Illegal to work on your own car?

Didn't read the article but is that at all surprising? Things will continue to steer that way with all the stuff they call technology.

What it all comes down to is money. It isn't made in the showroom. The gold mine is found in the service dept
 
The title of the article is a bit misleading. Makes you think its talking about the mechanical side of it but really its referring to reprogramming the ECM and other computer parameters in the car. I still don't agree with it since once you buy and pay for it, it should be yours to modify or screw up how ever you feel so long as you don't make it unsafe for the road in the process.
 
superman27344 said:
The title of the article is a bit misleading. Makes you think its talking about the mechanical side of it but really its referring to reprogramming the ECM and other computer parameters in the car. I still don't agree with it since once you buy and pay for it, it should be yours to modify or screw up how ever you feel so long as you don't make it unsafe for the road in the process.
Click to expand...


Look at the Diesel tuning and LS worlds for instance, if that law passes it could be devastating. Not to mention the dealer only remedy check engine light hell that could be created.
 
Blaze said:
There is no way I can possibly see this becoming law.
Click to expand...
If every parts store and junkyard quit selling parts for certain makes/models after a certain year, it wouldn't have to become law. You just flat couldn't work on it!
 
XJsavage said:
If every parts store and junkyard quit selling parts for certain makes/models after a certain year, it wouldn't have to become law. You just flat couldn't work on it!
Click to expand...

you would just have to buy parts from china online. Most of it comes from there anyway.
 
This all stems from a current suit filed against and a counter suit by Deere. I'm going to copy and paste a response I typed a week ago on a different board.

Few problems.
1- The EPA has mandated that the engine manufacturer maintains liability for clean air act compliance even after transfer of ownership. So if you mod your Dodge Cummins to delete the EGR/DPF and some high and mighty attorney goes after the issue, CMI could end up paying fines for it.
2- Maguson - Moss plays a smaller but pivotal role here, but that will derail the thread and turn into a personal accountability debate.
3-

The process is this: current intellectual property laws and regulations allow companies to install technological protective measures (TPMs) on a variety of devices in order to preserve their intellectual property investments. The Constitution's Copyright Clause is the source/genesis of copyright protections. This current regime is the subject of much philosophical debate, with both sides making compelling arguments. To rebalance the system, the Copyright office has proposed a series of new rules, here: http://copyright.gov/1201/docs/list-proposed-classes-1201.pdf. John Deere challenges the rule applying to vehicle software as overbroad.

The link to the actual primary source, aka John Deere's comment on a proposed rule, is here: http://copyright.gov/1201/2015/comments-032715/class 21/John_Deere_Class21_1201_2014.pdf. Curiously, you appear to rely completely on the non-authoritative secondary source (who is ranting rather hyperbolically) rather than getting to the actual comment, which I found with little trouble.

The proposed rule allows 3d parties to access copyrighted software developed by, in this case, John Deere at great expense to John Deere's shareholders and customers. The Copyright office's rule is an attempt to change the system, John Deere's comment is a restatement of the current system. If the current system was consistent with the Wired author's position, the Copyright office would have no need to propose a new rule. Far from attempting to change the nature of ownership, Deere is actually asserting it (at least asserting the current state of the law).

The relevant portion is here (page 6 at the link): ". . .the vehicle owner receives an implied license for the life of the vehicle to operate the vehicle, subject to any warranty limitations, disclaimers, or other contractual limitations in the sales contract or documentation." In the preceding paragraph, and the section in general, John Deere is commenting on implied software licenses. While you would need to actually read the primary source document in full to understand this, the clue in my quoted sentence above is the part referring to "vehicle owner." In other words, while you own the physical vehicle, your ability to use the software depends on a license. "[O]perate the vehicle" is a confusing and IMO poor phrase, but the context clarifies in this case. Other parts of the filing describe why car companies have this arrangement, much of which has to do with regulatory compliance and some of which has to do with how Deere obtains some of its software (e.g. John Deere cannot sell ownership rights to 3d party software for which John Deere itself only has a license).

John Deere's board, and by extension John Deere's compliance attorneys, have a fiduciary duty to protect the company's investments. In addition to some very technical legal arguments, John Deere relies on the fundamental philosophical ideas surrounding copyright protections, which are ensrhined in our Constitution (page 2 has an excellent summary of Deere's concerns). The issue here isn't greed, or "corporations acting all corporationy," but whether we still believe in the philsophy underlying our intellectual property laws, which adopt the belief that intellectual property protections incentivize companies like John Deere to invest resources into technological advances or if we are going to swing the pendulum in the direction of essentially mandating open source software on vehicles.

I should note that both sides believe their model will enhance creativity and innovation - but that is a debate for another day
 
The hysteria over this on other boards has been pretty crazy. You killed it Ron, if it's OK with you I would like to post this elsewhere with a link back to here.
 
It also probably factors in the upcoming self driving cars....one simple error in that part of the code will kill someone.
 
kaiser715 said:
It also probably factors in the upcoming self driving cars....one simple error in that part of the code will kill someone.
Click to expand...

and that right there is why we will remain a long way away from self-driving cars actually becoming the norm.
 
To me this is bullcrap. I work for a small business that sells and installs a particular cominatination of products and installed in a certain manner to provide a desired service.

Anyone who purchases our system can then take notes as to what we did and what products we used and become a competitor.

