[HN Gopher] New Massachusetts right-to-repair law now being enfo...
___________________________________________________________________
New Massachusetts right-to-repair law now being enforced
Author : isaacfrond
Score : 97 points
Date : 2023-06-05 11:53 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.boston.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.boston.com)
| fatnoah wrote:
| Great, now stalkers are going to be following me home to attack
| me.
|
| (That's basically the scenario that opposition ads were
| depicting)
| richbell wrote:
| The ads are genuinely disgusting. I don't how stuff like this
| is legal.
|
| https://youtu.be/EozPi1qmH44
| stainablesteel wrote:
| "keep your data safe", i'm more fearful of the car companies
| that are tracking my location and selling the info
| fatnoah wrote:
| I'm pretty sure these ads actually convinced people to vote
| FOR the bill. The almost comical fear-mongering simply proved
| that manufacturers really had no actual counter-argument.
| klysm wrote:
| Thankfully those ads were an enormous waste of money because
| the law was passed anyway
| edgineer wrote:
| I invite everyone to look through the financial reports to see
| who (read: car companies) contributed to the lobbying against the
| act.
|
| https://ocpf.us/Filers/FilerInfo?q=95471
|
| For example, in just one of the reports (60th day), you may see
| $2.8 million from Honda, $4.1 million from Ford, and $5.1 million
| from GM.
|
| You could also see who received the money. Or at least, I saw it
| in the reports in the past. The reports all seems to say
| "unitemized" now... PR companies sure are adept at distancing
| their names from negative sentiment, aren't they?
| webdoodle wrote:
| It's pretty disappointing to see these companies paying to
| suppress our right to repair our own stuff. Thank you for
| showing me where NOT to spend my money in the future.
| JoyfulTurkey wrote:
| In this filing I see:
|
| GM, Ford, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Chrysler, Kia, Hyundai,
| Subaru, Volkswagen, Mazda USA, BMW, Jaguar, Volvo, Tesla,
| Mitsubishi, Daimler Mercedes-Benz USA
|
| Pretty much all of the big names. Not sure what auto
| manufacturer you could buy a car from in the future.
| DANmode wrote:
| New-to-you only, until the beatings cease.
| webdoodle wrote:
| At this point I guess I buy old cars, to avoid giving the
| enemy money, and to avoid the spyware and other invasive
| technologies they are building into new vehicles.
| notjulianjaynes wrote:
| I'm seeing a list of payments by clicking the data tab and then
| choosing expenditures from the drop down box. Or did you mean
| something else?
|
| Appears a Buying Time LLC was paid several million. Mildly
| interesting, but not nessecarily damning is that boston.com (OP
| article) is listed as having been paid $90,000 to run
| advertisements.
| intrasight wrote:
| It would be a different conversation if if it were an
| "obligation-to-repair" law.
| jbottoms wrote:
| No, Massachusetts does not have a right to repair law. If you
| read the details the law divides "repair" between repair by
| businesses and repair by consumers. Along with the divide there
| are fiscal differences that disadvantage consumers. The result is
| that we now have a "Showcase Law" that pretends to serve the
| public, but it does not.
| uncletammy wrote:
| Can you elaborate on this or cite some examples of how
| consumers could be disadvantaged?
| acd wrote:
| We need to enforce user repairable electronics to save the planet
| of e-waste.
|
| Laptops Battery swap, Memory upgrade Cpu upgrade, Motherboard
| upgrade Standardized components PSU Motherboard sizes.
|
| Headphones battery easy to swap. Speakers easy to swap. Main
| board easy to swap/upgrade
|
| All these should be as easy as swapping aaa/aa batteries in
| devices.
|
| Open source car/tractor Standard motor Standard framework etc
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| I agree but I wish the proponents of right to repair would
| ditch the e-waste message. Look around. We are drowning in
| throwaway junk products. The consumer obviously doesn't care. A
| better message would be that right to repair will save you
| money! Your things last longer and retain their resale value
| for longer. Now you're speaking my language!
