News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Nest Reminds Customers That Ownership Isn't What It Used to Be. Parent comment

Re:Nest Reminds Customers That Ownership Isn't What It Used ... by slantyyz on Wednesday April 06, 2016 @12:32AM (#11436632)
>> You can still do this today. Nothing stops you from taking apart, repairing and tweaking devices you buy.

Well, the law can stop you from repairing your own John Deere tractor.

https://theamericangenius.com/business-news/farmers-cant-leg...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nest Reminds Customers That Ownership Isn't What It Used ... by jdc on Wednesday April 06, 2016 @01:08AM (#11436736)
Along with many others, I feel that the law is currently misinterpreted.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nest Reminds Customers That Ownership Isn't What It Used ... by kinsho on Wednesday April 06, 2016 @12:54AM (#11436702)
You're misrepresenting your case here. The law stops you from tinkering with the software of the tractor. You can tweak, repair, replace, or light on fire any part of the tractor you want, so long as you do not reverse-engineer the software inside the tractor. So technically, the law does not stop you from repairing any of the mechanical parts of your tractor.

I'm not saying I agree with John Deere's attempt to prevent people from playing around with its tractor software, but I am saying that you're exaggerating here.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nest Reminds Customers That Ownership Isn't What It Used ... by slantyyz on Wednesday April 06, 2016 @01:48AM (#11436870)
I wasn't attempting to misrepresent the case, I was just bringing up an example of a headline I remembered using the first link I found on Google.

I don't disagree that my link may not be the best story to illustrate the point.

Having said that, here's some additional context to the same story:

http://www.wired.com/2015/04/dmca-ownership-john-deere/

>> a neighbor, Kerry Adams, hasn’t been able to fix an expensive transplanter because he doesn’t have access to the diagnostic software he needs. He’s not alone: many farmers are opting for older, computer-free equipment.

http://boingboing.net/2015/05/13/john-deere-of-course-you-ow...

Has a scan of John Deere's response to the Wired story above.

Paraphrase: John Deere is opposed to a revision to the DRM law that "would allow owners of equipment, including Deere competitors or software developers, to access or hack Deere's protected software to repair, diagnose or modify vehicle software".

I get that most simple repairs to tractors might be just mechanical parts, but when you're dealing with add-ons (transplanters?) or fine tuning issues like emissions systems (ahem, Volkswagen), I am guessing you usually need access to the diagnostics systems or computer to see and/or understand what's going on before being able to fix it.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nest Reminds Customers That Ownership Isn't What It Used ... by kinsho on Wednesday April 06, 2016 @04:33PM (#11441843)
Ah the Wired article presents your case in a much better light. If the software in the tractor prevent you from replacing a broken mechanical part, then that can lead to the law blocking you from literally repairing any part of your tractor.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nest Reminds Customers That Ownership Isn't What It Used ... by rahimnathwani on Wednesday April 06, 2016 @01:04AM (#11436727)
The software is an essential part of the tractor. The tractor isn't just the mechanical parts.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nest Reminds Customers That Ownership Isn't What It Used ... by kinsho on Wednesday April 06, 2016 @01:10AM (#11436747)
Yes, but it's NOT the -only- part of the tractor. The commenter who brought up this tractor example made it seem like the government outlawed people from tinkering or repairing ANY part of the tractor.

I also wouldn't be surprised if (much like cars), tractors generally only need mechanical repairs over the duration of their lifespans.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nest Reminds Customers That Ownership Isn't What It Used ... by rahimnathwani on Wednesday April 06, 2016 @02:02AM (#11436925)
"The commenter who brought up this tractor example made it seem like the government outlawed people from tinkering or repairing ANY part of the tractor."

No, they said "...the law can stop you from repairing...", which is true.

"I also wouldn't be surprised if (much like cars), tractors generally only need mechanical repairs over the duration of their lifespans."

I know little about tractors, but your statement is not true for modern cars. Often repairs cannot be completed by mechanical means alone, and require interfacing with or modifying the software in the car. Even if you replace a broken airbag, the light will stay on until you take the car to the dealer to have it reset.

Even if your statement were true, who gets to decide what repairs are required over the life of the car/tractor? If not the owner, then why not?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nest Reminds Customers That Ownership Isn't What It Used ... by kinsho on Wednesday April 06, 2016 @04:35PM (#11441861)
Good points.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nest Reminds Customers That Ownership Isn't What It Used ... by tremon on Wednesday April 06, 2016 @08:51AM (#11438397)
I also wouldn't be surprised if [cars] only need mechanical repairs over the duration of their lifespans.

But you'd be wrong. Take a look at the top comment here[1]:

A recent BMW, in which all I did was replace a dead battery, required a trip to the dealer to "accept" this new battery.

So yes, the ECU software can really do prevent you from repairing any mechanical part of the machine, as long as the ECU has a monitoring sensor for that part.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11423833

[ Parent | on HN ]