There is no protection for small business owners with competitors doing this other than the hassle and investment to start and organize and attempt to sell the same system.


To me it's complete bullcrap that a big business can lobby and legislate their way into being protected. This would mean that the big business would lose competition and thus become bigger with a decline in the usefulness of their product.

Competition is always good for the consumer but bad for the business.


Another example is Chevy buying a Ferrari and learning how the computer system operates in order to copy it, and use it on the new corvette.

To my knowledge there is nothing anyone can do about it, once the product is sold.

Only option is to protect the software through encryption or make it harder to access through the attached hardware.

I can agree that for vehicles/equipment you finance or lease, that you should have some measure of accountability for the modifications you perform as you technically don't own anything.

But for something you own, to me it's simple, it's yours wholly, including any intellectual property contained within.

Big business should spend more time creating a better product against competition instead of protecting what's already been created.

If the black market becomes stronger in effect from this, the only guarantee is that the imported product market will become stronger and weaken the American market.

The others don't play by the same rules and the us will be the only ones suffering.
 
Mac5005 said:
To me this is bullcrap. I work for a small business that sells and installs a particular cominatination of products and installed in a certain manner to provide a desired service.

Anyone who purchases our system can then take notes as to what we did and what products we used and become a competitor.

There is no protection for small business owners with competitors doing this other than the hassle and investment to start and organize and attempt to sell the same system.


To me it's complete bullcrap that a big business can lobby and legislate their way into being protected. This would mean that the big business would lose competition and thus become bigger with a decline in the usefulness of their product.

Competition is always good for the consumer but bad for the business.


Another example is Chevy buying a Ferrari and learning how the computer system operates in order to copy it, and use it on the new corvette.

To my knowledge there is nothing anyone can do about it, once the product is sold.

Only option is to protect the software through encryption or make it harder to access through the attached hardware.

I can agree that for vehicles/equipment you finance or lease, that you should have some measure of accountability for the modifications you perform as you technically don't own anything.

But for something you own, to me it's simple, it's yours wholly, including any intellectual property contained within.

Big business should spend more time creating a better product against competition instead of protecting what's already been created.

If the black market becomes stronger in effect from this, the only guarantee is that the imported product market will become stronger and weaken the American market.

The others don't play by the same rules and the us will be the only ones suffering.
Click to expand...


It's not that simple with IP though.
If I buy your company's product, I can measure, reverse engineer, set up tooling and begin manufacturing it, sure. That is if you company wasnt smart enough to file patent and copyright protection.

With Software I copy it to a zip drive and replicate it to market saturation literally in seconds.

This will cripple innovation as there will be no reason to innovate, just wait on your competitor to R&D it and then steal it.
 
Ron said:
It's not that simple with IP though.
If I buy your company's product, I can measure, reverse engineer, set up tooling and begin manufacturing it, sure. That is if you company wasnt smart enough to file patent and copyright protection.

With Software I copy it to a zip drive and replicate it to market saturation literally in seconds.

This will cripple innovation as there will be no reason to innovate, just wait on your competitor to R&D it and then steal it.
Click to expand...


Herein lies the debate over software patents and the jurisdiction of said patents. Since a car built in Canada (for example) is then shipped to the United States and then all over the world, the software patent would need to be worldwide and not just under the scope of the U.S. patent office. You can already take a Mini into the dealer and wirelessly connect to the computer in Germany for updates and diagnostics. My friend just installed the diagnostics software to do so here locally not long ago.

The flip-side of this (and my personal view) is even scarier. The concept of automobile computers being open source programmable. As it is, there are enough knucklehead jackasses who would disable safety equipment in the vehicle if they thought it would make it go faster. The more systems that are tied to the PCM, the less I'd like "the general public" to access it. But that's just me. It is, however a slippery slope. I don't want the government being the ones dictating it, because at some point this same regulation can be extended to "modified vehicles" (i.e. our sport).
 
Because not enough if not any other countries abide by patent and trademark laws.

That's why there guys on every forum selling china made led lights using same images to advertise. Same identical product as big brands at 1/3 the price.

They all come from same place in china.

Also why you can get a mobile app designed for pennies on the dollar from overseas.
 
Ron said:
With Software I copy it to a zip drive and replicate it to market saturation literally in seconds.
Click to expand...

except that it's not 1998 anymore, if you're still using Zip drives then I'm not too worried about your software saviness...:flipoff2:
 
Thumb drives, zip drives same thing.
I still call everything a zip drive
 
benXJ said:
Ha. why is Deere pushing this? Who sells tuners for zero turn mowers? I don't recall of anyone turning up the boost on their tractor to plow the field faster.

But maybe they do.
Click to expand...

lest you forget, the lawn care business is just a side diversion for John Deere( a very profitable one ) their core business is agriculture machinery and construction equipment.

modern farm tractors have come a long way from G'pa's old Johnny Popper 2cyl tricycle
The engine software alone is insane, let alone being integrated with GPS tracking and product/crop application software and controls

The operator is merely a casual observer in some functions of the machine he has "control" of
CAT is the same way with construction equipment.
 
Oh I'm aware, I used to work for Deere as an engineer.

I was just noting the fact that I am not aware of any aftermarket tuners and 'chip' makers for the brains of Diesel tractors.

Now, wanting to protect their IP from a competitor buying a Deere product and reverse engineering, I understand.
 
Back
Top