(I'm sure you are correct but it feels absurd)
Will software companies claim copyright on logs?
With self driving cars, and other devices (like apple electronics) the logs they keep give you really really good insight into what sensors, techniques, and algorithmic approaches they are taking to problems, and those directly expose proprietary information. I would argue that this information entirely belongs to those companies (with an agreement to send this data to their servers).
Also most AI and self driving companies use the data collected by their existing fleet to further improve AI systems in these vehicles. The competitive advantage of most of these companies is how much data, with what sensors they are able to collect. Making that information public will have a huge negative impact on the tech and AI industry, essentially pulling the carpet out from underneath everyone.
Sure, but do they claim copyright on that? Am I not allowed to paste a log online?
... and those directly expose proprietary information.
How would copyrighting that information make any difference? As long as competitors can get to your logs (which is orthogonal to whether they hold a copyright) the copyright doesn't stop them from gaining that understanding. They could even publicly disclose their understanding.
Just encrypt the logs. Then no one will get at them and even if they manage to the act of decrypting them is illegal in most places so they probably won't publish it. And even if they do that it will be from one car, not a whole fleet.
Maybe I just don't understand copyright.
This is doubly so when driving on private property or in sensitive areas that forbid photography.
I doubt that public telemetry would have a negative impact on the tech itself. Quite the contrary. Not necessarily true for the business case of course. And although there is a connection, it would boost the tech if there would be publicly available telemetry.
Yes, however "you're removing my competitive advantage" has always an enormously bad argument for (or against) legislation.
If you use the footage in any commercial manner, though, the MPEG LA [1] may want to have a word with you.
Second, you may still use that footage in any commercial manner, royality free. At worst, you need to transcode it into any open standard. The footage is always yours, only the encoding might be encumbered.
MPEG LA won't get copyright on my material. It's just that the format used is patent encumbered. I guess I could just transcode it to a different format and be safe?
Ignoring that however, you cannot be bound by a EULA that you receive _after_ signing a contract. If you receive the eula before or with a contract, it may be valid
In any event it doesn't apply here. Because noone can tell who pressed accept.
edit: Also, if you open a new account as an existing customer that's because you've agreed to the terms previously and identified yourself by logging in.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but this explanation seems weird to me. If I get someone to accept instead of me, can I then abuse the software legally and they can't even (legally) revoke the license? That is very weird. What about Netflix accounts, is my girlfriend not bound by the ToS when I was the one who clicked Agree, and thus she could legally rip their content and share it? Very weird.
Just because the EULA isn't legally binding doesn't mean that the company in question can't act upon it. But you have no legal obligation to follow the EULA (because you didn't sign it).
When it comes to a "physical" license that makes it a bit more tricky, I'm not sure of the details. But they certainly can revoke the online-aspect of a product (tesla will (I believe) revoke super-charger access and mobile-app access if they feel that you violated their terms).
If you cheat in a multiplayer game that will probably violate the EULA (but not any laws). If you are caught you will likely be banned.
> * What about Netflix accounts, is my girlfriend not bound by the ToS when I was the one who clicked Agree, and thus she could legally rip their content and share it? Very weird. *
You both could legally rip their content (as long as you don't break any laws doing so (and by ripping and circumventing their encryption you most likely would break a few laws)). If they detect it they can and probably will terminate your account (even if what you did was legal). But you didn't break any laws by not following the EULA.
IANAL.
(Though I'll admit that that annoying screen was at least a partial inspiration for my original comment.)
Anyway, all the screen says, in essence, is that Nissan is using the aggregate data blah, blah, and if you want to use the nifty history telemetry, well, you're going to have to let the car send those data. Or not; car works just fine if you press "decline".
Of course, this data is yours, same with the car.
[0]https://www.vda.de/dam/vda/Medien/EN/Themen/Innovation-und-T...
Longer-term, I wonder if that isn't what will ultimately happen anyway if the concept of car ownership sufficiently changes to be predominantly renting from a pool of vehicles, or a model where you "own" it, but lease it out to the pool.
Also, this case doesn’t (as of yet) declare that data is copyrightable; it just removes a clause that explicitly states it isn’t.
Should probably be something like "EU states that telemetry data collected from self-driving cars may be subject to copyright protection".
Then the bigger discussion should probably be - 'What is telemetry data?'.
If telemetry data is _any_ data collected from a car that could be remotely accessed, then in theory I'd argue that digital oil sensor readings, digital odometer readings and digital tyre pressure readings are all telemetry data if they are stored in a place that can be remotely read.
If that's the case - it could lead to the situation where car manufacturers demand (by law) that you are only allowed to service your car with them and not be a mechanic of your choice.
That may start as a small inconvenience that luxury car owners may be able to afford but as those features come to lower end models it may hurt average or less well off consumers.
Further more, what happened to 'facts' not being copyrightable (generally speaking).