<story><title>Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms</title><url>https://ifixit.org/blog/11951/1201-copyright-final-rule/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>xoa</author><text>Great decision, though it&amp;#x27;d be better if it was embedded into law and couldn&amp;#x27;t go away down the line. At the least DRM and legal protection should be either&amp;#x2F;or, like secrets vs patents. Part of the return the public is supposed to see for granting legal protection to IP is that the IP is then made widely available (as well as eventually entering the public domain) and can be built upon for personal use, commentated upon, etc. If somebody wants to just try to keep something secret or protect it with technology maybe that&amp;#x27;s fine to try to do indefinitely, but they shouldn&amp;#x27;t be able to do that and then &lt;i&gt;also&lt;/i&gt; get the full benefit of IP law that was originally created around non-technically restricted information.&lt;p&gt;This is also a good starting balance in that legal subsidies are removed but it doesn&amp;#x27;t require manufacturers to nerf their tech either, which is an area that needs to be navigated very carefully in law given the security implications and the risks of unintended consequences. I still wish &amp;quot;right to repair&amp;quot; was &amp;quot;right to have work&amp;quot; but this seems like an unalloyed Good Thing regardless. Maybe it can catalyze a bit of renewed fight against the worse parts of the DMCA and the like.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>jobu</author><text>&amp;gt; &lt;i&gt;Part of the return the public is supposed to see for granting legal protection to IP is that the IP is then made widely available (as well as eventually entering the public domain) and can be built upon for personal use, commentated upon, etc.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;That&amp;#x27;s really well said. A bit of a tangent, but it&amp;#x27;s similar to how software patents should be as well. If you want to patent a software feature, then you have to include a working code sample and that sample code loses copyright protection forever.</text></comment>
<story><title>Copyright Office Ruling Imposes Sweeping Right to Repair Reforms</title><url>https://ifixit.org/blog/11951/1201-copyright-final-rule/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>xoa</author><text>Great decision, though it&amp;#x27;d be better if it was embedded into law and couldn&amp;#x27;t go away down the line. At the least DRM and legal protection should be either&amp;#x2F;or, like secrets vs patents. Part of the return the public is supposed to see for granting legal protection to IP is that the IP is then made widely available (as well as eventually entering the public domain) and can be built upon for personal use, commentated upon, etc. If somebody wants to just try to keep something secret or protect it with technology maybe that&amp;#x27;s fine to try to do indefinitely, but they shouldn&amp;#x27;t be able to do that and then &lt;i&gt;also&lt;/i&gt; get the full benefit of IP law that was originally created around non-technically restricted information.&lt;p&gt;This is also a good starting balance in that legal subsidies are removed but it doesn&amp;#x27;t require manufacturers to nerf their tech either, which is an area that needs to be navigated very carefully in law given the security implications and the risks of unintended consequences. I still wish &amp;quot;right to repair&amp;quot; was &amp;quot;right to have work&amp;quot; but this seems like an unalloyed Good Thing regardless. Maybe it can catalyze a bit of renewed fight against the worse parts of the DMCA and the like.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>craftyguy</author><text>&amp;gt; though it&amp;#x27;d be better if it was embedded into law and couldn&amp;#x27;t go away down the line&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;d go further and say that there&amp;#x27;s nothing of any significance in this decision since it will likely go away down the line since it was not codified in law.</text></comment>