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

161–170 of 199 posts

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

#161

Post by ergothus »

err4nt wrote: post #35
ergothus wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) The DMCA had a _lot_ of good parts about it. The alternatives were a lot worse. That some parts were bad doesn't invalidate the good parts - be careful of hating the whole thing 2) You talk of something entering the public domain...The US doesn't do that anymore (tragic smiley)

I'd love to hear more about #1. I don't know the history of the DMCA, and as a non-American I never heard about it before I saw it in action on Youtube. What were the (subjectively worse) alternatives being talked about at the time, and what do you think the best way out of this mess from today moving forward would be? You seem to hold a unique perspective on copyright issues I haven't hear before!

Well, a big part of the DMCA was providing "common carrier" protections for sites that were hosting content others uploaded. So, YouTube, for example, an stay alive even when people post blatantly infringing material, so long as they respond to requests to take it down. Prior to DMCA, there was the very real danger of sites being sued out of existence as being accessories. (Or sites switching to manual confirmation of everything posted before it was visible, a system that doesn't scale). And while we're at it, ISPs themselves could have been liable for any illegal activity done over the internet by one of their customers.

(As a non-American, you may not be aware that the first question the average American has when something goes wrong is "who can I sue?". Sad, but tragically common)

Previous laws were the Communications Decency Act (CDA) and the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), both of which got killed in court. They focused more on (trying) to prevent pornography from reaching the delicate eyes of children, but still touched on liability issues.

Alternatives to the DMCA went somewhat like Encryption talks now: INCREASE liability, give the govt lots of controls, etc. Sure the DMCA favors the copyright claimer, but if I'm a content host, you provide content, and I'm not liable. Then someone complains, and I let you know. You can dispute it, in which case I can keep it up without liability, or I can take it down. Alternatives didn't let it stay up, or would require that I prove your material isn't infringing myself, or other such things that fell even more heavily on the copyright claimant-side.

I don't think my perspective is all that unique - most of us that were around for the insanity that was CDA/COPA watched the DMCA with interest and had a "Well, this is progress" attitude even though we didn't really LIKE it, it was just a step in the right direction.

As for how to move forward, that's a multi-part issue:

* The places where DMCA is inadequate need to chafe so people get it changed. That's been happening for years, mainly in areas of general public concern, such as cellphone unlocking, takedown abuse, and format shifting.

* attitudes about "IP" need to change. That's been happening, but more slowly. I see non-legal people talking about IP as a wrapper for "this setting and associated characters" rather than "copyright/trademark/patents". News about patent trolls and related legal woes are becoming mainstream.

* One attitudes shift enough, the idea that "I thought of this, I can deny anyone else similar thoughts while being heralded as a hero" that currently drives copyright/patent policy will become more nuanced and allow for the idea that the legal protections afforded are for the public benefit, not private benefit.

It'll be slow going though.

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

#162

Post by undersuit »

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.)

Yep, that's why the MIT License is dead and never used.

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

#163

Post by wtetzner »

teekert wrote: post #148
16bytes wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 n…

Ah, I get to alter conditions under which I buy stuff based on my need , this is great! It is what I always wanted! Problem is... When I sell stuff under certain conditions I'd like my conditions to be honored. Like when I sell you a wafer stepper to make computer chips, I like you not to copy my patented technologies so that I can never reach return on investment. Even if you bought the machine and you own it now. A…

> When I sell stuff under certain conditions I'd like my conditions to be honored.

Frankly, if there are conditions, then as far as I'm concerned you're not selling anything. Selling implies a change of ownership. You've done something, but not sold something.

If companies want to attach additional conditions, then they should have to call it something else, and make it clear that the agreement isn't a sale.

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

#164

Post by wtetzner »

teekert wrote: post #149
alistairSH wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So I buy a different brand. Or I comply with the rules I accepted at buy-time. In this tractor case I'd be mad at myself that I missed such a shitty condition of the contract, I'd write a blog post about how shitty it is. I'd try to pressure the manufacturer into giving me more rights. But not via the government, that just seems unfair. John Deere invents something, they proudly bring it to market, people (who did no…

> But not via the government, that just seems unfair. > Why would you be allowed to force them into complying with your needs?

