Copyright Law Shouldn't Punish Research and Repair

act.eff.org

243 pointslelf22 comments

I'm happy that we have EFF fighting on our side. But this looks like a war us consumers are losing...

How could we not? Tons of consumers buy whatever they feel like based on effective marketing... they're not worried about consumer backlash from less than 5% of the population, which by the way, was always the hardest to market to anyway.

That's why the future, sadly, probably won't happen in the US: http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?s=gongkai

The irony being that US industry bootstrapped in much the same way. Because it basically gave the middle finger to UK patents and copyright.

Looking across history the pattern seems to be that the nation rise the fastest when they ignore copyright and patents, and then stagnates as those concepts take hold and choke the economy with legalese.

For example Germany (thought not the nation we know it today) introduced the concept later than its neighbors in Europe, and this may have helped in their industrialization as science and engineering texts etc were cheap and easy to acquire.

Intellectual "property" is a form of turf war, and the same pattern applies.

First the "pioneering" phase, aka land grabbing, then the walled gardens.

I know so many people buying the new iPhone only because "my iPhone 6 is having so many problems"

7 versions into the iPhone series and these people still don't see history repeating itself every year or two.

Imagine Samsung note 7 without a built in battery. Instead of having to trash phones for 2 Billion USD Samsung could have had the battery replaced by their end users. Imagine this pile of useless cell phones in trash piles instead of being used.

That is if we design things to be repaired the future is bright.

Signed the petition

Note that the problem with those Notes might've been caused not by the battery, but by the battery's environment (mechanical, thermal or electrical).

Imagine that Samsung shipped the Note 7 and the battery worked just fine but charged more slowly than people would like. If Samsung wasn't able to lock down the firmware (via DRM) on the charging chip and people were able to "repair" the charging firmware. What happens liability wise if someone's "repair" of the firmware caused batteries to explode? It puts companies in a really shitty spot. Same thing with a John Deere combine. A user "fix" could potentially destroy a million dollar piece of equipment or otherwise malfunction and kill someone.

I'm certainly sympathetic to wanting to be able to modify my devices as I see fit, but I can't help understand how much legal liability that puts on the manufacturer.

I think you put it in a much darker light than necessary. Many of these problems can be solved by making hardware for which it is impossible for software to cause these problems. Finally that's what we did in the era when not everything was software controlled: design the stuff in a way that it doesn't explode in your hand.

Of course, for electonical stuff this would require firmware which can't and doesn't need to replaced. Therefore it'd need to be tested rigorously and the manufacturer can't control devices out there retroactively.

Could someone please explain (perhaps using a practical example) what does the word "repair" mean in this context?

Someone in this thread made an example which involves repairing a mobile phone, but I am struggling to find a meaningful connection between repairing a peace of hardware and copyright laws.

This was the example I thought of: http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2015/08/17/432...

Seperate personal commentary: Basically, messing around with your product and changing certain bits of it can be copyright infringement. As can making videos on how to repair something (I don't have the source for that right now). Somehow, that is messing with copyrighted tech - the companies basically say that you lease the software, not own it at all. How a phone works under the case is protected information. And so on.

It seems like a scam to me, but it is what it is at this point.

Thank you for both the explanation and the link!

Its about DRM and the anti-circumvention section in the DMCA part of US copyright. Owners, like those who have bought a car, a computer, a mobile phone, a espresso machine (and so on) want to be able to repair their property without being labeled a criminal for it. The problem is, the car won't start if it detects an unauthorized part that is made by a third-party, and some server manufacturer has started to use DRM so that owners can't just buy replacement hard drives from third-party onces a drive fails, but is instead forced to buy it from dell.

Its a basic scheme by the seller to restrict use of third-party parts in order to create a monopoly, increase price and guarantee future revenue after product has been sold. In the extreme end they can even tap into the aftermarket, demanding a cut each time the car or what ever is resold. Most of this is enabled because of current copyright law, through consumer protection laws are also lagging behind current technology.

Thank you! Those examples were very clear

I find myself reminded of an tv ad Volvo ran back in the day.

They had stacked a bunch of boxes with a Volvo logo on in the rough shape of their sedan. Then the presenter, after giving a spiel about non-brand parts, replaced one box with another that held a different logo, whereby the whole stack collapsed.

BTW, i think there was a recent dustup about HP printers and third party cartridges, where said cartridges stopped working after a certain date.

Just as an example of these restrictions I bought a Lenovo desktop from an auction, and the darned thing required a proprietary power supply. After reading forums etc, I heard that they were selling a 450 watt power supply for around $285, where you could buy an non-proprietary power supply with a better build for $40. Luckily I was able to get a 24 pin to 14 pin adapter for a couple of dollars from Hong Kong.

As far as I know it is the same with current HP desktops as well. Don't buy Lenovo/HP.

I guess this is a follow-up to the lawsuit: https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-lawsuit-takes-dmca-se...

This will change as soon as researchers and repairers have more political money than media producers!

Would be nice to have a more detailed explanation of what exactly they're opposing here, and some data to back up their claims about it.

The DMCA outlaws reverse-engineering. As usual, Wikipedia has some info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention#United_Stat...

I signed it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com