
The Fight for the “Right to Repair” - sinak
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/fight-right-repair-180959764/?no-ist
======
RcouF1uZ4gsC
I think this whole open source and right to repair/modify will be very
interesting with self-driving cars, because of their interaction with the
commons. Here are some issues.

There have been some discussions about the ethics of self-driving cars if it
should sacrifice the lives of the people in the cars to save more lives. In a
right to repair/modify wouldn't a lot of people pay to have the algorithm
changed for their car to always favor the people in the car no matter what?

If the self-driving software is completely open source, you can exploit the
collision avoidance algorithms to favor aggressive driving with your car. For
example if the software tries to keep a 15 foot buffer between cars, you
can"tune" your software to use a shorter buffer and cut in front of traffic
more easily.

Law enforcement will campaign for a remote "pull over" command to prevent
people from fleeing police.

The answers to these types of questions will be very important for open source
going forward.

~~~
mikeash
I think the ethical question is greatly overblown. The odds of being in a
situation where there's any sort of ethical choice to make are so remote as to
not really be worth considering. 99.9999% of the time, the correct choice when
faced with an impending crash will be to brake as hard as the driving surface
allows and steer to avoid obstacles as much as possible.

In any case, tinkering and commons already intersect to an extent, for example
with emissions. It's not uncommon for emissions to be favored over
performance, for example, and some people hack their cars to favor performance
instead. Or they just like being polluting assholes, as is the case with
"rolling coal." But it's not a big deal, some jurisdictions do periodic
testing and others just rely on the fact that such people are relatively rare.

~~~
rando3826
> I think the ethical question is greatly overblown.

Not at all. One programmer is going to make choices that affect ~ a billion
vehicles one day, so something that doesn't happen 99.9999% per hour will
happen 100 times per hour. And it's going to be more mundane things, like
programming the speed limit 1 mph slower results in 500 less deaths per year,
or using drm/copyright to stop poor people from getting driving software, thus
killing thousands of people.

~~~
mikeash
"Per hour" is rather ridiculous. I'm talking about per _crash_. There are a
couple million vehicle crashes in the US each year, so if it really is
99.9999%, that's two or three ethical crises per year here. Among a billion
vehicles it would be maybe ten per year. And honestly I'd be surprised if it's
that many. When have you _ever_ heard of a crash where there was any kind of
ethical dilemma in the response? People keep imagining scenarios, but I've
never heard of one happening in real life.

As for speed limits and such, I'm talking about the car's ethical choices in
crashes, not the ethics of the programmers.

~~~
foota
I'm actually familiar with a situation like this, the person was on a highway
at night and came around a corner to see a deer lying in the road and a crowd
right behind the deer. There was a couple of people off to either side. They
couldn't brake in time to stop and not harm the people on the other side of
the deer.

~~~
cwkoss
Are you saying the correct response is to swerve in to the group with the
fewest people?

I don't think human drivers have the reaction time to make these decisions,
not sure why so many expect computers to be able to.

~~~
dllthomas
Because eventually, computers will be able to.

~~~
markcerqueira
But by then the car will be able to engage its flight module, take off, and
fly you directly home.

~~~
dllthomas
Maybe. Flight generally uses quite a bit more energy.

~~~
sokoloff
Yes, but perhaps less than you think. I fly small aircraft, and the one we fly
gets ~15 mpg in cruise carrying up to 6 people at just over 200 mph. There are
cars/trucks on the road that get less than that. If I slow it down to 150 mph,
I can get over 20 mpg.

------
mdip
This was a hugely frustrating thing for me recently.

I picked up a used Pioneer AVR on eBay a few years ago and had no issues with
it until I decided to plug my wife's older plasma television in because my
main TV decided to take up an unusual smoking habit. It refused to connect to
the new TV, indicating an HDCP error, despite working when plugged directly in
to any of the attached devices. A quick google search yielded the likely
culprit: my firmware was out of date. This model was one version behind but,
unfortunately, was one model-year behind the ones that allowed for online
updates. So I called Pioneer and was told they do not provide firmware updates
directly to consumers and I could only get a firmware update from an
authorized repair center. Besides the added frustration of having to
disconnect the 30 or so cables, cart this thing across town, then come back at
a later date to pick it up and plug it all back in, the fee was going to be
half of what I had paid for the thing in the first place. So DRM caused a
product I'm using legally to fail and the simple software fix was not allowed
to be applied by me.

After following several dead links, I managed to find a forum where someone
posted a Dropbox link to the firmware, making me a firmware pirate (aaarr!).
This incredibly technical process that can only be performed at an authorized
service center? Extract a file to a USB key, insert said key, turn on device
while holding down _two_ buttons and wait until the screen says it's done.

Pioneer's approach here succeeded in making me a "former customer" at some
point in the future since the firmware update fixed my problem.

