You don't own your car - DMCA
- Thread starter ramammoth
- Start date
- Status
Starts off by talking about how people want to get down on their backs with a wrench in one hand and a rag in the other and work on their cars. Then says that this is an important aspect of owning a car, for many people. Then oh, by the way, we are specifically talking about altering the computer of the car. Not getting down with a wrench in your hand. You can still do that. Seems... I donno disingenuous. Still don't approve this application of the law, but the article, in my opinion, does not represent it fairly.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3708310/Re:_Auto_makers_trying_to_stop#Post3708310
There are a few sky is falling articles about this topic. People were in a panic when computer systems in cars first came out.
I concur with Tinman, this article is disingenuous and creates straw-man arguments. It's cowardly writing.
There are a few sky is falling articles about this topic. People were in a panic when computer systems in cars first came out.
I concur with Tinman, this article is disingenuous and creates straw-man arguments. It's cowardly writing.
Originally Posted By: ramammoth
DMCA law
It's interesting that Telsa is not supporting this.
Tesla is a battery company. Cars are a minor diversion. Just follow Tesla CEO Elon Musk in his own words.
As for the rest of this stuff, passing this legislation is easy pickings. These corporations already own the politicians. All that's need is a teleprompter and the media to promote what they're already going to do. Don't worry. They'll explain it all. After all they are there to represtent us and take care of us, aren't they?
DMCA law
It's interesting that Telsa is not supporting this.
Tesla is a battery company. Cars are a minor diversion. Just follow Tesla CEO Elon Musk in his own words.
As for the rest of this stuff, passing this legislation is easy pickings. These corporations already own the politicians. All that's need is a teleprompter and the media to promote what they're already going to do. Don't worry. They'll explain it all. After all they are there to represtent us and take care of us, aren't they?
Originally Posted By: ramammoth
It's interesting that Telsa is not supporting this.
Tesla isn't a part of the AAM. That's why.
To that end, Tesla doesn't need to support or not support DMCA. They've already made their point that they don't support any form of a Right to Repair Act.
RRA says that automobile manufacturers must make available all service information, service software, service tools, and parts that are required to service their vehicles. This is so an independent shop or vehicle owner has access to all the same service components a licensed dealership would have and can service a vehicle exactly as a dealer would. All this doesn't have to be free, but it does have to be available.
Tesla supports little to none of these requirements.
When Tesla doesn't support right to repair, things like this happen:
Totaled Tesla Model S Buyer Beware
Guy buys totaled Model S for $50,000, the spends $8,000 to get it back roadworthy. Tesla refuses to "reactivate" the car until they've inspected it because he didn't use an "authorized" repair facility to perform the repairs.
The story goes two different ways from here. The owner says the language Tesla included in their inspection was that if it didn't pass inspect, Tesla would keep the vehicle for "safety" reasons until it was properly repair by them.
Tesla denies this language, but their statement is telling:
Quote:
Safety is Tesla's top priority and it is a principle on which we refuse to compromise under any circumstance. Mr. Rutman purchased a vehicle on the salvage market that had been substantially damaged in a serious accident. We have strong concerns about this car being safe for the road, but we have been prevented from inspecting the vehicle because Mr. Rutman refused to sign an inspection authorization form. That form clearly states that in order for us to support the vehicle on an ongoing basis, we need to ensure the repairs meet minimum safety standards.
Regardless of whether or not the car passed inspection, Mr. Rutman would have been free to decide where to conduct any additional repairs and to leave with his vehicle. There was never any threat to take away his vehicle at the inspection or any time thereafter and there is nothing in the authorization form that states or implies that we would do so.
Additionally, Mr. Rutman opted to have his vehicle repaired by a non-Tesla affiliated facility. We work with a network of authorized independent repair facilities to ensure our safety standards are met. It is also worth noting that Mr. Rutman is not on any "blacklist" for purchasing Tesla parts. While we do sell certain parts over the counter, we do not sell any parts that require specific training to install. This is a policy that is common among automakers and it is in place to protect customers from the risk of repairs not meeting our safety standards.
Basically... if it doesn't meet our standards, we won't let you drive your car. At the software level, we will prevent you from operating your own vehicle. You are at risk of this if you choose not to use one of our authorized repair facilities. You also may be prevented from buy all the parts you need to properly repair your vehicle.
Now... is Tesla for or against controlling the software on your car?
It's interesting that Telsa is not supporting this.
Tesla isn't a part of the AAM. That's why.
To that end, Tesla doesn't need to support or not support DMCA. They've already made their point that they don't support any form of a Right to Repair Act.
RRA says that automobile manufacturers must make available all service information, service software, service tools, and parts that are required to service their vehicles. This is so an independent shop or vehicle owner has access to all the same service components a licensed dealership would have and can service a vehicle exactly as a dealer would. All this doesn't have to be free, but it does have to be available.
Tesla supports little to none of these requirements.
When Tesla doesn't support right to repair, things like this happen:
Totaled Tesla Model S Buyer Beware
Guy buys totaled Model S for $50,000, the spends $8,000 to get it back roadworthy. Tesla refuses to "reactivate" the car until they've inspected it because he didn't use an "authorized" repair facility to perform the repairs.
The story goes two different ways from here. The owner says the language Tesla included in their inspection was that if it didn't pass inspect, Tesla would keep the vehicle for "safety" reasons until it was properly repair by them.
Tesla denies this language, but their statement is telling:
Quote:
Safety is Tesla's top priority and it is a principle on which we refuse to compromise under any circumstance. Mr. Rutman purchased a vehicle on the salvage market that had been substantially damaged in a serious accident. We have strong concerns about this car being safe for the road, but we have been prevented from inspecting the vehicle because Mr. Rutman refused to sign an inspection authorization form. That form clearly states that in order for us to support the vehicle on an ongoing basis, we need to ensure the repairs meet minimum safety standards.
