EPA Sides With GM In Telling Copyright Office That Copyright Should Stop You From Modifying Your Car Software

from the wrong-tool,-guys dept

As we noted earlier this year, as the Copyright Office and the Librarian of Congress consider the requested "exemptions" from Section 1201 of the DMCA, General Motors has come out strongly against allowing you to modify the software in the car that you (thought you) bought from the company. If you're new to this fight, Section 1201 of the DMCA is the "anti-circumvention" clause that says that it's copyright infringement if you "circumvent" any "technological protection method" (TPM) -- even if that circumvention has absolutely nothing to do with copyright infringement. Yes, this is insane. It's so insane that Congress even realized it would lead to ridiculous situations. But, rather than fixing the damn law, Congress instead decided to duct tape on an even more ridiculous "solution." That is that every three years (the so-called "triennial review"), people could beg and plead with the Copyright Office and the Librarian of Congress to issue special "exemptions" for classes of work where Section 1201 wouldn't apply. Yes, that's right, you have a law, but Congress knew the law made no sense in some cases, and so it just gave the Librarian of Congress (the guy who currently can't keep his website online) the power to anoint certain classes of technology immune from the law.

Anyway, as mentioned, General Motors and others car makers (and also tractor maker John Deere) have been lobbying against the change, arguing all sorts of damage might occur should people be able to hack their own cars legally. And, to be fair, there is a legitimate point that someone messing with their own car's software could potentially do some damage. But, there are some pretty easy responses to that. First off, that's not copyright's job. If you want to ban tinkering with the software in cars, pass a damn law that is specifically about tinkering with software in cars, so that there can be a real public debate about it. Second, lots of perfectly legal tinkering with the mechanical parts of automobiles can also lead to dangers on the road, but we don't ban it because people are allowed to tinker with things they own.

Either way, the Copyright Office reached out to the EPA about this issue, and in a just published letter (even though it was sent months ago), it's revealed that the EPA is asking for the exemption to be denied because it's "concerned" that these exemptions would "slow or reverse gains made under the Clean Air Act." It also argues that allowing the right to modify your own software would "hinder its ability to enforce... tampering prohibition[s]" that are in existing law already:
EPA is also concerned that the exemptions would hinder its ability to enforce the tampering prohibition. Under section 203(a), the Agency has taken enforcement action against third-party vendors who sell or install equipment that can "bypass, defeat, or render inoperative" software designed to enable vehicles to comply with CFAA regulations. EPA can curb this practice more effectively if circumventing TPMs remains prohibited under the DMCA
First of all, this shows that there's already another law in place for dealing with people who are doing things that will impact the environment. Second, who cares if it makes the EPA's job easier, that's not the role of copyright. That the EPA would so casually argue that it's okay for it to be abusing copyright law, just because it makes the EPA's job easier is patently ridiculous.

Following that, the EPA then mocks the idea that anyone would have a legitimate reason to tinker with the software in their own cars:
The Agency also questions whether there is a real need for the exemptions. Car makers are already required to provide access for lawful diagnosis and repair. In EPA's view, whether or not they are designed for this purpose, the TPMs prevent unlawful tampering of important motor vehicle software.
Again, that's not the job of copyright, and supporting the abuse of copyright for this purpose is ridiculous. Furthermore, now that we're living in an age of connected cars, where we're already discovering that car software is a security nightmare it's actually more important than ever that people be able to tinker with the software in their cars, to probe for security weaknesses and to improve that software where possible. The EPA has every right to go after those who do so in a manner that violates environmental laws, but it shouldn't support abusing copyright law just because it makes the EPA's job easier. And, it shouldn't just assume that there are no legitimate reasons for wanting to modify the software in your car just because EPA staffers are too simple-minded to understand what those reasons might be.

Whatever you might think of the EPA and its mission, the idea that it would advocate abusing copyright laws is a disgrace.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 10 Sep 2015 @ 7:57am

    lots of perfectly legal tinkering with the mechanical parts of automobiles can also lead to dangers on the road, but we don't ban it because people are allowed to tinker with things they own.

