Automakers Can't Give Up The Idea Of Turning Everyday Features Into Subscription Services With Fees

from the pay-more-for-the-same-product dept

At the same time car companies are fighting the right to repair movement (and the state and federal legislation popping up everywhere), they're continuing the quest to turn everyday features -- like heated seats -- into something users have to pay a recurring fee for.

In 2019, BMW had to abandon a plan to charge $80 per year for Apple CarPlay. The company, having learned nothing, began floating the idea of charging a subscription for features back in 2020, when it proposed making heated seats and heated steering wheels something you pay a permanent monthly fee for. Last December, Toyota proposed imposing a monthly fee for customers who wanted to be able to remotely start their vehicles.

Each and every time these proposals come forward the consumer response is swift and overwhelmingly negative. But with $20 billion in annual additional potential revenue on the table between now and 2030, the industry seems poised to ignore consumers:

"Still, automakers see dollar signs. Stellantis (formerly Fiat Chrysler), Ford, and GM each aim to generate at least $20 billion in annual revenue from software services by 2030. Over-the-air capabilities open up huge opportunities for carmakers to introduce new subscription or pay-per use features over time, Wakefield, of AlixPartners, said. Someday, you may be able to fork over extra to make your car more efficient, sportier, or — in an electric vehicle — unlock extra range for road trips."

Keep in mind these are decisions being made during a pandemic when most households continue to struggle.

This sort of nickel-and-diming works well in the telecom sector where captive subscribers often can't switch to a different competitor. But in the auto space, companies risk opening the door to competitors gaining inroads by... not being nickel-and-diming assholes. Many companies may also be overestimating their own product quality; one JD Power survey found that 58% of people who use an automaker's smartphone app wouldn't be willing to pay for it. At the same time, as with gaming microtransactions, if enough people are willing to pay to make it worth it, it may not matter what the majority of car consumers think.

Filed Under: automakers, features, fees, right to repair, subscriptions
Companies: ford, gm, toyota

Nikola Is Having A Bad Month: GM Contract Now Potentially In Jeopardy

from the it-pours dept

Nikola Motor Company, to put it mildly, is having itself a bad month. First came the bombshell reports from a hedge fund that founder Trevor Milton lied in 2016 when he told the world that the company had a fully functional Nikola 1 electric semi truck. Worse than that, it was revealed that a promotional video in 2018 showing the truck rolling down a lonely highway, was actually showing a Nikola 1 rolling down a hill, since the truck couldn't actually move under its own power. Milton resigned after those reports, but the hits kept coming. Two women have come forward claiming that Milton inappropriately groped them when each was fifteen, with one of those women being his cousin. For the record, Milton has denied both allegations.

But the fallout appears to be continuing. September 30th was supposed to be the date by which Nikola's notable contract with General Motors was to have closed. That deal appears to be in limbo, however, with regulatory filings indicating that both sides now have until December to sign the deal or terminate it.

A GM spokesman confirmed the delay in an email to Ars. "Our transaction with Nikola has not closed. We are continuing our discussions with Nikola and will provide further updates when appropriate."

Also this morning, Nikola published a revised overview of the company's business strategy. It discussed Nikola's plans to manufacture semitrucks in Europe and the United States, build a network of hydrogen fuel stations, and even plans for an electric all-terrain vehicle. But conspicuously missing from the document was any mention of the Badger pickup truck—the one that GM was supposed to manufacture for Nikola under the now-delayed partnership.

Nikola also announced today that it was indefinitely postponing Nikola World, the December event where Nikola was planning to debut the Badger. Nikola blamed the COVID-19 pandemic and related social distancing rules for the delay.

So a lot of bad, without a lot of clarity as to the reasons for any of this. In the absence of clear communication, speculation is the sport of the day. Some are suggesting that GM doesn't want to be associated with the company right now, with all of the bad PR currently in play. Others are noting that the deal between Nikola and GM is very much one-sided in favor of GM, but the recent issues have lowered the value of the deal. The chief example of this is that GM was to be paid by Nikola in stock worth $2 billion at the time the deal was written. In the last month, Nikola's stock price has dropped such that the value of that stock is now less than $1 billion. So, part of this might be GM now trying to negotiate for better terms that reflect the original deal.

Either way, while the risks in the deal for GM are small, the reputational risks are very, very real.

