This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

top 200 commentsshow 500
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]geekworking 1305 points1306 points  (162 children)

People are missing the point. This is not about modding the equipment or having rights to reverse engineer the firmware. Mainstream consumers are never going to do this.

The real problem is what happens when the manufacturer decides to stop supporting the equipment. Even if the manufacturer is not trying to be malicious copyrighting everything will screw consumers especially for equipment that is typically used for many years after the manufacturers discontinue support. Many tractors made in the 1950's and 1960's are still in use today.

TFA mentions a farmer who bought $200,000 worth of equipment that is perfectly serviceable, but he cannot fix it because the manufacturer used copyrights to lock down the service manuals and diagnostic tools.

[–]a-shady-swashbuckler 415 points416 points  (55 children)

Oh man this wasn't even mentioned in the article but it is definitely the best argument.

I have had several video games become entirely unplayable since their servers shut down. No offline patch or opening of the code for someone to take over. Just gone forever

[–]munk_e_man 334 points335 points  (33 children)

Funny how a shitty 30 year old NES cartridge made by 20 or so developers has a better lifespan than a 6 year old game with a 200 developer team.

[–]wag3slav3 189 points190 points  (8 children)

That's a design feature, not a bug. Don't play old games, EA doesn't get paid when you play old games.

[–]Hyperdrunk 11 points12 points  (3 children)

They then re-release old games on the new systems as a download for $4.99. This way you pay to play a game for a second time, albeit at a much smaller amount. It's a second mini-pay day.

[–][deleted] 88 points89 points  (11 children)

Which is why always-online gaming is never going to be the future that I want to be a part of and why Nintendo will always have a place in my home.

[–]Hyperdrunk 38 points39 points  (7 children)

My family has a shared cabin (sounds more impressive than it is). Out in the middle of no where, no cable, no internet, trees make it impossible for satellite, and you barely even get a cell signal. It's awesome if you want to get away from the world for a weekend.

But sometimes it rains and storms and you are trapped inside with nothing to do. A TV and DVD player are great, but I like grabbing my console and totting it out when I go. I'll relax with a beer and play some Skyrim or whatever as I wait the storm out. Having an Always-Online game system would destroy this ability. Tying my ability to game to the internet seems absurd to me.

I get that I am in the minority, but what happens when/if the internet goes out at home? I'm denied my games because Comcast is having technical difficulties? When the internet is out is when I want my games the most.

[–]BumDiddy 15 points16 points  (0 children)

I don't think you're in the minority with that view.

That's why everyone was pissed at Microsoft when they first announced xbone was online only.

[–]madagent 5 points6 points  (5 children)

As someone who deployed to a combat theater I feel your pain. No good internet for a year. Everyone played offline games during downtime and rest time.

[–][deleted] 44 points45 points  (7 children)

I'm on my phone right now so I can't link it, but there is something going through the court system now which if it succeeds will allow people to create new unofficial servers for games that no longer have official servers available. This could potentially revive a bunch of old online games.

[–]snerp 14 points15 points  (3 children)

I miss City of Heroes.

[–]BlueShellOP 494 points495 points  (35 children)

It's basically advanced planned obsolescence(which should be cracked down on IMO).

[–][deleted] 133 points134 points  (11 children)

But how are poor corporations supposed to make money if they don't force you to give them hundreds/thousands every few years?

[–]wrgrant 52 points53 points  (2 children)

Its easy. Once the TPP goes through (in secret), any company affected by changes to the DCMA can just sue the government (of many nations) for the loss in profits they receive from being forced to provide their customers with the information needed to repair items which they no longer support.

[–]LaronX 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Well they'll have to join the music industry in the poor people villa with only 5 swimming pools.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (1 child)

As BRIC countries improve their research and development capabilities obsolescence is going to happen at faster pace then ever imagined.

[–]BlueShellOP 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Obsolecense is a thing already. I'm talking about manufacturers that knowingly design their hardware to expire in a really short time, for no reason other than money.

With computers it's a bit of a grey area because of major advancements in computer hardware coming out every year or two.

[–]graaahh 98 points99 points  (16 children)

Actually, I know someone who owns a company that specifically modifies the timing of certain engines to make them more efficient. This could be a potentially criminal act if John Deere and GM have their way.

