John Deere Clarifies: It's Trying To Abuse Copyright Law To Stop You From Owning Your Own Tractor... Because It Cares About You
from the how-sweet dept
Last month, there was a great Wired article by Kyle Wiens, highlighting how, as part of the DMCA 1201 triennial exemption process, John Deere claimed that you didn't really own your own tractor, because you were just "licensing" the software piece of it. And, more importantly, it didn't want the Librarian of Congress to exempt its software, because that would be messing with John Deere's "property rights." We wrote about this, and it seems like another prime example of a company misusing the idea of intellectual property by pretending it meant ownership of the underlying content, rather than just the copyright itself.That story got a tremendous amount of attention -- so much that the geniuses in John Deere's PR department decided they needed to do something. And by "do something" I mean "make the situation worse." Because, as first noted by Mike Godwin, John Deere sent out a letter to its dealers "responding" to the Wired article in a way that shows that the company doesn't quite understand what's going on. You can read the entire letter below, but here are some of the highlights:
Similar to a car or computer, ownership of equipment does not include the right to copy, modify or distribute software that is embedded in that equipment. A purchaser may own a book, but he/she does not have a right to copy the book, to modify the book or to distribute unauthorized copies to others.Except... no. When you own a book, you do have the right to modify it. It's your book. And you can redistribute the modified book as well. Yes, it's true that you can't make infringing copies of the book and then redistribute them, but that's totally unrelated to the issue at hand with DMCA 1201. The issue here is solely about modifying. It's about letting users actually modify the product they bought (which, again, is perfectly legitimate with a book). But, thanks to Section 1201 of the DMCA, it's not legal when it comes to your John Deere tractor. Because under 1201, if you circumvent the "technical protection measures" that John Deere put over its software, you've broken the law -- whether or not you made any infringing copies.
That's the concern that people have here. The right to tinker with the products that they bought. You can do that with a book. But John Deere abuses the law to say you can't do that with a tractor.
Later in the letter, John Deere plays the "safety" card, but again is really, really confused and pedantic:
Embedded software is designed and tested to ensure equipment works in certain, expected ways. Software modifications increase the risk that equipment will not function as designed. As a result, allowing unqualified individuals to hack or modify equipment software can endanger Deere customers, dealers, and others.Yes, John Deere is right that it's tested the software to work as is, but if people want to tinker with it, that's their right as owners of the damn machines. It's easy enough to note that tinkering with the tractor you bought voids any warranties and takes John Deere out of the liability zone if something goes wrong. But an outright ban on modifying means that no matter what John Deere says, you don't own that tractor. Because ownership means that it's yours and you can absolutely tinker with it however you want -- recognizing that there might be consequences.
And, even more importantly, even if everything that John Deere said here was absolutely true and accurate, none of that is a copyright issue, and it's flat out ridiculous that John Deere believes it's appropriate to abuse copyright law for this purpose. Nothing in the copyright statute is about making sure your tractor functions the way John Deere wants it to. So, no, sorry, John Deere, your response is not particularly convincing.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 1201, copyright, dmca, exemptions, ownership, safety, tinkering, tractors, triennial review
Companies: john deere
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I disagree - it is convincing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing runs like an unmodified Deere?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
* Assuming it is MY deere. I did pay 120K for something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Software is magic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a tiny stretch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a tiny stretch
You are free to paint it a different color, add a cool spoiler, mount it on a roomba, or.....
Oh, you mean modify the software running on the console. Kind of like modifying the software on the tractor.
Actually it isn't a small stretch, it exactly the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a tiny stretch
"If it's illegal to modify a game console or cable modem that you own, or sell hardware or software intended for such modification, then it would seem that applying the same rule to a tractor is only a tiny stretch."
