We need ownership rights.
Like if I buy a Corvette, Chevy should not ever be able to change the product I own in any capacity whatsoever. They should not be able to lock features of the thing I own behind a paywall and server.
this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2023
537 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
59217 readers
3143 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Yeah, but if you aren't being sold subscription services, then there's no stream of recurring revenue, and if that happens quarterly earnings won't show a graph going up. Which means shareholders can't go afford their backup vacation house and CEOs yachts will be a few inches shorter. Honestly, think of the yachts next time.
Does this include the right to repair software (= replace stock ROM) and access to security updates?
It's a sad condemnation of capitalism that such bills are needed.
Food for thought: Is it truly capitalism if random companies aren't allowed to freely manufacture spare parts?
This smells more like government-granted monopolies than capitalism.
Ah, and here we scratch the surface of the problems with intellectual property in an internet connected era.
This! Patent, trademarks, copyrights, all those intellectual properties laws were created more than a century ago, a time very different from us, with no corporations capable of pushing hundreds if not thousands of patents per year.
Those laws are so outdated that they are played to the inverse of what they were supposed to do. They were created to protect the inventor to make sure he can win money on his invention, today they are used to protect big corporation to make sure they can buy or kill whoever who would risk attacking their revenue.
They were invented as a way to push creativity and protect it but they are used today to limit and block creativity. There's a good reason why creativity in technology in the last 10 years has come more from open source movements (additive manufacturing, blockchain, machine learning, etc.). It's the only way to still protect creativity, making it open, therefore non patentable.
but dont you think artists such as universal, sony and warner mg deserve to rightfully be rewarded for their work?
Not sure if this is sarcasm, but yes, I do think artists should be rewarded, but not for more than 100 years after their death, that makes no sense.
im of opinion that strong copyright protects the vultures more than the artists, but i dont necessarily think it needs to be abolished. definitely should be way shorter though
Today definitely, because their use was twisted by those big corporation. Forcing artists to give them the rights to the IP.
So what, you don’t think corporations should have complete ownership and right to all the profits from the creations of their employees?
Not sure if this is sarcasm
It was sarcasm.
A big part of the issue is just how long they last, which has been pushed back by big corporations (looking at you, Disney). 20 years should be plenty to recoup an investment, the original time was 14 years + a potential 14 more on renewal (so 28), and the current 95 years is ridiculous.
Definitely a big problem for copyrights, patents are still 20 years, but they are also problematic. Biggest issue is patent trolls, companies who patent anything, sometimes even things that don't really exist, just to attack companies who innovate.
capitalism is a sicko's idea of an economic system. like, you need money to buy the things you need to live, and you need a job to get that money, but you can't just ask for one and if you can't get one you're stuck in a tent under the freeway. and everyone's screwing you every step of the way
This product is not available in the state of California
Only like 5 countries have a GDP bigger than California, it’s where the world’s dominant media comes from, and is home to many of the US’s big tech companies. If companies are that stupid, competitors should step in to offer alternatives pretty quickly. (Probably California companies, creating new California jobs.)
I don’t see a problem.
California is to the states, what the EU is to the world.
As far as this bill goes, I’m with Louis rossmann. Apple supported the bill, I can only assume there’s something wrong with it we’re just not seeing yet. We’ll just have to see what apple actually does under this law. I’m almost certain there’s some malicious compliance shit about to happen.
They might rely on federal laws forbidding breaking DRM to prevent third party parts and repairs.
“Electronic or appliance product” or “product” does not include any of the following:
(i) Equipment or repair parts as defined in Chapter 28 (commencing with Section 22900) of Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code.
(ii) A product or component of an “alarm system” as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 7590.1 of the Business and Professions Code, including a fire protection system, as defined in the California Fire Code.
(iii) A video game console.
Funny seeing such a specific exclusion being made here.
And boy do they take a lot of effort to carve out and define "console". They may as well have said "This law doesn't apply to Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo Switches or any iteration of devices made by the companies that produce those products"
Wouldn't the only manufacturer that can abide by this rule be the Fairphone?
