Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 199 posts

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

#111

Post by easytiger »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #49
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…

VHS didn't win because of pornography, it won because it was cheaper and was actually a superior format in certain respects. Listening to music is now "buffet-style" because of iTunes, not Napster. Napster died. AC kicked DC because the latter was financially non-viable.

> Listening to music is now "buffet-style" because of iTunes, not Napster. Napster died.

I think you just rewrote history.

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

#112

Post by wallacoloo »

superuser2 wrote: post #81
jdjb wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguably, the only reason you have to worry about the lawsuits is because of stupid IP laws in the first place though.

Copylefts only have teeth because of these "stupid" IP laws. Free Software would be nowhere without copyright. (Yes, you could redistribute binaries, but you could not compel the release of source code for derivatives.)

Very interesting point which I'm sure gets overlooked quite often. It seems even Richard Stallman is in favor of preserving the idea of copyright (albeit reducing its duration), which came as a bit of a surprise to me given his otherwise radical views: http://www.computerworlduk.com/blogs/open-enterprise/could-f...

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

#113

Post by rakoo »

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.

> I paid for, and thus own both the software and the device that the software is running on

Wrong. What defines owning is not whether you paid or not, but the type of contract you made.

Moreover, you didn't pay for Windows; you paid for a license of Windows. This license specifically says what you are and what you are not allowed to do with the software, and among others, tinkering with is is not part of what you are allowed to do.

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

#114

Post by rakoo »

lugus35 wrote: post #92
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.

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

You build it (http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/LifeTrac) ?

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

#115

Post by smcl »

jamespo wrote: post #109
lugus35 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Maybe do what people did 10 years ago

Actually this is what some farmers attempt to do - buy tractors that do not rely on complex electronics and software. However none of the major farm equipment manufacturers make such tractors anymore, so they've had to turn to the second-hand market. Consequently the prices of these second hand tractors has skyrocketed. What a strange world.

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

#116

Post by [deleted] »

ck2 wrote: post #88

I'm curious why freedom-to-tinker is not considered free-expression in the USA, clear and simple. I mean we pride ourselves on it. As long as the item is purchased (owned) and it is for personal use and warranties are clearly voided, what business is it otherwise to the manufacturer after they make the sale. Of course they can get around this by never actually selling the tractor and only leasing it to farmers, then…

[deleted]

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

#117

Post by czechdeveloper »

rakoo wrote: post #114
lugus35 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You build it ( http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/LifeTrac ) ?

Yea, let's go back 50 years in tech, make it by hand and call it hackable.

I guess you haven't seen John Deere tractors in a while.

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

#118

Post by mattlutze »

jamespo wrote: post #108
EliRivers wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is well established that agreeing to some conditions doesn't necessarily make those conditions legally binding. There are many circumstances under which they are not. Interfering with this process reduces freedom. Interfering with freedom is necessary, almost everywhere. The very fact that two people can come to an agreement that they would expect to be enforced is a massive interference in freedom. To say nothing…

Er, what?

If a contract contains terms which are illegal or become illegal, depending how the contract is written it may in whole or in part be nullified.

It's seen a lot in apartment/house rental contracts, where the renter puts predatory terms in a contract which aren't allowed by local or state laws. They try to enforce because "you signed it" but a challenge in court sees the contract, or at least those terms, scrapped.

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

#119

Post by jiiam »

rakoo wrote: post #113
flohofwoe wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I paid for, and thus own both the software and the device that the software is running on Wrong. What defines owning is not whether you paid or not, but the type of contract you made. Moreover, you didn't pay for Windows; you paid for a license of Windows. This license specifically says what you are and what you are not allowed to do with the software, and among others, tinkering with is is not part of what you are…

Let's not play dumb. Of course you got an EULA with your software, the point is the legitimacy of the EULA from a legal and jurisprudential point. Same holds for the copyright law.

I mean, there is obviously a law stating that you cannot do this or that because it violates copyright. This implies that you as a citizen might do something illegal as close yourself in your room, do some magic and then get out and forget about it, although what you did has no influence on the world whatsoever. That is a problem.

Now, if we want to be precise there is actually a clear definition of what you own, and in fact you probably do not own the copy of Windows running on your PC. Still it is possible that you own that PC, and its hard drives and other stuff, so when we say that you do not own the software but just a license to use it we are giving credit to stuff like this:

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/10-ridiculous-eula-clauses-agre...

or this:

http://www.zdnet.com/article/apples-eula-nonsense/#!

To sum up, sure you might not have the right to hack your properties, but that's caused by a set of laws defending a power inbalance between consumers and producers. I believe that claiming that any sort of "hacking your stuff" should be prohibited because the law says so is an example of irrational justificationism if not supported by further arguments, still I'd like to hear about the reasons why we need copyright law as is.

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

#120

Post by lmm »

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.

Post-DMCA it became a requirement to demonstrate that they were supporting copyright infringement (e.g. by showing screenshots of searching for and downloading songs that were not licensed for distribution that way in their marketing material) - see the Limewire case and the ongoing MegaUpload saga.
Post reply on HN