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.

Comments

License to work

[Calydor]

So basically John Deere is reserving the right to cancel any of these licenses, impound the farmer's tractors, and put him out of a job?

Re:License to work

[bev_tech_rob]

So basically, you're an idiot.

No, you're the fucking idiot. That is precisely what Calydor is saying. I'd love to see John Deere try that bullshit on a farm. The unlucky sap they hire to impound the tractor would be looking down the barrel of a 12 gauge shotgun.

Re:License to work

[Anonymous Coward]

(soft bricked tractors)

Re:License to work

[mrclevesque]

Shouldn't John Deere be clear then, and say they only rent tractors

Re:License to work

[elrous0]

I don't think that's what John Deere is meaning for at all. And let me play devil's advocate here for a minute, as someone who has worked with farmers in the past.

First of all, as someone who grew up working on farms and with farmers, let me dispel some of the Norman Rockwell bullshit image about the "noble farmer." The farmers that I knew coming up weren't the "heart and soul of America" (well, maybe they were, but not in a good way). They were the greediest, cheapest bunch of sonabitches you ever wanted to meet in your life. They would routinely try cheat their workers, crawl over their mother's dead bodies to make an extra penny, lie, cheat, and often outright steal if they thought they could get away with it. They were the kind of unabashed brutal capitalists who would easily give the most heartless Wall Street prick a run for his money in greed and avarice.

They didn't do this out of necessity, mind you. Most of the farmers I knew had plenty of money. Far from the popular image of the poor struggling farmers, most of them were quite well-off. Yet they would cheat you out of every dime they could if they got a chance. And when the illegals came in to my area in a big way back in the late-80's and early-90's, these "noble farmers" were the first to happily hire them, cutting farmhand wages in half and pocketing the difference by flagrantly breaking the law. The average farmworker salary went from $7/hr. to $4/hr. almost overnight, in spite of the fact that farmers were already making good money paying their workers $7/hr.

With that in mind, I suspect this John Deere situation has something in common with the controversial Monsanto seed situation, in that the real truth is that it boils down to cheap-ass greedy farmers using the "evil big corporation vs. the little noble farmer" image to their advantage by villianizing John Deere. What I suspect is REALLY going on here is that John Deere and other manufacturers have adopted a model of selling their equipment to farmers either at a loss or at cost, with the understanding that they'll make their profit in implicit servicing contracts. And the farmers, now that they have the equipment in hand on the cheap, have decided to "alter the deal" (to quote the great Darth Vader) to save a buck. And they're playing on their bullshit image to portray themselves as the little guy fighting back against evil big business to do it, when in reality they're every bit as greedy and underhanded as the company they're fighting (likely more so).

Now go ahead an mod me down, all of you whose only knowledge of farmers comes from John Mellencamp songs.

Re:License to work

[guises]

Most of your argument there consists of, "I hate farmers." You throw in a bit at the end about how non-sale sales and customer lock-in are okay, although maybe that's only when they're directed at farmers, who you hate.

Ignoring the first part of your argument: when a company sells a product, but retains practical ownership over that product, that's a big problem and it's been happening more and more wherever the opportunity to do so has arisen. The farmers in this case are asking for nothing which hasn't already been addressed for other vehicles, and regardless of how greedy they may be this is a perfectly reasonable request.

Re:License to work

[CaptSlaq]

I don't think that's what John Deere is meaning for at all. And let me play devil's advocate here for a minute, as someone who has worked with farmers in the past.

First of all, as someone who grew up working on farms and with farmers, let me dispel some of the Norman Rockwell bullshit image about the "noble farmer." The farmers that I knew coming up weren't the "heart and soul of America" (well, maybe they were, but not in a good way). They were the greediest, cheapest bunch of sonabitches you ever wanted to meet in your life. They would routinely try cheat their workers, crawl over their mother's dead bodies to make an extra penny, lie, cheat, and often outright steal if they thought they could get away with it. They were the kind of unabashed brutal capitalists who would easily give the most heartless Wall Street prick a run for his money in greed and avarice.

