GM Says That While You May Own Your Car, It Owns The Software In It, Thanks To Copyright
from the copyright-is-broken dept
Last week, we noted that Senator Ron Wyden and Rep. Jared Polis had introduced an important bill to fix a part of the DMCA's broken anti-circumvention laws found in Section 1201 of the DMCA. For whatever reason, some people still have trouble understanding why the law is so broken. So here's a story that hopefully makes the point clearly. Thanks to DMCA 1201, John Deere claims it still owns the tractor you thought you bought from it. Instead, John Deere claims you're really just licensing that tractor:In the absence of an express written license in conjunction with the purchase of the vehicle, the vehicle owner receives an implied license for the life of the vehicle to operate the vehicle, subject to any warranty limitations, disclaimers or other contractual limitation in the sales contract or documentation.How nice of John Deere to say that your ability to operate the vehicle is really subject to the "implied license" it granted you. These comments (and many others) come in response to the ridiculous triennial review process in which the Librarian of Congress reviews requests to "exempt" certain cases from Section 1201's rules against circumvention. We discussed the ridiculous responses from some concerning video game archiving last week, and the John Deere statement is in response to requests to diagnose, repair or modify vehicle software. And, of course, lots of car companies are against this, including GM, which argues that all hell will break loose if people can diagnose problems in their own cars' computers. It, too, thinks that you don't really own your car and worries that people are mixed up in thinking they own the software that makes the car they bought run:
Proponents incorrectly conflate ownership of a vehicle with ownership of the underlying computer software in a vehicle.... Although we currently consider ownership of vehicle software instead of wireless handset software, the law’s ambiguity similarly renders it impossible for Proponents to establish that vehicle owners own the software in their vehicles (or even own a copy of the software rather than have a license), particularly where the law has not changed.But the real conflation here is by GM, John Deere, and others, in thinking that because they hold a copyright to some software, that somehow gives them ownership over what you do with the copy you legally purchased with the car itself. Once that purchase is concluded, the vehicle owners should be seen to have given up any proprietary interest in the single vehicle you bought. But thanks to copyright and Section 1201, that's an issue that faces "uncertainty." And that's a problem.
The companies lay out a parade of horribles that will happen if people can circumvent the DRM they put in their vehicles, mostly focused on the idea that people might soup up their car, making it dangerous. But that's not a copyright issue. People have always souped up cars, and before there was software in cars, no one argued that Ford could prevent you from turning your Mustang into a drag racer. It's only copyright that has rewritten the very concept of ownership in a dangerous way. As Kyle Wiens notes in his article at Wired in response to the "but, but, car modders!" argument:
They’re right. That could happen. But those activities are (1) already illegal, and (2) have nothing to do with copyright. If you’re going too fast, a cop should stop you—copyright law shouldn’t. If you’re dodging emissions regulations, you should pay EPA fines—not DMCA fines. And the specter of someone doing something illegal shouldn’t justify shutting down all the reasonable and legal modifications people can make to the things they paid for.But, by far, the most ridiculous in the "parade of horribles" comes from John Deere who was really, really, really, really stretching to try to come up with some way to pretend this is really about copyright issues. It argues that allowing farmers to modify the software in their tractors might lead those farmers to (and I am not making this up), listen to infringing music while they farm.
Moreover, TPMs for vehicle software for entertainment systems protects copyright owners of copyrighted content against the unauthorized reproduction and distribution of copyrighted works. For example, vehicle software for entertainment systems supports the playing of copyrighted music files and copyrighted audio books, among other expressive works. A vehicle driver may listen to sound recordings, while passengers may watch or view television and movie content. TPMs for in-vehicle entertainment systems encourage content providers to create and distribute highly-expressive copyrighted works that might otherwise be easily copied or pirated if the TPMs were circumvented. Consequently, circumvention of the above TPMs for purposes of “personalization, modification, or other improvement” is likely to encourage the unauthorized reproduction, distribution, and use of copyrighted software and content.I really feel sorry for whatever recent law school grad had this issue dumped on their desk and was told, "make this about copyright... some way... any way."
