
Before I Can Fix This Tractor, We Have to Fix Copyright Law - sinak
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/01/13/copyright_law_shouldn_t_keep_me_from_fixing_a_tractor.html
======
mindslight
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.
The only way our society will be fixed is when the reality-incongruent
copyright system simply collapses.

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

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

~~~
superuser2
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.)

~~~
wallacoloo
Very interesting point which I'm sure gets overlooked quite often. It seems
even Richard Stallman is in favor of preserving the idea of copyright (albeit
reducing its duration), which came as a bit of a surprise to me given his
otherwise radical views: [http://www.computerworlduk.com/blogs/open-
enterprise/could-f...](http://www.computerworlduk.com/blogs/open-
enterprise/could-free-software-exist-without-copyright-3568939/)

~~~
Grishnakh
Well one interesting thing about Stallman's "radical" views is that, unless
I'm missing something, he doesn't actually advocate any kind of governmental
action or laws to support his views (aside from shortening copyright duration
as you mentioned). He wants people to _voluntarily_ demand and require Free
software; he never talks about having the government force it on people in any
way.

Now contrast this to many other people, including the people in favor of
stronger IP law, who want the government to enact their views into law.

Now what's really bad is that Stallman is the less pragmatic and realistic of
these two camps, because he wants regular people to "see the light" and
voluntarily subscribe to his views, which obviously isn't happening (he's been
at this for 3 decades now, and while Free software has made traction for sure
(e.g. Linux kernel in most smartphones and many other devices), users seem to
have less real freedom than ever thanks to locked bootloaders, app stores,
etc.). By contrast, the jerks who want to force more DMCA-style silliness and
even lengthier (effectively perpetual) copyright terms are more realistic
because their approach actually _works_ : we have or are getting all these bad
laws.

This somehow reminds me of the quote by Shaw about all progress depending on
the unreasonable man.

------
rubberstamp
People should have the right to tinker with whatever they bought.Telling them
only they can, and not an expert 3rd party, make the change is ridiculous as
not everyone is a rocket scientist in the respective fields.

If we buy car/tractor/phone/whatever, we should be able to modify it(its
hw/sw) however we want. I fail to understand how it breaks copyright. No one
is copying and distributing anything. Copyright law should be to protect IP
theft. Fix the law instead of having a stupid meeting for exceptions every 3
years. Or copyright yourselves into stone age

~~~
zodiac
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.

~~~
jwr
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-commentators who think we desperately need to repair tractors.

The key point/problem here is that we have a (deliberate) naming confusion:
"ownership" should not come with rights restrictions. The same confusion was
deliberately introduced with DVDs/BluRays, for example, not to mention
computer software. The law should step in and force everyone to truthfully
describe what they're selling: a product, a license to do certain things, or a
lease.

~~~
noselasd
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.

~~~
rubberstamp
20% market share is significant enough for any new manufacturer. Provided
their product doesn't lack in quality it will have the 20% disgruntled
customers and gain more as their product reputation increases.

What you described could happen, if tractor market is a monopoly or if all
manufacturers collude, which shouldn't be allowed to happen. American
broadband situation is a good example when there is monopoly due to lack of
choices. They can price whatever they want for broadband and treat you royally
when you contact their customer service because you can't switch ISP.

Like in the extreme case of price hike of a pill to $700, that is what happens
if copyright law stays the way it is now.

Current situation is not a win for customers or the general progress. There is
a lot of room for improvement.

------
pdkl95
> 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 the power grab where "licensing" overrules first
sale. Other cases such as UMG v. Augusto reaffirmed that the original author's
rights ended at the first sale. In our future that obviously includes software
in many, many products, we either strongly reaffirm the right of first sale or
we give up ownership[2] to whomever owns the software inside our products.

The DMCA is only part of the problem; this attack on first sale - an attack on
the open exchange of culture[4] - has been going on a _lot_ longer than the
digital computer has existed.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-
sale_doctrine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine)

[2] obviously, the actual copying of the software - instead of repair, resale,
or other non-copying[3] uses

[3] if time-shifting is a valid use for betamax (Sony Corp. of America v.
Universal City Studios, Inc.), then any incidental, temporary copies of
software that art part of normal use is fair use. The nonsense that a license
is needed because a copy is made in RAM is patent nonsense.

[4]
[https://www.ted.com/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_stran...](https://www.ted.com/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity)

~~~
6stringmerc
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.

