What are some the legal basis for the right to repair in international law or in your respective Constitutions?

[Conchusness]

Hello! Just a brief background about myself. Im 3rd year law student in a juris doctor program and i'm currently looking for potential thesis topics.  I'm considering writing a policy paper on the right to repair and why it is necessary. As far as I know there are currently no laws in my country which neither protects or punishes the right to repair. So i'm looking for any international laws in favor of right to repair or your respective Constitutional rights which guarantee this protection. Any leads about the right to repair would be appreciated. Thank you!

[Bobotie1]

This Wikipedia page has some interesting stuff on it;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronics_right_to_repair

also, dont’ know how knowledgeable you are, but performing certain actions voids warrant and some don’t. A.k.a on laptops the screws for RAM are free to open, but the ones to open it up entirely void warranty.

[Sauron]

I'm definitely not a legal expert but... any form of personal property rights should by default include the right to repair something I own. The problem arises when ownership is in question - do you own your phone or are you just leasing it from Apple or whatever?

[Conchusness]

4 minutes ago, Bobotie1 said:

This Wikipedia page has some interesting stuff on it;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronics_right_to_repair

also, dont’ know how knowledgeable you are, but performing certain actions voids warrant and some don’t. A.k.a on laptops the screws for RAM are free to open, but the ones to open it up entirely void warranty.

Yes, thank you for this. When i was reading this, I was under the impression that the right to repair was more of a right granted by law rather than the Constitution itself. Im personally not from the EU or USA so maybe im understanding it wrong myself.  

[Conchusness]

7 minutes ago, Sauron said:

do you own your phone is are you just leasing it from Apple or whatever?

I've seen this often raised up as the primary argument but i've never really understood where the basis comes from. Could you point to like a direction where it could be founded? Maybe a user license agreement or a contract or some form. I always assumed this argument arose due to the "necessity" to go back to specific authorized repair companies/divisions

[Sauron]

21 minutes ago, Conchusness said:

I've seen this often raised up as the primary argument but i've never really understood where the basis comes from. Could you point to like a direction where it could be founded? Maybe a user license agreement or a contract or some form.

So here's the thing - historically when you bought something you'd typically be considered the owner of that thing. If you bought, say, a toothbrush, it was nobody else's business what you did with it because it was yours.

 

This changed with the advent of copyright law because suddenly you weren't just buying an object but also access to someone else's intellectual property. When you buy a movie you don't own it - at best you own the physical disc and even then with heavy restrictions on what you can do with it, which in the case of software are expressed in the EULA (though those are not always legally binding). The natural next step of course is to ask... can hardware be covered by copyright? Is the iPhone itself a "copy" of Apple's intellectual property and do they therefore have a right to restrict the ways in which it can be used or modified?

 

I'm not sure where you can look specifically to learn how this works other than broadly into copyright law.

32 minutes ago, Conchusness said:

I always assumed this argument arose due to the "necessity" to go back to specific authorized repair companies/divisions

Some people just see it as a personal inconvenience and are willing to ignore it so long as Apple & co. pinky promise to be reasonable. Louis Rossmann is in this camp as far as I know.

 

I disagree; I believe copyright should be abolished and without copyright this wouldn't even be a debate. There's plenty of material you can research for arguments in favor of my position in case you're interested https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_copyright

[NeuesTestament]

The rhetorical question whether you own the phone is in my view primarily used to outline the problem. With big manufacturers not only protecting their intelecctual property but also actively working towards restricting the availability of parts used in that device even if they don't come from the manufacturer (Apple for example has some exclusitivty agreements with manufacturer that resulted in parts that were sold prior to everyone now only get sold to Apple). This introduces the following issue: How far can manufacturers go with that stuff without actually "restricting" your property rights.

[Trik'Stari]

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

So here's the thing - historically when you bought something you'd typically be considered the owner of that thing. If you bought, say, a toothbrush, it was nobody else's business what you did with it because it was yours.

