121–130 of 199 posts
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.
Is the argument that copyright law was a stupid idea, or that 18th century lawmakers were stupid not to consider the law's impact on the internet?
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…
Absolutely. We've had so many on farm productivity gains by modifying our machinery. We've added curtains to our spreader to better spread lime, extended our machines axles to setup a CTF system and built our own wetting agent system for our seeder bar, just to name a few, all which required machinery/implement modification. In some cases, machinery manufacturers have come and looked at the modifications we've made to a machine (in the case of the spreader curtains), and then taken the idea and started building it into their machines by default.
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…
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?
The DMCA should not pertain to you flipping bits into your own copy of Windows to modify it's functionality. You can do that, and if it's a violation of the license, Microsoft can sue you. It's an entirely civil issue with the burden of proof on MS.
The anticircumvention provisions of the DMCA criminalize any alteration of a device with the purported objective of protecting copyright. So now the state not only defends copyright, but the technical measures themselves, even if the real objective of the manufacturer is simply to be anticompetitive and incompatible. It's a massive privatization of criminal law in ad-hoc, unwritten form: "it's illegal to disable anything manufacturers claim defends copyright".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i'll bet there is. think of what the PTO (power take-off) enabled in general for the common tractor. i'll bet hydraulics, electrical generation, and other systems can also be leveraged by 3rd-party or custom gear. in fact, I'll wager that the FUTURE of the tractor INSISTS upon it being open and hackable. The "Lying EULA that attempts to rebrand a sale a lease" approach is bad for customers and bad for the world at la…
> i'll bet there is. think of what the PTO (power take-off) enabled in general for the common tractor. i'll bet hydraulics, electrical generation, and other systems can also be leveraged by 3rd-party or custom gear. You mean a common platform, similar to what iOS is in the computing world? Sounds nice, but I guess we use a different definition of "open".
OPEN TRACTOR API 1.0
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.
"Complaining after the sale is stupid." I'm really tired of this argument. Just because the sale wasn't made under duress doesn't mean that we should never complain about the sale afterwards. By that logic, you shouldn't be complaining about the comments here, since no one is forcing you to read HN.
Don't get me wrong, I love open source, I love Linus/RMS for giving me such a beautiful product with which I make a living. But it was theirs to give, not mine to take. You have the same strange ethics as RMS, two consenting adults make a trade, based on rules known in advance (ie., you cannot see/alter the source code), no one was hurt and no one has anything to do with this trade... and yet... RMS calls this evil. Again: I prefer open source to anything but the rights are the creators to hand out and the customers to accept or not, that is freedom.
Buy a different Tractor or try to negotiate a deal before you buy a tractor. Or start a forum to gather a lot of people that John Deere may listen to. But don't buy it and then start crying you don't like it.
And "by that logic" I shouldn't post on HN if I don't like downvotes. But I agreed to this system before I post. I won't whine about it afterwards since the possibility of being downvoted/offended existed before I commented. By your logic I should now start to pressure the government to do something about these awfull comments on HN, because I don't like them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 are NOT high technology items. You'd be surprised. There are far more lasers, GPS units, etc. in use at the typical farm than owned by the typical consumer.
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.
Re: AC/DC, DC was financially viable. You might notice that we still make use of DC, where it does much close quarter nut kicking. DC was financially uncompetitive over distance, but not because of magic finance. It was uncompetitive because someone had to buy, build, and install the associated hardware to make it work over long distances. AC required much less in that arena, because of the technology, not magical finance. AC as a technology was more viable then DC as a technology over distance because the technologist, not the banker, endowed it with such awesome, nut kicking powers. And nut kick it did.
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 you want to fix copyright, you need to realize it's a complex matter with lots of different actors and conflicting interests. Thus you will need to be able to discuss it accurately, to ensure people aren't getting a mixed message.
So let me help you out with a starter pack of accurate statements.
Copyright is not a fundamental right. It's an artificial monopoly enforced by government based on promises of enriching society at large, by giving it back for free, in the future, after a limited period of exclusivity.
Violating copyright isn't theft. "IP" is a legal construct to make something fundamentally unnatural (owning an idea) seem natural. "IP" is not real property and it cannot be stolen.
Having firmware for stuff you own being copyrighted and implemented in a way which makes it illegal to tamper with is clearly not in spirit with the way copyright law was written nor its intent.
Having copyright last 100s of year in a time where something is obsolete or outdated in less than 5 years is clearly also at odds with "enriching" society. Nothing is being given back. And if it is, it's long past the period in which it would be useful.
If you want to "fix" copyright, we need to get more focus on the spirit and intent of the law, rather than the "right" part of the law and specifically how big corporations look at it like a blanket-right to profit, for all eternity.
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…
I never met a human (excluding lawyers) who actually has read through a single EULA, and I doubt most of them would be valid if actually tested in court, at least outside the US.
[edit: typo]
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…
"People should have the right to tinker with whatever they bought" Absolutely. We've had so many on farm productivity gains by modifying our machinery. We've added curtains to our spreader to better spread lime, extended our machines axles to setup a CTF system and built our own wetting agent system for our seeder bar, just to name a few, all which required machinery/implement modification. In some cases, machinery m…