General Motors Says It Owns Your Car's Software

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
To be honest, I've always bought GM cars or trucks because I like them. That said, I think the company is whacked out of its melon if it thinks this kind of crap is going to fly.

In comments sure to rankle customers, a GM attorney said Tuesday the company believes the software that controls every vehicle function belongs to them. Even after customers pay tens of thousands of dollars for a car, the company says users are merely signing a licensing agreement to use it over its lifetime.
Click to expand...
 
I have a four letter word for you and it starts with F and ends with D.

:)

In all seriousness, isn't this something game developers tried to pull a few years back? You're just "renting" the software even though you have the discs.

Maybe this is all splitting hairs...
 
Wow.....

I guess so long as I'm free to do with it as I see fit and promise not profit off their software. So be it. If they plan to go after individuals for re-programming their cars they can eat shit. But if they plan to use this to go after companies reselling their code as their own, that's fine.
 
I really do not see where the issue is with this. They are saying that you do not have the right to modify the software. This is standard operating procedure for ALL closed source software. And it's especially true now that the DMCA is here.

There is also issues with EPA and NHTSA regulations regarding your ability to modify subsystems in a car. Your ability to modify fuel trims or braking thresholds conflicts with how the government certified the car.

At least they have the decency to make you sign something. No one has ever signed a contract when buying music, movies or videogames. Yet we are bound by contracts of how we can use it or how we can sell it, or how we can return it.

Also, this is not saying that no-one can repair their car. Who here on this board has ever REPAIRED a car that required you to modify the operating parameters of the car? Modifying is different than repairing. Bringing a car back to "like new" condition does not require modifying the ECU.

Even if you stretch this out to replacing the stock radio with an aftermarket radio, the fact that you removed something does not qualify as copyright violation. And your ability to sell the stock radio or use it somewhere else is covered by the First Sale Doctorine.

Also, if they are claiming a lease. What obligation do they have? What can I legally expect out of them during this so called lease?

I agree it's bullshit that people cannot do to their car as they please. As a car lover and someone who has a car that is "illegal" based on these rules, I think it's invasive. But this is not General Motors fault by any bit. They are simply exercising the same legal writes that we have given all people who create content that we deem to be more important that physical and tangible products.
 
How is this different from any other software out there? I get the same bullshit when I accept terms and conditions when I install Windows or Office.
 
It probably does since it's software which, due to copyright extensions and corporate personhood, pretty much makes its protection perpetual. But don't forget to hate John Deere and virtually every other product maker which includes software since the same thing applies. Unless a device/machine maker is allowing modifications or doesn't prevent modifications, manufacturers can use DMCA §1201 to shut down most attempts to circumvent any "technological protections" used.

I'm not sure why this is surprising. Equipment to interface with those car systems are generally licensed (besides ones to read out standard codes), and more advanced EDR data recovery tools are also licensed.
 
Well just to be a smart ass, format and install Linux! hehe. Sounds like you'll void your warranty no matter what you do anyway. Open source coming to cars? We'll see.

My advice to anyone who buys a brand spankin' new GM.. When you drain the oil for the first time, send it back to them.. They still own that shit too.
 
Government Motors—of course they think that.
 
Ok you own the software, however I own the hardware, and I under no circumstances give you the right to access the hardware part of my vehicle in order to ever check the status of the software EVER, that includes OBD ports all the way to any wireless transmission in the future, whether done by your company explicitly or through 3rd parties, the act of you knowing the status of my software inherently puts you at fault and shows guilt of use of my hardware. If you breach this contract then I will hold you liable for $1 billion dollars.
 
sfsuphysics said:
Ok you own the software, however I own the hardware, and I under no circumstances give you the right to access the hardware part of my vehicle in order to ever check the status of the software EVER, that includes OBD ports all the way to any wireless transmission in the future, whether done by your company explicitly or through 3rd parties, the act of you knowing the status of my software inherently puts you at fault and shows guilt of use of my hardware. If you breach this contract then I will hold you liable for $1 billion dollars.
Click to expand...
lol, how exactly does that hurt anyone but the owner of the vehicle? And most buyer contracts aren't open to negotiation besides price, trade-in and options, so glwt.
 
