It’s official: John Deere and General Motors want to eviscerate the notion of ownership. Sure, we pay for their vehicles. But we don’t own them. Not according to their corporate lawyers, anyway.
In a particularly spectacular display of corporate delusion, John Deere—the world’s largest agricultural machinery maker —told the Copyright Office that farmers don’t own their tractors. Because computer code snakes through the DNA of modern tractors, farmers receive “an implied license for the life of the vehicle to operate the vehicle.”
It’s John Deere’s tractor, folks. You’re just driving it.
Several manufacturers recently submitted similar comments to the Copyright Office under an inquiry into the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. DMCA is a vast 1998 copyright law that (among other things) governs the blurry line between software and hardware. The Copyright Office, after reading the comments and holding a hearing, will decide in July which high-tech devices we can modify, hack, and repair—and decide whether John Deere’s twisted vision of ownership will become a reality.
Over the last two decades, manufacturers have used the DMCA to argue that consumers do not own the software underpinning the products they buy—things like smartphones, computers, coffeemakers, cars, and, yes, even tractors. So, Old MacDonald has a tractor, but he owns a massive barn ornament, because the manufacturer holds the rights to the programming that makes it run.
(This is an important issue for farmers: a neighbor, Kerry Adams, hasn’t been able to fix an expensive transplanter because he doesn’t have access to the diagnostic software he needs. He’s not alone: many farmers are opting for older, computer-free equipment.)
In recent years, some companies have even leveraged the DMCA to stop owners from modifying the programming on those products. This means you can’t strip DRM off smart kitty litter boxes, install custom software on your iPad, or alter the calibration on a tractor’s engine. Not without potentially running afoul of the DMCA.
What does any of that have to do with copyright? Owners, tinkerers, and homebrew “hackers” must copy programming so they can modify it. Product makers don’t like people messing with their stuff, so some manufacturers place digital locks over software. Breaking the lock, making the copy, and changing something could be construed as a violation of copyright law.
And that’s how manufacturers turn tinkerers into “pirates”—even if said “pirates” aren’t circulating illegal copies of anything. Makes sense, right? Yeah, not to me either.
It makes sense to John Deere: The company argues that allowing people to alter the software—even for the purpose of repair—would “make it possible for pirates, third-party developers, and less innovative competitors to free-ride off the creativity, unique expression and ingenuity of vehicle software.” The pièce de résistance in John Deere’s argument: permitting owners to root around in a tractor’s programming might lead to pirating music through a vehicle’s entertainment system. Because copyright-marauding farmers are very busy and need to multitask by simultaneously copying Taylor Swift’s 1989 and harvesting corn? (I’m guessing, because John Deere’s lawyers never explained why anyone would pirate music on a tractor, only that it could happen.)
John Deere may be out of touch, but it’s not alone. Other corporations, including trade groups representing nearly every major automaker, made the same case to the Copyright Office again and again. It’s worth noting Tesla Motors didn’t join automakers in this argument, even though its cars rely heavily on proprietary software.
General Motors told the Copyright Office that proponents of copyright reform mistakenly “conflate ownership of a vehicle with ownership of the underlying computer software in a vehicle.” But I’d bet most Americans make the same conflation—and Joe Sixpack might be surprised to learn GM owns a giant chunk of the Chevy sitting in his driveway.
Other automakers pointed out that owners who make unsanctioned modifications could alter their vehicles in bad ways. They could tweak them to go faster. Or change engine parameters to run afoul of emissions regulations.
They’re right. That could happen. But those activities are (1) already illegal, and (2) have nothing to do with copyright. If you’re going too fast, a cop should stop you—copyright law shouldn’t. If you’re dodging emissions regulations, you should pay EPA fines—not DMCA fines. And the specter of someone doing something illegal shouldn’t justify shutting down all the reasonable and legal modifications people can make to the things they paid for.
GM went so far as to argue locking people out helps innovation. That’s like saying locking up books will inspire kids to be innovative writers, because they won’t be tempted to copy passages from a Hemingway novel. Meanwhile, outside of Bizarroland, actual technology experts—including the Electronic Frontier Foundation—have consistently labeled the DMCA an innovation killer. They insist that, rather than stopping content pirates, language in the DMCA has been used to stifle competition and expand corporate control over the life (and afterlife) of products.
