Before I Can Fix This Tractor, We Have to Fix Copyright Law • Hacker News Board

Re: Before I Can Fix This Tractor, We Have to Fix Copyright Law

#91

Post by rubberstamp » Thu, Jan 14, 2016, 9:15 AM UTC

simoncion wrote: post #54

itistoday2 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rejecting the entire concept of having leadership and structure because these particular leaders aren't perfect... That's not what I'm suggesting at all. I'm saying pick a structure and leaders that really do represent you. That's a very different thing from voting for pre-selected candidates whom you've never met and don't interact with, and then crossing your fingers.

> That's a very different thing from voting for pre-selected candidates whom you've never met and don't interact with, and then crossing your fingers. I'm a bit sick right now, thus either my math or my formulas might be off. I welcome any corrections. :) So. Copyright policy is decided at the Federal level. The people in charge of setting that policy are elected members of Congress. Let's assume that you can declare…

all the more reasons why there should be a structure to not let our representatives make all the decisions for us. I'm sure we all had times when our representative is not actually representing our interests.

think tank mode: what if the current system is restructured in a way so that we will let them take decisions for us. But when we don't agree with his/her view point we can readily bypass it if the majority wants a different thing, like may be diagree button near to a decision and proposed alternative, which everyone can vote on or propose another alternative(only one alternative can be picked by a person). Its democratic, practical and doable right now. The alternative with which highest number of people agree is a clear win. This can be applied in all countries and any form of govt.

Its way better than any alternatives we currently have, like having to spend big time and effort on making petitions, or rally for cause, etc. Now a days even peaceful gathering gets violet due to govt mishandling the situation.

Re: Before I Can Fix This Tractor, We Have to Fix Copyright Law

#92

Post by lugus35 » Thu, Jan 14, 2016, 9:17 AM UTC

teekert wrote: post #86

rubberstamp wrote: post #82

People should have the right to tinker with whatever they bought.Telling them only they can, and not an expert 3rd party, make the change is ridiculous as not everyone is a rocket scientist in the respective fields. If we buy car/tractor/phone/whatever, we should be able to modify it(its hw/sw) however we want. I fail to understand how it breaks copyright. No one is copying and distributing anything. Copyright law sh…

This is about a deal between two parties, both parties agreed during the tranfer of the goods, the conditions were known. Complaining after the sale is stupid. You had the chance to walk away from the deal because you didn't like it's conditions, nobody was forced. Interfering with this process reduces freedom. All I see a big market opportunity for hackable, open-platform tractors.

You can't buy a hackable, open-platform tractor. What are you doing while waiting for this very hypothical tractor ? You stop working ?

Re: Before I Can Fix This Tractor, We Have to Fix Copyright Law

#93

Post by jamespo » Thu, Jan 14, 2016, 9:20 AM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #44

dangrossman wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Frena (1993) and Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. MAPHIA (1994). Both were held liable for unauthorized copies uploaded by users.

> Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Frena (1993) and Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. MAPHIA (1994). Both were held liable for unauthorized copies uploaded by users. ...in much the same way as Grokster and Napster, DMCA notwithstanding.

Grokster & Napster responded to DMCA takedowns promptly did they?

Re: Before I Can Fix This Tractor, We Have to Fix Copyright Law

#94

Post by rubberstamp » Thu, Jan 14, 2016, 9:23 AM UTC

amelius wrote: post #87

teekert wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is about a deal between two parties, both parties agreed during the tranfer of the goods, the conditions were known. Complaining after the sale is stupid. You had the chance to walk away from the deal because you didn't like it's conditions, nobody was forced. Interfering with this process reduces freedom. All I see a big market opportunity for hackable, open-platform tractors.

This might seem reasonable. But... this way, capable people will not benefit from markets of scale like they could if they were allowed to tinker with their purchased goods. > All I see a big market opportunity for hackable, open-platform tractors. Sadly, there is no big market opportunity for hackable, open-platform tractors.

it will not matter economies of scale as the tinkerer cannot redistribute it. The tinkering is done in product already sold, like after market car parts. The tinkerer can tinker with as many tractors as he wish, even for money, but those modification is done with consent of owner on something that he already owns. If i brick something in process i should be able to replace it with factory stuff, like in case with if the said tractor's axil gets broken

Re: Before I Can Fix This Tractor, We Have to Fix Copyright Law

#95

Post by nekopa » Thu, Jan 14, 2016, 9:23 AM UTC

wonkaWonka wrote: post #63

oneJob wrote: post #31

Let's rewind. VHS won because of porn. Listening to music is now a buffet style affair because of Napster. AC kicked DC in the nuts and the public applauded because it was better and it could. I respect those working to improve the system from within, but also respectfully point out that change of the sort this article is talking about comes from the outside. Revolutions all have one thing in common. Out with the old…

I was with you, right up until you said "Out with the old, and in with the new." You're first paragraph is spot on. But. The next step is, DIY tractors, as if they were hot rod motorcycles, since, let's be honest... Tractors are NOT high technology items. Okay, so tractors aren't as sexy as motorcyles, and gear heads don't cut their teeth on John Deer. So... just buy ordinary tractors, why not? They are basically cov…

"tractors equipped with cutting edge technology, as agricultural equipment makers increasingly incorporate elements of data analytics, GPS and remote sensing in a race to make farming more precise."[1]

[1] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a48ad98c-36c7-11e3-aaf1-00144feab7...

