US Copyright Office officially allows owners to work on their own car - Polidicks

[quote]Last year, the US Copyright Office granted an exemption in the Digital Millennium Copyright ACT (DMCA) that allows owners to legally modify and tinker with their vehicles. The long-awaited ruling went into effect on Friday, October 28th and will run for the next two years. The decision was a clear victory for tractor and automobile owners that can now legally work on their own vehicle's mechanical components, along with the car's electronic control systems and numerous computers without having to worry about breaking the law.[/quote] [url]http://www.autoblog.com/2016/10/31/copyright-dmca-allows-owners-fix-cars/?ncid=edlinkusauto00000015[/url] Some good news with the ever increasing rate of computerized vehicles. John Deere was well on its way to [url=https://www.wired.com/2015/04/dmca-ownership-john-deere/]removing ownership from the customer.[/url]

Good. If you're paying for it then it is yours.

Is there a risk of fucking up the car or the computer system and possibly putting lives at risk? I understand why they were hesitant to have people just work on these systems

You mean you couldn't do that before? what kind of sorcery is this! [editline]1st November 2016[/editline] America is weird man...

[QUOTE=The Rifleman;51291663]Is there a risk of fucking up the car or the computer system and possibly putting lives at risk? I understand why they were hesitant to have people just work on these systems[/QUOTE] Depends on the situation. I imagine a farmer could figure out how to tinker on the engine of their John Deere. But a Joe wrenching on their Chevy Volt might be mortally dangerous if you don't know what you're doing. Either way, if you own the car, that risk should be up to you. And there are plenty of resources out there to learn how to wrench on even the most complex vehicles, including EVs.

Wait a fucking second In US you couldnt change tyres, filters etc by yourself, or repair the car? Or did i misread something?

[QUOTE=Zick-1957;51291686]You mean you couldn't do that before? what kind of sorcery is this! [editline]1st November 2016[/editline] America is weird man...[/QUOTE] You can, but automakers are purposely making their vehicles more complex, and covering engines in a bunch of plastic crap, adding proprietary software that controls more and more of the vehicle, and using DCMA to ensure people do not tamper with that software. John Deere, the tractor company, has been trying to absolve the customer of ownership for years. They claim that the person buying the tractor does not own the tractor, they simple purchase a license to operate the vehicle for the duration of its lifetime. Meaning if you work on it, you're working on a vehicle that's not yours, and voiding warranties.

[QUOTE=CruelAddict;51291692]Wait a fucking second In US you couldnt change tyres, filters etc by yourself, or repair the car? Or did i misread something?[/QUOTE] You can but some companies like John Deere have been putting restrictions on even basic maintenance repairs like replacing the fan/drive belt on their tractors. It would lock out the starter until you take it to a licensed John Deere mechanic. This effectively outlaws that practice, so this is good. A mid level John Deere tractor is like $50,000, so I think it's only right that the owner can actually fix the damn thing when it breaks down. Their $750,000 combine harvesters are practically impossible to do ANY maintenance without a John Deere mechanic being involved, which is beyond fucked up.

[QUOTE=CruelAddict;51291692]Wait a fucking second In US you couldnt change tyres, filters etc by yourself, or repair the car? Or did i misread something?[/QUOTE] You always could, but manufacturers were slowly trying to make it so you couldn't. [url]http://www.autoblog.com/2015/10/27/copyright-dmca-gearheads-can-repair-modify-cars/[/url] Basically, they claim cars are becoming more and more like mobile devices.

One step victory for actual ownership instead of licensing bullshit.

I understand Deere's position, but I cant see a reason why anyone, especially a farmer, would want to go through and change the software on a tractor.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;51291741]I understand Deere's position, but I cant see a reason why anyone, especially a farmer, would want to go through and change the software on a tractor.[/QUOTE] Most people won't modify an ECU or the underlying software themselves save for the few enthusiasts. There are aftermarket technicians who are more familiar with this stuff and can do it for you w/o the risk.

This is terribly misleading. Working on your car was never illegal under any circumstances. We have not been secretly living in a corporate dystopia for the last decade. This has much more to do with software and warranties. These companies did not want owners to be able to modify the software which is present in many modern vehicles. This actually makes a bit of sense given how our current copyright system works, as you are kind of "cracking" your vehicle. The manufacturers also didn't want to provide software manuals which would force owners to use certified technicians to work on their vehicles.

This is exactly why I would rather buy a well looked after, mainly mechanical car. Therefore less electrical problems and the ability to easily sort any problem that comes your way. My next car will be a Golf Mk2 since I cannot personally stand these new electrical system BS in new cars. BMW among others making engine covers in the UK so you [b]have[/b] to take the car to a BMW or other garage is just a money making scheme by the manufacturers and should be illegal completely I reckon.

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;51291849]This is terribly misleading. Working on your car was never illegal under any circumstances. We have not been secretly living in a corporate dystopia for the last decade. This has much more to do with software and warranties. These companies did not want owners to be able to modify the software which is present in many modern vehicles. This actually makes a bit of sense given how our current copyright system works, as you are kind of "cracking" your vehicle. The manufacturers also didn't want to provide software manuals which would force owners to use certified technicians to work on their vehicles.[/QUOTE] Exactly, and it should be noted that there should be a "Industry Certified" ECU firmware that's been tested for safety and emission standards. Because its great that people should be able to modify their cars but it comes with dangerous consequences if they fuck with anything super sensitive.

