Protect whose property?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tuxchick Feb 12, 2012 9:39 AM EDT |
Once again an entire article based on the fallacy that we do not own the things we buy. |
| Khamul Feb 12, 2012 3:06 PM EDT |
@tuxchick: I take it you disagree with Linus here and are against Tivoization. I'm of two minds here. On the one hand, I absolutely do want to be able to use hardware I buy the way I want, load different software on it, load the original software but with modifications, etc. On the other hand, this could also be considered a luxury, and brings up the question, should hardware makers be forced to provide this access? Let's try an obligatory car analogy. You buy a car, but does that car come with a service manual with wiring diagrams and other schematics so that you can modify it easily? No. You just get the hardware, and if something goes wrong, or you want to modify it, you have to take it to the dealership (which has access to the factory manuals), or try to figure it out yourself sans documentation (which is akin to reverse-engineering). Now, not all cars are like this. Some brands, like Honda and Ford, have easily-accessible service manuals, for a price. They're not cheap (maybe $200 on a DVD, more for the printed version), but compared to the cost of the car itself that's pretty small, but what's important is that they are available for an additional fee, so you're not stuck with the stealership having sole access to this information. Other brands, however, are very secretive with this information, and do everything they can to keep third-parties (that's you with your toolbox, or an independent mechanic of your choosing) from being able to easily work on their cars. With cars, there's a lot of different makers out there, so there's a lot of choices; if brand A has secretive documentation policies, you can buy instead from brand B which doesn't. The question is, should makers be required to be more open with their documentation, or should we let the "free market" figure it out? Interestingly, I believe there's actually been some laws passed requiring makers to allow access to this information to prevent independent mechanics from being shut out, which is way beyond what GPLv3 attempts to do (it only uses the law to force makers to divulge information if they include someone else's GPLv3 software in their product; it has nothing to say about makers who don't use any GPLv3 software in their product). Detailed documentation would be really nice with any equipment I buy, whether it's a car, a washing machine, a dishwasher, a laser printer, etc. Interestingly, many times appliances (IME) do have some documentation; it's a few sheets of folded-up paper stuck inside an access panel, and contains wiring diagrams to make servicing easier. Is most other cases, however, this documentation can only be found illicitly, such as on BitTorrent, where I've gotten service manuals for my Xerox and HP laser printers. I've also seen service manuals for various cars on there. I guess some people in positions to have access to this secret information are copying it and posting on the internet, and I personally commend them for this; it may not be legal, but it's the right thing to do IMO. Many times, having access to this information makes the difference between being able to repair something (esp. if it's a little old), and throwing it in the trash, and we should all know by now how much of a global problem electronics waste is. On the other hand, with GPLv3 specifically, which is a little different from wiring diagrams, I can see the other argument which I believe the author here was trying to make, which is that if this license were being used by the kernel (hypothetically) instead of v2, then these device makers simply wouldn't use the Linux kernel at all, and would use something else, even if it costed a lot more (such as a WinCE system). I'm not sure how true that is, but I suppose it is possible. |
| jdixon Feb 12, 2012 3:59 PM EDT |
> ...should hardware makers be forced to provide this access? No. But it should never be illegal to modify hardware you own in any way which does not harm another person. > ...if this license were being used by the kernel (hypothetically) instead of v2, then these device makers simply wouldn't use the Linux kernel at all, Which would be their choice. If keeping control of their hardware is actually more important to them than offering a better product at a lower price, then I'm sure the market and their competitors will be willing to deal with them accordingly. No, it doesn't always work that way, but most of the time it does. |
| Khamul Feb 12, 2012 4:53 PM EDT |
@jdixon: The one problem I see here is that if they don't "keep control of their hardware", then they probably can't offer their product on the market at all, due to the stupid IP laws and the demands of the content providers, who have far too much political power here (thanks to outright, naked corruption; just look at Chris Dodd's comments recently about withholding money from politicians if they don't pass SOPA). The hardware makers just want to sell a product, and most (except maybe Sony, since they're on both sides of the fence unlike Samsung, LG, Roku, etc.) probably don't care much if people modify them, but they won't be able to show Hollywood's content if they don't satisfy them, and if they can't show Hollywood's content, all the mindless sheeple won't buy the product. |
| Fettoosh Feb 12, 2012 5:41 PM EDT |
I agree with what JDixon said, The hardware manufacturer has the right to what and how to create their own device and offer it for whatever price they wish. They also have the right to put the terms just as much as the customer has the right to agree or disagree to the terms by refusing to purchase the device. In terms of using GPLv2 software, legally, they are not violating its terms. Most users don't really care as long as the device is reasonably priced and are satisfied with its performance. The big thing that some users dislike about Tivo is the monthly service charge, which tend to be costly on the long run, and their inability to circumvent it. Unless there are hardware patents, owners should be able to modify the hardware they purchase anyway they want, and if the terms don't allow it, they just shouldn't buy it period. For those, there sure are alternatives to buy or ways for themselves, or someone else, to build them their own Build-Your-Own-Tivo Other manufacturers who build hand held devices like tablets and smart phones are doing the same thing. Many of such devices in the market come loaded with OS that are Linux based. MS is trying to do the same with its own Windows 8 release. Those companies are safe and legally not violation the terms of GPLv2. But what MS is planing for Windows 8 release is different and goes beyond any legality. It is different because the hardware is not their own and it is basically using its dominant monopoly to coerce PC OEMs to mandate locking the users out from installing their own choice of OS. |
| tracyanne Feb 12, 2012 6:38 PM EDT |
As I do disagree with Tivioisation, I don't buy such products. Yes I miss out on some things, but that's my choice. |
| gus3 Feb 12, 2012 9:13 PM EDT |
Fettoosh wrote:the customer has the right to agree or disagree to the terms by refusing to purchase the device.That wasn't an option on my current desktop hardware. It came with Windows Vista, which I started only long enough to determine that the system was capable of booting from the hard drive. As soon as the first dialog box appeared, I was satisfied, and flipped the switch on the power strip. The packing inventory included no hardcopy of the license terms. I never saw any license terms before I wiped the hard drive and installed Linux. In order to see the terms, the system, as purchased, required me to interact with Windows, something I refuse to do under my own roof. I did find the license online, two years later, stating that if I disagreed with the terms, my only option was to return the unit to where I had purchased it. |
| Khamul Feb 12, 2012 10:42 PM EDT |
We need to organize several thousand people to go into a store, buy a PC with Windows on it, and then immediately return it (after opening it up and trying it out, of course, we don't want the returned goods to actually look factory-sealed), saying "I don't agree with the licensing terms". Imagine the damage that could be done to one store by buying up all their inventory at once, and then returning it all at once, for a full refund. |
| Fettoosh Feb 12, 2012 11:13 PM EDT |
Quoting:We need to organize several thousand people to go into a store, buy a PC with Windows on it, and then immediately return it I like the idea but is it achievable? I seriously doubt it. |
| Fettoosh Feb 12, 2012 11:25 PM EDT |
Quoting:That wasn't an option on my current desktop hardware... Then, your only option is to take them to court. I know it is easier said then done, but you have very good reason to return the whole thing since they didn't send you a hard copy and you didn't see the license in time. I know it is a whole lot of trouble and headache, but that is what it it and there isn't much else you can do. The recent ruling about bundling in France is good progress in Europe, one would wish it is the same in the US. |
| tracyanne Feb 13, 2012 12:11 AM EDT |
@FettooshQuoting: Herding FOSS users is like herding cats. |
| skelband Feb 13, 2012 2:05 AM EDT |
I think the issue here with RMS is that his stance is a philosophical one. I also think the confusion regarding his stance on Tivoisation is caused by the mixing up of "free" and "open source" software, which is why he hates the term "open source" which I believe he thinks kinda misses the point about what he is all about. Stallman is most emphatic that being able to see and modify the source is only one component of what he really and truly believes in, and that is freedom. The idea that the human race is much better off as a community when things are "free" as in freedom. Whenever someone makes deliberate attempts to lock hardware to prevent others learning about how it works, modifying it to do innovative things and building on it to create even better things, the human race is made that much poorer as a consequence. In contrast, you only have to look at open source hardware initiatives and you can see how mankind benefits from the cross fertilisation of ideas. Arduino and the 3d printing technology are great examples of this. The technology has erupted to affect innovation in prototyping, art, small scale production of things. And I wholeheartedly agree with him. |
