7 ms·

I have to say, I’m still very divided about right to repair. I think it’s hard to keep a consistent world view where right to repair is a thing, and at the sam

I have to say, I’m still very divided about right to repair. I think it’s hard to keep a consistent world view where right to repair is a thing, and at the same time anything but open source is outright illegal.

toss1 5y ago
Why does a right to repair require open-source to be the only legal option? It seems that I could have a highly proprietary device and still be able to repair it. It would just require availability of 1) documentation 2) diagnostics, 3) parts at market prices, 4) parts not locked by DRM code. E.g., the iPhone could still have all their proprietary code, as long as I can read about the components and their relationships, diagnose a problem, replace a component and/or flash new data/code onto the device. Same for a car or tractor. Meaningful repair doesn't require that we be able to dismantle and re-solder sub-board-level components, only identify the particular component, obtain it at a reasonable availability and cost, and replace it, or be able to substitute an upgraded part. Am I missing something here?
- xondono 5y ago
  > the iPhone could still have all their proprietary code, as long as I can read about the components and their relationships, diagnose a problem, replace a component and/or flash new data/code onto the device. As a group heavily populated by programmers and coders, I think it’s fairly hypocritical to say that everyone should make their IP like schematics freely available while we keep software under copyright. > Am I missing something here? - How is a defect like an aged battery different than a non-updated software? - Why is it inmoral for a company to limit your ability to swap a battery but totally okay to not give you the code so that you can patch their software to work on your machine? At least in the case of the battery they can argue that inappropriate handling of faulty batteries is dangerous. > Meaningful repair doesn't require that we be able to dismantle and re-solder sub-board-level components, only identify the particular component, obtain it at a reasonable availability and cost, and replace it, or be able to substitute an upgraded part. That “only” is doing a lot of work there. That “only” is the work of a lot of people who deserve to get good salaries too. Why should their work become a commodity while programmers keep their “machines” protected with the laws for art?
  - toss1 5y ago
    >>- How is a defect like an aged battery different than a non-updated software? >>- Why is it inmoral for a company to limit your ability to swap a battery but totally okay to not give you the code so that you can patch their software to work on your machine? I agree it is NOT okay to prevent access to the code, although that does NOT mean that I'd require release of source code. So, while I don't have your source code secrets, I should not be prevented by crypto or law from analyzing, editing, or replacing the object code. I should be prevented from selling at scale trivially modified copies. This is not unlike trade secret protection of parts. I have a carbon fiber composites shop, and I make some rather uniquely interesting high-performance parts with interesting chemistries and nanotechnology. If you want to take one and examine it with an electron microscope and try to figure out what I did, fine, but good luck to ya; hope you're having fun. There's also nothing preventing someone from selling a competing part of the same shape. The problem with no RTR is that the companies become extractive without adding commensurate value - it allows them to charge on both ends. If a company wants to maintain complete control over the equipment, then fine, lease it only. GM actually did this with their first electric cars in the 90s. But these companies want to sell it full price up front and then also extract a guaranteed high-cost lease-like ongoing revenue stream for the life of the machine. Many software companies have switched from a sell-the-package model to SAAS subscriptions, but this is like you have to buy the package AND