The big difference between the corporations that are fighting to keep DMCA and the users who hate it are that the corporations are loaded with money and legal consultants.

Guess which of those two things policymakers listen to - And I'll give you a hint, neither of those two things are their conscience.

The answer to the problem was provided by the French shortly after the American Revolution.

French Revolution.

Got that right!

Well, I was getting pretty sure my rep listened to some of the same podcasts. Listenable reciprocal legal consultancy...jam session at the bar library?

Deere's defense is about the most foolish thing I've ever heard. Sounds about like the legislation issued by the Democrat county government.

My grandfather currently owns a 1998 Deere 5400, and a Deere riding mower from around the same time. He doesn't know about this, though. He's wanting a compact tractor, and I'm glad he's considering Kubota, not Deere.

kubota is better imo

I think that could be made to work. So when my Chevy breaks down, blocks the freeway and needs to be towed, the resulting bills all go to the owner, to GM? Then when it's old and broken down I can call GM, the owner, to come and get it off my property or be on the hook for storage fees? Make sense, with ownership goes responsibility.

My thoughts exactly! When it breaks down, it's on their dime to come out and fix it, I'm not paying to have it towed, they will. When the vehicle needs to have its tag renewed that should be on the automaker since I don't own it and the owner of the vehicle is the only person who can get a tag for the vehicle.

You don't own the software buried deep in the operating system. Do you know how to write CODE !!!

no, that is why we BUY it from them...we do not sign rental agreements, but purchase agreements

yeah I know how to write code and I run Linux - you have a choice on a computer, no choice on a car - if I have any car like that I want Open Source

awesome!! Open source cars... THATS all we'll need to show GMC how far up their butts to stick their junky cars!

Open source? That would be a Tesla.

By the way, open source is not the same thing as public domain.

Open source software STILL has a copyright. It just depends what the license is (and I don't like GPL because in order to use the license I have to assign ownership to GNU - I no longer own my code. It isn't as benign as it sounds).

You're quite right, my mistake. Tesla released their software into the public domain, not as open source.

Thank you! I truly do keep track of this stuff! :)

Actually - yes.

Yes I know how to write code. What's the point you're making?

Funny, I thought cars worked just fine in 1960?

I do write code professionally. And I also know copyright law. Copyright law doesn't change ownership. What Deere and GM are attempting to argue (and this is what the author of the article ignores) is that they want to keep everything a black box so you can't touch it. That is their basic argument.

The problem with that argument, even with the DMCA, is that they DON'T OWN THE HARDWARE, you do.

What GM and Deere are scared of is that people will create third party test equipment which will CUT into their monopoly. Their argument is that people learning how their code works (which is mostly a bullshit argument anyway) somehow is "dangerous". They also go on about how ... well, you just have to read it yourself. The majority of it is just fluff.

What they TRY to latch onto is the DMCA which was really more about content theft than about hacking software (think movie industry). The DMCA is a wretched piece of legislation. No engineer likes it. They try to present what they are doing as "following the rules" and "keeping people safe from themselves" - a bullshit argument.

What they are afraid of is competition in the form of third party test equipment. In other words $$$.

WIRED and everyone who has picked up this piece should be embarrassed. It is at BEST yellow journalism (many of the links do NOT say what the author implies - I actually went and looked). Yes, legalese is boring, but it doesn't give you the right to make things up (as the author does).

You own the truck. You do not license it. Copyright law does not change ownership. I can buy a book (which is copyrighted) and do anything I want with it, including give it to a friend, tear it up, or disassemble it into component parts. What I CAN'T do with it is copy the contents and share them. That violates the author (or company) right to copy (hence the word "copyright").

And THAT hasn't changed.

I second that! With ownership comes responsibility.

You didn't actually read any of the John Deere note that spawned all of this, did you? Wired was exaggerating quite a bit for dramatic effect.

Not once did John Deere claim that farmers didn't own their vehicles. In fact, they repeatedly refer to farmers as "vehicle owners". The only thing that John Deere is asserting here is that "A vehicle owner does not acquire copyrights for the software in the vehicle, and cannot properly be considered an 'owner' of the vehicle software."