They didn't do this out of necessity, mind you. Most of the farmers I knew had plenty of money. Far from the popular image of the poor struggling farmers, most of them were quite well-off. Yet they would cheat you out of every dime they could if they got a chance. And when the illegals came in to my area in a big way back in the late-80's and early-90's, these "noble farmers" were the first to happily hire them, cutting farmhand wages in half and pocketing the difference by flagrantly breaking the law. The average farmworker salary went from $7/hr. to $4/hr. almost overnight, in spite of the fact that farmers were already making good money paying their workers $7/hr.

With that in mind, I suspect this John Deere situation has something in common with the controversial Monsanto seed situation, in that the real truth is that it boils down to cheap-ass greedy farmers using the "evil big corporation vs. the little noble farmer" image to their advantage by villianizing John Deere. What I suspect is REALLY going on here is that John Deere and other manufacturers have adopted a model of selling their equipment to farmers either at a loss or at cost, with the understanding that they'll make their profit in implicit servicing contracts. And the farmers, now that they have the equipment in hand on the cheap, have decided to "alter the deal" (to quote the great Darth Vader) to save a buck. And they're playing on their bullshit image to portray themselves as the little guy fighting back against evil big business to do it, when in reality they're every bit as greedy and underhanded as the company they're fighting (likely more so).

Now go ahead an mod me down, all of you whose only knowledge of farmers comes from John Mellencamp songs.

I won't contest that farmers are businessmen first, despite being firmly blue collar, but they DO have to hedge against QUITE a bit of stuff. While they don't worry about "the consumer won't buy our product", they DO worry about "what happens when the crop gets destroyed by bad weather/vermin/disease" and "geez that's a lot of water I'm having to pump this year". These impact the bottom line and have to be hedged against. Long term farmers hedge against multiple seasons of bad, which is why they've survived as long as they have.

The amount of assets (which includes the land itself) required for farming is pretty significant when compared to most other businesses.

Broken equipment doesn't just cost "what's in my SLA", but could cost a significant yeild of a crop. Being able to fix stuff in-situ makes sure the wheels keep turning. This is (part) of the argument against John Deere: Calling them during a busy time is potentially a massive problem because "Locusts are chewing through the field next to mine and if I don't get mine crop harvested, I'm not going to get anything out if it either." "We can dispatch someone tomorrow" is a non-starter at times. I don't know how the SLAs are set up for farm equipment, if there are any. When my family was working, it was fixed in place with bailing wire, duct tape, bubble gum, and spit, until it could be fixed right.

Re:License to work

[aardvarkjoe]

What I suspect is REALLY going on here is that John Deere and other manufacturers have adopted a model of selling their equipment to farmers either at a loss or at cost, with the understanding that they'll make their profit in implicit servicing contracts. And the farmers, now that they have the equipment in hand on the cheap, have decided to "alter the deal" (to quote the great Darth Vader) to save a buck.

Well then, John Deere should get a lesson on what happens when you have a stupid business model. If they want to make a profit on equipment sales, they'd better price their equipment such that they can turn a profit.

Whether or not the farmers are cheap bastards -- given human nature, they probably are -- is really irrelevant.

Re:License to work

[jdavidb]

What I suspect is REALLY going on here is that John Deere and other manufacturers have adopted a model of selling their equipment to farmers either at a loss or at cost, with the understanding that they'll make their profit in implicit servicing contracts. And the farmers, now that they have the equipment in hand on the cheap, have decided to "alter the deal" (to quote the great Darth Vader) to save a buck.

If I buy somebody's loss leader and then don't want to participate in the business model they were expecting, that doesn't mean I've "altered the deal" unless there was an actual deal.

And if somebody's trying to save a buck that doesn't make him bad. In fact if he's the guy supplying our food or something else we need that makes him good.

Re:License to work

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:License to work

[neurojab]

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.

Re:License to work

[LWATCDR]

I do not think they sell anything at a loss. I think this is very much the same issue as cpu binning and turning features on and off in software.
I bet that JD limits the power in some of the tractor motors in software. It could be so they can sell the same unit at a higher power output for more money or it could be to cut down on warranty claims.
Jet engine makers do the same thing.

Re:License to work

[Shadow99_1]

Living in a small town... I can say your wrong. Though more likely the repo guys would call the local police or state police (the state police act as local police where I live), since the county Sheriff doesn't deal much with anything outside prisoner transport and serving civil papers. And the state police wouldn't really care as they don't really 'live or work' in the community (their office is about 10 miles from the town itself and most actually live in the largest city in the area and commute to work each day).

It may be different in other places, but there are a lot of small farmers still here who aren't part of large agribusiness (though there is a local 'co-op' which has grown to become big agribusiness as well). We even have a John Deere dealership in town (other manufacturers have ones 10-20 miles away), so I see a lot of John Deere equipment in a typical day if I'm out and about.

While I believe John Deere is being stupid, I know the county and state would never go against John Deere since they do a lot of business in my region. It would be more likely to get traction against John Deere if the local agri co-ops had issues with it as they have far more power and money than individual farmers.

Re:License to work

[Shadow99_1]

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.

Re:License to work

[Shadow99_1]

Your view of farmers and mine seem a bit different. Then again farmers where i live rarely have farm hands... Well a few do, but they aren't immigrants, instead it's typically local teens. Though most of them also probably have ~100 acres of farmland at most in the first place, so maybe the ones you know work on a different scale.

That said, the farmers I knew still were not 'poor'. Farm kids when I went to high school where the ones whose parents bought them brand new cars to drive when they turned 16 and who could go to Florida every year for a few weeks during summer. They were also big supporters of the schools (most notably the sports teams like baseball and football, and their kids usually played on those teams) and made some fairly large donations so school libraries, football fields, and gyms were often named after farmers (at least 20 or so years ago).

I found them to be much like other people: some were kind and generous, some were in between, others were mean and rotten, and lastly were those tightfisted greedy ones. They were however all business people, but that didn't always mean 'greedy and selfish'. It just meant they ran a business and had to take a broader view than most.

Re:License to work

[geoscodin]

Why lump all farmers together? My grandfather was a farmer and briefly owned a tractor dealership. He was a real-life George Bailey type from A Wonderful Life. He made a pretty good living, but was never wealthy. His farm was a family operation in rural Pennsylvania with some seasonal help. He kept what he needed, gave a lot away, and from what he sold, he kept what needed to get by and donated the rest to the church and directly to people in need. Some farmers in our community focused on their own families, and there's nothing wrong with that, Some got rich doing it, and there's nothing wrong with that either. I can only think of one farm owner who took everything he could at the expense of others, although there could very well have been more. And in the winter when snow made farming impossible, my grandfather worked in the coal mines, and eventually died of black lung from that experience. I have no doubt that there are scum-of-the-earth folks out there in every industry, but for you to agree that farmers across the country should not be allowed to fix their own tractors because you once knew some bad guy farmers is a bit short-sighted, don't you think?

how enforcable

[inode_buddha]

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)

Re:how enforcable

[oh_my_080980980]

Talk so Monsanto. I think you'll learn these laws are very enforceable.

Re:how enforcable

[inode_buddha]

Correction: SOME farmers have debt. The farm I grew up working has zero debt as do most of its neighbors. We've all been operating in the same location for the past 200 years or so, there are family gravestones in the back yard with dates in the 1700's.

Properly cared-for ag equipment can easily last and be productive, money making machines for 50 years. That's about what the depreciation schedule looks like, too. Its not uncommon to see a 40 yr old tractor sell for 1/2 of the new price.

Re:how enforcable

[MightyYar]

We've been having the same problem with computers for years. Sure, you "buy" the hardware - but then all of the software that makes it usable is proprietary and you are at the mercy of the vendor. Even if you run Linux, it takes extraordinary effort to go all open-source.

