Do We Own Our Vehicles? General Motors Says No.

[qwk]

,

So do you count only what the service centre does? or what Tesla does as a whole?
example, if you have a drive unit problem, the local centre simply swaps it, but Tesla doesn't eat the cost of a new drive unit, they send it back and then Tesla opens it up and fixes it. Elon famously talked about installing a shim worth only a few cents, but the service centre wasn't doing it, they were swapping it, and a drive unit is thousands of dollars. Which of those levels of granularity is acceptable?

As for the wiring connector, actually replacing connectors on wiring harnesses is common practice, because often replacing the whole harness starts with "disassemble entire car" as the wiring is usually put in before the interior whereas crimping a new connector on is a 5 minute or less task.

This is the issue. The SC's are usually just parts swappers. Engineering does most of the diagnostics, and parts teardowns. This doesn't mean that engineering are the only ones capable of that, but they are the only ones with the knowledge of log detail and ability to ping new firmware to the car.

 

[green1]

Imagine if the Mercedes dealer swapped the engine instead of changing the spark plugs....

 

[qwk]

Imagine if the Mercedes dealer swapped the engine instead of changing the spark plugs....

This isn't really sustainable, although some of this goes on in the ICE world. Rebuilt parts with a core charge are pretty common. The main difference is that I can go to any dealer, and EITHER get a new, remanufactured, or just internal parts for any vehicle as long as it's not obsolete. Try that with a Tesla. I hate dealers with a passion, but at least they provide protection against the monopolistic behavior that Tesla has shown.

 

[stopcrazypp]

So do you count only what the service centre does? or what Tesla does as a whole?
example, if you have a drive unit problem, the local centre simply swaps it, but Tesla doesn't eat the cost of a new drive unit, they send it back and then Tesla opens it up and fixes it. Elon famously talked about installing a shim worth only a few cents, but the service centre wasn't doing it, they were swapping it, and a drive unit is thousands of dollars. Which of those levels of granularity is acceptable?

As for the wiring connector, actually replacing connectors on wiring harnesses is common practice, because often replacing the whole harness starts with "disassemble entire car" as the wiring is usually put in before the interior whereas crimping a new connector on is a 5 minute or less task.

As for the thing about swapping the whole motor, I believe it was reported that service centers are going to begin having the capability of servicing it in a more granular way and that will trickle down.

As for the point about the harness. If the service center has a part number for that connector and it is routine to crimp a new connector, sure, that should be included in any "right to repair" manual. But if the service center has to replace the whole harness, then the procedure for doing that would be what's in the manual. I know for your door handle example, in most cars it comes as a part that includes all internal mechanisms and the spring is not a separate part you can purchase. You may be able to find it by digging yourself in a junkyard, but obviously there aren't a lot of Teslas in junkyards right now.

Judgement of "acceptable" granularity in terms of the a "right to repair" law would be to give the independent shop access to the same parts and procedures that a Tesla service center would use. If that means swapping a whole big part even though it may be broken down to smaller parts, then that's what it is.

This isn't really sustainable, although some of this goes on in the ICE world. Rebuilt parts with a core charge are pretty common. The main difference is that I can go to any dealer, and EITHER get a new, remanufactured, or just internal parts for any vehicle as long as it's not obsolete. Try that with a Tesla. I hate dealers with a passion, but at least they provide protection against the monopolistic behavior that Tesla has shown.

That's not necessarily because of dealers, but rather because of decades worth of parts being made for ICE. For example there aren't third party or re-manufactured EV parts being made for the Leaf either. It'll take a while before EVs have enough market share for those companies to start making parts for them.

 

[qwk]

That's not necessarily because of dealers, but rather because of decades worth of parts being made for ICE. For example there aren't third party or re-manufactured EV parts being made for the Leaf either. It'll take a while before EVs have enough market share for those companies to start making parts for them.

One can get Leaf parts without a problem. The same cannot be said for the Model S.

