Canada Inches Closer to 'Right to Repair' Reform(techdirt.com)
techdirt.com
Canada Inches Closer to 'Right to Repair' Reform
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/11/20/canada-inches-closer-to-right-to-repair-reform/
5 comments
Copyright is wildly abused, for sure. But let's not baby-bathwater this.
I quite like the formulation in the American Constitution:
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
The good parts of this is that it has a purpose (which is NOT profits), and that the exclusivity should be time-limited.
I quite like the formulation in the American Constitution:
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
The good parts of this is that it has a purpose (which is NOT profits), and that the exclusivity should be time-limited.
What baby?
I am not even a tiny bit convinced that Copyright is helping us reach that goal. I can, however, find a dozen ways it is doing the opposite.
I am not even a tiny bit convinced that Copyright is helping us reach that goal. I can, however, find a dozen ways it is doing the opposite.
The baby is that copyright provides enough incentive for the creator to create. The problem comes from rent-seeking later down the line.
Creators created before copyright existed. "Copyright is essential for creative work/innovation" is folklore that's stuck deep in people's heads but has little actual evidence behind it.
Without copyright you probably wouldn't have an IP behemoth Disney, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't have animated features. I'm not sure the world would be worse off.
Without copyright you probably wouldn't have an IP behemoth Disney, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't have animated features. I'm not sure the world would be worse off.
> The good parts of this is that it has a purpose (which is NOT profits)
I don't see how the purpose is not profit. Profit is simply a unit of measure, one that measures the progress in delivering useful value to society. Which is exactly what the statement purports is the function of said formulation. Profit would merely measure the successfulness of a pursuit.
I don't see how the purpose is not profit. Profit is simply a unit of measure, one that measures the progress in delivering useful value to society. Which is exactly what the statement purports is the function of said formulation. Profit would merely measure the successfulness of a pursuit.
Goodhart's law: “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.”
Hence why most keep their financial affairs private. It cannot become a target if the actors contributing to profitability are not privy to the information.
> one that measures the progress in delivering useful value to society
Being a slumlord seems to be a profitable enterprise that provides nothing useful to society, instead it just leaches off of people who are actually doing useful things for society.
Being a slumlord seems to be a profitable enterprise that provides nothing useful to society, instead it just leaches off of people who are actually doing useful things for society.
That's why it is useful to have a tool of measure rather than relying on arbitrary human opinion. It may not seem like there is value, but the measured actions say otherwise.
> authors and inventors
Maybe copyright should go away quicker if their copyrights are transferred to a company or another person.
Maybe copyright should go away quicker if their copyrights are transferred to a company or another person.
Once people get woke to the right-to-repair their devices, maybe we can have a discussion on how open-source is the software version of the same thing. Perhaps even broach the discussion of interoperability and standards (vs proprietary and locked-in).
I love the idea and really hope it happens. I feel like all the political parties are on the same page in needing this. The problem seems to be more practical or the fear of being the first one to follow through on a large scale.
The problem with all these 'right to repair' advocates is that they assume that it is zero costs and that the manufacturers will eat that cost. No it will have a cost. And that is likely to disproportionally impact the cheapest phones and the poorest households.
> No it will have a cost. And that is likely to disproportionally impact the cheapest phones and the poorest households.
I'd actually argue the opposite.
Historically the poor have been the ones who repair their property rather than throwing it out and replacing it. It's far cheaper to repair than it is to replace.
Assuming the poor repair and the rich replace, as is tradition, then I would argue a modest price increase would represent the rich subsidizing the poor.
I'd actually argue the opposite.
Historically the poor have been the ones who repair their property rather than throwing it out and replacing it. It's far cheaper to repair than it is to replace.
Assuming the poor repair and the rich replace, as is tradition, then I would argue a modest price increase would represent the rich subsidizing the poor.
I'd argue this cost has always been there and was never zero to begin with.
Mass producing non-repairable, cheap throwaway items is an excellent way for industries to externalize a lot of the lifecycle cost of an item onto society.
So you get to choose at which point you'd like to pay for it. Directly and very visibly in an item's price (maybe even making you reconsider if a purchase is actually necessary). Or later, in taxes or a decrease in quality of life due to the increasing overexploitation of our resources.
So you get to choose at which point you'd like to pay for it. Directly and very visibly in an item's price (maybe even making you reconsider if a purchase is actually necessary). Or later, in taxes or a decrease in quality of life due to the increasing overexploitation of our resources.
> Mass producing non-repairable, cheap throwaway items is an excellent way for industries to externalize a lot of the lifecycle cost of an item onto society.
If you're against the externalization of costs, shouldn't you be advocating for measures that fully internalize such costs (eg. by charging a disposal fee at the point of sale), rather than merely trying to reduce it by making phones more repairable? That way consumers and manufacturers can decide for themselves whether the repairability is worth the extra cost or not.
If you're against the externalization of costs, shouldn't you be advocating for measures that fully internalize such costs (eg. by charging a disposal fee at the point of sale), rather than merely trying to reduce it by making phones more repairable? That way consumers and manufacturers can decide for themselves whether the repairability is worth the extra cost or not.
To live in a world with repairable devices or in one without is a social consensus problem. We either are stuck in one game-theoretic equilibrium or the other. Game-theoretic equilibria cannot be defeated by "letting individual actors decide".
They are solved by social consensus, and in this particular case, by the passage of the right-to-repair law that forces the entire system from one equilibrium state to the other.
They are solved by social consensus, and in this particular case, by the passage of the right-to-repair law that forces the entire system from one equilibrium state to the other.
What's the "game-theoretic equilibrium" that's preventing repairable phones if consumers demand it? We have repairable versions of laptops and phones but they haven't really caught on outside of niche circles. Maybe people don't actually care about repairability?
There are two kinds of players in the market: a large consumer class, and a small collection of oligopolistic producers. The game-theoretic equilibrium is in the actions of the producers.
Customers have many different criteria by which they judge phones: price, performance, available apps, social desirability, repairability etc. I would say that repairability is of lower importance than other criteria.
Producers know that selling unrepairable phones produce more profits long term. Obviously repairable phones are also a few perfect more expensive. So from the 00s when phones were largely repairable, to today, producers have sequentially produced phones that are less repairable but a bit cheaper. Ad campaigns have been used to make thinner monolithic phones as more socially desirable [1]. This also changes how customers rate the importance of different criteria.
Any new producer who creates a repairable phone not only has to produce a more expensive phone, but also has to create a niche of customers, against the competitor ad campaigns, that value that repairability. Hence, that new producer is not profitable. This is the equilibrium which explains that lack of mainstream repairable phones in the market.
But of course, consumers want repairable phones, but only if everyone else gets them as well - so they aren't uncool. Which is why different consumer groups have advocated to lawmakers, and now we are getting a law that forces everyone to change in tandem.
[1] Not much different from the cigarette ads of the yesteryears.
Customers have many different criteria by which they judge phones: price, performance, available apps, social desirability, repairability etc. I would say that repairability is of lower importance than other criteria.
Producers know that selling unrepairable phones produce more profits long term. Obviously repairable phones are also a few perfect more expensive. So from the 00s when phones were largely repairable, to today, producers have sequentially produced phones that are less repairable but a bit cheaper. Ad campaigns have been used to make thinner monolithic phones as more socially desirable [1]. This also changes how customers rate the importance of different criteria.
Any new producer who creates a repairable phone not only has to produce a more expensive phone, but also has to create a niche of customers, against the competitor ad campaigns, that value that repairability. Hence, that new producer is not profitable. This is the equilibrium which explains that lack of mainstream repairable phones in the market.
But of course, consumers want repairable phones, but only if everyone else gets them as well - so they aren't uncool. Which is why different consumer groups have advocated to lawmakers, and now we are getting a law that forces everyone to change in tandem.
[1] Not much different from the cigarette ads of the yesteryears.
>Any new producer who creates a repairable phone not only has to produce a more expensive phone, but also has to create a niche of customers, against the competitor ad campaigns, that value that repairability. Hence, that new producer is not profitable. This is the equilibrium which explains that lack of mainstream repairable phones in the market.
But if a repairable phone is cheaper for the consumer overall (the don't have to replace as often), why would this be a problem? Japanese cars outcompeted American cars because they were more reliable, and consumers recognized that. Shouldn't consumers jump at the chance of reducing their overall phone TCO by 50% or whatever?
But if a repairable phone is cheaper for the consumer overall (the don't have to replace as often), why would this be a problem? Japanese cars outcompeted American cars because they were more reliable, and consumers recognized that. Shouldn't consumers jump at the chance of reducing their overall phone TCO by 50% or whatever?
Good question. (1) People's preferences are a function of time [1]. (2) And people find it difficult to estimate unexpected future costs.
So at buy time, people don't prefer repairability very high, which is some uncertain future cost. Which is why they make the short term decision to buy the cheaper sexier phone. Later on, when the phone starts to break down, they start caring about it a lot more. We know the latter is true because consumer group advocacy is determined by asking people what they want.
