Cory Doctorow: Apple Sabotages Right-to-Repair Using 'Parts-Pairing' and the DMCA (pluralistic.net) 112
From science fiction author/blogger/technology activist Cory Doctorow:
Right to repair has no cannier, more dedicated adversary than Apple, a company whose most innovative work is dreaming up new ways to sneakily sabotage electronics repair while claiming to be a caring environmental steward, a lie that covers up the mountains of e-waste that Apple dooms our descendants to wade through... Tim Cook laid it out for his investors: when people can repair their devices, they don't buy new ones. When people don't buy new devices, Apple doesn't sell them new devices. It's that's simple...
Specifically Doctorow is criticizing the way Apple equips parts with a tiny system-on-a-chip just to track serial numbers solely "to prevent independent repair technicians from fixing your gadget." For Apple, the true anti-repair innovation comes from the most pernicious US tech law: Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). DMCA 1201 is an "anti-circumvention" law. It bans the distribution of any tool that bypasses "an effective means of access control." That's all very abstract, but here's what it means: if a manufacturer sticks some Digital Rights Management (DRM) in its device, then anything you want to do that involves removing that DRM is now illegal — even if the thing itself is perfectly legal...
When California's right to repair bill was introduced, it was clear that it was gonna pass. Rather than get run over by that train, Apple got on board, supporting the legislation, which passed unanimously. But Apple got the last laugh. Because while California's bill contains many useful clauses for the independent repair shops that keep your gadgets out of a landfill, it's a state law, and DMCA 1201 is federal. A state law can't simply legalize the conduct federal law prohibits. California's right to repair bill is a banger, but it has a weak spot: parts-pairing, the scourge of repair techs...
Parts-pairing is bullshit, and Apple are scum for using it, but they're hardly unique. Parts-pairing is at the core of the fuckery of inkjet printer companies, who use it to fence out third-party ink, so they can charge $9,600/gallon for ink that pennies to make. Parts-pairing is also rampant in powered wheelchairs, a heavily monopolized sector whose predatory conduct is jaw-droppingly depraved...
When Bill Clinton signed DMCA 1201 into law 25 years ago, he loaded a gun and put it on the nation's mantlepiece and now it's Act III and we're all getting sprayed with bullets. Everything from ovens to insulin pumps, thermostats to lightbulbs, has used DMCA 1201 to limit repair, modification and improvement. Congress needs to rid us of this scourge, to let us bring back all the benefits of interoperability. I explain how this all came to be — and what we should do about it — in my new Verso Books title, The Internet Con: How to Seize the Means of Computation.
Specifically Doctorow is criticizing the way Apple equips parts with a tiny system-on-a-chip just to track serial numbers solely "to prevent independent repair technicians from fixing your gadget." For Apple, the true anti-repair innovation comes from the most pernicious US tech law: Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). DMCA 1201 is an "anti-circumvention" law. It bans the distribution of any tool that bypasses "an effective means of access control." That's all very abstract, but here's what it means: if a manufacturer sticks some Digital Rights Management (DRM) in its device, then anything you want to do that involves removing that DRM is now illegal — even if the thing itself is perfectly legal...
When California's right to repair bill was introduced, it was clear that it was gonna pass. Rather than get run over by that train, Apple got on board, supporting the legislation, which passed unanimously. But Apple got the last laugh. Because while California's bill contains many useful clauses for the independent repair shops that keep your gadgets out of a landfill, it's a state law, and DMCA 1201 is federal. A state law can't simply legalize the conduct federal law prohibits. California's right to repair bill is a banger, but it has a weak spot: parts-pairing, the scourge of repair techs...
Parts-pairing is bullshit, and Apple are scum for using it, but they're hardly unique. Parts-pairing is at the core of the fuckery of inkjet printer companies, who use it to fence out third-party ink, so they can charge $9,600/gallon for ink that pennies to make. Parts-pairing is also rampant in powered wheelchairs, a heavily monopolized sector whose predatory conduct is jaw-droppingly depraved...
