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.” It’s John Deere’s tractor, folks. You’re just driving it. Several manufacturers recently submitted similar comments to the Copyright Office under an inquiry into the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. DMCA is a vast 1998 copyright law that (among other things) governs the blurry line between software and hardware. The Copyright Office, after reading the comments and holding a hearing, will decide in July which high-tech devices we can modify, hack, and repair—and decide whether John Deere’s twisted vision of ownership will become a reality. Over the last two decades, manufacturers have used the DMCA to argue that consumers do not own the software underpinning the products they buy—things like smartphones, computers, coffeemakers, cars, and, yes, even tractors. So, Old MacDonald has a tractor, but he owns a massive barn ornament, because the manufacturer holds the rights to the programming that makes it run. (This is an important issue for farmers: a neighbor, Kerry Adams, hasn’t been able to fix an expensive transplanter because he doesn’t have access to the diagnostic software he needs. He’s not alone: many farmers are opting for older, computer-free equipment.) ... http://www.wired.com/2015/04/dmca-ownership-john-deere/
That excerpt ruins any motivation I might have to read the article. I'll guess the issue: The company wants to send updates and patches to little computers in the equipment they sell, without first asking their customers. Am I right? If so, is the update transmitted wirelessly from afar, or is it inserted by the dealer when the equipment is brought into the shop for repair.
If I don't own it anymore, then quit making me make payments on it. After all, I'm just borrowing it.
I have not read anything, including the links SPD provided, regarding this case, but I wonder if the fundamental issue is the difference between selling and licensing. If you sell a tractor, it's very clearly that one tractor. No one would dream of claiming that, having bought a tractor, they were legally allowed to make exact duplicates of that tractor and sell them to others. However with software it's possible that the buyer could have legal rights to duplicate and sell it. Thus software, if I understand correctly, is usually licensed (rights granted to use, but not ownership) rather than sold. To the extent a tractor or other motor vehicle becomes more like software than hardware, it makes sense to license it rather than sell it, under the current laws. barfo
This will be solved only when my Theory of Dimensions catches on. Plato described a nonphysical "world of ideas" with smaller, component ideas inside of larger ideas. In the 19th century, Gestalt philosophy described it as, "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts." In Plato's famous Theory of Universals, he said that the example idea "participates in" the "universal" idea. In the case before us, each John Deere tractor is a physical example of the idea of tractor. Translated to Law, this means that Corporations are our gods. (I took a shortcut in reasoning because I didn't want to type several paragraphs. I leave it to the student to figure out what the fuck I meant.)
This is akin to selling me a Windows pc with windows software installed, then charging me again and again for each and every update.
Sounds a lot like the argument Sony made against people hacking their Playstations. Just because you paid for something doesn't mean you can do what you want with it, apparently.
So a farmer can run over a John Deere lawyer and the lawyer can sue John Deere if he survives. John Deere still owns the tractor. Makes sense.
They're not exactly saying what Wired says. They're saying that accessing or modifying the software embedded in the machine (car, tractor, etc.) is a copyright violation. MARIS got it wrong. It's akin to buying two computers and one copy of MS Office and using it on both, in violation of the terms of use of the software (e.g. one must purchase one copy of Office per system).
Update http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2483555,00.asp John Deere directed PCMag to note it posted on its website today, in which it said "there is no question that Deere customers own the equipment that they purchase." Ownership of John Deere equipment, however, "does not include the right to copy, modify or distribute software that is embedded in that equipment," much like a car or computer. The company says that "a proposed revision to the current law would allow owners of equipment, including Deere competitors or software developers, to access or to hack Deere's protected software to repair, diagnose, or modify any vehicle software." As a result, Deere opposes the revision. "Allowing unqualified individuals to hack or modify equipment software can endanger Deere customers, dealers and others; and may result in equipment that no longer complies with industry and safety standards or environmental regulations," it concluded.