Youn said:
Because cars can easily kill people.
Click to expand...
Medical devices, elevators, manufacturing equipment and many other things can (and do) too, in single or complex failures. Liability is supposed to be an incentive to prevent that, and it generally is. Good thing academics and other formal researchers generally have (as a defense) exemption from DMCA used to enforce these kinds of claims.
 
pxc said:
Unless a device/machine maker is allowing modifications or doesn't prevent modifications, manufacturers can use DMCA §1201 to shut down most attempts to circumvent any "technological protections" used.
Click to expand...

OK, so if I crack the DRM in the ECU to modify its software I might violate the DMCA.

What if I replace the entire ECU with another aftermarket ECU with completely different software? Or are they gonna claim that the ECU itself is the DRM (and the car is the platform)?
 
Time for open source software. I see this no different than unlocking a cell phone.
They should watch how they play this one. They might be opening themselves up to anti-trust cases in the E.U. That would be hilarious.

As an aside; talk about kicking yourself in the nuts.
 
I love how they use the airbags as a fearmonger tactic. Modifying the software to ignore the airbag would actually be more difficult than just removing it and spoofing it with a resistor, as you can currently do to just about any car.
 
WhyYouLoveMe said:
I have a four letter word for you and it starts with F and ends with D.

:)

In all seriousness, isn't this something game developers tried to pull a few years back? You're just "renting" the software even though you have the discs.

Maybe this is all splitting hairs...
Click to expand...

We gave up our rights to software that we purchased years ago. Everything today is a licensing agreement. GM is completely right with their outlook on this. It's what the general public wanted, otherwise they would have created a fuss long ago about software agreements.
 
gm needs to continue down the tubes the only reason they are here yet today is the bail out.
 
I actually side with GM on this....sorta. There are legit reasons to prevent people from fucking around with software on modern cars...and not all are safety related. That being said this can easily be fixed by allowing people to modify, with the understanding that doing so removes all liability from GM...including the warranty.
 
I think they just needed to keep their mouths shut. People do not want to be told they don't own something they are paying on or spent a long 5 years paying off. 99.999% of anyone out there could care less about modding their cars. The problem is, their use of the words "we own" ... that's the problem and it was stupid, very stupid to say anything in that regard.

NOW ... with that said, I wonder if they are building in artificially reduced / locked performance and range and or features they hope to up-sale to the customer? I'm just making a wild guess but I've heard of this happening before.

We have a Chrysler 300c Hemi and I was able to update the NAV system / entertainment for free off the web vs the $350 dollars the dealerships charges. I found out the updates are free but that the dealerships have the option of charging for their time.

So something like this
 
I'd say this is just another reason to avoid buying a GM, but I already have so many reasons, I don't really need another one.
 
SixFootDuo said:
I think they just needed to keep their mouths shut. People do not want to be told they don't own something they are paying on or spent a long 5 years paying off. 99.999% of anyone out there could care less about modding their cars. The problem is, their use of the words "we own" ... that's the problem and it was stupid, very stupid to say anything in that regard.

NOW ... with that said, I wonder if they are building in artificially reduced / locked performance and range and or features they hope to up-sale to the customer? I'm just making a wild guess but I've heard of this happening before.

We have a Chrysler 300c Hemi and I was able to update the NAV system / entertainment for free off the web vs the $350 dollars the dealerships charges. I found out the updates are free but that the dealerships have the option of charging for their time.

So something like this
Click to expand...
All they needed to say was mods void the warranty. And list allowances. To say it is still theirs is to imply they can take it away when they want. I swear people with lots of money can be so dumb in so many ways but when it comes to getting money they excell.
 
Not a fan of GM, or any other manufacture (well Tesla for their push into changing the industry) but this isn't any different than any other lawyer-ese that's packaged with many of the tech products these days.

Anyone know what other car manufactures stance on their in-car software?
 
I don't know, when you buy a box of kleenex you don't gain ownership to the copyright to the name kleenex and I don't know why people expect to own the code of software in their car. I'm pretty sure if you copied the code in your iPhone and started selling an ePhone, you'd have a knock at your door.
 
Tweak42 said:
Not a fan of GM, or any other manufacture (well Tesla for their push into changing the industry) but this isn't any different than any other lawyer-ese that's packaged with many of the tech products these days.

Anyone know what other car manufactures stance on their in-car software?
Click to expand...

This is pretty much the same story that broke last month. Just repackaged.

