EU’s new right-to-repair rules force companies to repair out-of-warranty devices

a spanner and screwdriver in the shape of a skull and crossbones flag

Devices sold in Europe already offer minimum two-year warranties, but the new rules impose additional requirements. If a device is repaired under warranty, the customer must be given a choice between a replacement or a repair. If they choose the latter, the warranty is to be extended by a year.

Once it expires, companies are still required to repair “common household products” that are repairable under EU law, like smartphones, TVs and certain appliances (the list of devices can be extended over time). Consumer may also borrow a device during the repair or, if it can’t be fixed, opt for a refurbished unit as an alternative.

The EU says repairs must be offered at a “reasonable” price such that “consumers are not intentionally deterred” from them. Manufacturers need to supply spare parts and tools and not try to weasel out of repairs through the use of “contractual clauses, hardware or software techniques.” The latter, while not stated, may make it harder for companies to sunset devices by halting future updates.

In addition, manufacturers can’t stop the use of second-hand, original, compatible or 3D-printed spare parts by independent repairers as long as they’re in conformity with EU laws. They must provide a website that shows prices for repairs, can’t refuse to fix a device previously repaired by someone else and can’t refuse a repair for economic reasons.

While applauding the expanded rules, Europe’s Right to Repair group said it there were missed opportunities. It would have liked to see more product categories included, priority for repair over replacement, the right for independent repairers to have access to all spare parts/repair information and more. “Our coalition will continue to push for ambitious repairability requirements… as well as working with members focused on the implementation of the directive in each member state.”

Along with helping consumers save money, right-to-repair rules help reduce e-waste, CO2 pollution and more. The area is currently a battleground in the US as well, with legislation under debate in around half the states. California’s right-to-repair law — going into effect on July 1 — forces manufacturers to stock replacement parts, tools and repair manuals for seven years for smartphones and other devices that cost over $100.

Source: EU’s new right-to-repair rules force companies to repair out-of-warranty devices

When You Need To Post A Lengthy Legal Disclaimer With Your Parody Song, You Know Copyright Is Broken

In a world where copyright law has run amok, even creating a silly parody song now requires a massive legal disclaimer to avoid getting sued. That’s the absurd reality we live in, as highlighted by the brilliant musical parody project “There I Ruined It.”

Musician Dustin Ballard creates hilarious videos, some of which reimagine popular songs in the style of wildly different artists, like Simon & Garfunkel singing “Baby Got Back” or the Beach Boys covering Jay-Z’s “99 Problems.” He appears to create the music himself, including singing the vocals, but uses an AI tool to adjust the vocal styles to match the artist he’s trying to parody. The results are comedic gold. However, Ballard felt the need to plaster his latest video with paragraphs of dense legalese just to avoid frivolous copyright strikes.

When our intellectual property system is so broken that it stifles obvious works of parody and creative expression, something has gone very wrong. Comedy and commentary are core parts of free speech, but overzealous copyright law is allowing corporations to censor first and ask questions later. And that’s no laughing matter.

If you haven’t yet watched the video above (and I promise you, it is totally worth it to watch), the last 15 seconds involve this long scrolling copyright disclaimer. It is apparently targeted at the likely mythical YouTube employee who might read it in assessing whether or not the song is protected speech under fair use.

Image

And here’s a transcript:

The preceding was a work of parody which comments on the perceived misogynistic lyrical similarities between artists of two different eras: the Beach Boys and Jay-Z (Shawn Corey Carter). In the United States, parody is protected by the First Amendment under the Fair Use exception, which is governed by the factors enumerated in section 107 of the Copyright Act. This doctrine provides an affirmative defense for unauthorized uses that would otherwise amount to copyright infringement. Parody aside, copyrights generally expire 95 years after publication, so if you are reading this in the 22nd century, please disregard.

Anyhoo, in the unlikely event that an actual YouTube employee sees this, I’d be happy to sit down over coffee and talk about parody law. In Campell v. Acuff-Rose Music Inc, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed for 2 Live Crew to borrow from Roy Orbison’s “Pretty Woman” on grounds of parody. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall when the justices reviewed those filthy lyrics! All this to say, please spare me the trouble of attempting to dispute yet another frivolous copyright claim from my old pals at Universal Music Group, who continue to collect the majority of this channel’s revenue. You’re ruining parody for everyone.

In 2024, you shouldn’t need to have a law degree to post a humorous parody song.

But, that is the way of the world today. The combination of the DMCA’s “take this down or else” and YouTube’s willingness to cater to big entertainment companies with the way ContentID works allows bogus copyright claims to have a real impact in all sorts of awful ways.

We’ve said it before: copyright remains the one tool that allows for the censorship of content, but it’s supposed to only be applied to situations of actual infringement. But because Congress and the courts have decided that copyright is in some sort of weird First Amendment free zone, it allows for the removal of content before there is any adjudication of whether or not the content is actually infringing.

And that has been a real loss to culture. There’s a reason we have fair use. There’s a reason we allow people to create parodies. It’s because it adds to and improves our cultural heritage. The video above (assuming it’s still available) is an astoundingly wonderful cultural artifact. But it’s one that is greatly at risk due to abusive copyright claims.

Nope, it has been taken down by Universal Music Group

Let’s also take this one step further. Tennessee just recently passed a new law, the ELVIS Act (Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security Act). This law expands the already problematic space of publicity rights based on a nonsense moral panic about AI and deepfakes. Because there’s an irrational (and mostly silly) fear of people taking the voice and likeness of musicians, this law broadly outlaws that.

While the ELVIS Act has an exemption for works deemed to be “fair use,” as with the rest of the discussion above, copyright law today seems to (incorrectly, in my opinion) take a “guilty until proven innocent” approach to copyright and fair use. That is, everything is set up to assume it’s infringing unless you can convince a court that it’s fair use, and that leads to all sorts of censorship.

[…]

Source: When You Need To Post A Lengthy Legal Disclaimer With Your Parody Song, You Know Copyright Is Broken | Techdirt