-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Time to crack her open and get inside the network for AP2
- Thread starter BigD0g
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ap2 Model S networking
NerdUno
Member
This is not legal advice, but... It's probably time to visit your friendly lawyer. Blacklisting under these circumstances would probably be actionable. Under current DMCA 2015 exemptions, you have the right to access the internals of a vehicle you own "to allow the diagnosis, repair or lawful modification of a vehicle function" or "for the purpose of good-faith security research [which] does not violate any applicable law."
Digital Millennium Copyright Act - Wikipedia
Digital Millennium Copyright Act - Wikipedia
Yah, I've thought about it, and right now it's ok. I "think" there are levels of blacklisting and right now I appear to only be on a partial black list. When my car needs service the fit me right in, no hassles no issues and always give me the latest software update when I ask. Where other's like @kdday appear to be on a screw this guy for service list.
As long as I continue to get updates from the SC and the blue moon OTA, it's not worth the lawyers. I really want Tesla to succeed, but the way they treat their curious customers is abysmal at best.
lunitiks
Cool James & Black Teacher
Because of this, Tesla is on my screw this company for service list
lunitiks
Cool James & Black Teacher
The issue with the DMCA violation is that there are no remedies for violations of failure to recognize exemptions. What is the penalty for Tesla to do what they are doing? The Library of Congress just says the DMCA doesn't apply when owners modify the code in their own vehicles for safety or educational purposes, not that its actionable for manufacturers to violate it. I believe John Deere was sued over this and this came up.
An owner would need to file for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement to insulate themselves and if Tesla continued to blacklist them, then they could sue for civil contempt of the declaratory judgment and then get some kind of penalties for contumacious behavior.
Frankly I think Tesla's legal team is garbage and has their heads up their asses. They keep violating licensing for Linux and they are absolutely clueless about IP generally.
An owner would need to file for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement to insulate themselves and if Tesla continued to blacklist them, then they could sue for civil contempt of the declaratory judgment and then get some kind of penalties for contumacious behavior.
Frankly I think Tesla's legal team is garbage and has their heads up their asses. They keep violating licensing for Linux and they are absolutely clueless about IP generally.
I will comment that I'm not on a blacklist- I get OTA updates and service just fine. Tesla Service technicians just told me if I caused an issue with my APE when I took photos of it, that it'd be out of warranty. That is correct and fine. I didn't cause damage and they fixed my issue no problem. I think that case is closed.
My comment a few months ago was that Tesla monitors this forum and tracks comments back to owners and their vehicles. In my case they added a service note not to warranty my APE if I caused damage. They treated me just fine.
I think the DMCA exemption would just be used to avoid having a lawsuit thrown out on the grounds of a DMCA violation. Any lawsuit would, presumably, be for breach of contract for Tesla witholding updates to the specific car.
Where are they contractually obligated to provide updates? I can see if you bought AP but what about the rest?
Where is this language? IL requires a signed written agreement before filing a breach of contract lawsuit listing the terms and I know of none saying Tesla must give me updates forever or for a length of time.
More importantly, that you are given all the updates "other cars" get. They do advertise that there's software updates, but nothing advertised about specifically which updates and if everyone gets them.
Exactly. Its all assumed but nothing I know of was formally agreed to. We're just along for the ride. I wish Tesla was more forthright and that their business practices matched their rhetoric but its not the case. The car still rocks and Tesla won't bite customers as long as they need the $. We'll see what happens with the 3 but I doubt Tesla really cuts off the OTA spigot ever (what's the point?) but nothing is guaranteed and no one should be under any illusions otherwise. I'd love to be wrong.
I don't think it's so much of not getting all updates other cars get, you'd have to show that your car was specifically blacklisted to intentionally disable future updates. From my memory, I think @verygreen had this situation(from my understanding, even the SC refused to issue updates to his car and stated his was specifically blocked).
For the contract bit, it's been a while, but I thought I remember someone finding language in the purchase agreement indicating the car would receive OTA updates. I believe this was cited in an argument against people saying Tesla could cut them off from future software updates if they hacked into their car to switch it from the software-limited 60 to a 75.
No, you remember incorrectly.
I was relegated to the lowest tier - i.e. I was getting only full fleet updates OTA (so this Christmas 17.50.2 update and the 17.24 in August before it), anything in between and I needed to ask my SC for the update at a time of service, and they said it needed to go to Engineering to be approved (And that did not happen every time - i.e. there were times I asked for a firmware update and did not get one without any explanations).
Full OTA block typically happens for salvage cars, though. Once the system is flagged as a salvage (they have some markers even if no airbag deployments) - no new OTA updates for that one until you drive the car to the ServiceCenter and they can make sure it's all fine and manually take you off that blacklist (could non-salvage cars end up on that list? probably so, bu I do not know of any).
Ah, still, the fact that it was flagged as having to go to engineering for approval would suggest your car was specifically targeted to not receive updates.
Not to receive certain updates, and I presume fleet wide updates go through some additional "did we lock everything down that we wanted to" QA testing.
But maybe this is just because I'm not a lawyer but even if Tesla just doesn't offer certain updates to you (regardless of reason), I doubt that's a breach of contract.
Otherwise I'll just file a small claims lawsuit against Tesla every time I want a new non-wide dot release, since service centers routinely refuse my requests to push a specific firmware version to my car.
Ya, I suspect you'd have to show that your car is specifically blocked from getting any updates, vs just not being one of the people who happened to get update X.
Similar threads
