If you buy something—a refrigerator, a car, a tractor, a wheelchair, or a phone—but you can't have the information or parts to fix or modify it, is it really yours? The right to repair movement is based on the belief that you should have the right to use and fix your stuff as you see fit, a philosophy that resonates especially in economically trying times, when people can’t afford to just throw away and replace things.

Privacy info. This embed will serve content from simplecast.com

(You can also find this episode on the Internet Archive and on YouTube.)

 Companies for decades have been tightening their stranglehold on the information and the parts that let owners or independent repair shops fix things, but the pendulum is starting to swing back: New York, Minnesota, California, Colorado, and Oregon are among states that have passed right to repair laws, and it’s on the legislative agenda in dozens of other states. Gay Gordon-Byrne is executive director of The Repair Association, one of the major forces pushing for more and stronger state laws, and for federal reforms as well. She joins EFF’s Cindy Cohn and Jason Kelley to discuss this pivotal moment in the fight for consumers to have the right to products that are repairable and reusable.  

In this episode you’ll learn about: 

• Why our “planned obsolescence” throwaway culture doesn’t have to be, and shouldn’t be, a technology status quo. 
• The harm done by “parts pairing:” software barriers used by manufacturers to keep people from installing replacement parts. 
• Why one major manufacturer put out a user manual in France, but not in other countries including the United States. 
• How expanded right to repair protections could bring a flood of new local small-business jobs while reducing waste. 
• The power of uniting disparate voices—farmers, drivers, consumers, hackers, and tinkerers—into a single chorus that can’t be ignored. 

Gay Gordon-Byrne has been executive director of The Repair Association—formerly known as The Digital Right to Repair Coalition—since its founding in 2013, helping lead the fight for the right to repair in Congress and state legislatures. Their credo: If you bought it, you should own it and have the right to use it, modify it, and repair it whenever, wherever, and however you want. Earlier, she had a 40-year career as a vendor, lessor, and used equipment dealer for large commercial IT users; she is the author of "Buying, Supporting and Maintaining Software and Equipment - an IT Manager's Guide to Controlling the Product Lifecycle” (2014), and a Colgate University alumna. 

Resources:

• Gay Gordon-Byrne's TED Talk: “You deserve the right to repair your stuff"(August 2021)
• iFixit, the world’s largest online repair community, offering free step-by-step repair guides for thousands of products
• The Verge: “Right-to-repair is now the law in California” (Oct. 10, 2023)
• The Verge: "Maine’s right-to-repair law for cars wins with 84 percent of the vote" (Nov. 7, 2023)
• Ars Technica: "Oregon governor signs nation’s first right-to-repair bill that bans parts pairing" (Mar. 27,2024)
• National Conference of State Legislatures: Right to Repair 2023 Legislation
• How to Fix the Internet: “Making Hope, with Dan Savage" (Apr. 12, 2022) 

What do you think of “How to Fix the Internet?” Share your feedback here. 

Transcript

GAY GORDON-BYRNE
A friend of mine from Boston had his elderly father in a condo in Florida, not uncommon. And when the father went into assisted living, the refrigerator broke and it was out of warranty. So my friend went to Florida, figured out what was wrong, said, ‘Oh, I need a new thermostat,’ ordered the thermostat, stuck around till the thermostat arrived, put it in and it didn't work.

And so he called GE because he bought the part from GE and he says, ‘you didn't provide me, there's a password. I need a password.’ And GE says, ‘Oh, you can't have the password. You have to have a GE authorized tech come in to insert the password.’ And that to me is the ultimate in stupid.

CINDY COHN
That’s Gay Gordon-Byrne with an example of how companies often prevent people from fixing things that they own in ways that are as infuriating as they are absurd.

I’m Cindy Cohn, the executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

JASON KELLEY
And I’m Jason Kelley, EFF’s Activism Director. This is our podcast series How to Fix the Internet.  

Our guest today, Gay Gordon-Byrne, is the executive director of The Repair Association, where she has been advocating for years for legislation that will give consumers the right to buy products that are repairable and reusable – rather than things that need to be replaced outright every few years, or as soon as they break. 

CINDY COHN
The Right to Repair is something we fight for a lot at EFF, and a topic that has come up frequently on this podcast. In season three, we spoke to Adam Savage about it.

ADAM SAVAGE
I was trying to fix one of my bathroom faucets a couple of weeks ago, and I called up a Grohee service video of how to repair this faucet. And we all love YouTube for that, right, because anything you want to fix whether it’s your video camera, or this thing, someone has taken it apart. Whether they’re in Micronesia or Australia, it doesn’t matter. But the moment someone figures out that they can make a bunch of dough from that, I’m sure we’d see companies start to say, ‘no, you can’t put up those repair videos, you can only put up these repair videos’ and we all lose when that happens.

JASON KELLEY
In an era where both the cost of living and environmental concerns are top of mind, the right to repair is more important than ever. It addresses both sustainability and affordability concerns.

CINDY COHN
We’re especially excited to talk to Gay right now because Right to Repair is a movement that is on its way up and we have been seeing progress in recent months and years. We started off by asking her where things stand right now in the United States.

GAY GORDON-BYRNE
We've had four states actually pass statutes for Right to Repair, covering a variety of different equipment, and there's 45 states that have introduced right to repair over the past few years, so we expect there will be more bills finishing. Getting them started is easy, getting them over the finish line is hard.

CINDY COHN
Oh, yes. Oh, yes. We just passed a right to repair bill here in California where EFF is based. Can you tell us a little bit about that and do you see it as a harbinger, or just another step along the way?

GAY GORDON-BYRNE
Well, honestly, I see it as another step along the way, because three states actually had already passed laws, in California, Apple decided that they weren't going to object any further to right to repair laws, but they did have some conditions that are kind of unique to California because Apple is so influential in California. But it is a very strong bill for consumer products. It just doesn't extend to non-consumer products.

CINDY COHN
Yeah. That's great. And do you know what made Apple change their mind? Because they had, they had been staunch opponents, right? And EFF has battled with them in various different areas around Section 1201 and other things and, and then it seemed like they changed their minds and I wondered if you had some insights about that.

GAY GORDON-BYRNE
I take full responsibility.

CINDY COHN
Yay! Hey, getting a big company to change their position like that is no small feat and it doesn't happen overnight.

GAY GORDON-BYRNE
Oh, it doesn't happen overnight. And what's interesting is that New York actually passed a bill that Apple tried to negotiate and kind of really didn't get to do it in New York, that starts in January. So there was a pressure point already in place. New York is not an insignificant size state.

And then Minnesota passed a much stronger bill. That also takes effect, I think, I might be wrong on this, I think also in January. And so the wheels were already turning, I think the idea of inevitability had occurred to Apple that they'd be on the wrong side of all their environmental claims if they didn't at least make a little bit more of a sincere effort to make things repairable.

CINDY COHN
Yeah. I mean, they have been horrible about this from the very beginning with, you know with custom kinds of dongles, and difficulty in repairing. And again, we fought them around section 1201, which is the ability to do circumvention so that you can see how something works and build. tools that will let you fix them.

It's just no small feat from where we set to get, to get the winds to change such that even Apple puts their finger up and says, I think the winds are changing. We better get on the right side of history.

GAY GORDON-BYRNE
Yeah, that's what we've been trying to do for the past, when did we get started? I got started in 2010, the organization got started in 2013. So we've been at it a full 10 years as an actual organization, but the problems with Apple and other manufacturers existed long before. So the 1201 problem still exists, and that's the problem that we're trying to move in federally, but oh my God. I thought moving legislation in states was hard and long.

CINDY COHN
Yeah, the federal system is different, and I think that one of the things that we've experienced, though, is when the states start leading, eventually the feds begin to follow. Now, often they follow with the idea that they're going to water down what the states do. That's why, you know, EFF and, and I think a lot of organizations rally around this thing called preemption, which doesn't really sound like a thing you want to rally around, but it ends up being the way in which you make sure that the feds aren't putting the brakes on the states in terms of doing the right things and that you create space for states to be more bold.

It's sometimes not the best thing for a company that has to sell in a bunch of different markets, but it's certainly better than  letting the federal processes come in and essentially damp down what the states are doing.

GAY GORDON-BYRNE
You're totally right. One of our biggest fears is that someone will... We'll actually get a bill moving for Right to Repair, and it's obviously going to be highly lobbied, and we will probably not have the same quality of results as we have in states. So we would like to see more states pass more bills so that it's harder and harder for the federal government to preempt the states.

In the meantime, we're also making sure that the states don't preempt the federal government, which is another source of friction.

CINDY COHN
Oh my gosh.

GAY GORDON-BYRNE
Yeah, preemption is a big problem.

CINDY COHN
It goes both ways. In our, in our Section 1201 fights, we're fighting the Green case, uh, Green vs. Department of Justice, and the big issue there is that while we can get exemptions under 1201 for actual circumvention, the tools that you need  in order to circumvent, you can't get an exception for, and so you have this kind of strange situation in which you technically have the right to repair your device, but nobody can help you do that and nobody can give you the tools to do it. 

So it's this weird, I often, sometimes I call it the, you know, it's legal to be in Arizona, but it's illegal to go to Arizona kind of law. No offense, Arizona.

GAY GORDON-BYRNE
That's very much the case.

