Automotives Companies Fight Against Home Repairs

[jamil]

No.



If you sell something to someone, they can do what they want with it. If you want to set specific terms of how the purchaser can use something, this should be done through existing contract law. Contract violations should be handled through existing civil courts.

Copyrights and patents as they are today have nothing to do with moral property rights. It's a construct that we fabricated because we've been taught that they spur innovation.

This seems like a tangent, but it's quite relevant to the topic being discussed. If you accept the construct of intellectual property, then the car companies would be correct that the software is their property, and it should be illegal for you to alter or modify it. You'd like to narrow it down to things like duplication... but how can you narrow it down like that if you perceive it as the property of Chrysler corporation? It would be wrong to vandalize any of their physical property, why wouldn't it be wrong to vandalize their intellectual property?

I think the more logical position would be to jettison 'property rights' and morality from the conversation altogether and view copyright law as the abstract concept that it is. If you acknowledge that it is simply a government intervention used to spur the economic wealth of the collective then it all makes a whole lot more sense. It's certainly still too 'big-government' for a libertarian like myself, but at least it's consistent. And I think the legalities would be easier to untangle as well.

I think we're simply not going to agree on this. While I agree that if you buy a widget from me, even if it uses software that I wrote, you own that widget, and should be able to modify any part of THAT widget, including the software. But you may not copy any part of my ideas and distribute them for money or whatever.

Contracts are fine, but they don't scale real well, though EULAs have been fairly enforceable.

 

[JettaKnight]

Back on topic...
One of the papers in favor of "Big Auto" is a researcher concerned about security flaws. Reverse engineering often exposes (and often exploits) security flaws. DMCA place a gag on anyone who finds these to prevent them from exposing these hole.

A clear example of the emperor's new clothes.

Me thinks "Big Auto" ought to spend more money on security engineering and less on lawyers.*


EDIT: And after reading some more, it seems the SAE takes a neutral position in this battle. Kudos.



* Full disclosure: I do have a vested interest here.

 

[jamil]

Back on topic...
One of the papers in favor of "Big Auto" is a researcher concerned about security flaws. Reverse engineering often exposes (and often exploits) security flaws. DMCA place a gag on anyone who finds these to prevent them from exposing these hole.

A clear example of the emperor's new clothes.

Me thinks "Big Auto" ought to spend more money on security engineering and less on lawyers.*


EDIT: And after reading some more, it seems the SAE takes a neutral position in this battle. Kudos.



* Full disclosure: I do have a vested interest here.

First, I was told that this IS the topic. And the "security angle is nonsense. I like using open source libraries because their flaws are quickly exposed and fixed.

And, full disclosure, don't we all?

 

[Woobie]

Not according the DMCA. According the that, if there's a digital lock, and you pick it then you're breaking the law. (thanks, Clinton).


Reverse engineering is when you use the powers of observation to figure out the possible behavioral responses of the device. It's like a kid with a Christmas present. Think of it like trying to make your own transmission without ever opening up the transmission you're trying to imitate. You can intuitively figure out there's gears inside without actually looking at them. If you shift through them, you can determine six sets are needed, and a reverse gear set is in there, and so on. You can make a similar transmission in function, but not in form. It's not copying.




GM, JD, et al. Their service centers and maintenance departments are fiscally impacted.

Perhaps reverse engineering was a poor choice of words. I think you understand my meaning, even if the wording was inaccurate.
And yes, I know the OEM receives a great deal of income from these things and cares. "Who cares" was a rhetorical device to convey that there is no injury to any one other than the seller that (in a sane world) relinquished his rights to the property at sale.

 

[steveh_131]

Copyrights are not there to protect the property, but to protect the prosperity of the creator.

Should the government be in the business of ensuring prosperity?

If so, why does this bother you:

GM, JD, et al. Their service centers and maintenance departments are fiscally impacted.

Gotta protect their prosperity, right?

If we follow your argument then modifying a 10/22 bolt hold open should be illegal. Right? That part was implemented with Ruger's design (their IP) and modifying that part is modifying their design and IP.

