Is it possible to hack the software to unlock battery, autopilot, etc.?

[Max*]

I posted this on the previous page, but since nobody participated, I'd try one more time because I'm really curious about answers to the 3 questions at the end.

I've been following this thread from the beginning and was curious if this problem can be formulated a different way. How about this:

• You buy a house and the living room has two light fixtures - one is 60 watts and another 15 watts
  
  
• The price for the house with 60 watts fixture is $X and you can upgrade to enable the second fixture for certain amount of money.
  
  
• The switch for the 15 watts fixture is removed and replaced with a blank cover plate. Once you pay the upgrade fee to the builder - they send a tech to remove the blank plate and install an actual switch so you can use the 15 watts light fixture.

So, what "illegal" crowd is saying that it is "illegal" (forget about morality for a sec) for me to replace the blank plate with an actual switch (the same type switch the builder would use) to activate that 15 watts fixture. Is that correct? If illegal, why?

Would it be stealing? Stealing what, exactly?

Would that self-modification be immoral?

I saw it, but it's not a valid comparison.

No builder would be stupid enough to include an extra light switch at no cost to the owner. Many people are still surprised that Tesla is doing it, but I'm sure it makes financial sense or they wouldn't have done it for so long. Most of the builder upgrades are planned before construction starts. There is no cost savings with pre-wiring an extra light switch.

No it's not illegal (assuming you follow the building code/NEC), morality depends on your moral compass (I'd do it, but I can see where people might say it's immoral), you are indirectly stealing profit from the builder (he was an idiot and gave you something for free, and you outsmarted him and found a way to not pay him and get what you want).

But I'll repeat what I said above, you can think of thousands of hypothetical parallels, but each one would have something somewhat different than what's really being discussed here, so it's not really valid.

 

[PowerSource]

I saw it, but it's not a valid comparison.

No builder would be stupid enough to include an extra light switch at no cost to the owner. Many people are still surprised that Tesla is doing it, but I'm sure it makes financial sense or they wouldn't have done it for so long. Most of the builder upgrades are planned before construction starts. There is no cost savings with pre-wiring an extra light switch.

No it's not illegal (assuming you follow the building code/NEC), morality depends on your moral compass (I'd do it, but I can see where people might say it's immoral), you are indirectly stealing profit from the builder (he was an idiot and gave you something for free, and you outsmarted him and found a way to not pay him and get what you want).

But I'll repeat what I said above, you can think of thousands of hypothetical parallels, but each one would have something somewhat different than what's really being discussed here, so it's not really valid.

It simplifies manufacturing (especially since Tesla seemingly has moved away from their not carrying inventory model). By carrying one car that can be several variants it takes the burden off the factory to build many more different configurations of inventory cars that could be less desirable.

So I guess from that perspective it makes even the "lowest" spec Model S more desirable if carried in inventory

 

[Max*]

It simplifies manufacturing (especially since Tesla seemingly has moved away from their not carrying inventory model). By carrying one car that can be several variants it takes the burden off the factory to build many more different configurations of inventory cars that could be less desirable.

So I guess from that perspective it makes even the "lowest" spec Model S more desirable if carried in inventory

I get that, what I meant was that the simplified manufacturing makes financial sense. They could make each car with a 100kwh battery and that would also simplify manufacturing (no more 75kwh or 90kwh configurations), and software lock it; but they won't do that because it doesn't make financial sense.

 

[PowerSource]

I get that, what I meant was that the simplified manufacturing makes financial sense. They could make each car with a 100kwh battery and that would also simplify manufacturing (no more 75kwh or 90kwh configurations), and software lock it; but they won't do that because it doesn't make financial sense.

Yea that model would also cannibalize their CPO cars which they make crazy profits on

i.e. trade in low ball offer on a 60kwh (PO upgrades to 90/100) unlock it to a more sell-able 75kwh for free and rake in the profits. They double end the deal rather rather than just a one time upgrade.

 

[jeffro01]

You are grasping at straws trying to make people you don't like sound like criminals when they've done nothing wrong. This is a witch hunt and is despicable behaviour.

Man you really are a piece of work... The only despicable behavior here is from those who think it's perfectly okay to hack the software on their cars to enable features THEY DIDN'T PAY FOR... That is THEFT. I can't be any clearer on that. When you take something that isn't your's that you didn't pay for, you have committed theft. That is the most basic principal out there... To claim that those who are doing this have "done nothing wrong" is laughable at best and as a shareholder, deeply troubling at worst.

Just because there isn't a specific law that covers this specific situation, doesn't make it any more or less unethical, immoral, and just plain old wrong. I'll keep repeating this so long as I have to, just because there isn't a specific statute to point to doesn't change the fact that this behavior is wrong.

I really wish Tesla would take an aggressive stance on this, I really do. They know what you're doing to THEIR software, they know what's going on. They should lock those of you out of your cars until you stop stealing from them but I can appreciate 100% why they can't/won't do such a thing as the situation stands today.

Jeff

 

[jeffro01]

I posted this on the previous page, but since nobody participated, I'd try one more time because I'm really curious about answers to the 3 questions at the end.

I've been following this thread from the beginning and was curious if this problem can be formulated a different way. How about this:

• You buy a house and the living room has two light fixtures - one is 60 watts and another 15 watts
  
  
• The price for the house with 60 watts fixture is $X and you can upgrade to enable the second fixture for certain amount of money.
  
  
• The switch for the 15 watts fixture is removed and replaced with a blank cover plate. Once you pay the upgrade fee to the builder - they send a tech to remove the blank plate and install an actual switch so you can use the 15 watts light fixture.

So, what "illegal" crowd is saying that it is "illegal" (forget about morality for a sec) for me to replace the blank plate with an actual switch (the same type switch the builder would use) to activate that 15 watts fixture. Is that correct? If illegal, why?

Would it be stealing? Stealing what, exactly?

Would that self-modification be immoral?

Again, another straw man argument that doesn't even remotely apply to this scenario... You're taking about a physical object that rests inside another physical object, your house, which changes the game even further so far as this discussion goes. There is no intellectual property here, it's all physical objects and again, a completely different scenario all together...

It's amazing to me just how far some of you are willing to go with your hypotheticals regardless of whether or not they're even remotely applicable...

Jeff

 

[Hazelwood]

Seems to me like this is around what you can or can't do with "YOUR" car, and basically who owns "YOUR" car. It's not unlike owning a Ford Mustang GT. If I install performance software, headers, and a supercharger to boost horsepower, am I allowed to do it? It seems like one side of the thread here says No, adding more functionality to "YOUR" car should not be legal because you didn't pay (in my example FORD), for the added functionality. The other side seems to say, I should be able to do what I want to "MY" car. I like to think that I own "MY" car, because it sure feels like "I" paid a lot of money for it.

 

[ABC2D]

They know what you're doing to THEIR software

Are you sure about that? THEIR software? Being as high as you are on your high horse, you should be able to tell us when Tesla wrote Linux? Please.

 

[Max*]

Seems to me like this is around what you can or can't do with "YOUR" car, and basically who owns "YOUR" car. It's not unlike owning a Ford Mustang GT. If I install performance software, headers, and a supercharger to boost horsepower, am I allowed to do it? It seems like one side of the thread here says No, adding more functionality to "YOUR" car should not be legal because you didn't pay (in my example FORD), for the added functionality. The other side seems to say, I should be able to do what I want to "MY" car. I like to think that I own "MY" car, because it sure feels like "I" paid a lot of money for it.

Again, not a valid analogy. You're buying parts to upgrade your GT.

If someone went out and bought parts to upgrade their Tesla (like buying a 100kwh battery and swapping it into a 60kwh car body), no one would say anything.

A better analogy would be if the GT was power limited, and Ford was selling an upgrade to unleash maximum power! But instead of paying Ford, you hack the car and get the power yourself.