So the financial risk for GM was quite small. GM wasn't putting any money into Nikola. GM was supposed to do engineering work on the Badger in exchange for those Nikola shares, but if Nikola failed GM would likely be able to repurpose some of that work for use in a future GM-branded electric pickup truck.

But the deal also creates some reputational risk for GM. If, hypothetically, more evidence of fraud or other misconduct came to light that led to Nikola's failure, GM could be tainted by association even if its financial exposure was small. GM's name wouldn't be on the Badger pickup truck, but customers would know GM manufactured the truck, and some of them might blame GM if the Badger didn't work well.

Which brings us back to our original post on Nikola, the theme of which is that you cannot risk your reputation like this. Chances are, you're going to get found out and, when you do, the consequences will vastly outweigh any benefit you get from your fuckery.

Filed Under: electric trucks, trevor milton
Companies: gm, nikola

DailyDirt: Horsepower? Why Are We Measuring Anything With Horse-Based Units?

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Electric cars are getting more attention as they become more practical and eliminate the "range anxiety" factor. While battery-powered cars were actually some of the first horseless carriages, Tesla has gotten some recent publicity for its 'ludicrous' performance -- as well as plans for even bigger batteries (a 100kwh battery seems to be on Tesla's horizon). There are a few other all-American electric cars with supercar-like specs and/or retro-styling, but when will a reasonably-priced (no subsidies!) all-electric commuter car be available? (March 31st?)

• Rimac Automobili's Concept_S electric car isn't exactly a production vehicle, but it might be the fastest electric car. This car is based on its predecessor the Concept_One (of which only 8 were built), but it's a bit faster. If you have a million bucks lying around, you might be able to get one. But if you don't care about spending a few extra dollars and filling up with gas, buy a Bugatti Chiron for an even faster production car. [url]
• If you like the retro look of a '68 Ford Mustang, but you'd prefer an experience that's a bit closer to a Tesla Model S, there's a car conversion kit waiting for you (someday). The 'Zombie 222' is a converted '68 Mustang that can get to 170+mph (much faster than the original gas-powered version!), and it can do 0-60 in 1.79 seconds. [url]
• The 'White Zombie' could be considered a precursor to the Zombie 222. A white 1972 Datsun 1200 Coupe has been heavily modified since 1994 to become a decent drag racer, comparable to some prototypes from Rimac Automobili (a converted BMW 3-series called the 'Green Monster' or the e-M3). [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: concept_one, concept_s, electric cars, electric conversion, green zombie, horseless carriage, range anxiety, supercars, white zombie, zombie 222
Companies: bmw, bugatti, datsun, ford, gm, renovo motors, rimac antomobili, telsa, vw, zelectric motors

Tesla Fan 'Incivility' Forces Indiana To Back Off Direct Sales Ban... For Now

from the lessons-never-learned dept

We recently noted how Indiana was just the latest state to try and pass auto industry-backed bills banning Tesla's direct-to-consumer sales model. Under the latest GM-backed bill, Tesla's dealer license would have expired in 2018, forcing the company to embrace the traditional franchise dealership model -- or stop selling cars in the state entirely. Telsa had been reaching out for the last few weeks to Tesla fans in the state, quite-correctly highlighting how GM was buying protectionist law instead of competing.

Apparently the public attention worked, as the Indiana Senate Commerce and Technology Committee has tabled the bill for the time being, meaning Telsa can continue operating its showroom in the state -- at least until the bill is reconsidered next year. Amusingly, one of the bill's key supporters, Senator Jim Buck, says he received some "incivility" from Tesla fans because of his proposal:

Buck on Thursday opened the committee hearing by saying he has been on the receiving end of "incivility" from Tesla supporters this week, as the bill received national attention. Buck and the bill's author, Rep. Kevin Mahan, R-Hartford City, agreed to put the issue before a study committee. ​That means the legislature won't consider a ban on direct auto sales until at least next year. "We are trying to make what we are doing here fair to all," Buck said.

Right, what Buck experienced wasn't incivility (though I'm sure the e-mails weren't particularly nice), it was the public telling Buck clearly to stop being a protectionist jackass willing to shovel forth horrible legislation at the behest of legacy industry lobbyists. While Buck's at it, he may want to avoid adding insult to injury by trying to falsely equate protectionist cronyism with "fairness." Telsa has made it pretty clear that GM's bill is predominantly aimed at lessening the competitive threat faced by its upcoming electric car, the Chevy Volt:

"General Motors is trying to kick us out of the state for purely competitive reasons," said Todd Maron, general counsel for Tesla. "Their Chevy Bolt will be competing against our mass-market car, so they have timed this bill specifically so once we start selling the Model 3 against their Bolt, we can no longer sell in the state."

