I’ve been stock-piling electronics that either people throw away, or things I bought 2nd-hand only to find they are broken.
Looks like the right to repair law is in very slow motion. Not yet enacted be the European Commission. And once it is, member states have like 2 years to actually enact it in their law. Probably even more time before consumers begin to see results.
(edit) I think some US states were the first to enact right to repair laws. So some consumers could perhaps pretend to be from one of those states to demand things like service manuals. But parts and repair is likely more out of reach ATM.
Right to repair means the parts can’t be drm’d to legally prevent you from repair, not that all out of warranty products must be cheap to repair.
You may be confusing US variations of right to repair, or perhaps you are just judging by the “right to repair” title. US states are ahead of the EU and have different motivations. The EU goes much further than mere new design requirements. It is not doing this to be nice to consumers. It’s part of the “green transition”. If parts prices are priced out of the market, it defeats the purpose of the right to repair. The EU is actively trying to reduce unsustainable consumption of new products and prevention of e-waste.
Here is a jan.2022 clip from the EU Parliament briefing:
In its resolution of 4 July 2017 on a longer lifetime for products, Parliament proposed a number of
actions to promote product reparability, including: measures to make repair attractive to
consumers; requiring products to be designed for easy and less expensive repair; extending the
guarantee if repair takes more than a month; discouraging the fixing-in of essential components
such as batteries; urging manufacturers to provide maintenance guides at the time of purchase;
developing the standardisation of spare parts and tools necessary for repair; encouraging
manufacturers to develop battery technology to ensure that the battery’s lifespan better matches
the expected lifespan of the product or, alternatively, to make battery replacement more accessible
at a price that is proportionate to the price of the product.
Parliament raised the level of ambition in the current term by adopting two resolutions that call on
the Commission to establish a consumer’s right to repair, with a view to making repairs systematic,
Right to repair cost-efficient and attractive. Its resolution of 25 November 2020 on a more sustainable single market
for business and consumers and its resolution of 10 February 2021 on the new circular economy
action plan both called for the adoption of a set of measures, including: mandatory labelling on the
estimated lifetime and reparability of products, such as a repair score and usage meter for certain
product categories, and ensuring that consumers are provided with the information on availability
of spare parts, repair services and software updates at the time of purchase; giving the repair
industry, ‘including independent repairers, and consumers’ free access to repair and maintenance
information; encouraging standardisation of spare parts; setting a mandatory minimum period for
the provision of spare parts that reflects the product’s estimated lifespan, and reasonable maximum
delivery times; and ensuring that the price of spare parts is reasonable, and that independent and
authorised repairers, as well as consumers, have access to the necessary spare parts without unfair
hindrances.
The projector manufacturer doesn’t control those costs. The Dcd isn’t drm’d. It’s not covered by right to repair.
The Right to Repair is not limited to DRM issues. From the briefing:
New implementing acts on servers and data storage products, washing machines, dishwashers, fridges, electronic displays (televisions and
monitors) and lamps require manufacturers, for instance, to ensure that spare parts are available for
a certain number of years after the last item has been placed on the market (e.g. ten years for
washing machines and seven years for fridges); to deliver the ordered parts within 15 days; and to
make maintenance information, including manuals, available to professional repairers.
I have yet to see a DRMd washing machine.
Of course manufactures can control the costs by shifting the cost onto the purchase price. If they must offer reasonably priced spare parts for ten years, then they might have to factor that cost into the sales pricing. And fair enough, because consumers should be discouraged from buying new stuff anyway.
That’s interesting! But none of it covers making manufacturers out of warranty warranty parts cheap. Everything in those paragraphs are directed towards future products. Some aren’t even required but “urge”, which means nothing.
It has not been established on when the law will take effect. If it takes effect the day before the last sale of a dishwasher, then they could have a ten year obligation starting instantly. Or not. Those points have not been pinned down in anything I’ve seen. This law has been discussed in the EU for the past 10 years now. It could be retroactive, if lawmakers decide to do that. If the last dishwasher was sold 5 years ago, they could have a sudden obligation to provide parts for the next 5 years forward.