But all it really does is highlight the sheer ridiculousness of Section 1201 and how it's destroying property rights.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, dmca, dmca 1201, drm, section 1201, technology protection measures, triennial review
Companies: gm, john deere
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This really shouldn't be that difficult
No one buys a vehicle and believes that they are making two purchases(or a purchase and a license in this case), one for the car, and one for the software required for it to run. That would be like buying the car, but licensing the wheels. One does nothing without the other, so the idea that they should be treated as separate items is absurd. The customer may not have bought the software itself, but they most certainly should be recognized as having bought a copy of it, and be free to do with it as they will, even if that involves cracking or bypassing any DRM infections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This really shouldn't be that difficult
If we had judges and juries that could understand basic technology, going at this from a binary switch perspective would probably be the "winning" argument against it.
After all, software is nothing more than a series of switches - you wouldn't argue that you needed a yearly license to have a turn signals or headlight switch, would you?
Unfortunately, as we see just about daily, that is way too technical for a current courtroom to understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This really shouldn't be that difficult
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This really shouldn't be that difficult
I don't agree with that. These assholes are trying to redefine reality via bizarro world rules. That can't be all that hard to refute. Farmers have already seen through this !@#$ and are avoiding new tractors and buying older ones not subject to this idiocy.
They can try all they want to push this crap, but even morons on the street are seeing through it for what it really is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This really shouldn't be that difficult
Easy translation: The car you once owned and tuned up now becomes rented by you and illegal to tune up. The corporation owns the car and the process. With less people going to jail for Marijuana, we'll fill the jails with car-modders.
Don't laugh. The stage is being set.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This really shouldn't be that difficult
I just heard The Who's Magic Bus pop into my head. "You can't have it!" As in "No, I will not pay for this shite, and you're insane to think you're going to get my money for this kind of insanity."
You're a pessimist. I'm not. I'll bet a lot of people won't stand for this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This really shouldn't be that difficult
The only claim they should have is that you can't cut and paste your copy of the software and sell some other product with their software code in it. But you don't need DCMA for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
resale value
Further steps: yearly license payments to operate your vehicle & payments per designated allowed driver.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: resale value
Embed that in the financing paperwork and many people would never notice (*). In fact maybe it's already there - with so many people apparently only caring about the monthly payment it would probably even be an easy sell even if they were told it was there.
And for cash sales: oopsie no warranty or software fixes/upgrades. Add in a few bugs appearing over time, create an after-market opportunity, voila - profit!
* = Wasn't there a company that, to make a point, embedded some text stating that by accepting the software licensing agreement, people signed away their eldest child? Scroll, blah, scroll, blah, where's the accept button, oh there it is. Click.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: resale value
No one reads TOS's, in part because no one has the time to do so, and given many of them are chock full of legalese, unless you keep a lawyer on speed-dial, reading won't do you much good in any case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: resale value
This is precisely why I stopped reading them. Since I'm not a lawyer, it was a pointless waste of time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
James Madison used recently in another thread, but it's a good quote
-- James Madison
This quote seems to speak specifically to click-wrap contracts that have word counts exceeding Macbeth or Hamlet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Property rights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is about surveillance
Nobody involved in that wants the data flow interrupted, so using DRM anti-circumvention to prevent owners from taking control of their own vehicles and thus their privacy is a useful strategy. Of course adding some FUD and a bogus safety argument helps, too.
It is of course perfectly possible to build a car that doesn't spy on its owners -- but that's not what's happening. New vehicles, just like smartphones, are architected from the ground up to be instruments of surveillance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is about surveillance
"but we have to track every song and video you play, just so we can confirm all the copyrights are paid for"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Welcome to the sad, sad present.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We could have a freer, more open market if we were more willing to rein in anti-competitive behavior, but those involved scream "Property rights!" "Free market!" etc., and are allowed to get away with all sorts of shenanigans.
The trouble is, those inclined to partisanship and Red Scare fallacies fall for it. Thinking for yourself means not letting screeching special interest groups and media darlings do it for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Genuine question: if everything is owned in common, what market is there for buying and selling?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let me compliment you on being able to critically think about more then one subject and put the pieces together!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unintended concequence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unintended concequence
Maybe even include a suitably-obscured photocopy of the invoice for the non-Deere tractor you bought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unintended concequence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Abuse of Copyright
Once you've sold me the product, it belongs to me and that includes everything that comes with, software included. I may not own the software design, but I own the copy that came with my product that I purchase and I should be allowed to do whatever I want with it that suits me, including modifying and reselling as a whole. What I can't do is make copies to sell.