When Bill Clinton signed DMCA 1201 into law 25 years ago, he loaded a gun and put it on the nation's mantlepiece and now it's Act III and we're all getting sprayed with bullets. Everything from ovens to insulin pumps, thermostats to lightbulbs, has used DMCA 1201 to limit repair, modification and improvement. Congress needs to rid us of this scourge, to let us bring back all the benefits of interoperability. I explain how this all came to be — and what we should do about it — in my new Verso Books title, The Internet Con: How to Seize the Means of Computation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Garbage.
Turns out the illegal stolen iPhone industry doesn't like the processes Apple uses to keep people from being ripped off.
Sure - the right-to-repair movement is just a front for the crooks who have created a black market in stolen phones. In other news, 5G is a mind-control vector and Covid vaccines embedded tracking chips in their recipients' bloodstreams.
Re: (Score:2)
In other news, 5G is a mind-control vector and Covid vaccines embedded tracking chips in their recipients' bloodstreams.
Yes, but... those tracking chips have unique serial numbers (obviously) which make it harder for third parties to surreptitiously replace you -- without it being a tedious process of either generating new matching chips or draining all your blood, and possible harvesting some of your organs, and infusing those into the replacement. Just sayin', there's an upside.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Garbage (Score:2)
Criminals certainly benefit where stolen products can be stripped for parts, even if the product itself is unusable.
Still, it'd be nice if laws mandated disabling of these protections after a reasonable time has passed. Although the move towards fewer discrete components and surface mount means modern equipment will be less repairable than current vintage electronics, I'd like to imagine in 2050 there'd be a descendent of Techmoan able to tinker with our current gear.
Re: Garbage (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with going by what criminals benefit from, as an imperative when deciding what not to do, is that we'd likely end up doing very little. Most if not all liberties can also be exploited for criminal purposes.
Re: (Score:1)
> The problem with going by what criminals benefit from, as an imperative when deciding what not to do ... is precisely what the entire public is screaming at the car companies to do.
The tradeoff is simple in that case: the ease of getting a new key/fob when you lose yours, to the easy of stealing the car through easily hacked "security" which requires nothing more than an ODB-II and some internet searches.
Of course we need to balance these, and perhaps Apple's balance is too far, but let's not pretend t
Re: (Score:2)
I can pair a new phone, fob or key card with my Tesla using a simple procedure on the car's screen (with appropriate login information).
Tesla seems to have solved this "problem" securely in the owner's favor without a lot of angst and "whataboutism".
(BTW, Teslas are the cars that are least likely to be stolen)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Garbage (Score:2)
How much does Applecare cost each year for all of your devices?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Garbage (Score:2)
Apple tax.
They got you.
Re: (Score:3)
Then there would be almost no liberties for anyone except those that stand above the laws.
That's the entire point there when making legislation, you can't just consider how something would benefit criminals and then categorically rule it out, you also have to consider what good it might do for society and weigh that against the "bad".
One of the foundations of your
Re: Garbage (Score:1)
It is entirely possible to replace a battery, screen etc after unlocking the phoneâ(TM)s anti-theft facilities. The fact you canâ(TM)t find parts or even devices on eBay etc that arenâ(TM)t unlocked is an indication of a societal problem that has normalized theft and elevated it to an industry. But third party repair facilities certainly can source unlocked parts.
On the other hand, DMCA does not prevent you from getting a chip reader and reverse engineering the chips on the parts, Doctorow, a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
From someone who was charged with circumvention of the DMCA, let me tell you:
Any effort to circumvent a measure employed by the manufacturer of any device that employs cryptographic keys to tailor rights to the whim of said manufacturer is a felony in the third degree and can be countered with charges that can and will land you in a prison cell.
I would say ask me how I know, but you seem to have all the answers.
