That is one of the finest examples I have seen in years just how greedy and narcissistic those people who own and run those corporations are to think that the machines they "sell" are still theirs. That is like me "selling" someone a laptop then telling them later that I still own that laptop because of some random code under DMCA which is pure bull shit. At this pace in a few generations our descendants will be living under feudalism.

I do hope the entire system implodes and does so soon if there is to be any hope for future generations.

This is just natural evolution of things. You already don't own the software you buy. Why should it be different with hardware?

There's no right and wrong in this. It is just a system that everyone tries to bend to their own advantages, to the best of their abilities, within the parameters set by the system.

IMO if you object to it, you shouldn't even bother complaining about measly manifestations such as this one. Strike at the source - abolish the DMCA. Or just ignore it. Although I do understand that in the US it is actually possible to get penalized as a private person consuming illegally distributed content, in most places in the world it is not. And the broader the definition of "illegal" will be, the more normal people will become "criminals", until at some point it will be obvious to everyone, that the definition is just a joke and cannot be taken seriously. A law that makes everyone a criminal cannot be enforced, and will not be.

IMO, the corporations trying to control everything and make anything that does not bring them money illegal already lost. This kind of pathetic attempts to take something back are just death throes.

Waiting for the socialist reprobates to show up and support this theft.

Honestly, I still don't see this working out in their favor. But this line is absolutely correct:

dr_st wrote:

Strike at the source - abolish the DMCA. Or just ignore it.

The DMCA was evil. It pretty much throws consumer rights out the window. The anti-circumvention clause is a huge source of hardship even for people that want to do legitimate changes.
And the DMCA leaves a gaping hole for exploits. For example, false complaints to get things taken down. Destroy the DMCA!

First of all , what on earth ?

Second of all:

Lo Wang wrote:

Waiting for the socialist reprobates to show up and support this theft.

WTF ?

As dr_st already pointed out, software has been sold this way since the dawn of time. Never, at any point in the history of computer programs, have any of you ever "owned" the software you've purchased. Instead, you own the media it came on which comes with a license to use the software contained within, provided you adhere to certain restrictions such as not backwards engineering it or selling copies of it.

The thing is, 99.99999% of the time, this licensing really doesn't matter. You have the physical media, you have the software on it, and so long as you're not trying to resell it, give away copies, or use pieces of it in your own commercial endeavors no one's typically going to care if you breach the other parts of the license agreement, not only because it typically doesn't harm the company or author who licensed it, but also because no one's even going to know except you. :P

The other 0.00001% of the time is in a situation where Business A buys a piece of Business B software, disassembles the code, and makes their own program incorporating bits and pieces of said code. Business B finds out and sues Business A. :P

If a company abuses the licensing in place, one of two things will happen, both of which is bad for the company. Either the courts find parts of the license invalid because they're not legal, or the company becomes untrusted for engaging in such shady licensing practices to begin with. I think everyone here remembers what happened to CompuServe and UniSys over the GIF patent fiasco... >_>;

Lo Wang wrote:

socialist

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Lo Wang wrote:

reprobates

This one either.

Lo Wang wrote:

theft

You might be a bit confused about this one too.

WTF, indeed.

Kerr Avon wrote:

In a particularly spectacular display of corporate delusion, John Deere—the world’s largest agricultural machinery maker —told the Copyright Office that farmers don’t 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.”

When referring to "code" as mentioned here, it surely needs to be stored somewhere (firmware/SSD/etc) before a processor of some sort can execute it. I wonder what limitations might be placed on somebody swapping out some John Deere IP storage device and replacing it with some FOSS alternative. I'm not familiar with farming equipment at all. I assume it is similar to how cars are built nowadays in that they might have a marquee badge on them, but most of the parts were actually made by a different company.

I think I'm trying to say that John Deere might not be able to make a case at all if somebody gives them back their storage device and says, "FU, buddy. I'll be running alternative firmware from here on out. You can keep your crappy code".

Of course, farmers might be SOL due to lack of demand or a sufficient market for such an alternative product. However, motorheads have been doing stuff just like that for quite awhile now. I have a friend who is into autocross racing. I'll have to ask him what he thinks about this.

I see no problem as long as you can't be caught.

Of course, farmers might be SOL due to lack of demand or a sufficient market for such an alternative product. However, motorheads have been doing stuff just like that for quite awhile now. I have a friend who is into autocross racing. I'll have to ask him what he thinks about this.

There will be if this comes to pass (I doubt it will stand up though)

Hey all, I am a socialist by European standards (yay, "they" finally show up with Pitchfork, Scythe's and Torches 😁 )....
When you buy stuff, you own that in my terminology. Nuff said!

Beware of the pitchfork user licence agreement!

For cars at least it's already happening... lots of people [in the UK at least] no longer own their vehicles these days; leasing is big business. Whilst current schemes can usually offer a final settlement fee in order to own it, not all do. Whilst it's not something I agree with many do as they want to be seen in a new vehicle frequently and it's a way of getting such.

Reckless wrote:

For cars at least it's already happening... lots of people [in the UK at least] no longer own their vehicles these days; leasing is big business. Whilst current schemes can usually offer a final settlement fee in order to own it, not all do. Whilst it's not something I agree with many do as they want to be seen in a new vehicle frequently and it's a way of getting such.

