WOT: GM states we don't buy cars, just have a license to use them, Autoblog: Can the upcoming copyright hearing stop others from working on cars? Options

[bandjoey]

Very Interesting. Seems this is pointed towards the technology in cars, but could one day effect us all. Independent mechanics in jeopardy?

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/05/19/gearhea...odify-hearings/

INtersting read.

[worn]

Very Interesting. Seems this is pointed towards the technology in cars, but could one day effect us all. Independent mechanics in jeopardy?

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/05/19/gearhea...odify-hearings/

INtersting read.

I will never buy a gm car. Not that I will have the chance for very long. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/stirthepot.gif)

[stugray]

This has bee discussed a lot on the FT86 forums.
We tune those cars by reverse engineering the ROM in the ECU, modifying and rewriting them.

Everyone knows that you void the warranty when you do this, but some still blow their engine, then write the original ROM back and take the car to the dealer for warranty work.
That is clearly fraud and the main reason that the dealers want to stop you from doing it.

OTOH there is a liability issue when you do this. What is to stop someone from modifying the Chassis ECU which controls the traction control & vehicle stability systems?
Then if you have an accident, who is responsible?

The simplest solution for the auto companies would be to encrypt the ROM in the ECU.
That way anyone reverse engineering it would be in violation of the DMCA (digital millennium copyright act) which states it is illegal to reverse engineer encryption schemes.

The car manufacturers will never be able to tell us that we cannot work on our own cars or who we choose to do maintenance or we will just refuse to buy them.

[mr914]

Once they make OnStar a delete option, I would consider getting one.

Otherwise Government Motors is watching you. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/huh.gif)

I can see why they don't want you fiddling with the electrical systems. Way too many, connected electrical devices. And so much liability.

[Larmo63]

It all sounds very "Big Brother" to me.

I'd rather play with my simple, 42 year old 914. I like driving around in it and not looking exactly like everyone else.

All of the new cars more or less look the same anymore = boring.

[warpig]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif)
What he said.

[worn]

It all sounds very "Big Brother" to me.

I'd rather play with my simple, 42 year old 914. I like driving around in it and not looking exactly like everyone else.

All of the new cars more or less look the same anymore = boring.

Oh, how very much (IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif)

[effutuo101]

This should be interesting. I wonder that IF we in fact are purchasing a license to use proprietary software, what will happen to the aftermarket industry. Will auto manufactures be held liable in auto accidents for faulty software? What is the legal recourse since "patches and updates" are not avaliable by the MFG to update their software. If you are unhappy with what you "extended licenses", can you return the car as it did not meet the expectations set in the brochure (like I did with my last computer) or by the sales rep?




This should be interesting....

[GeorgeRud]

I think a lot of this has to do with limiting liability exposure and controlling their product's use. The easiest option may be just to lease a daily driver and enjoy driving classic cars (that don't track your every move) whenever possible.

Big Brother is definitely watching!

[mepstein]

So when the dealer signs over the title to the car and we take ownership, they are saying we don't really own it. Seems like fraud to me.

[somd914]

This came up a while ago on Lotus Talk. Welcome to the world of electronic and software oriented cars.

Though I'm no lawyer, from a legal standpoint when you purchase software, you are presented a user agreement (contract) prior to installation. Years ago there was a suit to force software manufacturers to present the agreement prior to purchase rather than at time of installation. The reason for this was than most vendors will not accept a return for opened software, therefore if you disagree with the contract, you had few options to return the software. Additionally, contracts are supposed to be presented and agreed upon by both parties prior to completing a sale. Guess who won? I'll give you hint, user agreements are still presented at the time of installation not prior to the sale.

Anyway, where is the user license agreement when you purchase a car?

Also keep in mind that on-board telemetry is starting to be used to determine if warranties have been voided, i.e. have you been driving "abusively"? If so, you might have voided your warranty. What is "abusive"? That's the manufacturer's call.

The situation will only get worse. As a software engineer involved in flight simulation, I'm very concerned about the level of automation in cars, and supposedly in the next 5-10 years autonomous cars will flood the market. I know first hand the complexities of real-world dynamic situations that are monitored and reacted upon in real time - not an easy task and still prone to failure given the countless paths through software. The FAA and DOD requires rigid development and testing standards for flight software. I haven't seen such out of DOT for cars, maybe it's there and not well known, but if so, I would imagine it pales in comparison to flight software though lives are still on the line.

I don't see any new cars in my future. I'll just keep rebuilding my old ones until they make that illegal due to safety concerns...

[mbseto]

I think the half-autonomous cars they're coming out with now are going to be even worse. Collision detection that will automatically apply brakes, auto lane maintainenance... give the ILLUSION of autonomy, and this will have disastrous results. If it maintains your lane and watches for collisions, might as well check up on your FB account... The results will be spectacular.

[mepstein]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif) carmakers are having difficulty making even the simpleist parts on our cars work. There are major recalls going on all the time. Just wait until a high tech car gets past its prime. Just like a 4 year old computer hard drive crash but on the road.

[EdwardBlume]

I will never buy a GM product because I've known far too much about how GM does business. Not the dealers, the company.

What's ahead is the confluence of technology, taxation, and data based control. Expect a car that drives itself, that costs you by the mile, and will require dealer maintenance. It would not be surprising if the maintenance were obligatory by law.

[somd914]

What's ahead is the confluence of technology, taxation, and data based control. Expect a car that drives itself, that costs you by the mile, and will require dealer maintenance. It would not be surprising if the maintenance were obligatory by law.

If you recall a few years back there was a movement afoot to install GPS trackers in all cars for two reasons: 1) national security, but of course (sure they are listening now...), and 2) to be read at gas stations and charged road tax for each mile driven in each state, i.e. fill up in MD drive to NY City and fill up, pay road tax for MD, DE, NJ, and NY.