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

131–140 of 354 posts

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#131

Post by Joeri »

chicob wrote: post #52
Joeri wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Content Scramble System on DVD's isn't anti-competitive, since all players can obtain a license for it, it's just anti-consumer. The example I'd like to see is of a single work that wasn't pirated due to DRM. DRM is hidden behind this wall of lies where ostensibly it's about piracy but in reality it is not. The true purpose is to control legal playback behavior, like how all legitimate hardware DVD players respec…

Without trying to be picky, I would say that copying is not consuming. So DRM is not anti-consumer, but anti-freedom. The way words are thrown around theses days is kind of orwellian, and this has gotten into everyday's vocabulary. Part of this issue is philosophic in nature, and the absence of a proper public discussion is conditioning the way we speak in a perverse way. Consuming requires the exhaustion of the good…

Today the word consumer is basically a stand-in for citizen, which is really what I meant. There’s a whole podcast episode dedicated to this peculiar change: https://www.ridiculoushistoryshow.com/podcasts/rhs-citizens-...

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#132

Post by danmg »

John_KZ wrote: post #111
nimbius wrote: 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…

Congrats, you presented the one and only case where the manufacturers are right: Nobody should tamper with critical control systems. I don't want a DIY arduino-hacked suspension control chip or ABS. Neither would your clients. Unless of course your client understands this and it goes into the service logbook and you take full legal responsibility for any accidents this might cause in the future. However I couldn't ca…

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 have a modern automatic transmission, then you'll need that one too, and that's pretty obvious if it's not working correctly. Everything else is an accessory, non-essential and part of planned obsolescence.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#133

Post by ocdtrekkie »

logfromblammo wrote: post #70
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #17

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.

I believe this is the EU's approach to on-device firmware.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#134

Post by Drdrdrq »

coder543 wrote: post #116
John_KZ wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Congrats, you presented the one and only case where the manufacturers are right: Nobody should tamper with critical control systems. I don't want a DIY arduino-hacked suspension control chip or ABS. Neither would your clients. Unless of course your client understands this and it goes into the service logbook and you take full legal responsibility for any accidents this might cause in the future. However I couldn't ca…

> I don't want a DIY arduino-hacked ... This is a professional service being done by the same professionals who you're paying to actually replace the suspension, brakes, brake lines, or other life-critical components. If you can't trust them to make a good judgement on how or whether to reset tamper detection, then how can you trust them to replace your brakes or suspension in the first place? Surely the idea is that…

He has a point though... Cars are manufactured in such way that when something fails, the failure is not catastrophic. Car might not be operational, but it is very rare that malfunction causes a crash. With SW I'm not convinced that the same can be accomplished. If you add 3rd party maintainers to the mix, it gets even worse.

I still think the right to repair is worth the risk, just pointing out that it's not so clear cut.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#135

Post by wnevets »

cptskippy wrote: post #115
quadrangle wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ford is basically stopping production of cars anyway as they found that trucks are more profitable. But yeah, don't buy one of their trucks either. But what manufacturer is an alternative? 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!

> 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…

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

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#136

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

celticninja wrote: post #105
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a biolermaker ¹ with 20 years experience in the trade. Now I operate a laser cutter, have a fairly extensive AutoHotKey script, can navigate my way around the post processor that generates the particular dialect of G-Code our laser prefers, and know a touch of python. I'm definitely an outlier, but I'm not the only computer-nerd-come-metal-fabricator I've worked with. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boilermaker

* boilermaker, I thought the italics meant it was intentional and was really interested in what you did. I still find it fascinating but wonder what a biolermaker would do?

It’s an antiquated term that nowadays just means metal fabricator.

I’ve never made a boiler. I probably could, but I’m not even qualified to weld pressure vessels. I’d pass the weld tests with a couple of days practice though.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#137

Post by supercanuck »

bduerst wrote: post #27
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

"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.

costco still does

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#139

Post by logfromblammo »

ngngngng wrote: post #72
jedberg wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

I'm convinced most successful mechanics could be successful programmers. The skill set of looking at a problem and debugging until you really understand the architecture and design of what you're looking at is very similar in both fields.

Most mechanics are hardware hackers. Instead of searching for the problem on stackexchange/stackoverflow, they search service bulletins and automotive message boards.

I'm sure that the software in modern cars causes all manner of stupid problems that never existed before, and could be easily eliminated by giving the mechanics access to the source.

Re: Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms

#140

Post by ajnin »

jobu wrote: post #55
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…

> 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 upon, etc. That's really well said. A bit of a tangent, but it's similar to how software patents should be as well. If you want to patent a software feature, then you have to include a…

Patents are already supposed to do that. They are required to describe embodiments of the claims, which can be used by anyone to implement the invention. However they are always redacted in the vaguest, most obscure way possible as to provide the legal protection without the disclosure part. That should be reason to reject any patent application in my opinion, but I'm not a patent examiner.
Post reply on HN