| Author |
Message |
Jason W (Pristines4)
Member
Username: Pristines4
Post Number: 517
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Friday, July 18, 2003 - 4:18 pm: | |
Jim,
Off topic, but I love your products. :-) |
Jim Conforti (Lndshrk)
Junior Member
Username: Lndshrk
Post Number: 88
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Friday, July 18, 2003 - 4:09 pm: | |
Mitch,
I disagree that it could happen under DMCA, but
I agree on the rest to a point.
Aftermarket mods drive the secondary and tertiary
(used) car markets and hence to a point help drive
the primary (new) market.
My selling a chip for the 89 325i BMW makes them
a bit more desirable to 3rd owners/etc and hence
keeps the price up a bit. Note I mean in fact the
aftermarket in general, not just "me".
This helps BMW/etc sell more cars, whether they
want to admit it or not.. or like it or not.
Jim
PS: JRV, we could easily figure out all the SD2
stuff, but it always seems that you can't get
enough people involved to spread out the
workload to a reasonable level.
As always 3 people do all the work, and everyone
else wants the "result" for free ;)
PPS: The DMCA is a bad law unless it's protecting
**your** IP from the bandits and thieves. As a
creator of IP, my opinion of the DMCA is that it
is a double edged sword. I also pay full price
for my DirecTV and don't hack XBoxes. It's sad
that the DMCA was needed to legislate what is
essentially IP/electronic/digital morality.
(A sad comment, on todays society, no?)
|
Mitch Alsup (Mitch_alsup)
Member
Username: Mitch_alsup
Post Number: 882
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, July 18, 2003 - 9:40 am: | |
Could it happen under DCMA: yes
Will it happen under DCMA: NO
Reason, most of these tuner cars wear out at a considerably faster rate* than the standard cars. Thus, they need replacement at a faster rate. Thus, the manufacturers make more money in the long run supporting these tuners than they would obfruscating tuners. Thus, tuners are here to stay.
*For all sorts of reasons |
JRV (Jrvall)
Intermediate Member
Username: Jrvall
Post Number: 1974
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Friday, July 18, 2003 - 9:23 am: | |
>>Remember, Ferrari et al. do not love you. They are in it for a buck,<<
Amen to that,You better believe it !!!!!
Which is why the Factories are willing to circumvent Federal Law to preclude the price of maintanance and repair from dropping to an owner friendlier level. If they can force Independents out, thet can FIX parts & service prices at the Highest Levels that make the Factories Happy (wealthier) and the owners Wallets Thinner. |
Richard Ward (Lomotpk)
Junior Member
Username: Lomotpk
Post Number: 55
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 18, 2003 - 9:15 am: | |
I think my point is only that corporations are starting to EXTEND their control over their inventions further and deeper into the value chain in order to extract more revenues. If nothing else, the lesson of the last twenty years has been that if you build some-THING you can only sell it once, you create some IP, you can keep repositioning it and reselling it over and over and over (Disney anyone...)
As such I was just noticing a situation where a major industry (auto manufs) that was in trouble, could attempt to extend their control over a piece of their invention (the ECU/'operating system') using IP law inorder to re-direct some of these aftermarket revenues their way.
Remember, Ferrari et al. do not love you. They are in it for a buck, and if someone thinks 'those' revenues 'should' be theirs, and IP law might help make it so, they'll call our good buddy Mr.Hart, and to paraphrase Shakespeare: "Let slip the cock sucking legal whores of War!"
Bene,
Lomo t.P.K. |
Lucas Taratus (Karmavore)
Member
Username: Karmavore
Post Number: 276
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Friday, July 18, 2003 - 8:05 am: | |
---
I "bought" 18 wheels for a semi, a livingroom full of furniture, a river rafting trip for 12, $1800 worth of industrial lubricants, a monkey, dinner for two at the Hilton, and a pair of $11 shoes.
---
LOL... I'm sorry, but that is the funniest thing I've seen yet today.
