Feds Say Hacking DRM To Fix Your Electronics Is Legal (vice.com) 124
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: The Librarian of Congress and U.S. Copyright Office just proposed new rules that will give consumers and independent repair experts wide latitude to legally hack embedded software on their devices in order to repair or maintain them. This exemption to copyright law will apply to smartphones, tractors, cars, smart home appliances, and many other devices. The move is a landmark win for the "right to repair" movement; essentially, the federal government has ruled that consumers and repair professionals have the right to legally hack the firmware of "lawfully acquired" devices for the "maintenance" and "repair" of that device. Previously, it was legal to hack tractor firmware for the purposes of repair; it is now legal to hack many consumer electronics.
Specifically, it allows breaking digital rights management (DRM) and embedded software locks for "the maintenance of a device or system in order to make it work in accordance with its original specifications" or for "the repair of a device or system to a state of working in accordance with its original specifications." New copyright rules are released once every three years by the U.S. Copyright Office and are officially put into place by the Librarian of Congress. These are considered "exemptions" to section 1201 of U.S. copyright law, and makes DRM circumvention legal in certain specific cases. The new repair exemption is broad, applies to a wide variety of devices (an exemption in 2015 applied only to tractors and farm equipment, for example), and makes clear that the federal government believes you should be legally allowed to fix the things you own.
Specifically, it allows breaking digital rights management (DRM) and embedded software locks for "the maintenance of a device or system in order to make it work in accordance with its original specifications" or for "the repair of a device or system to a state of working in accordance with its original specifications." New copyright rules are released once every three years by the U.S. Copyright Office and are officially put into place by the Librarian of Congress. These are considered "exemptions" to section 1201 of U.S. copyright law, and makes DRM circumvention legal in certain specific cases. The new repair exemption is broad, applies to a wide variety of devices (an exemption in 2015 applied only to tractors and farm equipment, for example), and makes clear that the federal government believes you should be legally allowed to fix the things you own.
Fix, not upgrade (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Notice the phrase "original specifications".
And if the original specifications include a bug in the software, isn't fixing it an upgrade?
Re:Fix, not upgrade (Score:5, Insightful)
Notice the phrase "original specifications".
And if the original specifications include a bug in the software, isn't fixing it an upgrade?
A bug in the software isn't fundamental to the advertised value of the good. A tractor isn't advertised as, "60 HP diesel with bugs in the onboard software!".
Re:Fix, not upgrade (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, good. I have a stack of DVDs where the advertised purpose is to have a license to watch a movie. Format shifting it is just correcting an implementation bug.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Fix, not upgrade (Score:5, Insightful)
Just do it, seriously. As long as you don't post a torrent somewhere, nobody's gonna bother you.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you try to cross a border... Border security in some countries has been known to use people's ripped music and movies against them, usually because they want to steal the device it's on or detain them for some other reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Just do it, seriously. As long as you don't post a torrent somewhere, nobody's gonna bother you.
Wasn't there a case in the US that someone was convicted of making personal copies (no selling, no publicly available) of something (sorry do not remember the details)?
Asking being honestly curious.
Re: (Score:2)
Easy and convenient. Even with Blu-Rays. They all sit on a storage server and my original discs are stored away safely in a closet where I never touch them. I use MythTV but there are a multitude of players that will handle MKV files with H.264 video and AC-3 or DTS-MA audio, which is what I transcode to in Handbrake.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you using to extract the MKVs from the BluRay? Is there a Handbrake plugin that I don't know about?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't rip with Handbrake. I use MakeMKV. But then I re-encode the video stream with Handbrake.
Re: Fix, not upgrade (Score:2)
Then why are Microsoft products considered to be adding value?
Re: (Score:2)
Or Apple with all their "holding it wrong" and "slow down the device when the battery gets old" stuff...
Re: Fix, not upgrade (Score:2)
You obviously know virtually nothing about modern tractors. Wise up before you speak up.
Only if it's bug-compatible with IE (Score:3)
Normally, the specifications for how the software should behave wouldn't specify that it should be buggy.
A notable exception is several software products were designed to be compatible with / emulate Internet Explorer, specifically including emulating some of its more important bugs.