That this kind of nonsense persists in state after state says volumes of the integrity of the state legislative process, and the politicians that pay endless lip service to competition and innovation, yet do their best to hamper it if the price is right. Again, if you're a politician looking to avoid public "incivility," one easy way to accomplish this is to stop letting legacy industries write shitty state law.

Filed Under: car dealerships, cars, competition, indiana, jim buck, kevin mahan
Companies: gm, tesla

Tesla Says GM Pushing Indiana Bill To Kill Direct-To-Consumer Tesla Sales

from the regulation-is-bad,-unless-it-helps-me dept

As we've documented extensively, the auto industry has worked tirelessly to erect barriers to Tesla's market entry. Legacy automakers have been engaged in sustained hysterics specifically regarding Tesla's direct-to-consumer sales model, which lets customers buy vehicles directly from Tesla online, with limited showrooms to view, touch and test drive the Tesla vehicles. Annoyed by this pesky Californian upstart, the auto industry has frequently tied draft legislation to campaign contributions to ban Tesla's successful model. Why compete when you can cheat?

Undaunted by criticism of this practice in numerous states, Tesla says GM is now trying the same thing in Indiana. In a new letter sent to Tesla "owners and enthusiasts" in the state, Tesla warns that Indiana's HB1254 would once again try to ban direct-to-consumer auto sales in the state:

We need your help. Yesterday, the Indiana Senate Committee on Commerce & Technology held a hearing on a bill that would shut down Tesla in the state. Authored and pushed by General Motors, HB1254 with amendment 3 would prohibit any manufacturer from being able to hold a dealer license after December 31, 2017. Existing law allows ANY manufacturer to apply for a dealer license without the use of independent franchised dealers.

Despite having a lawfully granted license to sell Tesla vehicles directly since 2014 at the Fashion Mall at Keystone; despite contributing over $42M to the state through the purchase of parts and components from Indiana suppliers; and despite plans underway to construct a 26,000 square foot Tesla Service facility that will employ approximately a dozen Indiana residents and serve our customers, GM is pushing the Senate Committee to shut out Tesla.

In other words, it's another legacy company deriding regulation at every opportunity -- except when it protects it from having to actually compete. While Tesla tells Ars Technica that it has no direct proof GM authored the bill, as we've seen in telecom, legacy companies all but own many state legislatures. Legislatures that are happy to shovel forth any and every bill (usually middle manned by groups like ALEC to present the feeblest attempt at propriety) provided the price is right. Tesla notes that GM could mirror Tesla's direct to consumer sales model, but would rather erect new barriers to entry than actually compete.

GM seems relatively unfazed by the fact that the FTC last year slapped Michigan for trying the same thing. Ask GM, of course, and the narrative changes dramatically. The legacy automaker tried to tell Ars that it's Tesla that's trying to craft special rules for itself, despite the fact that GM is the one pushing for the rule changes:

GM supports HB 1254. GM believes that all industry participants should operate under the same rules and requirements on fundamental issues that govern how we sell, service and market our products. A benefit of a nationwide network of thousands of dealerships is that General Motors customers never have to worry about driving to another state to buy, service or support their vehicles.

Tesla's insistence on special rules could result in multiple manufacturers competing with similarly capable vehicles and similar price points, yet operating under a different set of rules. Tesla could open a franchised dealership with an independent operator in Indiana today, but instead they insist that the State must first provide them with unique rules and special exceptions to suit their own business interests. In fact, Tesla was willing to agree to a dealer model in Virginia. The Indiana legislature shouldn't create a special exemption for them here.

Of course that's crap, and GM is turning logic on its head. Tesla has been operating a showroom in the Fashion Mall storefront since December 2013. It's GM that could follow Tesla's lead (like some Seattle Honda and Toyota dealers) and push for direct-from-manufacturer sales, but would rather use our broken legislative process to protect the status quo franchise dealership system. This has been an ongoing headache for Tesla in states like New Jersey, Texas, Arizona and especially Virginia, where auto-industry laws prohibited the company from opening a simple showroom.

Be it telecom or the auto industry, the fact that legacy industries can still write and buy anti-competitive state laws is a problem we simply refuse to fix.

Filed Under: car dealerships, competition, indiana, innovation
Companies: gm, tesla

It Only Took GM Five Years To Patch Dangerous Vulnerability Impacting Millions Of Automobiles

from the good-job dept

For all the hype surrounding the "Internet of Things" (IOT), it's becoming abundantly clear that the security actually governing the sector is little more than hot garbage. Whether it's televisions that bleed unencrypted, recorded living room conversations, or refrigerators that expose your Gmail credentials, IOT developers were so excited to cash in on the brave new world of connectivity, security was an absolute afterthought. Entertainingly, that has resulted in many "smart" technologies being little more than advertisements for the fact that sometimes, it's ok for your device to be as stupid as possible.

And while it's annoying for your IOT toaster to be leaking login credentials or your new IOT toilet to be broadcasting bathroom habits on the Internet, when it comes to automobiles -- human lives are at stake. And yet auto infotainment and network security is somehow the poster child for flimsy security practices. That was illustrated perfectly when hackers recently revealed that they were able to all-but take over some Chrysler cars from anywhere in the world provided they simply had the car's IP address -- allowing intruders to rewrite the firmware on the car's head unit.

In that instance, Chrysler released a patch for the vulnerability before the research was even publicized, and quickly implemented a 1.4 million vehicle recall. But historically automakers aren't that quick on their feet (nor are the vulnerabilities that publicized). Millions of GM vehicles, for example, suffered from a similar flaw that allowed hackers to effectively take over everything in the vehicle except for the steering. That particular problem, it was revealed this month, took GM the better part of five years to actually fix despite being a relatively low-tech hack:

"The intrusion technique began with a phone call to the Impala’s OnStar computer. Because Verizon’s voice network coverage was more reliable than its data network, the OnStar computers were programmed to establish a connection to any computer that played a certain series of audio tones, like an old-fashioned modem. UW’s Koscher reverse engineered that audio protocol and created an mp3 file that could trigger a vulnerability in the computer known as a “buffer overflow.”

Put simply, “you play this song to it, and the car’s taken over,” says UCSD’s Savage. From that initial audio attack, the attackers could pivot to take control of the OnStar computer’s higher-bandwidth data connection and finally penetrate the car’s CAN bus, the collection of networked computers inside a vehicle that control everything from its windshield wipers to its brakes and transmission. Put simply, “you play this song to it, and the car’s taken over,” says UCSD’s Savage."

And yes, while this vulnerability in question (which impacted the 2009 Chevy Impala) saw much less media coverage because the hackers didn't publicly name the vehicle, the vulnerability still existed for any hacker or intelligence agency operative to play with at their leisure for half a decade. And while the hackers obscured the vehicle name with masking tape when demonstrating it repeatedly to "a wide variety of government and even military agencies" and the media (like in this 60 Minutes episode earlier this year), it likely wasn't very hard to guess which car they were talking about. Meanwhile, what's the over-under for local law enforcement accurately pinning the source of potential accidents on a vehicle's compromised infotainment firmware?

The hackers are quick to downplay GM's negligence here, but note that the company's failures are a symptom of a much bigger disease:

"But the researchers argue that GM’s years-long failure to fully protect its vehicles from that attack doesn’t reflect on GM’s negligence, so much as a lack of security preparation in the entire industry of Internet-connected cars. Automakers five years ago simply weren’t equipped to fix hackable bugs in their vehicles’ software, the way that Microsoft and Google have long fixed bugs within weeks or even hours after they are disclosed to them. And many of those companies may not be much better prepared today.

"They just didn’t have the capabilities we take for granted in the desktop and server world,” says Stefan Savage, the UCSD professor who led one of the two university teams who worked together to hack the Impala. “It’s kind of sad that the whole industry was not in a place to deal with this at the time, and that today, five years later, there still isn’t a universal incident response and update system that exists."

GM says that since this flaw was exposed, they've at least developed the ability to push over-the-air firmware updates to vehicles (though 90% of the time, even new vehicle updates require a user USB install or dealership visit). But the fact it took GM five years of hammering away at the exploit to fix it makes it abundantly clear that the auto-industry is out of its depth when it comes to securing its new generation gee whizzery. And if it took five years to develop a single fix for a single vehicle, just how long do we think it will take for the auto industry to overhaul its entire vulnerability response and reporting systems?

