Terms of Use and Right to Repair

[Revoltingest]

Damn homophones. Spellcheck can't catch them.

Homophobe!

 

[Twilight Hue]

Because cars are small. They are more private than those modes of transport that often are socialised or subsidised. Buses, trains, undergrounds, some fairies, everything that moves masses deserves to be socialized, cars, not so much.

I advocate private ownership. Public ownership alone without any options means your being controlled and dependent on another agency which is a threat to freedom of autonomy.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I advocate private ownership. Public ownership alone without any options means your being controlled and dependent on another agency which is a threat to freedom of autonomy.

I think there are good arguments for your position, but I think I might argue that the primary external 'agency' at work seems to be the fact the 'driving something' is/seems indispensable. To overlay that point, there is the fact that not many people hold driving as an autonomous objective, but rather as a means toward getting somewhere, to do something you want to do. So if the government becomes accountable for all cars, it might offload a private responsibility that might be getting in the way, actually, of your autonomy.

Unless you want to buy private, in which case that would become a niche interest and responsibility.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, do a repair they don't authorize or approve, and lose access to a charging network. I don't see how that isn't extortion.
And have a complaint or question about it? Oh well. Telsa did away with that department.

I remember when Microsoft had to pay a huge fine for "monopolistically" bundling Internet Explorer with Windows.

I feel like Tesla using its charging network to extort from its vehicle owners should get at least as severe a penalty.

 

[Heyo]

I advocate private ownership. Public ownership alone without any options means your being controlled and dependent on another agency which is a threat to freedom of autonomy.

That's what cars are for. They are ideal for private ownership. They are small, very autonomous, for an individual or small group.
A bus is exactly not that. It is ideal for socialised ownership.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I advocate private ownership. Public ownership alone without any options means your being controlled and dependent on another agency which is a threat to freedom of autonomy.

Where was this before we had private ownership?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Cars are increasingly taking this route as they become more computerized. We'll probably see more examples of extortion from other companies as electric vehicles become more common and replace ICE cars.

I don't really see this as about electrifying cars. Already, most carmakers are making their diagnostic codes proprietary as much as possible, only readable by their own code readers, which only dealership service technicians are allowed to have.

This is creating a real problem for mechanics in independent garages not affiliated with dealerships. IIRC, there have been some lawsuits over that issue, too.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This "responsible consumer" thing has beyond failed. It's so unreliable that those few of us who do take the time to learn about this stuff are stuck in a world dominated by people who've been mindlessly clicking "I agree" without every actually knowing what they are agreeing to. This has been such a long standing issue that I read a story on Compuserve news in the days of dialup on how these agreements are becoming increasingly wordy and complicated, with the average one having a higher word count than Hamlet.
It's gotten to the point it's agree to very heavily one-sided agreements or don't participate in society.

In the consumer context, I'm not sure how binding those agreements are.

New cars are a bit of an exception, since they come with long sales agreements, but for most commercial products, once you pay the money and receive the thing, the transaction is done, and so are any obligations on either side. IANAL and all that, but I'm pretty sure that clicking "agree" to enable a thing you've already paid for is a gratuitous promise (and therefore non-binding).

Take the GPS in my car: every time it turns on, before I can use it, I have to hit a button saying that I agree not to sue Garmin if something happens while I'm using it. But this is just to enable the basic functions of the device that were sold as part of it when I bought it.

And Garmin wasn't even part of that transaction. I bought my GPS from a retail store; Garmin was a third party to that. If they wanted to get me agree to things as a condition of me using the GPS, they should have required the store to get me to sign an agreement at the time of sale.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In the consumer context, I'm not sure how binding those agreements are.

New cars are a bit of an exception, since they come with long sales agreements, but for most commercial products, once you pay the money and receive the thing, the transaction is done, and so are any obligations on either side. IANAL and all that, but I'm pretty sure that clicking "agree" to enable a thing you've already paid for is a gratuitous promise (and therefore non-binding).

