[toss1]

EXACTLY

If you don't want anyone else to work on your products, then you need to only rent or lease them out.

If you claim to "sell" the product to the customer, then THE CUSTOMER OWNS IT, and should be able to do whatever T.F. they want, including decompiling, reverse-engineering, breaking locks or codes, etc.. The only thing they should not be able to do is manufacture and resell copies of it.

And, if you only lease/rent your product, you are responsible for disposal at the end.

Seems like a reasonable distinction and deal to make.

Acting like you are selling something when you are really only leasing it out, and withholding information and rights to the object is dishonest.

Just because it is profitable does not mean that it is right.

This needs to be codified into law.

[daniel-cussen]

Yeah the word "sell" and "buy" is false advertising right there, it's very ingrained that buying and selling imply absolute ownership, all the way down to chattel slavery, where "buy" and "sell" are insulting. Very very ingrained.

[Spivak]

What you’re describing is already the case, the law you want is that people who sell things have to give you the keys, tools, specs, and parts necessary to do the modifying.

[joshmarinacci]

Not true in the US. Thanks to the DMCA it is illegal to break encryption on objects you own.

[toss1]

Can you please tell me in what country that is the case, and to what extent?

What do they do about vendors that don't cooperate, like John Deere, or Sony?

(Serious question, not sarc. It definitely is not the case in the US, and the country that already has such laws might be a good indicator of a good place to move).

[blobbers]

I mean the whole PlayStation Blu-ray debacle basically drove that home… sorry referring to the encryption reply.