    This cannot be emphasized enough. Thinkering with mechanical parts can do a whole world more damage to the environment than anything else. Many people here remove pollution control mechanisms from their trucks because it decreases the consumption by 3-4%. You stop it by having vehicles undergo obligatory auditing or something but not by preventing people to mess with what they own. This is specially true when you are dealing with agriculture equipment where a lot of farmers do their own maintenance and need access to the software because they wouldn't have the funds to pay for maintenance from the company itself.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Sep 2015 @ 8:48am

      Re:

      By the end, there, you kind of answered the question as to why they don't want people to access the software.
      And besides, we never own software we buy, any more. Sad, but true, so there is precedent for what they want.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        tqk (profile), 10 Sep 2015 @ 10:01am

        Re: Re:

        And besides, we never own software we buy, any more.

        Not true, and you should stop helping to pimp that lie. They can yammer on any way they want, but it doesn't change reality.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Sep 2015 @ 9:12am

      Re:

      the auditing of a hardware part is vastly different from auditing a software part.

      Software can be obfuscated much easier than hardware.

      But still, people need to own their cars and change what they want, software included.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        crade (profile), 10 Sep 2015 @ 10:14am

        Re: Re:

        They don't audit the changes directly anyway, they audit the output. They check for emissions in this case. Whether it's hardware or software, you can just put a switch in to change your emissions just for the audit... Ford calls it a "DPF Cleaning cycle" when they dump all the pollution all at once after the audit time expires. Stinks up your whole truck.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 10 Sep 2015 @ 10:43am

          Re: Re: Re:

          that is to only check with compliance on emissions. What happens when they need to start checking cars that can help break in emergencies, slow you down when you are being a totes dick, and when they start driving themselves?

          This post 9/11 Government is using a manufactured fear of a squeaky mouse to drive tyrannical laws into force. You can bet the automakers will jump on this band wagon and try to make it clear that if we do not put up a pseudo security wall to stop people from modding their cars then terrorists win!

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            tqk (profile), 10 Sep 2015 @ 1:18pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            This post 9/11 Government is using a manufactured fear of a squeaky mouse to drive tyrannical laws into force.

            Ya know, I can even believe they have no idea that they're building tyranny. They likely honestly believe they're doing this stuff to protect the country from Visigoths invading from all sides.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Uriel-238 (profile), 10 Sep 2015 @ 1:08pm

          Am I reading this correctly?

          For the emissions check you first put the vehicle on a cleaning cycle because if you don't if fails the emissions check?

          So the vehicle has a built in mechanism to game the emissions check which set on the presumption that the sampling it takes is the vehicle's typical emissions.

          Way to destroy the atmosphere for the rest of us, Ford.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          JS, 10 Sep 2015 @ 5:27pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Actually, at least in CA, as of 2013 new smog testing policies enacted under the STAR program have removed the requirement for a "tailpipe" test if your vehicle is later than year 2000 and you have a compatible ODBII computer.

          I found this out recently when my car failed the smog check because I had just replaced the battery. Apparently that wiped the memory of the ODBII computer and it registered as "Not Ready". Nothing to do with emissions.

          If I were to drive it around for months I probably wouldn't have to do anything special, but because I need to get it retested fairly soon it is recommended to perform a "Drive Cycle". For my car, among other strange things, you have to drive between 50 and 60 mph for 20 minutes without touching the brakes and then coast to a stop also without touching the brakes. At the very end you can use the emergency brake. And I won't know if the process fixed the problem until I get another smog check. Next time I am definitely going somewhere that has free retesting.

          So, since my car is failing the smog check, not due to emissions but because of an on board computer, hacking the ODBII seems quite reasonable to me.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Sep 2015 @ 8:34am

    If one were to completely remove the delivered software and replace it with software for which one has a license, how exactly is this copyright infringement?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Sep 2015 @ 8:51am

      Re:

      No doubt you would have circumvented some DRM to get that done, so DMCA? Who knows nowadays! Everything is copyright!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mason Wheeler (profile), 10 Sep 2015 @ 8:53am

      Re:

      Because the DMCA makes no sense, that's how.

      TPMs are hacking devices designed to take control of your computer (or computerized devices, such as your car) out of your hands. As such, they should be illegal. Full stop. No "unless," no "except," no compromising on this point. The fact that we are even debating whether it should be OK to mess with the TPM that someone installed or not is sheer insanity.