the subscription. >>That “only” is doing a lot of work there. That “only” is the work of a lot of people who deserve to get good salaries too. Why should their work become a commodity while programmers keep their “machines” protected with the laws for art? I've got no problem with good salaries, I do have a problem with monopolistic extraction because you have the customer tied over a barrel and a gun to their head. When there is a legitimate market of repairs, it at least provides options for the customer, and is likely to keep the Factory Authorized channel somewhat reasonable. Just doing all warranty repairs through the factory channel and voiding the warranty for independent repairs can keep all those factory channel people in fine salaries. Meanwhile everything from high-end tuners to el-cheapo-fix-it shops can thrive and customers can have options, all without threatening the core business, and even enhancing it. What you are making me think about is that there should be MORE of this capability in software also. Allowing trivial copying and reselling is obviously obscene and unsustainable (see open-source developers getting shat-upon by the $$multimillion companies they support for free). However, perhaps requiring rights to an API and plug-in capability or the ability to create derivative works should be available. Certainly we should have rights to reuse and modify abandoned software, especially if it requires a server to run.
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
You do realise that we had right to repair in the 80's? Domestic appliances, cars and tractors did not contain computers. There was no firmware. The whole issue comes from abuse of IT laws to destroy our individual right to personal property. There is no 'copyright' on mechanical parts, anyone is free to make a copy, and you are free to buy them from anyone. Even if a part is patented (which is a small percentage), the patent law spesifically allows anyone to build anything for personal use. If I have to repair my toaster, and it contains a microcontroller, then I can buy that microcontroller but not the firmware. The firmware belongs to the manufacturer, even if all it does is have a time to eject bread. So my toaster is unrepairable if that chip dies. That toaster could never be patented, beucase there is nothing innovative.
- ChrisLomont 5y ago
  > You do realise that we had right to repair in the 80's? There was no such right in the 80s, any more than there is now. In both times you could repair what you or repair people obtained the skill to do. There was no inherent, moral right, and no legal right, then or now. Also in the 80's plenty of domestic appliances, cars, and tractors contained computers. https://www.autotrader.com/car-news/when-did-cars-get-computerized-264028 https://www.autotrader.com/car-news/when-did-cars-get-comput... https://www.haytalk.com/threads/what-year-did-the-computers-get-added-to-tractors.92170/ https://www.haytalk.com/threads/what-year-did-the-computers-...
  - throwaway2048 5y ago
    Not in a legal sense, but in a practical one, companies had no effective way of locking you out of repairing your own machines, unlike today. No need for a round of pedantry.
    - ChrisLomont 5y ago
      >No need for a round of pedantry. Ah, well if we can divorce ourselves from facts, then yes, we can believe anything. What legal way am I locked out? There are exemptions in US (and other law) for copyright, patents have not changed, trademarks don't stop me. There are zero items in my house (and I have all sorts of tech) that I cannot take apart (and routinely do) and fiddle with and hack on and change and repair if I feel so inclined. Sure, the average person with low tech skills and low tech tools has a harder time, but the things being worked on are simply much more specialized and complex. I bet the average person has been unable to repair a fine watch for a century - that's needed a specialist, since it was high tech a century ago. Or do you mean repair has gotten more complex as technology has gotten more complex? That has been and always will be the case. Repairing an axe is always going to be easier than repairing an iPhone.

