4 ms·

If you accept that modern cars, like game consoles or tractors, do not belong to the buyer anymore as they used because of the impossibility of maintaining them

by cm3 10y ago

If you accept that modern cars, like game consoles or tractors, do not belong to the buyer anymore as they used because of the impossibility of maintaining them, we can start treating vehicles as leased exclusive-use transportation devices. Then, we can start managing traffic intelligently and save everybody time and decrease accidents. We also can stop worrying about drunk driving. But, if we get rid of ownership of devices, we can have always available and always functioning devices that will arrive at your foot step in 5 minutes. That said, I'm concerned about the avenue of control and monitoring this will provide, but it will happen either way, so we better deal with it properly instead of suing Uber in 3 years. What this leaves out is people who genuinely enjoy driving as a pastime and would face a problem. I don't have a good answer for that except that private pilots also deal with it right now and we might be best served looking there for what did/didn't work.

rhino369 10y ago
You own your game console and tractor. You are just legally banned from modding the software on it. Just like you can't modify the reciever on your AR-15 or the transmit power on the 802.11 wifi devices. I don't see any reason you'd need to have common ownership to implement 3rd party traffic control.
- frik 10y ago
  John Deers newest tractors, Tesla's S and Microsoft's Windows 10 are very different from what we are used to. You simply don't/can't own those products. In reality, those corporations have complete control over the device. Only they can activate it for you, it's dongled to your account, you cannot sell it in aftermarket, they can deactivate it with a killswitch and remove or add functionality over air without your knowledge, they can spy on you and the device phones home without any way to completely deactivate it. It's very wrong. People who want to own things, should be able to own things. We aren't slaves, right? People who want to rent/lease a service, may be able to do so as well.
- cm3 10y ago
  This may have been true in the past, but when consoles require an internet connection to function, it's a small step to turning it into a dead, black box. Even if it provides an offline mode, it will usually require a periodical sync with an online service and this is where you're at the whim of Microsoft, GM, Tesla, Sony, Ford, you name it. > I don't see any reason you'd need to have common ownership to implement 3rd party traffic control. You don't have to, but once vehicles work in a swarm and do not function stand-alone, you lose the benefits of pretend ownership. I suggested leasing a vehicle and thereby making it clear that you don't own it.
- pdkl95 10y ago
  John Deere is trying to retain de facto ownership of their tractors through an abuse of copyright law. Dissembling about "selling" a product that the customer cannot use as they desire (as long as they don't copy the firmware) is fraud. Also, except for circumventing any DMCA-covered "protection" on the firmware, you are not legally banned from modifying it. Use != copy. At best, you might be civilly liable for copyright violations. The law that restricts what you can do with the AR-15 is (I believe) criminal law. Transmission power is similarly banned. (through executive regulation, I think?) -- As for traffic control, common ownership is not only a terrible erosion of property rights, it also smells similar to border-security-only "security". "we can implement traffic control with common ownership" sounds similar to "we don't need encryption because we have a firewall". The only thing central ownership gets you is a false sense of security.

by cm3 10y ago

rhino369 10y ago

You own your game console and tractor. You are just legally banned from modding the software on it. Just like you can't modify the reciever on your AR-15 or the transmit power on the 802.11 wifi devices. I don't see any reason you'd need to have common ownership to implement 3rd party traffic control.

frik 10y ago
John Deers newest tractors, Tesla's S and Microsoft's Windows 10 are very different from what we are used to. You simply don't/can't own those products. In reality, those corporations have complete control over the device. Only they can activate it for you, it's dongled to your account, you cannot sell it in aftermarket, they can deactivate it with a killswitch and remove or add functionality over air without your knowledge, they can spy on you and the device phones home without any way to completely deactivate it. It's very wrong. People who want to own things, should be able to own things. We aren't slaves, right? People who want to rent/lease a service, may be able to do so as well.
cm3 10y ago
This may have been true in the past, but when consoles require an internet connection to function, it's a small step to turning it into a dead, black box. Even if it provides an offline mode, it will usually require a periodical sync with an online service and this is where you're at the whim of Microsoft, GM, Tesla, Sony, Ford, you name it. > I don't see any reason you'd need to have common ownership to implement 3rd party traffic control. You don't have to, but once vehicles work in a swarm and do not function stand-alone, you lose the benefits of pretend ownership. I suggested leasing a vehicle and thereby making it clear that you don't own it.
pdkl95 10y ago
John Deere is trying to retain de facto ownership of their tractors through an abuse of copyright law. Dissembling about "selling" a product that the customer cannot use as they desire (as long as they don't copy the firmware) is fraud. Also, except for circumventing any DMCA-covered "protection" on the firmware, you are not legally banned from modifying it. Use != copy. At best, you might be civilly liable for copyright violations. The law that restricts what you can do with the AR-15 is (I believe) criminal law. Transmission power is similarly banned. (through executive regulation, I think?) -- As for traffic control, common ownership is not only a terrible erosion of property rights, it also smells similar to border-security-only "security". "we can implement traffic control with common ownership" sounds similar to "we don't need encryption because we have a firewall". The only thing central ownership gets you is a false sense of security.