7 ms·

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 e

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

PietdeVries 11y ago
So if you have the right to modify the software in a tractor, doesn't that imply that you have the right to modify the software that Microsoft is selling as well? The fact that the software we're discussing here is installed on a tractor rather than a PC shouldn't make much of a difference?
- flohofwoe 11y ago
  Of course I should be allowed to modify the software that Microsoft is selling as long as I am not redistributing the modified software. I paid for, and thus own both the software and the device that the software is running on, so why shouldn't I be allowed to do whatever the hell I want with it? End User License Agreements be damned.
  - annnnd 11y ago
    Exactly. It shouldn't even be legal to use such EULA.
  - rakoo 11y ago
    > I paid for, and thus own both the software and the device that the software is running on Wrong. What defines owning is not whether you paid or not, but the type of contract you made. Moreover, you didn't pay for Windows; you paid for a license of Windows. This license specifically says what you are and what you are not allowed to do with the software, and among others, tinkering with is is not part of what you are allowed to do.
    - jiiam 11y ago
      Let's not play dumb. Of course you got an EULA with your software, the point is the legitimacy of the EULA from a legal and jurisprudential point. Same holds for the copyright law. I mean, there is obviously a law stating that you cannot do this or that because it violates copyright. This implies that you as a citizen might do something illegal as close yourself in your room, do some magic and then get out and forget about it, although what you did has no influence on the world whatsoever. That is a problem. Now, if we want to be precise there is actually a clear definition of what you own, and in fact you probably do not own the copy of Windows running on your PC. Still it is possible that you own that PC, and its hard drives and other stuff, so when we say that you do not own the software but just a license to use it we are giving credit to stuff like this: http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/10-ridiculous-eula-clauses-agreed/ http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/10-ridiculous-eula-clauses-agre... or this: http://www.zdnet.com/article/apples-eula-nonsense/# http://www.zdnet.com/article/apples-eula-nonsense/#! To sum up, sure you might not have the right to hack your properties, but that's caused by a set of laws defending a power inbalance between consumers and producers. I believe that claiming that any sort of "hacking your stuff" should be prohibited because the law says so is an example of irrational justificationism if not supported by further arguments, still I'd like to hear about the reasons why we need copyright law as is.
      - rakoo 11y ago
        That's the thing though, you don't own it, you've been granted the right to use it. Of course I'm biased because I'm a proponent of Libre software, but that problem has been described since rms started his crusade: you don't own a software the same way you own a chair, so the license you have must give you the rights to effectively do whatever you want with (and to) it. Those EULA are dumb, but you don't have to agree with them. In many cases there will be no alternative, for sure. However you can't accept an EULA and subsequently say "this EULA sucks, I don't have to follow it".
    - flohofwoe 11y ago
      Well gosh, I don't remember signing a contract, just clicked some button to make that stupid wall of text go away so I could use the software after I already paid for it. I never met a human (excluding lawyers) who actually has read through a single EULA, and I doubt most of them would be valid if actually tested in court, at least outside the US. [edit: typo]
- grn 11y ago
  I'd even say that a license clause that forbids users to modify the software is really not well-defined. Modification of what is actually forbidden? I have no access to the source code (assuming closed-source software). I have only binaries. Can I replace the first byte with 0x00? The second one? What if I accidentally overwrite the whole file with 0x00s? What if I truncate it? Can I start the software and modify it at runtime? Can I modify the dynamic libraries (or even the OS) to alter the software? What if a virus infects the binary? It'd be great if anyone could point to interesting resources on this issue. It seems to be an intriguing intersection of law and economics.
- cornholio 11y ago
  > doesn't that imply that you have the right to modify the software that Microsoft is selling as well? The DMCA should not pertain to you flipping bits into your own copy of Windows to modify it's functionality. You can do that, and if it's a violation of the license, Microsoft can sue you. It's an entirely civil issue with the burden of proof on MS. The anticircumvention provisions of the DMCA criminalize any alteration of a device with the purported objective of protecting copyright. So now the state not only defends copyright, but the technical measures themselves, even if the real objective of the manufacturer is simply to be anticompetitive and incompatible. It's a massive privatization of criminal law in ad-hoc, unwritten form: "it's illegal to disable anything manufacturers claim defends copyright".
- balabaster 11y ago
  and what's the problem with this? License the software as-is and with no re-distribution rights, but grant rights to modify and extend the software as you see fit. If you want to sell your modifications, so be it, but you can't sell the original software, just your mods. The same way as software developers don't have the right to give away Windows software with our code, we just have the right to sell our enhancements... so in effect (if you remove all the semantics and legal claptrap), we do have the right to modify the software that Microsoft is selling, otherwise hundreds of thousands of software engineers would be out of a job.
