When you buy a book, you own the hardware but not IP. You’re “licensed a nonexclusive irrevocable right to use, that allows reverse engineering but without sublicensing clauses” aka you can’t xerox the full book and sell it for $5. When you buy a sandwich, same except hardware can be eaten. Really the deal of “mandatory licensed” software is that you can’t pirate it, and that should already be covered by laws. It should not require a million page contract and those contract mustn’t be much more than blank pages.
  • robert_foss 7y ago
    Currently there are tons of non-manufacturer repair shops for phones, yet we're not renting phones.
  • eeZah7Ux 7y ago
    > Then onus and exclusive right for repair/replacement will stay with the smartphone company. No, it's not that simple.
  • yoran 7y ago
    That's the classic predicted outcome for any new regulation... which rarely turns out to be true. Consumers will want to buy their own phones and as long as that is true, businesses will adapt to the new regulations to satisfy this need.
  • saber6 7y ago
    I am not sure we will return quite to that model. For a trip down memory lane: The US specifically had an FCC decision (Carterphone - 1978) designed to to remove the leverage that landline providers had over the market with regards to forcing customers to rent or buy a phone from only them. Reference article: https://www.nytimes.com/1982/12/16/business/new-era-for-the-telephone-ownership-replacing-rental.html https://www.nytimes.com/1982/12/16/business/new-era-for-the-...
  • m463 7y ago
    My u-verse dsl modem, owned by AT&T and rented to me, got an update pushed to it recently with lots of telemetry. no recourse. Comcast does similar things with their cable modems, such as opening them up as semi-public access points.
• jeremyjh 7y ago
  Licensing is not the same as purchasing. I don’t think banning the concept of licensing would be helpful.
  • imtringued 7y ago
    I don't think banks would be happy if someone returned their "tuned" car after the lease ended.
    • short_sells_poo 7y ago
      When you lease a car, you do not own it. The bank owns the car and depending on the country of residence, the dealership is possibly on the hook for a guaranteed buyout price. The lessee is certainly not allowed to "tune" the car without the consent of the bank/dealership. They are usually not even allowed to service it anywhere but at an authorized garage. This is different from outright purchase of the car, where you can literally drive it to the nearest scrap yard and have it crushed right after purchase :)
      • falcolas 7y ago
        > This is different from outright purchase of the car Even this right is being eroded - see Tesla. You can drive it to the scrap yard, but someone else can't always drive it back out.
        • ajayyy 7y ago
          That's Tesla, which is one of the targets of right to repair
  • emiliobumachar 7y ago
    I think it would be very helpful to demand that all leases are labeled properly. Where we are it says "Buy" on the ad, "Buy" on the button, and "Lease" deep inside the 30-page Terms Of Service. It's very reasonable to say that the vendors created an expectation of ownership to push their sale. If you didn't notice that I called them "vendors" instead of "leasers", it adds to my point.
• bluGill 7y ago
  I own my home, but I'm not allowed to pour oil on the ground even though it would only destroy my own grass. I own my car, but I'm not allowed to remove the headlights and drive at night. Exactly where we place the limits is up for debate, but I think I conclusively proved to everybody reading this that there need to be limits the only question is where.
  • cs702 7y ago
    Of course, but note that in both of your examples those limits are in place to make sure you don't inflict significant costs or damages on the rest of humankind. The limits you mention prevent you from making roads unsafe for everyone else at night and from poisoning the ground on which everyone else lives.
  • Buttons840 7y ago
    It would be more accurately stated: I am allowed to remove my headlights, but I'm not allowed to drive on the roads if I have removed my headlights. The restriction is on roads.
    • notriddle 7y ago
      Okay, how about this one? I own my home, but I'm not allowed to replace the GFCI outlets in my bathroom with non-GFCI outlets.
      • rleigh 7y ago
        This misses the fundamental point being discussed. Having the right to modify and repair does not mean a carte blanche to ignore and circumvent building and electrical regulations. You do have the right to remove, replace or add additional outlets providing that the regulations are complied with, and you can purchase outlets from any vendor which sells products compliant with the regulations. Availability of first-party and third-party parts would greatly open up the market for electronic goods of all kinds. So long as they comply with the necessary regulations and perform equivalently to the original parts, it would be a vast improvement upon the current state of affairs.
