"Complaining after the sale is stupid." I'm really tired of this argument. Just because the sale wasn't made under duress doesn't mean that we should never complain about the sale afterwards. By that logic, you shouldn't be complaining about the comments here, since no one is forcing you to read HN.
Ok, so according to you, what one should do is keep your mouth shut during the sale, buy an un-hackable machine and afterwards try to get hacking rights by "lobbying" the government. Imagine if you sold your product to a customer, he promises not to void your terms but then immediately he goes to the government to try to make it legal to void the terms he first agreed upon.
Don't get me wrong, I love open source, I love Linus/RMS for giving me such a beautiful product with which I make a living. But it was theirs to give, not mine to take. You have the same strange ethics as RMS, two consenting adults make a trade, based on rules known in advance (ie., you cannot see/alter the source code), no one was hurt and no one has anything to do with this trade... and yet... RMS calls this evil. Again: I prefer open source to anything but the rights are the creators to hand out and the customers to accept or not, that is freedom.
Buy a different Tractor or try to negotiate a deal before you buy a tractor. Or start a forum to gather a lot of people that John Deere may listen to. But don't buy it and then start crying you don't like it.
And "by that logic" I shouldn't post on HN if I don't like downvotes. But I agreed to this system before I post. I won't whine about it afterwards since the possibility of being downvoted/offended existed before I commented. By your logic I should now start to pressure the government to do something about these awfull comments on HN, because I don't like them.
As a society, we have decided that some contract terms are unenforceable, as there is often an asymmetric balance of power between vendors and consumers.
For example, what if the tractor terms say that you couldn't vote Republican or you would have to surrender the tractor? Or you could only use brand-name repair shops. Or that you couldn't open the hood.
Farmers need tractors. It's not like they have the option to not have one and wait forever for a deal that's never going to happen.
Buying means change of ownership and just because you write something into a contract doesn't change that fact.
To finish your example, yes, I would expect the buyer to be able to hack the machine. They bought it and it is now theirs to do with as they please.
Ah, I get to alter conditions under which I buy stuff based on my need, this is great! It is what I always wanted! Problem is... When I sell stuff under certain conditions I'd like my conditions to be honored. Like when I sell you a wafer stepper to make computer chips, I like you not to copy my patented technologies so that I can never reach return on investment. Even if you bought the machine and you own it now. And most costumers promise not to do so and honor their promise.
In the tractor case, I'd feel more honest (and much better in general) if I would just buy a tractor of a different brand with less stringent conditions attached. Why would you reward a tractor company that sells you stuff under screwy conditions?
First you vote with your wallet and make a screwy company rich, then you complain. Perhaps you should think before you buy something. Or, get a group of people together and make a nice case to the manufacturer. Where do we end if we can just break any agreement we make based on need?
The honest way to get to hackable tractors is to not buy un-hackable tractors. I'm all for hackable tractors, I'm all for hackable everything! So lets buy products that are hackable!
> When I sell stuff under certain conditions I'd like my conditions to be honored.
Frankly, if there are conditions, then as far as I'm concerned you're not selling anything. Selling implies a change of ownership. You've done something, but not sold something.
If companies want to attach additional conditions, then they should have to call it something else, and make it clear that the agreement isn't a sale.
> Why would you reward a tractor company that sells you stuff under screwy conditions?
Probably because that tractor company is the only one left by either suing its competition, colluding with them to both adopt anti-consumer license agreements, buying them out, or lobbying politicians to making competition illegal by abuse of patent or copyright law.
> try to negotiate a deal before you buy a tractor
This is part of the problem. "Contracts" have become one-way rights-limiters which perverts their original intent: For two parties to negotiate terms of a transaction. What we have today are contracts being abused to limit consumers' rights, limit their use of court to challenge them (arbitration clauses), and absolve the corporation of all legal liability that may ever come out of that transaction.
I think that in our age where consumers have no rights, its perfectly ok to enter into one-sided "contracts", then violate the spirit of those contracts by appealing to lawmakers to give consumers their rights back.
