Comment by AbanoubRodolf
15 hours ago
The underlying tension is that "you own the car" means something very different from "you own the software running the car." Tesla treats the firmware as licensed software rather than property you can inspect and modify. The bug bounty program is a PR-friendly way to say "we support security research" while keeping full control over who gets access and under what terms.
Right-to-repair legislation is chipping away at this but slowly. The EU's right-to-repair directive covers physical repair and doesn't really touch software access. The real test would be a regulator taking the position that restricting root access on hardware you own constitutes an anticompetitive tying arrangement, since you can't use the car's data for your own purposes without going through Tesla's APIs and paying their fees.
John Deere has been the main battleground for this argument so far. Farmers can't repair their own tractors without paying for dealer access to diagnostic software. Tesla is the same pattern applied to consumer vehicles, but the consumer advocacy pressure is weaker because fewer people feel the pain directly.
>> Tesla is the same pattern applied to consumer vehicles
No i'd push back on this because the entire workshop manual is available for free without even registration required. You can literally google and land in the relevant sections and it is of a far higher quality than ford, VAG or bmw as three examples i'm pretty familiar with. I haven't seen the John Deere stuff.
Tesla does have "special tools" for some repair procedures, a practice as old as the auto industry but they don't rely on them to the same extent as BMW for example. Anecdotally, the special tools i'm aware of are genuinely useful - for example, the tool for disconnecting seatbelt anchors saves time vs the traditional bolt - where special tools on other marques are often clearly to workaround a failure of packaging or engineering resulting in tight access for a regular tool.
Their online API access is a little bit annoying, or at least unfriendly to casual home user, specifically the workflow to register an OIDC client, but not insurmountable.
> "Tesla is the same pattern applied to consumer vehicles"
It really isn't. Unlike John Deere, Tesla is actually pretty good on right-to-repair. All of their technical and repair manuals are available for free to anyone. The service/diagnostics software ("Toolbox") is also available to anyone, albeit for a (not entirely unreasonable) fee.
(There is also a service mode built in to the car which can do many basic diagnostics for free)
> All of their technical and repair manuals are available for free to anyone.
That should be the bare minimum. Ford charges you 40 dollar an hour for it and unless you know exactly what you are looking for you will spend several hundreds on it.
Too bad ford killed their old site, the print form was unauthenticated and you could print the entire schematics to pdf if you knew the internal model number. Or do what I did and run a script to dump it to higher res PNGs.
Any chance someone ripped that old site? Do you remember the URL? I don't have a Ford, just always curious about this stuff.
2 replies →
I would love to lobby to change how the law works for these cases: for some definition of "firmware" (informally "software that ships with hardware and is not intended to be selected by the consumer like a computer operating system"), add a copyright exception so that modifying the firmware in situ is treated like modifying the physical hardware, because in practice they are in fact the same thing: a single component that does a single thing.
With this, the John Deere approach to gatekeeping vehicle repair would no longer be legally protected by the DMCA or by copyright law. All the other protections afforded by copyright law would still apply: you cannot rip the firmware off the hardware and distribute it, the manufacturer is under no obligation to help you modify it, etc.
However, tools which patch or circumvent antifeatures of the firmware would now be legal to use on hardware you own: it would be legal to patch out software locks, retune engine computers, etc.
>The underlying tension is that "you own the car" means something very different from "you own the software running the car."
What does that mean? "The software" is a specific configuration of the hardware you own. How can you own the hardware and not the specific copy of whatever data is on it? Note that I'm not confusing the copy of the data with the IP rights to it.
Because American courts have entertained utterly moronic claims for decades now and the DMCA eliminates any sanity in consumer rights around IP products.
When you bought a DVD, you didn't "Own" the movie, but you had a legal right to do things with that data you didn't "own" anyway, like format shifting and selling that physical object on to another person. You could copy that data off and do things with it. I think technically it would be a copyright violation to then put that movie file into Movie Maker and cut up your own personal highlight reel, but good luck finding a judge willing to hear that case if you don't upload it to youtube.
Now, thanks to the DMCA and courts being absurdly credulous of bullshit arguments from corporate attorneys, you no longer have basic consumer rights. If you try to even inspect the code that runs to protect your literal life, that can be a crime. You own the literal hardware, but if you try to act like you own it, that's a crime. You technically still have the right to format shift a BluRay for example, but bypassing the math protecting that data overrides that "right" and you are guilty of a crime. A CEO's wet dream.
If the DMCA was older, IBM could have prevented the existence of the Clone PC market and ensured a locked up market. We would all be stuck on absurdly shit hardware because that's what was more profitable for IBM.
Pre-DMCA, Sega was told that their trademark rights were overridden by the innate market right to interoperate with their product. IP rights used to be fairly weak! Sony could not prevent a company from selling a software product that ran playstation games. To this day, Nintendo simply pretends these court cases didn't happen.
This is part of why China has so much success in manufacturing and product development IMO. They don't need to develop purposely worse versions of things just so some other company can sit on their hands for 20 years collecting rent. If you want a fast moving market, the ability to lock things down for 20 years is fundamentally unacceptable, only enriching a few owners, and outright harming our country. Basically every time in history that IP rights are weakened or nullified, you see a burst of development and advancement in products and solutions.
> Tesla treats the firmware as licensed software
This would be okay if there's a way to reject the license and install my own firmware.
You'd be required to jump through the hoops to get your custom firmware approved by the necessary regulatory bodies, just as Tesla did for theirs.
It's not really feasible for a private owner, so I can see why it's not offered as an option.
If you're going to sell the car with the modified firmware, fine.
But at least in my jurisdiction, I can mechanically modify the car in any way I please, as long as it still has seat belts, brake lights, and bumpers of a certain height. It doesn't even still require a steering wheel; that's not specified in the law as far as I've been able to find. (Now, if I removed the muffler and made it louder than proscribed by law, I could be cited for a noise violation, but only at such a time as I womped on the gas and actually made the noise. The car itself being _capable_ of the noise is not, inherently, illegal.)
This blew my coworkers' mind once as I unplugged the passenger-side airbag while mounting a bunch of new stuff there. Apparently in some places, it requires paperwork and certifications just to unplug a connector? Weird.
Surely not if I certified that the car was never going to be used on the road?
> The underlying tension is that "you own the car" means something very different from "you own the software running the car."
How is this different from the 2000s, or the 90s, or even before, when the normal thing to do with commercial software was to purchase a license to use said software and a physical medium containing a copy? You'd also then not "own the software", but you owned the right to install a copy on your own computer and use it. That worked without having to hand over the keys to your own computer.
Sure, the physical delivery medium is gone, but that's just a detail. Why do we now think that just because we license software for use, we can't be in ultimate charge of our own devices?
In 1990 Ford couldn't turn off your Mustang because you plugged a TwEECer into the J3 port and screwed around with the tune. Best they could do was void your warranty and deny you further upgrades (i.e. tunes flashed as part of a recall or TSB).
These days unauthorized access tends to lose you effective use of the hardware you bought because the hardware requires software features to work and that software often unnecessarily phones home so if the OEM toggles a field in a DB somewhere you lose access to back up assist or whatever other fancy tech features that you a) paid for b) don't strictly need to have dependencies that phone home to work but do "because reasons".
Have a lawyer look up the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act for you if that happens. What Ford can do is legally limited.
Tesla’s manuals are all online and many of the parts sell for cost plus. You may be thinking of Ford and Toyota
Tesla absolutely does not apply the same patterns as John Deere. Everyone can fix Teslas. Parts are easy to obtain. Never had issues with them. John Deere on the otherhand is the absolute evil of right to repair.