You do not own your car anymore says the manufacturers
 

looks like the auto manufacturers are lobbying the government to include our cars under the DCMA. This means you do not own your car. You are only buying a license from the manufacturer to drive it for as long as you like.

Wonder how that would work on a Cobra?

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

This would apply to the computer per the article and the aftermarket sellers typically have open architecture systems that allow you to tune.

Is "Wired" kind of like those tabloid newspapers that I see near the cash registers in the grocery stores? Has the author of the article ever tried camping on the sidewalk near Wallstreet? The author seems to be twisting his ideas into some way of getting people who do not understand this into a frenzy.

The point of this is the copyright of the software in the vehicle's computer. You have a licence to run that software and if you try to reverse engineer the software and modify it, you are in violation of the software licence. How anyone but an idiot conclude that means you no longer own your vehicle is beyond me.

And how many farmers do you know who can reverse engineer the code in their tractor's computer to modify it? Does the author of the article have a clue what machine code is if you try to reverse engineer the software? It is not the much easier to understand high level language that the software was written in.

If I was so inclined to try to modify the software in my car that controls my antilock brakes or how my hybrid battery charges and my car no longer stops or my hybrid battery dies in a month, do you think the manufacturer should be responsible for my defective brakes and dead multi thousand dollar battery? I would think tweaking some instruction in the machine code would make it very likely I would screw up something.

Articles related to this topic have been on a few web sites now from different sources. All say about the same thing.

This whole ordeal is probably more about auto manufacturers trying to figure out a new way of making money off people than actually how it relates to fixing or modifying your car.

Not that I have ever done this but would this apply to "chipping" your car for better performance? It usually voids the warranty but to make it illegal seems a bit extreme. JMO

John

'Chipping' your car usually means you're bypassing or eliminating their firmware - not 'reverse engineering' or modifying it. You should be safe.

OTOH, if the NSA or FBI come knocking at your door all bets are off.:LOL:

Big government run amuck.

What problem is this trying to solve?

So there are other stories out there on the internet that come to the same conclusion? That you no longer own your car if it has a computer in it? OK, I suppose I could use the same logic as the author of the article on the Wired site to conclude that the story of the fishes and the loaves is conclusive proof that Rudolph's red nose is a manifestation of the Holy Spirit. :LOL: :JEKYLHYDE

Whatever you want. Maybe you should do a Google search and read the other articles instead of knocking this one and sounding idiotic.:LOL::JEKYLHYDE

All the arguing on this topic is being done with software that you paid for but do not own. Why isn't everyone upset about it?

I suppose if you saw an article on wired where the author says he prefers a cam that holds both the intake and exhaust valves open during the entire compression stroke and I said that was complete nonsense, you would ask me to google that too? :D

OK. Whatever.

John Deere responds to ownership article

Funny..you were the only one that couldn't grasp the concept. Do you even know what an intake or exhaust valve is or do I have to tell you to Google that also? Obviously the whole article is way above your level of comprehension. Sorry about that!

It could go beyond that. HPTuners lets you rewrite a lot of the software in a GM computer.

So you think that a cam that would blow your unburned fuel air mixture out both your exhaust and intake at the same time is NOT nonsense? :confused: :LOL:

My last post included what seemed like a reasonable response from John Deere from my googling yesterday. I did not think that most of the other stuff that I saw while googling for this was even worth mentioning, but why not paraphrase some of it.
-- Dude if GM thinks they own my car, they should pay to fix it if I crash it.
-- All software should be open source...
-- Capitalism will eventually lead to monopolies and blah, blah, ...

Are any of the above things, something that you agree with? What point are you trying to make? Is there something that you feel you would like to change in your car's software that copyright and your automobile manufacture is stopping you from doing?

I suppose I could argue for software changes. Before I go down this path, I do not now, nor have I ever owned a hybrid car. But lets think about technology changes. The first hybrid I remember being sold was the original Honda Insight, which I believe has an nimh battery. More recent hybrids have some sort of lithium batteries. And there is always going to be something better. However I suspect that hybrid car's software is tuned specifically toward the battery they were originally designed for in terms of performance, charging/discharging and maintaining a long battery life. Switching to a newer battery technology with the car's original software might deliver both poor performance and poor battery life. And do you think that the hybrid manufacturer has any incentive to provide a software update to a 15 year old car to support newer battery technology? Probably not. So it seems that upgrading an older car with newer technology might not be easy if you are stuck with the old software. But how many people are going to be interested in doing something like that? Most people that I know just maintain their cars per the manufacturer without ever contemplating doing anything differently than that. If I were an engineer at a hybrid car company, I might push for software that could be easily tuned to support newer battery types down the road, but I suspect that management and marketing would not want to invest in such a feature when there are other things that will sound cooler in the sales brochure. So if I had an original Honda Insight, would I say I don't own my car because I don't have the freedom to change the old software in my car. I just cannot make the connection in my mind that I would not own the car.

Probably like many others on here, I work in the IT industry and I can't think of a single instance where you actually "own" any software that you "buy". All you are doing is paying for a licence to use that software for a specified period of time.
I don't see this being any different as it relates specifically to the software, not the hardware.

The above comment that "All software should be Open Source" is blatantly ridiculous.

Paul

I will never buy a new car again! Problem solved! They can keep their $hit!
I have had enough of big government!!!!

I'm just curious. Is software from auto manufacturers routinely pirated? I can throw a copy of Windows in multiple computers, but I cannot see a lot of logic in taking Fords software for a Focus and pirating it. Many of the software products have licenses due to competition, but I doubt Ford has a lot of competition for the software in their F150.

I could be wrong, but I have never seen it for sale anywhere.

This probably has far less to do with the average owner "pirating" the software than other manufacturers and competitors. The software is a very important part of todays complex and sophisticated engine management systems. There is also the infotainment, navigation and DIS systems, all of which have had many hours of development and expertise invested in them. If another manufacturer could short-cut that process by starting with another companies products, they probably would if there weren't measures in place to prevent it.

I don't see that this has anything to do with "big government", but everything to do with manufacturers protecting their investment and IP, which isn't unreasonable.

Paul

Can you say "China"????

Yes, but this isn't going to stop them. :(

I work a few miles from the Land Rover plant in Solihul, UK and their Range Rover Evoque has been massively successful for them, but in China it is being blatantly copied.

The bottom one is the real Evoque and the top one is the Chinese rip-off: :mad:

http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcsi.d...20141126172233

This is damaging local jobs for us here.

Paul