Re: (Score:3)
In the United States, Section 103(f) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), states that there is no cross-questioning on the legality of reverse engineering and circumvention of protection to achieve interoperability between computer programs. The procurement of the reverse-engineered product must be through legal means and the person must be the lawful owner of the product. Section 1201 (f) of the Copyright Act allows a person involved in a reverse engineered computer program to bypass technologic
Re: Garbage (Score:2)
The only people that have been charged have been hacking devices for other people. Like PlayStations and Xboxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but unique hardware serial numbers can be used to prevent black market sales of stolen parts without making the parts incompatible. No-one has any use for an iPhone that isn't connected to a network and isn't running Apple software. The parts can report their hardware ID without needing to be nonfunctional if paired with the wrong parts. All that's needed is that the parts be registered. Then, if parts from a stolen iPhone show up in another iPhone, they can be tracked back..
Re: (Score:1)
If this were the case, there is already an IMEI / MEID blacklist system that is shared by all the providers.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the point. A blacklist of stolen parts should be enough. Preventing parts from working together just because they're not paired by the manufacturer a priori doesn't make much security sense. It really does just hurt DIY repair.
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, if new parts can be easily ordered by 3rd parties for repairs, the whole question is moot. The bottom would fall out of the market for stolen used parts overnight.
As a side effect, manufacturing in the first place becomes easier once they quit burning money on pairing everything.
Re: Garbage (Score:2)
If the phones hadn't been excessively expensive there wouldn't have been much money for the criminals to profit from.
Re:No (Score:4, Insightful)
Can you really call them unintended when so many predicted this outcome?
You can bet the people who were going to profit had figured out how to game the system before the legislation was even voted on.
And that's ignoring the fact that the DMCA was totally one-sided in favour of established industry powerhouses from the start.
The government new full well it would be abused, they just were paid well enough to not care.
Re: No (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Now, 25 years later, it does indeed seem there are unintended consequences. But of course we only have Clinton to blame, as there has not been a single Congress in session since.
While I agree the blame isn't only on one person, in this case it is on a huge swath of many millions of people that share this blame, but please don't try and conflate "unintended consequences" when speaking of those in positions to create laws.
This was not unintended for any of them. A few very specifically intended this, and the rest do NOT get to hide behind willful ignorance as an excuse for the consequences of their actions.
They chose not to listen to the experts explaining those consequences. That
Re: (Score:1)
We didn't vote for this, it was lobbied into existence. Just like all the new laws that get passed. We vote for people to represent us, who instead represent those who gave them all the money they needed to convince us they had OUR interests in mind during their campaign.
It's a big club, and you ain't in it.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod up. Best non-partisan description of US politics I ever read.
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember that time. The dmca was as controversial then as it is now, for the same reasons. And the opponents of it back then have been proven right again and again. It was a bad idea then and it's a bad idea now and has been abused on most instances. It wasn't about protecting the economy. It was about corporate greed and still is. Copyright law, as imperfect as it was, had enough to do the job already.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
you know the DMCA isn't the CDA right? No you don't you're one of those brilliant enlightened democrats and because you are so much smarter than everyone else you must be correct!
Please tell me how the DMCA protects Slashdot. I'll get my popcorn ready. The safe harbor provision is about the only thing in it I can imagine is at all useful to Slashdot and probably if they leveraged it they could hide behind CDA-230 anyway so its not needed.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea how you could arrive at the conclusion that only authoritarians and idiots would oppose the DMCA, which is factually often abused to censor important speech like criticism under the guise of protecting intellectual property from being infringed upon.
Re: (Score:2)
Every trade deal America makes includes a provision for the other country to have a similar law to the DMCA, sometimes more strict.
Re: (Score:2)
Every trade deal America makes includes a provision for the other country to have a similar law to the DMCA, sometimes more strict.
Any evidence?
BTW: "Internet" in the sense of exchange of hypertext data, i.e. "www" not the TCP/IP, was born at CERN, which is a scientific facility in Europe with no DMCA.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's one that America pressured Canada to have (or perhaps it was the WIPO that did the pressuring), https://ised-isde.canada.ca/si... [canada.ca] there's also one about locking stuff down, then there's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] where the treaties were actually the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty which I assume were pushed by America but quickly looking, I didn't find much about who pushed it.
As an aside, Trump's revised NAFTA included Canada updating its copyright length
Re: (Score:2)
Firstly thank you for the additional info.