Some of the members of the automotive group from that story. are BMW Group, FCA US LLC, Ford Motor Company, General Motors Company, Jaguar Land Rover, Mazda, Mercedes- Benz USA, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota, Volkswagen Group of America and Volvo Cars North America

http://jalopnik.com/carmakers-want-to-make-working-on-your-car-illegal-beca-1699132210

Sombody just keeps spinning this.
 
This whole idea is complete non-sense and totally unenforceable. This is vain attempt to open the door for GM to start to charge company Hypertech, Diablo, HPTuners, etc royalty fees.

Either ways as I have no GM software running in my ECU, custom tune :D
 
To add

First it was "YOU DON"T OWN YOUR CAR" refering to the software

Then it was " THEY WANT TO MAKE IT ILLEGAL TO WORK ON YOU CAR" cn't mod the software

an now it's back again
 
The problem is not just software, they'll include the right to pull diagnostic info as well, or talk to the ECM in any manor.

And as always, once their foot is in the door of prevention, they'll slowly eat away at your rights.
 
ICOM said:
1989 Dodge D150

Fuk Chevrolet
Click to expand...

My work truck is a '58 Power Wagon, the power train software is all after-market. I'm with you.


But isn't this the evolution of our corporate-elite government in the entire western world? There are no politicians of influence in the western world that aren't from the top 1% in net worth. I think that in countries that can be bought and sold with campaign donations ,and lobbying the idea that the common scum are no longer permitted to own anything is a natural evolution.

Political ring theory is true, and it works in economic philosophy. The more radically capitalist our economies have become, the more socialist-like they become. In socialism the state owns everything, in capitalism the people who own the state own everything.
 
anyone else?

When you’re sitting in your Chevy
and you feel something heavy:
Diarrhea, diarrhea.
 
Grahamkracka said:
I actually side with GM on this....sorta. There are legit reasons to prevent people from fucking around with software on modern cars...and not all are safety related. That being said this can easily be fixed by allowing people to modify, with the understanding that doing so removes all liability from GM...including the warranty.
Click to expand...

Sorry you failed this not about liability this more about $80+ hour for there dealerships who f#$%ing making a killing as they have a 2 hour min just do a diagnostic just to replace $5 part at autozone, o'reillys if need right way which you may end paying 2x or 3x or more for same part and this about all car and truck hell even motorcycle manufacture.
I like fix's my own car and truck when there out warranty as I don't waste my money on BS extended warranty carp as they are more of a horror stories as there pitfall with them just like with reg warranty.

And that not what the car maker want if they have there way you can petty kiss all that good by but then there a plus side older car and truck will be end up became more valve able.

How ever 3rd party EFI system like Fast, Edelbrock, Holly MSD and so on may get a big boost by this but there end costing more then a new fully rebuild motor.

402blownstroker said:
This whole idea is complete non-sense and totally unenforceable. This is vain attempt to open the door for GM to start to charge company Hypertech, Diablo, HPTuners, etc royalty fees.

Either ways as I have no GM software running in my ECU, custom tune :D
Click to expand...
I hate tell you this but you can petty much can kiss that good by as well as some of those are just interceptor and don't really replace it they only modified the car maker software or interceptor the code and replace with new code.
 
The truth is that consumers never "own" software. You own a license to use it. So long as you are within the terms of the EULA your golden. Violate those terms in some way that gets the attention of the devleoper/distributor and you'll find out real quickly how few rights you actually have when it comes to software. This is especially true should you make a profit on "misuse" of the software.
 
cageymaru said:
We gave up our rights to software that we purchased years ago. Everything today is a licensing agreement. GM is completely right with their outlook on this. It's what the general public wanted, otherwise they would have created a fuss long ago about software agreements.
Click to expand...

Uhh... no. This would be the equivalent of a PC that came with Windows being locked down from the user modifying Windows or putting a different OS on because they could end up with a computer virus or something.

It's completely asinine.

And they claim it's because of liability, but the issue is liability itself in America. Bad shit happens in life and just because people don't want to accept responsibility for their own actions does NOT mean that they should successfully be able to sue other people.
 
And as previously mentioned before, NOBODY fucks with stuff like airbags. Ever! Tuning software literally does not even let you modify the airbag controller. Their examples are not just unlikely but not a single incident in the entire world is going to happen like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top