Oregon OKs Right-To-Repair Bill That Bans the Blocking of Aftermarket Parts (arstechnica.com) 75
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Oregon has joined the small but growing list of states that have passed right-to-repair legislation. Oregon's bill stands out for a provision that would prevent companies from requiring that official parts be unlocked with encrypted software checks before they will fully function. Bill SB 1596 passed Oregon's House by a 42 to 13 margin. Gov. Tina Kotek has five days to sign the bill into law. Consumer groups and right-to-repair advocates praised the bill as "the best bill yet," while the bill's chief sponsor, state Sen. Janeen Sollman (D), pointed to potential waste reductions and an improved second-hand market for closing a digital divide.
"Oregon improves on Right to Repair laws in California, Minnesota and New York by making sure that consumers have the choice of buying new parts, used parts, or third-party parts for the gadgets and gizmos," said Gay Gordon-Byrne, executive director of Repair.org, in a statement. Like bills passed in New York, California, and Minnesota, Oregon's bill requires companies to offer the same parts, tools, and documentation to individual and independent repair shops that are already offered to authorized repair technicians. Unlike other states' bills, however, Oregon's bill doesn't demand a set number of years after device manufacture for such repair implements to be produced. That suggests companies could effectively close their repair channels entirely rather than comply with the new requirements. California's bill mandated seven years of availability.
If signed, the law's requirements for parts, tools, and documentation would apply to devices sold after 2015, except for phones, which are covered after July 2021. The prohibition against parts pairing only covers devices sold in 2025 and later. Like other repair bills, a number of device categories are exempted, including video game consoles, HVAC and medical gear, solar systems, vehicles, and, very specifically, "Electric toothbrushes."
"Oregon improves on Right to Repair laws in California, Minnesota and New York by making sure that consumers have the choice of buying new parts, used parts, or third-party parts for the gadgets and gizmos," said Gay Gordon-Byrne, executive director of Repair.org, in a statement. Like bills passed in New York, California, and Minnesota, Oregon's bill requires companies to offer the same parts, tools, and documentation to individual and independent repair shops that are already offered to authorized repair technicians. Unlike other states' bills, however, Oregon's bill doesn't demand a set number of years after device manufacture for such repair implements to be produced. That suggests companies could effectively close their repair channels entirely rather than comply with the new requirements. California's bill mandated seven years of availability.
If signed, the law's requirements for parts, tools, and documentation would apply to devices sold after 2015, except for phones, which are covered after July 2021. The prohibition against parts pairing only covers devices sold in 2025 and later. Like other repair bills, a number of device categories are exempted, including video game consoles, HVAC and medical gear, solar systems, vehicles, and, very specifically, "Electric toothbrushes."
Re:Right to repair laws encourage competition (Score:5, Insightful)
> In actual capitalism (as opposed to corporate fascism) you don't get to "win" by making sure your opponents lose
Yeah, you just buy them out.
Actual capitalism, as you put it, invariably and inexorably leads to monopolies. It also results in horrific abuses of labor up to and including slavery and genocide, but that's another story.
So no, we already tried actual capitalism and turns out it's shit, so we had to make all sorts of laws to mitigate the damage. Please read some history before you advocate repeating it, because if it's gonna be any different next time it will only be because it's far worse.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Government is not the solution. It's the single most destructive force in human history."
Just when I've thought I've read the stupidest, most college freshmanesque statement on reddit I run into a new leader.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Religion laughs at your historical ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's one way of saying you failed history without directly saying it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Idiot, the Church pulled the government strings, historically speaking. Are you that fucking stupid?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, because we don't have actual Republicans who are just corrupt puppets for the corporations, and now Putin as well.
Re: (Score:1)
Error, I mean the current "Republicans" in name only are completely corrupt sell out traitors. Actual Republicans are long gone and at the party founding Republicans were far more like Democrats of today if one was to try to find a modern comparison.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The 1854 Republicans would be in favor of cancel culture, DEI, transing kids, high taxes, the government being involved in every aspect of life, military adventurism around the world, no borders, a huge federal government stomping on the states, and letting non-citizens vote in elections?
Okey dokey!
Re: (Score:3)
At the very least, they'd be against morons creating strawmen.
Re: (Score:1)
You mean the type of morons who summon the spirit of 1954 Republicans to bash people today?
Yes, I assume they were smart enough to see through that bullshit and call it out if someone was dumb enough to try that.
Agreed.
Re: (Score:3)
The 1854 Republicans would be in favor of cancel culture
At least you concede that the Democrats are in favour of freedom of association, free speech and the free market, no matter its consequences. It appears though that you think the Republicans are not.
That's all "cancel culture" is.
1. Someone uses their free speech to say "you suck".
2. Others use their freedom of association to join the person in 1.
3. A company notices that 2 is bad for profits and decide to stop engaging your services. The fair market v
Re: (Score:2)
Lmao, I stopped in middle of your first sentence.