Another tactic phone manufacturers employ is that they don't talk about repairability anywhere, so most consumers don't even know phones are repairable. They think you just have to buy a new phone. It's like if your bowl broke, you would just go and buy a new one because you believe bowls cannot be repaired. But if you belonged in the right area/tradition of japan, you would just take the pieces of the bowl and join them together [2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_preference#Temporal_disco...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kintsugi
So at buy time, people don't prefer repairability very high, which is some uncertain future cost. Which is why they make the short term decision to buy the cheaper sexier phone. Later on, when the phone starts to break down, they start caring about it a lot more. We know the latter is true because consumer group advocacy is determined by asking people what they want.
Another tactic phone manufacturers employ is that they don't talk about repairability anywhere, so most consumers don't even know phones are repairable. They think you just have to buy a new phone. It's like if your bowl broke, you would just go and buy a new one because you believe bowls cannot be repaired. But if you belonged in the right area/tradition of japan, you would just take the pieces of the bowl and join them together [2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_preference#Temporal_disco...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kintsugi
>So at buy time, people don't prefer repairability very high, which is some uncertain future cost. Which is why they make the short term decision to buy the cheaper sexier phone. Later on, when the phone starts to break down, they start caring about it a lot more.
You can make the same argument for cars, yet reliable japanese cars won out. Smartphones have been around for 15 years now? I think that's long enough for people to figure out how much repairs they need.
> We know the latter is true because consumer group advocacy is determined by asking people what they want.
And yet their purchasing decisions don't line up with what their survey replies are, by and large. It's not because of lack of choice, repairable phones exist, and have existed for a while now. Fairphone is on its 6th iteration now? Yet its uptake is lackluster. Between stated preferences and revealed preferences, I'm going with the latter.
>Another tactic phone manufacturers employ is that they don't talk about repairability anywhere, so most consumers don't even know phones are repairable. They think you just have to buy a new phone.
If you think consumers can't be bothered to do a "[phone name] repairability" search (despite the fact that they care about such a thing, as you claim above), and need to have the info spoon fed to them by the manufacturers, then maybe they don't really care about it?
> It's like if your bowl broke, you would just go and buy a new one because you believe bowls cannot be repaired. But if you belonged in the right area/tradition of japan, you would just take the pieces of the bowl and join them together [2].
Of course, in our modern economy, it makes little sense to fix broken bowls. They can be manufactured so cheaply and fixing it manually taxes so much time/materials that the juice isn't worth the squeeze. Something similar applies to phones, only that replacing a phone also comes with the additional benefit that it has a faster cpu + more memory + better camera. You don't get any of that by making phones repairable.
You can make the same argument for cars, yet reliable japanese cars won out. Smartphones have been around for 15 years now? I think that's long enough for people to figure out how much repairs they need.
> We know the latter is true because consumer group advocacy is determined by asking people what they want.
And yet their purchasing decisions don't line up with what their survey replies are, by and large. It's not because of lack of choice, repairable phones exist, and have existed for a while now. Fairphone is on its 6th iteration now? Yet its uptake is lackluster. Between stated preferences and revealed preferences, I'm going with the latter.
>Another tactic phone manufacturers employ is that they don't talk about repairability anywhere, so most consumers don't even know phones are repairable. They think you just have to buy a new phone.
If you think consumers can't be bothered to do a "[phone name] repairability" search (despite the fact that they care about such a thing, as you claim above), and need to have the info spoon fed to them by the manufacturers, then maybe they don't really care about it?
> It's like if your bowl broke, you would just go and buy a new one because you believe bowls cannot be repaired. But if you belonged in the right area/tradition of japan, you would just take the pieces of the bowl and join them together [2].
Of course, in our modern economy, it makes little sense to fix broken bowls. They can be manufactured so cheaply and fixing it manually taxes so much time/materials that the juice isn't worth the squeeze. Something similar applies to phones, only that replacing a phone also comes with the additional benefit that it has a faster cpu + more memory + better camera. You don't get any of that by making phones repairable.
[deleted]
There are two "types" of right to repair. One is "you can't use the law to prevent me from fixing things", the other is "you have to make them easy to fix".
Based on the article, particularly the part that describes the bill [1], this is the former.
Amending the law so that it doesn't prevent repairing things adds absolutely no cost to manufacturing...
[1] "The bill would amend the Canadian copyright act, allowing individuals or independent repair shops to break digital locks in order to make software fixes."
Based on the article, particularly the part that describes the bill [1], this is the former.
Amending the law so that it doesn't prevent repairing things adds absolutely no cost to manufacturing...
[1] "The bill would amend the Canadian copyright act, allowing individuals or independent repair shops to break digital locks in order to make software fixes."
