# Illegal to work on your own car?



## rusty baker (Feb 13, 2009)

http://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news...e-rights-to-work-on-their-own-cars/ar-BBjqs5S


----------



## r0ckstarr (Jan 8, 2013)

So, suppose, I no longer want their copyrighted software in my truck, and replace the ECM with a Megasquirt box. Then, I can change my own oil?


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

wasn't there already a thread that linked this exact same article?




from that article:



> Should the Copyright Office deny an exemption to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's Section 1201, automakers could only authorize repairs at dealerships or sell the access codes necessary to repair cars to preferred service shops.


section 1201 (pertinent section)


> (a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures.—
> (1)
> (A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.


how many times do you need to access the cars software to fix the brakes, rebuild the engine, or many many other repairs people do to their own cars?

that is an example sensationalized journalism. 

If you want to read what was actually written, here is what GM filed with the Copyright Office:

(an excerpt to provide definition of a couple of the acronyms used)




> In the NPRM, the Copyright Office
> seeks comment on a number of proposed exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s
> (“DMCA’s”) prohibition against circumvention of technological protection measures (“TPMs”)
> that control access to copyrighted works.2


http://copyright.gov/1201/2015/comments-032715/class 21/General_Motors_Class21_1201_2014.pdf

this is from that:




> Alternatives to Circumvention of TPMs in GM Vehicles Are Currently Available. Despite
> the foregoing, GM does not contend that individuals should not be able to diagnose and repair
> their cars where such diagnosis and repair does not create safety/security vulnerabilities or
> regulatory compliance issues. To the contrary, GM has endorsed the participation of the
> ...


what GM and others wants to do is to prevent the unauthorized alteration of the software. I see nothing unreasonable about such an argument given the fact a tweek here or there can result in a safety issue or a car that is not emissions laws compliant. 

While it would prevent a person from altering the software without permission, in itself would not prevent accessing the software for diagnostic purposes.


----------



## Msradell (Sep 1, 2011)

Nap, you certainly bring up some valid arguments but if the exemption isn't granted what would keep the auto companies from not even allowing consumers or mechanics outside of their own shops from resetting such codes as "Time for an Oil Change" etc? Now you're really getting into people's pockets. What if they don't even allow anyone to read the diagnostic codes outside of their designated maintenance facilities? The list goes on and on and could get worse and worse for consumers.


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

Msradell said:


> Nap, you certainly bring up some valid arguments but if the exemption isn't granted what would keep the auto companies from not even allowing consumers or mechanics outside of their own shops from resetting such codes as "Time for an Oil Change" etc? Now you're really getting into people's pockets. What if they don't even allow anyone to read the diagnostic codes outside of their designated maintenance facilities? The list goes on and on and could get worse and worse for consumers.


well, more importantly , what is requiring them to allow such access now? I do not believe there is any legal requirement they allow the access they currently do. 

They are wanting to prevent the alteration of the programming. I have not read anything suggesting they intend to prevent the actions you suggest and if you read the document I linked, they, in fact, intend to continue to allow the access as they do now.


----------



## Fix'n it (Mar 12, 2012)

the auto makers want a monopoly. and they will/are working their way towards it. 

can anyone say = $200 oil change ...


----------



## Bigplanz (Apr 10, 2009)

Our new Focus threw a transmission code and the dealer upgraded the software. They are probably the only ones who could do it. Mechanical repairs and maintanence would be unaffected from this copyright issue. This similar to computer software issues. Who owns it and who can access and change it. I think the owner of the vehicle should be able to modify and mechanical or software.


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

Fix'n it said:


> the auto makers want a monopoly. and they will/are working their way towards it.
> 
> can anyone say = $200 oil change ...


not a chance, at least on cars other than my Bentley and Maserati. :laughing:

Nothing they are discussing has anything to do with typical maintenance repairs.


What they are proposing is allowing anti-tampering programming which would simply prevent people from altering the programming. As I said, due to the liabilities inherent with the systems involved, I see nothing wrong with limiting the alteration of the programming involved.

the law they are discussing does nothing but criminalizes bypassing anti-tampering systems. Think of the programming of a car compared to a typical movie on a DVD. There are anti-tampering programs on that DVD so you cannot copy it without bypassing the programming. You can still watch the movie though. Bypassing the protections program is what the law in question deals with and nothing else. With the cars the anti-tampering programming would prevent alteration of the OEM programming. It does not mean you could not still read the outputs of the diagnostic systems. 

You do realize there are laws in place requiring OBD II connectors in cars, right? If you care to research the laws regarding the requirements involved with on board diagnostic systems, you would understand that a lot more laws beyond the copyright protections in question would have to be changed to make any difference to the typical car enthusiast, shade tree mechanic, or even neighborhood garage.


