Totally In-Touch NH Lawmaker Blocks Device Repair Bill, Tells Constituents To Just Buy New $1k Phones

from the let-them-eat-smartphones dept

For years we’ve discussed the need for better and stronger “right to repair” laws in the United States. Were one to look for a pure example of legislative capture by corporate interests, it’s hard to think of a better example than the way hardware makers of various stripes have managed to lock their own hardware behind various flavors of DRM and/or warranty restrictions to make it illegal for a person to get the thing they bought repaired. Arguing that such repairs fall within the scope of anti-circumvention laws, these hardware makers, including those of smartphones like Apple, have attempted to construct a world in which people don’t just own what they bought, but are rather forced to continue to buy things they don’t own when the hardware is damaged or fails them.

Despite how ridiculous this all is, few states have even attempted to enact right to repair legislation, in large part due to corporate lobbying efforts. One of the latest to make the attempt was New Hampshire, except that the bill was blocked by representatives who apparently look to the legend of Marie Antoinette as some kind of a guidebook.

The bill would have forced manufacturers such as Apple to share repair manuals and parts with independent repair stores. House members didn’t kill the bill, but sent it back to committee for a year of interim study, citing security concerns and, in the words of Rep. John Potucek (R-Derry) the ubiquity, cheapness, and—in his opinion—disposability of new smart phones.

“In the near future, cellphones are throwaways,” Potucek said, according to New Hampshire Business Review. “Everyone will just get a new one.”

Everyone? Nobody would want to repair their cellphone rather than spending the $700 to $1000 on a new one? The phrase “let them eat cake!” is said to be incorrectly attributed to Marie Antoinette, but we can certainly attribute “Cellphones are throwaways!” to Potucek. It’s an absurd rebuttal on many levels, not simply that cellphones certainly aren’t priced to be thrown away at the first sign of hardware trouble.

There is also the simple fact that people having to get a new phone when theirs malfunctions is exactly the problem this legislation is attempting to address. It’s the device version of, “Why attempt to give children healthcare? Parents can just make another baby!” It also ignores that a huge reason companies like Apple lobby so heavily against these laws is so it can monopolize the repair market, purposefully making it so expensive that buying new devices is the only real option.

The comments also ignore just how many New Hampshire residents are already seeking to repair their devices.

“At our three locations throughout [New Hampshire], we serve tens of thousands of our neighbors and visitors each year,” Chad Johansen, president of NH iPhone Repair, said in an email. “Many of our customers are happy with their devices and would rather spend $100 to fix their current device instead of $1000 for a new one with little to no updates or added features. Now the [manufacturers] such as Apple and Samsung are making it harder for residents of NH to repair the devices they own.”

For purely greedy corporate interests, too. There is not a single thing about blocking this bill that benefits the NH resident. The only beneficiaries here are hardware manufacturers focused on stock prices that move with the waves of phones going out the company doors.

The tone-deaf comments aside, it would be nice if Potucek could articulate a single reason in the interest of the New Hampshire citizen for blocking this law. My guess is he cannot possibly do so.

Filed Under: , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Totally In-Touch NH Lawmaker Blocks Device Repair Bill, Tells Constituents To Just Buy New $1k Phones”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
132 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Policiticans, much like phones, are replaceable

Fixing a phone: $100ish.

Replacing a phone: $700-1000

Letting a politician know that you’ll be looking for a replacement for them come next election, because they’ve either been bought out or are so out of touch they think everyone has a spare grand to spend on a phone: Several minutes of time.

Some things money can’t buy(though politicians certainly aren’t on that list), for everything else, the voting booth.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Policiticans, much like phones, are replaceable

You’d like to think so, and yet the unwashed continue to repeat elect the same lying, criminal idiots, regardless the overtly obvious degree of corruption.

The voting populace elects one subset of self-serving campaign planks from the party platform. They ignore any cognitively dissonant observations of their choices as dishonest, "Fake News" claims made by "The Evil Other Side."

Note that the promises made by the bribed politicians may never be realized, but the fact that the claims are made and repeated again and again ensures the insanity of voter support. Temporary, verbal rejections of these professional, political scamsters by their supporting voters are later offset by the insanity of those same voters doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome, i.e., voting for criminals and expecting them not to continue being criminals.