 

This changed with the advent of copyright law because suddenly you weren't just buying an object but also access to someone else's intellectual property. When you buy a movie you don't own it - at best you own the physical disc and even then with heavy restrictions on what you can do with it, which in the case of software are expressed in the EULA (though those are not always legally binding). The natural next step of course is to ask... can hardware be covered by copyright? Is the iPhone itself a "copy" of Apple's intellectual property and do they therefore have a right to restrict the ways in which it can be used or modified?

 

I'm not sure where you can look specifically to learn how this works other than broadly into copyright law.

Some people just see it as a personal inconvenience and are willing to ignore it so long as Apple & co. pinky promise to be reasonable. Louis Rossmann is in this camp as far as I know.

 

I disagree; I believe copyright should be abolished and without copyright this wouldn't even be a debate. There's plenty of material you can research for arguments in favor of my position in case you're interested https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_copyright

It would seem more reasonable to scale back copyright protections, rather than just abolishing it all together. Although I agree they (companies) are way too egregious in their..... lets say "zeal" to protect their copyright.

 

Should you own the device you bought? Absolutely. Should you have every right to repair that device, or have it repaired by a third party of your choosing? Absolutely. Should you be able to reproduce that device and sell it? Probably not.

 

I say this, whilst I pirate the hell out of everything....allegedly.

[Sauron]

17 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Should you be able to reproduce that device and sell it? Probably not.

Why not? It works fine for plenty of things. I don't see, say, nail manufacturers going out of business because their customers can also produce nails in the same shape and sell them. In the same way there's plenty of money to be made in distribution (as companies like Valve and Netflix have realized) that doesn't actually depend on the theoretical availability of that content by other means - as you mentioned, it's not like it's physically impossible to get this content for free and yet people pay for Netflix.

 

If individual copies can legally be made by everyone then nobody will pay you for sending them a copy through Google Drive or whatever. On the other hand they will pay you for watching the movie in your cinema or through your convenient service, both of which require physical infrastructure and personnel to be paid. You might think there's a problem here for the people actually making the movie but there isn't - distribution doesn't work if nobody makes movies so the distributors themselves can just commission movies from studios.

 

It's possible there are some exceptions that would need to be regulated but I would no longer call that copyright, it would just be a handful of very specific laws about fringe cases. Ultimately the point should be that you can't own an idea or a set of numbers. All IP is based on ideas other people had and more often than not you had free access to - it's simply unfair that the end product then becomes exclusively yours to control. Not to mention corporations just end up gobbling up all IP at bargain prices so they can control the market virtually forever.

[Conchusness]

2 hours ago, Sauron said:

So here's the thing - historically when you bought something you'd typically be considered the owner of that thing. If you bought, say, a toothbrush, it was nobody else's business what you did with it because it was yours.

 

This changed with the advent of copyright law because suddenly you weren't just buying an object but also access to someone else's intellectual property. When you buy a movie you don't own it - at best you own the physical disc and even then with heavy restrictions on what you can do with it, which in the case of software are expressed in the EULA (though those are not always legally binding). The natural next step of course is to ask... can hardware be covered by copyright? Is the iPhone itself a "copy" of Apple's intellectual property and do they therefore have a right to restrict the ways in which it can be used or modified?

 

I'm not sure where you can look specifically to learn how this works other than broadly into copyright law.

Some people just see it as a personal inconvenience and are willing to ignore it so long as Apple & co. pinky promise to be reasonable. Louis Rossmann is in this camp as far as I know.

 

I disagree; I believe copyright should be abolished and without copyright this wouldn't even be a debate. There's plenty of material you can research for arguments in favor of my position in case you're interested https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_copyright

This is interesting and I think this is something I can research on a bit more in dept

I bring up the alleged violations on international law and the Constitution in light with the recent passing of the law against the right of repair in Mexico specifically wherein it was mentioned as an offhand comment the WAN show about it being allegedly against international law and against their constitution. Would you know anything more about this topic maybe? Like which international agreements these may be violative too

[Sauron]

1 hour ago, Conchusness said:

I bring up the alleged violations on international law and the Constitution in light with the recent passing of the law against the right of repair in Mexico specifically wherein it was mentioned as an offhand comment the WAN show about it being allegedly against international law and against their constitution. Would you know anything more about this topic maybe? Like which international agreements these may be violative too

I don't know. I don't think this goes against international law since as I said I think this is just a "natural" extension of copyright law but I could be completely wrong because I have no legal education.

