Slashdot Mirror
Tesla Bans Customers From Using Autonomous Cars To Earn Money Ride-Sharing (arstechnica.com)
Late Wednesday, Tesla announced the Model X and Model S electric vehicles, boasting that they will come with the necessary hardware to drive completely autonomously at some point in the future. Naturally, one of the frequent questions that followed the event was: "Can I use my Tesla car as a Uber driver?" Well, Tesla was anticipating this question and even buried the answer on its website. From an ArsTechnica report: On Tesla's website, the section that describes the new "Full Self-Driving Capability" (A $3,000 option at the time of purchase, $4,000 after the fact) states "Please note also that using a self-driving Tesla for car sharing and ride hailing for friends and family is fine, but doing so for revenue purposes will only be permissible on the Tesla Network, details of which will be released next year."
If it's good enough to drive at all, it's good enough to be put to use for the purpose I bought it. That purpose might well be a revenue-earning ride sharing thing. Sounds like they're looking for a rent cut from your own purchased car.
they just want their cut passed up to them.
no, if you own a self driving car you own the income it generates for you. no exceptions
Give us a lot of money, and you get no ownership of anything. Welcome to the World of Tomorrow!
Much as I detest Uber, this is just wrong, unless Tesla plans to adopt a lease-only model.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
I bet Musk is a Trump supporter.
Bigly illegal
I'll do what I want with it.
no, if you own a self driving car you own the income it generates for you. no exceptions
Incorrect. There is a very clear exception in the case where you sign an agreement assigning such revenue to Tesla. You don't have to sign such an contract but Tesla doesn't have to sell you a car without such a contract. Fortunately there are numerous places where you can buy a car that does not have a Tesla badge if that is a problem for you.
Are they just covering their asses liability-wise, or are they really trying to put restrictions on how I use their product after I bought it? I own it, dammit! It's none of their business if I decide to use it for my mobile pet grooming business or anything else.
Once you buy it, it is YOUR CAR, and you can do with it whatever you please. Tesla has no right whatsoever to constrict what you can do with your car. That's what "selling" means: giving up ownership rights. And before you ask: no, you are not "merely licensing" the car.
Next up: supermarket tells you buying potatoes is fine, but not if you plan to serve them in a restaurant...
That's like a computer manufacturer telling you you can't use your system for a certain purpose. I don't see how that would fly, but good luck Tesla.
A company's terms and conditions is not law, and whether this clause would be legally enforcible is open to question. I'm no lawyer, but I'd want to know a) if the clause was presented in such as way as to be considered part of a binding contract agreed to when I purchased the car, and b) if the answer to a) is "yes", then is the clause reasonable, or does it interfere with my exercising other legally protected rights.
I wish I could be more surprised; but that just isn't an option.
Between the ongoing and aggressive expansion of what software EULAs claim the right to restrict; and the truly amazing contractual terms you can impose without anyone saying mean things like 'unconscionable' or 'contract of adhesion'; what would you expect to happen?
This thing is loaded with firmware that never leaves the vendor's control(either legally, since the claim is that it is licensed not sold; or in practice, since it remains in frequent contact with HQ for the life of the vehicle); and Tesla is in a fairly strong position to impose whatever contractual relationship they want; since there isn't much of an aftermarket; and even if you do buy a used vehicle, and have no direct relationship with Tesla, you aren't exactly going to take the car down to the local garage when it needs service or parts.
It is a trifle interesting that they are feeling confident enough to push the restriction before they even have their 'tesla network' in place; but it is no surprise at all that they have decided to never let go of the product.
I highly doubt you need to earn a few extra bucks by ride sharing.
So self-driving cars are now a full reality and all the problems have been solved? Huh. That was quick.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Like has to do with liability issues and maybe the need to have some ready to take over in case things go bad + will also take the blame.
I supported Tesla's position on disintermediating the US car dealer structure so that Tesla can be allowed to sell cars directly to consumers. I didn't realize they would try abusing antitrust regs elsewhere for their own benefit. Companies are against anti-trust behavior except their own.
The consumer MUST ask the logical completion... "or what?"