JASON KELLEY
You mentioned, Gay, that you've been doing this work while probably you've been doing the work a lot longer than the time you've been with the coalition and the Repair Association. We'll get to the brighter future that we want to look towards here in a second, but before we get to the, the way we want to fix things and how it'll look when we do, can you just take us back a little bit and tell us more about how we got to a place where you actually have to fight for your right to repair the things that you buy. You know, 50 years ago, I think most people would just assume that appliances and, and I don't know if you'd call them devices, but things that you purchased you could fix or you could bring to a repair shop. And now we have to force companies to let us fix things.

I know there's a lot of history there, but is there a short version of how we ended up in this place where we have to fight for this right to repair?

GAY GORDON-BYRNE
Yeah, there is a short version. It's called about 20 years ago, right after Y2K, it became possible, because of the improvements in the internet, for manufacturers to basically host a repair manual or a user guide. online and expect their customers to be able to retrieve that information for free.

Otherwise, they have to print, they have to ship. It's a cost. So it started out as a cost reduction strategy on the part of manufacturers. And at first it seemed really cool because it really solved a problem. I used to have manuals that came in like, huge desktop sets that were four feet of paper. And every month we'd get pages that we had to replace because the manual had been updated. So it was a huge savings for manufacturers, a big convenience for consumers and for businesses.

And then, no aspersions on lawyers. But my opinion is that some lawyer decided they wanted to know, they should know. For reasons we have no idea because they, they still don't make sense, that they should know who's accessing their website. So then they started requiring a login and a password, things like that.

And then another bright light, possibly a lawyer, but most likely a CFO said, we should charge people to get access to the website. And that slippery slope got really slippery or really fast. So it became obvious that you could save a lot of money by not providing manuals, not providing diagnostics and then not selling parts.

I mean, if you didn't want to sell parts, you didn't have to. There was no law that said you have to sell parts, or tools, or diagnostics. And that's where we've been for 20 years. And everybody that gets away with it has encouraged everybody else to do it. To the point where, um, I don't think Cindy would disagree with me.

I mean, I took a look, um, as did Nathan Proctor of US PIRG when we were getting ready to go before the FTC. And we said, you know, I wonder how many companies are actually selling parts and tools and manuals, and Nathan came up with a similar statistic. Roughly 90 percent of the companies don't.

JASON KELLEY
Wow.

GAY GORDON-BYRNE
So we're, face it, we have now gone from a situation where everybody could fix anything if they were really interested, to 90 percent of stuff not being fixable, and that number is going, getting worse, not better. So yeah, that's the short story, it’s been a bad 20 years.

CINDY COHN
It's funny because I think it's really, it's such a testament to people's desire to want to fix their own things that despite this, you can go on YouTube if something breaks and you can find some nice person who will walk you through how to fix, you know, lots and lots of devices that you have. And to me, that's a testament to the human desire to want to fix things and the human desire to want to teach other people how to fix things, that despite all these obstacles, there is this thriving world, YouTube's not the only place, but it's kind of the central place where you can find nice people who will help tell you how to fix your things, despite it being so hard and getting harder to have that knowledge and the information you need to do it.

GAY GORDON-BYRNE
I would also add to that there's a huge business of repair that, we're not strictly fighting for people's rights to be able to do it yourself. In fact, most people, again, you know, back to some kind of general statistics, most people, somewhere around 85 percent of them, really don't want to fix their own stuff.

They may fix some stuff, but they don't want to fix all stuff. But the options of having somebody help them have also gone. Gone just downhill, downhill, downhill massively in the last 20 years and really bad in the past 10 years. 

So the industry that current employment used to be about 3 million people in the repair, in the industry of repair and that kind of spanned auto repair and a bunch of other things. But those people don't have jobs if people can't fix their stuff because the only way they can be in business is to know that they can buy a part. To know that they can buy the tool, to know that they can get a hold of the schematic and the diagnostics. So these are the things that have thwarted business as well as, do it yourself. And I think most people, most people, especially the people I know, really expect to be able to fix their things. I think we've been told that we don't, and the reality is we do.

CINDY COHN
Yeah, I think that's right. And one of the, kind of, stories that people have been told is that, you know, if there's a silicon chip in it, you know, you just can't fix it. That that's just, um, places things beyond repair and I think that that's been a myth and I think a lot of people have always known It's a myth, you know, certainly in EFF's community.

We have a lot of hardware hackers, we even have lots of software hackers that know that the fact that there's a chip involved doesn't mean that it's a disposable item. But I wondered you know from your perspective. Have you seen that as well?

GAY GORDON-BYRNE
Oh, absolutely. People are told that these things are too sophisticated, that they're too complex, they're too small. All of these things that are not true, and you know, you got 20 years of a drumbeat of just massive marketing against repair. The budgets for people that are saying you can't fix your stuff are far greater than the budgets of the people that say you can.

So, thank you, Tim Cook and Apple, because you've made this an actual point of advocacy. Every time Apple does something dastardly, and they do it pretty often, every new release there's something dastardly in it, we get to get more people behind the, ‘hey, I want to fix my phone, goddamnit!’

CINDY COHN
Yeah, I think that's right. I think that's one of the wonderful things about the Right to Repair movement is that you're, you're surfing people's natural tendencies. The idea that you have to throw something away as soon as it breaks is just so profoundly …I think it's actually an international human, you know, desire to be able to fix these kinds of things and be able to make something that you own work for you.

So it's always been profoundly strange to have companies kind of building this throwaway culture. It reminds me a little of the privacy fights where we've had also 20 years of companies trying to convince us that your privacy doesn't matter and you don't care about it, and that the world's better if you don't have any privacy. And on a one level that has certainly succeeded in building surveillance business models. But on the other hand, I think it's profoundly against human tendencies, so those of us on the side of privacy and repair, the benefit of us is we're kind of riding with how people want to be in the kind of world they want to live in, against, you know, kind of very powerful, well funded forces who are trying to convince us we're different than we are.

JASON KELLEY
Let’s take a quick moment to say thank you to our sponsor. “How to Fix the Internet” is supported by The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation’s Program in Public Understanding of Science and Technology. Enriching people’s lives through a keener appreciation of our increasingly technological world and portraying the complex humanity of scientists, engineers, and mathematicians.

And now back to our conversation with Gay Gordon-Byrne.

At the top of the episode, Gay told us a story about a refrigerator that couldn’t be fixed unless a licensed technician – for a fee, obviously – was brought in to ENTER A PASSWORD. INTO A FRIDGE. Even though the person who owned the fridge had sourced the new part and installed it.

GAY GORDON-BYRNE
And that illustrates to me the damage that's being done by this concept of parts pairing, which is where only the manufacturer can make the part work. So even if you can find a part. Even if you could put it in, you can't make it work without calling the manufacturer again, which kind of violates the whole idea that you bought it and you own it, and they shouldn't have anything to do with it after that. 

So these things are pervasive. We see it in all sorts of stuff. The refrigerator one really infuriates me.

CINDY COHN
Yeah, we've seen it with printer cartridges. We've seen it with garage door openers, for sure. I recently had an espresso machine that broke and couldn't get it fixed because the company that made it doesn't make parts available for, for people and that. You know, that's a hard lesson. It's one of the things when you're buying something is to try to figure out, like, is, is this actually repairable or not?

You know, making that information available is something that our friends at Consumer Reports have done and other people have done, but it's still a little hard to find sometimes.

GAY GORDON-BYRNE
Yeah, that information gap is enormous. There are some resources. They're not great. none of them are comprehensive enough to really do the job. But there's an ‘index de repairability’ in France that covers a lot of consumer tech, you know, cell phones and laptops and things along those lines.

It's not hard to find, but it's in French, so use Google Translate or something and you'll see what they have to say. Um, that's actually had a pretty good impact on a couple companies. For example, Samsung, which had never put out a manual before, had to put out a manual, um, in order to be rated in France. So they did. The same manual they didn't put out in the U. S. and England.

CINDY COHN  
Oh my God, it’s amazing.

Music break.

CINDY COHN
So let's flip this around a little bit. What does the world look like if we get it right? What does a repairable world look like? How is it when you live in it, Gay? Give me a day in the life of somebody who's living in the fixed version of the world.

GAY GORDON-BYRNE
Well, you will be able to buy things that you can fix, or have somebody fix them for you. And one of the consequences is that you will see more repair shops back in your town.

It will be possible for some enterprising person, that'll open up. Again, the kinds of shops we used to have when we were kids.

You'll see a TV repair shop, an appliance repair shop, an electronics repair shop. In fact, it might be one repair shop, because some of these things are all being fixed in the same way. 

So  you'll see more economic activity in the area of repair. You'll also see, and this is a hope, that manufacturers, if they're going to make their products more repairable, in order to look better, you know, it's more of a, more of a PR and a marketing thing.

If they're going to compete on the basis of repairability, they're going to have to start making their products. more repairable from the get go. They're probably gonna have to stop gluing everything together. Europe has been pretty big on making sure that things are made with fasteners instead of glue.

I think we're gonna see more activity along those lines, and more use of replaceable batteries. Why should a battery be glued in? That seems like a pretty stupid thing to do. So I think we'll see some improvements along the line of sustainability in the sense that we'll be able to keep our things longer and use them until we're done with them, not to when the manufacturer decides they want to sell you a new one, which is really the cycle that we have today.

CINDY COHN
Yeah. Planned obsolescence I think is what the marketers call it. I love a vision of the world, you know, when I grew up, I grew up in a small town in Iowa and we had the, the people called the gearheads, right? They were the ones who were always tinkering with cars. And of course you could take your appliances to them and other kinds of things because, you know, people who know how to take things apart and figure out how they work tend to know that about multiple things.

So I'd love a future of the world where the kind of gearheads rise again and are around to help us keep our stuff longer and keep our stuff again.  I really appreciate what you say, like when we're done with them. I mean, I love innovation. I love new toys.