Take the GPS in my car: every time it turns on, before I can use it, I have to hit a button saying that I agree not to sue Garmin if something happens while I'm using it. But this is just to enable the basic functions of the device that were sold as part of it when I bought it.

And Garmin wasn't even part of that transaction. I bought my GPS from a retail store; Garmin was a third party to that. If they wanted to get me agree to things as a condition of me using the GPS, they should have required the store to get me to sign an agreement at the time of sale.

In America companies like Sony and John Deere have sued consumers over violating the terms of agreement.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In America companies like Sony and John Deere have sued consumers over violating the terms of agreement.

John Deere probably has lengthy sales agreements with the farmers they sell to.

This is also a business-to-business transaction, so I'd have more expectation that the farmers would have lawyers review agreements before signing them.

As for Sony, I assume you're talking about DMCA violations, right? If so, that's a pretty US-specific thing.

 

[pearl]

This is creating a real problem for mechanics in independent garages not affiliated with dealerships. IIRC, there have been some lawsuits over that issue, too.

Massachusetts voted in favor of a 'right to repair'.
Automakers opposed the question, calling it a data grab by third parties who want to gather personal vehicle information.

Yes on Question 1 was outspent by millions, but still was victorious.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

John Deere probably has lengthy sales agreements with the farmers they sell to.

This is also a business-to-business transaction, so I'd have more expectation that the farmers would have lawyers review agreements before signing them.

As for Sony, I assume you're talking about DMCA violations, right? If so, that's a pretty US-specific thing.

Johne Deere has sued over violations of the ToS when it comes to things like non-authorized repairs and installing custom firmware on products.
Sony has sued over hacking custom firmware on Playstation consoles.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Johne Deere has sued over violations of the ToS when it comes to things like non-authorized repairs and installing custom firmware on products.
Sony has sued over hacking custom firmware on Playstation consoles.

Right... but that was all DMCA stuff, right?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Right... but that was all DMCA stuff, right?

No.

 

[Twilight Hue]

That's what cars are for. They are ideal for private ownership. They are small, very autonomous, for an individual or small group.
A bus is exactly not that. It is ideal for socialised ownership.

Unless you want to convert a bus to a rad motor home!

 

[Twilight Hue]

Johne Deere has sued over violations of the ToS when it comes to things like non-authorized repairs and installing custom firmware on products.
Sony has sued over hacking custom firmware on Playstation consoles.

Computers, at least to the degree it is today, should be removed from cars and trucks. They worked just as well without all that crap in the past.

It's just another aspect of planned obsolescence and exclusivity designed for extreme profiteering.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Computers, at least to the degree it is today, should be removed from cars and trucks. They worked just as well without all that crap in the past.

2.2 L normally aspirated engine without computers (Chrysler carb'd 2.2 I4 from the early 80s): 86 HP

2.2 L normally aspirated engine with lots of computers (Subaru EJ22E 2.2 L H4 from the late 90s): 165 HP

Half the power output is "just as well"?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Computers, at least to the degree it is today, should be removed from cars and trucks. They worked just as well without all that crap in the past.

It's just another aspect of planned obsolescence and exclusivity designed for extreme profiteering.

I think they should definitely still be there as they do help make driving safer. Such as, I would absolutely love to have something like the sonar on Tesla's, and the OBD II slots going to the ECU help a lot in diagnosing and fixing cars.
The issue is from things like planned obsolescence and an extreme greed that denies consumers ownership of what they purchase. Specialty tools, required gizmos, things like that are a problem.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think they should definitely still be there as they do help make driving safer. Such as, I would absolutely love to have something like the sonar on Tesla's, and the OBD II slots going to the ECU help a lot in diagnosing and fixing cars.
The issue is from things like planned obsolescence and an extreme greed that denies consumers ownership of what they purchase. Specialty tools, required gizmos, things like that are a problem.

In Canada, at least for leased vehicles, car companies are only allowed to require that the car be serviced at their dealerships if they provide all service at no additional charge.

Proprietary tools and gizmos are an issue with some cars, but I'd support requiring carmakers to make any specialized tools needed to fix their cars available for sale at reasonable prices.