Automotives Companies Fight Against Home Repairs

[Cameramonkey]

Isn't the jist of this all about the software / code contained within ECMs and such? Not about nuts and bolts, but about the software that runs the vehicle?

Just like most of the software on most of the computers used to access INGO. Generally speaking, it's all licensed copies. You don't "own" Microsoft Windows; you own a licensed copy.

The problem is companies like John Deere are trying to use the argument that since their equipment is computer controlled and they only license the code to you, and that code is required to run all aspects of the attached sheet metal, rubber, and plastic. Therefore pretty much everything except the damn key you use to start it is still theirs. You dont actually own that tractor.

Thats like saying Microsoft owns your IBM computer tower because you installed windows on it.

 

[JettaKnight]

This article explains it MUCH better.
We Can't Let John Deere Destroy the Very Idea of Ownership | WIRED

There's a TON of links, so I have some bedtime reading.


And, Steve, we're now back on the same side on this one. This isn't IP protection, it's abusing the copyright system (a la patent trolls).

 

[steveh_131]

Perhaps this has nothing to do with the ECU software (could it be a reporter is wrong?).

Here's a better article, in my opinion:

WTF! It Should Not Be Illegal to Hack Your Own Car's Computer | WIRED

People have been hacking ECU's for years. And if they can't crack the encryption, they replace it altogether. The DMCA (a HORRIBLE piece of legislation) gives car manufacturers legal grounds to sue anybody who does so.

Activists are lobbying for this to be exempted from the DMCA.

Similar fights have happened over cell phone hacking, game console hacking, etc. This is not a new issue, it's only becoming more relevant to automobiles.

 

[steveh_131]

This article explains it MUCH better.
We Can't Let John Deere Destroy the Very Idea of Ownership | WIRED

There's a TON of links, so I have some bedtime reading.


And, Steve, we're now back on the same side on this one. This isn't IP protection, it's abusing the copyright system (a la patent trolls).

Sounds like we both found better articles.

 

[jamil]

Absolutely. I'd expect any open source software solution to have hardcoded limits to any safety issues.



Did you read the article? This is not about the technical ability to alter your vehicle's software, it's about the legal ability to do so. It is about copyright law.



It contains proprietary software. So it's not yours. You're just renting it. Am I right, IP guys?

I agree this discussion is about copyright law. The code is their property. Modifying it is a copyright infringement. I don't see a problem with replacing the code altogether as long as it does not use parts of copyrighted code without permission. I don't see this as much different from the operating system on your PC. Modifying that is copyright infringement. But anyone with sufficient knowledge of the hardware and firmware can write their own operating system and use it.

Of course with a PC, you must agree to the EULA terms before you can use it. I don't think I've ever signed a software license agreement for any of my vehicles. But it's not the EULA nor your agreement that makes it their intellectual property.

 

[JettaKnight]

The problem is companies like John Deere are trying to use the argument that since their equipment is computer controlled and they only license the code to you, and that code is required to run all aspects of the attached sheet metal, rubber, and plastic. Therefore pretty much everything except the damn key you use to start it is still theirs. You don't actually own that tractor.

That's like saying Microsoft owns your IBM computer tower because you installed windows on it.

And that's not cool. They're no longer protecting their right to sell that software, but using it as a stick to prevent maintenance and control operations. Those diagnostics and parameters are the modern day equivalent of gauges and knobs and should be treated as such by all parties. Gauges and knobs are expensive - weight, space, costs, lifespan, etc. and replacing them with data traveling on a wire is cheap and offers a new level of features for the vehicle maintainer.

But here, JD, GM, et al are arguing that those gauges and knobs are in a lockbox and if you pick that lock on your car (or someone picks it for you) then that's a violation of the DCMA.

 

[steveh_131]

The code is their property. Modifying it is a copyright infringement.

Why? I can modify the rest of the car, why not the code?

