When we buy a piece of software, we own and "physically" posses a binary which we feel we can rightly take apart, modify, and mess with it because we view it as analogous to owning a toaster or stereo in the physical world. It's in our home, we can touch it, and we in essence control it. Now the same is never said for software as a service. We buy subscriptions to services all the time but don't demand an ability to…
Did you read the article? It doesn't say anything about hacking any SaSS at all. Or about " encrypted updates over the air"... so where in the world are you getting this from?
This is a right to repair issue, as the first part of your statement talks about. This is farmers in the feild, and gasketA broke, now either they have the right to modify their own software (that exist on their systems, not on a server somewhere, so not SaSS), or they have to pay a JD contractor to come out, and lose all that daylight in the meantime.
>Why is it that these farmers believe they have a right to modify that software?
Because, farmers of all people have traditionally been supporters of the free software movement before the free software movement even exist... in the form that farmers have exercised the second software freedom
"The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish. Access to the source code is a precondition for this."
and see no reason they should have to stop now just because some corporation wants more money. In the past instead of software it was justy a pair of pliers and a welder.
The real question is, seeing how to fundamentally misunderstand and misstate the issue, how is it that you think they shouldn't be able to modify their software?
Following this horrible line of thought, what abuse does it not allow? What's next; "You may not weld that axle because it contains our proprietary metal blend and we own the patent on the method for repairing it and we also own the patent on the filler-rod needed "? The mind boggles at the mental gymnastics.