The way to end this nonsense is to write and distribute a worm that bricks every single iDevice on Earth.
We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership
21–30 of 405 posts
Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership
#22If Deere and GM prevail, then we need to change the laws to recognize that these vehicles aren't being purchased, but leased. There are accounting and tax implications for the lessor and the lessee that need to be resolved.
Also, due to the notion that is being put forward that the reason for this distinction is for safety then all maintenance liabilities for the life-span of the vehicle should rest with the manufacturer. That means all fluids, wipers, brake pads, tires, emissions equipment...I'd like to see that condition tacked on.
Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership
#23Funny, when DRM first came on the radar over a decade ago enlightened individuals noted that the same principles of deny-of-ownership could be extended to physical objects ... precisely in the way described on this article.
Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership
#24> GM went so far as to argue locking people out helps innovation. That’s like saying locking up books will inspire kids to be innovative writers, because they won’t be tempted to copy passages from a Hemingway novel.
This is one of the best analogies I've heard.
Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership
#25> John Deere may be out of touch, but it’s not alone. Other corporations, including trade groups representing nearly every major automaker, made the same case to the Copyright Office again and again. In Capitalism, the game is to make monetary profit & control the market, above all else. It makes sense what John Deere is doing. They are just being good Capitalists.
> the game is to make monetary profit & control the market
What you describe, basically is monopolism. It is well known, that monopolies are killing a free market.
> They are just being good Capitalists.
When this is true, than something is very wrong with Capitalism itself.
Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership
#26The people who have the money to buy the mega-tractors you see in the article don't care. That's why, unless someone outside the industry makes a stink, nothing will happen. These are giga-corporations who are 'family owned' in name only. If they don't rent, they operate that machine for a few years, play the tax game, and trade it even-money for a new one. To them, ownership doesn't matter. Their service contracts w…
It's not just mega-tractors that are software-controlled these days. It's all tractors. Including those used by "small family farms".
I understand that. It's not just tractors either, it's every implement from planters to bailers to rippers, discs and plows. Everything is chipped and controlled from the main-screen in the cab.
But the individuals who have the power, money, and influence to do actually change anything are the large-scale farmers. They are not invested in changing the system; it works for them.
Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership
#27The people who have the money to buy the mega-tractors you see in the article don't care. That's why, unless someone outside the industry makes a stink, nothing will happen. These are giga-corporations who are 'family owned' in name only. If they don't rent, they operate that machine for a few years, play the tax game, and trade it even-money for a new one. To them, ownership doesn't matter. Their service contracts w…
Lots of family farms own tractors worth more than $200K, and combines worth more than $500K. They're paying significant interest to the bank for the privilege, but owning equipment that can cover twice the land in a day is a lot cheaper than buying and maintaining two smaller tractors (and accompaning accessories) and hiring a farmhand.
Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership
#28This article is really interesting to me as I just bought a John Deere (sure it is just a lawn tractor). During the course of the sale I was chatting with the salesman about their larger agriculture tractors as this store mostly does sales for farmers. He informed me about all the technological advances, soil sampling they do and data they collect and give to the farmer. Then the farmer can load this in their tractor and the sprayer or whatever attachment they are using can adapt based on the gps coordinates. So a previously identified area can be treated with a different mixture on the fly and the farmer does nothing but ride along.
The article mentions that farmers are opting for non-software based vehicles. However from the way things seemed when I spoke with the salesman it is the very opposite.
Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership
#29Article is just wrong. One does not own software on device he buys. Software ownership means that one can issue new licenses, which is clearly not a case here. One can not just start selling Windows, because he bought laptop where they are installed. You just get license to use software.
But other side is customer protection. One buys tractor with expectation to be able to fix it and modify it. If that is not true, John Deere is selling broken stuff, and customers should get their money back.
Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership
#30The people who have the money to buy the mega-tractors you see in the article don't care. That's why, unless someone outside the industry makes a stink, nothing will happen. These are giga-corporations who are 'family owned' in name only. If they don't rent, they operate that machine for a few years, play the tax game, and trade it even-money for a new one. To them, ownership doesn't matter. Their service contracts w…
It's not just mega-tractors that are software-controlled these days. It's all tractors. Including those used by "small family farms".
Perennial polyculture food forests reduces the advantage of high tech equipment. Nature does the work of growing. Replanting is rare. Harvesting is more of a manual process.