Live data from Hacker News

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

wired.com

361–370 of 405 posts

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

#361
post #254
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 his world, the creators of things starve. How so? The entirety of human history has shown us that we create no matter what. Art, music, tools, stories, technology, etc. Creators have been making (and eating) for eons, well before modern IP laws. Look at the patron model, or commission based production, used for centuries. Or look at creation during leisure time for leisure (and its close modern cousin, large port…

It is absurd to compare university professorship - which revolves around concept of academic freedom and is backed up by the tenure system - with the arbitrary whims of patronage as it existed under, say, the Medici.

Indeed, the whole point of tenure is to create working conditions that avoid the exceedingly well-known problems endemic to the patronage system.

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

#362
post #350
post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world probably needs less content creation. We're long past the point where there are too many useful books to read in one lifetime. Even in narrow fields, we're producing comedy television, historical fiction novels, or cat pictures faster than one person could consume them all. You could spend a lifetime just researching what's worth consuming. With this kind of overproduction, it's no surprise creators can't m…

faster than one person could consume them all. This seems a rather arbitrary performance ceiling to strive for.

The point I was trying to make is that production needs to match consumption. Which can be difficult to plan for digital goods.

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

#363
post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm getting tired of explaining why this kind of reasoning is wrong. Specifically, your statement about how "In his world, the creators of things starve." No, for the thousandth time, it's not true at all. There is nothing standing in the way of content creators selling GPL code, and even keeping it private until its been bought. Full stop. stop perpetuating this fallacious myth abouth FOSS, please. That being said,…

> I'm getting tired of explaining why this kind of reasoning is wrong. Specifically, your statement about how "In his world, the creators of things starve." No, for the thousandth time, it's not true at all. > There is nothing standing in the way of content creators selling GPL code, and even keeping it private until its been bought. Full stop. You appear to be arguing that it is not expressly forbidden by the GPL, b…

"I cannot think of any companies that create GPL-licensed software and actually make their money selling that GPL-licensed software."

RedHat, Suse, I just got done telling you Samsung, Zentyal, just off the top of my head, tons more if you just did a quick search. Note that sometimes it's bundled with hardware, or it's the support that makes them *the most8 money, but quite often they still make money selling the software too, so lets put this myth about practicality to rest.

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

#364
post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Here's a better idea: look at the actual work produced under this model. With a few notable exceptions, it's an endless parade of flattering portraits of rich people, glorified depictions the wars they won, politically slanted historic fictions used to justify their authority, and scenes from the religious stories they used to instill terror and obedience in the people they dominated ruthlessly.... The historical ar…

"I'd wager that the vast majority of music, art, and technological process and creation for our species has not been for pay in service of the groups you described." You'd win, but not for the reasons you imagine. You'd win because the vast majority of everything created by humans has been produced in the last century - and most of that has happened in countries with relatively strong democratic governance. "To think…

I think you may be conflating creation with publishing/marketing. It's possible that many things have been created that do not appear in history books because they were not preserved or advertised by wealth. We live in a world now where self publishing/endorsement is extremely accessible so it's possible that many modern day creations might make their way to the future without explicit dependence on wealth. One thing is certain, our current state of affairs is radically unlike that of both the 16th and the 20th centuries. Solutions to these problems will likely be novel.

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

#365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Look at the patron model, or commission based production, used for centuries." Here's a better idea: look at the actual work produced under this model. With a few notable exceptions, it's an endless parade of flattering portraits of rich people, glorified depictions the wars they won, politically slanted historic fictions used to justify their authority, and scenes from the religious stories they used to instill ter…

Your post was rude, misrepresented GP's argument, and did not contradict any assertion made in GP's post. GP correctly argued that artists have always created, whether or not they were granted rights under a system of copyright law. He did not focus on or advocate a return to the system of artist patronage from the 16th century.

[deleted]

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

#366

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…

And arguing endlessly about the language to use when it's not germane to the discussion is an ages-old rhetorical technique to attempt to frame the debate. Stallman might love freedom, but I suspect he loves winning arguments by being "clever" even more.

I don't mind the discussion of language semantics. I used the blanket term "intellectual property law" as a short hand, because I didn't want to address the several different ideas and laws that it covers individually, due to time constraints basically.

However, its absolutely correct that it is really a crude blanket term that lacks precision and deals with several different things that are thematically linked, but quite separate in reality. its not bad for someone to expand on a point I've made with those additional details. it adds to the discussion, I think.

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

#367
post #300
post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Everybody in tech with 2 brain cells predicted this. Cite, please? Claiming, somewhat rudely, that was the case doesn't make it true. If you were prescient enough to publicly criticize the anti-circumvention sections of the DMCA in 1996-1997, you were virtually alone. The lone voices of criticism I remember came from the American Library Association and American University's Peter Jaszi. By 2000 or so, sure, some pe…

Well, "The Right to Read" was published in February of 1997 in "Communications of the ACM". So, it was enough of a problem that a mainstream computer research publication (which normally has a lag of 6-12 months) published it. In early 1997. Please do remember that you cannot rely on Google for history prior to about 1998. (Try hunting for information about VB6 programming for a concrete non-controversial example). A…

We're talking about two different things, really: You're saying that RMS was concerned about copy protection and locked-down devices in general back in 1997. That's true, and nobody has said anything to the contrary.