Anonymous Coward says:

Okay, the only defense I can think of is the fact that smart phones are so insecure and receive so few security updates that many should be tossed within a couple years after they ship out solely due to their security vulnerabilities.

I doubt that was the reasoning behind his vote but there isn’t a good reason there hasn’t been a known secure smartphone yet.

Agammamon says:

Re: Re:

That, sadly, is not the security concerns.

I’ve seen some of the testimony done by Lisa McCabe. They’re all using hardware security concerns – that teh terrorists! might learn something that could kill us all if they had access to the parts and tech manuals.

Also that they think people are so stupid that they’ll be getting their phones blowing up because the high-schooler they paid to change their battery out doesn’t know what he’s doing.

Ignoring, of course, that if people had access to the parts and schematics then we wouldn’t be taking it to the high-schooler in the first place.

LIke, seriously, she talks about the training ‘Apple Certified Repair’ receives. They don’t get any training. From anyone, certainly not Apple.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Ignoring, of course, that if people had access to the parts and schematics then we wouldn’t be taking it to the high-schooler in the first place.

They might, if they wanted to try a cheap repair, as it is take the chance or do without the phone. However if the manual and parts are available, that high-schooler is likely to do a good job, and go on to compete with the official repair centres.

David says:

Re: Re:

Okay, the only defense I can think of is the fact that smart phones are so insecure and receive so few security updates that many should be tossed within a couple years after they ship out solely due to their security vulnerabilities.

Are we talking about smart phones or politicians? Wait, that sentence looks like "smart" could apply to either. I mean, are we talking about politicians or smart phones? Huh, that sounds like politicians are the dumb kind of phone. Well, at least it’s less confusing than the first wording.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

there hasn’t been a known secure smartphone yet.

And there never will be.

For one, it’s impossible. Especially when those responsible for operating the damn thing demand to remain ignorant in their basic use, and even then perfection is not humanity’s strong suit. Don’t get me started on competing interests between the company that designs it and the company that builds it either.

For another, corporate shareholders would kill such a device on the drawing board even if it could be made. Again, what’s the motivation behind these laws? "Everyone can just buy another one." That won’t happen often enough to keep a company’s profits in the black if everyone already has a phone that doesn’t need to be replaced. Having glaring security holes, although regrettable, is just an opportunity to make another sale to shareholders.

Put simply, the reason you can’t repair it is because forbidding that ability makes corporations more money. Corporations will do anything to make money and as such regulations are required to keep their greed from harming society. Blocking such regulations are in effect allowing corporations to gamble lives for private gain and socialized losses.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
bob says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Obviously you don’t require one to live. But in a 1st world country it is becoming harder to be productive and communicate (when not physically present) with others without a phone. But even in those situations you dont need a $1k phone. Many cheaper less apple-like phones exist that can get the job done.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

"If you live in the UK, and have to rely on online shopping for you groceries, you need a mobile phone to authorize payments."

What is wrong with a credit card?
Use of a cell phone for authorization of financial transactions is a very bad idea.
Online shopping for groceries only? Why is this arbitrary restriction only on groceries?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

So can I, but Amazon deals with orders in a different fashion to most other online sellers. If the seller directs you to a payment service when you place the order, the card service can add a security check. if placing the order does not take you to a payment service, then security checks cannot be added.

Also, Amazon is tied into the payment services as they take payment for third party sellers, so that only Amazon has your card details, rather than all the sellers that you deal with on Amazon.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

"Ok, however is one limited to the use of a cell phone in order to complete an online transaction? This seems a bit arbitrary."

Rarely, in most of the EU. However, the convenience offered by having a security token client installed makes the alternatives extremely cumbersome, not to mention that those alternatives often place your card number and personal details in some database secured by whatever flimsy set of smoke and mirrors your online retailer saw fit to buy.