There may be decisions made in which the designers chose something they thought was good. You think it's bad, so you call it a bug. "Fixing" (changing) that probably wouldn't be restoring it to its original specification, thoug
It's a bot someones testing, I'd say. (Score:2)
Kinda like the GNAA ones from years ago.
Re:Fix, not upgrade (Score:5, Interesting)
At least original specifications leaves room for argument. Many devices are general purpose computing devices. Just because they may be sold with software that cripples the capability of the hardware, it can be argued that the original specification of the HARDWARE is to have a feature enabled... or even that the original specification of the HARDWARE is that of a general purpose computing device where the only limitations are the imagination of the person writing the software. This is the first step in a foothold for enshrining that hardware and software are two separate things.
Re: Fix, not upgrade (Score:2)
It also depends on whose specification. The specification of the product on the box probably won't include features deleted.
If you bought product X as specified on the box and literature, then hidden extras or hidden deletions aren't in the specification you were sold.
Re:Fix, not upgrade (Score:5, Interesting)
Notice the phrase "original specifications".
Yea that caught my attention. I'm sure the question is about intent.
IF you are trying to fix something that's broken, but not modify the way the overall item works, then you are allowed to reverse engineer DRM protections. So, in the case of a motor vehicle, you can modify the drive train controller to use a non-manufacturer specified sensor as long as you don't change how the vehicle operates. So no emissions changes, no changes in performance, just swapping out sensors or parts to repair the overall device? Have at it. Replacing parts with cheaper non-manufacturer specific parts? You are free to do this.
What isn't as clear is reverse engineering a router's boot loader and firmware so you can run your own private firmware that does something different, has a different user interface or allows you to modify the radio power output outside of manufacturer specs. That may not be allowed.
Modify your I-phone's firmware so that third party digitizer works (allowed).
Modify your VW's Engine Controls so it passes emissions testing, but reverts to better economy higher emissions settings when driven.. (Not allowed)
Reverse Engineer your car's CAN buss data to add a new entertainment device that can interact with the rest of the vehicle? (Not allowed)
Bypass DRM controls on your consumer entertainment device so you can repair it with cheaper readily available parts? (Allowed)
Bypass DRM controls on the device to get the HDMI to connect but allow you access to the raw unencrypted data? (Not allowed)
Re:Fix, not upgrade (Score:4, Insightful)
This is important because manufacturers are starting to install DRM into their cars. For instance, I drive a Nissan Leaf and the battery is software locked to the car. Replacing the car requires that the person involved pair the new battery to the car. And given the technology advances in batteries in the last 10 years, you're going to want to install a bigger battery than the car originally shipped with. Theoretically, a larger capacity battery is not "original specifications."
Similarly, you are allowed to reverse the CAN bus to add a new entertainment device, and there's no copyright violation to modify the emissions control software either. Both are allowed under the previous ruling. That said, you probably are breaking some EPA law if you violate the emissions settings as described.
Sources:
[1] https://ifixit.org/blog/8510/c... [ifixit.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Thankfully, the original specification language is not present in the car section (see section 1):
Accordingly, the Acting Register recommends that the Librarian adopt the following exemptions:
(1) Computer programs that are contained in and control the functioning of a lawfully acquired motorized land vehicle such as a personal automobile, commercial vehicle or mechanized agricultural
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's more complicated. That exemption quoted in the article expired this year and this new law supercedes it. Thankfully, the original specification language is not present in the car section
Considering the active modding community that adds features, increases performance, allows for repairs it is good they did not limit to original specifications. Repair requirements alone have gotten ridiculous, I mean you need to use a special tool to reset the computer after replacing a battery in a BMW? Thankfully you can buy a tool for. a lot less than the dealer would charge to replace the batteries y and reprogram the computer.
The fact that a librarian needs to provide exemptions to keep the DMCA DRM restrictions reasonable implies that we really should fix the DMCA.
Once again, librarians are the first lien in defense of our freedoms...