[harryk]

My IANAL take:

You have the right to do anything you want with your device, limited only by your own knowledge and skillset. Right to Repair in the literal sense exists purely as a fundamental right of ownership of a physical device. As I understand them, the "Right to Repair" laws infringe on companies rights by forcing them to fulfill extraneous responsibilities.

 

Whether you want to replace the screen on your phone or reverse engineer the processor there's no one stopping you, just don't expect the manufacturer to give you parts, instructions, or schematics. They are under absolutely no obligation to provide anything. That extends to software as well. If you mess with your device and the software stops working with the hardware, too bad. The manufacturer is under no obligation to make the software work with whatever repairs or modifications you decide to do on your own.

 

This only applies to personal use. If you decide to sell or publish something (even for free) you are now in the weeds of copyright and IP protections. You own the physical device but you are not at liberty to share details of the design which are property of the manufacturer.

[WkdPaul]

33 minutes ago, harryk said:

As I understand them, the "Right to Repair" laws infringe on companies rights by forcing them to fulfill extraneous responsibilities.

You should read up on John Deere ... they're rather aggressive in blocking any types of 3rd party repairs on their machinery, regardless if it's under warranty or not.

 

Now imagine if car companies started acting that way, that means car repair shops all around either are stuck fixing old car that don't have those restriction, or get accredited by one, or multiple manufacturers and have then to charge an arm and a leg and can't fix bigger items (because the part need to go through the car company's own repair center, so shipping to and back). Being a car culture, you would think the US wouldn't let this happen, but John Deere and Tesla certainly did implemented all this.

[harryk]

48 minutes ago, wkdpaul said:

Now imagine if car companies started acting that way, that means car repair shops all around either are stuck fixing old car that don't have those restriction, or get accredited by one, or multiple manufacturers and have then to charge an arm and a leg and can't fix bigger items (because the part need to go through the car company's own repair center, so shipping to and back). Being a car culture, you would think the US wouldn't let this happen, but John Deere and Tesla certainly did implemented all this.

Car manufacturers have acted that way at various levels for a long time. Only certified shops could receive first party repair manuals, parts, special tools, calibration methods etc. Violating the guidelines set by the manufacturer could result in prohibited access or difficulty in doing business. All this doesn't mean the enthusiasts didn't find ways around theses obstacles. They developed their own tools and methods, acquired knowledge from 'special' sources or reverse engineered things. Years ago I sold an original dealership Porsche 914 repair manual for over a thousand dollars because they were never meant to be in the hands of commoners.

 

I concede that newer devices reliance on software makes doing the same backyard engineering much more difficult or even impossible. But it does not change the fundamental scenario that you can do whatever you want with your device, just don't expect anything from anyone else. 

 

If you don't like this practice and would prefer businesses support personal or third party repairs, then speak with your wallet. If businesses see that supporting repairs will yield more profits then they will follow suit. IMO enacting laws which require support for repairs puts additional burden on businesses and raises the barrier to entry for startups and new manufacturers. 

[WkdPaul]

1 hour ago, harryk said:

Car manufacturers have acted that way at various levels for a long time. Only certified shops could receive first party repair manuals, parts, special tools, calibration methods etc. Violating the guidelines set by the manufacturer could result in prohibited access or difficulty in doing business. All this doesn't mean the enthusiasts didn't find ways around theses obstacles. They developed their own tools and methods, acquired knowledge from 'special' sources or reverse engineered things. Years ago I sold an original dealership Porsche 914 repair manual for over a thousand dollars because they were never meant to be in the hands of commoners.

True, but I'm talking about straight up parts that are digitally tied to the John Deere equipment they were installed on. Only solution is to get a part from John Deere, used parts are worthless since they won't work on any other equipment.

 

This is similar to having your AC knobs or car radio not working on any other cars, seriously, look it up, there's a LOT of people complaining about John Deere and their anti-repair schemes.