“The bad part is, my sense is, these companies are just locking up this technology, and increasing the sort of monopoly pricing structure that just doesn’t work for us,” Brian Talley, a farmer on California’s central coast, says of restrictions placed on his equipment. I toured his farm with a fellow from the Intellectual Property & Technology Law Clinic so we could tell the Copyright Office how manufacturers are hampering farmers. “We are used to operating independently, and that’s one of the great things about being a farmer. And in this particular space, they are really taking that away from us.”
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Intellectual Property & Technology Law Clinic, and the Digital Right to Repair Coalition (Disclaimer: I’m a founding member of the Coalition.) are fighting to preserve the notion of ownership. We’re trying to open the floodgates of information. To let owners investigate the code in their devices. To modify them for better functionality. To repair them, even without the blessing of manufacturer.
Thankfully, we aren’t alone. There’s a backlash against the slow creep of corporate product control.
Earlier this year, consumers sent 40,000 comments to the Copyright Office—all of them urging the restoration of ownership rights. The year before, consumers and activists forced a law through Congress that made it legal to unlock a cellphone and move it to a different carrier.
This week, Senator Ron Wyden and Representative Jared Polis will introduce the “Breaking Down Barriers to Innovation Act of 2015, which would substantially improve the DMCA process. Lawmakers in Minnesota and New York have introduced “Fair Repair” legislation that assert an owner’s right to repair electronic equipment they’ve purchased. They want equal access to repair information, replacement parts, and security updates.
Of course, taking back the stuff that we own won’t be easy. Corporations have better lobbyists than the rest of us. And, somehow, the notion of actually owning the things you buy has become revolutionary.
It doesn’t have to be. Tell the Copyright Office to side with consumers when it decides which gadgets are legal to modify and repair. Urge lawmakers to support legislation like the Unlocking Technology Act and the Your Own Devices Act, because we deserve the keys to our own products. And support Fair Repair legislation.
If you bought it, you should own it—simple as that. It’s time corporate lawyers left the bullshit to the farmers, who actually need it.
This "you don't own it, you're just leasing rights to use it" attitude seems to be permeating our society. Eventually, everything you have will belong to someone else. In a way, it reminds me of feudalism.
Edit to add: it seems a term has already been coined for stuff like this... Techno-Feudalism.
[This message has been edited by Blacktree (edited 12-05-2016).]
So how does one get around the intellectual property rights of the "owner" / "Creator" without wronging them, and still allow the "user" / "buyer" proper rights? A problem this big maybe didn't exist as it is, back before computers were put in devices?
Seems like you own the device but it requires upgrades and updates. Maybe the device should be able to operate with the system it has and not require updates?
I mean with a tractor anyway. On a phone or video game system you may need updates to be able to use new content.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 12-05-2016).]
Have any of you read the purchase agreement for a major appliance, a car, or a piece of farm equipment? Have you read anywhere in that agreement where it says you aren't buying ownership of the item but you are instead leasing it? No? I didn't think so.
And I think this is where John Deere and the other manufacturers are going to run into problems outside of the copyright court. If the manufacturers get their way and win in the copyright cases, I'm sure someone is going to take them to state or federal court over this whole "ownership" thing. And I just don't see John Deere or any other manufacturer being able to convince any of those courts that all of those purchase agreements are null and void because of their intellectual property rights over software or technology used in their products. Because that is effectively what they would have to do - invalidate purchase agreements (contracts) in order to regain ownership of their products. I guarantee you all of these farmers didn't sign lifetime lease agreements, they signed purchase agreements which carry with them the understanding that they are taking full ownership of that product.
The only reason this is being pursued by the manufactures is because of money (so they can hold a monopoly on the service of their equipment). That isn't going to pass muster in the courts either, as it certainly won't in the court of public opinion. The government in this country has been pressed to break up monopolies before and I'm sure the public pressure will encourage them to do that again if these manufacturers get their way.
Make no mistake - none of this is about intellectual property rights or copyright infringement. It is all about using the copyright system to set up rules to make sure only the manufacturer and authorized repair facilities (the manufacturer selects) can service equipment they produce. This is aimed solely at putting independent shops out of business, which means the manufacturer can then set any price for services they want. I do not see the public or congress going along with this at all.
[This message has been edited by Darth Fiero (edited 12-05-2016).]
Have any of you read the purchase agreement for a major appliance, a car, or a piece of farm equipment? Have you read anywhere in that agreement where it says you aren't buying ownership of the item but you are instead leasing it? No? I didn't think so. .. Because that is effectively what they would have to do - invalidate purchase agreements (contracts) in order to regain ownership of their products.
Make no mistake - none of this is about intellectual property rights or copyright infringement.
Going forward they probably would put it in the contracts then maybe? They'd probably need to get most manufacterers on board though so there was no other choice. That would be sad.
I am not really saying that is indeed what it is about, but to me that is probably what leg they would have to stand on at all in a court.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 12-05-2016).]
GM was kind of pulling this with their car computer systems weren't they? But they didn't try and include the whole car. Also I think they were only arguing people couldn't modify the computer?
Have any of you read the purchase agreement for a major appliance, a car, or a piece of farm equipment? Have you read anywhere in that agreement where it says you aren't buying ownership of the item but you are instead leasing it? No? I didn't think so.
And I think this is where John Deere and the other manufacturers are going to run into problems outside of the copyright court. If the manufacturers get their way and win in the copyright cases, I'm sure someone is going to take them to state or federal court over this whole "ownership" thing. And I just don't see John Deere or any other manufacturer being able to convince any of those courts that all of those purchase agreements are null and void because of their intellectual property rights over software or technology used in their products. Because that is effectively what they would have to do - invalidate purchase agreements (contracts) in order to regain ownership of their products. I guarantee you all of these farmers didn't sign lifetime lease agreements, they signed purchase agreements which carry with them the understanding that they are taking full ownership of that product.
The only reason this is being pursued by the manufactures is because of money (so they can hold a monopoly on the service of their equipment). That isn't going to pass muster in the courts either, as it certainly won't in the court of public opinion. The government in this country has been pressed to break up monopolies before and I'm sure the public pressure will encourage them to do that again if these manufacturers get their way.
Make no mistake - none of this is about intellectual property rights or copyright infringement. It is all about using the copyright system to set up rules to make sure only the manufacturer and authorized repair facilities (the manufacturer selects) can service equipment they produce. This is aimed solely at putting independent shops out of business, which means the manufacturer can then set any price for services they want. I do not see the public or congress going along with this at all.
Well said.
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 12-05-2016).]
Originally posted by Darth Fiero: Have any of you read the purchase agreement for a major appliance, a car, or a piece of farm equipment? Have you read anywhere in that agreement where it says you aren't buying ownership of the item but you are instead leasing it? No? I didn't think so.
You mean that long boring agreement you have to sign your name to ? Crafted by lawyers in legalese ? I have.
When I purchased a new truck, tucked way back into the agreement was a clause which said I would agree to mediation versus straight up court action for any displeasures I may have.
They tried to tell me I had to agree. I told the wife"lets go". They took it out.
Believe me, when sales men see thousands of dollars walking out the door, they think differently.
If they keep it up, there should be a decent market for aftermarket control units. Just yank out the original ECM and toss in a whole new one...their precious "intellectual property" stay intact -- in the garbage.
If they keep it up, there should be a decent market for aftermarket control units. Just yank out the original ECM and toss in a whole new one...their precious "intellectual property" stay intact -- in the garbage.
All we need is a renegade computer programmer with the motivation/inclination to partake of this endeavor....and the jail time it may produce.
Even before DMCA, some companies jealously guarded their software and considered any alteration of it by the user to be theft of intellectual property. In one case, engineers re-purposed a unused LED indicator on a radio console to display a status of a unique system developed in-house. The manufacturer of the console was not happy about this because "their" software had to be inspected to find out how to activate the indicator.
The question of who owned what was then up to courts to decide. Lobbying by companies like the radio console manufacturer is the reason DMCA came about. Now software has a unique position of being property owned by someone other than the equipment purchaser.
GM was kind of pulling this with their car computer systems weren't they? But they didn't try and include the whole car. Also I think they were only arguing people couldn't modify the computer?
As I recall, one of the arguments GM was making before the copyright court was that people were modifying their code (software in their modules) and that was causing accidents that led to lawsuits against GM. I searched and couldn't find mention of a single suit that was brought against GM where they were asked to pay damages for an accident that was the result of software alteration by a 3rd party in one of their computer modules. All of the lawsuits against GM that were and are making headlines are all the direct result of poor engineering and/or quality control practices (most notably the accidents caused by faulty ignition switches) which have nothing at all to do with module software alteration.
Again, this really has nothing to do with 3rd parties altering module software. That may be the excuse the manufacturers are using to pursue the copyright case, but the real goal here is to set the rules up so they can implement a monopoly on the repair side for all their products. Can you imagine how much they would charge you for services to your vehicle if their dealerships were the only places you could legally have your car worked on? Think about it.
As far as what has already been sold, I think that ship has sailed. I just don't see any court in this country granting a manufacturer ownership over products that were sold X number of days, weeks, or years ago if that language wasn't in the original purchase agreement. The only possible thing I could see a court granting them is that stipulation on future product sales.
[This message has been edited by Darth Fiero (edited 12-06-2016).]
As far as what has already been sold, I think that ship has sailed. I just don't see any court in this country granting a manufacturer ownership over products that were sold X number of days, weeks, or years ago if that language wasn't in the original purchase agreement. The only possible thing I could see a court granting them is that stipulation on future product sales.
Well, that's good to know. I'd hate to find out I was in some sort of violation for the little light bulb I installed on my Ford tractor as a load, just to make the alternator work. Especially since it's older than a lot of the people here and Ford hasn't built any tractors since 1990.
Again, this really has nothing to do with 3rd parties altering module software. That may be the excuse the manufacturers are using to pursue the copyright case, but the real goal here is to set the rules up so they can implement a monopoly on the repair side for all their products. Can you imagine how much they would charge you for services to your vehicle if their dealerships were the only places you could legally have your car worked on? Think about it.
As for, "farmers don’t own their tractors. Because computer code snakes through the DNA of modern tractors, farmers receive “an implied license for the life of the vehicle to operate the vehicle.” - so that should entitle them to a life of free service since it is "technically" not theirs.
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 12-06-2016).]
I wonder how many points and condensers he's had to change in his life? I did lots of them, can't say I miss it, or having to flash generators one bit.
Heh, over the tech section some poor guy is getting beat up for wanting to convert his Fiero back to a carb and an old style points distributor.
.
Ah, a kindred spirit! When thinking about new cars, I think about that sometimes, too. And an electric fuel pump mounted on the fender-well under the hood...and heater blower-motors mounted on the firewall....and shocks (not struts).
As I recall, one of the arguments GM was making before the copyright court was that people were modifying their code (software in their modules) and that was causing accidents that led to lawsuits against GM. I searched and couldn't find mention of a single suit that was brought against GM where they were asked to pay damages for an accident that was the result of software alteration by a 3rd party in one of their computer modules. All of the lawsuits against GM that were and are making headlines are all the direct result of poor engineering and/or quality control practices (most notably the accidents caused by faulty ignition switches) which have nothing at all to do with module software alteration.
Again, this really has nothing to do with 3rd parties altering module software. That may be the excuse the manufacturers are using to pursue the copyright case, but the real goal here is to set the rules up so they can implement a monopoly on the repair side for all their products. Can you imagine how much they would charge you for services to your vehicle if their dealerships were the only places you could legally have your car worked on? Think about it.
As far as what has already been sold, I think that ship has sailed. I just don't see any court in this country granting a manufacturer ownership over products that were sold X number of days, weeks, or years ago if that language wasn't in the original purchase agreement. The only possible thing I could see a court granting them is that stipulation on future product sales.
