Ser Scot A Ellison Posted May 23, 2015 Author Share Posted May 23, 2015 Shryke,Yup.Biglose,The ability to copy a book doesn't make copying that book right and proper. But that's better left to a thread discussing IP in a very different context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seli 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. They don't need to re-posess if they can just brick the car when they detect tampering with the proprietary copyright protected systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Shryke,Yup.Biglose,The ability to copy a book doesn't make copying that book right and proper. But that's better left to a thread discussing IP in a very different context.The consumer actions may be very different, but you can't just split this off and treat it as different. This is the culmination of the direction IP law has been heading, this is the opportunity to step back from the precipice or corporations win big and the consumer gets utterly screwed from here on out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted May 23, 2015 Author Share Posted May 23, 2015 Karraddin,What you are talking about is whether copyright should exist as it does today. I'm talking about whether it is proper to apply existing copyright law to this situation. I want authors to be paid for their work. The people who created the software at issue have been paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 substitute in a book for whatever it is that GM claims is covered by this nebulous IP claim. i buy a book; i write all over it; my daughter cuts shit out of it; my snake defecates on it; i bring it to a book repair shoppe, who fixes all that; i bring it to the local book whisperer, who makes it cooperative; i buy it a book hooker (maybe something extra trashy, like trollope or dickens); now we're on reading terms again. does publisher have a claim for infringement? if they bring that bogus claim, do i get rule 11 sanctions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 substitute in a book for whatever it is that GM claims is covered by this nebulous IP claim. i buy a book; i write all over it; my daughter cuts shit out of it; my snake defecates on it; i bring it to a book repair shoppe, who fixes all that; i bring it to the local book whisperer, who makes it cooperative; i buy it a book hooker (maybe something extra trashy, like trollope or dickens); now we're on reading terms again. does publisher have a claim for infringement? if they bring that bogus claim, do i get rule 11 sanctions? Unless you've bought a very strange book, the book has no DRM that your repair shoppe would need to circumvent and thus nothing either you or the shoppe do is illegal. The problem is that unlike book publishers, car manufacturers can and will put access controls on the car's software and firmware. If the software and firmware are sufficiently tightly integrated with the hardware, car repairmen not affiliated with the manufacture will need to circumvent these access controls to perform repairs. Even if this is technically possible, such circumvention is illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted May 23, 2015 Author Share Posted May 23, 2015 Altherion,Am I correct that makes it illegal to work on your on car? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarl the climber Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 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. The 6.0 Liter engine is one of the worst engines Ford ever built. You really don't have a choice to modify it. Its illegal in a lot of instances to modify the engines in 08 models and later because it brings them out of compliance with federal emmision laws but they have the 6.4 L engine. Its not illegal to modify the earlier model trcuks as far as I know. 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? Try working on a Prius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Altherion,Am I correct that makes it illegal to work on your on car?I don't know -- I'm not a lawyer so I was actually hoping you and sologdin would answer that question. :) My understanding is that as long as you're not messing with the software or firmware, it is not illegal. If you do mess with the software and it's protected by access control measures, then it is illegal unless what you're doing falls under one of the exceptions. For example, it's legal to break DVD encryption on Linux because otherwise encrypted DVDs won't work on Linux at all (so this falls under interoperability), but I don't know how that would translate to working on a car. Would installing a generic part still qualify under interoperability? Would trying to get a different fuel consumption (as in the example with the diesel trucks) be covered under anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maarsen Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 Sperry,All major auto manufacturers have their own financing companies.And that is why Gm went bankrupt. GM was not a car company but a finance company using cars as a loss leader to get you to put your signature on a lease agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 althy--thanks. my knowledge of copyright is apparently limited to 19th century production techniques. i probably should STFU until i read all the recent statutes.that said, still looks like a sherman act problem to me. no doubt the alleged intellectual property impairs competition on the merits for the tied product (i.e., aftermarket/service). likely that GM has sufficient market power, no, to effect the tie? this is probably not a per se violation, but looks fishy under the 'rule of reason.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.