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

[McRat]

Except we're not talking reselling, we're talking about modifying. It's perfectly legal to modify the book you bought.


Which is why the government in the USA specifically changed the law to exempt vehicles from the DMCA after that was used to prevent modifications. Do you have any examples using a law other than the DMCA? And don't go with any licence agreement law either, because as has been pointed out repeatedly, nobody here signed an agreement.

I'm going to guess you have zero personal experience with writing custom flashes for cars or editing existing files.

Can't argue with someone who doesn't know the topic.

Fk the DMCA. This is simply theft. You can go all Open Source For All, No IP!!! crap if you like. Every Ponzi schemer can justify their actions down to the dollar, as can the inside traders, and bootleggers, tax evaders, etc, etc.

Go the fooler route. It's easier, cheaper, faster, and legal. If you don't know what a fooler is, you should not be modifying drivetrains.

 

[green1]

You can guess whatever you'd like, you'd be wrong, but guess away.

You don't have a law to quote. That's all I was asking.
You can say it's "wrong" all you want, but that wasn't the question. The question was, is it illegal. So far nobody has shown that it is.

 

[Evbwcaer]

File sharing of MP3s and the legal issues surrounding it have my brain turning on this, particularly whether it is theft or not.

Legally, downloading MP3's is stealing. Truthfully though, it only is stealing if you would have otherwise bought the song, at that point there is harm to the song owner. But the law is just downloading is theft, theft requires a party to have harm/damages.

Now if you unlock the 60 to a 75, that sounds like downloading the music, even though Tesla/song owner incurred no damage, the law will just, "assume" that you would have otherwise bought the 75/song and damages equal that price.

When I look at automotive issues though.....Land Rover put seat heating elements in every seat in Discoverys. If you bought the option they also installed the switch. You could forgo the option, buy a 1$ switch and be toasty. I doubt anybody was ever prosecuted for that.

 

[green1]

File sharing of MP3s and the legal issues surrounding it have my brain turning on this, particularly whether it is theft or not.

Legally, downloading MP3's is stealing. Truthfully though, it only is stealing if you would have otherwise bought the song, at that point there is harm to the song owner. But the law is just downloading is theft, theft requires a party to have harm/damages.

Now if you unlock the 60 to a 75, that sounds like downloading the music, even though Tesla/song owner incurred no damage, the law will just, "assume" that you would have otherwise bought the 75/song and damages equal that price.

When I look at automotive issues though.....Land Rover put seat heating elements in every seat in Discoverys. If you bought the option they also installed the switch. You could forgo the option, buy a 1$ switch and be toasty. I doubt anybody was ever prosecuted for that.

Not a horrible analogy, but keep in mind that
A) downloading is legal in many jurisdictions (often only uploading is illegal)
B) no download is happening here as you already have the software. This would have to be a different law entirely.

A vocal handful of people on here claim it's "wrong" but wrong is not the same as illegal.

 

[Az_Rael]

I doubt it would be deemed "illegal". However, since superchargers are Tesla property and they are providing the service, I assume they could lock someone out of supercharger access if they cared to for folks who hack the cars. Rather like Microsoft blocking modified Xboxen from using Xbox Live.

As of now, no one has signed a supercharger network terms of service defining what can and can't be done. While that might not currently block any use of the supercharger network, it does give Tesla leeway to create new rules at any time. No contracts are involved other than the line item on the purchase agreement listing the supercharging option.

 

[green1]

I doubt it would be deemed "illegal". However, since superchargers are Tesla property and they are providing the service, I assume they could lock someone out of supercharger access if they cared to for folks who hack the cars. Rather like Microsoft blocking modified Xboxen from using Xbox Live.

As of now, no one has signed a supercharger network terms of service defining what can and can't be done. While that might not currently block any use of the supercharger network, it does give Tesla leeway to create new rules at any time. No contracts are involved other than the line item on the purchase agreement listing the supercharging option.

Tesla has advertised supercharger use as free for life with no listed restrictions. They could change that for new purchasers, but they're be in a lot of hot water if they tried to change it for existing owners.
You see here's the thing, Tesla has a legal responsibility to do all the things they said they would do that convinced people to buy the car. The owner on the other hand has zero legal responsibility to Tesla after they pay for the car and take possession.
Tesla can't change the terms of the sale after the fact, no matter how much they don't like what you did to your own property.

 

[Evbwcaer]

Not a horrible analogy, but keep in mind that
A) downloading is legal in many jurisdictions (often only uploading is illegal)
B) no download is happening here as you already have the software. This would have to be a different law entirely.