~~~
ivanca
Capitalism is the art of getting as much money out of you as possible without
getting a class action lawsuit.

We hope most Pioneers customers do the same as you but I bet they don't, they
think a year is enough value for the product. Pioneers work is to further
reduce the time their products are expected to function.

~~~
mdip
Nearly sent milk out my nose with your quote, though it got me thinking.

Planned obsolescence, as highlighted by the article, is certainly nothing new
but it seems to be an ever growing trend in parts of the CE space that once
valued reliability. As customers have become more used to replacing expensive
gadgets (smartphones/PCs come to mind) every few years because the new ones
are faster and more capable, they've begun to value reliability less. The
problem is that there are large and growing segments in the space that don't
warrant replacement so frequently. My AVR is seven years old, does 9.1 audio,
decodes every major format[0] and supports all of the HDMI features of the
television I have plugged in to it. My 1080p plasma television is among the
final generation, doesn't suffer from screen burn despite being used 90% of
the time for gaming, produces a better picture (color and screen consistency)
than the LCD it replaced and is nearly impossible to find a "new" replacement
for. It was also among the least expensive 1080p televisions available at the
time it was purchased since plasma was on its way out.

Arguments that "these things are much more complex to repair these days" are
no longer true with the hundreds of YouTube videos, web sites and forums
dedicated to repairing products so it really does appear to be manufacturers
imposing artificial constraints on product lifetime in order to encourage high
repair fees or premature replacement with newer models in categories of
products that don't have a natural replacement cycle beyond the failure cycle.

The ability to repair a device and its reliability is quickly becoming a
_required feature_ in this home. Assuming it's a product I won't replace until
it fails, this experience has caused me to research products over a certain
price more thoroughly to identify those with a large community behind them, a
long warranty, and a flexible repair policy.

[0] Nearly every new device I plug in causes the receiver to jump to PCM mode
because the decoders are being built in to the devices. Considering the
ability to decode every common audio format was a major feature I purchased it
for, and a feature that would cause me to replace it, it's going to remain in
my living room even longer if it doesn't fail. Unless I replace the television
with something that requires an HDMI spec beyond what the device can handle
(and I don't see getting a 4K TV for that room, so that's safe), grow ears
that can discern a tenth channel (or the room changes in some unexpected way
allowing a tenth or eleventh speaker to _fit_ somewhere), or end up buying
four more devices to plug in to it, it will be replaced only when it fails.

------
CaptSpify
I used to do after-market repair medical equipment (MRI's, CT's, X-Ray, etc).
One of the biggest frustrations was: $manufacturer wants $5000 to repair a CT.
We'd charge $1000.

We'd repair the CT, and it would pass all the built-in diagnostic tests. But
then when the customer went to make a scan, a pop-up would appear saying
"Unauthorized Repair! Call $manufacturer to fix!".

$manufacturer repair tech would come in, plug in a usb-key, type a code, and
charge $1000. They didn't run any of the diagnostics, and were basically paid
to keep the usb-key available.

I believe in the right to repair, because preventing it just causes artificial
monopolies and price-gouging.

(note: I don't remember actual prices. Numbers were just made up)

~~~
FiatLuxDave
So, if you do an after-market repair on a medical device, and a patient dies
as a result of poor device performance, who does the FDA usually come after,
you or the device manufacturer?

I suspect the liability for medical device mess-ups is at least partially
responsible for that situation. The tech who didn't run any diagnostics would
be in serious shit if a patient died after he did nothing aside from typing in
the error-clearing code on your repair.

In many cases, the FDA requires the device manufacturer to maintain training
records and updated repair procedures for any repair shop doing repairs on
their devices. This could be the source of that error message.

~~~
CaptSpify
To be honest, I'm not sure. I was a level-of-separation away, so I never
really had to worry about it personally. I'd imagine both will end up in the
lawsuit, at least partially.

FWIW, we did keep updated records on all the work that was done on the
machine, for this exact reason. We also had to have records of passed
diagnostics.

~~~
lotu
I would also have to imagine that is is extremely difficult to fix an MRI such
it produce incorrect scan results with being obviously broken.

~~~
CaptSpify
Right. The tests they have are pretty "by the book". Readings and diagnostics
have to be pretty tight.