And in some cases – government communications, online tax returns, medical records and appointment access – accessing through a dedicated mobile token client is increasingly "encouraged" by the gradual removal of support options for the alternatives.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

"the convenience offered by having a security token client installed makes the alternatives extremely cumbersome, not to mention that those alternatives often place your card number and personal details in some database"

I question if said convenience is a huge security problem. Cell phones these days are only slightly more secure that IOT devices and use of a cell phone to facilitate use of tokens looks to be a placebo as all it does is put all your eggs in some other untrustworthy basket. I am not a security expert nor am I a luddite, but considering how often cell phones are lost, hacked, access demanded from authority or given via stupidity – I doubt such a token/cell phone is trustworthy.

I would rather have one CC# in some db than have all my account access available on a cell phone.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

" I am not a security expert nor am I a luddite, but considering how often cell phones are lost, hacked, access demanded from authority or given via stupidity – I doubt such a token/cell phone is trustworthy."

The security is a lot better since the token client on your phone also requires you yourself to enter a code for every transaction you want to validate. Unless you’re dumb enough to write that code on your phone this provides quite essential security which remains even if your phone is stolen.

Credit card use online is, on the other hand, insecure by default, as you can order and pay using nothing other than personal and card details often kept all in one place. That, essentially, is why skimming is still a threat.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"People act as though they can not live without a cell phone."

I can live without a phone if needs be. However, I do remember a time before them and it’s much easier to live with one device acting as my pay phone, address book, personal stereo, radio, flashlight, camera, wallet, map, compass, newspaper, book, notepad, etc. than it is to be concerned with making sure you have all the separate physical items to hand when you need them. That’s even without the benefits of always having access to the internet wherever you go.

Also, bear in mind that many people need to be contactable at all times for their employment, so those people indeed cannot live without one, at least not in the way they currently enjoy. Others could perhaps do their work from a fixed location at a pinch, but their day would be far more difficult.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

"Phones" are barely repairable now. Going to mandate for future?

The — insane in my view — demand that these gadgets — continually spying and sending location besides activities to GOOGLE and other mega-corporations — be "thin" necessitates densest possible packaging, sticking them together internally rather than external fasteners, pretty both sides.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: "Phones" are barely repairable now. Go

And while you’re at it: mandate the same for cars! Those cost $25,000 and up, yet require trained mechanics? Sheesh! Everything electronic should be modular and just plug in, but no, they’re practically irreparable too!

Naw, Timmy, this is just a lame piece you concocted for last on Friday because could blame a "Republican", which you are careful to point out.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Madd the Sane (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 "Phones" are barely re

Much trouble getting in. Hope you don’t mind it pieced up, only way worked!

We do mind.
If you had an account, it’d probably flag you less.

Given that’s the demand, are you going to mandate "repairable" designs?

Nah. Just him them with sanctions for environmental waste.

And against the wishes of nearly everyone, including you?

Uh, you do know that some people do want at least the ability to try to repair their devices. As is being argued by this very article.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Take your own advice

There’s an easy and certain way to avoid spending another 700-1000 bucks. Don’t buy the first.

So I’m going to recommend you follow your own advice. When your computer fails, don’t repair it and above all, don’t get a new one. That way you can avoid spending 700-1000 bucks.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Dan says:

Re: Re: Re: "Phones" are barely repairable now

What a stunningly ignorant post–maybe if you understood what "right to repair" meant before posting, you wouldn’t have once again highlighted your ignorance. It’s not about "any idiot with a screwdriver and a hammer can fix it." It’s rather about "everyone has access to the information, parts, and materials to fix it."

And, as it happens, that’s exactly the case with cars. I’m able to buy, for a fairly nominal cost, the factory service manuals for my cars. Tools are standard and widely available at a broad range of quality levels and price points. There are very few parts that are single-source (the computer control modules are the only things I can think of, but they rarely fail, and even then they’re available used). I’ve never had any formal training as a mechanic (I certainly don’t have any certifications), but I’m able to do pretty much anything I’ve needed to do on any of my cars for the last nearly 30 years.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

These morons in charge think that everyone has plenty of cash sitting around to just go out and purchase replacements for all the crapola that keeps crapping out. These idiots do not know who their constituents are, all they know is from where they get paid off.
They want a Real Digital Identification to track your ass across the web so they can ensure you are doing them no harm, but they seem to not understand that a vast majority is not compensated enough to accommodate such silliness. What … you say you can not afford your government mandated cell phone tracking device? Off to prison you go.