Filed Under: connected cars, patching, security, vulnerabilities
Companies: gm

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 DMCA

First 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.

Filed Under: 1201, anti-circumvention, copyright, copyright office, dmca, environment, epa, librarian of congress, triennial review
Companies: gm

Car Hack Demonstrates Why Security Researchers Shouldn't Have To Worry About Copyright In Exposing Weaknesses

from the copyright-where-it-doesn't-belong dept

So, by now you've heard the story of how Wired reporter Andy Greenberg allowed two car hackers to hack into a car that he was driving, remotely, while he was on a highway. The story is getting plenty of well-deserved attention, with some people raising a variety of concerns. The most obvious concern is the "holy hell, that seems scary, we should improve car security." And that's true. A second level of concern is over whether or not that experiment on a real highway was appropriate, given the very real potential of danger (including the truck that almost hit Greenberg). A third concern is over the reality of the threat, given that Greenberg was driving a car owned by the hackers, that they had the ability to touch previously (i.e. the "remote" part of the hack sounds scary, but it's less scary if hackers have to get into your car first).

However, the part that I wanted to focus on is related to a discussion we were just having a few weeks ago, in which General Motors (which was not the target of this particular hack) claimed that any sort of tinkering with their software, such as to discover these kinds of security holes, should be considered copyright infringement, thanks to Section 1201 of the DMCA. Section 1201, also known as the anti-circumvention provision, says circumventing "technological protection measures" (TPMs) -- even for reasons that have nothing to do with copyright -- should be deemed copyright infringement and subject to all the statutory damages (up to $150k per violation!) that copyright allows. Some have been pushing for an exemption for things like security researchers tinkering with new connected car systems to make sure they're safe. And GM and other automakers have said "no way." GM's argument is, more or less, that the company would prefer to put its head in the sand, and not have security researchers help it discover security flaws in its systems -- leaving only malicious attackers to find those.

While proponents such as Electronic Frontier Foundation characterize the exemption as merely allowing the vehicle owners to “tinker” with their vehicles “in a decades-old tradition of mechanical curiosity and self-reliance,” if granted, the proposed exemption could introduce safety and security issues as well as facilitate violation of various laws designed specifically to regulate the modern car, including emissions, fuel economy, and vehicle safety regulations.

Of course, copyright is not the right law to be relying on if you think that tinkering with your software could lead to safety problems. Instead, it seems to be the law that automakers are relying on to try to hide some of the security vulnerabilities in their cars.

The Association of Global Automakers goes even further with its argument, basically saying that since they already let security researchers of their own choosing do research, no one else should be able to do that research also:

Automobile manufacturers are not adverse to external input and have a long and symbiotic history with aftermarket businesses and others, but are justifiably unwilling to risk public safety, security, and environmental wellness by compromising quality controls and oversight. Moreover, the exemption is unnecessary given that automobile manufacturers already provide access to their valuable copyrighted materials for the precise purposes proposed. By allowing every automobile owner to access and copy automotive software in the name of research, the proposed exemption undermines existing research efforts and, ultimately, wrests control of such research from those in the best position to actually improve the security and safety of our automobiles: the automobile manufacturers and their suppliers, who have the utmost responsibility to ensure that vehicles are safe and secure. The very real risk that ostensibly legitimate research unwittingly undermines vehicle security by serving as a guidebook to software vulnerabilities that enables or even accelerates illicit hacking and malicious modifications to automotive software weighs heavily against the proposed exemption. The balance of benefit versus detriment, in view of all factors involved, simply dictates against the proposed exemption.

In short, since security researchers might find a really serious hole in our software that might put lives in danger, we're much better off using copyright law to make sure no one's even looking for such a hole. Are they serious? Wouldn't it be much better to give people incentives to find these kinds of security flaws so the automakers can fix them rather than relying on security-by-head-in-the-sand?

Finally, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers also opposed the exemption for some fairly bizarre reasons, claiming that it would magically free up researchers to disclose how a vulnerability works without first informing the manufacturer:

By arguing that the current legal landscape is too treacherous for independent researchers, proponents are in effect seeking to be freed from existing statutory constraints that are biased in favor of prudent and responsible practices – such as managing disclosure of security vulnerabilities to minimize the risk of legal violations and exploitation of those vulnerabilities by bad actors – to protect the safety and security of members of the public. For instance, under the proposed exemption, researchers who publish detailed analyses of vulnerabilities before sharing their findings with manufacturers would nonetheless benefit from a blanket exemption to circumvention liability, even though such premature publication could dramatically increase the risk of such harmful exploitations.

