Bought a car? You might soon not actually own it.

ewgf

Quote "It's official: John Deer 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." Unquote

And yes, you might say that this will never come to pass, but the majority said that about the DMCA (which makes it illegal to hack into software (including protection) on a device that you have bought and paid for). And if the above does become law, then you might not own that games console that you bought, nor your Android tablet, nor your mobile phone, nor your television, nor your microwave, etc. And then it will be illegal to run anything on those items that the manufacturers (AKA the legal owners) don't want you to run (well, this probably won't apply to microwaves, but they will be able to stop you from running competing companies' stuff on your phone/console/etc. And PC 'ownership' could become very interesting then. 

The full article is at http://www.wired.com/2015/04/dmca-ownership-john-deere/

Lee Fogarty

What makes you think you have a right to hack into someone elses hard work anyway?

My PC is mine so there is no issue of 'ownership'.  I built it.  I put a lot of sotware on it.  I have no desire to hack that software - but please do tell me a decent reason to hack the software that doesn't involve taking out copy protection so the software can be illegally downloaded by others?

If sellers find their sales dropping because people don't agree with the licensing laws, it won't be long before someone starts selling devices with no OS on them and lets the buyer install whatever they want.  But that will still be illegal to hack.

Sounds like a case of the 'I want everything for free' brigade moaning again.

guesser

PCs aren't locked down by DRM so that you can only run software that Microsoft approves of though, and firmware that will only boot windows.

This car and tractor thing is kinda nonsense though because there's nothing at all to stop you replacing the ECU and using nothing of their copyrighted code whatsoever.

Timmy

Here's what CNN Money said about the company that makes DRM coffee machines:

http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/06/investing/keurig-green-mountain-earnings-stock-fall/

spectrumlinux

guesser said:

PCs aren't locked down by DRM so that you can only run software that Microsoft approves of though, and firmware that will only boot windows.

This car and tractor thing is kinda nonsense though because there's nothing at all to stop you replacing the ECU and using nothing of their copyrighted code whatsoever.

It would play hell with the warranty; mind you, playing around with the ECU software would anyway... :D
I have to admit I am not a fan of huge amounts of electronic gizmo's on vehicles. After all, my first car was a Vauxhall Chevette... Solid 70's engineering... It had a Distributor cap and points, so sorting out the ignition timing etc was straightforward. You could complete a clutch change at home in under two hours, too.

spectrumlinux

fogartylee said:

What makes you think you have a right to hack into someone elses hard work anyway?

My PC is mine so there is no issue of 'ownership'.  I built it.  I put a lot of sotware on it.  I have no desire to hack that software - but please do tell me a decent reason to hack the software that doesn't involve taking out copy protection so the software can be illegally downloaded by others?

If sellers find their sales dropping because people don't agree with the licensing laws, it won't be long before someone starts selling devices with no OS on them and lets the buyer install whatever they want.  But that will still be illegal to hack.

Sounds like a case of the 'I want everything for free' brigade moaning again.

Hmmm, not sure I would agree... I love to take apart disassemblies of old software to understand how the software went together. The Multiface was a fantastic tool for that.
I would agree with you regarding your point on illegal file sharing etc.
I have to admit that I love tearing down hardware as well.
Some of the tricks that hardware engineers over the years have amazed me.

rich_chandler

Let's get a grip of reality here guys, it's all fantastical dreaming by the money men...

spectrumlinux

Seems I somehow set my text in Fogarty's quote in error.
Just to clarify matters; here is my text:

Hmmm, not sure I would agree... I love to take apart disassemblies of
old software to understand how the software went together. The Multiface
was a fantastic tool for that.
I would agree with you regarding your point on illegal file sharing etc.
I have to admit that I love tearing down hardware as well.
Some of the tricks that hardware engineers over the years have amazed me.

guesser

Doesn't bother me anyway cause the only thing with firmware on it in my car is the radio cassette deck and I have no desire to reflash that.

If GM etc want to stop people tuning their engines then they ought to lobby the government to strengthen the regulations such that messing with the ECU invalidates all the certification so the vehicle is illegal to drive. I could see that actually having teeth.

Trying to prevent people from patching the firmware on their own equipment using the DMCA will shirley fail after long and tedious legal battles the same as it did for Apple.

guesser

Of course that assumes that they're being honest when they claim it's all about safety or piracy...

