9 ms·
Senate introduces bill to allow farmers to fix their own equipment
- mikece 5y agoThis is fantastic news but I'm hesitant to get excited about it yet. If it gets out of committee then it's a reason to celebrate. A bill "for the farmers" is an essential first step getting Right To Repair legislation; if this were to become law then getting similar measures passed for cars and eventually computers, phones, game consoles, and any/all personal electronics becomes easier. I'm looking forward to Louis Rossmann's comments on this!
- babypuncher 5y agoI am worried the bill is too narrow in scope. "Help the farmers" is a great rallying call to gain broad bipartisan support for the right to repair movement. I think that if we pass a bill that only helps the farmers, the rest of the movement will slowly wither away.
- rtkwe 5y agoI'm of two minds on it. First it's good to see RtR finally making some possible progress but at the same time scoping it to farmers initially gives up some leverage that could maybe be used to get general RtR to actually pass. By solving the problem for farmers you get rid of one of the big stories behind RtR that appeals to the Republican world view.
- nyxtom 5y agoI wish these things were re-worded the other way. It's a sad state of affairs that a law has to be encoded to grant the people permission to do something that should be the default state. Right to repair is about targeting the manufacturers and preventing them from making it impossible to do so.
- gorjusborg 5y agoExactly. People should be able to repair their belongings. We shouldn't need a law for each type of belonging.
- queuebert 5y agoApple glances around nervously.
- throwaway0a5e 5y agoI wouldn't read into it too much. This is just NBC's bias creeping in. It's not like they have a plethora of hardline libertarians kicking around who are gonna say "hey, can we title this differently?". The bill itself probably has some grand patriotic title. Edit: Boring title and "text not available yet" https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/s3549 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/s3549
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- zenithd 5y ago
- bpodgursky 5y agoWell, you can frame this both ways, because the contract clause, allowing people to (by default) sign binding contracts, also counts towards "grant the people permission to do something". And that's what this is — the farmer signing a contract to use the equipment in a certain way. As much as this law makes sense, the blanket right to form contracts between individuals/businesses/etc (when those contracts are not explicitly deemed abusive) is very important and I don't think we would be in a better place without it.
- JaimeThompson 5y agoUnlimited contracting rights, which I am not saying you support, are a very dangerous path to go down because history shows they will be abused in very serious ways to reduce the actual freedom of large subsets of the population.
- hyperhopper 5y agoOn paper that all sounds well and good, but that completely discounts the power imbalance between large corporations and normal people. When somebody wants to buy a good, if the only way to do that is to accept a one-sided ToS that makes them give up there rights, that's just eroding freedom. The problem is, it's not a choice anymore. John Deere isn't saying "hey, want to sign up for our repair program?" It's saying "If you want a tractor we actually control what you can do with it forever. Too bad you need this tractor to work, tough luck we own you"
- bpodgursky 5y agoThat's why I am arguing that this law is good, but the default contract clause (which the OP comment is arguing against) is also good.
- salawat 5y agoThis is actuslly the part where other tractor companies should be stepping in and eating Deere's lunch. Why aren't they?
- 5y ago
- serverlessmom 5y agoYeah I really thought it was clear how much of a huge bummer this news is. Rewrite is as 'Farmers are having their work held hostage by, of all things, tractor DRM, and there's a mere proposal to pump the breaks on this absolute cyberpunk nightmare"
- ivan_gammel 5y agoIt is not like that. People are allowed to do things, but they voluntarily cede the right to do them by agreeing to the terms of the contract, when they buy the hardware and services. So the role of the regulation will be actually to forbid certain types of contracts, that limit the right for repair, not to grant this right. Also, the right to repair may mean different things: it can forbid exclusive contracts with spare parts suppliers, so that you could shop or repair elsewhere. Or it can regulate the price and availability. Or it can allow you to manufacture replacement parts on your own. The first option would be an equivalent of antitrust regulation in the vendor-specific ecosystem, and it seems pretty reasonable, because it will create a market where it did not yet exist. The second option will be economically destructive, because it would replace free market with planned economy. The last option may result in creating a black market of pirated parts, actually harming manufacturers which invested in R&D.
- SilasX 5y ago>So the role of the regulation will be actually to forbid certain types of contracts, that limit the right for repair, not to grant this right. And to void previous contracts written that way.
- nyxtom 5y ago> So the role of the regulation will be actually to forbid certain types of contracts, that limit the right for repair, not to grant this right. That's actually what I think the title should of been. But that's my own opinion. "Senate introduces bill to forbid farming contracts that limit right to repair" I get that, it's just a titling thing. Even framing the discussion in that way is not only a more accurate description of what's happening (as you've elaborated) but it lands better (if you were looking at this as a libertarian type perspective). Anyway, it's just a thing that irks me is all.
- ivan_gammel 5y agoLet's see what shape it will get when it's passed. As the article says, "The legislation would require agriculture equipment manufacturers to make spare parts, instruction manuals and software codes publicly available". This can go both in option 1 and option 2 direction.
- twobitshifter 5y agoThat’s exactly my reaction, what about cars and phones and ordinary people? Politicians care are farmers, babies, and little old ladies because it gets people going, but the bigger issue is right to repair in general. It’s great that farmers would be able to fix tractors, but if the senate carves out this exception it could weaken the overall right to repair argument. Are there any broader bills being considered by the senate?
- sAbakumoff 5y agoI read the title and I can just see how lobbyists affiliated with John Deere bribe GOP senators, Joe-Joe-Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema so that they kill the bill with the filibuster.
- onphonenow 5y agoA key factor here is if Deere and others can at least know if folks are doing work themselves and then be allowed to deny warranty coverage. If so, fair trade.
- jbluepolarbear 5y agoIt’d most likely be similar to automobiles where you don’t void your warranty for repairs. Only when it’s proven that your repair broke it further or something else breaks will warranty not cover a repair, but still doesn’t void warranty on unrelated parts.
- Spoom 5y agoAs I understand it, the Magnussen-Moss Warranty Act protects this interpretation. You can't arbitrarily void a warranty by setting conditions on it like "must not remove this sticker". Though, of course, manufacturers will still try to scare people into believing that their warranty is far more fragile than it legally is.
- chasil 5y agoIf Deere wants to retain absolute control over the tractor, then they should sell it as a service. The purchase of a tractor severs control via the first sale doctrine, which Deere must [be compelled to] respect.
- onphonenow 5y agoThis is almost certainly a path they could go. For example, given the compute in the tractor I wouldn't be surprised if they licensed the code rather than sold you it under a first sale doctrine with a right of resale. Almost all software is sold that way already. So even with this bill it's hard for me to see them opening that up, in particular if it makes it easier for other countries to copy things. Basically only ever lease the machines etc.
- babypuncher 5y agoRepairs should not void warranties. In fact, those "warranty void if removed" stickers you see on a lot of devices are flat out illegal. It's just not widely enforced. The manufacturer should have to prove that the customer opening the device is what caused the defect.
- nonameiguess 5y agoI really wish this was more broad than just farmers. Everyone who owns equipment should have the ability to at least try to repair it. This quote doesn't strike me as very encouraging: > Tester said: “I think when you get into other areas like cellphones and TVs and all that kind of stuff, it brings in all sorts of other issues that I am personally not as familiar with as agriculture. That’s not to say that those other issues aren’t really, really important. What it is to say is that I know this issue reasonably well, and I thought this is an issue that we need to deal with, and the sooner the better.” Of course you don't understand all possible economic sectors and the issues they face. You're a Senator. You can't be expected to have personal expertise on everything. But it's your job to represent everybody anyway, not just the people working in whatever sector you used to work in before you became a Senator. This is why you have a staff. If you don't understand broader technology, hire people who do.
