Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Wednesday March 08 2017, @05:42PM   Printer-friendly
from the protecting-us-from-ourselves dept.

Nebraska is one of eight states in the US – including Minnesota, New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, Wyoming, Tennessee and Kansas – seeking to pass "right to repair" legislation. All eyes will be on the Cornhusker state when the bill has its public hearing on 9 March, because its unique "unicameral legislature" (it's the only state to have a single parliamentary chamber) means laws can be enacted swiftly. If this bill, officially named LB67, gets through, it may lead to a domino effect through the rest of the US, as happened with a similar battle over the right to repair cars. These Nebraska farmers are fighting for all of us.

Big agriculture and big tech – including John Deere, Apple and AT&T – are lobbying hard against the bill, and have sent representatives to the Capitol in Lincoln, Nebraska, to spend hours talking to senators, citing safety, security and intellectual property concerns.

John Deere has gone as far as to claim that farmers don't own the tractors they pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for, but instead receive a "license to operate the vehicle". They lock users into license agreements that forbid them from even looking at the software running the tractor or the signals it generates.

Another article on the topic at Techdirt.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Wednesday March 08 2017, @06:45PM (17 children)

    by Zz9zZ (1348) on Wednesday March 08 2017, @06:45PM (#476629)

    Lack of local dealers maybe? I'm sure farmers don't want additional shipping cost, it can't be cheap for monster machines like those. Also, that does not factor in farmers who are already invested in John Deere.

    As for solving problems with the "free market" we've seen that doesn't really work out so well. Consumer knowledge plus cornering the market makes "voting with your wallet" a rare option. I would prefer we get legislation to prevent shady business practices instead.

    --
    ~Tilting at windmills~
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday March 08 2017, @06:55PM (16 children)

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Wednesday March 08 2017, @06:55PM (#476641)

    Also, that does not factor in farmers who are already invested in John Deere.

    Sunk cost fallacy.

    Consumer knowledge plus cornering the market makes "voting with your wallet" a rare option.

    I'm all for increasing consumer knowledge. These anti-repair policies should be required to be advertised by manufacturers. But consumers should make the ultimate choice. All too often, people are stupid and short-sighted. Why do we need Big Brother to save us from ourselves if we're too dumb to make intelligent choices in the first place? As I've pointed out, there's plenty of alternatives out there. They might cost more up-front, but that's part of the cost-benefit equation. Obviously, these farmers don't think the right to repair is that important, or else they would support manufacturers who are friendlier that way.

    • (Score: 2) by Bogsnoticus on Wednesday March 08 2017, @07:10PM (6 children)

      by Bogsnoticus (3982) on Wednesday March 08 2017, @07:10PM (#476653)

      > "These anti-repair policies should be required to be advertised by manufacturers. But consumers should make the ultimate choice. All too often, people are stupid and short-sighted. Why do we need Big Brother to save us from ourselves if we're too dumb to make intelligent choices in the first place?"

      Let's see if I'm reading this right. you want Big Brother to enact legislation due to your stupid decision of not doing research prior to purchase, to save you from making the stupid decision of not doing your research prior to making your purchase which then required the "right to repair" laws?

      --
      Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
      • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Wednesday March 08 2017, @07:29PM (5 children)

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Wednesday March 08 2017, @07:29PM (#476662)

        The world isn't black and white. That's why many of our laws and our courtroom procedures reference "reasonability". There's only so much research that consumers can reasonably expected to do before purchase. An auto dealer isn't going to let you take a car off the lot, take it home, and take it apart before buying it so that you can fully evaluate its build quality and engineering, for instance. And there's a disparity in power between sellers (usually large companies) and buyers (usually not), so there is a need for keeping the "playing field" level. But I think it should stop short of coddling consumers. I don't support consumers getting screwed over by things they couldn't have reasonably known about, but I do support them getting screwed over because they ignored plainly-obvious warnings (e.g., "this product can only be repaired by the manufacturer, whenever they feel like it, wherever they decide to do it (even if there's only one location in your entire state), and at whatever price they decide to set").

        These companies lobbying the hardest against the right-to-repair legislation (JD, Apple) seem to be the ones with the most user-hostile policies and practices, and seem to be supported by cultish users who insist on buying their products and then complaining about them, even though plenty of viable alternatives exist. It isn't even like Microsoft, where you can at least make the argument that the industry as a whole makes it difficult to choose an alternative because of 3rd-party software compatibility. There's plenty of phone makers besides Apple, and there's plenty of farm/heavy equipment makers besides JD.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Wednesday March 08 2017, @07:41PM (3 children)

          by Zz9zZ (1348) on Wednesday March 08 2017, @07:41PM (#476673)

          Still not hearing a good argument as to why we shouldn't enact legislation for Right to Repair.