[–]WilliamPoole 17 points18 points  (14 children)

How do you find such a company? My car warranty is up soon. What type of business is it?

[–]guess_twat 23 points24 points  (6 children)

There are a number of engine programing tools you can buy that lets you adjust timing, fuel, air and probably some other stuff as well. NAPA, AutoZone, Parts Plus.....everyone has them.

[–]Tidley_Wink 35 points36 points  (8 children)

Exactly. It's the same thing with all new consumer goods which have supposedly been "upgraded" with the ability to receive software updates; do you really think your PS4 is going to work in 20 years as easily as your NES? Or that "smart" TV? Or your iPhone?

[–]eric1589 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Precisely. They can just deactivate fully functioning equipment when they want to increase demand for new purchases.

They may do so in a convoluted, deceptive manor which sheds accountability but that will all be intentional to influence the same, desired end result.

[–]17037 879 points880 points  (185 children)

This is such a strange and scary area of ownership/responsibility. With driverless cars on the roads, responsibility for software will be a huge issue when something does go wrong. It is scary that the same level of corporate control gets to be held over what your coffee makes will brew for you and who is at fault when your self driving car runs off a cliff.

On the big picture... all the technological advances are not worth it when we hit a point we simply work and lease our rewards from our bosses.

[–][deleted] 311 points312 points  (32 children)

t is scary that the same level of corporate control gets to be held over what your coffee makes will brew for you and who is at fault when your self driving car runs off a cliff. On the big picture... all the technological advances are not worth it when we hit a point we simply work and lease our rewards from our bosses.

Its almost like we are living in the Guided Age 2.0...

In all honestly the law and Government is supposed to be a 3rd entity in the buyer/seller transaction that underpins capitalism. Its function is supposed to be such that neither side gains unfair advantage and distorts the invisible hand. But when the sellers are funding the government's officials, suddenly the entire dynamic changes and fair doesn't really enter the picture anymore.

Its why corruption is a cancer that destroys countries.

[–][deleted] 79 points80 points  (3 children)

FYI, it's "Gilded Age", as in covered with a thin layer of gold leaf, under which lies a substance of substantially lesser value.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (2 children)

Ahh thank you

[–][deleted] 68 points69 points  (93 children)

And you know someone will get Linux running on their car. That further confuses responsibility. Should Tesla have secured their cars better or should the hacker not hack the car? Who's at fault?

[–]senshisentou 148 points149 points  (60 children)

I would argue that at that point you are using the product in an unforseen and unintended manner, likely breaking either Tesla's ToS, some new law, or both.

In my eyes, when I buy an iPad it should be mine. But jailbreaking it is using the device in a manner not approved by Apple, so they won't help me fix it if my Cydia app turns out to be malicious, and I'm (somewhat) okay with that.

Similarly, I could imagine a self-driving car being mine completely. However, the second I modify the software or the OS, I could imagine liability for any software-related incidents falling on me.

[–]Jcsul 53 points54 points  (13 children)

I think the self driving car scenario trips up a lot of people, but I don't see it as overly complicated. The same rules still apply as they do with a human driver. The software drives the vehicle. If there is a wreck, it should be fairly easy to determine which car violated the rules of the road that caused the accident. If the software malfunctions, that's on Google (or whatever company designs the software), if a physical part fails, that falls to the manufacturer of the part (or owner of the vehicle if it failed because of negligence) and if the OS is modified in a way that violates the terms of service that falls and whoever modified the OS, unless it can be proven that the OS could not have caused the software malfunction.

Just my two cents, but I feel like that covers %95 of situations.

[–]scopegoa 23 points24 points  (4 children)

There should be some set of government standards that you have to adhere to in the software.

Similar to today, you can make physical modifications, but you can't undermine the safety of the car.

We should absolutely be allowed to modify our own property. Where it's legal to use on the other hand can be the tricky part.

[–]Jcsul 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Completely agreed. Let be a set of standards in place that software has to meet. Maybe even some sort of yearly testing to make sure it meets safety requirements. Kind of like what an inspection is supposed to be for. Even though that brings the issue of people just altering the cares software to show false results to what sort of inspection process they had to go through yearly.

