If we really put this into law in a way that works, what's going to happen is that companies will stop selling people tractors and instead lease them to people for an unlimited amount of time for a one-time payment, or something similar.
Which is fine, really, as long as you don't use words "purchase", "buy" and "ownership". Call a lease a lease.
In this scenario, one of two things would happen:
* either there is a genuine need for buying/owning fixable hackable tractors, in which case there will be a market and companies will appear that sell those,
* or there is really no need, and leasing works just fine for tractor users, and it's only us couch-commentators who think we desperately need to repair tractors.
The key point/problem here is that we have a (deliberate) naming confusion: "ownership" should not come with rights restrictions. The same confusion was deliberately introduced with DVDs/BluRays, for example, not to mention computer software. The law should step in and force everyone to truthfully describe what they're selling: a product, a license to do certain things, or a lease.
The issue I have with that is that it screws up minorities.
There's likely always going to be a minority that wants or needs to fix their own tractor(or car) or have an independent 3. party fix it.
If that minority is objectively insignificant - well fine.
If that minority is 20% of all tractor (or car) owners, the manufacturers can switch to a lease model, and screw over 20% of the customers, those can either give in or give up farming or driving - most won't.
The point is that those 20% might not be enough to sustain a new vendor coming into the market to cater to them. With our current model the 80% that don't care can pay their vendor to fix stuff, the 20% that cares can do it themselves or help support independent mechanics.
Which means with the current model all consumers win, which I'm generally in favor of over a system that maxes profit to big vendors at the expense of minorities.
20% market share is significant enough for any new manufacturer. Provided their product doesn't lack in quality it will have the 20% disgruntled customers and gain more as their product reputation increases.
What you described could happen, if tractor market is a monopoly or if all manufacturers collude, which shouldn't be allowed to happen. American broadband situation is a good example when there is monopoly due to lack of choices. They can price whatever they want for broadband and treat you royally when you contact their customer service because you can't switch ISP.
Like in the extreme case of price hike of a pill to $700, that is what happens if copyright law stays the way it is now.
Current situation is not a win for customers or the general progress. There is a lot of room for improvement.
I refer you to the bulk of the *aas products. Even turbofan manufactures sell engines by the hour.
The company gets a clean, consise cost of units sold, reduced large capital calls and a leaner corporate structure. It's a very compelling business desire.
Edit: seems like people misunderstood, I meant the tractor company structures it like a lease but it is effectively a sale. For instance, unrefundable upfront cost of $10k, per annum cost of $1 after that.