But RMS and the FSF didn't, as far as I remember, oppose the DMCA! It's not because they were in favor of it, but because few people in the tech community outside of the DFC were paying attention.

If you look at the FSF's web site a few weeks after the DMCA became law, it talks about the fixing the (bad) Communications Decency Act, fixing (bad) software patents, and fixing (bad) crypto laws, but it doesn't even mention the DMCA: https://web.archive.org/web/19981206082742/http://www.fsf.or...

BTW, late 1998 wasn't exactly exclusively Usenet/phone coordination days. Slashdot with its Your Rights Online section had launched a year before, and Wired had already been publishing its Netizen section, including my contributions, for about three years. EFF had been around for almost 10 years, and there was VTW, CDT, EPIC, ACLU, etc. also in the mix. Even my Politech mailing list.

We were there. I was there. We were indeed outgunned. But also the politicians voting for the DMCA's "anti-circumvention" language never intended it to be wielded against farmers with John Deere tractors.

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

#368
post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I'd wager that the vast majority of music, art, and technological process and creation for our species has not been for pay in service of the groups you described." You'd win, but not for the reasons you imagine. You'd win because the vast majority of everything created by humans has been produced in the last century - and most of that has happened in countries with relatively strong democratic governance. "To think…

I think you may be conflating creation with publishing/marketing. It's possible that many things have been created that do not appear in history books because they were not preserved or advertised by wealth. We live in a world now where self publishing/endorsement is extremely accessible so it's possible that many modern day creations might make their way to the future without explicit dependence on wealth. One thing…

No, I am not "conflating creation with publishing/marketing." I am making the point that creating work of any consequence is a time and cash intensive prospect, and that absent the IP protections that gave artists access to financial support outside the patronage system, the elites of pretty much every civilization since ancient Sumer have used their economic power to sharply control who does and doesn't work, and what does and doesn't get produced.

The absence of work from the historical record cannot be explained solely by the dearth of preservation or advertisement on the part of elites. It's also a product of active suppression by the elites of anything that may challenge - or even lead to a challenge - of their power and authority.

The best way to ensure that stuff like this never saw the light of day was to take full control of the means of production. This meant limiting access to both the tools of production and the training needed to use them well.

As far as our recent liberation goes, IP laws that allow creatives to finance their own production are only part of the picture. Other important innovations include the concept of human rights, the idea that freedom of expression is one of them, and legal systems that respect and protect those who engage in free expression.

None of this suggests that the desire to create freely and independently isn't a deeply felt part of the human condition. The point I'm making is that, until very recently, most people suffered under overbearing systems of governance that went out of their way to ensure that this creative desire was carefully controlled in the few cases where it wasn't brutally suppressed.

Saying the patronage system "worked" is a bit like justifying slavery on the grounds that mansions in the Antebellum South were remarkably beautiful, or that imposing the miserable conditions endured by peasants in pre-Revolution France was "redeemed" by the glories of Versailles.

It's possible to appreciate the artistic genius in work commissioned by monsters. But it's foolish to think that the mere existence of these transcendent efforts means we needn't worry about the conditions that produced them, or those who would allow these conditions to return.

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

#369
post #358
post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we had that kind of lease on software, but without IP laws, there still wouldn't be any strange legal consequences. The lessee gets the software, and perhaps the terms say that the lessee cannot copy or modify the software. The difference is that if the lessee does distribute a copy of the software, the lessor cannot go after third parties who download those copies, because they haven't signed any sort of lease…

> The difficulty I see with the current and future legal landscape is that there's no clear distinction between right-to-modify and right-to-distribute. In the context of entering a contract, I don't see either as "rights." If you sign a contract saying that you will pay a certain amount to use a tractor without modifying its internals or distributing copies of its source code, I am fine with a legal system enforcing…

You're fine with the legal system enforcing the contract? Or the legal and technical systems enforcing the contract?

If it's only legal, I'd argue that's a slippery slope towards a legal system of convenience and loss of absolute respect for the rule of law. In other words "Yes, this action is illegal, but everyone does it anyway by necessity."

If it's both, then the technical methods for doing so become frightening pretty fast.

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

#370
They are doing it to protect the millions that they've invested into the autonomous driving software.

Imagine this scenario, deep inside of a random 3rd-party firmware was an obscure piece of code that allowed complete remote control of the tractor. Several remote killdozers is what you would then have to deal with. With access to the ECU(s) the hackers could even disable John Deere and the farmers control of the tractor.

Even a small bug would result in huge damage or loss-of-life.

Google and Tesla will for sure not allow access to their proprietary firmware / system code.

Just think about installing a custom Android ROM on a device with a very small community and then imagine that on a car or a tractor.

Stick with stock John Deere firmware and purchase from a competitor if you don't agree with their policies.

I remember this story from a couple of years ago. I was impressed that farmers are some of the first people to use autonomous vehicles and drones to manage and watch crops. Amazing times we live in.

Post reply on HN