What does Tesla think they can do to a vehicle owner? "Electronic self-help" (disabling the car by remote)? "Repossession" (even a fully paid-for car)? Assassination?
I don't think Tesla's in any position to enforce their desires. And any attempt to do so would be shot down, with prejudice, in any court of law in any nation in the world, even the notoriously corrupt third-world ones (like certain company-friendly districts of the US judiciary).
I've never been in a Tesla. But there's a nice looking one that's always in my parking garage.
Would I pay a bit to have it take me somewhere?
Yes! Especially with aggressive acceleration. To see what it is like.
Can I afford one, maybe one day.
Would someone that could afford one drive people around?
I don't think so.
BlameBillCosby.com
i am sure its in the software EULA, since the self driving is a software feature and probably just licensed to the end user not a part of the actual vehicle that they own.
They simply want to tease that they will offer that capability in the next year for interested buyers, which have more money than Tesla drivers: Investors and other companies.
It is not that you can't use it to earn money.
They just want you to use it to earn money through their network which they are going to set up... and naturally they'll take a cut from the deal (while also doing some valuable bits of the service, think Uber-competitor)
I'm also quite sure that if a competing "ride-share" company wants a fleet of self-driving Teslas, they can go and make a deal with Tesla.
Also in the EULA... "You can only use the autopilot feature to drive on roads approved by Tesla and only to/from destinations approved by Tesla."
EULA's and auto driver cars will face some hard court cases. Even more so if they try to pull NDA shit in an criminal case (say in the case of an very bad auto accident) Now it would be cool for some CEO to face the some like the judge in My Cousin Vinny when they try use NDA's and EULA's to get out of discovery of the log's and source code of the auto drive software.
And let's say it's some small town where an auto driver car or truck BSOD's and took out a school bus full of kids. Where the local prosecutor is willing to push very hard in the case.
... if the clause was presented in such as way as to be considered part of a binding contract agreed to when I purchased the car, ...
Apparently you are not "purchasing" the car but licensing it. And this is happening more and more, like the sealed boxes in tractors preventing third party repairs. And it is a deal breaker for me.
This is further proof of inbred ideology that all of the software industry (other than some of open source) subscribes to - that you own the product even after you sell it and are perfectly within your rights to dictate how it should be used. Remember that your Tesla comes with a built-in DRM, they do have an ability to disable it if they don't like how you using it.
Consumer: While artificial intelligence may one day provide many benefits for humanity, in the immediate term, these advances have the potential to be incredibly disruptive and even harmful to our culture, economy, and legal system. Thus the widespread dissemination of these technologies must be deliberate and carefully considered..
Tesla: Don't worry about it, that won't be an issue.
Consumer: Really? You've figured out some way to limit the harm?
Tesla: No, we've found a way to limit those "benefits to humanity" you mentioned.
A company's terms and conditions is not law, and whether this clause would be legally enforcible is open to question.
Regardless of legal issues, it is logistically enforceable - they remotely disable your car.
That's because a dead body of that hooker I met last night in the sealed box. It's ok. Shush now.
This is called being a bully, jerk and this might not even be legal. It might even be worth suing them and seeing if you can get any money out of em.
Perhaps not. As I understand it, the car is connected in order to facilitate software upgrade / maintainance. So they could tell the car it couldn't drive the next time you parked it for ten minutes, for instance.
I imagine that would land them in court -- but technically speaking, they could do it.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
You own the car, but we decide how you can use it.
All that's ringing through my head is "..and the next wave of 'We'll 'help you' starts."
There is such a thing as a legal immigrant, you know.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Sorry, if the car is mine, you can suck it.
But say you bought a fleet of them just to rent out as a taxi service.
In fact, why not have a fleet of them be a taxi service? No people required.
That's related to this article. It was talking about who get to own the fruits of automation -- if I own a fleet of androids/robots and hire them out as lawyers or doctors (and they are fully trained and knowledgeable about whatever field I program them with), do I get full benefit from their employment?
What if I bought them from a tesla -- do they get to claim they are only licensing me the training SW that allows them to do the job, and therefore they can require I pay them a share?
