{"id":4932,"date":"2017-02-04T21:08:59","date_gmt":"2017-02-05T01:08:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ncjolt.org\/?p=4932"},"modified":"2020-06-04T20:52:57","modified_gmt":"2020-06-04T20:52:57","slug":"dmca-right-repair","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/dmca-right-repair\/","title":{"rendered":"Thanks to the DMCA, Your Right to Repair May Actually Just Be an \u201cAlternative Right\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"I\u2019m sure you\u2019ve all seen the \u201ccheck-engine\u201d light come on in your car or on your motorcycle, and I\u2019m sure you\u2019ve wanted to get it checked out and removed as quickly as possible, partly due to caring about your vehicle, but mostly because those lights are annoying. Or maybe you\u2019re the tinkering type and wanted to add a new exhaust for some added performance and a good sound. None of that should be a problem, right? It\u2019s your vehicle after all, right? Well, not so fast. Thanks to some poor drafting in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act<\/a><\/span> (DMCA), original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) could seek copyright infringement claims against you if you do any repairs or modifications that alter the vehicle\u2019s computer system, which is more often than not proprietary technology. This doesn\u2019t apply solely to vehicles<\/a><\/span>, but that\u2019s what we\u2019ll be talking about today.
\nSection 1201 of the DMCA protects \u201cDigital Rights Management\u201d (DRM)\u2014software locks controlling access to copyrighted work\u2014from being tampered with. That could be as little as clearing the engine code on your own. If the OEMs designed the products in such a way that the maintenance or modification breaks some DRM, you have now infringed on the copyright and potentially opened up yourself to a lawsuit. And many vehicles, especially newer models, are littered with this kind of technology.
\nDo you think this is a bit ridiculous? Don\u2019t worry, you\u2019re not alone. A few states are considering their own \u201cright to repair<\/a><\/span>\u201d laws, modeled after Massachusetts\u2019 2012 \u201cMotor Vehicle Owners\u2019 Right to Repair Act<\/a><\/span>.\u201d Additionally, the Electronic Frontier Foundation<\/a><\/span> has pushed for exemptions relating to vehicle repair and modification. These exemptions, however, don\u2019t completely fix the initial drafting issues of DMCA 1201\u2014mechanics aren\u2019t allowed to do so on a customer\u2019s behalf.
\nBut as with any cause, there are inevitably those in favor of such restrictions. In this case, it\u2019s no surprise the parties in favor<\/a><\/span> of restriction are the manufacturers<\/a><\/span> themselves. But they don\u2019t want the restrictions to be placed only on the owner. They want the restrictions to include any \u201cnon-factory trained technicians.\u201d<\/a><\/span> That could mean your local mechanic wouldn\u2019t be permitted to make those changes on your vehicle if they didn\u2019t receive specialized training from the manufacturer.
\nThe manufacturers cite public safety as their biggest reason for supporting restrictions on maintenance, arguing that anyone other than a manufacturer-approved technician would create a safety risk to consumers<\/a><\/span>. But that goes heavily against car and bike cultures. I personally know people who have always, and will always do their own maintenance and modifications on their vehicles, myself included. There is the stereotype that a mechanic will often take advantage of your lack of subject matter knowledge to overcharge and over-prescribe work. Working on your own vehicles, or personally knowing someone who does allows you to have your car maintained by someone you truly trust. Additionally, it doesn\u2019t necessarily make the work unsafe. Many mechanics and enthusiasts devote their lives to actually understanding the intricate workings of the vehicles they deal with. Plus, there are numerous tools and literature<\/a><\/span> available to allow virtually anyone to adequately and safely do maintenance, repairs, or modifications on their vehicles.<\/p>\n

While it would appear the manufacturers are looking out for the safety of people, it\u2019s something of a slap in the face to enthusiasts, basically saying they have no clue about their vehicles or how to take care of them.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

 
\nThe more likely reason for supporting the restrictions is money. Limiting who can legally work on a vehicle creates a monopoly<\/a><\/span>, allowing the already high rates for mechanic work to soar, because the dealership or OEM-certified mechanics are the only ones permitted to work on the vehicle. The manufactures say that their training<\/a><\/span> is the only way to be truly capable of performing the work. Realistically, all they would need to do is put out a manual similar to Chilton repair manuals. They could even charge for the books and make a profit. But the profits probably wouldn\u2019t be as much as they could be if only the manufacturer or certified mechanic were permitted to do the work.
\nLawmakers are continually fighting for your right to repair. After all, it is YOUR vehicle. Home repairs have always been around\u2014many new companies were founded on home tinkering<\/a><\/span>. It is ingrained in the culture, so why should we accept a change like this? With states continuing to fight, it is unlikely major cases will result from home repairs or modifications. But with groups like MIC, ROHVA, and SVIA (motorcycle and off-road vehicle groups) trying to push legislation, enthusiasts and non-factory certified mechanics should keep developments on their radars. If we lose the freedom to work on and modify our vehicles, we lose a large part of the spirit of the cultures we love.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I\u2019m sure you\u2019ve all seen the \u201ccheck-engine\u201d light come on in your car or on your motorcycle, and I\u2019m sure you\u2019ve wanted to get it checked out and removed as quickly as possible, partly due to caring about your vehicle, but mostly because those lights are annoying. Or maybe you\u2019re the tinkering type and wanted …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":4933,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[51],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4932"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4932"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4932\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7124,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4932\/revisions\/7124"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4933"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4932"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4932"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4932"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}