I think that's really great. But the idea that when I'm done with something, you know, it goes into a trash heap. Um, or, you know, into someplace where you have to have fancy, uh, help to make sure that you're not endangering the planet. Like, that's not a very good world.

GAY GORDON-BYRNE
Well, look at your example of your espresso machine. You weren't done with it. It quit. It quit. You can't fix it. You can't make another cup of espresso with it.

That's not what you planned. That's not what you wanted.

CINDY COHN
Yep.

JASON KELLEY
I think we all have stories like the espresso machine and that's part of why this is such a tangible topic for everyone. Maybe I'm not alone in this, but I love, you know, thrift stores and places like that where I can get something that maybe someone else was, was tired of. I was walking. Hmm. I passed a house a few years ago and someone had put, uh, a laptop that the screen had been damaged just next to the trash.

And I thought, that looks like a pretty nice laptop. And I grabbed it. It was a pretty new, like, one year old Microsoft Surface. Tablet, laptop, um, anyway, I took it to a repair shop and they were able to repair it for like way less than the cost of buying a new one and I had a new laptop essentially, um, and I don't think they gave me extra service because I worked at EFF but they were certainly happy to help because I worked at EFF, um, but then, you know, these things do eventually Sort of give up, right?

That laptop lasted me about three years and then had so many issues that I just kind of had to get rid of it Where do you think in the in the better future? We should put the things that are sort of Unfixable. You know, do we, do we bring them to a repair shop and they pull out the pieces that work like a junkyard that they can reuse?

Is there a better system for, uh, disposing of the different pieces or the different devices that we can't repair? How do you think about that more sustainable future once everything is better in the first place in terms of being able to repair things?

GAY GORDON-BYRNE
Excellent question. We have a number of members that are what we call charitable recyclers. And I think that's a model for more, rather than less. They don't even have to be gently used. They just have to be potentially useful. And they'll take them in. They will fix them. They will train people, often people that have some employment challenges, especially coming out of the criminal justice system.  And they'll train them to make repairs and they both get a skill, a marketable skill for future employment. And they also, they also turn around and then resell those devices to make money to keep the whole system going.

But in the commercial recycling business, there's a lot of value in the things that have been discarded if they can have their batteries removed before, before they are, quote, recycled, because recycling is a very messy business and it requires physical contact with the device to the point that it's shredded or crushed. And if we can intercept some of that material before it goes to the crusher, we can reuse more of that material. And I think a lot of it can be reused very effectively in downstream markets, but we don't have those markets because we can't fix the products that are broken.

CINDY COHN
Yep. There's a whole chain of good that starts happening if we can begin to start fixing things, right? It's not just the individuals get to fix the things that they get, but it sets off kind of a cycle of things, a happy cycle of things that get better all along the way.

GAY GORDON-BYRNE
Yep, and that can be, that can happen right now, well, I should say as soon as these laws start taking effect, because a lot of the information parts and tools that are required under the laws are immediately useful.

CINDY COHN
Right. So tell me, how do these laws work? What do they, what, the good ones anyway, what are, what are they doing? How are things changing with the current flock of laws that are just now coming online?

GAY GORDON-BYRNE
Well, they're all pretty much the same. They require manufacturers of things that they already repair, so there's some limitations right there, to make available on fair and reasonable terms the same parts, tools, diagnostics, and firmware that they already provide to their quote authorized or their subcontract repair providers because our original intent was to restore competition. So the bills are really a pro competition law as opposed to an e-waste law.

CINDY COHN  
Mm hmm.

GAY GORDON-BYRNE
Because these don't cover everything. They cover a lot of stuff, but not everything. California is a little bit different in that they already had a statute that required things of be, under $50 or under $100 to be covered for three years. They have some dates in there that expand the effectiveness of the bill into products that don't even have repair options today.

But the bills that we've been promoting are a little softer, because the intent is competition, because we want to see what competition can do, when we unlock competition, what that does for consumers.

CINDY COHN  
Yeah, and I think that that dovetails nicely into something EFF has been working on quite a while now, which is interoperability, right? One of the things that unlocks competition is, you know, requiring people to build their tools and services in a way that are interoperable with others, that helps both with repair and with kind of follow on innovation that, you know, you can switch up how your Facebook feed shows up based on what you want to see rather than, you know, based upon what Facebook's algorithm wants you to see or other kinds of changes like that. And how do you see interoperability fitting into all of this?

GAY GORDON-BYRNE
I think there will be more. It's not specific to the law, but I think it will simply happen as people try to comply with the law. 

Music break

CINDY COHN  
You founded the Repair Association, so tell us a little bit about how that got started and how you decided to dedicate your life to this. I think it's really important for us to think about, like, the people that are needed to build a better world, as well as the, you know, kind of technologies and ideas.

GAY GORDON-BYRNE
I was always in the computer industry. I grew up with my father who was a computer architect in the 50s and 60s. So I never knew a world that didn't involve computers. It was what dad did. And then when I needed a job out of college, and having bounced around a little bit and found not a great deal of success, my father encouraged me to take a job selling computers, because that was the one thing he had never done and thought that it was missing from his resume.

And I took to it like, uh, I don't know, fish to water? I loved it. I had a wonderful time and a wonderful career. But by the mid 2000s, I was done. I mean, I was like, I can't stand this job anymore. So I decided to retire. I didn't like being retired. I started doing other things and eventually, I started doing some work with a group of companies that repair large mainframes.

I've known them. I mean, my former boss was the president. It was kind of a natural. And they started having trouble with some of the manufacturers and I said, that's wrong. I mean, I had this sense of indignation that what Oracle had done when they bought Sun was just flatly wrong and it was illegal. And I volunteered to join a committee. And that's when, haha, that's when I got involved and it was basically, I tell people I over-volunteered.

CINDY COHN
Yeah.

GAY GORDON-BYRNE
And what happened is that because I was the only person in that organization that didn't already have relationships with manufacturers, that they couldn't, they couldn't bite the hand that fed them, I was elected chief snowball thrower. AKA Executive Director. 

So it was a passion project that I could afford to do because otherwise I was going to stay home and knit. So this is way better than knitting or quilting these days, way more fun, way more gratifying. I've had a truly wonderful experience, met so many fabulous people, have a great sense of impact that I would never have had with quilting.

CINDY COHN
I just love the story of somebody who kind of put a toe in and then realized, Oh my God, this is so important. And ‘I found this thing where I can make the world better.’ And then you just get, you know, kind of, you get sucked in and, um, but it's, it's fun. And what I really appreciate about the Repair Association and the Right to Repair people is that while, you know, they're working with very serious things, they also, you know, there's a lot of fun in making the world a better place.

And it's kind of fun to be involved in the Right to Repair right now because after a long time kind of shouting in the darkness, there's some traction starting to happen. So then the fun gets even more fun.

GAY GORDON-BYRNE
I can tell you it's ... We're so surprised. I mean, it took, we've had over, well, well over 100 bills filed and, you know, every year we get a little further. We get past this committee and this hurdle and this hurdle and this hurdle. We get almost to the end and then something would happen. And to finally get to the end where the bill becomes law? It's like the dog that chases the car, and you go, we caught the car, now what?

CINDY COHN
Yeah. Now you get to fix it! The car!

JASON KELLEY
Yeah, now you can repair the car.

MUSIC TRANSITION

JASON KELLEY
That was such a wonderful, optimistic conversation and not the first one we've had this season. But this one is interesting because we're actually already getting where we want to be. We're already building the future that we want to live in and it's just really, really pleasing to be able to talk to someone who's in the middle of that and, and making sure that that work happens.

CINDY COHN
I mean, one of the things that really struck me is how much of the better future that we're building together is really about creating new jobs and new opportunities for people to work. I think there's a lot of fear right now in our community that the future isn't going to have work, and that without a social safety net or other kinds of things, you know, it's really going to hurt people.

And I so appreciated hearing about how, you know, Main Street's going to have more jobs. There's going to be people in your local community who can fix your things locally because devices, those are things where having a local repair community and businesses is really. helpful to people.

And so I also kind of, the flip side of that is this interesting observation that one of the things that's happened as a result of shutting off the Right to Repair is an increasing centralization, um, that the jobs that are happening in this thing are not happening locally and that by unlocking the right to repair, we're going to unlock some local opportunities for economic things.

I mean, You know, EFF thinks about this both in terms of empowering users, but also in terms of competition. And the thing about Right to Repair is it really does unlock kind of hyper local competition.

JASON KELLEY
I hadn't really thought about how specifically local it is to have a repair shop that you can just bring your device to. And right now it feels like the options are if you live near an Apple store, for example, maybe you can bring your phone there and then they send it somewhere. I'd much rather go to someone, you know, in my town that I can talk to, and who can tell me about what needs to be done. That's such a benefit of this movement that a lot of people aren't even really putting on the forefront, but it really is something that will help people actually get work and, and, and help the people who need the work and the people who need the job done.

CINDY COHN
Another thing that I really appreciate about the Right to Repair movement s how universal it is. Everyone experiences some version of this, you know, from the refrigerator story to my espresso machine, to any of any number of other stories to the farmers, like everyone has some version of how.

This needs to be fixed. And the other thing that I really appreciate about her gay stories about the right to repair movement is that, you know, she's somebody who comes out of computers, and was thinking about this from the context of computers and didn't really realize that farmers were having the same problem.

Of course, we all kind of know analytically that a lot of the movement in a lot of industries is towards, you know, centralizing computers and making, you know. You know, tractors are now computers with gigantic wheels. Cars are now computers with smaller wheels. That computers have become central to these kinds of things, but also realization that we have silos of users who are experiencing a version of the same problem and connecting those silent silos together, let me say that again. I think the realization that we have silos of users who are experiencing the same problem depending on what kind of tool they're using, um, and connecting those silos together so that together we stand as a much bigger voice is something that the repair, um, the Right to Repair folks have really done well and it is a, is a good lesson for the rest of us.

JASON KELLEY
Yeah, I think we talked a little bit with Adam Savage when he was on a while ago about this sort of gatekeeping and how effective it is to remove the gatekeepers from these movements and say, you know, we're all fighting the same fight. And it just goes to show you that it actually works. I mean, not only does it get everybody on the same page, but unlike a lot of movements, I think you can really see the impact that the Right to Repair movement has had. 

And we talked with Gay about this and it's just, it really, I think, should make people come away optimistic that advocacy like this works over time. You know, it's not a sprint, it's a marathon, and we have actually crested a sort of hill in some ways.

There's a lot of work to be done, but it's, it's actually work that we probably will be able to get done and, and that we're seeing the benefits of today

CINDY COHN
Yeah. And as we start to see benefits, we're going to start to see more benefits. I appreciate her. We're in, you know, we're in the whole plugging period where, you know, we got something passed and we need to plug the holes. But I also think once people start feeling the power of having the Right to Repair again, I think I hope it will help snowball.

One of the things that she said that I have observed as well is that sometimes it feels like nothing's happening, nothing's happening, nothing's happening, and then all of a sudden it's all happening. And I think that that's one of the, the kind of flows of advocacy work that I've observed over time and it's fun to see the, the Right to Repair Coalition kind of getting to experience that wave, even if it can be a little overwhelming sometimes.

JASON KELLEY
Thanks for joining us for this episode of How to Fix the Internet.

If you have feedback or suggestions, we'd love to hear from you. Visit EFF. org slash podcast and click on listener feedback. While you're there, you can become a member, donate, maybe pick up some merch and just see what's happening in digital rights this week and every week.

This podcast is licensed Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International, and includes music licensed Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported by their creators.

In this episode you heard …Come Inside by Zep Hurme featuring snowflake and Drops of H2O ( The Filtered Water Treatment ) by J.Lang featuring Airtone.

You can find links to their music in our episode notes, or on our website at eff.org/podcast. 

Our theme music is by Nat Keefe of BeatMower with Reed Mathis

How to Fix the Internet is supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation's program in public understanding of science and technology.

I hope you’ll join us again soon. I’m Jason Kelley.

CINDY
And I’m Cindy Cohn.

We should all have the freedom to read, share, and comment on the laws we must live by. But yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee voted 19-4 to move forward the PRO Codes Act (H.R. 1631), a bill that would limit those rights in a critical area. 

TAKE ACTION

Tell Congress To Reject The Pro Codes Act

A few well-resourced private organizations have made a business of charging money for access to building and safety codes, even when those codes have been incorporated into law. 

These organizations convene volunteers to develop model standards, encourage regulators to make those standards into mandatory laws, and then sell copies of those laws to the people (and city and state governments) that have to follow and enforce them.

They’ve claimed it’s their copyrighted material. But court after court has said that you can’t use copyright in this way—no one “owns” the law. The Pro Codes Act undermines that rule and the public interest, changing the law to state that the standards organizations that write these rules “shall retain” a copyright in it, as long as the rules are made “publicly accessible” online. 

That’s not nearly good enough. These organizations already have so-called online reading rooms that aren’t searchable, aren’t accessible to print-disabled people, and condition your ability to read mandated codes on agreeing to onerous terms of use, among many other problems. That’s why the Association of Research Libraries sent a letter to Congress last week (supported by EFF, disability rights groups, and many others) explaining how the Pro Codes Act would trade away our right to truly understand and educate our communities about the law for cramped public access to it. Congress must not let well-positioned industry associations abuse copyright to control how you access, use, and share the law. Now that this bill has passed committee, we urgently need your help—tell Congress to reject the Pro Codes Act.

TAKE ACTION

TELL CONGRESS: No one owns the law

Twelve years ago, internet users spoke up with one voice to reject a law that would build censorship into the internet at a fundamental level. This week, the Motion Picture Association (MPA), a group that represents six giant movie and TV studios, announced that it hoped we’d all forgotten how dangerous this idea was. The MPA is wrong. We remember, and the internet remembers.

What the MPA wants is the power to block entire websites, everywhere in the U.S., using the same tools as repressive regimes like China and Russia. To it, instances of possible copyright infringement should be played like a trump card to shut off our access to entire websites, regardless of the other legal speech hosted there. It is not simply calling for the ability to take down instances of infringement—a power they already have, without even having to ask a judge—but for the keys to the internet. Building new architectures of censorship would hurt everyone, and doesn’t help artists.

The bills known as SOPA/PIPA would have created a new, rapid path for copyright holders like the major studios to use court orders against sites they accuse of infringing copyright. Internet service providers (ISPs) receiving one of those orders would have to block all of their customers from accessing the identified websites. The orders would also apply to domain name registries and registrars, and potentially other companies and organizations that make up the internet’s basic infrastructure. To comply, all of those would have to build new infrastructure dedicated to site-blocking, inviting over-blocking and all kinds of abuse that would censor lawful and important speech.

In other words, the right to choose what websites you visit would be taken away from you and given to giant media companies and ISPs. And the very shape of the internet would have to be changed to allow it.

In 2012, it seemed like SOPA/PIPA, backed by major corporations used to getting what they want from Congress, was on the fast track to becoming law. But a grassroots movement of diverse Internet communities came together to fight it. Digital rights groups like EFF, Public Knowledge, and many more joined with editor communities from sites like Reddit and Wikipedia to speak up. Newly formed grassroots groups like Demand Progress and Fight for the Future added their voices to those calling out the dangers of this new form of censorship. In the final days of the campaign, giant tech companies like Google and Facebook (now Meta) joined in opposition as well.

What resulted was one of the biggest protests ever seen against a piece of legislation. Congress was flooded with calls and emails from ordinary people concerned about this steamroller of censorship. Members of Congress raced one another to withdraw their support for the bills. The bills died, and so did site blocking legislation in the US. It was, all told, a success story for the public interest.

Even the MPA, one of the biggest forces behind SOPA/PIPA, claimed to have moved on. But we never believed it, and they proved us right time and time again. The MPA backed site-blocking laws in other countries. Rightsholders continued to ask US courts for site-blocking orders, often winning them without a new law. Even the lobbying of Congress for a new law never really went away. It’s just that today, with MPA president Charles Rivkin openly calling on Congress “to enact judicial site-blocking legislation here in the United States,” the MPA is taking its mask off.

Things have changed since 2012. Tech platforms that were once seen as innovators have become behemoths, part of the establishment rather than underdogs. The Silicon Valley-based video streamer Netflix illustrated this when it joined MPA in 2019. And the entertainment companies have also tried to pivot into being tech companies. Somehow, they are adopting each other’s worst aspects.

But it’s important not to let those changes hide the fact that those hurt by this proposal are not Big Tech but regular internet users. Internet platforms big and small are still where ordinary users and creators find their voice, connect with audiences, and participate in politics and culture, mostly in legal—and legally protected—ways. Filmmakers who can’t get a distribution deal from a giant movie house still reach audiences on YouTube. Culture critics still reach audiences through zines and newsletters. The typical users of these platforms don’t have the giant megaphones of major studios, record labels, or publishers. Site-blocking legislation, whether called SOPA/PIPA, “no fault injunctions,” or by any other name, still threatens the free expression of all of these citizens and creators.

No matter what the MPA wants to claim, this does not help artists. Artists want their work seen, not locked away for a tax write-off. They wanted a fair deal, not nearly five months of strikes. They want studios to make more small and midsize films and to take a chance on new voices. They have been incredibly clear about what they want, and this is not it.

Even if Rivkin’s claim of an “unflinching commitment to the First Amendment” was credible from a group that seems to think it has a monopoly on free expression—and which just tried to consign the future of its own artists to the gig economy—a site-blocking law would not be used only by Hollywood studios. Anyone with a copyright and the means to hire a lawyer could wield the hammer of site-blocking. And here’s the thing: we already know that copyright claims are used as tools of censorship.

The notice-and-takedown system created by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, for example, is abused time and again by people who claim to be enforcing their copyrights, and also by folks who simply want to make speech they don’t like disappear from the Internet. Even without a site-blocking law, major record labels and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement shut down a popular hip hop music blog and kept it off the internet for over a year without ever showing that it infringed copyright. And unscrupulous characters use accusations of infringement to extort money from website owners, or even force them into carrying spam links.

This censorious abuse, whether intentional or accidental, is far more damaging when it targets the internet’s infrastructure. Blocking entire websites or groups of websites is imprecise, inevitably bringing down lawful speech along with whatever was targeted. For example, suits by Microsoft intended to shut down malicious botnets caused thousands of legitimate users to lose access to the domain names they depended on. There is, in short, no effective safeguard on a new censorship power that would be the internet’s version of police seizing printing presses.

Even if this didn’t endanger free expression on its own, once new tools exist, they can be used for more than copyright. Just as malfunctioning copyright filters were adapted into the malfunctioning filters used for “adult content” on tumblr, so can means of site blocking. The major companies of a single industry should not get to dictate the future of free speech online.

Why the MPA is announcing this now is anyone’s guess. They might think no one cares anymore. They’re wrong. Internet users rejected site blocking in 2012 and they reject it today.