Of course the above completely ignore the question of who developed the software or robots/androids and the likelihood that they are not unemployed because someone invented SW to write new SW for chosen professions that ended up putting themselves out of business... etc... of course, their "employers" own all the fruits of their labor... that's how capitalism works. You hire "workers" to do work for you, and you get the output of their work even if it is something that will permanently replace them. In other words, if they were worth $120K/year as a SW developer and @ age 25 developed SW that permanently unemploys them, is it really "fair" that they get nothing?
Note -- not talking about what is "legal", or what the employer can get away with, since that can change based on law. Example, it used to be the case in California, that employers could claim to own anything you developed while you were employed with them, though now, if you develop something outside work on your own time and equipment, then they don't automatically own your outside work (not true in all states and surely not all countries).
Nevertheless -- that law changed, so what was legal to do 30-40 years ago may not be legal now or tomorrow...
Regardless of legal issues, it is logistically enforceable - they remotely disable your car.
This would be likely to result in customers hauling Tesla's ass to court and Tesla having to compensate them for the full value of the vehicle.
Given that sinij started their post with regardless of legal issues, I am sure that they were well aware of that.
"While the Tesla Motors co-founder spent more than ten years in the United States prior to becoming a citizen in 2002, it appears that he did so legally through various visa programs."
http://www.snopes.com/elon-mus...
This Sig does not Exist.
unlimited lease agreement so under landlord rules they are on the hook for all repair and insurance?
So I can stick a mattress in back and fuck on my morning commute. Bang bus!
Do with your own car.
It can be in the EULA and still not be upheld (i.e "you agree to give us your firstborn child" etc) but this'll definitely get messy if Tesla doesn't back down. I'm interested to see how Uber and their partners (limo companies) respond to this, as Model S's are increasingly being used for UberBlack here in Colorado...
Using your car as a self-driving taxi may work in the short term, while competing with regular taxis. But in the long term this scheme is doomed. Using self-driving taxis will be much cheaper than owning a car. There will be only one reason to own a car - as a status symbol. And hence - taxis will be completely different from owned cars.
- Most of them will be designed for 2-3 people. Small and cute-looking on the outside, very spacious on the inside - see the google car.
- No driving wheel, dashboard, pedals, storage compartments to keep (and forget) stuff. Most people who buy a car will want to be able to drive it, for taxis - not driving it is the whole idea.
- All the above stuff will be replaced with a huge curved screen. Almost all people will work, watch movies and browse the net while commuting. The infotainment center will be the most important part of the whole experience. This is why Apple and Google want to be in the game.
- If you've ever used a rented city bicycle, notice how it's parts are completely different than the regular bikes. The same will be for taxis. You would not be able to steal the battery pack, motor, etc. and put them in a regular car. And if you don't want your expensive 300kWh battery pack to get stolen - maybe it's not a good idea to let complete strangers get in your car and take it in the middle of nowhere.
- The interior will be designed for easy cleaning and maintenance. Try splitting a cup of coffee in someone's TESLA and see how that goes.
Logistics for taxis will also be completely different than for owned cars that also act as taxis
- A taxi can take you to another city, hundreds of miles away and stay and work there, no need to go back.
- When not needed, taxis can gather in huge tightly packed parking lots - close to places where demand is expected.
- To minimize idle time taxis will use battery swapping instead of recharging.
- You will be able to order a coffee, breakfast, the latest newspaper and your groceries to arrive in your taxi. You can leave and take your laundry. Going hiking? Just order the equipment and food you'll need 15 minutes before departing. Don't be surprised if Amazon decides to enter this business.
And African-American (literally).
... if the clause was presented in such as way as to be considered part of a binding contract agreed to when I purchased the car, ...
Apparently you are not "purchasing" the car but licensing it. And this is happening more and more, like the sealed boxes in tractors preventing third party repairs. And it is a deal breaker for me.
And I worry that this might be the future of Economy. Deplorable as Communism. Here's to the old times, when you were able to actually own something you purchased.
Yep. I really wanted a tesla until they started the Scumbag operating proceedures like charging $3000 to enable a software function that already exists in the car.
Elon must be starting to slide into EVIL land with this cisco esque bullshit
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
n/t
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
I'm sure that somewhere in the autopilot software's supplementary EULA is a clause giving Tesla the right to disable the feature at any time, while limiting their maximum liability to a refund of the feature's purchase price ($3,000 or $4,000).