You're fucking hilarious. The best trolls are ones like yours that say such outrageous crap in a serious way.
You won the internet today! Congrats!
Re: (Score:3)
Lmao, I stopped in middle of your first sentence.
Indeed! Your brain will very effectively shut down and prevent your from learning anything or thinking any thoughts that go against your feelings. The reason you stopped reading (we both know you didn't) is that you literally cannot think of a way of standing against cancel culture that won't obviously hamper things you also claim to hold dear.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Relevant because it's an example of how much Republicans have sold out, to the point of being traitors; they stand for nothing and those who do are pushed out of office.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
But, legislating that will certainly make it manifest spontaneously from the ether, right? Just like, say, decriminalizing drugs made rehabilitation facilities, the necessary staffing, and the necessary support system suddenly appear out of nowhere.
Re: (Score:2)
On the subject of crime, that's the main "unintended consequence" I worry about with this bill.
If you code specific parts to specific cars, and mandate that only authorized service centres do replacement, then you make it very difficult to strip cars and fence out the parts, and it greatly reduces the financial motive for theft. Legally mandate that away, and you suddenly make it easy again. Surely there's a middle ground where you don't simply ban part validation systems, but instead ban using them for ant
Re: (Score:3)
using them for anti-competitive purposes.
Your "theft" is my "competition". In the end it's the owner of the property that should make the final decision. If the manufacturer wants to dictate the decision, then they should be leasing / renting the property. Not selling it.
There's also a possible contagion effect.
Who cares? Oh that's right, you who thinks that the second it's touched by someone other than it's creator it's forever tainted without receiving their explicit blessing again. Get over yourself. No, we don't want parts geofenced to a particular state / city / street / house. Th
Re: Right to repair laws encourage competition (Score:5, Insightful)
Right to repair laws equate to socialism? Yeah you definitely grew up in the leaded gasoline era.
Re: (Score:2)
If the repair facilities had something they could bring that was worth the money, people would be flocking to them or abandoning the products that don't support desired consumer behavior.
How the heck are they going to do that when it's illegal? That's the whole point, these fuckers went to the government to protect their monopolies. Right to repair, done right, simply makes it legal for others to compete with the OEM.
Instead people want a nanny state to tell people what is best for them based on a flawed understanding of markets.
I dunno man, the Nanny State is already there telling potential entrepreneurs that they will get their asses stomped in court if they try to make parts for those devices. That's what patents and copyrights (and a few other state mechanisms) are being used to do.
companies will no longer offer repair services
The state of th
Re: (Score:1)
Again, I can go to any mall shop for $50 change a common part. The service and workmanship is shoddy, but nobody is preventing them from being right across the Apple Store. Who is blocking what exactly? The only blocking I've heard about was trademark related (basically you can't import products with the Apple logo and sell them as such) and even that the RtR crowd was up in arms about.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, I can go to any mall shop for $50 change a common part.
"Any mall shop" ? Bro, Rat-shack closed down in a looooooong time ago. They certainly didn't have anywhere near the level of "common parts" I'd call valid, and I'm going to call bullshit on iFixit who can basically replace a phone's screen and battery (not much else). You're living in a fantasy world if you think malls carry parts for damn near anything (unless it's got a department store attached that has a few car and appliance parts).
The service and workmanship is shoddy
As yourself why is iFixit a shitty little dirty store run by some India
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, but patents have nothing to do with replacement parts for repairs. I don't know where you live, but pretty much everywhere in the US I can go to a range of stores spanning from some random dude with a screwdriver to relatively professional shops for repairs. Prices vary according to professional service provided. I know a place that does board-level repairs on just about anything, only $500 to get started and $250/h after that.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but patents have nothing to do with replacement parts for repairs.
That shows you didn't consider what processes are used to create spare parts. If they are made with patented technology or violate a copyright, they are illegal. Did that not occur to you?
Re: (Score:1)
They are not if they are reverse engineered in a clean room approach. How do you think we got legal IBM and Apple clones back in the day from the likes of Compaq and Dell? IBM owned at least 9 patents on their IBM PC, it went to court and they lost, that is now precedent established.
Going through the process of reverse engineering is considered fair use as long as it is necessary to understand the device or product, which repairs would fall under legitimate fair use.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Actual capitalism would result in the Weyland Yutani
Corporation owning everything.
Re: (Score:3)
You're supposed to reinvest most of the profits back into the company and wages instead of taking the lion's share and running off to Hawaii to build a bunker. You're also not supposed to take out loans against it and drive it into crippling debt. Reference any business with "venture", "equity" or "capital" in its name.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not capitalism. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production and it's operation for private gain. That the mode capitalist systems tend to settle in isn't your preferred form of capitalism doesn't change the fact that it's still capitalism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't Uno and you don't have a Reverse card. I gave the simple, technical definition of capitalism. Lots of different systems qualify as capitalism. Just because you're upset that the relatively stable forms of capitalism that tend to persist aren't your preferred form of capitalism doesn't make them any less capitalism.
