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

381–390 of 405 posts

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

#381

Post by ethbro »

baddox wrote: post #375
ethbro wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Or the legal and technical systems enforcing the contract? Both. > 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. Well, as you might have guessed by my references to contract law, I'm not a huge fan of statutory law. "Rule of law" is only good if the laws are good. > In other words "Yes, this action is illegal, but everyo…

>> 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.

> Well, as you might have guessed by my references to contract law, I'm not a huge fan of statutory law. "Rule of law" is only good if the laws are good.

> If people want to modify their products, then that should be a competitive advantage for firms that offer products with terms allowing modification.

> Why? [do the technical methods for preventing modification become frightening]

I'm getting the sense that we have fundamentally different opinions of the way the way the market works. In my view, it's entirely reasonable that the following chain of events unfolds:

a) Company A builds product that prevents users from making modifications (legally and technically)

b) The product captures a substantial market share (variety of means: maybe exclusive content, advertising, etc.)

c) Because the product prevents users from making modifications, it can extract higher profit-per-user than competitors (by taking advantage of revenue streams unavailable to sellers of a more open product)

d) Those higher profits can then be leveraged into a more dominant market position (regulatory capture, buying budding competitors, etc.)

I have a feeling you would say "(b) would not happen because the market would correct in favor of consumers and away from Company A."

My opinion is the market only self-stabilizes within certain bounds: once things get too out of whack, there is no guaranteed correction.

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

#382

Post by alexqgb »

c22 wrote: post #374
alexqgb wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wh…

If you're maintaining that all creative works made between the stone age and the advent of blues were the sole result of nefarious intervention by the wealthy then I'm afraid I have to disagree. I don't entirely disagree with your other points but since you seem more interested in reasserting your original conjecture and I am responding via tiny touch keyboard, I don't think I'll delve into the nuances of your argume…

No, of course that's not what I'm saying, and I'm not sure why you'd think otherwise.

After all, the development of powerful and severely punitive systems of censorship is a fairly clear indication that not everything produced was done at the behest of elites. Nor is there any reason to think that these systems operated with perfect efficiency. Benedict Spinoza, for instance, used a false name to avoid the wrath of the Spanish Inquisition. Nicholas Copernicus waited until he was on his death bed before risking the publication of his life's work. Michelangelo made surreptitious use of cadavers to sharpen his anatomical skills. So yes, deeply influential work did happen on occasion, in spite of efforts to suppress it. But these instances remained the exception, not the rule. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the mere existence of finished creative work testified to its passage through elaborate systems of review and control, and its successful receipt of official sanction.

Given the considerable power over people's minds that art has always carried, the ubiquity of these systems shouldn't be surprising - especially when you remember that from the time sharply stratified societies first appeared in ancient Mesopotamia until the emergence of pluralistic forms of government in and around the 18th century, absolutist autocracies defined virtually all governing systems. Those that didn't seize control of cultural production not only lost the benefit of its power, they ran the risk of having that power used against them.

Even in cases where producers managed to secure a measure of independence (e.g. Kabuki theater under the Tokugawa Shogunate), much of their creativity focused on the evasion of the controls that remained in place. In this regard, the censorious influence of the ruling class remained profoundly influential, even if their rules were acknowledged mainly in the breach, or in obedience that was flamboyantly limited to the letter of the law, and not its spirit.

The development that changed all this was the emergence of pluralistic government, which was characterized by competing groups that each recognized their own inability to dominate government well enough to realize that they were better off in working together to limit government power in general than they were in trying to secure it for themselves exclusively. Sharply curtailing the power of official censors proved to be among the most effective ways of promoting and preserving pluralism. In the wake of these policy developments, humanist strands of culture exploded in volume and popularity.

My point is all this is that anyone thinking that the current level of intellectual and creative freedom - or even anything approaching it remotely - is deeply uninformed about the realities of artistic and cultural work throughout the bulk of post-Neolithic history. Yes, the desire to do this work has always existed. But for the most part, the satisfaction of that desire has only been permitted in very narrow and tightly controlled circumstances, and almost invariably in ways that enhance the strength and stature of hereditary rulers. To the extent that history of art reads like the autobiography of power, the democratization of its creation doesn't appear until a very recent period.

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

#383

Post by MarkMc »

VLM wrote: post #306
barrkel wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It also assumes there's anything like a marketplace. Not, for example, one corporation pretty much owning the entire ebook market segment.