 

[ABC2D]

Seems to me like this is around what you can or can't do with "YOUR" car, and basically who owns "YOUR" car. It's not unlike owning a Ford Mustang GT. If I install performance software, headers, and a supercharger to boost horsepower, am I allowed to do it? It seems like one side of the thread here says No, adding more functionality to "YOUR" car should not be legal because you didn't pay (in my example FORD), for the added functionality. The other side seems to say, I should be able to do what I want to "MY" car. I like to think that I own "MY" car, because it sure feels like "I" paid a lot of money for it.

In my opinion, it boils down to the licensing of that software. The physical car is yours and you may do as you please with it - I dont think there is any argument on that subject.

But the software is tricky. IF FORD made you sign a licensing agreement on the software during the sale - you will be out of luck to modify it and bound by the agreement, unless you fall under DMAC exclusion. But you still can completely replace Ford's software if you please, you just cant modify their software.

Tesla does not make its buyers to sign any software licensing, which, again, in my opinion, makes it mine and to do as I please. AFIK, Tesla is in violation of GPL for not disclosing modification sources (but dont quote me on that)

 

[Hazelwood]

Someone made the parts for me to buy (and it wasn't Ford). Fine a better analogy. I overboost my turbo's that came with the car I purchased, giving me more power. Analogy's are less important than the who owns the car discussion.

 

[martinicus]

Meanwhile on our farms: Why American Farmers are Hacking their Tractors with Ukrainian firmware

They are relying on cracked firmware not to unlock features they didn't pay for, but simply to repair their John Deere tractors. I think we can intuitively understand the difference between the two, and why right-to-repair laws need to passed.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Seems to me like this is around what you can or can't do with "YOUR" car, and basically who owns "YOUR" car. It's not unlike owning a Ford Mustang GT. If I install performance software, headers, and a supercharger to boost horsepower, am I allowed to do it? It seems like one side of the thread here says No, adding more functionality to "YOUR" car should not be legal because you didn't pay (in my example FORD), for the added functionality. The other side seems to say, I should be able to do what I want to "MY" car. I like to think that I own "MY" car, because it sure feels like "I" paid a lot of money for it.

Not anywhere near the same situation. This isn't adjusting the ECU to allow adding different parts (that is covered by the DMCA exemption). This is talking about unlocking paid features for free (including autopilot).

 

[stopcrazypp]

In my opinion, it boils down to the licensing of that software. The physical car is yours and you may do as you please with it - I dont think there is any argument on that subject.

But the software is tricky. IF FORD made you sign a licensing agreement on the software during the sale - you will be out of luck to modify it and bound by the agreement, unless you fall under DMAC exclusion. But you still can completely replace Ford's software if you please, you just cant modify their software.

Tesla does not make its buyers to sign any software licensing, which, again, in my opinion, makes it mine and to do as I please. AFIK, Tesla is in violation of GPL for not disclosing modification sources (but dont quote me on that)

Actually this interpretation is incorrect as far as I can tell, Ford does not need you sign an agreement. DMCA already makes it so you can't legally hack the software to gain access to the ECU, that's why the ECU specific exemption is there in the first place (and it applies only in the narrow specified circumstances). In other words, even in complete absence of a signed license agreement, you can still be sued for copyright infringement. This is the only way copyright laws make sense, since pirates and people who infringe on copyrighted works almost never have signed an agreement with the victim (why would they if they are just stealing?).

What a license agreement does is provide further restrictions beyond what the copyright law already protects. The article below is a prime example. The DMCA already provided an exemption for farm equipment repair so John Deere can't sue for copyright infringement. From the comments however, after the DMCA exemption was passed, John Deere made customers sign new agreements that have similar restrictions as before. So John Deere can now sue for breach of contract.

Meanwhile on our farms: Why American Farmers are Hacking their Tractors with Ukrainian firmware

They are relying on cracked firmware not to unlock features they didn't pay for, but simply to repair their John Deere tractors. I think we can intuitively understand the difference between the two, and why right-to-repair laws need to passed.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

I posted this on the previous page, but since nobody participated, I'd try one more time because I'm really curious about answers to the 3 questions at the end.

I've been following this thread from the beginning and was curious if this problem can be formulated a different way. How about this:

• You buy a house and the living room has two light fixtures - one is 60 watts and another 15 watts
  
  
• The price for the house with 60 watts fixture is $X and you can upgrade to enable the second fixture for certain amount of money.
  
  
• The switch for the 15 watts fixture is removed and replaced with a blank cover plate. Once you pay the upgrade fee to the builder - they send a tech to remove the blank plate and install an actual switch so you can use the 15 watts light fixture.

So, what "illegal" crowd is saying that it is "illegal" (forget about morality for a sec) for me to replace the blank plate with an actual switch (the same type switch the builder would use) to activate that 15 watts fixture. Is that correct? If illegal, why?

Would it be stealing? Stealing what, exactly?

Would that self-modification be immoral?

Your example is already covered by statute, case law, and the written purchase contract between parties. In your example, there would have to be a contractual agreement between the parties or seller would have to put a deed restriction on the property (which buyer would have to accept) in order to restrict its use. If that deed restriction is violated, the previous seller would have a cause of action against the new homeowner. Without either an agreement between parties or a deed restriction, no seller can restrict what a homeowner does with the property after ownership is conveyed.

 

[schonelucht]

This discussion is only going to get better (popcorn wise) when (if) Tesla manages self driving and then prohibits owners from using that feature in anything but Tesla's ride-sharing program.

 

[Cebe]

These types of hack have been around for years. Sometimes software only, sometimes with a bit of hardware (e.g., having Nvidia GeForce turn into Quadro.) This is such a specific case that it would take an actual lawsuit to set a precedent. I agree that it would get expensive, for both sides, which is why I don't see Tesla bothering with it, unless you set up shop selling the mod.

As entertaining as this discussion is, seems that the answer is probably boring - there is no law that has been shown in court to apply specifically to this case, but if somebody was to bring this to trial, I'd bet my money on Tesla winning, at which point we'd have the law specifically against it. And I don't see anybody actually bringing it to trial for the mods themselves, just for selling them.

One of the reasons companies like to sell software as a service. You never get to actually own it, so you can't mess with it.

 

[neroden]

If someone did hack a car this way, not for sale, and it went to court, Tesla would lose totally in about 20 seconds for having "unclean hands" on copyright, since a lot of the software in the Tesla is pirated.

I do agree that someone stupid enuogh to try to *sell* this hack would be in trouble -- sort of -- in that I don't think there'd be any trouble selling it once, but if the person they sold it to just published it, they wouldn't be able to do anything about it, and neither would Tesla, and after that it would be free to anyone who wanted it.

This sort of hack is undesirable for normal buyers because, obviously, it voids the warranty and allows Tesla to refuse service, which should be a big enough stick to discourage almost everyone from doing it. With no independent service shops, the only people who would consider this are car modififers who already intend to do all their service themselves. It might be different when there are a lot of out-of-warranty cars and active independent service shops.

That said, nobody's successfully done this hack yet, so it's really completely academic. Revive this discussion when someone's actually figured out how.

 

[Acho]

Ethically it is illegal. It same if tou purchased software which has premium futures that needs to be paid for in order to be unlocked. Another example is if you have cable/sattelite service which does not include premium channels and somehow you find way to unlock them.

It all depends on personal understanding if someone will take advantage of it if there is oportunity. I, in the case with battery capacity probably will do it if I can bet in case of unlocking my cable/sattelite subscription to all included the answer is no.

I have reversed case in mind - if I have few months old S75 with AP and find out that I don't use the AP at all and for my needs S60 will be more than enough can I ask tesla to lock this futures for refund

I know the answer but I am curious what others think?

 

[demundus]

since a lot of the software in the Tesla is pirated.

Uh... what?