Special thanks to EFF legal intern Alissa Johnson, who was the lead author of this post.

Earlier this month, the European Union Court of Justice ruled that harmonized standards are a part of EU law, and thus must be accessible to EU citizens and residents free of charge.

While it might seem like common sense that the laws that govern us should be freely accessible, this question has been in dispute in the EU for the past five years, and in the U.S. for over a decade. At the center of this debate are technical standards, developed by private organizations and later incorporated into law. Before they were challenged in court, standards-development organizations were able to limit access to these incorporated standards through assertions of copyright. Regulated parties or concerned citizens checking compliance with technical or safety standards had to do so by purchasing these standards, often at significant expense, from private organizations. While free alternatives, like proprietary online “reading rooms,” were sometimes available, these options had their own significant downsides, including limited functionality and privacy concerns.

In 2018, two nonprofits, Public.Resource.Org and Right to Know, made a request to the European Commission for access to four harmonized standards—that is, standards that apply across the European Union—pertaining to the safety of toys. The Commission refused to grant them access on the grounds that the standards were copyrighted.   

The nonprofits then brought an action before the General Court of the European Union seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision. They made two main arguments. First, that copyright couldn’t be applicable to the harmonized standards, and that open access to the standards would not harm the commercial interests of the European Committee for Standardization or other standard setting bodies. Second, they argued that the public interest in open access to the law should override whatever copyright interests might exist. The General Court rejected both arguments, finding that the threshold for originality that makes a work eligible for copyright protection had been met, the sale of standards was a vital part of standards bodies’ business model, and the public’s interest in ensuring the proper functioning of the European standardization system outweighed their interest in free access to harmonized standards.

Last week, the EU Court of Justice overturned the General Court decision, holding that EU citizens and residents have an overriding interest in free access to the laws that govern them. Article 15(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU and Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU guarantee a right of access to documents of Union institutions, bodies, offices, and agencies. These bodies can refuse access to a document where its disclosure would undermine the protection of commercial interests, including intellectual property, unless there is an overriding public interest in disclosure.

Under the ECJ’s ruling, standards written by private companies, but incorporated into legislation, now form part of EU law. People need access to these standards to determine their own compliance. While compliance with harmonized standards is not generally mandatory, it is in the case of the toy safety standards in question here. Even when compliance is not mandatory, products that meet technical standards benefit from a “presumption of conformity,” and failure to conform can impose significant administrative difficulties and additional costs.

Given that harmonized standards are a part of EU law, citizens and residents of member states have an interest in free access that overrides potential copyright concerns. Free access is necessary for economic actors “to ascertain unequivocally what their rights and obligations are,” and to allow concerned citizens to examine compliance. As the U.S. Supreme Court noted in in 2020, “[e]very citizen is presumed to know the law, and it needs no argument to show that all should have free access” to it.

The Court of Justice’s decision has far-reaching effects beyond the four toy safety standards under dispute. Its reasoning classifying these standards as EU law applies more broadly to standards incorporated into law. We’re pleased that under this precedent, EU standards-development organizations will be required to disclose standards on request without locking these important parts of the law behind a paywall.

Copyright’s reach is already far too broad, and courts have no business expanding it any further, particularly where that reframing will undermine adversarial interoperability. Unfortunately, a federal district court did just that in the latest iteration of Oracle v. Rimini, concluding that software Rimini developed was a “derivative work” because it was intended to interoperate with Oracle's software, even though the update didn’t use any of Oracle’s copyrightable code.

That’s a dangerous precedent. If a work is derivative, it may infringe the copyright in the preexisting work from which it, well, derives. For decades, software developers have relied, correctly, on the settled view that a work is not derivative under copyright law unless it is “substantially similar” to a preexisting work in both ideas and expression. Thanks to that rule, software developers can build innovative new tools that interact with preexisting works, including tools that improve privacy and security, without fear that the companies that hold rights in those preexisting works would have an automatic copyright claim to those innovations.

That’s why EFF, along with a diverse group of stakeholders representing consumers, small businesses, software developers, security researchers, and the independent repair community, filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals explaining that the district court ruling is not just bad policy, it’s also bad law.  Court after court has confronted the challenging problem of applying copyright to functional software, and until now none have found that the copyright monopoly extends to interoperable software absent substantial similarity. In other words, there is no “software exception” to the definition of derivative works, and the Ninth Circuit should reject any effort to create one.

The district court’s holding relied heavily on an erroneous interpretation of a 1998 case, Micro Star v. FormGen. In that case, the plaintiff, FormGen, published a video game following the adventures of action hero Duke Nukem. The game included a software tool that allowed players themselves to build new levels to the game and share them with others. Micro Star downloaded hundreds of those user-created files and sold them as a collection. When FormGen sued for copyright infringement, Micro Star argued that because the user files didn’t contain art or code from the FormGen game, they were not derivative works.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Micro Star, explaining that:

[t]he work that Micro Star infringes is the [Duke Nukem] story itself—a beefy commando type named Duke who wanders around post-Apocalypse Los Angeles, shooting Pig Cops with a gun, lobbing hand grenades, searching for medkits and steroids, using a jetpack to leap over obstacles, blowing up gas tanks, avoiding radioactive slime. A copyright owner holds the right to create sequels and the stories told in the [user files] are surely sequels, telling new (though somewhat repetitive) tales of Duke’s fabulous adventures.

Thus, the user files were “substantially similar” because they functioned as sequels to the video game itself—specifically the story and principal character of the game. If the user files had told a different story, with different characters, they would not be derivative works. For example, a company offering a Lord of the Rings game might include tools allowing a user to create their own character from scratch. If the user used the tool to create a hobbit, that character might be considered a derivative work. A unique character that was simply a 21^st century human in jeans and a t-shirt, not so much.

Still, even confined to its facts, Micro Star stretched the definition of derivative work. By misapplying Micro Star to purely functional works that do not incorporate any protectable expression, however, the district court rewrote the definition altogether. If the court’s analysis were correct, rightsholders would suddenly have a new default veto right in all kinds of works that are intended to “interact and be useable with” their software. Unfortunately, they are all too likely to use that right to threaten add-on innovation, security, and repair.

Defenders of the district court’s approach might argue that interoperable software will often be protected by fair use. As copyrightable software is found in everything from phones to refrigerators, fair use is an essential safeguard for the development of interoperable tools, where those tools might indeed qualify as derivative works. But many developers cannot afford to litigate the question, and they should not have to just because one federal court misread a decades-old case.

We're taking part in Copyright Week, a series of actions and discussions supporting key principles that should guide copyright policy. Every day this week, various groups are taking on different elements of copyright law and policy, addressing what's at stake and what we need to do to make sure that copyright promotes creativity and innovation.

As Copyright Week comes to a close, it’s worth remembering why we have it in January. Twelve years ago, a diverse coalition of internet users, websites, and public interest activists took to the internet to protest SOPA/PIPA, proposed laws that would have, among other things, blocked access to websites if they were alleged to be used for copyright infringement. More than a decade on, there still is no way to do this without causing irreparable harm to legal online expression.

A lot has changed in twelve years. Among those changes is a major shift in how we, and legislators, view technology companies. What once were new innovations have become behemoths. And what once were underdogs are now the establishment.

What has not changed, however, is the fact that much of what internet platforms are used for is legal, protected, expression. Moreover, the typical users of those platforms are those without access to the megaphones of major studios, record labels, or publishers. Any attempt to resurrect SOPA/PIPA—no matter what it is rebranded as—remains a threat to that expression.

Site-blocking, sometimes called a “no-fault injunction,” functionally allows a rightsholder to prevent access to an entire website based on accusations of copyright infringement. Not just access to the alleged infringement, but the entire website. It is using a chainsaw to trim your nails.

We are all so used to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and the safe harbor it provides that we sometimes forget how extraordinary the relief it provides really is. Instead of providing proof of their claims to a judge or jury, rightsholders merely have to contact a website with their honest belief that their copyright is being infringed, and the allegedly infringing material will be taken down almost immediately. That is a vast difference from traditional methods of shutting down expression.

Site-blocking would go even further, bypassing the website and getting internet service providers to deny their customers access to a website. This clearly imperils the expression of those not even accused of infringement, and it’s far too blunt an instrument for the problem it’s meant to solve. We remain opposed to any attempts to do this. We have a long memory, and twelve years isn’t even that long.

We're taking part in Copyright Week, a series of actions and discussions supporting key principles that should guide copyright policy. Every day this week, various groups are taking on different elements of copyright law and policy, addressing what's at stake and what we need to do to make sure that copyright promotes creativity and innovation.

It’s 1975. Earth, Wind and Fire rule the airwaves, Jaws is on every theater screen, All In the Family is must-see TV, and Bill Gates and Paul Allen are selling software for the first personal computer, the Altair 8800.

But for copyright lawyers, and eventually the public, something even more significant is about to happen: Sony starts selling the first videotape recorder, or VTR. Suddenly, people had the power to  store TV programs and watch them later. Does work get in the way of watching your daytime soap operas? No problem, record them and watch when you get home. Want to watch the game but hate to miss your favorite show? No problem. Or, as an ad Sony sent to Universal Studios put it, “Now you don’t have to miss Kojak because you’re watching Columbo (or vice versa).”

What does all of this have to do with Generative AI? For one thing, the reaction to the VTR was very similar to today’s AI anxieties. Copyright industry associations ran to Congress, claiming that the VTR "is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone" – rhetoric that isn’t far from some of what we’ve heard in Congress on AI lately. And then, as now, rightsholders also ran to court, claiming Sony was facilitating mass copyright infringement. The crux of the argument was a new legal theory: that a machine manufacturer could be held liable under copyright law (and thus potentially subject to ruinous statutory damages) for how others used that machine.

