That might be a good argument for “it’s a bad idea to work on your car”.
It’s not a good argument for “companies that manufacture cars should get to dictate whether or not you can work on your car”.
This is a problem that’s going to arise in more and more areas as computers infiltrate more physical things. Our legal and social norms around software are generally very restrictive compared to physical devices. You’re not buying a copy of software to do what you want with. You’re buying a license to do specific things that the software creators allow.
I think the solution is legislated rights with respect to software. We need a first sale doctrine of sorts for software. We need the right to repair our devices. That has to be balanced with safety concerns. We probably shouldn’t let people modify the software that controls safety critical systems, because they probably don’t know what they’re doing.
I can imagine someone seeing an internet ad for “improve your car’s speed/performance” with instructions of how to prepare a USB key or whatever that they then plug into their car, modifying its software. Penis ensues.
Good points-at some future time, the engine management software on cars will have a maximum speed limitation. It may be that the car will receive signals (such as in a School Zone) to limit speed to 20 MPH. Obviously, tampering with this will not be legal.
Fuck this shit. Video game companies, movie studios, and record companies have been trying this for years, to varying degrees of success. Video game studios hate places like Gamestop that sells games 2nd hand so they don’t get any of the money. Looks like other corporations are trying the same thing. We’re “licensing” the product, not buying it. With physical items, its harder to control, but things like electronic products have long suffered things like DRM that prevents copying, but prevents you from legally copying something for your own backup, or the shitty always-on online component that forces you to have an internet connection at all times to play the game, making it useless when your internet is down, or when the company’s servers are down, or when the company eventually takes their servers offline. This bullshit needs to stop
I believe its a foot-in-the-door thing, let companies do that, and soon they’ll purposefully attach every mechanical part to a software component. I believe that whatever’s in your car is yours to modify, barring safety concerns and street-legal laws if you’re driving it, and change however you want. Don’t sell it as an original, don’t compete with the company, and yada yada yada.
If 15 years ago you said that companies wanted only to innocently keep the license on their music and sell you a physical copy, nobody would think anything of it. Now with streaming and digital copies, companies can insert their own music of choice into your music player or completely prevent you from giving songs you bought to friends. Its connected. Don’t let it happen to cars too
Why should there be though? Because it’s software you shouldn’t be allowed to change it to suit your needs? Isn’t this like selling someone a car and saying they aren’t allowed to put after market rims on it? If your not stealing their code to make a profit on it why should they be able to dictate how you use it? More importantly if there is a problem with their code why should you be required to pay them to fix it instead of using your choice of professional to address the issue?
If I buy a Mac with OS X on it should they be able to say you don’t actually own the OS so you can’t modify it by putting MS word on it?
The use of copyright as it applies to software is becoming incredible invasive into the rights of consumers. It doesn’t appear to be about protecting their business from others making gains off their work, it seems to be more about restricting the rights of consumer choice.
it isn’t about “piracy.” it’s about the fact that a hell of a lot on a modern car is controlled by firmware running on active modules throughout the vehicle. Time was, people would excuse electrical gremlins on a BMW because they had “like, five computers.” Well, nowadays even a lowly Ford Focus has almost 20. in my opinion, a lot of this is arse-covering because automakers don’t want to get sued because someone fucked with the code in their car’s PCM and their fucking with said code led to a collision and they want to claim it wasn’t their fault.
do you know why we’re at that point? because modern cars require little more than oil changes or brake work.
it’s OK for modern cars to be hard to work on because for the most part they don’t need to be worked on.
old people love to squawk about how cars back in the day were “better” because “you could work on them yourself.” They’re not intellectually honest enough to admit that the only reason it was better to be able to work on old cars was because old cars were enormous pieces of shit which always needed to be worked on.
The FFA is not Cesna. The government has legitimate reasons to regulate aircraft maintenance for the purpose of public safety. If the DOT came out and said only certified mechanics can work on cars and implemented a government program to certify auto mechanics I can understand having that debate.
