Slashdot Mirror
Before I Can Fix This Tractor, We Have To Fix Copyright Law (slate.com)
Gr8Apes writes: How many people does it take to fix a tractor? When the repair involves a tractor's computer, it actually takes an army of copyright lawyers, dozens of representatives from U.S. government agencies, an official hearing, hundreds of pages of legal briefs, and nearly a year of waiting. Waiting for the Copyright Office to make a decision about whether people like me can repair, modify, or hack their own stuff. why do people need to ask permission to fix a tractor in the first place? It's required under the anti-circumvention section of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Even unlocking your cellphone required an act of Congress to make it legal.
So copyright law is broken? How is this news?
Maybe parts of it, but other parts you've only acquired a license to use. They didn't go over that at the tractor store?
That's life in the new America. You probably didn't feel the slide down the slippery slope.
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
But you don't own the software.
You bought the tractor.
And you LICENSED the software.
Then you cried like a little girl and tried to pretend you own the software you didn't buy.
I have sympathy for you. Just like I have sympathy for all little girls.
Now man up and shut up and admit YOU LICENSED SOFTWARE.
Then your "crusade against stupidity" won't be against your own.
E
Don't buy "Made in the USA". It applies to much more than tractors.
digitarians' delight,, if we're not feeding anyone why should we need working tractors?
I'm sort of reminded of the early 1990s, pre-Linux, where if one wanted an OS to run on their computer, be it a UNIX flavor, DOS, or OS/2, it cost, and wasn't cheap. It makes me wonder if there would be a niche for a company that produced farm equipment to charge a tad more, as they are not using the cheapest stuff from China, but circuits would be diagrammed, parts would be available, and the equipment would be designed from the ground up for serviceability. Unlike phones and tablets where shaving off a few fractions of a millimeter is critical, a 1950s-era tractor does the job just as well as a modern one.
Of course, there is reliability. A closed source, locked-down ECU might allow something to run for a longer time between servicings, at the cost of more expensive upkeep (since parts only come from the maker.) Would customers mind dealing with a more frequent maintenance cycle, in return for the fact that parts would be cheaper and easy to get ahold of 10-20 years from now, or is the mindset of "use it until it breaks, pitch it, replace it, repeat" too firmly ingrained in the mind of consumers?
It may take some time before this happens. I'm just waiting for "consolization" of cars, where vehicles come with the same engines across the board, but you have to pay license fees to enable the turbos, unlock all horsepower, use the BlueTooth functionality on the audio head... and none of those licenses will transfer with the vehicle, which guarentees that car makers make a significant, tidy sum when a vehicle is sold. Similar with farm equipment. Want to use the PTO? That is a licensed feature and even though the transmission supports it, the TCM won't enable it unless the manufacturer gets $2000 for a license key. Want to use a combine attachment? Another $2000, and it is only good for this harvest season, but you can pay $5000 to have it enabled for five seasons.
How hot will the water get before the frog jumps out?
Posting as AC because I work for one of those 'tractor' companies.
why do people need to ask permission to fix a tractor in the first place?
1. The EPA makes us do this. We have to encrypt stuff so that you can't easily add a emissions defeat device. If we didn't encrypt it every redneck farmer would be ripping off their DPF and other emissions devices because they didn't understand it. (Just like they did with catalytic converters way back when)
2. Even if you had the 'source' in front of you it'd still require tens of thousands of dollars in tools chains. I would put money on the fact that the source isn't even in C. Building ECM flashfiles, in some work circles, is up there with voodoo. These aren't your grandpas ECMs there isn't a "Tractor_ECM.c" file that you can make some changes to and recompile with GCC. As far as I know there isn't an OSS compiler available for embedded PPC and certainly not one available for eTPU functionality.
If you want to modify your tractor or car to do your bidding you're better off making your own fully open ECM from scratch. This is what they look like under the hood and are engineered to live in places that a RaspPi or Arduino wouldn't live for more than a few days..
I mean I get that Slate is trash, but posting this on Slashdot? Is there anyone who DOESNT know that unlocking a phone was illegal? Or is this one of those Millennial tee-hee articles about how old people used to do things 10 years ago?
This basically sums up the problem with the economy - it is gummed up with jobs that do not produce real wealth. Sure, lawyers will say that copyright laws are important because they give an incentive for real wealth creators to do stuff, but there is no natural law that ensures that the amount of human energy that goes into protecting existing wealth would not have produced a net greater benefit for society if it had been directed at creating new real wealth instead.
We've been here before many times. War, essentially, is a massive mobilisation of human effort in a completely pointless (in terms of net prosperity) way. After WW2 we finally started to learn to put our efforts towards building more stuff for everyone, instead of trying to find better ways to steal some other country's stuff, and for many years this was incredibly successful for humanity.
The more I've learnt about how the current financial and legal system works, the more I realise how naive us tech people are, busy working on making stuff. Most engineers I know are smart enough to clean up against the sorts of people who get a law or business degree, but we tend to be too idealistic about how the world works. In the end it's just sad that we live in an economic system where you are better off financially trading the same houses between each other, rather than going out and building new houses (or transport systems to open up areas for new housing).
This is why, morally speaking, it's OK to kill Congressmen who voted for the DMCA.
Nothing short of personal safety will convince the survivors to vote for the people instead of the corporation.
The article at the root of this raises some interesting points. I've just traded my 2008 Volvo for a 2002 model, partly because of the reduced complexity. The 2008 had an additive tank (for emissions reasons) that cost me £250 to get refilled when it ran out; the 2002 is of a generation with less need for complications which are expensive to service.
New auto drive car = no more updates after 1 year so you need to buy a new car to get that update.
There should be a law say that they must get free updates for at least 5-7 years even if there needs to be a computer replacement to fix an safety issue that must be done at there cost.
this only applies if you live in the U.S, where the legal system is a brain cancer, slowly shutting the country down.
licenses must transfer and how can they enforce that? car must be online? So can they hit you with data roaming fees if you drive into Canada?
You can own what they sold you, you can even write your own controller, but they are allowed to sell their control mechanism in any form - whether that be locked or not. You paid for it locked. They just don't happen to offer an open one.
Make a law saying that independent repair shops must get the same software and codes that the dealers get and the software can't be locked down to only on dealer systems or be rent only.
You are allowed to make a remix in Youtube; it is supposed this won't hurt anybody (well, it depends on your skills).
But when there is a computer in a device that controls how the device works, in particular the engine or other "sensitive" working parts, to modify it could be dangerous.
The cars, and in particular the farm tools, must pass a series of tests to be able to be sold. When these tools don't do their job there is the maker that can be punished in one or another way, in particular when human security is involved. And today these devices need computers to control complex tasks through software that was crafted to perform these tasks. What happen when somebody, without all the information (not only technical but contextual) at hand change that software? Could be possible the tool of good is transformed in a tool of doom?
The same happens with software in general. I understand the good intentions, and even when trained people takes the "risk" to improve or fix something, but in many cases these actions only open doors that harm others, in particular when the context where these programs run are already defined, are critical and create dependencies on others.
So, take care when you fix your device, but be more careful when that fix can make it to explode in your face or to pull it to pass on top of another person property (tractors are not toys).
> A closed source, locked-down ECU might allow something to run for a longer time between servicings [...]
And it can achieve impressively low pollution values for an impressively high power output, as has been shown by the auto industry!
(Yes, VW in front, but others seem to be following).
Rascals, I tell you.
You reverse engineer it, publish all the information anonymously and tell these companies to FUCK THEMSELVES.
It's starting in the Car world, The reverse engineering of the Honda ECU's you can get the details and source code out there if you look hard enough. some GM ECM's have been completely hacked, and the BMW dealership coding software has been released and you can get it.
Tractors in the article are incredibly niche devices so it's going to take longer, but full details needs to be published publically and everyone needs to spread it far and wide.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
You mean that if we hand responsibility to lawyers, the only outcome is lots of paper full of legalese, but nothing which is helpful to solve real-world problems? Damn, if just somebody had known that beforehand.
First the COURTS have ruled that you can unlock your cell phone so clearly it doesn't take an act of Congress.