If I don't own the product I've been sold, I want my money back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Abuse of Copyright
If a product I purchased, that I own, contains parts (including software) that I don't own, and stripping out the parts I don't own renders the product inoperable, then you've sold me a defective product and I want my money back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Abuse of Copyright
You can want all you want. Doesn't mean it's going to happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Abuse of Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Abuse of Copyright
However, the software that is encoded in the BIO of the computer is not under a lease agreement, so the software that actually controls the computer is not sold separately like GM and John Deere would make you believe. I can install several Operating systems on a computer and it will still work. So GM, and John Deere need to get a life and quit trying to swindle one from the consumer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Abuse of Copyright
Do the license terms say they can do that? If so, that sounds like something that could be challenged in court and found to be an unconscionable contract term. I suspect it doesn't actually say that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Abuse of Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Abuse of Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some implications
I see a couple of problems with this.
1) If the manufacturers claim copyright, then the licensee (that's you) is unable to sell on the car, since that would be distribution of their copyrighted work (i.e. the in-vehicle software).
2) Do you, upon buying the car, sign a licensing agreement with the manufacturer to the effect that you agree to having purchased a license, not the software?
A license can not be implied just because on party wishes it so. And what if you don't agree to their terms?
Can they remove 'their' software and leave you with the car you bought? If not, the licensing terms could be deemed unconscionable and therefore invalid.
3) If memory serves (so I could be wrong), the majority of in-car software is built on top of open source software and, if so, the manufacturers have to abide by the terms of the that license, which, as likely as not, prohibits their claiming ownership of anything other than the bits they added on top.
Anything else invalidates the license.
This brazen (and unilateral) attempt by car manufacturers to turn the concept of ownership on its head is a sure sign the system is broken and needs fixing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Right now someone could actually build or retrofit a house, at great cost, with software so ingrained that if it were to be removed, the house would be unlivable. If the builder sold the home and then terminated the software license because the buyer violated some condition (i.e. writing code on top of the software) this problem would be solved. More precisely, the precedent for solving this problem would be established if the buyer took the seller to court. Such a case would highlight the flaws in any argument in favor of copyright protection prevailing.--This would be an ideal case, but scenarios could also work. Any case without the lobbying power of the auto industry would be preferable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It Gets Worse
I own and use a car that's over 16 years old. Depsite that the car the car still runs more than satisfactorily. Plus I can still easily get parts for it. In contrast, the average lifespan for the operating system of a computer is around five years. Microsoft Windows 2000, for example, which is nearly as old as my car, is no longer being supported by Microsoft. Neither is Windows XP. That means that while you can still use those systsmes if you truly want to Microsoft is no longer providing updates to fix problems with them. That includes fix for security problems, system crashes, etc.
That raises the question of how long car software makers like John Deere are going to support the software they produce for cars. Will the day come when they too will say: sorry, we aren't producing any more software updates for your make and model of automobile.
What then?
Consider the current problem with one particular model of Takata airbags which the press have been reporting on. That model is used in many car models. It can also, potentially, kill the occupants in certain situations. Imagine if Takata could say: "We don't support that model any more. Have a nice day."
At least with airbags you could (maybe) find a different airbag manufacturer. Or at least disable the airbag system in your car. Neither of those is really an option for the software in modern cars. So what happens if car software is still being used beyond the period the software maker will be providing updates for? What happens if one day a fatal (so-to-speak) bug is discovered in that software. Will their response be:
"Sorry, we no longer support that version of our software. Try our latest version. It has lots of terrific new features. Unfortunately, it does not support your current auto hardware. We can supply you a list of suitable auto dealers on demand. Have a nice day."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It Gets Worse
Updates only matter if the software talks to the outside world, to eliminate vulnerabilities, or to fix bugs that are causing users problems. If the vehicle is working properly, and has no outside connections, then updates are not required.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It Gets Worse
In the second place, all modern cars are communicating with the outside world (unless you do something like disconnect the car's built-in cell). Hackers have even developed various exploits for the cars that let them do rather nefarious things remotely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It Gets Worse
Unless external factors affect operation. Say, a change in the formulation of fuel (to 15% vs 10% ethanol, which is currently working its way through the system.)
Or the enablement/crippling of satellite radio, on-board wifi, GPS, text-to-speech, auto-pass toll payment systems ... there are lots of systems on board a car beyond propulsion.
Or a mistaken built-in "bug," like a date code that's all 9s that's somehow tied into a safety system (time since last service?).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It Gets Worse
For example, here is a WIRED article titled "Watch This Wireless Hack Pop a Car’s Locks in Minutes":
http://www.wired.com/2014/08/wireless-car-hack/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why does copyright matter here?
I own books that I don't own the copyright to. But I write and scribble in them all the time. Once you own it, you can do what you want to it. You just can't sell it after you change it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why does copyright matter here?
Also, your last sentence makes no sense. If I scribble in my copy of a book, does that mean that I'm legally barred from selling it? (I might have a hard time finding a buyer because it's damaged, but that's beyond the point.) I don't think such a law exists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Selling books with private edits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why does copyright matter here?
Where did you get such a silly idea?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why does copyright matter here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why does copyright matter here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why does copyright matter here?
Because said mfgr would want me to buy from them at my next purchase?
A geek watching the history of vendor lock-in in computing is the last person you want to try to convince of that silly argument. The machines that inter-operated best with the others flourished. The systems that governed themselves with open, defined standards are the most robust.
The ones that reinvented the wheels attempting lock-in are the most fragile and easiest to suborn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why does copyright matter here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GM recently earned a lifetime boycott from me, when I discovered I couldn't even get the car I wanted to buy, without on-star. As #7 mentioned- GM is moving to include on-star in all their vehicles... on-star logs everything and sends it to GM, who openly admit to selling the data to third parties, and allowing it's use for anything. You can still unplug the box- but then you don't get navigation or sat radio.
I predict within the decade people will literally be killed by hackers due to the negligent design of these systems- these systems run on the same network as the abs brakes, and other safety critical features, and they lack even basic security measures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I predict within the decade people will literally be killed by hackers due to the negligent design of these systems [...]
First, I doubt it will take that long.
Second, I doubt that it'll require hacking skills. The enormous databases being built by operations like OnStar are are a motherlode for pedophiles, stalkers, rapists, serial killers, and other fine upstanding citizens. They will be hacked -- not necessarily by those people -- and they will be sold on the open market and they will be used to target individuals.
Of course, this may have already happened.
Third, direct attacks against vehicles are of course laughably simple, but makers are taking the same approach as voting machine vendors: (1) deny (2) lie (3) obfuscate (4) attack researchers (5) censor research (6) block research using DRM/copyright/etc. It'll probably take a number of high-profile deaths before regulatory agencies step in and force makers to actually address these problems. However, absent a complete re-engineering of the systems, that won't be effective: security never works as add-on, it has to be baked in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe the Snowden revelations will change that.
I mean, c'mon world, we did this for wireless telephones and garage-door openers thanks to illicit listeners and burglaries. I'm pretty sure that a mayor didn't have to get his house invaded for those technologies to be developed.
It would be a nice touch in a contemporary spy/action thriller for an abduction team to use a remote-access service hack to disable their target's vehicle and unlock the doors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sigh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is why old cars are better...
Also the argument could be made (although I don't know how true it would be) that it's more environmentally conscious to continue using an old car as resources aren't continually being used to keep building new ones. That argument may not hold a lot of water with an old muscle car though...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is why old cars are better...
Yes, I wonder about this as well. Older cars are much, much worse on the environment than newer ones in operation, but when taking into account manufacturing impact, which way does the balance tip?
It was the Prius that got me thinking about that years ago, because batteries and chips are both very bad for the environment to manufacture (and dispose of), and I wondered if the overall environmental harm is actually lower with the Prius vs traditional cars. Studies since have shown that generally speaking, no, it's not lower. It just changes the type and location of the environmental impact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Irony
Thus the licence typically allowed you to make the ephemeral copies necessary to run the program, to install it onto your hard drive and to make a backup. All of this would have been technically illegal under copyright law as understood in the 50s and 60s.
