GM, Ford, And Others Want to Make Working on Your Own Car Illegal

[murg]

Some other company should start selling an 'open' tractor, where the software is accessible. This could be a competitive advantage.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

There's sizing and parts that deal with seeds. They even send farmers an email when they need to buy pesticides and such because they track as much of that as possible.

Here's a related article to the ones above.

http://www.wired.com/2015/02/new-hig...tmare-farmers/

I read the other one concerning planting on another site and I can't find it because I read it too long ago. But essentially, the equipment knows what is being planted because the design it such that they track how many acres are planted and with what because the farmer logs the hours and also uses their programs/designs a certain way with certain seeds/sprays. I'm guessing based on the limited farming I did that the tractor is set up a certain way in order to plant the various seeds. Corn seed is not planted the same way as beets or soy. But when I read the article I remember thinking, 'How did they ever give over such control to the tractor companies?" If the companies know essentially how much you and your 80 neighbors plant, this can give them a huge advantage in not only selling seed, but in the entire commodities (stock market) exchange. And if they don't share the info with farmers or share it sparingly, the farmer is at a disadvantage.

It's really quite astounding.

It does sound quite incredible.

Shari

[drofgnal]

I ran into this on my car forum. I tend to side with the manufacturer's to some degree. There is a whole business out there that specializes in breaking car software on modding performance charateristics of the car.

The magnuson-moss warranty act allows the owner to choose parts they want to use and to have work done at other places, including oneself. It does not allow you to 'hack' the car's sw to either increase performance over manufacturer's spec or to disable or enable features.

To make it worse on the manufacturers owners will mod the car's sw (tune), have a failure, then expect the dealer to fix it under a warranty claim. I have to say, in this regard I side with the manufacturer. You are allowed to do anywork on the car you are able to do, oil changes, filter changes, spark plug changes, audio mods etc, You are not allowed to change the spec of the car then expect the dealer to fix it under warranty claim.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by drofgnal

I ran into this on my car forum. I tend to side with the manufacturer's to some degree. There is a whole business out there that specializes in breaking car software on modding performance charateristics of the car.

The magnuson-moss warranty act allows the owner to choose parts they want to use and to have work done at other places, including oneself. It does not allow you to 'hack' the car's sw to either increase performance over manufacturer's spec or to disable or enable features.

To make it worse on the manufacturers owners will mod the car's sw (tune), have a failure, then expect the dealer to fix it under a warranty claim. I have to say, in this regard I side with the manufacturer. You are allowed to do anywork on the car you are able to do, oil changes, filter changes, spark plug changes, audio mods etc, You are not allowed to change the spec of the car then expect the dealer to fix it under warranty claim.

Voiding warranty due to fiddling is a different problem than making it against the law to break/fiddle with a car you purchased and decided to mod. If someone voids the warranty, breaks their car, their problem. Don't involve the government/law as any kind of step that keeps people from being independent and working on things they purchased. The average person drives a car and doesn't even change the oil. A law is total overkill/over reach.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

Voiding warranty due to fiddling is a different problem than making it against the law to break/fiddle with a car you purchased and decided to mod. If someone voids the warranty, breaks their car, their problem. Don't involve the government/law as any kind of step that keeps people from being independent and working on things they purchased. The average person drives a car and doesn't even change the oil. A law is total overkill/over reach.

Now, how do you stand on if your car insurance is invalidated or not due to fiddling?

This means you are now driving without insurance which is, here at least, illegal.

[drofgnal]

You didn't read my post very well. The Manuson-Moss Warranty act allows someone to work on their car. It doesn't allow you to modify it to be out of spec, or to disable systems like emissions and safety.

Relative to software code in the vehicle, I think the manufactures can always argue you don't own the code. It's liscenced and a part of your vehicle, just like the OS on your computer, phone, tablet is liscenced for you to use, you don't own the operating system. The SW code also controls much of the safety critical functions. Given the rash of high dollar lawsuits for safety related issues, I can see why they are pushing for this.

You still have the right to do normal routine maintenance on your car and have your warranty 'intact'.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

Now, how do you stand on if your car insurance is invalidated or not due to fiddling?

This means you are now driving without insurance which is, here at least, illegal.

It depends on whether the fiddling actually causes something to be outside what the insurance company agreed to cover. Most insurance companies want to know if you souped up a vehicle and if you want to soup it up, insure it souped up. If it's an illegal souping, well, the law already covers that. If someone fiddles and fixes their car or figures out what is wrong by reading the software or buys a second-hand part to fix, that's between the person and the car.

I get that there are people out there doing weird over-the-top changes. Fine. Invalidate them. Don't make the rest of us lose our inability to fix cars ourselves or read the software to tell what is wrong and so on. The car companies can claim it is for safety reasons and/or to protect the software, but the reality is that it would also make them money by locking people into going to dealers (and they are in cahoots with dealers and the government is often in cahoots with dealers--else why wouldn't they allow Tesla to sell without a dealership? Oh, because the dealers don't want a direct sales model and they pay taxes and have an in with with politicians.)

