3 ms·

You are mistaken. Recently, John Deere has been threatening shade tree mechanics with DMCA suits for performing unauthorized repairs on tractors that they own.

mc32 11y ago
That's a nuanced condition. Here you are not talking mechanical repair but rather ecu modification --which if done by an amateur could potentially end with dangerous results.
- wlesieutre 11y ago
  Only because John Deere designed their tractors to require poking around the ECU to replace a hydraulic sensor. They could build that failure mode into a million places if they wanted. What if your next car from GM said "Oh the oil light came on. You'll need to go to the dealer for an oil change so they can have the engine control unit turn the oil light off." Suddenly an easy fix turns into something protected by the DMCA, and we're just supposed to be OK with it? http://www.wired.com/2015/02/new-high-tech-farm-equipment-nightmare-farmers/ http://www.wired.com/2015/02/new-high-tech-farm-equipment-ni... for anyone who hasn't seen the John Deere story: > The family farmer who owns this tractor is a friend of mine. He just wanted a better way to fix a minor hydraulic sensor. Every time the sensor blew, the onboard computer would shut the tractor down. It takes a technician at least two days to order the part, get out to the farm, and swap out the sensor. So for two days, Dave’s tractor lies fallow. And so do his fields.
  - wlesieutre 11y ago
    Or on the hypothetical car example, it wouldn't even be "Take it to the dealer." Try "Your car isn't going to start even if you changed the oil. Just have it towed to your driveway and come up with other transportation until an authorized repair tech can come and press a button for a few hundred dollars."
  - mc32 11y ago
    Certainly the move to frustrate easily replaceable parts by tying it in to the ecu is a dick move. However, the push should be to challenge that aspect, rather than say ecus should be free to be modified any which way. Imagine airbus or boeing or the FAA allowing uncertified code to enter critical commercial aircraft systems. So, I'm of two views on this. Critical systems should not be allowed to be modified by uncertified technicians, or similar, but at the dame time, they should not classify non critical components as critical. Some reasonable authority should make those calls, not the mfg or Joe/Jo public.
    - nitrogen 11y ago
      Regulations, IMO, should describe behavior, not implementation details. If my fully customized ECU still passes emissions tests, then nobody should have any say about whatever else I do or do not do with it.
    - LordKano 11y ago
      Imagine airbus or boeing or the FAA allowing uncertified code to enter critical commercial aircraft systems. Yeah because some tractor is as much of threat as a 450 ton jumbo jet. Even if there were no regulations preventing it. Even if there were no technological locks preventing it. No one would install unapproved software on such a contraption because the risk of getting sued out of existence would be too great.
- LordKano 11y ago
  Make up your mind. Are you going to continue to argue that they're not doing it or will you argue that they're only doing it when they have a good reason?
- Loudergood 11y ago
  "which if done by an amateur could potentially end with dangerous results" That could describe a brake job, or replacing a fuel line.
  - LordKano 11y ago
    Or changing an oil filter. Or flushing the coolant. Or replacing shock absorbers or struts. Or ... Basically, we all recognize that it's a BS justification.

mc32 11y ago

That's a nuanced condition. Here you are not talking mechanical repair but rather ecu modification --which if done by an amateur could potentially end with dangerous results.

wlesieutre 11y ago
Only because John Deere designed their tractors to require poking around the ECU to replace a hydraulic sensor. They could build that failure mode into a million places if they wanted. What if your next car from GM said "Oh the oil light came on. You'll need to go to the dealer for an oil change so they can have the engine control unit turn the oil light off." Suddenly an easy fix turns into something protected by the DMCA, and we're just supposed to be OK with it? http://www.wired.com/2015/02/new-high-tech-farm-equipment-nightmare-farmers/ http://www.wired.com/2015/02/new-high-tech-farm-equipment-ni... for anyone who hasn't seen the John Deere story: > The family farmer who owns this tractor is a friend of mine. He just wanted a better way to fix a minor hydraulic sensor. Every time the sensor blew, the onboard computer would shut the tractor down. It takes a technician at least two days to order the part, get out to the farm, and swap out the sensor. So for two days, Dave’s tractor lies fallow. And so do his fields.
- wlesieutre 11y ago
  Or on the hypothetical car example, it wouldn't even be "Take it to the dealer." Try "Your car isn't going to start even if you changed the oil. Just have it towed to your driveway and come up with other transportation until an authorized repair tech can come and press a button for a few hundred dollars."
- mc32 11y ago
  Certainly the move to frustrate easily replaceable parts by tying it in to the ecu is a dick move. However, the push should be to challenge that aspect, rather than say ecus should be free to be modified any which way. Imagine airbus or boeing or the FAA allowing uncertified code to enter critical commercial aircraft systems. So, I'm of two views on this. Critical systems should not be allowed to be modified by uncertified technicians, or similar, but at the dame time, they should not classify non critical components as critical. Some reasonable authority should make those calls, not the mfg or Joe/Jo public.
  - nitrogen 11y ago
    Regulations, IMO, should describe behavior, not implementation details. If my fully customized ECU still passes emissions tests, then nobody should have any say about whatever else I do or do not do with it.
  - LordKano 11y ago
    Imagine airbus or boeing or the FAA allowing uncertified code to enter critical commercial aircraft systems. Yeah because some tractor is as much of threat as a 450 ton jumbo jet. Even if there were no regulations preventing it. Even if there were no technological locks preventing it. No one would install unapproved software on such a contraption because the risk of getting sued out of existence would be too great.
LordKano 11y ago
Make up your mind. Are you going to continue to argue that they're not doing it or will you argue that they're only doing it when they have a good reason?
Loudergood 11y ago
"which if done by an amateur could potentially end with dangerous results" That could describe a brake job, or replacing a fuel line.
- LordKano 11y ago
  Or changing an oil filter. Or flushing the coolant. Or replacing shock absorbers or struts. Or ... Basically, we all recognize that it's a BS justification.