Luke. |
Mark Eberhardt (Me_k)
Member
Username: Me_k
Post Number: 617
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 10:25 pm: | |
It doesn't really matter anyway I guess. YOu can always pitch the whole box and install an aftermaket "for race only" unit and program it anyway you want. Since that is the case, I very much doubt anybody would bother to sue a chip burner. Also, the point of the encriptions in the other 2 cases is to prevent copying material. With a chip reburn/replacement, I don't think there is any need to defeat an encryption, you are simply earasing the copyrighted material (the same as burning a book or throwing out an old magazine). Then you take the blank page and write whatever you like. I really don't think anyone but the EPA will see a crime here. Very different for stealing DVDs, direct tv or video games. |
Dave Helms (Davehelms)
Junior Member
Username: Davehelms
Post Number: 84
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 10:05 pm: | |
To my knowledge, according to FNA officials, they have been exempt under the "limited production status". They loose that status in 2004 is what I was told. |
JRV (Jrvall)
Intermediate Member
Username: Jrvall
Post Number: 1969
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 9:35 pm: | |
Jim is absolutely correct in all his statements.
Additionaly:
Ferrari is and has been in Violation of Federal Law since 97 and the EPA although informed by numerous sources refuses to enforce the law.
|
Jim Conforti (Lndshrk)
Junior Member
Username: Lndshrk
Post Number: 87
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 8:35 pm: | |
WH,
The reason that Ferrari keeps it's diagnostics
proprietary is that:
1) They ignore Federal law to the contrary
and
2) The person(s) responsible at the EPA for
enforcing the provisions of the Clean Air
Act (as amended) that legislate this are
in my humble opinion:
a) Incompetent federal bureaucrats
b) On the take
c) Some combination of the above
By law they are REQUIRED to release certain
emissions related information to the aftermarket
and to the owners.
Now, "hacking" an SD-2 to make illicit copies would
be a direct DMCA "gotcha". I do not think that they
can make any claim to their "uses" of published
standards as "proprietary".
There can never.. and will never.. be any legislation
that can prevent the owner of a vehicle from working
on his/her car as long as they abide by the Federal
emissions laws.
Not without a revolt in this country.. there are
simply too many "gear heads".. whether they are
BMWnutters, Ferrarichatters, Vette, Viper, Cobra
or "ricers".. they are still "car nuts" mostly.
Electronic tuning (or chip tuning) doesn't violate
anyones copyrights.. nor does it need to "crack"
any "encryption" to work.
The algorithms for the majority of vehicles since
1996 are published in SAE/ISO standards.
You just need to know where to look ;)
(OK, and how to interrelate the whole thing)
The day they say that we can't use PUBLISHED stds.
and owners can't modify their cars.. I'll LEAD the
charge to DC. You can call me Shark Revere then.
Jim |
wm hart (Whart)
Intermediate Member
Username: Whart
Post Number: 1474
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 5:13 pm: | |
Jim, i know alot about federal(intellectual property) law, but very little about state law applicable to automobiles. There is a recent case involving toner cartridges which found the aftermarket supplier to have violated DMCA for offering replacement carts that essentially defeat the original manufacturer's protection software.
Although barred by state law, you seem to say, from using encryption in the car service aftermarket, please explain how companies can keep their diagnostics proprietary, to force car owners to used an "authorized" service center. Or am i wrong? I was of the impression that, if for example, you aren't a ferrari dealer, you'd have a harder time dealing with ecu and other programming issues in the modern cars (other than simply replacing chips with authorized replacements). Thanks for weighing in...
Just as a side note regarding the distinction Jim makes between hacking an encrypted device vs. "dumping the output" and fiddling with it, the latter doesn't involve any "circumvention" activity. While copying and adapting the software may have traditional copyright implications, there is an exception in Sec.117 of the US Copyright Act, permitting the owner of a lawful copy of a computer program to copy and adapt it for machine operations. See http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117 |
Jim Conforti (Lndshrk)
Junior Member
Username: Lndshrk
Post Number: 86
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 4:57 pm: | |
The problem with all the legal theorems thus far
is quite simple:
To violate the DMCA you have to crack some sort
of copyright protection algorithm or encryption.
(Which is what both the "mod chips" and the bogus
DTV cards do!)
Car manufacturers are BARRED BY LAW from using
encryption to keep aftermarket servicers out of
the vehicle.
The State of California is the first state that
comes to mind.. they have long passed the exact
legislation I speak of.
(Is it getting clear yet?)
Reprogramming a car has it's legal pitfalls, mostly
with the USEPA/etc.. not with the DMCA.
Chiptuning has no more to do with "mod chips" and
"DTV hacking" than apples have to do w/ oranges.
The end of the world is nigh, too..
|
rob guess (Beast)
Junior Member
Username: Beast
Post Number: 85
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 4:57 pm: | |
Hubert;
there are tools out there that allow you to reprogram OBD-II systems. One uses a palm pilot and there software to accomplish it. It is sold by a company called Nology and it is called PDA-Dyno. some of the other chip companies make OBD-II re programers such as jet chip etc.
If there will be any crack down on this it could come from the EPA since it can be classified as circumventing or disableing of federaly mandated emission control systems. This action in it self could shut down the ricer mod market in a heartbeat. |
Richard Ward (Lomotpk)
Junior Member
Username: Lomotpk
Post Number: 52
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 4:53 pm: | |
Everytime I've have my credit card 'ripped off' its been at a resteraunt, not the Internet.
They take your card away with the check, you don't see what they are doing.
In my case they made 15 carbons, forged by signature (from my originally signed copy) and then sold the carbons. The buyers then filled in the amounts and purchased goods.
I "bought" 18 wheels for a semi, a livingroom full of furniture, a river rafting trip for 12, $1800 worth of industrial lubricants, a monkey, dinner for two at the Hilton, and a pair of $11 shoes.
It took 3 years to clear it up.
|
Sean F (Agracer)
Member
Username: Agracer
Post Number: 257
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 4:44 pm: | |
That's why I don't pass credit card info over the internet - secure? LOL...
Do you use it at all? If you do, the plain old phone line that they use when they "swipe" your card is no more secure than the encription software you'll find on the net. |
Hubert Otlik (Hugh)
Intermediate Member
Username: Hugh
Post Number: 1079
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 4:27 pm: | |
Hans: I was talking about private individual attempting to reprogram obd2 ecus sans obd2 "tool".
|
Richard Ward (Lomotpk)
Junior Member
Username: Lomotpk
Post Number: 51
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 4:17 pm: | |
Back to the Bet.
Does anyone think I'm wrong?
WM? You are obviously an informed analyst (and given your history helpin' tha' man! LOL) what's your view?
Lawsuit against chippers by 2005?
|
Hans E. Hansen (4re_gt4)
Intermediate Member
Username: 4re_gt4
Post Number: 1574
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 4:04 pm: | |
Hubert: You're not correct in not being able to write to OBD-II ecus. That's how the dealer programs them. In the case of GM cars, you simply plug in the 'Tech 2' tool, and you've updated the ecu. Or if the ecu goes south, install a new one that is completely blank. The 'Tech 2' supplies the necessary code for the ecu to work on that specific car.
We do this nearly every day.
Also, I'm reasonably sure that is how Jim Comforti (aka "LandShark") does BMW chips. He sucks the existing code out of the chip and stores it on your PC (to reload later if necessary), and loads in his version. He's quite knowledgeable about this area, legally speaking, and if he's lurking, perhaps he can chime in. |
JRV (Jrvall)
Intermediate Member
Username: Jrvall
Post Number: 1965
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 4:01 pm: | |
>>Ironically enough, when they get busted for whatever it is they do, the hackers, smackers and whiners are the first to call on the rule of law as a protection<<
Is that unfair? Only the Meglopomies should have use of Rule of Law?
Wait a minute, hold on, I hear a knock at the door...
LOL
The only true sad byline to this is an x-box chip hacker goes to jail and Enrons Ken Lay parties in Belize.
|
Michael C. James (Mjames)
New member
Username: Mjames
Post Number: 37
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 3:50 pm: | |
Hey, I WORK for the Government! Keep those tax $$$ checks coming, we thank you for your contribution.
However, if I'm going to send something out over the public airwaves, I'm going to protect it with encryption. If I'm not smart enough to do that, then I can reasonably expect my signal to be intercepted by unknown parties and exploited (thieves, FBI, NSA, etc.). That's why I don't pass credit card info over the internet - secure? LOL...
|
wm hart (Whart)
Intermediate Member
Username: Whart
Post Number: 1472
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 3:22 pm: | |
Michael: there are copyrighted elements to the signal. First, the digital content consists of programming in the form of movies, sports, and other copyright protected programs. That content is, i presume, encrypted, and thus, to capture that "stuff in the air," you need to either independently set up a receiver capable of decrypting it, buy a black box that will do so, or futz with an existing receiver, i suppose, in order to capture the signal without paying for it. To the extent you can do so without hacking the authorized software, and thereby avoid one circumvention violation, you are probably engaging in another circumvention violation by decrypting the movies themselves. If none of that is occurring, it may not be a copyright violation simply to capture the signal and privately perform it in your own living room (since there is no reproduction or public performance when you do that); its just theft of service under state law.
