-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
green1
Active Member
If I break in to a Tesla store and take an item, you can call it stealing. Until then you better come up with a different crime to accuse me of. Because per the legal definition, no theft occurs.
You'd think all these people who are so concerned with my breaking the law wouldn't be so quick to risk breaking it themselves through libel...
I think this is kind of the crux of this discussion. It doesn't affect you. It does harm others who would purchase cars in the future and would have fewer options available. If you have no problem harming others in that way, in order to get additional features you weren't willing to pay for, then this discussion has probably gone about as far as it can go.
I never said anything about legally. I'm talking about morally. Morally if you can't see that buying a 60 with the intent to upgrade it to a 75 yourself for free is stealing, then I feel quite sorry for you.
green1
Active Member
This discussion went as far as it could go more than 5 pages ago.
As for harming others. If Tesla shoots you, feel free to blame me, I'm used to it.
I'd note here that the comment you're replying to falls far short of libel. They didn't actually accuse you of anything. They merely stated that Tesla doing something wrong doesn't make it morally right for you to steal from them. That's a factual statement about a hypothetical, not an false accusation.
green1
Active Member
And I feel quite sorry for anyone who thinks, as you do, that they do not own any item ever. Corporations own the very clothes on their backs and can set any terms they like, regardless of legallity.
What a horrible horrible world you live in.
green1
Active Member
read the other 168 comments in this thread then. It's the "morally superior" people who are accusing everyone else of crimes they didn't commit.
I should also note that hypotheticals can still be considered libel if it's shown that they are using hypotheticals simply to avoid the actual claim.
For anyone thinking it's worth reading the last 3 pages, don't.
Here's a summary:
Side 1 - "It's illegal"
Side 2 - "No it's not"
Side 1 - "Well then it's immoral"
Side 2 - "No it's not!"
Side 1 - "Yes it is!"
Rinse and repeat.
Here's a summary:
Side 1 - "It's illegal"
Side 2 - "No it's not"
Side 1 - "Well then it's immoral"
Side 2 - "No it's not!"
Side 1 - "Yes it is!"
Rinse and repeat.
Last edited:
What do you care what other people think? Why do you need to prove them that you're right, who cares what anyone thinks?
If you think it's right, go happily hack your car.
If you think it's wrong (not you specifically, you generally) - don't hack your car.
Problem solved /close thread.
green1
Active Member
My interest extends simply to correcting falsehoods that have been spread.
For that reason, I will stop discussing the morality of this with anyone on here (don't take this as agreement if you say it's immoral)
But I will not stand by people claiming it's illegal unless they can show a specific law that would make it so (keeping in mind that we've already pretty well covered why all the normally proposed ones don't apply)
In light of the legal claims, I'd appreciate it if all parties could refrain from accusing people of illegal actions until they can find such a law.
As for "hacking my car", I think everyone on here knows that I have hacked my car. Though I haven't increased the battery size, only because my P85+ came with a battery that was 8kWh lower than claimed rather than 15kWh higher as is the case with the newer 60 cars. (somehow the "against" side don't seem to have an issue with Tesla shortchanging me by more than half the amount being discussed here)
For that reason, I will stop discussing the morality of this with anyone on here (don't take this as agreement if you say it's immoral)
But I will not stand by people claiming it's illegal unless they can show a specific law that would make it so (keeping in mind that we've already pretty well covered why all the normally proposed ones don't apply)
In light of the legal claims, I'd appreciate it if all parties could refrain from accusing people of illegal actions until they can find such a law.
As for "hacking my car", I think everyone on here knows that I have hacked my car. Though I haven't increased the battery size, only because my P85+ came with a battery that was 8kWh lower than claimed rather than 15kWh higher as is the case with the newer 60 cars. (somehow the "against" side don't seem to have an issue with Tesla shortchanging me by more than half the amount being discussed here)
This may be slightly off topic, but I'm actually kind of curious on this. I bought a 60 and don't recall seeing anywhere a specification that stated that that number indicated the exact battery capacity in kWh. Is there such a specification anywhere in the purchase agreement?
Also, to address the point earlier, I could be wrong but I don't think that giving an opinion on the legality a given action would be considered grounds for libel either. For example, if I made the claim that, say: "Forcibly keeping a dog inside your house is illegal", I can't imagine that that becomes grounds for a libel suit by dog owners everywhere. Even if we make it specific and I publicly tell a dog owner that I think they're breaking the law by keeping their dog in their house, that still sounds dubious as the grounds for such a suit.
The Tesla website as well as the purchase agreements (and just about everything) have went through a lot of iterations. I do believe on the website at some point it did list it as "kwh", and not just the number. I'm not sure of the purchase agreement green1 holds.
ETA: Just looked on my Motor Vehicle Purchase Agreement, the first line says "70 kWh Model S". so yes, it is in the purchase agreement. At least when I bought it almost 2 years ago.
But it's not in the "Model S Order Agreement". That just lists 70D as the model.
Jashev
Member
Not correct. You paid for the 1069 sq ft. Your builder didn't tell you that if you wanted to use the 9 sq ft. it would be x dollars. They included it in the price. Tesla is specifically telling you the 15kw is NOT included in the price and they gave you the amount you would have to pay to access it.
Are they? Is there some part of any of the agreements that specifically states that as a 60 owner I'm not allowed to use the additional 15kWh? Merely charging $7k to unlock that is not a sufficient statement that I'm not allowed to unlock it myself.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
You must know that you don't need a law or legislation to sue, right? I guess not since you keep asking for a law, which is bizarre. I can sue you and make law. That's how precedents are established. It happens all the time. So you don't even ask a relevant question. I can't answer questions that make no sense.
Having said that, Tesla has many laws and precedents they can rely on. I've even cited them to you in this thread -- see my posts #13, 17, etc.
There's a reason SLAPP laws had to be enacted but they won't protect people on this issue. Again, Tesla won't allow people to just unlock batteries without a fight, and good luck defending yourself -- again -- mark my words on this one...
You're funny. I've practiced law for over 25 years. I read cases and laws all day long (none of which came out of my arse) but it doesn't have to do with cases and case-law. I remember posting on the satellite forums in Canada to people like you who said you can't steal what is not for sale. And these arguments won at the Supreme Court (a low Court in BC despite its name), then won again at the BC Court of Appeal, then lost in the Supreme Court of Canada.
Meanwhile, they bankrupted the grey market providers in Canada, went after their homes and other assets, and people got letters from Directv and Dish and paid thousands to settle rather than risk civil suits and damages. The same will happen here with Tesla.
Business Edge News Magazine
Tesla will not sit back and allow battery unlocking without a fight. Mark my words!
Last edited:
Interesting. I'll be curious to see how this shapes up. I imagine Tesla would take a similar route to any claims against them for the 85's in this case as, for example, hard drive manufacturers do. We all know that our 1TB harddrives will only have on the order of 900GB of usable space. That goes double for, say, 32GB phones that only have ~20GB available after the formatting and OS take their share.