But it's not the EULA nor your agreement that makes it their intellectual property.

True. It's not property rights, voluntary contracts, or even basic common sense that makes something your property even after you've sold it to another person.

It's purely a farcical government construct.

 

[JettaKnight]

I agree this discussion is about copyright law. The code is their property. Modifying it is a copyright infringement.

You're probably catching up as a type, but this is an issue with DMCA, a horrible expansion of copyright law designed to combat DVD piracy.

I don't see a problem with replacing the code altogether as long as it does not use parts of copyrighted code without permission. I don't see this as much different from the operating system on your PC. Modifying that is copyright infringement. But anyone with sufficient knowledge of the hardware and firmware can write their own operating system and use it.

Theoretically, it's possible. But modern ECU's have surpassed that point. Yes, I can recreate Lake Meade with my tools and knowledge, but...

 

[jamil]

Sounds like we both found better articles.

Ok, yep. I thought the kerfuffle was just about the software. But those links makes a much more sinister plot much clearer. They're actually trying to say that because their copyrighted software is in their hardware (truck,tractor, whatever), they also own the hardware. Bull**** to that.

And this concept goes much deeper than just vehicles. Next Apple will be telling me I don't own my phone. Bunn will be telling me I don't own my coffee maker. Sony will be telling me I don't own my own TV. Smart watch? Yeah, it ain't yours. You're just licensed to wear it.

 

[steveh_131]

And this concept goes much deeper than just vehicles. Next Apple will be telling me I don't own my phone. Bunn will be telling me I don't own my coffee maker. Sony will be telling me I don't own my own TV. Smart watch? Yeah, it ain't yours. You're just licensed to wear it.

All of this has already been done. Phones are locked down tight, and lawsuits have occurred over it.

Gaming consoles are also a popular platform for modding, and also have been fraught with lawsuits.

 

[JettaKnight]

I agree this discussion is about copyright law. The code is their property. Modifying it is a copyright infringement.

Why? I can modify the rest of the car, why not the code?

I agree with Steve. If I buy a book, I can alter the words in that book all I want. However, should I ink up a printing press and roll out a cash register...

Ok, yep. I thought the kerfuffle was just about the software. But those links makes a much more sinister plot much clearer. They're actually trying to say that because their copyrighted software is in their hardware (truck,tractor, whatever), they also own the hardware. Bull**** to that.

And this concept goes much deeper than just vehicles. Next Apple will be telling me I don't own my phone. Bunn will be telling me I don't own my coffee maker. Sony will be telling me I don't own my own TV. Smart watch? Yeah, it ain't yours. You're just licensed to wear it.

Um, Jamil, those things are all past tense.

DMCA rules it's okay to jailbreak your iPhone, but not your iPad | iMore
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...-coffee-maker-to-lock-out-refill-market.shtml
Samsung's SmartTV Disabling its eavesdropping could violate DMCA.

 

[jamil]

Why? I can modify the rest of the car, why not the code?



True. It's not property rights, voluntary contracts, or even basic common sense that makes something your property even after you've sold it to another person.

It's purely a farcical government construct.

I think we need another thread to delve into that discussion. It seems this discussion is about the unreasonable expectation that physical property that would normally change ownership when sold, doesn't change ownership when intellectual property is involved. That is simply absurd.

So then an author could say that since his words are integrally woven throughout the book, the paper, binding, glue and every physical part of the book has not changed ownership when sold.

 

[jamil]

I agree with Steve. If I buy a book, I can alter the words in that book all I want. However, should I ink up a printing press and roll out a cash register...


Um, Jamil, those things are all past tense.

DMCA rules it's okay to jailbreak your iPhone, but not your iPad | iMore
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...-coffee-maker-to-lock-out-refill-market.shtml
Samsung's SmartTV Disabling its eavesdropping could violate DMCA.

I understand about that, but those articles aren't trying to say anything about ownership, just what you're legally allowed to do with what you own. Those issues are really no different than the issue of modding the code in an ECU to gain some performance advantage.

