RIGHT to repair or CopyRIGHT?

Toyota's current practices on repair information (they retain copyright on the repair manuals and diagrams, but you can subscribe for an affordable rate and view them, and they use SAE standard protocols on their diagnostic port, and their Techstream software is also available for you to use, with an activation fee that's at least less than a typical dealer visit to read codes) seem to be pretty much what's required of them under the old (2012-ish) RTR law that was passed by Massachusetts. The manufacturers had been fighting RTR tooth-and-nail, and then when they saw Mass doing a law that wouldn't ask any more of them than that, they about-faced and got behind the Mass law to preempt other states doing anything more strict.

While nobody likes everything about the current arrangements, there are a lot of ways they could be worse, and they do at the very least underscore that open protocols and repair access are not inherently incompatible with copyright. It's possible to ensure the people who build and write the stuff can put food on the table, while also insisting that the stuff they build and write use protocols that are standardized and documented.

In the closed-source big-software world (commercial operating systems and database managers and stuff) there have long been some really weird licensing practices. Like, you pay a yearly fee for the use of the software ... now if you buy a faster computer, and move the software onto the faster hardware that you bought, your fee for using the software goes up ... because it's faster now.

 

i immediately thought of software, and isn't tesla planning on subscription based services or something?
great income stream if you can get it. in the end, all 'rights' are decided by government.

on the other side, most people think indy mechanic is the mom and pop shop. but that includes pep boys, firestone, goodyear and the lot. all big corporations eager to get the grubby hands on personal data the can sell to miners.

 

apples big money maker is battery replacement. and their batteries/battery management is horrendous.

the biggest problem with the rtr bill is that politicians don't understand it, people don't understand it.

and of course, you only get two choices, so one side has to lose

 

It seems to me that that way of formulating it creates the biggest likelihood of losing.

People who buy stuff want to be able to repair their stuff (or pay the mechanic of their choice to repair it).

Manufacturers want compensation for the development work that went into the stuff.

Everybody wants the stuff to be hard for "the wrong people" to hack. Owners don't want their cars taken over driving down the road, or their location data sold; manufacturers don't want to be on the hook when some owner's misbegotten mod sends the car off the road.

All of those things can be approached in ways that balance the legitimate interests.

It gets dicier when there are pretexts involved, like the manufacturers jumping on the "security" concern as a reason they "have to" lock everyone else out (even though the idea of saying your stuff is secure because you'll keep the bad guys from finding out what mistakes are in it has been shown to be a nutters idea again and again and again).

 

we had a pretty decent rtr law up until this one, and they probably need tweaking as tech develops. but this one is above and beyond sanity, because pols don't understand the tech, and they pander to whover will get them the most votes.
i realize that that is a generalization, but they need expert help in crafting these laws. it will never be perfect, or make everyone happy.

 

US farmers win right to repair John Deere equipment - BBC News