Slashdot Mirror
Massachusetts Senate Passes Resolution To Do In-Depth Study On Right-To-Repair (vice.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: On July 25, the Massachusetts Senate approved a Resolution that would create a special commission that would research the feasibility of forcing device manufacturers to treat customers and independent repair shops the same as officially licensed repair outlets. According to the proposed study, that means providing customers and independent repair shops with "repair technical updates, diagnostic software, service access passwords, updates and corrections to firmware, and related documentation." Gay Gordon Byrne, executive director of The Repair Organization, helped push the bill in 2012 and has been working to extend the law to tech companies ever since. "This is just one step in a series of steps that will end Repair Monopolies for technology products. I'm thrilled," Byrne told me in an email about the pending study.
The Resolution to create the study group still needs to pass the Massachusetts House, but the session ends July 31 so right-to-repair watch dogs won't have to wait long to see if it goes forward. The proposed makeup of the study commission shows that the legislature is serious about the issue and also reveals how big tech's repair monopoly is about much more than just being able to open up your iPhone without voiding the warranty. The legislature wants the study commission to include 23 members, including various members of the legislature but also a wealth of experts in various tech fields. They want someone from the Massachusetts Farm Bureau, a medical device manufacturer, an expert on electronic waste recycling, someone who repairs complex medical equipment, an intellectual property lawyer, a cyber security expert, a local farmer, and various other experts and citizens affected or knowledgeable about the right-to-repair.
The Resolution to create the study group still needs to pass the Massachusetts House, but the session ends July 31 so right-to-repair watch dogs won't have to wait long to see if it goes forward. The proposed makeup of the study commission shows that the legislature is serious about the issue and also reveals how big tech's repair monopoly is about much more than just being able to open up your iPhone without voiding the warranty. The legislature wants the study commission to include 23 members, including various members of the legislature but also a wealth of experts in various tech fields. They want someone from the Massachusetts Farm Bureau, a medical device manufacturer, an expert on electronic waste recycling, someone who repairs complex medical equipment, an intellectual property lawyer, a cyber security expert, a local farmer, and various other experts and citizens affected or knowledgeable about the right-to-repair.
glued shut *and* no replacement parts available other than chinese knockoffs that are never quite right.
a 'right to repair' law needs to go 'bigger'. not only should you have the right to repair your own stuff, but manufacturers need to make stuff that *can* be repaired, can be taken apart. can be put back together... AND have actual factory original or equivalent parts available.
ya know: design and build stuff to last, not just to last-until-the-warranty-expires. REDUCE is the first step of reduce-reuse-recycle. companies have forgotten that first, and very significant bit in the chase for bigger profits. replacing your phone every year isn't helping. having a phone that lasts 5+ years, than another 3 as someone else's refurbished used phone, would.
glued shut *and* no replacement parts available other than chinese knockoffs that are never quite right.
a 'right to repair' law needs to go 'bigger'. not only should you have the right to repair your own stuff, but manufacturers need to make stuff that *can* be repaired, can be taken apart. can be put back together...
Government should largely stay out of the free market, save where staying out clearly makes things worse.
There are four areas that come to mind:
1. Areas that will cost the average consumer significantly more money in the long term without government interference. For instance, if a house was built without any codes at all, and it requires 50k work the day after you move in, well that is bad. Building codes are a reasonable interference by government. Now you could argue how far they need to go. That is a separate issue..
2. Areas that will cost the average consumer quality of life or health. For instance pollution has real costs to quality of life and health.
3. As a way to encourage minimal labour standards. If a country has slave labour, well you don't buy from them at all. If a company has a sixty hour work week, maybe that justifies a tariff.
4. National defence. We should be able to build needed defence items with goods and services available from resources that are likely to be available in reasonable future scenarios. Basically if you have a significant chance of a conflict with a country, you have to make sure that conflict won't cut you off from materials you need. That doesn't mean everything has to be made in America. It just means you need a plan.
The right to repair thing would fit in with 1,2, and possibly 4, but the presumption is on non interference. If that group can make a solid case for why interference will benefit the consumer, then it is fair game, though you'd have to revisit it once you got some solid data in.
For instance, it may be fine if something is non repairable if it is cheap enough, and recyclable.... It may even be fine if it is costing the consumer twice as much, provided that the devices are continuing to improve. Now if nothing is improving and your still paying twice as much that is arguable a legitimate place for government interference, but again the presumption is it is usually better not to interfere.
You list 4. but how is a military normally a 'free market' item? If you include it, what about other things like infrastructure and utilities? Surely they are better handled by some form of co-operative or government?
What about regulation of shared resources to avoid tragedy of the commons (so indirect involvement in markets via environmental protection for eg)?
And here I'm not just talking about things that cause direct health impact, but indirect problems like overgrazing common fields or destroying parkland.
If the latter, then why not legislation that seeks to limit the waste inherent in manufacture of unrepairable products.
The idealised free market doesn't work well for long term costs. We have cognitive biases that discount long term costs vs short term gains. This is an area where an individual, with multiple pressures for limited expenditure may choose a cheaper, non-repairable product because the cost to them is only going to be realised over a term that makes it hard to properly assess on a personal level, but which is distinct at a social or governmental level.
Take for instance, hardware that is more than capable of running other things (take a nintendo switch for instance. Without the locked boot loader, it can run Linux just like any other tegra based system. Works great doing it too.) that is crippled by its retailer/OEM to only run a single ecosystem, designed to be locked down hard, where there is no viable alternative market space for software.
I am picking on Nintendo here, because of how they chose to combine hardware IDs with user IDs for their services. (Each console has a unique console certificate that is used to encrypt the eMMC module, preventing you from simply replacing it, even though it is modular-- for starters. This certificate is also used to ban the console if it is modified in any way nintendo does not like, even if those modifications are redacted/expunged.)
suppose for a moment that you purchase a second hand switch from say-- ebay, or a used item from Amazon. The console works perfectly fine, but has a banned certificate. (Or, it does not work properly, and has a bad eMMC module, which again, is modular.) You might have the right to repair the console, but you do not have access to the digital keys needed to replace or restore the eMMC's contents to factory defaults, and you do not have a means of compelling Nintendo to unban the console if they did so after doing the restoration.
These kinds of things are direct consequences of hardware based distribution control mechanisms, and are wholly incompatible with right to repair, and first sale doctrine type protections.
If the US government is going to start championing for consumer rights in the forms of right to repair type regulations, they are going to have to put a foot down on hardware based DRM mechanisms, which imply a fixed ecosystem for that hardware, and a sole point-of-authority on legitimate repair and return to service.
That means:
No locked boot loaders
No hardware unique certificates or identifiers
No hardware encrypted storage (software encrypted is fine)
Good luck getting companies like console makers to abide by those. They will tell you all about how those restrictions are absolutely required for their industry, and the like.
In short, the government has to either decide to shit or get off the pot on that. There is no compromise. Either those things are made illegal, and right to repair rules-- or right to repair dies, and locked hardware stays a thing.