"While the Tesla Motors co-founder spent more than ten years in the United States prior to becoming a citizen in 2002, it appears that he did so legally through various visa programs."
So, he's an African-American.
Am I the only one getting tired of the unbelievable arrogance of companies like Tesla who want to tell you what you can do with your own property?
Or perhaps Tesla's position is that they are only licensing you to use the car. In that case, they need to be honest and call it a rental or a lease; claiming that they're selling you a car is just fraudulent.
I kept saying Uber is fucked. Bingo. Later, Uber.
captcha: expunge
Yep. I really wanted a tesla until they started the Scumbag operating proceedures like charging $3000 to enable a software function that already exists in the car.
Elon must be starting to slide into EVIL land with this cisco esque bullshit
They could just increase the price by $3,000 and give it to you. In this case, you get charged less and you get less.
The beauty of this is that if you want it later, you spend a little more. If you wanted it later w/out the hardware built in, then you have to sell your car and buy a new one.
Also, why should Telsa be entitled to include any software you didn't pay for? Just because your computer at home can do X function with the proper software, doesn't mean you are entitled to get that software for free.
I'm not renting or leasing the car from you, I bought it. Eat shit Elon, I'll earn revenue from my car if I want to.
Didn't someone once say something about sealed hoods? Comparison to Microsoft... Something, something... I must not be remembering all the details correctly because Google isn't returning anything on my search queries. If I remember correctly it wasn't someone predicting something but more like a jab at how Microsoft was running their company. For some reason, all that just felt appropriate here. But I could be remembering it all wrong and I'll take the down vote to hell for my lack of recall.
If I buy a tesla car with this function, I can use it for Uber or whatever I like (as long as it's legal). Tesla cannot forbid you to use the function for commercial purposes..
Early sketches of the Tesla network appear to be this thing called "railroad tracks" so you can drive, as long as you stay on *this* network.
Except the owners of Snopes were registered Republicans in 2008.
It's convenient to use Snopes as long as it doesn't show that you're incorrect. In which case, claim bias.
I have no objection to that logic as long as they don't try to lock down the system and prevent me from adding software to power capabilities on my own. After all, it is still my car.
Actually, if they intentionally retain the ability to remotely disable the car that would likely result in them being hauled in court even if they never used it.
For the record: Traffic violations, even if death occurs, are not considered criminal cases, unless reckless endangerment, involuntary manslaughter, or driving under the influence can be attributed to the accident.
Also, BSOD specifically refers to a kernel crash in Windows. I highly doubt Tesla or any car manufacturer is using a Windows derivative OS. I'd venture to bet that it's either a custom assembly language OS, or a form of a *nix system. In which case it'd be called Kernel panic.
This DMCA bullshit has to stop. Nobody should be able to tell me how to use my Tesla once I've bought it.
Now if I only had a Tesla...
... if the clause was presented in such as way as to be considered part of a binding contract agreed to when I purchased the car, ...
Apparently you are not "purchasing" the car but licensing it. And this is happening more and more, like the sealed boxes in tractors preventing third party repairs. And it is a deal breaker for me.
And I worry that this might be the future of Economy. Deplorable as Communism. Here's to the old times, when you were able to actually own something you purchased.
Frankly, right now I am considering restoring a used car over purchasing a new one. The cost will be more, but I think I will have a better car.
Using a Model S for Uber isn't prohibited. Only if you use it in autonomous mode with something like Uber, something that is only a future concept.
One reasonable explanation could be that Tesla doesn't want the liability.
My car, not yours. EULA on a car is just insane, and not enforceable.
Now, laws may get in the way of this, but they are a company and if they think they can dictate what you do with their product ( other than for warranty reasons ), they can jump off a bridge.
If the manufacturer makes limitation on how you use it?
I agree that (a) it's a worrying trend and (b) that it's deplorable. However, the economic system it more resembles is feudalism, not communism. The difference is that instead of the lords holding Real Property (i.e., land), they hold Imaginary Property (i.e. copyright).