As to the morality of this, or trying to enforce laws against what is in the air, i suppose the same could be said about any content that is transmitted. For example, stuff is routinely sent over phone lines, including payment instructions to computers at banks. If they decide to transmit this via satellite, is that free for the taking? What about the research you just did on setting up a new business which you transmit to your business partner in Singapore? If somebody else can capture it, its theirs, fair and square, right? Or is it only the big, nasty corporate conglomerates whose property is free to trespass and appropriate?
Ironically enough, when they get busted for whatever it is they do, the hackers, smackers and whiners are the first to call on the rule of law as a protection.
If some content owners had their way, you'd be free to match wits with them to boost their content, but, if it were lawful, they'd include a little present with the stuff that gets stolen, say a little virus that destroys your files and turns your computer into a doorstop. Fight fire with fire. And until then, its only jail time and stiff civil penalties. So tell your buddies to go for it. Its not much different than file sharing music, right? |
Richard Ward (Lomotpk)
New member
Username: Lomotpk
Post Number: 49
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 3:20 pm: | |
Michael, if you believe that I'm afraid you're in the same camp with the guys that think the US government doesn't have the 'right' to levy income taxes because (fill in theory here)...
|
Richard Ward (Lomotpk)
New member
Username: Lomotpk
Post Number: 48
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 3:07 pm: | |
You should start packing now, unfortunately.
As I'm sure Mr. Hart can attest the 'informationalization' of the physical world is happening apace. With the increased use of intellectual property law to protect some of the fundemental design elements of the 'real world' (e.g. DNA, molecular structures at the nano-level) there really may be a time in which you do not 'buy' a car, food, a cat, etc. instead you license it.
Monsanto distributes seeds with licensing agreements as we speak. Cases have been filed in which a farmer got sued for having un-lawful 'possesion' of the the IP of a strain of modified DNA corn. How did he get the DNA, it wafted on the air and pollenated his corn. I can't remember the outcome but the point is that the Company sued that he had un-lawful possesion of their intellectual property.
It's cool new world we're headed towards.... <smirk>
Lomo t.P.K. |
Michael C. James (Mjames)
New member
Username: Mjames
Post Number: 35
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 3:04 pm: | |
There's no copyright law involved with DirecTV's signal. You and everyone else on this planet is being 'beamed' that signal from space. You receive it for free, essentially. I don't recall DirecTV asking me if I wanted to be bombarded with their RF signal.....The issue then becomes whether or not you can actually use that signal they're sending you. Now, if you have the technology and the intelligence to decrypt that free signal through your own engineering solution, how is that theft? At least that's the argument several friends of mine ask, as they update their own systems to pull in all 999 channels being beamed into their houses through homemade setups.
Stealing cable (which requires a physical tap into a proprietary wire) or using pirated software is a different story. However, somebody should stand up to these lawyers. Next thing you know, TiVo will be going after people for trying to increase their storage space. Ferrari would take interest on grounds that aftermarket tinkering would void warrantees and make any mechanical/electrical manufacturing defects the sole responsibiltiy of the buyer and not the manufacturer. When that happens, everyone might as well throw in the towel and start building their own cars from scratch. |
Hubert Otlik (Hugh)
Intermediate Member
Username: Hugh
Post Number: 1077
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 2:58 pm: | |
well. like i said, i'm not a lawyer. but when the day comes that i don't really "own" my car, and no longer retain the liscense to do with it what i please (mechanically), that'll be the day i pack up, buy a bicycle, and retire to the nothern italian countryside. |
Richard Ward (Lomotpk)
New member
Username: Lomotpk
Post Number: 47
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 2:53 pm: | |
I'm like a cycle behind. as I write, you guys post.
Hubert, the manufactures can (and my prediction will) make a case that you ARE stealing from them. You are stealing revenues from their LICENCED upgrade chips (think AMG, M, MazdaSpeed and all the other in-house tuners).
|
wm hart (Whart)
Intermediate Member
Username: Whart
Post Number: 1471
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 2:49 pm: | |
Let me do some 'splainin'. The violation occurs when the encyption is broken, or a device to decrypt is offered (our case), regardless of what happens afterwards. Hugh, you are referring to "fair use" in copyright law, which is a defense to copyright infringement, but not to the anticircumvention laws. Thus, the argument was made (and rejected, resoundingly by the court) that the only reason for breaking in was to enable playback on other platforms, ie Linux, and no proliferation of copies or modification of the movie content itself occurred. The way the law is written, it doesn't matter. Break the code to get in, or offer a device which does, and you violate the anticircumvention law, whether or not you then also violate the copyright in the protected, inner content (eg the movie, or in this case, the software that runs the engine). There was much outcry about this, and a huge effort to lobby for change when the US Copyright Office held a rulemaking proceeding a few years after enactment (and the decision in our case). They concluded that the balance struck by Congress was necessary to protect digital content in the internet age.