No, this goes beyond that. This is turning that discussion into a discussion of ownership altogether.

 

[steveh_131]

I think we need another thread to delve into that discussion. It seems this discussion is about the unreasonable expectation that physical property that would normally change ownership when sold, doesn't change ownership when intellectual property is involved. That is simply absurd.

It's all the same topic, because they're right about ownership. If the code remains their 'property' then it should remain illegal for us to alter or modify that code, via decryption or 'cracking'. Which is what's being discussed right now.

We're finding this difficult to reconcile because it's a paradox. How can something remain your 'property' once you sell it to someone else?

This can only happen by creating a fictional moral construct, known as 'intellectual property'. And because this construct has no basis in reality, there will be a steady stream of abuses from the corporations that lobby to expand this moral construct to encompass more and more of the things that we purchase.

 

[jamil]

It's all the same topic, because they're right about ownership. If the code remains their 'property' then it should remain illegal for us to alter or modify that code, via decryption or 'cracking'. Which is what's being discussed right now.

We're finding this difficult to reconcile because it's a paradox. How can something remain your 'property' once you sell it to someone else?

This can only happen by creating a fictional moral construct, known as 'intellectual property'. And because this construct has no basis in reality, there will be a steady stream of abuses from the corporations that lobby to expand this moral construct to encompass more and more of the things that we purchase.

If you want to discuss it, fine, but I'd like to know exactly what you're saying.

Should there be such a thing as copyright?

I don't mind if you don't want to call copyrighted material "intellectual property". In fact, I'm good with keeping "copyright" around and ridding every known lexicon of the term "intellectual property". Also, it would not bother me if laws were changed such that they dealt more with people copying other people's work and capitalizing on it as their own. If I write software and sell it to you, if you modify it for your own personal use, I do not care. But if thereafter you try to sell copies of my work even if it was modified by you, I have a problem with that.

 

[JettaKnight]

If you want to discuss it, fine, but I'd like to know exactly what you're saying.

Should there be such a thing as copyright?

I don't mind if you don't want to call copyrighted material "intellectual property". In fact, I'm good with keeping "copyright" around and ridding every known lexicon of the term "intellectual property". Also, it would not bother me if laws were changed such that they dealt more with people copying other people's work and capitalizing on it as their own. If I write software and sell it to you, if you modify it for your own personal use, I do not care. But if thereafter you try to sell copies of my work even if it was modified by you, I have a problem with that.

The copyright is what protects intellectual property. And despite being around for 300+ years and working reasonably well, Steve thinks it's a horrible device of lawyers.

 

[Woobie]

Maybe I'm a simpleton. But if Jim creates a widget that uses code, or makes a movie, writes a book; and I give Jim an agreed upon object or amount of currency for that widget, dvd, book, then I have become the owner. Now as the owner, I should be able to set it on fire, use it for its intended purpose, build a tree fort out of it, or sell it to someone else. It is mine. Now there is an issue if I reverse engineer the code or widget, or I make copies of the book or dvd and resell those. I have now pirated their hard work. But, excluding this type of piracy, I can't think of anything I should not be able to do with what is mine. If I buy something, it is implicit that I will be using it for my purposes, and not to copy it for profit. So who cares if I modify a car, a computer program, or a computer program in a car, as long as I own it and it is for my own purposes?

 

[steveh_131]

Should there be such a thing as copyright?

No.

I don't mind if you don't want to call copyrighted material "intellectual property". In fact, I'm good with keeping "copyright" around and ridding every known lexicon of the term "intellectual property". Also, it would not bother me if laws were changed such that they dealt more with people copying other people's work and capitalizing on it as their own. If I write software and sell it to you, if you modify it for your own personal use, I do not care. But if thereafter you try to sell copies of my work even if it was modified by you, I have a problem with that.

