4 ms·

No, I wouldn’t support this for software that doesn’t include a right-to-repair-license. It’s the software maker’s choice to offer it and the consumer’s choice

No, I wouldn’t support this for software that doesn’t include a right-to-repair-license. It’s the software maker’s choice to offer it and the consumer’s choice to buy it or not.

thfuran 4y ago
Do you oppose all consumer protections or just this one?
- paulcole 4y ago
  This one specifically because: 1) It’s the one we’re talking about here 2) “All” is pretty broad
  - thfuran 4y ago
    Your rationale seems equally applicable to any consumer protection though.
    - paulcole 4y ago
      I think some things should have a higher standard than others. For example, medicine vs. video games. So not willing to apply the same standard to everything.
      - thfuran 4y ago
        Then should there be a right to repair for software that is (embedded on) a medical device?
        paulcole 4y ago
        No, because I think it should be up to the maker whether they want to offer right to repair as a feature of their product. Right to repair is not necessarily "better."
LocalH 4y ago
So you support the defacto removal of right-to-repair across the board? Or just for software?
- paulcole 4y ago
  I don’t know enough about right-to-repair across the board to make a sweeping declaration. That said, I tend to fall on the side of letting product/service providers set limits on how their products and services are used — as long as they are up front about those limits and don’t change them after the fact. And I’m generally against the idea that when a customer buys a product or service they’re owed anything beyond the product or service that they’re buying.
  - mindslight 4y ago
    You seem to be leaning on the virtue of free market interaction, but copyright/patents/etc are severe market distortions that makes such reasoning specious. IMO if a company wants to benefit from copyright regulations, then they should have to escrow the buildable source code (the original creative work), to be released into the public domain when the copyright term is up.
    - paulcole 4y ago
      > IMO if a company wants to benefit from copyright regulations, then they should have to escrow the buildable source code (the original creative work), to be released into the public domain when the copyright term is up. That is definitely an opinion you can have. But it doesn't seem like there's any realistic chance of this happening in the United States.

No, I wouldn’t support this for software that doesn’t include a right-to-repair-license. It’s the software maker’s choice to offer it and the consumer’s choice to buy it or not.

thfuran 4y ago

Do you oppose all consumer protections or just this one?

paulcole 4y ago
This one specifically because: 1) It’s the one we’re talking about here 2) “All” is pretty broad
- thfuran 4y ago
  Your rationale seems equally applicable to any consumer protection though.
  - paulcole 4y ago
    I think some things should have a higher standard than others. For example, medicine vs. video games. So not willing to apply the same standard to everything.
    - thfuran 4y ago
      Then should there be a right to repair for software that is (embedded on) a medical device?
      - paulcole 4y ago
        No, because I think it should be up to the maker whether they want to offer right to repair as a feature of their product. Right to repair is not necessarily "better."

LocalH 4y ago

So you support the defacto removal of right-to-repair across the board? Or just for software?

paulcole 4y ago
I don’t know enough about right-to-repair across the board to make a sweeping declaration. That said, I tend to fall on the side of letting product/service providers set limits on how their products and services are used — as long as they are up front about those limits and don’t change them after the fact. And I’m generally against the idea that when a customer buys a product or service they’re owed anything beyond the product or service that they’re buying.
- mindslight 4y ago
  You seem to be leaning on the virtue of free market interaction, but copyright/patents/etc are severe market distortions that makes such reasoning specious. IMO if a company wants to benefit from copyright regulations, then they should have to escrow the buildable source code (the original creative work), to be released into the public domain when the copyright term is up.
  - paulcole 4y ago
    > IMO if a company wants to benefit from copyright regulations, then they should have to escrow the buildable source code (the original creative work), to be released into the public domain when the copyright term is up. That is definitely an opinion you can have. But it doesn't seem like there's any realistic chance of this happening in the United States.