Too far? Well what about scribbling notes in my textbooks? I'm modifying it. Is that vandalism to MGH's property?

If you assign property rights to thoughts and ideas, then yes. Scribbling on a textbook is no different than scribbling on their corporate headquarters.

So having a contract for each exchange is more simple than a common law? So, every time I buy (or even borrow) a book I need to enter a contract with the author and/or publisher? Do I negotiate terms?

Yes, just like every other sector of the economy. This way those terms affect market value, and the free market can prevail.

Let's say that I sell you a tractor, but I require you to sign a contract stating that you are not allowed to ever loan it out. Nobody else can profit from my work without paying me. Would you purchase this tractor, or would you go to a competitor that didn't make you sign silly contracts such as this?

The same market forces should apply to digital works, but instead the huge corporate content owners have lobbied to have a common law that allows them to all benefit from these silly contracts with few alternatives.

I think we're simply not going to agree on this. While I agree that if you buy a widget from me, even if it uses software that I wrote, you own that widget, and should be able to modify any part of THAT widget, including the software. But you may not copy any part of my ideas and distribute them for money or whatever.

Can you explain to me exactly why you think one should not be allowed to duplicate ideas and thoughts? Which moral or ethical line does it cross?

 

[jamil]

Should the government be in the business of ensuring prosperity?

If so, why does this bother you:


Gotta protect their prosperity, right?



If you assign property rights to thoughts and ideas, then yes. Scribbling on a textbook is no different than scribbling on their corporate headquarters.



Yes, just like every other sector of the economy. This way those terms affect market value, and the free market can prevail.

Let's say that I sell you a tractor, but I require you to sign a contract stating that you are not allowed to ever loan it out. Nobody else can profit from my work without paying me. Would you purchase this tractor, or would you go to a competitor that didn't make you sign silly contracts such as this?

The same market forces should apply to digital works, but instead the huge corporate content owners have lobbied to have a common law that allows them to all benefit from these silly contracts with few alternatives.



Can you explain to me exactly why you think one should not be allowed to duplicate ideas and thoughts? Which moral or ethical line does it cross?

There is no basis for us to argue ethics unless we both agree that ideas can have ownership.

 

[steveh_131]

There is no basis for us to argue ethics unless we both agree that ideas can have ownership.

Agreed.

Can ideas have ownership?

What if someone else has the same idea? Who owns it?

Does one still own the idea once he has told it to someone else?

 

[24Carat]

How many Ingo folks do you think know about and how to set "Dwell"........???

Still have the old analog meter.

Me 2 !

 

[indyblue]

Less electronics, less stuff to go wrong.

How about NO electronics. This is by far the most reliable vehicle I own, it has started every time I turn the key for almost 40 years.

 

[CathyInBlue]

I agree this discussion is about copyright law. The code is their property. Modifying it is a copyright infringement. I don't see a problem with replacing the code altogether as long as it does not use parts of copyrighted code without permission. I don't see this as much different from the operating system on your PC. Modifying that is copyright infringement. But anyone with sufficient knowledge of the hardware and firmware can write their own operating system and use it.

Of course with a PC, you must agree to the EULA terms before you can use it. I don't think I've ever signed a software license agreement for any of my vehicles. But it's not the EULA nor your agreement that makes it their intellectual property.

RE: bolded parts: Wrong! Even entertaining the idea that buying a machine with a computer in it only comes with an implied license to use the software. Wrong! Buying a book gives me physical ownership of the artifact, the cardboard, paper, and ink. The patterns those inks make on the paper, those are what buying the book gave me a license to. However, once I get the book home, there's nothing to stop me from underlining and highlighting and adding stuff in the margins, tearing out pages and adding in pages of my own, to the book I already own. Copyright doesn't even approach those rights which I have. It's right there in the name: copy right. The right to copy the thing. As long as I don't start wholesale duplicating the information, which I did not originate, in the book, I can do anything with that information I want, modifying it in any way that I choose. In the same vein, modifying their closed source code on the computer I now own is also not copyright infringement, unless I rip it out of the computer and begin wholesale duplication and distribution of said code. Modifying is not copyright infringement. Duplicating en mass is copyright infringement.

