Automakers to gearheads: Stop repairing cars

[Pat]

This is a bit disturbing. It's from an article by Pete Bigelow of Autoblog.

Automakers are supporting provisions in copyright law that could prohibit home mechanics and car enthusiasts from repairing and modifying their own vehicles.
In comments filed with a federal agency that will determine whether tinkering with a car constitutes a copyright violation, OEMs and their main lobbying organization say cars have become too complex and dangerous for consumers and third parties to handle.
Allowing them to continue to fix their cars has become "legally problematic," according to a written statement from the Auto Alliance, the main lobbying arm of automakers.
The dispute arises from a section of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that no one thought could apply to vehicles when it was signed into law in 1998. But now, in an era where cars are rolling computing platforms, the U.S. Copyright Office is examining whether provisions of the law that protect intellectual property should prohibit people from modifying and tuning their cars.

Full article here: Automakers to gearheads: Stop repairing cars

 

[Jack]

Good luck with that one.

 

[Graeme Stebbing]

Over my cold dead hands they will, lol has the world gone PC mad

 

[Randy V]

I'll just build my own.... Again and again and again.....

 

[Larry L.]

To what special, elitist moron class does the individual/do the individuals who came up with that crap belong?

 

[Robert May Eng.]

What a load of bollocks, once the car is yours and paid for its yours to do as you wish. I think they gave up any rights to the thing the second they receive payment for it. That said in places like Italy they are not allowed to customise a car with non standard parts, things as simple as a sunroof have to be factory fitted if its on the road. Within the information roadside plod have they can access the original factory spec sheet for an individual vehicle to check whether its been altered.

Bob

 

[Keith]

Until you cross his palm with a wad of Euros that is.... :quirk:

 

[Olivier S]

Same sh*t here in France: it is virtually impossible to mod a serial car. The car shall remain in all points faithfull to the factory specs.

If you choose to put extra wide tires and extra wide rims, which the car wasn't homologated for, you're outlaw, and if you have an accident, and if someone chim in, you can end with a deny of insurance, and have to pay for all the bad stuff on your own.

Buidling a car, or a replica isn't impossible. It is just out of reach for the regular guy, as you have to undergo some tests, in accordance to French and Euro laws, such as braking test, emissions tests, angles of view, and lighting test...

The courageaous people doing it here said they spent about 15k€ for the tests... If you pass them only once!

UK and US are less stupids on these points...

Olivier.

 

[TimB]

To what special, elitist moron class does the individual/do the individuals who came up with that crap belong?

It looks ironically like it began in farming...

We Can't Let John Deere Destroy the Very Idea of Ownership | WIRED

 

[Larry L.]

It looks ironically like it began in farming...

We Can't Let John Deere Destroy the Very Idea of Ownership | WIRED

Actually, a better case can be made that 'twas government bureaucrats who 1st came up with that line of thinking...they have the idea that no one actually owns his/her home. The government does.

'Don't believe me? Stop paying your property taxes and see who's living in "your house" 2-3 years or so down the road.

(Edit) Okay...so that was an 'over simplification'. Let's say a homeowner "owns" is home outright and he doesn't pay his property taxes. The government can put a tax lien on the property. The government can then sell the lien to an investor who is entitled to collect the debt along with penalties and interest. If the homeowner for whatever reason doesn't 'pay up', it's the investor who can foreclose on the house and then market/sell it for a profit. But, the bottom line is still the same; it's the gov't who in fact kicked you out of "your" house.

Property tax is the 'rent' you pay government to live in your own home.

 

[Doug S.]

"Bizarroland"......LOL!!

This could bring about a whole bunch of crap related to computerized systems that control engine ignition, fuel delivery, etc...I guess that the manufacturers of those devices COULD grant a license in their legalese mumbo-jumbo to the original purchaser to modify the control parameters, but how do they then control that to limit the process only to the original purchaser?

Some of the newer cars might be able to be factory programmed to report any modifications to their respective manufacturers...OnStar could do that easily.

So.....OK, I understand that the "intellectual property" of the programmer who develops the operational parameters for engine management, for example, might need to be protected. If someone were to "hack into the code" and change it, would the resulting product THEN be the "intellectual property" of the programmer (and, understandably, the property of the employer of that programmer)? I would think NOT, b/c the resulting "code" would not be identical to the one developed by the programmer, which IMHO is the only "product" for which he is entitled to protection. That is like Chevy saying that you can't paint your car a different color than what it was painted at the factory because that violates the company's "intellectual property". BullSHIRT!!!!!

I'm hoping Jeff Y. will chime in...I think he's an attorney that deals with this sort of stuff.

I grew up in a farming/ranching community. I know how independent those farmers and ranchers are. Technology has made some VERY beneficial improvements to the process of farming...GPS now allows a farmer to navigate the perimeter of a field they are working and once that is done the GPS can "drive" the tractor through successive rounds until the field is completely plowed while the farmer watches Opra on the TV in the cab, without ever having to touch the steering wheel...the rows are ARROW STRAIGHT, an issue over which most farmers take pride. However, if the farmer wanted to adjust the GPS program to ensure a 10" overlap rather than a 6" overlap, why should they not be able to do that without having to call a John Deere traveling programmer out to their farm to make the change for them?

I agree, IMHO once you buy a device with computer control, you OWN that device and that entitles you to make whatever changes you desire. If you do something outside the law, then you stand the chance of getting caught...emissions controls are an example and in TX if you fail the emissions portion of the annual inspection process you have a VERY limited time in which to get the vehicle repaired and inspected again. I could imagine that aftermarket computer "chips", which seem to be one reason a car could emit excess pollutants, could fall by the wayside if this legislation is ever approved...but a friend who worked at a dyno shop said that taking out the aftermarket chip and re-installing the factory chip is an easy matter as long as you give the car time to adjust to the different program before taking it in for the emissions check part of the annual inspection.

Big Brother is watching??? Perhaps Orwell was RIGHT, even if we are some 30+ years beyond 1984!!

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Doug S.]

So.....OK, I understand that the "intellectual property" of the programmer who develops the operational parameters for engine management, for example, might need to be protected. If someone were to "hack into the code" and change it, would the resulting product THEN be the "intellectual property" of the programmer (and, understandably, the property of the employer of that programmer)? I would think NOT, b/c the resulting "code" would not be identical to the one developed by the programmer, which IMHO is the only "product" for which he is entitled to protection. That is like Chevy saying that you can't paint your car a different color than what it was painted at the factory because that violates the company's "intellectual property". BullSHIRT!!!!!Doug

OK...so, now that I've thought about it, I'm not sure that's the right approach.

Suppose you made your living writing music/songs, and...you came up with a hit tune, just for argument's sake let's say it was "Georgia on my Mind". So, another aspiring musical hack decided he likes it, but changes the name of the state to "Kansas"...no other changes, just that one. Does that mean the original song's composer is not still protected under "copyright" law (which is, in my mind, very much like "intellectual property" law)?

I can't imagine that the courts could hold that a single change like that would diminish the rights of the originator of the song....so, why should a simple change to a software code render the originator of that product any less protected?

It's a real conundrum, ain't it?????

Cheers!

Doug