Tesla YANKED FSD option without notice - Class Action lawsuit? Any Lawyers here? [Resolved]

[whitex]

WTF even is a "license hack"?

Let me explain the difference with an example:
If you have Windows Home Edition which does not support bitlocker storage encryption, if you hack Windows such that it thinks it's Windows Pro or perhaps just that it things that Home Edition now supports bitlocker, that is a license hack. If instead you write your own program which encrypts the storage, perhaps even in bitlocker compatible format, then you did not hack the software license, even though you added a feature to Windows for which it was not originally licensed for.

For the Model 3 performance dongle sold on the internet, it does not trick the car into thinking you have a performance version of the car, it sits between Tesla computer issuing commands to the motor, intercepts and modifies the power instructions to the DU. Similar to your own encryption software encrypting a hard drive for a Windows edition which does not support encryption, by intercepting Windows read/write commands and adding decryption/encryption functionality (Windows actually allows you to write such a driver no problem btw). If you read some of the Tesla hacker forums you will find that (at least in the past) enabling a number of paid features was as simple as editing an unecnrypted, unauthenticated file on the storage. Anyone offering a service to do that for people for a fee would be in clear violation of DMCA (no different that if you sold a hack which converts Windows Home to Window Pro edition).

 

[Knightshade]

For the Model 3 performance dongle sold on the internet, it does not trick the car into thinking you have a performance version of the car

If that were accurate there'd be no reason why Ingenext needs remote access to your car to flash the drive unit code to be a P

it's not just HW that real-time changes CAN signals. They change the actual running code on the cars own hardware

If you read some of the Tesla hacker forums you will find that (at least in the past) enabling a number of paid features was as simple as editing an unecnrypted, unauthenticated file on the storage. Anyone offering a service to do that for people for a fee would be in clear violation of DMCA

Again you appear to not understand what the DMCA actually says.

Notice you were unable to quote what part you imagine would be violated for example.

Editing an unencrypted file is not a DMCA violation

The entire point of the DMCA was to create violations for breaking encryption for the purpose of violating copyright.


Editing an in-the-clear config file isn't either of those things.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I didn't send it, your phone fetched it. You claim there is a distinction if the car connects and downloads a payload vs. sending it to the car. So your phone fetching an executable (perhaps very small, just big enough to scramble the keys your own phone uses to encrypt the data) is no different than Tesla fetching an update, whether a configuration which disables a feature, or a whole new executable which disables a feature (or nerfes the battery, or charging rate, etc).

But Tesla's current authorization is doing neither, it's the server pushing the change from the server side, not the car's program reading a remote variable. The analog with a remote variable is for example you had a coupon to purchase something at a store, and the company invalidated that coupon using company policy. In the current case it's more like them going to you and blacking out, whiting out or ripping up your coupon.

 

[whitex]

If that were accurate there'd be no reason why Ingenext needs remote access to your car to flash the drive unit code to be a P

it's not just HW that real-time changes CAN signals. They change the actual running code on the cars own hardware

Yes, they replaced it with their own code, rather than trick Tesla code to think it's a performance car. It's as if you replaced your Windows storage driver which does encryption - free and legal to do so, or even replace Windows completely with Linux installation. HOWEVER, all that said, putting your own software on your Tesla may be challenged in the future, as for example Sony has claimed in the past that putting your software on a PlayStation hardware that you own violated DMCA - see Sony v. George Hotz. The difference there is that you can buy your PC hardware separate from Windows, but you cannot buy a PlayStation or a Tesla without the software running on it.

Editing an unencrypted file is not a DMCA violation

If the file was in the clear and not protected in any way you would be right. The Tesla config files while not encrypted, they are technically protected as Tesla does not give you root access to your car. Since rooting the car is required to modify said file, it would fall under DMCA. Btw, replacing a license manager library file on your computer with your own which suddenly unlocks paid features in software is also considered illegal, though not sure whether it falls under DMCA or some other Intellectual Property Protection laws.

If you believe that rooting a car and enabling features on cars or other computers are fully legal, I suggest you start a business. There could be some good money there, unless of course you get buried in legal issues.

 

[Knightshade]

Yes, they replaced it with their own code, rather than trick Tesla code to think it's a performance car.

That doesn't appear to be the case

Because every product they offer is a copy of a config Tesla sells.