Thus, if your Chevy breaks down, and it's the fault of the engine software, and the vehicle is under warranty, then they should pay for the repairs (but probably not the towing, unless that's part of your service contract).

It's no different from buying a Playstation, loading a game on it, and then it overheats and catches fire. *If* the game was at fault, and if the license/contract allows it, they could replace your Playstation. Otherwise, no, just because you were running software on your hardware which you don't hold copyright to, you can't charge them for anything bad that happens ever.

I did read it, Beverly, actually. I guess you didn't realize my comments were also tongue-in-cheek, like the article. Sorry, should have made that more obvious.

Not as some would view it, Beverly. The PlayStation is your tractor, and the game disk is an accessory farm implement, not a part of the main vehicle control module. They stand alone with their own warranty of fitness , even though they have connections and interact through their computers' programming.
Why not just say that when a main vehicle or an attached accessory has been "hacked" the farmer has accepted all mechanical responsibility from that point on.... Isn't that the way it works for most electronic stuff already?

And Beverly, I don't think there are many farmers out there hacking and copying one Deere's computer program to sell to another mfr's agent. Most farmers are small guys just trying to get around expensive bills for simple computer resets and hacks. If the hack burns an engine, it will be pretty easy to determine.

"Small guys" don't buy monster tractors like that. These are giant company farms -- even if on paper they're technically owned by somebody who has a family.

How would you determine if a hack burns out an engine? Are these "hacks" reporting everything to syslogd? I see computers destroyed by bad software all the time. (It's why corporate IT departments lock everything down so badly.) Do you have reason to believe that people hacking tractors are more skilled than people who work on laptops, tablets, and smartphones?

Even if all that is true, does John Deere not have the right to do this, if they put it in the contract? Frequently, the only difference between a cheap version and an expensive version of some software is which license you bought. (That's why you don't have to download anything more when you make an in-app purchase.) If users have the right to "get around expensive bills" by hacking software as they please, are tractors a special exception? Or are you saying any computer user should be able hack a more expensive license as they please, as long as their justification is saving money?

What Deere is pushing is that they have the right to their software (it is their software) however, some of the details are real and others are plain bullshit.

The end goal is who has the right to make test equipment for vehicles. That is where this is going. Deere, GM and all the other auto companies make a lot of money off their test equipment. They have a monopoly.

THAT is the fear. True competition will bring the price down. So what to do? Claim that your code must not be touched. That doing so is "dangerous" (nothing like a lack of facts to scare people).

Deere, GM, etc. are deathly afraid of competition. I've seen this before (we used to get C & D's for something as simple as hooking up a microprocessor to a LCD display!). What Deere and GM are trying to do is establish a precedent that doesn't exist in current law.

We call it OVERREACH.

Personally, I think they are treading on thin ice (esp. in referencing the DMCA which was pushed through because the movie industry was CONVINCED people were out to steal their movies).

yep, if you broke the seal, all warrantees are expired! that's how Adults do it... I guess its different when your in bed with the Socialists, democrap libturd government!

Beverly why would it have to be under warranty for them to be responsible if it is the software that caused my Chevy to breakdown? why would they not pay the towing are they going to repair their software in the middle fo the interstate. I paid a license fee to use the software in teh vehicle when I purchased the vehicle. By paying that license fee I should be assured that they did their due diligence to make sure that the software will cause me nor my vehicle no ill harm and they should be responsible to make sure that this is so for the life of the vehicle that is running their software. See Microsoft, apple, and a variety of other software makers they have to provide free security and core functionallity updates for the life of the product.

Have had 4 Chevys and none of them broke down, now that Honda was a different story=LEMON !!!

your a commie and a liar....why would you have had 4 chevys if it were not so? Government motors

Herbie, you are a STINKIN REPBULYCON. Your proud to be an American you have an American flag in the rear window of your foreign car. Im an American Veteran and I buy American products. SHOVE THAT UP YOUR TAIL PIPE!!

Your meditation. It varies from the standard deviation. It is...screamier.

if what you say is true, you should have only had 1 Chevy and still be driving it today...Liar!!