You first wrote: Every trade deal America makes includes a provision for the other country to have a similar law to the DMCA, sometimes more strict.
However:
- you provided only 2 links both referring to Canada
- the first link you provided refers to the proposed law changes in Canada, and actually states that:
* The Notice and Notice regime does not impose any obligations on a subscriber who receives a notice and it does not requi
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, Canada has been pretty reluctant to illegalize IP, when we were pressured to allow suing for non-commercial copyright infringement, the law allowed suing for the price of the DVD basically with a max of a couple of thousand dollars, and as I'm Canadian, I remember how it affects Canada mostly.
Another example is, or was the TPP, which after Trump removed America from the agreement, we pushed to remove the IP crap America had pushed. To quote wiki, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly does the DMCA do for sites like Slashdot, protecting them from arbitrary lawsuits (about what?). Or how would the absence of the DMCA beyond a doubt lead to tons of arbitrary lawsuits?
The common wisdom here would be that the DMCA is used as grounds for lawsuits by entitled people, which is then also used to shut down otherwise valid criticism. And not that the DMCA protects you from such lawsuits.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, my understanding is if I posted a chunk of something like Dynentics (sp?) or directions on how to circumvent some copyright protection, with the DMCA, Slashdot just has to remove them when asked. Without, they can be sued for copyright infringement even if they took it down and with the justice system and unknown jurors, Slashdot might lose and even if they win, it can be expensive.
That expense too defend yourself from lawsuits is pretty chilling by itself, go up against a wealthy adversary in court,
Re: (Score:2)
Any sources for that?
Re: (Score:2)
You want a source for copyright infringement being a tort, or a source on how easy it is to sue in America?
Anyways a couple of minutes with DDG gives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org], sued for posting to usenet and there's this wiki page that I only briefly scanned, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Because I see things like those still happen if the "plaintiff" wants it to happen. Nintendo is such a case, where they will use anything, including the DMCA to get the names and addresses of users so they can sue the individual user. Just like in the case that you provided with Arnie Lerma, they used the individual and not the platform, which is clearly still a possiblity under the DMCA.
Until then,
Re: (Score:2)
> Places like this very web site will close the instant DMCA is gone.
What the fuck are you smoking???
A public website has nothing to do with the DMCA.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, this site pre-dates the DMCA, how do you explain that?
Re: (Score:1)
The DMCA is not the CDA. Dunning Kreuger Effect got you by the throat with this comment...
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
To be fair, many of the people who
Here, I'll fix that for you:
To further indict them for their incompetence, many of the people who
Re:No (Score:4, Insightful)
We had a two decade experience with VHS tapes, that never had copy protection schemes which were difficult to defeat by anyone with the least motivation. The DMCA was not 'necessary' to preserve the American economy to any thinking person.
It was an remains solid example of burdening the rest of the economy with onerous compliance costs and interchangeability barriers for the benefit for the few engaged in a narrow market segment. Not exactly textbook 'rent seeking' but not far from it and a bad law all around.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it's not like they could have clarified that none of it applies to preventing replacement parts from working in the nearly 30 years since.
Obligatory xkcd (Score:5, Funny)
Cory Doctorow wears a cape and goggles when he is blogging:
https://xkcd.com/239/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
And Linus Torvalds sleeps with nunchucks under his pillow.
eu battery rules will force apples hand on that pa (Score:1)
eu battery rules will force apples hand on that part and will they be able to pull an DMCA to get out of that?
Re: (Score:2)
eu battery rules will force apples hand on that part and will they be able to pull an DMCA to get out of that?
I imagine batteries represent a pretty small portion of Apple's total take from their DMCA-protected, planet-destroying extortion racket.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: eu battery rules will force apples hand on tha (Score:1)
Quick story, Bush passed the internet gambling act. So some American businessmen moved to costa rica and started a sports gambling company. They broke US laws and they said they didnâ(TM)t care. Of course the morons got on a plane and went back to the US and were immediately arrested and spent at least 10 years in federal prison.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
No. This crap move may cost them a few 100M EUR though. But I guess some organizations need to be punished before they accept reality.
Re: (Score:2)
eu battery rules will force apples hand on that part and will they be able to pull an DMCA to get out of that?
They, or any company, doesn't need to. The law doesn't require batteries to be cheap or independent of other components. Making the battery part of the structure, such as same Samsung did with the Galaxy 22 Ultra [ifixit.com] so it is easily replaceable nut not cheap. Battery design could get moe complex as a way to limit replacement or 3rd part parts.
The tools section also allows for "commercially available" tools so you could still need to buy a specialized tool.
Even so, a manufacturer could still serialize parts an
you guys will still buy (Score:4, Insightful)
All the people on /. say right to repair is good but then still buy Apple products anyways.
Is an inconvenience to get away from their products worth more or less than post you are against R2R but "vote" with your dollars anyways by buying Apple?
Re:you guys will still buy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Moto is awesome.
I have three of them, and they have all those things you mentioned. I bought mine three years ago, and they're still getting updates.
Android is ugly, bloated spyware. (Score:2)
It amazes me that /.ers put up with this when there are true Linux OSs available like Sailfish -- which can also run 99% of Android apps.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's because people live in reality where you literally have two choices.
Buy an Apple phone every 5 years and know it will actually have support (which I do) or buy an Android that may or may not have support for 2 years top and even then the updates can either be sketchy, come whenever (Hello Samsung, never buying one ever again)
Then the all knowing crowd online will tell you to install some random 'Android variant' that may or may not even have drivers for your phone or doesn't work properly.
So yeah. I
Re: (Score:2)
All the people on /. say right to repair is good but then still buy Apple products anyways.
Is an inconvenience to get away from their products worth more or less than post you are against R2R but "vote" with your dollars anyways by buying Apple?
--
Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
Never paid Apple a single penny for hardware. Not one, not ever. So STFU.
BTW - interesting sig. Sure you're not projecting just a bit...?
Re: (Score:2)
R2R is a law in Europe.
If you can not make similar laws, that is your fault.
And, yes, I buy Apple products. As they are actually much simpler to repair than the /. crowd or the other idiots claim.
My Macs are a prime example ... 15 year old and 12 year old ... going strong. Thanx to https://www.drmacbook.com/ [drmacbook.com].
Ah, and if you ever simply has put a Mac on a table, and used the appropriated screw drivers and opened the back: you would see it for yourself.
Doctor who? (Score:1)
I don't know bullshit from wild honey about any of this, but I know spiral branding when I see it. "If you haven't been paying attention to my shit, you need to, now, so I can make some money."
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Is that what you did?
state law for POT work even when fed says no it (Score:1)
state law for POT work even when fed says no it
Re: (Score:2)
state law for POT work even when fed says no it
state law for POT work even when fed says no it
This. Or to put it a little less eloquently:
A state law can't simply legalize the conduct federal law prohibits.
Have you noticed a certain state-legal industry growing up (pun intended) around you lately? In California amongst others? Pretty sure it's federally illegal - though with luck that'll change soon.
I wonder how Apple's gonna handle that. iWeed? Seeds with DRM? Clones with SoCs? No doubt their R&D department has been scrambling (heh) for years. I suppose someone's bound to patent the THC molecule any day now.
Oh, wait....
Re: (Score:1)
A state law can't simply legalize the conduct federal law prohibits.
The Constitution explicitly details what the federal govt is allowed to do. Its duties are enumerated. If its not stated that the federal govt can do something, its implied it can't because it wasn't given the power when it was created by the people it serves. Often cited is the commerce clause, which was intended to prohibit states from imposing tariffs on goods passing through, not a blanked ability to regulate everything trade related. In a nutshell, its illegal for the federal govt to regulate things be
Re: state law for POT work even when fed says no i (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
WADR, we're in this situation (cannabis, not RTR) because Reagan "thought" (read "was convinced by entirely commercial interests, mostly tobacco and pharma") that he could stop all illegal drug usage in the US by conducting a Vietnam-style war against its populace.