| johncessna wrote:
| Why not both? Most of these companies have green initiatives.
| Let's see them do something other than update their social
| media profile picture or mandate a corporate training or two.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| I think that sometimes less is more when it comes to
| messaging or arguments because opponents will use your
| weakest argument against you. e-waste might sound like a
| liberal (environmental) issue to some where money is
| universal.
| ghaff wrote:
| Nobody is keeping you from building your own equipment which is
| as upgradable as you like.
|
| ADDED: Certainly manufacturers have done deliberately user-
| hostile things. (And I voted for this ballot initiative in MA.)
| But there _are_ tradeoffs especially with respect to compact
| electronics.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| That's not how technology works. Only minor changes in CPUs are
| done without supporting motherboard changes. Are you also going
| to tell CPU manufacturers that they can't put memory and the
| CPU on the same die?
|
| Are you going to tell every computer manufacturer they have to
| use the same motherboard across all of their computers.
| avmich wrote:
| > Are you going to tell every computer manufacturer they have
| to use the same motherboard across all of their computers.
|
| Roughly, yes. There are communication and energy standards,
| which are used by external devices, the CPUs should have
| embedded or externalized adapters to these standards.
| Motherboard is the place to assemble these standard-compliant
| devices together.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| And are those standards going to work across all of the
| different form factors that Apple has for instance? Are
| they going to work across CPU architectures?
| jchw wrote:
| Well on one hand, pretty much yeah. Not _literally_ of
| course, that would be absurd.
|
| However, there should _absolutely_ be strong incentives for
| manufacturers of computer hardware to focus on hardware that
| is built to last: chipsets designed with future development
| in mind, unsoldered external RAM, etc.
|
| Incentivizing this is good because it prevents the situation
| where a vendor gets punished for "doing the right thing" and
| making hardware that doesn't need to be replaced as
| frequently.
|
| But is that "right to repair"? Mostly no. I would place it
| more in the broader category of measures against ewaste.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| And it will also result in worse computers that are
| necessarily slower and larger?
|
| Should Apple be forced to use standardized boards that are
| meant for x86 chips? Should they be forced to try to use
| the same board for the Mac Mini, the iMac, and the Mac
| Studio?
| jchw wrote:
| In my opinion, forcing everyone to standardize on Intel
| architecture chips is bad for an entirely different
| reason. However, since the industry is already broadly
| standardized on DDR RAM, I think we're not losing
| anything by pushing for "standard" RAM interfaces, even
| if it's just "some kind of standard socket for current
| JEDEC spec". It's sort of in a similar vein to the EU
| pushing for USB-C standardization on phones.
|
| For motherboards, it ought to just be more future-
| proofed. Exactly how to incentivize that is not trivial,
| definitely not going to be figured out in a Hacker News
| comments section.
|
| > And it will also result in worse computers that are
| necessarily slower and larger?
|
| Slightly, which is exactly why it's never going to just
| magically happen on its own even if it would literally be
| better for everyone overall. But I don't really buy the
| idea that Apple can't make a competitive motherboard or
| computer if they're forced to support modular system RAM.
|
| And personally, I'm not in favor of outlawing soldered
| RAM or embedded RAM or what have you, I'm in favor of
| disincentivizing not supporting expandable RAM on desktop
| and laptop computers. It doesn't have to be illegal, but
| it absolutely should be discouraged.
|
| I am not, on the whole, more concerned about Apple's
| bottom line over concerns like ewaste and consumer
| rights. I have a sneaking suspicion they will do just
| fine, somehow.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| Unless you found another way to increase the speed that
| electrons move, the best way to have better speeds from
| RAM to the CPU is by integrating them on the same die.
| The slow, overheating, short battery life Intel world may
| have standardized on DDR RAM. But I'll take my fast,
| quiet, cool, 14 hour battery life MacBook Pro 16 inch any
| day.
