Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Wednesday March 08 2017, @05:42PM   Printer-friendly
from the protecting-us-from-ourselves dept.

Nebraska is one of eight states in the US – including Minnesota, New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, Wyoming, Tennessee and Kansas – seeking to pass "right to repair" legislation. All eyes will be on the Cornhusker state when the bill has its public hearing on 9 March, because its unique "unicameral legislature" (it's the only state to have a single parliamentary chamber) means laws can be enacted swiftly. If this bill, officially named LB67, gets through, it may lead to a domino effect through the rest of the US, as happened with a similar battle over the right to repair cars. These Nebraska farmers are fighting for all of us.

Big agriculture and big tech – including John Deere, Apple and AT&T – are lobbying hard against the bill, and have sent representatives to the Capitol in Lincoln, Nebraska, to spend hours talking to senators, citing safety, security and intellectual property concerns.

John Deere has gone as far as to claim that farmers don't own the tractors they pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for, but instead receive a "license to operate the vehicle". They lock users into license agreements that forbid them from even looking at the software running the tractor or the signals it generates.

Another article on the topic at Techdirt.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday March 09 2017, @02:41PM (8 children)

    by sjames (2882) on Thursday March 09 2017, @02:41PM (#476952) Journal

    You're looking at it backwards. Currently, JD, Apple, and co. are using the state's willingness to use force on their behalf to enforce their anti-repair policies. A right to repair is the state refusing to have itself used that way.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday March 09 2017, @03:13PM (7 children)

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday March 09 2017, @03:13PM (#476964)

    No, not exactly. As I understand it, part of these RtR bills is forcing the mfgr to provide access to diagnostic tools and repair manuals to 3rd-party repair shops and end-users. The state isn't using "force" to enforce mgfrs' refusal to provide access to this, unless you count the willingness of the police to use force against someone who would forcibly enter the mfgrs' facilities and steal these things. There's a lot more here than just twisting the DMCA around.

    • (Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday March 09 2017, @03:31PM (6 children)

      by sjames (2882) on Thursday March 09 2017, @03:31PM (#476976) Journal

      Withdrawal of force is at least part of the bill. I emphasize that since opponents of the bill would have us forget that the manufacturers have been happily enjoying the backing of state force for some time.

      Once that force is withdrawn, the rest will happen with or without the manufacturer's cooperation. Repair manuals, spare parts, and diagnostic tools will come into existance with or without the OEM's help. The OEMs have long argued that this creates a danger from people doing it wrong or using substandard parts. The RTR bill says OK, so then you shall provide correct parts, diagnostic tools, and manuals, problem solved.

      • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday March 09 2017, @03:52PM (5 children)

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday March 09 2017, @03:52PM (#476990)

        Exactly what force are you talking about? You're free to work on these machines all you want, you just won't get the mfgr to honor the warranty any more (though you might be able to sue them under the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act, depending on exactly what you did). The OEMs have no ability to forcibly prevent people from attempting to repair their own equipment, or use 3rd-party parts. They do have the ability, however, to refuse to help.

        • (Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday March 09 2017, @04:04PM (4 children)

          by sjames (2882) on Thursday March 09 2017, @04:04PM (#476994) Journal

          So if I grab up the repair manuals and diagnostic equipment and begin distributing copies, I may expect no visit from a LEO and no summons? Will the state really refrain from applying force against me?

          • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday March 09 2017, @04:38PM (3 children)

            by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday March 09 2017, @04:38PM (#477010)

            If you use force to take things that aren't yours, then yes, you can expect to receive force in return from the state. What's so hard to understand about that? Theft has never been allowed in any civilized country (and that's ignoring the whole issue of copyright law, I'm just talking about your initial theft of the originals).

            Where did you ever get the idea that the state isn't justified in using force against you when you commit a crime (namely theft)?

            • (Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday March 09 2017, @05:20PM (2 children)

              by sjames (2882) on Thursday March 09 2017, @05:20PM (#477019) Journal

              So, if I simply crack JDs encryption and produce a diagnostic system that uses that discovered key, no issues at all?

              And who said anything about taking? I'm talking about copying, perhaps while employed by JD.

              No way around it, JD is depending on a state application of force to deny the right to repair.

              What makes it such a problem if the state withdraws it's offer to apply force in those situations?

              • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday March 09 2017, @06:43PM (1 child)

                by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday March 09 2017, @06:43PM (#477062)

                The main problem I see is Federal copyright law. State law can't trump Federal laws.

                But this law isn't just removing the state protections for copyright and hoping some insider sticks the information on the internet somewhere; it's literally forcing the mfgr to provide information. That's rather different from removing a government-provided protection.

                • (Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday March 09 2017, @08:05PM

                  by sjames (2882) on Thursday March 09 2017, @08:05PM (#477103) Journal

                  Due to federal copyright law, it's the only way the states can get that information out there where it belongs.

                  Of course, let's not forget that JD only exists because of an act of the state. It is a legal fiction created by the state. I'm not so sure it's in the public interest to let them use DRM and the DMCA to lock people into their repair services.

                  The point is that state backed force is already all over this. It seems disingenuous to argue that applying it in the other direction is somehow less permissible.