How John Deere Hijacked Copyright Law To Keep You From Tinkering With Your Tractor
Hackers are helping tractor owners “jailbreak” their equipment in order to repair it.

Discussions about the repairability of high-tech devices tend to focus on mass-market products: smartphones, laptops, video game consoles, and other commonplace devices. Less apparent is the repairability of tractors, cultivators, combines, and other heavy agricultural equipment that are equally reliant on computers and software. As with smartphone or laptop repairs, farmers and right-to-repair advocates have long complained that agricultural equipment manufacturers have used software to lock owners out of their products. To combat such restrictions, farmers and white-hat hackers have joined in an unlikely alliance to "liberate the tractors."
As with other types of hardware, such as smart cars, the "techiness" of heavy agricultural machinery has become an impediment to meaningful ownership. Now, companies such as John Deere have vertically integrated the entire ecosystem for equipment, requiring customers to purchase repair services exclusively from dealers and using software to prevent independent repairs.
Whenever software has been used to prevent the owners of products from altering or repairing their property, groups of ideologically driven individuals have used their skills to circumvent such constraints. Agricultural equipment is no different, and hackers have taken it upon themselves to "jailbreak" or open up the closed software systems that prevent independent repairs. In the words of one such hacker, "We want farmers to be able to repair their stuff for when things go wrong, and now that means being able to repair or make decisions about the software in their tractors."
Hackers have now developed tools that would give power back to the owners of farm equipment, allowing farmers unversed in handling software to circumvent manufacturers' software locks and independently make repairs and service their equipment. There's only one problem with this movement to liberate the tractors: It's a violation of federal copyright law.
Under Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), any individual who produces or uses a tool designed to circumvent software intended to keep them out of a system faces five years in federal prison and a fine of up to $500,000. Those penalties double for each subsequent infraction. This means software developers who build tools to get around John Deere's software blocks could receive a 10-year prison sentence and a $1 million fine for each time they distribute their tool. Although the Copyright Office has implemented a narrow exception to the law for certain circumstances, a farmer who purchases such a tool could also end up in federal prison.
The Copyright Office technically has the ability to implement broad, permanent exclusions to Section 1201 but has so far refused to act absent expressed congressional authorization. Fortunately, there are some in Congress that recognize this issue and have proposed solutions.
In 2022, then-Rep. Mondaire Jones (D–N.Y.) sponsored the Freedom to Repair Act, which would exempt all maintenance and repairs from Section 1201. More recently, Rep. Victoria Spartz (R–Ind.) introduced the Farm Freedom to Repair Act, a much narrower proposal that would permanently exempt "the diagnosis, maintenance, and repair of digital electronic agricultural equipment" from Section 1201. Either proposal would be an improvement over the status quo, but the Freedom to Repair Act's comprehensiveness presents a better solution to the issues posed by Section 1201.
For nearly 25 years, Section 1201 has been hanging over the developers and distributors of tools that give users more control over the products they own. The ways in which John Deere and other corporations have used the copyright system is a glaring example of regulatory capture in action, highlighting the absurdity of a system where owning a product doesn't necessarily convey the right to fully control it. There are certainly circumstances where the manufacturers are justified in protecting their products from tampering, but such cases should be handled through warranty nullification and contract law, not through exorbitant fines and lengthy prison sentences.
With the Farm Bill up for reauthorization, Congress is in a perfect position to reform Section 1201 of the DMCA, giving farmers, hackers, and the owners of all types of tech the freedom to repair.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Big tractor. Nothing but a bunch of evil capitalists.
It's not really "capitalism" if they're using a bullshit law and government enforcers to milk their customers.
You aren't kidding. It is akin to regulatory capture, though not precisely the same, you're locking out competition in the repairs business and using the government to enforce your monopoly in that field.
I don't blame Deere -- well, I do. Fuck them -- but the very badly written DMCA. If the government writes a law that allows someone to profit by using or abusing that law, they most certainly will. Period. Markets are super creative like that.