NB. There is a reverse engineering exception to breaking the encryption to get at the content of software for the purpose of designing compatable programs that interface with the protected program, but it's pretty fact specific. If you want to look at the law, go to the US Copyright Office website, pull up the Copyright Act and then go to section 1201, et seq. Richard, i practice this stuff in NYC, i am at [email protected] Regards |
Richard Ward (Lomotpk)
New member
Username: Lomotpk
Post Number: 46
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 2:49 pm: | |
Hubert, actually, the second post about DirectTV states that they are going after people who own the tools that COULD be used to circumvent their copyright protection. The person in question has not even been proven to have a DirectTV unit, much less 'stolen' signal using the tools. The analogy being, people that own stethoscopes can be sued on the grounds that the tool MAY enable them to at some future date, try and crack open a safe...
WM Hart, I agree that the Law is about anti-circumvention, but what I find interesting is that the copyright holders are the ones that are starting to define (or attempt anyway) what is an attempt at circumvention, and what is the underlying intellectual property that is being modified in an un-authorized manner.
To stretch a point, the boys in Modena could create a "unique" bolt pattern for connecting the exhaust system to the manifold. Copyright the pattern, and thus create a legal barrier against any aftermarket exhaust systems (Tubi anyone?) as the aftermarket unit would have to use Ferrari's copyrighted 'interface' without authorization.
You laugh, but the first stage of this battle is already being fought in the printer cartridge industry where the OEM's are suing replacement cartridge manuf's for violation of patent/copyright on the 'unique design of the interface' between the cartidge and the print head.
What's the long game here? How about lawsuits against independent Ferrari mechanic shops for 'knowingly using un-licensed spare parts'?
Think you maintenance costs are high now....
WMHart, where in the world are you located, your profile does not say. You can private if you prefer.
Lomo t.P.K. |
Hubert Otlik (Hugh)
Intermediate Member
Username: Hugh
Post Number: 1076
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 2:40 pm: | |
okay. maybe you don't know how this works. but, there are two types of ecus. 1. the pre-obd2 which have processors that are read AND write, which you can reburn with different software to change specified engine functions, and delete some restricstion; i.e., rev-limiter, speed govenor, etc. 2. the obd2 ver. 1; ver. 2; ver. 3; etc are READ ONLY. which means you cannot reburn them. some people have made adapters to run obd2 cars on obd 1 ecus, and slowly people are begining to break the code of obd2 ecus.
However, and this is the bifurcation b/w your theory, and the reality, "tuners" are cracking the obd2 software NOT to pirate it, bootleg it, or otherwise circumvent it. they simply want to alter it, to the customers specifications. now, if i rememebr correctly (and i'm not a lawyer), bill mentioned a clause in copyright law that allows the buyer of a copyrighted product (such a car w/ a proprietery ecu system, or magazine, or book, whatever) to do with that good whatever they desire; i.e., tinker with the engine, ecu, suspension, interior, etc. with no liability to the manufacture. the courts can't sue an owner for wanting to modify their car. in the pursuit of modifying or "chipping" an ecu, from my understanding, as i have friends that do this, neither the owner nor the tuner are attempting to steal anything from the manufacture, nor are they trying to bootleg liscnesed or proprietery info on the black market. so, i don't know how these activities could ever be constituted illegal, if they carry on as they have. |
Richard Ward (Lomotpk)
New member
Username: Lomotpk
Post Number: 45
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 2:27 pm: | |
In two ways, one direct, and the other indirectly:
[1] Chip tuning of Ferraris is a topic that recurs on this board with a metronomic frequency
[a] http://www.ferrarichat.com/discus/messages/251280/245662.html
[b] http://www.ferrarichat.com/discus/messages/256120/206770.html
[c] http://www.ferrarichat.com/discus/messages/256120/234264.html
To name a few.