The case eventually worked its way up to the Supreme Court, and in 1984 the Court rejected the copyright industry’s rhetoric and ruled in Sony’s favor. Forty years later, at least two aspects of that ruling are likely to get special attention.

First, the Court observed that where copyright law has not kept up with technological innovation, courts should be careful not to expand copyright protections on their own. As the decision reads:

Congress has the constitutional authority and the institutional ability to accommodate fully the varied permutations of competing interests that are inevitably implicated by such new technology. In a case like this, in which Congress has not plainly marked our course, we must be circumspect in construing the scope of rights created by a legislative enactment which never contemplated such a calculus of interests.

Second, the Court borrowed from patent law the concept of “substantial noninfringing uses.” In order to hold Sony liable for how its customers used their VTRs, rightholders had to show that the VTR was simply a tool for infringement. If, instead, the VTR was “capable of substantial noninfringing uses,” then Sony was off the hook. The Court held that the VTR fell in the latter category because it was used for private, noncommercial time-shifting, and that time-shifting was a lawful fair use.  The Court even quoted Fred Rogers, who testified that home-taping of children’s programs served an important function for many families.

That rule helped unleash decades of technological innovation. If Sony had lost, Hollywood would have been able to legally veto any tool that could be used for infringing as well as non-infringing purposes. With Congress’ help, it has found ways to effectively do so anyway, such as Section 1201 of the DMCA. Nonetheless, Sony remains a crucial judicial protection for new creativity.

Generative AI may test the enduring strength of that protection. Rightsholders argue that generative AI toolmakers directly infringe when they used copyrighted works as training data. That use is very likely to be found lawful. The more interesting question is whether toolmakers are liable if customers use the tools to generate infringing works. To be clear, the users themselves may well be liable – but they are less likely to have the kind of deep pockets that make litigation worthwhile. Under Sony, however, the key question for the toolmakers will be whether their tools are capable of substantial non-infringing uses. The answer to that question is surely yes, which should preclude most of the copyright claims.

But there’s risk here as well – if any of these cases reach its doors, the Supreme Court could overturn Sony. Hollywood certainly hoped it would do so it when considered the legality of peer-to-peer file-sharing in MGM v Grokster. EFF and many others argued hard for the opposite result. Instead, the Court side-stepped Sony altogether in favor of creating a new form of secondary liability for “inducement.”

The current spate of litigation may end with multiple settlements, or Congress may decide to step in. If not, the Supreme Court (and a lot of lawyers) may get to party like it’s 1975. Let’s hope the justices choose once again to ensure that copyright maximalists don’t get to control our technological future.

We're taking part in Copyright Week, a series of actions and discussions supporting key principles that should guide copyright policy. Every day this week, various groups are taking on different elements of copyright law and policy, addressing what's at stake and what we need to do to make sure that copyright promotes creativity and innovation.

The video game industry is undergoing the same concerning changes we’ve seen before with film and TV, and it underscores the need for meaningful digital ownership.

Twenty years ago you owned DVDs. Ten years ago you probably had a Netflix subscription with a seemingly endless library. Now, you probably have two to three subscription services, and regularly hear about shows and movies you can no longer access, either because they’ve moved to yet another subscription service, or because platforms are delisting them all together.

The video game industry is getting the same treatment. While it is still common for people to purchase physical or digital copies of games, albeit often from within walled gardens like Steam or Epic Games, game subscriptions are becoming more and more common. Like the early days of movie streaming, services like Microsoft Game Pass or PlayStation Plus seem to offer a good deal. For a flat monthly fee, you have access to seemingly unlimited game choices. That is, for now.

In a recent announcement from game developer Ubisoft, their director of subscriptions said plainly that a goal of their subscription service’s rebranding is to get players “comfortable” with not owning their games. Notably, this is from a company which had developed five non-mobile games last year, hoping users will access them and older games through a $17.99 per month subscription; that is, $215.88 per year. And after a year, how many games does the end user actually own? None. 

This fragmentation of the video game subscription market isn’t just driven by greed, but answering a real frustration from users the industry itself has created. Gamers at one point could easily buy and return games, they could rent games they were only curious about, and even recoup costs by reselling their game. With the proliferation of DRM and walled-garden game vendors, ownership rights have been eroded. Reselling or giving away a copy of your game, or leaving it for your next of kin, is no longer permitted. The closest thing to a rental now available is a game demo (if it exists) or playing a game within the time frame necessary to get a refund (if a storefront offers one). These purchases are also put at risk as games are sometimes released incomplete beyond this time limit. Developers such as Ubisoft will also shut down online services which severely impact the features of these games, or even make them unplayable.

DRM and tightly controlled gaming platforms also make it harder to mod or tweak games in ways the platform doesn’t choose to support. Mods are a thriving medium for extending the functionalities, messages, and experiences facilitated by a base game, one where passion has driven contributors to design amazing things with a low barrier to entry. Mods depend on users who have the necessary access to a work to understand how to mod it and to deploy mods when running the program. A model wherein the player can only access these aspects of the game in the ways the manufacturer supports undermines the creative rights of owners as well.

This shift should raise alarms for both users and creators alike. With publishers serving as intermediaries, game developers are left either struggling to reach their audience, or settling for a fraction of the revenue they could receive from traditional sales. 

We need to preserve digital ownership before we see video games fall into the same cycles as film and TV, with users stuck paying more and receiving not robust ownership, but fragile access on the platform’s terms.

Every January, we celebrate the addition of formerly copyrighted works to the public domain. You’ve likely heard that this year’s crop of public domain newcomers includes Steamboat Willie, the 1928 cartoon that marked Mickey Mouse’s debut. When something enters the public domain, you’re free to copy, share, and remix it without fear of a copyright lawsuit. But the former copyright holders aren’t always willing to let go of their “property” so easily. That’s where trademark law enters the scene.

Unlike copyright, trademark protection has no fixed expiration date. Instead, it works on a “use it or lose it” model. With some exceptions, the law will grant trademark protection for as long as you keep using that mark to identify your products. This actually makes sense when you understand the difference between copyright and trademark. The idea behind copyright protection is to give creators a financial incentive to make new works that will benefit the public; that incentive needn’t be eternal to be effective. Trademark law, on the other hand, is about consumer protection. The function of a trademark is essentially to tell you who a product came from, which helps you make informed decisions and incentivizes quality control. If everyone were allowed to use that same mark after some fixed period, it would stop serving that function.

So, what’s the problem? Since trademarks don’t expire, we see former copyright holders of public domain works turn to trademark law as a way to keep exerting control. In one case we wrote about, a company claiming to own a trademark in the name of a public domain TV show called “You Asked For It” sent takedown demands targeting everything from episodes of the show, to remix videos using show footage, to totally unrelated uses of that common phrase. Other infamous examples include disputes over alleged trademarks in elements from Peter Rabbit and Tarzan. Now, with Steamboat Willie in the public domain, Disney seems poised to do the same. It’s already alluded to this in public statements, and in 2022, it registered a trademark for Walt Disney Animation Studios that incorporates a snippet from the cartoon.

The news isn’t all bad: trademark protection is in some ways more limited than copyright—it only applies to uses that are likely to confuse consumers about the use’s connection to the mark owner. And importantly, the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that trademark law cannot be used to control the distribution of creative works, lest it spawn “a species of mutant copyright law” that usurps the public’s right to copy and use works in the public domain. (Of course, that doesn’t mean companies won’t try it.) So go forth and make your Steamboat Willie art, but beware of trademark lawyers waiting in the wings.

We're taking part in Copyright Week, a series of actions and discussions supporting key principles that should guide copyright policy. Every day this week, various groups are taking on different elements of copyright law and policy, addressing what's at stake and what we need to do to make sure that copyright promotes creativity and innovation.

Copyright law affects so much of our daily lives, and new technologies have only helped make everyone more and more aware of it. For example, while 1998’s Digital Millennium Copyright Act helped spur the growth of platforms for creating and sharing art, music and literature, it also helped make the phrase “blocked due to a claim by the copyright holder” so ubiquitous.

Copyright law helps shape the movies we watch, the books we read, and the music we listen to. But it also impacts everything from who can fix a tractor to what information is available to us to when we communicate online. Given that power, it’s crucial that copyright law and policy serve everyone.

Unfortunately, that’s not the way it tends to work. Instead, copyright law is often treated as the exclusive domain of major media and entertainment industries. Individual artists don’t often find that copyright does what it is meant to do, i.e. “promote the progress of science and useful arts” by giving them a way to live off of the work they’ve done. The promise of the internet was to help eliminate barriers between creators and audiences, so that voices that traditional gatekeepers ignored could still find success. Through copyright, those gatekeepers have found ways to once again control what we see.

12 years ago, a diverse coalition of Internet users, non-profit groups, and Internet companies defeated the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA), bills that would have forced Internet companies to blacklist and block websites accused of hosting copyright-infringing content. These were bills that would have made censorship very easy, all in the name of copyright protection.