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I've already consciously chosen to drive older cars because of that. FYI, cars made in the 1990s (and maybe early 2000s) are still modern enough to have things like fuel injection and air bags, and can still be found in good enough condition to not need "restoring," but also generally weren't infected with enough DRM'd equipment to matter.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
So, I can only rent it, and not buying a Tesla? There is not option to buy one?
-no sig today-
Customer -> Uber -> Driver -> Tesla -> Self-driving Software -> local, state, national laws about self-driving cars -> local, state, national laws about ride sharing -> Insurance companies... figuring out who to sue and who pays in case of an accident would be like legal Inception.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Of course he is. He's an American originally from Africa.
Ezekiel 23:20
Snopes...yeah. Reliable source.
Or a tractor with an implied lifetime permit? How does this work?
I'm incredibly unforgiving when it comes to this kind of thing. I was eagerly awaiting the latest Tesla announcement, being in the market for a new car in the next 2 or 3 years. But I buy it, I own it. Period. Tesla obviously thinks they still own the car I buy. Tesla just lost any chance that I'll *ever* purchase a Tesla. Their attitude is dangerous, and even if reversed in the future the fact that they thought they had the right to do so means they never deserve my money. Or yours either.
If companies continue to try and limit what can be done with legally purchased goods or services, those companies MUST be held liable for all problems caused by said goods or services.
Tesla had ALREADY been doing this with your OBD/blackbox data (and had restrictions on it for the roadster and later model S. And similiar was stated for the in-house power cubes.
They are treating it like the operating system on a PC and shoving a whole bunch of dodgy licensing at you that makes it questionable if you should trust and operate their software/hardware.
I know I am not going to, but I also have enough knowledge to tied together an alternative (most likely not based on Lithium Ion however, since there are plenty of more stable battery compounds including deep cycle lead acids. None of which are particularly more dangerous and many of which are cheaper and easier to maintain/replace.
You should have said "If we ignore the legal issues" instead of "Regardless of..." because the legal issues of remotely disabling a car and the subsequent resources consumed in lawsuits and payouts to customers are a part of the logistics cost.
What, exactly, would they do if I did dare go against the wishes of Elon Musk and (gasp) use the car the way that I want to use it? And also, how would they even know if I was 'auto-driving' my friend around town or 'auto-driving' an Uber customer around town?
Elon can go suck it. I'm really getting tired of his attitude on a lot of things.
A few articles up is this: https://news.slashdot.org/story/16/10/20/196211/elon-musk-negative-media-coverage-of-autonomous-vehicles-could-be-killing-people
Let's put the two together and say that Elon Musk is killing people by not allowing autonomous mode during ride-sharing. Elon Musk is killing people for profit!
what about battery lockin with forced time outs and no 3rd party ones not able to work
It's close to impossible to spend more on an old car vs a new one. Even if you hire the wrench. Just don't hire a criminal wrench.
I've got about $6k in a Mustang *, which is better in every way (except resale value, and mercenary bitch pulling power) than a GT-350 R. Would likely have been about $10k+ if I hadn't turned the wrenches. But still a fraction of the cost of a new factory tuner. YYMV especially if you live in car cancer country.
* I know, I know, 'blue oval of shame'. But parts are plentiful and cheap and the car is actually better than I expected. Which is understandable. The last Ford car I touched was a Mustang II (aka Pinto II).
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
It's not cool to bash the African-American.
Depends on the state. In some states, all traffic violations are considered misdemeanors, and therefore criminal cases.
They just introduced their own Uber-style ride sharing program that will undoubtedly use this: http://ca.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idCAKCN12K2IA
They probably do not want competition.
I'm sure that somewhere in the autopilot software's supplementary EULA is a clause giving Tesla the right to disable the feature at any time
If they advertised the feature in the marketing material, then it better be there in the product, and not randomly disappear.
Tesla's EULA doesn't override the FTC and consumer protection laws.
Snopes...yeah. Reliable source.
Actually Snopes is not a source at all. Much like Wikipedia it's a collection and summary of other sources.
But you knew that already and weren't just making some snide remark because you dislike a website that doesn't fit your version of the truth right?
Please remind me....
