Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms • Hacker News Board

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#11

Post by pishpash » Thu, Oct 25, 2018, 5:51 PM UTC

colemannugent wrote: post #7

michaelmrose wrote: post #5

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?

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.

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.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#12

Post by yspeak » Thu, Oct 25, 2018, 5:53 PM UTC

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.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#13

Post by ashelmire » Thu, Oct 25, 2018, 5:57 PM UTC

colemannugent wrote: post #10

chisleu wrote: post #6

This isn't enough. Make it illegal to put DRM on hardware for anti-competitive purposes.

> Make it illegal to put DRM on hardware for anti-competitive purposes. Can anyone give an example of DRM that isn't anti-competitive?

DRM on a game, application, or media assets, for example? Which is most of the use of it.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#14

Post by ChuckMcM » Thu, Oct 25, 2018, 5:59 PM UTC

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/

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#15

Post by harimau777 » Thu, Oct 25, 2018, 5:59 PM UTC

pishpash wrote: post #11

colemannugent wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#16

Post by JoeAltmaier » Thu, Oct 25, 2018, 6:00 PM UTC

skunkworker wrote: post #8

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://hackaday.com/2018/02/11/will-john-deere-finally-get-...

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

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#17

Post by ocdtrekkie » Thu, Oct 25, 2018, 6:00 PM UTC

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?

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#18

Post by craftyguy » Thu, Oct 25, 2018, 6:02 PM UTC

xoa wrote: post #2

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 u…

> 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.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#19

Post by imglorp » Thu, Oct 25, 2018, 6:02 PM UTC

crwalker wrote: post #4

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

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

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#20

Post by TheCoelacanth » Thu, Oct 25, 2018, 6:04 PM UTC

ashelmire wrote: post #13

colemannugent wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Make it illegal to put DRM on hardware for anti-competitive purposes. Can anyone give an example of DRM that isn't anti-competitive?

DRM on a game, application, or media assets, for example? Which is most of the use of it.

If the company putting the DRM on the media also sells devices that play the media, that is anti-competitive, because they are preventing competition in media players using their media content business.