John Deere and General Motors want to eviscerate the notion of ownership

[master_shake_]

It’s official: John Deere and General Motors want to eviscerate the notion of ownership. Sure, we pay for their vehicles. But we don’t own them. Not according to their corporate lawyers, anyway.
In a particularly spectacular display of corporate delusion, John Deere—the world’s largest agricultural machinery maker —told the Copyright Office that farmers don’t own their tractors. Because computer code snakes through the DNA of modern tractors, farmers receive “an implied license for the life of the vehicle to operate the vehicle.”

http://www.wired.com/2015/04/dmca-ownership-john-deere/

DMCA strikes again.

what a wonderful piece of legislation.


PSA: Please see reply #6: http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37348157&postcount=6 before skipping from the OP to the end of the thread. -DrPizza

 

[Uppsala9496]

Good. Farmers have a pretty strong lobby so maybe it will take action such as this to have changes take place.

 

[waggy]

Good. Farmers have a pretty strong lobby so maybe it will take action such as this to have changes take place.

lol

This being ok would be terrible for everyone not just farmers. you got software in your car? you no longer own that car.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

lol

This being ok would be terrible for everyone not just farmers. you got software in your car? you no longer own that car.

That's his point. The Farm lobby may be able to affect change for all.

 

[mrjminer]

Yea, the farmers will take care of this shit.

Being one of the few manufacturers of product lines for a very specific market cuts both ways.

 

[dullard]

farmers don’t own their tractors...farmers receive "an implied license for the life of the vehicle to operate the vehicle."

While I am not enough of an expert to know what nefarious things might come from this John Deere document, I do know that quote above is taken so rediculously out-of-context as to make that whole Wired article suspect.

Let me start by expanding the actual quote to include a few more words (page 6 of the John Deere counsel's document):
"...the vehicle owner receives an implied license for the life of the vehicle..."

So, notice that the Wired author took out the words "vehicle owner" and then makes a whole article stating that the farmers aren't vehicle owners. That is blatantly bad reporting. John Deere explicitly calls the farmers "vehicle owners" in the document.

I'll put more context in. Here is the first sentence from that relevant paragraph:
"In some cases, the manufacturer of the vehicle may not have title or ownership interest in the software and can transfer no more rights than the maufacturer has." (Page 5 of the document).
Right there, John Deere is saying that John Deere (the manufacturer) does not have ownership. Yet the Wired author conveniently skipped that portion of the paragraph.

In reality, it is a paragraph about open source software where the manufacturer doesn't own the software and thus can't give ownership of the open source software to the farmer. It was taken way out of context to imply that the farmer doesn't own the vehicle.

I'm not defending John Deere or the DMCA. I'm just stating that the Wired article is complete made up hogwash cobbled together from truncated, out-of-context quotes.

 

[mrjminer]

While I am not enough of an expert to know what nefarious things might come from this John Deere document, I do know that quote above is taken so rediculously out of context as to make that whole article suspect.

Let me start by expanding the actual quote to include a few more words (page 6 of the John Deere counsel's document):
"...the vehicle owner receives an implied license for the life of the vehicle..."

So, notice that the Wired author took out the words "vehicle owner" and then makes a whole article stating that there aren't vehicle owners. That is blatantly bad reporting. John Deere explicitly calls the farmers vehicle owners in the document.

I'll put more context in. Here is the first sentence from that relevant paragraph:
"In some cases, the manufacturer of the vehicle may not have title or ownership interest in the software and can transfer no more rights than the maufacturer has." (Page 5 of the document).
Right there, John Deere is saying that John Deere (the manufacturer) does not have ownership. Yet the Wired author conveniently skipped that portion of the paragraph.

In reality, it is a paragraph about open source software where the manufacturer doesn't own the software and thus can't give ownership of the open source software to the farmer. It was taken way out of context to imply that the farmer doesn't own the vehicle.

I'm not defending John Deere or the DMCA. I'm just stating that the Wired article is complete made up hogwash cobbled together from truncated, out-of-context quotes.

+1 for actually reading. Makes sense now

I wonder if Wired will get sued for this one. That is obviously some skewed shit

OIC... in the "business" section of Wired --- then you have to scroll halfway down the page to read that it's an "opinion" piece. What a bunch of dickheads.

 

[IronWing]

Farmers will get on this one right after they beat the folks who licensed out genetic lines.

 

[Aikouka]

I'm not defending John Deere or the DMCA. I'm just stating that the Wired article is complete made up hogwash cobbled together from truncated, out-of-context quotes.

