4 ms·

I'm ok with charging subscription fees for services with ongoing costs (things like cell connectivity for remote monitoring or something), and I'm ok with charg

I'm ok with charging subscription fees for services with ongoing costs (things like cell connectivity for remote monitoring or something), and I'm ok with charging one time fees for unlocking features that are already there, since it allows for price discrimination, cheaper and more efficient manufacturing, and better prices to the customer overall (potentially at least). But the flip side of that is that...if you put it on the car that the customer bought, and they figure out how to unlock it.....well good for them and sucks for you. This kind of thing _should_ 100% be legal (if it isn't already, and my understanding is that it is). If you want to _100% guarantee_ that they don't get a feature without paying for it, then I guess pony up for the more complicated manufacturing process where it isn't installed on some models. As for "they didn't pay for the license"....no....you gave it to them without asking them to sign a license agreement. They paid you money, and you gave them a product. How they use it is up to them.

toomuchtodo 3y ago
So contract law and copyright aren't a thing because people don't want it to be? You own the hardware (you can shuck the car, part it out, mod it), you don't own the code it runs. By all means, root the car and take the features you want, but don't be shocked when Tesla either a) nukes the features remotely or b) sues you. You are taking issue with an existing legal and contract law framework. No one is forcing you to buy a Tesla and be bound by agreements with them around their IP. Would you support a software company nuking someone's license to operate their software remotely if the customer defeated a license module they didn't pay for? (registered security researcher for my rooted Teslas)
- MostlyStable 3y ago
  I'm not sure how contract law is relevant at all. As for copyright, they aren't copying or distributing it in any way. If you give me the code on it, I am allowed to execute it as I see fit. The only way I see copyright issues is if they weren't actually shipping the code and I had to pirate it and side load it. Which is a completely different issue than is being discussed. If you sell me a book, I'm not allowed to copy that book and sell those copies. I am allowed to chop it up and and repaste my own copy however I see fit. If I'm wrong and current copyright law does not permit this kind of thing, then current copyright law is bad and should be changed.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    I'm fully supportive of someone going to court and finding out what happens when they do this. It is far more valuable than wild speculation. Copyright law is bad and should be changed, but that is unlikely a winning defense in the course of a civil suit (or criminally, if prosecuted for DMCA violations, such as circumvention of digital mechanisms for access control per 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)) [1] [2]. I am fairly confident (not an attorney, not your attorney) this applies to access to Tesla's FSD digital work. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 (17 U.S. Code § 1201 - Circumvention of copyright protection systems) [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=17-USC-1838631189-2041315756&term_occur=999&term_src=title:17:chapter:12:section:1201 https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840... (circumvent a technological measure (3) As used in this subsection— (A) to “circumvent a technological measure” means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and (B) a technological measure “effectively controls access to a work” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.)
- tadfisher 3y ago
  Contract law is running afoul of the first-sale doctrine here. Tesla can not enforce many clauses in a potential contract or license via the legal system, so it's not as cut-and-dry as "you don't own the code". Copyright has zero application here unless you redistribute Tesla's code or binaries. Reverse-engineering is a legal practice (in US law, at least).
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    > Copyright has zero application here unless you redistribute Tesla's code or binaries. Reverse-engineering is a legal practice (in US law, at least). Reverse engineering to utilize software you didn't pay for and don't have a license or some other legal authority to use is unlikely to pass muster legally, versus for interoperability purposes. https://www.eff.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq https://www.eff.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq (Control-F "What Exceptions Does DMCA Section 1201 Have To Allow Reverse Engineering?")
    - hooverd 3y ago
      Tesla can't sue you if you splice a switch into the seat heater relays! I don't know if that's a good idea. Or maybe they thought of that and they don't turn on unless there's some of key exchange.
      - toomuchtodo 3y ago
        That's BMW, not Tesla. Tesla only offers subscriptions for premium mobile network connectivity and FSD. A quality rocker switch would meet your needs for the BMW seat heater use case. https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/12/23204950/bmw-subscriptions-microtransactions-heated-seats-feature https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/12/23204950/bmw-subscription... EDIT: I stand corrected. It appears there was a window of time where Tesla offered rear heated seats as an upgrade on a base trim standard range Model 3. https://electrek.co/2020/02/15/tesla-rear-heated-seats-model-3-ota-upgrades/ https://electrek.co/2020/02/15/tesla-rear-heated-seats-model...
        3y ago
- hooverd 3y ago
  This just sounds like "you get all the downsides of ownership but we get all the upsides of a subscription model".
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
sokoloff 3y ago
> This kind of thing _should_ 100% be legal (if it isn't already, and my understanding is that it is). It may fall afoul of the (terribly written, but still law) Section 1201 of the DMCA, if it's arguable that the circumvention provides access to computer software (and I think it is arguable). I agree that this should be legal, but I'm not nearly as convinced that it is legal currently.
- RajT88 3y ago
  Agree with this. The DMCA makes stuff like this illegal. Recall that when CD copy protection was starting to be deployed, you could negate it with a black marker. The DMCA then made black markers illegal, because it bans "tools which may be used to circumvent copyright" as well as the "circumvention of copy protection measures". (Not that anyone tried to enforce it, but the letter of the law was pretty clear that black markers were then illegal to possess) The DMCA should be amended or revoked to make these shenanigans no longer enforceable.
  - jrmg 3y ago
    Black markers are/were very obviously not illegal. The law doesn’t work like code, it’s filtered by humans. No court would ever come to the conclusion that something as mundane as black markers are illegal to possess.
    - RajT88 3y ago
      You almost understood the point. The DMCA is a problem because putting copy protection on (for example) heated seats is a similar level of silliness to outlawing black markers.
      - belltaco 3y ago
        > but the letter of the law was pretty clear that black markers were then illegal to possess That is wrong. It's legal to possess a hammer but illegal to bash someone on the head with one. It was legal to possess a black marker and arguably illegal to use it to circumvent copy protection.
freejazz 3y ago
>"As for "they didn't pay for the license"....no....you gave it to them without asking them to sign a license agreement. They paid you money, and you gave them a product. How they use it is up to them." That's not true and it's most definitely not a valid legal position to take in defense

