12 ms·
EU drops rule that would prevent self-driving car data from being copyrighted
- dang 8y agoUrl changed from https://jalopnik.com/eu-rules-that-any-data-your-autonomous-car-generates-is-1829666845 https://jalopnik.com/eu-rules-that-any-data-your-autonomous-..., which points to this.
- noobermin 8y agoAin't it great that it's the same group that pushed the copyright directive. It's funny when the same actors end up being the bad guys.
- sieabahlpark 8y agoI can't wait for someone from the EU to come in and defend this.
- lucb1e 8y agoLet's not make this an "us vs. them" thread, that doesn't help anybody.
- lsiebert 8y agoIn general, or in this specific case? Because I can think of a number of times us vs. them have been important for the advancement of justice, civil rights, protection of individuals etc. Copyright is intended for the protection of literary or artistic works, but it's been extended to cover recordings and performances. Those arguably have some artistic or creative properties, but I find it hard to argue that telemetry data has any real creative properties. The truth is, you don't need copyright on telemetry data for machines you control and own, because that data never leaves your control. It only matters for machines you don't both control and own. Who benefits from differentiating between ownership and control?
- Tomte 8y agoI can't wait to cite this when another person claims that e.g. the GDPR is so anti-corporate, and the EU's only goal is to punish American companies. Somehow the EU is always the bad actor, it doesn't matter which side it ends up favoring in some specific action. Of which there are probably thousands, if not tens of thousands every year. But sure, the world ending always hinges on exactly the one action some commenter happened to dislike that day.
- Hermel 8y agoThe title is very misleading. The parliament just voted to not include a clause that would have explicitely made that data not copyrightable. Unfortunately, the article does not tell us why this clause was removed. Maybe it was just removed because it is unnecessary?
- dang 8y agoOk, we've reworded the title above to try to reflect that.
- jandrewrogers 8y agoAutomotive telemetry data in many countries is subject to multiple regulatory regimes, not the least of which is GDPR, related to use of this data and who is entitled to access it. Exclusion from copyright protection would appear to be at odds with these regulatory regimes. Entitlement to access usually includes the government and manufacturer.
- comex 8y agoHow so? The scope of GPDR includes a lot of data that is not copyrighted or copyrightable – including anything purely factual in nature rather than creative, such as my IP address, net worth, choice of religion, etc. (Well, technically in the EU you can own 'database rights', which are similar to copyright, on large databases of facts, but only in certain conditions and subject to expiry and exemptions; GPDR has no such limits.)
- jandrewrogers 8y agoThis data is the equivalent of tracking all the data off the mobile phone of an unknown person -- it is anonymous but trivially identifiable. The data is also definitely copyrightable in nature, being complex engineering analytics customized for the vehicle by the manufacturer and used for a wide variety of internal purposes. The contents and semantics of this data varies widely across manufacturers. It goes far beyond dumb telemetry. Much of this data is treated as a legitimate trade secret by the manufacturer and is generally deemed to be owned by the manufacturer for legal purposes, though they are sometimes required to share it with regulatory bodies. Automotive companies would strongly object to this data becoming public because it would adversely impact their ability to maintain a technological competitive advantage. That their engineering trade secrets are covered under GDPR makes it that much more awkward, but owning a copyright on this data at least gives them legal standing to enforce compliance. I've worked with major European automotive OEMs -- they would lose their minds if you told them this data is no longer theirs to control.
- ucaetano 8y agoIsn't all telemetry data currently copyrighted? Streetview? Pictures of a street? Satellite images? Why would it be public domain? Honest question, I'm not understanding how telemetry data is different than airborne laser scanner data, Streetview, map data, satellite pictures, etc. Or even server logs generated by an iPhone for Apple, Tesla's car data logs, etc.
- scotty79 8y ago> Why would it be public domain? Not sure if that's the case but they do not have element of creativity. They just copy real world so why would they deserve any monopoly?
- yorwba 8y agoThe EU apparently has copyright-like protections for databases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sui_generis_database_right https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sui_generis_database_right
- DannyBee 8y agoEU has "sweat of the brow" doctrine, US does not.
- airstrike 8y agoIs a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj9NJZUomjQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj9NJZUomjQ
- ucaetano 8y agoEven copying the real world is copyrightable. If you take a picture of a street, you own the copyright to it. Shouldn't you? PS: Not including the weird exceptions in the EU of monuments and such.
- wmf 8y agoThere's some precedent in the US that "factual" photographs that have no creative element are not copyrightable. In practice, I think various contracts and EULAs will override copyright questions anyway.
- llampx 8y agoWhere did this People's Party comes from? Sounds very newspeak-ish, considering they only push through legislation benefitting large corporates.
- tormeh 8y agoIt's a group of mostly centre-right parties. So, conservatives, christian-democrats and the like.
- jahabrewer 8y agoMaybe their full name is the "(Corporations are) People's Party".
- lumberjack 8y agoThey are the centre-right coalition of all centre-right political parties in Europe. It is beyond laughable levels how they corrupt they are. You can predict their stance 100% of the time by assuming it is the business friendly position.
- Shiboleth 8y agoHow the hell did a right wing organisation get the title "The People's Party"?
