4 ms·

I wish these things were re-worded the other way. It's a sad state of affairs that a law has to be encoded to grant the people permission to do something that s

by nyxtom 5y ago

I wish these things were re-worded the other way. It's a sad state of affairs that a law has to be encoded to grant the people permission to do something that should be the default state. Right to repair is about targeting the manufacturers and preventing them from making it impossible to do so.

gorjusborg 5y ago
Exactly. People should be able to repair their belongings. We shouldn't need a law for each type of belonging.
- queuebert 5y ago
  Apple glances around nervously.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
I wouldn't read into it too much. This is just NBC's bias creeping in. It's not like they have a plethora of hardline libertarians kicking around who are gonna say "hey, can we title this differently?". The bill itself probably has some grand patriotic title. Edit: Boring title and "text not available yet" https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/s3549 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/s3549
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
zenithd 5y ago
bpodgursky 5y ago
Well, you can frame this both ways, because the contract clause, allowing people to (by default) sign binding contracts, also counts towards "grant the people permission to do something". And that's what this is — the farmer signing a contract to use the equipment in a certain way. As much as this law makes sense, the blanket right to form contracts between individuals/businesses/etc (when those contracts are not explicitly deemed abusive) is very important and I don't think we would be in a better place without it.
- JaimeThompson 5y ago
  Unlimited contracting rights, which I am not saying you support, are a very dangerous path to go down because history shows they will be abused in very serious ways to reduce the actual freedom of large subsets of the population.
- hyperhopper 5y ago
  On paper that all sounds well and good, but that completely discounts the power imbalance between large corporations and normal people. When somebody wants to buy a good, if the only way to do that is to accept a one-sided ToS that makes them give up there rights, that's just eroding freedom. The problem is, it's not a choice anymore. John Deere isn't saying "hey, want to sign up for our repair program?" It's saying "If you want a tractor we actually control what you can do with it forever. Too bad you need this tractor to work, tough luck we own you"
  - bpodgursky 5y ago
    That's why I am arguing that this law is good, but the default contract clause (which the OP comment is arguing against) is also good.
  - salawat 5y ago
    This is actuslly the part where other tractor companies should be stepping in and eating Deere's lunch. Why aren't they?
    - vkou 5y ago
      Because they would rather have a 20% profit margin on 5% of the market, than a 1% profit margin on 50% of it? Being in the latter position is precarious, being in the former is printing free money.
      - salawat 5y ago
        Maybe if you spend your entire day looking at percents, and never get back down to dollars. That 1% on 50% of the market can be a downright gold mine. Playing it the other way just ensures that bad ideas never get out competed. Honestly, it just takes less work to make something non user hostile. There has to be a perverse incentive somewhere.
serverlessmom 5y ago
Yeah I really thought it was clear how much of a huge bummer this news is. Rewrite is as 'Farmers are having their work held hostage by, of all things, tractor DRM, and there's a mere proposal to pump the breaks on this absolute cyberpunk nightmare"
ivan_gammel 5y ago
It is not like that. People are allowed to do things, but they voluntarily cede the right to do them by agreeing to the terms of the contract, when they buy the hardware and services. So the role of the regulation will be actually to forbid certain types of contracts, that limit the right for repair, not to grant this right. Also, the right to repair may mean different things: it can forbid exclusive contracts with spare parts suppliers, so that you could shop or repair elsewhere. Or it can regulate the price and availability. Or it can allow you to manufacture replacement parts on your own. The first option would be an equivalent of antitrust regulation in the vendor-specific ecosystem, and it seems pretty reasonable, because it will create a market where it did not yet exist. The second option will be economically destructive, because it would replace free market with planned economy. The last option may result in creating a black market of pirated parts, actually harming manufacturers which invested in R&D.
- SilasX 5y ago
  >So the role of the regulation will be actually to forbid certain types of contracts, that limit the right for repair, not to grant this right. And to void previous contracts written that way.
- nyxtom 5y ago
  > So the role of the regulation will be actually to forbid certain types of contracts, that limit the right for repair, not to grant this right. That's actually what I think the title should of been. But that's my own opinion. "Senate introduces bill to forbid farming contracts that limit right to repair" I get that, it's just a titling thing. Even framing the discussion in that way is not only a more accurate description of what's happening (as you've elaborated) but it lands better (if you were looking at this as a libertarian type perspective). Anyway, it's just a thing that irks me is all.
  - ivan_gammel 5y ago
    Let's see what shape it will get when it's passed. As the article says, "The legislation would require agriculture equipment manufacturers to make spare parts, instruction manuals and software codes publicly available". This can go both in option 1 and option 2 direction.
twobitshifter 5y ago
That’s exactly my reaction, what about cars and phones and ordinary people? Politicians care are farmers, babies, and little old ladies because it gets people going, but the bigger issue is right to repair in general. It’s great that farmers would be able to fix tractors, but if the senate carves out this exception it could weaken the overall right to repair argument. Are there any broader bills being considered by the senate?

