Can someone from the American Libertarian cadre on HN chime in on this? I see some examples of people talking about how this might be 'necessary' (see gt_'s comment(s)) but I'm interested in an ideological assessment of this situation.
That said, the commons must be protected. The right to repair would qualify as the commons. At the same time, forcing companies to excessive standards isn't always the best answer. In a perfect world, we'd have perfect information and rational buyers. We don't have that.
As the other poster suggested, getting rid of the DMCA would be a good start. I'd say companies should not be allowed to actively prevent repair or modification, but doing so renders the warranty invalid.
I'm pretty far over in the left side. I'm probably best defined as a libertarian socialist, not too far from the social democrats of Europe.
I absolutely don't agree. Why should the fact that I use your product in ways that you didn't explicitly allow mean that you are not responsible for defects in your product? A really important aspect of ownership is that I can actually do with what I own whatever I want to do, and not just in the sense that it is legal to do so, but in the sense that it causes no disadvantage for me. Just because I install an additional wall socket in my house, does not mean that you can disclaim responsibility for all defects in the house that I paid you to build, and the same should apply to IT devices. You are obviously not responsible for any defects that I cause by modifying your product, but that's it, you should still be fully responsible for the quality of your product.
I think I'm actually in complete agreement with what you've said (at least in this thread, can't speak to other threads ATM cause I haven't read them all). Perhaps our only disagreement may be on whether governments should enforce this, or whether companies should do it on their own. I fully agree with the latter (in fact I bought a phone from OnePlus specifically for this reason).
The line has to be drawn somewhere.
And how is the potential problem that some things are difficult to judge for a court a reason to therefore allow one party to dictate the judgement? And why would that party be the manufacturer? Why don't I as the customer get to dictate the outcome?
Is there any reasonable surety that the manufacturer did do their quality control properly?
How could it possibly be reasonable to assume that I am at fault because the manufacturer says so?
How is it possibly a reasonable solution to the supposed problem that courts lack resources to simply declare one party the winner by law?
And no, the line does not have to be drawn anywhere, why would it?
If I am willing and able to prove to any sufficiently competent person in the matter that a defect existed when the product was delivered ... what could possibly be a reason to "draw the line" somewhere and ignore the evidence? How is it not obvious that at the very least, if I can demonstrate that a defect existed when the product was delivered, it should be completely irrelevant whether I also modified the product?
Sorry, the line has to be drawn somewhere. You may be competent and I believe you are. However, Joe I Can Solder This With A Lighter is not qualified. We aren't going to tie up the courts determining the difference between you and him.
It's just reality. In principle, I would love to agree with you. However, much like we can't assume perfect information, we're not going to assume perfect repairs. The courts are too valuable to be wasted with frivolity.
Why not?
> If there's a manufacturing defect, return it before tampering with it.
What if I discover the defect only after I have started using it? (Please stop calling using my property "tampering", or explain what you mean by "tampering" if that is not what you mean.)
> Sorry, the line has to be drawn somewhere.
Why? Just repeating this claims does nothing to justify it.
> You may be competent and I believe you are. However, Joe I Can Solder This With A Lighter is not qualified. We aren't going to tie up the courts determining the difference between you and him.
So, what are we going to do instead then? Let the manufacturer decide what they want to pay for?
> However, much like we can't assume perfect information, we're not going to assume perfect repairs.
Who is "assuming perfect repairs"?
> The courts are too valuable to be wasted with frivolity.
How is holding manufacturers responsible for defects in their products frivolity?
From your post above...
> whatever I want to do
I think we are done here. That's not how society works. You don't just get to do whatever you want to do and expect the manufacturer to still cover the warranty. They warranty it for an express set of conditions, for express purposes, as is understood by a reasonable person (a legal concept). If you tamper, see a dictionary, with the device then it is not their responsibility to cover it. That's actually pretty much how the law already is. Your house example is kinda silly. It's a house, not an electronic device.
I'd love to agree with you but reality suggests otherwise. If you overclock your CPU, as a rough example, they aren't gonna let you RMA it. I don't blame them. Swapping out user serviceable parts, as a reasonable person might do, is an obvious exception. You might want to try looking at it as a reasonable person (the legal concept) would.
You really seem to have a bit emotionally invested in this so I'm going to respectfully bow out now.
Well, yes, actually, I do. And not only do I expect it, it's actually the law over here.
> If you tamper, see a dictionary, with the device then it is not their responsibility to cover it.
Well, OK, let me quote a dictionary:
| a :to interfere so as to weaken or change for the worse —used with with
| b :to try foolish or dangerous experiments —used with with
| c :to render something harmful or dangerous by altering its structure or composition
(https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tamper)
So, according to the dictionary definition, competently repairing or modifying the phone certainly would not fall under tampering, do you agree?
> That's actually pretty much how the law already is.
Actually, I doubt that it is, assuming that you are talking about the US.
> Your house example is kinda silly. It's a house, not an electronic device.
I agree that a house is not an electronic device. Why do you think that different rules should apply in the case of electronic devices?
> I'd love to agree with you but reality suggests otherwise.
Why?
> If you overclock your CPU, as a rough example, they aren't gonna let you RMA it.
Whether they "let me" anything really is not the question. The question is what their legal responsibilities are, i.e., what I can enforce via the judicial system if they do not voluntarily "let me".
> I don't blame them.
I think I got your standpoint. What's still missing is the justification.
> Swapping out user serviceable parts, as a reasonable person might do, is an obvious exception. You might want to try looking at it as a reasonable person (the legal concept) would.
You do understand that that is not a meaningful use of the legal term "reasonable person", right? That is about figuring out the intent of a contract if things are not spelled out.
> You really seem to have a bit emotionally invested in this so I'm going to respectfully bow out now.