------
flohofwoe
Somewhat related, there's an interesting theory that the Germany industry only
advanced so fast in the 19th century because German publishers deliberately
ignored that new-fangled copyright thing, thus allowing information to spread
fast and cheap, while the obedience of copyright stifled progress in Great
Britain:

[http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/no-
copyright-l...](http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/no-copyright-
law-the-real-reason-for-germany-s-industrial-expansion-a-710976.html)

------
ck2
I'm curious why freedom-to-tinker is not considered free-expression in the
USA, clear and simple. I mean we pride ourselves on it.

As long as the item is purchased (owned) and it is for personal use and
warranties are clearly voided, what business is it otherwise to the
manufacturer after they make the sale.

Of course they can get around this by never actually selling the tractor and
only leasing it to farmers, then the farmers are screwed because they don't
own it - until Chinese clones show up.

~~~
thescriptkiddie
Our government does not take pride in it. People who can fix things or build
things themselves are a danger to corporate interests, so hackers are
considered to be dangerous criminals. Nobody gives a fuck if that means we're
destroying our own future, because that's our children's problem.

------
ec109685
Feels like the best approach is to encourage farmers to boycot at least one of
the major tractor providers until these restrictions are removed. No new laws
or lawsuits needed -- just some collective action.

~~~
fanquake
Which provider do you propose we boycott, and which one do we use in the mean
time? JohnDeere, CASE, New Holland etc dominate the industry, and no farmer is
going to (let alone can afford to) stop using their current equipment, and
spend millions of dollars (it would easily cost us this much) buying different
brand machinery. Let alone dealing with the hassles that come with swapping
from one stream of ag software to another.

What's most likely to happen is farmers will just keep modifying their
machinery at will. It's already common place to chip your engine, or to
physically modify machines/implements to improve performance or your
production methods. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

~~~
nitrogen
I think what the parent was suggesting is an arbitrary boycott for all future
purchases. In other words, if they all use the same tactics, then make an
example out of one to scare the others.

It sounds vindictive and harsh, until you consider that's exactly how the
legal system is used all the time.

~~~
LordKano
In the 1990s, when Smith and Wesson made a deal with the Clinton
Administration, gun buyers and sellers did something similar.

We stopped buying Smith and Wesson firearms and their profits dropped like a
stone. They thought that the increased business from the Federal government
would make up for lost civilian sales but those Federal sales weren't what
they were expecting and the civilian boycott was bigger than they expected.

It got so bad for the company that the owners had to sell it to get out from
under the deal.

------
jimmytucson
Seems like somebody does a "story" on this every 9 months or so.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9414211](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9414211)

~~~
nitrogen
It will continue being a story until copyright law is corrected.

~~~
cookiecaper
It's going to be quite a while, if ever. I can sort of see the internet
generation loosening copyright a little bit here and there, but then I can
also see them not doing that.

------
Avenger42
Hmmm...

> By the time we got an exemption to repair tractors, the Copyright Office
> said that only the farmer, and not her mechanic, could tinker with the
> software.

So this part of the issue is that you can only tinker with machines you own
yourself? Then how about this:

1) Farmer sells tractor to mechanic for $1.

2) Mechanic repairs tractor.

3) Mechanic sells tractor to farmer for $1 + cost of repairs.

------
itistoday2
Look, if as per the article you need an army of lawyers to fix your tractor,
that should be your first—no probably 10th—clue that your problem is not
copyright law, but the idea that copyright law is something that you need to
respect and obey.

You are always free to withdraw your consent from having your life be ruled by
what a handful of people you've never met (and whose names you don't even
know) have decided about how you and your community needs to conduct itself.

~~~
viraptor
> You are always free to withdraw your consent from having your life be ruled
> by what a handful of people you've never met

No, actually you are not free to do that. You can declare it, but it doesn't
change anything in practice.

~~~
Riseed
Whether it changes anything likely depends how you do it. For example, writing
a letter to the editor may not change much, while renouncing citizenship would
likely change a lot in practice.

~~~
viraptor
But to renounce your citizenship you have to have another place to live.
Unless you create your own country, or go meet the entire government, you're
still "ruled by what a handful of people you've never met".

~~~
Riseed
One could emigrate to or create a micronation or microstate. Sealand is a
fairly well known micronation. The Conch Republic [0] is another, and is an
example of (on multiple occasions) withdrawing consent from being ruled by the
outside government.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conch_Republic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conch_Republic)

~~~
Ao7bei3s
Sealand, really? Who'd want to live like that? And how'd you finance it?