[2] The entire Import Tuner trend (Fast & Furious, etc) leans heavily on the use of chipping to reach outlandish HP numbers. SEMA estimated that approx $2B went into import modding last year, with the number expected to double in 18 months. That is a lot of cash spent on automobile technology. Anything that could cause a shift in that river of money could have interesting effects on Ferrari's. Specifically, a potential shift in interest in 'old school' HP could cause a jump in 308/328 prices. Who knows? |
wm hart (Whart)
Intermediate Member
Username: Whart
Post Number: 1469
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 2:08 pm: | |
The law is not exactly copyright law, but anti-circumvention law; ie, breaking thru an encryption to reach the code to modify it. We did the first big case of that type by the motion picture studios against the hacker community for offering an executable to "crack" DVD movies, thereby enabling their digital copying (which copies,when compressed, could be transmitted over the 'Net). The relevance of this is somewhat low to the ferrari market, but may be significant to cars like Porsche, where there is a huge aftermarket in tuner "chips" to upgrade engine performance. |
Hubert Otlik (Hugh)
Intermediate Member
Username: Hugh
Post Number: 1075
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 1:44 pm: | |
lomotpk: you should re-read those posts. the people that got popped were violating copyrights, or attempting to defraud a service provider. those actions constituted criminal activity; the first guy was chipping xboxs to allow boot leg games to play; the other was trying to get direct TV for free. they were trying to steal. ecu chipping for cars has nothing to do with this, at all... |
Mark (Markpdx)
Junior Member
Username: Markpdx
Post Number: 75
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 1:41 pm: | |
Don
There are several companies that make ECU chips for Ferraris. Do a search, a number of Fchatters have "chipped" their cars.
In general I think tuning & chips probably helps the car companies rather than hurting. That said I suppose there is some possibility to what you describe Richard but I don't know much about the DMCA.
Whart, are you out there? |
Don Norton (Litig8r)
Junior Member
Username: Litig8r
Post Number: 201
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 1:20 pm: | |
and this pertains to Ferraris how? |
Richard Ward (Lomotpk)
New member
Username: Lomotpk
Post Number: 44
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 1:12 pm: | |
I want to make a bet.
I'll bet $100 that by the end of 2005 one of the major automobile manufacturers will sue a chip tuner for infringement of copyright under the DMCA statute. As these two posts illustrate, they will then go after the people that have installed a tuner chip as well.
Post #1: US jails Xbox mod chipper
Staff writers news.com.au
April 11, 2003
THE US Department of Justice has sentenced a man to five months in prison and fined him $US28,500 ($47,000) for selling Xbox mod chips.
Virginia man David Rocci, 22, also faces five months of home detention and three years of probation.
Rocci pleaded guilty to "conspiring to import, market and sell circumvention devices known as modification (or "mod") chips" in December. He was sentenced under the US' controversial Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Mod chips allow game consoles, such as Xbox and Sony's Playstation, to play illegal copies of games.
As part of a plea arrangement, the Department of Justice (DOJ) had earlier seized Rocci's website, www.iSONEWS.com, on which it placed warnings about copyright infringement and details of the action against Rocci.
Item #2: DirectTV blackmails anyone who owns a SmartCard reader
If you buy yourself a SmartCard writer -- say, to monkey around with as an authentication system for the hospital you work at -- beware. DirectTV is using legal threats to force SmartCard vendors out of business (because SmartCards can be used to pirate sat signals), and getting their customer lists, and extorting thousands of dollars from everyone who's ever bought one of these devices at lawyerpoint.
...Sosa received a letter from satellite TV giant DirecTV. The company accused him of purchasing piracy equipment, and, by extension, stealing DirecTV's signal. When he called the company to clear things up, he found they weren't interested in his explanations: they wanted $3,500 and the smart card programmer, or they would literally make a federal case out of it and sue him under anti-piracy laws. "I didn't know what to do, I was completely flabbergasted. So I sent the money in," says Sosa. "I have a livelihood, and I have a family, and there are a lot of things that I`d rather be than right..."
If the recipient calls the phone number on the letter, they're given a settlement offer -- usually the same $3,500 that Sosa paid. If they don't pay up, or if they ignore the letter entirely, another letter arrives in the mail as a reminder that settling with the company is the only way to resolve the matter "without either of us incurring significant legal costs." If the recipient still doesn't play ball, the company makes good on its threat and files a lawsuit. At that point, the settlement price tag jumps to $10,000 -- still less than the typical cost of paying a lawyer to go to trial against a corporate powerhouse in federal court.
Link Discuss
posted by Cory Doctorow at 07:41 permanent link to this entry on boingboing.com
|
Anonymous
| | Posted on Monday, March 06, 2006 - 3:38 pm: | |
poker casino poker 651 |
|