Which tells us they're using an existing Tesla config other than the one the car came with to do the job.

We also know this from the work Jason Hughes did in the past where again he could "upgrade" your Tesla but to make it work you had to get the Tesla computer it was a config that actually exists from Tesla.

Famously the only way he could get a P90D battery to work in a RWD P85 for example was to build a "fake" front motor and run the P90D code on the car computer (code that needed to see a front motor to work).


If they could "write their own code" they'd be able to offer a LOT more tuning than just "copy of a config Tesla already sells"

It's as if you replaced your Windows storage driver which does encryption - free and legal to do so, or even replace Windows completely with Linux installation. HOWEVER, all that said, putting your own software on your Tesla may be challenged in the future, as for example Sony has claimed in the past that putting your software on a PlayStation hardware that you own violated DMCA - see Sony v. George Hotz. The difference there is that you can buy your PC hardware separate from Windows, but you cannot buy a PlayStation or a Tesla without the software running on it.

Uh... you know Sony settled that case and Hotz was never convicted of anything right?

If the file was in the clear and not protected in any way you would be right. The Tesla config files while not encrypted, they are technically protected as Tesla does not give you root access to your car

You are embarrassing yourself now man.

Rooting your car is not illegal

In fact it's explicitly legal for a number of purposes including diagnostics, repair, or otherwise lawful modifications (ie you can't disable emissions controls that way or something).


Third time asking you to quote the ACTUAL LAW you imagine changing an in-the-clear config file would violate.

Not "name a law" quote the actual legal text you think applies to the situation.

. Since rooting the car is required to modify said file, it would fall under DMCA.

Nope. Sure wouldn't.

Again doing so is specifically legal

Nor does it require rooting the car to enable the feature- as Inginex makes obvious when they enable things like acceleration boost or heated seats without rooting the car.

If you believe that rooting a car and enabling features on cars or other computers are fully legal, I suggest you start a business. There could be some good money there, unless of course you get buried in legal issues.

There's literally a slew of businesses that did this with phones for years. Which is also legal.

There's a slew of businesses that modify factory ICE engine and transmission computers for performance purposes too. Also legal.

 

[whitex]

Nor does it require rooting the car to enable the feature- as Inginex makes obvious when they enable things like acceleration boost or heated seats without rooting the car.

Ok, show me how the car with Inginex mod shows anywhere on the screens that it's a performance model.

Third time asking you to quote the ACTUAL LAW you imagine changing an in-the-clear config file would violate.

Again, configuration is not "in the clear". It resides on a filesystem with write permissions set for root user only, to which Tesla does not give you access to. That is sufficient to show that the company tried protecting it, i.e. it's not in the clear.

There's a slew of businesses that modify factory ICE engine and transmission computers for performance purposes too. Also legal.

They don't just enable a feature bypassing licensing controls (which are there to ensure that only people who paid for a feature get to use it).

Bottom line, I say let's just agree to disagree. You think hacking your own devices and enabling paid licensed features without paying for them it legal in the US, I say it is not. I don't think either of us are going to convince the other.

 

[Knightshade]

Ok, show me how the car with Inginex mod shows anywhere on the screens that it's a performance model.

Why would it need to do anything to the display?

They're flashing the code on the drive unit

Why else do you think they need remote access to the vehicle if the product was just a hardware CANBUS man-in-the-middle device?

Again, configuration is not "in the clear". It resides on a filesystem with write permissions set for root user only, to which Tesla does not give you access to. That is sufficient to show that the company tried protecting it, i.e. it's not in the clear.

Nope. Since as I mention it's explicitly legal to root your own car for a variety of purposes.

Folks like Ingineerx and wk057 did it as a business (still do to my knowledge).

They don't just enable a feature bypassing licensing controls (which are there to ensure that only people who paid for a feature get to use it).

"license control"?

Tesla didn't create linux file permissions for the purposes of keeping their config file safe.

This is literally a value in an unencrypted text config file.

You can likewise, to go back to a metaphor you liked so much, LEGALLY enable disk encryption in Win10 Home by similarly editing a value in a file.

Bottom line, I say let's just agree to disagree. You think hacking your own devices and enabling paid licensed features without paying for them it legal in the US, I say it is not. I don't think either of us are going to convince the other.