Essentially, it's pretty much the same thing as the Windows license that you get when you buy a computer. Windows may come preloaded on the system, which you own, but you don't own the right to the actual code itself. If you did, that would mean that you could then sell the software as you own, which would obviously not be a good business model for Microsoft.

 

[Strk]

Good. Farmers have a pretty strong lobby so maybe it will take action such as this to have changes take place.

More like corporate agribusiness has a strong lobby that thinks actual farmers can go fuck themselves.

 

[hal2kilo]

Farmers will get on this one right after they beat the folks who licensed out genetic lines.

Doh!

 

[Brian Stirling]

Essentially, it's pretty much the same thing as the Windows license that you get when you buy a computer. Windows may come preloaded on the system, which you own, but you don't own the right to the actual code itself. If you did, that would mean that you could then sell the software as you own, which would obviously not be a good business model for Microsoft.

Yeah, some folks will see demons when there are none. I'm no fan of M$, but they do spend billions developing something and have every right to own the right to sell it without someone coming along and saying, hey, I bought a PC with Windows so I should have the right to sell/give Windows to anyone/everyone I wish.

Modern cars and farm vehicles contain a whole lot of code and the makers are within there rights the protect the huge investment into generating and testing that code.

There is, of course, a large percentage of younger folks that have grown up with file sharing and have come to believe they should be able to take and do with as they wish any digital content. No great surprise that a writer at Wired would think the owner of the box (PC, car, farm vehicle) would have the right to everything that comes with it.


Brian

 

[SMOGZINN]

Yeah, some folks will see demons when there are none. I'm no fan of M$, but they do spend billions developing something and have every right to own the right to sell it without someone coming along and saying, hey, I bought a PC with Windows so I should have the right to sell/give Windows to anyone/everyone I wish.

Modern cars and farm vehicles contain a whole lot of code and the makers are within there rights the protect the huge investment into generating and testing that code.

There is, of course, a large percentage of younger folks that have grown up with file sharing and have come to believe they should be able to take and do with as they wish any digital content. No great surprise that a writer at Wired would think the owner of the box (PC, car, farm vehicle) would have the right to everything that comes with it.


Brian

They do have some rights. The question is what rights does the 'implied license' confer? Am I allowed to sell my John Deere tractor with the software still installed? The article mentioned that I am not allowed to remove the software to install software of my own choosing, that seems to imply I don't fully own the hardware as well.

 

[brycejones]

Yeah, some folks will see demons when there are none. I'm no fan of M$, but they do spend billions developing something and have every right to own the right to sell it without someone coming along and saying, hey, I bought a PC with Windows so I should have the right to sell/give Windows to anyone/everyone I wish.

Modern cars and farm vehicles contain a whole lot of code and the makers are within there rights the protect the huge investment into generating and testing that code.

There is, of course, a large percentage of younger folks that have grown up with file sharing and have come to believe they should be able to take and do with as they wish any digital content. No great surprise that a writer at Wired would think the owner of the box (PC, car, farm vehicle) would have the right to everything that comes with it.


Brian

No one is suggesting the ability for you to resell windows because you own a pc with windows on it. This is a stupid argument.

The concern here is that manufacturers block access to parts, diagnostic tools, etc so the only way to service the equipment or vehicle you have purchased is through the manufacturer or their designated representatives. The manufacturer could implement a process where if "un-authorized" parts are detected the vehicle is rendered inoperable. This is no different from ink jet makers implementing those stupid chips on their cartridges to force buyers to use only "genuine" ink.

This is about protecting revenue streams from future service and limiting competition.

 

[boomerang]

The concern here is that manufacturers block access to parts, diagnostic tools, etc so the only way to service the equipment or vehicle you have purchased is through the manufacturer or their designated representatives. The manufacturer could implement a process where if "un-authorized" parts are detected the vehicle is rendered inoperable. This is no different from ink jet makers implementing those stupid chips on their cartridges to force buyers to use only "genuine" ink.

This is about protecting revenue streams from future service and limiting competition.

Sounds like pure conjecture.

Here's the opposite side of the coin. We are on the brink of self-driving cars. Right now, cars have multiple computers that must communicate with each other in order for the car to function as it was designed. If I was an auto manufacturer, the last thing I'd want to deal with is Joe Hacker bringing his car in because he's got it all fucked up and demanding that it be fixed under warranty. But that would be just an annoyance. Safety is a much higher concern.

Here are some very important processes that our cars do for us on a daily basis.