A vocal handful of people on here claim it's "wrong" but wrong is not the same as illegal.

Right, but what I am trying to understand is if unlocking the battery would be theft. In the case of music, copying/sharing it is illegal, even though it cost the music owner nothing, they incurred no damage...unless you would have otherwise purchased the content. Clearly though, theft from a legal perspective.

The Land Rover seat heater, perhaps a more analogous situation, seems like it would never stand up legally. (They did the same thing with a dif lock I think).

To the legal experts.....please correct me if I am wrong, but as the vehicle owner you do own at least that single copy of the software, correct? Additionally, what if you accessed the extra KWH's through other means than software, such as physically taking them out of the car and using them for another purpose or selling them?

 

[green1]

Right, but what I am trying to understand is if unlocking the battery would be theft. In the case of music, copying/sharing it is illegal, even though it cost the music owner nothing, they incurred no damage...unless you would have otherwise purchased the content. Clearly though, theft from a legal perspective.

The Land Rover seat heater, perhaps a more analogous situation, seems like it would never stand up legally. (They did the same thing with a dif lock I think).

To the legal experts.....please correct me if I am wrong, but as the vehicle owner you do own at least that single copy of the software, correct? Additionally, what if you accessed the extra KWH's through other means than software, such as physically taking them out of the car and using them for another purpose or selling them?

Not quite, copying a song is actually not theft by a legal definition, it's copyright infringement. It's precisely because it is not theft that a separate law was needed to cover it, and also why this situation is also not theft from a legal stand point. (It could still be illegal without being theft, but nobody has yet come up with what law would make it so) it's a common misperception though, carefully nurtured by the content producers that copyright infringement is theft, but that's really just to pull on heart strings and make people believe it's a heinous crime akin to depriving another person of their personal property. It's theft for PR reasons, not legal ones.

Now as for your last paragraph, now you're asking the right questions!

 

[_TTT_]

Some background - I have tuned over 100 cars around the world either by modifying existing firmware or installing a new ECU/computer and customizing it for a particular build. I've never questioned the legality of this. OEMs were never charging money for additional HP via software modification (on the cars I tuned). We all understand this doesn't violate the warranty unless modifications are proven to be the cause of failure in a warranty claim.

However...taking existing firmware and modifying it to include a feature that an OEM specifically charges money for definitely feels like theft to me. I understand there might not be case law to reference in this specific instance (we are all on the bleeding edge of cars/software with Teslas), but if I were a judge faced with a case that doesn't have prior precedence, I would weigh the "spirit of the law" quite heavily.

I believe that enabling features you haven't paid for would be more or less weighed in a similar manner as doing the same thing for Windows (or other software). I personally have a friend who is in jail right now for giving people Windows secrets, and I think you would find judges would more or less rule the same in cases such as this. Theft of IP, especially IP that is commercial and has a price tag, be it hardware or software, will be treated the same by courts.

This being said, I almost didn't type this out because I understand that any of us can argue this case both ways with great success. I see both sides. But at the end of the day, my prediction is that a judge will decide against the person enabling commercially profitable features without permission of the seller. And after having typed this out, I'm kind of excited to see how this plays out in court

 

[xborg]

Some background - I have tuned over 100 cars around the world either by modifying existing firmware or installing a new ECU/computer and customizing it for a particular build. I've never questioned the legality of this. OEMs were never charging money for additional HP via software modification (on the cars I tuned). We all understand this doesn't violate the warranty unless modifications are proven to be the cause of failure in a warranty claim.

However...taking existing firmware and modifying it to include a feature that an OEM specifically charges money for definitely feels like theft to me. I understand there might not be case law to reference in this specific instance (we are all on the bleeding edge of cars/software with Teslas), but if I were a judge faced with a case that doesn't have prior precedence, I would weigh the "spirit of the law" quite heavily.

I believe that enabling features you haven't paid for would be more or less weighed in a similar manner as doing the same thing for Windows (or other software). I personally have a friend who is in jail right now for giving people Windows secrets, and I think you would find judges would more or less rule the same in cases such as this. Theft of IP, especially IP that is commercial and has a price tag, be it hardware or software, will be treated the same by courts.

This being said, I almost didn't type this out because I understand that any of us can argue this case both ways with great success. I see both sides. But at the end of the day, my prediction is that a judge will decide against the person enabling commercially profitable features without permission of the seller. And after having typed this out, I'm kind of excited to see how this plays out in court

I agree. Writing code for better engine software is a different thing, hacking the software and flipping the switch is a different thing.