Yes, I agree that one company having a complete monopoly in the publishing business would be problematic. But in that case perhaps the better solution is to use existing regulatory powers to break it up (like AT&T was broken up) instead of restricting the types of licences it can offer.

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

#384

Post by briantakita »

PythonicAlpha wrote: post #265
briantakita wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Applying concepts from one scientific discipline to other disciplines does seldom fit. I find analogies useful. I also find the utility of Science to be valid but limited at times, particularly in complex systems that evolve. > 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. You are assuming that my motivations are different f…

> I find analogies useful. I also find the utility of Science to be valid but limited at times, particularly in complex systems that evolve. So, it very much sounds to me, that you prefer just unproven theories, that one can draw from arbitrary analogies over sound science.

> So, it very much sounds to me, that you prefer just unproven theories, that one can draw from arbitrary analogies over sound science.

You are entitled to your opinion. IMO, "Sound science" is quite limited. Sortof like the lowest common denominator of knowledge.

Reductionistic thought tends to cause issues like "not seeing the forest through the trees". It has led to a number of cultural issues that we face today.

People also cling to "sound science" like it's a religion. And your accusations make you sound like you are straight from the inquisition. It's quite ironic...

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

#385

Post by bsder »

declan wrote: post #367
bsder wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well, I suspect that you have a better feel for general sentiment given that you ran Politech.

I was sitting with folks that had been making chips and systems which were compatible with other systems. They pretty much all recoiled in horror at the implications the moment they found out about the DMCA. It was clear that anybody who made a computer system was going to wield this to prevent compatible competition (our own management even proposed it for our systems, too...) irrespective of how big or small that computer system was.

As for coordination, I was thinking more along the lines of 1996 rather than 1998. In 1996, broadband communication was just starting to hit general availability (1996 Telecom Act) when the WIPO treaties originally were signed (late 1996).

The big problem was just that there was so much money being thrown against so few who actually understood the implications.

20 years later and we still haven't unwound all the damage. :(

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

#387

Post by coolsunglasses »

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #232
cc438 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"All they care about is whether or not it works." Which is why they care more about this issue than someone without a mega-tractor. These vehicles need to be operational when they're called upon, every minute of downtime costs a substantial amount of money that adds up incredibly fast. Sure, they have service contracts but waiting on a technician and waiting even longer for a replacement part is out of the question.…

Not to be nitpicky, but a vehicle with a blown head gasket is not a "perfectly functional vehicle." I'm amazed you were able to drive any distance with it at all. Must have been a tiny leak: I've blown head gaskets on two vehicles and the most I was able to get was about 5 miles before all the coolant went out the exhaust.

>but a vehicle with a blown head gasket is not a "perfectly functional vehicle."

…leading us back to why the sensors try to stop you completing the destruction of your engine. No common sense.

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

#388

Post by walterbell »

tedks wrote: post #378
walterbell wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The average keeps getting higher and the top-tier improves because of non-incremental creative leaps, achieved by statistical outliers in the new-blood people who create "more content". Large sample sizes are needed to yield the good stuff.

But if you're truly a talented artist or musician, you can always make a living. It doesn't need to be easy and it doesn't need to be possible for everyone to "create content."

If good material can be discovered more efficiently, there will be more opportunities for recursive inspiration. In that case, there would be systemic benefit from ease of discovery, which may require making it easy to create content that guides discovery.

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

#389

Post by jordigh »

scintill76 wrote: post #377
erikpukinskis wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He?

Sigh, I'm all for calling people "she" if they desire, but this feels like a pointless comment. Do you know that the person being referred to (user "jordigh") would prefer to be called something other than "he"? Do you know whether or not the person you're replying to has done the research on which word to use? If you don't know, you're wasting our time with snarky but baseless "PC" attitude. At least put in a few mo…

As the person whose gender was in question, I appreciate the doubt. I don't think you had any reason to believe that I was male, and male should not be the default gender.

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

#390

Post by mark_l_watson »

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…

Exactly correct. The thing is, I do like digital media but I am starting to prefer buying eBooks directly from publishers when they provide DRM free versions for Kindle, Apple, and PDF.

Every once in a while, I will gather the recent Kindle books I have purchased and attempt to convert them to PDF. This seems to work for most of them. IANAL, but my understanding is that if I have purchased a Kindle book then I can legally back it up as a PDF. Similarly, sometimes when I purchase a movie on DVD, I sometimes like a ripped copy on my laptop, especially for Qi Gong and Yoga lessons.

Post reply on HN