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

Bigplanz said:


> Our new Focus threw a transmission code and the dealer upgraded the software. They are probably the only ones who could do it. Mechanical repairs and maintanence would be unaffected from this copyright issue. This similar to computer software issues. Who owns it and who can access and change it. I think the owner of the vehicle should be able to modify and mechanical or software.



why should the owner be able to modify the software? Doing so could cause the vehicle to be non-compliant regarding emissions systems. It could also allow a person to make an electronically controlled braking system or steering system unsafe. Are you really suggesting any Tom Dick or Harry have the ability to alter their car (or somebody's car they do not like) such that it becomes an uncontrollable unguided missile? 

as far as altering the mechanical parts of a car;

does nobody understand the laws in place already? You go and try modifying your engine if you live in California. If you think you can do it now, you go ahead and slap on a NOS system or headers and then pull into your local police HQ and show them how proud you are of yuor work.


----------



## Tom738 (Jun 1, 2010)

nap said:


> As I said, due to the liabilities inherent with the systems involved, I see nothing wrong with limiting the alteration of the programming involved.


"The car is $30K. Oh, you want to drive it above 60 MPH? For safety reasons, it only goes 60 MPH. This is the city model. But any dealer can take it up to 70 MPH for another $5K..."


----------



## Bigplanz (Apr 10, 2009)

What I meant to say was, owners should be able to modify software and hardware if the modifications meet applicable law.


----------



## Oso954 (Jun 23, 2012)

> You go and try modifying your engine if you live in California. If you think you can do it now, you go ahead and slap on a NOS system or headers and then pull into your local police HQ and show them how proud you are of yuor work.


There are a number of NOS systems that have CARB EO numbers, that allow them to be permanately installed on your vehicle. You need to disconnect the bottle while on public roads. It satisfies most people that want to run their daily driver at the track.

Having the bottle connected while on the street, or a system without the CARB EO number, will get you a ticket.


----------



## paintdrying (Jul 13, 2012)

Anyone with a strong interest can modify the software on any car. The idea of making it tamper proof would not even apply to the enthusiast. A majority of the people that work on there cars will not in anyway be effected. 
I was on a forum reading for five pages on how to by pass o 2 sensors and catalytic converters. Who has time for this? In the end, it was a great deal easier to just replace my cat.


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

Bigplanz said:


> What I meant to say was, owners should be able to modify software and hardware if the modifications meet applicable law.


But there is no way to know if Joe Mechanic would keep it within legal applications so rather risk the millions upon millions of dollars losses in court they are seeking to secure the programming so it cannot be altered.


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

Oso954 said:


> There are a number of NOS systems that have CARB EO numbers, that allow them to be permanately installed on your vehicle. You need to disconnect the bottle while on public roads. It satisfies most people that want to run their daily driver at the track.
> 
> Having the bottle connected while on the street, or a system without the CARB EO number, will get you a ticket.


You are missing the point which is you cannot drive an altered car on the road. You supported that by saying the the system cannot be functional and be on the public roadways


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

mj12 said:


> Anyone with a strong interest can modify the software on any car. The idea of making it tamper proof would not even apply to the enthusiast. A majority of the people that work on there cars will not in anyway be effected.
> I was on a forum reading for five pages on how to by pass o 2 sensors and catalytic converters. Who has time for this? In the end, it was a great deal easier to just replace my cat.


Of course now you can because there are no anti-tampering programming to prevent access to it. 

And understand in using the law cited it would still not be illegal to alter the programming itself but it would be illegal to circumvent the anti-tampering software much the same as dvd rippers are illegal.


----------



## ron45 (Feb 25, 2014)

I think your confusing having a patent and someone trying to steel it, with someone buying something and altering it.
I don't think I should have to rely on any computer with my life, regardless what the government says. We the people better start waking up and pay attention, their stealing our rights away and robbing us blind.

Google is attempting to make this law..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqSDWoAhvLU


Their coming from all directions and people better stop being in denial. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_driverless_car



It's just not limited, they claim it's for your safety, save the environment, etc.. In the meantime you have give something up, they won't stop...


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

ron45 said:


> I think your confusing having a patent and someone trying to steel it, with someone buying something and altering it.
> I don't think I should have to rely on any computer with my life, regardless what the government says. We the people better start waking up and pay attention, their stealing our rights away and robbing us blind.
> 
> Google is attempting to make this law..
> ...


If you are speaking to me, you are 100% incorrect. I know what I am referring to and I know the difference between patent law, copyright law, and the law being spoken of in the original article. The anti-piracy law is exactly as I have stated. It is not patent law and is under copyright law although it in itself does not involve copyright issues. . It deals specifically with anti-piracy software put in place in order to prevent access to for alteration or copying of copyright protected programming. 

This is an excerpt from the law cited:



> (a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures.—
> (1)
> (A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.


In short: it is illegal to circumvent programs purposely put in place to prevent access to other copyrighted work.


----------



## ron45 (Feb 25, 2014)

We can throw a crutch in it any way you want. But the bottom line is do yo want this in our cars, planes, etc..?

I know I don't......


----------



## GrayHair (Apr 9, 2015)

*Abuse of equine remains*

Please refrain from digging up this particular dead horse and beating it.

The horse was old and so is this. Next thing you know the ASPCA will get involved.


----------

