stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Well what you talk about only applies to the 75kWh case (which at an extreme, you can rip the pack out of the car and use elsewhere for full capacity anyways), but for the autopilot and ludicrous software, what is being paid for is the software itself.To play devil's advocate, why is Tesla's inability to properly secure its features from access the consumer's fault? Why punish a consumer for finding ways to extract added functionality from their purchase? One can argue that if Tesla provided you with a 75 kWh pack, there is nothing to steel because it's already in your car.
Apple's 2010 Mac Pro computer was physically identical to its 2009 model. The only model differentiator was in Apple's firmware. However, at some point in the future Apple discontinued support in their OS updates for 2009 models, yet 2010 owners were unaffected. A software patch was created by someone that made its rounds on the internet to patch to re-flash the firmware on 2009 models to make them appear as 2010 models. This enabled a whole slew of CPU upgrade possibilities as well as future OS support.
Was it illegal for me to apply said patch to turn my 2009 Mac Pro into a newer, more valuable 2010 Mac Pro even though the hardware specs are identical and the only change is one setting in the firmware? I mean, I didn't actually buy a new 2010 Mac Pro.
If I chain and padlock the basement in my house, which is 1,500 sqft, and I remove 1,500 sqft from my advertised square footage and sold the house based on the advertised specifications, is it illegal for the new owner of my home to crash through the lock and use square footage that they did not pay for? Do I, as the previous owner, have a right to claw back ownership of the basement or somehow exercise control over that basement once the house was sold? Only if there was a specific agreement to that effect.
If a case like this ended up in court, Tesla would have to show where it was financially harmed by the owners actions. I don't see how Tesla could prove financial harm when Tesla was the one who chose to provide a more expensive battery pack than what was actually requested by the customer. The financial harm has already occurred by putting the more expensive hardware in the vehicle, and that harm was caused by Tesla itself.
I see it not different than software pirating. Most software distributed today has the full featured version in the media and only the key is different. You can use keygens and activation hacks to get all the features, even though you did not purchase them. I believe the illegal part of it is it violates copyright, but again IANAL, so I have not looked into it other than a quick google.