
Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms - sinak
https://ifixit.org/blog/11951/1201-copyright-final-rule/
======
nimbius
As an automotive mechanic, this is awesome. You have no idea how many
sensors/controllers in a car can only be reset by violating the DRM.

Example: the suspension control computer for newer fords (so far just raptor
and newer commercial F series) is separate from the ECU, and if it faults out
you need to buy a new $2500 computer and sensor pack. You can, however,
replace a commonly blown diode or fuse on the computer but opening the case
causes the device to stay "in fault/service"

With a raspberry pi and a bit of python however you can reset this tamper code
once the whole assembly is closed. but since it "violates the DRM" most shops
generally just bill for the part and labor.

~~~
jedberg
> With a raspberry pi and a bit of python however you can reset this tamper
> code once the whole assembly is closed.

This sentence is interesting to me. It tells me that now mechanics need to
learn programming skills to be successful. Software really is eating the
world...

~~~
ngngngng
I'm convinced most successful mechanics could be successful programmers. The
skill set of looking at a problem and debugging until you really understand
the architecture and design of what you're looking at is very similar in both
fields.

~~~
was_boring
I'm convinced most successful programmers can be successful mechanics for the
same reason!

Most programmers I know tend to be handy in some way, whether that's fixing
their own cars (myself), wood working, or some other skill which requires them
to think through problems and work with their hands.

I actually view fixing cars as not only a hobby of mine, but as a fall back
career should I ever become bored of software or need some quick cash.

~~~
CamperBob2
That's what I thought, and then I fragged a Ferrari engine. Dunning-Kruger is
not a river in Egypt...

~~~
aliswe
Had to look this up. Denial, is a river in egypt. But thats just a meaningless
pun. The Nile is a river in egypt. What do you mean by your saying?

~~~
Renevith
I think it's just supposed to carry the same meaning as "Denial is not a river
in Egypt," which is: hey, denial is a real thing, and you're facing it right
now.

I'm not the OP but I hope that helps.

------
xoa
Great decision, though it'd be better if it was embedded into law and couldn't
go away down the line. At the least DRM and legal protection should be
either/or, like secrets vs patents. Part of the return the public is supposed
to see for granting legal protection to IP is that the IP is then made widely
available (as well as eventually entering the public domain) and can be built
upon for personal use, commentated upon, etc. If somebody wants to just try to
keep something secret or protect it with technology maybe that's fine to try
to do indefinitely, but they shouldn't be able to do that and then _also_ get
the full benefit of IP law that was originally created around non-technically
restricted information.

This is also a good starting balance in that legal subsidies are removed but
it doesn't require manufacturers to nerf their tech either, which is an area
that needs to be navigated very carefully in law given the security
implications and the risks of unintended consequences. I still wish "right to
repair" was "right to have work" but this seems like an unalloyed Good Thing
regardless. Maybe it can catalyze a bit of renewed fight against the worse
parts of the DMCA and the like.

~~~
craftyguy
> though it'd be better if it was embedded into law and couldn't go away down
> the line

I'd go further and say that there's nothing of any significance in this
decision since it will likely go away down the line since it was not codified
in law.

~~~
xoa
> _I 'd go further and say that there's nothing of any significance in this
> decision since it will likely go away down the line since it was not
> codified in law._

I don't believe you're correct here. If down the road the LoC and USCO did not
continue this exemption, it still would have applied for the whole intervening
time and anybody who took advantage of it during that time would be in the
clear. At a bare minimum this is a specific material benefit to many people,
and any knowledge, tooling and techniques developed to aid that during that
time would still be valuable. That's not insignificant.

More long term, ultimately this is politics and that can definitely be
influenced by "temporary" measures which later become permanent. In general in
politics it's much harder to take away something specific granted to people
who gain a concentrated benefit from it then it is to not offer it in the
first place. Before having it people may not be able to visualize a future
benefit, but after getting used to it they'll resent having it removed if it
was at all useful. Constituencies develop. So if for 3+ years some people were
more easily and cheaply able to get something dealt with or saw more
competition for it and in turn better quality/reliability/price, and then all
of a sudden one day they walk in and get told "well the politicians just
rescinded this so suddenly you can't but only because they said so" well that
tends not to go over so well. Particularly if it seems like "common sense" and
there is no harm any general member of the public can see from it either.
Appeals to distant corporate profits tend to be curiously unmoving...