Re: Before I Can Fix This Tractor, We Have to Fix Copyright Law

#96

Post by kagamine » Thu, Jan 14, 2016, 9:26 AM UTC

fanquake wrote: post #26

ec109685 wrote: post #19

Feels like the best approach is to encourage farmers to boycot at least one of the major tractor providers until these restrictions are removed. No new laws or lawsuits needed -- just some collective action.

Which provider do you propose we boycott, and which one do we use in the mean time? JohnDeere, CASE, New Holland etc dominate the industry, and no farmer is going to (let alone can afford to) stop using their current equipment, and spend millions of dollars (it would easily cost us this much) buying different brand machinery. Let alone dealing with the hassles that come with swapping from one stream of ag software to…

> JohnDeere, CASE, New Holland etc dominate the industry

Look out, here comes China/Korea. Surely this policy of restricted software editing is intended to do one of two things:

1. force customers into dealerships for updates/repairs

2. stop a Chinese tractor appearing in the US market using the same or almost same but modified software that John Deere developed.

If it's the 1st then farmers will choose an alternative machine for future purchases, the tractor market in Europe at least has 20 brands jostling for market share.

If the 2nd argument is true, surely a license that allows users to modify and repair all the while restricting modified or original source from being distributed with the sale of a product, including resales, would solve this issue.

Re: Before I Can Fix This Tractor, We Have to Fix Copyright Law

#97

Post by diamondlovesyou » Thu, Jan 14, 2016, 9:29 AM UTC

zodiac wrote: post #84

rubberstamp wrote: post #82

People should have the right to tinker with whatever they bought.Telling them only they can, and not an expert 3rd party, make the change is ridiculous as not everyone is a rocket scientist in the respective fields. If we buy car/tractor/phone/whatever, we should be able to modify it(its hw/sw) however we want. I fail to understand how it breaks copyright. No one is copying and distributing anything. Copyright law sh…

If we really put this into law in a way that works, what's going to happen is that companies will stop selling people tractors and instead lease them to people for an unlimited amount of time for a one-time payment, or something similar.

Assuming the market allows this. Ie demand may favor ownership so much that companies can't lease and remain competitive.

Re: Before I Can Fix This Tractor, We Have to Fix Copyright Law

#98

Post by jwr » Thu, Jan 14, 2016, 9:31 AM UTC

zodiac wrote: post #84

rubberstamp wrote: post #82

People should have the right to tinker with whatever they bought.Telling them only they can, and not an expert 3rd party, make the change is ridiculous as not everyone is a rocket scientist in the respective fields. If we buy car/tractor/phone/whatever, we should be able to modify it(its hw/sw) however we want. I fail to understand how it breaks copyright. No one is copying and distributing anything. Copyright law sh…

If we really put this into law in a way that works, what's going to happen is that companies will stop selling people tractors and instead lease them to people for an unlimited amount of time for a one-time payment, or something similar.

Which is fine, really, as long as you don't use words "purchase", "buy" and "ownership". Call a lease a lease.

In this scenario, one of two things would happen:

* either there is a genuine need for buying/owning fixable hackable tractors, in which case there will be a market and companies will appear that sell those,

* or there is really no need, and leasing works just fine for tractor users, and it's only us couch-commentators who think we desperately need to repair tractors.

The key point/problem here is that we have a (deliberate) naming confusion: "ownership" should not come with rights restrictions. The same confusion was deliberately introduced with DVDs/BluRays, for example, not to mention computer software. The law should step in and force everyone to truthfully describe what they're selling: a product, a license to do certain things, or a lease.

Re: Before I Can Fix This Tractor, We Have to Fix Copyright Law

#99

Post by annnnd » Thu, Jan 14, 2016, 9:32 AM UTC

flohofwoe wrote: post #85

PietdeVries wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if you have the right to modify the software in a tractor, doesn't that imply that you have the right to modify the software that Microsoft is selling as well? The fact that the software we're discussing here is installed on a tractor rather than a PC shouldn't make much of a difference?

Of course I should be allowed to modify the software that Microsoft is selling as long as I am not redistributing the modified software. I paid for, and thus own both the software and the device that the software is running on, so why shouldn't I be allowed to do whatever the hell I want with it? End User License Agreements be damned.

Exactly. It shouldn't even be legal to use such EULA.

Re: Before I Can Fix This Tractor, We Have to Fix Copyright Law

#100

Post by tremon » Thu, Jan 14, 2016, 9:36 AM UTC

mindslight wrote: post #55

zanny wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

200 years ago when IP had volume costs associated with it, where there was no way for creator to interact with consumer, they were useful. Flawed, but served their purpose. Today, the purpose is lost, and the use is exploitative.

The original purpose was to incentivize creative works, and the desirability of that hasn't really gone away. For example, Free software would be a lot further along if there could be a lucrative business model behind it. Enforcement is just utterly at odds with physics and at this point, the idea of "owning" control of bits in someone else's possession is incompatible with a free society.

Actually, it was "to promote science and the useful arts". Not all creative works.