          Companies can update their warranties. Actually I don't think would need to, it is pretty common policy to have "your warranty is voided if you break this seal". So, no downside for the company except for a loss of revenue when users refuse to pay their exorbitant prices to get repairs / replacements.

          Here is why people are upset:

          It comes down to digital rights management (DRM), or the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA): these two acts made it illegal to circumvent a copy-protection system. In essence, they state the consumer doesn’t own the software of the product, only the product. John Deere is fundamentally stating that if you tinker with your tractor software to get it running the way you need it to, you are a pirate, and therefore, in violation of the law.

          So, do you support the right for John Deere to sue the farmers? Do you really think THAT is a good precedent for ownership? How long before all companies take a similar stance, y'know, all cartel like. Collusion for profits, it would put small business owners (repair shops) out of business since every customer would be required to use the licensed repair shop for their product. More fees for small business owners, lack of competition, and eventually massive monopolies.

          --
          ~Tilting at windmills~
          • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday March 08 2017, @09:38PM (2 children)

            by Grishnakh (2831) on Wednesday March 08 2017, @09:38PM (#476731)

            If customers are happily purchasing from a company that actually threatens to sue them for tinkering with their own property, I think the customers have a serious problem.

            Really, it seems to me that the fundamental problem is the DMCA itself. (Aside: what "two acts" are they talking about here? "DRM" isn't a law, it's an industry acronym for something used in software. "DMCA" is a law, but only one.) I'm all for people having the right to repair their property, but it seems like this might be a band-aid for a fundamentally broken law, one which should be repealed or amended.

            Anyway, these RtR laws sound great to me; I'm not arguing against them. I'm just bitching about dumb end-users who keep buying from companies that treat them poorly.

            • (Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Wednesday March 08 2017, @09:51PM (1 child)

              by Zz9zZ (1348) on Wednesday March 08 2017, @09:51PM (#476738)

              Fair enough, but at some point you will realize that with such a large population there are going to be enough uneducated / clueless people such that these business practices will always be a problem. Getting mad about human nature and other things we can't control is a pointless exercise that only hurts ourselves. Hence government intervention, but the responsibility falls back on "the people" to make sure the gov isn't going full nanny state.

              --
              ~Tilting at windmills~
              • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday March 08 2017, @10:49PM

                by Grishnakh (2831) on Wednesday March 08 2017, @10:49PM (#476766)

                Sure, they'll be a problem, but I think it's a bit unfair to chalk everything stupid humans do up to "human nature". People can and do better. Lots of people do thorough research before buying a new car, for instance; there's all kinds of sources for information on this, from large publications like Consumer Reports and Motor Trend to various YouTube bloggers who do test drives and check-outs on a lift. There's really no shortage of product reviews out there for any mass-market item. Of course, farm equipment probably doesn't have so much of this, but I would think farmers would have their own groups, hopefully online, where they can exchange information about this stuff and badmouth companies that treat customers poorly.

                The other big problem is that part of this problem is created by the government itself, in the form of the DMCA. Why should we need "government intervention" to solve a problem government created with a bad law? The government needs to fix the bad law. Of course, there's more to the RtR laws than that: they require access to diagnostic tools and manuals, which I think is a good idea and not something addressed by current laws. But the part about accessing the software is still limited by the DMCA it seems. Of course, the other big problem with government intervention is corruption: the government more often is working for big corporations and their lobbyists rather than the voters. How do we fix that? I'll honestly be surprised if any of these RtR laws actually get passed because of this factor. It would be great if they'd pass such laws in the EU though, because then we'd be able to get that information over here that way.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 09 2017, @01:29AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 09 2017, @01:29AM (#476817)

          An auto dealer isn't going to let you take a car off the lot, take it home, and take it apart before buying it so that you can fully evaluate its build quality and engineering, for instance.

          Well, yes, but I fully expect that once I have bought and paid for the car that I can do whatever the hell I want with it, including taking it apart piece by piece, for whatever reason. What business is it to the auto dealer what I do with my own property? Of course, I also think that the manufacturer has every right to say that the warranty is void if I do decide to take the car apart and put it back together if I am not a car mechanic certified to work on their cars.