This tractor mess is very analogous, and is in the same area of law (I think, IANAL). I really think copyright law should allow limited modification of hardware drivers, even for commercial purposes. For example, if I want to create a company which makes a better Nvidia graphics driver, that should be fine even if I just mod the existing binary drivers. Building my own clone and then shipping the Nvidia drivers should probably still be restricted. The idea is to encourage 3rd party "repair" options without destroying the value of Nvidia's IP. In the tractor case, this would allow 3rd party tools which interact and even modify John Deere software, but it would not allow a cheap knockoff to use the John Deere software directly.

Seriously?

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

some, according to the Associated Press, are concerned that the move would reduce revenue to tractor manufacturers, potentially landing them in trouble.

Who gives a shit apart from the owners of the tractor makers?

John Deere is evil.

[gurps_npc]

They are trying to subvert the foundations of capitalism - ownership.

They are abusing the DMCA - a badly designed law that was created to stop IP theft but has instead become a weapon of fraud to trick people into paying ownership prices for what in reality is merely renting.

It's like if you go to buy a house and you pay $800k, up front, expecting to be able to get a mortgage, leave the place to your kids, and sell it if you have to, only to be told later that you merely rented the place for your life time.

Fraud is fraud - whether it is done by outright lies, or instead by hidden fine print in contracts, that no one but lawyer reads

The good news is that

[H3lldr0p]

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.

Obvious solution

[XxtraLarGe]

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.

Re:Obvious solution

[inode_buddha]

Mod up. I started out on a 1955 Case, which is still working and making money every day.

reduce revenue? are you kidding me?!

[nimbius]

...would reduce revenue to tractor manufacturers

bullshit. Speaking as someone who grew up on a farm, almost no independent farmer "buys" a tractor. Its all leased seasonally or yearly, depending on what/when you need it. These manufacturers have a constant stream of interest payments and down payments coming from their own financial lending firms.

A Claas-Axion, used: is $140,000. assuming youve got a lot more than 100 acres, youre going to need a xerion...which again used is more than 200 grand. Do you want to harvest those crops too? you wont be buying Claas because theyre harder than hens teeth to find. John Deere is going to run you through the ringer for another $335,000 "9 series" combine that will refuse to start for almost any code.

so in short, no one on a farm owns a tractor and if they do its 50 years old. Youre hearing more about the DMCA iissue because shops are wising up and refusing to carry replacement and repair parts, at the behest of people like Deere that want to move more new stock in a car dealership model.

Re:Missing Info

[OrangeTide]

I don't think farmers are trying to mod their tractors. I think they are trying to repair them without going to John Deere. Which means the tractor is probably out of warranty. Farmers are really cheap people and if they still had some free repair warranty service available to them they'd be using that instead of screwing aroud with hacking into their tractors.

While it would be nice if this just goes to court and somehow weakens the DMCA. I suspect that congress will just write up a quick and dirty exception for the ag lobby and slap a band-aid on the problem to make the farmers happy.

The future of ownership.

[geekmux]

"...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...."

Since we're talking about John Deere here, let me point out the fact that their global revenue almost doubled in the last ten years. In short, fuck your concerns about them being "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."

For now, cars can be serviced at any independent shop. Let me know how that changes when Tesla becomes the dominant force on the road today, or when autonomous automobile laws force people to maintain their vehicles according to specific guidelines designed to maximize revenue for manufacturers and authorized support centers.

It's not too hard to clearly see where the concept of ownership is headed in the future.

So are Whirlpool, Samsung, Kenmore, et al

[Anonymous Coward]

I can no longer repair my washing machine myself, it uses a proprietary modem to generate tones to transfer diagnostic information. I cannot legally dissect those tones thanks to the DMCA. Very slippery slope ahead

Re:So are Whirlpool, Samsung, Kenmore, et al

[brunes69]

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.

Re:So the farmer is merely renting the tractor?

[Scutter]

"Oh, sure, we'll fix it for free, but you have to bring it to our repair facility in Tucson. Oh, by the way, our single qualified technician is backlogged six months. If your crops can't wait six months, we do offer a premium value-added repair service that includes same-day onsite repairs..."

Re:Not going to help...

[ThosLives]

These farmers are not trying to modify their source code for these repairs. Farmers just want to be able to pull a code, replace broken sensors / actuators, and reset the codes so they can grow your food.

Re:Missing Info

[Charcharodon]

Not even remotely what they are wanting. They want to be able to have access to the repair manuals, special tools, and software that is needed to work on the tractor, which currently all the manufacturers are keeping for themselves and refuse to sell to the public.

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.

Politics

[fulldecent]

People seeking DCMA reform couldn't ask for a better ally than farmers.

Farmers are the most politically active constituency.

One Thing Missing...

[twmcneil]

Just like in our business, uptime is crucially important for these farmers. During the spring planting time and the fall harvest period, if that machine breaks, it needs to be RIGHT NOW. They can't wait a "few days" for the dealership mechanic to visit. And he's busy as all hell fixing our people's shit. This isn't just a bunch hay-seeds saying they want to break their knuckles for the fun of it. This is a very serious situation that can have devastating effects on the bottom line.

I will support them

[mysidia]

But ONLY if they will support a Universal Right to Repair law.

Cars and Tractors should not be special. We should have the same rights to ALL DEVICES mechanical and electronic.

The bill is due

[Joe Branya]

Iowa farmers: Please ask the state to send all property tax bills for John Deere tractors to the "owner" (John Deere) instead of the farmer. Ask for all the state sales tax money back since there was no sale. Ask JD for the liability insurance policy number for all the tractors since they apparently own them. The possibilities are endless

This is why my cousins all have New Holland gear..

[Mysticalfruit]

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.

When you let Goblins write the rules ...

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Albus Dumbledore explains to Harry Potter the philosophy of Goblins and the concept of selling an object.

From the Goblin POV, the only true master of any object is the person who made it. They do not like the habit of witches and wizards acquiring goblin made objects and passing them from wizard to wizard by sale or by inheritance. What wizard think as the price paid to a Goblin own an object, is merely a license fee to use the object for the lifetime of the purchaser. When the wizard dies, or no longer wants to own it, the object should be returned to the Goblin who made it.

John Deere will agree with this philosophy wholeheartedly.

Re:The joke's on John Deere

[macs4all]

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.

But...

[MitchDev]

iii if the farmers only are "licensing" the equipment (and that is UTTER NONSENSE).

Who is responsible for the property tax on the equipment and in the case of an accident, legal liability?

Re:Unfettered capitalism

[FreakyGeeky]

Natalie Portman naked and petrified. Pouring hot grits down your pants.

Re:Unfettered capitalism

[quintus_horatius]

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.

Re:Unfettered capitalism

[Wintermute__]

Wrong. When there are no brands that offer "fix it yourself" tractors, where are these smart farmers supposed to go? Abstain in protest and hope the manufacturers budge before they (the farmers) go under? This can only "work itself out" if there is proper competition in the marketplace.

The DMCA in this case is stifling competition by enforcing a legal fiction of "No user serviceable parts inside". Remove that roadblock, and other entities (diagnostic tool makers, etc.) are free to reverse-engineer the status codes and introduce competition in the servicing of these tractors. Then the market can work itself out. This is a case of a government-enforced monopoly artificially distorting the market. Free-market economics can absolutely fix this situation, and is exactly what the farmers are asking for. And this market (tractor service) has traditionally been free prior to this DMCA nonsense.

Copyrights were never intended to prevent someone from fixing a piece of equipment that they own, be it a tractor or a car. And make no mistake, auto manufacturers are heading this direction as fast as they possibly can, which is why us non-farmers should pay attention to this issue.

Re:Unfettered capitalism

[macs4all]

Copyrights were never intended to prevent someone from fixing a piece of equipment that they own, be it a tractor or a car.

On that, we wholeheartedly agree!

But John Deere is using an unholy alliance of the DMCA (which is evil incarnate) and an EPA mandate (which are generally evil) that "engine control code must be unmodifiable by the end-user" to construct this legal fiction that the entire TRACTOR is "Licensed not Sold".

Someone needs to test this in Court. I believe the Doctrine of FIrst Sale should prevail.

Re:Unfettered capitalism

[jedidiah]

Intellectual property allows you to steal other people's stuff. The most obvious example is a patent that not only grants you exclusive ownership of your own invention but the right to claim ownership of anything similar regardless of how that invention may have come about.

Treating creative works as property allows people (usually robber barons) to hijack other people's creative works and real property.

And again, we have an example of that right here and now.

The intellectual property fiction is preventing the farmer from fully controlling his own personal property (by way of the tractor).

Re:Unfettered capitalism

[Speck'sBacon]

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.

Re:Unfettered capitalism

[quintus_horatius]

How? Give me an example of how the government is preventing someone new from competing in the tractor business.

The laws aren't preventing someone from starting a tractor manufacturing business, though we could veer off and talk about regulatory capture and speculate that any new business that John Deere can't prevent legally will simply be purchased by them before it becomes too big.

But I challenge you to start a tractor repair business that specializes in late-model John Deer tractors. You may technically start one and hang out your shingle, but you won't be able to execute any meaningful repairs without running afoul of the DMCA. As you might read from the article, John Deere has taken advantage of the law to squelch competition in the very lucrative repair business for their equipment.

But hey, if there's nothing stopping you as you say, you should give it a try. Quit your day job, start your John Deer tractor repair business, and get back to me in six months and tell me how you're doing. If you're correct you'll be filthy rich with farmers throughout the nation clamoring for your services.

Re:Unfettered capitalism

[Berkyjay]

The problem here is that people conflate capitalism with free market. You are correct that it is not socialism that is causing this. It is socialism's brother. fascism that is doing this.

In either case, it has nothing to do with capitalism as most people understand the term. Most people consider the terms "free market economy" and "capitalism" to be synonyms, not realizing that "capitalism" is Karl Marx's term for a straw man economic system that does not exist.

First let me address the Karl Marx part. He did not coin the term, it was around before his work. And if I am reading you correctly, capitalism certainly does exist. Maybe you could clarify what you mean by that if I read you wrong.

As for "free market economy" and "capitalism" not being synonymous. Capitalism emerges from the idea of a free market economy. The idea of a free market economy can't even exist on it's own.

Lastly, the connection between fascism and socialism only really exists in the heads of people who don't understand either. You can just as easily say capitalism leads to fascism and have it make just as much sense.

Re:The joke's on John Deere

[tsotha]

I suspect it's more likely that in a few decades tractors won't need farmers.

Re:Unfettered capitalism

[Curunir_wolf]

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.

Re: Unfettered capitalism

[werepants]

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.

Re:The joke's on John Deere

[macs4all]

It's freakin food, why wouldn't you want tightly controlled quality?

I mean "Tightly controlled", like "each tomato shall be between 4.05 and 5.25 inches in diameter".

Re:Unfettered capitalism

[quintus_horatius]

My point is not that competing with John Deere would be easy - it is hard, but not mainly because of anything the government is doing.

I think you missed the point of the article. Competing with John Deere is ILLEGAL due to the way they've taken refuge under the DMCA.

People could reverse-engineer the parts and mechanisms and figure out how to fix the tractors themselves, no manuals needed. My Saab 9-3 never had any jouneyman's manuals printed because the manufacturer didn't allow it, but GM didn't wield the DMCA like a club to prevent any kind of repairs — so there is still a thriving market. The same cannot be said for John Deere or their tractors.

Re:Unfettered capitalism

[Curunir_wolf]

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?