[UncleVanya]

Hackers, farmers, and doctors unite! Support for Right to Repair laws slowly grows


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronics_right_to_repair

The topic has come up in many discussions of Precision etc. there is a movement to try to force products to be able to be repaired by independent shops and individual owners.

This article is about the general context, but I’m curious about the photographic world impact. Many manufacturers do not sell parts to users and limit the ships that can buy parts.

Do you think this has any chance to change?

---

Last edited by UncleVanya; 12-09-2020 at 08:08 AM.

[thazooo]

The Auto repair industry went thru this about a decade ago. When it got to the point where Auto's needed a computer to get adjustments, it was dealer only. The independent shops had to band together and go to court to get the info needed to do repairs. They mostly succeeded . Some software is still not available, proprietary with no adjustments, logs mostly. The court decided that the software wasn't like Windows and couldn't be 'Leased' because without it the auto was nothing but a large scooter.
It could change if someone wants to spend the money to go to court.

[Mooncatt]

I'm kind of mixed on this. I can understand the right to repair side of the argument. On the other hand, I'm a firm believer in copyright and patent protections. If the manufacturer has special diagnostic software or manuals, I think it is their right to decide if they want to make that intellectual property available to others.

To keep this photography related, I'll refer to this thread.

Pentax K-1 Disassembly: incomplete and dangerous - PentaxForums.com

I wouldn't trust any random shop to open up my camera like that. There is just too many small and expensive pieces in there for me to trust to just anyone. Authorized shops generally get extra training along with the extra tools needed. If you take your camera to non-authorised repair shops, then that necessarily means you are willing to accept a higher risk of a botched repair, with no manufacturer backed support if that happens.

In the end, I think I would side against these sorts of laws. If you buy into a brand, this should be one of the considerations you look at. If you don't like a closed repair environment, then don't buy into any brand that has that and find a brand more aligned to your beliefs.

[photoptimist]

I see both sides, too.

I'd think that one challenge might be conflict between consumer protection laws and the physical reality of the delicacy of the insides of modern cameras. Cameras really don't have "user serviceable" parts inside them. The chance that Joe Consumer will succeed at diagnosing a fault in their camera, buy the right replacement, and successfully replace it is not that high. So what happens when Joe Consumer's "repaired" camera fails to work? Can't Joe make a warranty claim on either the camera or the replacement part? Warranties on replacement parts would be a horribly expensive proposition for companies.

Are there exceptions to consumer protection laws that let a product maker sell something to consumers (e.g., a $XXX main board) but insist that said product has ZERO warranty because the consumer is very likely to break it? I doubt it (especially in the EU but even the US.)

Any law offering a "Right to Repair" to consumers would have to include a "Right to Deny Warranties" to companies.

[Mooncatt]

Are there exceptions to consumer protection laws that let a product maker sell something to consumers (e.g., a $XXX main board) but insist that said product has ZERO warranty because the consumer is very likely to break it? I doubt it (especially in the EU but even the US.)

From my understanding of the Magnusson-Moss Act (the Federal warranty act for the U.S.), only written warranties are covered and must meet specific requirements. The act does not require a written warranty in and of itself, nor does it apply to oral warranties (which is basically he said/she said if a dispute arises). To me, that means there is no Federal warranty requirement and parts can be sold "as is" to consumers. You can read up more on that at:

Businessperson's Guide to Federal Warranty Law | Federal Trade Commission

There may be state laws that could require a warranty for consumers regardless of what the manufacturer states, but that is beyond my time available to research.

Any law offering a "Right to Repair" to consumers would have to include a "Right to Deny Warranties" to companies.

I could consider that, depending on the specifics, but you know that would never fly because how dare we hold people accountable for making poor decisions.

[jatrax]

I'm kind of mixed on this. I can understand the right to repair side of the argument. On the other hand, I'm a firm believer in copyright and patent protections. If the manufacturer has special diagnostic software or manuals, I think it is their right to decide if they want to make that intellectual property available to others.

I agree completely on patent and intellectual property issues. However, not selling parts is IMHO a bit different. I see no way selling anyone the parts needed violates patent protections. Being required to sell or distribute diagnostic software on the other hand might be.

Any law offering a "Right to Repair" to consumers would have to include a "Right to Deny Warranties" to companies.

It would seem that most products clearly include a warning that opening the device voids any warranty. So if Joe wants to open his camera and repair it, then fine sell him the parts but that voids any remaining warranty. I would also think that mostly this is about out of warranty repairs. If the warranty is still in force then most I think would go that route rather than pay for parts.

Cameras really don't have "user serviceable" parts inside them. The chance that Joe Consumer will succeed at diagnosing a fault in their camera, buy the right replacement, and successfully replace it is not that high.

I sort of agree with that in general but on the other hand we have threads on this forum describing how to repair the aperture block issue on K-30 / K-50 cameras. So in some cases, yes, it is quite possible for Joe (with some internet help) to open and repair a camera. I performed that procedure on a K-30 recently with complete success. The camera was well out of warranty and not worth the cost of having a shop repair it. $30 in parts and 2 hours of work and it is good as new. I would have bought the parts from Ricoh but the only option is to scavenge parts from other cameras.

[BigMackCam]

I'm kind of mixed on this. I can understand the right to repair side of the argument. On the other hand, I'm a firm believer in copyright and patent protections. If the manufacturer has special diagnostic software or manuals, I think it is their right to decide if they want to make that intellectual property available to others.

To keep this photography related, I'll refer to this thread.

Pentax K-1 Disassembly: incomplete and dangerous - PentaxForums.com

I wouldn't trust any random shop to open up my camera like that. There is just too many small and expensive pieces in there for me to trust to just anyone. Authorized shops generally get extra training along with the extra tools needed. If you take your camera to non-authorised repair shops, then that necessarily means you are willing to accept a higher risk of a botched repair, with no manufacturer backed support if that happens.

In the end, I think I would side against these sorts of laws. If you buy into a brand, this should be one of the considerations you look at. If you don't like a closed repair environment, then don't buy into any brand that has that and find a brand more aligned to your beliefs.

It's a balance, though, isn't it? Imagine a Pentax K-5 owner who, after two-and-a-half years' light use of his camera - which is now out of warranty - found that the lens release button had sprung off and got lost (several members actually had this happen). The part - and the washer or retaining clip that secures it in place - costs just a few dollars. Sending it to Precision for repair costs a minimum of $300 (if I remember correctly). Assuming the owner realises he may kill the camera with a clumsy repair attempt and has no recourse against the manufacturer, shouldn't he have the choice to buy the part for, say, $10 - $20 and at least try to fix it?

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 12-09-2020 at 11:26 AM.

[Mooncatt]

However, not selling parts is IMHO a bit different. I see no way selling anyone the parts needed violates patent protections.

Government shouldn't have the right to force companies to sell anything, which is a very dangerous road to go down. And if push comes to shove, the company could just close its doors and refuse to sell all together. What is government going to do, put the executives and owners in prison?

I know that's an extreme outlook, but anything less means that any forced availability law really had no teeth to begin with.

[stevebrot]

Do you think this has any chance to change?

It's a nice idea, but the cost of warehousing an undetermined inventory of parts for an unstable market will likely be borne by the consumer in the form of end-price.


Steve

[Mooncatt]

It's a balance, though, isn't it? Imagine a Pentax K-5 owner who, after two-and-a-half years' light use of his camera - which is now out of warranty - found that the lens release button had sprung off and got lost (several members actually had this happen). The part - and the washer or retaining clip that secures it in place - costs just a few dollars. Sending it to Precision for repair costs a minimum of $300 (if I remember correctly). Assuming the owner realises he may kill the camera with a clumsy repair attempt and has no recourse against the manufacturer, shouldn't he have the choice to buy the part for, say, $10 - $20 and at least try to fix it?

See my reply to jatrax just above, because similar reasoning applies. The consumer having the choice to purchase the part implies the manufacturer offers up the part to the general public, even if by force. That concept just doesn't sit well with me.

If the manufacturer is forced and doesn't want to shut its doors in protest, then I fully expect that $10-20 part to become a $50-75 part. Not only to cover the increased costs of warehousing and handling, but as a punitive deterrent (it's not uncommon to see manufacturer direct prices inflated over retailer pricing of the exact same product, so this isn't too far out of the question). At that point do you go further down the slippery slope and regulate price controls?

I know this is exaggeration, but here's the deal. When all the cards are laid out, the manufacturer holds more power than many are willing to admit because they always have the option to not do business with you. To suggest otherwise would be akin to slavery. If people really want such a thing to pass, then they need to be willing to accept the reality that manufacturers will push back and such draconian steps could be needed.

[DeadJohn]

Yes, it has a chance to change. There are powerful interests on all sides of the argument.

Availability of spare parts: Should Ricoh/Pentax be required to sell parts to consumers?

Legality of making changes: Cameras and so many other products contain software. That software is protected by DMCA law, which has in some cases been interpreted to make it illegal to repair products even if you need no parts.

Firmware changes after initial product purchase: Imagine if Ricoh fixes some bug, advises you to install the new firmware, and then after installing it you discover that you can no longer set the date on your camera. That "feature" is now reserved for approved technicians and you have to pay every time you want to change the date.

Waste stream: We collectively throw away many things that could conceivably be repaired. Electronic garbage lasts a very long time.

[BigMackCam]

See my reply to jatrax just above, because similar reasoning applies. The consumer having the choice to purchase the part implies the manufacturer offers up the part to the general public, even if by force. That concept just doesn't sit well with me.

If the manufacturer is forced and doesn't want to shut its doors in protest, then I fully expect that $10-20 part to become a $50-75 part. Not only to cover the increased costs of warehousing and handling, but as a punitive deterrent (it's not uncommon to see manufacturer direct prices inflated over retailer pricing of the exact same product, so this isn't too far out of the question). At that point do you go further down the slippery slope and regulate price controls?

I know this is exaggeration, but here's the deal. When all the cards are laid out, the manufacturer holds more power than many are willing to admit because they always have the option to not do business with you. To suggest otherwise would be akin to slavery. If people really want such a thing to pass, then they need to be willing to accept the reality that manufacturers will push back and such draconian steps could be needed.

I should have been clearer and more complete in my previous response...

I don't think manufacturers should be forced to sell parts. The choice should of course be theirs. Rather, I think they should be encouraged to do so, in whatever form that may take - perhaps some manner of positive incentive, perhaps a punitive requirement to place a warning on product packaging where spares for that product are not available to the consumer. I haven't really thought it through...

I'm a big fan of Pentax - I love the equipment... and I've bought plenty of it, even after learning - some years ago, and to my surprise - that spares aren't generally available. I knew it when I bought my K-3, from which I expected nothing more than to get trouble-free use from it during the two year warranty period (since that's what I paid for), and I considered the price acceptable even if it only lasted for those two years. I hoped it would last much longer, of course, and thankfully that's been the case... because the minimum repair bill for a well-used camera outside of warranty would have me wondering whether the costs are justifiable, compared to investing the money in part payment for a brand new camera (which, presumably, is what the manufacturer wants us to decide)... or not replacing it at all and using an older backup camera instead (which I'd probably be inclined to do). As such, the Pentax cameras I've bought thus far I've thought of as almost "disposable" if they should fail after warranty expires. Given the prices I paid during heavy discount events, I'm OK with that - but I wonder how I'd feel shelling out for a K-3III on the same basis...

For some years I was the type of person to replace an item when it failed, especially if the repair bill was going to be considerable... but in the last five years or so, I'm becoming more and more inclined to fix the problem myself if I can get parts and sufficient documentation to attempt it. In that time, I've fixed my washing machine, fridge freezer, laptop computer (twice), my Dad's computer, and numerous other items around the home. It feels right to get as much life from these products as possible, especially since - aside from the often-minor faults in question - they're otherwise in perfect condition. Saving money on replacing them - which, for the same reason, seems like overkill - is a nice bonus, but it's not the main reason...

[ZombieArmy]

I'm kind of mixed on this. I can understand the right to repair side of the argument. On the other hand, I'm a firm believer in copyright and patent protections. If the manufacturer has special diagnostic software or manuals, I think it is their right to decide if they want to make that intellectual property available to others.

I don't buy this argument. Anyone could reverse engineer the product given enough time. Plus patented things are already disclosed in excruciating detail to the patent offices because that's a requirement.

No the problem is here is these companies make deals with parts manufacturers to not use off the shelf components and make it almost impossible to repair your own product if you don't have a donor product.

---------- Post added 12-09-20 at 02:59 PM ----------

I see both sides, too.

I'd think that one challenge might be conflict between consumer protection laws and the physical reality of the delicacy of the insides of modern cameras. Cameras really don't have "user serviceable" parts inside them.

Says who?

The chance that Joe Consumer will succeed at diagnosing a fault in their camera, buy the right replacement, and successfully replace it is not that high.

Ignoring the fact that this isn't just for the end consumer but also for independent repair establishments, not all repairs are of the same difficulty. Performing an on board SOC replacement isn't the same as someone replacing their screen.

So what happens when Joe Consumer's "repaired" camera fails to work? Can't Joe make a warranty claim on either the camera or the replacement part? Warranties on replacement parts would be a horribly expensive proposition for companies.

Are there exceptions to consumer protection laws that let a product maker sell something to consumers (e.g., a $XXX main board) but insist that said product has ZERO warranty because the consumer is very likely to break it? I doubt it (especially in the EU but even the US.)

Any law offering a "Right to Repair" to consumers would have to include a "Right to Deny Warranties" to companies.

There are already laws in place to deny a warranty if the repair itself is why broke the product. This is a moot concern.

[ThorSanchez]

The problem is not just unavailability of parts, but of proprietary software that is necessary to do anything to the thing you've spent a lot of money on. My Audi, for example, has an electronic parking brake. To do brake work on it you need a device that can access the ODB-2 port and retract the electronically controlled brake unit. Luckily that was fairly easy for a third-party company to reverse engineer, and I have a $20 Bluetooth dongle that lets me do that. But other companies (John Deere, for one) make that kind of thing almost impossible.

