Karaoke Forums

How many people does it take to fix a tractor? A year ago, I would have said it took just one person. One person with a broken tractor, a free afternoon, and a box of tools.

I would have been wrong.

When the repair involves a tractor's computer, it actually takes an army of copyright lawyers, dozens of representatives from U.S. government agencies, an official hearing, hundreds of pages of legal briefs, and nearly a year of waiting. Waiting for the Copyright Office to make a decision about whether people like me can repair, modify, or hack their own stuff.

But let’s back up—why do people need to ask permission to fix a tractor in the first place? It’s required under the anti-circumvention section of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act—a law that regulates the space where technology and copyright law collide. And boy, do they collide. In 2014, Washington had to intervene to make it legal again to unlock your cellphone, after the Copyright Office disastrously ruled that the practice violated copyright. Phones are just the beginning.ge group of pro bono intellectual property lawyers—from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, the University of Southern California’s Intellectual Property and Technology Law Clinic, and other organizations—donated their time and expertise to get exemptions passed. And following Congress’ support for cellphone unlocking, the Copyright Office granted more exemptions than ever before in 2015, including one for tractor repair.

It’s a victory, but an imperfect one. Even when an exemption like tractor repair is granted, it’s often been whittled down by the Copyright Office until it’s so narrow as to become functionally useless. By the time we got an exemption to repair tractors, the Copyright Office said that only the farmer, and not her mechanic, could tinker with the software. This restriction is out of touch with the real world, where independent technicians are a critical part of our food supply chain.

Even worse? These hard-won exemptions last only until the next rulemaking. (That’s how unlocking your cellphone went from legal to illegal, before Congress stepped in.) In three years, proponents will have to find a way to do this all over again. This is not sustainable process—not for participants and not for the Copyright Office.

It’s time to level the playing field. Let’s make these exemptions less restrictive and shift the burden of proof a little. Instead of making supporters go to extreme lengths to show that an exemption is absolutely necessary, how about asking the opposition to show that an exemption is absolutely unnecessary? At the very least, Congress should remove the expiration date on exemptions. Once granted, exemptions should be permanent.

I’m a repairman. I recognize broken things when I see them. I got into this fight because I wanted to help people repair their broken stuff. Turns out, copyright law is the thing that was broken all along.


Thanks to the “smart” revolution, our appliances, watches, fridges, and televisions have gotten a computer-aided intelligence boost. But where there are computers, there is also copyrighted software, and where there is copyrighted software, there are often software locks. Under Section 1201 of the DMCA, you can’t pick that lock without permission. Even if you have no intention of pirating the software. Even if you just want to modify the programming or repair something you own.

Enter the tractor. I’m not a lawyer. I’m a repairman by trade and a software engineer by education. I fix things—especially things with computers in them. And I run an online community of experts that teaches other people how to fix broken equipment. When a farmer friend of mine wanted to know if there was a way to tweak the copyrighted software of his broken tractor, I knew it was going to be rough. The only way to get around the DMCA’s restriction on software tinkering is to ask the Copyright Office for an exemption at the Section 1201 Rulemaking, an arduous proceeding that takes place just once every three years. A record-breaking 27 proposed exemptions were considered last year—including one for repairs made to the software in farm equipment.

Unfortunately, getting an exemption is easier said than done. Anyone can petition the office for an exemption, but realistically speaking, you can only shepherd an exemption through the process if you possess (a) limitless free time and a superhuman knowledge of copyright law or (b) the funding to hire expensive intellectual property lawyers.

I did everything a layperson could do. I wrote comments in support of several exemptions; I helped document how difficult it was for local farmers to repair their equipment; I testified in front of the Copyright Office; I helped collect 40,000 public comments in support of copyright reform. But when it came down to it, the Copyright Office required a well-defended legal argument for proposed exemptions. And a well-defended legal argument meant lawyers—lots of them—working on the issue for a year.

Regular people can’t hire an army of copyright lawyers. The financial burden would be crippling. The only people who have enough money to participate in the process are the people trying to defeat the exemptions in the first place. Almost every exemption, including security research for vehicles and DVD ripping for educational uses, was met with opposition from the well-funded, well-lawyered Big Copyright interests—the Motion Picture Association of America, the Recording Industry Association of America, the Entertainment Software Association, and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

The rulemaking process is stacked heavily in the favor of copyright interests. It’s up to supporters to show that an exemption is necessary, and that it meets the legal standard for fair use. Which means petitioners are caught in a Catch-22: In order to meet the standard for relevance, they need to show that there’s overwhelming market demand if only it were legal. But in order to argue they are practicing fair use, they have to admit to already breaking these locks, and therefore the law. Consequently, the very people who need the exemption most are often reluctant to participate. Especially since few proposed exemptions historically survive the rulemaking.