 

[evp]

OK, three very much not hypothetical examples:

1) TiVo announces that at the end of the month they will stop supporting Amazon video. I own the rights to several movies, but at the end of the month I can no longer actually download and watch them on the TiVo. Do I have the right to download a movie to my computer from Amazon, decrypt it, copy it to the TiVo, and watch it?

2) I buy a PhotoVu digital picture frame -- a Linux-based display with internet connection and web interface to configure. After several years the company goes out of business, then the picture frame stops working. What rights do I have to take it apart, debug, alter software, to get it working again?

3) I buy a monitoring system along with my solar array. This system periodically calls up an external web site and downloads energy production statistics, and I can log on to that web site to get graphs of usage, even download CSV files of data history. Then the company is sold, and I get a notice that my formerly free subscription has "expired". I have the hardware, but it's useless without the website it was feeding data to. Can I expect to get a complete dump of my data from the new owners? Do I have the right to modify the hardware and software of this module in order to begin logging those data locally?

And one hypothetical example:

4) I've driven my Tesla for a decade, and enjoyed a large fraction of the million mile lifetime that Tesla claims it's good for. The processor on the display goes out, and that chip is no longer in production, making the display impossible to fix. The current production model of the display is incompatible with the old display software, and Tesla is not willing to create a custom software build for the old car with the new display. Is it reasonable for a group of owners in a similar situation to ask Tesla to release code and build environment into the public domain such that motivated individuals could get their older cars back on the road?

 

[stopcrazypp]

OK, three very much not hypothetical examples:

First I should say I'm not a lawyer, so none of what I say below should be taken as legal advice, but here are my 2 cents:

1) The "Do I have the right to download a movie to my computer from Amazon, decrypt it" is the critical part. That TiVo used to offer support for Amazon Video is irrelevant to this question and does not provide you with legal justification to circumvent DRM. First thing is to read the terms and conditions of Amazon, if it allows for downloading of the video, you are 100% in the clear, but this is unlikely. "Decrypting" gets into the anti-circumvention laws, where the only concrete exception is for interoperability of computer programs. Even for fair-use, the case law is mixed in terms of how legal it is to circumvent DRM. In general, home recordings for home viewing is fair use, but unless you are doing a straightforward screen recording (without needing to circumvent any DRM measures to prevent screen recording), you aren't necessarily protected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc.

There are also the following explicit exceptions (none of which specify circumventing streaming video DRM for the purposes of non-commercial use; closest one only applies to DVD's CCS DRM):
http://drm.web.unc.edu/relevant-law/dmca/dmca-application-and-exceptions-chart/

2) "After several years the company goes out of business, then the picture frame stops working. What rights do I have to take it apart, debug, alter software, to get it working again?"
First, this is if the company is completely out of business and the rights to the software is not sold to some other company, you would have free reign.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abandonware
If not, the right to make a copy of a computer program (which has to be done when modifying it) is allowed for an "owner" if and only if it is "an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine":
https://www.skadden.com/insights/se...dify-software-under-section-117-copyright-act
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117
Whether a licensee can be considered an "owner" for this purpose varies depending on which circuit decision you look at and is discussed here (and in both cases it depends on the specific licensing terms of that software):
http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1221&context=dltr

3) "Can I expect to get a complete dump of my data from the new owners?"
This would depend on the contract for the storing of the data. However, more likely than not the new owners have no obligation to provide you with a dump of the data, because typically the liabilities stay with the previous owner (esp. in a bankruptcy situation). Therefore in cases of cloud storage, usually it's up to the user to look for a clause that provides for a chance for the user to download the data before bankruptcy or transfer of ownership of the company.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assignment_(law)
"Do I have the right to modify the hardware and software of this module in order to begin logging those data locally?"
See #2.

 

[evp]

More from John Deere:

John Deere: of course you your tractor, but only if you agree to let us rip you off - Boing Boing