6 ms·

This is quite interesting, I hadn't seen or heard about their intention to restrict like this, prior reading it tonight: "Please note also that using a self-dr

This is quite interesting, I hadn't seen or heard about their intention to restrict like this, prior reading it tonight: "Please note also that using a self-driving Tesla for car sharing and ride hailing for friends and family is fine, but doing so for revenue purposes will only be permissible on the Tesla Network, details of which will be released next year."

quotemstr 9y ago
I don't think our legal system should allow car manufacturers to impose these kinds of restrictions on cars fully owned by their operators. If I have the title on my vehicle, I should be able to use it in any legal capacity. This restriction is an attack on the fundamental ideas of ownership and property.
- elmigranto 9y ago
  Software-like licenses make their way to hardware world. I wonder how soon we'll start seeing "as is" and "no guarantees of any kind" clauses…
  - erikpukinskis 9y ago
    I mean... Autopilot is software, right?
    - sjwright 9y ago
      If you consider that the hardware is entirely comprised of third-party commodity parts* then yes, whatever it is that makes Autopilot a distinct product/proposition is entirely software. * It's all really just off-the-shelf cameras, sensors, processors etc sourced from various suppliers. Of course we should acknowledge that the validation and alignment of these parts plays an important role, but there's not really any secret sauce there.
    - elmigranto 9y ago
      I wouldn't say that. It certainly not exclusively software and I don't think it is honest to divide a system like that into "soft" and "hard" components, since neither one has value for customer on its own.
      - jyrkesh 9y ago
        Really? You don't see this as any different than iOS running on an iPhone? I can't use the iOS license on any other device, I can't run binaries on the device outside of what's available on the App Store. I'm wholly restricted to their rules on both the hardware and software sides of things.
        elmigranto 9y ago
        I don't get what's the disagreement here. Apple sells you a whole system, iPhone + iOS. They don't sell you two things, like in PC world, for example, and that's different and that's okay as long as everyone is upfront about it. What I am saying is that Apple sells you a product. You own it. You can do whatever you want with it. Feel free to alter any part of it, just don't expect it to work or keep your warrantee. The fact the product has limitations out of the box is a different matter. (Kind of like no one complains that kitchen timer can't boil water, or doesn't have nanoseconds precision — you want those things, you buy a different thing or make your own.) What Apple doesn't do is to restrict you in how you use their product. There's no such thing like "you can only non-commercially photograph your family" or "never resell your iPhone", or "detaching screen is illegal". And, more importantly, there is nothing Apple can do to stop you from doing any of those things.
        elmigranto 9y ago
        In a nutshell, the difference is "sell" vs "license", "own" vs "rent". You own your iPhone and you rent your Tesla Autopilot it seems.
  - quotemstr 9y ago
    People try these shenanigans every generation or so. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
    - barrkel 9y ago
      It's not going to work, things will change or we will have no self driving cars. There must be someone who's liable, and that person will be the corporation that wrote the software. That in turn will mean restrictions; the software must be updated on a timely basis, and the risk to the company must be controlled in an actuarial sense just like vehicle insurance. Vehicle insurance like today can't be used because incentives aren't aligned. Fully self-driving cars will come with an insurance package, and the company will need to control its insurable risk, or there will be no self-driving cars at all. If it's against the law, the law will change, not the model. I'm sorry, but society will demand it. You will not and cannot have full ownership control over a self-driving car.
- djloche 9y ago
  the question is one of responsibility in the case of accident. is it the owner of the car? or the driver? what happens when there is no driver? well, my guess is that TSLA the manufacturer of the auto-driving software is going to be liable in place of the driver, and as such, they have every right to say, nope, no using our auto-pilot for commercial activity unless it is on our own network where we can self-regulate to make sure we are liable for as few of problems as possible.
  - draugadrotten 9y ago
    When Tesla say you can't drive passengers commercially it is probably because of liability concerns. Insurance for taxis are much higher than insurance for personal vehicles. Volvo CEO said already in 2015 that Volvo will accept full liability whenever one of its cars is in autonomous mode. http://fortune.com/2015/10/07/volvo-liability-self-driving-cars/ http://fortune.com/2015/10/07/volvo-liability-self-driving-c...
  - bubblethink 9y ago
    >what happens when there is no driver? well, my guess is that TSLA the manufacturer of the auto-driving software is going to be liable in place of the driver, and as such, they have every right to say, nope, no using our auto-pilot for commercial activity unless it is on our own network Why does this argument hold true only for self-driving cars, and not current cars ? As such, self-driving cars are just a point in continuous evolution. Current cars are already quite different from what they were a few decades ago. Why is now a good time to draw a line ? Every change in this eveolution goes through government approval. If it is approved, it should be safe enough for everyone.
    - grkvlt 9y ago
      It sort of does hold for current cars. Generally a driver (in most cases, a human) must obtain a further license or some form of government permission/authorization to drive a vehicle for commercial purposes like a taxi or other passenger carrying service. This seems to be simply pointing out that the same restriction will apply to the software-based driver in a Tesla...?
- castratikron 9y ago
  How is this any different than Microsoft restricting Home versions of Office for non-business use? They've been getting away with that for decades now.
  - smitherfield 9y ago
    Well, for one, a car is a physical object; you can't near-instantaneously create an arbitrary number of exact duplicates of your car.
    - kyberias 9y ago
      Why would that - whether it's physical or not - determine what kind of licenses you can attach to the product?
      - smitherfield 9y ago
        When you buy a car, the title is signed over to you, and you become its owner. Microsoft Office is information that Microsoft agrees to share with you subject to certain restrictions on your use of it. To actually purchase Microsoft Office the intellectual property, as opposed to a license for it, would cost you about 9 orders of magnitude more. They're also restricting their customers' actions in meatspace (you can't drive people around in exchange for money) while the Office restrictions (you can't create business-related files) are IP-related. A more accurate analogy would be if Microsoft banned you from using a Surface for business purposes (or for business purposes while running Windows, but it's impossible to install a different OS). IANAL so I don't know if Tesla is on solid legal ground (I would guess that probably they are), but I think there's certainly a clear philosophical distinction.
        ErikHuisman 9y ago
        tesla is restricting the autopilot software not the car itself
        9y ago
- georgemcbay 9y ago
  Well it isn't currently clear that they do. Tesla can write whatever they want into the car version of a EULA, but it doesn't mean there is legal merit to any of it. Assuming Tesla eventually "catches" someone using a Tesla for ride sharing profit outside of their network they could remotely disable the car, at which point they will surely be sued and the courts will decide. And they will very likely decide against Tesla, IMO. The immediate reaction to this statement is bound to cause people who work purely in the software realm to protest, but to most courts software is still a very nebulous thing. Disabling someone's car (after selling it to them outright) because they did something with it that you didn't like is EASY to understand, anathema to the entire history of car ownership and I really don't think it'll fly.
  - barrkel 9y ago
    If a court rules against the person who has the risk from controlling the risk, they will get themselves out of that situation. That will either mean changing the law, changing to a lease model and ceasing sales, or stop selling self driving at all.
- raldi 9y ago
  It does seem a bit like having to pay extra for pencils if they're being used for commercial purposes.
- MarkMc 9y ago
  Tesla: We can't place restrictions on fully owned vehicles? OK, from now on we don't sell cars - we rent them for 50 years. Now can we place restrictions?
  - goodplay 9y ago
    I personally find this to be better and more honest. If we as customers don't own something, companies shouldn't use words like "your" and "ownership" to mislead people.
    - quotemstr 9y ago
      +1. Even if there's no difference in practice, at least a long lease signifies unusual restrictions. Makers of big heavy pieces of industrial equipment also sometimes offer only long leases and never sales.
  - ant6n 9y ago
    Presumably you're allowed to destroy the Tesla you own - which wouldn't be true with a long term rental, you'd have to give that back.
- Gackle_Murderer 9y ago
  I think so too. I've extended this frustration to airbnb and to zoning laws. How can they tell me what I can and can not do with MY property? That's insanity! If I want to rent it to different travellers every week, maybe I will find a way to do it, and maybe people should mind their own damn business and stop telling other people how to mind theirs. Sovereignty goes hand in hand with property
- lifeformed 9y ago
  I wonder if it's to prevent the following scenario in the future, where the self-driving capabilities are perfect and legal: rich people buy as many Model 3's as possible, and deploy their own taxi fleet. Each one pays itself off in 4-6 months (est ~$15/hr, can operate 24/7), and generate lots of passive income forever.
  - EmielMols 9y ago
    This is not how markets work. Once the "self-driving capabilities are perfect and legal": - investing in such a fleet would be like investing in any other kind of business: it's easier if you have the money, but if not you can go to any bank and get a loan. - prices for a trip with a self-driving taxi will drop immensely, this is probably going to be a big liability if you would start the aforementioned business - other effects that I can't think of right now It is true that in a lot of places rich people have an edge on the less-wealthy (it's easier getting/staying rich if you are rich), but that's more of a generic problem than something that would be amplified by change to self-driving cars.
- thejerz 9y ago
  No one is forcing you to buy the car. If you don't like the terms of the license, don't buy it.
  - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
    Do you work for Deere or something? That's exactly the opinion that most people are against when applied to hardware as evidenced by the support (among people aware of them) for "right to repair" movements. The "you don't actually own the hardware you paid for" model is slowly becoming untenable for hardware sold to individuals.
lowglow 9y ago
This seems like if you support Tesla, I guess you support monopolistic efforts.
boramalper 9y ago
Let's hope for someone to initiate GNU/Tesla hehe.
- bubblethink 9y ago
  Unfortunately, such a thing will never exist, at least in a road legal sense. No government is going to approve it if it can be modified by the user. At best, you can have "look but don't touch" kind of open backed by some company if it has to be road legal. We aren't even fully over wifi router firmware yet.
  - mrfusion 9y ago
    Yet people work on their brakes in their driveway all the time. Hard to imagine a government allowing that.
  - amatus 9y ago
    Are we heading toward a future where it's illegal to drive your car on the road if you have modified its software?
enknamel 9y ago
They've been clear on this point for quite a while. When I purchased mine with full self driving capability, I read it in the fine print and thought it was very smart of them. It's a weird proposition to turn your luxury car into an autonomous Uber. I would never do it.
- bubblethink 9y ago
  What is so smart about it ? Literally every company on the planet has been doing this for at least a few decades now. And if you are plonking $100-150k on a car, what is weird about expecting some sort of return on it ?
tajen 9y ago
That means a city is in uncertainty if it tries to buy 3 or 4 Tesla to serve as paid minibuses on local territory – neither can a company for a campus, TV channels for a huge studio range, entertainment park to drive their agents around or a shuttle service to the airport who would like to provide limousine services.
- dmurray 9y ago
  At worst they could call Tesla and ask for permission and a separate license agreement. I'd expect Tesla to agree in any of those cases.
csomar 9y ago
This is scary. Or rather pointing to a scary future. Does it mean I won't be able to play with my future GF fake boobs because they are only allowed into the iClinic network participants?
hsod 9y ago
I think it kinda makes sense considering that Autopilot is going to need constant maintenance/updates/investigations, plus the whole legal liability thing. Autopilot is a service.