And my first new Chevy (80 4x4 Silverado) was a lemon.

First off, it would depend on the nature of the failure. Given that the vehicle has run past the "warranty" period without problem would suggest that the software isn't necessarily at fault but that some hardware component had broken down. Software, generally speaking, doesn't just stop working one day unless there is a hardware problem associated with it.

Second, if there is any responsibility to maintain the software for the life of your vehicle then you have a responsibility to ensure that the software is updated when patches are available. That could mean a trip to the car dealer. Any modifications to the vehicle or failure to maintain the hardware on the vehicle could invalidate that software warranty especially if you modify a component that the software needs to operate properly.

Third, Microsoft is under no obligation to provide any updates to core functionality or security patches. They do have a support policy and it states in very clear terms how long they will support a product. Just because you have a computer running Windows 95 doesn't mean MS is obligated to patch it or support it anymore.

https://support.microsoft.c...

Agree that you would be responsible to make sure that the car is updates properly but disagree that they don't have to support the product software. Microsoft, if you read the complete Lifecycle support page, has based their EOL stance on the local laws of the land. Most software in the US must be supported and warrantied for 7 years. during that time if security vulnerabilities are found they must fix them for end users free of charge. While that may not sound like it applies to cars it does in a big way. A lot of new cars are wifi enabled and ave vulnerable to hacking just like your PC or anything else. Someone driving on the interstate next to you could potentially hack your car and shut it down or do worse suck as activating brakes, full throttle, etc. This is where they must provide free security updates for your vehicle to protect the occupants of the product they sold. Think seat belts and airbags are required to have a 10 year warranty so should the vehicle software for safety issues. Now on to changing the software. As a car guy I love modifying my mustangs. In years past you could mod them all you wanted now if you upgrade power you must also change things like fuel injectors. Without being able to get into the computer to make these changes you cannot install bigger injectors because you must adjust pulse width, Fuel pump duty cycle, and Fuel pressure to name a few. I bought the car I should be able to modify it all I want as long as it still meets EPA regulations IF it will be used on the street.

I'm not saying you're wrong but could you provide a reference for laws requiring a company to support a software product for 7 years? I tried but could not find any references via Google.

With respect to modding your car, I think the issue becomes safety and how can a company allow you to make modifications that could be considered unsafe? While I do agree that you should be able to make certain changes to your vehicle I also see the potential for an abundance of litigation if someone incorrectly modifies the firmware in their vehicle and it causes an accident or a catastrophic failure of the vehicle.

Part of the reason we have these restrictive rules on modding software is because the risk of being sued by the consumer is high. If we were to make it so that any modifications were "at your own risk" then you might see companies relaxing their position on mods.

It falls and the courts have ruled to agree, no I dont have time to trace down the individual court rulings, under Product Liability laws http://legal-dictionary.the...

Basically if the defect (in code or hardware) causes the product to be not usable in the way it was intended or could cause bodily harm they must fix it. Microsoft security patches fall under this and security vulnerabilities they did not uncover before public release of their products. Trust me they dont spend billions fixing their Operating systems or support them for long periods of time to be nice to the consumer. They would love it if they had a release for three years then dropped it but they must support it for 7 years past the end of sale.

As for the modding of cars Yes I agree that once I change the code in the cars computer outside of their specifications then I have voided the warranty for THAT component and anything that gets damaged in the car due to this code modification is on my not them. But the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act makes them prove my modification caused the issue to the component so before they can deny coverage. Quick example. they cannot void your warranty for not coming to them and using their oil for an oil change.

Interestingly I just found this article. It would seem that, perhaps, the law is not so ironclad in how we treat software bugs.

http://www.legaltechnews.co...

I am aware of Magnuson-Moss but Magnuson may not always apply to all software and in particular covers consumer products not necessarily business products. According to this site on software liability, http://www.badsoftware.com/..., it states

"The Software Publishers Association's own handbook of software contracts (Smedinghoff, 1993) states that for consumer software (any off-the-shelf product that is commonly used for personal, family or household use), the Magnuson-Moss Act probably applies."