~~~
Riseed
Someone wants to live like that, or it wouldn't exist.

~~~
Ao7bei3s
A single caretaker. Not even the self-proclaimed regent lives there. Yours is
hardly a convincing argument.

------
oneJob
Let's rewind. VHS won because of porn. Listening to music is now a buffet
style affair because of Napster. AC kicked DC in the nuts and the public
applauded because it was better and it could.

I respect those working to improve the system from within, but also
respectfully point out that change of the sort this article is talking about
comes from the outside. Revolutions all have one thing in common. Out with the
old, and in with the new. Copyright law is old, it is administered by old
people, and it is kept in place by the old guard. Open source hardware,
distributed open source software development, 3D printing, crowd funding, and
on and on, these are all new.

You can attempt to evolve (fix) the old rules, you'll fail. It seems to me to
be a safer bet to simply begin playing the new game, even though the rules are
not totally worked out yet, even though people say it isn't legit, even though
there are no referees to call foul or panel of judges to provide approval and
award medals. Out with the old, and in with the new.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
VHS didn't win because of pornography, it won because it was cheaper and was
actually a superior format in certain respects.

Listening to music is now "buffet-style" because of iTunes, not Napster.
Napster died.

AC kicked DC because the latter was financially non-viable.

~~~
oneJob
Re: VHS, granting that I was speaking in superlatives and that VHS might be
one of one of multiple primary influences, here is a quote from an industry
insider stating the same idea [1].

Re: AC/DC, DC was financially viable. You might notice that we still make use
of DC, where it does much close quarter nut kicking. DC was financially
uncompetitive over distance, but not because of magic finance. It was
uncompetitive because someone had to buy, build, and install the associated
hardware to make it work over long distances. AC required much less in that
arena, because of the technology, not magical finance. AC as a technology was
more viable then DC as a technology over distance because the technologist,
not the banker, endowed it with such awesome, nut kicking powers. And nut kick
it did.

[1]
[http://www.macworld.com/article/1050627/pornhd.html](http://www.macworld.com/article/1050627/pornhd.html)

~~~
Grishnakh
DC was not "financially viable" at all. DC was completely unworkable because
you had to have a power plant on every city block! It was impossible to
transmit DC power over any distance because the losses over the wire were too
great. You could use a higher voltage to mitigate that, but then you have high
voltage entering peoples' homes and a greater potential for fire, plus it's
harder to make devices (light bulbs, household motors) which work reliably at
higher voltages.

The fundamental problem with DC is that, in 190x, there's no practical way to
convert it from one voltage to another. That's why AC won the "current wars",
plain and simple. Stupid Edison really thought it would make sense to have a
power plant on every city block, but obviously that dream went nowhere, for
good reason. With AC power, you use a "transformer" to step the voltage up to
much higher levels for long-distance transmission, then another transformer to
step it back down at the point-of-use. Higher voltage has much lower losses
because the losses, according to Ohm's Law, are P=R _I^2, where P is the power
loss, R is the resistance (which we 'll assume to be fixed for a given length
of wire), and I is the current. Since P=VI (power = voltage _ current),
stepping up the voltage means you have proportionately lower current, for the
same amount of power, and as you can see from the first equation, the losses
go up with the _square_ of the current. This is why long-distance transmission
lines use scarily-high voltages (some over 1 megavolts).

These days, we have ways of converting DC to different voltages using modern
electronics and transistors, but these did not exist in the late 1800s and
early 1900s. There was simply no way back then to make an electric generation
and transmission system of any scale without the AC devices invented by Nikola
Tesla.

~~~
oneJob
That's exactly what happened. Initially DC was the _only_ option because Mr.
Edison personally bankrolled the first electric grids which required building
power plants per section of the grid. Additionally, DC was replacing engine
based industrialized factories, which indeed had on premise steam or coal
engines, and so installing a power plant for just that factory would have made
perfect sense. At the time particular time, granted very soon after, AC was
not viable. Saying "not at all" is a bit global of a statement considering it
contradicts history.

~~~
Grishnakh
Ok, granted, compared to on-premise steam or coal engines or waterwheels,
Edison's crappy DC was viable.

AC wasn't viable at that time because it hadn't been invented and deployed
yet. It wasn't intuitively obvious and it took a brilliant Serbian electrical
engineer to invent it (or rather, the machines to implement it; AC was
theorized before Tesla) before it became viable.

However, as a competitor to AC power systems spanning whole cities and
interconnected in a nationwide grid, DC wasn't even remotely viable.

~~~
oneJob
How can something be compared as a competitor to spmething else that hasn't
even been invented yet? It's difficult arguing the point when you keep
regressing back to historically impossible what-ifs.