| BernardSwiss Feb 13, 2012 4:24 AM EDT |
It's pretty simple -- but sometime re-iterating the obvious does actually help... On one hand, Richard Stallman is about "Free Software" -- and in his perspective "freedom" is measured in terms of what the "user" AKA "owner" can do with his/her own property. What matters most from this perspective is that people own -- and control -- their own technology. On the other hand, Linus Torvalds is about "Open Source" and from his perspective it just doesn't matter what the dumb users (his term) can -- or can't -- do with their own property, only what software developers can do with the code; as long as programmers like himself can see and learn from the code, and with luck copy some of it,too -- he's happy. What matters from this perspective is that the code is well-written and functions as intended. So Torvalds thinks Stallman's concern with "ordinary users" is wasted on those ignorant "idiots", and may get in the way of real programmers and developers and corporations that may hire programmers like himself doing whatever they find interesting or useful. As far as he was concerned (he said so in as many words), what TiVo did was a good thing. What TiVo did doesn't hinder him or programmers in general in the practising of their trade, so it's OK. And Stallman thinks that such a narrow, technologistic, self-interested approach is immoral -- or at least tragically short-sighted. So Stallman thinks that Torvalds is ignoring or dismissing matters that are more important and more fundamental than the purely technical issues. I could go on about why I believe Stallman's perspective is much more nearly "right" than Torvald's, but we all know the arguments by now, so I'll pass on this opportunity to reignite the flame-wars. |
| Fettoosh Feb 13, 2012 12:26 PM EDT |
Quoting:And I wholeheartedly agree with him. ... @skelband & @BernardSwiss, You both did an excellent job presenting end game by two different people and there is no need for a flame-wars. To put it in the way I understand it in my own concise form, Torvalds gives permission to use the code in any way users want, for the good or bad of users/society, under one condition, which is to make whatever code they create available to all under the same conditions. Stallman gives permission to use the code in any way users want, and only for the good of users/society, under one condition, which is to make whatever code they create available to all under the same conditions. |
| tuxchick Feb 13, 2012 1:03 PM EDT |
Well said, Bernard and Skelband. As for whether hardware vendors should be forced to open their products...I think this thread, and certainly the article, answers Yes. What are the options for users who want open hardware? Go to court, rally large crowds, or not buy locked products. Yeah. Right. If it were actually a free market we would have actual choices. |
| skelband Feb 13, 2012 2:32 PM EDT |
@tuxchick: I believe the free market could in fact achieve this aim. The problem is, most people don't care enough for it to make a difference. I actually think that as a race we need a revolution of thought to make this happen. Quite a few people disparage Richard Stallman and his position on what he believes and label him as an "extremist". I've never met the man, but he seems to me to be one of the most principled people in the industry and I have an enormous amount of respect for him. We just need a few more like him that have charisma and an entrepreneurial bent to shape the freedom idea into a marketing angle. |
| dinotrac Feb 13, 2012 6:36 PM EDT |
What is with all these people sniveling because Tivo, ummm, Tivoizes? Ya know, oh linuxfolk -- there is a perfectly good alternative to Tivo and it's called MythTV. That's what I use. Yeah, there's an annual fee -- $25 a year if you want channel listings from schedules direct (I do, so I pay), but that's optional. Sort of optional, that is. You really won't enjoy Myth nearly so much without the schedules -- but -- $25 a year? That won't get you through 2 weeks at Starbucks. Plus -- you end up with a full-fledged computer hooked to your TV, with all the things that means. |
| skelband Feb 13, 2012 7:09 PM EDT |
I think snivelling is a bit harsh :D But I entirely agree with you about MythTV. I used to use it when we had analogue cable. Now we have digital cable, and you know what? It is a closed system which means that I can't use MythTV with it. ...and that's the point, innit? |
| BernardSwiss Feb 13, 2012 9:36 PM EDT |
