Slashdot Mirror
Farmers Demand Right To Fix Their Own Dang Tractors (modernfarmer.com)
According to a report, farmers are demanding the right to fix their tractors. The report reminds us that owners of tractors aren't allowed to fix them, thanks to a set of laws designed to protect software intellectual property. The world's largest tractor maker, John Deere, in fact, says that people who purchase tractors don't really own them and instead they are getting an "implied license for the life of the vehicle to operate the vehicle." Some farmers are voicing their opinion against these laws. From the article: What this has meant is that tractor owners can't repair their own tractors -- and if they do, they're in violation of the DMCA. So, if a machine stops working, its owner can't pop the hood, run some tests, and find out what's going on; he or she is legally required to take the tractor to a service center (one owned by the manufacturer, since that's the only entity allowed to analyze the tractor's issues). This can be expensive and time-consuming, and more to the point, unnecessary -- at least according to farmers in several states, who are lobbying to force tractor manufacturers make their diagnostic tools available to independent repair shops and owners. Not everyone is on the farmers' side here; some, according to the Associated Press, are concerned that the move would reduce revenue to tractor manufacturers, potentially landing them in trouble. But the tractor owners disagree, annoyed that their tractors are treated differently from their cars and trucks, which can be serviced by any independent shop.
How enforcable is an "implied license"? How can we know what words are in it, to enforce?
I strongly sympathize with the farmers in this case, but then I've been fixing mechanical things my entire life, both personally and professionally. This bullshit has crippled a large chunk of the aftermarket and the auto industry, and now its spreading to here..????? Excuse me, but why would I pay 5- grand for a tractor that I'm only licensing? Are they gona do *all* the maintenance on it for the 50 grand they are charging? If no then they can go pound sand.
(General -purpose row crop 50-90 PTO HP 4x4 w/remote hydraulic and a bucket)
C|N>K
the farmers, should they have to sue, have precedent on their side. Car manufacturers were forced to open up their diagnostic codes for car owners and allow third party connections. That seemed to work out the best for everyone. Showing once again that short-sighted, for profit motivations may not be the best for the market.
Don't reward bad behavior. While the law does need to be changed, the other avenue is to stop buying John Deere tractors. There are several other options. Case IH seems to be more than willing to supply repair manuals for their equipment.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
When I bought my last 4x4 SUV (FJ Cruiser) part of the deal was a full set of dealer repair manuals. Most of the dealers I went to did not want to sell them to me. The one that did, and was willing to order me a vehicle to the specs I wanted not just what ever they had on the lot, got my business. While the manuals themselves ran me $600, they have paid for themselves a couple times over since I could do most of the minor work myself. Half the battle is just knowing where all the damn screws are located to get a part off. A must have if you are going to modify and work on your own vehicle.
A few examples of what I'm talking about.
AC repair. Dealer $160 labor, parts $350. DIY $50.
Cabin air filter Dealer $50, DIY $6.
OEM trailer hitch install $350. DIY $120.
OEM alarm. Dealer $275. DIY $0. Changed setting in ECM.
Plastic body panel replacement. Dealer $500 parts and labor. DIY $100
Seatbelt warning bell. Dealer didn't want to turn it off, claimed it was impossible. DIY $0 changed setting in ECM. Fucking priceless never having to listen to that piece of shit ding again.
My cousins all have New Holland equipment for this reason. They're easy to repair, all the engine codes are published and parts are easily orderable.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
100% correct. Most of the farmers I know are very wealthy. City people think farmers are dumb hicks, but they don't realize they are making much much more money than they are. They are businessmen first.
And also on farms as we know them today? Why not have farming more distributed if it can be indoors? If everyone is their own farmer then goodbye traditional farms.
Because it's bloody EXPENSIVE to grow indoors compared with outside. That is only a viable solution where the local climate makes growing seasons too short, or where product quality must be tightly controlled.
I can vouch for this as well. If you're a smaller farmer, 20 to less than 1000 acres, this isn't really the case, but if you're bigger, yes, 100% of them are completely driven by greed. The one and only exception to this rule is dry land farmers. They can still be "small" yet they need 40,000 acres just to produce the same as an irrigation farm on much less land. I grew up around all large (10,000 - 100,000 acre farms) they are just huge corporations and there isn't any difference between them and any other large greedy corporation. They are not growing food for people or animals, they are making money, growing food for people and animals is just how they get there. In fact several of the farms I grew up around are owned by Fortune 50 companies. It's just money. It's not about anything else. They pollute the environment and they just don't care about their people or the people or animals they are feeding.
As a counterpoint to this, my childhood was on a farm, and pretty much was straight out of a John Mellencamp song. We didn't have hired hands, were not dirt poor but certainly not "well off". We pretty much did all the work as a family - including fixing the tractors to some degree. Well, honestly, my dad did that and at best I watched. That might not be your experience, and I respect that, but small family farms still do exist in some parts of the US. I can see why these folks would want to fix their own tractors. For one, do you know how hard it is to get a tractor that isn't working to a dealer?
As for John Deere being a greedy corporation or just trying to make an honest buck - you can look at it either way. The fact is that tractors these days are large very expensive pieces of machinery that are generally not purchased sans financing - so the initial cost vs monthly cost is just a matter of which pocket the money comes from.
No, state ownership of production is communism, not socialism. Almost nobody wants that. Almost nobody knows what socialism is either except it's 'something I don't like because 'Murica'.
You don't need 20 years. You only need 3 - 5.
The energy use difference between an old washer and a modern energy star washer is so great that it would pay for the washer after only a few years of use assuming you pay the national average of 10 cents / kwh. Meanwhile, the energy star front loader I bought in 2005 still works fine over decade later, so I have made 2x my investment. But no, feel free to keep using your old inefficient model as long as you want.. I bet you also have a 1970's "beer fridge" in your garage that costs you a couple of dozen cases of beer a year in energy.
What you don't realize is that tractors are very long term purchases for farmers. Older tractors may go 20, 30, or even 40 years before being replaced. I know a few local farms with tractors older than me. So someone may buy a tractor with no idea how different a newer one is than their old one was. At least in non-physical ways. No, they will hype things like A/C and guidance systems or the raw power of a particular tractor and gloss over the fine print.
On top of this John Deere may have been the tractor brand of choice for 2, 3, or 4 generations of farmers. If your grandfather and father both used John Deere, why would you go elsewhere? Brand loyalty is a strong thing when it can cross generations. Heck I see John Deere mail boxes going down roads, and every county or local fair has John Deere showing off tractors and handing out toys, stickers, booklets, etc. I think someone in my childhood toys my parents still have boxed up you may find toy die cast John Deere tractor models from when I was little and they would take me to the fairs.
we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
If we had unfettered capitalism, farmers wouldn't have to fix their own tractors or pay to have them towed to a Deere dealership. A mobile service industry would spring up of mechanics who would come out to your farm, plug in to the diagnostic port, and fix most problems right there in the literal field. But why put up with the uncertainties of capitalism when you can buy socialist protection from the government?
I'm sorry, but what? How on Earth would your so called "unfettered Capitalism" work any differently than it is right at this moment for these farmers? Because it's capitalism that's keeping these farmers from fixing their own machines. It's capitalism that's devised a way to sell something to the farmers without them actually having to give up ownership of the product. It's capitalism that has paid off the politicians to pass the laws that allow the manufacturers to continue milking money from these farmers. Socialism has nothing to do with this. It's capitalism 100% that has created this situation.
No, Applehu Akbar had it right.
This isn't unfettered capitalism, this is corporate capitalism: a "free or mixed-market economy characterized by the dominance of hierarchical, bureaucratic corporations." (see see Wikipedia's article). The laws are written in a way that mostly benefits the corporations and largest businesses - they're being given protection from the upstarts that would swing in and provide cheaper/better/faster solutions by the government.
It's not unfettered capitalism, but government regulations designed to squelch competition that are causing thus problem. Because of the DMCA -- a federal law -- nobody can _legally_ reverse engineer the electronics in the tractor, and thus allow independent mechanics the ability to fix them. Once again, federal regulations act as protectionism for those firms that can financially convince a bunch of congresspeople to play ball.
From South-Central Nebraska here, and you are massively full of crap. Sure, there are some mega-corp farms, and unfortunately more each year, as the smaller farmers ( 2000 acres) are getting decimated by things like this.
Sure, there are some rich farmers, but most are not.
But to say most are rich is complete crap.
I'm sorry, but what? How on Earth would your so called "unfettered Capitalism" work any differently than it is right at this moment for these farmers?
Because what we have in this case isn't unfettered at all. The fetter in this case is Copyright + DMCA - government-implemented mandates that provide protection to corporations from ... unfettered capitalism (that is, from a system in which they would have to compete).
John Deere may be capitalists, but the government has provided them an advantage in the market, an unfair advantage to individuals and small businesses that want to compete to repair tractors. They can bring the full might of the government (and its monopoly on violence to enforce rules) on anyone that tries to compete with them in that space.
It's capitalism 100% that has created this situation.
Nope. It's government regulation. Without that, it would be no time before some enterprising person / company reverse-engineer the diagnostics / control system / whatever in the Deere trackers and started offering repair services, just like in the GP's example. How you don't see that can only be attributed to myopia.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Enforcing that is your choice as a corporation. You don't have to design proprietary, closed equipment and then prosecute those who try to repair it themselves. As evidenced by the fact that there are manufacturers out there that design open, accessible products that are user-friendly and easy to service.
So you're in favor of a system without copyright laws?
I said nothing about what I'm "in favor" of or not. I expressed no opinion, only facts.
However, since you asked, I'll expound on what (in my opinion) I see as how copyright can be used productively, in the modern age, and actually be used for it's purpose as stated in the Constitution (that is, "... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"). First, it should be significantly shorter. Lifetime of the author is a new innovation, and quite long enough. +70 years is far too long. 95 years for works-for-hire seems too long as well. 50 years seems more than reasonable. Some would want more, some less. The length is debatable, and, more importantly should be debated
Are there still countries where foreign copyrights are not honored at all? The US was one of those countries when it was first formed, but of course it no longer is. What would it be like if we abandoned copyright completely? Of course, there are many that claim that no books or music or stories or art would be created. That's a bogus argument. Artists will always create what they want - they did long before "copyright" was invented. They had patrons that sponsored their work (similar to the way research grants support much of pure science today).
Another idea would be to only allow individuals to be granted copyrights, but not corporations or "works for hire". That would probably eliminate most of the big movies and TV shows created by Hollywood and media conglomerates. I'm not so sure that's a bad thing, but it would certainly create a major backlash, as well as chaos in multiple financial markets (what else does the US export these days??).
What we currently have is a lot of laws on top of copyright, intended to enforce the copyright rules for large / wealthy copyright holders. Let's be clear: The DMCA really only works well for large / wealth copyright holders, mostly corporations. There are multiple problems with this. Note, to start with, that copyright infringement is not and never has been a crime. It's a tort. Meaning, if someone wants to protect their copyright, they must file suit in civil court to do so. There is no criminal court, there are no law enforcement involved, there is no criminal investigation. What the DMCA and other recent "innovations" in copyright enforcement has done is to shift the burden of enforcement from the beneficiaries of copyright to the public (through taxation and use of law enforcement resources). That significantly shifts the costs and the power dynamic of the entire system. The FBI does NOT pursue cases of infringement for Joe J. Writer, who sells his novel online but keeps seeing people sharing his work without his permission. But these days the DO pursue cases for Disney and Viacom for people doing the exact same thing for their work. And this in a system where Joe J. Writer cannot afford his own investigators and lawyers to pursue lawsuits, but Disney and Viacom absolutely CAN.
I don't have any specific recommendations on whether a system without copyright laws can work. But I do know that the current copyright laws, and all the other laws and ways they are currently enforced, is not working.
Does that answer your question?
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia