search

uncefact / spec-untp

UN Transparency Protocol
https://uncefact.github.io/spec-untp/
GNU General Public License v3.0
10 stars 9 forks source link

Counterfeit vs Right to Repair #29

Open mxshea opened 3 months ago

mxshea commented 3 months ago

I'm not sure how this should be handled (or if) in the spec, but wanted to raise this as an example of 'unintended consequences'. DRM laws were passed to prevent piracy and unlawful copying (originally) of creative content. However, they have been extended in ways not imagined originally (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-03-05/farmers-fight-john-deere-over-who-gets-to-fix-an-800-000-tractor) and are now being used to block the use of after market parts and repairs.

Should this be considered in the specification?

onthebreeze commented 3 months ago

I'm not sure this has much impact - except maybe as a "right to repair" attribute in the sustainability claims vocabulary- probably part of the circularity vocabulary (yet to be completed).

Quite separate thing from anti-counterfeiting though I think?

ReLOG3PSNE commented 3 months ago

@mxshea & @onthebreeze , I could suggest that, for this "right to repair" matter, we reference/align with what is being brought forward by EU (see here and here), which indicates that it the right to repair has to be indeed considered within the circularity matter and that it does "obliges manufacturers to provide information concerning spare parts in their web site, make them available to all parties in the repair sector at a reasonable price and forbid practices that prevent the use of second-hand or 3D printed spare parts by independent repairers".

Thus, it does correlate indirectly with the anti-counterfeiting (forbid [...] parts by independent repairers), but mostly via the circularity channel.

Thus, also agree that this should be included/kept/expanded in the #12 issue

nissimsan commented 1 month ago

To close this, add linkage to EU Right to Repair on the spec.