And hopefully that’s beginning to start.
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.
This is true with some notable exceptions.
For example, you can’t bypass DRM controls like HDCP. Doing so is a violation of the license.
And hopefully that’s beginning to start.
I hope so too.
Every day I miss my old air-cooled VW Type 1 (the “Beetle”) a little more.
2 Likes
Can’t wait for THOSE prank easter eggs.
4 Likes
Depends what they mean by “controls”. What if it’s a flashed microcontroller, and I simply replace that with a blank one? This doesn’t count as “circumvention” as anyone seems to define it. The question becomes: “Do they own the IP, or the hardware?” And this is precisely the question these companies are waffling on, because their (probable) aims do not quite coincide with the laws they are trying to use. To follow the DMCA argument to its logical conclusion, all cars are sold with “access controls” in the forms of door and ignition locks. If the lock on my house is the IP of Schlage, does this imply that Schlage have legal control over the access of my house?
I am not very concerned about the DMCA personally, because it’s legalese tends to be vague. Since people are equals, I don’t believe in people being “allowed” to do things. I don’t believe in property either, and contradictory laws like these don’t do anything to make such relationships appear any more realistic.
1 Like
Sorry; the only gear your transmission has available today is reverse. Reboot to try again.
2 Likes
If GM owns the car, and not me, then I shouldn’t be required to pay the property tax on it, correct?
4 Likes
Which is what’s at the heart of all this, not that there are licenses involved or not, or that maybe it would be a good idea to say that some systems can’t be tampered with in order to keep a vehicle street legal, (i.e. the braking system), but that the only control depends on disallowing the user from doing what he will with what he owns.
I mean, If I do modify my braking system, I will only be liable for breaking the DMCA but not for reckless endangerment. (Unless, you know, I crash)
Leasing autos is a thing, and I’m sure that the caselaw regarding liability is well established.
disallowing the user from doing what he will with what he owns
In the case of software, what you own is usually a license not the software. You also don’t own the design of the car. You don’t own any of the IP in general. Just because you bought the car, you don’t inherit the rights to go around selling the design of the patented mechanism that raises and lowers the convertible roof, for example.
If you actually want to own the IP of the software, call up GM and start negotiating. I’m sure it’s worth millions. All you probably want or need is a license to use that IP.
1 Like
Then there is no need to ever purchase a car, is there?
1 Like
They should insure it, too…
2 Likes
You got me, @Ryuthrowsstuff ! My first car was a Vega. Since then it’s been Volkswagon, Toyota, Volvo, and a Subaru…
That’s nice.
However, your belief system is unlikely to be taken into account as our accepted cultural/economic practices are quietly, persistently altered in ways that invariably dis-empower the average guy.
Doctorow posts about stuff like this because most of us are getting boned, just a little bit, every time one of these novel interpretations (of law or regulation) is adjudicated.
2 Likes
You do own the physical object, no need to own the IP to paint it a different color. Or change the struts.
You can tinker with the design for lowering the roof without infringing the IP as you are not modifying the IP but the particular produced instance of that IP, the car itself.
I’m not saying you can modify the source code on the car, (the source is not on the car anyway, the compiled code is not useful for what were talking about and for those who would find it useful are not going to be deterred by this anyway) I’m saying you can load your own software, that is your own IP.
The only protection against you doing this is that you are not allowed to do it because you are not allowed to get at it. Not because you can’t, shouldn’t, its not a good idea and/or is against the public good.
2 Likes
If I recall correctly the Volt uses Linux.
I am not sure this claim respects the license that GM had to agree about to be able to use it.
If this is still the case then it leaves the question: what other software present in other cars are they claiming to own in this claim that they are actually not the copyright owners?
1 Like
Richard who?
But if you are selling the car, you have to have it certified, no? You do in Ontario. How hard would it be to run an assessment on the firmware as part of the certification compliance checks? Plug in connector, press Enter, read the report.
no need to own the IP to paint it a different color
That depends on the contract you sign when you buy the car. They could stipulate that as part of the contract and if you agree to it, so be it. There was an interesting case a while ago where some guy put stickers all over his Ferrari and Ferrari lawyers sent the guy a cease and desist.
