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

131–140 of 199 posts

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

#131

Post by teekert »

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 ?

Well, apparently you do what people on HN are suggesting here: You wait until someone else builds a hackable tractor, you buy it promising you won't hack it, then you complain about it and hope you can pressure the government into making it legal for you to hack the hackable tractor.

Why are people buying these annoying tractors anyway? The reason to me seems: They are worth the trouble.

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

#133

Post by rplnt »

dangrossman wrote: post #3
mindslight wrote: post #2

If copyright law actually respected a balance between creators and the public, anything under digital restriction technology would be ineligible for it, since there's clearly no intention of adding to the public domain after the period is up. Of course we know it doesn't. Anyone with half a brain knew the DMCA was a bad idea when it was being "debated". Now it's accepted because we've grown accustomed to workarounds.…

The part of the DMCA that lets sites and ISPs host/transmit user uploads without being sued on a daily basis is pretty nice.

Not really since it doesn't prevent abuse (in practice).

edit: abuse as in fraudulent take down requests

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

#134

Post by marcosdumay »

0xcde4c3db wrote: post #37
viraptor wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A part of that part is nice, yes. There's a different part of that part which forces them to take anything down on any valid request. That means you can request taking down any service at all if you made an "honest mistake". (for example https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150728/05285531772/wordp... but google knows much more)

Another way the process is biased in favor of takedowns is that the counter-notification procedure is designed to thoroughly de-anonymize any individual who files one. A valid takedown notification need only contain "reasonably sufficient" contact information. A counter-notification is explicitly required to contain name, address, and phone number. I guess I can't fault the authors for failing to anticipate petty You…

> respected corporation

What a funny concept you created.

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

#135

Post by Ao7bei3s »

Riseed wrote: post #40
viraptor wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But to renounce your citizenship you have to have another place to live. Unless you create your own country, or go meet the entire government, you're still "ruled by what a handful of people you've never met".

One could emigrate to or create a micronation or microstate. Sealand is a fairly well known micronation. The Conch Republic [0] is another, and is an example of (on multiple occasions) withdrawing consent from being ruled by the outside government. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conch_Republic

Sealand, really? Who'd want to live like that? And how'd you finance it?

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

#136

Post by 16bytes »

teekert wrote: post #125
Flimm wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Ok, so according to you, what one should do is keep your mouth shut during the sale, buy an un-hackable machine and afterwards try to get hacking rights by "lobbying" the government. Imagine if you sold your product to a customer, he promises not to void your terms but then immediately he goes to the government to try to make it legal to void the terms he first agreed upon. Don't get me wrong, I love open source, I l…

As a society, we have decided that some contract terms are unenforceable, as there is often an asymmetric balance of power between vendors and consumers.

For example, what if the tractor terms say that you couldn't vote Republican or you would have to surrender the tractor? Or you could only use brand-name repair shops. Or that you couldn't open the hood.

Farmers need tractors. It's not like they have the option to not have one and wait forever for a deal that's never going to happen.

Buying means change of ownership and just because you write something into a contract doesn't change that fact.

To finish your example, yes, I would expect the buyer to be able to hack the machine. They bought it and it is now theirs to do with as they please.

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

#137

Post by jpindar »

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.

Isn't that how most software "sales" already work?

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

#138

Post by balabaster »

PietdeVries wrote: post #83
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…

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?

and what's the problem with this? License the software as-is and with no re-distribution rights, but grant rights to modify and extend the software as you see fit. If you want to sell your modifications, so be it, but you can't sell the original software, just your mods. The same way as software developers don't have the right to give away Windows software with our code, we just have the right to sell our enhancements... so in effect (if you remove all the semantics and legal claptrap), we do have the right to modify the software that Microsoft is selling, otherwise hundreds of thousands of software engineers would be out of a job.

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

#139

Post by balabaster »

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.

This train of thought leads me back to software practices where all features exist in the software, but the level of license you pay for unlocks certain features (that are already installed), so if you allow hacking of the control module, you could theoretically unlock features you hadn't paid for... this would be a major concern for the developer.

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

#140

Post by alistairSH »

teekert wrote: post #131
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 ?

Well, apparently you do what people on HN are suggesting here: You wait until someone else builds a hackable tractor, you buy it promising you won't hack it, then you complain about it and hope you can pressure the government into making it legal for you to hack the hackable tractor. Why are people buying these annoying tractors anyway? The reason to me seems: They are worth the trouble.

Sure, but when the other option is "stop farming", what would you have them do? The typical farmer doesn't know how to build a tractor from scratch, just as the typical car-owner doesn't know how to reproduce a Honda Accord.
Post reply on HN