In reply to Keith Tanner:
When you buy a copy of Windows and install it on a home built system you're required to activate it within 21 days of installing it. Once you activate that license key is locked to your motherboard. You can replace any other component and reinstall windows all you want as long as the mb is the same. If it fails or you upgrade you can't authenticate the copy of windows again. This forces you to buy another license. Microsoft justifies it buy saying it prevents fraud.
That gets into a philosophical debate - when does a computer become a different computer as you replace parts? 
The license has to be tied to something. Luckily, that's a bit easier to identify on a unibody vehicle with a VIN.
You do understand the metaphor I was using, of course. Getting into semantic debates about the very specific nature of that one licensing agreement doesn't really get us anywhere. Go with the overall concept.
Meh. There will always be a hacker willing to crack code on any ecu. It's never anything permanent. If a man wrote the code, then a man can break the code. So, go ahead and lock down my ecu. I'll just patiently wait like I am currently doing with my Honda Fit. It's ecu code can't be tapped, right now. Even the might hondata company threw in the towel. But someday, some little computer genius will do it for a buddy that owns one. It will fall to the forums, and the Honda Fit will rise again! (This is sounding strange...)
Besides, we all fix our own vehicles right? So These new tangled cars shouldn't see a dealership outside of warranty. Or, do you not know how to swing a wrench?
bearmtnmartin wrote: My motorhome is a 1981. The previous owner took it to a CAT engine facility to have an oil change done. While it was there they dismantled his propane injection system and told him it wasn't authorized for that engine. (This was in 2011) I would have burned the place down but he for some reason just accepted it.
Cause people are sheep and when someone wears a nametag and iron on manufacturer patch they listen regardless. Thank god no one is forcing anyone to buy a new car. Wait they already tried that once (cash for clunkers)
Appleseed wrote: Sounds like Yamaha is a Massey Ferguson man.
Parent company of Massey yes.....but we grow tired of JD claiming "First ever" on things Fendt has used in equipment for a decade.
And to make the question more complex: what about the coming onslaught of self driving cars? What if you mess with the code so your wife's car runs red lights? Or accidentally erase the section that recognizes left turns?
If a new car has proprietary management software and there's some kind of effort to prevent it's override, how can the parent company be held responsible if a hacker creates an unsafe car?
Ford sure as hell doesn't approve of the stuff I've done to and with my trucks and Suzuki would've freaked at the Spring-over lift, removing the sway bar, removing the doors and folding down the windshield then driving over boulders to get into the woods. But could they be sued for it?
How can GM be sued for an "illegal" mod?
Can I sue Titleist for the golf ball that lodged itself in my windshield?
GameboyRMH wrote: I think you've got it wrong Keith, they do want to keep you from maintaining/repairing the car if it involves interfacing with the ECU at all, which would prevent independent repair shops from fixing those problems. The ECU uses a proprietary and obfuscated communication protocol which must be reverse-engineered to interface with the ECU, and that's what they're claiming is a DMCA violation. This is the same problem John Deere owners have been having.
J2534 isn't obscure. It's an industry standard. Literally everyone has it.
As an independent repair shop, I can reflash more or less any vehicle that uses a J2534 interface. Which is most of them. Now, I generally will have to pay a fee for access to the manufacturer's flash software/files, sometimes one-time, sometimes 1-3 days' worth, but this is just something that gets billed to the customer, no different than billing for parts.
GameboyRMH wrote: ECUs generally store codes in RAM so they're cleared when you pull the battery, but theoretically they could be stored in nonvolatile storage (some sportbike ECUs do this for anti-theft IIRC?). If GM had any ECUs like this, you could only clear codes at a dealership.
This is already here. Some things get stored in nonvolatile memory and can ONLY be cleared by the monitors passing X number of times. Mitsubishi does this, for certain. It isn't a case of codes only being able to be cleared at the dealership - codes can't be cleared anywhere.
It makes for lots of fun when people come in on the day before their registration expires and it's suddenly an emergency that they need to pass emissions. Sorry, even after we find the problem, get parts a week away, and repair the problem, you're still going to have to drive it for a week to a month for enough monitors to run. E-checks are good for a year and you can register your car up to 90 days before the due date, that was the time to get it fixed.
kanaric wrote: With this GM E36 M3 I wouldn't be surprised if they try to sue Cobb over an accessport for the Sonic RS or the upcoming turbo camaro. Or companies like Cobb won't even bother with the car out of fear for this.
Part of the reason why I was looking at the Sonic RS over the Fiesta ST is that HP Tuners has already cracked the 1.4T's controller and people have found large gains inside without affecting anything emissions related (just tweaking the torque management and other limiters), while they haven't done anything yet with the Fords.
If the Camaro uses the same controller as other 2.0 turbo Ecotecs, it's already HP Tuners-friendly too...
chiodos wrote: Thank god no one is forcing anyone to buy a new car. Wait they already tried that once (cash for clunkers)
I remember that. The black helicopters swooped down and the jackbooted thugs came out and forced me to trade in my RX-7 on a Prius. Then the dealership reflashed my Prius and now it gets 5mpg less.
You'll need to log in to post.