Last year, however, was different. A huge group of pro bono intellectual property lawyers—from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, the University of Southern California’s Intellectual Property and Technology Law Clinic, and other organizations—donated their time and expertise to get exemptions passed. And following Congress’ support for cellphone unlocking, the Copyright Office granted more exemptions than ever before in 2015, including one for tractor repair.

It’s a victory, but an imperfect one. Even when an exemption like tractor repair is granted, it’s often been whittled down by the Copyright Office until it’s so narrow as to become functionally useless. By the time we got an exemption to repair tractors, the Copyright Office said that only the farmer, and not her mechanic, could tinker with the software. This restriction is out of touch with the real world, where independent technicians are a critical part of our food supply chain.

Even worse? These hard-won exemptions last only until the next rulemaking. (That’s how unlocking your cellphone went from legal to illegal, before Congress stepped in.) In three years, proponents will have to find a way to do this all over again. This is not sustainable process—not for participants and not for the Copyright Office.

It’s time to level the playing field. Let’s make these exemptions less restrictive and shift the burden of proof a little. Instead of making supporters go to extreme lengths to show that an exemption is absolutely necessary, how about asking the opposition to show that an exemption is absolutely unnecessary? At the very least, Congress should remove the expiration date on exemptions. Once granted, exemptions should be permanent.

I’m a repairman. I recognize broken things when I see them. I got into this fight because I wanted to help people repair their broken stuff. Turns out, copyright law is the thing that was broken all along.

A quick question, which is not without irony: Is it illegal, or, at the very least, bad form to copy and paste another entity's published article, without at least acknowledging the source of the article?

http://m.slashdot.org/story/305473

No, it came from here.. http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense ... actor.html

Slashdot stole it from them..

But you can doowhatchulike.

I do not believe the reason for the question was extrapolated as I intended.....

No harm..

As a fellow professional repairman and formerly involved in high tek stuff.... YEP!
It's a darn mess. I can understand needing a license to perform repairs that may affect life safety issues but
needing copyright permission to fix a tractor or car that you physically own???? It seems like everything is going
toward a "lease/subscription" business model. You buy it but you really don't actually own it. You actually paid
for permission to use it and have it physically made for you to "use". Copyright is just one of the tools misused
to achieve said business model. Even ASCAP and BMI are complaining about copyright issues.

_________________
Purple Frog Karaoke Cuz we all feel odd and love to "croak"

OK so I was watching a episode of Fast and Loud the other night and they had just put a 2015 Dodge engine in a race car. Dodge said that the engine would not run with out all the wire harness's connected to all the proper things and Aaron Kaufman (dude with the large beard) said if Dodge can engineer it to run with it I can engineer it to run with out it. In the end they had to REWRITE the computer codes to get it running. Some guys out of Florida came in and did it for them. So according to this article they violated the law by rewriting Dodges code.
Wonder if Dodge was watching?

_________________
I like everyone when I first meet them. If you don't like me that's not my problem it's YOURS!
A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet

Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. The bottom line it is up to the Copyright owner, Trademark owner, IP owner or whatever if they want to pursue it or not. The Acts allow them to pursue but it is up to the individual whether or not they want to, and the right to pick and chose whom they wish to go after.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

First of all, those shows are all fake. Reality shows are scripted.

Too much money involved to allow some dirtbag with a camera to film for weeks on end without supervision.

Second, LEGAL aftermarket ECUs for all make of engines are for sale in every state.
No ECU code needs to be re-written, ever.

In case you missed it, reality shows are fake.

Next you're going to tell us professional wrestling is fake. You know what guys like you are called.

_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger

I would never call wrestling fake.. 'cause it's real fo sure..

I believe the term they prefer is "lightly scripted."

Why yes it is.. In fact, that's part of the Trademark registration..

What's distressing, the fact that you didn't know Slashdot creates nothing but links, and steals from everyone.

And, another member here agrees with you..

Communicating exact intent of a counter-post to someone else's post can often be tricky, short of bluntness...that being said:

I do not know, nor care, what the original source of the quote was. My point was to bring recognition to the irony that an article, which is about copyright, was being re-published in the first post of this thread, without permission...just to be clear...

Just to be clear, even Slate.com snatched the info from yet another site..

And that site has allowed copy pasta. So Slate was OK, and Slashdot was OK.

As for me, I'm claiming Beethoven's Fifth..

Y0re music may vary..

TAP, TAP, is this thing on?

Not sure who you are looking for a reply from, but here goes:

As a rule, republishing generally requires the new poster to state their permission to reprint, so I do not believe my assumption of reprinting an article about copyrights without permission warranted a red, enlarged response. I am sure that others would come to the same conclusion under the circumstances.

Much ado about nothing?

With the wide spread posting the author has allowed, the Copyright Office capitulated and
included an "Exemption" for programming tractor ECUs.

Drama over, due to the co-operation of many re-posts..

Attribution to come..

Moral of the story is: A simple link to the post would have been sufficient...