Thus the licence was always IN ADDITION to the rights that you automatically acquired on purchase.
Now however they seem to want to make the licence into something that takes away rights that you had. This may not be legally sound - but since when has that stopped them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Irony
Now the state doctrine which sounds as evil as evil can be, "parens patria" is what the state feels gives them sufficient legal standing to own your kids.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First Sale Doctrine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Square Fender Wells
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Square Fender Wells
You might want to expand that to "I ain't buying a new truck", since all new vehicles have this problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GM Owns the software?
Need a boost in auto sales? Kill 10,000 cars and put some demand into the market. Legally.
Remind me not to buy GM products.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This may present a case for a class-action suit.
As was noted by the folks of Digital Research, people who make hardware shouldn't make software, and people who make operating systems shouldn't make applications, in both cases due to the moral hazard that arrises. Sure enough Microsoft Windows is full of hidden features that are intentionally included yet concealed to give licensed developers an edge over those coding on their own. And some are reserved for the in-house developers such as those who make the Office suite.
If there's a separate license for vehicle software vs. vehicle hardware, then it should be possible to run the hardware with third-party software. That, or the software should be required to be open-source and licensed for life. To do any less creates a moral hazard in which the company creating the software will be tempted to optimize the software as best suits the company and not the end user, lest it run the engine to wear out faster, or just stop running at all after the one-hundred-thousanth mile.
Of course, the courts may be so deep in the pockets of the manufacturers that this is moot. So these are thoughts for the next iteration of civilization, once we re-invent the motor vehicle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Open Source?
Also, since they are claiming that they "own" a portion of your vehicle, wouldn't that also make them legally responsible for a portion of the liability that would occur when your car is in an accident?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Open Source?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Open Source?
I'm not sure - what if they mean "technical protection measure"? You're assuming it means trusted platform module, right?
this would seem to mean that any way of getting your software to run on that hardware would constitute circumvention of access protections, and thus a DMCA violation.
That might be true regardless of which TPM they're talking about, or even whether it has a cover sheet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Open Source?
"Technical protection measure" pretty much screams DMCA to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cars with more sensible systems.
Nav and sat radio are integrated into that box now. BMW is worse- no separation of anything- same with Audi. BMW's have been unlocked and stolen through the system in europe- it was all un-encrypted until recently. Researchers say bmw's security is still poor.
Toyota, kia, hyundai, subaru, and (ironically) ford- all seam more sensible wrt privacy/security, at face value, for now at least, they have no in car cellular connectivity- they need your phone for that= you can refuse it an internet connection. Toyota saleman said no telematics at all in trucks. (though he could be wrong- I'm looking into it further).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: cars with more sensible systems.
Which is generally not a big deal. The built-in nav systems tend to be awful, so you're better off using your smartphone or third party nav system anyway. Sat radio might be an issue (even though you can do that with a third party device as well), but most people don't care about sat radio.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another revenue stream...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One problem I can foresee is the problem of selling a car on - if the software is licensed, do you have the rights to transfer that licence to the new owner? If not, then the car companies are in heaven, because they would be the only ones who could sell cars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here is what seems to be missing in all this.
GM and the others want proprietary control. Simple solution would be not to purchase proprietary devices. That's what I do in the computer industry. I won't own a Dell printer because the only people I can get the ink from is Dell. You make it difficult for me to work on an engine, and I won't buy your engine, nor will I endorse anyone else to purchase one either. It is that simple.
Of course we all know that when GM starts suffering because no one will buy a car from them, the first thing they will want is another "Bail Out" from the government. So who really wins here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bunch of commy crooks.
If you don't want the owner messing with the operating system, then make the electronic crap optional. I would much rather have the vehicles with no electronics period, much easier to work on, and much more reliable. I see that Nissan is not part of this communist takeover. I for one think that GM and Chrysler should have went completely under, and if Ford sides with GM on this, then they should go under also.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Agree
I'm not sure - what if they mean "technical protection measures"? You're assuming that means the Trusted Platform Module, right?
This would seem to imply that the way to get their software to run on hardware that would avoid access protection, and therefore violated the DMCA.
It may be independent of TPM that they are talking about, or even if you have the correct cover.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]