zodiac 11y ago
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.
- diamondlovesyou 11y ago
  Assuming the market allows this. Ie demand may favor ownership so much that companies can't lease and remain competitive.
  - rapht 11y ago
    How wouldn't that be absolutely fine?
- jwr 11y ago
  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.
  - rubberstamp 11y ago
    also this is why language matters and it should mean what it actually means rather than whatever TOS wants it to be. Not 1984 double meaning
  - noselasd 11y ago
    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.
teekert 11y ago
This is about a deal between two parties, both parties agreed during the tranfer of the goods, the conditions were known. Complaining after the sale is stupid. You had the chance to walk away from the deal because you didn't like it's conditions, nobody was forced. Interfering with this process reduces freedom. All I see a big market opportunity for hackable, open-platform tractors.
- amelius 11y ago
  This might seem reasonable. But... this way, capable people will not benefit from markets of scale like they could if they were allowed to tinker with their purchased goods. > All I see a big market opportunity for hackable, open-platform tractors. Sadly, there is no big market opportunity for hackable, open-platform tractors.
  - rubberstamp 11y ago
    it will not matter economies of scale as the tinkerer cannot redistribute it. The tinkering is done in product already sold, like after market car parts. The tinkerer can tinker with as many tractors as he wish, even for money, but those modification is done with consent of owner on something that he already owns. If i brick something in process i should be able to replace it with factory stuff, like in case with if the said tractor's axil gets broken
  - justaaron 11y ago
    i'll bet there is. think of what the PTO (power take-off) enabled in general for the common tractor. i'll bet hydraulics, electrical generation, and other systems can also be leveraged by 3rd-party or custom gear. in fact, I'll wager that the FUTURE of the tractor INSISTS upon it being open and hackable. The "Lying EULA that attempts to rebrand a sale a lease" approach is bad for customers and bad for the world at large. It limits human innovation. Human innovation is what defines humanity. Perhaps we could just return to swinging in the trees and eating bananas unless our EULA allows us to walk upright and cook food with Fire(tm) Pay attention, Tractor companies! pay attention to your customers and stop listening to that shortsighted man in the pinstripe suit trying to cheapen your relationships that MATTER!
fanquake 11y ago
"People should have the right to tinker with whatever they bought" Absolutely. We've had so many on farm productivity gains by modifying our machinery. We've added curtains to our spreader to better spread lime, extended our machines axles to setup a CTF system and built our own wetting agent system for our seeder bar, just to name a few, all which required machinery/implement modification. In some cases, machinery manufacturers have come and looked at the modifications we've made to a machine (in the case of the spreader curtains), and then taken the idea and started building it into their machines by default.
- psykovsky 11y ago
  Should've patented those curtains, dude...
- Kapow 11y ago
  >and then taken the idea and started building it into their machines by default. And sold it and kept all the money to themselves? Sounds like a great deal for them.
josteink 11y ago
> Copyright law should be to protect IP theft. If you want to fix copyright, you need to realize it's a complex matter with lots of different actors and conflicting interests. Thus you will need to be able to discuss it accurately, to ensure people aren't getting a mixed message. So let me help you out with a starter pack of accurate statements. Copyright is not a fundamental right. It's an artificial monopoly enforced by government based on promises of enriching society at large, by giving it back for free, in the future, after a limited period of exclusivity. Violating copyright isn't theft. "IP" is a legal construct to make something fundamentally unnatural (owning an idea) seem natural. "IP" is not real property and it cannot be stolen. Having firmware for stuff you own being copyrighted and implemented in a way which makes it illegal to tamper with is clearly not in spirit with the way copyright law was written nor its intent. Having copyright last 100s of year in a time where something is obsolete or outdated in less than 5 years is clearly also at odds with "enriching" society. Nothing is being given back. And if it is, it's long past the period in which it would be useful. If you want to "fix" copyright, we need to get more focus on the spirit and intent of the law, rather than the "right" part of the law and specifically how big corporations look at it like a blanket-right to profit, for all eternity.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  >Copyright is not a fundamental right. It's an artificial monopoly enforced by government based on promises of enriching society at large, by giving it back for free, in the future, after a limited period of exclusivity. What right isn't granted by the government? We like to pretend that rights exist outside of governments, but the only right what a government gives is might makes right.
  - marknutter 11y ago
    > What right isn't granted by the government Inalienable rights (by definition, in fact).
    - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
      >"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" Granted by, secured by, the effect is the same unless you believe people would enjoy the rights in the absence of something like government (specifically a gov't which effectively protects rights).

