Topic: What are auto makers thinking? (Read 3352 times)

Nemesis · « **on:** April 04, 2015, 12:22:29 pm »

Quote

Cars, especially, have a profound legacy of tinkering. Hobbyists have always modded them, rearranged their guts, and reframed their exteriors. Which is why it’s mind-boggling to me that the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) just had to ask permission from the Copyright Office for tinkerers to modify and repair their own cars.

The very people who are the best future mechanics are the ones you are blocking MORONS!

Brush Wolf · « **Reply #1 on:** April 04, 2015, 12:36:20 pm »

They want cars to be commodities that are rebought every few years. Also they may be locking this stuff down to insure that the cars meet the 100,000 mile requirement for the polution controls.

Nemesis · « **Reply #2 on:** April 04, 2015, 12:56:05 pm »

They sold the car they lose the rights to control those factors.

Tulwar · « **Reply #3 on:** April 04, 2015, 08:57:42 pm »

Wow! Who would have thought that the concept of "intellectual property" would go this far? This isn't about weather tinkering with the vehicle's control code would cause the brakes to fail, or some legitimate safety issue, or even as Brush Wolf pointed out, evironmental concerns, but copyright! WTF?

I could see a company wanting nobody to tinker with the firmware for liablity issues, but copyright violation? That is, "This code is our property, and even if you buy a copy, it's still ours!"

Brush Wolf · « **Reply #4 on:** April 05, 2015, 11:36:25 am »

Actually I would say what the article is about is really unintended consequences from a badly written law which was never intended to cover motor vehicles.

Lieutenant_Q · « **Reply #5 on:** April 05, 2015, 01:32:08 pm »

It's the way it's been in the software industry for the last 10-15 years. Read your EULAs, most of them will tell you flat out that you are "Leasing" the program from them, and they can yank that "Lease" back for a variety of different things, not just tinkering with the code.

And the sad part is, that the laws were written at the behest of the big software makers just so that would be the way it is. Lawmakers write these laws, and the software people push millions into their re-election funds. We don't live in a republic, and haven't for years. We live in a Corporate Oligarchy, within the shell of a republic.

Tulwar · « **Reply #6 on:** April 05, 2015, 03:46:57 pm »

Quote from: Lieutenant_Q on April 05, 2015, 01:32:08 pm

And the sad part is, that the laws were written at the behest of the big software makers just so that would be the way it is. Lawmakers write these laws, and the software people push millions into their re-election funds. We don't live in a republic, and haven't for years. We live in a Corporate Oligarchy, within the shell of a republic.

You've got that exactly right.

Nemesis · « **Reply #7 on:** April 05, 2015, 03:48:59 pm »

That EULA is imposed after you have paid for it and got the receipt as a purchase. I'd love to see someone with money challenge the EULA on that ground. I'd also love to see the chain of contracts that allows the local retailer to sell a license. Bet there isn't one.

Nemesis · « **Reply #8 on:** April 05, 2015, 03:50:03 pm »

Quote from: Lieutenant_Q on April 05, 2015, 01:32:08 pm

It's the way it's been in the software industry for the last 10-15 years. Read your EULAs, most of them will tell you flat out that you are "Leasing" the program from them, and they can yank that "Lease" back for a variety of different things, not just tinkering with the code.

And the sad part is, that the laws were written at the behest of the big software makers just so that would be the way it is. Lawmakers write these laws, and the software people push millions into their re-election funds. We don't live in a republic, and haven't for years. We live in a Corporate Oligarchy, within the shell of a republic.

Starting to run close to Hot and Spicey territory there.

News: