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.”
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.
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.
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.
John Deere is a company, by the way, that is seriously serious about preventing people from copying their stuff. So serious, in fact, that they even locked the PDF they sent to the Copyright Office. No modifying the document. And no copying passages.
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.
What can you do? 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.
http://www.wired.com/2015/04/dmca-ownership-john-deere/
http://www.hotrod.com/news/1504-can-automakers-legally-stop-you-from-working-on-your-car/?adbid=10152712490002540&adbpl=fb&adbpr=13601527539&short_code=2v2pw&sm_id=social_aumohotrodsshub_default_20150424_44558876
Even Boing Boing reported on this! http://boingboing.net/2015/05/21/gm-says-you-dont-own-your-ca.html
* Cars work because software tells all the parts how to operate
* The software that tells all the parts to operate is customized code
* That code is subject to copyright
* GM owns the copyright on that code and that software
* A modern car cannot run without that software; it is integral to all systems
* Therefore, the purchase or use of that car is a licensing agreement
* And since it is subject to a licensing agreement, GM is the owner and can allow/disallow certain uses or access.
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.
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.
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.
John Deere is a company, by the way, that is seriously serious about preventing people from copying their stuff. So serious, in fact, that they even locked the PDF they sent to the Copyright Office. No modifying the document. And no copying passages.
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.
What can you do? 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.
http://www.wired.com/2015/04/dmca-ownership-john-deere/
http://www.hotrod.com/news/1504-can-automakers-legally-stop-you-from-working-on-your-car/?adbid=10152712490002540&adbpl=fb&adbpr=13601527539&short_code=2v2pw&sm_id=social_aumohotrodsshub_default_20150424_44558876
Even Boing Boing reported on this! http://boingboing.net/2015/05/21/gm-says-you-dont-own-your-ca.html
* Cars work because software tells all the parts how to operate
* The software that tells all the parts to operate is customized code
* That code is subject to copyright
* GM owns the copyright on that code and that software
* A modern car cannot run without that software; it is integral to all systems
* Therefore, the purchase or use of that car is a licensing agreement
* And since it is subject to a licensing agreement, GM is the owner and can allow/disallow certain uses or access.
No comments:
Post a Comment