It's worked amazingly well - especially for the non-white members of said populace - don't you think? (/s). Indeed, it was about those non-white members that cannabis was made illegal in the first place.
You're aware that the US government patented
Re: (Score:2)
Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR actually are American's worst presidents. You just generally are not allowed to say it.
Seems like the DMCA does NOT stop this law to me. (Score:4, Interesting)
So what if it remains illegal to make a 3rd party tool that can re-marry paired parts due to the DMCA. If a company HAS a software or hardware tool that is authorized to re-marry parts in a repair context they are required to license it out due to the wording below.
(c) Except as necessary to comply with this section, this section does not require a manufacturer to divulge a trade secret or license any intellectual property, including copyrights or patents.
The contrapositive then is "As necessary to comply with this section, this section DOES require a manufacture to... license any intellectual property..."
Because they're required to *license* the use of the tools this is no longer a TPM* bypass but instead a completely legitimate way to interface and interact with the TPM; it doesn't automatically violate the DMCA to possess or distribute. This is essentially same as why a manufacturer adding the necessary software and keys to a DVD or Blu-Ray player to allow playback is not bypassing the TPM because it's part of the intended function of the TPM, similarly the manufacturing equipment to load this software/keys isn't illegal because it's also authorized to do so.
*TPM = Techological Protection Measures. This is the acronym used in the DMCA section 1201, DRM is a more specific application of a TPM.
Re: (Score:3)
Even if they have such a tool (and they may well not!), they can make acquiring, licensing and using such a tool very difficult. In the best case, it remains an extra hurdle.
Apple has exactly the same motivations - and morals - of any mega-corporation. They, too, dodge all possible taxes. They, too, want you to discard and replace your product every year or two. They, too, collect your data. They, too, do all the evil things of a Microsoft, or a Meta, or a Google. They just have a marketing department tha
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing about cost (straight fee or other) for said tools/software to do the remarrying. "Sure, we'll give a license to anyone who can post a 100 million bond to ensure....". Even a fraction of that amount will keep just about any small business from being able to get them.
I guess it is like the 2nd Amendment. Sure I have the right to own a machine gun, a buddy of mine has several. But due to the artificial scarcity imposed by the '86 ban on new registry entries I can buy an AR15 for $500, drill a extra
Entirely expected (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This kind of action was entirely expected. Big companies are going to weasel around all the rules. That this is also helping to "prevent theft" is supposed to make it more palatable to swallow.
That's why we need to stop rewarding them by buying their crap products.
I bough an Asus laptop last year, not only do I have a long history of solid, reliable Asus laptops (3 going back a decade, all of which still work but only the newest one can play modern games) they also publish videos on how to do basic repairs and upgrades like installing more RAM or replacing a hard drive.
My Nokia T10 tablet, the screen broke on it (probably my fault) but I was able to purchase a replacement part on Ali Expres
DMCA exception for compatibility? (Score:3)
Isn't (or wasn't? there a DMCA exception for providing compatibility?
Massgenerated comments? (Score:2)
This will continue until you grow balls (Score:2)
This behavior has been illegal for something like 100 years now, and the case law settled out decades ago.
But it will continue until the people responsible spend a year in court trying to avoid a prison sentence. Note that I did not say "company", I said "people", and I did not say "fine", I said "prison". Companies don't exist, they don't commit crimes. People exist, people commit crimes.
But that won't happen until we have state AGs with balls, and that won't happen until the people voting for them - ak
Re: (Score:2)
Companies don't exist, they don't commit crimes. People exist, people commit crimes.
The company at the heart of this issue doesn't exist? Oh my, how disappointing for all those users of (non-repairable) iProducts....
(/s)
While I agree in spirit with your post, I guess I have to say it again: I'm charmed by your naivete.
Jack of all trades, master of none (Score:2, Interesting)
I regarded Corey Doctorow of 2017 as perhaps THE bright light of modern sci-fi.
Corey Doctorow of 2023 is a shambling shell of a writer. He churns out steaming piles of garbage which might as well be ghostwritten by Woke MFAs. It's a sad story... he's somehow adopted the persona of an outrage addicted twitter warrior ("blogger" and "tech activist") in order to pander to his twitter mob. This guarantees sales... but also guarantees that his muse has left and ain't coming back.