I suspect that in truth it's the same reason car manufacturers have always tried to lock their code and use proprietary connectors and signalling systems etc. They are determined to kill off all third party servicing. If only authorised dealers can sign the firmware then only they can update the ignition/injection timing etc. It's not about stopping petrolheads souping up their cars because they can just install an aftermarket ECU anyway. It's to stop Bob's Garage from replacing your timing belt so you have to pay through the nose at a dealership for an out of warranty service.

AndyC

Shame, the article failed to blame single mothers or immigrants for this, so sadly it loses out on the Daily Mail misrepresentation of facts award for this year but maybe next time, eh?

The issue isn't about whether you "own" a tractor you buy, it's yet another example of the lack of legal framework about what is acceptable use of things you do own, mostly because our forerunners simply couldn't imagine the concept of something you could perfectly duplicate at no cost to yourself. The software industry has tried, somewhat successfully, to work around this by relying on the more flexible nature of contract law, hence software "licensing"

But as we move more to a world where everything contains some degree of software functionality, it's increasingly highlighting many of the flaws in our current legal system. What should you be allowed to do with software changes and who is legally responsible for the results. Ultimately the legal system will need to adapt to this, because contract law is a far from ideal substitute. Ridiculous scare stories about you not "owning" things you bought are not actually a helpful part of that process though.

ewgf

Currently, if you buy something, then you are legally entitled to do what you choose with it, as long as you don't break the law. And that's what's worrying about this, the possibility that the laws might change, and change unfairly.

If you mod a mobile phone so that you can use a different provider, or mod a console so that you can play the games from a hard drive (or SD card), or mod a DVD player so that it can play all region DVDs, then you've done nothing morally wrong. So why should these things be considered even remotely illegal?

And if you buy something (not rent, buy) then you own it. Yes, you don't own the copyrights to the software (or to the hardware) but no one is claiming otherwise. And you should be free to alter it as you choose (i.e. change the firmware, add a larger hard-drive, paint the whole thing blue, even smash it with an axe and call if modern art, if you're so lacking in talent and taste), regardless of what some massively overpaid lawyers say about it in their quest to remove consumers' rights and benefit the hyper national corporations.

rich_chandler

ewgf said:

>What makes you think you have a right to hack into someone elses hard work anyway?

If I buy something, then morally I am free to alter or improve it as I see fit. Just because money men and a few "sod everyone else" people are against this, doesn't make it wrong.

>My PC is mine so there is no issue of 'ownership'.  I built it.  I put a lot of sotware on it.  I have no desire to hack that software - but please do tell me a decent reason to hack the software that doesn't involve taking out copy protection so the software can be illegally downloaded by others?

As usual, you can't come up with a decent argument to support you warped view, so you through in a straw man to change the subject. No one is talking about downloading pirated software, we are talking about the removal of our rights to own what we pay for.

>If sellers find their sales dropping because people don't agree with the licensing laws, it won't be long before someone starts selling devices with no OS on them and lets the buyer install whatever they want.  But that will still be illegal to hack.

Which it shouldn't be.

>Sounds like a case of the 'I want everything for free' brigade moaning again.

No, it's a case of people standing up for their rights, but as per usual your heads is so far up your arse, you can't see what's going on.

Maybe if you spent last time preaching about things you don't understand, and more time actually doing something, then WOS's forums wouldn't have taken so staggeringly long to come back. And they'd be a lot more usable and attractive than they are now.

Interesting, I see ewgf didn't have the balls to let us all know who he was quoting.

I expect he'll come up with a lame excuse...

ewgf

>Interesting, I see ewgf didn't have the balls to let us all know who he was quoting.

>I expect he'll come up with a lame excuse...

Actually, I just deleted everything not because it's wrong (obviously), but to stop a pointless slanging war. But since you've posted it, I'll let it stand.

And as for my not saying who I am quoting, er first of all, that's hardly deliberate, I can't find the Preview button (brilliant design...) and I wanted to break up the quote into sections, but was worried how it would come out, since I couldn't preview it. And it didn't occur to me to post Lee's name, as it's obvious who I was quoting (both to anyone who has the five brain cells necessary to look through the thread to see where the quotes are from, and also to anyone who's seen Lee's less than mature (and a lot less than intelligent) posts in various threads).

guesser

ewgf said:

morally wrong.

