Slashdot Mirror


Automakers To Gearheads: Stop Repairing Cars

Mr_Blank writes Automakers are supporting provisions in copyright law that could prohibit home mechanics and car enthusiasts from repairing and modifying their own vehicles. In comments filed with a federal agency that will determine whether tinkering with a car constitutes a copyright violation, OEMs and their main lobbying organization say cars have become too complex and dangerous for consumers and third parties to handle. The dispute arises from a section of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that no one thought could apply to vehicles when it was signed into law in 1998. But now, in an era where cars are rolling computing platforms, the U.S. Copyright Office is examining whether provisions of the law that protect intellectual property should prohibit people from modifying and tuning their cars.

39 of 649 comments (clear)

  1. You no longer own a car by davydagger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    you simply get to use it, and the automaker gets a final say in how you use your car. good grief.

    1. Re:You no longer own a car by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 5, Funny

      I guess when my windshield gets a knick in it or if someone rubs my fender, it's time to throw out my car!

    2. Re:You no longer own a car by theguyfromsaturn · · Score: 4, Funny

      Indeed. Sounds like Apple.

      --
      I like my dinosaurs feathery, and my pterosaurs hairy (or is it pycnofibery?)
    3. Re:You no longer own a car by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fine, if I no longer fucking own the damned car, then they can charge me considerably less for it.

      What they want to do it wipe out the doctrine of "First Sale" which says "this is my property, what you think I should do is irrelevant".

      This is just a cash grab by greedy assholes.

      But if the car isn't mine, don't go expecting the same amount of money for it.

      I sincerely hope these auto makers get smacked down really hard.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:You no longer own a car by Wootery · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nothing a nice, expensive official repair shop won't fix.

    5. Re:You no longer own a car by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sales is all they understand. Now they would like to force you to use them for service. Next it will be "Remove all cars more than X years old because of pollution ( I know, you think a car manufacturer would not touch that topic, but they will) and safety issues. The only thing you can do is convert an old car to electric (and they will scream about safety for that too) and not buy a car under the new terms.

      From a legislative point of view, an automobile conveys more personal freedom than anything other than weapons. Therefor it will be constrained, (you can only drive this or that type of vehicle) then limited (i. e. mass transit or autonomous-cabs for the masses), then restricted (as in "Hey you middle class,go huddle with the masses") until only the elite have actual freedom of movement.

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    6. Re: You no longer own a car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ugh, I think you need to actually work on cars before saying anything like that.

      Only the Nissan GTR has an engine mated and tuned directly to the transmission. Other high end (150+k) cars would have this even remotely possible. Cars are mass produced. The transmission your car can be replaced with any of the like car transmissions without being disabled.

    7. Re:You no longer own a car by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Informative

      But the technology does.

      Actually, it doesn't. You just have to know how. All it takes is the skill to pull it off, and the cojones to laugh at the EULA/Warranty warnings.

      Some of us have been modifying Apples in ways they definitely weren't built for, and have been doing so for a very long time... (In this instance, the Cube was definitely not built to take on a Radeon 8500, or the horde of other modifications I made to it.)

      Seriously - bumping a HDD or RAM on a shiny new MacBook Pro is nothing that a decent soldering iron and top-grade solder can't help you accomplish. Much easier than, say, swapping out a car engine.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    8. Re:You no longer own a car by JoeMerchant · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Depends heavily on the state, county, etc.

      I was pretty livid living in Harris County (Houston, TX), driving past the petro-refineries pumping out visible tons of pollution per day to take my 3rd round smog test because my 1600cc car that I drive 4000 miles a year was measuring 230ppm hydrocarbons instead of the legal 220 - meanwhile our 5900cc pickup truck had a legal limit of 330ppm....

    9. Re:You no longer own a car by careysub · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Penguinisto: you need to try harder than that. The claim was that Apple had a problem with it. If Apple disables TRIM support on a 3rd party SSD, that is solid evidence that Apple has a problem with it. The fact that it can be defeated does not nullify the point.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    10. Re:You no longer own a car by guises · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just because something can be done, with enough know-how and tools, doesn't mean that you're not being prevented from doing it. When you need a soldering iron just to change a battery or to add some RAM I think you've fallen into this category.

      "Being locked in jail doesn't prevent you from leaving, all you need is a hacksaw and some elbow grease. People have been modifying jails this way for a very long time."

    11. Re:You no longer own a car by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm gonna just chalk this up to anti-American bias.

      I'm American.

      Wikipedia tells us this about the "Association of Global Automakers": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

      The Association of Global Automakers (Global Automakers) is a Washington, D.C.-based trade association and Lobby group whose members include international automobile and light duty truck manufacturers that build and sell products in the United States.