~~~
CaptSpify
As I can't edit the above post: Listen to wyldfire over me. My impression was
that they were by the book, but I'm not an actual repair-tech

------
acd
I think electronics should be designed for repair and easy recycling as a main
design goal.

For example a cell phone, you could build it with an aluminum back with small
phillips screws instead of glued back. Open the phone up with a standard screw
driver and you will be able to replace the battery, main board and screen
yourself.

What kind of environment do you want to leave for future generations. A big
pile of electronic garbage or a world as clean as it could be? What about the
carbon foot print of upgrade phones every two years?

If we can reuse electronics components the garbage foot print should be
smaller.

Why do we have to throw a working screen and battery in a cell phone if you
just want to upgrade the cpu speed or camera of your phone?

How about laws that require that consumers should be able to repair their
things, average life time.

Good projects on the right path so far Google has Project Ara Fairphone2

~~~
extrapickles
I don't mind them gluing things like the battery in since it make for a more
rigid phone provided they use a glue that a moderate amount of heat can
greatly weaken.

The problem with upgrading parts of something like a phone is that the
components interfaces change frequently. Even desktop cpu/memory sockets
change every few years.

Compact form factors are worse as you dont have room for the connector, and
for the larger components they are like the engine in a F1 car, a important
structural piece.

I do like the concept of Ara, but I don't think it will be practical anytime
soon.

~~~
Nullabillity
> Even desktop cpu/memory sockets change every few years.

Amusingly, AMD seems to manage fine without nearly as many socket changes as
Intel...

~~~
jdboyd
It may be stretching things to say that AMD is managing fine.

~~~
wtallis
But it's pretty clear their problems are not at all caused by them not
retooling the CPU sockets often enough.

------
intrasight
As someone who came of tinkering age in the early 70s and spend lots of time
taking apart and repairing old machines, I wish to express another concern.
How do we expect to hook the next generation of engineers if there is no
opportunity to tinker as a child? For me that spark (excuse the pun)
definitely came from those early "break it/fix it" sessions. Is tinkering
going to be relegated to playing with the public APIs of our devices? I assume
that most devices don't have public APIs - you need to get a dev license and
sign an NDA. What ten year old is going to do that? Will only the children of
engineers at major tech companies be able to tinker? I see bad unintended long
term consequences for our society.

~~~
javajosh
This is a very important point. Children can't learn from magical slabs that
can't be opened.

That said, my personal view is that _you should never buy toys_. You should
build them. There are two important reasons for this: first, as you say kids
need to learn how to disassemble and reassemble things. Home-made toys are
going to fit that bill nicely. Second, kids need to not learn consumerist
habits at a young age. Toys are easy (and fun) to make at home, and, like
food, much better (and better for you).

As for computers, I'm not excited about my kids even seeing a screen, which
obviates the problem of disassembling a magical, sealed slab in the first
place. When they are old enough (10+) perhaps I'll let them play with discrete
electronics on a breadboard. :)

~~~
intrasight
Yes to building and breadboarding. At least discrete components will never
have proprietary APIs ;)

------
mmanfrin
John Deere is attempting to make sales of their tractors 'leases' to enforce
their ban on self repair:

[http://www.wired.com/2015/04/dmca-ownership-john-
deere/](http://www.wired.com/2015/04/dmca-ownership-john-deere/)

~~~
TaylorAlexander
I am super hardcore stallman-esque pro openness, but I also have somewhat
libertarian views on how people should be allowed to operate.

My thinking is: let them lock them down and after a few years, someone who
genuinely values openness will come in as a competitor. If you pass a law
requiring some kind of openness, companies against openness will just hang out
at the edge of what is legally permissible.

I am curious what the HN crowd thinks of this, if a legislative solution could
be desirable, and why.

~~~
kevin_b_er
The problem is already a legislative one. Copyright law is being abused to
deny ownership of physical objects. The problem is already directly caused by
law.

~~~
TaylorAlexander
This is a good point. I am generally anti-copyright but that view is somewhat
recent and I still sometimes have an internalized belief that copyright is
natural. However we invented copyright and I do think we should either go to
something like 5 year terms or eliminate it completely.

I completely forgot that without copyright, this issue would be dramatically
different. They could still use obscurity to a point, but we would have the
legal right to discover what they are doing and reproduce it.

------
The_Hoff
For me, Apple devices are always what come to mind when thinking about ability
to repair and modify. I used to not mind when I couldn't open my iPod Classic
to replace the battery, because failures like this rarely occurred and when
they did Apple repaired them easily. Today however, when something as trivial
as a computer memory upgrade is restricted, and the Genius Bar is overloaded
with iPhone screen repairs, I find myself wanting some sort of standards with
regards to repair rights.