- Steltek 5y agoThere's so many angles to politics. It sounds reasonable that a Senator with prior expertise and personal enthusiasm will push forward a bill more than one without the background. OTOH, it's all backroom deals and negotiations anyway, isn't it? My fear is that this targeted advance on right-to-repair will mean fading support as specific groups get what they want/need.
- judge2020 5y ago> My fear is that this targeted advance on right-to-repair will mean fading support as specific groups get what they want/need. No revolution in a dictatorship happens if the army is kept happy. This is paying the 'army' (those with the resource for R2R) for their support, leaving the citizens to their own.
- dicknuckle 5y agoWhile this is an important first step, I'm pleased there's at least one senator that doesn't have a stunning case of Dunning Kruger.
- rirze 5y agocan't wait for Louis to rant about this
- caymanjim 5y agoThis is a good start, but I wish things like this weren't always so tied to special interests. "Think of the farmers" is even more powerful than "think of the children"; no politician wants to appear to be anti-farmer. But there's no reason we should be carving out a right-to-repair rule for farmers while ignoring every other industry. What's so special about farm equipment, beyond the fact that they have powerful lobbies and strong tribal allegiance from politicians?
- rootusrootus 5y agoCould this be solved through antitrust? Is there really no feasible alternative to John Deere for farm equipment? Break 'em up and get some competition in there.
- dicknuckle 5y agoThere's all kinds of competition in that market, Deere is just the worst offender and is the reason they are at the very center of the issue.
- rootusrootus 5y agoSo none of the existing competition is interested in making a play for the customers who don't want to be locked into the Deere scheme? That's fascinating.
- foxfluff 5y agoI recently read that the big suppliers of farming equipment have divided the land so to speak and aren't operating on each other's turf. You buy from whoever has a functional supply chain in your part of the farmland; if your tractor breaks, you need to get it fixed quick, because nature doesn't wait. Can't wait for some small startup or chinese supplier to send parts or technicians from the other end of the country. It smells like a cartel to me. Either way, it doesn't seem easy to compete in such a space.
- scrooched_moose 5y agoI recently left a major part supplier for a good portion of the heavy equipment industry and Deere was one of our biggest customers. They were truly despicable to work with. On every bid we sent them the #1 requirement was Proprietary Fit. There had to be some sort of IP lockout (always disguised as a valuable design feature, but it never was) to prevent end users from procuring replacement parts anywhere else. In many cases it even made the parts significantly worse, as useless bumps or ridges were added to the industry standard to make them physically incompatible. The old model was we build a part for $8 and sell it to the end user for $10. Under Deere's new model, we build the part for $8, sell it exclusively to Deere for $11, and they sell it to customer for $16. My former employer was very complicit in this behavior, but Deere was by far the most aggressive about and a big enough player to squeeze all their suppliers. Edit: They pay all kinds of lip service to how this is better for the customer ("reliable supply chain", "Deere-guaranteed quality", etc) but that's only in their public PR. Behind the scenes it is 100% about securing a long term revenue source - customers pay out the ass for a piece of equipment, then have to keep coming back to Deere for 50 years for replacement parts.
- busterarm 5y agoWorse still, you can't get schematics for John Deere in the US, but John Deere provided full schematics as a condition of access to the Chinese market.
- rootsudo 5y agoIronic. Makes you think which country cares more about their people and industry.
- lp0_on_fire 5y agoChina didn't demand the schematics out of altruism - they did it so they can copy the product and release their own. It's standard operating procedure for doing business in that country.
- 5y ago
- ed25519FUUU 5y agoSomething about this really rubs me the wrong way. Our congress doesn't "give" us rights to do anything. This bill will be full of caveats and will probably be drafted with John Deere lobbyist in the same room. Court challenges are much more effective at re-establishing individual rights. They're more applicable and usually more broad, especially if you can get a SCOTUS ruling. This law will likely delay a favorable court ruling.
- babypuncher 5y agoCourts can only interpret the laws defined by Congress. There is little they can do if the problem entity X has with entity Y is perfectly legal under the current legal code. Most democratic systems are built this way on purpose, to ensure no one branch of government has too much power. We don't necessarily want the branch in charge of interpreting the law to also be given the ability to write it.
