EPA Sides With GM In Telling Copyright Office That Copyright Should Stop You From Modifying Your Car Software
from the wrong-tool,-guys dept
As we noted earlier this year, as the Copyright Office and the Librarian of Congress consider the requested "exemptions" from Section 1201 of the DMCA, General Motors has come out strongly against allowing you to modify the software in the car that you (thought you) bought from the company. If you're new to this fight, Section 1201 of the DMCA is the "anti-circumvention" clause that says that it's copyright infringement if you "circumvent" any "technological protection method" (TPM) -- even if that circumvention has absolutely nothing to do with copyright infringement. Yes, this is insane. It's so insane that Congress even realized it would lead to ridiculous situations. But, rather than fixing the damn law, Congress instead decided to duct tape on an even more ridiculous "solution." That is that every three years (the so-called "triennial review"), people could beg and plead with the Copyright Office and the Librarian of Congress to issue special "exemptions" for classes of work where Section 1201 wouldn't apply. Yes, that's right, you have a law, but Congress knew the law made no sense in some cases, and so it just gave the Librarian of Congress (the guy who currently can't keep his website online) the power to anoint certain classes of technology immune from the law.Anyway, as mentioned, General Motors and others car makers (and also tractor maker John Deere) have been lobbying against the change, arguing all sorts of damage might occur should people be able to hack their own cars legally. And, to be fair, there is a legitimate point that someone messing with their own car's software could potentially do some damage. But, there are some pretty easy responses to that. First off, that's not copyright's job. If you want to ban tinkering with the software in cars, pass a damn law that is specifically about tinkering with software in cars, so that there can be a real public debate about it. Second, lots of perfectly legal tinkering with the mechanical parts of automobiles can also lead to dangers on the road, but we don't ban it because people are allowed to tinker with things they own.
Either way, the Copyright Office reached out to the EPA about this issue, and in a just published letter (even though it was sent months ago), it's revealed that the EPA is asking for the exemption to be denied because it's "concerned" that these exemptions would "slow or reverse gains made under the Clean Air Act." It also argues that allowing the right to modify your own software would "hinder its ability to enforce... tampering prohibition[s]" that are in existing law already:
EPA is also concerned that the exemptions would hinder its ability to enforce the tampering prohibition. Under section 203(a), the Agency has taken enforcement action against third-party vendors who sell or install equipment that can "bypass, defeat, or render inoperative" software designed to enable vehicles to comply with CFAA regulations. EPA can curb this practice more effectively if circumventing TPMs remains prohibited under the DMCAFirst of all, this shows that there's already another law in place for dealing with people who are doing things that will impact the environment. Second, who cares if it makes the EPA's job easier, that's not the role of copyright. That the EPA would so casually argue that it's okay for it to be abusing copyright law, just because it makes the EPA's job easier is patently ridiculous.
Following that, the EPA then mocks the idea that anyone would have a legitimate reason to tinker with the software in their own cars:
The Agency also questions whether there is a real need for the exemptions. Car makers are already required to provide access for lawful diagnosis and repair. In EPA's view, whether or not they are designed for this purpose, the TPMs prevent unlawful tampering of important motor vehicle software.Again, that's not the job of copyright, and supporting the abuse of copyright for this purpose is ridiculous. Furthermore, now that we're living in an age of connected cars, where we're already discovering that car software is a security nightmare it's actually more important than ever that people be able to tinker with the software in their cars, to probe for security weaknesses and to improve that software where possible. The EPA has every right to go after those who do so in a manner that violates environmental laws, but it shouldn't support abusing copyright law just because it makes the EPA's job easier. And, it shouldn't just assume that there are no legitimate reasons for wanting to modify the software in your car just because EPA staffers are too simple-minded to understand what those reasons might be.
Whatever you might think of the EPA and its mission, the idea that it would advocate abusing copyright laws is a disgrace.
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: 1201, anti-circumvention, copyright, copyright office, dmca, environment, epa, librarian of congress, triennial review
Companies: gm
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This cannot be emphasized enough. Thinkering with mechanical parts can do a whole world more damage to the environment than anything else. Many people here remove pollution control mechanisms from their trucks because it decreases the consumption by 3-4%. You stop it by having vehicles undergo obligatory auditing or something but not by preventing people to mess with what they own. This is specially true when you are dealing with agriculture equipment where a lot of farmers do their own maintenance and need access to the software because they wouldn't have the funds to pay for maintenance from the company itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And besides, we never own software we buy, any more. Sad, but true, so there is precedent for what they want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not true, and you should stop helping to pimp that lie. They can yammer on any way they want, but it doesn't change reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Software can be obfuscated much easier than hardware.
But still, people need to own their cars and change what they want, software included.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This post 9/11 Government is using a manufactured fear of a squeaky mouse to drive tyrannical laws into force. You can bet the automakers will jump on this band wagon and try to make it clear that if we do not put up a pseudo security wall to stop people from modding their cars then terrorists win!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ya know, I can even believe they have no idea that they're building tyranny. They likely honestly believe they're doing this stuff to protect the country from Visigoths invading from all sides.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Am I reading this correctly?
So the vehicle has a built in mechanism to game the emissions check which set on the presumption that the sampling it takes is the vehicle's typical emissions.
Way to destroy the atmosphere for the rest of us, Ford.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Am I reading this correctly?
Way to destroy the atmosphere for the rest of us, Ford.
Sounds more like just how diesel engines are and nothing specific to Ford.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_particulate_filter#Regeneration
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I found this out recently when my car failed the smog check because I had just replaced the battery. Apparently that wiped the memory of the ODBII computer and it registered as "Not Ready". Nothing to do with emissions.
If I were to drive it around for months I probably wouldn't have to do anything special, but because I need to get it retested fairly soon it is recommended to perform a "Drive Cycle". For my car, among other strange things, you have to drive between 50 and 60 mph for 20 minutes without touching the brakes and then coast to a stop also without touching the brakes. At the very end you can use the emergency brake. And I won't know if the process fixed the problem until I get another smog check. Next time I am definitely going somewhere that has free retesting.
So, since my car is failing the smog check, not due to emissions but because of an on board computer, hacking the ODBII seems quite reasonable to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
TPMs are hacking devices designed to take control of your computer (or computerized devices, such as your car) out of your hands. As such, they should be illegal. Full stop. No "unless," no "except," no compromising on this point. The fact that we are even debating whether it should be OK to mess with the TPM that someone installed or not is sheer insanity.
This is why we need to repeal the DMCA, folks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It only becomes a problem when the manufacturer of the TPM decides that the consumers shouldn't be able to determine what constitutes acceptable software.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Or when the software mfgr. is forced by law (or National Security Letters, or Executive Orders, ...) to collude with elements of a fascistic police state (NSA/FBI/CIA/DEA/...), or with bought by special interests (MafiAA) laws like interminable copyright.
Oh look, both of those are already happening! I'm glad I'm not in the USA. Have a lovely revolution (sooner rather than later, preferably)!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Microsoft being the issuing party for UEFI secure boot keys for example. Yeah Microsoft and trust, right!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So if I remove a Microsoft OS from a new PC, is that a DMCA violation? (I have no use for an OS from Microsoft. It doesn't run my applications.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you have to circumvent a protection measure to do so, yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What happens when an OS company (MS) incorporates a feature (shift key) that over rides a software based circumvention protection measure (autorun) and the company circumvented gets its panties in a twist and then sues a college student because he discussed said OS feature in his thesis?
Laughter ensues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What's next? "Sir, you're using your fork wrong!"
"I'm left-handed."
"You'll have to come with me sir."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The exemptions are only granted when requested. As far as I know, no computer manufacturer has put a protection measure in place to prevent removal or overwriting of the operating system, so nobody has had any reason to ask for an exemption. So no, I don't think there's an exemption for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Windows running on non X86 devices already has a locked UEFI boot which is set up so that it cannot be disabled, and so you cannot boot a different operating system. Also phones can come locked, and almost all games consoles are locked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only read the headline, this is obvious. But you're not looking at it right: other concerns trump copyright! Aren't you happy copyright isn't TOPS in all?
It's not the 20th century any more, you child-geezers. You'll be increasingly hampered by corporations and prevented from doing harm. Enjoy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only read the headline, this is obvious. But you're not looking at it right: other concerns trump copyright! Aren't you happy copyright isn't TOPS in all?
It's not the 20th century any more, you child-geezers. You'll be increasingly hampered by corporations and prevented from doing harm. Enjoy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Only read the headline, this is obvious. But you're not looking at it right: other concerns trump copyright! Aren't you happy copyright isn't TOPS in all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Only read the headline, this is obvious. But you're not looking at it right: other concerns trump copyright! Aren't you happy copyright isn't TOPS in all?
Some hardware, like the Surface RT machines, block Linux entirely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Only read the headline, this is obvious. But you're not looking at it right: other concerns trump copyright! Aren't you happy copyright isn't TOPS in all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Only read the headline, this is obvious. But you're not looking at it right: other concerns trump copyright! Aren't you happy copyright isn't TOPS in all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My, what a compliant little consumer you are. Such a cutie!
What? Are you actually suggesting ignorance *isn't* bliss?!? Well, I never. I want my money back (or sumfin)!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My, what a compliant little consumer you are. Such a cutie!