Nine kinds of wrong as well. Do we not own the things we buy? Why, no, no we don't. So why do we buy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a tiny stretch
It is not, and never has been, illegal to do these things. It may be a violation of ToS, but not illegal. However, they do hide behind the same non-circumvention clause of the DMCA, so if you have to break security measures to do it, you may be breaking the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: a tiny stretch
Whether technically "illegal" in your opinion or not, people have indeed gone to prison for it. Some examples:
Console-Mod Legality:
source: http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2003/04/08/mod-chip-trafficker-gets-prison-time-under-digital-copyright -act
Modem-Mod Legality:
source: http://www.wired.com/2012/06/ryan-harris-sentencing/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: a tiny stretch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: a tiny stretch
But in the end, it matters little what the actual laws are. If powerful interests want to put you away, then they'll find something to charge you with, whether it's conspiracy, fraud, or whatever else they can creatively construct and try to make fit out of the millions of laws on the books.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: a tiny stretch
Thanks for proving that your original assertion ("it's illegal to modify a game console or cable modem that you own") is exactly, 100% bullshit.
Do you have any clue that what you just said is: modding is not actually illegal, but they will find some other way to fuck you over.
Do you have any idea how stupid you sound?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: a tiny stretch
Wrong.
Please provide details about these laws you allude to, like state/federal, section/paragraph ... that sort of thing - otherwise it's just bullshit to me.
btw, it matters a lot what the laws actually state, not sure why you think otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: a tiny stretch
In the second instance the mod was the means of stealing cable access. The mod itself is again not illegal, how it was used is.
People build things out of their consoles, write custom software to run on them. All of that is legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So they will be coming by to pick up the pieces....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do you guys EVER for a second consider the legal liabilities?
Do you even grasp that big machinery is dangerous? That playing with software in it is not at all similar to doing so in your little toys?
Just in legal liability, John Deere cannot possibly to any degree authorize others to use modified software.
Techdirt fanboys risk nothing by claiming they know better than those actually responsible. Any of you willing to stake everything you own and will get in future that you're entirely right on this? Because that's the risk you expect John Deere to run.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do you guys EVER for a second consider the legal liabilities?
If purchasers actually own the tractors, then John Deere doesn't have any additional liability, so long as they work safely and as expected with unmodified software.
If _John_Deere_ actually owns the tractors, then _John_Deere_ is acquiring _additional_ liability over what end users do with their (John Deere's) equipment.
Here in the United States of America, we have a decades long tradition of modifying cars, motorcycles, even tractor trailers all of which I believe counts as _big_machinery_.
Now I'm not saying that every modification someone has attempted [ever see the rocket strapped to the top of a car] was wise, or without risk. At the same time, it's been a long time {never} since I've heard the CEO of Chevy, Ford, Toyota, etc. complain about the increased liability they suffer under do to the unauthorized modifications made by purchasers of their various products.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do you guys EVER for a second consider the legal liabilities?
Where?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Do you guys EVER for a second consider the legal liabilities?
However, when they claim to own, even after 'purchase', the software required for the vehicle to function, then for all intents and purposes they own the tractor. If the software bricks, then so does the tractor, and since they control the software, by extension they own the tractor that it's on as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you guys EVER for a second consider the legal liabilities?
They say "adequate diagnostic codes are already accessible to vehicle owners for diagnostic and repair purposes, without circumvention and without violating the vehicle manufacturer's copyrights in its software"
So I guess if the software 'bricks' you take it to the service centre and get it connected to the diagnostic computer, like you would with your car.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you guys EVER for a second consider the legal liabilities?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you guys EVER for a second consider the legal liabilities?
It's the way of the future. I've got a friend who is an auto electrician and the majority of his tools now are a multitude of diagnostic computers for different manufacturers , and for the large part if you don't have the right one the car ain't getting fixed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you guys EVER for a second consider the legal liabilities?
Citation needed.
... who is an auto electrician and the majority of his tools now are a multitude of diagnostic computers for different manufacturers , and for the large part if you don't have the right one the car ain't getting fixed.
And therein lies the problem. They are attempting to create Vendor Lock-in (which they are absolutely free to try to do), but pretending that going against their corporate strategy (i.e. finding a way to fix the equipment that you OWN without their tools) is in some way illegal is asinine.
Just because you are so willing to prostrate yourself to your corporate masters doesn't mean that the rest of us are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you guys EVER for a second consider the legal liabilities?
Citation needed."
And here come the ad-hom's. Techdirt Hypocrisy in action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you guys EVER for a second consider the legal liabilities?
