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.

Comments

So it's broken?

[Anonymous Coward]

So copyright law is broken? How is this news?

Ahh, but you don't own the tractor

[pr0t0]

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.

Re:Ahh, but you don't own the tractor

[Sarten-X]

[citation needed]

It's a nice idea, but the law doesn't agree with your simple assumption. Rather, according to existing law, the tractor hardware and the licenses to use the software have been sold, but not the rights to copy, modify, or disassemble the software. The tractor store probably didn't own those in the first place, so how could they sell them?

Re: Ahh, but you don't own the tractor

[Anonymous Coward]

You certainly have the moral right. Just not the legal right.

Re: Ahh, but you don't own the tractor

[DrLang21]

You have a right to know exactly what code is running in a machine you own, and how it works, down to every last freakin' instruction.

I don't buy that at all. Don't get me wrong here. I don't think it should be illegal to hack the software that resides on a device you own (though I would be curious if the farmer actually owns this tractor since they are usually purchased on long term loan agreements). But saying you have a right to know means that manufacturers have an obligation to disclose. I would be willing to bet that no one is willing to divulge to you in great detail how the mechanics of your car's engine runs, or how your dishwasher (lets say an old one not opperated by software) does what it does, or the hysteresis of your water heater. Nor do most people believe the manufacturers should be required to. Whether you could figure this out on your own or not is besides the point. And all this aside, I question the sensibility of what this farmer is trying to do anyways. He said it shuts down if a hydraulic sensor goes out and has to wait for days to get a new one. The more reliable solution would be to stock the sensors that go out most often. I would bet there is a pretty limited range of variants on the sensors. This is a lot safer than hacking the software of a multi hundred thousand dollar machine that would certainly void the warranty, probably violate the terms of any loan it is under, and possibly circumvent safety features.

Wonder when "open source" will hit vehicles

[mlts]

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?

Re:Wonder when "open source" will hit vehicles

[Lumpy]

"Of course, there is reliability. A closed source, locked-down ECU might allow something to run for a longer time between servicings,"

This is a complete falsehood. all the ECU's from the 80's and 90's were not locked down and easily modified. the 7730 GM ECU is the most reverse engineered ECU in history and was used for a very very long time across many cars. having it wide open never damaged the reliability of anything and in fact extended the life of many GM LT1 and LS1 engines by letting them live in other cars as engine swaps.

Locked down ECU does absolutely nothing at all to reliability. the only use for it is to protect a profit center.

Re:Unproductive Jobs

[MickyTheIdiot]

> 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.

Copyright was built with the idea to give incentive to do work so that work can make it to the commons and other people can build off of that foundation. It wasn't a magic formula to make cash and that's how it is treated today.

Re:Simple fix

[Lumpy]

Truth.

I can do more with BMW, Mercedes, Honda, Mazda than I can with GM/Ford/Chrysler with just my laptop and a cheap china ODB to USB adapter. In fact a BMW is easier for a driveway mechanic to work on because I can easily ask it what is wrong. go ahead and query the transfer case module as to it's status on a GM or activate the calibration function.... Oh wait you cant.

All because GM works like hell to protect the revenue stream of its dealerships. so that $60 30 minute fluid change becomes $700 at a 1100% profit.