However if they just build software that makes it hard for others to hack and limit the right to repair (or contractually require buyers to agree that they must use their dealers for repairs) then that IS capitalism. The only issue here is use of the government for purposes other than contract enforcement. I am seriously shocked that so many comments here support limiting John Deer's ability to make it hard to repair - it is part of their overall business model: cheaper tractors but must use our dealers to repair versus more expensive tractors and go ahead and repair it yourself. Both are valid propositions.
Some of us run Kubota and are happy we can work in our tractors without a paid permission slip.
I've heard of more than a few farmers that refuse to buy a Deere for exactly that reason.
It's why I bought a Kubota when I needed a new tractor.
How did we make the jump from all the shit happening in Silicon Valley and Hollywood over the last 15 years to John Deere?
FYI, apropos of all this, there is a concept that that gets into the whole concept of 'competing virtues' especially in the libertarian space. Right to repair laws are something that, in a perfect libertarian world tend to conflict with the ideal that the government shouldn't interfere between a business and its customers. But once you have other mechanisms in place that make it increasingly difficult for users to take control of the products they supposedly own, then right-to-repair laws start to look awfully good.
"Yeah? But what about the Jews?" says Herr Misek.
They should be allowed to repair their tractors as well.
>>products they supposedly own
absolutely operative terms here. you vill own nutzing.
Is that why I'm so happy?
Yes, Diane. Eat your bugs then go to bed.
Right to repair laws are something that, in a perfect libertarian world tend to conflict with the ideal that the government shouldn’t interfere between a business and its customers.
They'd be unnecessary in libertopia in my mind. The problem stems from the government making it illegal from tampering with a product you own. In libertopia, we'd have property rights.
Exactly, right to repair would be unnecessary absent the DMCA. Sure it would be legal for Deere to lock people out, but it would be just as legal to jailbreak the software. It would become a cat and mouse game that Deere would likely find unprofitable in the long run.
the Farmalls and Allis Chalmerses never gave us any trouble we couldn't handle.
Allis Chalmers was the best ever. Drove the D-17 when I was 12 so my dad could pick up hay balls. Good times.
I remember riding on the fender of the 170 with the neighi kids hanging off the 3 point hitch with my dad driving down the Iowa gravel roads in "road" gear.
>> when I was 12
#metoo
This is job security, taken to a crippling degree.
It used to be I bought a tractor, 1 - 5 years you could get the necessary part. Years 6 - 10 you would have to contact the manufacturer for the part. Starting year 11 forget it. There was no way to get the necessary part.
I know farmers who would cannibalize tractor 4 to keep tractors 1, 2, 3 working.
This is planned obsolescence.
Yup, another reason to buy Kubota. You can still get parts for tractors made in 2001. Not JD.
The problem is a lot of farmers will only buy tractors of a certain color. A farmer friend loves my Kubota but keeps threatening to paint it John Deere green.
Trademark suit incoming from John Deere lol
Basically, what John Deere has done is taken ownership of the equipment away from the farmer. The software forces you to use John Deere parts and John Deere dealers to make the repairs otherwise the software makes the tractor inoperable. Can you imagine if the car manufacturers After market parts are cheaper, function just as well or better and you save labor costs replacing it yourself. All the John Deere dealers around here dramatically increased their rates to repair your equipment. I needed to have a tractor brought in for repair, the dealer is about 15 miles from me and the dealership wanted $300 just to get the tractor. I didn't ask how much to return it. Luckily a farmer friend had a big enough trailer and trailered it in. And the problem is most agriculture equipment does't breakdown in the winter when you don't need it. I'm a small time farmer. Some of the farmers around me have 400k harvesters. Can't afford much downtime with those beasts stuck in the fields.
Early on, many of the white hackers were from the Ukraine because of the patent laws.