I'd be fucking pissed and demanding a refund if I'd just bought any car (let alone one for like $120k) then the manufacturer started trying to tell me who/where/what I can and can't carry/go/do with it.
I suspect that this may be the story that flips Slashdot from loving to loathing Tesla.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Doesn't this violate the First Sale Doctrine?
I realize that talks about copyright, but it seems like you're essentially renting out what you bought, and with some limits (e.g. computer software), that's been ruled as legal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Actually, thinking this over some more, Tesla is probably doing a CYA. After all, if a driver of a car causes damage due to an accident, it would normally be covered by his/her insurance. However, there is no precedent for insurance covering a car that is driverless. If the owner of the car rides (not drives) in the car while traveling, it's not an issue. But if he sends the car out to do a Uber or Lyft pickup of somebody and then there is an accident, who pays? The owner can disclaim liability, since he wasn't driving, and so can the insurance for the same reason. Would Tesla then be left holding the baby? For this reason, I believe they're probably going over the legal implications of driverless servicing of ride-sharing to see where the liabilities would lie
legally enforcible
What company lets you go to court these days? No, their terms and conditions surely have you agreeing to binding arbitration with a company of their choosing.
Surely you mean binding arbitration, right?
And they'll probably enforce it by changing the key to a fingerprint. If the person isn't on the two person authorization list* then the car won't start. The authorized driver will have to keep touching the fingerprint reader at random points during the drive to ensure he's still there. No starting the car and letting someone else use it. Miss a fingerprint scan and the car pulls over and calls the police for your protection since you must be having a heart attack or something.
* First two people free. Pay $10 for each additional person per month and you'll be allowed to reuse those authorizations between all your registered Tesla cars (whether your household has more than one or not).
Property taxes have to be paid by the owner, right?
You own the car, but not the software!
If you want software to do anything you want, write it yourself.
Let me give you a hint ... Tesla is based on Ubuntu. Get coding.
What happens if you are the second purchaser of the car? There typically is no agreement executed between the manufacturer and the buyer of a used car from a third party
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
If I buy it, I own it, and if I'm licensed and insured as a chauffeur and it's legal for me to use a vehicle under my ownership for the purpose of transporting people around as a paid service, the automaker has no rightful expectation to be able to tell me that I can't...
Repeat after me: Tesla is telling you that you can't instruct your car to ferry passengers without anyone at the wheel. Now, go read the fucking article Mr. Licensed Chauffeur.
Tesla will accept liability for damage to you and others while you're in charge of the vehicle (actively driving or not), do you really expect them to do the same for strangers from whom you are taking fares? They didn't sell you a driverless cab, they sold you personal transport. If you decide to use it as a cab then you need proper cab insurance. If you're really a chauffeur you'd know this already.
The authorized driver will have to keep touching the fingerprint reader at random points during the drive to ensure he's still there.
That would be annoying. We'll just construct and install a replacement fingerprint reading device that upon command from an authorized iPhone in proximity tricks the car's computer to think a specified fingerprint has been scanned.
Thanks for polluting the planet, assknob.
Uh blame lawyers not Tesla. If it gets in an accident, the passengers will sue Tesla more than they driver (who won't have much money anyway).
Tesla, the new Windows 10...
If musk can dictate usage to the microlevel, then I would pay to have left lane campers jetissoned into the culvert. HS I think I just discovered the mother if of all crowdsourced monetizing strategies.
You also need to be able to "call" the car or direct it to where it should go remotely. This would not be possible by a third party ... Tesla would have to build an Uber interface into their software for this to work.
If only they had put in eula conditions that say you can only use the OS for commercial gains in their forthcoming "Microsoft network".
The real problem is this: it is totally possible to build autonomous vehicles that do not have to phone home to their manufacturers. Just as it is possible to build something like OnStar that does not constantly report your location back. It is possible to build electronic toll systems that don't keep records of which vehicles drove where. It is possible for cops' license plate scanners to check for stolen vehicles without keeping a record forever.
Nobody designs these things this way. That is why they should never be used until and unless they are.
Funny, I don't remember GM getting hauled to court for on-star.