|
| It's not about Apple's bottom line. It's about making a
| better computer.
|
| You're taking away my right as a consumer to have a
| better computer.
| circuit10 wrote:
| Right to repair isn't about standardising parts though,
| it's about preventing things that purposefully prevent
| repair with no other good reason. For example, in recent
| Macbooks the lid closed sensor is paired to the device so
| if you replace it yourself it will stop working. Only
| Apple has the tool needed to pair it to the device and
| make it work again. There's no good reason to do that
| apart from preventing repair
| hutzlibu wrote:
| "You're taking away my right as a consumer to have a
| better computer."
|
| I wouldn't do that. But do you think it is necessary,
| that your battery is fixed by glue?
|
| You won't have a 14 h battery life forever. And easy
| battery change should be standard, unless we are talking
| about diving electronics.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| Why would I risk ruining my $3200 MacBook Pro to save $70
| to replace the battery myself seeing how tight the
| tolerances are for everything related to laptop Macs
| instead of just letting Apple or a 3rd party authorized
| repair person do it for $249?
|
| The glue on the battery is the least of my problems. Do
| you really think that Apple glues the battery down for
| that sweet little money they make on battery replacements
| for the relatively few they sell? Macs themselves only
| make up 10% of their revenue. How much do you think out
| of warranty battery replacements make them?
| hutzlibu wrote:
| " $249"
|
| That's the point. A battery is way cheaper and so would
| be the replacement, if not for the glue. If you are fine
| with it, thats fine for you.
|
| And every solid laptop will need a new battery at some
| point. That all adds up to Apples revenue.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| A battery that is actually safe?
|
| How much profit do you think Apple makes from selling
| batteries and replacement services considering how
| relatively few Macs Apple sells and how often people
| upgrade?
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| Forget about e-waste, it's my fucking property. I paid full
| price for a full product that is now mine. Not partially mine
| and partially the manufacturers.
| tnel77 wrote:
| Won't you stop for a second and think about the shareholders?
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| When was the last time you were _legally_ prevented from
| repairing your property, rather than say by your decision to
| purchase an item that didn 't have spares available for sale
| to the general public, or was manufactured in a way that
| prevented repair?
| jchw wrote:
| > When was the last time you were legally prevented from
| repairing your property
|
| "Legally prevented" is a dubious way to define this. You
| can use many approaches to prevent consumers from being
| able to repair things, but obviously sueing customers that
| try to repair things is not going to be an effective
| strategy. Still, you can definitely use the law to prevent
| replacement parts from being manufactured, or security
| mechanisms that may be illegal to circumvent.
|
| > or was manufactured in a way that prevented repair?
|
| That's exactly a focus of right to repair laws though. It's
| not about whether or not people are legally allowed to
| repair things, it's about regulating practices that thwart
| one's right to repair things, which have evolved unchecked
| for a while now. What's extremely sad is even mechanisms we
| know wouldn't hold up in court, like "warranty void if
| removed," continue to be effective anyways due to the lack
| of action.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| I think this misses the previous point, though. They're
| saying, correctly, that claiming that "not being able to
| repair something implies a lack of ownership" is not a
| logical claim.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| Right - that is what I was getting at. The reason you
| can't easily replace the battery in your Samsung Galaxy
| S22 is completely unrelated to the extent to which you
| own it, as a matter of law, and more related to the fact
| that the phone back cover is attached with glue; you need
| to remove all kinds of fiddly cables to get to the
| battery; and then the battery itself is glued in place.
| jchw wrote:
| Nobody is literally referring to the concept of property
| ownership though, since that's not _really_ what this is
| about.
|
| Of course I literally "own" a device that I buy, but if
| the vendor forces me to agree to a ToS and EULA to be
| allowed (legally, thanks to DMCA) to use the product as
| advertised and can lock me out at any time, it's truly
| ownership in name only.
