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

We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 405 posts

Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership

#61

Post by briantakita »

cbd1984 wrote: post #42
briantakita wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What are the yields like? What would doing that for all food do to the price of food?

Yields are pretty high. Though there are many products. So you won't necessarily have high yielding corn, but you will overall have more food & materials.

The fruits tend to be more of a mixed bag that is best distributed & consumed locally.

> What would doing that for all food do to the price of food?

Note that conventional petrol agriculture is heavily subsidized. Removing the subsidy will increase the price of food. It will favor small scale, high nutrition, gardening/farming. It will reduce waste as well.

Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership

#62

Post by JoeAltmaier »

hharnisch wrote: post #39
Loughla wrote: post #12

The 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…

Disagree. The family owned farmers care too. For the big equipment, like combines, there's a handful of people everyone pays to have their fields harvested. This person get's compensation in the form of money and other services (someone else will plow their field for instance). People own their own tractors and share time to get things done, otherwise you'd have to own all of the equipment (which is only justified wh…

Iowan here. There are almost no family farms left at all. My neighbor would desperately like to be a farmer. But the scrubby 40-acre field across from his house just sold for $400,000. He'd get maybe 120 bushels of corn off of it. Current price per bushel: $3.80. So $456 income per acre == $18,240 per year. That's half the mortgate payments. Not to mention the cost of working the field. So a lost cause.

The 13 farmers that lived and worked on my road when I was a kid are ALL gone. City folks rent those houses; corporations farm those fields.

Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership

#63

Post by cylinder »

sanderjd wrote: post #37
chainsaw10 wrote: post #3

I am not a lawyer, so I'm probably wrong on some of the finer points here, but I'm going to postulate an analogy here. Why can't we equate the software inside a computer inside a vehicle with the mechanical equivalent? What then would our rights be? It obviously doesn't require permission to move a valve or a gear around. Therefore, it shouldn't require permission to move a few bits. It also doesn't require permissio…

I always wonder whether the legal framework for software has ended up different than other things because of its fundamental differences, or whether it's because it was invented in a different era. Is it software that is different or is it the modern legal structure that is different?

Nothing has changed, licenses have always been in the law.

Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership

#64

Post by pdxgene »

brlewis wrote: post #13

The company argues that allowing people to alter the software—even for the purpose of repair—would “make it possible for pirates, third-party developers, and less innovative competitors to free-ride off the creativity, unique expression and ingenuity of vehicle software.” Next step: weld the hood shut so competitors can't see the parts.

The label "no user-serviceable parts inside" springs to mind...

Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership

#65

Post by federico3 »

chainsaw10 wrote: post #3

I am not a lawyer, so I'm probably wrong on some of the finer points here, but I'm going to postulate an analogy here. Why can't we equate the software inside a computer inside a vehicle with the mechanical equivalent? What then would our rights be? It obviously doesn't require permission to move a valve or a gear around. Therefore, it shouldn't require permission to move a few bits. It also doesn't require permissio…

Wait, are you saying that we should have the right to inspect the software running on our cars? Given that our life depends on it? Given that innocent people has been jailed because of undisclosed bugs?

This would prevent car companies from denying their responsibilities. Think of the chil^W shareholders!

Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership

#66

Post by enlightenedfool »

"He’s not alone: many farmers are opting for older, computer-free equipment." What's the percentage? That's actually the solution and it can extend to any device. Unfortunately, a majority of users don't seem to care. We can refuse to buy music, iPhones etc so we can force them to not do these nasty things, but the technology is irresistable and government(people) more often than not sides with corporations.

Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership

#68

Post by cylinder »

brudgers wrote: post #50

[IANAL] The big play isn't about ownership. It's about liability. If you own the tractor and something bad happens, it's product liability. Our intuitions of responsibility go back to the Code of Hammurabi. If a builder build a house for some one, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built fall in and kill its owner, then that builder shall be put to death. If you license the tractor, well that'…

Ownership vs license doesn't really have much to do with negligence/torts

Re: We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership

#69

Post by AnimalMuppet »

vonmoltke wrote: post #43
jkot wrote: post #29

Article 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, J…

> Article 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. This idea needs to die. Copyright ownership means that one can make and distribute copies of software. Software ownership means y…

Exactly. If I buy a book, I can write on the pages. I can fold, spindle, and mutilate. I can rip out a page. I own that book.

I can't sell a copy, though - not even a copy of my modified, ripped up version. Not without a license from the author/publisher of the original.

Post reply on HN