I think you're wrong about why companies fix the bugs in their software. If the software doesn't work properly they can't sell it to someone else. They absolutely fix software to keep customer's happy and satisfied with their purchase.

Last but not least product liability laws are generally there to protect people from harm when using products. Not all software bugs are "harmful". Just because MS Word mangled your homework assignment due to a bug doesn't mean you were "harmed".

No, it didn't say farmer's didn't own their tractors, but I can see one day John Deere requiring all tractor owners to subscribe to their software or they shut your tractor down. This is in tractors made since 1998, that's better than 15 years. I'll bet you don't think a corporation would do this for more money do you? Because corporations are so user/people friendly. This is something to keep one's eye on in the future.

Keurig tried to prevent coffee drinkers from using other coffees in their latest K-cup machine. However a simple fix is available.
Historically, the Chinese tried to do the same thing with silk and silkworms. However, Marco Polo managed to get some out of China and that broke the monopoly. Since then attempts to artificially control ideas usually fails. That is one reason copyrights and patents have limited time. The elites keep trying to extend it but will constantly face resistance. Monsanto attempts to sue farmers who find their seeds blown into other fields since they patented life form seeds. They get away with it because they can afford lawyers and lobbyists. Still the people will resist.

as long as we still do. it takes some serious resolve and constant effort to separate reality from marketing. Marketers get more and more shrewd at wielding mass psychology all the time, to the point you can't even tell you've been influenced. Resistance to control of ideas isn't always successful.

Monsanto has never ever in history sued a farmer for seeds blowing onto their fields. Quit getting your facts from bullshit blogs.

WOW Scott...as quick as you jumped on that June bug, you must be a Monsanto shill. Monsanto has sued farmers who's crops were infected with GMO claiming that the farmer infringed on Monsanto's patient...but you already knew that din't cha?

Ahhh. the old shill argument. To be played when you have no actual facts. Why do you people always default there? Are you not aware that there are people out there that are actually intelligent, critical thinkers? Not everyone works for monsanto, and to assume so just makes you look stupid. Maybe you're an organic shill! Be honest do you get your paycheck from big O? No, and it's probably stupid of me to even say it. You're just naive.

But back to the topic...

Please cite the case... just ONE case where the seeds have blown. Monsanto has in fact sued for patent infringement, which I would expect any company to do if I violated a contract. But there's not ONE, not ONE case in which a farmer was sued for seeds blowing. And before you link Percy Schmeiser, he knowingly planted roundup ready seed. You don't get 98% roundup ready canola by accident, if you could farmers wouldn't bother to seed at all!

This is the same type of dialogue concerning solar vs nuclear. Usually, they're both pro "only one type of" industry. I say we all blow monsanto's seeds all over the place just to despite their stupid laws concerning their "right" to sue anybody! (on second thought, might not be a good idea!).

"Monsanto has sued more than 700 additional farmers who have settled out-of-court rather than face Monsanto's belligerent, and well-financed, litigious actions.

Many of these farmers claim to not have had the intention to grow or save seeds that contain Monsanto's patented genes. Seed contamination and pollen drift from genetically engineered crops often migrate to neighboring fields. If Monsanto's seed technology is found on a farmer's land without a contract the farmer can be found liable for patent infringement." From Sustainable Business

Scott I could not find a specific case...in the P Schmieiser case how does Monsanto know that the GMO contamination was 98%...they would have had to test every plant and we both know that didn't happen...still doesn't change that your a Monsanto shill.

I'd like you to also cite that source. Screw it, you won't, so I will. http://www.sustainablebusin... Where's the proof of this? I can't find any data saying they sued 700 farmers beyond that article.

Also, Percy S sprayed roundup on his own crop, that's why they knew that it was 98% roundup ready canola as it didn't die.

Anyways, You're not worth it if you're just going to pull the ole shill gambit constantly. Have fun being a narrow minded moron. I'm going to go and submit my invoice for my shillbucks. The food babe army keeps saying they pay shills 60cents a post. I wonder if it's Canadian or American currency. *rolleyes*

Work for Monsanto eh?