This is bullshit. There is nothing in removing the liability for circumvention that changes industry best practices of first alerting the manufacturer. That would still be standard practice. What it would do, however, is stop those manufacturers from responding by threatening a ridiculous copyright infringement lawsuit instead of realizing they need to fix a real problem in their systems. And if the automakers don't think such threats happen, we've got plenty of examples to send their way.

If the automakers are serious about wanting to make sure their cars on the road are safe, they should be encouraging this kind of research (though perhaps not on actual highways... ). But the fact that copyright law is blocking some of this kind of research is a real travesty.

Filed Under: 1201, anti-circumvention, automotive, car, copyright, dmca, hack, hackers
Companies: chrysler, gm

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.

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, dmca 1201, drm, section 1201, technology protection measures, triennial review
Companies: gm, john deere

Ford Hits Back On Ridiculous Lawsuit Demanding $2,500 Per CD Ripper In Its Cars

from the let-us-explain-to-you-the-law dept

Back in July, we wrote about a ridiculous lawsuit filed by the AARC -- the Alliance of Artists and Recording Companies -- trying to make use of a misreading of the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) to pretend that it means that Ford and GM have to pay royalty money for every CD ripping car stereo they install. As we noted, the AHRA is basically a deadletter law. The law itself effectively killed any possible innovation in the area that it was designed to tax for royalties -- machines that make repeated copies of content. The recording industry tried to pretend that basic MP3 players met the definition and sued one of the first such players, the Diamond Rio. The court soundly rejected the argument in that case, and thanks to that, probably 99% of you have MP3 players (or, nowadays, smartphones that play MP3s). In our original post, we went into much greater detail about why the AARC was clearly misreading both the law and the caselaw in a desperate attempt to kick up some royalties from the big automakers.

Ford (along with Clarion) have now responded and do a damn good job explaining why the AARC is simply wrong. The the filing is pretty short and sweet in explaining the problems with the AARC's argument:

Congress enacted the AHRA in 1992 to regulate a then emerging technology that for the first time enabled high quality serial copying of copyrighted musical recordings. “Serial copying” refers to the creation of copies of a musical recording from another copy of that recording as opposed to the creation of copies from the original recording. This activity concerned the music industry, which was a proponent of the AHRA. However, rather than directly prohibit serial copying outright, Congress exempted certain products and devices— specifically including computers and hard drives—from compliance while requiring other specifically defined “devices” to also incorporate technology to prevent serial copying. The automotive navigation systems here are exempted.

Neither Ford nor Clarion is in the business of facilitating the serial copying of music. Ford is one of the largest automobile manufacturers in the world; it builds and sells some of the best-selling cars and trucks, certain models of which include navigation systems. Clarion manufactures and supplies Ford with navigation systems for its vehicles. Each such navigation system is a complex computer and includes a central processing unit that interprets and executes complex instructions and a 40 GB hard drive for storage of an operating system, computer software programs, databases, and other information (“Nav System”).

[....]

By its own Complaint, Plaintiff admits that this feature of Defendants’ Nav System consists of recording CDs to the system’s own hard drive, where the music is stored with various software programs and other data. It alleges nothing about making serial copies of CDs, digital audio tapes and the like. Under a plain reading of the AHRA, these automobiles with a Nav System are not capable of making a “digital audio copied recording” of a “digital musical recording” as defined under the Act. This is because the AHRA states that digital musical recordings do not include (1) material objects in which one or more computer programs are fixed or (2) material objects in which data other than sounds are fixed. Here, the Nav Systems are nothing less than automotive computers with hard drives containing both programs and data other than sounds. They do not reproduce digital music recordings in materials objects addressed by the statute, that is, CDs, LPs, cassettes, or digital audio tapes. The Nav Systems are outside the AHRA’s scope.

Not surprisingly, the filing relies heavily on the ruling in the Diamond case, and I see that one of the lawyers listed on the filing is Andrew Bridges, who handled the Diamond case in the first place. You never know how these kinds of court cases will turn out in the end, but it seems unlikely that the AARC is going to get rich off of this last gasp effort to squeeze money out of automakers.

Filed Under: ahra, audio home recording act, cd rippers, copyright, mp3 players, serial copies
Companies: aarc, clarion, ford, gm