- etatoby 8y agoMakes sense to me. If you are liars through and through, why be honest on your party's name, of all things?
- spanishthrow 8y agoIn Spain it was created by former Francoist hierarchs during the transition from dictatorship to democracy.
- Vinnl 8y agoHow the hell did North Korea get the title "Democratic People's Republic"? Edit: To be clear, I'm not trying to compare the People's Party to the North Korean regime, just pointing out that organisations can pick their own name, and that doesn't necessarily have to reflect what they are, or what they will become years after they have chosen the name.
- amelius 8y agoRelated: Can we have a rule that crowdsourced data is public domain? E.g.: Amazon reviews, IMDb reviews and data, YouTube videos, etc. Most of this data belongs to our culture.
- mindslight 8y agoYour comment is a bit weak ("can we have a rule") - but this is exactly the type of thing we should be working towards. Why should software vendors gain legal control over our data, simply because we use their software? If the compiler vendors could have pulled this crap back in the 80s, the Internet as we know it would not exist.
- amelius 8y ago> Why should software vendors gain legal control over our data, simply because we use their software? Well, probably because their EULA says so. Hence my question: "can we have a rule".
- mindslight 8y agoSaying "a rule" sounds like powerlessly wishing a problem gets fixed. The term makes sense for the OP about a detail in the context of a larger process, but you're talking about a more general topic that needs a wider legal-philosophical push with how metastasized copyright and adhesion contracts have become. My question was rhetorical - asking what is right, not what legal mechanisms are being abused to create the current state.
- amelius 8y ago> Saying "a rule" sounds like powerlessly wishing a problem gets fixed. Isn't that mostly the case when we post about some (perceived) injustice on HN? Take for instance the patent system. Every now and then people come up with ideas for what the system should really be like, but nobody ever provides any hints for actually getting these ideas implemented, and almost always the forces that keep the current system in place are totally ignored.
- pavlov 8y agoNot surprising considering the lobbying power of German car companies who are investing in this field.
- mrmondo 8y agoIMO the title is a little misleading - I read 'EU drops rule' as that the EU had removed a rule / cancelled it. Should probably be something like "EU states that telemetry data collected from self-driving cars may be subject to copyright protection". Then the bigger discussion should probably be - 'What is telemetry data?'. If telemetry data is _any_ data collected from a car that could be remotely accessed, then in theory I'd argue that digital oil sensor readings, digital odometer readings and digital tyre pressure readings are all telemetry data if they are stored in a place that can be remotely read. If that's the case - it could lead to the situation where car manufacturers demand (by law) that you are only allowed to service your car with them and not be a mechanic of your choice. That may start as a small inconvenience that luxury car owners may be able to afford but as those features come to lower end models it may hurt average or less well off consumers. Further more, what happened to 'facts' not being copyrightable (generally speaking).
- tjoff 8y agoIf I take a picture with my camera the camera manufacturer will not get the copyright. How on earth are car manufacturers gonna be the ones that get the copyright? (I'm sure you are correct but it feels absurd) Will software companies claim copyright on logs?
- drivingmenuts 8y agoI'm going to go out on a limb and suggest very few people will own an autonomous vehicle and will probably rent/lease them instead, which solves the problem neatly, if it happens. If you don't actually own the thing, then it's harder to claim the data is yours.
- visarga 8y agoNeatly for who?
- drivingmenuts 8y agoNeatly for manufacturers. If the users don't own the vehicle, the data remains the property of the manufacturers or the business renting them to users (though I'd bet most of it would belong to the manufacturers).
- nouveau0 8y agoNice work with the title OP
- deytempo 8y agoI mean why wouldn’t you want a random video to pop up on mobile when you try to view their site?
- kevin_thibedeau 8y agoThat's fine. Of course such data would be owned by the vehicle's owner.
- Havoc 8y agoCopyright on telemetry seems pretty stupid in the first place.
- Nasrudith 8y agoThis is a bit radical but here is a question - what is the public interest that copyrighting this data serves whatsoever - regardless of who it belongs to?
- torgian 8y agoThis is why I’ll stick to old cars for as long as possible
- Jyaif 8y agoOld cars are more dangerous; I'm glad to see natural selection getting rid of technophobes.
- adrianN 8y agoTell that to the pedestrians and cyclists that are killed in traffic.
- swift532 8y agoI'm not sure how we're defining an old car here, but I'm pretty sure a car from 2010 is not noticeably more dangerous than cars today. Preferring a car with more freedomey™ qualities because you don't want to be tracked, analyzed and want to increase the security of your car (as in, to be managed only by yourself) hardly qualifies as being a luddite.
- choot 8y agoI wonder how this will help EU people. This decision doesn't seem pro consumer. Maybe automakers control EU and it's a way to secure their future cash cow.
- hyperman1 8y agoThis seems to open a big can of worms: If it can be copyrighted, it has an author. So who is it? * Is the driver the author of this data? If yes, does the car company need to get a license to fetch this data or are they pirates? Is the driver permitted to exercises authorship rights like distribution? Why not? * Or is the car's creator author? Then the driver had no influence on the creation of the data, so can't be responsible for anything: His actions had no consequences. * Or are both parties co authors? Then you need agreement from every author before you can do anything. This causes both problems at the top at the same time.