 

Not sure you would be happy to have that happen to equipment required for your work, especially at the price they're charging.

 

1 hour ago, harryk said:

If you don't like this practice and would prefer businesses support personal or third party repairs, then speak with your wallet. If businesses see that supporting repairs will yield more profits then they will follow suit. IMO enacting laws which require support for repairs puts additional burden on businesses and raises the barrier to entry for startups and new manufacturers. 

Pretty easy to say about John Deere, they're running a virtual monopoly in that market.

 

I'm not saying people should be able to do anything on their $500 000 equipment and expect the warranty to still be valid. But IMO it's BS when you have a few year old equipment that you can't repair yourself or through a 3rd party because they digitally locked major parts to the equipment (while it wasn't the case 5-10 years ago). There's a hacking market that came up out of this because or John Deere action.

 

Let that sink in ; a hacking black market for John Deere equipment ...

 

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/06/hackers-farmers-and-doctors-unite-support-for-right-to-repair-laws-slowly-grows/

https://www.wired.com/story/john-deere-farmers-right-to-repair/

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-03-05/farmers-fight-john-deere-over-who-gets-to-fix-an-800-000-tractor

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/06/nebraska-farmers-right-to-repair-john-deere-apple

https://tractorhacking.github.io/

[Trik'Stari]

8 hours ago, Sauron said:

Why not? It works fine for plenty of things. I don't see, say, nail manufacturers going out of business because their customers can also produce nails in the same shape and sell them. In the same way there's plenty of money to be made in distribution (as companies like Valve and Netflix have realized) that doesn't actually depend on the theoretical availability of that content by other means - as you mentioned, it's not like it's physically impossible to get this content for free and yet people pay for Netflix.

 

If individual copies can legally be made by everyone then nobody will pay you for sending them a copy through Google Drive or whatever. On the other hand they will pay you for watching the movie in your cinema or through your convenient service, both of which require physical infrastructure and personnel to be paid. You might think there's a problem here for the people actually making the movie but there isn't - distribution doesn't work if nobody makes movies so the distributors themselves can just commission movies from studios.

 

It's possible there are some exceptions that would need to be regulated but I would no longer call that copyright, it would just be a handful of very specific laws about fringe cases. Ultimately the point should be that you can't own an idea or a set of numbers. All IP is based on ideas other people had and more often than not you had free access to - it's simply unfair that the end product then becomes exclusively yours to control. Not to mention corporations just end up gobbling up all IP at bargain prices so they can control the market virtually forever.

Comparing something with the engineering overhead of an Iphone, to that of a nail, is, dare I say, ignorant in its inaccuracy of the realities of business, development, and production.

 

Now, I do agree with you that said copyrights do last FAR longer than they should. However I submit that once the initial investment for the development has been earned back, doubly, or maybe even triply, then the copyright should cease to be valid. The original investment has been repaid, and there has been profit, which is the goal of most corporations.

 

Without said profit, you end up with an economy similar to that of China, wherein little actual innovation occurs, and the actual theft of the ideas of others, takes place as the prime goal.

 

As you point out, distribution is a valuable part of the production process, however, someone must actually create the product. And few people would do so without some form of incentive. Therein lies innovation.

 

An imbalance in the system is surely grounds for redress, but it is not grounds for burning the system (a successful system that has brought humanity to the highest average standard of living in all of history) to the ground and replacing it with a system that demonstrably does not work.

[Sauron]

7 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

Comparing something with the engineering overhead of an Iphone, to that of a nail, is, dare I say, ignorant in its inaccuracy of the realities of business, development, and production.

Irrelevant. I don't care about Apple's ability to exist in the exact way it does now. Just like with movies and software there should be companies that are commissioned research and development as well as manufacturers and distributors for electronics. Apple itself uses parts made by other companies as well as a metric tonne of open designs, they shouldn't be allowed to claim all of it as their own and, while we're at it, I don't think they should be able to claim any of it as exclusively their own.

7 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

I submit that once the initial investment for the development has been earned back, doubly, or maybe even triply, then the copyright should cease to be valid.

