"RallyWrench" (rndlitebmw)
10/28/2015 at 12:36 • Filed to: Copyright
0
7|
"RallyWrench" (rndlitebmw)
10/28/2015 at 12:36 • Filed to: Copyright | 0
| 7 |
Just got this email from the IAPA (Independent Automotive Professionals Association), a network of independent shops. Here’s the text of the email, apparently via Reuters:
October 27, 2015 - 4:41 pm ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) — Car owners and computer security researchers can modify automobile software without incurring some U.S. copyright liability, according to new guidelines issued this month that had been opposed by the auto industry.
The Library of Congress, which oversees the U.S. Copyright Office, agreed with fair use advocates who argued that vehicle owners are entitled to modify their cars, which often involves altering software.
Automakers including General Motors, and other companies such as John Deere, opposed the rules. They said vehicle owners could visit authorized repair shops for changes they may need to undertake.
However, U.S. copyright officials decided that altering computer programs for vehicle repair or modification may not infringe a manufacturer’s software copyright.
Representatives for GM and John Deere could not immediately be reached for comment.
Security researchers also pushed for copyright liability protection because computer programs are “pervasive” in modern machines and devices, including vehicles, home appliances and medical devices.
“We are pleased that analysts will now be able to examine the software in the cars we drive without facing legal threats from car manufacturers,” said Kit Wilson, a staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which advocated for the rule changes.
The new rules must be renewed in three years, Wilson said.
_______________________________________________
The actual page for the ruling with all the relevant links is here at !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! if you’re interested in reading really boring stuff.
RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht
> RallyWrench
10/28/2015 at 12:42 |
|
However, it might (will) still technically qualify as an EPA violation. Why? Because fuck you, that’s why.
Future next gen S2000 owner
> RallyWrench
10/28/2015 at 12:43 |
|
What about editing software code to affect changes in the self driving systems?
Where does that fall on the legal liability spectrum? I don’t expect and answer just posing a hypothetical. If editing code today for performance is okay, where is the line when the safety of others is on the line?
|
RallyWrench
> Future next gen S2000 owner
10/28/2015 at 12:44 |
|
I don’t think they’ve had that foresight (and this ruling is very general, covering a lot more than vehicles alone), but the provision to revisit the ruling every 3 years should allow it to follow suit as such things develop. I’d imagine changes to that programming will be regulated much more tightly, if not banned outright.
|
RallyWrench
> RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht
10/28/2015 at 12:48 |
|
Government agencies can’t be expected to talk to one another!
|
RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht
> RallyWrench
10/28/2015 at 12:50 |
|
The EPA only wishes it had Stan Laurel’s competence. It’s got Ollie’s ego, though, so there’s that.
jariten1781
> Future next gen S2000 owner
10/28/2015 at 12:53 |
|
Depends on where liability ends up. If auto manufacturers end up taking responsibility for self-driving accidents this’ll get revisited; if drivers maintain it then it’ll be good as is.
That's a huge quagmire that'll get waded through when someone tries to actually field one 20 years from now.
Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer
> Future next gen S2000 owner
10/28/2015 at 12:54 |
|
Laws are made when things become problems. I honestly can't see this becoming an issue. I mean, we all change settings in our computers. Which is, tbh, very much like getting a tune. All you are doing is changing what the engine does with information from the sensors. We don't (unless we a:are idiots or b:really know what we're doing) edit the actual OS, which is what changing code on an SDC would amount to.