We continue to fight for a version of copyright that truly serves the public interest. And so, every year, EFF and a number of diverse organizations participate in Copyright Week. Each year, we pick five copyright issues to highlight and promote a set of principles that should guide copyright law and policy. This year’s issues are:

• Monday: Public Domain
  The public domain is our cultural commons and a crucial resource for innovation and access to knowledge. Copyright should strive to promote, and not diminish, a robust, accessible public domain.
• Tuesday: Device and Digital Ownership 
  As the things we buy increasingly exist either in digital form or as devices with software, we also find ourselves subject to onerous licensing agreements and technological restrictions. If you buy something, you should be able to truly own it – meaning you can learn how it works, repair it, remove unwanted features, or tinker with it to make it work in a new way.
• Wednesday: Copyright and AI
  The growing availability of AI, especially generative AI trained on datasets that include copyrightable material, has raised new debates about copyright law. It’s important to remember the limitations of copyright law in giving the kind of protections creators are looking for.
• Thursday: Free Expression and Fair Use 
  Copyright policy should encourage creativity, not hamper it. Fair use makes it possible for us to comment, criticize, and rework our common culture.
• Friday: Copyright Enforcement as a Tool of Censorship
  Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right essential to a functioning democracy. Copyright should encourage more speech, not act as a legal cudgel to silence it.

Every day this week, we’ll be sharing links to blog posts and actions on these topics at https://www.eff.org/copyrightweek and at #CopyrightWeek on X, formerly known as Twitter.

It’s easy to feel hopeless about the collapse of the tech sector into a group 0f monopolistic silos that harvest and exploit our data, hold our communities hostage, gouge us on prices, and steal our wages.

But all over the world and across different government departments, policymakers are converging on a set of muscular, effective solutions to Big Tech dominance.

This convergence spans financial regulators and consumer protection agencies; it’s emerging in Europe, the USA, and the UK. It’s kind of a moment.

How Not To Fix Big Tech 

To understand what’s new in Big Tech regulation, we should talk briefly about what’s old. For many years, policymakers have viewed the problems of Big Tech as tech problems, not big problems. From disinformation to harassment to copyright infringement, the go-to policy response of the past two decades has been to make tech platforms responsible for policing and controlling their users.

This approach starts from the assumption that the problems that occur after hundreds of millions or billions of people are locked inside of a platform’s walled garden are problems of mismanagement, not problems of scale. The thinking goes that the dictators of these platforms aren’t sufficiently benevolent or competent, and they must either be incentivized to do better or be replaced with more suitable autocrats.

This approach has consistently failed - gigantic companies have proved as unperfectable as they are ungovernable. What’s more, deputizing giant companies to police their users has the perverse effect of making them more powerful by creating barriers to entry that clear the field of competitors who might offer superior alternatives for both users and business customers.

Take copyright enforcement: in 2019, the EU passed a rule requiring platforms to intercept and filter all their users’ communications to screen out copyright infringement. These filters are stupendously expensive to build - YouTube’s version of them, the notorious Content ID, has cost Google more than $100 million to build and maintain. Not only is the result an unnavigable, Kafkaesque nightmare for creators, it’s also far short of what the EU rule requires.

Any law that requires every digital service to mobilize the resources of a trillion-dollar multinational will tend to produce an internet run by trillion-dollar multinationals.

A Better Approach

We think that the biggest problem facing the internet today is bigness itself. Very large platforms are every bit as capable of committing errors in judgment or making trade-offs that harm their users as small platforms. The difference is that when very large platforms make even small errors, millions or even billions of users are in harm’s way.

What’s more, if users are trapped inside these platforms - by high switching costs, data lock-in, or digital rights management - they pay a steep price for seeking out superior alternatives. And in a market dominated by large firms who have locked in their users, investors are unwilling to fund those alternatives.

For EFF, the solution to Big Tech is smaller tech: allowing lots of different kinds of organizations (from startups to user groups to nonprofits to local governments to individual tinkerers) to provide interoperable services that all work together. These smaller platforms are closer to their users, and stand a better chance of parsing out the fine-grained nuances in community moderation. Smaller platforms are easier to regulate, too.

Giving users the choice of more, interoperable platforms that are less able to capture their regulators means that if a platform changes the rules in ways you dislike, you can go elsewhere, or simply revert those bad changes with a plugin that makes the system work better for you.

Interoperability From the Top Down and the Bottom Up

Since the earliest days of the internet, interoperability has been a key driver of technological self-determination for users. Sometimes, that interoperability was attained through adherence to formal standards, but often interoperability was hacked into existing, dominant services by upstarts who used careful reverse-engineering, bots, scraping, and other adversarial interoperability techniques to let users leave or modify the products and services they relied on.

Decades of anticompetitive mergers and acquisitions by tech companies have created a highly concentrated internet where companies no longer feel the pressure to interoperate, and where attempts to correct this discrepancy with unauthorized plugins, scraping or other guerrilla tactics gives rise to eye-watering legal risks.

The siloing of the internet is the result of both too little tech regulation and too much regulation.

In failing to block anticompetitive mergers, regulators allowed a few companies to buy their way to near-total dominance, and to use that dominance to prevent other forms of regulation and enforcement on issues like privacy, labor and consumer protection.

Meanwhile, restrictions on reverse-engineering and violating terms of service has all but ended the high-tech liberation tactics of an earlier era.

To make the internet better, policymakers need to make it easier for better services to operate, and for users to switch to those services. Policymakers also need to protect users’ privacy, labor, and consumer rights from abuse by today’s giant services and the smaller services that will come next.

Privacy Without Monopoly, Then and Now

Two years ago, we published Privacy Without Monopoly, a detailed analysis of the data-protection issues associated with a transition from a siloed, monopolized internet to a decentralized, interoperable internet.

Dominant platforms, from Apple to Facebook to Google, point to the many times that they step in to protect their users from bad actors, but are conspicuously silent about the many times when their users come to harm when they are targeted by the companies who own the dominant platforms.

In Privacy Without Monopoly, we argue that it’s possible for internet users to have the benefits of being protected by tech platforms, without the risks of being victimized by them. To get the best of both worlds, governments must withdraw tech platforms’ legal right to block interoperators, while simultaneously creating strong privacy protections for users.

That means that tech companies can still take technical actions to block bad actors from abusing their platforms, but if they want to enlist the law to aid them in doing so, they must show that their adversaries are violating their users’ legal rights to privacy.

Under this system, the final word on which privacy rights a platform’s users are entitled to comes from democratically accountable lawmakers who legislate in public - not from shareholder-accountable executives who make policies behind locked boardroom doors.

Convergence, At Last

This past year has been a very good one for this approach. 2023 saw regulators challenging the market power of the largest tech companies and even beginning the long, slow process of restoring a prudent regime of merger scrutiny.

The global resurgence of these long-dormant established antitrust actions is a welcome development, but at EFF, we think that interoperability, backstopped by privacy and other legal protections, offers a more immediate prospect of relief and protection for users.

That’s why we’ve been so glad to see 2023’s other developments, ones that aim to make it easier for users to leave Big Tech and go somewhere smaller and more responsive to their needs.

In Europe, the Digital Markets Act, passed into law in 2022, has made significant progress towards a regime of mandatory interoperability for the largest platforms. In the USA, the bipartisan AMERICA Act could require ad-tech giants to break into interoperable pieces, a key step towards a more secure economic future for the news industry.

The US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is advancing a rule to force banks to support interoperable standards to facilitate shopping for a better bank and then switching to it. This rule explicitly takes away incumbents’ power to block new market entrants in the name of protecting users’ privacy. Instead, it establishes bright-line rules restricting what the finance sector may do with users’ data. What’s more, this rule acknowledges the importance of adversarial interoperability, by including a framework for scraping user data on behalf of the user (a tactic with a proven track record for getting users a better deal from their bank).

Finally, in the UK, the long overdue Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill has finally been introduced.  This bill will give the Competition and Markets Authority’s large and exceptionally skilled Digital Markets Unit the enforcement powers it was promised when it was formed in 2021. Among these proposed powers are the ability to impose interoperability mandates on the largest tech companies, something the agency has already investigated in detail.

With lawmakers from different domains and territories all converging on approaches that solve the very real problems of bad platforms by centering user choice and user protections, tech regulation is at a turning point: away from the hopeless task of perfecting Big Tech and towards the necessary work of abolishing Big Tech.

This blog is part of our Year in Review series. Read other articles about the fight for digital rights in 2023.

At the end of every year, we look back at the last 12 months and evaluate what has changed for the better (and worse) for digital rights.  While we can be frustrated—hello ongoing attacks on encryption—overall it's always an exhilarating reminder of just how far we've come since EFF was founded over 33 years ago. Just the scale alone it's breathtaking. Digital rights started as a niche, future-focused issue that we would struggle to explain to nontechnical people; now it's deeply embedded into all of our lives.

The legislative, court, and agency fights around the world this year also helped us see and articulate a common thread: the need for a "privacy first" approach to laws and technology innovation.  As we wrote in a new white paper aptly entitled "Privacy First: A Better Way to Address Online Harms," many of the ills of today’s internet have a single thing in common, and it is that they are built on a business model of corporate surveillance and behavioral advertising.  Addressing that problem could help us make great strides in a range of issues, and avoid many of the the terrible likely impacts of many of today's proposed "solutions."

Instead of considering proposals that would censor speech and put children's access to internet resources at the whims of state attorneys general, we could be targeting the root cause of the concern: internet companies' collection, storage, sales, and use of our personal information and activities to feed their algorithms and ad services. Police go straight to tech companies for your data or the data on everyone who was near a certain location.  And that's when they even bother with a court-overseen process, rather than simply issuing a subpoena, showing up and demanding it, or buying data from data brokers. If we restricted what data tech companies could keep and for how long, we could also tackle this problem at the source. Instead of unconstitutional link taxes to save local journalism, laws that attack behavioral advertising--built on collection of data--would break the ad and data monopoly that put journalists at the mercy of Big Tech in the first place.

