Shryke Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 How would it cloud the title? Unless I'm reading this wrong, despite the hyperbolic headline, they are not disputing that you own the car. Just that the software is proprietary. Nope. At least accoding to the article: GM’s claim is all about copyright and software code, and it’s the same claim John Deere is making about their tractors. The TL;DR version of the argument goes something like this: * Cars work because software tells all the parts how to operate * The software that tells all the parts to operate is customized code * That code is subject to copyright * GM owns the copyright on that code and that software * A modern car cannot run without that software; it is integral to all systems * Therefore, the purchase or use of that car is a licensing agreement * And since it is subject to a licensing agreement, GM is the owner and can allow/disallow certain uses or access. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 Nope. At least accoding to the article: So... does Microsoft own my hard drive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 So... does Microsoft own my hard drive? They'll have to fight it out with Seagate or Western Digital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.H. Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 Unless I read these articles wrong, the idea that you would need to 'jailbreak' the car in order to allow for 3rd party parts and labor is only theoretical. While it would be their wet-dream to be able to do that, I don't see them being able to do that. The company I work for doesn't buy GM vehicles, but if they did and such a policy was created, there is no way we could send all these trucks to a dealer to be fixed constantly. I imagine that somewhere, some companies do run fleets of GM vehicles and I am certain that they would be fast to switch to another brand if GM actually tried such a thing. Then again, greed is real, so maybe they'll do it and try to put themselves out of bussiness again. It would be a free-roll anyway, right, since we'd have to bail them out again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 How is this worse than DRM on digital content or HP suing companies for making cheap inkjet cartidges for their printers? It's not worse, it just as stupid. The difference is people will likely be less willing to put up with this bullshit when it comes to their cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonesy Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 How would it cloud the title? Unless I'm reading this wrong, despite the hyperbolic headline, they are not disputing that you own the car. Just that the software is proprietary. I think it's dumb and I hope they fail, but I don't think there is really an issue of actual ownership of the car, is there? Like Shryke said it may as well be. It'd be like they sold you a "car" but retained ownership of everything that makes it work. Looks like I made a good career choice to switch from military electronic systems repair to automotive electronic systems repair. Same shady bullshit; fewer passwords and background checks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 Like Shryke said it may as well be. It'd be like they sold you a "car" but retained ownership of everything that makes it work. No, still not following. i don't think they are suggesting they can re-posses it or whatever, just that you can't hack it. i don't see what that has to do with the title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Summah Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 They are saying that you will not be able to make repairs unless you go through them for repairs, which they can then charge lots of money for, basically they're forcing you to pay extra money so that the car you bought continues to run, and if you cannot afford to make repairs at the dealership and it won't run, or pass inspections or whatever then too bad, nothing you can do (and adhere to the law if what they're trying to do works). It's like if someone sold you something that you paid for and then required you to make regular payments for "protection". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aeu Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 Nope. At least accoding to the article: Yeah, some shoddy reporting going on there. This is basically a website coping from a website that is copying from another website. The title in the original website was "General Motors says it owns your cars' software" which became "GM says you don't own your car" along the way. This is not to say GM's position is correct though the title does not seem accurate. (Because pageviews!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 Hmmm... 1) I used to know some pro mechanics. They got to talking about 'OnStar' a few times. They described that system as a 'black box.' These guys - who were pretty dang good at fixing cars had no idea how it worked. When they did have to do something involving the OnStar system, they had to get hold of the outfit directly and were issued very limited step by step directions. Memory is a bit hazy, but there might even have been NDA's involved. 2) The real money in automobiles has *ALWAYS* been 'aftermarket' - selling shops and people the new parts needed to repair vehicles. Forty, fifty years ago, most US vehicles were of deliberate poor quality just to boost parts sales. Then the Japanese started selling vehicles in the US that ran for a lot more miles with a lot fewer problems. People noticed this. So US vehicle quality improved. 