9 ms·
Rather than us fighting for the right to repair, shouldn't manufacturers be fighting for the right to limit our ability to repair? Isn't "right to repair" the d
by javajosh 3y ago
Rather than us fighting for the right to repair, shouldn't manufacturers be fighting for the right to limit our ability to repair? Isn't "right to repair" the default state? The right to repair, modify, disassemble, recombine your own property is a key component of capitalism, is it not?
- xg15 3y agoI think in the current flavor of capitalism, the key component is "fuck you, I got mine".
- circuit10 3y agoRight to repair is about making sure manufacturers can’t intentionally block repair. Also there have been some cases of people getting into legal trouble for doing things like using aftermarket (“counterfeit”) parts, I remember hearing about a repair shop having to destroy iPhone screens
- MoreSEMI 3y agoAgree, the language is problematic. But unfortunately companies sometimes use the law to take away that right. Additionally, right to repair sometimes means going beyond the default state and requiring companies to go the extra mile, so that is where the langauge may also stem from.
- SenAnder 3y agoIn addition to all the legal restrictions on "reverse engineering" (i.e. examining how stuff works) and circumventing DRM, as technology advances, using technical means to restrict otherwise legal end-user activities is becoming a big problem. That you're legally allowed to repair your tractor doesn't help much if the on-board secure TPM chip flags your replacement parts as counterfeit, locks the engine, and reports you to the manufacturer so they refuse to sell you parts in the future.
- MostlyStable 3y agoThis is something I've wondered about. For cars there is a bunch of regulatory stuff that might preven you from doing this, but I believe the regulatory burden on tractors is much less. Why has no one just built a full on control system swap for tractors? Yeah, the OEM control board won't recognize your replacement part. Or it won't tell you whats actually wrong. Etc. Etc. But if you just replace it with an entirely OSS control system, that problem goes away. I know that this probably not a trivial task, but, given the amount of money at stake, it feels worthwhile, but maybe I'm just underestimating the degree of integration of the current control system into the parts. If everything down the internal engine sensors is running priprietary, encrypted software and you basically have to tear it down and replace every single electronic component on the tractor, then yeah it probably won't ever make sense.
- chmod600 3y agoThat sounds like a fun project if you are a bitcoin millionaire that moved to a ranch. Rip the components out and try to re-engineer all of the control systems. Given the number of sensors, it could also be a great way to collect open data for farming innovation, environmental data, etc.
- argiopetech 3y agoThe software is the value proposition of modern equipment. Making a tractor is comparatively easy - we've been making them since the age of steam. Making a tractor with all the features of a day cab tractor truck, plus EPA compliant engine management through a host of proprietary systems, plus the systems and sensors needed for self-driving... Very non-trivial to replace.
- forinti 3y agoManufacturers make things difficult to repair, use nonstandard components and tools that you can't get from a third party, they glue things together in such a way that you have to have break it to get inside, they take away your warranty if you do anything they don´t want you to do, and so on. This dispute is all about not letting manufacturers use such tactics. I see it also as an ecological issue, because unrepairable and upgradeable stuff means more garbage.
- praptak 3y agoWe found out that this is no longer the case since hardware can contain software which just prevents the "owner" from replacing a part. On top of this manufacturers abuse copyright laws to prevent "owners" from tinkering with said software. That's why we need specific laws to protect the freedom which should be the default.
- AnthonyMouse 3y agoNo, I think there's a point here. Part of the solution isn't just laws that require something to be reparable, but getting rid of the laws that constrain it. DMCA 1201 is used for this more than it's used for its ostensible purpose, and should have a general purpose exemption for any case where the circumvention or tool is necessary for any reason other than actual non-fair use copyright infringement.
- DrFlipper 3y agoFreedom is the key component of capitalism, in the purist sense. Including the freedom to trade the "right to repair" for other benefits, such as a superior vehicle due to higher integration, reliability and peace of mind knowing that any work will have been done by authorised repairers, lower up-front cost afforded by vendor lock-in, etc. If people wish to voluntarily trade vehicles without the "right to repair", that's their choice, that's capitalism. The state intervening in transactions one way or the other is a violation of the capitalist ideal.
- javajosh 3y agoI think this ignores the complexity cost on the consumer. If every product has a different set of rules, the consumer will not be able to know them or follow them. This is already a big problem with long and unique EULAs for software. This is a market failure due to an inherent information asymmetry between supplier and consumer, favoring the supplier. A similar effect is present in the healthcare industry. It harms consumers and makes the market less efficient. It makes sense to regulate against this effect for that reason. Standardization efforts have yielded a great deal of value for society.