quotemstr 9y ago

I don't think our legal system should allow car manufacturers to impose these kinds of restrictions on cars fully owned by their operators. If I have the title on my vehicle, I should be able to use it in any legal capacity. This restriction is an attack on the fundamental ideas of ownership and property.

elmigranto 9y ago
Software-like licenses make their way to hardware world. I wonder how soon we'll start seeing "as is" and "no guarantees of any kind" clauses…
- erikpukinskis 9y ago
  I mean... Autopilot is software, right?
  - sjwright 9y ago
    If you consider that the hardware is entirely comprised of third-party commodity parts* then yes, whatever it is that makes Autopilot a distinct product/proposition is entirely software. * It's all really just off-the-shelf cameras, sensors, processors etc sourced from various suppliers. Of course we should acknowledge that the validation and alignment of these parts plays an important role, but there's not really any secret sauce there.
  - elmigranto 9y ago
    I wouldn't say that. It certainly not exclusively software and I don't think it is honest to divide a system like that into "soft" and "hard" components, since neither one has value for customer on its own.
    - jyrkesh 9y ago
      Really? You don't see this as any different than iOS running on an iPhone? I can't use the iOS license on any other device, I can't run binaries on the device outside of what's available on the App Store. I'm wholly restricted to their rules on both the hardware and software sides of things.
      - elmigranto 9y ago
        I don't get what's the disagreement here. Apple sells you a whole system, iPhone + iOS. They don't sell you two things, like in PC world, for example, and that's different and that's okay as long as everyone is upfront about it. What I am saying is that Apple sells you a product. You own it. You can do whatever you want with it. Feel free to alter any part of it, just don't expect it to work or keep your warrantee. The fact the product has limitations out of the box is a different matter. (Kind of like no one complains that kitchen timer can't boil water, or doesn't have nanoseconds precision — you want those things, you buy a different thing or make your own.) What Apple doesn't do is to restrict you in how you use their product. There's no such thing like "you can only non-commercially photograph your family" or "never resell your iPhone", or "detaching screen is illegal". And, more importantly, there is nothing Apple can do to stop you from doing any of those things.
        elmigranto 9y ago
        In a nutshell, the difference is "sell" vs "license", "own" vs "rent". You own your iPhone and you rent your Tesla Autopilot it seems.
- quotemstr 9y ago
  People try these shenanigans every generation or so. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
  - barrkel 9y ago
    It's not going to work, things will change or we will have no self driving cars. There must be someone who's liable, and that person will be the corporation that wrote the software. That in turn will mean restrictions; the software must be updated on a timely basis, and the risk to the company must be controlled in an actuarial sense just like vehicle insurance. Vehicle insurance like today can't be used because incentives aren't aligned. Fully self-driving cars will come with an insurance package, and the company will need to control its insurable risk, or there will be no self-driving cars at all. If it's against the law, the law will change, not the model. I'm sorry, but society will demand it. You will not and cannot have full ownership control over a self-driving car.
djloche 9y ago
the question is one of responsibility in the case of accident. is it the owner of the car? or the driver? what happens when there is no driver? well, my guess is that TSLA the manufacturer of the auto-driving software is going to be liable in place of the driver, and as such, they have every right to say, nope, no using our auto-pilot for commercial activity unless it is on our own network where we can self-regulate to make sure we are liable for as few of problems as possible.
- draugadrotten 9y ago
  When Tesla say you can't drive passengers commercially it is probably because of liability concerns. Insurance for taxis are much higher than insurance for personal vehicles. Volvo CEO said already in 2015 that Volvo will accept full liability whenever one of its cars is in autonomous mode. http://fortune.com/2015/10/07/volvo-liability-self-driving-cars/ http://fortune.com/2015/10/07/volvo-liability-self-driving-c...
- bubblethink 9y ago
  >what happens when there is no driver? well, my guess is that TSLA the manufacturer of the auto-driving software is going to be liable in place of the driver, and as such, they have every right to say, nope, no using our auto-pilot for commercial activity unless it is on our own network Why does this argument hold true only for self-driving cars, and not current cars ? As such, self-driving cars are just a point in continuous evolution. Current cars are already quite different from what they were a few decades ago. Why is now a good time to draw a line ? Every change in this eveolution goes through government approval. If it is approved, it should be safe enough for everyone.
  - grkvlt 9y ago
    It sort of does hold for current cars. Generally a driver (in most cases, a human) must obtain a further license or some form of government permission/authorization to drive a vehicle for commercial purposes like a taxi or other passenger carrying service. This seems to be simply pointing out that the same restriction will apply to the software-based driver in a Tesla...?