We still have Fairphone 2 parts readily available, 7 years after it was released.
"fair and reasonable terms", yes, FART is the way to go.
So far I've mostly seen iPhone 15 panned for lack of innovative features, but if it turns out that it's actually easier to repair (as Apple is saying) it would be a killer feature for me
The mid frame makes the back panel easier to get off, and you can now open the phone from front or back. Fuck all that does if they won’t let anyone sell you parts below their ridiculous price.
Mind you lots of iPhone parts, ones not even trying to falsely claim to be official parts, just replacements, get stopped by customs on Apple’s behalf.
Even when parts can be found, more and more of apple device components are software locked… so replacing them is pointless.
As far as this bill goes, I’m with Louis rossmann. Apple supported the bill, I can only assume there’s something wrong with it we’re just not seeing yet. We’ll just have to see what apple actually does under this law. I’m almost certain theirs some malicious compliance shit about to happen.
Thanks for the additional information. I wasn't in line to buy an iPhone 15 just yet; when I said "if it turns out it's more repairable" I mean if it stands the test of time I might consider an iPhone 17 or 18....
It is Apple, they don't add pro-consumer features if it doesn't increase their profit.
And allowing customers to repair their own hardware (Gasp) does not fit into that rhetoric.
Look into Fairphones if you want an actual repairable phone.
I was as surprised as you to see Apple mentioned as supporting the bill, in the article. Thanks for pointing me to Fairphone, seems amazing!
Serious bias in that title. The "strongest" bill is still very weak
Strongest doesn't mean strong. It just means it's the most strong of any of the like 3 others out there.
Yes, that's kind of my point. It implies strength in the bill that really isn't very strong at all, while staying technically correct
Can you be more specific? I'd like to know what it's missing.
Anything besides parts and manuals.
Requirements for devices to be feasibly repairable in the first place. A phone that's effectively a brick of glue is still unrepairable regardless of whether you can buy overpriced parts for it.
If the enforcement mechanism for "fair" pricing is for the general public to file a lawsuit, I can guarantee that pricing isn't going to be very reasonable.
Apple devices are notoriously hard to repair not just because they don't provide a $50,000 diagnostic kit and overpriced parts, they're hard to repair because they're designed to be disposable. This bill does absolutely nothing to change that, which is probably why Apple supported it. Good PR with completely avoidable consequences for them
What makes a part a "non-authorized part"? If it's a genuine part salvaged from another device, is it? If it's a genuine part bought from a third party, new?
There are no genuine parts that you can buy new from third parties. And apple seems pretty clear with their software locks that salvaged parts are also not authorized. So, I believe authorized parts are the ones that come in your device from the factory, and ones they sell to you first party.
I believe some of the factory workers can occasionally take them to sell them on the side. They are OEM parts, but not sold by the manufacturer. This is the only way to get some Apple replacement parts new.
Pretty sure companies already had to carry seven years of parts for service in California before this legislation. At least at the company I worked that’s what we were told years ago.
It likely didn't affect cellphones. I know major appliances and vehicles were to be supported no less than 7 years. So I'd guess this just brings cellphones and other electronic items under that umbrella. Makes me wonder what is exempt, though.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
California, the home to many of tech's biggest companies and the nation's most populous state, is pushing ahead with a right-to-repair bill for consumer electronics and appliances.
"Since Right to Repair can pass here, expect it to be on its way to a backyard near you," said iFixit CEO Kyle Wiens in a statement.
Rather than limiting its demand that companies provide parts, tools, repair manuals, and necessary software for devices that are still actively sold, California requires that vendors provide those items for products sold after July 1, 2021, starting in July 2024.
The bill also provides for stronger enforcement mechanisms, allowing for municipalities to bring superior court cases rather than contact the state attorney general.
Apple specifically advocated for consumer notice of third-party parts and unauthorized repair in its letter supporting the bill.
Apple, notably, made a point of the increased repairability and durability of the titanium-framed iPhone 15 announced yesterday.
The original article contains 436 words, the summary contains 153 words. Saved 65%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!