3) This is also another reason why auto companies are less than thrilled about electric cars. A gasoline run vehicle has a lot of complex systems - water pump, oil pump, timing, injectors, plugs, and piles more stuff which needs to be precisely coordinated. Each of those systems represents one or more parts which the company expects to make money replacing. An electric car, on the other hand...battery, motor, brakes, couple other things. Far fewer parts, hence far less money to be made replacing those parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 Yeah, some shoddy reporting going on there. This is basically a website coping from a website that is copying from another website. The title in the original website was "General Motors says it owns your cars' software" which became "GM says you don't own your car" along the way. This is not to say GM's position is correct though the title does not seem accurate. (Because pageviews!) Well that's kind of the practical result if you're compelled to take it to them for service. I wonder if there's a way some crack lawyer could get around it with that free use shit -- you're mechanic is merely making artistic and satiric commentary on the software, you're cars performance becomes part of his or her protected speech. I mean if money is speech so is automobile software, ammirite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 Is it possible to get third party software (or would it be firmware?) to replace the stock software? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AverageGuy Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Is it possible to get third party software (or would it be firmware?) to replace the stock software? It should be possible. Not sure about legal though-- are cars covered under iPhone rules or iPad rules? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigima Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 The idea of trusting my life to third party car software is unappealing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 I really hope this is the over step that causes enough backlash to actually start fixing the law. I'm pretty sure this exact scenario (sans company names) was predicted over a year ago on one of the tech sites... Probably ars technica when covering one of the law suits. The transitioning of actual purchasing of products into a licence to use the product without the consumer understanding the difference in what they are getting has been an ongoing problem. Actually it might have been in relation to ebooks where it's the same thing, the argument from the publisher is that you haven't bought a copy is the book, but a licence to access the book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonesy Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 No, still not following. i don't think they are suggesting they can re-posses it or whatever, just that you can't hack it. i don't see what that has to do with the title. The car is broke. It don't go. Can't fix unless certified GM extortion involved. Drrrr. I've read a post or two of yours in the last decade and know that you're not obtuse. Cut the crap; what are you suggesting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 The idea of trusting my life to third party car software is unappealing. It's actually really common with a lot of vehicles, like diesel trucks. You can get a ford 6.0 liter diesel motor (stock as replacement to the 'Power Stroke', give or take a few years, 03-08), that usually gets 11 -14 a gallon depending on the vehicle and the rear end gearing, to get 20-21 just by changing over to a third party software. Almost every mason/landscaper/plow guy I know has this done to their truck, and they pay a lot for it (think the program they buy is about $1000), but they make it up on fuel really quickly. This is already a common thing with other vehicles too, but with diesels (at least that motor) I believe most of the extra energy is saved because it vents the exhaust continually, rather than the periodic "regen" that burns off all the residue in the exhaust system. So it's actually already a thing that people do for certain benefits, although I honestly have no idea as to whether or not this pollutes more or has other negative consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biglose Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Generally speaking I defend copyright. I want artists to be able to make a living from their pens or their music. This is too far. When I have the title to a piece of personal property, like an automobile, it is mine the Manufactuerer should not be able to tell me where I must take my car to have it serviced. This is too far. Generally speaking, GM is a bit late to the party but stuff like this are the main reason copyrights are not valued much these time by the broader audiance. If you have to get the illegal copy of something, because your original does not work, because of copyright protection...Yeah, that will do that to you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Yeah, some shoddy reporting going on there. This is basically a website coping from a website that is copying from another website. The title in the original website was "General Motors says it owns your cars' software" which became "GM says you don't own your car" along the way. This is not to say GM's position is correct though the title does not seem accurate. (Because pageviews!) No, it does not appear that way. Every website and newsite reporting on the issue is saying the same thing. The argument is that because the car can't run without the software the owner actually only has an implied license to operate the vehicle. John Deere has made the same argument as follows: In the absence of an express written license in conjunction with the purchase of the vehicle, the vehicle owner receives an implied license for the life of the vehicle to operate the vehicle, subject to any warranty limitations, disclaimers or other contractual limitation in the sales contract or documentation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Generally speaking, GM is a bit late to the party but stuff like this are the main reason copyrights are not valued much these time by the broader audiance. If you have to get the illegal copy of something, because your original does not work, because of copyright protection...Yeah, that will do that to you... It's really not. GM's suit has little to do with the IP issues most people run in to. I'd say that the main reason copyrights and such are not valued as much these days is because people can so easily get around them. People can grumble and bitch about price or inconvenience or whatever but it's only when they can circumvent IP protection with ease that suddenly they start thinking about what IP protection even means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.