It would not surprise me in the least if the manufacturers had a back-room deal going with the EPA to lock down software in order to stop alterations that would affect emissions. Remember the kerfuffle a few months back about EPA regs on track-only cars? It's for the good of the planet. And the Children. Also, GM doesn't want lowly owners messing with the A/F tables and leaning out a motor causing it to need warranty repairs. They're having enough problems with the Sonic Turbo blowing up...
I wonder how many points and condensers he's had to change in his life? I did lots of them, can't say I miss it, or having to flash generators one bit.
Again, And Again... This is not a new problem! You don't own most software running on your PC, Tablet and Phone. Never did so for 30+ years. Try Reading your EULA from MS, Adobe, EA and other games and Many others. You don't and never own software to run most other things including cars, tractors, etc.
The car maker, MS, and others own the software. And they have gone after many makers of power chips and tools to add/change programming for ECM/PCM. ODB1 and OBD2 software have Copyright to the car makers and selling mod chips (and many tools) by a 3rd party need a License from GM etc. Why? In very very short terms and example... OBD1 Mod Chips are "derivative copies" of GM chips. Most of programming is exact copy w/ minor changes to settings and fuel/ignition tables. (Several Here have looked at GM and Hypertech and others "power" chips and see Very little difference between them.)
DMCA makes this worse by allowing everyone to lock the software and media by using "Digital rights management" (DRM) including Encryption. HP Lexmark Keurig and others have use DRM under DMCA to lock Printer Toner/Ink, Coffee K-cups, etc for years. Keurig 2.0 was first try and fail but HP and other use chips in the toner/ink cartridges and can shut down w/o a valid chip. (Worst is HP used a Security Update to push new DRM to the printers. https://www.wired.com/2016/09/hp-printer-drm/ ) Just having programs to copy commercial DVD and BR disk are/were illegal because most disks have DRM but MPAA and members don't bother w/ small fry pirates.
For cars etc. This stop fixing or mod'ing the car beyond fixing DTC reported by PCM scan tools. GM and other does not even want you to upgrade the "radio" because many are part of Warning sounds etc. (GM even had to reprogram the "radio" in cop "cars" so can hear warning sound and use police radios on front speakers.)
Expanding DMCA and Long Term Copyright (Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, AKA Mickey Mouse Protection Act) to other countries is part of "Trade Agreements" currently push by US Gov, MPAA and others.
------------------ Dr. Ian Malcolm: Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should. (Jurassic Park)
You don't own most software running on your PC, Tablet and Phone. Never did so for 30+ years. Try Reading your EULA from MS, Adobe, EA and other games and Many others. You don't and never own software to run most other things including cars, tractors, etc.
I agree with your premise. But that's not why manufactures, like Deere, are pushing the lifetime ownership of the entire vehicle thing. There's no money in simply owning the software used in the on-board electronic systems of these vehicles and restricting it so 3rd parties can't alter it. I'm not aware of any product out there that can modify the code in any system used in John Deere tractors, for example.
There is a lot of money that can be made on the service side. And if they can alter the rules to set it up so they (the manufacturers) are the only ones legally allowed to service anything on that vehicle, that would allow them to set prices and dominate that market = ie: make a lot more money on the product after it is sold (leased) to the consumer. This would not only put independent repair shops out of business, but it would increase the service costs of said vehicles to the consumers.
Look, the manufacturers have the power now to assume lifetime ownership of all the products they produce. All they have to do is simply refuse to sell them to anyone and only offer them under lease contracts. But they don't want to do that because the traditional lease means the manufacturer is on the hook for maintenance costs. What they want is for you (the consumer) to lease their product AND pay for all the maintenance of it too, while leaving the ownership rights with the manufacturer. I just don't think the public is on-board with that or ever will be.
Follow the money, that's all you have to do. Hopefully the copyright court sees thru this game and denies what Deere and the other manufacturers are really pushing for here.
[This message has been edited by Darth Fiero (edited 12-06-2016).]
Originally posted by Darth Fiero: There is a lot of money that can be made on the service side.
Oh I know that too. GM et al want you to go to dealers and maybe a few others willing to spend big money to be a "Authorize Service Center" Pep Boys and other big Chains would love to crush any competition possible.
Is a bigger version plan then then HP is doing w/ DRM toner/ink cart's.