Tell that to the banksters running amok on the Wall Streets of the world, robbing *anyone they can* to save their butts from their own greed. Bite me, slave. You go ahead and serve your master, but don't try to wrap those chains of yours around me too. Either I control what I own, or I don't own it. If I don't own it, it's not really mine and isn't welcome in my life. My life is precious and so is your own if you had the sense to realize it. I'm sad that you don't.
Yeah, and ever since the Magna Carta, it hasn't been theirs, and they're not going to get that back no matter how hard they try. Feudalism is dead and gone and it matters not whether you or they like it or not.
Hey kid, remember Charlton Heston? There's not a lot I agreed with him on, but I know of at least one: "From my cold, dead hands!"
Now, you hustle on down to Walmart and enrich your corporate overlord royalty, while you have time. There's a revolution on the way, so hurry!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
to be fair....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: to be fair....
Copyright should have no part in this. the EPA should have no part in it other than it was lobbied to.
When I get my tax return I plan on purchasing an older vehicle that I can work on myself. I had a 1972 pickup that I could fix everything on that thing. My wife's 2001 suv had to be taken into the shop just to do basic maintenance like brake work (most brake work will mean you need to bleed the brakes and a computer had to be connected to the car to do so). I'm tired of paying out the ass for simple fixes that I can do for a lot less and faster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: to be fair....
This.
I suspect this is little more than a money grab by the dealers/car companies. I took one of my cars over to a repair shop for an issue I was having. My other car had the same issue at one point (which needed to be fixed for safety reasons,) and the mechanic was able to fix it in about 20 minutes and charged me about $100 for parts and labor. The other car required about 3 hours of work, and the mechanic said it would be around $500 for parts and labor. The only difference, the car company decided to put a computer into the mix, that required a special tool to work with, and failure to use that tool would result in a broken car. And the mechanic complained that the only reason for this was so that you'd be forced to take the car to the dealer to get the problem fixed instead of fixing it yourself or taking it to a mechanic (but the mechanics usually have the tool anyway.) He said that the previous year's model didn't have this feature, and it wasn't mechanically required and the computer wasn't added for safety or efficiency (after all, the part was failing even with the computer there, and the computer didn't even tell me it was breaking...I figured it out because the car was doing the same thing my other car did before the part failed.)
I called the dealer, and they told me it would be a minimum of $700, but probably closer to $1000, and then proceeded to try to find everything possible wrong with the car so they could add more charges...including bad tires which had just been replaced a couple weeks beforehand (and both my mechanic and the company I bought the tires from checked them out and found no issue with them.) When they told me it would be close to a sixth of the original cost of the vehicle (that was less than six years old) to fix everything, I thanked them for their time and left without getting anything repaired.
The last time I took my car to the dealer, they installed a part incorrectly (a towing break controller, which is kinda a big thing to do right,) charged me $500, and then I had to take the part out, rewire it so that it was installed correctly, and had to pay for the parts to fix it. Luckily I had my mechanic check it over to make sure it was installed correctly and safe.
I took the car back to the mechanic I trusted, paid the $500, and the car was fixed...and then vowed never to buy anything from that manufacturer ever again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clean air act?
Don't most States/Counties/Cities pull registration on vehicles found to be out of compliance with the Clean Air Act?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clean air act?
The key thing in my area is that this inspection only applies to several counties, not the whole state. Other areas of the US are the same way, or have different inspection requirements. So there are autos on the road in the US that are perfectly legal even though their emissions would not pass any inspection because they are registered in an area that has no inspection requirement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clean air act?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How is this related to copyright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How is this related to copyright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How is this related to copyright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How is this related to copyright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How is this related to copyright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Agreed!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Copyright of the hardware design, as to make the software work properly you need the hardware design details.
While the above should be sarcasm, the car manufacturers will use any excuse to drag someone into court for modifying the car they have licensed from them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I severely hope that in some not entirely distant future, people will be able to look at the corporate mess we are living in these days and just laugh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm sorry your software is unable to phone home anymore .... I have no idea what may have happened to it (smirk), not really my problem though is it? - lol @ dealer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All sorts of damage could occur
all sorts of damage could occur if people make unauthorized modifications to their toasters.
Their clothes dryers.
And back in the day, you weren't supposed to open that 25 inch console television set either. You remember: "No User Serviceable Parts Inside." There was danger from the 25,000 volts used for the big CRT. There was danger of implosion.
Maybe Congress needs to pass a law that nobody should be allowed to modify anything. For their safety.
And all of this mischief starts with those pesky kids who have unbound curiosity to understand how things work. Let's put a stop to that also.
We'll all be a lot safer.
If they had a chemistry set (thank goodness there are no more of those) they might learn to become terrorists.
If they learn programming at a young age, they might become hackers who cost Hollywood TRILLIONS of dollars per day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All sorts of damage could occur
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All sorts of damage could occur
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All sorts of damage could occur
Well, those 25kV TVs tended to have really good circuit diagrams and servicing instructions in a side satchel. They may not have been "user serviceable" but they sure as heck were "serviceable", and proudly so.
These days? Bah.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: All sorts of damage could occur
I had a plasma TV fixed a few years ago. I guess it depends what goes wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: All sorts of damage could occur
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All sorts of damage could occur
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't this an anti-trust issue? If an OS company (Microsoft) can't force customers to use a specific web browser (IE), how can car manufacturers force customers to use a specific navigation software?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Of course this means I can break the law by enabling video support while driving, but it's on me and the App wouldn't be approved for general release.
Personally though, I would just use your smartphone with Google Maps, MapQuest, or whatever software you prefer, it will usually get updates for the app and maps and typically is a lot better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm glad you survived. I hope your friend isn't credulous enough to blindly trust that thing. People have driven onto train tracks and off cliffs believing the things were infallible. Companies the size of Apple get this wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They don't have to design the system to allow you to install your own software. If this were an antitrust violation, most embedded software would be illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
REPEAT...
WHO sets the abilities and HOW my car drives..
They are customizing things to the point that your CAR isnt YOUR CAR..modding and adjusting and anything TECH is not giving the consumer Access to do anything to these cars..
So, who is responsible FOR ITS DRIVING? not you.
Since you have no or little responsibility to HOW the car drives...WHO gets the ticket? WHO get to goto jail if it kills someone?
NOT YOU..
If they want to OWN all of the control of the car...arnt the makers responsible for its working?
This could mean they are responsible for the INSURANCE ALSO...as you are no longer the driver.
I would LOVE this..for a few good reasons..
UPDATES?? they find a flaw in the coding, and you dont have access to UPDATE IT..who is responsible?
The Computer FAILS and you are stranded...who is responsible?
There are to many things about driving, that makes the CAR responsible, and NOT the driver..
====================
I posted this before..and will again..
I will add something here also..
====================
YOU COULD make a small computer to monitor and make your car work, BEST...the problem is restrictions and limits Put in the computers to cause your car NOT to do what you want.
Insted of changing a few hardware PARTS, they do much of it in the computer NOW..
And for all of this, Every car type has a CUSTOM, control, and a Custom COST..
WHY in hell do we need a $50 computer with software that cost $200 in our cars??
IT shouldnt be HARD to make a computer interface that would PLUG into any car, and monitor/control HOW the car works to the BEST it can..
WE USED to do all this mechanically, with a few adjustments for altitude and seasons..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's much too late for that. There's no way to meet emissions and safety requirements without a lot of electronics. It would be illegal for the car companies to sell the kind of car you want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There's a lot more idiots out there than knowledgeable thinking people. This is the same problem that democracy has. We get what they want, no matter how repellent or odious. We're hostages to all their vices. HRC/Cruz/Jeb/Trump, Walmart, Wall St., Democrat Hawks/Neocons/AIPAC, ...
The more I look at it, the less I believe we ever escaped feudalism, or even the Roman Empire. "Rome is the mob!" -- Gladiator.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Feudalism escape velocity.
The thing is, during the feudal ages everyone had a severe labor shortage. Every little bastard and whore-spawn was an asset who could man the walls or work the fields or clear the overgrowth or feed the livestock or... if nothing else, they could make more laborers.
The lords had clear cause to take care of them. (Sometimes they failed at that -- badly -- but the value of the salt-of-the-earth folk was unquestioned.)
People are still useful in huge ways, but we don't recognize it so clearly since industrialization.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Feudalism escape velocity.
I'm not sure that was true until the bubonic plague savaged western Europe's population. Major labor shortage, giving workers much more power and mobility than they'd had, helping lead to the downfall of the feudal system.
Germs, Genes, and Civilization - fascinating book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So now installing home-brew software violates the DMCA CC?
This is sounding like yet another reason to abolish IP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"...Copyright Should Stop You From Modifying Your Car Software"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "...Copyright Should Stop You From Modifying Your Car Software"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
~16% success rate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone should try designing a car without a computer! I wonder if such a thing is even possible...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In the US, between safety and environmental regulations, there's no practical way to do it. Maybe it would be possible, but it would end up so compromised as to be worthless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sensory Branding: Oreo in the Indian Context Case Solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Casesolution.cj@gmail.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From Competitive Advantage to Nodal Advantage: Ecosystem Structure and the New Five Forces that Affect Prosperity Case Solution
From Competitive Advantage to Nodal Advantage: Ecosystem Structure and the New Five Forces that Affect Prosperity Case Solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This seems interesting
Very informative just like https://www.case48.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]