• kmlx 7y ago
  > shouldn't you be be able to repair it, modify it however you want, use it for different purposes, loan it to friends, sell it to others, and so on all of these are completely different actions, have different standing in front of the law, have different repercussions etc etc the way i see these kinds of initiatives: i think they're healthy, i think we need them, but i also notice how they're from a bygone era where cars where fixed in the driveway. that age has passed, and sure, we need a new paradigm. but i still wouldn't trust a random person vs a dedicated service center to fix my phone. can we make those phones so simple that anyone can repair them? would this entail any performance drawbacks? curios to see where this whole thing leads.
  • justinclift 7y ago
    > notice how they're from a bygone era where cars where fixed in the driveway. that age has passed Do you feel that age has passed because manufacturers now block people having the info needed for repair, or are you meaning the complexity of cars has increased?
    • ska 7y ago
      Honestly, probably a bit of both.
      • justinclift 7y ago
        Ok then. :) Perhaps the age of fixing cars in the driveway may return, if manufacturers aren't able to block the info needed. At present, more technically advanced people seem to piece together their own CANbus diagnostic tools. But off the shelf products that work for "every model" should be practical if this legislation works.
        • ska 7y ago
          Absolutely better regs around access to diagnostics (e.g. CAN bus as you mention) is part of the story. But for the bigger internal stuff, tolerances are a lot tighter than they were 20 years ago, which can make it hard to do a good job of in your driveway. Certainly some superficial repairs are made much harder than they should be, but a lot of that is more modular too so you aren't saving a ton doing it at home. At least you can find out which control unit should be replaced if you can read the diagnostics properly :)
• fulafel 7y ago
  Nitpicking.. but I think homes are not a good analogy, because many/most homes in apartment buildings are owned by the housing corporation of the building, or whatever the entity type in in the jurisdiction happens to be.
• umvi 7y ago
  > shouldn't you be be able to ... modify it however you want Not necessarily. Consider products that require radios like satellite internet transceivers. If you were allowed to "modify it however you want" you could easily modify it to put up a continuous wave and effectively DoS the satellite gateway, causing an outage for all other customers on the entire beam which is obviously something the ISP wants to avoid at all costs. Hence, many companies only allow you to lease the transceiver, not own. And even if you did literally own it, they obviously don't want you modifying it for fear of harming the service of other customers. It's one thing if you buy a toaster and modify your toaster to burn cool patterns into your toast. It's quite another if you buy a toaster and modify your toaster such that nobody else's toaster in the neighborhood works anymore.
  • nix0n 7y ago
    There's already FCC rules for that sort of thing, it's illegal whether you buy, lease, "license", or even build the transceiver.
  • teekert 7y ago
    Of course if you buy something, change it and start messing with other peoples lives you are breaking the law. Doesn't really have anything to do with a right to repair.
  • jolmg 7y ago
    Shouldn't the restriction be placed on the use of the shared resource (the air)? That is, modifying the transceiver should be fine on its own. What I'm trying to point out is that your comment seems to suggest restricting users from making any (all) modifications, even if they wouldn't affect anyone but themselves, because they might make a modification would affect others. I think one should be allowed to make any modifications as long as they're made responsible for how those modifications affect others. And even if a modification potentially (not through every use) negatively affects others, they should only face consequences when the use actually affected others or went against regulations of the shared resource (the air).
  • PureParadigm 7y ago
    I'd say it's fine to modify it to be able to do that, as long as you don't actually turn it on and make it disrupt other people. For example, a car is very capable of crashing into people, but even though it can do that we expect people not to use cars in that way. Even though cars can be dangerous if used irresponsibility, there are legitimate reasons to have cars. Similarly, there are legitimate reasons to modify radios, and we should just expect people to use them responsibly the same way we expect car owners to use their cars responsibly.
• ska 7y ago
  The more impactful and subtle part of this discussion includes what constraints, rights and responsibilities does this place on manufacture? If we decide you have an inalienable right to repair the phone I made for you, does that mean I have to facilitate it? Does it mean I can't put technical barriers in place to make it harder for you? Do I have to offer you any sort of support & warrantee if you have modified it? Can I refuse to offer you a sale on the object, and just offer a lease? Etc. etc.