Here's the thing. They should be able to lease equipment with restrictions. However, if you're going to call it a sale, then I don't see why they should have the right to restrict your ability to modify it. A sale implies a change of ownership. If they can restrict what you can do with the product after you bought it, then there wasn't really a change of ownership, was there?

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

#165

Post by wtetzner »

smcl wrote: post #115
jamespo wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, my parents have a dairy farm, and they primarily buy old Oliver and White tractors, because they know how to repair them.

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

#166

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

marknutter wrote: post #156
Lawtonfogle wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. What right isn't granted by the government? We like to pretend that rights exist outside of governments, but the only right what a government gives is might makes right.

> What right isn't granted by the government Inalienable rights (by definition, in fact).

>"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

Granted by, secured by, the effect is the same unless you believe people would enjoy the rights in the absence of something like government (specifically a gov't which effectively protects rights).

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

#167

Post by Kapow »

fanquake wrote: post #122
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…

"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…

>and then taken the idea and started building it into their machines by default.

And sold it and kept all the money to themselves? Sounds like a great deal for them.

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

#168

Post by emcrazyone »

oneJob wrote: post #126
nitrogen wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Indeed. I stopped reading when I got to that line. Modern tractors are industrial production machines valued according to their output, and designed as such. These things are indeed complex, expensive, wonders of technology. Not only that, they are no longer simply tractors, they are now parts of systems.

correct, I'm presently doing work for one of the largest tractor manufacturers developing software for them. There are all kinds of technology in these things as well as on the farm itself in the form of GPS correction (called RTK) to deal with auto guidance and improving GPS accuracy. We are also building mesh networks so a tractor and a combine can be driven by one person & having the combine follow the tractor in side-by-side fashion. I work on over the air software updates, some of the touch screens are essentially custom computers running Android. We have a number of on board modules handling steering and precision farming as it's called in the industry. All these modules are interconnected with a mix of technology (CAN, TCP/IP over Broad-R-Reach, LIN, WiFi, and GPS). Check out ISOBUS too... ISOBUS is a technology where any tractor can be connected to any tow behind implement, including 3rd party, and that implement's GUI is shown on a touch panel for the operator to control and program. In short, there's a lot there. And it's a very competitive market.

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

#169

Post by marknutter »

fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #166
marknutter wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What right isn't granted by the government Inalienable rights (by definition, in fact).

>"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men , deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" Granted by, secured by, the effect is the same unless you believe people woul…

Securing rights and granting rights are two completely different things.

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

#170

Post by emcrazyone »

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…

you are so fucking clueless... Tractors have a lot of technology in them. Here is a very short list of you:

RTK: Makes GPS based steering more accurate. Often a dedicated RTK transmitter is installed on the farm for the tractor to pick up and use to correct against the GPS you may be already familiar with like the one in your car or smartphone.

End of Row Guidance: A piece of software that allows you to program macros to control an orchestrated set of events for the implement you're pulling behind you. (seeder, bailer, combine). There are many repeatable events that happen when farming from lowering & raising seeders, dealing with drift, changing seeding depth based on previously collected yield data, etc...

Mesh Networks: So one guy can drive a tractor and a combine with the combine following next to the tractor.

Auto Guidance: Think self driving car. Functional safety is a huge problem for companies producing self driving tractors - see ISO26262

ISOBUS: Is a technology whereby an implement is attached to a tractor and the tractor's cabin display creates a GUI image and/or menu for that implement to control it. The display need not have any advanced knowledge of the implement. So even the implements have an on board computer too.

It really irks me to see comments like yours. You clearly don't work in this field buy your comments come off as someone with all this great knowledge about how things work. Have you even bothered to research such topics as precision farming? These tractors collect tons of data year over year in order maximize yield which is very important to farmers and their ROI.

Grow up, do your homework next time.

Post reply on HN