      This is why we need to repeal the DMCA, folks.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Richard (profile), 10 Sep 2015 @ 10:31am

        Re: Re:

        In theory, TPMs are a good idea. The TPM stores a digital signature, and verifies that the code that you're running has been signed by that signature. That signed code inspects and loads the operating system, which inspects and loads the other software. In theory, this creates a chain of trusted software, so that, if malware does appear on your machine, you know where to look for it (in any un-signed code), because you know what code is genuine. This can work to secure any operating system.

        It only becomes a problem when the manufacturer of the TPM decides that the consumers shouldn't be able to determine what constitutes acceptable software.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 10 Sep 2015 @ 12:03pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Trusted Software - that's a good one - lol

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          tqk (profile), 10 Sep 2015 @ 1:12pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          It only becomes a problem when the manufacturer of the TPM decides that the consumers shouldn't be able to determine what constitutes acceptable software.

          Or when the software mfgr. is forced by law (or National Security Letters, or Executive Orders, ...) to collude with elements of a fascistic police state (NSA/FBI/CIA/DEA/...), or with bought by special interests (MafiAA) laws like interminable copyright.

          Oh look, both of those are already happening! I'm glad I'm not in the USA. Have a lovely revolution (sooner rather than later, preferably)!

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2015 @ 2:42am

          Re: Re: Re:

          The problem with these trusted software chains is that it is someone else deciding who I trust on my behalf without my say in the matter. Often implementing technological measures to remove me entirely from the circle of trust leaving just them and their cronies. (Typically based on how it benefits them)

          Microsoft being the issuing party for UEFI secure boot keys for example. Yeah Microsoft and trust, right!

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      IP Lawyer, 10 Sep 2015 @ 9:24am

      Re:

      The removal of the software will likely violate DMCA Section 1201 or a related provision.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        DannyB (profile), 10 Sep 2015 @ 11:52am

        Re: Re:

        So you're saying that NOT using someone's copyrighted work can also be a DMCA violation.

        So if I remove a Microsoft OS from a new PC, is that a DMCA violation? (I have no use for an OS from Microsoft. It doesn't run my applications.)

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          nasch (profile), 10 Sep 2015 @ 1:40pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          So if I remove a Microsoft OS from a new PC, is that a DMCA violation?

          If you have to circumvent a protection measure to do so, yes.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 10 Sep 2015 @ 4:42pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            What might that "circumvention protection measure" look like?

            What happens when an OS company (MS) incorporates a feature (shift key) that over rides a software based circumvention protection measure (autorun) and the company circumvented gets its panties in a twist and then sues a college student because he discussed said OS feature in his thesis?

            Laughter ensues.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          tqk (profile), 10 Sep 2015 @ 2:16pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Surely, that's one of the exemptions. Otherwise, I'm just going to laugh myself to death now. What a ridiculous law this is when we're even discussing this silliness.

          What's next? "Sir, you're using your fork wrong!"

          "I'm left-handed."

          "You'll have to come with me sir."

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            nasch (profile), 10 Sep 2015 @ 6:04pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Surely, that's one of the exemptions.

            The exemptions are only granted when requested. As far as I know, no computer manufacturer has put a protection measure in place to prevent removal or overwriting of the operating system, so nobody has had any reason to ask for an exemption. So no, I don't think there's an exemption for that.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 10 Sep 2015 @ 11:46pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              As far as I know, no computer manufacturer has put a protection measure in place to prevent removal or overwriting of the operating system,

              Windows running on non X86 devices already has a locked UEFI boot which is set up so that it cannot be disabled, and so you cannot boot a different operating system. Also phones can come locked, and almost all games consoles are locked.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Sep 2015 @ 8:48am

    Only read the headline, this is obvious. But you're not looking at it right: other concerns trump copyright! Aren't you happy copyright isn't TOPS in all?

    Machinery is not like your little toy computers, kids. This is another area where your rights, even if real, are simply not the sole basis for decision. There's legal liability besides, which even if you categorically waive against GM for mechanical damage your tweaks caused, you've not insured others against for when, not if, tweaks cause the fly-by-wire system to go full throttle and endanger others.

