General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWe Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Very Idea of Ownership
Since this got locked in LBN...
Its official: John Deere and General Motors want to eviscerate the notion of ownership. Sure, we pay for their vehicles. But we dont own them. Not according to their corporate lawyers, anyway.
In a particularly spectacular display of corporate delusion, John Deerethe worlds largest agricultural machinery maker told the Copyright Office that farmers dont 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.
Its John Deeres tractor, folks. Youre just driving it.
http://www.wired.com/2015/04/dmca-ownership-john-deere/
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)hedda_foil
(16,374 posts)The TTP, TTIP and Trade in Services agreements will take care of that! Just not in a way we we'd like.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)and they don't necessarily agree with the concepts offered by John Deere and GM in this case. If I pay for it, I own it, but then I can at this point simply buy something other than those two product lines.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)I don't think this is what they had in mind with the DMCA. That was mainly to make sure you didn't own the music you bought.
Howsumever, since somebody noticed programming code was included (you don't own your copy of Windows, iOS, Chrome, or Word, either) it seemed reasonable to stop you from messing with the code and causing trouble.
Let's say you want to reprogram a chip to remove your engine's governing and get more speed-- without the source code you have no idea if you are increasing emissions or reprogramming the car's antilock brake system at the same time.
This is the brave new world of cars that are incredibly efficient and safe compared to just 20 years ago. As we go further into electric drives, it will get a lot more restrictive.
tridim
(45,358 posts)Because as soon as one vehicle is hacked, the whole system becomes dangerous.
I still like to manually shift gears, so it's all going to be weird.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)there's an odd feeling, almost as though the gearshift isn't directly connected to the gears. Between that and the throttle non-response, unless it's something well preserved from the 70's I doubt I'll ever get a manual transmission again.
The engine doesn't respond to the gas pedal like the old ones did. Between the odd torque curve and the turbine lag it's a weird learning curve getting the thing to move right. And when you let off the gas, it waits a while for the computer to tell it how much to slow down.
Gas mileage is good, though.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)Nobody's disputing ownership of the tractor. JD however is saying people cannot mess with the proprietory software that controls it. Even here their effort is not to say "we can rurn off the software at will and leave you with a large green doorstop" but "you can't fuck around with our code to try and make it do things we didn't intend". I own a Tesla and a Mustang. Both have software that limits, in both cases very significantly, their potential performance. The companies have different approaches, Tesla essentially being "hands off chump only we get to see the real acceleration", and Ford's being "hey if you want to screw your warranty go for it, we can even recommend partners". I'm no bleeding edge speed freak so no problem to me, but a cross the Sterling Moss wannabes must bear.
That's what's being protected here; the ability to recode a tractor to do things it wasn't designed or intended or engineered to be able to do. I personally have no dog in this fight, even with cars. I use Ford's own laughably misnamed racing tune (which moves power further DOWN the rpm range to help city driving at lower rpms and changes some gear shifts a bit, actually inhibiting top speed) and nothing could persuade me to mess with the software in the model S. I do find it a bit ironic that DU's position on the DMCA seems to vary depending on who owns the copyright though.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)What's wrong with a company trying to protect proprietary software coding in their products? Why are John Deere and GM being called out instead of Delphi, Denso, Bosch, and the other suppliers who actually code and manufacture the electronics in the bulk of the world's vehicles??
I know this case is more about principle than real-world practice, but how many farmers stay awake all night dreaming of ways to "homebrew" the ECU on their tractor?
Exactly what has been preventing people from doing this up until now (aside from a voided warranty)?? Speed shops have been re-flashing ECUs since the 90s at least...
Warpy
(111,261 posts)to prevent farmers and other drivers from downloading and pirating their software, like that's going to happen with anyone but people in foreign countries who own tractor and car companies and they're going to do it anyway, scary legal language or not.
Snoopware and stallware (shuts the vehicle down if you default on payments) already installed on so many new cars have gotten pretty ridiculous, anyway.