Re: (Score:2)
So can I obtain and unlock (through sketchy means) the automotive factory service software to reprogram the vehicle order to match the currently installed replacement hardware so that future reprogramming works as intended? And reprogram the hardware as required?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about a gearbox replacement to a more robust one that don't break down just because you don't nurse it?
Re: (Score:2)
"modify the radio power output outside of manufacturer specs"
Pretty certain you are not allowed to do that in the US because of other laws and regulations.
Re: Fix, not upgrade (Score:2)
It's probably going to hinge on specification.
An alternate boot loader that loads the required system meets the specification for the bootloader you bought. Does this meet the requirements? Depends on whose specifications matter.
Likewise for a router. If you bought a router that was advertised as having a specific list of protocols, but nothing else is stated, you might contend that replacing those protocols 1:1 is to the original specification.
Specifications say the what and not the how, after all.
But this
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It means you can't hack a PS4 to become a Linux box, but if the PS4 breaks then you can repair it even if it means you have to defeat some protections. Presumably it also means you can change your Keurig coffee maker to make coffee using third party pods, or so your printer can use refilled cartridges.
This doesn't mean that the manufacturers have to make this easy for you (witness tractor repair).
Also, it's unclear whether or not the DMCA overrides this rule or vice versa; for the courts to figure out.
Re:Fix, not upgrade (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd argue this allows the user to restore the "Third Party OS" to the PS3. That WAS part of of the original specification.
Re: Fix, not upgrade (Score:2)
Is the reverse engineering provision still in DMCA?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the action doesn't prohibit upgrades, necessarily.
A major reason for arguing as right to "bring it back to original specifications" is to disarm
an argument from manufacturers that DRM is essential to prevent independents from
creating "counterfeits" or "converting and passing off generic hardware" as manufacturer's proprietary product.
The argument goes something like this.... If the repair shop runs a bypass wire for a broken resistor or replaces
a capacitor or video card, that computer cea
Re: (Score:2)
It's a good thing that customers always figure out the specifications prior to purchases. Of course, it's unfortunate that the vendor's product doesn't always measure up to those specifications, but post-sale maintenance might be able to repair the shortcomings.
Thanks, Obama (Score:1, Funny)
original specifications (Score:1)
to make it work in accordance with its original specifications.
And thus the next lawsuit will center on what exactly the original specifications are, with the industry in question claiming the unbroken DRM is part of it.
Re: original specifications (Score:2)
Sure. After it's modded, the DRM can be restored. It's now returned to original DRM spec.
WOW, What's this mean for the PS3 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
PS3 ... it might me something to the 3 nerds left collecting these to run a Beowulf cluster.
Re: (Score:2)
PS3 ... it might me something to the 3 nerds left collecting these to run a Beowulf cluster.
In Soviet America, Beowulfs cluster YOU!
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
And the US Air Force [phys.org]
the US Air Force can just bypass DMCA in full (Score:2)
the US Air Force can just bypass DMCA in full
Re:WOW, What's this mean for the PS3 (Score:5, Interesting)
And the linux feature was originally added to the ps3 so sony could claim it was a general purpose computer and not a single purpose games console, in order to circumvent restrictions in place somewhere...
What about those CA right-to-repair laws? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
https://yro.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]
https://yro.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
https://yro.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]
https://yro.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]
Yup, those are the ones. If Federal copyright law is going to assert that you have a right to repair then doesn't that supersede those agreements? From the first one you linked:
The agreement will not allow farmers to buy repair parts, break firmware DRM, or otherwise alter software for the purposes of repair.
Although it's weird how TFA says:
Previously, it was legal to hack tractor firmware for the purposes of repair;
When the linked articles above suggest otherwise.
What about violating patents? (Score:2, Interesting)
I would think that DRM is only part of the equation - if you "hack" the firmware, isn't there a good chance you'll be illegally using somebody's patent somewhere (especially if you are a third party, ie repair company).
You may think this will work in your favour comin' but I think you gotta watch yourself goin'.
Re:What about violating patents? (Score:4, Insightful)
isn't there a good chance you'll be illegally using somebody's patent somewhere (especially if you are a third party, ie repair company)
IANAL but it seems that if a person originally had a right to use a copy of the original software/firmware then even if modified the remaining original software still carries that license. A person could not then transfer it elsewhere but if Device A could use software modules B, C & D then device A could still continue using modules B & D even if C was modified or replaced.
something like that also most made it to trail wit (Score:2)
something like that also most made it to trail with a chance for some big chilling effects or may be would of been an help to right to repair.
We need a case to test if an OEM can force some one to pay an added fee just to get the rights move the old software/firmware for an device from the old storage media to different storage media.
OR is ok from them to change $$ for an recovery image / block people from shearing the files / roms / iso's / etc to other to help them fix it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What about violating patents? (Score:5, Informative)
No, technically a patent violation claim can be made any time you make, use, sell, or offer to sell the product without the patent holder's permission (often in the form of an authorization or license).
True, but if you don't cause the patent holder any verifiable financial damages what can they sue you for? If you are just using it personally, from a device you built yourself, how does that damage them? You didn't buy the device from a licensed manufacturer and denied them the royalties?
Civil law is pretty clear, actual damages is all you get to collect. Punitive damages are only for outrageous behavior, which if you where only using the patent for personal use, is unlikely to be considered outrageous.
Re: (Score:3)
No, technically a patent violation claim can be made any time you make, use, sell, or offer to sell the product without the patent holder's permission (often in the form of an authorization or license).
True, but if you don't cause the patent holder any verifiable financial damages what can they sue you for? If you are just using it personally, from a device you built yourself, how does that damage them?
Technically, punitive damages are easily obtain in patent court thanks to Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics. I doubt it would happen, but legally speaking, it's a possibility.
Re: (Score:2)
No, technically a patent violation claim can be made any time you make, use, sell, or offer to sell the product without the patent holder's permission (often in the form of an authorization or license).
True, but if you don't cause the patent holder any verifiable financial damages what can they sue you for? If you are just using it personally, from a device you built yourself, how does that damage them?
Technically, punitive damages are easily obtain in patent court thanks to Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics. I doubt it would happen, but legally speaking, it's a possibility.
And as I said above, punitive damages are for punishing egregious bad behavior. Using a patent for private use without a motive for profit is unlikely to draw a punitive damage award and for most of us, civil litigation is kind of pointless anyway. Civil judgments don't survive bankruptcy, they cannot take your retirement accounts, your primary home, your car and personal effects so all they can get is what you can basically lay your hands on or sell to raise cash. For most of us, that wouldn't cover the
Re: (Score:3)
You caused them damage because by repairing the old device, you did not have to buy a replacement product. In short, you saving yourself money causes financial damage.
If you think that argument is utter nonsense, I invite you to take a look at this 1942 Supreme Court case:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
TLDR: A farmer grew his own wheat on his own farm to feed to his animals. U.S. sued him for dodging wheat growing limits. Farmer argued that the wheat was not bought nor sold and is thus not interstate comm
Re: (Score:2)
You can already avoid strict copyright rules in some cases called "fair use". This new rule would seem to extend fair use to cover repairs.
For patents, those just give a limited term monopoly on the right to profit off of an invention. This wouldn't seem to be applicable here since a repair shop is not creating and selling new tractors or phones using someone else's patents.
Re: (Score:2)
For patents, those just give a limited term monopoly on the right to profit off of an invention.
In the U.S., 35 USC 21(a) says, "Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent"
Patents don't just give the owner a monopoly right of profit - they also make it illegal to roll your own
Re: (Score:2)
I would think that DRM is only part of the equation - if you "hack" the firmware, isn't there a good chance you'll be illegally using somebody's patent somewhere (especially if you are a third party, ie repair company).
You may think this will work in your favour comin' but I think you gotta watch yourself goin'.
It's highly unlikely that repairing a device would be considered "making" the device, and a repair shop isn't selling your device (even if there wasn't the Doctrine of First Sale), so the only possible patent violation would be using the device. Since you legally purchased the device, you also have an implicit license to use any of the manufacturer's patents for that device.