- sangnoir 3y ago> Freedom is the key component of capitalism, in the purist sense. Competitive markets and price information are also key components of capitalism - and the "right to repair" enhances both. Empirically, manufactures don't like competing for repairs, and they also obfuscate the cost of those repairs so customers would never know the total cost of ownership ahead of time. State intervention does not violate capitalist ideals when it enhances competition, I'll go further and say coercive monopolies are anti-capitalist. Just because I bought a widget from you shouldn't force me to have it solely fixed by you at a price of your choosing.
- DrFlipper 3y agoYes, coercion of any kind is anti-capitalist, yet you advocate for coercion by the state. No coercion (voluntary transaction, no state involvement): "I'll sell you this widget, but only if you agree to bring it to me for any repairs." "Ok." Coercion (state intervention): "Hi, I see you are about to sell your widget to that other guy who would like to buy it, knowing only you can perform any future repairs. If you go ahead, I will use the full force of the justice system to punish you, up to and including death." I realise this is unrealistically ideal. The language is very important to get right though. You are advocating for coercion for the common good, not the absence of it. The state is impotent without violence, you don't need to shy away from it. State == force.
- sinistersnare 3y agoNo, we no longer have that right. We don't live under capitalism but 'necrocapitalism' that only gives rights to those in the in-group. We must fight for our rights now, they have been alienated from us.
- forgottenlogin9 3y agoWhere do your rights begin and another’s end? If they wish to build a product in a way that you dislike, does it not impede their rights for you to inflict your will on them against their wishes?
- circuit10 3y agoThere should be limits to what companies are allowed to do in order to stop user hostile behaviour. It’s reasonable to say that if you want to sell things as a company you should have to take some basic steps like this
- c-cube 3y agoRights to impose your will about something, should end at the point where you sell this thing to someone else. That's how it should be. Sadly a lot of companies are trying to rent rather than sell (see: ebooks, anything as a service, etc.) because this way they don't lose control.
- forgottenlogin9 3y agoWhat if a buyer wants to lease the product under the seller’s terms. Should it not be their right to enter that agreement?
- c-cube 3y agoThat's called renting, not buying. There's no buyer in that case. And that's exactly the rent-seeking trend I talk about. Most virtual "purchases" are actually just rent because you don't actually own the thing.
- YeBanKo 3y agoWould you support a ballot measure(if this is an option in your jurisdiction) that enacts a strong right to repair? I don’t see how we can make it a default way otherwise. Lobby makes any attempted bill toothless.
- arlort 3y ago> Isn't "right to repair" the default state? There's no such thing as a default state, only status quo. And the status quo is that right to repair is not really a thing all that much
- softfalcon 3y agoHave a look at Louis Rossmann’s car repair videos. There is a war going on between government and car manufacturers because they succeeded in side stepping most of the right to repair requirements. Currently, most new car’s OBD2 ports are somewhat useless because they now use a proprietary wireless communicator to transmit error codes. Apparently, the old right to repair laws didn’t say anything about “wireless communication” so they took the loophole and ran with it. The days of buying a reasonably affordable scanner and diagnosing and repairing your own vehicle are over. We’re back to square one of forcing them to give us right to repair again. It’s actually really really bad.
- creeble 3y agoI think new cars are still required to report engine codes (ones that cause the CEL to trigger) on the OBD port. That’s still a large percentage of engine problems, and in particular, the ones that prevent you from getting registration renewed in many US states.
- softfalcon 3y agoThere are now Audi, Peugot, and Volvo vehicles sold in the US that don’t have an OBD port. You can’t pull an engine code from a port that doesn’t exist on the vehicle. Toyota, Ford, and Chevrolet are also rumoured to be removing the OBD2 port with their 2025 line-up. They’re just testing how much they can get away with before committing to it. It’s going to become very hard to repair or even diagnose our vehicles if we don’t start fighting back.
- mypastself 3y agoTo my understanding, you do have the right to repair a device or a piece of equipment yourself, but you don’t have the right to force the manufacturer to make it easier or to keep your warranty. If you use the former definition, it’s already the default state. If you use the latter, “right to repair” becomes a reasonable-sounding term for a concept that’s not quite as reasonable.
- avar 3y agoThe latter is already the case in some jurisdiction, and it's quite reasonable. You can't just declare that any modification of the product voids the warranty, you need to show that the consumer's modification caused the warranty claim. E.g. you won't get anywhere claiming that replacing the car seats caused the engine to lock up. You can already intentionally ruin your seats, or use olive oil for your engine. So manufacturers already need to diagnose warranty claims in more detail, without considering modifications to the car itself.
- mypastself 3y agoBut if you do change your seats on a tractor to more comfortable ones, you might further exacerbate the hazards of an already potentially dangerous piece of machinery, to the extent that the manufacturer wants to avoid such liability. But even so, as long as the customers aren’t legally obligated to use a particular manufacturer’s equipment, any competitor should be able to win them over by avoiding a particularly unpopular practice.