~~~
mikeash
You can replace your battery, it just takes a bit of time and effort. Ditto
the screen. RAM is tough because it's soldered in, but at least they have a
good excuse for making the batteries and RAM that way: they want to make their
stuff smaller.

Right to Repair did show up pretty loudly with Apple devices when the Error 53
controversy happened, where people's phones would refuse to boot after having
the home button replaced. Thankfully, it appears this was an honest mistake
and it has been fixed. It does show how losing the Right to Repair would
_actually_ look, though: not just stuff that's hard to replace because of
design constraints, but devices which arbitrarily refuse to accept
unauthorized replacement parts.

~~~
waterphone
iPhones are reasonably easy to repair some of the major components still, but
Apple laptops have been getting worse in that regard, with batteries glued in
and unserviceable, etc.

~~~
whyenot
Right or wrong, if consumers have the choice between a thinner, lighter laptop
with better battery life and a more clunky laptop that is easier to repair,
most appear to be choosing the former over the latter.

~~~
venomsnake
The two are not mutually exclusive. I don't think gluing everything together
is purely engineering decision.

~~~
Ralfp
Glue allows them to attach battery to the body. Macbook's battery is not
single piece, rather is few batteries connected with each other shaped in a
ways that allow them to fill all empty space within the body.

~~~
waterphone
Some other current models achieve this in a different manner, with a molded
cage that holds the individual batteries in place throughout the body but can
be removed.

------
jwatte
Honestly, most products are becoming so integrated, and so delicate, that
"repair" means "replace the one expensive bit."

Couple that with every lighter, ever thinner, ever flimsier, glue based
laminated construction, needed to hit market size and weight requirements, and
you get absolutely no economic sense in designing for, or supporting, repair.

In a sense, it's our growing skill at mass fabrication, and the growing cost
of skilled human knowledge workers, that is driving this "not economically
repairable" phenomenon.

Do we really want heavier, clunkier, more expensive things, that can be
repaired? The planet may approve, but the Wall Mart shopper sure doesn't!

~~~
TeMPOraL
Wall Mart shoppers are reactive, they buy what they're told to buy.

The funny thing about mass fabrication is, that it can make pretty much
anything equally well. It's disconnected from the actual "meaning" of the
product being manufactured. So if someone were to design a phone that's fully
user-serviceable, with all components replaceable and swappable for third-
party products, Chinese factories would not care. They'd make it just as
easily as they make iPhones now.

I'm pretty sure people would buy such a phone if a big enough company decided
to do that and put their marketing department to work. General population buys
what it is told to buy.

~~~
kilotaras
[https://atap.google.com/ara/](https://atap.google.com/ara/)

------
em3rgent0rdr
No need for a "Right" to repair. What is needed is abolishment of intellectual
property laws which allow companies to claim what you think is your
legitimately purchased property. The core problem with intellectual property
is that it trumps physical property.

Companies shouldn't be forced by government to make repairable devices. A
better way would be some sort of "Repair Coalition" of consumers and companies
which agree to boycott unrepairable products and respectively produce
repairable products with instructions.

~~~
lerpa
> it trumps physical property

That's the point of invented rights in a nutshell, to weaken the real actual
rights, while bribing people into the illusion that they are better off that
way.

------
robert1976
If substantial numbers of consumers are demanding fixable/open electronics, a
manufacturer could comply and fill a great need! My guess is that market is v
small. Regulation is unneccessary here.

~~~
wfo
If the market has failed to protect a right that is important, that's exactly
when regulation is necessary.

Handling the constant failures and disasters created by the market to the
detriment of the populace is the purpose of regulations and the entire
justification of the mixed economy model every modern society operates under.

~~~
twblalock
What right has not been protected?

You do not have a right to require manufacturers to create repairable items.
If you think such a right exists, prove it.

That's what this "right" to repair really is -- it is forcing manufacturers to
make things that they don't currently make, and that most people don't want to
buy. (If people wanted to buy them, someone would already be selling them and
making money on that segment of the market.)

In effect, this would be the government taking action to promote the personal
preferences of a small number of consumers. (If the number of consumers who
wanted repairable products was not small, manufacturers would already be
making such products by choice, and government action would not be necessary.)

When the government starts forcing manufacturers to make things that people
don't want to buy, something has gone pretty wrong.

~~~
ksk
>What right has not been protected?

The right to complete ownership of an item you paid full price on. More and
more manufacturers want to erode this right and make it "illegal" for people
to repair products they paid for. Did you not read the article?

~~~
twblalock
Ownership is not all-encompassing. For example, it would be illegal for me to
make and sell copies of the books I own. It would also be illegal for me to
drive over the speed limit in the car I own. If I owned a gun, I couldn't just
shoot anyone I wanted.

What makes you certain that the right to repair something is a built-in
feature of ownership, when ownership clearly does not confer all possible
rights?

Ownership is clearly not what you think it is.

~~~
ksk
So first, you produce an example that literally has nothing to do with repair.
Then your point about the gun is even more absurd. Depriving somebody else of
their right to life has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about
here. Sorry, you will have to excuse me as I have better things to do and do
not wish to engage you further.

~~~
twblalock
You are very good at missing the point.

Those examples demonstrate that ownership does not automatically give one the
right to do whatever they want with the things they own. Therefore, one cannot
assume that any right, including one to repair the things you own, is in the
category of rights automatically granted by ownership. After all, not even
making copies is in that category. Why would repair be?

~~~
wfo
Shooting someone is not "doing whatever you want with the things you own".
Neither is copying a book. Both require that you commit an unrelated crime --
one by creating an entirely new object which violates the law, the other by
committing assault with this object as you could with any other.

~~~
randomdata
Isn't that the parent's point? If copying a book you own can be a crime, so
can repairing an item you own. Both restrictions are equally arbitrary. While
only one of those may be illegal today, there is no reason they couldn't both
be illegal tomorrow. There is nothing inherit to ownership that prevents the
latter from becoming a crime at some point.

------
jswny
I think that measures like planned obsolescence and preventing consumers from
repairing the devices that they own should not be legal. They should be
treated similarly to anti-competitive practices.

~~~
Silhouette
I'm wary of making things illegal, but I do think requiring full disclosure is
in order so buyers can make up their own mind and suppliers willing to offer
more reliable/repairable products can use it as a competitive advantage.

------
avindroth
I once had to fix a fairly complex piece of electronics and when I asked the
company for a repair, they told me the directions over the phone. Unscrew
this, take that out, check this, boom.

I was more than impressed by their confidence in their hardware.

~~~
rahimnathwani
Please tell us the name of the company, so that we can give them our business
if we need the type of products they sell.

~~~
TeMPOraL
I second this request. I think it's important to reward companies doing things
good, not just punishing companies doing things bad.

------
teekert
I don't really understand this fight. Why not let the market sort it out? I
for one stopped buying Macbooks as soon as they were being glued shut. My 2011
MBP can be opened, I put 16 GB of RAM in there and a TB SSD. I know Apple
thinks it is ridiculous [0] to use a 5 yr old PC but the thing is blazing
fast. I'll never buy a laptop that is unusable in 5 years time when there are
also models with up to 3 m.2 slots available at only a slightly increased
size. Vote with your wallets people, that is the only way to do fair fighting
in this case!

[0] [http://thenextweb.com/opinion/2016/03/21/apple-
hypocritical-...](http://thenextweb.com/opinion/2016/03/21/apple-hypocritical-
insensitive-pc-users-old-pc/#gref)

~~~
coldpie
Because not everyone is perfectly informed about the consequences of their
purchase at the time they make the purchase. I'm glad you do your research,
but with this kind of law, you wouldn't _need_ to do that research and could
instead spend your time doing something you enjoy. Similarly, you don't need
to research your grocery store's meat selling policies to ensure you're not
getting rotten meat.

~~~
restalis
_" Similarly, you don't need to research your grocery store's meat selling
policies to ensure you're not getting rotten meat."_

That is a poor analogy. There actually is a lot of research needed in order to
get right the edible food, including meat. We just did it in time,
collectively, over many generations; then each of us just learned it all from
others (parents, mostly). That's how we come to figure out that that piece of
meat is not safe to eat if it smells bad and a lot of other important cues.
And despite all that, dilettante individual observation can give us only so
many results, and that's why there actually was necessary additional
professional research that in time got institutionalized and the selling
policies - rigorously regulated.