------
skunkworker
It doesn't mention it in this article but this could also have a profound
effect on John Deere and allowing farmers to fix their own hardware.

[https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/xykkkd/why-
americ...](https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/xykkkd/why-american-
farmers-are-hacking-their-tractors-with-ukrainian-firmware)

[https://hackaday.com/2018/02/11/will-john-deere-finally-
get-...](https://hackaday.com/2018/02/11/will-john-deere-finally-get-their-
dmca-comeuppance/)

~~~
JoeAltmaier
I'm terrified. I saw John Deere code, and its tortuous. Nobody should try to
fool with it without serious study.

~~~
bduerst
"If it's not broken, don't touch it"

For the longest time Zara used an MS-DOS based POS system, and hey, it worked.

~~~
stochastic_monk
Is POS point of service/sale or piece of <expletive>?

~~~
yjftsjthsd-h
The former is a strict subset of the latter.

------
ChuckMcM
This is nice, but it isn't as nice as it should be. This is a section 1201
exemption[1] which is where the Library of Congress decides there needs to be
an exemption to the law and puts it into place for a period of 12 months.
Every year they review these exemptions and they often fall off. If you go to
the link below and replace 2018 with 2008 - 2017 you can see exemptions for
the last 10 years that have been added and removed. If it isn't on the list in
the following year, it is no longer an exemption.

What we need is Congress to update copyright law to make these exemptions
permanent.

[1]
[https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2018/](https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2018/)

~~~
saagarjha
Exemptions last for three years I believe (your link doesn’t work for the
other years, BTW), and the law has recently been changed to make them more
permanent, requiring significant change in order to prevent automatic renewal.

~~~
ChuckMcM
That is awesome, I didn't know they had upgraded the exceptions to 3 years.

For folks who want to look at previous exemptions

2015 -
[https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2015/](https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2015/)

2012 -
[https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2012/](https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2012/)

2010 -
[https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2010/](https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2010/)

2008 -
[https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2008/](https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2008/)

2006 -
[https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2006/](https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2006/)

2003 -
[https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2003/](https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2003/)

2000 -
[https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2000/](https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2000/)

------
femto
This sounds like a niche for a small Pacific island. Islands like Jersey and
the Cook Islands tailor their legal systems to cater for those who want a
looser financial system. A small state could tailor their laws for those who
want to repair things and potentially make a very nice "high tech" economy out
of reverse engineering, importing broken stuff and exporting fixed stuff.
Copyright holders might try and block an import, but they would be fighting a
harder battle against "parallel import" laws.

\--

Edit: And they could set up a network of embassies around the world, with
integrated repair shops. Instead of visiting the Kiribati embassy to get a
visa, you might visit to get your device fixed.

~~~
derefr
Apple already has some sort of sweetheart deal with US Customs that gets Apple
parts shipped from China rejected at import time unless they're part of an
Apple-tracked shipment. This blocks devices have been third-party-repaired in
China from being re-imported; but also blocks "ghost-shift" (but otherwise
first-party!) Apple parts from coming into the country. Literally, anything
that _looks_ like an Apple part, but isn't an Apple part _according to Apple_
, gets blocked. Think about the implications of that.

If you can't even import a real part into the US from the _very same Chinese
factory that the "officially-supplied" parts would be shipped from_, then I
doubt you'll be able to import those parts from the Cook Islands.

~~~
sjwright
> "Literally, anything that looks like an Apple part, but isn't an Apple part
> according to Apple, gets blocked. Think about the implications of that."

The implication is that we are correctly enforcing trademark law... Or are you
saying that anyone should be allowed to import anything with anyone's brand on
it? Because congratulations, you have now destroyed the value and purpose of
every single trademark.

Remember, the issue was NOT that they "looked like" Apple parts, the issue was
that the parts had an actual Apple logo printed on them when they were not
parts sourced through Apple.

This is just the stupidest issue. All Louis Rossmann had to do is purchase his
non-genuine third party laptop batteries without an Apple logo printed on
them, and he would have been legally entitled to them. He could have his
batteries, he could perform the repairs, everyone would be happy.