      However, most bizarrely, here is the member list: Aston Martin, Ferrari, Honda, Hyundai, Isuzu, KIA, Maserati, McLaren, Nissan, Subaru, Suzuki and Toyota. Notably missing, the Americans and the Germans. So this looks more like this is coming from some sort of Asian lobbying group.

      So I will have to correct my statement in my original post:

      So simple solution . . . don't buy an Asian car, if you want to own your vehicle.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    12. Re:You no longer own a car by schnell · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Nothing a nice, expensive official repair shop won't fix.

      Well, somebody needs to play Devil's Advocate here, so I will. What if onboard vehicle computers truthfully are (or soon will become) so complicated - and so integral to the functioning of the vehicle - that an untrained hobbyist screwing with it could cause injury or death? What if some homebrew-loving gearhead hacker decides to roll his own firmware for the car because he thinks he can squeeze some extra MPG out of it, and instead it zeroes out the odometer due to a glitch? Or disables the seatbelt warnings? Or randomly cuts of f the engine in the middle of the highway?

      Yes, it can be argued that negligent behavior causing death or injury already has penalties, but those are after the fact. We all understand how easy it is to screw up software. Do we want to be reactive or penalize it in the first place? Might it not be reasonable to say in effect that cars with owner-modified computers are fine but are no longer street legal?

      P.S. No, I don't work for a car company, I'm not a shill or a troll. In fact I generally find cars quite boring. But I find Slashdot even more boring when nobody attempts to find merit in a contrary opinion...

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    13. Re:You no longer own a car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      My response is: That's YOUR (the automaker's) fault for making them that way, and therefore you need to change your habits, not me.

    14. Re:You no longer own a car by Predius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You don't need to worry about car complexity creating that scenario. An idiot wrench can absolutely wreck his ability to stop by sucking air into a caliper while 'bleeding the brakes' leading to a failed panic stop or fail to lock down cables on a carb leading to a stuck open throttle, etc.

    15. Re:You no longer own a car by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, somebody needs to play Devil's Advocate here, so I will. What if onboard vehicle computers truthfully are (or soon will become) so complicated - and so integral to the functioning of the vehicle - that an untrained hobbyist screwing with it could cause injury or death?

      Fuck, man, brakes have been like that for a hundred goddamn years!

      Stop letting "buh-buh-buh-computers!" be an excuse for corporate sociopaths and nanny-state asswipes to destroy your rights. Seriously.

      We have two choices: we can be free, or we can be safe. These are mutually exclusive. And in the United States of America, the only correct choice is to be free. Sniveling infantile cowards who think otherwise can fuck off and die.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    16. Re:You no longer own a car by davester666 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hell, the moron who replaced the water pump in a truck just before I bought didn't bother to clip the radiator hoses down [just push them into their holders].

      Two weeks later, fan rubs a hole in it, and all the water gets pumped out.

      Fortunately, it was a cold day and I wasn't too far from a parts store...

      There are a million things that a weekend mechanic can do to make a vehicle dangerous to drive.

      And don't forget the manufacturer. They can't even get it right. Are there any vehicles that don't have one or more recalls issued for them, for all kinds of fun reasons like the ignition key turning to off [and locking the steering wheel in place] while the car is in motion, or the steering wheel coming off, engine revving or turning off spontaneously, transmission shifting incorrectly, brakes failing, air bags deploying [or not].

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    17. Re:You no longer own a car by topologicalanomaly47 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The big issue for me is that around here the chance of having my car repaired by a moron is a lot greater if I go to a dealer shop instead of some trusted garage that all my friends use.

    18. Re:You no longer own a car by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Same here. My .last experience with the dealer was when one of the window regulators broke (E46 BMW so it is a common problem). It looked like it was going to rain so I inquired what it would cost for them to install it and got some absurd number like $800 most of which was 2.5 hours of labor. I flat out told them it doesn't take 2.5 hours and said that I would pay for 1 hour of labor. They insisted that this was way too low and that they could get it done in 2 hours. So I left with a new regulator, plastic clip and nut and went home. At the time my 5 year old wanted to help and learn how to fix the car so I let him do most of it and he managed to do it in a little more than a hour.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    19. Re:You no longer own a car by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, Informative

      I won't let mechanics install brakes because it costs $600-$800 for two wheels, whereas I buy upgraded brake pads (make sure they're street pads, not race pads--never upgrade to racing pads; they won't stop unless they're hot) and new rotors and do my brakes in 20 minutes for about $100. Brakes are ungodly simple: take tire off, unbolt caliper, slap new pads in, pop new rotor on (if you're doing a new rotor), stick caliper back on. If you want, you can flush the brakes with a bleeder kit or with someone in the car pumping the brake pedal (just make sure you do it right--close the petcock while they have the pedal down, not after they release it!).