It's big business here in the USA too. It has been for a long time. Like you, I don't understand it at all. It seems like a terrible waste of money. I purchased my tiny (but cute) Japanese car with the intention of driving it until the wheels fall off. I also paid for it in cash. Then again, I'm also not the type of person who pays the Apple "tax", or the Harley "tax", or the BMW/MB/Audi "tax". To me, paying a premium for a brand name sticker is stoooooopid. I have absolutely no need to impress strangers with silly little status symbols that ultimately signify nothing.

Anyway, this issue with John Deere isn't about leasing. It is something else entirely. For people outside the USA who aren't accustomed to the shameless corporate greed of the typical american company, it means this: They want full control of their product even after you have paid for it. With control of this sort, they can prevent people from making unauthorized modifications. If an unauthorized modification is made anyway, they can then assume ownership of it and profit from somebody else's labor. They could probably sue the person who created it as well. Some community mods for non-abandonware video games have seen this sort of thing happen already.

Anybody who has read The Jungle or Grapes of Wrath knows to expect this sort of thing from USA businesses. For some of the most egregious contemporary examples, research the business practices of Caterpillar Inc or Wal-Mart. Heck, it wasn't too long ago that Apple was trying to make it illegal to jailbreak their phones. Seriously, they wanted to make it a crime for you to alter the product you paid for. It just blows my mind.

KT7AGuy wrote:

It's big business here in the USA too. It has been for a long time. Like you, I don't understand it at all. It seems like a t […]
Show full quote

Reckless wrote:

For cars at least it's already happening... lots of people [in the UK at least] no longer own their vehicles these days; leasing is big business. Whilst current schemes can usually offer a final settlement fee in order to own it, not all do. Whilst it's not something I agree with many do as they want to be seen in a new vehicle frequently and it's a way of getting such.

It's big business here in the USA too. It has been for a long time. Like you, I don't understand it at all. It seems like a terrible waste of money. I purchased my tiny (but cute) Japanese car with the intention of driving it until the wheels fall off. I also paid for it in cash. Then again, I'm also not the type of person who pays the Apple "tax", or the Harley "tax", or the BMW/MB/Audi "tax". To me, paying a premium for a brand name sticker is stoooooopid. I have absolutely no need to impress strangers with silly little status symbols that ultimately signify nothing.

Anyway, this issue with John Deere isn't about leasing. It is something else entirely. For people outside the USA who aren't accustomed to the shameless corporate greed of the typical american company, it means this: They want full control of their product even after you have paid for it. With control of this sort, they can prevent people from making unauthorized modifications. If an unauthorized modification is made anyway, they can then assume ownership of it and profit from somebody else's labor. They could probably sue the person who created it as well. Some community mods for non-abandonware video games have seen this sort of thing happen already.

Anybody who has read The Jungle or Grapes of Wrath knows to expect this sort of thing from USA businesses. For some of the most egregious contemporary examples, research the business practices of Caterpillar Inc or Wal-Mart. Heck, it wasn't too long ago that Apple was trying to make it illegal to jailbreak their phones. Seriously, they wanted to make it a crime for you to alter the product you paid for. It just blows my mind.

I have all my money in a very safe account with 0% interest, the bank people looked at me as if I was some kind of alien last time I was there... that was more than 5 years ago. I like nice cars though but I usually buy them when they are 15 years old and worth little money. I often just drive them until they die if they were cheap enough.

I do not own a TV other then my Plasma which is only used with my computer. I have never had a working TV since I moved from my parents aged 18 in the late 90s. I do not own a "Smart Phone" and you wont find me on Face Book.

From where I am standing everything around me is just total lunacy but I like watching from a distance while participating as little as possible 😁

Skyscraper wrote:

I do not own a TV other then my Plasma which is only used with my computer. I have never had a working TV since I moved from my parents aged 18 in the late 90s. I do not own a "Smart Phone" and you wont find me on Face Book.

From where I am standing everything around me is just total lunacy but I like watching from a distance while participating as little as possible 😁

+1

Reckless wrote:

Whilst it's not something I agree with many do as they want to be seen in a new vehicle frequently and it's a way of getting such.

It's usually about it stacking up better financially vs paying cash or getting bank finance. See below.

KT7AGuy wrote:

Like you, I don't understand it at all. It seems like a terrible waste of money.

(This all related to Australia, as that's where I'm from)

Leasing is great (at least the form of it I'm familiar with, novated leasing). You play a flat monthly fee to have your car. You don't worry about budgeting for insurance, registration, fuel, maintenance, tyres, servicing, etc. At the end you can pay the residual, or let the lease company re-market the car and deduct the residual from that.

The kicker is that it comes out of your salary pre-tax. So rather than paying the income tax rate which can be as high as 38 or 45c in the dollar, you pay fringe benefits tax of a flat 20%. It's very attractive if you earn over $80,000 a year.

Plus you're in a new car, which has a warranty, so when things break you're not up for more cash to get them fixed. Also the fuel economy is better than some 15 year old banger.

Leasing is great (at least the form of it I'm familiar with, novated leasing). You play a flat monthly fee to have your car. You don't worry about budgeting for insurance, registration, fuel, maintenance, tyres, servicing, etc. At the end you can pay the residual, or let the lease company re-market the car and deduct the residual from that.

It isn't so great in the USA. You most certainly still have to pay for insurance and fuel. I honestly don't know about servicing
but I think it is only partially covered. And it may not even be for the full lease duration.

Just don't buy John Deere, let 'em burn in hell.

I will buy Massey Ferguson instead. 😀