by nyxtom 5y ago

gorjusborg 5y ago

Exactly. People should be able to repair their belongings. We shouldn't need a law for each type of belonging.

queuebert 5y ago
Apple glances around nervously.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

I wouldn't read into it too much. This is just NBC's bias creeping in. It's not like they have a plethora of hardline libertarians kicking around who are gonna say "hey, can we title this differently?". The bill itself probably has some grand patriotic title. Edit: Boring title and "text not available yet" https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/s3549 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/s3549

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

zenithd 5y ago

bpodgursky 5y ago

Well, you can frame this both ways, because the contract clause, allowing people to (by default) sign binding contracts, also counts towards "grant the people permission to do something". And that's what this is — the farmer signing a contract to use the equipment in a certain way. As much as this law makes sense, the blanket right to form contracts between individuals/businesses/etc (when those contracts are not explicitly deemed abusive) is very important and I don't think we would be in a better place without it.

JaimeThompson 5y ago
Unlimited contracting rights, which I am not saying you support, are a very dangerous path to go down because history shows they will be abused in very serious ways to reduce the actual freedom of large subsets of the population.
hyperhopper 5y ago
On paper that all sounds well and good, but that completely discounts the power imbalance between large corporations and normal people. When somebody wants to buy a good, if the only way to do that is to accept a one-sided ToS that makes them give up there rights, that's just eroding freedom. The problem is, it's not a choice anymore. John Deere isn't saying "hey, want to sign up for our repair program?" It's saying "If you want a tractor we actually control what you can do with it forever. Too bad you need this tractor to work, tough luck we own you"
- bpodgursky 5y ago
  That's why I am arguing that this law is good, but the default contract clause (which the OP comment is arguing against) is also good.
- salawat 5y ago
  This is actuslly the part where other tractor companies should be stepping in and eating Deere's lunch. Why aren't they?
  - vkou 5y ago
    Because they would rather have a 20% profit margin on 5% of the market, than a 1% profit margin on 50% of it? Being in the latter position is precarious, being in the former is printing free money.
    - salawat 5y ago
      Maybe if you spend your entire day looking at percents, and never get back down to dollars. That 1% on 50% of the market can be a downright gold mine. Playing it the other way just ensures that bad ideas never get out competed. Honestly, it just takes less work to make something non user hostile. There has to be a perverse incentive somewhere.

serverlessmom 5y ago

Yeah I really thought it was clear how much of a huge bummer this news is. Rewrite is as 'Farmers are having their work held hostage by, of all things, tractor DRM, and there's a mere proposal to pump the breaks on this absolute cyberpunk nightmare"

ivan_gammel 5y ago

It is not like that. People are allowed to do things, but they voluntarily cede the right to do them by agreeing to the terms of the contract, when they buy the hardware and services. So the role of the regulation will be actually to forbid certain types of contracts, that limit the right for repair, not to grant this right. Also, the right to repair may mean different things: it can forbid exclusive contracts with spare parts suppliers, so that you could shop or repair elsewhere. Or it can regulate the price and availability. Or it can allow you to manufacture replacement parts on your own. The first option would be an equivalent of antitrust regulation in the vendor-specific ecosystem, and it seems pretty reasonable, because it will create a market where it did not yet exist. The second option will be economically destructive, because it would replace free market with planned economy. The last option may result in creating a black market of pirated parts, actually harming manufacturers which invested in R&D.

SilasX 5y ago
>So the role of the regulation will be actually to forbid certain types of contracts, that limit the right for repair, not to grant this right. And to void previous contracts written that way.
nyxtom 5y ago
> So the role of the regulation will be actually to forbid certain types of contracts, that limit the right for repair, not to grant this right. That's actually what I think the title should of been. But that's my own opinion. "Senate introduces bill to forbid farming contracts that limit right to repair" I get that, it's just a titling thing. Even framing the discussion in that way is not only a more accurate description of what's happening (as you've elaborated) but it lands better (if you were looking at this as a libertarian type perspective). Anyway, it's just a thing that irks me is all.
- ivan_gammel 5y ago
  Let's see what shape it will get when it's passed. As the article says, "The legislation would require agriculture equipment manufacturers to make spare parts, instruction manuals and software codes publicly available". This can go both in option 1 and option 2 direction.

twobitshifter 5y ago

That’s exactly my reaction, what about cars and phones and ordinary people? Politicians care are farmers, babies, and little old ladies because it gets people going, but the bigger issue is right to repair in general. It’s great that farmers would be able to fix tractors, but if the senate carves out this exception it could weaken the overall right to repair argument. Are there any broader bills being considered by the senate?