Kevin Hayden says:

Environmental Concerns?

So, this guy would rather have all of these broken cell phones and other electronics going into landfills and polluting the environment. Maybe someone should bring that issue up alongside the ‘right to repair’ issue.

Perhaps there should be an environmental tax on these things that varies based on a ‘repairability’ scale:
1) Completely open repair process – close to zero.
2) Closed or unrepairable process – 25% of cost.
Dedicate the tax collected to environmental cleanup and/or green/renewable energy research, not general revenue.

I’m sure it will piss consumers off, but once folks start buying ‘repairable’ devices from whoever supplies them first (yes, someone will – just to increase market share) instead of unrepairable stuff, the rest of the manufacturers will follow suit.

Anonymous Coward says:

Its, bad for the environment ,any phone should be repaired ,if its financially viable .having millions of phones thrown away is a waste of energy, just because repairs are difficult or illegal because of laws
written by apple or other companys .
In the 90,s there were dozens of different chargers of various voltage
and using various connectors which were thrown
away once the phone stopped working.
The eu brought in a law mandating a standard usb charger for all phone,s sold in europe .
No all phones use micro usb or usb c .
usually 5volt 1-2 amp .
Most laptops made now use standard parts and can be repaired by anyone .

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

I have read both sides of the John Deere issue and believe John Deere has a good chance of winning.

Their tractors are mandated to do certain things like your car and it is illegal to modify it. Emission standards/safety ect…

John Deere has a reasonable argument that it is already illegal to modify a large portion of the tractor like it’s illegal to put NOS in your street car and mess with the catalytic converter in many or all places.

If/when the tractors become self driving, which they probably will, they will only have more and more legal regulation that makes it illegal to modify the tractor.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Your are conflating repairing, which preserves legal requirements, and modifying which changes how the machine works. If somebody makes illegal modifications to a machine, hold them responsible.

Why is the possibility of an illegal modification an excuse to stop them repairing their machine so that they can continue to use it?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

"Why is the possibility of an illegal modification an excuse to stop them repairing their machine so that they can continue to use it?"

My guess is that they simply can not come up with anything better to rationalize their extreme overreach.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

"wants to stop modification or installation of modified firmware/software"

It is understandable for the manufacturer to have such a position where the warranty on their product(s) is/are concerned. However, the same position is rather tenuous when applied to the maintenance of an out of warranty product.

Can you imagine the outrage if a computer manufacturer were to proclaim users were not allowed to change/modify in any way the computer(s) they had purchased at full price … LOL
Some time ago there was a company that sold a pc computer at discount where they made up the cost via the subscription you agreed to .. the one most then cancelled. lol

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Can you imagine the outrage if a computer manufacturer were to proclaim users were not allowed to change/modify in any way the computer(s) they had purchased at full price.

I am pretty sure you are describing cell phones (and current generation game consoles).

Lots of devices are made hostile to the user already. However the blowback has, sadly, been rather limited

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

People already modify their catalytic converters and put nos in their street cars too. It’s pretty common among a certain crowd. Over 20 years ago, I used to occasionally ride around in my friends 4 cylinder car with a nitrous oxide feed installed. The thing could barely go above 80 when he tried to race it but it sure got there fast.

Anyway, it was entirely illegal the entire time so I still think John Deere will likely win on the issue.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

Anyway, it was entirely illegal the entire time so I still think John Deere will likely win on the issue.

So, the logic is because a few people will break the law manufacturers are allowed to control all repairs and increase their profits; punishing the law abiding for the crimes of the lawless.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

It is understandable for the manufacturer to have such a position where the warranty on their product(s) is/are concerned.

Even then, by law they can only deny warranty for damage caused by the modifications. If your hacked engine controller blows up the engine, that’s not covered, but they’d still have to fix a provided navigation unit that fails for unrelated reasons.

ECA (profile) says:

So many comments, so little time..