    It's not the 20th century any more, you child-geezers. You'll be increasingly hampered by corporations and prevented from doing harm. Enjoy.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Sep 2015 @ 8:49am

    Only read the headline, this is obvious. But you're not looking at it right: other concerns trump copyright! Aren't you happy copyright isn't TOPS in all?

    Machinery is not like your little toy computers, kids. This is another area where your rights, even if real, are simply not the sole basis for decision. There's legal liability besides, which even if you categorically waive against GM for mechanical damage your tweaks caused, you've not insured others against for when, not if, tweaks cause the fly-by-wire system to go full throttle and endanger others.

    It's not the 20th century any more, you child-geezers. You'll be increasingly hampered by corporations and prevented from doing harm. Enjoy.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Sep 2015 @ 8:54am

      Re: Only read the headline, this is obvious. But you're not looking at it right: other concerns trump copyright! Aren't you happy copyright isn't TOPS in all?

      that brings up a question (and to the entire article actually) does that mean eventually, possibly in the near future, if say your computer hard drive goes out, you cannot switch it out because dmca laws? what about if you want to switch from windows to linux? what about people with linux that has to use a windows vm to play a lot of games?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        PRMan, 10 Sep 2015 @ 10:46am

        Re: Re: Only read the headline, this is obvious. But you're not looking at it right: other concerns trump copyright! Aren't you happy copyright isn't TOPS in all?

        This already happened with UEFI. Linux distributions had to generate their own secure bootloaders to deal with this issue.

        Some hardware, like the Surface RT machines, block Linux entirely.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Sep 2015 @ 9:12am

      Re: Only read the headline, this is obvious. But you're not looking at it right: other concerns trump copyright! Aren't you happy copyright isn't TOPS in all?

      Are you sure that you will be in a position to oppress people, or will you become one of the oppressed, when the corporations take over?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Sep 2015 @ 9:30am

      Re:

      And you'll be cheering for said corporations. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see that. It's hilarious you think you're convincing anyone otherwise.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Sep 2015 @ 10:34am

        Re: Re:

        And you'll be cheering for said corporations.
        He's the sort of guy who refers to The Matrix as The Assassination of Agent Smith by the Coward Neo.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Sep 2015 @ 11:04am

      Re: Only read the headline, this is obvious. But you're not looking at it right: other concerns trump copyright! Aren't you happy copyright isn't TOPS in all?

      Guys, here is the enemy. Please take note.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        tqk (profile), 10 Sep 2015 @ 1:31pm

        My, what a compliant little consumer you are. Such a cutie!

        Guys, here is the enemy. Please take note.

        What? Are you actually suggesting ignorance *isn't* bliss?!? Well, I never. I want my money back (or sumfin)!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      tqk (profile), 10 Sep 2015 @ 11:19am

      My, what a compliant little consumer you are. Such a cutie!

      This is another area where your rights, even if real, are simply not the sole basis for decision. There's legal liability besides, which even if you categorically waive against GM for mechanical damage your tweaks caused, you've not insured others against for when, not if, tweaks cause the fly-by-wire system to go full throttle and endanger others.

      Tell that to the banksters running amok on the Wall Streets of the world, robbing *anyone they can* to save their butts from their own greed. Bite me, slave. You go ahead and serve your master, but don't try to wrap those chains of yours around me too. Either I control what I own, or I don't own it. If I don't own it, it's not really mine and isn't welcome in my life. My life is precious and so is your own if you had the sense to realize it. I'm sad that you don't.
      It's not the 20th century any more, you child-geezers. You'll be increasingly hampered by corporations and prevented from doing harm. Enjoy.

      Yeah, and ever since the Magna Carta, it hasn't been theirs, and they're not going to get that back no matter how hard they try. Feudalism is dead and gone and it matters not whether you or they like it or not.

      Hey kid, remember Charlton Heston? There's not a lot I agreed with him on, but I know of at least one: "From my cold, dead hands!"

      Now, you hustle on down to Walmart and enrich your corporate overlord royalty, while you have time. There's a revolution on the way, so hurry!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Ryunosuke, 10 Sep 2015 @ 8:50am

    to be fair....

    sometimes modifying a car SHOULD be illegal: Case in point http://thumbsnap.com/s/cchr1maq.jpg

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Sep 2015 @ 9:08am

      Re: to be fair....