Note I haven't mentioned license violations, such as if there is a non-reverse engineer clause, which are totally different animals from copyright violations. And here is where the John Deere rubber meets the road. They are forcing new customers to sign huge, baroque contracts as a condition of sale, and buried in those pages are those very software license EULA clauses we're talking about. Car makers are doing it too.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Agreed.

Can ideas have ownership?

What if someone else has the same idea? Who owns it?

Does one still own the idea once he has told it to someone else?

I assume you two mean "can people own ideas?". The answer is no. The USPTO is clear, ideas are not patentable and copyright cannot attach to a mere idea. Only expressions of an idea are patentable and copyrightable. You are free to express the same idea as me, even patent, trademark, and copyright (which is also quite distinct from patents and trademarks) your different expression of the same idea as me, and there's nothing I can do about it. If it were otherwise, every general product category would have only a single company that could make products within that category. Automobiles? "You mean you're manufacturing transportation devices people ride in or on, with a chassis, an engine, a fuel reservoir, two to four wheels in contact with the road, and one or two tiller bars or a wheel for gripping by hand to direct the device? I'm a lawyer from the Daimler-Benz Corporation, and I'm here to sue you for idea infringement." Breakfast cereals? "You mean you're taking staple grains and processing them into a new form, packaging them in bags or boxes for people to pour into bowls, pour milk over and eat as the primary constituent in the meal called breakfast? I'm a lawyer from the Kellog Corporation, and I'm here to sue you for idea infringement."

Patents and trademarks are in the details. Copyrights are in the substantive duplication of expressions.

 

[sht4brnz]

Has anyone ever purchased a smart phone and found that they don't like all the preloaded apps that come with it? Once you decide you don't want them and attempt turning them off you'll notice that you can't, at least without another software upload. You then think that there's too much effort in removing those things and there's no harm in leaving them.

Has anyone wandered why used and unwanted smartphones have value? It's not because they're repackaging them and selling them to 3rd world nations. The most valuable part of your old phone is the information that it has collected. Data collection is huge business, look at Google, Yahoo, Amazon, etc. etc. What I'm describing is if the data of you is valuable at a year old, or whenever you cash in on your old phone, your real time data is even more valuable, hence the apps that you can't turn off.

Now let's apply this to your car. How much more technology can you fit in a car compared to your cell phone?

 

[JettaKnight]

Full disclosure: I do have a vested interest here.

And, full disclosure, don't we all?

Actually, I write secure software and protocol of automotive electronics. Nothing inside of drivetrain modules, just telematics, diagnostics and infotainment.

 

[steveh_131]

I assume you two mean "can people own ideas?". The answer is no. The USPTO is clear, ideas are not patentable and copyright cannot attach to a mere idea. Only expressions of an idea are patentable and copyrightable. You are free to express the same idea as me, even patent, trademark, and copyright (which is also quite distinct from patents and trademarks) your different expression of the same idea as me, and there's nothing I can do about it.

I think this discussion is more on the moral/ethical level than on the legal level. At least, I meant it to be.

 

[24Carat]

I'm stuck owning nothing newer than 1995. I love the simplicity of OBD-I . Fewer (Cheap now) sensors with wider parameters that play well with each other. Most modifications require no inquiry or modification of the ecu. Love it.

 

[jamil]

RE: bolded parts: Wrong! Even entertaining the idea that buying a machine with a computer in it only comes with an implied license to use the software. Wrong! Buying a book gives me physical ownership of the artifact, the cardboard, paper, and ink. The patterns those inks make on the paper, those are what buying the book gave me a license to. However, once I get the book home, there's nothing to stop me from underlining and highlighting and adding stuff in the margins, tearing out pages and adding in pages of my own, to the book I already own. Copyright doesn't even approach those rights which I have. It's right there in the name: copy right. The right to copy the thing. As long as I don't start wholesale duplicating the information, which I did not originate, in the book, I can do anything with that information I want, modifying it in any way that I choose. In the same vein, modifying their closed source code on the computer I now own is also not copyright infringement, unless I rip it out of the computer and begin wholesale duplication and distribution of said code. Modifying is not copyright infringement. Duplicating en mass is copyright infringement.