          I don't support consumers getting screwed over by things they couldn't have reasonably known about, but I do support them getting screwed over because they ignored plainly-obvious warnings (e.g., "this product can only be repaired by the manufacturer, whenever they feel like it, wherever they decide to do it (even if there's only one location in your entire state), and at whatever price they decide to set").

          IANAL but I suspect that such a contract clause would not pass muster in a court of law. Have we got any legal scholars who would care to weigh in on this? I'm interested to see what a real contract lawyer might make of this.

    • (Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday March 09 2017, @02:41PM (8 children)

      by sjames (2882) on Thursday March 09 2017, @02:41PM (#476952) Journal

      You're looking at it backwards. Currently, JD, Apple, and co. are using the state's willingness to use force on their behalf to enforce their anti-repair policies. A right to repair is the state refusing to have itself used that way.

      • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday March 09 2017, @03:13PM (7 children)

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday March 09 2017, @03:13PM (#476964)

        No, not exactly. As I understand it, part of these RtR bills is forcing the mfgr to provide access to diagnostic tools and repair manuals to 3rd-party repair shops and end-users. The state isn't using "force" to enforce mgfrs' refusal to provide access to this, unless you count the willingness of the police to use force against someone who would forcibly enter the mfgrs' facilities and steal these things. There's a lot more here than just twisting the DMCA around.

        • (Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday March 09 2017, @03:31PM (6 children)

          by sjames (2882) on Thursday March 09 2017, @03:31PM (#476976) Journal

          Withdrawal of force is at least part of the bill. I emphasize that since opponents of the bill would have us forget that the manufacturers have been happily enjoying the backing of state force for some time.

          Once that force is withdrawn, the rest will happen with or without the manufacturer's cooperation. Repair manuals, spare parts, and diagnostic tools will come into existance with or without the OEM's help. The OEMs have long argued that this creates a danger from people doing it wrong or using substandard parts. The RTR bill says OK, so then you shall provide correct parts, diagnostic tools, and manuals, problem solved.

          • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday March 09 2017, @03:52PM (5 children)

            by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday March 09 2017, @03:52PM (#476990)

            Exactly what force are you talking about? You're free to work on these machines all you want, you just won't get the mfgr to honor the warranty any more (though you might be able to sue them under the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act, depending on exactly what you did). The OEMs have no ability to forcibly prevent people from attempting to repair their own equipment, or use 3rd-party parts. They do have the ability, however, to refuse to help.

            • (Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday March 09 2017, @04:04PM (4 children)

              by sjames (2882) on Thursday March 09 2017, @04:04PM (#476994) Journal

              So if I grab up the repair manuals and diagnostic equipment and begin distributing copies, I may expect no visit from a LEO and no summons? Will the state really refrain from applying force against me?

              • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday March 09 2017, @04:38PM (3 children)

                by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday March 09 2017, @04:38PM (#477010)

                If you use force to take things that aren't yours, then yes, you can expect to receive force in return from the state. What's so hard to understand about that? Theft has never been allowed in any civilized country (and that's ignoring the whole issue of copyright law, I'm just talking about your initial theft of the originals).

                Where did you ever get the idea that the state isn't justified in using force against you when you commit a crime (namely theft)?

                • (Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday March 09 2017, @05:20PM (2 children)

                  by sjames (2882) on Thursday March 09 2017, @05:20PM (#477019) Journal

                  So, if I simply crack JDs encryption and produce a diagnostic system that uses that discovered key, no issues at all?

                  And who said anything about taking? I'm talking about copying, perhaps while employed by JD.

                  No way around it, JD is depending on a state application of force to deny the right to repair.

                  What makes it such a problem if the state withdraws it's offer to apply force in those situations?

                  • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday March 09 2017, @06:43PM (1 child)

                    by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday March 09 2017, @06:43PM (#477062)

                    The main problem I see is Federal copyright law. State law can't trump Federal laws.

                    But this law isn't just removing the state protections for copyright and hoping some insider sticks the information on the internet somewhere; it's literally forcing the mfgr to provide information. That's rather different from removing a government-provided protection.

                    • (Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday March 09 2017, @08:05PM

                      by sjames (2882) on Thursday March 09 2017, @08:05PM (#477103) Journal

                      Due to federal copyright law, it's the only way the states can get that information out there where it belongs.

                      Of course, let's not forget that JD only exists because of an act of the state. It is a legal fiction created by the state. I'm not so sure it's in the public interest to let them use DRM and the DMCA to lock people into their repair services.

                      The point is that state backed force is already all over this. It seems disingenuous to argue that applying it in the other direction is somehow less permissible.