Once again, how you interpret individual morals has zero bearing on anything. 8-}

guesser

AndyC said:

The issue isn't about whether you "own" a tractor you buy, it's yet another example of the lack of legal framework about what is acceptable use of things you do own, mostly because our forerunners simply couldn't imagine the concept of something you could perfectly duplicate at no cost to yourself. The software industry has tried, somewhat successfully, to work around this by relying on the more flexible nature of contract law, hence software "licensing"

This has got nothing really to do with duplicating things and stealing hard work. Sure maybe people are distributing modified code that strips out code to check for signing etc, oh no, the horror! It's not that they're scared someone is going to take their hard work and sell a new car that uses their ECU code, they just don't want people to be allowed to modify their own vehicle's firmware.

ewgf

guesser said:

ewgf said:

morally wrong.

Once again, how you interpret individual morals has zero bearing on anything. 8-}

True, but it should have, which is germane to the point. The law should work to the common good, not to the financial advantage of big corporations [at least not when working to the corporations' advantage would negatively impact the consumers]. Look at the current situation with the banks and the country's deficits. Granted it was the government rather than the legal system that happily put the wealth of the banks before the rights of the people, but the principle is the same. I know people with (in some cases severe) mental problems, and there (no-too good originally) services have been cut to the bone.

So whenever I see more moves to benefit the faceless, obscenely wealthy companies at the cost of the individual, I always see red. Not that it does any good.

Wasn't it Arthur C. Clarke who said that if aliens do arrive and judge us, we'll have no excuse to offer for why we treat each other, and the other living creatures we share this planet with, so badly?

AndyC

ewgf said:

Currently, if you buy something, then you are legally entitled to do what you choose with it, as long as you don't break the law. And that's what's worrying about this, the possibility that the laws might change, and change unfairly.

"You're legally entitled... unless you break the law" is a tautology, which is why the entire argument is moot, much like the whole straw man "you won't own your car"

If you own a house, chances are you might own a gas boiler, almost certainly you'll own a bunch of electrical wiring. Neither of which you are legally allowed to "do what you choose" with. And that goes for making certain changes to the house too or building structures on the land you own. The law is literally full of examples of things you cannot do with things you own.

spectrumlinux

Just to point something out here:

When I quoted Lee originally, my text was included with his. At first I thought it was me, but I suspect that this is a bug.
Has anyone else noticed this?
Perhaps Lee is already aware of it and is working on a fix? If not, should I mention it on the bugs thread?
(Apologies with this thread 'hijack' but thought I best mention this...

guesser

You must have typed into the quote block rather than below it.

There is a subtle bug where sometimes you can't escape the block quote in the wysiwyg editor view because a <br> tag has gone missing.

spectrumlinux

Nope, I definitely typed under the quote block. Sounds like the
tag went missing... Known bug in that case, no point in mentioning it on the bug thread. ;)

ewgf

>"You're legally entitled... unless you break the law" is a tautology, which is why the entire argument is moot, much like the whole straw man "you won't own your car"

I know it's tautology*, but I wrote it that way to stress the point - you can do what you like, as long it's LEGAL, but what is or isn't legal is subject to change, and the changes are sometimes (increasingly so nowadays) against consumer rights.

But "you won't own a car" is not a straw man, as it's a logical consequence of what might well happen if this whole thing is made law. Especially since in the future, cars are going to become more and more computer based, especially if or when self-driving cars become available for people to buy.

>If you own a house, chances are you might own a gas boiler, almost certainly you'll own a bunch of electrical wiring. Neither of which you are legally allowed to "do what you choose" with. And that goes for making certain changes to the house too or building structures on the land you own. The law is literally full of examples of things you cannot do with things you own.

Yes, and that's sensible. Unskilled people making modifications to a gas line, for example, can be very dangerous. But how can I, bypassing the protection on my PSP so I can get a Spectrum emulator running on it, possibly be doing something dangerous to myself or anyone else?

* I didn't know it was "a" tautology, though, I thought it was just tautology. But it does sound right the way you wrote it, as I'd imagine it would be right to write things like "The letter in question contained three instances of tautological errors".