@dinotrack "Snivelling"? H#ll No! It's outright bitching -- and for good reason. Firstly, I simply object to being "sold" something that turns out to not really be mine after all. I don't mind paying TiVo to assemble the system, or to provide a service. I may not have the time or the interest, or maybe not even the skills, to do it myself -- at least not at the moment. But I may want to tinker in the future. After all it is supposedly my own property -- if I break it in the process then it's on me. Same as a car, or a phone. And after all, even the Apple fanbois and fairly ordinary iPhone users seem to find it well worth their while to tinker with their devices, to make it more suitable to their own purposes. And don't forget, TiVo was quite happy (downright enthusiastic, I'd say) to milk the tinkerers (professional and amateur, both) to help the company develop the TiVo into a good, popular product, So I'd say that TiVo's hypocrisy in this regards is quite literally adding insult to injury. |
| mbaehrlxer Feb 14, 2012 2:34 AM EDT |
hmm, tivo aside, if i sell you a service at a monthly fee, and give you a device to use with a contract that requires you to return the device when the contract ends. am i really selling the device to you? i think not. for our previous internet service we received a cable-modem that was previously used and we had to return it at the end. authentication for the internet service was outside the modem, so technically there would have been no issue with me changing the software in the device, so this is not an argument for tivoization, just to point out that there are cases where the device is not sold and therefore the argument that i should be able to do what ever i want does not apply unless renting of devices is illegal. here also we can include a car analogy: car rental. so while in case of devices sold it is all clear and straightforward, should i be allowed to protect rental devices from tampering? greetings, eMBee. |
| jdixon Feb 14, 2012 10:03 AM EDT |
> ...if i sell you a service at a monthly fee, and give you a device to use with a contract that requires you to return the device when the contract ends. am i really selling the device to you? AFAIK, that's not the case with Tivo. You actually do buy the box. The monthly fee is merely for their channel guide, recommendations, and scheduling features. If you merely want to use it as a manual DVR, then you can do so. > ...so while in case of devices sold it is all clear and straightforward, should i be allowed to protect rental devices from tampering? You can at least require that the rental device be returned in the condition it was rented. Whether the renter can modify it while they use it is another matter. I suspect if you're a qualified mechanic and have a 3 years lease on a vehicle, they couldn't legally prevent you from replacing the engine, as long as you put the original engine back in before the lease was up. That's pretty much the equivalent of replacing the software on a device. |
| skelband Feb 14, 2012 1:01 PM EDT |
I wasn't really talking about the cable box. If I was renting the box I think it reasonable that the cable company expect me to not mess with it. After all, it isn't mine to do with as I wish. I was actually talking about the data stream. In an ideal world, I should be able to use a PVR of my choosing, including MythTV running on a server in my garage. So yet again, we get a situation where I lack freedom because someone wants to lock me out. I understand why they are doing it, but I think they are wrong. |
| jdixon Feb 14, 2012 1:16 PM EDT |
> After all, it isn't mine to do with as I wish. That's a debatable matter, and it's largely determined by the contract you signed when leasing the item. If that contract doesn't ban modifications, then the product is yours to do with as you wish as long as you're paying the fee. You just have to return it to its original condition before returning it. Now, the service being provided is another matter, and they may only provide it to an unmodified box. > I understand why they are doing it, but I think they are wrong. They're only wrong if you refuse to pay for their product. If you do pay for it, then they have no reason to think they're wrong. |
| skelband Feb 14, 2012 1:30 PM EDT |
> They're only wrong if you refuse to pay for their product. If you do pay for it, then they have no reason to think they're wrong. I presume that you are implying that if I buy the product I am therefore accepting the morality of their service. Unfortunately, in the real world, we have to sometimes accept less than perfect in order to get what we want. I buy this servce because there is no choice to get the service in any other way. All digital cable providers here do the same thing. Besides, I'm making a moral judgement on the fact that they are making a decision to deliberately lock me out of using the device that I choose to consume the content. After all, I am paying for it. I'm not getting it for free. There is a cost associated with this locked-downness. If I want PVR functionality, I have to use one of their "approved" hardware PVRs. I can't use the free MythTV software with the PC that I already have. |
| JaseP Feb 14, 2012 1:52 PM EDT |
