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

141–150 of 199 posts

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

#141

Post by alistairSH »

jpindar wrote: post #137
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.

Isn't that how most software "sales" already work?

Yes, but to most consumers, buying a vehicle (car, tractor, etc) isn't a "software sale".

The "sale that's really a lease/licensing deal" is a fairly new construct, at least as it relates to consumer goods that aren't obviously "software".

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

#142

Post by noselasd »

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…

The issue I have with that is that it screws up minorities.

There's likely always going to be a minority that wants or needs to fix their own tractor(or car) or have an independent 3. party fix it.

If that minority is objectively insignificant - well fine. If that minority is 20% of all tractor (or car) owners, the manufacturers can switch to a lease model, and screw over 20% of the customers, those can either give in or give up farming or driving - most won't.

The point is that those 20% might not be enough to sustain a new vendor coming into the market to cater to them. With our current model the 80% that don't care can pay their vendor to fix stuff, the 20% that cares can do it themselves or help support independent mechanics.

Which means with the current model all consumers win, which I'm generally in favor of over a system that maxes profit to big vendors at the expense of minorities.

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

#143

Post by zo1 »

superuser2 wrote: post #81
jdjb wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguably, the only reason you have to worry about the lawsuits is because of stupid IP laws in the first place though.

Copylefts only have teeth because of these "stupid" IP laws. Free Software would be nowhere without copyright. (Yes, you could redistribute binaries, but you could not compel the release of source code for derivatives.)

I'd argue that you don't need the whole set of "IP laws" that are being complained-about, in order for free-software to function correctly. IP law has grown into a gigantic hydra monster.

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

#144

Post by pbhjpbhj »

saurik wrote: post #103
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.

Meta/OT.

For some reason this comes across just like a piece of bot written comment spam. I seriously thought you were a bot until I read you other comments.

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

#145

Post by rhino369 »

viraptor wrote: post #8
dangrossman wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The part of the DMCA that lets sites and ISPs host/transmit user uploads without being sued on a daily basis is pretty nice.

A part of that part is nice, yes. There's a different part of that part which forces them to take anything down on any valid request. That means you can request taking down any service at all if you made an "honest mistake". (for example https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150728/05285531772/wordp... but google knows much more)

You don't have to take down anything because of dmca. The only thing that happens is you lose protection if the content really was infringing. So if you are really sure, you don't have to do anything.

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

#146

Post by realusername »

rakoo wrote: post #113
flohofwoe wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course I should be allowed to modify the software that Microsoft is selling as long as I am not redistributing the modified software. I paid for, and thus own both the software and the device that the software is running on, so why shouldn't I be allowed to do whatever the hell I want with it? End User License Agreements be damned.

> I paid for, and thus own both the software and the device that the software is running on Wrong. What defines owning is not whether you paid or not, but the type of contract you made. Moreover, you didn't pay for Windows; you paid for a license of Windows. This license specifically says what you are and what you are not allowed to do with the software, and among others, tinkering with is is not part of what you are…

That's the part not everyone is agreeing on, this is how Microsoft defines it, not how the users are seeing it.

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

#147

Post by josteink »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #144
saurik wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Meta/OT. For some reason this comes across just like a piece of bot written comment spam. I seriously thought you were a bot until I read you other comments.

Saurik having been a bot all this time... Now that would have been the news story of the decade :)

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

#148

Post by teekert »

16bytes wrote: post #136
teekert wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, so according to you, what one should do is keep your mouth shut during the sale, buy an un-hackable machine and afterwards try to get hacking rights by "lobbying" the government. Imagine if you sold your product to a customer, he promises not to void your terms but then immediately he goes to the government to try to make it legal to void the terms he first agreed upon. Don't get me wrong, I love open source, I l…

As a society, we have decided that some contract terms are unenforceable, as there is often an asymmetric balance of power between vendors and consumers. For example, what if the tractor terms say that you couldn't vote Republican or you would have to surrender the tractor? Or you could only use brand-name repair shops. Or that you couldn't open the hood. Farmers need tractors. It's not like they have the option to n…

Ah, I get to alter conditions under which I buy stuff based on my need, this is great! It is what I always wanted! Problem is... When I sell stuff under certain conditions I'd like my conditions to be honored. Like when I sell you a wafer stepper to make computer chips, I like you not to copy my patented technologies so that I can never reach return on investment. Even if you bought the machine and you own it now. And most costumers promise not to do so and honor their promise.

In the tractor case, I'd feel more honest (and much better in general) if I would just buy a tractor of a different brand with less stringent conditions attached. Why would you reward a tractor company that sells you stuff under screwy conditions?

First you vote with your wallet and make a screwy company rich, then you complain. Perhaps you should think before you buy something. Or, get a group of people together and make a nice case to the manufacturer. Where do we end if we can just break any agreement we make based on need?

The honest way to get to hackable tractors is to not buy un-hackable tractors. I'm all for hackable tractors, I'm all for hackable everything! So lets buy products that are hackable!

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

#149

Post by teekert »

alistairSH wrote: post #140
teekert wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, apparently you do what people on HN are suggesting here: You wait until someone else builds a hackable tractor, you buy it promising you won't hack it, then you complain about it and hope you can pressure the government into making it legal for you to hack the hackable tractor. Why are people buying these annoying tractors anyway? The reason to me seems: They are worth the trouble.

Sure, but when the other option is "stop farming", what would you have them do? The typical farmer doesn't know how to build a tractor from scratch, just as the typical car-owner doesn't know how to reproduce a Honda Accord.

So I buy a different brand. Or I comply with the rules I accepted at buy-time. In this tractor case I'd be mad at myself that I missed such a shitty condition of the contract, I'd write a blog post about how shitty it is. I'd try to pressure the manufacturer into giving me more rights. But not via the government, that just seems unfair. John Deere invents something, they proudly bring it to market, people (who did not have a John Deere smart-tractors before) start complaining and now that want you to alter your beautiful product? Go away! John Deere does not force anyone to buy their stuff! Why would you be allowed to force them into complying with your needs?

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

#150

Post by 6stringmerc »

pdkl95 wrote: post #76

> Turns out, copyright law is the thing that was broken all along. While copyright law is being used as a legal wedge, the problem isn't just copyright. These arguments are often framed as being about copyright because obscures the other half of the problem, which is how these arguments ignore doctrine of first sale [1]. Case law has been confusing in this area, with cases such as Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc supporting t…

I'm really with you on this one - getting angry at Copyright's protections being used as a weapon against First Sale is a distracting tangent. Even here with a strong tech audience, and plenty of back-stories and examples even non-technical folks can comprehend, as in iTunes/iBook/etc is selling a licence of a copy and can revoke that copy under select circumstances, IIRC.

If I was to come up with an comparable situation, I think it would be people demanding a "No Smoking on the Beach!" ordinance because of the cigarette butts littering the beach, when there's already a law against littering on the beach, but isn't being properly enforced.

Post reply on HN