Now, how about responding to the substance of the rest of the comment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you guys EVER for a second consider the legal liabilities?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you guys EVER for a second consider the legal liabilities?
Where?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you guys EVER for a second consider the legal liabilities?
I'm REALLY interested to see where you (might think you) presented ANY evidence that going against a corporate strategy (or even a TOS) is against the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you guys EVER for a second consider the legal liabilities?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you guys EVER for a second consider the legal liabilities?
It's not like everyone can see that the "random" avatar on your comments is exactly the same every single time. It's comical that you think you can disown the comments you've been making by pretending that I have you confused with someone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you guys EVER for a second consider the legal liabilities?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you guys EVER for a second consider the legal liabilities?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you guys EVER for a second consider the legal liabilities?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Do you guys EVER for a second consider the legal liabilities?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do you guys EVER for a second consider the legal liabilities?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do you guys EVER for a second consider the legal liabilities?
Installing non-recommended tires is "dangerous" and "may" lead to "legal liabilities" but Deere can get by just fine by saying to use the appropriate tires...
Hmmm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do you guys EVER for a second consider the legal liabilities?
As noted in the article:
So to answer your question about wether anyone here considers the legal liabilities: Yes, we do.
The same thing has been set into case law for years concerning automobiles. Ford Motor Co. isn't liable if you replace the stock carburetor with hi-performance one that causes an engine fire. Why should John Deere be liable if you hack the software and it causes an accident with your tractor?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do you guys EVER for a second consider the legal liabilities?
And even assuming you're right and John Deere's motives are purely liability-related, why should we care? They're still trying to take away our right to own what we've bought. Today it's tractors, earlier it was coffee pods or watches or textbooks or litter boxes or anti-acne masks. It needs to be fought whenever it comes up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do you guys EVER for a second consider the legal liabilities?
Do you even grasp that how dangerous the machinery is is totally irrelevant to the point being discussed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do you guys EVER for a second consider the legal liabilities?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do you guys EVER for a second consider the legal liabilities?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do you guys EVER for a second consider the legal liabilities?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do you guys EVER for a second consider the legal liabilities?
Not necessarily if subsystems are correctly isolated. L4 can make hard guarantees as a hypervisor that could keep and entertainment and GIS/GPS subsystems modifiable while maintaining a minimum responsiveness of control responsiveness and verifying emission compliance.
Nonetheless even if modification is not authorized, it does not follow that it must be denied via every means available. For example even though running a car engine with the catalytic converter removed is a felony doesn't mean manufacture must weld them onto the frame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let them own their tractors and pay the owner expenses
And shouldn't John Deere be getting insurance on all those tractors they're renting out? After all, car drivers are required to get car insurance, so why shouldn't tractor owners, particularly ones renting out their tractors?
Let John Deere 'own' their tractors if they want I say, but make sure they're paying all the expenses a regular owner would be paying on their tractor. After all, a car rental business can't and shouldn't escape from those expenses, and neither should John Deere the tractor renter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is all very nice a second time but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is all very nice a second time but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is all very nice a second time but...
This is the most appropriate example, since a book is also copyrighted, but you have every right to rip out a page and staple in one you wrote yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is all very nice a second time but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is all very nice a second time but...
The only reason anyone here is crying about this is because they tacked on the bit about pirating music through the stereo of a modded tractor. This was a mistake, and a broad reach.
All they want is to be allowed to have TPM on their software to protect them from corporate fraud. The rest of this is just bullshit and farts in the wind.
And besides, Hands up who owns a tractor ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is all very nice a second time but...
Sorry, I'm in Kansas and tractors are a big deal here. I can tell you it's not about pirating music (didn't even know that part). Farmers tend to get pretty pissed if you tell them they can't tinker with something they own, and that's what this is about.
Also, I'm not buying that corporate fraud angle. I'm betting it's more about forcing farmers into "authorized dealers" for repairs, since they can't modify (or really even know anything about) the software themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is all very nice a second time but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is all very nice a second time but...
Yes, they do throw in the "competitors" remark, however, it's clear from that sentence what they think of "owners". You may not diagnose or repair your John Deere product. You must take it to an authorized dealer for service. Any repair where we are not getting a kickback is not authorized and is illegal.