      There are a lot of laws that make it illegal to make certain modifications to your car. Just a few but window tint cannot be to dark, exhaust and radio cannot exceed certain levels, etc. Now enforcement is a whole other issue.

      Copyright should have no part in this. the EPA should have no part in it other than it was lobbied to.

      When I get my tax return I plan on purchasing an older vehicle that I can work on myself. I had a 1972 pickup that I could fix everything on that thing. My wife's 2001 suv had to be taken into the shop just to do basic maintenance like brake work (most brake work will mean you need to bleed the brakes and a computer had to be connected to the car to do so). I'm tired of paying out the ass for simple fixes that I can do for a lot less and faster.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        ltlw0lf (profile), 10 Sep 2015 @ 11:43am

        Re: Re: to be fair....

        My wife's 2001 suv had to be taken into the shop just to do basic maintenance like brake work (most brake work will mean you need to bleed the brakes and a computer had to be connected to the car to do so). I'm tired of paying out the ass for simple fixes that I can do for a lot less and faster.

        This.

        I suspect this is little more than a money grab by the dealers/car companies. I took one of my cars over to a repair shop for an issue I was having. My other car had the same issue at one point (which needed to be fixed for safety reasons,) and the mechanic was able to fix it in about 20 minutes and charged me about $100 for parts and labor. The other car required about 3 hours of work, and the mechanic said it would be around $500 for parts and labor. The only difference, the car company decided to put a computer into the mix, that required a special tool to work with, and failure to use that tool would result in a broken car. And the mechanic complained that the only reason for this was so that you'd be forced to take the car to the dealer to get the problem fixed instead of fixing it yourself or taking it to a mechanic (but the mechanics usually have the tool anyway.) He said that the previous year's model didn't have this feature, and it wasn't mechanically required and the computer wasn't added for safety or efficiency (after all, the part was failing even with the computer there, and the computer didn't even tell me it was breaking...I figured it out because the car was doing the same thing my other car did before the part failed.)

        I called the dealer, and they told me it would be a minimum of $700, but probably closer to $1000, and then proceeded to try to find everything possible wrong with the car so they could add more charges...including bad tires which had just been replaced a couple weeks beforehand (and both my mechanic and the company I bought the tires from checked them out and found no issue with them.) When they told me it would be close to a sixth of the original cost of the vehicle (that was less than six years old) to fix everything, I thanked them for their time and left without getting anything repaired.

        The last time I took my car to the dealer, they installed a part incorrectly (a towing break controller, which is kinda a big thing to do right,) charged me $500, and then I had to take the part out, rewire it so that it was installed correctly, and had to pay for the parts to fix it. Luckily I had my mechanic check it over to make sure it was installed correctly and safe.

        I took the car back to the mechanic I trusted, paid the $500, and the car was fixed...and then vowed never to buy anything from that manufacturer ever again.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Sep 2015 @ 8:56am

    Clean air act?

    Correct me, because I'm probably wrong!

    Don't most States/Counties/Cities pull registration on vehicles found to be out of compliance with the Clean Air Act?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Sep 2015 @ 9:06am

      Re: Clean air act?

      In my area that inspection is done at time of registration. If you fail you don't get re-registered until you repair and pass inspection again, or have your auto examined for an exemption.

      The key thing in my area is that this inspection only applies to several counties, not the whole state. Other areas of the US are the same way, or have different inspection requirements. So there are autos on the road in the US that are perfectly legal even though their emissions would not pass any inspection because they are registered in an area that has no inspection requirement.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Sep 2015 @ 11:54am

      Re: Clean air act?

      Not always, my state only requires it in certain counties. Most of the counties in the state do not perform emissions checks ever.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    limbodog (profile), 10 Sep 2015 @ 9:24am

    How is this related to copyright?

    If I buy a book, am I not allowed to write all over the pages in it?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Sep 2015 @ 9:37am

      Re: How is this related to copyright?

      I would have said yes a few years ago, but now I am not so sure because it would be a derivative work.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Sep 2015 @ 9:45am

      Re: How is this related to copyright?

