That's like asking Intel to fix a processor you overclocked
It was abandoned due to backlash but that didn't stop Intel from doing artificial segmentation, so instead of buying a chip with "3MB" of cache and being able to unlock it to 4MB later, now you buy a chip with "3MB" of cache and 1MB of dark silicon that's permanently lasered off at the factory. I get the objections, but the alternative isn't really an improvement.
The year is 2023. The goal of Big Tech is the elimination of ownership and the rise of perpetual rental income.
I used to work for a radio shop, and it was reasonably common for us to remove the radio when customers did not want it in their new car. Some wanted to have no radio for religious reasons, some businesses wanted the absolute cheapest vehicle possible for their employees, most wanted to install their own aftermarket radio.
The manufacturer sold the hardware configured in a certain state; could have been configured different depending on price for the same device. Once the device is sold, the new owner is a petty tyrant over the state of his own property.
But if I don't own the heating feature, I don't care. I am pretty sure the warranty indemnifies the company against the hardware be actually fit for said purpose and they will not guarantee a result anyway, so what do you "own" in the first place, if not the device itself?
Physical goods should be required to follow the doctrine of first sale. There should never be any possible conditions on subsequent owners. If the first owner "unlocks" a feature, it should be unlocked for every subsequent owner.
As for "they didn't pay for the license"....no....you gave it to them without asking them to sign a license agreement. They paid you money, and you gave them a product. How they use it is up to them.
That's not true and it's most definitely not a valid legal position to take in defense
It may fall afoul of the (terribly written, but still law) Section 1201 of the DMCA, if it's arguable that the circumvention provides access to computer software (and I think it is arguable).
I agree that this should be legal, but I'm not nearly as convinced that it is legal currently.
Recall that when CD copy protection was starting to be deployed, you could negate it with a black marker. The DMCA then made black markers illegal, because it bans "tools which may be used to circumvent copyright" as well as the "circumvention of copy protection measures". (Not that anyone tried to enforce it, but the letter of the law was pretty clear that black markers were then illegal to possess)
The DMCA should be amended or revoked to make these shenanigans no longer enforceable.
No court would ever come to the conclusion that something as mundane as black markers are illegal to possess.
The DMCA is a problem because putting copy protection on (for example) heated seats is a similar level of silliness to outlawing black markers.
That is wrong. It's legal to possess a hammer but illegal to bash someone on the head with one. It was legal to possess a black marker and arguably illegal to use it to circumvent copy protection.
(registered security researcher for my rooted Teslas)
Copyright has zero application here unless you redistribute Tesla's code or binaries. Reverse-engineering is a legal practice (in US law, at least).
Reverse engineering to utilize software you didn't pay for and don't have a license or some other legal authority to use is unlikely to pass muster legally, versus for interoperability purposes.
https://www.eff.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq (Control-F "What Exceptions Does DMCA Section 1201 Have To Allow Reverse Engineering?")
https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/12/23204950/bmw-subscription...
Only for the kinds of “use” that involve the exclusive rights of the copyright owner (“use” generally does not), and even then not always, because there are exceptions to copyright.
If you sell me a book, I'm not allowed to copy that book and sell those copies. I am allowed to chop it up and and repaste my own copy however I see fit.
If I'm wrong and current copyright law does not permit this kind of thing, then current copyright law is bad and should be changed.
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 (17 U.S. Code § 1201 - Circumvention of copyright protection systems)
[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840... (circumvent a technological measure (3) As used in this subsection— (A) to “circumvent a technological measure” means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and (B) a technological measure “effectively controls access to a work” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.)
It’s only a subscription because it doesn’t make financial sense to purchase it outright for $15k up-front (with a 6% interest rate, you’d need to own the car for 102 months to pay less than paying for the FSD subscription for those 102 months, and it costs more per month in your loan than the subscription https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vSjfzhdfj0FU... )
of all the things to hate about elon, tesla, and this whole concept of locking down features in a car, FSD really isn't one of them, as its just a software issue and its a totally separate package that isn't core to the operational capability of the car's components.
no point to this, just thinking out loud
Back in, I think it was bad company 2, EA delivered content on disk, but locked it behind a paywall. Then they got their wrists slapped for locking already available content behind a paywall.
Softlocking hardware that exists in the car (heated seats) behind a paywall seems to be the exact same thing, and is not legal everywhere.
If a manufacturer wants to lock features behind a paywall, that is fine. However, they shouldn't be allowed to complain when consumers modify the thing they bought to get around that paywall. If Tesla really wants to make sure absolutely no one gets FSD or heated seats without paying, then they should make a point of only including the relevant hardware or software in the vehicle at the time of purchase.
is it reasonable for tesla to lock you out of the app or software updates if the software hash doesn't match what they provide ? would it be okay for them to void the warranty if you run software they didn't provide ?
Of course, and I don't think anyone here is arguing against that.
> would it be okay for them to void the warranty if you run software they didn't provide ?
There are laws governing this exact thing (in the US it's the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act), and in general Tesla would have to prove your unauthorized modification caused the failure which you're claiming under warranty.
If you sell me a house with a safe in it and want to charge me for the code that's fine, but if get a welder to just break the door open you have no right to tell me no.
Knowing Tesla, even if they can’t patch the vulnerability OTA I would be very concerned about their being able to detect the use of this bypass and remote-brick cars in response until the customer agrees to bring their car in for a hardware patch.
Alternatively, if a vehicle is running software that hasn't gone through Tesla's subscription how much of the liability for any software problems will Tesla be able to transfer to the vehicle owner?
Hypothetically, if Tesla were licensing 3rd party software and that license was based on installed uses and Tesla was reporting the subscriptions for FSD (rather than sales of the vehicle), what would enabling the software open up Tesla to? Would Tesla then be able to sue the person who unlocked it for the additional licensing costs they incurred?
If Tesla actually believed that their self-driving works (which they unequivocally and demonstrably don't, as their refusal to accept liability indicates), then it would cost them virtually nothing to accept liability.
Every company that offers self-driving should accept liability to prove that they have faith in their system, and we shouldn't allow any self-driving system on the road for which this isn't the case.
> There are few federal laws addressing automated driving. So, Mercedes Vice President of Automated Driving George Massing tells R&T, “we will probably have to deal with each individual state.” But the company plans to accept legal liability for what the car does while Drive Pilot is engaged.
As far as I can tell there still isn’t some webpage where you can submit a claim to Mercedes-Benz for a failure of their self-driving tech…
https://www.kbb.com/car-news/mercedes-well-be-liable-for-sel...
Since they are technically right, as autopilot disengages before.
> To ensure our statistics are conservative, we count any crash in which Autopilot was deactivated within 5 seconds before impact, and we count all crashes in which the incident alert indicated an airbag or other active restraint deployed.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/16/tesla-recalls-362758-vehicle...
The problem here is that this is functionally similar to using an outdated version of photoshop but the consequences are vastly different.
It only became a large issue because it was a social fad for politicians and mass-media to dogpile "evil gaming companies corrupting poor mindless children", and Rockstar in particular with the GTA series was one of the most popular targets of said social fad.
Let's say there's two versions of the car. Higher spec has heated seats, lower spec doesn't. Let's say it's a $1000 price difference.
At what point below are you ticked off ?
Level 1: The higher spec car has the physical seat heaters, all the wiring, all the plugs and all the software. The lower spec car has none of that.
(I think this is how cars have always been sold, so it's "normal" and "acceptable" and nobody would complain - they paid $1000 less and got less features.)
Level 2: The lower spec car has the physical seat heater inside the seat, but none of the wiring, plugs or software to make it function. (It was cheaper for them to just build the seats with the heater in there, so they did, but it will never "work")
Level 3: The lower spec car has the physical seat heater inside the seat and some wiring, but the main loom doesn't have provision for the high current draw, so it can't work.
Level 4: The lower spec car has the physical seat heater inside the seat, all the wiring, but none of the plugs to actually connect it.
Level 5: The lower spec car has the physical seat heater inside the seat, all the wiring, all the plugs (so all the physical hardware is there), but the software to turn it on is not present / not licensed.
(Note: If you got ticked off at level 5, it's pretty much like buying a brand new MacBook and being ticked off that it can theoretically run Final Cut Pro, but you have to pay to make it work. Surely you gotta pay for software ? )
We are talking about this one. The entire thread is about this one, and none of your options even passed through the conversation.
Where do you draw the line?
Next they'll be making you pay a fee to use low gears, or a power steering fee, a radio listening license, a Bluetooth permit, a reverse allowance, power window season pass, air condition authorization.
That argument doesn't hold up. Nobody should claim they are entitled to the premium features if they only have the basic license/software.
I agree that I don't want death by a thousand subscription fees, but this isn't exactly the same situation here. BMW's offerings is. Frankly, if BMW offered it with only the one-time charge, I'd consider it similar.
This really is where I have the issue. If I have to pay for my ISP to allow me to access the internet and use my bandwidth to download it, my power bill to allow my PC to install it, use up my storage space to host the software, then I should be able to do whatever I want to/with it and you shouldn't hinder me from doing so.
If I have to pay a fee for premium, and then additional components are downloaded and installed, fair game.
I wonder if there's any law that covers such a scenario, aside from EULA allowing the software dev to do what they want as long as the user agrees.
Level 5, and this case, all I'm doing is adding the missing component. A flag or something.
Boo. Hiss.
Sounds like it would be problem for the consumer, though clearly a solved one.
Instead, what's happening is that the current price fully reflects the cost of production, and holding the extras hostage is pure gravy.