At least, that's what I got.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is all very nice a second time but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is all very nice a second time but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is all very nice a second time but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is all very nice a second time but...
They love to play that trick though, when you try to sell or modify it "sorry, that's not your property just a license" but when it breaks or is lost or stolen "bad news, your property needs to be replaced".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is all very nice a second time but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Massachusetts Right-to-Repair Law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is all very nice a second time but...
Nobody's crying about not having the rights to the software. The complaint is that they are abusing copyright law to prevent doing things that are 100% unrelated to copyright.
And yes, cars are increasingly doing the same, and people are complaining about that as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is all very nice a second time but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is all very nice a second time but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is all very nice a second time but...
If auto manufacturers start partitioning the government to use COPYRIGHT law to prevent me altering the software in my 10yo car, then I'll start crying about it. Until then your attempt at a comparison fails.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is all very nice a second time but...
Yes, in fact, our original post on this focused on GM rather than John Deere:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150421/23581430744/gm-says-that-while-you-may-own-your-car -it-owns-software-it-thanks-to-copyright.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is all very nice a second time but...
You say "But you don't own that thing you buy", I don't buy it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is all very nice a second time but...
I usually go back to buying a print of a famous painting. I own this copy. I can paint a mustache on it, change the background, blank it out with white paint, rip the frame off and use it on other art. I can even sell it to someone else. I'm not allowed to duplicate it and sell copies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is all very nice a second time but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is all very nice a second time but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is all very nice a second time but...
I'm no expert, but you'd think these DRM geniuses could come up with a "golden DRM" that lets them stop infringement while not trampling all over our ownership rights. /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is all very nice a second time but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is all very nice a second time but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is all very nice a second time but...
Here's why it's abuse: John Deere's own explanation for not wanting an exemption to the anti-circumvention clause primarily rests on a consumer safety argument. Consumer safety is not even remotely the purpose of copyright, so using copyright law for this is an abuse of the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is all very nice a second time but...
You should move to New Zealand before the TPP happens, we've got everything you want. Software can't be copyrighted, fair use is proscribed, i:e the law lays out how you can use things, not the court. You can disable DRM. We have a toothless 3 strikes , but it only relates to peer to peer - meaning we can legally download from any single source, like dropbox or youtube etc, and it costs the copyright holder $25 a pop to send an infringement notice-no surprises-nobody does, except Universal Music (and I think even they've stopped now). You can format shift. Copyright is life plus 50 years. I'm not sure but Mickey Mouse may even be public domain here, George Orwell and Ian Flemming are, and Elvis. And you could go an ride a helicopter with Kim Dotcom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is all very nice a second time but...
The great shame is if you utilise what is in the public domain here it quickly becomes illegal if it crosses a border
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is all very nice a second time but...
It's like Ferrari telling you that you aren't allowed to paint your car whatever color you want (hint: they do this).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is all very nice a second time but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is all very nice a second time but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is all very nice a second time but...
Source????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is all very nice a second time but...
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140902/11491828395/ferrari-drm-dont-screw-with-our-logos-well -let-you-know-if-its-ok-to-sell-your-car.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is all very nice a second time but...
There's a real reading comprehension problem amongst Techdirt readers.
Where in that article does it say you can't have a non-red Ferrari?
And why, if I had the money, could I buy one in any of 36 colours, if It had to be red?
That is about replacing the Ferrari logo with something else - re-branding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is all very nice a second time but...
Just like a copyright infringement suit for changing your property to NOT use their copyrighted program should be laughable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is all very nice a second time but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is all very nice a second time but...
Meh. That's just six of one or a half dozen of the other. I should be able to change all the branding on any car I own. Otherwise, I don't really own the car at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is all very nice a second time but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is all very nice a second time but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is all very nice a second time but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A market opportunity?
Where are the after market replacement modules and when can we expect them? This an opportunity begging for fulfillment. how about open source, even better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Computer tech
Meanwhile, I WILL modify what I OWN if I FEEL LIKE IT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Computer tech
This is the only reasonable reaction, in my opinion. I will never let stupid things like DMCA anti-circumvention stop me from modifying anything that I own if I feel like it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]