      Depends, does your book have some technological measure to prevent it being copied and written in?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      David, 10 Sep 2015 @ 11:49am

      Re: How is this related to copyright?

      Did you refill your fountain pen only with manufacturer-approved ink?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Sep 2015 @ 8:12am

        Re: Re: How is this related to copyright?

        More like you need to use a factory authorized $50 sealed ball point with .00000001 ounces of ink and an HP screw the customer chip in it.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Sep 2015 @ 9:35am

    I'm guess the EPA guy doesn't own a Jeep. (link for those that didn't hear or remember) Going back further, Woz patched a vulnerability in his Prius when it first came out. (link) Tinkering with the software can in fact save lives, because of the incompetence of the manufacturers.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Spaceman Spiff (profile), 10 Sep 2015 @ 9:48am

    Agreed!

    Concerned with the environment the EPA is? What about the horrible discharge of mine wastes into the rivers of Colorado this summer? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Sep 2015 @ 9:51am

    It would still be ok to delete the software? is this correct? If I replace the software included in my car with my own creation, what laws would I be breaking. Deleterights?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Sep 2015 @ 10:04am

      Re:

      If I replace the software included in my car with my own creation, what laws would I be breaking.

      Copyright of the hardware design, as to make the software work properly you need the hardware design details.

      While the above should be sarcasm, the car manufacturers will use any excuse to drag someone into court for modifying the car they have licensed from them.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Sep 2015 @ 10:16am

        Re: Re:

        I guess ill just have to build my car from scratch.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          David, 10 Sep 2015 @ 11:53am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I wanted to quip back "you mean from scrap", but indeed scrap might contain copyrighted components.

          I severely hope that in some not entirely distant future, people will be able to look at the corporate mess we are living in these days and just laugh.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Sep 2015 @ 12:08pm

        Re: Re:

        Hardware design is not afforded the protection of copyright, perhaps patent but only if the design is unique and non obvious to one familiar with the field. Others have pointed to the DMCA as being violated, whereas I consider the DMCA to violate everyone. Oh well.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 10 Sep 2015 @ 1:13pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          That is why I said it should be sarcasm, but can you afford to go to court to prove that you have not violated their copyright when they claim you copied manual and diagrams when you created your own to allow you to develop your software.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 10 Sep 2015 @ 2:10pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            What are they going to do? Send me a recall notice because their spyware no longer phones home?

            I'm sorry your software is unable to phone home anymore .... I have no idea what may have happened to it (smirk), not really my problem though is it? - lol @ dealer

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Sep 2015 @ 10:46am

      Re:

      The whole point is that there is no copyright issue here. Section 1201 of the DMCA is the "anti-circumvention" clause. By gaining access to even delete the software you are "circumventing" their system that restricts access to the software.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    DannyB (profile), 10 Sep 2015 @ 10:10am

    All sorts of damage could occur

    Not only could all sorts of damage occur if people make unauthorized modifications to their cars, but . . .

    all sorts of damage could occur if people make unauthorized modifications to their toasters.

    Their clothes dryers.

    And back in the day, you weren't supposed to open that 25 inch console television set either. You remember: "No User Serviceable Parts Inside." There was danger from the 25,000 volts used for the big CRT. There was danger of implosion.


    Maybe Congress needs to pass a law that nobody should be allowed to modify anything. For their safety.

    And all of this mischief starts with those pesky kids who have unbound curiosity to understand how things work. Let's put a stop to that also.

    We'll all be a lot safer.

    If they had a chemistry set (thank goodness there are no more of those) they might learn to become terrorists.

    If they learn programming at a young age, they might become hackers who cost Hollywood TRILLIONS of dollars per day.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      crade (profile), 10 Sep 2015 @ 10:16am

      Re: All sorts of damage could occur

      Goodbuy helicopter parenting, hello helicopter governing.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Sep 2015 @ 10:46am

      Re: All sorts of damage could occur

      Maybe Congress needs to pass a law that nobody should be allowed to modify anything. For their safety.
      I hear that all Senators and Reps get a free lifetime subscription to Hinder: magazine when they're first elected.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      David, 10 Sep 2015 @ 11:57am

      Re: All sorts of damage could occur

      And back in the day, you weren't supposed to open that 25 inch console television set either. You remember: "No User Serviceable Parts Inside." There was danger from the 25,000 volts used for the big CRT. There was danger of implosion.