I'm always shaking my head at how politically ignorant Democrat leaning voters are on Slashdot. It's a very modern liberal Democrat thing for them to do. Geesh. Democrat leanings voters as a group are so willfully ignorant of what types of laws their party passes wherever they are in control.
Not true.
The modern ones just cheat on the emissions, simp.
My VW runs on 100% biodiesel and is therefore closer to carbon-neutral than even the average electric vehicle. Keeping an old car in service also avoids the gigantic environmental cost of manufacturing a new one (which is even worse for modern EVs because lithium mining is a particularly nasty business).
So who's the assknob now? Pretty sure it's you, not me!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I predict Tesla will be told in court that they can't enforce such a clause when they sell someone a car, even though there is an ongoing service component, specifically because they are competing and that would be anticompetitive.
Certainly a possibility. This is a legal grey area currently. Bundling of services like that definitely gets into areas covered by anti-trust law so it wouldn't shock me at all.
What I don't get is what the point of it would be for Tesla unless it is to protect against liability. They aren't going to compete with Uber and the whole value of a service like Uber is in the network effects. Tesla doesn't sell nearly enough cars for that to come into play so the only value in it to Tesla seems to be to cover their ass from liability.
Tesla is trying to say "you can't drive your own car in a manner that we don't like."
If software is driving the car then by definition you are not driving it. For all practical purposes Tesla is the driver. And if Tesla is driving the car it is actually kind of reasonable of them to want to do it on their terms if for no other reason than to protect themselves from liability.
Substitute the word "use" for the word "drive".
Ok but it doesn't change the argument meaningfully.
I can see why Tesla would want to be able to impose that kind of condition. However, I think the First Sale Doctrine is going to say they can't. Especially, if they allow it to be used on their own driverless taxi network.
First sale doctrine doesn't apply if you sign a contract that stipulates explicitly that you will not use the car for that purpose. Now the interesting thing is that the second buyer of the car cannot be bound by the first buyer's agreements so you'd have to have a GPL style agreement whereby the first buyer would be forced to impose a similar restriction on future buyers. Not sure if that would work out in Tesla's favor under current laws.
BUT here is the real question. We need a legal determination for who is operating the vehicle when it is being driven autonomously. If the legally responsible entity that is considered to be the "driver" is Tesla then they have every legal right to refuse to use the vehicle for purposes they do not approve of. After all, it would be unreasonable for me to be able to incur liability for Tesla with them having no say in the matter. If the legally responsible entity is determined to be the vehicle owner then Tesla really shouldn't have any say in the matter. To date I don't think there is a clear determination legally for this key issue.
"Please note also that using a self-driving Tesla for car sharing and ride hailing for friends and family is fine, but doing so for revenue purposes will only be permissible on the Tesla Network, details of which will be released next year."
Read: You're not buying a Tesla, you're buying a License to use a Tesla for a time. Before you can drive the Tesla, you must agree to the terms and conditions of the EULA.
Onstar is a voluntary add on network service that is supposed to require your request to disable the vehicle. There is nothing happening in a Tesla beyond basic software updates that requires any interaction with Tesla servers at all, disabling that connectivity should not disable any features on the vehicle. Any sort of remote control feature would be a trojan horse on par with a malicious attack.
How much fuel savings is needed to cover the carbon footprint of manufacturing an entire car and then shipping it from Asia?
Amusingly enough I am thinking a late 70s to early 80s BMW with a brand new GM power-train. Classic car look and feel with new car fuel economy, a warranty, and no tracking!
This ONLY applies to the self driving capability - you're well within your rights to still use this for Uber or Lyft, but you have to physically drive the car. I think that's reasonable - they're limiting when you can use their software. Particularly in light of the fact that there's no legislation to govern autonomy, I think for the moment this makes a lot of sense.
And furthermore, if you're not going to be physically present in the car WHILE making money from it, Tesla has every right to make sure it's ONLY used on their network where they can monitor its actions. After all, if you (the owner) isn't in the car, who the hell do you THINK is going to be the one considered liable if something should go wrong?
Apparently you are not "purchasing" the car but licensing it. And this is happening more and more, like the sealed boxes in tractors preventing third party repairs. And it is a deal breaker for me.