HOw many Older phones are still out there, waiting to be Bought?
WASTE??
If we do Sci math, and get rid of the top 10% and the bottom 10%.. what is the average income in the USA…NOT enough to pay for a new phone for Each person in your home every year..
Update/update/update..Why?? and what is updated?
GENERALLY, the os gets updated.
The Camera gets updated(who needs 20-40mp)
Display?? If you had the TV/Monitor EQUAL to the Phone display added up to fill a 23"-30" screen…it would be So high…20k screen??
CPU gets updated, even if its just to make things faster, this is NOT a gaming machine..first it is a PHONE..the phone part isnt updated.
But…What if they are trying to update you just to get a way to Track/unlock/… your NEW phone..its hard to do the old ones.
What happened to the idea of being able to use Any phone on Any system?? NOPE..locked down.

Now if you dont understand tech..
They can install a Chip or encode in the Board, a Self destruct.. it can Turn off the phone to be reinitialized, or just trash the phone..not to hard. take a light sensor or spring to show it was opened..

Who uses a phone as a phone?? Some companies are forcing user to smart phones.. I like a phone being a PHONE.. get a Tablet with a BIG screen(so you can see it), so it Stays at home and dont get broken, or you STARE at it while the Bus runs over you..(2-3 of those)
Even those Old Phones are going up in price..the Non-smart ones.. Are they Afraid that IF’ you can Fix a phone you can Change whats inside?? so you CANT be traced?? so you cant STORE information you use/want…Music and movies and a DIGITAL list of all your accomplices..

To much, to keep listing.
Good luck folks..

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Thad (profile) says:

I’ve still got a Nexus 5. From 2013.

A few months back, there was a short in the power button; apparently this is a common issue.

I tried to fix it myself but didn’t have any luck. So I took it into a local independent repair center and got the button replaced for $40. Fortunately, a power button is a dead-simple piece of electronics that just shorts two pins, and isn’t typically protected by DRM.

But there are more and more parts in more and more electronic devices that aren’t so simply repairable or replaceable.

Now, the article focuses mainly on the cost of repairing a phone, and that’s fair enough. But there’s a more fundamental issue here than a $40 repair versus the cost of a new phone: I should be able to get my phone fixed because it’s my fucking property. Mine. Not Google’s.

Rep. Potucek belongs to the Republican Party, which claims to be the party that respects private property. "It’s disposable, just buy a new one" is not the sentiment of a person who respects private property.

It’s my phone; I paid for it. Who are you to tell me what I can or can’t do with my own property? Don’t tread on me.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Is anyone here familiar with the term “market demand”?

If people really wanted repair over convenience or cost, someone would offer it and people would vote with their pocketbooks.

If nobody offers it, maybe it’s not actually important to enough people to justify the extra expense.

Oh wait, I remember now. This site is about “free” everything.

Idiots.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

For somebody the set up in the repair business they have to be able to get manuals and spare parts. The latter becomes a big problem when companies uses DRM to make repairs illegal, and get ICE to interdict the import of spares by independent repairers. In other words companies are preventing a repair market from developing by ensuring only they have the tools and parts to carry out repairs.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

You are really close to the generally used US definition of socialism but you didn’t quite get it right.

When the government controls the marketplace via laws and regulations that I don’t like it is called socialism, not capitalism.

Changing the commerce clause is also socialism or communism somehow too because the US is capitalist by definition so it’s capitalism when we do it until I’m a different political party.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Right. This is called capitalism."

No it isn’t. Capitalism has as a requirement that consumer rights are protected in law, ensuring that socialist stuff like monopolization, state.corporate conglomeration, cartels, racketeering and price fixing remain illegal.

And a corporation which introduces restrictions ensuring that what you bought will not become your property is, in fact, as far from capitalism as you can get.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

"Is anyone here familiar with the term “market demand”?"

  • Are you referring to the common terminology "supply and demand"? Yes, I think most everyone has heard of the very simple model used to introduce high school students to the subject of economics.

"If people really wanted repair over convenience or cost, someone would offer it"

  • This is correct … in an ideal competitive market place. Again, this is a model and this particular model is not applicable to a market that lacks competition, ideal or not.

"If nobody offers it, maybe it’s not actually important to enough people to justify the extra expense."

