4 ms·

My point is that this law grants rights to professional repairmen/service providers, not to consumers (or anyone else).

by 8372049 2y ago

mytailorisrich 2y ago
We have a right to repair and always had, as said. Individuals have access in the same way as repairmen. It's already possible to source parts for most appliances as an individual. This should make it easier. Indeed, what is the difference between a consumer and a "professional repairman"? None apart from the fact that the latter is expected to have some competency and knowledge on how to get parts (which traditionally means a nondescript supplier in the local industrial area, which you're free to go to as well, there are also websites these days), but there is no magic licence that gives access to secret, restricted warehouses. But the key is that Joe Public is not interested. If something breaks down they call a repairman or buy new. It's unrealistic or utopian to believe that people are interested. It's worded as targetting professionals because it is (somewhat) realistic and, I'm guessing, aimed at using the existing suppliers, not forcing availablity of parts in supermarkets.
- 8372049 2y ago
  > We have a right to repair and always had, as said. You don't have a right to repair if you can't access the required docs, tools, spare parts or if there are unreasonable conditions if you do so. I know a lot of John Deere customers who don't agree with you, for starters. This is why "right to repair" is a thing at all. > Indeed, what is the difference between a consumer and a "professional repairman"? First, "professional repairman" is someone who offers repair as a service to others, who has it as their trade. You'd think the distinction would be easy to make. It is defined in one of the first articles of the directive. Second, that you are not guaranteed access to documentation, spare parts and so on as a consumer.
  - mytailorisrich 2y ago
    You are confusing right and practicality. "Right to repair" is a gimmicky term for PR. >First, "professional repairman" is someone who offers repair as a service to others, who has it as their trade. Obviously... but you are missing the point. I already explained what I meant by "no difference".

My point is that this law grants rights to professional repairmen/service providers, not to consumers (or anyone else).

We have a right to repair and always had, as said. Individuals have access in the same way as repairmen. It's already possible to source parts for most appliances as an individual. This should make it easier. Indeed, what is the difference between a consumer and a "professional repairman"? None apart from the fact that the latter is expected to have some competency and knowledge on how to get parts (which traditionally means a nondescript supplier in the local industrial area, which you're free to go to as well, there are also websites these days), but there is no magic licence that gives access to secret, restricted warehouses. But the key is that Joe Public is not interested. If something breaks down they call a repairman or buy new. It's unrealistic or utopian to believe that people are interested. It's worded as targetting professionals because it is (somewhat) realistic and, I'm guessing, aimed at using the existing suppliers, not forcing availablity of parts in supermarkets.

8372049 2y ago
> We have a right to repair and always had, as said. You don't have a right to repair if you can't access the required docs, tools, spare parts or if there are unreasonable conditions if you do so. I know a lot of John Deere customers who don't agree with you, for starters. This is why "right to repair" is a thing at all. > Indeed, what is the difference between a consumer and a "professional repairman"? First, "professional repairman" is someone who offers repair as a service to others, who has it as their trade. You'd think the distinction would be easy to make. It is defined in one of the first articles of the directive. Second, that you are not guaranteed access to documentation, spare parts and so on as a consumer.
- mytailorisrich 2y ago
  You are confusing right and practicality. "Right to repair" is a gimmicky term for PR. >First, "professional repairman" is someone who offers repair as a service to others, who has it as their trade. Obviously... but you are missing the point. I already explained what I meant by "no difference".