      So yeah. I can perform a $1500 job in around $200 and less than an hour of work. Brakes are one of the most overcharged things on a mechanic's list.

  2. Probably best by bobstreo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To purchase a nice car from the 60's or 70's with no computer. Easy to fix, and except for crash-readyness usually pretty solid.

    1. Re:Probably best by LWATCDR · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually most hot rodders are using the new Chevy LS engines on older cars because they are so good and easy to work one even with the computer.
      Google Chevy LS builds.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  3. Classic abuse of power by Bruce66423 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Whilst the DMCA may or may not be a good thing, it is certainly not a means for the car manufacturers to impose a SAFETY based restriction. That organisations pull that sort of abuse is why the legal system is held in contempt.

  4. Hold it by Crashmarik · · Score: 4, Insightful

    " The dispute arises from a section of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that no one thought could apply to vehicles when it was signed into law in 1998"

    Do the editors even read this site ? Virtually everyone realized this could apply to just about anything that ran code. There was even the infamous use garage door opener case

    https://freedom-to-tinker.com/...

    And the HP and Lexmark toner cartridge cases which were just about embedded serialization
     

    1. Re:Hold it by Frobnicator · · Score: 4, Informative

      And the HP and Lexmark toner cartridge cases which were just about embedded serialization

      Yeah, no. This was specifically mentioned in the Lexmark v Static Control Components case. That was already dealt with in the 6th circuit and supported 9-0 by the SCOTUS. Copy of the decision.

      Automobile manufacturers, for example, could control the entire market of replacement parts for their vehicles by including lock-out chips. Congress did not intend to allow the DMCA to be used offensively in this manner, but rather only sought to reach those who circumvented protective measures “for the purpose” of pirating works protected by the copyright statute. Unless a plaintiff can show that a defendant circumvented protective measures for such a purpose, its claim should not be allowed to go forward. If Lexmark wishes to utilize DMCA protections for (allegedly) copyrightable works, it should not use such works to prevent competing cartridges from working with its printer.

      ... By contrast, Lexmark would have us read this statute in such a way that any time a manufacturer intentionally circumvents any technological measure and accesses a protected work it necessarily violates the statute regardless of its “purpose.” Such a reading would ignore the precise language – “for the purpose of” – as well as the main point of the DMCA – to prohibit the pirating of copyright-protected works such as movies, music, and computer programs. If we were to adopt Lexmark’s reading of the statute, manufacturers could potentially create monopolies for replacement parts simply by using similar, but more creative, lock-out codes. Automobile manufacturers, for example, could control the entire market of replacement parts for their vehicles by including lock-out chips. Congress did not intend to allow the DMCA to be used offensively in this manner, but rather only sought to reach those who circumvented protective measures “for the purpose” of pirating works protected by the copyright statute. Unless a plaintiff can show that a defendant circumvented protective measures for such a purpose, its claim should not be allowed to go forward.

      Yes it is a short line, but it seems rather bright-line to cite in this case.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
  5. Re:Oh Look, a Car Analogy for Last Week's Story! by tnk1 · · Score: 5, Informative

    This has nothing to do with the free market. This is using government regulation to prevent the fair use of your own property.

    Although I wouldn't be surprised if someone made that lame brained argument on the automaker's side. They're no more in favor of a free market than a communist is. It just so happens that when they have bought out the government, government regulation works for them, and not as a means of checking them.

  6. Bad news for a lot of people by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm not Joe Mechanic or anything like that, but I know enough to change my air, fuel & oil filters, add fluids, etc. I've even done tune-ups on my older cars, but what about the real grease monkeys who can fix anything on a vehicle? Wouldn't this type of law put the Auto-Zones, Napas & the like out of business? I don't know where they get the majority of their sales, but I know a sizeable amount has to come from home car repair/tuning enthusiasts.

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    1. Re:Bad news for a lot of people by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Informative

      They are already having some difficulties. Cars are a lot more complicated than they used to be, and getting more so. That means even simple repairs on anything other than the body involve a fair amount of computer work. Want to replace the air filter? Ok. Want to replace it with a slightly different one for performance tuning purposes? The ECU is configured for the stock part, and you can't reprogram it to utilise one with lower flow resistance unless you purchase the manufacturer's highly-specialised cable and software, and even then they might not allow it to be flashed with details for non-standard parts. You can't swap the gearbox because the old one has a link to the vehicle network in order to report the current gear selection and output angular speed to the ECU, and you'll struggle to find another that speaks the same protocol - assuming there isn't a deliberate anti-tamper in place that disables the vehicle if it detects an unauthorised serial number, and again requires reconfiguring using the expensive specialised tool.

