
John Deere has turned itself into a poster-child for the DMCA - solarengineer
http://boingboing.net/2017/04/22/drm-eschatology.html
======
Animats
The article does not cite where Deere says that.

Cisco has been doing this for years. They're worse than Deere; if you buy a
used Cisco router, you don't have the right to run the software. You have to
go through the "Cisco Hardware Inspection and Software Relicensing Program" to
get a new license.[1]

[1] [http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/hw-sw-relicensing-
prog...](http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/hw-sw-relicensing-program.html)

~~~
_Adam
And as a result, now we switches running Linux!

[https://cumulusnetworks.com/products/cumulus-
linux/](https://cumulusnetworks.com/products/cumulus-linux/)

~~~
prodmerc
Honestly, the existence of Linux (and other open source software) is a miracle
after seeing all the bullshit around copyright and licensing these days...

~~~
cm2187
Open source also comes with all sort of string attached. Licenses that either
force you to share the code or restict it in certain applications, etc. It's
not a free world (as in you downloaded it you do whatever you want with it).

~~~
adrianN
Free software comes with the "string" that you grant the same rights to your
users that you enjoyed. That's not so terrible, it's common courtesy.

~~~
qb45
Sure, but this Free Software of yours is less free than say, FreeBSD, which
also gives Cisco the freedom to extract money from 2nd hand sales of their
equipment ;)

~~~
Clownshoesms
Is the net gain of a BSD license better than if it didn't exist, considering
public companies use it for profit and don't contribute back? Absolutely, but
same with LGPL. Actuaĺly I just wanted to argue it.

------
_jeb_
> Deere's just reiterated that position to a US Copyright Office inquiry on
> the future of the law, joined by auto manufacturers (but not Tesla)...

Bravo, Tesla.

~~~
gambiting
Tesla is not hugely better. If you have an accident, the car's computer shuts
down and only an authorised Tesla garage can reactivate it. They have
effectively DRMd the entire repair process.

~~~
mrweasel
I'm a little torn about that one. It's honestly not a bad idea, but I see how
it negatively impacts people ability to repair their own cars.

In Europe it's not uncommon for BMW, Mercedes and other luxury cars to find
their way to Romania and other eastern European country after they been in an
accident. These cars aren't repaired in western Europe because they've been
damage so badly that they would be unsafe, even after repairs. It was even the
reason for massive thefts of airbags in northern Europe. The airbags would be
sold in Romania to the people who where repairing the damaged cars.

My point is that the reactivation by an authorised garage helps ensure that
dangerous cars are driving around in less regulated / poorer countries.

~~~
gambiting
I can see why they would want to prevent a reactivation of a car that was
extremely badly damaged - but then, I don't agree that they should be the ones
deciding. I am around people who go off roading a lot and you know why modern
vehicles are not a good choice for extreme off roading? Because if you hit a
tree and the fender falls off, the computer will tell you that you can't
continue driving and shut off the engine. Why is it making that decision for
you?

Now, I'm not saying that Teslas are used for off roading, but I suppose it's a
huge worry that in 10 years time if you have even a minor accident that can be
easily repaired, Tesla will just say "sorry, we can't reactivate the computer
on that model, it's out of support since 2025" and the only thing you can do
is buy a new model. You wouldn't have that problem with a 20 year old
Mercedes, would you?

------
rswail
People should start to distinguish between "Intellectual Property" and
"Intellectual Property Rights". IP is not "owned" in the same way that
tangible property or intangible assets like goodwill. What is "owned" is the
rights to exploit the intellectual property. These ownership "rights" are
granted by the state (US Constitution or in other countries, statute).

What is being debated is whether those IPRs (which can only be licensed or
sold outright) can be extended to cover the end user's use of the product that
contains the IP.

The DMCA doesn't say you can't do what you like to the product, it says you
can't circumvent "locks" on the IP that enforce the licensor's IPR. That's a
very contentious position and is inherently anti-competitive and anti-
innovation.

IPRs are provided by the State for specific purposes. Extending those rights
beyond those purposes should be ruled either unconstitutional or against the
best interests of society.

------
crb002
Do a GPL request on Deere ;)

~~~
MarkMMullin
First I laughed, and then I thought this wasn't such a bad idea - sure you
want to absorb the mind numbing true cost of the entire stack, then knock
yourself out, be as 'Gollumy' as you like - get caught leveraging OSS for that
and you pay the difference - a pipe dream, but a nice one - the real solution
is more along - 'Dear John Deere, try not to be a complete dick all the time'
but that rarely works

------
Overtonwindow
I don't disagree with the authors overall premise, but I disagree that only
corporations can own "property". The title is misleading as it refers to
intellectual property. Anyone can own intellectual property, but I suppose
only corporations have the money to defend it.

~~~
slim
If you dont own intellectual property included in an object you bought, you
don't own it. Ownership is unhindered use of the object.

~~~
jonny_eh
If I buy a book, I don't own the IP in the book. Even though I can do what I
want with the physical item, I certainly cannot (legally) sell copies of it.

(To be clear: John Deere and the rest are in the wrong, I'm just nitpicking
your comment)

~~~
pdkl95
You own _your copy_ of that book. You do not own the right to make copies of
the book, but you can do own your copy and can do with it what you want.

"IP" is disinformation - "copyright" is not "property", it's a temporary
monopoly granted to the creator of a work.

------
djyaz1200
A middle solution here is in order. If you buy a John Deere tractor or Cisco
router you should be allowed to do whatever you want with it if you remove all
of that companies branding from it. Leaving their brand on it confers a
promise of a certain level of standardization/reliability compromised by DIY
repairs/mods.

~~~
YCode
Isn't there already a middle solution? You can do whatever you want, but you
void the warranty.

~~~
cperciva
The problem with "you void the warranty" is that one person voids the
warranty, then sells the equipment to someone else, and that second person
gets upset with John Deere when it doesn't work. On the hardware side, we have
"warranty void if seal broken"; but there's no easy way for someone buying
used farm equipment to know if someone messed with the software.

~~~
qb45
> The problem with "you void the warranty" is that one person voids the
> warranty, then sells the equipment to someone else, and that second person
> gets upset with John Deere when it doesn't work.

No, that's an imaginary problem invented to rationalize this bullshit.

I don't think there actually exist people so ignorant to not realize that
buying used hardware comes with caveats and that you usually get what you paid
for.

~~~
reitanqild
Based on what I read and hear about us laws and how they are enforced this
might very well be a real problem there.

A company I worked for decided to settle after someone broke in, stuck
something in the safety switch and got injured while illegaly operating a
machine we had made.

The reasons were simple:

1\. There were no sticker saying this was bad. (But as mentioned we had other
safety measures that were deliberately overridden.)

2\. While we had a fair chance of winning the costs and risks were simply not
worth it.

Lessons learned: if something goes to the US, make sure the stickers are in
place.

~~~
qb45
_A company I worked for decided to settle after someone broke in, stuck
something in the safety switch and got injured while illegaly operating a
machine we had made.

The reasons were simple:

1\. There were no sticker saying this was bad._

And this shows that if Deere cared about liability and not about ripping
customers off every time they need to repair something, they would use
stickers instead of DRM.

And you can laugh at safety stickers, but IMO they are a good thing. They mean
that your responsibility is limited to providing basic safety interlocks
sufficient for the intended use and informing what is and what isn't intended
use. Everything else is user's problem, as it should be. I certainly prefer
this over wasting manufacturers' time on elaborate idiot-proofing and then
later wasting hackers' time on breaking it.

------
acd
One could discuss the corporation taking away personal responsibility for
actions performed for example harming the environment. In case of farming One
could view it as the tractor as a piece of hardware with software. One
licenses the software but should be able to tinker with it. Most inventors
tinker if we as a human race are not allowed to tinker we will not innovate.

Global warming requires a lot of invention and cooperation together or we will
be doomed.

A forsee farming tractors going the same route as routers. First they where
propietary hardware routers running closed operating ststems. Then came
propietary routing hardware mostly broadcom based running open software Linux
for software defined networks. Then came facebook open hardware for seitches
and open software. The same will probably happen with tractors. Crowd funded
community constructed open hardware and software.

------
sandworm101
"Property" is a big term. This is about IP, not chattles or "real" property.
The queen is human and certainly can own those types of property. You will
need more than lawyers to tell her otherwise.

~~~
Qwertious
"The queen is human and certainly can own those types of property."

Actually, I believe you're technically wrong - the Queen is essentially the
CEO of The Crown, which is a company and can therefore own those types of
property.

~~~
sandworm101
There are other queens than that one.

------
pxnii
Let corporations think closed system can help their profit until someone come
with an alternative open source system and customers flock over. More startup
opportunities for smart tractors.

~~~
Waterluvian
If it works that way, shouldn't we be able to look at an industry and see that
happening? I can't think of a good example, though I may not be thinking hard
enough.

There are definitely open source alternatives to many many things, but how
often are they the ones capturing most of the market?

~~~
pxnii
It needs not to be wholesale open sourced, but dev-friendly, hackable, after
market support. Android is a good example. Even some OEMs favor lockdown
(looking at you, Samsung), there are dev-friendly OEMs (OnePlus, Google). End
users don't need to be tech-savvy, especially farmers, but knowing there is
alternative support from community is good enough.

------
oh_sigh
Humans, as compared to corporations, have (probably) inbuilt timespans which
govern their lifetime. If you 'own' a property after you die, how do you
enforce your ownership?

~~~
doodlebugging
You'll be dead so technically you won't. But, a proper will drawn up by
competent legal representatives will preserve your ownership for your
descendents and see that your real assets, and a tractor is part of your real
property that can be passed without any trouble on to your descendents.

John Deere would have nothing to say about that. They would not likely want to
have a lot of older machines showing up on their lots every time a farmer
passes. Their focus is on keeping the buyer in the machine upgrade cycle.

John Deere in this case is trying to do what auto-makers do with their cars in
selling the car and then trying to lock the buyer into long term service and
maintenance at a company dealership where their OEM parts are sold at a
premium and installed by trained techs who also earn a premium for the
dealership service department.

There are a lot fewer tractors sold than cars and there is increasing
competition from foreign rivals so Deere could be seeing part of their
traditional market evaporate as smaller farm operations shift from their
products to cheaper and easier to maintain foreign equipment.

There is currently a thriving market for used farm equipment, especially
equipment old enough to be pre-sensor, pre-electronics. A lot of this is
bought up here and shipped overseas to small farms where people understand how
to maintain them through prior exposure to the older tech.

I read an article not long ago somewhere that described how older Massey
Ferguson tractors are especially in high demand since they had a global
distribution system before being bought by AGCO.

There is a lot of technical and service information available for old
equipment. Parts are available from salvage yards and NOS (new old stock)
suppliers as well as high quality reproduction parts from other sources.

John Deere risks driving their traditional customers away if they stick with
the "you never own it" model. There are competitors who are advertising use of
commonly available parts and sensors or tractors that don't use sensors at all
making them simple for a reasonably skilled mechanic to maintain. Believe me
that if you are a farmer maintaining a tractor is one of the normal parts of
your life. You likely have all the tools, a large well-equipped shop, and
plenty of able assistants if you need them.

I digressed a bit there. Sorry.

------
jaclaz
As I commented on another thread, the whole stuff is taken (without any need)
to extreme points, that is ideology, what the farmers want is much less than
freedom to tinker with their machines, they simply want to:

1) have their machine run (to do some actual work)

2) be able to repair quickly their machines when they break(and at a
reasonable price)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14077327](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14077327)

------
CaliforniaKarl
Worth noting, this article points back to an opinion piece on Wired from 2015:
[https://www.wired.com/2015/04/dmca-ownership-john-
deere/](https://www.wired.com/2015/04/dmca-ownership-john-deere/)

------
ddingus
Ripe for disruption.

This disgusts me, frankly.

~~~
Johnny555
This is not an easy market to disrupt... the barrier to entry for
manufacturing a $200,000 tractor or $500,000 combine is high, and the market
is not that large.

This isn't like coming up with a better lightbulb that cost $2 to manufacture
and will sell millions. And while the large farms may cycle through their
equipment in 5 years, a small farmer may keep his in operation for 20+ years,
so there's not a whole lot of equipment turnover for an upstart to break into.

~~~
prodmerc
What about replacing only the software? Or will they claim it's illegal and
you still don't own the hardware?

~~~
adrianN
Then they'll only allow signed software to run. Trying to start a business on
a hostile platform doesn't sound like a good idea.

------
agumonkey
Time to retire property

------
PhasmaFelis
Title change, please? Boing Boing and especially Doctorow have a serious
hyperbole problem, but even their original title didn't put Doctorow's words
in John Deere's mouth. The quote marks are completely false.

~~~
Pyxl101
I flagged the article for this reason.

~~~
mintplant
You're being downvoted, but flagging (and/or emailing hn@ycombinator.com) is
the moderator-sanctioned method of drawing their attention to a post.

~~~
reitanqild
Didn't downvote but still disagree a lot.

Flagging off otherwise interesting articles is seriously annoying IMO.

I'd say commenting or upvote if there is already a comment (and maybe emailing
if necessary) is the solution.

------
dingo_bat
But I thought corporations are also people?

------
_Adam
This isn't anything enterprise software companies haven't been doing for
decades. John Deere just didn't set expectations. If there's enough demand for
an open alternative, that's a business opportunity.

Personally I think it's stupid. Release the code under GPL and you'll save
yourself a PR nightmare and future proof the company. Manufacturing and design
of farm equipment is what keeps competition out, not software.

~~~
bonzini
> Manufacturing and design of farm equipment is what keeps competition out,
> not software.

How can you be sure? I have never used a "smart tractor", so I have no idea.

Sure you can do all the work with a 1960s tractor, the improvement is
incremental compared to using a donkey, but apparently there is such a thing
as an improvement coming from software.