~~~
coldpie
What? I meant as individual consumers. There's a whole lot more to food safety
than whether it smells OK. We have regulations so end consumers don't have to
study the history of every company involved in the retail chain or risk
illness. Similarly, we can have regulations to prevent customers from
unknowingly buying artificially unrepairable objects.

~~~
restalis
As I said, as individual consumers we had a lot to learn about what is safe to
eat. It just happened as we grew up. We learned that knowledge from others
instead of tasting everything and see what happens. The food culture however,
was developed before us and now it's mature enough to be, more or less, taken
for granted. This can not be said to be similar to other areas like that of
digital gadgets, developed only recently and for which the community lacks
common knowledge.

------
ernestbro
The French have an approach to this problem as well "forcing manufacturers to
tell consumers how long their appliances will last. French companies will also
have to inform consumers how long spare parts for the product will be
available"[1].

IMHO, because it would only apply to French manufacturers, it will drive any
manufacturing outside of France. Similar to the 35 hour work week: interesting
principle, bad outcome.

[1]
[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/shortcuts/2015/mar/03...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/shortcuts/2015/mar/03/has-
planned-obsolesence-had-its-day-design)

~~~
TeMPOraL
This is a great place for EU to shine. You can move your manufacturing out of
an European country, but you can't really ignore whole EU as a market.

It's probably why we're successfully "getting away" with things like mandatory
2-year guarantees and ability to return faulty products bought remotely (on-
line, phone, door-to-door, etc.) for 14 days, no questions asked.

[http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guar...](http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guarantees-
returns/faq/index_en.htm)

------
mrmondo
Did you know that in Victoria, Australia it's illegal for you to change your
own light bulbs unless you're a registered electrician? Not kidding. When I
moved there I went to the local supermarket and then electronics shop to buy a
replacement phone wall jack and they looked at me funny and both asked 'you're
not going to install that yourself are you?'. It's insane!

I can remember my mum changing bloody power outlets in our house in New
Zealand when I was young, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to turn off the
breaker for that circuit then screw three cables into an outlet faceplate.
Only thing some people don't know is that it's a good idea to make the earth
wire a little longer if it's not already so it's the last to disengage if
ripped out / whatever.

~~~
kimburgess
Another Victorian here. The light bulb thing isn't actually true. The
legislation and exceptions are a little more convoluted than other states, but
you're ok to swap out your own bulbs.

[http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/27947](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/27947)

------
SilasX
Right to repair = ban on any waiver of repair rights in any commercial
relationship.

~~~
5ilv3r
That's fine, and not in conflict. Repair information just needs to be
available to prevent them from continuing to be in power over your devices at
their end of your business relationship. How hard did we have to fight for
unlocking 2 year old phones? That was just them trying to be in power, not
protect revenue or IP.

------
azraomega
While I hate companies suing people for repairing their own properties,
"right" has been overused so many places. What a sensational word! I have the
"right" to not being sued! What?

I would advocate companies certify other entities as repairing authorities or
just do a good job themselves; providing the support. Of course it will reduce
their product sale and that would be a huge deal to us consumers as well
because we want them to do well and providing better product next round.

However, it is dangerous that we use sale as THE primary measure. I believe
companies should take pride in the quality of their products and services.
They should inspire customer loyalty, not unethical growth to please Wall
Street.

~~~
jlg23
> While I hate companies suing people for repairing their own properties,
> "right" has been overused so many places.

I don't think it is outrageous to claim ownership to something that I bought.
If a company does not want me to repair my own property, put a big "not for
sale, only for lease" label on the package.

~~~
azraomega
How's it resemble "for lease"? They didn't sue people for repairing, they sued
for illegally obtaining their internal documentation.

We are talking about our "right" to force other to do something rather than
protecting ourselves from being forced.

It should be business issue, not an actual human right issue.

~~~
pessimizer
All business issues are issues of property and contract rights.

------
Friedduck
I can't believe we're having this discussion over 40 years after the passage
of Magnuson-Moss, which covered similar ground. (Okay maybe a stretch, but
thematically similar.)

If we go down this road, you'll be at the behest of all manufacturers. It's
injurious to the consumer and environment alike, assuming more people will
simply dispose of items rather than repairing them.

Of course it could give rise to disrupters who don't use these practices and
win market share over the entrenched interests.

To me the key thing is this: if we lose the right to repair virtually all
manufacturers will include some IP that precludes independent repair. The
first battleground would be auto makers. Prepare to pay a lot more.

------
brokenmachine
The real problem is that to the average consumer, an electronic device is
nothing more than a black box. There is zero chance of them ever being able to
repair it, so they have no interest in whether or not it is repairable...
Until the battery fails just after the warranty period is up.

I wish people would vote with their feet, but maybe there needs to be some
kind of regulation since companies can't be trusted to play nice.

------
HappyFunGuy
It would be nice to even actually own some of what you're repairing. Can you
resell your itunes purchases? I guess that battle is assumed lost, so we can
beg for the right to repair that which we use to consume what media we do not
own and can't resell.

------
lifeisstillgood
we shall, as a society, realise that software is some cross between literacy
and legislation and that the right to read (and write back) software that
affects us is fundamental to the good operation of society, and we will
advance together.

Or we won't and we will end up like North Korea, pretending reality is
somewhere it's not.

Nature is not going to care if we don't board the clue train.

------
__b__
Imagine if when you opened your Mac ][ it disabled itself from booting again.
As a "protective measure".

------
Aelinsaar
A lot of issues surrounding the move to make anything and everything a
"Service" are starting to become very clear. The issues with IoT devices being
bricked, Tesla 'ownership', and so on really do need scrutiny from a
functional body with a hint of the public's interest at heart.

