3 ms·

I agree with your sentiment, but that's not specifically a question of ownership of the device. You bought the hardware, and it's yours to do what you like with

I agree with your sentiment, but that's not specifically a question of ownership of the device. You bought the hardware, and it's yours to do what you like with it. However, part of what you bought is a box with a padlock, and you chose to buy hardware that did not come with the key to that padlock. It's still your padlock: no one is stopping you from trying to open it. I would instead frame it as another variation of open-source vs closed source. That would be more accurate, IMHO.

lukeschlather 3y ago
Ownership of the padlock is clearly based in who owns the key. The idea that a company can sell me a device with a bunch of hidden padlocks and refuse to give me the key - this clearly makes it hard to say who owns the device. And they are stopping me from trying to open it, it's questionable if I legally can open it. Certainly, if I tried to sell a tool that allows people to open the padlock, the company that owns the padlock would probably say that is illegal under the DMCA.
- NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
  >And they are stopping me from trying to open it, it's questionable if I legally can open it. In the context of consumer electronics, in what scenario is it legally questionable if you can modify your own device? This whole argument about ownership is really weak. It amounts to "a manufacturer, given a design choice, chose an option that made the product more difficult to self-repair / mod / root / run Linux on". You don't own your phone any less because the manufacturer chose to glue it together rather than use screws.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    > You don't own your phone any less because the manufacturer chose to glue it together rather than use screws. That's because the glue is equal-opportunity. It doesn't give them a back door while blocking me.

3 ms·

I agree with your sentiment, but that's not specifically a question of ownership of the device. You bought the hardware, and it's yours to do what you like with

by generalizations 3y ago

lukeschlather 3y ago
Ownership of the padlock is clearly based in who owns the key. The idea that a company can sell me a device with a bunch of hidden padlocks and refuse to give me the key - this clearly makes it hard to say who owns the device. And they are stopping me from trying to open it, it's questionable if I legally can open it. Certainly, if I tried to sell a tool that allows people to open the padlock, the company that owns the padlock would probably say that is illegal under the DMCA.
- NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
  >And they are stopping me from trying to open it, it's questionable if I legally can open it. In the context of consumer electronics, in what scenario is it legally questionable if you can modify your own device? This whole argument about ownership is really weak. It amounts to "a manufacturer, given a design choice, chose an option that made the product more difficult to self-repair / mod / root / run Linux on". You don't own your phone any less because the manufacturer chose to glue it together rather than use screws.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    > You don't own your phone any less because the manufacturer chose to glue it together rather than use screws. That's because the glue is equal-opportunity. It doesn't give them a back door while blocking me.