[QUOTE=joshthesmith;51291862]This is exactly why I would rather buy a well looked after, mainly mechanical car. Therefore less electrical problems and the ability to easily sort any problem that comes your way. My next car will be a Golf Mk2 since I cannot personally stand these new electrical system BS in new cars. BMW among others making engine covers in the UK so you [b]have[/b] to take the car to a BMW or other garage is just a money making scheme by the manufacturers and should be illegal completely I reckon.[/QUOTE] ECU's and electrionic control/automation are great for vehicles; they make them smarter, more efficient and safer, amongst other things. However it's still completely up to the owner to choose whether to modify or tinker with said vehicle, and trying to ban the practice is just plain wrong. I don't buy into all this bullshit about "you're not purchasing the product, just owning a licence to use it". Fuck right off. If I spend money on something I'm going to do what I want with it, regardless of whether the company thinks I have the right to or not.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;51291741]I understand Deere's position, but I cant see a reason why anyone, especially a farmer, would want to go through and change the software on a tractor.[/QUOTE] You must have missed these passages from the other article mentioned in the OP. [quote]Other automakers pointed out that owners who make unsanctioned modifications could alter their vehicles in bad ways. They could tweak them to go faster. Or change engine parameters to run afoul of emissions regulations. They’re right. That could happen. But those activities are (1) already illegal, and (2) have nothing to do with copyright. If you’re going too fast, a cop should stop you—copyright law shouldn’t. If you’re dodging emissions regulations, you should pay EPA fines—not DMCA fines. And the specter of someone doing something illegal shouldn’t justify shutting down all the reasonable and legal modifications people can make to the things they paid for. GM went so far as to [url=http://copyright.gov/1201/2015/comments-032715/class%2021/General_Motors_Class21_1201_2014.pdf]argue locking people out helps innovation.[/url] That’s like saying locking up books will inspire kids to be innovative writers, because they won’t be tempted to copy passages from a Hemingway novel. Meanwhile, outside of Bizarroland, actual technology experts—including the Electronic Frontier Foundation—have consistently labeled the DMCA an innovation killer. They insist that, rather than stopping content pirates, language in the DMCA has been used to stifle competition and expand corporate control over the life (and [url=https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/intellectual-property-circular-economy-bmw-apple]afterlife[/url]) of products.[/quote]

i always found it interesting that their argument is you don't own the vehicles and the implications of that. Say GM went under, and say we upheld the notion that they do infact own every single car ever produced with a computer. Under those assumptions, the banks could now forclose on every GM car on the road as they are part of GM's assets. Then when that happens, what does that mean for car loans then since they're loaned out on the car itself as collateral or all those people that have paid for their loans. Also what does that even mean for titles, which spell clearly out in black and white "YOU OWN THIS THING". its these kinds of contractual clauses that infuriate me because they're allowed to sidestep hundreds of years of law by just changing the wording ever so slighty and they get away with it over and over again. Wells fargo probably won't see a court case since they've side stepped all consumer protections with binding arbitration clauses.

[QUOTE=CruelAddict;51291692]Wait a fucking second In US you couldnt change tyres, filters etc by yourself, or repair the car? Or did i misread something?[/QUOTE] Oh our car culture goes even deeper than that. total frame off restorations of classics is an icon of the American Suburban garage, often nicknamed the taj mahal of overhaul. I am an avid member, planning such an overhaul on an 80s pickup. But carmakers were trying to leverage copyright on the software to prevent people from doing what they've done since the inception of the motor car. This just reaffirms people's right to fix and tweak their property.

It's funny how all this works in the EU. Here, by law, manufacturers have to let the customers do what they want. I work in a company that creates diagnostic software and hardware, and we had lots of trouble with tinkering with the car's ECU, because what big car companies do is open up a small API that you can't really do much with and pretend they've done their dues. Shame the hashes they use to protect the systems can be broken in <1 minute by our big boy server hihihi

before this was passed, if you were build a car from the ground up with that violate dmca?

Now do this for computers, even apple laptops, because fuck you apple

[QUOTE=mastfire;51297262]before this was passed, if you were build a car from the ground up with that violate dmca?[/QUOTE] No, if you truly built the car from the ground up, as you own the design. Its a "problem" with vehicles because the design is somebody's intellectual property, especially the software that the car is controlled by, which they argued violated the DMCA if you made modifications or repairs.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;51291741]I understand Deere's position, but I cant see a reason why anyone, especially a farmer, would want to go through and change the software on a tractor.[/QUOTE] Having rights is not a matter of wether or not you are going to use them, it's a matter of deserving them. If a farmer goes to a friend and asks him to repair his tractor that friend might need to change the software for N reason. [editline]2nd November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;51291917]Exactly, and it should be noted that there should be a "Industry Certified" ECU firmware that's been tested for safety and emission standards. Because its great that people should be able to modify their cars but it comes with dangerous consequences if they fuck with anything super sensitive.[/QUOTE] There is a solution, do like in most modern cars where the on-board computer is different from the actual controller computer for example: Teslas(even if I dislike Tesla because they don't comply with the Linux license, specially since the screen computer is a sepearate device) For a car to be completely secure, you should never be able to change the controller's firmware unless the whole hardware is changed, this is because if software can't be changed it effectively becomes part of the hardware, and if people just mess with the pretty display then the car won't stop working, just the display. Plus is you are worried about people buffing up their cars, that's already an illegal thing in most places, not having a protection against being modified in illegal ways does not make those modifications legal.