~~~
twblalock
> The issues with IoT devices being bricked, Tesla 'ownership', and so on
> really do need scrutiny from a functional body with a hint of the public's
> interest at heart.

Oh great, another bureaucracy.

Why should manufacturers be forced to make their products repairable by users?
Why don't they have the right to make a non-repairable product, and let the
market decide whether or not it succeeds? If people really want repairable
products, some company will be able to make money by selling them. The market
is an excellent way to track consumer preferences -- far better than a
bureaucracy telling companies how to make their products.

~~~
mindslight
Okay, but to be consistent you have to argue for getting rid of copyrights and
patents as well. It makes no sense to regard these devices as "creative
works", yet then deny that the end user has been sold an instance of this
abstract structure.

~~~
twblalock
How _exactly_ did you derive this from my argument? I see no logical
connection.

~~~
zerohp
Patent and copyright are an external force created by a bureaucracy that
prevents a free market for these products.

~~~
twblalock
It is certainly not a logical conclusion of my argument that all bureaucracies
that interfere with the market ought to be abolished, or that the market
should be free in all cases. My point was that in _this particular case_ , the
market would be a better way to solve the problem than a bureaucracy.

Therefore, advocating the existence of some bureaucracies and not others does
not contradict my argument, nor is it inconsistent with my argument.

~~~
mindslight
In general, while market dynamics are quite important, "the market" doesn't
actually constitute a valid argument for anything (as said thing would happen
anyway), and usually indicates an attempt to stubbornly _ignore_ differing
opinions.

The point is that companies are _already asking for state intervention_ to
protect their products as being a creative endeavor. So this is no longer some
noble two-party private transaction. (Which I would be all in favor for, but
we're just not in that realm!)

Demanding the protections of their creative work while shirking the
responsibilities (an end-user accessing and modifying the whole creative work
that they've purchased) may not be definitively inconsistent, but it's
extremely one-sided.

~~~
twblalock
Of course market dynamics are a valid argument! They matter very much, because
changes in the market affect peoples' quality of life. Policies that distort
the market in a way that adversely affects peoples' quality of life should not
be implemented without very good reasons. Even policies that are not expected
to introduce such distortions often do, so it's good to be cautious about any
proposals which could have unintended economic consequences.

Copyright and patent protection are not one-sided. Consumers benefit from
them, because copyrights and patents incentivize the creation of things which
would not have been created otherwise.

Many lifesaving medicines never would have been invented if pharmaceutical
companies would not have been able to protect them via patents and get rich.
Similarly, much of the music, movies, books, etc. that consumers enjoy never
would have been created if their authors and publishers were not able to
protect them via copyright, and thereby get rich.

A lot of medical, technological, and cultural progress has been made by people
trying to get rich. Patents and copyrights are ingenious because they channel
peoples' desire to get rich into outcomes that are overall beneficial to
society. The benefits compensate for the market restrictions they accompany,
and overall, patents and copyrights have made society better off than it would
have been otherwise.

Finally, what responsibilities do you think companies shirking? A
responsibility to make products repairable by the consumers?

No such responsibility exists. Nor do you have the right to demand that a
company design its products to include a feature you like, such as
repairability. If you think such responsibilities or rights exist, prove it.

If you think they don't exist, but should be created, prove that the benefit
they will bring to society will compensate for the market distortions they
will produce (which will be quite significant if you think through all of the
extra development, support, and liability costs that manufacturers will have
to endure).

~~~
mindslight
You're simultaneously wed to copyright because it's here, and arguing against
a "right" to repair because it is not. So you're just repeating
rationalizations for the current status quo.

For the third time now - copyright and patents presume to create a type of
_creative product_ wherein it is not the manufacture of the product that is
really being sold to the consumer, but the _design_ of it. A person buys a
cell phone not for the plastic and doped silicon it is made of, but ostensibly
for the abstract structure of the way that they are arranged.

Since the person is buying an instance of a design, it stands to reason that
they should have the ability to service the physical manifestation and
otherwise directly interact with that design.

It's not surprising that companies want to have their cake and eat it too -
implementing only the half of an abstraction that takes away a consumer's
rights while ignoring the second half and leaving them subject to law-of-the-
jungle. They successfully wrote law like this for scratched cds, binary
software, and DRM. But that hardly implies that their land grab is in the
public's interest, appeals to "trickle-down" benefits notwithstanding.

