Are you conflating an automobile manufacturers assertion of a new kind of contractual obligation with the basic social contract and breach of peace laws?
Tinted windows are entirely unlike what is being discussed here. Please be serious. Or funnier.
8 Likes
The issue is not that the code is copyrighted
True. The issue is the terms of the license. A copyrighted thing can still be licensed in a way that grants permission for users to modify and redistribute the work.
Same goes for books and music. Cory Doctorow famously uses a license for his copyrighted work that is extremely liberal.
It isnât a new kind of contractual obligation. Software licenses restricting consumer rights have been around 40 years now.
Also, software controlled window tints are a thing now:
2 Likes
Do we all need to stop using Ad Block on here? No seriously, lately itâs been hyperbole headline centralâŚ
I mean here is the quote from GM thatâs buried two links away from BB:
âIt is our position the software in the vehicle is licensed by the owner of the vehicle,â attorney Harry Lightsey said." The bulk of the Autoblog article talks about GMâs telematics and infotainment systemsâŚie OnStar.
I somewhat understand a potential risk vector the article talks aboutâŚmodifications that go undocumented to the next owner. You think you have airbags, except those have been disabled via software. Realistically you probably have more chance being in a serious accident than buying a car that a modification like that has been done on, but whatever. At the same time how many people modify ECU code? I guess if it was âeasyâ I might tinker with things, but look how easily phones are rooted regardless of what the makers do to hinder the process.
I donât think the question or issue is ownership - no one is keeping you from selling your rooted phone. I think itâs of personal usage. Frankly the only thing making it âillegalâ does is up the potential for fines and destroy a semi-valid aftermarket for cheap code scanners and piggyback units. There isnât much reason that GM still wouldnât allow 3rd party companies to interface with their systems - I mean GM is GM, not the dealer ship that is using the expensive âGMâ code scanner. And the independent guy is using an expensive 3rd party scanner that works on several manufactures. And before that gets compared to Deere, how many people own a Deere product with a system interface compared to GM, are we talking 1:1000, 1:5000, itâs got to be a drop in the bucket. If this passes I doubt you see much change except the ever creeping expansion of âinfotainmentâ BS in cars.
2 Likes
But no permission is required to modify the work, absent redistribution.
2 Likes
The thing is, nobody seems to be stating a desire to copy, modify, or redistribute GMs code - which is ostensibly what their copyright would be there to protect. The problem is that in GMs claims of protecting copyright, they are denying access needed to even erase their code and replace it with your own. If they were honest, me running 3rd party software or developing my own shouldnât have any effect on GMs copyright of their own code.
3 Likes
It depends on the format. If you are buying a DRM protected ebook, then you arenât allowed to modify the work.
Itâs often the case that GM and John Deere donât develop the software
in-house, but rather they license it. I think your problem is with
proprietary software in general. In a way GM and John Deere are victims
as well. Iâm sure they would like to be able to buy one copy, make some
changes to it, and distribute it far and wide for free. But they canât
because the developers who made the software want to maximize what the
are paid for it and they do that by licensing rather than selling their
work (and the license isnât an open source license).
If itâs wrong for software makers to copyright their work, then
perhaps musicians and film makers shouldnât be allowed to do so either.
Wow, you got all of that out of one sentence taken out of context.
Yes, I do have a problem with proprietary software, but not due to copyright. RealNet comes to mind. So does QuickTime. But those are different situations.
And I do support open source software.
However, I do hold that a person has the right to benefit from their work. And while I do not support our current copyright laws, I do support copyrights.
What I have a problem with is the concept of a hardware manufacturer using 3rd party software as an excuse to eliminate our rights of ownership. If GM & JD win then their cases set the precedent for other manufacturers to do the same.
6 Likes
No, youâre not allowed to crack the DRM. There is no other legal barrier to modifying the work.
3 Likes
The problem is that in GMs claims of protecting copyright, they are denying access needed to even erase their code and replace it with your own.
You are free to erase the code and replace it. GM just wonât help you do it.
Edit: And Iâll add they probably will try to stop you with DRM which canât legally be bypassed. The computer hardware and software are essentially a single unit and you would have to replace both.
Well, that runs contrary to the topic as stated in the title. Do I own my car if I replace their firmware?
1 Like
Does this mean GM takes responsibility for maintenance, repairs, insurance?
4 Likes
And asset forfeiture? The âchargesâ are brought against the asset, not the owner or user, soâŚ
âHey, GM, the cops took your car, send a replacement posthaste. KTHX.â
4 Likes
GM? Ehhh. But this would be a bad precedent if applied to cars from a good car company.
Depends on the terms you negotiate when you purchase the car. You can tell GM (or their agents) that they must take responsibility for those items as a condition of you buying the car. They will likely tell you to pound sand. You have the same option when they tell you that purchasing the car only grants you a license to the embedded software.
You actually would likely need to replace the embedded computers (thereâs more than one). If the computers have access controls on them, you probably arenât allowed to violate those controls.
Occasionally, DMCA exemptions are granted. It would be nice if there were an exemption for people who wish to bypass access controls on cars they own.
It would be wrong for musicians and film makers to own my Ipod because without the license to their music/movies my Ipod is useless. (I donât own an Ipod)
The problem here is that there has been code at the heart of cars for a long time, in embedded devices that regulate fuel intake and other parts, software in automobiles is not new. What is new is the perception that computers control cars and that thereâs a license required to run that code.
Yes, GM might have struck a deal with some software developer to develop code where they wouldnât own the rights to the software, which seems unlikely, (If they donât own the code its much more likely that they licensed code that is also available to other manufacturers and therefore, possibly available to end users as well), but it seems to me that this problem has already been solved by modern day computers.
You can sell your computer, and you can load any operating system you want, and you are not barred from adding/removing hardware. The software required to run said hardware is provided by the manufacturer of the hardware and is of course subject to licenses as well but its tied to the hardware itself, owning the hardware implies that you are allowed to run the software needed for it (drivers). If you are so inclined, you can develop software which will make it compatible with things it was not meant to be compatible with and do things it was not meant to do.
The idea that tying software to hardware can be used to negate the ownership of hardware is ridiculous. Its only believable by people who donât understand how software works.
4 Likes
Congrats GM⌠so if thereâs a F@#K up along the way with your cars and you recall them, then it really IS YOUR DAMN FAULT! In this case, be prepared if a massive recall due to âSAFETYâ hazard found in your vehicles means a big lawsuit from your customers for âLOANINGâ us unsafe products. That means if youâre just loaning us your products, then that should also mean that you people should pay for the upkeep of the vehicle while we use it - ie: repairs, oil changes, etc.
1 Like
Sounds like another good reason not to by any garbage manufacturing company products you know G M C
