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

181–190 of 405 posts

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

#181

Post by wwweston »

wosos wrote: post #166
api wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is getting meta and no longer directly responsive to the article, which I don't wholly disagree with. A tractor and a book are different situations. Books are hard to copy, while files are easy to copy. Writers have to get paid, and people are cheap and don't want to pay them... even while they will pay the same for a fancy cup of coffee. Hence a scramble for some way to set up a toll booth that is hard to circu…

>(Someone who works for nothing is the definition of a slave.) I could go and lick the grass on my porch. I won't get paid for that. No matter how much I would like it. Many things are just not profitable. Unless you find other models, like patronizing

If an activity (particularly one like writing books) creates value for people and yet somehow people engaged in that activity can't get paid, that might deserve a closer look than "many things are just not profitable." Or a better comparison than to a hypothetical personally recreative activity like licking grass.

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

#182

Post by angersock »

api wrote: post #136
apricot wrote: post #48

Richard Stallman spent the last 30 years telling us this would happen. As soon as books become computer files, you don't buy them anymore, you lease usage rights. As soon as tractors contain computer code, you don't own them anymore, you are granted a license to use them. When will it stop? More and more everyday objects are incorporating software and firmware in many different forms. I remember reading Stallman's sh…

This is getting meta and no longer directly responsive to the article, which I don't wholly disagree with. A tractor and a book are different situations. Books are hard to copy, while files are easy to copy. Writers have to get paid, and people are cheap and don't want to pay them... even while they will pay the same for a fancy cup of coffee. Hence a scramble for some way to set up a toll booth that is hard to circu…

In the existing world, creators starve all the time--consider the concept of the "starving artist".

There is this meme that somehow not having copyright immediately implies no possible monetization strategy, and it needs to die.

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

#183

Post by BuildTheRobots »

mikegerwitz wrote: post #157
lisper wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stallman is not a tenured academic. He's the president of a non-profit (the FSF). He makes his living from people's voluntary donations and (I presume) speaking fees.

He does not get paid by the FSF, nor does he accept speaking fees (insofar as I am aware; I'm not sure if there are certain sponsors, but he insists that those be donated to the FSF, not himself); his time is donated. He received a MacArthur grant a while back, while he is able to live off of.

After a quick google, it seems he was granted $500,000 (paid over 5 years) in 1990. [1]

This seemed like quite a lot until I divided it by the 25 years he's been living on it. £20k/year doesn't actually strike me as that much.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacArthur_Fellows_Program

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

#184

Post by rhino369 »

dataker wrote: post #116

Sorry if it upsets people, but Ownership has been gradually been destroyed over the years and this is just another example. I could go on a Libertarian rant, but I'm sure you've already heard about cars being raided without a reason or private data being exposed. Sad to live in a world like this.

It isn't really gradual. Real estate has traditionally allowed for restrictions on property. You can sell your House with a condition that if the person ever builds a fence.

Hell, whole neighborhoods had restrictions on selling to black people.

If you own a condo, there are tons of restrictions on it.

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

#185

Post by api »

ploxiln wrote: post #176
api wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is getting meta and no longer directly responsive to the article, which I don't wholly disagree with. A tractor and a book are different situations. Books are hard to copy, while files are easy to copy. Writers have to get paid, and people are cheap and don't want to pay them... even while they will pay the same for a fancy cup of coffee. Hence a scramble for some way to set up a toll booth that is hard to circu…

Many people who try to make a living making music or writing are unable to do so, even if the music or the writing is pretty good, and that's due to obscurity, not piracy. Historically, even fewer people were able to. Pages and even chapters of books have been copied by photocopiers (found in many libraries!) for decades. The only limit to the copying was how many quarters you had. You need to give up the idea that p…

"Create less and have a real job."

Wow.

I see lots of this kind of sentiment when I bring this up, but yours deserves credit for being exceptionally honest.

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

#186

Post by PythonicAlpha »

twobits wrote: post #171
PythonicAlpha wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Applying concepts from one scientific discipline to other disciplines does seldom fit. I think it is more a sign of pseudo-scientific trickery to back the own thinking, that is most often used in unsound economical theories. It is a fact, that while monopolies are good for the monopolists, it is bad for societies at large. And no "ecological" concepts can convince me from the opposite. One example: While bigger banks…

"It is a fact, that while monopolies are good for the monopolists, it is bad for societies at large." And you are correct. But something different was being said: Unconstrained capitalism, leads to monopolies (or oligopolies). And that's true too. Read your own words. "monopolies are good for the monopolists". Isn't that another way to say "shareholders' profit"? There you have motive. And in a pond of fish, doesn't…

What you say is correct. I know, that economy is always also in a field of different forces.

What I basically was arguing against, was the notion (as I understood it), that "scientific theory" would justify monopolies as good for society.

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

#187

Post by metasean »

toufka wrote: post #86
jimmytucson wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why doesn't the market handle this? If John Deere is only willing to sell lifetime licenses to operate their vehicles, thus putting the farmer at risk in ways like you described, why do farmers still buy these "licenses"? Naively, they must represent some advantage (despite their shortcomings), otherwise John Deere wouldn't be able to sell these things.

John Deere was the Apple of tractors, 20 years before Apple was Apple. It's killed off all the competition [1] for their tractors' ability to "just work" - even at a premium. Deere coupled high quality hardware with high quality service, whereas most other tractors tried to compete on cost by dropping one. Apple vs HP; Deere vs Case. It served them well in the long run, if made things dicy early on. There is no compe…

If John Deere is the Apple of tractors, then Open Ecology is the Linux of tractors.

- http://www.ted.com/talks/marcin_jakubowski

- http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/LifeTrac

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

#189

Post by api »

angersock wrote: post #182
api wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is getting meta and no longer directly responsive to the article, which I don't wholly disagree with. A tractor and a book are different situations. Books are hard to copy, while files are easy to copy. Writers have to get paid, and people are cheap and don't want to pay them... even while they will pay the same for a fancy cup of coffee. Hence a scramble for some way to set up a toll booth that is hard to circu…

In the existing world, creators starve all the time--consider the concept of the "starving artist". There is this meme that somehow not having copyright immediately implies no possible monetization strategy, and it needs to die.

There are other monetization strategies. A popular one is to offer something for free and then use it to conduct mass surveillance and sell your customers to advertisers and governments.

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

#190

Post by LLWM »

sker wrote: post #83
apricot wrote: post #48

Richard Stallman spent the last 30 years telling us this would happen. As soon as books become computer files, you don't buy them anymore, you lease usage rights. As soon as tractors contain computer code, you don't own them anymore, you are granted a license to use them. When will it stop? More and more everyday objects are incorporating software and firmware in many different forms. I remember reading Stallman's sh…

What happens when we have computers implanted in our brains? Do I no longer own my brain?

What happened to australopithicus? You'll be free to starve with a meat-based brain as everyone with implants outcompetes you at everything if you'd prefer.
Post reply on HN