Still rather bastardized... (Score:4, Informative)
... you can bet companies will still fight tooth and nail to get around this shit. Just like now game companies can take advantage of mass public ignorance and high speed internet to legally reclassify all new games as "services". Just as with the new Assasins creed because they control the software from the point of production and their customers are 100's of miles away.
https://www.dailydot.com/layer... [dailydot.com]
Re:Still rather bastardized... (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course. At the moment most DRM is intended as a means to restrict customers from exercising their legal rights to use the product - eliminating fair use, forbidding resale, forbidding time shifting, etc. This is the primary difference between DRM and copy protection.
does this apply to manuals & repair tools as w (Score:3)
does this apply to manuals and repair tools as well?
As apple can say that some repair (MANUALS / schematics) are DRM locked.
also with cars / tractors same with the software that you need to run on a different system.
also the original specifications makes it so they can SAY repair parts / tools / manuals are DEALER ONLY! or even the device in the first place is DEALER ONLY repair.
Re: (Score:2)
DRM locked goes above and beyond what copyright allows. Apple can say that no one is allowed to buy a repair manual, but they cannot forbid someone who already owns a repair manual from giving it to someone else (as long as no copy is made). The DRM is intended to prevent giving or reselling the manual to anyone else.
Original specifications does not mean the EULA. The specifications means what the product is intended to do. And in the event that companies change their specifications to have exclusions,
Re: (Score:2)
I'd guess not. The US tends to focus on "passive" freedom, as in you have the right to repair it but no-one has to help you do it. There are some exceptions, like cars have to have standard diagnostics systems and manuals/software must be available, but mostly it's just "they can't stop you, but can do anything they like to make it as difficult as possible".
does this include (Score:1)
blocking/circumventing blu ray key revocation lists so that older discs will once again play?
Playing the media you purchased sure sounds like restoring a device to its intended function...
While they're at it, maybe they can require vendors to provide keys/unlocked boot loaders for all devices at time of EOL/abandonment. Would make lots of phones and other electronics have a much longer useful life.
Oh, good (Score:2)
Most of my DVDs and Blu-Ray discs are broken - whenever I play them, they insist on running 6-10 minutes of unskippable commercials before I can watch the main feature! I guess this means I can legitimately rip them to fix the Macromedia (or whatever it's called now) infection.
Re: (Score:2)
I was wondering if it gives you latitude to recover content you paid for that you "lost" by the provider changing their terms.
Do I have to do it myself though? (Score:2)
Does this allow someone to actually distribute a tool to enable breaking DRM for these purposes? Because it's all very well that you can break DRM, but it's totally toothless if each individual must do so themselves, as very few actually have the skills at time to do so.
Probably depends on the advertising (Score:3)
Courts rule in the specific facts of individual cases, and we can only predict what the ruling might be. Having said that:
If you distribute it for that legitimate, lawful purpose, and all of your messaging (marketing etc) points to a lawful purpose, you'd probably be fine.
On the other hand, if you have a web site where you advertise "steal Hollywood movies", your internal emails talk about paying people to use the tool for unlawful purposes, you make millions of dollars from people using it unlawfully, and
what an making an script that takes say rom's chd' (Score:2)
what an making an script that takes say rom's chd's etc and dumps them out to real hardware??
For EX say get the mame rom set + CHD for X and run this script to load your USB KEY with the usb dongle code so you can fix your device?
Just say get the roms but do not say where to get them?? Or can the law let you host files for repair use?
If you say "go do something unlawful" (Score:2)
> mame rom set + CHD
> Just say get the roms but do not say where to get them??
"Don't say where to get them" isn't going to help you.
If you tell people to use your DRM-breaking tool to do unlawful things, you're probably breaking the law by distributing the tool for that purpose.
Re-loading factory firmware unto legitimate factory devices seems a fairly small niche. You'd need to show that it's a "substantial non-infringing use" vs the infringing use.
unlawful to reapir (with paying $$$ again for soft (Score:2)
unlawful thing unlawful to reapir outside of what OEM wants or what some 3rd party IP rights owner wants you to pay????
Why should I have to be paying $$$ again for software that I own but need to replace / reload / put in an VM due to failed hardware?
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. The Librarion of Congress does not have that power; they can mess with 1201(A)(1) [cornell.edu] but can't do anything about 1201(A)(2).
Thus: You can patch the software, but creating the patch is still illegal. Importing the patch is illegal. Trafficking in the patch or offering it to the public is still illegal. But if you magically have the patch ex nihilo (you didn't write the patch nor did you get it from someone else
Library of congress (Score:2)
When and how did the library of congress get the responsibility for interpreting copy right laws?
Is that something in the DMCA?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
thanks for the answer, I'll add that to my long list of things that should be fixed. Our legislature should not be delegating so much authority to bureaucrats.
How about video games? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:How about video games? (Score:5, Informative)
The final ruling document isn't due to publish until tomorrow, but here is the 2018 exemptions ruling:
(PDF warning)
https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2018-23241.pdf [amazonaws.com]
Scroll down to page 19
#8 Video games requiring server communication - for continued individual play and
preservation of games by libraries, archives, and museums
applies to discontinued game servers
Page 52 has some other limited uses of stripping drm on games specifically for preservation by a limited class.
Likely won't apply to you and I, but would to the internet archive for instance.
Basically pages 15-20 detail the various software exemptions but not games related.
Re: (Score:2)
> Basically pages 15-20 detail the various software exemptions but not games related.
Well, a game is a software
Re: (Score:3)
Basically pages 15-20 detail the various software exemptions but not games related.
Well, a game is a software
I didn't say games can't be software, I said the other software entries are not games related :P
#3. Computer programs - "unlocking" of cellphones, tablets, mobile hotspots, or wearable devices
#4. Computer programs - "jailbreaking" of smartphones, smart TVs, tablets, or other all-purpose mobile computing devices
#5. Computer programs - diagnosis, repair, and lawful modification of motorized land vehicles
#6. Computer programs - security research
#7. Computer programs - 3D printers
While I would fully expect some
Securom? (Score:2)
Computer programs that are contained in and control the functioning of a
lawfully acquired smartphone or home appliance or home system, such as
a refrigerator, thermostat, HVAC or electrical system, when
circumvention is a necessary step to allow the diagnosis, maintenance or
repair of such a device or system, and is not accomplished for the purpose
of gaining access to other copyrighted works.
Securom/Denuvo is contained in and controls the functioning of video games...
Ah who am I kidding.
"orginal specifications" (Score:2)
Limiting to "original specifications" is a major loophole and could be used to block performance improvements (in both vehicles and electronics) or ability to work with new formats of content or peripherals (the latter also applies to vehicles [I'm thinking of attachments to tractors, but it applies more generally as well] as well as electronics).
Re: (Score:2)
I bet this is geared around keeping people from breaking cripple-ware that keeps working hardware from fully functioning without the manufacturer getting some extra $$.
Re:"orginal specifications" (Score:4, Insightful)
Limiting to "original specifications" is a major loophole and could be used to block performance improvements (in both vehicles and electronics) or ability to work with new formats of content or peripherals (the latter also applies to vehicles [I'm thinking of attachments to tractors, but it applies more generally as well] as well as electronics).
I think the intent is to prevent unlocking features that require an additional charge to the vendor.
I suppose it could also apply to something like an engine ECU re-flash that alters performance. That one is thorny because those changes can increase emissions too, which could be illegal. Poorly done ECU tuning can also damage the engine.
Remove DRM? (Score:2)
Won't someone think of the brand!
FA (Score:2)
Doesn't allow hacking (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Doesn't allow hacking (Score:2)
Is the feature specified or undocumented?
If the latter, it's not in the specifications.
Includes tractors sorry John Deere (Score:2, Interesting)
A win for farmers who were very upset with Deere not allowing owners of their tractors to service them. Something many farmers do on a regular basis. I think anyone should have a right to use whomever to repair their products.
Does that mean... (Score:2)
That since Vlad Putin OWNS Donald Trump, he can use him as his personal fleshlight? :)
or maybe make it rent = owner pay for repairs! (Score:2)
or maybe make it rent = owner pay for repairs!
Notice the Word "Proposed" (Score:1)
(Unless the "Librarian" is the one from the movie and series, then the corporate shills will get their comeuppance.)