- kokanator 5y agoFarmers can fix most things on their farm. This is true for machines, fences, structures, animals, etc. Their ingenuity and hard work is how they survive. The ability to take advantage of weather windows as well as harvest and sow at the appropriate times allows them to maximize their output. Being required to wait around burning days waiting on some specialized technician who can charge exorbitant fees does not work. Give farmers access to the appropriate parts and resources and they will make their machines function and operate.
- ykevinator2 5y agoThey do have access, just not with deere. So stop buying Deere.
- busterarm 5y agoSure, you can buy Kubota or Massey Ferguson but in many areas of the US with active farmland, you'll have to drive many hundreds of miles to even find a dealer to support these brands. John Deere is ubiquitous.
- BiteCode_dev 5y agoBut I was under the impression from other comments farmers could fix anything themself, so why can't they fix Kubota machines?
- busterarm 5y agoI'm not talking about fixing Kubota machines. I'm talking about availability to buy add-ons and parts. Tractors are multi-functional pieces of equipment that you buy attachments for. Just look at the huge list of implements here: https://www.kubotausa.com/products/tractors/utility/m4-series https://www.kubotausa.com/products/tractors/utility/m4-serie... So great, you bought a Kubota. Your nearest Kubota dealer can end up being 400 miles from you. They don't ship these things, you come buy and pick them up.
- jbkiv 5y agoHere is how things work in the US. Sarcastic tone in my reply… Round one: this is great Hardware equipment for farmers (funded by John Deere and Caterpillar) lobbyists hard at work. Round two: here is a water down version Lobbyists “discover” that there is a risk of sudden death if a farmer accidentally connects two very potential wires… Lobbyists "do more highly paid” work with unions, OSHA, worker’s compensation insurance companies. Round three: warranty denied, worker’s compensation denied if worker (the word farmer has been deleted) fix anything that presents a risk of electrocution, or could physically harm the worker or co-workers Hardware??? Apple & Co. lobbyists jump into the action Bill is killed. Not enough support at the Senate. The people have spoken.
- levi-turner 5y agoAs an example for the detractors, Subaru has disabled components in response to the Massachusetts right to repair law: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/recent-developments-in-the-right-to-6022184/ https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/recent-developments-in-the...
- ykevinator2 5y agoI'm worried that if we don't let the free market handle this, the government is going to make it worse. Someone should steal deere customers on merit, and deere should have the right to ruin their brand equity with stupid predatory marketing and service restrictions. If you don't like it, spend your money with another vendor.
- twobitshifter 5y agoSmart phones have shown that the free market would not stop this behavior.
- dboreham 5y agoPeople like to take a Faustian bargain so government regulations are required. Has been true for thousands of years.
- vkou 5y agoIn my experience, libertarians are more than eager to take a Faustian bargain to avoid government regulations... And to frame that sort of nonsense as some kind of in-volatile Prime Directive.
- notch656a 5y agoExcuse my naivety, but what Faustian bargain are you referring to here? Farmers giving up their moral belief in ability to repair so that they can pay more for tractors?
- LatteLazy 5y agoRight to repair should be for everyone or no one. Idiots buying 6 figure pieces of kit for industrial applications without reading their contracts are pretty low on the list of those deserving rescue imho.
- BenjiWiebe 5y agoSpeaking as someone who lives in a farming community... Usually there are very few/one option for that size of (tractor|combine) in the area, and if it's JD, that's what you've got to get. As others have said, you can't wait for days when the crop is ready to harvest while a part ships from a few hundred miles away. Well, sometimes you still have to, but you want to minimize that. Also, you don't have to be "Big Ag" sized to need a 6 figure piece of equipment. Not at all.
- giantg2 5y agoHonestly, Deere has been coasting on their reputation for 5 or so years. In another 5 years, I feel much of the brand loyalty will be gone if they continue this BS.