3 ms·

They have the right if their contracts with the manufacturer say they have the right, or if the laws give them the right. There are ways to have both of those

They have the right if their contracts with the manufacturer say they have the right, or if the laws give them the right. There are ways to have both of those things do what you want -- go and change them.

bryanrasmussen 6y ago
In most systems of western ethical thought that I'm familiar with the "right" to do something exists whether or not the law says you are allowed to do it.
- supernova87a 6y ago
  Well then we need to quibble over what "right" means in this context. You may have the right to try and repair your equipment. No one is stopping you from doing that. Whether or not you will succeed depends on whether the manufacturer has enabled that. That last part is not a natural "right". It is a responsibility that you want the manufacturer to undertake. That responsibility is determined by contracts and laws.
  - ddingus 6y ago
    Quibble? Fact is the vast majority of these contested repair scenarios are not necessary. Nor is the revenue they generate. This is not a "you" thing at all. It is about the necessary. And that will drive people, who despite the mess our body politic is in right now, will ultimately see law changed, and with that the scope of permissible contracts change, and with that, be better able to accomplish the necessary. Farmers, in particular, are necessary, and what they produce is necessary. All that makes this a "we" problem.
  - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
    Ok well, it looks like the word you should be using here is capacity. I would agree that they do not currently have the capacity to repair their equipment, even though they probably have the right to do so. >That last part is not a natural "right" or it may be a natural right that the manufacturer is preventing your from exercising. I agree that the opening up of the capacity to exercise that right will have to be achieved through the courts via right to repair laws and similar strategies.
mytailorisrich 6y ago
Not really. In law you can do as you please with your own property, so you have the "right to repair" by default. A problem is that this may not be feasible in practice, which is fair game in general. Another problem, which I think is more serious and unfair, is that manufacturers might actively prevent you from repairing by, e.g, requiring software to be reset by them only when you change parts.

bryanrasmussen 6y ago

In most systems of western ethical thought that I'm familiar with the "right" to do something exists whether or not the law says you are allowed to do it.

supernova87a 6y ago
Well then we need to quibble over what "right" means in this context. You may have the right to try and repair your equipment. No one is stopping you from doing that. Whether or not you will succeed depends on whether the manufacturer has enabled that. That last part is not a natural "right". It is a responsibility that you want the manufacturer to undertake. That responsibility is determined by contracts and laws.
- ddingus 6y ago
  Quibble? Fact is the vast majority of these contested repair scenarios are not necessary. Nor is the revenue they generate. This is not a "you" thing at all. It is about the necessary. And that will drive people, who despite the mess our body politic is in right now, will ultimately see law changed, and with that the scope of permissible contracts change, and with that, be better able to accomplish the necessary. Farmers, in particular, are necessary, and what they produce is necessary. All that makes this a "we" problem.
- bryanrasmussen 6y ago
  Ok well, it looks like the word you should be using here is capacity. I would agree that they do not currently have the capacity to repair their equipment, even though they probably have the right to do so. >That last part is not a natural "right" or it may be a natural right that the manufacturer is preventing your from exercising. I agree that the opening up of the capacity to exercise that right will have to be achieved through the courts via right to repair laws and similar strategies.

mytailorisrich 6y ago

Not really. In law you can do as you please with your own property, so you have the "right to repair" by default. A problem is that this may not be feasible in practice, which is fair game in general. Another problem, which I think is more serious and unfair, is that manufacturers might actively prevent you from repairing by, e.g, requiring software to be reset by them only when you change parts.