Regardless of whether or not the car passed inspection, Mr. Rutman would have been free to decide where to conduct any additional repairs and to leave with his vehicle. There was never any threat to take away his vehicle at the inspection or any time thereafter and there is nothing in the authorization form that states or implies that we would do so.
Additionally, Mr. Rutman opted to have his vehicle repaired by a non-Tesla affiliated facility. We work with a network of authorized independent repair facilities to ensure our safety standards are met. It is also worth noting that Mr. Rutman is not on any "blacklist" for purchasing Tesla parts. While we do sell certain parts over the counter, we do not sell any parts that require specific training to install. This is a policy that is common among automakers and it is in place to protect customers from the risk of repairs not meeting our safety standards.
Basically... if it doesn't meet our standards, we won't let you drive your car. At the software level, we will prevent you from operating your own vehicle. You are at risk of this if you choose not to use one of our authorized repair facilities. You also may be prevented from buy all the parts you need to properly repair your vehicle.
Now... is Tesla for or against controlling the software on your car?
We're loosing all sorts of rights in the name of safety or security, car companies simply learned to play the safety card as well.
This will backfire on Tesla big time if implemented the way you are implying. Henry Ford wanted to control the market for spares and service and learned that competition would eat him alive.
Since many religions thinks GOD own everything, maybe manufactures think they are GOD 
)
)
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Isn't this the same concept as not owning your own movie?
If i was to buy say the new Hobbit movie, I couldnt just make copies and sell them for a profit..
You can resell the copy you bought.
Isn't this the same concept as not owning your own movie?
If i was to buy say the new Hobbit movie, I couldnt just make copies and sell them for a profit..
You can resell the copy you bought.
FREEZE!! OK PUT DOWN THE OIL CONTAINER AND STEP AWAY FROM THE VEHICLE....
Originally Posted By: Doog
FREEZE!! OK PUT DOWN THE OIL CONTAINER AND STEP AWAY FROM THE VEHICLE....
Don't get caught holding the dipstick in your hands or you will be shot on the spot for having a deadly weapon.
FREEZE!! OK PUT DOWN THE OIL CONTAINER AND STEP AWAY FROM THE VEHICLE....
Don't get caught holding the dipstick in your hands or you will be shot on the spot for having a deadly weapon.
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2007
- Messages
- 5,294
They might be able to foist this onto leasers but not folks who purchase. Leasing is simply long term rental w/ option to purchase at end of rental period so I can see how they could weasel this in on leasee's.
All I got from reading the article is that they don't want you messing with the computer stuff in the vehicle. No mention of oil and lube changes, brakes, and all the other things that categorize the repairs and maintenance that most folks do. They just don't want anyone installing tunes and such to alter the software in the ECM. Not sure I agree with that, but see their point. If they are going to be on the hook for warranty repairs, then the have a right to demand the vehicle stay stock. They occasionally deny warranty over this now, but they want it codified into law to make that easier. But there also liability issues. A negatively affected party could come back and sue them over something like this and they would be held liable. It is a crazy law suit minded world out there.
What happens if the aftermarket creates an entire ecm for the car, that way you are not messing with the oem software, you are swapping out an entire ecm with programable tuning.
your type approval would be void.
Probably still against the law as it's not EPA certified.
At least not approved for on-road use.
Want to run it at the track? No problem.
Want to drive it to the track to then run it? Problem.
Originally Posted By: spasm3
What happens if the aftermarket creates an entire ecm for the car, that way you are not messing with the oem software, you are swapping out an entire ecm with programable tuning.
At least not approved for on-road use.
Want to run it at the track? No problem.
Want to drive it to the track to then run it? Problem.
Originally Posted By: spasm3
What happens if the aftermarket creates an entire ecm for the car, that way you are not messing with the oem software, you are swapping out an entire ecm with programable tuning.
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Probably still against the law as it's not EPA certified.
At least not approved for on-road use.
Want to run it at the track? No problem.
Want to drive it to the track to then run it? Problem.
Originally Posted By: spasm3
What happens if the aftermarket creates an entire ecm for the car, that way you are not messing with the oem software, you are swapping out an entire ecm with programable tuning.
If the vehicle with an aftermarket ECM passes the required emission tests, then what's the problem? Why would the car's computer be treated any differently than any other aftermarket part?
EPA certificate is not the owner's problem, as he/she does not collect the carbon credits for the vehicle, it's the manufacturer's problem. For the owners we have emission and safety tests.
Probably still against the law as it's not EPA certified.
At least not approved for on-road use.
Want to run it at the track? No problem.
Want to drive it to the track to then run it? Problem.
Originally Posted By: spasm3
What happens if the aftermarket creates an entire ecm for the car, that way you are not messing with the oem software, you are swapping out an entire ecm with programable tuning.
If the vehicle with an aftermarket ECM passes the required emission tests, then what's the problem? Why would the car's computer be treated any differently than any other aftermarket part?
EPA certificate is not the owner's problem, as he/she does not collect the carbon credits for the vehicle, it's the manufacturer's problem. For the owners we have emission and safety tests.
here is another more in depth article on this. All I can glean is they only want to prevent tampering with software in the ECM and such. There is no mention whatsoever that no one will be able to maintain or repair their own vehicles. You can still plug in and read fault codes and turn a wrench. They are concerned with all the tuning modification stuff gong on.
http://www.autoblog.com/2015/04/20/automakers-gearheads-car-repairs/
http://www.autoblog.com/2015/04/20/automakers-gearheads-car-repairs/
- Status
