this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2025
1174 points (99.7% liked)
Technology
64938 readers
5876 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
To me it's weird to even think of repairing stuff you buy as a "right" - that's a given. The issue is the nonexistent "right" of a seller to restrict what a customer does with a product after buying it. That's as ridiculous as a shoe company trying to dictate where you can or can't walk. It's a no-brainer, and should never have to be argued in court or anywhere else.
When written out like this, it seems simple as - but the most simple version really isn't what's at stake. Companies make and trademark specialized tools for their goods, to prevent third parties from providing repairs. Warrantys are written to keep a company from being liable for repair/replacement if a customer attempts to repair a product themselves.
Pretty much every case in the right to repair movement is a challenge to a legally acceptable means of market capture, that just happens to create a stupendously shitty consumer environment.