Words cannot describe how ut
Re:Cory Doctorcunt (Score:5, Insightful)
What he really wants is for you to get mad. Real mad! And to buy his shitty book.
Cory Doctorow writes entertaining books that probably do a LOT more to raise awareness and foster healthy dissent than you ever have or could with your whinging. I have no problem with whinging - that's why I'm here - but I have the good sense and intellectual honesty not to indulge myself in envy-laden bitchiness about people who are actually doing something that might change the world for the better.
As for wanting people to get mad - well, folks getting mad and running with it is why we have ANY right-to-repair legislation in place. What have you done to help that movement?
Re: Cory Doctorcunt (Score:1)
Cory Doctorow publishes under Creative Commons (Score:5, Insightful)
What he really wants is for you to get mad. Real mad! And to buy his shitty book.
That's not really true. In fact Cory Doctorow gives most of his books, (if not all), away for free [medium.com], under the Creative Commons (CC) license. All the books he authored are linked to on the front page of his website, and all but one I looked at today had free download links to use.
I've read his writing ages ago that explained his decision to release every book of his under a CC license. The link I included today was the best supporting link I could find.
Re: (Score:2)
What he really wants is for you to get mad. Real mad! And to buy his shitty book.
The blind do not appreciate the art of Picasso, Degas, Winchester, Delacroix, or Van Gogh.
But their works are valued by those with the ability to see them. Which isn't to say Cory Doctorow is at the level of the preceding.
Doctorow's works are valued by those with the ability to see the point. Ray Charles never owned a Rodin, but he did own a Chickering.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Strong agree. This guy has been a shameless self promoter for years and years. He has a recognizable name but outside of the (tiny) echo chamber he's largely useless. I can't stand the guy I wish we would stop reporting on him. I guess he's not totally worthless, but he reminds me of the luxury version of John Katz. Big microphone, lots of hot air.
Re: (Score:2)
Really wish I could mod you up!
Re: (Score:1)
LOL. So much butthurt over Doctorow's work and contributions by the armchair expert crew in here. Help us all to understand your position - please point out on a diagram of blockchain-based cryptocurrencies where mean old Doctorow hurt your feelings.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
A company with the logo of the original sin
I quit paying attention to the argument about the bite of the apple - gosh, 30 years ago? Some saw it as you, some saw it as an homage to Alan Turing. Ronald Wayne designed it, and there are two things related to him I want to read/watch, "Adventures of an Apple Founder" and "Welcome to Macintosh", a documentary. Time... ask me for anything but time.
Company logos are mind ducks, they are empty gestures with no real significance other than to get you to remember them and make them relevant.
As I am not a fan
Re:But but the fiber co, co, coooover (Score:4, Insightful)
I am put in mind of John Deere, claiming that they simply had to close source all repair and part because gasp! someone might hack into their equipment and make it sooooo dangerous for the general public. Why, they might get SUED! because someone modified their combine and someone else got hurt!
Never mind the fact that never happens when people "hack" their '57 Chevy, or that Boeing and Air Bus have folks that work on their planes that aren't their employees. Shock! Someone's phone needs the same care and restrictions as a machine that flies at 35,000+ feet at 550+ miles per hour! Oh, THE HORROR!!!!
the very last line gives you the full context: he's advertising his new book.
And? He shouldn't make a living telling people why and how they get screwed? I'm sure Apple and John Deere would agree. You should go to Houston and tell Louis Rossmann that. I want to watch.
Re: (Score:3)
Vote with your wallet. Apple. John Deere. Lexmark. The list goes on.
The list goes on so far, that if you actually tried to stop buy products from all the greedy evil bastards, you would be shivering and hungry in the dark. The financial incentive for companies to be bastards is too great; and the bastards can easily bury the non-bastards and prevent them from competing.
I agree with your point, and I sure as hell don't buy anything from Apple, but that's really just to make *myself* feel better. I certainly don't expect Apple to notice my boycott.