Cory Doctorow: Legalising Reverse Engineering Could End 'Enshittification' (theguardian.com)
- Reference: 0180561490
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/26/01/11/0223235/cory-doctorow-legalising-reverse-engineering-could-end-enshittification
- Source link: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jan/10/trump-beginning-of-end-enshittification-make-tech-good-again
> There is only one reason the world isn't bursting with wildly profitable products and projects that [3]disenshittify the US's defective products: its (former) trading partners were bullied into passing [4]an "anti-circumvention" law that bans the kind of reverse-engineering that is the necessary prelude to modifying an existing product to make it work better for its users (at the expense of its manufacturer)...
>
> Post-Brexit, the UK is uniquely able to seize this moment. Unlike our European cousins, we needn't wait for the copyright directive to be repealed before we can strike article 6 off our own law books and thereby salvage something good out of Brexit... Until we repeal the anti-circumvention law, we can't reverse-engineer the US's cloud software, whether it's a database, a word processor or a tractor, in order to swap out proprietary, American code for robust, open, auditable alternatives that will safeguard our digital sovereignty. The same goes for any technology tethered to servers operated by any government that might have interests adverse to ours — say, the solar inverters and batteries we buy from China.
>
> This is the state of play at the dawn of 2026. The digital rights movement has two powerful potential coalition partners in the fight to reclaim the right of people to change how their devices work, to claw back privacy and a fair deal from tech: investors and national security hawks. Admittedly, the door is only open a crack, but it's been locked tight since the turn of the century. When it comes to a better technology future, "open a crack" is the most exciting proposition I've heard in decades.
Thanks to Slashdot reader [5]Bruce66423 for sharing the article.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jan/10/trump-beginning-of-end-enshittification-make-tech-good-again
[3] https://craphound.com/news/2024/02/05/my-marshall-mcluhan-lecture-on-enshittification-from-berlins-transmediale-conference/
[4] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/21/digital-millennium-copyright-act-eff-supreme-court
[5] https://www.slashdot.org/~Bruce66423
That might have unintended consequences (Score:3)
I can imagine companies no longer writing software because their work could then be given away for free, or either heavily encrypting it, or becoming a hardware (with or without binary blob) product.
A compromise could be to legalise reverse-engineering after a period of one to five years, but that would also need protection from a change of that period as it happened with the absurd length of copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop Dreaming! Big busines owns the governments these days. Nothing like that will happen.
. To quote BSD Fortunes: "An honest politican is one that when you buy him, he styays bought!"
Re: (Score:2)
Software is already pirated. Since decades. Allowing reverse engineering wouldn't change that.
Software is also already reverse engineered, but only in legal gray areas (like for interoperability and accessibility).
Re: (Score:2)
> GeminiGPTOpus, this file is a base64 encoded binary of a program compiled for the ARM v9 instruction set, please decompile it into C source code with comments. The binary program is an example of a computer-aided design application with a graphical user interface.
And for decades, now that the genie is out of the bottle.
Re: (Score:2)
It will blow your mind when you find out that the DMCA explicitly permits reverse engineering in some situations, for example for the purpose of interoperability. But that only applies in the US.
Re:That might have unintended consequences (Score:4, Insightful)
> I can imagine companies no longer writing software because their work could then be given away for free
There are plenty of companies that don't enshittify, have relatively open products, even open source products and are doing just fine. If it means not getting yet another product from Google or Amazon then so be it. The world will continue.
Re: (Score:2)
> I can imagine companies no longer writing software because their work could then be given away for free
Why do you think everything is now "in the cloud" instead of being desktop computer software? Desktop computer software is already dead to businesses.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about the United Kingdom but in America we wouldn't bother with all that. We would just use standard monopolistic tactics to prevent anyone that reverse engineered the product from getting a company off the ground.
It's like that old xkcd comic about the nerd super excited about how the government can't break his encryption when in the next panel there are thugs planning on using the $5 wrench to beat it out of him.
Re:Doctorow says legalize theft (Score:4, Interesting)
> "... an "anti-circumvention" law that bans the kind of reverse-engineering that is the necessary prelude to modifying an existing product to make it work better for its users (at the expense of its manufacturer)..."
> Reverse-engineering is a technique for stealing intellectual property.
While it certainly can be, that is not the only use of it; you can document how it interacts with hardware and have a separate clean room to write code to accomplish the same thing. That avoids copyright infringement but allows you to still use the hardware. That's what enabled the PC revolution by Compaq introducing clones of the IBM PC.
> It is NOT a "necessary prelude to modifying an existing product" unless that product is NOT yours.
That's a big part of the problem. Buying a product no longer means you 'own' it; due to licensing, security features and other restrictions on how you can use or resell an item you bought.