  • Why would "it" be more expensive? "It" should be less expensive.

Those who question authority and call out the bullshit are idiots? Exactly why this is – is left as an exercise for the reader.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Is anyone here familiar with the term “market demand”?

If people really wanted repair over convenience or cost, someone would offer it and people would vote with their pocketbooks.

People do want it, it’s government protectionism blocking those who wish to provide it. Seems sorta the opposite of your claims.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Did you read the article, or follow this issue over the last, oh…10 years or so?
Because there ARE people trying to provide this service, to what must be a large enough clientele that they could turn a profit doing it. And the manufacturers are blocking any such sub-industry developing, in a transparent effort to enforce a profitable version of planned obsolescence.

Their novel theories about "security" and "ownership" are pretty dubious, but have no flaws a few wheelbarrows full of cash dollah, rolled into the offices of our elected officials, can’t fix.

Is your closing comment as devoid of knowledge and thought as your main point?

Fencepost says:

Poster printing costs?

Every repair shop in his district should have a poster with his official legislative photo and a caption "John Potucek (your current Representative) says you should just throw away your broken phone and buy a new one. We’d prefer to be able to fix it for you… But if you have an extra thousand dollars burning a hole in your pocket let us know and we can give you our ‘State Representative’ rates."

Anonymous Coward says:

And this is where a lot of people do not understand the anti-circumvention DMCA law.

The felony provisions only apply it if is for some kind of financial gain, meaning you have to be doing it for the purpose of making money for it to be a felony.

So bypassing DRM for personal use is not a felony, since yo are not doing it for the purpose of making money.

One big argument 14 years ago in the flight simulator newsgroups was then Flight Simulator X had product activation, and one poster was shooting off his mouth saying that downloading the crack files would be a felony.

He was wrong. Downloading and using the cracked DLL files is only a felony if you do it for the purpose of making money, which is what financial gain is. Also, those cracked files also get rid of other bugs that DRM causes in FS X

Downloading the cracked DLL files for your own private use is not a felony crime, even though this poster kept saying otherwise. As long as you are not doing it to make money, it is not a felony crime

Wyrm (profile) says:

Re: Re:

  1. I’m not sure this "profit motive requirement" is in the law, can you cite it to be sure.
  2. There is a specific board that meets once every three years to decide which specific exceptions can apply. I don’t remember anything said about profit in these meetings. In particular, an exception for "security research" has been requested – and denied – multiple times, despite the lack of profit motive in most cases.
  3. Anti-circumvention law is an aberration by itself. It consecrates that the protection layer is protected by law instead of the protected software – which is already protected by copyright law. It’s like passing a law stating that I can’t break the don’t-murder law in order to assassinate someone. There is already a law against murdering someone, so adding a law against breaking the law against murder is ridiculous.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

For a felony conviction, there has to he "commercial or private financial gain", meaning making money.

That is why, for example, when I take road trips to Mexico, it does not break US laws for me to plug in to my VPN om my computer at home to, say, listen to iHeart while I am down there. Just have my phone log in to my home VPN and then connect to iHeart and listen while I am driving.

Since I am not doing it for any kind of "commercial or private financial" gain, I am not committing a felony under the DMCA

And don’t get me started on CFAA. In order for it to be a felony under CFAA, two things must occur

  1. You used a hacked or otherwise illegally obtained password. In order words, you have to attempt to break into the system.

AND

  1. You intentionally caused damage to equipment on their network. Since bypassing geographic restrictions does not rise that that level, that does not apply

Since neither happens when I use my home VPN to access US only content when I go to Mexico on road trips, I cannot be prosecuted under felony provisions of the CFAA>

John85851 (profile) says:

This is only a symptom of the disposable socity

Honestly, this is just a symptom of society’s larger issue: way too many people think everything is disposable.
Your Blue-ray player breaks? Just get a new one at Best Buy for $25! But a $25 Blue-ray player isn’t designed to last? So, what- just get another one.
Your 60" TV broke? Just get a new 70" TV for less than you paid for the 60".

So we can call this lawmaker a fool, but I think he’s simply saying what most people are already doing.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...