Saw this WSJ article, thought it may be of interest Right To Repair.
2 Likes
I thought you were going to talk about this rule change: https://talk.dallasmakerspace.org/t/feds-considering-regulations-to-prevent-modifying-your-own-devices/5051
We have the right to repair what we own, but the manufacturer is under no obligation to make it easy to do.
It is not getting better. The trend is to use more microcontrollers in place of discrete parts, making things difficult for the average tinkerer to diagnose. Commercial repair shops may have to worry about software copyrights or the DMCA if they have somebody on staff who know how to look into the firmware.
You would think this would be a well accepted idea; however, the contract language you sign when you âpurchaseâ items increasingly states you donât have such a right. In many cases it states you donât even âownâ the item your purchasing.
Sadly, we all know the simple answer: quit buying $h!t that canât be repaired.
Put down the Apple widget XLIV and back away.
When you get to be part of a study group, tell 'em itâs crap because it doesnât use easily accessible repair parts, etc.
Sadly, the number of baaaing sheep will solidly outnumber DIYers, but getting the government involved is almost NEVER the right way. It ends up hurting us all.
Unfortunately, there is an undeniable tradeoff involved. Smaller and more power efficient gadgets tend to be much harder to repair. Easily understood gadgets are usually bigger and heavier.
The real travesty is people throwing away perfectly good printers because buying a new one cost less than replacement cartridges.
Hear, hear!
I agree with the article in so far as if the manufacturer produced quality ownerâs manuals on par with those Iâve seen for 1940âs âishâ through 1960s âishâ radio tuners, a.k.a. âhi-fiâ, for the new stuff. Instead, though, they integrate a bunch of stuff onto a chip and then tell us âitâs too hard to understandâ. This is one piece of bovine dung I have found to be completely untrue by the bunch of electronics folks here at DMS. This crowd understands things I once considered un-understandable. Turns out, with the right docs and determination, most things ARE understandable.
Of course, the manufacture of repair parts tends to be another issue. You canât replace a super-miniaturized whatzit chip unless you can buy one, and with the monopolistic agreements between builders and suppliers, we members of the âothersâ group canât buy. I can see legislation stepping in there (and sometimes they do), but overall, if we all still demanded well-documented hi-fi powered by vacuum tubes because they are easy to repair, that is what would be on sale instead of iPhonesâŚ
Unfortunately that isnât always an option. Particularly when government agencies specify the use of certain objects on their contracts.
And you also donât want to have your attorney read through the âsmall printâ every time you purchase a âdoo dadâ.
I meant this at a more personal level than govt. The same idea applies to " doo dad" contracts. Donât buy it if it comes with a contract or if it canât be repaired. Again, I invoke the idea of the 1950sish hi-fis. Not under contract for anything and âeasily repairedâ.
Then you will not be able to buy just about anything. Nearly everything has a âcontractâ contained in the box. And you canât really even read it until after you have purchased it.
The âshrink wrap licenseâ has spread to nearly every product sold in the US.
I suspect youâre being facetious, and by ânearly every productâ you largely mean âelectronicsâ. However, Iâll begin keeping an eye out. Iâm aware of the âwarrantyâ mumbo jumbo that most things come with, but Iâve never seen any contracts forbidding my extra-warranty repair of something I bought⌠Iâll start watching.
Not really, I just opened a box from McMaster Carr with a machine tool that had one of the darn things.
In addition, most cars have some form of shrink wrap license included. I know my prior Honda Accord (2009) and my current Ford Fusion (2012) both do. Heck, even a recent kitchen blender included a similar shrink wrap license.
Now I am not saying that all such licenses include language forbidding modifications, but an ever increasing number do. And you donât know until AFTER you have purchased them.
Well, youâve given me pause and a reason for the headscratching I normally do. 
1 Like
We are reaching the point where ânearly every productâ and âelectronicsâ are synonymousâŚ
Even making a cup of coffee requires agreeing to a licenseâŚ
https://www.google.com/search?q=keurig+drm
[quote=âBill, post:5, topic:5130, full:trueâ]
Unfortunately, there is an undeniable tradeoff involved. Smaller and more power efficient gadgets tend to be much harder to repair. Easily understood gadgets are usually bigger and heavier.[/quote]
Long term, a different trade-off is looming: resource availability. Weâre extracting a just about every rare element or compound that materials science can find use for and putting them into disposable goods. These will work for a few years as intended then go into their afterlife: secondhand goods, repurposed, recycled for the easily-recovered materials, landfilled.
While industry is always finding clever ways to recycle goods before they hit the landfill, there are economical limits that kick in before the engineering limits. For now thereâs doesnât seem to be a looming materials shortage. But in the future ⌠I just hope we have immense amounts of cheap energy and mastery of the requisite nuclear chemistry to make up any critical shortages.
1 Like
Erik,
Long term, a different trade-off is looming: resource availability. Weâre extracting a just about every rare element or compound that materials science can find use for and putting them into disposable goods.
True story.
Example: Helium is a fairly rare element on earth and critical for a number of high level research and scientific applications. Yet, we still put it in childrenâs balloons. And once it is released, there is no getting it back.
JAG âUp, Up, and Awayâ MAN
I predict in the future weâll be mining landfillsâŚ
Brian and Andrew,
Even making a cup of coffee requires agreeing to a
licenseâŚ
Jesus⌠this whole IP crap has been getting totally out of hand. GM can kiss my ass.
Thank God for the Maker movement where we will hopefully divorce ourselves away from such short sighted artificial enslavement to our technology.
From that coffee article:
âQuite honestly, we were wrong,â explained Kelley on a call with analysts to discuss earnings this week. âWe underestimated the passion that consumer had for this⌠We shouldnât have taken it away.â
Translation: We were greedy jackasses and thought we could pull one over on our customer base.
Lesson: Do not get between people and their caffeine.
I predict in the future weâll be mining landfillsâŚ
Iâve been predicting that for years which is why I am in materials science and bio-nanotechnology. That is the only viable method I know for forensically pulling out every bit of element in relatively pure form.
JAG âMush, You Nanobots, Mush!â MAN
2 Likes
Nah, the solution is mining asteroidsâŚ
1 Like
Walter,
Nah, the solution is mining asteroidsâŚ
Landfills are much closer spatially, temporally and technologically:
http://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology-news/newsid=33228.php
Nanotechnology developed for recycling will work on outer space debris as well. Whenever the hell we actually reach them.
JAG âKiss My Asteroidâ MAN
Yes, but asteroids have a much greater supply of materials, and the waste material has a function that can get militaries to pay for the basic extractionâkinetic energy weapons. When you want all of the abombs âboomâ and none of that nasty radioactive fallout.
The cloud of debris from KE weapons could also serve to reduce global temperatures.
2 Likes