Furthermore, because the law surrounding creative works is extremely strict, any repair that might touch something that could be construed to be DRM protecting the manufacturer's software becomes legally dicey. You also can't tell anyone how to break that DRM, no matter how justifiable repair is. So if you somehow figure out how to reserialize new parts onto a locked-down vehicle, you're probably allowed to do that; but you can't legally sell that knowledge onto other repair shops.
Nobody would have to do any of that BS if it was illegal for that DRM to exist under Magnuson-Moss to begin with.
I'm still waiting for an example of where DRM stops a normal repair
The example of DRM stopping normal repair is serialized parts: lots of vehicles, farm equipment, and phones are designed to refuse to work if you swap certain parts on them. The only way you are supposed to be able to swap parts is to pay the manufacturer's branded repair firms to make the swap for you, and then send some kind of signature to the computer in that vehicle that says the repair was authorized. Bypassing these schemes requires tampering with DRM code, which trips DMCA 1201. Yes, it may be legally unenforceable, but to get there requires a decade's worth of expensive litigation to prove that something that was legal before you put a computer in a car should be legal after you put a computer in a car. And even then you almost certainly can't distribute the tools you made to do what should be a legal repair because those tools might be used by someone else to pirate the ECU firmware or something.
The simple way to protect consumers ability to fix products is to simply require manufacturers to provide the information to do it.
But, I still don't think this is an IP law issue. IP law should not be a weapon used to prevent you from repairing your devices -- but neither should anything else. If you only change IP law, companies are just going to find a different way to prevent you from mucking with their stuff.
There's a reason we call this "right to repair" and not "right to make an attempt to do hacky DRM workarounds"
The current discussion is about fixing cars. But the right to repair is a problem for everything with a computer in it.
You could take the title of this article and replace "an electric vehicle" just about any electronic device most people would own.
https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Pro...
I imagine insurance companies will eventually have clauses that prevent this.
For me this is the crux of the matter. As the person in the driver's seat, I demand that I be the ultimate arbiter of what the motor(s) and wheels ought to do, regardless of what any set of sensors and/or set of computer programs thinks is going on.
I once had a car refuse to release the emergency brakes when it was time to disembark a ferry because the firmware misinterpreted the natural rocking of the vessel (and hence the car itself) as some kind of suspension fault. It left me more than "slightly resentful." I was absolutely furious at being stuck in a really rotten situation where my car was actively causing problems for those around me (people behind me had to drive off the ferry) and wouldn't even let itself go into a mode where it could be pushed off. The dealership's service center simply said, "Uh, sorry. Your brakes are locked. You can't override it. You need to get it towed in."
I don't care if the car thinks it's keeping you from rolling off a 500-foot cliff. If I say, "No, release the brakes, I mean it," the car had better do exactly as I tell it.
You can, actually, and its fairly commonly done[0]. Mapping pedal to throttle position is trivial, as is intercepting and modifying the pedal output signal. Its also not that hard to rip out the throttle body and replace it with a programmable unit. Imo new cars aren't so much harder to fix and modify as they are different to fix and modify.[1]
As Socrates rise from his grave and say: “The cars now love luxury; they have bad throttle control, contempt for steering; they show disrespect for elders and love economy in place of horsepower. Cars are now tyrants, not the servants of their drivers. They no longer rise when the key turns. They contradict their owners, turn off at stoplights, gobble up electricity at the plug, beep incessantly, and tyrannize their seatbelts.”
[0]Pedal boosters or pedal tuners. [1]Not excusing the myriad of insipid design choices, of course.
It was such a large inconvenience the replacement cable is still sitting in the box behind the seat.
I do know that I can’t remember the last time I drove a car with a bad idle, which is much more than anyone who lived in 80s can say.
Also: throttle by wire permits simpler cruise control integrations, better fuel economy and also facilitates the operation of safety systems like traction/stability control - so it’s not exactly a like-for-like comparison.
It's a small victory for the future of the species.
I recently started driving a drive-by-wire vehicle. A while ago I had an issue where the engine dropped to a near-idle (on the freeway) and the pedal was effectively non-operative. The diagnostics said the computer wasn't getting the expected results from moving the throttle body, so it went into some kind of safe mode.
Now, there are plenty of ways that drive-by-cable could fail, but in this case I was slightly resentful because I could have mitigated the computer's loss of senses with my own.