PietdeVries 11y ago

So if you have the right to modify the software in a tractor, doesn't that imply that you have the right to modify the software that Microsoft is selling as well? The fact that the software we're discussing here is installed on a tractor rather than a PC shouldn't make much of a difference?

flohofwoe 11y ago
Of course I should be allowed to modify the software that Microsoft is selling as long as I am not redistributing the modified software. I paid for, and thus own both the software and the device that the software is running on, so why shouldn't I be allowed to do whatever the hell I want with it? End User License Agreements be damned.
- annnnd 11y ago
  Exactly. It shouldn't even be legal to use such EULA.
- rakoo 11y ago
  > I paid for, and thus own both the software and the device that the software is running on Wrong. What defines owning is not whether you paid or not, but the type of contract you made. Moreover, you didn't pay for Windows; you paid for a license of Windows. This license specifically says what you are and what you are not allowed to do with the software, and among others, tinkering with is is not part of what you are allowed to do.
  - jiiam 11y ago
    Let's not play dumb. Of course you got an EULA with your software, the point is the legitimacy of the EULA from a legal and jurisprudential point. Same holds for the copyright law. I mean, there is obviously a law stating that you cannot do this or that because it violates copyright. This implies that you as a citizen might do something illegal as close yourself in your room, do some magic and then get out and forget about it, although what you did has no influence on the world whatsoever. That is a problem. Now, if we want to be precise there is actually a clear definition of what you own, and in fact you probably do not own the copy of Windows running on your PC. Still it is possible that you own that PC, and its hard drives and other stuff, so when we say that you do not own the software but just a license to use it we are giving credit to stuff like this: http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/10-ridiculous-eula-clauses-agreed/ http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/10-ridiculous-eula-clauses-agre... or this: http://www.zdnet.com/article/apples-eula-nonsense/# http://www.zdnet.com/article/apples-eula-nonsense/#! To sum up, sure you might not have the right to hack your properties, but that's caused by a set of laws defending a power inbalance between consumers and producers. I believe that claiming that any sort of "hacking your stuff" should be prohibited because the law says so is an example of irrational justificationism if not supported by further arguments, still I'd like to hear about the reasons why we need copyright law as is.
    - rakoo 11y ago
      That's the thing though, you don't own it, you've been granted the right to use it. Of course I'm biased because I'm a proponent of Libre software, but that problem has been described since rms started his crusade: you don't own a software the same way you own a chair, so the license you have must give you the rights to effectively do whatever you want with (and to) it. Those EULA are dumb, but you don't have to agree with them. In many cases there will be no alternative, for sure. However you can't accept an EULA and subsequently say "this EULA sucks, I don't have to follow it".
  - flohofwoe 11y ago
    Well gosh, I don't remember signing a contract, just clicked some button to make that stupid wall of text go away so I could use the software after I already paid for it. I never met a human (excluding lawyers) who actually has read through a single EULA, and I doubt most of them would be valid if actually tested in court, at least outside the US. [edit: typo]
grn 11y ago
I'd even say that a license clause that forbids users to modify the software is really not well-defined. Modification of what is actually forbidden? I have no access to the source code (assuming closed-source software). I have only binaries. Can I replace the first byte with 0x00? The second one? What if I accidentally overwrite the whole file with 0x00s? What if I truncate it? Can I start the software and modify it at runtime? Can I modify the dynamic libraries (or even the OS) to alter the software? What if a virus infects the binary? It'd be great if anyone could point to interesting resources on this issue. It seems to be an intriguing intersection of law and economics.
cornholio 11y ago
> doesn't that imply that you have the right to modify the software that Microsoft is selling as well? The DMCA should not pertain to you flipping bits into your own copy of Windows to modify it's functionality. You can do that, and if it's a violation of the license, Microsoft can sue you. It's an entirely civil issue with the burden of proof on MS. The anticircumvention provisions of the DMCA criminalize any alteration of a device with the purported objective of protecting copyright. So now the state not only defends copyright, but the technical measures themselves, even if the real objective of the manufacturer is simply to be anticompetitive and incompatible. It's a massive privatization of criminal law in ad-hoc, unwritten form: "it's illegal to disable anything manufacturers claim defends copyright".
balabaster 11y ago
and what's the problem with this? License the software as-is and with no re-distribution rights, but grant rights to modify and extend the software as you see fit. If you want to sell your modifications, so be it, but you can't sell the original software, just your mods. The same way as software developers don't have the right to give away Windows software with our code, we just have the right to sell our enhancements... so in effect (if you remove all the semantics and legal claptrap), we do have the right to modify the software that Microsoft is selling, otherwise hundreds of thousands of software engineers would be out of a job.