Emissions
Traction control
Anti-lock braking
Electronic stability control
Braking
Steering
Suspension
HVAC
Instrumentation
Powertrain
Transmission
Airbags and the degree to which they deploy

Some cars can apply the brakes if needed
Some cars can park themselves
Some cars can sense unintended lane changes
Some cars can detect and alert the driver of a closing speed that could result in a crash with the car ahead.
Some cars can control the speed while in cruise control such that the car will slow down if required.
Some cars can turn on the windshield wipers if rain is sensed
Many cars will turn on the lights when it becomes dark

This is just some of the electronically controlled items in a modern automobile. Allowing Joe Hacker to start interfacing and altering any of the software in the car is not something that should be allowed - period. My safety depends on it and your safety depends on it.

When we get self-driving cars and Joe Hacker decides that he knows a fuck-ton more than that people that developed the software that allows that to happen, it could certainly get exciting.

This isn't torrenting kiddies. This is serious stuff.

 

[Blue_Max]

Yea, the farmers will take care of this shit.

Not if Monsanto owns every farm - something they're certainly working towards...

 

[Blue_Max]

While I am not enough of an expert to know what nefarious things might come from this John Deere document, I do know that quote above is taken so rediculously out-of-context as to make that whole Wired article suspect.
[clip]

Thank you, BTW. Hope this is just hype... although it can help the narrative that there are definitely powers that want to prevent the "non" from actually owning anything, right up to their own homes. Keep that money flowing...

"The meek shall inherit the earth - but NOT its mineral rights!"

 

[waggy]

Not if Monsanto owns every farm - something they're certainly working towards...

they don't own the farm. they just own every seed you have to plant for life.

 

[JSt0rm]

Farmers will get on this one right after they beat the folks who licensed out genetic lines.

Then they will get the government to pay them to NOT buy tractors.

 

[KMFJD]

I wish Monsanto would hurry up and buy our farm so i can retire....

 

[Brian Stirling]

No one is suggesting the ability for you to resell windows because you own a pc with windows on it. This is a stupid argument.

The concern here is that manufacturers block access to parts, diagnostic tools, etc so the only way to service the equipment or vehicle you have purchased is through the manufacturer or their designated representatives. The manufacturer could implement a process where if "un-authorized" parts are detected the vehicle is rendered inoperable. This is no different from ink jet makers implementing those stupid chips on their cartridges to force buyers to use only "genuine" ink.

This is about protecting revenue streams from future service and limiting competition.

Look, I don't like that they may attempt to prevent you from making mods at all, but I do understand the fact that even if you change something they may still be held liable. There's a concept in law, attractive nuisance, that if you have something, like a swimming pool, that is likely to attract, say, children, you are liable for any harm if you don't take steps to prevent the child accessing the pool. A car maker may well see a USB port that gains access to critical car functions as an attractive nuisance.

We're not talking about a PC where a modification might bork the PC we're talking about vehicles were an alteration might kill someone and the risk of someone being killed is non trivial.

Interestingly, there is a port in your car where you are, at least for now, permitted to access -- the OBDII port. I think so long as users only listen to activity on the OBDII port we're OK, but if you attempt to make changes then the car maker does have reasonable concerns - -again, the attractive nuisance.


Brian

 

[Blue_Max]

I wish Monsanto would hurry up and buy our farm so i can retire....

They won't buy it... their GMO seeds will blow in and start growing then you've "stolen their property". Then it gets ugly and your farm is gone for far less than it's worth.

 

[brycejones]

Look, I don't like that they may attempt to prevent you from making mods at all, but I do understand the fact that even if you change something they may still be held liable. There's a concept in law, attractive nuisance, that if you have something, like a swimming pool, that is likely to attract, say, children, you are liable for any harm if you don't take steps to prevent the child accessing the pool. A car maker may well see a USB port that gains access to critical car functions as an attractive nuisance.

We're not talking about a PC where a modification might bork the PC we're talking about vehicles were an alteration might kill someone and the risk of someone being killed is non trivial.

Interestingly, there is a port in your car where you are, at least for now, permitted to access -- the OBDII port. I think so long as users only listen to activity on the OBDII port we're OK, but if you attempt to make changes then the car maker does have reasonable concerns - -again, the attractive nuisance.


Brian

The liability concerns are a cover for the real motive, how can you not see that? If they were only concerned about liability that is something they could be lobbying to address.

 

[master_shake_]

Here’s a rather mind-blowing argument by John Deere’s lawyers, as relayed by Wired: “The pièce de résistance in John Deere’s argument: permitting owners to root around in a tractor’s programming might lead to pirating music through a vehicle’s entertainment system.”

http://techgage.com/news/john-deeres-vehicles-farm-everything-but-common-sense/

doin it for safety right??

 

[shabby]

http://techgage.com/news/john-deeres-vehicles-farm-everything-but-common-sense/

doin it for safety right??

So john deer is facilitating piracy? Go get'em riaa!