Note I haven't mentioned license violations, such as if there is a non-reverse engineer clause, which are totally different animals from copyright violations. And here is where the John Deere rubber meets the road. They are forcing new customers to sign huge, baroque contracts as a condition of sale, and buried in those pages are those very software license EULA clauses we're talking about. Car makers are doing it too.

As Steve said, this discussion isn't about legal definitions or even about what the law allows today. And really it's not all that much about morals. At its root it is a discussion of the application of Objectivism to this subject.

I think this discussion is more on the moral/ethical level than on the legal level. At least, I meant it to be.

Steve, if you are going to argue this on moral turf, again we're at an impasse. You believe in objective morality. I do not.

 

[JettaKnight]

Should the government be in the business of ensuring prosperity?

I'd argue this is covered under the pursuit of happiness.

Let's say that I sell you a tractor, but I require you to sign a contract stating that you are not allowed to ever loan it out. Nobody else can profit from my work without paying me. Would you purchase this tractor, or would you go to a competitor that didn't make you sign silly contracts such as this?

The same market forces should apply to digital works, but instead the huge corporate content owners have lobbied to have a common law that allows them to all benefit from these silly contracts with few alternatives.

The problem with this is it results in too much economic friction and creates a fertile playground for lawyers.

Plus, if there's no copyright law, why don' I just make a copy for free and completely bypass the free market?

Can you explain to me exactly why you think one should not be allowed to duplicate ideas and thoughts?

It's not thoughts or ideas - it's the output of that; it's the design and work that should be protected to a nominal amount of time.

Which moral or ethical line does it cross?

Theft. It's unethical to flat out steal a design someone else spent beaucoup time making, thus depriving them of an opportunity to reap the benefits.



Do you really think China's wild west approach is better where everyone flagrantly dismisses the concept of IP?



PS - I had to hack my Keurig 2.0 today to get a cup of Cafe du Monde coffee.

 

[steveh_131]

I'd argue this is covered under the pursuit of happiness.

Well... that's one heck of a vague standard for government intervention. It dang near allows anything.

The problem with this is it results in too much economic friction and creates a fertile playground for lawyers.

Exactly. These absolutely ridiculous rules (such as those outlined in the DMCA) would create too much economic friction and would never survive free market forces.

It's not thoughts or ideas - it's the output of that; it's the design and work that should be protected to a nominal amount of time.

Why is there a time limit? If it's your property, how could your rights to it ever just 'expire'? Does your car ownership expire? What about your guns?

Theft. It's unethical to flat out steal a design someone else spent beaucoup time making, thus depriving them of an opportunity to reap the benefits.

Unless your arbitrary time limit expires, then that theft is A-OK?

Do you really think China's wild west approach is better where everyone flagrantly dismisses the concept of IP?

Might be.

 

[Arthur Dent]

I assume you two mean "can people own ideas?". The answer is no. The USPTO is clear, ideas are not patentable and copyright cannot attach to a mere idea. Only expressions of an idea are patentable and copyrightable. You are free to express the same idea as me, even patent, trademark, and copyright (which is also quite distinct from patents and trademarks) your different expression of the same idea as me, and there's nothing I can do about it. If it were otherwise, every general product category would have only a single company that could make products within that category. Automobiles? "You mean you're manufacturing transportation devices people ride in or on, with a chassis, an engine, a fuel reservoir, two to four wheels in contact with the road, and one or two tiller bars or a wheel for gripping by hand to direct the device? I'm a lawyer from the Daimler-Benz Corporation, and I'm here to sue you for idea infringement." Breakfast cereals? "You mean you're taking staple grains and processing them into a new form, packaging them in bags or boxes for people to pour into bowls, pour milk over and eat as the primary constituent in the meal called breakfast? I'm a lawyer from the Kellog Corporation, and I'm here to sue you for idea infringement."

Patents and trademarks are in the details. Copyrights are in the substantive duplication of expressions.

Much like Harley Davidson trying to patent the "sound" of their motorcycles.