Did you know you don't own your John Deere tractor?

[Anne_FS]

We Can't Let John Deere Destroy the Very Idea of Ownership

[i]"It’s official: John Deere and General Motors want to eviscerate the notion of ownership. Sure, we pay for their vehicles. But we don’t own them. Not according to their corporate lawyers, anyway.

"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.”

“It’s John Deere’s tractor, folks. You’re just driving it.”[/i]

[moving_to_dc]

My husband’s family just spent $257,000 for their newest farm tractor. They dam* well better own it.

[LaurieB]

Hmmm. This makes me think that we need a Kubota.

[reubenT]

Trying to take more control than they need or should have. Sounds too much like communism to me. Where the government owns everything, the people live in apartments and work state farms. That system has already been tried and failed. If I’m going to buy a tractor, there will be no strings attached leading back to the company or a government. If there is I won’t give em a single penny for it. I’d rather go back to farming with a team of draft horses than have that kind of control going on.

[wireweiners]

There’s got to be more to this. I could see maybe licensing the computer code but not the whole tractor. What happens if you sell the tractor? Cars have a lot of computer code too but you don’t get a lifetime license to use them.

[poltroon]

DMCA is terrible this way, and we in software/tech have been saying so since it was passed.

But, I have to point out that corporate control and ownership is pretty much the opposite of communism. By definition.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has done great work in this space.

Public comment can make a huge difference. Consumers recently won the right to unlock their cell phones and move to new carriers, in part because of great public upswell. https://dmca.digitalrighttorepair.org is collecting comments and stories for this next step.

And for a bit of history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeCSS_haiku

[clanter]

[QUOTE=moving to dc;8117454]
My husband’s family just spent $257,000 for their newest farm tractor. They dam* well better own it.[/QUOTE]

have your family send John Deere the tax bill on the equipment, since they own it and have openly admitted the ownership

[msj]

[QUOTE=clanter;8120776]
have your family send John Deere the tax bill on the equipment, since they own it and have openly admitted the ownership[/QUOTE]

Ah clanter, I do love you!

Sure makes me glad I own a Massey Ferguson tractor!

[Guilherme]

The quote above does NOT claim ownership of the entire vehicle. It does claim that the manufacturer has granted a licence to use the code that permits the vehicle to operate. It’s an attempt to bifurcate the concepts of “ownership” and “use.” I’m sure it was done by a very bright lawyer from Harvard who failed to remove his “professional blinders” before making the claim.

If the statement were accepted as fact (and that a “purchase price” is in fact an “open ended lease”) it would have some very interesting consequences. Personal property tax would no longer be with the lessee (formerly the owner) but now with Deere. Deere would be responsible for the disposition/recycling of obsolete equipment. Deere might have substantial liability for injuries sustained while the equipment is being used. Deere might also face some interesting claims if equipment fails to perform as advertised. I’m sure that there are many others. All of these issues could be addressed in a well drafted contract; but such does not exist, either express or implied, at this time (or at any previous time).

I’d bet the statement made was in conjunction with some sort of “infringement” matter over some patent. ALL modern tractors have computer controlled systems. ALL have the same issue. In that Deere is not unique.

G.

[Jim_in_PA]

There is discussion about this thing in other arenas and more from the point of view of cars/trucks…there apparently is an effort to further thwart 3rd party manipulation of the computer code and firmware in modern vehicles using DCMA that could also affect folks who want to do their own maintenance. Interesting…

[IPEsq]

[QUOTE=Jim_in_PA;8121648]
There is discussion about this thing in other arenas and more from the point of view of cars/trucks…there apparently is an effort to further thwart 3rd party manipulation of the computer code and firmware in modern vehicles using DCMA that could also affect folks who want to do their own maintenance. Interesting…[/QUOTE]

I would think this is the motivation behind the statement as well. Because the “owner” paid money for the tractor, under copyright law, any such implied license would be irrevocable, so in practice, they couldn’t ever stop you from using the code to operate the vehicle.

The thing is… if you go in and manipulate the code you are creating a derivative work most likely, so it doesn’t matter who owns that copy of the code (inside that particular vehicle), because Deere or whomever would still have the right to stop derivative works. Just because I may own a copy of a book doesn’t mean I can necessarily go out and write a screenplay based on the book.

[airhorse]

That’s great news, they can insure and maintain it for me too!

[clanter]

[QUOTE=Guilherme;8120940]
The quote above does NOT claim ownership of the entire vehicle. It does claim that the manufacturer has granted a licence to use the code that permits the vehicle to operate. .[/QUOTE]

and my counter claim would the tractor has a value no greater than scrap as without the code the product can not be used … please forward the tax bill to John Deere

[SmartAlex]

[QUOTE=Jim_in_PA;8121648]
There is discussion about this thing in other arenas and more from the point of view of cars/trucks…there apparently is an effort to further thwart 3rd party manipulation of the computer code and firmware in modern vehicles using DCMA that could also affect folks who want to do their own maintenance. Interesting…[/QUOTE]

I hate the computerization of cars. No longer can I be assured of a safe run for the border :winkgrin: The car will just lock me in, turn itself around, and take me to the nearest police station.

I just want an old fashion window that rolls down with a crank so I can get out!!! :lol:

[Guilherme]

[QUOTE=clanter;8122394]
and my counter claim would the tractor has a value no greater than scrap as without the code the product can not be used … please forward the tax bill to John Deere[/QUOTE]

The same is true of your computer, cell phone, flat screen TV, etc.

You own it, and you have the right to use it (including the software) IAW the terms of your sales contract.

G.

[Icon_SH]

[QUOTE=LaurieB;8117492]
Hmmm. This makes me think that we need a Kubota.[/QUOTE]

Amen Laurie…that’s all I’ll ever buy!!!

[Gloria]

Nobody owns the piece of computer codes that come with the device, except for the software company. It is always licensed. Nothing new here.

[Mosey_2003]

[QUOTE=SmartAlex;8122409]
I just want an old fashion window that rolls down with a crank so I can get out!!! :lol:[/QUOTE]
You can still order them, but it costs extra. No joke :lol:

[SmartAlex]

I can’t imagine that would work around here. The last time I “ordered” a car it was my 2003 Corolla. Since this dealership got them out of the Edmonton plant not the SC plant, I couldn’t get the foggy green I really wanted. My choices were black, white, red or tan. I said I wanted a tan one. “Well, we can’t really guarantee that it will be a tan one. You’ll get what comes”.

Um… no. I am not paying for a brand new car that is not the color I wanted.

I can’t even imagine arguing over manual window cranks :lol: but it would be fun.

[Mosey_2003]

Well, that’s weird… I know people with Ford, Dodge, and Chevy trucks that get the “work truck” that they can order crank windows on…