Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Before I Can Fix This Tractor, We Have to Fix Copyright Law

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 199 posts

Re: Before I Can Fix This Tractor, We Have to Fix Copyright Law

#101

Post by EliRivers »

teekert wrote: post #86
rubberstamp wrote: post #82

People should have the right to tinker with whatever they bought.Telling them only they can, and not an expert 3rd party, make the change is ridiculous as not everyone is a rocket scientist in the respective fields. If we buy car/tractor/phone/whatever, we should be able to modify it(its hw/sw) however we want. I fail to understand how it breaks copyright. No one is copying and distributing anything. Copyright law sh…

This is about a deal between two parties, both parties agreed during the tranfer of the goods, the conditions were known. Complaining after the sale is stupid. You had the chance to walk away from the deal because you didn't like it's conditions, nobody was forced. Interfering with this process reduces freedom. All I see a big market opportunity for hackable, open-platform tractors.

It is well established that agreeing to some conditions doesn't necessarily make those conditions legally binding. There are many circumstances under which they are not.

Interfering with this process reduces freedom.

Interfering with freedom is necessary, almost everywhere. The very fact that two people can come to an agreement that they would expect to be enforced is a massive interference in freedom. To say nothing of that fact that you seem to be happy to interfere in someone's freedom to tinker with things, but not happy to interfere in the freedom to restrict that freedom. Do you want this "freedom" of yours or not?

Re: Before I Can Fix This Tractor, We Have to Fix Copyright Law

#102

Post by rubberstamp »

jwr wrote: post #98
zodiac wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we really put this into law in a way that works, what's going to happen is that companies will stop selling people tractors and instead lease them to people for an unlimited amount of time for a one-time payment, or something similar.

Which is fine, really, as long as you don't use words "purchase", "buy" and "ownership". Call a lease a lease. In this scenario, one of two things would happen: * either there is a genuine need for buying/owning fixable hackable tractors, in which case there will be a market and companies will appear that sell those, * or there is really no need, and leasing works just fine for tractor users, and it's only us couch-c…

also this is why language matters and it should mean what it actually means rather than whatever TOS wants it to be. Not 1984 double meaning

Re: Before I Can Fix This Tractor, We Have to Fix Copyright Law

#103

Post by saurik »

mindslight wrote: post #2

If copyright law actually respected a balance between creators and the public, anything under digital restriction technology would be ineligible for it, since there's clearly no intention of adding to the public domain after the period is up. Of course we know it doesn't. Anyone with half a brain knew the DMCA was a bad idea when it was being "debated". Now it's accepted because we've grown accustomed to workarounds.…

Wow: I love this philosophical argument you have made about when we should even allow copyright. Thank you so much for sharing this: I do a lot of work on reacting to copyright law, and this is great food for thought.

Re: Before I Can Fix This Tractor, We Have to Fix Copyright Law

#104

Post by api_or_ipa »

zodiac wrote: post #84
rubberstamp wrote: post #82

People should have the right to tinker with whatever they bought.Telling them only they can, and not an expert 3rd party, make the change is ridiculous as not everyone is a rocket scientist in the respective fields. If we buy car/tractor/phone/whatever, we should be able to modify it(its hw/sw) however we want. I fail to understand how it breaks copyright. No one is copying and distributing anything. Copyright law sh…

If we really put this into law in a way that works, what's going to happen is that companies will stop selling people tractors and instead lease them to people for an unlimited amount of time for a one-time payment, or something similar.

I refer you to the bulk of the *aas products. Even turbofan manufactures sell engines by the hour.

The company gets a clean, consise cost of units sold, reduced large capital calls and a leaner corporate structure. It's a very compelling business desire.

Re: Before I Can Fix This Tractor, We Have to Fix Copyright Law

#105

Post by justaaron »

amelius wrote: post #87
teekert wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is about a deal between two parties, both parties agreed during the tranfer of the goods, the conditions were known. Complaining after the sale is stupid. You had the chance to walk away from the deal because you didn't like it's conditions, nobody was forced. Interfering with this process reduces freedom. All I see a big market opportunity for hackable, open-platform tractors.

This might seem reasonable. But... this way, capable people will not benefit from markets of scale like they could if they were allowed to tinker with their purchased goods. > All I see a big market opportunity for hackable, open-platform tractors. Sadly, there is no big market opportunity for hackable, open-platform tractors.

i'll bet there is. think of what the PTO (power take-off) enabled in general for the common tractor. i'll bet hydraulics, electrical generation, and other systems can also be leveraged by 3rd-party or custom gear.

in fact, I'll wager that the FUTURE of the tractor INSISTS upon it being open and hackable.

The "Lying EULA that attempts to rebrand a sale a lease" approach is bad for customers and bad for the world at large. It limits human innovation. Human innovation is what defines humanity. Perhaps we could just return to swinging in the trees and eating bananas unless our EULA allows us to walk upright and cook food with Fire(tm)

Pay attention, Tractor companies! pay attention to your customers and stop listening to that shortsighted man in the pinstripe suit trying to cheapen your relationships that MATTER!

Re: Before I Can Fix This Tractor, We Have to Fix Copyright Law

#106

Post by amelius »

justaaron wrote: post #105
amelius wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This might seem reasonable. But... this way, capable people will not benefit from markets of scale like they could if they were allowed to tinker with their purchased goods. > All I see a big market opportunity for hackable, open-platform tractors. Sadly, there is no big market opportunity for hackable, open-platform tractors.

i'll bet there is. think of what the PTO (power take-off) enabled in general for the common tractor. i'll bet hydraulics, electrical generation, and other systems can also be leveraged by 3rd-party or custom gear. in fact, I'll wager that the FUTURE of the tractor INSISTS upon it being open and hackable. The "Lying EULA that attempts to rebrand a sale a lease" approach is bad for customers and bad for the world at la…

> i'll bet there is. think of what the PTO (power take-off) enabled in general for the common tractor. i'll bet hydraulics, electrical generation, and other systems can also be leveraged by 3rd-party or custom gear.

You mean a common platform, similar to what iOS is in the computing world? Sounds nice, but I guess we use a different definition of "open".

Re: Before I Can Fix This Tractor, We Have to Fix Copyright Law

#107

Post by rapht »

diamondlovesyou wrote: post #97
zodiac wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we really put this into law in a way that works, what's going to happen is that companies will stop selling people tractors and instead lease them to people for an unlimited amount of time for a one-time payment, or something similar.

Assuming the market allows this. Ie demand may favor ownership so much that companies can't lease and remain competitive.

How wouldn't that be absolutely fine?

Re: Before I Can Fix This Tractor, We Have to Fix Copyright Law

#108

Post by jamespo »

EliRivers wrote: post #101
teekert wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is about a deal between two parties, both parties agreed during the tranfer of the goods, the conditions were known. Complaining after the sale is stupid. You had the chance to walk away from the deal because you didn't like it's conditions, nobody was forced. Interfering with this process reduces freedom. All I see a big market opportunity for hackable, open-platform tractors.

It is well established that agreeing to some conditions doesn't necessarily make those conditions legally binding. There are many circumstances under which they are not. Interfering with this process reduces freedom. Interfering with freedom is necessary, almost everywhere. The very fact that two people can come to an agreement that they would expect to be enforced is a massive interference in freedom. To say nothing…

Er, what?

Re: Before I Can Fix This Tractor, We Have to Fix Copyright Law

#109

Post by jamespo »

lugus35 wrote: post #92
teekert wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is about a deal between two parties, both parties agreed during the tranfer of the goods, the conditions were known. Complaining after the sale is stupid. You had the chance to walk away from the deal because you didn't like it's conditions, nobody was forced. Interfering with this process reduces freedom. All I see a big market opportunity for hackable, open-platform tractors.

You can't buy a hackable, open-platform tractor. What are you doing while waiting for this very hypothical tractor ? You stop working ?

Maybe do what people did 10 years ago

Re: Before I Can Fix This Tractor, We Have to Fix Copyright Law

#110

Post by grn »

PietdeVries wrote: post #83
rubberstamp wrote: post #82

People should have the right to tinker with whatever they bought.Telling them only they can, and not an expert 3rd party, make the change is ridiculous as not everyone is a rocket scientist in the respective fields. If we buy car/tractor/phone/whatever, we should be able to modify it(its hw/sw) however we want. I fail to understand how it breaks copyright. No one is copying and distributing anything. Copyright law sh…

So if you have the right to modify the software in a tractor, doesn't that imply that you have the right to modify the software that Microsoft is selling as well? The fact that the software we're discussing here is installed on a tractor rather than a PC shouldn't make much of a difference?

I'd even say that a license clause that forbids users to modify the software is really not well-defined. Modification of what is actually forbidden? I have no access to the source code (assuming closed-source software). I have only binaries. Can I replace the first byte with 0x00? The second one? What if I accidentally overwrite the whole file with 0x00s? What if I truncate it? Can I start the software and modify it at runtime? Can I modify the dynamic libraries (or even the OS) to alter the software? What if a virus infects the binary?

It'd be great if anyone could point to interesting resources on this issue. It seems to be an intriguing intersection of law and economics.

Post reply on HN