Since we give manufacturers an artificial monopoly over the ability to provide those parts, schematics, tools, and software, it seems reasonable that we might give them some responsibilities along with that privilege.
It's less about forcing manufacturers to do something, and more about saying to them, "if we give you permission to take away other people's rights and make it a felony for other people to build businesses around flashing firmware on your tractors without your permission, then in return you have to give people better avenues for repair."
Copyright and DRM laws create artificial monopolies that we grant companies because (for better or worse) we've decided that market intervention into creative industries and granting people limited legal monopolies over ideas is sometimes in the best interest of the market/society. But copyright is a privilege that we grant companies for pragmatic reasons, it's not a constitutional right or a natural property right. Copyright is a market intervention by the government, and it's fine for that intervention to come with caveats and conditions.
It's less about forcing manufacturers to do something, and more about saying to them, "if we give you permission to take away other people's rights and make it a felony for other people to build businesses around flashing firmware on your tractors without your permission, then in return you have to give people better avenues for repair."
Copyright and DRM laws create artificial monopolies that we grant companies because (for better or worse) we've decided that market intervention into creative industries and granting people limited legal monopolies over ideas is sometimes in the best interest of the market/society. But copyright is a privilege that we grant companies for pragmatic reasons, it's not a constitutional right or a natural property right. Copyright is a market intervention by the government, and it's fine for that intervention to come with caveats and conditions.