-
I think we need to hold all EV companies "responsible for their shit"
So, if you buy a tesla - only tesla should be responsible for recovery from every crash and and turn in.
Thus the environmental impact due to the heavy metals and all the plastics made are sole responsible from a closed, boring lopp to hyper the link to the fact that all these materials were made by stars. X.
I think my logic is off WRT analogy, but I beleive you get the premise...
Can we find a complete model of the impact of the matters which are being affected by the musks?
(im not judging musk - I am judging actions... many of these actions suck. IIATAH?
As an industry, we sell things that make hardware more useful. That's what software is. But the software we sell* comes with legal restrictions on what the buyer* can and can't do with it. Which means that we're restricting what our customers can do with the hardware that they own. And we do all that for money. *Substitute whatever you think the right terms are for these words (licensor, licensee, borrower, tenant, serf...)
If we sold an app on a mobile-phone store, and a h4ck0rz came out with a crack that unlocked the premium features on it, we'd take measures to stifle it (patching the code, increasing the obfuscation, sending a complaint upstream of whoever was distributing it, etc.), and I don't think any of us would think we're bad guys for doing so. We're just trying to feed our families. And I doubt any of us would feel compassion for someone who said they paid for that phone, own its hardware, and can do whatever they want with it including run your paid software for free.
Tesla's sin, if any, is that they sold us hardware that's designed to work only with their software. And "their" software could include software they licensed from your company, if you work in their software supply chain.
Where is the right line between "my hardware, my rules" and "my software, my rules"?
If someone roots their phone or car, which they own, despite the manufacturer's best efforts to prevent this, it should be legal because they are modifying a physical object they purchased. If they teach other people to root their devices, it should be legal the same way teaching lockpicking is legal if you're just lockpicking something you own.
Nobody is asking manufacturers to stop trying to get in the way of people hacking their devices. Most people won't have the skills or desire to jailbreak anyway.
But John Deere will sue farmers who try to fix their tractors themselves, Sony will sue you for jailbreaking your PS3, etc etc. That's wrong.
Additionally, DRM generates physical waste by making it hard for people to fix things they bought. The right to repair is important.
For software, illicit redistribution is covered by copyright law, no? But the same is true: if you own a copy of software and want to hack it (e.g. mod a game you bought) why should that be illegal, provided you were able to get around the game's built-in circumventions?
On one hand, I like owning my software or content I purchased (talking about DRM)
On the other, people expect most things to be a "live service" in terms of updates, which isn't sustainable if you only ever get paid a small onetime fee for your software. If you make the fee large, like Modo/Photoshop did, then it acts as a financial gatekeeper to your product. Even then, I feel like it creates wrong incentives for the product, so I'm not sure it's good either.
Do they? Most people I know don't want anything to update as long as it's working. They don't want new features. They don't want new UI changes. They'll dismiss/ignore prompts to update for as long as they possibly can. In very very rare cases people want "live service". They want their GPS to give them traffic information for example, but otherwise they don't want anything but bug fixes.
Photoshop for example doesn't need to be constantly updated and a version of photoshop from 10-15 years ago would be just fine for the vast majority of people. The idea that software has to either be insanely expensive or a subscription is a false dichotomy.
I'd say the software equivalent to right to repair would specifically be about restrictions against inspecting/decompiling/modifying the software running on your machine.
While I also think copyright is flawed in general, restrictions against redistribution of the software seem like a separate matter - in the same way hardware right to repair doesn't mean you can set up a manufacturing line for new John Deere tractors to sell to others.
> h4ck0rz came out with a crack that unlocked the premium features on it
If someone grafts on useful features using only what you have already downloaded to my device, I think that's fair game.
There's something obscene about unlocking existing physical features with more money, but there's also our mental model of what ownership means. Imagine you buy a new fridge, and it has an extra compartment that is installed, gets cooled but you have to pay to unlock. No one could ever verify that you didn't rip it open yourself. I don't think anyone would object either.
The current monetization strategies for software favor the corporations. They can withhold service in case of no payment, and they are trying to do the same to hardware. I personally feel we should regulate this as soon as possible, otherwise things like right to repair will simply disappear.
Depending on how you look at it the hardware was paid for by:
1. Tesla as a "marketing" expense. They expect that the $50 of hardware will make a significant number of people pay $500 for the feature. If 1/5 people upgrade that is an expected return of $100 for that $50 marketing cost.
2. The people who purchase the heated seat upgrade. It was more cost effective to install the hardware in all cars than to set up a second production line. So if 1/5 people buy this package their effective cost is $250 ($50 * 5 cars) and $250 is Tesla's buffer + profit margin. So the people who pay for this package effectively pay for the hardware in all cars.
If you enable this feature for all users both of these no longer exist. So the effective cost goes up which would likely raise the price. (Yes, I know that cost and price aren't directly related).