zodiac 11y ago

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.

diamondlovesyou 11y ago
Assuming the market allows this. Ie demand may favor ownership so much that companies can't lease and remain competitive.
- rapht 11y ago
  How wouldn't that be absolutely fine?
jwr 11y ago
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.
- rubberstamp 11y ago
  also this is why language matters and it should mean what it actually means rather than whatever TOS wants it to be. Not 1984 double meaning
- noselasd 11y ago
  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.

teekert 11y ago

This is about a deal between two parties, both parties agreed during the tranfer of the goods, the conditions were known. Complaining after the sale is stupid. You had the chance to walk away from the deal because you didn't like it's conditions, nobody was forced. Interfering with this process reduces freedom. All I see a big market opportunity for hackable, open-platform tractors.

amelius 11y ago
This might seem reasonable. But... this way, capable people will not benefit from markets of scale like they could if they were allowed to tinker with their purchased goods. > All I see a big market opportunity for hackable, open-platform tractors. Sadly, there is no big market opportunity for hackable, open-platform tractors.
- rubberstamp 11y ago
  it will not matter economies of scale as the tinkerer cannot redistribute it. The tinkering is done in product already sold, like after market car parts. The tinkerer can tinker with as many tractors as he wish, even for money, but those modification is done with consent of owner on something that he already owns. If i brick something in process i should be able to replace it with factory stuff, like in case with if the said tractor's axil gets broken
- justaaron 11y ago
  i'll bet there is. think of what the PTO (power take-off) enabled in general for the common tractor. i'll bet hydraulics, electrical generation, and other systems can also be leveraged by 3rd-party or custom gear. in fact, I'll wager that the FUTURE of the tractor INSISTS upon it being open and hackable. The "Lying EULA that attempts to rebrand a sale a lease" approach is bad for customers and bad for the world at large. It limits human innovation. Human innovation is what defines humanity. Perhaps we could just return to swinging in the trees and eating bananas unless our EULA allows us to walk upright and cook food with Fire(tm) Pay attention, Tractor companies! pay attention to your customers and stop listening to that shortsighted man in the pinstripe suit trying to cheapen your relationships that MATTER!

fanquake 11y ago

"People should have the right to tinker with whatever they bought" Absolutely. We've had so many on farm productivity gains by modifying our machinery. We've added curtains to our spreader to better spread lime, extended our machines axles to setup a CTF system and built our own wetting agent system for our seeder bar, just to name a few, all which required machinery/implement modification. In some cases, machinery manufacturers have come and looked at the modifications we've made to a machine (in the case of the spreader curtains), and then taken the idea and started building it into their machines by default.

psykovsky 11y ago
Should've patented those curtains, dude...
Kapow 11y ago
>and then taken the idea and started building it into their machines by default. And sold it and kept all the money to themselves? Sounds like a great deal for them.

josteink 11y ago

> Copyright law should be to protect IP theft. If you want to fix copyright, you need to realize it's a complex matter with lots of different actors and conflicting interests. Thus you will need to be able to discuss it accurately, to ensure people aren't getting a mixed message. So let me help you out with a starter pack of accurate statements. Copyright is not a fundamental right. It's an artificial monopoly enforced by government based on promises of enriching society at large, by giving it back for free, in the future, after a limited period of exclusivity. Violating copyright isn't theft. "IP" is a legal construct to make something fundamentally unnatural (owning an idea) seem natural. "IP" is not real property and it cannot be stolen. Having firmware for stuff you own being copyrighted and implemented in a way which makes it illegal to tamper with is clearly not in spirit with the way copyright law was written nor its intent. Having copyright last 100s of year in a time where something is obsolete or outdated in less than 5 years is clearly also at odds with "enriching" society. Nothing is being given back. And if it is, it's long past the period in which it would be useful. If you want to "fix" copyright, we need to get more focus on the spirit and intent of the law, rather than the "right" part of the law and specifically how big corporations look at it like a blanket-right to profit, for all eternity.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>Copyright is not a fundamental right. It's an artificial monopoly enforced by government based on promises of enriching society at large, by giving it back for free, in the future, after a limited period of exclusivity. What right isn't granted by the government? We like to pretend that rights exist outside of governments, but the only right what a government gives is might makes right.
- marknutter 11y ago
  > What right isn't granted by the government Inalienable rights (by definition, in fact).
  - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    >"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" Granted by, secured by, the effect is the same unless you believe people would enjoy the rights in the absence of something like government (specifically a gov't which effectively protects rights).