I have an issue with Cesna selling me an aircraft and saying only their certified mechanics can work on it. If I’m a FFA certified mechanic, Cesna should have no say in me working on my own aircraft.
At this point not even GM is using a public safety argument to stop people from altering code, though it would be rather ironic for GM to suddenly champion public safety in that way.
If someone modifies code to make a vehicle unsafe automakers have a pretty solid defense and can even have a legitimate reason to go after the copyright violator as they could demonstrate that person’s actions impacted their brand.
People can physically modify cars to make them unsafe as it is, John Deer doesn’t seem to be worried about people strapping a ram jet to their lawn tractors while they do seem to be very concerned about a farmer adjusting their tractors computer to accept a plow they didn’t provide an option for.
The warranty on your car excludes any damage from owner modifications. (Yes it does, go look it up)
Now in the old days it was easy to see if the car had been modified. 4 barrel carb, headers, and the lope of a hot cam and the owner could expect that he no longer had a warranty on the engine, clutch trans, driveshaft or rear axle as increased power can and will leading to a lessening of their longevity.
Nowadays you hop up by moving electrons around. You can’t look at the car and tell.
True story. Guys brings in a turbo Volvo into the dealership says clutch is slipping. Car gets driven and yes it is slipping bad. Tech also notices car has a LOT of power. Now did he just get a really good one off the assembly line or has it been modified?
Customer gets questioned about the software in the ECM. Oh no, he assures the dealership people, I haven’t done anything to my car.
Software gets checked. Numbers match.
Dealership installs a new clutch disc cover, pressure plate, throw out bearing, and dual mass flywheel. Very spendy repair.
Brand new clutch slips.
WTF? I get a call. They tell me they think the car may have hot software in the ECM.
I suggest they reload the ECM with the correct software.
Son- of-a-bitch car is now only as fast as other comparable cars and the clutch does not slip
Customer picks up car. Comes back complaining that the dealership overwrote his custom software.
Their response: oh you mean the software YOU said you didn’t have?
That incident occurred almost 20 years ago. Cars now are way more integrated in control systems then then.
In my current job I answer phones from pro techs for 8 hours a day helping them to fix cars that they are having trouble with.
All kinds of fun calls like add a aftermarket trailer brake controller and now the car won’t start.
While I don’t fully agree with what GM and John Deer are pushing I can understand it.
By law factory level scan tools are available on the open market. It would flat against the law for a car maker to put a trouble code in the power train and keep it exclusively for themselves.
Your average car owner doesn’t own any electronic diagnostic equipment, Sure I’m wrong saying only they dealership could handle it, but it’s certainly within the realm of possibility that only someone with access to factory level scan tools would be able to handle an air filter change.
How much does your average full service garage have to spend on a diagnostic computer unit these days to be able to cover all makes?
I am an “average car owner” or possibly less than that, since I do little to none of my own work. And I have an OBD-II scanner because it was cheap and useful for many purposes, not the least of which is confirming that all emissions monitors are in the “ready” state for the DMV emissions test, and that it will pass. It will even upload a full status report to a computer so it can be printed, and it can display dynamic engine parameters while you’re driving. The thing was on sale for about $50. It’s not exactly exotic stuff.
That’s 50 dollars more in auto tools than I’d expect your average owner to have. Your OBD scanner isn’t factory level equipment. Stop into a Firestone and check out that little wireless touch pad they plug into the car, that’s part of 30,000 dollar diagnostic set up. Even still it’s software updates lag behind the manufactures as they depend on a third party to update it.
I also have an OBD-II tool - it can reset that “Check Engine” idiot light - with or without having the bug fixed.
And please re-read my post re aircraft maintenance. I thought it was clear that it was the FAA (the FFA is an entirely different organization) who regulated who could work on a Cessna or other certificated aircraft.
Maybe, had you looked up “certificated aircraft” you wouldn’t have been confused. (415,000 hits in .33 seconds).
Really? because I typed FFA instead of FAA you couldn’t understand the content of my post? I’ll try to be more rigorous in catching my phones auto corrections.
