Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

ifixit.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 354 posts

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#211

Post by cptskippy »

mastazi wrote: post #185
cptskippy wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tesla set up DRM to artificially limit the driving range of their cars until you pay them a ransom to simply let your car drive longer distances! That's a lie. Yes they have DRM in place to artificially limit the range of certain models, everything else you said is mischaracterization, misrepresentation, and lies. They saw opportunity in offering different ranged batteries of the same model, however the cost to pro…

>(parent) That's a lie OK let's see where is this lie... > (grandparent): Tesla set up DRM to artificially limit the driving range > (parent): Yes they have DRM in place to artificially limit the range of certain models OK no lie here. So it must be in the second part of GP's comment? > (gp): until you pay them a ransom to simply let your car drive longer distances > (p): they instead offer it as an upgrade path if y…

The word ransom.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#212

Post by PhasmaFelis »

femto wrote: post #160

This sounds like a niche for a small Pacific island. Islands like Jersey and the Cook Islands tailor their legal systems to cater for those who want a looser financial system. A small state could tailor their laws for those who want to repair things and potentially make a very nice "high tech" economy out of reverse engineering, importing broken stuff and exporting fixed stuff. Copyright holders might try and block a…

I feel like openly running an illegal business out of your embassy is a quick way to get your diplomats expelled.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#213

Post by MertsA »

Coincoin wrote: post #204
danmg wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When ABS systems fault, they just turn in to non-ABS brakes. What's the worst that would happen with a malfunctioning active suspension system? It wouldn't lower when going highway speeds, so you'll get more drag. The only computer that absolutely needs to work to keep your car running is the one that's controlling the EFI system. If that's not running well, it's pretty obvious since the engine will stall out. If you…

ABS not working as intended could be a surprise to the driver and cause a crash, especially if you become dependent on it. It's just like that AF 447 crash, they stalled from 38,000 ft to the ground because they never expected the computer to let them stall the plane. But I mostly agree, the only software things I would see as absolutely life critical on a car would be drive-by-wire controls. All the rest will just e…

>especially if you become dependent on it.

Nobody is ever going to become dependent on locking up their brakes during normal driving. Power brakes would be dangerous if they failed because without them you get very substantially reduced braking but in no way would the lack of ABS be any more dangerous than driving a car without ABS to begin with.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#214

Post by jtbayly »

cptskippy wrote: post #183
tempestn wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like a stretch to (repeatedly) characterize your parent's post as a "lie". You're both characterizing the same practice in different ways. I'm inclined to agree with everything else you said (although I dislike the barriers to independent maintenance of Teslas in general), but the parent's post was a spin, not a lie.

Calling it ransom isn't spin, it's disingenuous. They paid for x range and received x range. They were given a standing offer to increase that range for a cost significantly less than the cost of replacing or physically upgrading the battery. Now if they had paid for 120kwh batteries and received 120kwh batteries that would only deliver 100kwh of range then we'd be having and entirely different conversation.

But they did. They paid for and received larger capacity batteries in their vehicles that are artificially hampered to a lower capacity.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#215

Post by ThrustVectoring »

Analemma_ wrote: post #203
ThrustVectoring wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A tribal nation makes more sense for the US market. >Copyright holders might try and block an import, but they would be fighting a harder battle against "parallel import" laws. They can claim that it's counterfeit, have customs seize it, then force you to file legal action to reclaim your property. Not really the best place to be TBH.

Good thinking, but US courts have established that you can’t use tribal nations for IP shenanigans: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/judge-throws-out... (The linked case concerns “evil shenanigans”, in contrast to your proposed “good shenanigans”, but I doubt that argument would carry much sway in court.)

I'm aware of the case, just think the courts may take a different stance on "can US copyright law prevent tribal nations from repairing devices" vs "can tribal sovereign immunity be used to preempt US patent law outside of the tribe itself"

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#216

Post by spydum »

chrisfinazzo wrote: post #207
kibibu wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solutions to this that don't require US customs to act as Apple's personal vetting service: 1. Manufacture, or at least assemble, in the US 2. Have better oversight over the factories in China

Well, #2 isn't really feasible because of the scale at which they now have to operate in order to meet customers' demand for products (IOW, you can't catch everyone). As for #1, this gets thrown around a fair bit, especially with the current GOP Congress. However people constantly forget that regardless of where final assembly takes place, these jobs are the lowest of the low on the tech food chain. Ripe for automati…

Maybe I misunderstood, but didn’t Tesla just prove this level of automation is still too far out? Or am I comparing apples and oranges?

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#217

Post by wtetzner »

cptskippy wrote: post #183
tempestn wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like a stretch to (repeatedly) characterize your parent's post as a "lie". You're both characterizing the same practice in different ways. I'm inclined to agree with everything else you said (although I dislike the barriers to independent maintenance of Teslas in general), but the parent's post was a spin, not a lie.

Calling it ransom isn't spin, it's disingenuous. They paid for x range and received x range. They were given a standing offer to increase that range for a cost significantly less than the cost of replacing or physically upgrading the battery. Now if they had paid for 120kwh batteries and received 120kwh batteries that would only deliver 100kwh of range then we'd be having and entirely different conversation.

It’s a purely artificial limitation. You’re not getting anything new when paying for the upgrade, just effectively flipping a boolean.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#218

Post by DumbBlonde1 »

derefr wrote: post #177
femto wrote: post #160

This sounds like a niche for a small Pacific island. Islands like Jersey and the Cook Islands tailor their legal systems to cater for those who want a looser financial system. A small state could tailor their laws for those who want to repair things and potentially make a very nice "high tech" economy out of reverse engineering, importing broken stuff and exporting fixed stuff. Copyright holders might try and block a…

Apple already has some sort of sweetheart deal with US Customs that gets Apple parts shipped from China rejected at import time unless they're part of an Apple-tracked shipment. This blocks devices have been third-party-repaired in China from being re-imported; but also blocks "ghost-shift" (but otherwise first-party!) Apple parts from coming into the country. Literally, anything that looks like an Apple part, but is…

Please excuse my ignorance, no laughing. i know very little about the computers in vehicles or in general to be fair and probably a silly thought but here goes is it possible to gain acsess to or root them? Like u can a phone or tv box for example? (not that you would want to void a warranty mind) You can find parts for anything on selling sites! Have you checked for a pin hole, poke it reset to default thingy? Turn it off and back on again maybe? Oh but the double entendre of bricking your car hehe. And im in uk we wont be able to get parts for anything if u believe the anti Brexit M.Ps.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#219

Post by illiac_1962 »

Oh let us bow down and give thanks for being "allowed" to fix shit we own. What. The. Serious. Fuck. The fact that someone has the power to restrict this and or grant us the right makes me absolutely sick. The fact that there has to be a hearing means the forces of evil have won.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#220

Post by illiac_1962 »

TomMarius wrote: post #94
dleslie wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

American McGee is probably the most famous example of this. > Dead-end jobs followed – washing dishes, polishing rings at a jewelry store, ringing orders at a record store and, finally, fixing Volkswagens at Uncle J.O.'s auto repair shop. > The tinkering that's required of mechanics appealed to the teenage hacker. The $6-an-hour job "was the first time I ever felt like I accomplished something at work," McGee said. >…

A lot of software engineers around me love poking in their cars

Since we are all circle jerking. Builder, mechanic, electrician, software developer here.
Post reply on HN