-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
JoaoD
Tech Enthusiast
JoaoD
Tech Enthusiast
I think in this case enabling a feature you did not pay for can be considered the same as using the full version of a software that is given to you where you have to input a key you purchased to get the full functionality. You are given the full software for free in both cases (consider that you only pay the hardware in Tesla and the software is free), but you have to pay to use the full version or you can hack it and turn a switch on. It would be illegal to crack the software to have full access to it.
davidc18
Active Member
And WK057 has turned this back on when he fixed a salvaged car. He could tell the feature was previously paid for, and after tesla deactivated it, he flipped the switch and re enabled supercharger access. What did Telsa do? nothing.
I suppose folks could sue for false advertising. I wonder how many people would actually do that.
Tesla has already retroactively changed an advertised feature and screwed over numerous owners. This was the Ranger fee. It was advertised for several years as $100 flat fee unlimited miles. Several people were informed in writing by sales staff that it would always be that price. Folks made decisions to purchase cars in remote locations based on that advertisement. Now, Tesla is no longer honoring that price unless you had bought the service plan that included it. So far no one has sued even though affected people now have to pay thousands more to service their cars.
So Tesla might decide to ban software modded cars from superchargers and take the chance that so few people would actually be affected that they wouldn't actually sue. They could claim it's a safety issue like they do with salvage cars. In the end, they would probably get away with that.
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
They would get sued in a heartbeat. And those of us with close media connections would make sure it was blasted over every news outlet that would listen.
From a business standpoint, it would be one of the stupidest things they could do. It would even push me to vocally support the "Dealership Model", since it would be a direct example of too much "consolidated power" with the Tesla model.
Well on the PR front, they would argue it was a safety issue. Joe Q public would probably buy into that argument.
And if they did get sued, it would be an interesting case. Someone would sue for false advertising, and Tesla might make the argument to the judge that they have to restrict software modified cars for safety reasons. I wonder how a case like that would play out?
There is a case to be made that this "software disabling/enabling" or features by the manufacturer should be permitted but that, barring a contractual agreement, an owner can make whatever modifications they wish to a given vehicle, including enabling locked features. It would just mean that the manufacturer would have to change how they roll out these software based features. Instead of using enable bits they could conditionally load or not load specific sections of code.
In case like the enhanced autopilot, Tesla could simply not install the code associated with higher level autopilot until it's paid for. Similarly, I expect that there is some rather specific code associated with supercharging that could be omitted on non-SC enabled vehicles.
If somebody wanted to, I suppose they could write their own battery management software and install it. They could reduce the "bricking buffer" at the bottom end. And they could provide completely different inverter control software that overdrives the motors, presumably at the risk of damaging the motors.
Of course, copying and installing Tesla's software from another vehicle would be clear theft. And it's also reasonable that modifications might be cause for the manufacturer to stop providing software updates and potentially limit warranty claims.
It would be good to see a case go through to provide some clarity.
In case like the enhanced autopilot, Tesla could simply not install the code associated with higher level autopilot until it's paid for. Similarly, I expect that there is some rather specific code associated with supercharging that could be omitted on non-SC enabled vehicles.
If somebody wanted to, I suppose they could write their own battery management software and install it. They could reduce the "bricking buffer" at the bottom end. And they could provide completely different inverter control software that overdrives the motors, presumably at the risk of damaging the motors.
Of course, copying and installing Tesla's software from another vehicle would be clear theft. And it's also reasonable that modifications might be cause for the manufacturer to stop providing software updates and potentially limit warranty claims.
It would be good to see a case go through to provide some clarity.
This is what I refer to. It is unlikely for anyone to reverse engineer the compiled code and edit then recompile to get all the features to work correctly and still match the checksum and module addresses.
What they would do is to copy the code from a car that has the feature. Cut and paste OEM code from one VIN into another.
If all it takes is to edit the data segment tables and scalars, then ... that's gray. People do this all the time, and so do I. Cutting and pasting programs you did not pay for is not gray. Legally, I cannot take a bootleg MFR file and burn it on a fresh PCM, and charge people for it. So I pay for a subscription that allows me to do that legally via the MFR. I download the file based on the VIN, and it will send my tool the right file for the car.
Or, I can download the existing data tables from a car, edit values in the data, then reflash the PCM. That's legal as long as I do not alter emissions for On Road cars, which is not an IP issue, but a CARB/EPA issue. $250k fine now. No thanks, hence why I retired from doing that. I cannot tell if that PCM will end up in a road car later on.
