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

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#351

Post by quadrangle » Mon, Oct 29, 2018, 1:24 AM UTC

cptskippy wrote: post #184

geggam wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you buy a car with a speed limiter are you being cheated or can you remove it ? This ruling says you have the right to remove that limit.

I'm not arguing your question. I am calling it a lie to say Tesla was ransoming extended range. They weren't ransoming anything. They gave the customer the range they paid for and never took anything away.

I said in another comment: ransom is the part you do after you took something. It doesn't describe the taking part.

The context here is more like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_pledge_system#Ransom...

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#352

Post by quadrangle » Mon, Oct 29, 2018, 1:25 AM UTC

cptskippy wrote: post #186

wnevets wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So DRM to artificially limit the driving range of their cars?

I'm not a lawyer but I would say so. The question isn't what they did but rather is it ransom or wrong?

Let's clear up a misunderstanding: ransoms aren't necessarily and always wrong. There's indeed some implication that way, but you could just as well argue that this type of ransom is justified.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_pledge_system#Ransom...

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#353

Post by cptskippy » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 5:47 PM UTC

quadrangle wrote: post #351

cptskippy wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not arguing your question. I am calling it a lie to say Tesla was ransoming extended range. They weren't ransoming anything. They gave the customer the range they paid for and never took anything away.

I said in another comment: ransom is the part you do after you took something. It doesn't describe the taking part. The context here is more like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_pledge_system#Ransom...

And my point is that nothing was taken, therefore it cannot be ransomed.

This isn't a Threshold Pledge System either because there's no contracted good being withheld.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#354

Post by cptskippy » Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 6:00 PM UTC

quadrangle wrote: post #350

cptskippy wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ransom is when someone takes from you and only returns what they took when you meet their demands. Tesla didn't take anything from the buyers of the car owners who paid for 60 kWh capacity. It gave them what they wanted, it just happened to delivery it in a vessel that could hold 75 kWh. Rather, the car buyers were offered the option to purchase the exact same car at a reduced price because it was artificially limite…

The ransom part is when someone says that you have to pay them in order for them to release something that otherwise costs them nothing to release (you're not paying them for work or for resources that they want for themselves). In some cases, someone takes something from you and then offers to return it for a ransom. That sentence wouldn't make sense if the entire thing, including the initial taking was itself "rans…

So what you're saying is that it's ransom because it's functionality you want but didn't pay for the right to use?

And that a company should either not sell a product at all, or only sell it completely without restrictions or limits?

Otherwise it's dishonest and ransom?

If you hire a man to mow your lawn do you have a right to be upset that he refuses to clean your septic tank for the price you paid him to mow your yard? You are after all paying for labor from a tool that's capable of doing more than just cutting grass.