toomuchtodo 3y ago

So contract law and copyright aren't a thing because people don't want it to be? You own the hardware (you can shuck the car, part it out, mod it), you don't own the code it runs. By all means, root the car and take the features you want, but don't be shocked when Tesla either a) nukes the features remotely or b) sues you. You are taking issue with an existing legal and contract law framework. No one is forcing you to buy a Tesla and be bound by agreements with them around their IP. Would you support a software company nuking someone's license to operate their software remotely if the customer defeated a license module they didn't pay for? (registered security researcher for my rooted Teslas)

MostlyStable 3y ago
I'm not sure how contract law is relevant at all. As for copyright, they aren't copying or distributing it in any way. If you give me the code on it, I am allowed to execute it as I see fit. The only way I see copyright issues is if they weren't actually shipping the code and I had to pirate it and side load it. Which is a completely different issue than is being discussed. If you sell me a book, I'm not allowed to copy that book and sell those copies. I am allowed to chop it up and and repaste my own copy however I see fit. If I'm wrong and current copyright law does not permit this kind of thing, then current copyright law is bad and should be changed.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  I'm fully supportive of someone going to court and finding out what happens when they do this. It is far more valuable than wild speculation. Copyright law is bad and should be changed, but that is unlikely a winning defense in the course of a civil suit (or criminally, if prosecuted for DMCA violations, such as circumvention of digital mechanisms for access control per 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)) [1] [2]. I am fairly confident (not an attorney, not your attorney) this applies to access to Tesla's FSD digital work. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 (17 U.S. Code § 1201 - Circumvention of copyright protection systems) [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=17-USC-1838631189-2041315756&term_occur=999&term_src=title:17:chapter:12:section:1201 https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840... (circumvent a technological measure (3) As used in this subsection— (A) to “circumvent a technological measure” means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and (B) a technological measure “effectively controls access to a work” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.)
tadfisher 3y ago
Contract law is running afoul of the first-sale doctrine here. Tesla can not enforce many clauses in a potential contract or license via the legal system, so it's not as cut-and-dry as "you don't own the code". Copyright has zero application here unless you redistribute Tesla's code or binaries. Reverse-engineering is a legal practice (in US law, at least).
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  > Copyright has zero application here unless you redistribute Tesla's code or binaries. Reverse-engineering is a legal practice (in US law, at least). Reverse engineering to utilize software you didn't pay for and don't have a license or some other legal authority to use is unlikely to pass muster legally, versus for interoperability purposes. https://www.eff.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq https://www.eff.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq (Control-F "What Exceptions Does DMCA Section 1201 Have To Allow Reverse Engineering?")
  - hooverd 3y ago
    Tesla can't sue you if you splice a switch into the seat heater relays! I don't know if that's a good idea. Or maybe they thought of that and they don't turn on unless there's some of key exchange.
    - toomuchtodo 3y ago
      That's BMW, not Tesla. Tesla only offers subscriptions for premium mobile network connectivity and FSD. A quality rocker switch would meet your needs for the BMW seat heater use case. https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/12/23204950/bmw-subscriptions-microtransactions-heated-seats-feature https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/12/23204950/bmw-subscription... EDIT: I stand corrected. It appears there was a window of time where Tesla offered rear heated seats as an upgrade on a base trim standard range Model 3. https://electrek.co/2020/02/15/tesla-rear-heated-seats-model-3-ota-upgrades/ https://electrek.co/2020/02/15/tesla-rear-heated-seats-model...
      - 3y ago
hooverd 3y ago
This just sounds like "you get all the downsides of ownership but we get all the upsides of a subscription model".

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

sokoloff 3y ago

> This kind of thing _should_ 100% be legal (if it isn't already, and my understanding is that it is). It may fall afoul of the (terribly written, but still law) Section 1201 of the DMCA, if it's arguable that the circumvention provides access to computer software (and I think it is arguable). I agree that this should be legal, but I'm not nearly as convinced that it is legal currently.

RajT88 3y ago
Agree with this. The DMCA makes stuff like this illegal. Recall that when CD copy protection was starting to be deployed, you could negate it with a black marker. The DMCA then made black markers illegal, because it bans "tools which may be used to circumvent copyright" as well as the "circumvention of copy protection measures". (Not that anyone tried to enforce it, but the letter of the law was pretty clear that black markers were then illegal to possess) The DMCA should be amended or revoked to make these shenanigans no longer enforceable.
- jrmg 3y ago
  Black markers are/were very obviously not illegal. The law doesn’t work like code, it’s filtered by humans. No court would ever come to the conclusion that something as mundane as black markers are illegal to possess.
  - RajT88 3y ago
    You almost understood the point. The DMCA is a problem because putting copy protection on (for example) heated seats is a similar level of silliness to outlawing black markers.
    - belltaco 3y ago
      > but the letter of the law was pretty clear that black markers were then illegal to possess That is wrong. It's legal to possess a hammer but illegal to bash someone on the head with one. It was legal to possess a black marker and arguably illegal to use it to circumvent copy protection.

freejazz 3y ago

>"As for "they didn't pay for the license"....no....you gave it to them without asking them to sign a license agreement. They paid you money, and you gave them a product. How they use it is up to them." That's not true and it's most definitely not a valid legal position to take in defense