That you're legally allowed to repair your tractor doesn't help much if the on-board secure TPM chip flags your replacement parts as counterfeit, locks the engine, and reports you to the manufacturer so they refuse to sell you parts in the future.
I know that this probably not a trivial task, but, given the amount of money at stake, it feels worthwhile, but maybe I'm just underestimating the degree of integration of the current control system into the parts. If everything down the internal engine sensors is running priprietary, encrypted software and you basically have to tear it down and replace every single electronic component on the tractor, then yeah it probably won't ever make sense.
Given the number of sensors, it could also be a great way to collect open data for farming innovation, environmental data, etc.
This dispute is all about not letting manufacturers use such tactics. I see it also as an ecological issue, because unrepairable and upgradeable stuff means more garbage.
That's why we need specific laws to protect the freedom which should be the default.
Part of the solution isn't just laws that require something to be reparable, but getting rid of the laws that constrain it. DMCA 1201 is used for this more than it's used for its ostensible purpose, and should have a general purpose exemption for any case where the circumvention or tool is necessary for any reason other than actual non-fair use copyright infringement.
There is a war going on between government and car manufacturers because they succeeded in side stepping most of the right to repair requirements.
Currently, most new car’s OBD2 ports are somewhat useless because they now use a proprietary wireless communicator to transmit error codes. Apparently, the old right to repair laws didn’t say anything about “wireless communication” so they took the loophole and ran with it.
The days of buying a reasonably affordable scanner and diagnosing and repairing your own vehicle are over. We’re back to square one of forcing them to give us right to repair again. It’s actually really really bad.
Toyota, Ford, and Chevrolet are also rumoured to be removing the OBD2 port with their 2025 line-up. They’re just testing how much they can get away with before committing to it.
It’s going to become very hard to repair or even diagnose our vehicles if we don’t start fighting back.
There's no such thing as a default state, only status quo.
And the status quo is that right to repair is not really a thing all that much
If you use the former definition, it’s already the default state. If you use the latter, “right to repair” becomes a reasonable-sounding term for a concept that’s not quite as reasonable.
You can't just declare that any modification of the product voids the warranty, you need to show that the consumer's modification caused the warranty claim.
E.g. you won't get anywhere claiming that replacing the car seats caused the engine to lock up.
You can already intentionally ruin your seats, or use olive oil for your engine. So manufacturers already need to diagnose warranty claims in more detail, without considering modifications to the car itself.
But even so, as long as the customers aren’t legally obligated to use a particular manufacturer’s equipment, any competitor should be able to win them over by avoiding a particularly unpopular practice.
We must fight for our rights now, they have been alienated from us.
This idea of a nice binary black and white cutoff for rights does not, and has not ever existed. This really is an absurdist American viewpoint. Let's make an example
"it's my legal right to pour a cup of water out on my property"
And, no one would really disagree with that.
"So I'm going to do it with a million cups of water all at once"
In which a flood happens destroying others property..., then we would see that the measure of ones actions is the consequences to others. If you make a car for yourself, go ahead and build it how you want. If you are making a mass produced product it's no longer about you or your rights. It's a superposition of your rights, the buyers rights, and the 'publics' rights as you dispose of that product.
The maker starts with a right to make a product as they see best. The buyer has a right to purchase or not. The “public’s” rights are an interesting concept.
I'm pretty sure we're not even on the same planet at this point. If you think this is true, go produce some products as 'you see best' and see how long before you end up in criminal/civil court. There are myriads of regulations on what you can and cannot put in products that are sold to others. To think otherwise is a level disillusionment that only the most staunch libertarians reach.
The public has rights, the market is not a free for all do to whatever you'd like.
As a business person in any industry this is already true in 1000 mostly reasonable ways that mostly derive from outrageous behavior of prior actors in your space. In that context it seems ridiculous to argue against 1001 on principle unless the specific regulation is itself ill advised. The only justification it needs is for it to be a net positive.
Basically why do 338 million people give a fuck if a handful of people want to do user hostile things. Do them somewhere else.
control of a political situation by those outside the conventional or lawful realm, typically involving violence and intimidation.
If we mutually understand that is literally how the world works everywhere then going back and pretending that society needs to justify "taking away Elon's rights to sell consumer hostile cars" then we are being intellectually dishonest. The same way you are being intellectually dishonest by denigrating simple democracy as "mob rule".
The big fish eat the small fish and the game becomes easier the bigger you get.
If people wish to voluntarily trade vehicles without the "right to repair", that's their choice, that's capitalism. The state intervening in transactions one way or the other is a violation of the capitalist ideal.
Competitive markets and price information are also key components of capitalism - and the "right to repair" enhances both. Empirically, manufactures don't like competing for repairs, and they also obfuscate the cost of those repairs so customers would never know the total cost of ownership ahead of time.
State intervention does not violate capitalist ideals when it enhances competition, I'll go further and say coercive monopolies are anti-capitalist. Just because I bought a widget from you shouldn't force me to have it solely fixed by you at a price of your choosing.
No coercion (voluntary transaction, no state involvement): "I'll sell you this widget, but only if you agree to bring it to me for any repairs." "Ok."
Coercion (state intervention): "Hi, I see you are about to sell your widget to that other guy who would like to buy it, knowing only you can perform any future repairs. If you go ahead, I will use the full force of the justice system to punish you, up to and including death."
I realise this is unrealistically ideal. The language is very important to get right though. You are advocating for coercion for the common good, not the absence of it. The state is impotent without violence, you don't need to shy away from it. State == force.
(I am a fascist, for the record.)
I don't see how you don't see how this all-or-nothing approach as coercive. Maybe if I change the actors it'll become more apparent to you:
"You can sell your widget in our jurisdiction, but only if you agree to our laws." "Ok."
The power imbalance and lack of choice is what makes it not great. Clearly, you see the power of the state, but somehow ignoring the power of corporates over individuals; they might not be legally able to end your life, but they can ruin it (e.g. how recently-convicted eBay executives hounded their victim, or thr list of dead companies that "agreed" to work with Apple or Walmart).
I am unashamedly for using state power as a counterbalance to corporate power. Unregulated profit-seeking has never resulted in good outcomes for humans.