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.<p>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 but opening the case causes the device to stay "in fault/service"<p>With a raspberry pi and a bit of python however you can reset this tamper code once the whole assembly is closed. but since it "violates the DRM" most shops generally just bill for the part and labor.
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 upon, etc. If somebody wants to just try to keep something secret or protect it with technology maybe that's fine to try to do indefinitely, but they shouldn't be able to do that and then <i>also</i> get the full benefit of IP law that was originally created around non-technically restricted information.<p>This is also a good starting balance in that legal subsidies are removed but it doesn't require manufacturers to nerf their tech either, which is an area that needs to be navigated very carefully in law given the security implications and the risks of unintended consequences. I still wish "right to repair" was "right to have work" but this seems like an unalloyed Good Thing regardless. Maybe it can catalyze a bit of renewed fight against the worse parts of the DMCA and the like.
It doesn't mention it in this article but this could also have a profound effect on John Deere and allowing farmers to fix their own hardware.<p><a href="https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/xykkkd/why-american-farmers-are-hacking-their-tractors-with-ukrainian-firmware" rel="nofollow">https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/xykkkd/why-americ...</a><p><a href="https://hackaday.com/2018/02/11/will-john-deere-finally-get-their-dmca-comeuppance/" rel="nofollow">https://hackaday.com/2018/02/11/will-john-deere-finally-get-...</a>
This is nice, but it isn't as nice as it should be. This is a section 1201 exemption[1] which is where the Library of Congress decides there needs to be an exemption to the law and puts it into place for a period of 12 months. Every year they review these exemptions and they often fall off. If you go to the link below and replace 2018 with 2008 - 2017 you can see exemptions for the last 10 years that have been added and removed. If it isn't on the list in the following year, it is no longer an exemption.<p>What we need is Congress to update copyright law to make these exemptions permanent.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2018/" rel="nofollow">https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2018/</a>
This sounds like a niche for a small Pacific island. Islands like Jersey and the Cook Islands tailor their legal systems to cater for those who want a looser financial system. A small state could tailor their laws for those who want to repair things and potentially make a very nice "high tech" economy out of reverse engineering, importing broken stuff and exporting fixed stuff. Copyright holders might try and block an import, but they would be fighting a harder battle against "parallel import" laws.<p>--<p>Edit: And they could set up a network of embassies around the world, with integrated repair shops. Instead of visiting the Kiribati embassy to get a visa, you might visit to get your device fixed.
> Specifically, it allows breaking digital rights management (DRM) and embedded software locks for “the maintenance of a device or system … in order to make it work in accordance with its original specifications” or for “the repair of a device or system … to a state of working in accordance with its original specifications.”<p>It would be interesting to know what "original specifications" means. How deep do these original specifications have to be adhered to? I'm sure DRM could be argued to be part of the spec at some level. I don't think this is quite the win Free Software Folks are looking for.
I'm so grateful to EFF and the iRepair folks and everyone else who is out there "fighting the good fight" on behalf of us regular end-users! Great news!
For all the times the government does stupid things and we complain about it, this is a step in the correct direction.<p>I hope that at some point, this exemption will be written into law, and not just an exemption by the LoC. OTOH, if you think of this as the government being able to attempt this as a 'Free Trial' for 3 years, we can show them that this exemption does not have oodles of unintended side effects.<p>Edit: substantially clarify.
Based on “the maintenance of a device or system … in order to make it work in accordance with its original specifications” can I or can I not legally unlock a device to use a different OS/apps on it?
I was curious about one of the exceptions that he mentioned:<p>> <i>Our game console repair petition was denied, meaning repairs of PS4 and Xbox One systems are going to stay expensive.</i><p>Wonder why game systems were excluded? They're basically computers too.
>“I read it as the ability to reset to factory settings,”<p>OK so what if the factory default is "does not work" and it requires an authenticated command to put it in the non-default mode of "working"?<p>I do not put it past any manufacturer to work around such a ruling, not least of all Apple whose entire history has been: we do not sell hardware, we sell experiences. And they have always insisted they have the exclusive right to repair (or not, and you just have to buy a new one, but here's a $10 credit toward a new purchase, thanks).
This is obviously applicable only in the US jurisdiction, but do any IP experts know how similar or different the self-repair situation is in the EU?<p>Am just interested if this may have the momentum to become a somewhat global "norm"
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.<p>Wouldn't this exemption arguably guarantee your ability to use the hardware you own in accordance with its original specifications, provided you can acquire the software somewhere?
I watched the following video last week and I was shocked. APPLE charges its customer up to almost $2k ($1200 for the motherboard and $780 for the screen) to repair something a small laptop repair shop did for free. What is more shocking is the fact that dozens of such cases happen everyday in that small laptop repair shop.<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2_SZ4tfLns" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2_SZ4tfLns</a>
You can legally bypass the DRM on a 3D printer to use generic filament from suppliers other than the printer's manufacturer. I'm not sure there are many manufacturers doing this anymore. The rise of cheap, open source 3D printer changed the market pretty drastically over the last few years.
Anyone have any thoughts about now investing in the industries that this ruling has removed the chains off of? From the article, you got smartphone, home appliance, and home system repairs, and also repairs of motorized land vehicle software. Also, the market for repair tools.
But these are just temporary exclusions that needs to be renewed every three years, right?<p>Can someone explain why three years? It feels like it is not even worth the risk of "breaking" the laws in 4 years not knowing if they're renewed or has been revoked.
As the owner of a very heavily modified muscle car, I wholeheartedly agree with this. Half the fun of a muscle car is modifying it. This was easy to do with the older ones, there's an entire industry catering to it.<p>With modern cars, manufacturers only make parts for them for 10 years or so. What are you going to do after that when the computer system in it fails? Aftermarket parts would be illegal, etc. The whole car just becomes trash.
Does anyone know how this interacts with 17 U.S. Code § 117 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs<p><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117" rel="nofollow">https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117</a><p>IANAL, but to me it would seem you're already allowed to copy and modify e.g. tractor firmware to make repairs, eh?
!YES!<p>Basically I've been doing those kinds of things my entire life. Good thing I'm not illegal.<p>It is just nice to have a little good news.
Oh let us bow down and give thanks for being "allowed" to fix shit we own. What. The. Serious. Fuck. The fact that someone has the power to restrict this and or grant us the right makes me absolutely sick. The fact that there has to be a hearing means the forces of evil have won.
How is the effort to require manufacturers to provide an unlock for repair different from law enforcement efforts to require an unlock for lawful searches ? Or isn't it ? Argument has been that any backdoor would make encryption vulnerable.