|
| This is about fancy footwork using technological measures
| to diminish consumer rights and consumer choice without
| _literally_ violating any law. The law has not caught up
| to this, but the writing is certainly on the wall.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| > Nobody is literally referring to the concept of
| property ownership though
|
| I don't see the point of this comment. If you read up in
| the thread:
|
| > Forget about e-waste, it's my fucking property. I paid
| full price for a full product that is now mine. Not
| partially mine and partially the manufacturers
|
| That doesn't mean there aren't other things to discuss,
| but people in this section of the comments are talking
| about ownership.
| jchw wrote:
| Yes, but we're talking about ownership as a concept, not
| as a matter of law. I'm not sure how this is getting
| confused to be honest.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| Ownership is a _legal concept_.
|
| If you want to talk about whether it is good public
| policy to allow manufacturers to make computer stuffs
| that are difficult to repair or that have technical
| restrictions baked in that make it difficult to run
| software other than that provided by the manufacturer,
| please have at it.
|
| To suggest that this is an _ownership_ discussion is at
| best intellectually faulty and at worst the sort of
| hyperventilation that has people rolling their eyes at
| you.
| jchw wrote:
| Ownership is also a concept that humans understand,
| disconnected from whatever is written into law. In fact,
| the human understanding of what ownership is ultimately
| informs what goes into the law. Essentially by asking
| "who really owns this?" we're literally questioning why
| this is allowed to happen regarding stuff that we own.
|
| All I can say is, you misunderstood what the comment you
| replied to was saying. You don't have to like it, but
| it's very evident to me that this is what happened.
| lukeschlather wrote:
| I have a couple phones that are running older versions of
| Android. Still perfectly functional phones physically,
| but I can't "repair" them by installing a newer version
| of Android. This is in fact due to a lack of ownership,
| to update I would need a signing key that is owned by a
| defunct manufacturer.
|
| It's similar with many physical things. Safe repair
| requires documentation and software tooling that some
| company considers trade secrets. I own it, but someone
| else owns the right to repair that piece of technology.
| Do I really own it if it's broken and I don't have the
| right to access required repair documentation?
| generalizations wrote:
| I agree with your sentiment, but that's not specifically
| a question of ownership of the device. You bought the
| hardware, and it's yours to do what you like with it.
| However, part of what you bought is a box with a padlock,
| and you chose to buy hardware that did not come with the
| key to that padlock. It's still your padlock: no one is
| stopping you from trying to open it.
|
| I would instead frame it as another variation of open-
| source vs closed source. That would be more accurate,
| IMHO.
| lukeschlather wrote:
| Ownership of the padlock is clearly based in who owns the
| key. The idea that a company can sell me a device with a
| bunch of hidden padlocks and refuse to give me the key -
| this clearly makes it hard to say who owns the device.
| And they are stopping me from trying to open it, it's
| questionable if I legally can open it. Certainly, if I
| tried to sell a tool that allows people to open the
| padlock, the company that owns the padlock would probably
| say that is illegal under the DMCA.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| > _And they are stopping me from trying to open it, it 's
| questionable if I legally can open it._
|
| In the context of consumer electronics, in what scenario
| is it legally questionable if you can modify your own
| device?
|
| This whole argument about ownership is really weak. It
| amounts to "a manufacturer, given a design choice, chose
| an option that made the product more difficult to self-
| repair / mod / root / run Linux on".
|
| You don't own your phone any less because the
| manufacturer chose to glue it together rather than use
| screws.
| rpvnwnkl wrote:
| My town disallows repairs or installation to barbed wire
| fencing, fwiw. You can buy it but can't legally use it.
| bmitc wrote:
| Manufacturers have absolutely legally prevented people from
| helping others repair their property.
| mikece wrote:
| This law is so overdue and needs to be extended to all 50 states
| (and all modern computer-reliant equipment, not just cars).
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-05 23:05 UTC)