~~~
twblalock
> You're simultaneously wed to copyright because it's here, and arguing
> against a "right" to repair because it is not. So you're just repeating
> rationalizations for the current status quo.

Oh, so you're a mind reader who can figure out my motivations? By the way,
those are arguments, not rationalizations. They are pretty good, too.

> For the third time now - copyright and patents presume to create a type of
> creative product wherein it is not the manufacture of the product that is
> really being sold to the consumer, but the design of it. A person buys a
> cell phone not for the plastic and doped silicon it is made of, but
> ostensibly for the abstract structure of the way that they are arranged.

So what? Nothing in this logically necessitates any conclusions about
repairability of products.

> Since the person is buying an instance of a design, it stands to reason that
> they should have the ability to service the physical manifestation and
> otherwise directly interact with that design.

How exactly does your previous statement logically necessitate this? Show your
work. Otherwise, it is a handwavy "stands to reason," "it's just obvious" kind
of assertion.

> It's not surprising that companies want to have their cake and eat it too -
> implementing only the half of an abstraction that takes away a consumer's
> rights while ignoring the second half and leaving them subject to law-of-
> the-jungle.

What rights are being taken away? In your first sentence, you argued that a
right to repair is not "here." How then can it then be violated or taken away
by companies? How can anyone violate a non-existent right?

~~~
mindslight
It doesn't take an ability to read minds to characterize a comment. In a
universe with no copyright, arguments about its benefits would fall flat. In a
universe with a right to repair, all the consumer benefits would be
"manifestly true" in the way you're treating the arguments for copyright.
You're demanding a level of proof that can only be met by having the condition
already existing, and thus just defending the status quo.

> _show your work_

So you've expressed _your_ arguments in terms of ZFC or whatever? Coming up
with new concepts is obviously intuitive work - I've laid out what I see as a
simple deeper abstraction behind copyright, which you've done nothing but
ignore along with every other argument.

> _What rights are being taken away?_

Rather than get into semantics over the word "right", let's say lawful
ability. In the case of a CD, what has been taken away is your ability to
simply make copies of that CD. Instead, the publisher purports to sell you a
license to only listen to the music. Yet they conveniently forget the second
half of that abstraction - if the CD is scratched, they don't send you a new
one!

~~~
twblalock
> In a universe with no copyright, arguments about its benefits would fall
> flat.

They must not have, because we once lived in a universe without it, and now we
don't. How do you suppose that happened?

Similarly, when the US patent system was created, arguments very similar to
mine were presented in its defense, even though patents did not already exist.
They worked. The arguments in favor of the status quo predate the status quo,
and were convincing in a world without the status quo. That's because they are
good arguments.

> Coming up with new concepts is obviously intuitive work - I've laid out what
> I see as a simple deeper abstraction behind copyright, which you've done
> nothing but ignore along with every other argument.

Intuition is not a valid or convincing argument. It does not deserve to be
considered.

------
partycoder
Well, this is common sense. Remember the "Ecce homo" painting? there are some
things that will likely go wrong if you do them by yourself. Sometimes with
consequences that are not desirable for "the common good".

This includes repairing devices that are required to be reliable for public
safety.

------
davidf18
iFixit ([https://www.ifixit.com](https://www.ifixit.com)) is pretty great for
Mac products.

~~~
rasz_pl
[https://www.youtube.com/user/rossmanngroup](https://www.youtube.com/user/rossmanngroup)
is better

------
nichochar
If you can't open it, you don't own it.

------
ashitlerferad
Can I have the right to repair iOS?

------
geggam
.... "but its for our safety"

------
paulsutter
This is carburetor nostalgia, from a time when everything was human scale and
adjustable. Look at how chips are stacked and interconnected within packages
in modern design[1], that trend will only intensify. Software is also getting
more complex, with deep learning the system develops its own if/thens.

[1]
[http://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/news/070905_p10_hynix.jpg](http://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/news/070905_p10_hynix.jpg)

~~~
sevenless
How do they make that?! Don't the interconnects short?

~~~
paulsutter
Using a modern wire bonding machine

