You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
65

[–] Donbuster 0 points 65 points (+65|-0) ago 

To be clear, its legal now, but right to repair bills do something very important- they protect that right. Companies, especially apple and john deere, are attempting to make unauthorized repair nearly impossible through software (for instance by making repairs not detected as approved brick the device or machinary), and then claim that bypassing the DRM is copyright infringement, and therefore illegal. TPP would have helped massively with this, by finally giving them the last piece of that puzzle, enshrining in law that, yes, the bypassing of DRM software is itself a crime even when done for legal purposes. Coincidentally, it also would have made such actions a criminal rather than civil offense.

0
15

[–] 1moar 0 points 15 points (+15|-0) ago 

Thanks for clarifying this, it's important to know. I like to think I stay pretty well informed, but it's tough in this day and age, to be up on everything.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
4

[–] curomo 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

I think DMCA already made that the law.

0
4

[–] Donbuster 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Incorrect, actually. The bypassing of DRM is not in and of itself a crime in the US. The bypassing of DRM for illegal purposes (mainly copyright infringement) however IS a crime, in addition to the actual illegal activities. From the ruling in Abbey House Media vs Apple Inc

[Simon & Schuster] and Penguin's arguments to the contrary conflate the removal of DRM protection with the infringement alleged in the counterclaims. There is no question that Abbey House encouraged the removal of DRM protection. The act of infringement underlying the inducement claim, however, is not the removal of DRM protection. Rather, it is the copying and distribution of ebooks to others after such protection has been removed. The counterclaims do not allege that Abbey House encouraged such infringing acts.

0
1

[–] go1dfish 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

DMCA actually provides pesky exceptions for things like interoperability and security research.

0
2

[–] BillMarshall 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

John deere and toro will already not release info and there is no law to compel them similar to the auto industry which at least has weak ones. to protect car owners.

0
0

[–] Donbuster 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

You'll notice, however, if you look at the automotive industry, that there's plenty of 3rd party repair shops that can change your oil for you, even though they aren't dealers. John Deere would be attempting to lock out things as basic as that from any entity that isn't a certified service center.

3
-2

[–] bikergang_accountant 3 points -2 points (+1|-3) ago 

I've never really liked laws like these. Unless it's an amendment bills don't protect anything. They just introduce a football to the field to be kicked back and forth. I'd rather the government not admit authority over the matter and take it to court as is.

0
2

[–] Donbuster 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

How exactly is the government to take something to court if there's no law that companies are supposed to follow in the first place? That "Football" is the infrastructure of the legal system.