Concerns about what is feeding AI, social media algorithms, government spying (either your own or another country's), online harassment, getting access to healthcare--so much can be better protected if we address privacy first. EFF knows this, and it's why, in 2023, we did things like launch the Tor University Challenge, urge the Supreme Court to recognize that the Fifth Amendment protects you from being forced to give your phone's passcode to police, and work to fix the dangerously flawed UN Cybercrime Treaty. Most recently, we celebrated Google's decision to limit the data collected and kept in its "Location History" as a potentially huge step to prevent geofence warrants that use Google's storehouse of location data to conduct massive, unconstitutional searches sweeping in many innocent bystanders. 

Of course, as much as individuals need more privacy, we also need more transparency, especially from our governments and the big corporations that rule so much of our digital lives. That's why EFF urged the Supreme Court to overturn an order preventing Twitter—now X—from publishing a transparency report with data about what, exactly, government agents have asked the company for. It's why we won an important victory in keeping laws and regulations online and accessible. And it's why we defended the Internet Archive from an attack by major publishers seeking to cripple libraries' ability to give the rest of us access to knowledge into the digital age.

All of that barely scratches the surface of what we've been doing this year. But none of it would be possible without the strong partnership of our members, supporters, and all of you who stood up and took action to build a better future. 

EFF has an annual tradition of writing several blog posts on what we’ve accomplished this year, what we’ve learned, and where we have more to do. We will update this page with new stories about digital rights in 2023 every day between now and the new year.

• Surveillance and the U.S.-Mexico Border
• The Great Interoperability Convergence
• EFF Continues Fight Against Unconstitutional Geofence and Keyword Search Warrants
• Electronic Frontier Alliance Comes Back Strong
• Artificial Intelligence and Policing
• Sketchy and Dangerous Android Children’s Tablets and TV Set-Top Boxes
• Corporate Spy Tech and Inequality
• Protecting Encryption And Privacy In The US
• The Last Mile of Encrypting the Web
• Recent Surveillance Revelations, Enduring Latin American Issues
• Surveillance Self-Defense
• EFF Membership
• International Threats to Freedom of Expression
• The U.S. Supreme Court’s Busy Year of Free Speech and Tech Cases
• Equitable Access to the Law Got Stronger
• The Atlas of Surveillance Hits Major Milestones
• Kids Online Safety Shouldn’t Require Massive Online Censorship and Surveillance
• Protecting Students from Faulty Software and Legislation
• In the Trenches of Broadband Policy
• Fighting For Your Digital Rights Across the Country
• First, Let’s Talk About Consumer Privacy
• States Attack Young People’s Constitutional Right to Use Social Media
• Fighting European Threats to Encryption
• Taking Back the Web with Decentralization
• How To Fight Bad Patents
• Google’s Corporate Paternalism in The Browser
• Digital Rights for LGBTQ+ People

The U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property will debate a bill this week that would dramatically limit the public’s right to challenge bad granted patents. The PREVAIL Act, S. 2220 would bar most people from petitioning the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to revoke patents that never should have been granted in the first place. 

If the bill passes, it would be a giant gift to patent trolls, who will be able to greatly increase the extortionate toll they demand from small businesses, software developers, and everyday internet users. EFF opposes the bill, and we’re reaching out to Congress to let them know they should stand with technology makers and users—not patent trolls. 

The PREVAIL Bill Will Ban Most People From Challenging Bad Patents 

Every year, hundreds of patent lawsuits are filed over everyday internet activities–“inventions” like watching ads (online), showing picture menus (online), sharing sports data (online), selling binders or organic produce (online), or clocking in to work (online). 

The patents are usually controlled by “patent assertion entities,” also called patent trolls, which don’t actually do business or use the ideas themselves. 

There are two main ways of fighting back against these types of bogus patents. First, they can be invalidated in federal court, which can cost millions of dollars. Second, they can be challenged at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, usually in a process called an inter partes review, or IPR. The IPR process is also expensive and difficult, but this quasi-judicial process is much faster and cheaper than district courts. IPR has allowed the cancellation of thousands of patent claims that never should have been issued in the first place. 

The PREVAIL Act will limit access to the IPR process to only people and companies that have been directly threatened or sued over a patent. No one else will have standing to even file a petition. That means that EFF, other non-profits, and membership-based patent defense companies like Unified Patents won’t be able to access the IPR process at all. 

EFF used the IPR process back in 2013, when thousands of our supporters chipped in to raise more than $80,000 to fight against a patent that claimed to cover all podcasts. EFF was able to present prior art (earlier technology), and the judges at the Patent Office agreed that the so-called “podcasting patent,” which belonged to a patent troll called Personal Audio LLC, should never have been granted. The patent was knocked out and although the patent owner appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, our win was upheld at every stage. 

We’re not the only non-profit to use IPRs to protect users and developers. The Linux Foundation, for instance, funds an “open source zone” that uses IPR to knock out patents that may be used to sue open source projects. Hundreds of patents per year are litigated against open source projects, the great majority of them being owned by patent trolls. 

Challenges Matter Because Most Software Patents Were Wrongly Granted

Patents are a government-granted monopoly that lasts 20 years. The owners of those monopoly rights often want payment from those who use the method or system they claim to “own.” These are vast and broad claims–particularly the ones used by patent trolls, which will sue dozens of companies that have very different ways of doing things. 

When a patent troll comes along like Lodsys, which threatened hundreds of independent app developers over online payment technology, software makers shouldn’t have to wait until they get a threat letter in the mail to fight back. What’s more, funding defensive measures like IPRs through crowdfunding or membership-based systems are critical to making them accessible to everyday people. 

The government gives out software monopolies in the name of spurring innovation. But the Patent Office gets it wrong very, very often. Roughly half of patents litigated to judgment are found invalid (even though the legal standard heavily favors issued patents), and one study found the most heavily-litigated patents win in court only 11% of the time. 

There’s a growing body of evidence that patents don’t work to spur software innovation, and in fact do harm. The least we should be allowed is the right to bring evidence forward to challenge the most abused monopoly rights. 

The PREVAIL Act Tilts The Table In Favor Of Trolls At Every Step 

The bill tweaks the patent challenge system in other ways too, nearly all of which favor patent trolls and a few large patent-owners. 

First, the PREVAIL Act greatly raises the standard of evidence needed to invalidate a patent. If it passes, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board will presume that the patent claims are valid unless the challengers carry a heavy burden to show otherwise. Right now, the legal standards for inter partes review are roughly aligned with the standards for issuance of proposed patent claims. That alignment is what makes IPR a true opportunity for the PTO to reconsider the issuance of patent claims. 

Second, the bill would require parties that file IPR challenges to give up their right to fight in federal court. This doesn’t make any sense. Certain arguments, like arguing that a patent is abstract and ineligible under the Alice precedent, can only be made in district court. Choosing to present prior art arguments at the Patent Office shouldn’t bar someone who has been targeted by a patent troll from being able to properly defend themselves in court. Ultimately, it’s only a judge or jury that can decide a patent has been infringed—and award damages. Anyone accused of patent infringement must have all defenses available to them when they face such a proceeding. 

Third, when patents get invalidated, PREVAIL allows patent owners to simply add new claims that avoid the issues presented before the court. The owners get to do this with the benefit of years of hindsight, and new information about what real innovators have found to be successful in the market. Combined with the waiver of the ability to later challenge validity in court, this is clearly a raw deal for the public and anyone on the receiving end of a patent threat.

Finally, the bill gives the USPTO Director the power to throw out petitions in cases where more than one petition challenges the same patent. But it makes perfect sense for there to be multiple challenges over the most controversial, heavily litigated patents. The same patent or group of patents is often used to threaten hundreds–or even thousands–of small businesses. There shouldn’t be a race to the door where only the first challenger (who might not be the best challenger) gets their case heard. 

But that’s exactly what will happen if PREVAIL passes. Even a patent that’s been used dozens of times will only have to face one challenger at the USPTO, even if the two challengers bring forth very different arguments and evidence. Given that there are so few limitations on who patent owners can threaten and sue, it’s unfair to place harsh limits on the comparatively few people or companies that have the desire, and the resources, to fight back against wrongly granted patents. 

Congress Should Allow More Challenges to U.S. Patents, Not Fewer 

The PREVAIL Act proceeds from a misguided, evidence-free belief system that attributes innovation and economic success to government idea-monopolies. The evidence is growing that the U.S. software industry thrives in spite of software patents, not because of them. 

There are useful ways we could change the IPR system. In 2021, EFF supported a bill brought by then-Senator Patrick Leahy brought forward a bill that would have updated the IPR system and closed four loopholes in the system. Importantly, that bill expanded access to IPR–it didn’t shrink it. 

In fact, the public benefits from challenging bad patents. We could go even further in expanding patent challenges, and it would be to the public’s benefit. For instance, we could allow patent challengers to explain when a patent shouldn’t have been issued because it claims abstract ideas, which aren’t patentable per Section 101 of the Patent Act. Those arguments currently aren’t allowed during IPR proceedings. 

The forces behind this bill represent patent trolls and other large-scale patent enforcers. In the end, the IPR process has benefited the public, but it’s been a net loss for a small group of people and companies that have made a lot of money from asserting patent threats. That’s why we’ve seen continuous efforts to destroy the IPR process, including misguided court challenges and pushing harmful rule changes at USPTO to limit its effects. 

The PREVAIL Act will do far more harm than good, and we’ll be calling on lawmakers in Congress to oppose this bill.