3 ms·

My main issue with this is regulatory capture. This sounds great on paper but you know that any right to repair law is going to be complicated. The big names wi

My main issue with this is regulatory capture. This sounds great on paper but you know that any right to repair law is going to be complicated. The big names will take a small hit to their profits but it'll take a bigger toll on smaller competitors.

nrp 5y ago
On the other hand, smaller competitors can be more nimble and adopt counter-positioned business models that benefit from device longevity. In that way, regulations around repair have little impact to those companies while having outsized impact to larger competitors. I agree that regulatory capture is a problem in software and services platform/aggregator categories, but it tends to work differently for physical goods.
throwawaysea 5y ago
Maybe it only needs to apply above some size of company by number of employees or revenue, to favor a low barrier to entry for smaller competitors. Many laws make distinctions between differently sized companies already, at least in the US.
indymike 5y ago
It doesn't have to be complicated to restore rights we should have under the Manguson-Moss warranty act that have been blocked by software copyright shenanigans. This small change would fix 80% of problems in automotive, tech, agriculture and military equipment (yes, the military can't fix stuff because of DRM and software) repair. I'm pretty sure the idea that a copyright would prevent your cannon from firing because the gunner's mate couldn't fix it was not even a thought when we made our copyright laws. The other part of right to repair, parts availability is more difficult because there really isn't an existing "right to repair parts". There are a lot of cases where, for example, a product manufacturer will put a clause in contracts with suppliers, preventing them from selling standard (not custom) parts to consumers, to distributors (who will sell to retail), or in small quantities. This kind of restriction is really just an anti-competitive market restriction, and probably should be made illegal.
foxfluff 5y ago
I think regulatory capture is a risk (and a real problem in some fields), but I'm not convinced it's a big risk as far as right to repair is concerned. Of course we can only speculate at this point since we don't know which exact laws would be enacted. But in general, I don't see how not actively working against repairs would take a big toll on small companies. And yes, I think smaller companies (too) should be responsible, respect the end user's desire to repair a broken object, and avoid creating unrepairable eWaste. Anecdotally I've seen plenty of small companies be very helpful with regard to repairs.
- serverholic 5y ago
  Incrementalism is the root of all evil. This is a step in a long line of steps that end up restricting competition and push us farther into corporatism. I'm sick of it and I don't care if this is a small step or a large step.

nrp 5y ago

On the other hand, smaller competitors can be more nimble and adopt counter-positioned business models that benefit from device longevity. In that way, regulations around repair have little impact to those companies while having outsized impact to larger competitors. I agree that regulatory capture is a problem in software and services platform/aggregator categories, but it tends to work differently for physical goods.

throwawaysea 5y ago

Maybe it only needs to apply above some size of company by number of employees or revenue, to favor a low barrier to entry for smaller competitors. Many laws make distinctions between differently sized companies already, at least in the US.

indymike 5y ago

It doesn't have to be complicated to restore rights we should have under the Manguson-Moss warranty act that have been blocked by software copyright shenanigans. This small change would fix 80% of problems in automotive, tech, agriculture and military equipment (yes, the military can't fix stuff because of DRM and software) repair. I'm pretty sure the idea that a copyright would prevent your cannon from firing because the gunner's mate couldn't fix it was not even a thought when we made our copyright laws. The other part of right to repair, parts availability is more difficult because there really isn't an existing "right to repair parts". There are a lot of cases where, for example, a product manufacturer will put a clause in contracts with suppliers, preventing them from selling standard (not custom) parts to consumers, to distributors (who will sell to retail), or in small quantities. This kind of restriction is really just an anti-competitive market restriction, and probably should be made illegal.

foxfluff 5y ago

I think regulatory capture is a risk (and a real problem in some fields), but I'm not convinced it's a big risk as far as right to repair is concerned. Of course we can only speculate at this point since we don't know which exact laws would be enacted. But in general, I don't see how not actively working against repairs would take a big toll on small companies. And yes, I think smaller companies (too) should be responsible, respect the end user's desire to repair a broken object, and avoid creating unrepairable eWaste. Anecdotally I've seen plenty of small companies be very helpful with regard to repairs.

serverholic 5y ago
Incrementalism is the root of all evil. This is a step in a long line of steps that end up restricting competition and push us farther into corporatism. I'm sick of it and I don't care if this is a small step or a large step.