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

311–320 of 405 posts

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

#311

Post by mathattack »

hackuser wrote: post #224
mathattack wrote: post #211

What's really wrong with this? As a provider of goods or services, I should have the right to say, "I'm only renting you this, not selling it to you. If you want to buy it, go see someone else." If I build a house, I should be able to rent it out, and not sell it if I want to keep it. If the market demands builders to sell it, some will find a way. There's no intrinsic right to forcing people to have an option to buy…

> What's really wrong with this? As a provider of goods or services, I should have the right to say, "I'm only renting you this, not selling it to you. If you want to buy it, go see someone else." ... It's a good question, but an important consideration is whether your customer has the option of saying no. For example, if you are a small farmer, you can't really negotiate with tractor manufacturers because you lack t…

Do we really want to force companies to give the option, rather than the market? I'm not 100% Ayn Rand, but my tendency is to let consumers drive what they want to pay for. If there is profit in giving people what they ask for, someone will generally do it.

This isn't to say that market failures don't exist - they do. I'm just skeptical when people with agendas point them out without proof.

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

#312

Post by pdx »

brrt wrote: post #303
jordigh wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Stallman's focus on copyright law and intellectual property law Channeling Stallman here, there's no such thing as "intellectual property law". There are a bunch of laws that work in very different ways, evolved under different circumstances, and have different purposes. Copyrights are for ensuring authors retain economic and/or moral rights on their work, patents are so that inventors will disclose their invention…

Stallman himself is very well aware of this issue and has written about it: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html

That's why he said "channeling Stallman"

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

#313

Post by rhino369 »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #299
rhino369 wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you could argue that it is fair use, and maybe it is, but you are creative a derivative work. That is copyright infringement, unless the fair use exception fits.

No, distributing the derivative work is a violation of copyright. Creating it isn't. (Disclaimer: IANAL. This is my understanding of the law, but is not legal advice.)

"to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;" 17 U.S. Code § 106

The mere act of preparing it is enough.

I am a lawyer, but this is still not legal advice.

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

#314

Post by JoeAltmaier »

AJ007 wrote: post #101
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 farmer…

Is this land that is being bought for future subdivisions? Definitely have seen this in areas by suburban areas. Certainly not all farming is being done at a loss?

No, no development anywhere around. I'm not sure why the price went up. I bought my land in the 90's and it was ~$1000/acre. Now its 10X that. Probably a bubble.

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

#315

Post by rsync »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #124
WorldWideWayne wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do they want to be a corn farmer? (Just curious. I don't know anything about the business of outdoor farming in Iowa.) It seems like you could make the mortgage if you can grow specialty crops - http://www.profitableplantsdigest.com/10-most-profitable-spe... Also, indoor growing is said to make certain crops grow 5x faster with 5x less resources. Here's one company that seems to be growing (they're opening a larg…

Specialty crops depend on the availability of somebody to buy them. My brother tried that last, before he gave up.

An alternative to specialty crops is regular crops but higher up the value-add chain.

Corn -> corn mash -> fermented corn mash -> ethanol -> bourbon -> aged bourbon

40 acres of corn gets you nowhere. 40 acres of corn converted to bourbon gets you generational wealth.

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

#316

Post by MarkMc »

barrkel wrote: post #291
MarkMc wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As soon as books become computer files, you don't buy them anymore, you lease usage rights... When will it stop? I don't want it to stop - I think it's a good thing. By making a book impossible to pass from one person to another, the publisher is able to extract an income that is closer to the total benefit people derive from reading the book. In short: authors make more money. And so more books will be written, an…

publisher is able to extract an income that is closer to the total benefit people derive from reading the book. In short: authors make more money These two statements are not logically connected. Price is controlled by supply and demand. If publishers are able to make more money from scarcity of books, it does not follow that authors are able to get more money unless there is also a scarcity of authors and a surplus…

Yes, price is controlled by supply and demand - and I'm describing an increase in demand. And just like any other competitive marketplace the price will rise when demand rises.

When Glenn Beck writes his next book he will shop it to the publisher who pays him the most money - competition between publishers means the amount he receives will be proportional to the revenue the publisher can generate.

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

#317

Post by copsarebastards »

jimmytucson wrote: post #59
sologoub wrote: post #35

An earlier article did a much better job layout why this is a huge problem for independent farmers: "The family farmer who owns this tractor is a friend of mine. He just wanted a better way to fix a minor hydraulic sensor. Every time the sensor blew, the onboard computer would shut the tractor down. It takes a technician at least two days to order the part, get out to the farm, and swap out the sensor. So for two day…

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.

> 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"?

Because John Deere has a monopoly.

> Naively, they must represent some advantage (despite their shortcomings), otherwise John Deere wouldn't be able to sell these things.

Yes, that is naive. If you look to capitalism to solve the problems of people at the bottom, you'll almost always be disappointed.

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

#318

Post by simplemath »

aeturnum wrote: post #165
sker wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

"Metabolic control. Enhanced sensory perception. Improved reflexes and muscle capacity. Vastly increased data processing speed and capacity. All improvements thanks to our cyber-brains and cyborg bodies. So what if we can't live without high-level maintenance? We have nothing to complain about. It doesn't mean we've sold our souls to Section 9. We do have the right to resign if we choose. Provided we give the governm…

Such a great movie.

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

#319

Post by simplemath »

therandomguy wrote: post #223
chacham15 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Price is set by the market. The lease cost will match the purchase price today. It will all be the same for the consumer.

The mythical "free market" uninfringed upon by bad actors, and other fairy tales.

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

#320

Post by [deleted] »

therandomguy wrote: post #223
chacham15 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Price is set by the market. The lease cost will match the purchase price today. It will all be the same for the consumer.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN