Live data from Hacker News

Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

ifixit.org

61–70 of 354 posts

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#61
post #56

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…

i2c.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#62
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is also true of elevators. The vendors intentionally write awful code so that only they can fix it.

I live in central London in a 3-4 years old building (24 floors) and the elevators are truly a joke. Every 3-6 days they somehow get out of sync with which floor they are currently on, especially if you go first to -1, after that pretty much every floor will be wrong :) I always wonder who wrote it.

It's probably trouble with the sensors in combination with bad capacitors, which cause the motors to not accelerate the elevator at the rate which it is programmed to expect, so it doesn't quite exactly know where it is. Tldr it's glitchy.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#63

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?

Disclaimer: I run an unlocking business.

Not exactly the same thing, but operator unlocking was deemed legal in 2013...

https://www.loc.gov/item/prn-13-041/statement-regarding-whit...

...and measures were put in place to oblige operators to assist consumers in unlocking their phones.

Fast forward to 2018, and nothing really has changed. Unlocking a phone legally via you operator is a nightmare. They'll make you jump through 17 hoops and you will give up. Customer retention is key.

When operator unlocking is not possible, rooting a phone or playing with base settings is the only way, so this is great news.

However, I have a strange feeling that things won't get much easier. As has happened with operators, hardware manufacturers will go to great lengths to protect their playground.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#64
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.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#65
post #56

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…

> 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...

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#66
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is also true of elevators. The vendors intentionally write awful code so that only they can fix it.

I live in central London in a 3-4 years old building (24 floors) and the elevators are truly a joke. Every 3-6 days they somehow get out of sync with which floor they are currently on, especially if you go first to -1, after that pretty much every floor will be wrong :) I always wonder who wrote it.

I know a guy who built an elevator system single board computer to control it. The big problem was the power to the board - the motor turning on and off and the old electrical system made it very spiky, which would cause the computer to glitch. He built in a lot of self-checking in the computer, but it would still fail once a day or so. He eventually fixed that by having the computer just hardware reset itself regularly.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#68
>“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).

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#69
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

And then you get hacked. Pos code is junk, and the os they run on is outdated and unsupported. It's amazing any of it actually works.

and it's ugly.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#70

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…

If I were the judge, I'd rule that if the software is required to make the hardware fit for its advertised purpose, the license to the software is attached to the device rather than the consumer. Claims of non-transferability or not, possession of the device is de facto license to possess and use the firmware.
Post reply on HN