Second, I find it very tyrannical that it would be so hard to do something that is not protected by the constitution, yet when Mr. Obama wants to do something by decree in direct violation of constitution, there is this strange view that it's a law.
Finally, I and many others no longer recognize copyright law on any level. Constant abuses of courts, politicians, and non-original copyright holders have gone way beyond what is legal, lawful, or even reasonable. We will not tolerate I.P. claims to have more control and authority over our constitutional rights.
Yo ho, yo ho.
Simple law: If you sell something, the customer must have the right to repair it or you must offer full zero-deductible warranty for the (clearly) advertised lifetime of the device or software.
The referenced article doesn't say he wanted to repair the tractor but "tweak the software" which is entirely different.
"When a farmer friend of mine wanted to know if there was a way to tweak the copyrighted software of his broken tractor, I knew it was going to be rough"
There is no such thing as a license requirement where software, music, or video is concerned. There is a law that requires a license to drive a car, practice medicine, fly a plane, but there is no law requiring a contract for software, music, or video. It's just a buzzword that was thrown around so much that people tend to believe it.
At most it's a "contract", and if the "contract" is not provided and explained and accepted up front at the time of purchase then nobody has any obligation to the contract aka End User License Agreement.
Nobody has any obligation to accept copyright law or restrictions to copyright or any other intellectual property claims.
By reading this post, you agree to these terms and conditions.
The free upates should continue while the software being updated is still under a restrictive copyright.
I decided to give OpenWRT a try on my wifi router instead of the factory firmware. OpenWRT can barely manage 1Mb/s while the stock firmware is triple that speed. I liked all the functions but it ran like shit.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
If the DMCA prevents any kind of hacking, then why are implement manufacturers able to modify the functionality of these tractors? Why is a third party sprayer or planter able to interoperate perfectly well with the tractor's computer, even though they don't have the source code? They can even operate the same implements with tractors from different manufacturers.
When you take your car in to your mechanic, they're able to connect a daignostic computer to the car, get and set information about the vehicle's performance. Do you suppose the garage buys a proprietary computer from each auto maker? There's a Toyota computer, and Honda computer, a Ford computer, etc? Or is there maybe an agreed upon format for communicating between devices in all vehicles?
Please, learn something about how vehicles operate before posting or believing any of this FUD. Learn what CAN bus is before concluding that there's no way to hack a vehicle.
Dont buy US tractors.
Wouldn't it be simpler at that point to simply chuck the original controller and replace it with something custom? Internal combustion engine control, and usual ways of controlling and managing the machine of a tractor's complexity aren't exactly new things and don't quite require a Ph.D. in controls engineering. I'd say it's something a decent undergrad should be able to prototype in a couple of months, I'd hope...
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
This is what happens when the government allows the entertainment industry to have their way with legislation. Overly prohibitive laws void of any common sense when enforced that creates obstacles that should not exist. It's a Tractor computer; not the latest hot selling album or movie.
These copyright laws exist because the entertainment industry has a death grip on antiquated business models where they always maintain tight control over their content. They don't see the need to change because they are too busy chasing pirates.
Create the cure for cancer. Get a 20 year patent. Then after that it goes to public domain and you can not make money anymore out of it.
Write a son about raping women, and killing people, and you get a lifetime plus 70 years copyright protection.
This is messed up.
Intellectual property is intellectual property. Copyright should be 20 years. Period.
Want some cheese with wine?
Farmers in the US still use tractors? I had heard on Slashdot that we pay the farmers not to plant and that we give them even more not to plant corn - why would they need a tractor? Are they just for those silly "tractor pulls" they show on the redneck TV channel?
Personal ownership is the cornerstone of capitalism. So if these people are against personal ownership then they can't be capitalist.
Maybe your tractor shouldn't have a computer. Maybe most of the crap in your home shouldn't have a computer, and it sure shouldn't be connected to the internet. The computer is the first part of any home appliance that breaks, and it is completely unnecessary in most cases.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Your make-believe scenario is unlikely given that there is safety regulation via the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and liability for bugs that kill people (see: lawsuits in the news related to normal car software bugs that cause issues with braking/accelerating/etc.)