What if the money is never made back? Does that idea stay gated forever? Who sets by how much the target should be overshot? Who counts exactly how much money was made by an IP through its lifetime?

 

Also you're assuming that without copyright these companies cannot make a profit which is just wrong. May I remind you, things (even things that were very expensive to produce) still make a lot of money despite being technically available for free.

7 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

As you point out, distribution is a valuable part of the production process, however, someone must actually create the product. And few people would do so without some form of incentive.

I addressed this, it's just not true.

7 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

Therein lies innovation.

Innovation is useless if people can't use it. Plus, copyright stifles innovation because people need to come up with dozens of sub-par solutions to the same problem before they can build on top of it.

7 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

An imbalance in the system is surely grounds for redress, but it is not grounds for burning the system (a successful system that has brought humanity to the highest average standard of living in all of history)

Are you sure you're talking about copyright? I disagree it was responsible for anything you claim here... and I disagree that it can be balanced because the problem stems from the concept of owning ideas.

[Kisai]

20 hours ago, Conchusness said:

Hello! Just a brief background about myself. Im 3rd year law student in a juris doctor program and i'm currently looking for potential thesis topics.  I'm considering writing a policy paper on the right to repair and why it is necessary. As far as I know there are currently no laws in my country which neither protects or punishes the right to repair. So i'm looking for any international laws in favor of right to repair or your respective Constitutional rights which guarantee this protection. Any leads about the right to repair would be appreciated. Thank you!

Off hand, I think Australia might be very pro-repair. Canada has no right to repair laws. The US has proposed laws permitting hacking devices to repair them. EU has similar laws.

 

AU: https://news.griffith.edu.au/2020/02/03/is-australia-ready-for-a-right-to-repair/

CA: https://www.lteclab.com/blog-post/bill-72-rejected-in-ontario-exploring-the-implications-of-right-to-repair-legislation-on-consumer-ownership-rights-and-intellectual-property-law/

US: https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2018-23241.pdf

EU: https://www.beuc.eu/press-media/news-events/new-ecodesign-measures-make-repair-easier-and-products-safer

 

Notice that all of these point directly at Apple.

 

My opinion is that the OEM should not make any anti-consumer protections that prevent the end-user from making reasonable repairs or modifications to prolong the life of the product rather than throwing it in the landfill.

 

Apple's argument is more about security, which is fine, everyone can sit on their ass and claim it's about security, but your John Deere tractor isn't going to get a virus and steal your credit card if the security is compromised. Your Android and Apple phones can be compromised if third party parts of questionable origin are used. 

 

How I'd fix that, on the nose, is to make it a requirement that the OEM supply repair parts while the device is still supported in any shape (eg the iphone 6S would still be supported today) and may not "depreciate" any device in software to circumvent this. eg Apple can not block iOS installation on 2year+ old devices simply to prevent having to sell repair parts. 

 

So, an OEM (eg Apple) should, at the customer's request (any/all):

a) Offer to buy back the device, taking into account remaining battery life, warranty time and flash wear. (Apple cost value of old device)

b) Offer to trade the device for a new device, condition irrelevant (customer must pay the difference between different configurations) (Apple cost value of old device)

c) Offer the customer to have the data transferred to an identical model if still supported. (Apple cost 0$)

d) Offer to repair the device by having it shipped back to Apple (Apple cost, value of replacement parts and shipping)

e) Offer to have an authorized third party repair the device on behalf of Apple (Apple cost, value of replacement parts and shipping), the third party ships the damaged part back to Apple at Apple's cost.

f) Offer the user to self-repair, by sending the replacement parts directly to the end user for the user to repair, or find a third party to repair themselves. (Apple cost, value of replacement parts and shipping) replaced parts must be shipped back at the Apple's cost or dropped off at an electronics recycling depot.

 

If Apple, or another OEM wants to prevent having to keep sending out repair parts for defective devices, they must better engineer the devices, or make them more modular so they are easier to repair by the end user. 

[mr moose]

I might wel just be repeating so I'll keep it short:

 

1. louis rossman has a series of videos of snippets from the whole RtR hearing in the US over this year.  Some very good information on the government approach to the topic.

