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

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#311

Post by cptskippy » Fri, Oct 26, 2018, 1:41 PM UTC

tempestn wrote: post #287

sam_goody wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, if HN would offer a disagree and flag button as two options, we would have far better conversations here. Flag / downvote is essential, or we would just get spam or become Reddit. But currently there is no way to disagree without punishing. As it is, many are afraid to post anything other than echo-chamber because they might get downvoted.

Yeah, it's an idea. Either that or they could more enthusiastically push the idea that if you disagree you should explain why, rather than down voting.

Generally if someone makes a solid argument or valid points, regardless of whether or not I agree with them then I upvote them. If I disagree I try to reply and explain my perspective.

I reserve downvotes for absurd or baseless remarks, attacks, and other noise.

People like to downvote off topic or sarcastic remarks, I generally ignore them (neither upvote/downvote) because I think making light of topics isn't necessarily a bad thing and can engage people in a discussion.

* I say generally because no one is perfect and I don't strictly adhere to the above.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#312

Post by cptskippy » Fri, Oct 26, 2018, 1:44 PM UTC

ddingus wrote: post #245

cptskippy wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you buy a 4 piece of chicken nuggets at McDonalds and they're out of 4 piece boxes so they put your 4 nuggets in a 9 piece box for you, have they cheated you out of 5 nuggets? No. Then why, if you pay for 100 kWh capacity, and they give it to you in a battery capable of 120 kWh capacity are they suddenly cheating you? Did you pay for the higher capacity? No. Did you get the capacity you paid for? Yes. Are you able…

They put 6 nuggets in the 4 nugget box. You paid to eat 4. Those other two cost a little extra to eat. You can't eat them, until you pay for a catalyst that renders them edible.

That's one way to look at it but it belies the fact that the box was designed and intended for 6, not 4. They didn't force and extra 2 in the box, it's not out of spec.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#313

Post by joelx » Fri, Oct 26, 2018, 1:49 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…

I believe that the idea that patents are necessary for creativity and invention is false. I think patents are actually very detrimental to new invention since people often can't use past patented ideas.

Like licenses in professions, the only true reason we have patents is to reduce competition for incumbents. This is why VCs like them so much... It creates a moat.

At most patents should give a short head start in the market, not be a guaranteed competition crusher.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#314

Post by davemp » Fri, Oct 26, 2018, 1:49 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #240

romwell wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, so you are afraid people that people who use and repair tractors, and can already break them in many ways that you don't understand (e.g. mechanically), will break them in a way you do understand (using software!), and so you would rather have those ways be illegal to keep you from worrying. Using your line of reasoning, we should close down repair shops altogether. How can we trust people without engineering deg…

Make up any story you like, but please don't attribute it to me. That's just a Strawman and we expect better here. I won't respond any more, since I'm pretty sure that's trolling.

GP is phrased pretty poorly and disrespectfully. Though I think there is a decent underlying point.

People are generally pretty good at not putting questionable, critical parts into vehicles. Hopefully that holds for the software "part" as well. Maybe if software engineering moves towards better testing practices, we'd have reliable methods to test whether firmware was safe or not.

Many states already require vehicle safety inspections to address concerns such as yours. I could see states requiring manufactures work with the state to provide a way to inspect the firmware for safety, (not just checking the hash against the manufacturer code).

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#315

Post by njharman » Fri, Oct 26, 2018, 1:56 PM UTC

drb91 wrote: post #141

guelo wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue this is better than congress passing new legislation because congress is broken and corrupt. If congresss were to write new legislation on DRM it would make things worse since they always take the copyright maximalist position since that's what corporate lobbyists want.

Err, you like non-democratic rulings because they AVOID corruption? Worked great for the FCC!

Its cute you think US congress/government is democratic.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#316

Post by cptskippy » Fri, Oct 26, 2018, 1:57 PM UTC

arcticbull wrote: post #255

cptskippy wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. And the person paid for 60 kWh of battery capacity. They didn't pay for 75 kWh of battery capacity. The true capacity of the battery is irrelevant so long as it delivers the capacity the person paid for. Tesla didn't sell the vehicle as having a different curb weight, or a specified number of 18650 cells contained in the battery pack. They sold it based on having a 60 kWh capacity which it does. Why do you feel…

It's not about entitlement, it's about the fact it's there . It's about how it feels. It's different when someone sells you something that does 2 things, then tells you that unless you pay them more it'll only do one, forever. It's a nagging feeling. It's mine now, not theirs. Then they ask for tons of money, don't give you anything new or different, just enable the product to do what it could already do -- what I "a…

I'm not telling you that your feelings are wrong. Saying "I don't like that Tesla sold a 75 kWh capable car as a 60 kWh car" is perfectly acceptable. Saying "Tesla sold me a 75 kWh car that performs like a 60 kWh car" is also valid though misleading because it belies the truth that the buyer wanted a 60 kWh car.