I'm not against safety, but go after those who might be causing a real problem. Don't punish DIY people or small operations that fix vehicles. The market is small enough as it is. I don't want to be forced to go to a dealer to find out that my engine light is telling me that my gas cap is not screwed all the way on or that the sensor is broken on the gas cap (this has happened to me and two relatives.) At present, you can figure this out yourself in some cases, but if the sensor is going, most people already have to go have the dealer read the software. This can mean a 200 mile trip for some people in rural areas--just to be told the sensor isn't working.

Give us knowledge. Do not lock our hands.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by drofgnal

You didn't read my post very well. The Manuson-Moss Warranty act allows someone to work on their car. It doesn't allow you to modify it to be out of spec, or to disable systems like emissions and safety.

Relative to software code in the vehicle, I think the manufactures can always argue you don't own the code. It's liscenced and a part of your vehicle, just like the OS on your computer, phone, tablet is liscenced for you to use, you don't own the operating system. The SW code also controls much of the safety critical functions. Given the rash of high dollar lawsuits for safety related issues, I can see why they are pushing for this.

You still have the right to do normal routine maintenance on your car and have your warranty 'intact'.

Exactly. But it is a waste of time pointing it out here.

The opportunity for many to extrapolate a situation to ridiculous levels in order to then be able to have a whine based on one's own construct into it including all maintenance, no matter how simple, is far more important than taking a sensible and informed view of vehicular safety matters.

It has also become apparent that many here are ignorant of, or have no familiarity with the safety systems that are now appearing in vehicles such as adaptive lane control, increasingly capable stability control systems, etc.; nor of the rapidly increasing capabilities and complexity of those. Their knowledge seems to be back in the last century, it extending, at most, to only the simple and long been around non vehicle safety based emission control systems, and the so called engine "chipping".

In my own country vehicle injury accident insurance for owners of vehicles built over the last few years, and having an increased level of these systems (as well as better structural design for accident survivability), are decreasing to approximately 40% of that applying to older vehicles without them, such has been their impact (sic) on improved safety {EDIT: mine included it seems ).

[Barcey]

If the manufacturer detects that the systems have been tampered with they can void the warranty, the same as they always have. They don't need the digital millennium copyright act (DMCA) to deal with that.

If the vehicles safety feature have been tampered with they need to have a fail-safe and it should be dealt with via the highway safety act laws. Not copyright laws.

If the modifications are in violation of the terms on the insurance policy then it's for the courts to decide, not the DMCA.

If the modifications are in violation of government environmental / emission laws they can be dealt with the same way as if I make modifications to the vehicle exhaust. If there is proper auditing on the systems they can tell. My province already has emission tests.

There shouldn't be one security measure that gives complete access to onboard computer systems. It needs to be modularized. The command and control system need to be separated (with fail-safe) from the other systems. Speciality performance shops and home mechanics should be able to make modifications to things like the fuel injection maps without getting near the safety features. They might run the risk of violating warranty, government emission laws or highway safety laws but it shouldn't be a violation of copyright laws.

It's absolutely ridiculous what the manufacturers are proposing. The government regulations are well behind on this and they do need to be strengthened and updated. Unfortunately that doesn't happen until there is a major issue that forces it to happen.

[eschwartz]

I just hope this continues long enough to outrage the masses and finally bring about awareness of the DMCA and why it should be scotched.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by Barcey

If the manufacturer detects that the systems have been tampered with they can void the warranty, the same as they always have. They don't need the digital millennium copyright act (DMCA) to deal with that.

If the vehicles safety feature have been tampered with they need to have a fail-safe and it should be dealt with via the highway safety act laws. Not copyright laws.

If the modifications are in violation of the terms on the insurance policy then it's for the courts to decide, not the DMCA.

If the modifications are in violation of government environmental / emission laws they can be dealt with the same way as if I make modifications to the vehicle exhaust. If there is proper auditing on the systems they can tell. My province already has emission tests.

There shouldn't be one security measure that gives complete access to onboard computer systems. It needs to be modularized. The command and control system need to be separated (with fail-safe) from the other systems. Speciality performance shops and home mechanics should be able to make modifications to things like the fuel injection maps without getting near the safety features. They might run the risk of violating warranty, government emission laws or highway safety laws but it shouldn't be a violation of copyright laws.

It's absolutely ridiculous what the manufacturers are proposing. The government regulations are well behind on this and they do need to be strengthened and updated. Unfortunately that doesn't happen until there is a major issue that forces it to happen.

Have you actually taken the trouble to read the second round of comments to Section 1201 Exemptions to Prohibition Against Circumvention of Technological Measures Protecting Copyrighted Works: Second Round of Comments (not just the automobile ones but others too, such as medical equipment)? From you comments it would seem not.

First, despite your inference to the contrary, the control systems in a modern car are modularized. The number of ECUs may extend into double digits.

Second, despite your inference to the contrary, there is not necessarily one security system that gives access to all systems. And your claim that there is not operational interdependence between modules is not sensible, for example there are likely to be interdependencies between stability control and at least both of transmission and engine ECUs.

The Section 1201 comments are related to the protection of those security systems and there is no reason that the proposed exemption precludes, as you infer it does, manufacturers from allowing access by appropriate people to ECUs or parts of ECUs controlling simple functions.

