We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Idea of Ownership • Hacker News Board

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

#281

Post by jessaustin » Tue, Apr 21, 2015, 6:51 PM UTC

metasean wrote: post #201

wosos wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>(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

>Unless you find other models, like patronizing Patronizing like - https://www.patreon.com/ - or patronizing like, "offensively condescending" [1]. Based on context, I'm assuming the former, but patronizing is a auto-antonym, so it should be clarified [2]. [1] https://www.wordnik.com/words/patronizing [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym

"Patronage" might be a better word for that...

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

#282

Post by pluma » Tue, Apr 21, 2015, 6:59 PM UTC

vfrogger wrote: post #139

I noticed a different flavor of this same logic with edited DVD's back in the 2000's. In Utah, there was a thriving edited DVD rental business during this time. Essentially, Mom and Pop shops would buy a DVD, take out the sex, language, and violence, and rent the edited version. Hollywood complained that these companies were illegally making copies, so the mom and pop rental stores started to include the original cop…

> My house was artistically designed by an architect, if I don't like the kitchen, would I offend his artistic expression by remodeling?

Depends on the contract you signed. I'm not sure how this applies to private homes or the US, but I recall architects preventing functional modifications of public structures in several cases in Germany. Also, copyright also covers architecture (and also, look up the legal situation of taking pictures of the Eiffel tower at night for a laugh).

> do I really own it at all?

Again, depending on the legislature, no you don't. And because Americans value their freedom so much, you also have the freedom to cut down your basic rights by entering into a contract. In other countries the nanny state protects us from doing that, preventing the free enterprise from creating a situation where you might have to do so involuntarily (e.g. if you need a phone and all phone contracts are ridiculous).

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

#283

Post by VikingCoder » Tue, Apr 21, 2015, 6:59 PM UTC

For anyone interested in the concept, and looking for a techno-thriller novel, I highly recommend "Daemon" and "Freedom(TM)" by Daniel Suarez.

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

#284

Post by tracker1 » Tue, Apr 21, 2015, 6:59 PM UTC

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…

I'm waiting for the first class action suit against said manufacturer for selling products which don't meet expected standards of fit for usage. It seems to me that locking up products in this way artificially limits their usage lifetime and fitness for use which seems to run afoul of an implied contract that they are selling a product. If that product cannot be used past X years, and the consumer is locked out of changing/adapting said product, they should be given a refund when it's no longer fit for use.

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

#285

Post by jwr » Tue, Apr 21, 2015, 7:02 PM UTC

chacham15 wrote: post #162

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…

The real problem here isnt that we're leasing things (we have leases for cars, houses, and many other physical goods). The problem is that the manufacturers mix leasing and owning. I.e. you own the device, but lease the software. I think that everyone would be radically happier if you either leased everything or owned everything. This is partly because when we buy something at a store, we expect to own it, not own pa…

Agreed — I thought about this carefully and I'd have no problem with a rental-type agreement for a car of a piece of machinery, as long as we all agree that it's a rental (and the pricing reflects it).

Tesla is another example of a company walking a thin line. I'd be OK with their software updates to the car, and I'd actually rather take this further: I am not into car repair and I just want to use the vehicle for transportation, so a rental/lease agreement is fine with me.

The same problem exists with many other devices that we seemingly "own". Phones are a good example: they are rapidly becoming computing devices that we "buy", but don't really own, as we can't use them without the software, which is "licensed". Again, not a huge problem for me in the case of a phone, but let's be clear that I don't really "own" much more than a decorated doorstop/brick. I really pay an upfront rental fee with the expectation of using the device for about 2-3 years.

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

#286

Post by kansface » Tue, Apr 21, 2015, 7:04 PM UTC

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…

We absolutely do not need a digital rights tracking system to turn bits into de facto physical objects. The point being, if we needed it, it would be invented and widely adopted. Practically no consumer wants that system, or anything remotely close to it.

There is no magic in making everything digital free - its just the way the universe works. Those things which can be trivially produced (digital copies) are tantamount to an infinite supply. In the case of limitless supply, prices will approach zero. Eventually the law will catch up with the rest of society.

Creatives will make money in other ways; there will always be writers, artists, poets, and hackers. People are compelled to create and share. They will not always be paid per unit of work after the fact.

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

#287

Post by jessaustin » Tue, Apr 21, 2015, 7:05 PM UTC

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…

John Deere is better than crappy old "American" brands like Case IH, but it is in the process of being disrupted from below by imports like Kubota. And from above by Cat. The picture might not be as rosy a decade from now.

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

#288

Post by realrocker » Tue, Apr 21, 2015, 7:08 PM UTC

What about the legal implications of this? If a vehicle is in a collision and there is indication that the software might be responsible, who takes the blame? This is going to get really bad.

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

#289

Post by yborg » Tue, Apr 21, 2015, 7:10 PM UTC

ilikepi wrote: post #278

digler990 wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like the term "lease" isn't appropriate unless there is a viable way and underlying plan to eventually return it. When I lease I car, I have to return it. They don't sell me the car under the auspices of a lease, with no way to ever return it, and still restrict my rights on what I can do with it.

Given enough time, software eventually becomes unsupported, and then -- perhaps after more time, but perhaps not -- unusable. In effect, this is the return at the end of the auto lease. It's not a perfect analogy (really nothing ever is), but it's pretty good, especially I think for people not used to thinking about this issue with software and other digital goods.

You're describing the same thing as leasing a car. Eventually the car is out of warranty and then at some point wears out and becomes undriveable. People don't typically lease vehicles for the physical life of the hardware.

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

#290

Post by mindslight » Tue, Apr 21, 2015, 7:10 PM UTC

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…

> they'll create less and have a real job

.. working for Google, Apple, Tivo, and every other company that bastardizes software into opaque services to extract profits via leasing.

I think imaginary property laws can't die a quick enough death. But I also sympathize with api's viewpoint about the inevitable effects on the economy and incentives for what gets created. You'd do well to internalize both ideas and see if you can't discover some synergy.