Medical Device Repair Again Threatened With Copyright Claims

4 min read Original article ↗

Medical providers face countless challenges in responding to the COVID pandemic, and copyright shouldn’t have to be one of them. Hundreds of volunteers came together to create the Medical Device Repair Database posted to the repair information website iFixit, providing medical practitioners and technicians an easy-to-use, annotated, and indexed resource to help them keep devices in good repair. The database includes documentation for mission-critical devices relevant to the COVID pandemic and has been widely praised as a tool for caregivers and those supporting them.

Despite this, Steris Corporation contacted iFixit to demand that their products’ documentation be taken down on copyright grounds. As the name suggests, Steris makes sterilization-related devices used to prevent contamination and the spread of disease. Unlike disease, though, the spread of repair information enhances public health and Steris should leave it alone.

Fortunately, the law is on iFixit’s side. As we explained in our letter back to Steris, iFixit is protected by the safe harbor of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act when it hosts user-provided content, and the Medical Device Repair Database is making fair use of the repair materials hosted there.

Medical care and the maintenance of medical devices are too important to let overreaching copyright claims get in the way. We at EFF are proud to be able to support iFixit and we hope that the device manufacturers will let the repair community continue to do its vital work instead of wasting everyone’s time with unfounded legal threats.

Related Issues

Related Updates

Stop New York's Attack on 3D Printing

New York's proposed 2026-2027 budget currently includes provisions that will require all 3D printers sold in the state to run print-blocking censorware—software that surveils every print for forbidden designs. This policy would also create felony charges for possessing or sharing certain design files. The vote on the state budget could...

Deeplinks Blog by Cliff Braun, Rory Mir | April 13, 2026

The Dangers of California’s Legislation to Censor 3D Printing

California’s bill, AB 2047, will not only mandate censorware on all 3D printers; it will also criminalize the use of open-source alternatives. Repeating the mistakes of DRM won’t make anyone safer, but it will hurt innovation in the state and risks a slew of new consumer harms ranging from surveillance...

A Baseless Copyright Claim Against a Web Host—and Why It Failed

Higbee & Associates, a law firm known for sending copyright demand letters to website owners, targeted May First Movement Technology, accusing it of infringing a photograph owned by Agence France-Presse (AFP). The claim was baseless. May First didn’t post the photo. It didn’t even own the website where the photo...

Deeplinks Blog by Cliff Braun | April 2, 2026

Print Blocking Won't Work - Permission to Print Part 2

Legislators across the U.S. are proposing laws to force “print blockers” on 3D printers sold in their states. This mandated censorware is doomed to fail for its intended purpose, but will still manage to hurt the professional and hobbyist communities relying on these tools.

Print Blocking is Anti-Consumer - Permission to Print Part 1

When legislators give companies an excuse to write untouchable code, it’s a disaster for everyone. This time, 3D printers are being targeted. Even if you’ve never used one, you’ve benefited from the open commons these devices have created. We need to roundly reject these onerous restraints on creation.

Supreme Court Agrees With EFF: ISPs Don't Have To Be Copyright Enforcers

In Cox v. Sony, the Court reversed a Fourth Circuit decision that had upheld a billion-dollar verdict against internet provider Cox Communications. We live in a world where high speed internet access is a necessity for participation in everyday life. That’s why liability for ISPs for their customers’ actions should...

EFF to Court: Don’t Make Embedding Illegal

Who should be directly liable for online infringement – the entity that serves it up or a user who embeds a link to it? For almost two decades, most U.S. courts have held that the former is responsible, applying a rule called the server test. Under the server test, whomever...

Emmerich Newspapers v. Particle Media

In this case before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, appellant Emmerich Newspapers is calling for the court to subject some of the internet’s most fundamental and useful functions—linking and embedding—to staggering new potential liability. For nearly two decades, a pragmatic interpretation of the Copyright Act’s public display right, known...

Smart AI Policy Means Examining Its Real Harms and Benefits

We are inundated with advertisements and exhortations to use the latest AI-powered apps, and with hype insisting AI can solve any problem. Obscured by this hype, there are some real examples of AI proving to be a helpful tool. So let’s look at the real-world landscape.