4 ms·

I am not a lawyer, so I'm probably wrong on some of the finer points here, but I'm going to postulate an analogy here. Why can't we equate the software inside

I am not a lawyer, so I'm probably wrong on some of the finer points here, but I'm going to postulate an analogy here. Why can't we equate the software inside a computer inside a vehicle with the mechanical equivalent? What then would our rights be? It obviously doesn't require permission to move a valve or a gear around. Therefore, it shouldn't require permission to move a few bits. It also doesn't require permission to draw a diagram of your changes and tell your neighbor what you did. On the further extreme, one could potentially draw a diagram of the entire vehicle. At some point you're copying the entire idea, and the lawyers can fill in how this is protected. In this analogy, the computer code replacing it should then be protected the same way?

sanderjd 11y ago
I always wonder whether the legal framework for software has ended up different than other things because of its fundamental differences, or whether it's because it was invented in a different era. Is it software that is different or is it the modern legal structure that is different?
- cylinder 11y ago
  Nothing has changed, licenses have always been in the law.
  - TheCoelacanth 11y ago
    Always? I don't think so. Copyright is a few hundred years old at most.
    - cylinder 11y ago
      License predates copyright.
  - sanderjd 11y ago
    Probably wasn't very clear – I wasn't trying to say anything about actual legal changes (although that's interesting too), I was wondering if instead legal culture has changed. I'm wondering if there's any fundamental difference between machines and software that causes the former to be predominantly owned while the latter is predominantly licensed, or whether it is instead because software is coming of age in a different legal and/or political and/or economic ecosystem. Or perhaps machinery went through a similar phase where licenses were more common – I have no idea if that's the case, and I'm curious to know.
federico3 11y ago
Wait, are you saying that we should have the right to inspect the software running on our cars? Given that our life depends on it? Given that innocent people has been jailed because of undisclosed bugs? This would prevent car companies from denying their responsibilities. Think of the chil^W shareholders!
roel_v 11y ago
"Why can't we equate the software inside a computer inside a vehicle with the mechanical equivalent? What then would our rights be?" Well, probably because software is unlike the mechanical equivalent. How could it not be? When I own a hammer, and I sell it to you and hand it to you, you have it and I don't. Music scores, software, movies etc. don't work that way, so they need a different system to work in. That system is based on contracts, because we already had those.
- chipotle_coyote 11y ago
  No legal or moral principle mandates we treat all software identically under the law without respect to use case, though. Tractor firmware, Adobe Photoshop and that digital copy of the U2 album you didn't want are all software, but they're expressions of very different things with distinguishing characteristics. In the case of the tractor firmware, an obvious distinguishing characteristic is that the firmware is just as critical to the function of the tractor as any mechanical part. I don't see any reason why the law couldn't mandate that you own your copy of that firmware. (Actually, I don't see any reason why the law couldn't mandate that in all the cases I mentioned; I think people on both sides of the IP debate are making a categorical error by assuming that the zero marginal cost of software reproduction changes everything. It doesn't. It just changes, well, the marginal cost.) In another comment, I think you said that you thought describing this as "challenging the notion of ownership" as pandering to the (presumably anti-IP) audience. Maybe, but there's very little difference in practice between "you do not actually own your tractor" and "okay, you own your tractor, but don't own this critical thing without which the tractor cannot run, and you're not allowed to modify that thing in any way or even replace that thing with something you can modify." The second clause doesn't give whoever owns that critical thing possession of your tractor, but it gives them at least some level of control of your tractor. Maybe you're comfortable with that, maybe you're not -- objectively the same case can be made for my iPhone, after all, and I'm generally okay with that. But if my iPhone is put out of commission for a week by a firmware cockup I'm just going to be inconvenienced, whereas a farmer might lose a lot of potential income if that comes at the wrong time. I don't think it's irrational to argue that the law should recognize that difference.
rhino369 11y ago
>Why can't we equate the software inside a computer inside a vehicle with the mechanical equivalent? What then would our rights be? There really isn't a mechanical world equivalent to the DMCA anti-circumvention law or the derivative works restriction of copyright. I think the DMCA anti-circumvention laws should just be repealed since it doesn't appear to be effective. And I think there is a good argument that modifying software you license already is fair use.

sanderjd 11y ago

I always wonder whether the legal framework for software has ended up different than other things because of its fundamental differences, or whether it's because it was invented in a different era. Is it software that is different or is it the modern legal structure that is different?

cylinder 11y ago
Nothing has changed, licenses have always been in the law.
- TheCoelacanth 11y ago
  Always? I don't think so. Copyright is a few hundred years old at most.
  - cylinder 11y ago
    License predates copyright.
- sanderjd 11y ago
  Probably wasn't very clear – I wasn't trying to say anything about actual legal changes (although that's interesting too), I was wondering if instead legal culture has changed. I'm wondering if there's any fundamental difference between machines and software that causes the former to be predominantly owned while the latter is predominantly licensed, or whether it is instead because software is coming of age in a different legal and/or political and/or economic ecosystem. Or perhaps machinery went through a similar phase where licenses were more common – I have no idea if that's the case, and I'm curious to know.

federico3 11y ago

Wait, are you saying that we should have the right to inspect the software running on our cars? Given that our life depends on it? Given that innocent people has been jailed because of undisclosed bugs? This would prevent car companies from denying their responsibilities. Think of the chil^W shareholders!

roel_v 11y ago

"Why can't we equate the software inside a computer inside a vehicle with the mechanical equivalent? What then would our rights be?" Well, probably because software is unlike the mechanical equivalent. How could it not be? When I own a hammer, and I sell it to you and hand it to you, you have it and I don't. Music scores, software, movies etc. don't work that way, so they need a different system to work in. That system is based on contracts, because we already had those.

chipotle_coyote 11y ago
No legal or moral principle mandates we treat all software identically under the law without respect to use case, though. Tractor firmware, Adobe Photoshop and that digital copy of the U2 album you didn't want are all software, but they're expressions of very different things with distinguishing characteristics. In the case of the tractor firmware, an obvious distinguishing characteristic is that the firmware is just as critical to the function of the tractor as any mechanical part. I don't see any reason why the law couldn't mandate that you own your copy of that firmware. (Actually, I don't see any reason why the law couldn't mandate that in all the cases I mentioned; I think people on both sides of the IP debate are making a categorical error by assuming that the zero marginal cost of software reproduction changes everything. It doesn't. It just changes, well, the marginal cost.) In another comment, I think you said that you thought describing this as "challenging the notion of ownership" as pandering to the (presumably anti-IP) audience. Maybe, but there's very little difference in practice between "you do not actually own your tractor" and "okay, you own your tractor, but don't own this critical thing without which the tractor cannot run, and you're not allowed to modify that thing in any way or even replace that thing with something you can modify." The second clause doesn't give whoever owns that critical thing possession of your tractor, but it gives them at least some level of control of your tractor. Maybe you're comfortable with that, maybe you're not -- objectively the same case can be made for my iPhone, after all, and I'm generally okay with that. But if my iPhone is put out of commission for a week by a firmware cockup I'm just going to be inconvenienced, whereas a farmer might lose a lot of potential income if that comes at the wrong time. I don't think it's irrational to argue that the law should recognize that difference.

rhino369 11y ago

>Why can't we equate the software inside a computer inside a vehicle with the mechanical equivalent? What then would our rights be? There really isn't a mechanical world equivalent to the DMCA anti-circumvention law or the derivative works restriction of copyright. I think the DMCA anti-circumvention laws should just be repealed since it doesn't appear to be effective. And I think there is a good argument that modifying software you license already is fair use.