Yeah, I think this is an important distinction. As much as I personally wish almost everything was designed to be repairable and that parts/instructions were easily available from the manufacturer, I'm actually pretty uncertain that those should be _requirements_. I really just want it to be legal to repair and modify anything. The manufacturer should be allowed to design any way they want (and I will continue to attempt to avoid manufacturers who make repair hard), but the most important thing is that if I _do_ repair it, that is recognized as fully within my rights and that the manufacturer can't use the law to punish me, up to and including modifying software, as long as it's for personal use.
Anything beyond that probably needs to be a signal from consumers that they _want_ (and perhaps be willing to pay a price premium for) repairable goods with available parts and documentation.
Anything beyond that probably needs to be a signal from consumers that they _want_ (and perhaps be willing to pay a price premium for) repairable goods with available parts and documentation.
No, we all fully expect it to be expensive. Manufacturers didn't move away from repairable devices for nothing; it's cheaper to manufacture and design something that doesn't ever get taken apart. It also helps ensure that your customers switch to a new product once their old one breaks.
Considering that I've bought $15 Tracphones with a replaceable battery and SD card slot, I think those poorer households will be okay. It's better than the government buying them garbage that was designed to be obsolete from the start.
Considering that I've bought $15 Tracphones with a replaceable battery and SD card slot, I think those poorer households will be okay. It's better than the government buying them garbage that was designed to be obsolete from the start.
There's also a cost to making everything disposable and hard to repair. $300 to Apple to fix a button on an Apple Watch is one such cost, but there's also the waste created. Unfortunately those costs are harder to quantify and will take a long time to show up on a balance sheet somewhere.
A lot of us will be happy if a repairable phone costs me twice as much, but lasts 3 times as long because we won't have to throw the entire thing away and buy a new one when a tiny IC, a battery or the display fails. It will also reduce the damage to the environment which is already at the brink. These things are not harmless to recycle, even if they can be.
Add to this, the fact that many OEMs go for exclusive deals with the parts manufacturers where the parts are not allowed to enter mass market. This is to make repairs costly by creating artificial scarcity. This suggests that the true cost of repairable devices is not as exorbitant or harmful to the poor as these manufacturers and OEMs project it to be. It's more in the realm of disinformation.
Add to this, the fact that many OEMs go for exclusive deals with the parts manufacturers where the parts are not allowed to enter mass market. This is to make repairs costly by creating artificial scarcity. This suggests that the true cost of repairable devices is not as exorbitant or harmful to the poor as these manufacturers and OEMs project it to be. It's more in the realm of disinformation.
>A lot of us will be happy if a repairable phone costs me twice as much, but lasts 3 times as long because we won't have to throw the entire thing away and buy a new one when a tiny IC, a battery or the display fails.
Isn't the fairphone basically this?
Isn't the fairphone basically this?
That was a generic statement - I wasn't implying that such devices don't exist. And yes, fairfone is a good example and we need to support brands like those. I'm currently in the process of gradually replacing old devices with repairable ones.
Right to repair is some grandpa thinking process. As tech gets more complex it will only hinder its progress to also have it to also support repair ability. It will also likely create bigger moat at the same time for incumbents as it drives up costs for smaller guys.
I think you’re making some assumptions there. Many consumer devices were reparable to at least some extent till relatively recently. Many phones used to have removable backplates and jellybean-part batteries because it’s cheaper to manufacture than single part cases and a custom battery pile.
And those phones died instantly from even a relatively small splash of water. Now they don’t. You can shower with a modern iPhone if you like.
It works like this. Pick two:
* replaceable battery
* ingress protection
* small size
It works like this. Pick two:
* replaceable battery
* ingress protection
* small size
Galaxy S5 released in 2014[0]: Water proof, replaceable/removable battery, small, wireless charging, headphone socket, microSD card & sim card slot.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy_S5
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy_S5
Yeah I always think of my old S5 when people start making nonsensical arguments how this and that isn't possible.
All I remember how shit phones used to be. My new iphone is much better
If you remember back far enough, you might remember when Apple had the best of both worlds. The G3 Powermac, the Titanium Macbook and even the early iPods proved that manufacturers could make highly-maintainable and nice-feeling hardware. And everyone else continued to make shit anyways, Apple included.
Methinks it would be better if we stopped people from shipping pointlessly hostile features like serialized parts. Just to be sure.
Methinks it would be better if we stopped people from shipping pointlessly hostile features like serialized parts. Just to be sure.
We have structured practically every legal framework in the digital world around the DMCA. What's our answer to fraud? Copyright. What's our answer to privacy violations? Copyright. What's our answer to libel? Copyright. Free software? Copyright.
This system only helps for a handful of corporations; at the expense of the rest of us. It's time to scrap Copyright and start over.