I made no critique of capitalism. I proffered no policy suggestions. I made no preferences known whatsoever. Though I will point out the irony that your solution to the current state o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Again, you're making assumptions not supported by the text. My logic doesn't have to be perfect to point out your (note the proper possessive spelling) logical fallacies. Mostly owing to the fact of how glaring they are.
Just because your wild and unfounded assumptions about my ideological underpinnings are off the mark doesn't mean I believe in nothing. It just means you're being irrational.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There's also the problem when "some random dude's hobby repair" puts the manufacturer's own property at risk.
A major example a couple years back: there was a lot of internet outrage about Tesla banning a car from the Supercharger network when they discovered the owner, who had no formal training or certification for working on EVs, had done his own replacement of part of the HV system. Um, yeah, duh? His amateur wiring could fry their Superchargers. They offered a process to validate the wiring, but he di
Re:100 percent behind this, but (Score:4)
How is this any different than someone buying car parts from wish.com and getting their hand caught in the accessory belt?
Re: 100 percent behind this, but (Score:2)
Re: 100 percent behind this, but (Score:5, Insightful)
No different in the slightest. But 3-rd party car parts users are grizzled enough to understand that theyre operating without a safety net
No they don't. Maybe some car owners are judicious enough to know they're taking an awful risk by using shady parts form shady sources, but the average Internet-educated "owner-mechanic" fixing their 5th-owner G35 will still ask anyone who will listen "Will this 4$ fuel pump from e-bay work ok?" Fast forward 3 days and their car's on fire on the side of the road because of the $4 fuel pump... instead of the $400 fuel pump from the OEM or $800 for the one with Nissan's stamp on it.
Most People will always opt for the cheapest, shittiest fix, because Most People are too broke these days to execute a proper fix, pay a proper contractor, or do anything properly, really.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as these new laws make it perfectly clear that third-party fixes void the warranty, I
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen those "customer states" videos on YouTube. The number of cars held together with chewing gum, which the customer decides not to get fixed and drives away in, is quite alarming.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. I figure the farmer, of anybody, is likely to know what he's doing.
Short of John Deere deliberately designing stuff to be more dangerous, standard protocols for the repair of electrical and mechanical equipment should see you safe while installing stuff.
And if John Deere deliberately designs their machines to turn on and mulch maintainers who dare bring a 3rd party part in, well, they deserve to reap the consequences in judgements, fines, and prison time.
And the idea that their $5k apple is going t
Re: (Score:2)
It never has been.
Claims otherwise are FUD.
Re: (Score:2)
Using that sort of logic, Chevy can't be held libel for modifying a '57 pickup.
Guess what? They already can't. Just as Boeing can't be held libel when an air line screws up maintenance procedures. Don't look now, but a combine doesn't fly at 500 MPH at 40,000 feet with 250 people on board.
Not the 'evil' EU this time /s (Score:1)
Perhaps more domestic lawmakers should hold trillion dollar companies to account.
Right to repair is not new (Score:5, Insightful)
It has existed as long as people made stuff
It has always been possible to repair things, limited only by skill and the extent of damage
Then, scumball weasels figured out how to use tech to take away a right that has existed for millennia
We are not demanding a new right
We are demanding the rights we have always had
Hardware Manufacturers Don't Care About Your... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
s/isn't/is/g
Where is the E-waste going to come from? (Score:2)
HP printer cartridges? (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder if this means third party printer cartridges must be allowed to function without HP firmware interference...?
I need ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Solar systems??? (Score:5, Funny)
"a number of device categories are exempted, including [...] solar systems". That seems a little ambitious anyway!
What are Apple's moves? (Score:2)
They can stop selling iphones in Oregon. The Feds told automakers not to comply with Massachusetts' "right to repair" law. Could this happen here?
Good Government (Score:1)
Protecting the people from selfishness and greed. Protecting the planet. Well done Cowboys and Cowgirls.
Unintended consequences? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
For example, am I allowed to replace the chip on the credit card with my own, however crappy, design, and all payment processors must accept it? Would that open the door for credit card cloning and/or fraud, if payment processors are banned from requiring any specific secure chips?
Are cats and dogs now required to live together!? /s
Is a nuclear power reactor plant allowed to buy replacement parts off the internet marketplaces?
If you are seriously proposing that this legislation is going to allow a fucking nuclear plant to buy replacement parts off of ebay, I highly suggest you go read the relevant legislation. Both this bill, and the existing legislation on operating a nuclear plant.
I suspect however, that you are just fearmongering.
All those examples may be hyperboles
No shit.
but I can seriously see some unintended consequences.
The original state of things was that post sale the buyer owned the property and could do what they wished with it. The manufacturer'