 

[green1]

Tesla lives and dies by the press.
I highly doubt they'd sue someone for flipping a switch in software, the PR would be a nightmare, especially when the legal case has no precedent and shaky legal footing to start with.

 

[xborg]

Tesla lives and dies by the press.
I highly doubt they'd sue someone for flipping a switch in software, the PR would be a nightmare, especially when the legal case has no precedent and shaky legal footing to start with.

They wouldn't sue, but they may void the warranty, and refuse to service it.

 

[green1]

They wouldn't sue, but they may void the warranty, and refuse to service it.

I highly doubt that, it would be even worse PR than sueing

 

[apacheguy]

Tesla has advertised supercharger use as free for life with no listed restrictions. They could change that for new purchasers, but they're be in a lot of hot water if they tried to change it for existing owners.
You see here's the thing, Tesla has a legal responsibility to do all the things they said they would do that convinced people to buy the car. The owner on the other hand has zero legal responsibility to Tesla after they pay for the car and take possession.
Tesla can't change the terms of the sale after the fact, no matter how much they don't like what you did to your own property.

It's already been demonstrated that at least in the case of salvage cars they will reach in and disable supercharging. They did not get themselves in any hot water for this. They could also easily blacklist those VINs to prevent the vehicle config change from reenabling.

 

[gabeincal]

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

 

[xborg]

I highly doubt that, it would be even worse PR than sueing

Yes, for sure. If there are just a few people doing it, they wouldn't care. But if lots of Model 3 owners start to unlock features with help from modification shops, they may take action.
Don't forget that Elon Musk has a good reality distortion field. They may say that: "By doing unofficial software modifications, customers are breaching the contract. We're concerned of our customers' and other drivers' safety, we are taking action to prevent severe consequences"
Tesla already disabling supercharger and remote access on salvage cars. I don't know any other manufacturer doing something similar.

 

[Canuck]

It sure is fun reading non-lawyers explain the law, like this:

Not quite, copying a song is actually not theft by a legal definition, it's copyright infringement. It's precisely because it is not theft that a separate law was needed to cover it, and also why this situation is also not theft from a legal stand point. (It could still be illegal without being theft, but nobody has yet come up with what law would make it so) it's a common misperception though, carefully nurtured by the content producers that copyright infringement is theft, but that's really just to pull on heart strings and make people believe it's a heinous crime akin to depriving another person of their personal property. It's theft for PR reasons, not legal ones.

Theft by a legal definition? A separate law was needed because it's not theft? What are you talking about? Our criminal laws come from the common-law and statues (mainly the Criminal Code in Canada) and the Model Penal Code in the US. No one is charged with a criminal offence by reference to the "legal definition" of theft. But you did give me a good laugh.

Copyright laws are for mainly for civil protection! There's a huge difference between civil and criminal law starting with the onus of proof. Civilly: it's on a balance of probabilities; criminally: it's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, breach of a copyright can be criminal too, but there are three levels of civil copyright infringement: civil infringers may be “innocent”, “ordinary”, or “willful”. There is a range of penalties which can be imposed on criminal infringers depending on the egregiousness of the offense and in deference to prosecutorial discretion.

When you're charged with say, running a red light, and fight it in traffic court, and lose, are you a criminal? Did you do something illegal? We call that quasi-criminal and statutes like the Motor Vehicle Act, contain quasi-criminal offences. Yes, you did do something illegal but you're not a criminal. What about copyright infringement? Hopefully, you can see the spectrum. Copyright infringement may be like running that red light, or it may be "theft over" or "theft under" -- under the Criminal Code. It depends on the egregiousness of the offense and in deference to prosecutorial discretion.

People can believe that you can unlock a car with no Supercharging, go to a Supercharger and charge for free, but if caught you risk being charged in Canada with theft under $5k from our Criminal Code. In the States, it varies State to State as to amount involved, but it will also be called "theft under". Yes, it's a new area for courts to consider when it come to SC hacking but it's theft non-the-less by any definition, legally speaking or otherwise.

 

[CHG-ON]

No and I hope not in the future. They are on top of it. That's the last thing any of us need.

 

[MikeKFE]

So how do I get free cable again? I think we got off track somehow.

 

[PRJIM]

It is possible but Tesla could easily disable these hacks. You would likely have to turn off connectivity, permanently.