With his complaint he is effectively saying is that trademarks mean shit and
anyone can use anyone else's brand whenever they want. It's absurd. And it's a
loser case. If he tries to fight Apple, he won't win.

~~~
killaken2000
To my knowledge they had Apple logos because they were Apple products.

Maybe there's more to it but that's what I understood so far.

Removing the Apple logo from Apple products in order to ship them to the
states so they can be used to fix Apple products seems unnecessary.

~~~
sjwright
> "Removing the Apple logo from Apple products in order to ship them to the
> states so they can be used to fix Apple products seems unnecessary."

Putting an Apple logo on something that is not an Apple product seems
unnecessary.

These parts are not Apple products. In order for a product to be an Apple
product, it has to have been sold by, through or under license from Apple at
some point in its life.

These were not, which makes them counterfeit by definition. They might be
perfectly identical to the real thing, they might be slightly inferior, or
they might be dangerous junk. You don't know.

~~~
tastroder
Wasn't the whole point of the Louis Rossmann imports and similar stories with
LCD screens a few months back that these were in fact refurbished Apple
products? From what I've read they had the Apple logo on a connector or
something because that part of the product was original. In the car analogy,
if I repair my car by replacing or refurbishing a broken part and clearly
stating that fact when I resell it, would that make it a counterfeit car?

------
davemp
> Specifically, it allows breaking digital rights management (DRM) and
> embedded software locks for “the maintenance of a device or system … in
> order to make it work in accordance with its original specifications” or for
> “the repair of a device or system … to a state of working in accordance with
> its original specifications.”

It would be interesting to know what "original specifications" means. How deep
do these original specifications have to be adhered to? I'm sure DRM could be
argued to be part of the spec at some level. I don't think this is quite the
win Free Software Folks are looking for.

------
crwalker
This is great! The push by large companies to replace personal asset ownership
with perpetual rent is worth fighting against.

~~~
imglorp
On that note, I wonder if the law will ever view misprepresenting the
ownership of a device as fraudulent business practice.

Suppose some hardware is sold to you, in the ancient ownership sense[1]. Then
some time later, the maker decides that you must use only authorized parts, or
they will not continue to provide a cloud service for it, or that it's just
plain EOL. Then, you never really owned it - you were renting it. So was that
original purchase actually a lease, but misrepresented?

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi)

~~~
anotherevan
This is not just with hardware. It annoys me no end that there's a big "BUY
NOW" button on Amazon when you're looking at an ebook, but with their digital
restrictions management, you are really only leasing the ebook.

~~~
Endy
Could you get a class-action lawsuit together from everyone who's "bought" a
digital book, and sue them for false advertisement?

------
just_steve_h
I'm so grateful to EFF and the iRepair folks and everyone else who is out
there "fighting the good fight" on behalf of us regular end-users! Great news!

~~~
sinak
Links to two of the main organizations involved in case anyone wants to
donate:

[https://repair.org](https://repair.org)

[https://www.eff.org](https://www.eff.org)

------
Multicomp
For all the times the government does stupid things and we complain about it,
this is a step in the correct direction.

I hope that at some point, this exemption will be written into law, and not
just an exemption by the LoC. OTOH, if you think of this as the government
being able to attempt this as a 'Free Trial' for 3 years, we can show them
that this exemption does not have oodles of unintended side effects.

Edit: substantially clarify.

~~~
gnopgnip
Under common law, case law is the largest part of the law. Codified law is
only a small part

------
michaelmrose
Based on “the maintenance of a device or system … in order to make it work in
accordance with its original specifications” can I or can I not legally unlock
a device to use a different OS/apps on it?

~~~
colemannugent
I don't think so, FTA: _" “I read it as the ability to reset to factory
settings,” Nathan Proctor, head of consumer rights group US PIRG’s right to
repair efforts, told me in an email._

Although you could make an argument that the device never performed according
to its specifications and your unlocking the device is merely an attempt to
repair a fundamentally broken product, but that seems like it'd be a hard
sell.

~~~
pishpash
Yeah, sounds very narrow. Basically you can take things apart for repair, but
not to turn them into something else, or modify them for interoperability.

But it does create a gray market for the information obtained by people who
legally break DRM for "repair and maintenance." Information set free can be
used for anything, wink wink.

~~~
harimau777
Could interoperability be argued to be returning them to their original
specifications in some cases?

E.g. the product could interact with most computers when it came out, but
since then a competitor has come onto the scene and the manufacturer hasn't
implemented features to make it work with them. Therefore, jailbreaking and
making it work with them would sort of be returning to what the situation was
when you first purchased.

~~~
yellowapple
17 U.S. Code § 1201 (f) already seems to provide some protection for reverse-
engineering (including the circumvention of "technical measures") if it's done
for the purpose of making a program interoperable with other programs.

------
larrymcp
I was curious about one of the exceptions that he mentioned:

> _Our game console repair petition was denied, meaning repairs of PS4 and
> Xbox One systems are going to stay expensive._

Wonder why game systems were excluded? They're basically computers too.

~~~
bubblethink
Likely related to the third point in that list.

>An exemption request by Bunnie Huang and EFF to bypass HDCP ... was denied.

Both of these are too close to real money that it would be hard to get
exemptions. All the conventional blu ray (i.e., not 4K) DRM stuff and HDCP has
been broken for a while. If you can replace the optical drives in game
consoles legally, you can circumvent DRM too. There are/were non compliant dvd
and blu ray players that don't give a shit about DRM or geo blocking (region
locked media).

------
chisleu
This isn't enough.

Make it illegal to put DRM on hardware for anti-competitive purposes.

~~~
colemannugent
> _Make it illegal to put DRM on hardware for anti-competitive purposes._

Can anyone give an example of DRM that isn't anti-competitive?

~~~
Joeri
The Content Scramble System on DVD's isn't anti-competitive, since all players
can obtain a license for it, it's just anti-consumer.

The example I'd like to see is of a single work that wasn't pirated due to
DRM. DRM is hidden behind this wall of lies where ostensibly it's about piracy
but in reality it is not. The true purpose is to control legal playback
behavior, like how all legitimate hardware DVD players respect the flag that
marks ads as unskippable because that's a requirement to obtain a DVD-CSS
license, even though that DRM was already cracked in the 90's.

~~~
chicob
Without trying to be picky, I would say that copying is not consuming. So DRM
is not anti-consumer, but anti-freedom.

The way words are thrown around theses days is kind of orwellian, and this has
gotten into everyday's vocabulary. Part of this issue is philosophic in
nature, and the absence of a proper public discussion is conditioning the way
we speak in a perverse way.

Consuming requires the exhaustion of the good being consumed: food is eaten,
and consumed; clothing is worn, and consumed. This does not apply to data, and
to culture in general.

We consume tickets for the right to watch movies in a theater, or visiting a
gallery. But we do not consume the movies or the art exhibition.

We could argue whether the limitation of freedom is justified in a given
situation, and that is a whole different and interesting discussion, but
confusing concepts has led to the generalized (and wrong) conclusion that
scarcity pertains to any good we buy, in particular those of cultural nature.

~~~
Joeri
Today the word consumer is basically a stand-in for citizen, which is really
what I meant. There’s a whole podcast episode dedicated to this peculiar
change: [https://www.ridiculoushistoryshow.com/podcasts/rhs-
citizens-...](https://www.ridiculoushistoryshow.com/podcasts/rhs-citizens-vs-
consumers.htm)

------
cmurf
>“I read it as the ability to reset to factory settings,”

OK so what if the factory default is "does not work" and it requires an
authenticated command to put it in the non-default mode of "working"?

I do not put it past any manufacturer to work around such a ruling, not least
of all Apple whose entire history has been: we do not sell hardware, we sell
experiences. And they have always insisted they have the exclusive right to
repair (or not, and you just have to buy a new one, but here's a $10 credit
toward a new purchase, thanks).

------
matheusmoreira
I think it's sad that people have to go beg some "copyright office" for
permission to do this in the first place.

------
nmstoker
This is obviously applicable only in the US jurisdiction, but do any IP
experts know how similar or different the self-repair situation is in the EU?

Am just interested if this may have the momentum to become a somewhat global
"norm"

------
ocdtrekkie
Would this apply to say, a third-party bought Cisco device? For those who
don't know, Cisco devices have software that is non-transferable, despite
being required to use the hardware, which can be freely sold. So technically
if you sell a Cisco device to someone else, it can no longer be legally used
because the software on it is pirated.

Wouldn't this exemption arguably guarantee your ability to use the hardware
you own in accordance with its original specifications, provided you can
acquire the software somewhere?

~~~
hathawsh
Interesting. It seems like Cisco's attempt to make their firmware non-
transferable is not enforceable because it's in conflict with first sale
doctrine, which is part of the copyright act of 1976:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-
sale_doctrine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine)

~~~
ocdtrekkie
I read it as an attempt at a workaround for first sale. That they can't stop
you from selling the hardware, but can prevent you from selling the license.
IANAL, if it's invalid, great.

AFAIK Cisco doesn't actually "enforce" this, so much as uses it to withhold
providing updates. You need a support contract to download updates yourself,
and while you can request an update be sent to you if there's a vulnerability
you need to patch while not under a support contract, that is only applicable
if your license is legitimate (i.e., that you are the original owner).

In practice, most old third party hardware just gets used for homelab
purposes, since it's not "legitimate". Which, as a side perk, actually keeps
the resale prices of old Cisco hardware super low, which is nice for people
who want enterprise class hardware at home.

~~~
jandrese
IMHO (not a lawyer), this is one of those things the companies put in a EULA
that won't stand up in an actual court of law. It's basically bullying their
own consumers. If pressed on it they would probably fold, but not before
making you spend a ton of money on lawyers.

------
fipple
This isn’t enough because DRM is actually winning and lots of devices are
approaching “unjailbreakable.”

~~~
voltagex_
Nah, have a look at what's happening with Apple II cracking. Now that people
don't have to worry about going to jail over it, archivists (well, one
archivist going by 4am) has automated it so that copies can be preserved for
the future.

------
dis-sys
I watched the following video last week and I was shocked. APPLE charges its
customer up to almost $2k ($1200 for the motherboard and $780 for the screen)
to repair something a small laptop repair shop did for free. What is more
shocking is the fact that dozens of such cases happen everyday in that small
laptop repair shop.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2_SZ4tfLns](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2_SZ4tfLns)

------
joemi
That's a really great overview of the situation. I much preferred this to the
Vice article that's also on the HN frontpage.

~~~
saagarjha
I think both posts have been merged?

------
deckar01
You can legally bypass the DRM on a 3D printer to use generic filament from
suppliers other than the printer's manufacturer. I'm not sure there are many
manufacturers doing this anymore. The rise of cheap, open source 3D printer
changed the market pretty drastically over the last few years.

------
baddash
Anyone have any thoughts about now investing in the industries that this
ruling has removed the chains off of? From the article, you got smartphone,
home appliance, and home system repairs, and also repairs of motorized land
vehicle software. Also, the market for repair tools.

------
mikhailt
But these are just temporary exclusions that needs to be renewed every three
years, right?

Can someone explain why three years? It feels like it is not even worth the
risk of "breaking" the laws in 4 years not knowing if they're renewed or has
been revoked.

~~~
saurik
They actually (mostly) fixed this recently (in no small part due to being
beaten down pretty hard by iFixIt a few years ago filing a crazy number of new
exemption requests ;P). Now existing exemptions have a streamlined renewal
process where the opposition needs to demonstrate that there was an important
shift in the underlying evidence during that time.

[https://clinic.cyber.harvard.edu/2017/10/25/update-on-
the-20...](https://clinic.cyber.harvard.edu/2017/10/25/update-on-
the-2018-triennial-1201-rule-making/)

[https://www.copyright.gov/1201/1201_streamlined_renewal_tran...](https://www.copyright.gov/1201/1201_streamlined_renewal_transcript.pdf)

------
WalterBright
As the owner of a very heavily modified muscle car, I wholeheartedly agree
with this. Half the fun of a muscle car is modifying it. This was easy to do
with the older ones, there's an entire industry catering to it.

With modern cars, manufacturers only make parts for them for 10 years or so.
What are you going to do after that when the computer system in it fails?
Aftermarket parts would be illegal, etc. The whole car just becomes trash.

~~~
awalton
> The whole car just becomes trash.

It's a fairly safe argument it was trash before it was purchased. Planned
Obsolescence should be the last thing on a car manufacturer's mind. But they
see the phone companies making disposable hardware and charging a thousand
bucks every year for it, and their mouth drools with the prospect of those
kinds of returns...

