[Discuss] [semi-OT] "Right to Own" law

[Mark Woodward]

On 06/27/2012 09:06 AM, Drew Van Zandt wrote:
> Increases the barrier to entry in business.
I took some to think about this response, and the more I think about it, 
the more I see it as FUD. This is the type of answer corporations that 
want to extend their control over our property give. Seeing as this is a 
discussion, I get to ask: how? It seems to me, *MORE* effort needs to be 
made to lock down these devices than it does to open them up.

>
> That's bad for small businesses, matters less for large ones.

Again, the words "bad" "small business" but no facts. No argument. Just FUD.

Maybe this is what discourse is in 21st century USA, but it is still an 
empty non-argument.
>
> **
> **Drew Van Zandt**
> **Artisan's Asylum Craft Lead, Electronics & Robotics
> Cam # US2010035593 (**M:**Liam Hopkins **R:**Bastian Rotgeld)
> ******Domain Coordinator, MA-003-D.  Masquerade aVST ****
> **
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Mark Woodward <markw at mohawksoft.com 
> <mailto:markw at mohawksoft.com>> wrote:
>
>     We've heard the ads on the radio for and against the "Right to
>     Repair" law. This is a law that is intended to require automobile
>     manufacturers to publish the technical specifications and the
>     codes that the computers in your car produce for troubleshooting
>     and repair.
>
>     I was thinking, what about a "Right to Own" law, that requires
>     that *all* electronics be documented, all "general purpose"
>     computers i.e. not embedded like a microwave, but everything from
>     video games to iphones, tablets and computers be "user
>     serviceable." No locking out a user from doing what ever they want
>     with stuff they own.
>
>     Writing this law would be very tricky because you need a lot of
>     legal intuition about the sort of attacks that will come at it
>     from the likes of Apple and Microsoft, but also a lot of technical
>     savvy to carefully define what is "general purpose" and what is
>     "dedicated" and what the actual limits are. We want to protect
>     innovation, but not at the expense of civil rights of ownership.
>     For instance, we don't need to see the source code to Windows 8,
>     be we damn well should be able to boot Linux or FreeBSD or
>     whatever. We should be able to run what ever program we want on an
>     iPhone or Android. These devices are our property, we paid for
>     them, we are legally responsible for what is on them, we should
>     have the ability to control them.
>
>     When I was a kid, almost *all* devices, from washing machines to
>     televisions, had a schematic inside the case. CP/M came with the
>     source code. We have lost a lot of freedom to the corporations
>     locking up our property. How much crap that would have otherwise
>     been semi useful have we had to throw away?
>
>     This is clearly a case where the invisible hand of capitalism will
>     not help and an obvious case where regulation must. Agree?
>     Disagree? it would be hard to find a politician who would even
>     back such a bill, but maybe we can get a referendum on the ballot.
>     _______________________________________________
>     Discuss mailing list
>     Discuss at blu.org <mailto:Discuss at blu.org>
>     http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>