I mean, I've asked you 4 times to quote the text of the actual law you think applies and is being violated here- but you've been unable to every time.

If even YOU can't find any actual support for your claim in the text of the law it's hardly surprising nobody else does either.


(of course you're MASSIVELY far afield from the actual original topic of the thread too, so there's that...)

 

[dannycamps]

My feeling on this is that Tesla has the right to remove features from the car but only when they physically have the car in their possession. Once the car changes hands (e.g. leaves the Tesla lot), they lose the ability to add/remove features as they no longer own the car. They shouldn't be able to do an "audit" at some other time in the future and say "oops we goofed - the car really shouldn't have X feature".

I don't know why this is so complicated. Tesla should just build in a "prep for resale" feature/button that is part of the car's software (maybe in some hidden service menu). Whomever accepts the trade in at Tesla should be able to press that one button on screen in the car which would do things like a factory reset, remove any features they want removed, and whatever else needs configuration for a new owner. If the person responsible for prepping the car fails to press the button, too bad - Tesla has to eat that. No need to connect to mothership, other servers, etc...

Whether Tesla has the right to remove features from a car after it is out of their possession will eventually be tested in court.

I've asked you 4 times to quote the text of the actual law you think applies

I am not an attorney but at a minimum I think it's clearly a violation of the DCMA. Yes - technically you can hack/root your satellite, cable box, Kindle fire stick, etc... to receive every channel but it's still considered theft to do it. Tesla grants a customer a license to use their software - not to modify it. Modifying the software (especially to enable paid features without paying for them) amounts to a breach of the license agreement, breach of contract, and technically theft of service. Now will they spend the time and resources to go after people? Who knows...

 

[Knightshade]

My feeling on this is that Tesla has the right to remove features from the car but only when they physically have the car in their possession.

But that's what they ARE doing from their perspective.

I don't know why this is so complicated.

Already explained.

To Tesla, the place where they REMOVE ownership of the feature is their own back-end servers.

And they do this while the car is owned by Tesla.


The issue is they don't then automatically push that change to the car

Instead it happens when it happens.

And once in a while it's already gone to auction by the time it happens.


This remains 100% an IT problem that is incredibly simple for a competent person to fix. Tesla has just failed to do so (in part because they appear to not have a ton of competence among their back-end IT staff.... see also how long it took them to roll out their first basic subscription service- MUCH later than originally promised.... then it took them even LONGER to roll out their second one, also much later than originally promised.... they have a ton of engineering talent, and seemingly very little corporate IT talent.

Tesla should just build in a "prep for resale" feature/button that is part of the car's software (maybe in some hidden service menu). Whomever accepts the trade in at Tesla should be able to press that one button on screen in the car which would do things like a factory reset, remove any features they want removed, and whatever else needs configuration for a new owner. If the person responsible for prepping the car fails to press the button, too bad - Tesla has to eat that. No need to connect to mothership, other servers, etc...

Except, again, the "ground truth" for Tesla on "does a car own a feature" is not on the car

It's on the back end.

Thus that's where it needs to be fixed.

The fix I point out is 2 lines of code, should take like 5 minutes to fix, and if you want to be super paranoid spend a few days testing it- then it's fixed, no manual work in the future needed.


Your suggestion requires them redesigning their entire system regarding how cars are configured, how features are tracked, etc.... AND doing manual hands-on with each car every single time (it also makes it VASTLY easier for hackers to "steal" features in the future BTW if you don't need mothership verification of them).

I am not an attorney but at a minimum I think it's clearly a violation of the DCMA. Yes - technically you can hack/root your satellite, cable box, Kindle fire stick, etc... to receive every channel but it's still considered theft to do it. Tesla grants a customer a license to use their software - not to modify it. Modifying the software (especially to enable paid features without paying for them) amounts to a breach of the license agreement, breach of contract, and technically theft of service. Now will they spend the time and resources to go after people? Who knows...

Can you show me the license agreement a Tesla owner agrees to not to access the software to modify it in any way?

(Spoiler: nope, you can't)


Are you aware there's an explicit exception the DMCA that allows accessing software on land vehicles specifically for a number of legal purposes? (the same is true of cell phones- which is why jailbreaking is ALSO explicitly NOT a DMCA violation)