3 ms·

GM says you don't own your car, you just license it

5 points by elmar 11y ago

dozzie 11y ago
So let GM fix all the mechanical issues as well, and on their cost. It's licensed, after all.
PeekPoke 11y ago
Sounds like a good reason not to buy GM vehicles to me, it's not like there is a lack of competition out there...
pdkl95 11y ago
The idiotic idea that a license is needed to run software - a power grab by software companies to bypass the doctrine of first sale - is based on the opinion in MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc.[1] that temporary copies made during the normal use of software are require a license. Even though this required ignoring 17 U.S.C. § 117 [2] and later cases like UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Augusto re-affirmed the limitation of first sale, this licensing crap is usually still a derivation of the idea that copying a program into RAM to run it is a "copy" and therefor requires a license. Except... the John Deere and GM situations potentially add a complication. The software in question is actually firmware, and depending on the implementation it might be running directly from non-volatile memory (flash/EEPROM). If no copy is being made, isn't the entire argument about a license being required invalidated? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAI_Systems_Corp._v._Peak_Computer,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAI_Systems_Corp._v._Peak_Comp.... [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117
- greenyoda 11y ago
  It's also idiotic that copyright law would prevent me from reading GM's software and modifying it for my personal use. As far as I understand the intent of copyright, it should only prevent me from re-selling GM's software (or a derivative work that's substantially based on it). If GM has a software-controlled braking system that they want to prevent other car manufacturers from copying, shouldn't that be covered by a patent? Imagine how silly it would be if copyright law prevented you from reading a novel that you just bought, or scribbling notes on the book's pages, or publishing an essay analyzing its characters.
elmar 11y ago
This post as 5 points and 4 comments from different people interesting, now as 5.

5 points by elmar 11y ago

dozzie 11y ago

So let GM fix all the mechanical issues as well, and on their cost. It's licensed, after all.

PeekPoke 11y ago

Sounds like a good reason not to buy GM vehicles to me, it's not like there is a lack of competition out there...

pdkl95 11y ago

The idiotic idea that a license is needed to run software - a power grab by software companies to bypass the doctrine of first sale - is based on the opinion in MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc.[1] that temporary copies made during the normal use of software are require a license. Even though this required ignoring 17 U.S.C. § 117 [2] and later cases like UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Augusto re-affirmed the limitation of first sale, this licensing crap is usually still a derivation of the idea that copying a program into RAM to run it is a "copy" and therefor requires a license. Except... the John Deere and GM situations potentially add a complication. The software in question is actually firmware, and depending on the implementation it might be running directly from non-volatile memory (flash/EEPROM). If no copy is being made, isn't the entire argument about a license being required invalidated? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAI_Systems_Corp._v._Peak_Computer,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAI_Systems_Corp._v._Peak_Comp.... [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117

greenyoda 11y ago
It's also idiotic that copyright law would prevent me from reading GM's software and modifying it for my personal use. As far as I understand the intent of copyright, it should only prevent me from re-selling GM's software (or a derivative work that's substantially based on it). If GM has a software-controlled braking system that they want to prevent other car manufacturers from copying, shouldn't that be covered by a patent? Imagine how silly it would be if copyright law prevented you from reading a novel that you just bought, or scribbling notes on the book's pages, or publishing an essay analyzing its characters.

elmar 11y ago

This post as 5 points and 4 comments from different people interesting, now as 5.