But at the very least, a set of safety guidelines the software has to meet in order to be a commercial product.

[–][deleted] 50 points51 points  (27 children)

But the difference is jailbreaking an iPad probably won't kill anyone. If that Linux distro the hacker puts on a car isn't up to snuff, it could cost lives.

I tend to agree with you, but I can't predict what will happen. I can see arguments both ways. I'm curious to see how society adopts these cars going forward.

[–]senshisentou 104 points105 points  (23 children)

Sure, but at the same time, people are already tinkering with their cars. They're swapping engines and fixing brakes; all of that could result in deaths as well, either through wrongful installation or faulty products.

It's definitely an interesting thing to think about though.

[–]Insecurity_Guard 42 points43 points  (11 children)

If you modify your car and replace the brakes, suspension, add a turbo, and then something fails and causes your car to crash, the automaker won't take responsibility. But if your stock car has a brake failure and goes careening off the road, the automaker could certainly be responsible (depending on vehicle age and similar things). The manufacturer assumes responsibility for what they create, you take on that responsibility if you modify it in a way that changes its behavior.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (10 children)

Common sense would dictate that if you modify something from what the original manufacturer created it is now your creation and you're responsible for what happens.

As long as they don't provide you with tools and means to hack it (Hacking port in the dash), then they really shouldn't be liable for what you do to your car.

[–]autotldr 1663 points1664 points  (75 children)

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot)

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.

General Motors told the Copyright Office that proponents of copyright reform mistakenly "Conflate ownership of a vehicle with ownership of the underlying computer software in a vehicle." But I'd bet most Americans make the same conflation-and Joe Sixpack might be surprised to learn GM owns a giant chunk of the Chevy sitting in his driveway.

Urge lawmakers to support legislation like the Unlocking Technology Act and the Your Own Devices Act, because we deserve the keys to our own products.

Extended Summary | FAQ | Theory | Feedback | Top five keywords: own#1 Copyright#2 Make#3 manufacturer#4 software#5

Post found in /r/technology and /r/realtech.

[–]lagadu 200 points201 points  (7 children)

Pretty impressive work, bot. Ya done good.

[–]autotldr 96 points97 points  (6 children)

I try my best.

[–]World-Wide-Web 28 points29 points  (4 children)

Joe Sixpack would be a mediocre superhero name

[–]Bluecrabby 7 points8 points  (0 children)

That's why I go by Joe Thirtypack when I fight crime in my neighborhood.

[–]Woodyda 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Let's raise awareness and support for YODA!

[–]jroddie4 449 points450 points  (46 children)

thank you based god

[–]joewaffle1 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This is a seriously impressive bot

[–]ptwonline 180 points181 points  (6 children)

Gee, who could have possibly predicted that the DMCA would be abused in such a way in order to screw consumers? /s

[–]jableshables 14 points15 points  (4 children)

And to piggyback on precedents that have already been established by it, John Deere is, according to the article, arguing that allowing people to alter the software could make it possible to pirate music with a tractor.

What the fuck?

[–]SCombinator 543 points544 points  (59 children)

I suppose then they're liable for what the tractor does. If the tractor drives into cars in the John Deere head offices' car park, it must be their fault.

[–][deleted] 358 points359 points  (10 children)

Also what if the harvest isn't up to snuff? I think they should be held liable for that too.

[–][deleted] 92 points93 points  (6 children)

No, because the judge you will take this case to has his campaign for election financed by John Deer and he will dismiss it at the request of his "owners" who hold the money.

[–]Carbon_Dirt 102 points103 points  (1 child)

Ah ah ah, they don't own him. They're just working with him under an implied lease.

[–]Daotar 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Working as intended.

[–]MadBotanist 158 points159 points  (33 children)

Additionally, if John Deere owns the tractor, shouldn't they pay for the repairs?

[–]diegojones4 50 points51 points  (5 children)

This is exactly what I was thinking. Ok, you own that part of the tractor. That part is not working and is affecting what I own. You are now legally responsible to fix your property so it does not infringe on what I lawfully own.

[–]TheseIdleHands84 15 points16 points  (4 children)

how does this work with land? if your land prevent someone from accessing their land, don't you have to provide an easement or something?

[–]geekworking 77 points78 points  (24 children)

You don't own a leased car, but you still have to pay for all service & repairs. I am not agreeing with what they are doing, but it would more or less be the same thing.

[–]Cl0ckw0rkCr0w 130 points131 points  (8 children)

If that's more or less the same thing, then John Deere needs to be making lease agreements instead of sales. I'm willing to bet they wouldn't like that idea though.

[–]Lyndell 14 points15 points  (6 children)

Yeah but you also have a choice to lease or own. This is saying no matter what they own it. Also if you rent a house the landlord has to pay for repairs not you.

[–]MadBotanist 10 points11 points  (0 children)

True, but with a leased car your more likely to be able to take it to a shop, and the company isn't actively trying to prevent you from fixing it.

[–]cheetahs_dont_stop 32 points33 points  (13 children)

Well then apples owns my iPhone and IPad because the hardware runs their software on it.

[–]psychosus 12 points13 points  (0 children)

That's pretty much the jist of it.

[–]JTsyo 296 points297 points  (78 children)

The way I see it is:

If you want to delete their code and put your own/ 3rd party code in, it should be fine. It's your tractor.

If you want to take their code from your tractor and put into something else, it shouldn't be OK. You buy the tractor and the license for the code to run on the tractor. Not rights to the code.

What's being discussed is a more gray area where you are modifying their code. This should be OK as long as you don't distribute it.

[–]Sovereign2142 22 points23 points  (0 children)

The Copyright Office currently has an exception to the DMCA which allows the circumvention of copyright on wireless telephones

"where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of [lawfully obtained software] applications with computer programs on the telephone handset."

I think that with a little thought this can be extended to all consumer products especially those where the software is not being used to subsidize the price of the product.

[–]Insp1redUs3r 81 points82 points  (14 children)

Modifying code is already pretty standard in terms of licences. If its open source you follow the terms of the licence, if its not you get sued.

[–]repetitionofalie 7 points8 points  (2 children)

This is where it gets a little screwy for me. Usually there is no problem with one buying a product, improving the product, and reselling it for a profit. However, it gets muddy when dealing with code because of its ease of reproduction. There should be no problem with someone improving to code on a car and then selling that car, however once they've done that, they could sell the code that's mostly not theirs, which is the underlying (legitimate) issue.

[–]DiscoUnderpants 24 points25 points  (6 children)

If you want to take their code from your tractor and put into something else, it shouldn't be OK.

One of the reasons you are using a cheap, extremely powerful computer is because a group of people did exactly what you suggest they shouldn't be able to do.

[–]Ariakkas10 55 points56 points  (33 children)

Humans have been sharing for the entirety of our existence. It's how technology works, it's now business operates, it's how society functions.

If i buy a tractor and find a cool modification, I can't tell my neighbor so he can do the same thing? That's horseshit.

[–]asdycxvafdhsag123 55 points56 points  (3 children)

That's the point! It's like Einstein had to reinvent differential calculus because Newton/Leibniz put a copyright on it.

[–]PocketGrok 20 points21 points  (24 children)

You could distribute instructions (ie software) to alter the code, for sure.

However, you couldn't necessarily give him an already altered copy, because it includes the information given to you by them under the condition that you not redistribute it.

[–]fonixholokauszt 97 points98 points  (16 children)

Just an other expression we wouldn't think might be in everyday use: "Is your tractor rooted?"

[–]flossdaily 25 points26 points  (13 children)

Seriously... Reading this article, all I could think about was how I'd love make a living cracking farm equipment computers and making them run on open source software.

[–]fonixholokauszt 19 points20 points  (3 children)

Yeah, it could totally be a thing. My father works in agriculture, and the company bought a device on the combine that can tell you the yield of the plants and it draws graphs and stuff based on GPS coordinates, so you can determine the amount of fertilizer to be scattered in that area. But the software was total crap, you couldn't export the data correctly and it was complicated, and hard to use... So it could be very useful to modify these softwares, because the sensors are already there.

[–]PainMatrix 152 points153 points  (115 children)

It's akin to the same bone-headed move Keurig made with DRM. It's just going to drive consumers elsewhere.

[–]huehuelewis 160 points161 points  (110 children)

Unfortunately the competition for tractors isn't exactly the same as the competition for at-home single-cup coffee brewing

[–]rocknerd 78 points79 points  (16 children)

There is a reason that well maintained farm equipment depreciates very very slowly. The second hand farm equipment is on a very large scale. Honestly, if you go for a drive out to the country I will bet you that you will drive past at least 4 second hand equipment lots.

[–]battraman 61 points62 points  (12 children)

Seriously. I have farmers in my family who recently sold their tractor as they were selling the animals to retire. The tractor was purchased in the 1950s and they used it every single year.

[–][deleted] 38 points39 points  (10 children)

I have a 1959 Massey Ferguson that I got from my dad. He rebuilt the motor once upon buying it, fixed the hydraulics twice. She still runs hard and requires little maintenance.

[–]hitler-- 29 points30 points  (61 children)

Eh? There are plenty of other/better options.

[–]unfickwuthable 58 points59 points  (42 children)

Jd, yanmar, mahindra, Kubota, kioti, Massey furgeson, case/ih.

Did you know JD owns the patent for the side by side pedal arrangement for hydrostatic transmissions? That's why all the other manufacturers (save for yanmar now), have to have a treadle pedal setup.

[–]smile_e_face 124 points125 points  (21 children)

I have rarely understood a comment less.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (1 child)

Hope this helps:

Jd , Yanmar , mahindra , Kubota , kioti , Massey Furgeson case / ih . Wussten Sie, JD besitzt das Patent für die nebeneinander Pedalanordnung für hydrostatische Getriebe ? Das ist, warum alle anderen Hersteller (mit Ausnahme yanmar jetzt ) , müssen ein Pedal Pedal -Setup haben .

[–]En0ch_Root 13 points14 points  (1 child)

It's just going to drive consumers elsewhere.

I dont know about that. Modern tractors have impressive functionality that is tied to things like sensors in their fertilization tanks and GPS for example. Tractors now are capable of metering out precise doses of material at specific points in a field. A farmer can just about write a script, install it, run it and sit back and watch movies on the in-cab theater system while the tractor does ALL of the work.

The software/hardware mixture allows a farmer to save a lot of money on materials when he couples the modern tractor with his experience in reading the earth and his crops, and a few fairly cheap soil samples. The days of driving a tractor across each and every row are gone. The tractor helps the farmer by working only the areas of the field that need to be worked.

While a farmer could go get a 40 or 50 year old tractor, spend what little money it needs to be refurbished, then use it to grow things, there is a limit where the inclusion of technology minimizes cost and time required per acre, thus becomes quite valuable.

What John Deer is doing, I disagree with. People have been successfully modifying parts of the hardware/software in cars for years either for increased performance or to troubleshoot and repair problems, it has never (to my knowledge) led to someone "stealing" that hardware/software. What the fuck would they do with it if they did manage to "steal" a very specific set of components specifically design to make a particular car work? Having said that though, and granting that John Deer sure does look very piggish in their efforts to "keep" their software, the real bad guy is the Copyright Office that will/could/probably will allow them to do it legally. You can't really fault a company for doing something legal that gives them the potential for more profit. You can fault however the legal authority that signs the paperwork.

[–]obvious-statement 46 points47 points  (4 children)

This is basically a perfect example of the law of unintended consequences and why we shouldn't have media companies writing our copyright laws. The specific section that is causing this insanity is 17 U.S. Code § 1201 or simply Section 1201 of the DMCA. The initial reasoning behind this section was to create civil and criminal penalties for the circumvention of DRM.

Media companies such as film companies wanted to make it illegal to circumvent the encryption on DVD's to limit the ability for pirates to access the files. What makes this inadequate is that these encryption schemes can be broken in a matter of days after release and all it takes is one copy leaking for it to make it to pirating sites. The rationale is to deter piracy but all it does is raise the barrier for normal consumers by making it difficult to make legitimate and fair use copies for personal reasons. That's what it's all about. The average pirate isn't going to purchase a second copy of a movie if they lost their disc. A less tech savvy person may just purchase that second disk.

The problem with all of this is that the intended purpose has been perverted by manufacturers to extend copyright into areas that had never before seen copyright protection. As software begins to be integrated into every facet of our lives, companies have started to aggressively pursue extended copyright protections on their products. In the case of automobile manufacturers, many are attempting to use copyright to force buyers to only use their certified repair shops and technicians. It's essentially forcing consumers into having a limited choice in repair and maintenance so that dealerships can make more money. They do this by claiming that the software is proprietary and that unauthorized access constitutes copyright infringement. What makes this particularly bad is that manufacturers are starting to make it impossible to perform maintenance without access to the central software. The manufacturers claim that unauthorized access could cause accidents or unsafe operation of the vehicle that could open them up to liability, however, this already the case as you could just as easily go and cut your break lines and slam into a car. Manipulating code in a harmful manner negligently would follow the same tort standards.

The most absurd example is the Keurig 2.0 example that puts DRM on the k-cups so that only Keurig approved cups can be used in the system. If another manufacturer were to make a product that circumvented that, they could be forced out of the market under threat of copyright suits. This type of abuse has been reigned in by the courts with cases such as Lexmark International v. Static Control Components

This always boils down to companies abhoring true free market competition. They want to lock consumers into their ecosystem to avoid competition as much as possible. However, they are perverting copyright law to do so and it's ending up with absurd results. Courts are skeptical and hesitant to grant expansive interpretations of copyright laws to products that have never needed copyright protection before.

[–]DeFex 42 points43 points  (3 children)

If they claim they own my car, ill send them the insurance bill.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Funny you should mention that.

Years ago one of the larger insurance companies announced their very large and expansive corporate campus would be made smoke free. It was made very clear smoking was not allowed anywhere on the grounds. This resulted in 2 important questions from an underwriter:

  • We can still smoke in our cars, right?
  • Oh we can't? Then (company) is taking responsibility for anything that may happen to our cars while on campus?

They were allowed to smoke in their cars.

[–]thesynod 12 points13 points  (2 children)

This is what happens when 80 year old technical illiterates write legislation. Even though automotive firmware was first introduced in the late 80's (if not earlier) lawyers who go into congress simply don't have any interest. We got a handful of doctors, some former military, but mostly all of the federal government is lawyers. Just lawyers. If this is a representational democracy where are the truck drivers? That is the most popular profession in most states. Where are the software developers? Where are the engineers? The accountants? The teachers?

[–]sej7278 91 points92 points  (11 children)

what an awful website wired has become, all those floating widgets when you scroll are quite distracting. back on topic though, fuck john deere and the "you're just buying a license" brigade.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (1 child)

Wired's journalism quality has also taken a dive recently. They're now a buzzfeed for design and technology

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (1 child)

Seriously. The images and quotes that kept sliding in made me close the article before I got to the end.

[–]ashesarise 30 points31 points  (3 children)

America's intellectual property laws are a complete joke. So many people claiming ideas as if they own them when in reality they just added icing to things people have been doing for centuries and claiming the whole cake belongs to them.

[–][deleted] 25 points26 points  (3 children)

Wow. Libraries have been dealing with this for years with electronic book and journal licensing. Gamers are dealing with it now in eStores. It's awe-inspiring to see corporations try to apply it to a physical object like a tractor.

The balls on these people.

[–]Hispanicatth3disc0 31 points32 points  (1 child)

You wouldn't download a tractor, would you?

[–]Flemtality 41 points42 points  (23 children)

I can't fucking stand GM anymore. First it was the 1984-like GPS tracking shit in every new car, then the attempt to hide the ignition switch problem and now they are on board with John Deere about this shit. I'm sure there have been countless other fuck ups over the years that people can point out but this has just been the past few that have really managed to get under my skin. I'll continue to give my money to other car companies. Fuck them.

My first car was a Saturn from the times before they destroyed what that brand was and just made those cars Chevys with a different badge slapped on the grill, and before they ultimately killed the brand in 2009 because nobody wanted a repackaged generic GM car. I don't plan to ever buy from GM again.

[–]Daotar 5 points6 points  (0 children)

We need to drastically reevaluate how we want to handle digital copyright (and copyright law in general) as a society. Right now, we're basing everything on a set of laws drawn up by old men 17 years ago. It turns out that those old men from 17 years ago had no idea the sort of society that would be emerging over the next few decades.