Vote with your dollars folks.

~~~
tlrobinson
> Vote with your dollars folks.

Unfortunately the vast majority of people don't realize or care about this,
but out of curiosity, do you know which manufacturers are less guilty of this?

------
carapace
Does anyone know how this interacts with 17 U.S. Code § 117 - Limitations on
exclusive rights: Computer programs

[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117)

IANAL, but to me it would seem you're already allowed to copy and modify e.g.
tractor firmware to make repairs, eh?

------
shmerl
Great, but DMCA 1201 should be repealed completely. Patching it with
exceptions is just fixing the symptoms, not curing the disease.

~~~
Endy
Realistically, the whole DMCA needs to be repealed, not just one piece.

~~~
freeone3000
DMCA is also the source of Safe Harbor provisions, which are fairly important
to anybody running a site for which users can post content.

------
ddingus
!YES!

Basically I've been doing those kinds of things my entire life. Good thing I'm
not illegal.

It is just nice to have a little good news.

------
cestith
This is one step in ending the hurtling of all of us into digital
sharecropping. We need more steps taken.

------
berbec
With this allow people to hack iPhones to disable "brick if 3rd party screen"?

~~~
ericabiz
This isn’t a thing currently. (I run repair shops and the #1 thing we do is
fix iPhone screens.) Independent, non-Apple-authorized repair shops do
significant enough volume that Apple has been forced to fix anything that
trended toward this.

Exception: The home button on iPhone 5s and above cannot be replaced by anyone
except Apple. If third parties replace it, Touch ID won’t work. On iPhone 7/8,
the button won’t work at all. However, it doesn’t brick your phone.

~~~
muzika
Reason: this prevents someone from opening your phone and replacing the home
button with the one that has been trained on someone else’s fingers (or hacked
to work with any fingerprint?) please correct me if this is wrong.

~~~
sjwright
As an iPhone owner, I'm glad that this part has this restriction. I don't mind
paying a little bit more for repairing parts that are integral to the security
of my phone, because the security of my phone is important to me. It's worth a
LOT more than the value of the phone itself.

That bears repeating.

The security of my phone is worth a lot more to me than the dollar value of
the phone.

~~~
akvadrako
And this is why the government mandating repairability is dangerous - it
infringes on the consumer's freedom to buy locked down products.

~~~
sjwright
I hope you're not being sarcastic, because I wholeheartedly agree. Consumers
should be allowed to have choice, and that includes choices that some people
think are wrong.

I do think that there's some middle ground between where we are now and where
the Right To Repair people are advocating for. Right To Repair should
absolutely apply to mechanical devices. And maybe it should even apply to most
electronics. But it should not _force_ manufacturers to distribute tools that
can "repair" security related features of its devices.

------
cwbrandsma
I have a feeling John Deere will be pissed to no end...and I will laugh
endlessly.

~~~
DoreenMichele
Why do you believe they would be pissed?

~~~
sevensor
Deere infamously has a EULA for their equipment that forbids farmers from
breaking DRM, thereby locking them into first-party parts and service.
Notwithstanding the jacked-up costs of first-party parts and service, this
policy idles farm equipment at very inconvenient times, occasionally ruining
the luckless owner of Deere equipment.

~~~
DoreenMichele
Thank you.

------
Jedi72
I would argue that for software right to repair implies open-source.

------
solarkraft
Now it's time to outlaw setting DRM in place in order to prevent people from
fixing their electronics.

------
gammateam
proposed new rules? thats not a decision.

------
rdiddly
Two-word comment: "Thank you"

~~~
dwighttk
that's five.

~~~
rdiddly
Fine, three-word metadata header, two-word comment!

------
super3
This is a pretty big win for everyone.

------
gjsman-1000
YEAH!!!

------
illiac_1962
Oh let us bow down and give thanks for being "allowed" to fix shit we own.
What. The. Serious. Fuck. The fact that someone has the power to restrict this
and or grant us the right makes me absolutely sick. The fact that there has to
be a hearing means the forces of evil have won.

~~~
shard972
But sir, have you ever considered why Apple would ever make a phone if you
could just replace the battery yourself? Think of all the innovation that
would have been lost without copyright laws! /s

------
yspeak
How is the effort to require manufacturers to provide an unlock for repair
different from law enforcement efforts to require an unlock for lawful
searches ? Or isn't it ? Argument has been that any backdoor would make
encryption vulnerable.

