Everything breaks eventually.

It sounds bleak. But when it comes to the devices, machines, and tools we use every single day, it’s true. You’ll push down the lever on your toaster, but your bread won’t magically change into toast. Parts inside your car will wear out, even if you only do things the average driver does. The device you’re using to read this blog post likely has a battery or drive that will fail.

We’ve all encountered objects that stop functioning. When they do, we act, whether it’s getting the object serviced, fixing it ourselves, or even replacing the whole thing. But some manufacturers intentionally limit what people can do to get their stuff working again, even if you technically have the ability to try and repair your own things. Some manufacturers include . They might hoard proprietary parts and threaten third party part manufacturers. Some companies . Manufacturers can also make their devices without breaking them further. A right to repair can alleviate consumers of some of these restrictive practices and give them more options.

Manufacturers likely find it valuable to monopolize repairs. It’s questionable whether they are obligated to help anyone break into their products for repairs, considering that it might lead to piracy. Companies may arguably make higher-quality repairs on their own products, and worth the price. The device manufacturer should know how to diagnose and fix your device better than anyone. If a device cannot be fixed, manufacturers can even replace them.

However, it doesn’t make sense to restrict competition in the repair market just because a manufacturer can make quality repairs, or for fears of piracy. Even if we accept that third parties can’t meet the manufacturer standard, this fact will likely be reflected in the prices consumers pay third party repair choices. A lack of a right to repair isn’t preventing anyone from pirating either. Consumers should at least have the option to choose, and a right of repair could help them do so.

The US is taking steps towards giving consumers these options to anti circumvention exceptions in section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Consumers in the US have been given extended to “break in” to consumer software-enabled devices for diagnostics, repair, and maintenance. Consumers will be able to use software tools or enable third parties to use tools to repair devices, where previously this access may have been. There are still limits, in that these , among others. The changes also cannot stop a company from sealing their device in such a way that makes it difficult to access for repair. But it does expand and get in. It’s a nice addition to a consumer’s right to repair their own things.

Canada should follow suit, potentially by adding “repairs” as a category to the Fair Dealing exceptions to copyright. Using software tools to repair a device might , which is prohibited in , likely due to piracy concerns. But, repair exemptions could benefit Canadians, and seems to already have . Additionally, codifying existing common law rights to repair one’s property sends a clear message that Canada is dedicated to protecting the rights of consumers.

A right to repair could help make our society less wasteful. It will give consumers more options to fix their stuff instead of going to the manufacturer to fix things. It could stoke competition in the repair market, which may lower prices. It may also convince more consumers to try the do-it-yourself route, saving costs on simple repairs, and allowing people to learn more about the devices they use every day. With all the potential a right to repair regime might bring, it would be unwise to ignore what the US has done and act on our end.

The post Canada Should Not Be Left Behind as the US Moves Towards a Right to Repair appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Since the end of last year, the Copyright Office has accepted public submissions for the new batch of exemptions. Currently, 27 proposed classes of works are under consideration, and the finalized list of exemptions is set to be announced in the fall.  Although many of the proposed classes have been either previously accepted or considered, there are several notable additions, including: “” and “”

While automotive repairs and modifications have been historically associated with patent disputes, the introduction of vehicle software creates a new ambit of protection for manufacturers under copyright law. Much debate between automotive industry insiders, aftermarket suppliers, independent repair shops and car enthusiasts has focused on alterations to the Engine Control Unit ("ECU"), a type of electronic control unit that manages functions of the car engine. ECUs are often modified by car owners and independent mechanics in order to alter performance of and customize vehicles. One example is the modified of The Fast and the Furious fame. Though the film's protagonists may not exactly typify average car owners, those who want to have their cars fixed by independent mechanics or even personally tinker with them may be prevented from doing so under the current law.

of the vehicle software exemption have argued that modifications to ECU firmware fall squarely under fair use. Further, the use is non-infringing when car owners access, copy and modify vehicle firmware as outlined by of the Act. Conversely, have argued that an exemption would undermine the safety and regulatory standards of vehicles. An unscrupulous mechanic or unwary amateur may weaken vital mechanisms of a vehicle and not only diminish its performance but create additional liability for the manufacturer.

The other new proposed class exemption involves 3D printers.  Currently, many manufacturers of 3D printers require their customers to purchase proprietary cartridges with approved feedstock; otherwise, the printer is prevented from functioning by technological protection measures ("TPMs"). has proposed that non-manufacturer-approved feedstock should be exempted from DMCA liability circumvention of TMPs that control access to the 3D printer’s software. The of this exemption have argued that it would negatively affect the market in at least 3 ways: “(1) it would threaten the value of a manufacturer’s 3D printers; (2) it would undermine security protections for intellectual property and confidential information embedded on printers; and (3) it would undermine growth in the overall market for 3D printers and 3D printed objects by placing at risk technological advances enabled by secure, fully-integrated 3D printing systems.” While the exemption sought does not considerably differ conceptually from unlocking a telephone or a tablet, it highlights the technological advances and improved accessibility of 3D printing.

It should be noted that in previous reviews exemptions have been granted to a handful of classes; in fact, the last review of 2012 was quite . Although the Library of Congress granted an exemption to permit the interoperability of “jailbreaking” application on wireless telephones, it omitted e-readers and tablets from the exemption. Moreover, the Copyright Office decided not to renew the exemption for unlocking wireless telephones through user self-service. The latter decision generated significant public outcry and led to the enactment of the which temporarily reinstated the old DMCA exemption. is up for review again this year.

Whether or not one thinks these exemptions are warranted, the sheer breadth of classes up for review this year cannot go unnoticed. More and more industries are becoming affected by electronic commerce and copyright law. It will be interesting to see how the various competing interests will be balanced this time around.

Anastassia Trifonova is an IPilogue Editor and a JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

The post Out with the Old, In with the New: DMCA Exemptions Under Review appeared first on IPOsgoode.