That's not the point - you're purchasing the car, but the autonomy - which itself is a moving target at the moment with nearly no legislation governing it is effectively limited. And it should be in this case - the Tesla Network is widely expected to be a driverless uber where the owner gets somewhere with the car, doesn't need it for a few hours, and sets it up as an autonomous taxi.
If the owner of the car isn't going to be WITH the car, then yes - Tesla has every right to have some say over how it's being used, because they're almost CERTAINLY going to be the ones considered liable if anything should go wrong.
I stand corrected.
One problem that Tesla faces: if an autonomous vehicle gets into an accident, it is currently likely that the maker and designer of the vehicle will be sued. Here in the US, they're likely to get sued for a LOT of money. And that legal risk is higher if the car is being used commercially. By taking control of where their vehicles can be used as autonomous cars for revenue purposes, they're taking some control over their legal exposure; they will probably only make the Tesla Network available in places where the risks are acceptable.
So far as I know, this only affects using a Tesla in autonomous mode. If you want to DRIVE your Tesla for Uber or Lyft you're still free to do that, even if the car has autonomous capability.
The objection that people often have to upgrades that are purely software is that the hardware (which they are already paying for) is the expensive part and the software should come along for free. That may have once been true, but nowadays a lot of the expense is in software development. Self driving cars are not easy.
But in this case, I suspect the main expense is neither hardware nor software. It's funding for the legal defense pool.
Anyone who believes Musk is some sort of technical genius is himself a fool.
Musk is a clever guy, there's no denying that, but in the end he is a scam artist.
Paypal should have been sufficient for most people to realize that.
At any rate, as soon as the napping giants of Toyota, Honda, GM, Ford, and VAG
are fully engaged, Musk's cars will end up with a similar place in history to that
of the Tucker ( a footnote, but never a major player ).
You are buying the car, but licensing the software that makes it work. The "autonomous driving" feature within the software is not being licensed for commercial use at this time.
A 2002 with a twin turbo LS-6 could be fun.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Yeah how do they like those franchising laws now?
The thing is, from a technical point of view:
The user has paid for and bought.
- a car (with an electric drive, and it's battery)
- an expensive webcam (also, accompanied by some computation accelerating hardware that could run neural-nets/deep learning, if needed).
And the user has provably received the agreed goods.
(Easy to check, the front facing camera is clearly visible from the outside).
At some point in a putative future, Tesla might manage to write a pieces of software that could eventually make the cars 100% fully autonomous self-driving
(i.e.: Google-car style) and not only some advanced form of collision avoidance (what the current Tesla Autopilot is. Basically what Volvo, BMV, and the like have been providing for a decade, only a tiny bit more advanced. Basically, the same stuff as boat's or an airplane's autopilot - it takes over some of the more menial tasks of driving, but still require a human captain's supervision)..
They are now announcing that this future putative software that does not exist yet, can not by used to earn money.
From the current point of view : nothing could be done, because this thing doesn't exist yet.
So no legal argument at all.
It's basically as if I put a sign in my backyard saying that if one day, some extra-terrestials start to make contact, I will only allow *blue-colored* filying saucers to land here.
In the future: well *when* this putative piece of software starts to exist, then we will be able to start talking about it.
- maybe it will be considered as a software upgrade to which paying users should be entitled, because Tesla can't put legally enfocreable arbitrary limitation in their EUL (they probably just can't be held liable for any damage done in a commercial situation).
- maybe by then the law will have evolved and adapted enough, and people using 100% autonomous self-driving in a commercial manner will be legally required to take a special insurance that will cover any subsequent liability (that's probably going to be the case in some european jurisdiction).
- maybe by then, Uber will have *their own* neural net, and will require you to install *their* package and run *their* net when ubering an autonomous car, in order to keep the liability under control - e.g.: because they have correctly insured their neural net against commercial damage. (Given their tendency to try to wash their hands off, don't count on it, unless they get explicitly required by law).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Snopes is pretty much just a lady and her cat in a basement. But you choose to ignore that because their website seems to always fit your version of the truth right?
because their website
You... do understand the concept of sources ... right? I mean... the comparison to wikileaks? .... did you go to school by any chance? They would have explained how the concept of sources worked even in "english for dumbshits".