Even in terms of hardware cars have recalls for faulty parts (see: airbags) over a decade after the car was designed/built/sold.
Cars aren't video game software.
This is an EPA thing, not a DMCA thing; they're required to armor the emissions control system against defeat devices. Flashing the ECU is most certainly a defeat device.
I still don't know what's actually broken with the tractor. I feel like this is important information when we're talking about copyright law, IE what are you actually trying to do.
I'm guessing the longer term of copyright compared to patent exists in part to balance the independent creation and fair use defenses to infringement, which apply to copyrights but not to patents.
A tractor should be a bunch of gears and wheels attached to a large diesel engine with a seat on top. Where the fuck does a fucking computer come in??
The ECU exists in large part to control the diesel engine in a manner that prevents it from emitting excessive soot and greenhouse gases.
On many devices, the user has to initiate copying the software from permanent storage into RAM in order to run it. This is true of any computing device not based on execute-in-place read-only memory (XIP ROM). But because of how 17 USC 117 is worded, only the owner of the device has the authority to perform this copying, not someone who's using it on the owner's behalf (MAI v. Peak).
megasquirt
Whoa, context please!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Nobody has any obligation to accept copyright law or restrictions to copyright or any other intellectual property claims.
You do, in the sense that you can't break it...
You don't have to agree with it to be bound by it, just like you're bound by the million other laws we have...
...or back up to $100 per if you're a single woman.
The only institutions nearly as misogynistic as religion are car dealerships and auto mechanics.
Jailbreaking your iPhone has been kept legal through 2015 under an exemption in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The crazy catch is that jailbreaking the iPad has technically been made illegal, while the iPhone and iPod touch both remain exempt.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story...
I'm thinking about it, therefore I might be.
FUCK THAT! All of my cars are at least three times older than that, and trying to claim that I should throw away my property because I'm not "allowed" to maintain it is complete and utter bullshit.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
the law is an ass
when the Tbaggers r gonna jump on this...gubmint takin' away our gawdgibn right 2 pollute...oh, wait;-)
That could have interesting repercussions. Sounds like they would be good ones, too.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I recently stumbled on a somewhat similar situation, albeit on a much smaller scale. I recently decided that I wanted to update my 3+ year old S3 Samsung phone. it's in perfect working order, but there are new apps etc that I can't run on it, so I figured 'time to Cyanogen-mod this puppy!" I very quickly found out that the last update that was pushed to my phone, something almost like 2 years ago, purposely blew a 'q fuse', rending my phone unchangeable. In my opinion this was done maliciously and has caused me financial harm; if I could flash my phone with a newer os I would not need to buy one which is exactly what the carrier obviously wanted to prevent.
I know this is a trivial example compared to the expense of your tractor.. but it's becoming more and more common. Another example, my motorcycle has a computerized fuel injection system that is locked. It uses a proprietary software program to make changes to it.. I was forced to buy an after market fuel controller to make changes to the fuel map, basically an 'adder' only. The onboard ECM is more than capable of handling the increased fuel demand I need to support the after-market modifications that I made, but I'm locked out of the system and are unable to make changes to it.
As long as people continue with their blithe uncaring attitude about the gadgets and hardware they 'buy' w/out understanding what's in them it's only going to get worse and worse. Copyright law needs to change, and drastically. The attitude that 'doesn't matter as long as the corp makes a profit' has to stop as well. Forced obsolescence is NOT ok..locking people out of the things they own is not ok. This message needs to become important.
If I sound stupid, it's not me talking....
Indeed, but after MAI Systems v. Peak in 1993, Congress amended the USC 117 to apply to licensees as well as "owners."
The rights of a lessee in the amendment, codified at 17 USC 117(c), are limited "for purposes only of maintenance or repair of that machine", not for production use. In theory, "maintenance or repair" would include repairing a tractor, but the lessee would in theory need to pay for a lawyer to prove in court that the action was permitted "repair" and not excluded "enhancement". Besides, this amendment was enacted as title III of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, and a broad "repeal of the DMCA", as some copyright reformists advocate, would wipe it out.