Calling it ransom or extortion isn't just misleading, it's an outright lie.

You're free to feel what you want about the situation and express those feels but I feel that it's harmful and toxic to then make false assertions because you feel bad about a situation.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#317

Post by cptskippy » Fri, Oct 26, 2018, 1:59 PM UTC

xxs wrote: post #302

tolien wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intel and AMD have sold hardware as lower SKUs than binned in order to meet demand too. Intel’s also sold upgrades [1] that unlocked features that were already in the CPU. I guess the closer analogy to CPU binning would be if they found a fault in a P100’s batteries and sold it as a P85 instead of replacing the battery. CPUs aren’t a great analogy though, since the unused material in a Xeon-E that failed binning and…

also battery packs have nom trivial weight that affects both performance and range.

And the car was sold by weight and battery capacity. No one was mislead about the curb weight were they?

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#318

Post by cptskippy » Fri, Oct 26, 2018, 2:05 PM UTC

danShumway wrote: post #259

cptskippy wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically you're paying for a battery capacity measured in kWh, not range or # of cells. You do raise an interesting point though about failure. Cells don't fail at the same rate and packs are designed to disable cells (possibly groups of cells) that aren't performing within acceptable operational parameters. So given that these "ransom packs" are capable of 75 kWh but only deliver the 60 kWh the customer paid for,…

> Since over charging and completely discharging lithium cells shortens their life does that mean because they're never allowed to use their full potential would they actually last longer than a true 60 kWh pack? I am not a mechanic, but off the top of my head, they should last longer, depending on how Tesla has implemented the limit. If Tesla put the artificial charge limits in the middle of the actual capacity, the…

In the scenario you proposed I think this law would apply, however I don't think that's how it works.

I think the capacity limit isn't a function of the car itself but rather the battery pack installed.

In other words, if I bought an after market 200 kWh battery pack 5 years from now and installed it in my 60 kWh Tesla and it registered as a 60 kWh battery pack, I would burn Tesla to the ground.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#319

Post by cptskippy » Fri, Oct 26, 2018, 2:09 PM UTC

tintor wrote: post #143

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…

Will this ruling now allow Tesla owners to fix this firmware range limitation of their cars?

I don't think so because it's not a fix because nothing is broken. Now if the 75 kWh battery pack degrades to say 59 kWh of capacity and you only get 47 kWh then I think it becomes a question of:

Did Tesla sell you a 75 kWh pack that will only deliver 80% capacity?

Or did Tesla sell you 60 kWh of power?

I would say it's the later and you're with-in your right to circumvent the DRM and boost your failing pack back up to 60 kWh or less.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#320

Post by cptskippy » Fri, Oct 26, 2018, 2:21 PM UTC

arcticbull wrote: post #257

cronix wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This sort of thing is done all of the time in manufacturing to streamline costs. A good example is Intel and chip manufacturers locking their cpus to a specific frequency when they are capable of higher so they don't have to manufacture the same cpu with different frequencies.

That's a bit different, right? CPUs are binned based on their ability to perform at higher frequencies / not be defective. They're turned into different 'products' so that less-than-ideal parts can still be sold instead of thrown out. 4-core CPUs may be 6-core CPUs where 1 or 2 cores are physically defective pieces of silicon. Sometimes, especially as a process matures, there's too few defective parts, so they take s…

> That's a bit different, right?

Sort of... sometimes CPU manufacturing processes are too efficient or mature and they produce more higher spec parts. They don't then lower the price of higher spec parts, instead they under clock the CPUs and lock them so they can't be clocked to their higher spec.

People caught wind of this fact and began overclocking their CPUs beyond their rate specifications. This started an arms race between CPU manufacturers and buyers. Intel at one point was, and possibly still is, laser cutting the CPU PCBs to physically prevent changing the clock multipliers after they're set.