toss1 5y ago

Why does a right to repair require open-source to be the only legal option? It seems that I could have a highly proprietary device and still be able to repair it. It would just require availability of 1) documentation 2) diagnostics, 3) parts at market prices, 4) parts not locked by DRM code. E.g., the iPhone could still have all their proprietary code, as long as I can read about the components and their relationships, diagnose a problem, replace a component and/or flash new data/code onto the device. Same for a car or tractor. Meaningful repair doesn't require that we be able to dismantle and re-solder sub-board-level components, only identify the particular component, obtain it at a reasonable availability and cost, and replace it, or be able to substitute an upgraded part. Am I missing something here?

xondono 5y ago
> the iPhone could still have all their proprietary code, as long as I can read about the components and their relationships, diagnose a problem, replace a component and/or flash new data/code onto the device. As a group heavily populated by programmers and coders, I think it’s fairly hypocritical to say that everyone should make their IP like schematics freely available while we keep software under copyright. > Am I missing something here? - How is a defect like an aged battery different than a non-updated software? - Why is it inmoral for a company to limit your ability to swap a battery but totally okay to not give you the code so that you can patch their software to work on your machine? At least in the case of the battery they can argue that inappropriate handling of faulty batteries is dangerous. > Meaningful repair doesn't require that we be able to dismantle and re-solder sub-board-level components, only identify the particular component, obtain it at a reasonable availability and cost, and replace it, or be able to substitute an upgraded part. That “only” is doing a lot of work there. That “only” is the work of a lot of people who deserve to get good salaries too. Why should their work become a commodity while programmers keep their “machines” protected with the laws for art?
- toss1 5y ago
  >>- How is a defect like an aged battery different than a non-updated software? >>- Why is it inmoral for a company to limit your ability to swap a battery but totally okay to not give you the code so that you can patch their software to work on your machine? I agree it is NOT okay to prevent access to the code, although that does NOT mean that I'd require release of source code. So, while I don't have your source code secrets, I should not be prevented by crypto or law from analyzing, editing, or replacing the object code. I should be prevented from selling at scale trivially modified copies. This is not unlike trade secret protection of parts. I have a carbon fiber composites shop, and I make some rather uniquely interesting high-performance parts with interesting chemistries and nanotechnology. If you want to take one and examine it with an electron microscope and try to figure out what I did, fine, but good luck to ya; hope you're having fun. There's also nothing preventing someone from selling a competing part of the same shape. The problem with no RTR is that the companies become extractive without adding commensurate value - it allows them to charge on both ends. If a company wants to maintain complete control over the equipment, then fine, lease it only. GM actually did this with their first electric cars in the 90s. But these companies want to sell it full price up front and then also extract a guaranteed high-cost lease-like ongoing revenue stream for the life of the machine. Many software companies have switched from a sell-the-package model to SAAS subscriptions, but this is like you have to buy the package AND the subscription. >>That “only” is doing a lot of work there. That “only” is the work of a lot of people who deserve to get good salaries too. Why should their work become a commodity while programmers keep their “machines” protected with the laws for art? I've got no problem with good salaries, I do have a problem with monopolistic extraction because you have the customer tied over a barrel and a gun to their head. When there is a legitimate market of repairs, it at least provides options for the customer, and is likely to keep the Factory Authorized channel somewhat reasonable. Just doing all warranty repairs through the factory channel and voiding the warranty for independent repairs can keep all those factory channel people in fine salaries. Meanwhile everything from high-end tuners to el-cheapo-fix-it shops can thrive and customers can have options, all without threatening the core business, and even enhancing it. What you are making me think about is that there should be MORE of this capability in software also. Allowing trivial copying and reselling is obviously obscene and unsustainable (see open-source developers getting shat-upon by the $$multimillion companies they support for free). However, perhaps requiring rights to an API and plug-in capability or the ability to create derivative works should be available. Certainly we should have rights to reuse and modify abandoned software, especially if it requires a server to run.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

You do realise that we had right to repair in the 80's? Domestic appliances, cars and tractors did not contain computers. There was no firmware. The whole issue comes from abuse of IT laws to destroy our individual right to personal property. There is no 'copyright' on mechanical parts, anyone is free to make a copy, and you are free to buy them from anyone. Even if a part is patented (which is a small percentage), the patent law spesifically allows anyone to build anything for personal use. If I have to repair my toaster, and it contains a microcontroller, then I can buy that microcontroller but not the firmware. The firmware belongs to the manufacturer, even if all it does is have a time to eject bread. So my toaster is unrepairable if that chip dies. That toaster could never be patented, beucase there is nothing innovative.

ChrisLomont 5y ago
> You do realise that we had right to repair in the 80's? There was no such right in the 80s, any more than there is now. In both times you could repair what you or repair people obtained the skill to do. There was no inherent, moral right, and no legal right, then or now. Also in the 80's plenty of domestic appliances, cars, and tractors contained computers. https://www.autotrader.com/car-news/when-did-cars-get-computerized-264028 https://www.autotrader.com/car-news/when-did-cars-get-comput... https://www.haytalk.com/threads/what-year-did-the-computers-get-added-to-tractors.92170/ https://www.haytalk.com/threads/what-year-did-the-computers-...
- throwaway2048 5y ago
  Not in a legal sense, but in a practical one, companies had no effective way of locking you out of repairing your own machines, unlike today. No need for a round of pedantry.
  - ChrisLomont 5y ago
    >No need for a round of pedantry. Ah, well if we can divorce ourselves from facts, then yes, we can believe anything. What legal way am I locked out? There are exemptions in US (and other law) for copyright, patents have not changed, trademarks don't stop me. There are zero items in my house (and I have all sorts of tech) that I cannot take apart (and routinely do) and fiddle with and hack on and change and repair if I feel so inclined. Sure, the average person with low tech skills and low tech tools has a harder time, but the things being worked on are simply much more specialized and complex. I bet the average person has been unable to repair a fine watch for a century - that's needed a specialist, since it was high tech a century ago. Or do you mean repair has gotten more complex as technology has gotten more complex? That has been and always will be the case. Repairing an axe is always going to be easier than repairing an iPhone.