1024MAK

Simple solution, if big companies really are only licensing a consumer to use their goods, sue them when the supplied goods break down or go wrong and said company refuses to repair or replace the item(s)... Of course the highly paid legal team will have thought of this and written exclusion clauses to cover it. Then the consumer will have to resort to consumer rights laws. Oh what a mess...

Mark

1024MAK

spectrumlinux said:

Nope, I definitely typed under the quote block. Sounds like the
tag went missing... Known bug in that case, no point in mentioning it on the bug thread. ;)

A bug, in a computer forum? Well I never did @-)

What do you expect, computer software to be bug free!!?!?? =))

Mark

spectrumlinux

^^
Of course there will be bugs in software as involved as a forum. I just didn't want to write a bug report when it has already been noted. ;)

Lee Fogarty

ewgf said:

Maybe if you spent last time preaching about things you don't understand, and more time actually doing something, then WOS's forums wouldn't have taken so staggeringly long to come back. And they'd be a lot more usable and attractive than they are now.

Remind me again which one of us is a professional developer?  I think I might understand a lot more than you do.
If you don't like the delay in getting the forums back, or how they look and work, please feel free to leave and don't come back.

ardentcrest

I'm sorry your Honor, that the tractor ran over that old grannie. But why only am I here. that tractor is owned by John Deere.

Fizza

I can see where altering a firmware on a vehicle could impact it's roadworthiness (read; safety) much in the same way as selling cut and shut cars do, so I can see a valid reason for restricting access to it, but in the aforementioned examples of the wires/gas pipes I believe common wisdom, and the fact that it is 'what you do with what you own' that causes something to be 'illegal', have both worked out pretty well historically and are generally accepted, rather than the presumption that somehow you don't own what you paid for and you just paid for a license to use it, no-one would claim that you buy a license to use electrical wire.

Maybe it's semantics, but I think there is an implication aspect to the 'license' angle that makes me also inclined to be somewhat persuaded that some companies would (and have) been using this legal language as way to restrict clearly harmless activities with the intention of capturing a market. There is still the presumption of innocence over guilt in the UK and USA which is also problematic when listening to arguments that suggest only thieves would be against such changes.

I personally think potential hazard warnings and clauses that invalidate any and all warranty have been good enough too in instances of hackery, let the buyer choose and let not the company be held liable if the owner so wishes to open their TV while it is plugged in.

However, in the case of software piracy for profit, or just mass piracy, in these days of multi-terabyte storage and constant online access it's definitely more challenging to balance the need for protection of both consumer and vendor.

1024MAK

I wonder if these companies are going to try the same trick with aircraft?
Who's gonna tell the banks that they don't own all those expensive passenger planes?

[Background, most airlines lease aircraft from their bank. When an airline "buys" new planes, it is the bank that pays the bill.]

Mark

spectrumlinux

1024MAK said:

I wonder if these companies are going to try the same trick with aircraft?
Who's gonna tell the banks that they don't own all those expensive passenger planes?

[Background, most airlines lease aircraft from their bank. When an airline "buys" new planes, it is the bank that pays the bill.]

Mark

<br>

The banks will not actually mind...
The people who own the main banks are able to print fiat money; that is, they are just pieces of paper with no gold etc actually backing them up.
These same banks then loan this worthless collection of paper to the governments, with an interest charge.
The governments then charge their citizens tax in order to pay off this interest charge.
At a certain stage, the debt becomes mathematically impossible to pay
off; the banks can then swoop in and buy up a country lock, stock and
barrel for pennies on the dollar.
Its a very clever scam, you have to admit.


"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws..." — Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild.

AndyC

Fizza said:

I can see where altering a firmware on a vehicle could impact it's roadworthiness (read; safety) much in the same way as selling cut and shut cars do, so I can see a valid reason for restricting access to it, but in the aforementioned examples of the wires/gas pipes I believe common wisdom, and the fact that it is 'what you do with what you own' that causes something to be 'illegal', have both worked out pretty well historically and are generally accepted, rather than the presumption that somehow you don't own what you paid for and you just paid for a license to use it, no-one would claim that you buy a license to use electrical wire.

It's entirely semantics. The only reason for "licensing" to exist in these cases is because contract law is the only legal framework we have at the moment that can cover it. There is no difference in any real sense between a perpetual license and owning something. The suggestion there is some meaningful distinction is classic tabloid scaremongering, designed to elicit some gut reaction that you're being treated unfairly even when there's no actual substance to it.