So if you want to do any kind of maintenance or upgrade work on your device you need to take it back to an authorized dealer who sets whatever price he wants for the work. For my brakes, I did the work for the cost of parts and fluid, less than $500 including new rotors, pads, brake fluid. The dealer wanted well over $1000. This ends up being a big racket, with manufacturers creating de facto monopolies on service for their equipment, able to charge whatever they want for otherwise straightforward and inexpensive work.

One scenario could be that Pentax releases firmware upgrades for a camera. Today you download it and put it on an SD card and in a few minutes you're done, for free. But there's nothing stopping Pentax from requiring Precision to do the job at $300 a pop. You know, to save the well-meaning but ignorant consumer from bricking their camera, it's all in their best interest.

Yes, you can do research into each and every product you buy and try to find out what kind of DRM and consumer-unfriendly repair and upgrade policies they have. But most likely this is the kind of thing you run into when you've had the thing for a while and need to do some work, and you're already bought into the system and would incur high costs to switch. And if this kind of thing is allowed to continue eventually we get to the point where huge markups on service and repair are an expected revenue stream for manufacturers and it's harder to exist without them. So there is little or no choice to go with a company that's more friendly to people who do their own work, or for independent shops.

[RobA_Oz]

I should have been clearer and more complete in my previous response...

I don't think manufacturers should be forced to sell parts. The choice should of course be theirs. Rather, I think they should be encouraged to do so, in whatever form that may take - perhaps some manner of positive incentive, perhaps a punitive requirement to place a warning on product packaging where spares for that product are not available to the consumer. I haven't really thought it through...

I'm a big fan of Pentax - I love the equipment... and I've bought plenty of it, even after learning - some years ago, and to my surprise - that spares aren't generally available. I knew it when I bought my K-3, from which I expected nothing more than to get trouble-free use from it during the two year warranty period (since that's what I paid for), and I considered the price acceptable even if it only lasted for those two years. I hoped it would last much longer, of course, and thankfully that's been the case... because the minimum repair bill for a well-used camera outside of warranty would have me wondering whether the costs are justifiable, compared to investing the money in part payment for a brand new camera (which, presumably, is what the manufacturer wants us to decide) or not replacing it at all and using an older backup camera instead. As such, the Pentax cameras I've bought thus far I've thought of as almost "disposable" if they should fail after warranty expires. Given the prices I paid during heavy discount events, I'm OK with that - but I wonder how I'd feel shelling out for a K-3III on the same basis...

For some years I was the type of person to replace an item when it failed, especially if the repair bill was going to be considerable... but in the last five years or so, I'm becoming more and more inclined to fix the problem myself if I can get parts and sufficient documentation to attempt it. In that time, I've fixed my washing machine, fridge freezer, laptop computer (twice), my Dad's computer, and numerous other items around the home. It feels right to get as much life from these products as possible, especially since - aside from the often-minor faults in question - they're otherwise in perfect condition. Saving money on replacing them - which, for the same reason, seems like overkill - is a nice bonus, but it's not the main reason...

I thought you were fairly clear the first time around, but I think there’s also a distinction in your exchange between national attitudes to what governments should and shouldn’t do. In any event, the supply of spare parts isn’t a simple “do” or “don’t” issue: there are matters like user safety to consider, for a start, so there are legitimate reasons for some manufacturers to refuse to supply parts to unqualified repairers. Complexity, in my book, isn’t a legitimate reason to refuse supply, outside of warranty at least.

There is also the matter of whether individual parts should be available, rather than sub-assemblies. I first noticed this in the automotive industry some years ago, when manufacturers began supplying only sub-assemblies of some parts (only selling a whole starter motor to replace one where the return spring had failed comes to mind). The reason for doing this was obvious at the time – the seller was making much more money on the sub-assembly than on the failed component. The repairer was therefore bearing the associated increase in cost. Of course, using a paid service to undertake the repair will in some cases add labour costs that exceed the cost of purchasing the complete sub-assembly, but relying on this scenario to justify only selling the complete sub-assembly denies the self-repair person the opportunity to save that cost. It also adds to the waste stream, and (again in my book) government has a perfect right to intervene to limit that occurring, particularly where environmental impacts are adverse.

Like you, I prefer to consider repairing some items myself, where I feel I have the knowledge and capability to do so safely, but then I come from a family heritage that encouraged its people (mostly male, I have to admit) to use their hands to do things, including repairing all manner of goods. That, of course, is an individual choice, and I find it sad that so many younger people simply aren’t interested in taking up that sort of challenge, but I find it ironic that some who generally defend the right to individual self-expression will also oppose government from taking steps to ensure that can happen. It’s largely a matter of how much is enough, I suppose, but unintended consequences can occur, either way.