Re: (Score:1)
> While it certainly can be, that is not the only use of it
indeed, except if you are a cheerleader of the fundamentalist copyright police. in that case ofc it's a device of satan or something.
not that allowing reverse engineering would be a bad thing, not at all. but again corey's point is as sensationalist and puerile as ever. reverse engineering is not a hurdle (let alone "the" hurdle) to have a proper it infrastructure and tools. you fricken design and write it, there is no mistery, only hard work and broad support required. and that would be even far easier and
Re: (Score:2)
> reverse engineering is not a hurdle (let alone "the" hurdle) to have a proper it infrastructure and tools
It actually is in a lot of cases. It's pot luck if anything we buy will last long term, and companies see fit to dick us around as/when they feel like it. It's only because people are willing to violate the law that joe public is able to somewhat even the playing field. Even then, we've still created a society which produces rampant amounts of e-waste and abandons perfectly usable hardware because the barrier of entry is too high for anyone but rich billionaires to take over support or offer alternative wa
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, reverse engineering is already legal. What's not legal is starting w/ the blueprints of what somebody already made, but figuring out how they did it is perfectly legit
That's how ReactOS could do its project - by making sure it didn't replicate Microsoft's code. Somebody who independently creates/improves on an invention is not stealing squat
Re: (Score:2)
> Reverse-engineering is a technique for stealing intellectual property.
Intellectual property is correctly protected by patents and by trade secrets. Once you have put something out to consumers, anything they can learn by looking at it is not a trade secret-- the [1]definition of a trade secret [mitchellwilliamslaw.com] is that if it is disclosed to the public, it is not secret.
A law against reverse engineering is essentially inventing a new kind of prohibition, saying you can't look at what's inside something you own and see how it works.
> It is NOT a "necessary prelude to modifying an existing product" unless that product is NOT yours.
Well, of course. Why would you need to reverse engineer your own p
[1] https://www.mitchellwilliamslaw.com/what-is-the-definition-of-a-trade-secret-under-federal-law
Not going to happen (Score:3)
The UK is busy planning the Brexit 'Reset', which means following the EU rules, regulations and accepting the ECJ.
Re: Not going to happen (Score:3)
No need to pretend: some English sparkling wines are now very good. I particularly like Nyetimber. South east England has the same chalky soils as the Champagne region of northern France and climate change has improved the growing conditions, along with growth in experienced wine makers.
Re: (Score:2)
According to EU copyright rules reverse engineering is legal. So adapting EU rules would achieve the goal.
Microsoft got their start (Score:2)
By making a proprietary implementation of the freely shared BASIC programming language developed by Dartmouth College. The rest is history. Apple and Microsoft both took Xerox's open experiments as well. All proprietary software is an enclosure of a previously open commons. Like it all not the whole proprietary world monetizes and monopolizes what was the default human nature of sharing things.
Anti cheat (and other Palladium-derived ideas) is used as the ultimate excuse for proprietary software via secur
Simplified: (Score:2)
He makes a good argument for the UK.
> In the UK, reverse engineering is restricted under article 6 of the European software directive of 2001. US companies have capitalised on this fact – that British companies cannot modify their products – to spy on us and whack us with sky-high fees. Now, post-Brexit, the UK is uniquely able to seize this moment.
Thesis: The UK could make a lot of money by taking enshitified US tech producing versions people wanted. The law against reverse engineering is stopping UK companies from making a boatload of cash.
> “OK,” they’d say, “you’ve definitely laid out the best way to regulate tech, but we can’t do it.”
> Why not? Because – inevitably – the US trade rep had beaten me to every one of those countries and made it eye-wateringly clear that if they regulated tech in a way that favoured their own people, industries and national interests, the US would bury them in tariffs.
Rebuttal: Good idea but the US would punish the UK with tariffs.
> [...] If someone demands that you follow their orders or they’ll burn your house down, so you do, and they burn your house down anyway well, you’re a bit of a fool if you keep on doing what they tell you, aren’t you?
Counterpoint: The US is punishing the UK with tariffs regardless.
Conclusion:
I think this is an excellent argument for the UK but I also know that things aren't that cut and dry. However, this is a fantastic busin
Legalizing Drugs (Score:2)
> Legalising Reverse Engineering Could End Enshittification
Yes, and legalizing drugs could end drug crime.
Neither have a snowball's chance in hell.
Keep the products alive (Score:2)
Apps and their underlying code should become public domain if the product is not being actively developed and supported by its owner.
I love it (Score:2)
Once the terrorists start killing the hostages, you no longer have any incentive to obey their demands.
While I'm still pretty pessimistic about getting 1201-like laws repealed everywhere, Trump's overall hostility and pro-war attitude should help.
Bahah (Score:1)
Aaaaahahhahahahaahahahahahhhahahahaah!!!!!!!!!! As if that will ever happen!!!! That will never happen. You will enjoy your malware infested Android tubs of shit, or we will put you on a list for hating nominal surveillance!! Laugh now. You know I'm right.
Re: (Score:3)
FTFA:
> inevitably – the US trade rep had beaten me to every one of those countries and made it eye-wateringly clear that if they regulated tech in a way that favoured their own people, industries and national interests, the US would bury them in tariffs.
> But deterrents are a funny thing. If someone demands that you follow their orders or they’ll burn your house down, so you do, and they burn your house down anyway well, you’re a bit of a fool if you keep on doing what they tell you, aren’t you?
If you threaten someone into submission, why would they listen to you if you hurt them anyway?