"Appropriate people" may even include the vehicle owner as it is already common for the manufacturer to specifically provide for access to systems by the driver in the as delivered vehicle. For example, drivers are now able to control some functions of safety related systems e.g. they can disable stability control, or modify its functionality in some cars. They can also commonly modify other systems, such as selecting one of several transmission modes.

I will leave it at that for this thread {EDIT: it now turns out this will be real easy to do as wife and I have now decided to go off boating for a couple of days ) as it is pretty clear that a number of people here are just committed to getting their knickers in a twist even though they are likely never going to want to modify the embedded software of their vehicle's safety ECUs'.

[Dulin's Books]

so here's my take on this having been involved with a car club/ forum for over 10 years and talked about this very thing involving not only the OEM but also after market tuners claiming copyright.

it's ridiculous. it's MY engine in MY car. I am mandated by the state to ensure that the car is safe to be on the road and that it passes state emission requirements. if not there are penalties/remedies for that. I want to know what is being done to my car and I want the ability to change things within the law.

When the OEM of my particular automobile was going through a series of reprogramming steps of the PCM (flashes) for various issues related to performance and oil consumption I asked for particulars about what they were doing. The company wanted to be vague. i felt if they were changing fuel and oil delivery i should know what it is they did. they did eventually provide some specifics for what and why.

If i went to a mechanic to have my car repaired and they said they wouldnt explain to me what was wrong or what parts needed replacing or show me the "bad parts" when they were done i wouldnt use them and they could get in trouble for it.

there are also a couple of "aftermarket tuning professionals" who are very good at what they do but refuse to share what they are doing to the point that they have made it impossible for someone to modify the programming after they have done so. so if you decide to go to someone else next time, the PCM has to be flashed to factory and the process done from the base instead of making tweeks to your existing program.

now imagine if you had work done to your engine and the mechanic when done put a lock on the hood so that no one else could fix the car until he removed the lock and removed anything he had done previously. does that sound remotely reasonable?

no it doesnt. flashing is the same as wrenching(using a spanner for those not in the US) on your car. in the carburetor days if you wanted to change the fuel air mixture and the timing you changed parts , adjusted trim screws or changed carbs and turned the distributor.

now you adjust numbers in a table. but its the same thing just a digital wrench. i asked my states attorney general about it once and they agreed- work done on the car via computer is the same as taking a wrench to it. i have a right to know the changes and I have a right to choose who does that work even if I decide to do it myself. no gets to lock me out of my own vehicles maintenance/repair.

should some systems be off limits? for safety? for security? no. if i have the same car for the next 40 years i want someone to be able to program /repair it well after whomever made it may be long gone.

during the warranty period? certainly there is a good argument to be made that those providing the warranty should be allowed to insist on WHO fixes it as long as the cost isnt jacked up. there already laws in place about that.

but the tools should be available for anyone just like you can go buy a wrench and anyone should be allowed to use them either as a business for their customers needs or as an individual.

[Dulin's Books]

wow that was long. sorry

tl/dr- it's my car, copyright argument is BS, tools should be available to everyone.

[Dulin's Books]

Originally Posted by cromag

Back then there was a push to prevent so-called "speed shops" from selling any parts that were not "original equipment." It made a lot of news for the papers, especially among hobbyists, but never went anywhere.

But, corporate lawyers get paid by the hour. I'm not surprised they're trying again.

it did go somewhere- the Magnuson-Moss Act of 1975 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuso...s_Warranty_Act

and it was reaffirmed by the FTC in 2011 https://www.sema.org/sema-enews/2011...ermarket-parts

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Well that's just silly. There's no nut behind the wheel.

there is when I'm my Father is driving

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

so here's my take on this having been involved with a car club/ forum for over 10 years and talked about this very thing involving not only the OEM but also after market tuners claiming copyright.

it's ridiculous. it's MY engine in MY car....

...but the tools should be available for anyone just like you can go buy a wrench and anyone should be allowed to use them either as a business for their customers needs or as an individual.

Wow this is so offbeat that I can't resist before heading off.

Your post and expressed experience seems to be all about the simple aspects of the power train control (and the tenor of your comments is as in non recent vehicles). If you were to read the second round of comments to Section 1201 as I have suggested (yes I know it is much more fun to not know the facts before complaining) and seek some knowledge of recent vehicles you will find that the concerns are actually very little to do with the engine and transmission and their ECUs in the dated at least decade old terms you see them in. And even less to do with the spanners you keep mentioning.

You give the impression that you quite happy that cars sharing the road with you may have modified lane keeping systems, modified adaptive cruise control or modified stability control, even if those are performed by owners who claim expertise, as you seem to do for yourself, because they belong to an amateur car club ? Reading your post I can understand why they are called "petrol heads".

You seem to be saying it is owners' right to fiddle as they please and to hell with the consequences to other people.

You also reference Diapdealer's response to my earlier comment about the manufacturers wanting to control the nut behind the wheel - I suspect that the inference of that was not understood by you (exercise your mind on lane control, adaptive cruise control, driverless cars, etc. - things not to be found in 1971 Chev's).