Unfortunately, that is not really a justification for your standpoint either.
I really, really shouldn't engage you further, but I'll try one more time.
No, the law isn't that 'over there.' The law isn't that anywhere. Nowhere on the planet can you modify your electronic devices 'however you want' and have it covered by warranty. To give a really simplistic example, you can not just start swapping out resistors and replacing them with alternatives and be covered under any legal system on the planet. Go ahead, run 440 volts into your phone and tell 'em you expect it to be covered by warranty. I'll wait for your court case. Provide documentation.
Yes, tampering. I'm now even more certain of my use of the word. The very first definition works just wonderfully. Yes, when you crack open that phone case and think you're a master at reflow with your toaster oven, you're making it worse.
I'm really, really trying to be charitable. At this point, you've been openly dishonest and made outlandish claims. No, no your legal system doesn't allow that. Go ahead, snap a few resistors off, pump 12v AC into your phone, and try for a warranty claim. I'll wait.
Seriously, that's not even a moral arguement to be made. You can't just do 'whatever you want' and expect warranty coverage - anywhere on the planet. Not in my country, not in your country. If you think you can do it in your country, consult a qualified legal professional.
Whatever you want includes things like smashing it open with a hammer and hooking it up to your car's alternator in a crazed PCP frenzy. That ain't legal anywhere.
Well, great that you believe that ... but that does not really change the reality of it.
> To give a really simplistic example, you can not just start swapping out resistors and replacing them with alternatives and be covered under any legal system on the planet.
Well ... except, yes, you can.
> Go ahead, run 440 volts into your phone and tell 'em you expect it to be covered by warranty. I'll wait for your court case. Provide documentation.
Why the heck would I want to do that? Why would I possibly want to apply 440 volts to my phone, in the process most likely damaging it irreparably, before requesting repair of a pre-existing defect under warranty, the repair of which is extremely unlikely to make the phone work again?! I mean, apart from the fact that applying 440 volts to a phone PCB would probably make it impossible to prove that the claimed defect existed beforehand, at least if it's a defect in the electronics. And even in the first six months, when the seller has to prove that the defect wasn't there on delivery to escape liability, the damage from that most likely would be sufficient to shift the burden of proof to me.
But, well, yes, legally I could sort-of enforce that here, if I somehow did manage to prove that the defect existed on delivery. Though chances are it would be completely futile because the court would probably find that the actual damage that I suffered in that situation is non-existent (because the phone is worthless whether they do/pay for the repair or not), so while I would formally win the case, I wouldn't really get anything out of it.
> Yes, tampering. I'm now even more certain of my use of the word. The very first definition works just wonderfully. Yes, when you crack open that phone case and think you're a master at reflow with your toaster oven, you're making it worse.
Speaking of dishonesty: How is it honest to pick a scenario that you consider to be an incompetent repair or modification as an example of a competent repair or modification?
> I'm really, really trying to be charitable. At this point, you've been openly dishonest and made outlandish claims. No, no your legal system doesn't allow that. Go ahead, snap a few resistors off, pump 12v AC into your phone, and try for a warranty claim. I'll wait.
Well see above. But to maybe show a case where that would work out just fine: Let's say I do all that to my new phone, and then I discover that the SIM socket is missing. Then I absolutely could successfully sue for receiving the missing SIM socket. Probably not for getting it soldered in, though, unless I could show that that actually increases the value of the phone.
But why are you constantly going for such intentionally massively destructive scenarios?! Obviously, that's likely to make any claims on pre-existing defects moot, if the destructive action would have destroyed the previously defective component anyway, so there is no legal damage anymore.
> Whatever you want includes things like smashing it open with a hammer and hooking it up to your car's alternator in a crazed PCP frenzy. That ain't legal anywhere.
Well, yes, it actually is, that is what the concept of "property" means. As long as it's not harming you, you don't get any say in what I do with my property, and that includes if you are the manufacturer of what is now my property. And not getting any say in it includes that you cannot disclaim responsibility to deliver a non-defective product unless I do with my property what you want me to do with my property.
I prefer clear rules that say, "You can unlock your bootloader and flash whatever you want to the device, but if you do we aren't going to fix your screw-up"
If it's a hardware defect that has nothing to do with flashing software, that's a different story. But the libertarian perspective (which is what was asked for) is that it's between you and the company. If it's not a mutually beneficial exchange of goods (money for a product) then it shouldn't take place. If you don't like the rules, you should buy from a different manufacturer.
Well, except that at least my point was about laws, and this is not a useful law. The question is not what rules you would like to see from manufacturers, but what meta-rules you would like to see from the government that define how manufacturers can make rules that apply to you.
> If it's a hardware defect that has nothing to do with flashing software, that's a different story.
Why should there be any difference between the two? If either of them is defective as delivered, why should it not always be the responsibility ot the manufacturer/seller to fix the problem, and why should it play any role whether I modified the product, be it in software or in hardware, as long as my modification is not the cause for the defect?
> But the libertarian perspective (which is what was asked for) is that it's between you and the company.
Well, except it isn't, because whatever is between me and the company is ultimately governed by the framework provided by laws, and thus enforced by the government. An agreement that cannot be enforced is ultimately worthless. So, the interesting question is: What rules should the government enforce and which should it make effectively worthless by not enforcing them?
1. This is a big issue because of DMCA requirements, and DMCA should not exist (that is enough to address the problem according to many Libertarians)
2. The government should not be getting in between transactions between two private entities (public corporations are considered private entities in this context, because they are not government controlled), unless there are externalities that warrant such intrusion.
It could well be argued that there are externalities in this (the waste created as a result of it is a great example), though I think that's a slightly different argument.
Here's a couple of brief but interesting discussions on reddit:
1. https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/4spfwf/the_fig...
2. https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/36c857/thought...