US Copyright Office Broadens Exemptions for Repairing Consumer Devices (theverge.com) 19
The U.S. Copyright Office "is expanding a legal shield for fixing digital devices," reports the Verge, "including cars and medical devices."
Earlier this week the office "submitted new exemptions to Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which bars breaking software copy protection. The resulting rules include a revamped section on device repair, reflecting renewed government pressure around 'right to repair' issues." [T]his latest rulemaking adopts repair-related proposals from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, iFixit, and other organizations. The Librarian of Congress adopted the recommendations in a final rule that will take effect [Thursday].
The exemptions replace an itemized list of repairable devices with broad protections for any consumer devices that rely on software to function, as well as land and sea vehicles and medical devices that aren't consumer-focused. The rulemaking doesn't rewrite the exemption to cover all non-consumer devices, and it doesn't cover all "modification," only "diagnosis, maintenance, and repair." For video game consoles specifically, repair only covers repairing the device's optical drives and requires reenabling any technological protection measures that were circumvented afterward.
The Verge notes that Acting General Counsel Kevin Amer told reporters the exemption should prove useful, adding that their decision had been influenced by an earlier executive order from the Biden administration supporting third-party and consumer repair work. The article also notes other U.S. agencies are also moving on the issue. "The Federal Trade Commission, for instance, has pledged to fight business practices that lock out independent repair shops.
"This copyright rulemaking doesn't address those practices, but it helps lift a legal threat hanging over technicians and consumers."
Earlier this week the office "submitted new exemptions to Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which bars breaking software copy protection. The resulting rules include a revamped section on device repair, reflecting renewed government pressure around 'right to repair' issues." [T]his latest rulemaking adopts repair-related proposals from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, iFixit, and other organizations. The Librarian of Congress adopted the recommendations in a final rule that will take effect [Thursday].
The exemptions replace an itemized list of repairable devices with broad protections for any consumer devices that rely on software to function, as well as land and sea vehicles and medical devices that aren't consumer-focused. The rulemaking doesn't rewrite the exemption to cover all non-consumer devices, and it doesn't cover all "modification," only "diagnosis, maintenance, and repair." For video game consoles specifically, repair only covers repairing the device's optical drives and requires reenabling any technological protection measures that were circumvented afterward.
The Verge notes that Acting General Counsel Kevin Amer told reporters the exemption should prove useful, adding that their decision had been influenced by an earlier executive order from the Biden administration supporting third-party and consumer repair work. The article also notes other U.S. agencies are also moving on the issue. "The Federal Trade Commission, for instance, has pledged to fight business practices that lock out independent repair shops.
"This copyright rulemaking doesn't address those practices, but it helps lift a legal threat hanging over technicians and consumers."
so an car can be classed an video game consoles (Score:2)
so an car can be classed an video game consoles to lock out any non dealer repair
Re: (Score:3)
Why is Moss-Magnuson Almost Never Enforced (Score:2)
Many companies, Apple being particularly egregious, thumb their nose at Moss-Magnuson, while the DOJ enthusiastically prosecutes civilians who get over on big business.
The whole system is a sham from top to bottom, and oh, the companies will still have impunity to punish you by bricking your device if they detect a third-party repair.
And the home
Of the
Brave
I guess
Re:Why is Moss-Magnuson Almost Never Enforced (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it should be illegal to purposely brick any device because of an unauthorized repair. If any company goes put of their way to cause an otherwise functional device to stop functioning. They should be charged with vandalism at minimum and probably under RICO statutes because they do it as a regular order of business making them somewhat of a criminal enterprise.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
yes, but the smarter ones structure the device to be dependent on them, making withdrawl from your device a sabotage only in indirect terms
which is the sort of workaround that would get a peasant smacked down but is okay for corporations, especially with some HUR DUR LICENSE AGREEMENT flak thrown up for good measure
if nothing else, go after them for advertising something as a functioning consumer electronic when it's actually a hundred-dollar paperweight that HAPPENS to mostly-work as a product under specif
Re: (Score:1)
I think it should be illegal to purposely brick any device because of an unauthorized repair. If any company goes put of their way to cause an otherwise functional device to stop functioning. They should be charged with vandalism at minimum and probably under RICO statutes because they do it as a regular order of business making them somewhat of a criminal enterprise.
Fuck it, my reply to your reply looks too much like ASCII art.
Not swastika guy, though, oh no, his are cool, but mine look like ASCII art even
Re: (Score:3)
I think it should be illegal to purposely brick any device because of an unauthorized repair. If any company goes put of their way to cause an otherwise functional device to stop functioning. They should be charged with vandalism at minimum and probably under RICO statutes because they do it as a regular order of business making them somewhat of a criminal enterprise.
Good idea, and along with that the manufacturer should be released from any warranty claims or liability arising from the use of the electronic device post repair; since an unauthorized repair could result in problems from the repair.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no issues with that. I'm not entirely sure why someone would want a third party repair if a device is still under warranty though. Maybe it's a time thing.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no issues with that. I'm not entirely sure why someone would want a third party repair if a device is still under warranty though. Maybe it's a time thing.
I was more thinking about liability clams if someone uses 3rd party parts and then crashes their car or can't dial 911 after the fix.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you want the law to be worse than it already is?
Magnuson-Moss requires that the warranty does not end just because third party components are used. The third party components are not covered by the OEM warranty, and if the third party components cause damage, the OEM is not required to cover that damage. But unless the third party components actually cause damage, the OEM warranty remains in full effect for the remaining OEM components.
And that's how it should be. Third party repairs absolutely sh
Re: (Score:2)
And the home
Of the
Brave
I guess
And the home
Of De
Praved
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Apple products are almost obnoxiously sleek and have custom-to-apple parts. Their tolerances are also very tight (replacing a screen with an almost seamless bezel is significantly harder than replacing one with a narrow bezel). They don't encourage people to self repair and don't necessarily make the parts available, but no one has gotten sued for selling parts or using parts from a 'parts only' phone.
Some people are chomping at the
I'm so glad (Score:3)
that I don't live in the US. Having to take a laughable piece of crap like the DMCA seriously would be so depressing that I'd be in danger of either slitting my wrists or going postal.
Re:I'm so glad (Score:5, Insightful)
that I don't live in the US. Having to take a laughable piece of crap like the DMCA seriously would be so depressing that I'd be in danger of either slitting my wrists or going postal.
The US (via MPA and other media company lobbying) has been trying to export the DMCA since 1998, through trade agreements like the TPP. It's been successful at exporting other US-centric copyright restrictions that way, since it's a method that (1) is usually negotiated and agreed-to with very little transparency in any of the countries, and (2) sounds very boring and administrative, so doesn't garner much interest.
So all I can say is - stay vigilant if you don't want worldwide DMCA, because there's certainly someone somewhere still getting paid large sums of money to make it happen.
but covid may of killed the TPP on drugs (Score:2)
but covid may of killed the TPP on drugs as in an pandemic an local countrie can just make drugs and say FUCK any IP attorney saying that you don't have the rights to make that drug.