I agree, but don't equate cable service provider lockout with open source vs. proprietary lock-out. Cable companies are quick to say you have to have vender lock-out because they have licensing restrictions, but that's BS... Broadcast content providers could care less if you record a show, so long as you watch the commercials, and don't post their material on the internet. Cable Co's have manufactured this crisis in order to charge rental fees on new hardware/services. Open source vs. proprietary lock-out is about commodity content providers (not always the same as the folks that broadcast the programs) wanting to lock their content, and charge twice or more for the privilege of enjoying it. It is about controlling the display mechanism to make purchasers purchase all over again. If we had available a reliable way to have converted our analog media to digital, we would have nipped a lot of this problem in the bud. But fixed storage eclipsed rewritable storage by a large margin for a long time, not to mention digitizing technology needing to play catch up. That gave music and video commodity providers a long grace period to repackage and reformat (vice versa?!?!) their wares, and resell them. Unfortunately, they started getting a sense of entitlement about that. And apart from media, the open source vs. proprietary question arises again... in a different form of vendor lock-in. Software lock-in is yet a different problem. That is a question of whether users are even allowed to own their hardware or data, run what they chose, step outside the box and do their own thing. The problem, for all involved, is that these different issues overlap to great degree and create alignments between the corporate and consumer issues.But when users try to fight back against a unified foe, we get it from all sides; big media, big broadcast, big service providers & big software/hardware. The trick in being successful is to divide and conquer. Corporate interests have been successful in this, alienating software users from media "pirates," internet users, and service users. But they are aligned in common purpose, maintenance of an antiquated business model. To beat them, we have to divide them, as was done in the fight against SOPA (ISPs vs. big commodity media). We need to break up their aliances, get tech fighting software, software fighting content, tech fighting media, etc. And I don't believe it's as hard as it sounds. All you need to do is exploit the wedges between them. Those wedges exist, and are the weak points in their armor. For example, service providers dump a lot of hardware on consumers, comoditizing it. Service providers are subsidizing the hardware with fees. If you exploit the weak point by dumping hardware back on the service providers in returns, they in turn, go after the hardware guys. Or, software providers versus content, where they want to sell a media package but are prevented from implementing features because of restrictions. Put pressure on the software folks to give those features or make it clear you'll use an alternative. The deeper you drive those type of wedges, the more likely we are toget them to capitulate. |
| skelband Feb 14, 2012 2:13 PM EDT |
@JaseP: I believe the issue at hand is freedom. Yet again, RMS would say that the fact that businesses and governments wish to control and restrict us is the root of the problem and is currently endemic in all societies. Freedom and openness in commodities and services are all as one. I can see why you draw the distinction: commodities are property and you should have the freedom to do with your property as you wish. Services are not and ownership is not a key feature. But again, the broader issue is about honesty in how we treat each other in business and life in general. And also about how the wider community benefits or otherwise from technology and innovation. Some companies wish to hoard their knowledge, while others which to share. However, making money and sharing are not necessarily mutually exclusive and this point is lost on a lot of businesses. |
| hunky Feb 14, 2012 2:14 PM EDT |
If a company owns the hardware you bought, and as it is sitting there in your house as you pay them for the service, how about charging them rent on it? Their product, in your home, making them money.. seems like a good case to charge rent to me. (I'm only sort of joking here.. maybe a lawyer could run with it.. who knows.) |
| JaseP Feb 14, 2012 2:16 PM EDT |
Um,... They could just say no, that you take their terms or lump it... |
| Fettoosh Feb 14, 2012 2:22 PM EDT |
Companies are free to choose what and how to market/sell their products. It is a free market after all. Those who think it is not fair should start submitting complaints hoping something would be done about it. The Federal Trade Commission File a complaint with the FTC |
| jdixon Feb 14, 2012 2:24 PM EDT |
> I presume that you are implying that if I buy the product I am therefore accepting the morality of their service. No. I'm stating that if you buy their product you're rewarding their behavior, and that if you reward behavior you get more of it. > I buy this servce because there is no choice to get the service in any other way. If the behavior is unacceptable, at some point you have to choose to do without the service. Yeah, I know, easy for me to say. |
| JaseP Feb 14, 2012 5:49 PM EDT |
For service providers, their weak link is that they must pass through regulatory layers (FCC, zoning, FTC, etc). So, for ISPs, cell phone providers, Cable Co's, etc., that's the place to hit them... Political pressure. |
| Khamul Feb 15, 2012 4:59 PM EDT |
One problem I see here with this "right to tinker" is that I really don't see why a manufacturer should be required to make that easy for you. It should never be illegal, of course (as the DMCA and other such laws make it for some products), but how far should a mfgr be required to go in making it easy for you to modify their products? Should you get access to the source code of all the embedded computers running on your car? What about all the wiring diagrams, engineering specifications, design diagrams, etc? With all that information, it'd be pretty easy for anyone to make a knock-off of the car, or any of its components. As it is, you're allowed to buy a car, and then do mostly whatever you want with it (subject to any applicable emissions regulations and safety regulations of course, but that's out of the mfgr's hands). If you want to take apart the interior and figure out which wire goes where, and add in some custom circuits or something, you're free to do so. But you'll probably have to pay for access to the wiring diagrams in an electrical service manual, if they'll even sell them to you (some mfgrs will, some won't). Or what if you want to change the information displayed on the LCD screen on the dashboard? You can make your own system to display something there, but the mfgr isn't going to help you reprogram the computer included in the car. |
| vainrveenr Feb 15, 2012 5:55 PM EDT |
Quoting:Besides, I'm making a moral judgement on the fact that they are making a decision to deliberately lock me out of using the device that I choose to consume the content. After all, I am paying for it. I'm not getting it for free.Appropriate to the eagerness and ability of manufacturing companies to improve "locked-downness" is last month's piece 'In Defense of Technology Lock-In', linked to at LXer via http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/161530. Perhaps the submitter of last month's Tech-FAQ piece has similar comments here regarding the necessary evil of "Tivoization" ?? |
| skelband Feb 15, 2012 7:11 PM EDT |
@Khamul: "...but how far should a mfgr be required to go in making it easy for you to modify their products?" Well, at one time, most electronic good came with wiring diagrams to help you to repair said product. They're a bit harder to repair these days, but this idea that electronic goods should be locked down is a relatively new idea. However to your actual question, well I think the distinction is pretty clear for me. I don't think any company has a moral obligation to provide me with anything that I have not paid for. So circuit diagrams, tools and any other information is strictly their prerogative. The distinction for me comes where a manufacturer takes specific and deliberate steps to make it harder to access a device. I wouldn't restrict that opinion to software either. Use of non-standard screw heads, requiring the use of special tools also come into this domain. "Special" screws are expensive so a company would have to make a conscious decision to use them and thereby increase their costs. I don't say that opening devices to make them accessible should be the law. I don't think the law comes into it at all. I do think, that or the wider community, manufacturers have a moral obligation to not treat their customers in such a (in my view) contemptible fashion. |
| gus3 Feb 15, 2012 7:13 PM EDT |
@Khamul: It was explained to me about twelve years ago, that there are three basic approaches to business formulas: 1. Patents, granted by the gov't for a limited time, in exchange for letting the public use the knowledge royalty-free after that time expires. 2. Trade secrets, such as Coca-Cola's formula, carefully guarded by the corporation for however long they can guard it. 3. Let the plans out, but use them better than anyone else. The specific example given to me was General Motors, who in their early days didn't care who knew the specs on their products. They simply made sure they could make their cars more efficiently, and sell them at a lower cost, than anyone else could. |
| BernardSwiss Feb 15, 2012 7:23 PM EDT |
Quoting:Should you get access to the source code of all the embedded computers running on your car? What about all the wiring diagrams, engineering specifications, design diagrams, etc? With all that information, it'd be pretty easy for anyone to make a knock-off of the car, or any of its components. They can do that anyhow -- always could (and not infrequently actually did). But that's not actually even about users/owners, but about manufacturers. It used to be my standard practice, whenever I bought a car, to acquire the pertinent third-party manual. I generally preferred Haynes manuals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_Manuals (more useful to a nerd like me who'd managed to have not taken auto shop in highschool, and wouldn't have more specialized tools) but Chilton was even more popular, or at least better known easier to find (at the time, more geared to experienced, even professional or semi-professional auto mechanics, since bought out by Haynes). These manuals were much more affordable than the manufacturers' Official manuals, and often more useful -- some professionals, with the Official manuals at hand, still preferred these third-party documentation efforts, at least for particular brands or models. The manufacturers of course objected to this "unauthorized" products, issued grave warnings about the likely consequences of relying on them (FUD is not a phenomenon unique to the IT field) and IIRC even launched legal actions against the publishers (I don't recall which precise grounds -- possibly copyright infringement?) but the third parties are still around, and these days the manufacturers have learned to actively cooperate, as a measure to improve customer satisfaction, loyalty, and other more direct economic benefits. But the official and the third-party manuals all included the mechanical drawings, circuit diagrams, torquing recommendations and such. And I presume they still do. |
| jdixon Feb 15, 2012 11:07 PM EDT |
> What about all the wiring diagrams, engineering specifications, design diagrams, etc? I see someone has already mentioned Chiltons. My dad never bought a car without also getting such a manual. |
| ColonelPanik Feb 16, 2012 12:42 PM EDT |
"If you can't open it, you don't own it" http://www.makershed.com/product_p/tsmk2.htm Done, this whole problem is covered by a tee shirt! Open Source Hardware |
| Khamul Feb 16, 2012 2:04 PM EDT |
@jdixon: Not all cars or mfgrs have Chiltons manuals available. In addition, I've looked at those before (admittedly, this was back in the 90s), and they never seemed to have any of that information, or only a very basic subset of it. It was only the factory service manuals (or frequently, the extra electrical manual only) that had full wiring diagrams. Anyway, you're not going to get full engineering drawings or specifications or any of that stuff from a Chilton's manual. All it does mainly is show you how to perform common procedures on the car: changing the oil, replacing driveshafts, replacing timing belts, perhaps rebuilding the engine, etc. Do they have full chassis dimension data so that a frame-straightening shop knows what the proper dimensions between critical points (suspension mounting points, engine mounts, etc) should be? Do they have all the information on how integrated electronics modules work? Even the factory manual (which does have dimension data) has its limits; it's not going to have any information on the insides of any electronic modules, as that's considered a non-rebuildable component. |
| jdixon Feb 16, 2012 9:22 PM EDT |
> I've looked at those before (admittedly, this was back in the 90s) The manuals I'm referring to were 60's and 70's. I doubt they had the full engineering specs, but pretty much everything else, including full wiring diagrams, was there. None of these cars would have had electronic ignition or computer controls. The only integrated electronics you would find would have been the radio. |
| BernardSwiss Feb 17, 2012 1:07 AM EDT |
I like the t-shirt! @Khamul We're talking about the customers here -- not full-fledged manufacturer's. The whole point is about customers (aka purchasers, aka "owners") having the ability to tinker (or maintain, modify or repair) their own property, not set up in business making their own knock-offs (and as I said before, those wanting to mass produce such knock-offs were never stopped by not having the official documentation). IOW -- We're complaining about manufacturers (or distributors) putting artificial and/or arbitrary obstacles in the way of the putative owner of their own property. Your asides about pirate manufacturers/counterfeiters are irrelevant to the discussion. |
| Khamul Feb 17, 2012 3:27 PM EDT |
@Bernard: The information needed to tinker (or at least, make it easier) is the same information that makes it much easier to make knock-offs. What if your car has an electronic control module (I think they call it the "body controller" these days) that's basically a low-power computer that handles things like turning on and off the dome light at various times, and you want to change that? You'd need not only the source code to that microcontroller, but a way of reprogramming it too, which can range in complexity depending on the type of CPU being used; if it's something like a Microchip PIC, you could probably use ICSP (in-circuit serial programming), but you need a special programmer for that; Microchip gives away schematics for their programmer for free on the net, but other makers like Freescale require you to buy an expensive software package to use and program their microcontrollers. But if it's something like an ARM cpu, then it's running some kind of bootloader, perhaps U-boot, then I really don't know how that would be reprogrammed if there's no ethernet port; they probably program the flash chips at the factory somehow, and if you don't have a way of reprogramming it, you won't be able to modify it. The whole point here is that for mfgrs to tell customers how to tinker with their products would involve giving away a lot of information, perhaps even making design changes to make it easier. What if the product is potted? Then there's no way at all to modify it without cutting it apart and somehow removing all the epoxy; good luck with that. There's a big difference between mfgrs putting up roadblocks, and simply not bothering to make it easy (because with modern electronics, it's frequently very difficult to modify something once its manufactured just by the nature of the technology). |