castratikron 9y ago
How is this any different than Microsoft restricting Home versions of Office for non-business use? They've been getting away with that for decades now.
- smitherfield 9y ago
  Well, for one, a car is a physical object; you can't near-instantaneously create an arbitrary number of exact duplicates of your car.
  - kyberias 9y ago
    Why would that - whether it's physical or not - determine what kind of licenses you can attach to the product?
    - smitherfield 9y ago
      When you buy a car, the title is signed over to you, and you become its owner. Microsoft Office is information that Microsoft agrees to share with you subject to certain restrictions on your use of it. To actually purchase Microsoft Office the intellectual property, as opposed to a license for it, would cost you about 9 orders of magnitude more. They're also restricting their customers' actions in meatspace (you can't drive people around in exchange for money) while the Office restrictions (you can't create business-related files) are IP-related. A more accurate analogy would be if Microsoft banned you from using a Surface for business purposes (or for business purposes while running Windows, but it's impossible to install a different OS). IANAL so I don't know if Tesla is on solid legal ground (I would guess that probably they are), but I think there's certainly a clear philosophical distinction.
      - ErikHuisman 9y ago
        tesla is restricting the autopilot software not the car itself
        9y ago
georgemcbay 9y ago
Well it isn't currently clear that they do. Tesla can write whatever they want into the car version of a EULA, but it doesn't mean there is legal merit to any of it. Assuming Tesla eventually "catches" someone using a Tesla for ride sharing profit outside of their network they could remotely disable the car, at which point they will surely be sued and the courts will decide. And they will very likely decide against Tesla, IMO. The immediate reaction to this statement is bound to cause people who work purely in the software realm to protest, but to most courts software is still a very nebulous thing. Disabling someone's car (after selling it to them outright) because they did something with it that you didn't like is EASY to understand, anathema to the entire history of car ownership and I really don't think it'll fly.
- barrkel 9y ago
  If a court rules against the person who has the risk from controlling the risk, they will get themselves out of that situation. That will either mean changing the law, changing to a lease model and ceasing sales, or stop selling self driving at all.
raldi 9y ago
It does seem a bit like having to pay extra for pencils if they're being used for commercial purposes.
MarkMc 9y ago
Tesla: We can't place restrictions on fully owned vehicles? OK, from now on we don't sell cars - we rent them for 50 years. Now can we place restrictions?
- goodplay 9y ago
  I personally find this to be better and more honest. If we as customers don't own something, companies shouldn't use words like "your" and "ownership" to mislead people.
  - quotemstr 9y ago
    +1. Even if there's no difference in practice, at least a long lease signifies unusual restrictions. Makers of big heavy pieces of industrial equipment also sometimes offer only long leases and never sales.
- ant6n 9y ago
  Presumably you're allowed to destroy the Tesla you own - which wouldn't be true with a long term rental, you'd have to give that back.
Gackle_Murderer 9y ago
I think so too. I've extended this frustration to airbnb and to zoning laws. How can they tell me what I can and can not do with MY property? That's insanity! If I want to rent it to different travellers every week, maybe I will find a way to do it, and maybe people should mind their own damn business and stop telling other people how to mind theirs. Sovereignty goes hand in hand with property
lifeformed 9y ago
I wonder if it's to prevent the following scenario in the future, where the self-driving capabilities are perfect and legal: rich people buy as many Model 3's as possible, and deploy their own taxi fleet. Each one pays itself off in 4-6 months (est ~$15/hr, can operate 24/7), and generate lots of passive income forever.
- EmielMols 9y ago
  This is not how markets work. Once the "self-driving capabilities are perfect and legal": - investing in such a fleet would be like investing in any other kind of business: it's easier if you have the money, but if not you can go to any bank and get a loan. - prices for a trip with a self-driving taxi will drop immensely, this is probably going to be a big liability if you would start the aforementioned business - other effects that I can't think of right now It is true that in a lot of places rich people have an edge on the less-wealthy (it's easier getting/staying rich if you are rich), but that's more of a generic problem than something that would be amplified by change to self-driving cars.
thejerz 9y ago
No one is forcing you to buy the car. If you don't like the terms of the license, don't buy it.
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  Do you work for Deere or something? That's exactly the opinion that most people are against when applied to hardware as evidenced by the support (among people aware of them) for "right to repair" movements. The "you don't actually own the hardware you paid for" model is slowly becoming untenable for hardware sold to individuals.