If you sell something to someone, they can do what they want with it. If you want to set specific terms of how the purchaser can use something, this should be done through existing contract law. Contract violations should be handled through existing civil courts.

Copyrights and patents as they are today have nothing to do with moral property rights. It's a construct that we fabricated because we've been taught that they spur innovation.

This seems like a tangent, but it's quite relevant to the topic being discussed. If you accept the construct of intellectual property, then the car companies would be correct that the software is their property, and it should be illegal for you to alter or modify it. You'd like to narrow it down to things like duplication... but how can you narrow it down like that if you perceive it as the property of Chrysler corporation? It would be wrong to vandalize any of their physical property, why wouldn't it be wrong to vandalize their intellectual property?

I think the more logical position would be to jettison 'property rights' and morality from the conversation altogether and view copyright law as the abstract concept that it is. If you acknowledge that it is simply a government intervention used to spur the economic wealth of the collective then it all makes a whole lot more sense. It's certainly still too 'big-government' for a libertarian like myself, but at least it's consistent. And I think the legalities would be easier to untangle as well.

 

[JettaKnight]

Maybe I'm a simpleton. But if Jim creates a widget that uses code, or makes a movie, writes a book; and I give Jim an agreed upon object or amount of currency for that widget, dvd, book, then I have become the owner. Now as the owner, I should be able to set it on fire, use it for its intended purpose, build a tree fort out of it, or sell it to someone else. It is mine.

Not according the DMCA. According the that, if there's a digital lock, and you pick it then you're breaking the law. (thanks, Clinton).

Now there is an issue if I reverse engineer the code or widget, or I make copies of the book or dvd and resell those. I have now pirated their hard work. But, excluding this type of piracy, I can't think of anything I should not be able to do with what is mine. If I buy something, it is implicit that I will be using it for my purposes, and not to copy it for profit.

Reverse engineering is when you use the powers of observation to figure out the possible behavioral responses of the device. It's like a kid with a Christmas present. Think of it like trying to make your own transmission without ever opening up the transmission you're trying to imitate. You can intuitively figure out there's gears inside without actually looking at them. If you shift through them, you can determine six sets are needed, and a reverse gear set is in there, and so on. You can make a similar transmission in function, but not in form. It's not copying.

So who cares if I modify a car, a computer program, or a computer program in a car, as long as I own it and it is for my own purposes?

GM, JD, et al. Their service centers and maintenance departments are fiscally impacted.

 

[JettaKnight]

This seems like a tangent, but it's quite relevant to the topic being discussed. If you accept the construct of intellectual property, then the car companies would be correct that the software is their property, and it should be illegal for you to alter or modify it. You'd like to narrow it down to things like duplication... but how can you narrow it down like that if you perceive it as the property of Chrysler corporation? It would be wrong to vandalize any of their physical property, why wouldn't it be wrong to vandalize their intellectual property?

Copyrights are not there to protect the property, but to protect the prosperity of the creator.

If we follow your argument then modifying a 10/22 bolt hold open should be illegal. Right? That part was implemented with Ruger's design (their IP) and modifying that part is modifying their design and IP.

Too far? Well what about scribbling notes in my textbooks? I'm modifying it. Is that vandalism to MGH's property?

I think the more logical position would be to jettison 'property rights' and morality from the conversation altogether and view copyright law as the abstract concept that it is. If you acknowledge that it is simply a government intervention used to spur the economic wealth of the collective then it all makes a whole lot more sense. It's certainly still too 'big-government' for a libertarian like myself, but at least it's consistent. And I think the legalities would be easier to untangle as well.

So having a contract for each exchange is more simple than a common law? So, every time I buy (or even borrow) a book I need to enter a contract with the author and/or publisher? Do I negotiate terms?

How is this better than a law that says, "Don't copy and sell the writings, movie, song, painting, or other design that someone worked really hard on and is expecting that to provide them with a means to put food on the table."?