| dinotrac Feb 17, 2012 10:53 PM EDT |
@skelband - Ok. Not sniveling. Whining. Who's really going to stop you from doing whatever you want with your tivo. They might not help you,but -if you're clever enough and have enough resources at your disposal, i presume you can do whatever you please. Might void the warranty and might run afoul of the DMCA, but that's a different issue. |
| skelband Feb 18, 2012 2:42 AM EDT |
@dinotrac: "...and might run afoul of the DMCA, but that's a different issue." Erm, no that's exactly the issue. The DMCA was put in place exactly to stop people messing with their hardware. The cover story of piracy is and always was a fraud. So you want to stop someone opening and tweaking their hardware, then you add some preventative measures, and lo! you have the full weight of the law behind you. Besides which, what on earth is wrong with expecting us to all get along anyway? Since when did it become weird to expect us to treat each other with honesty and integrity? Is it such a big stretch to say to companies, "stop treating us like idiots and let us do what we want with our stuff?" If you're perfectly happy for the general public to be done over by these manufacturers, well that's fine. The rest of us worry that extraordinarily long patents and copyright, device lock out and a number of other measures which are being used to monopolise knowledge are a serious burden on our wider society. Seriously, these companies want to tun the general public into media consuming cattle, and they are already a great deal of the way along that path. They don't want people to innovate or challenge their dominance over all things knowledgeable. I don't see a great future for the human race at the moment and it saddens me greatly. |
| Fettoosh Feb 18, 2012 11:54 AM EDT |
Quoting:stop treating us like idiots and let us ... When the majority of us stop acting like idiots, they will stop treating us like idiots. :-) |
| Khamul Feb 18, 2012 2:14 PM EDT |
Quoting:Since when did it become weird to expect us to treat each other with honesty and integrity? When big corporations took over everything, that's when. Corporations don't have any honesty or integrity (since they're all run by sociopaths with no conscience), and since such concepts are alien to them, they don't recognize them when dealing with people who do. |
| Fettoosh Feb 18, 2012 6:12 PM EDT |
I found this really interesting. It shows how companies manipulate consumers into buying simply by collecting personal information, buying trend, and about their habits. How Companies Learn Your Secrets |
| BernardSwiss Feb 18, 2012 6:41 PM EDT |
There's also an excellent series of articles over at the Wall Street Journal called "What They Know". Oh my -- apparently it's grown into an actual, regular subsection of the WSJ tech coverage: What They Know ( http://online.wsj.com/public/page/what-they-know-digital-pri... ) |
| jdixon Feb 18, 2012 7:33 PM EDT |
> ...It shows how companies manipulate consumers into buying simply... "PLEASE LOG IN Log in to manage your products and services from The New York Times and the International Herald Tribune. In order to access our Web site, your Web browser must accept cookies from NYTimes.com." Guess I won't be reading it. However, the simple solution to being "manipulated" into buying things is to live within a budget. When you do that you know what you can afford to get and what you can't, and simply don't make impulse purchases. Yes, even people who live on a budget should have a portion of their income set aside as mad money, but even when you do that you find that you plan your purchases a lot more carefully and simply aren't as susceptible to such manipulation. To be fair, it's been a number of years since I actually had the need to keep a detailed budget, but once you get into those habits they tend to stay with you. |
| tracyanne Feb 18, 2012 8:06 PM EDT |
they do indeed |
| Khamul Feb 18, 2012 8:46 PM EDT |
@jdixon: Did you try Bugmenot? |
| BernardSwiss Feb 18, 2012 8:56 PM EDT |
My carefully protected NYT cookie is on my old (fried mobo) machine -- so I went in via Google. No problem. |
| dinotrac Feb 18, 2012 11:01 PM EDT |
@skelband - It's AN issue, but DMCA is part of the environment in which Tivo exists, not a problem with Tivo itself. |
| jdixon Feb 18, 2012 11:28 PM EDT |
> @jdixon: Did you try Bugmenot? For the NYT? Not worth the effort. |
| mbaehrlxer Feb 19, 2012 4:30 AM EDT |
BernardSwiss: heh, that's a neat trick. so they apparently check if the referrer is from a search engine and then allow you in. fettoosh: that article was very interesting. not so much what target or other companies are doing with their data, which is informative but not very surprising, but more so the whole explorations on habit forming. that's very insightful and can be used in positive ways too. now i can try to figure out what keeps me coming back to read lxer discussions instead of working ;-) greetings, eMBee. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!