The wording of the quotes above only say future designs. They say nothing about past products. It would be an extremely radical change in the law system to enact a retroactive law.
Of course when talking about designs, that’s about the future. After a design has been implemented, it’s too late. You can change a past design but it would only be for a future production because a design has already served its purpose after implementation. Apart from that, you would need a time machine.
But the right to repair in the EU is not just about designs. Design is only a small part of it. If a dishwasher were to end production 1 year before the right to repair law is enacted, that last dishwasher is already under a statutory warranty for another year, and likely under a commercial warranty for a year or three more. So spare parts would already be in production just to satisfy warranty obligations. There would be nothing radical about extending that since it would not have stopped production anyway. It would be foolish not to take that opportunity. And with manuals… who loses manuals? Consumers do, but not likely producers. Mandating that literature be made available for old appliances would be reasonable, at least in electronic form. The EU would be foolish not to make literature disclosure retroactive. Some EU countries will even enact retroactive taxation. If they will do that, anything is possible.
So spare parts would already be in production just to satisfy warranty obligations.
Sorry, I thought we were talking about the broken stuff you bought under the assumption the manufacturers would retroactively be forced to sell cheap replacement parts.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !zerowaste@slrpnk.net
Discussing ways to reduce waste and build community!
Celebrate thrift as a virtue, talk about creative ways to make do, or show off how you reused something!
You may be confusing US variations of right to repair, or perhaps you are just judging by the “right to repair” title. US states are ahead of the EU and have different motivations. The EU goes much further than mere new design requirements. It is not doing this to be nice to consumers. It’s part of the “green transition”. If parts prices are priced out of the market, it defeats the purpose of the right to repair. The EU is actively trying to reduce unsustainable consumption of new products and prevention of e-waste.
Here is a jan.2022 clip from the EU Parliament briefing:
The Right to Repair is not limited to DRM issues. From the briefing:
I have yet to see a DRMd washing machine.
Of course manufactures can control the costs by shifting the cost onto the purchase price. If they must offer reasonably priced spare parts for ten years, then they might have to factor that cost into the sales pricing. And fair enough, because consumers should be discouraged from buying new stuff anyway.
That’s interesting! But none of it covers making manufacturers out of warranty warranty parts cheap. Everything in those paragraphs are directed towards future products. Some aren’t even required but “urge”, which means nothing.
It has not been established on when the law will take effect. If it takes effect the day before the last sale of a dishwasher, then they could have a ten year obligation starting instantly. Or not. Those points have not been pinned down in anything I’ve seen. This law has been discussed in the EU for the past 10 years now. It could be retroactive, if lawmakers decide to do that. If the last dishwasher was sold 5 years ago, they could have a sudden obligation to provide parts for the next 5 years forward.
The wording of the quotes above only say future designs. They say nothing about past products. It would be an extremely radical change in the law system to enact a retroactive law.
Of course when talking about designs, that’s about the future. After a design has been implemented, it’s too late. You can change a past design but it would only be for a future production because a design has already served its purpose after implementation. Apart from that, you would need a time machine.
But the right to repair in the EU is not just about designs. Design is only a small part of it. If a dishwasher were to end production 1 year before the right to repair law is enacted, that last dishwasher is already under a statutory warranty for another year, and likely under a commercial warranty for a year or three more. So spare parts would already be in production just to satisfy warranty obligations. There would be nothing radical about extending that since it would not have stopped production anyway. It would be foolish not to take that opportunity. And with manuals… who loses manuals? Consumers do, but not likely producers. Mandating that literature be made available for old appliances would be reasonable, at least in electronic form. The EU would be foolish not to make literature disclosure retroactive. Some EU countries will even enact retroactive taxation. If they will do that, anything is possible.
Sorry, I thought we were talking about the broken stuff you bought under the assumption the manufacturers would retroactively be forced to sell cheap replacement parts.
We are indeed.