lowglow 9y ago

This seems like if you support Tesla, I guess you support monopolistic efforts.

boramalper 9y ago

Let's hope for someone to initiate GNU/Tesla hehe.

bubblethink 9y ago
Unfortunately, such a thing will never exist, at least in a road legal sense. No government is going to approve it if it can be modified by the user. At best, you can have "look but don't touch" kind of open backed by some company if it has to be road legal. We aren't even fully over wifi router firmware yet.
- mrfusion 9y ago
  Yet people work on their brakes in their driveway all the time. Hard to imagine a government allowing that.
- amatus 9y ago
  Are we heading toward a future where it's illegal to drive your car on the road if you have modified its software?

enknamel 9y ago

They've been clear on this point for quite a while. When I purchased mine with full self driving capability, I read it in the fine print and thought it was very smart of them. It's a weird proposition to turn your luxury car into an autonomous Uber. I would never do it.

bubblethink 9y ago
What is so smart about it ? Literally every company on the planet has been doing this for at least a few decades now. And if you are plonking $100-150k on a car, what is weird about expecting some sort of return on it ?

tajen 9y ago

That means a city is in uncertainty if it tries to buy 3 or 4 Tesla to serve as paid minibuses on local territory – neither can a company for a campus, TV channels for a huge studio range, entertainment park to drive their agents around or a shuttle service to the airport who would like to provide limousine services.

dmurray 9y ago
At worst they could call Tesla and ask for permission and a separate license agreement. I'd expect Tesla to agree in any of those cases.

csomar 9y ago

This is scary. Or rather pointing to a scary future. Does it mean I won't be able to play with my future GF fake boobs because they are only allowed into the iClinic network participants?

hsod 9y ago

I think it kinda makes sense considering that Autopilot is going to need constant maintenance/updates/investigations, plus the whole legal liability thing. Autopilot is a service.