But it's 2016. If Tesla is up where everyone else is, you're not going to even cut and paste and have car turn on. The security light will come on. The car will think somebody replaced the PCM to steal the car. The "key" information (FOB data on most cars now), is also in the PCM. Your fob won't work.
Or that's how it works with me.
Not True
Not True
Maybe, but hasn't happened yet. Only hint of that happening is here on the TMC hamster wheel.
Not True
True!
Let's stick to reality here. They disable supercharging on salvage vehicles for whatever various reason they want to use... that one makes sense and is easy to understand. However, no one who has rooted or seriously modified their vehicle via software root has actually been "smacked down" by Tesla or any of Tesla's lawyers as far as this forum knows (don't you think we'd be the first to be up in arms about it?).
jeffro01
Active Member
Again no, no you can't. Tesla most certainly did sell you the car with a license agreement and you accepted it by driving it after you signed the papers. So no, you do not own the software in your car. Tesla does. I don't understand why this is so hard for you to understand... I really don't...
Jeff
Sorry if I was not clear - I was mainly asking from a technical and practical point of view. Not too interested in the legal aspect as I think it's wrong and I won't do it irrespective of whether it's legal. But from a technical and practical point of view, there are people hacking things all the time, like the iPhone to download all kinds of apps, software subscription and all content providers. That's why I was curious as to why this has not happened more often, and even when you google it you don't really turn up any discussion.
I think some of the responses already did a good job with some of the possible reasons so I consider this answered for myself. For everyone else, do feel free to carry on.
Here's what I foresee when somebody hacks the SOC window on an EV:
It overcharges or discharges the battery and bricks it as they get greedy to max out the range.
They use the mandated EV battery warranty to force the mfr to replace the battery on their dime.
Seriously, do you think an automotive engineer who specializes in EV systems is going to be the first to hack the SOC?
No. It's going to be a script kiddy who thinks that if 4.10 volts is good, then 4.25v is better.
It overcharges or discharges the battery and bricks it as they get greedy to max out the range.
They use the mandated EV battery warranty to force the mfr to replace the battery on their dime.
Seriously, do you think an automotive engineer who specializes in EV systems is going to be the first to hack the SOC?
No. It's going to be a script kiddy who thinks that if 4.10 volts is good, then 4.25v is better.
There is some background on software in vehicles, where John Deere and GM last year tried to use the DMCA to say there is an "implied license" in a tractor sale (there was no specific paperwork) and that modifying the software yourself was illegal. The EFF and others fought back:
We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Very Idea of Ownership
Interestingly, Tesla did not try and join the argument.
It seems that one very simple way around this for Tesla is to not actually put the code in the car until you pay for it. It seems pretty clear that copying software is illegal (copyright), but modifying one bit in a device you own is less clear. If the code isn't in your car to begin with, there is no single bit to set to turn it on.
We Can’t Let John Deere Destroy the Very Idea of Ownership
Interestingly, Tesla did not try and join the argument.
It seems that one very simple way around this for Tesla is to not actually put the code in the car until you pay for it. It seems pretty clear that copying software is illegal (copyright), but modifying one bit in a device you own is less clear. If the code isn't in your car to begin with, there is no single bit to set to turn it on.
Except the discussion here is just turning on the exact same feature Tesla has fully tested, which is the switch from 60KWh to 75KWh. Tesla themselves will warranty this change, so how is it different if you enable the exact same code in the exact same way Tesla would enable it?
I don't think there's any argument that if you change the software beyond what Tesla designed that your warranty would be invalid for the areas that code change affected.
gabeincal
Active Member
Software License Agreement
Similar thread around this. Though I think it is illegal, to green1's point, I'm not sure where we can find proof of that. Also, it is a very fair question to ask: If I remove my software limited 60kwh battery and sell it as is (it is a 75), is that illegal..Or furthermore, somebody buys it as a 60, puts it in a car where the software is enabled by Tesla to be a 75 and therefore it treats my 60 battery as a 75, who committed the crime
@HookBill, What did I say that was wrong, or dislikable?
HookBill
Member
gabeincal, sorry about anything negative. I don't remember intentionally saying anything negative unless my mouse accidentally touched the dislike icon by mistake. I am staying our of this fray so I apologize for anything accidental.
gabeincal
Active Member
Well you can always undo your rating. Wasn't sure what I said that offended or disappointed a forum member but now it's clear, just a click mistake. Appreciate if you remove the dislike.