Of course this is their business model and they are free to do this. I am appalled that Reason would take the position that the government should prevent businesses from operating the way they choose. Revenue from repair is part of the John Deere business model. If this revenue stream is curtailed, the obvious result will be increases to the base price of the tractor. The market should decide. If Kabuto wants to compete by selling systems that are not protected (which I understand they do), it will hurt John Deer's sales unless they either lower their price or remove the limitation. Two equally valid price propositions: (i) higher price but you can repair it yourself versus (ii) lower base price but you have to go to our dealers for repairs.
You're just ignoring that the government has passed laws which criminalize the most logical free market response. That is a very big thumb on the scale in JD's favor which has certainly distorted the market.
The solution is not to put another thumb on the scale, of course, but to remove the existing one.
If it has software, you can never really own it.
+1
If you can't see the code and load it up yourself, if you didn't pull the wires, set up the antenna, or launch the satellite yourself; you use it by the grace of whomever did.
There is no such thing as intellectual property.
Not when IP claims are used as regulatory capture on an item sold to customers. This specifically is a type of scam. It would be like buying a new TV only to find out it didn't do anything you wanted it too without another $200/month subscription fee entirely price controlled by the TV manufacturer themselves.
I agree with you but that's a bad example. Its more like buying that TV and being told you legally can't also buy a roof antenna to avoid buying their service.
Even better, if you bought a Peleton bike but it locked the peddles if you didn't have a membership and made it a felony to remove the lock. I've no problem with them selling an exclusive membership to their bikes but when they take control of the physical property than they've violated the owners property rights.
There is no such thing as intellectual property but there are such things as intellectual rights. Property is well-defined and it only applies to things. Ideas are not things. Copyrights and patent laws may be justified to protect the rights of artists, authors, inventors and developers, but they are not property rights. It is not just an arbitrary differentiation - it is important because trying to mix property rights with intellectual rights muddies the application to the detriment of both sets of rights. Calling inventions and other ideas "intellectual property" is a sneaky attempt to create a false impression. The laws that might be effective at protecting intellectual rights have to be very different from the laws that would be effective at protecting property rights.
IP is a legal fiction, but it is one that is enshrined in our laws. Even the Constitution gives it a nod: [The Congress shall have power] “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”
So I think we're stuck with IP, but we're not stuck with all the laws Congress has implemented to promote it.
My point is that arguments that equate copy"right" privileges with property rights are bogus. Copyright is an infringement against freedom of expression that our founders allowed for utilitarian reasons.
"There are certainly circumstances where the manufacturers are justified in protecting their products from tampering, but such cases should be handled through warranty nullification and contract law, not through exorbitant fines and lengthy prison sentences."
Well Said.
Fixing a car isn't "copying" anything. Sounds like the DMCA has unintended consequences in it.
Delve into the rich legacy of Laura Waddell, a Famous Book Publisher whose influence reverberates through the corridors of the literary realm. Waddell’s publishing legacy is marked by a commitment to quality, diversity, and the timeless resonance of the narratives she brings to the forefront.
Is she famous, or does she just publish famous books?
The purpose of copyright laws was, or should have been, to protect the author from being abused, not to prevent the owner of the software from changing her own property. If you rent or lease equipment, technically it is still owned by the rental agency and they can forbid you by contract from tampering with it. Once you have bought the equipment, you OWN it and everything about it. Although no one should be allowed to sell the code to anyone else, it should not be illegal to sell the means for the equipment (and its software) owners to fix it on their own. Once the equipment is owned by someone else, the manufacturer or salesman should have no further claim on it. If I want to hack into the operating system on my computer and modify it to suit myself, no one else should have any say as long as it’s not for sale to someone else.
Do you propose to repeal/change the DMCA, then?
This is not a new thing. About 30 years ago Wang Computers, which had a proprietary operating system, started suing IT companies for copyright infringement for downloading diagnostic information from Wang computers to perform troubleshooting and other things that these technicians normally do.