      Everyone on Slashdot has seen the situation with computer technology in recent years: They are not built to be repairable. Locked-down firmware, more parts being soldered to the mainboard to bring costs and size down, and the rise of devices like tablets that deliberately render low-level access impossible so the user is confined to running only what the manufacturer permits. Same story in automotive, just a few years behind.

  7. Gearheads to Automakers: by sstamps · · Score: 4, Funny

    (at least the ones who think this is a good idea)

    Fuck off and die, preferably in a fire.

    --
    -SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."
  8. Hang on.... by Coffee+Warlord · · Score: 5, Funny

    How are we supposed to make a car analogy now?

    1. Re:Hang on.... by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 4, Funny

      The circle is now complete. Once, I was the analogy, now I am the master.

  9. Inaccurate headline. by jklovanc · · Score: 4, Informative

    From the article;

    Industry concerns are mounting that modifying these ECUs and the software coding that runs them could lead to vulnerabilities in vehicle safety and cyber security. Imagine an amateur makes a coding mistake that causes brakes to fail and a car crash ensues. Furthermore, automakers say these modifications could render cars non-compliant with environmental laws that regulate emissions.

    This is not about replacing brakes, oil changes, replacing spark plugs, etc. It is about making software changes that most people do not have the experience or knowledge to do.

    1. Re:Inaccurate headline. by mark-t · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And if such changes would cause the vehicle to no longer comply with regional safety standards for vehicles, then the person would be held responsible if or when that modification was discovered. While that may be too late to actually prevent an accident, making it illegal to modify your car under the allegation that you may make it unsafe to drive is like making it illegal for you to drink alcohol if you happen to have a driver's license (ignoring the fact that a driver's license is often used for verifying that one is of legal drinking age in the first place) because you might try drive while drunk. Most of the people who are suspected of drunk driving are unfortunately only found so after they have already caused an accident as well.

      My point is that like drunk driving, and laws that prohibit that activity, there are already laws that prohibit making any unsafe modifications to your vehicle... and not realizing that a change would cause a vehicle to not meet the necessary safety requirements is no more of a justification than not realizing that one was over the legal limit for blood alcohol content when getting behind the wheel of a car.

  10. Gonna fly against magnuson moss act. by random+coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If they do this, they're going against the magnuson moss act.

    In a just world they would lose copyright when they stop warranting the product. You want copyright of that ecu? You give a permanent warranty on it and replace them every time they fail, for free. Don't want to have to replace it? then you give up copyright to the code on it because user needs to fix it. I'm not holding my breath though.

  11. Hackers and Gearheads by bunyip · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Is there nothing more American than taking a mass market car and finding another 10 horsepower?
    Or making the stereo loud enough to knock down old barns as you drive by?

    What if immersing your motherboard in liquid nitrogen for another 3 frames per second were illegal?
    Or writing your own operating system could land you in jail?

    What have we come to? We need to protect people from doing stupid stuff, but nobody wants to live in a world with only one flavor...

    A.

    1. Re:Hackers and Gearheads by adolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We need to protect people from doing stupid stuff

      No, we don't.

  12. Re:Oh Look, a Car Analogy for Last Week's Story! by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Indeed. I never understood that circular logic. Perhaps somebody of that persuasion can explain how it (allegedly) works for us.

    Businesses want control, and if you don't properly regulate them, they'll use every method they have to gain their desired control. I see the government functioning like referees. Without referees a game would become a dirty slugfest instead of a skillfest. Basketball and wrestling would be the same sport. Sure, refs are sometimes stupid, but anybody in any institution can likewise be stupid.

  13. In other news by 0dugo0 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Religious leaders are supporting provisions in copyright law that could prohibit home writers and book enthusiasts from repairing and modifying their own bibles. In comments filed with a federal agency that will determine whether tinkering with a bible constitutes a copyright violation, churches and their main lobbying organisation say bibles have become too complex and dangerous for believers and third parties to even scribble in. The dispute arises from a section of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that no one thought could apply to bibles when it was signed into law in 1998. But now, in an era where books are text files, the U.S. Copyright Office is examining whether provisions of the law that protect intellectual property should prohibit people from modifying or even put boogers in their hardcopy bibles.

  14. We want you to buy a new car every 3 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We want you to buy a new car every 3 years and with auto drive cars they will shutdown after software updates end after 2-3 years.