      Well, those 25kV TVs tended to have really good circuit diagrams and servicing instructions in a side satchel. They may not have been "user serviceable" but they sure as heck were "serviceable", and proudly so.

      These days? Bah.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Sep 2015 @ 6:35pm

      Re: All sorts of damage could occur

      Well that's the ultimate permission society. Doing any activity without getting permission first is, by default, illegal.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Sep 2015 @ 11:03am

    The other day I was in a friend's car as he was trying to enter an address in his on-board navigation system. He commented at how annoying it was and that it didn't have up-to-date addresses.
    Isn't this an anti-trust issue? If an OS company (Microsoft) can't force customers to use a specific web browser (IE), how can car manufacturers force customers to use a specific navigation software?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Sep 2015 @ 11:54am

      Re:

      Probably depends on the car. I know my new Mazda actually has an API you can program your own apps for. http://www.opencar.com/

      Of course this means I can break the law by enabling video support while driving, but it's on me and the App wouldn't be approved for general release.

      Personally though, I would just use your smartphone with Google Maps, MapQuest, or whatever software you prefer, it will usually get updates for the app and maps and typically is a lot better.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      tqk (profile), 10 Sep 2015 @ 1:26pm

      Re:

      He commented at how annoying it was and that it didn't have up-to-date addresses.

      I'm glad you survived. I hope your friend isn't credulous enough to blindly trust that thing. People have driven onto train tracks and off cliffs believing the things were infallible. Companies the size of Apple get this wrong.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 10 Sep 2015 @ 1:49pm

      Re:

      If an OS company (Microsoft) can't force customers to use a specific web browser (IE), how can car manufacturers force customers to use a specific navigation software?

      They don't have to design the system to allow you to install your own software. If this were an antitrust violation, most embedded software would be illegal.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Sep 2015 @ 2:14pm

      Re:

      They can't force you to use the stupid thing.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 10 Sep 2015 @ 12:16pm

    REPEAT...

    the #1 problem here, is copyrights..
    WHO sets the abilities and HOW my car drives..
    They are customizing things to the point that your CAR isnt YOUR CAR..modding and adjusting and anything TECH is not giving the consumer Access to do anything to these cars..

    So, who is responsible FOR ITS DRIVING? not you.
    Since you have no or little responsibility to HOW the car drives...WHO gets the ticket? WHO get to goto jail if it kills someone?

    NOT YOU..

    If they want to OWN all of the control of the car...arnt the makers responsible for its working?
    This could mean they are responsible for the INSURANCE ALSO...as you are no longer the driver.

    I would LOVE this..for a few good reasons..
    UPDATES?? they find a flaw in the coding, and you dont have access to UPDATE IT..who is responsible?
    The Computer FAILS and you are stranded...who is responsible?
    There are to many things about driving, that makes the CAR responsible, and NOT the driver..
    ====================
    I posted this before..and will again..

    I will add something here also..
    ====================

    YOU COULD make a small computer to monitor and make your car work, BEST...the problem is restrictions and limits Put in the computers to cause your car NOT to do what you want.
    Insted of changing a few hardware PARTS, they do much of it in the computer NOW..

    And for all of this, Every car type has a CUSTOM, control, and a Custom COST..
    WHY in hell do we need a $50 computer with software that cost $200 in our cars??
    IT shouldnt be HARD to make a computer interface that would PLUG into any car, and monitor/control HOW the car works to the BEST it can..
    WE USED to do all this mechanically, with a few adjustments for altitude and seasons..

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Sep 2015 @ 12:26pm

    I used to trade in my vehicles every five years or so. I stopped doing that when they became too computerized. That was 17 years ago. I'd love a new truck but I'm not willing to compromise. Most people aren't that strong. Stop giving in and maybe manufacturers will get the message someday. Things continue to get worse because idiots keep paying for it. Break the cycle or shut the hell up...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 10 Sep 2015 @ 1:51pm

      Re:

      Stop giving in and maybe manufacturers will get the message someday. Things continue to get worse because idiots keep paying for it.

      It's much too late for that. There's no way to meet emissions and safety requirements without a lot of electronics. It would be illegal for the car companies to sell the kind of car you want.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      tqk (profile), 10 Sep 2015 @ 3:11pm

      Re:

      Things continue to get worse because idiots keep paying for it. Break the cycle or shut the hell up...

      There's a lot more idiots out there than knowledgeable thinking people. This is the same problem that democracy has. We get what they want, no matter how repellent or odious. We're hostages to all their vices. HRC/Cruz/Jeb/Trump, Walmart, Wall St., Democrat Hawks/Neocons/AIPAC, ...

      The more I look at it, the less I believe we ever escaped feudalism, or even the Roman Empire. "Rome is the mob!" -- Gladiator.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Uriel-238 (profile), 10 Sep 2015 @ 3:41pm

        Feudalism escape velocity.

        Not quite. We just changed the titles of our lords.

        The thing is, during the feudal ages everyone had a severe labor shortage. Every little bastard and whore-spawn was an asset who could man the walls or work the fields or clear the overgrowth or feed the livestock or... if nothing else, they could make more laborers.

        The lords had clear cause to take care of them. (Sometimes they failed at that -- badly -- but the value of the salt-of-the-earth folk was unquestioned.)

        People are still useful in huge ways, but we don't recognize it so clearly since industrialization.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          nasch (profile), 10 Sep 2015 @ 6:06pm

          Re: Feudalism escape velocity.

          The thing is, during the feudal ages everyone had a severe labor shortage.

          I'm not sure that was true until the bubonic plague savaged western Europe's population. Major labor shortage, giving workers much more power and mobility than they'd had, helping lead to the downfall of the feudal system.

          Germs, Genes, and Civilization - fascinating book.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 10 Sep 2015 @ 1:12pm

    So now installing home-brew software violates the DMCA CC?

    That sounds pretty hinky. Are you allowed to remove the computer itself that runs the software and replace it with a custom build that runs different software?

    This is sounding like yet another reason to abolish IP.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Lewis V (profile), 10 Sep 2015 @ 1:38pm

    "...Copyright Should Stop You From Modifying Your Car Software"

    I will alter and/or modify my purchased products when and where as I see fit, at a time of my choosing. No exceptions.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Ryunosuke, 10 Sep 2015 @ 2:10pm

      Re: "...Copyright Should Stop You From Modifying Your Car Software"

      by the same token, we can modify games as we see fit (there are exceptions in most MMO's though, WoW being the exception to THAT exception)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ottermaton (profile), 10 Sep 2015 @ 2:14pm

    ~16% success rate

    The moron troll drew in almost 16% of comments on this post. What a waste. Birds of a feather, I guess ...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Rekrul, 10 Sep 2015 @ 5:07pm

    Anyway, as mentioned, General Motors and others car makers (and also tractor maker John Deere) have been lobbying against the change, arguing all sorts of damage might occur should people be able to hack their own cars legally.

    Someone should try designing a car without a computer! I wonder if such a thing is even possible...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 10 Sep 2015 @ 6:08pm

      Re:

      Someone should try designing a car without a computer! I wonder if such a thing is even possible...

      In the US, between safety and environmental regulations, there's no practical way to do it. Maybe it would be possible, but it would end up so compromised as to be worthless.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

    Sensory Branding: Oreo in the Indian Context Case Solution

    I'm getting excited about this kind of beneficial information of your stuff in the future

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    SPSS Homework Help, 11 Sep 2015 @ 3:34am

    Casesolution.cj@gmail.com

    SPSS Assignment and Online Homework Help SPSS Assignment Help SPSS is a software build by SPSS Inc. and was acquired by IBM in 2009. It is used for statistical analysis.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Addy Adison, 6 Oct 2015 @ 3:48am

    From Competitive Advantage to Nodal Advantage: Ecosystem Structure and the New Five Forces that Affect Prosperity Case Solution

    I'm getting excited about this kind of beneficial information of your stuff in the future,
    From Competitive Advantage to Nodal Advantage: Ecosystem Structure and the New Five Forces that Affect Prosperity Case Solution

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.