2.Motherboard has a video on the john deere saga, another starting point to getting a taste for the underlying arguments.

3. ACCC (Australian consumer watchdog) has a very good easy to search website outlining consumer laws and product requirements, many of which are ability to repair and ability to maintain after the fact without requiring the services of the manufacturer.

4.Google search anything apple related to customs for current situations that deny consumers rights without review (i.e customs withholding and destroying imported goods without giving the importer a chance to explain why they are legal imports).

 

Hope this helps.

 

 

[straight_stewie]

The major hurdle I see in the right-to-repair debate surrounds software:

 

Should you be allowed to "repair" the software running your machine or not?

 

There is pretty sound legal precedent saying that software is the intellectual property of the creator, and they can choose to deny anyone, including their users, access to that software at the level required to "repair" it.

 

There is also sound legal precedent that says that if you own a physical "thing" then you, for all intents and purposes, can do anything you want with that "thing".

This is a question which is kind of the center off the modern battle between citizens and governments, consumers and producers: Are computers and software any different than traditional machines?

Citizens and consumers say "no, they aren't". Governments and producers say "yes, they are".

Certainly some things are different. For example, "fuel". When you have a mechanical machine, the definition of "fuel" is well known: Whatever the machine burns for energy. But what is "fuel" for a digital machine? Is it electricity? Is it software? What really makes a digital machine run? What is necessary for the use of a digital machine?

 

But certainly some things are logically, if not legally, the same: Isn't sending an email really just the same as sending regular mail? Don't I still own at least the physical part of a digital machine, as physical property?

[Heliian]

This is a tough debate.  On one hand, it would be nice to be able to "repair" something but I still stand up for copyrights and patents.  Companies like John Deere have spent a lot of time, effort and money in getting their products to market reliably.  They don't want amateurs messing about with their products and then blaming them when things inevitably go wrong.  The regulators also don't want everyone circumventing emmisions controls.  The other barrier is that most products aren't made by solely one company, everything is made from several different suppliers from a global market, now you have to chase all of them down and force them to give up their proprietary tech.  They should just go after them for price gouging on after sales parts as even basic circuit boards can cost thousands from an oem. 

[Conchusness]

7 hours ago, mr moose said:

I might wel just be repeating so I'll keep it short:

 

1. louis rossman has a series of videos of snippets from the whole RtR hearing in the US over this year.  Some very good information on the government approach to the topic.

2.Motherboard has a video on the john deere saga, another starting point to getting a taste for the underlying arguments.

3. ACCC (Australian consumer watchdog) has a very good easy to search website outlining consumer laws and product requirements, many of which are ability to repair and ability to maintain after the fact without requiring the services of the manufacturer.

4.Google search anything apple related to customs for current situations that deny consumers rights without review (i.e customs withholding and destroying imported goods without giving the importer a chance to explain why they are legal imports).

 

Hope this helps.

 

Thank you for this! I'll be adding this to my research as well

[Conchusness]

8 hours ago, Kisai said:

Off hand, I think Australia might be very pro-repair. Canada has no right to repair laws. The US has proposed laws permitting hacking devices to repair them. EU has similar laws.

 

AU: https://news.griffith.edu.au/2020/02/03/is-australia-ready-for-a-right-to-repair/

CA: https://www.lteclab.com/blog-post/bill-72-rejected-in-ontario-exploring-the-implications-of-right-to-repair-legislation-on-consumer-ownership-rights-and-intellectual-property-law/

US: https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2018-23241.pdf

EU: https://www.beuc.eu/press-media/news-events/new-ecodesign-measures-make-repair-easier-and-products-safer

 

 

Thank you as well! 

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Realistically, what are you repairing?

 

Out of the literal millions of discrete parts in an iPhone or computer, how many of those are you able to repair now?

 

Seems to me you aren't even repairing the screens, rather you're replacing a component being purchased from the OEM. You are fighting for the right to purchase more components, not to fix anything.

 

The chicken and egg argument is at least compelling.

 

If someone takes away your soldering iron OK then you complain.