Slashdot Log In
Right-to-Repair Law To Get DRM Out of Your Car
Posted by
samzenpus
on Wed May 20, 2009 06:27 PM
from the do-it-yourself dept.
from the do-it-yourself dept.
eldavojohn writes "Ralph Nader's back to hounding the automotive industry ... but it's not about safety this time, it's about the pesky DRM in your car. Most cars have a UART in them that allows you to read off diagnostic codes and information about what may be wrong with the vehicle so you can repair it. Late model cars have been getting increasingly complex and dependent on computers which has caused them, as with most things digital, to move towards a proprietary DRM for these tools, diagnostic codes and updated repair information. This has kept independent auto-shops out of the market for fixing your car and relegating you to depend on pricier dealers to get your automotive ailments cured. The bill still has a provision to protect trade secrets but is a step forward to open up the codes and tools necessary to keep your car running."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Prediction (Score:5, Funny)
Ralph Nader will find a way not only to fail at getting DRM out of cars, but it will somehow result in more DRM everywhere else. Florida will be involved in some way.
Yeah, I'm still somewhat bitter at Ralph Nader, why do you ask?
Re:Prediction (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't blame Nader, blame your lousy voting system that discourages a third party from forming. Your voting party system is only one party better than the Communism your country hates.
Captcha was: protest
Parent
Re:Prediction (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't blame Nader, blame your lousy voting system that discourages a third party from forming. Your voting party system is only one party better than the Communism your country hates.
Captcha was: protest
I think the ideal would be for candidates to run as individuals with no such thing as a political party. Then, y'know, people might actually have to think about what the individual candidate stands for (or claims to stand for anyway) rather than reducing voting to the 50/50 chance of "is he a member of my party?" Then the next step would be to get rid of the concept of politicians and return to the concept of the statesman.
If anyone is aware of any writings the Founding Fathers have left behind about political parties in general I'd appreciate any reference you can provide. Ok, mod me off-topic now if that makes you feel better.
Parent
Re:Prediction (Score:5, Interesting)
That said, it's still Nader's fault, because despite the faults of the US voting system, Nader knew those faults, and knew exactly what he was doing. He thought that getting more funding for his party was worth 4 years of George Bush and as I recall he didn't even get enough votes to get the extra funding anyway so he shafted us, and everything he stood for for 8 years to prove a point.
Parent
Re:Prediction (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Prediction (Score:5, Interesting)
So in the longer term view it is even possible to see Ralph as the savior of the Democrats. If this recession drags on for 4-5 more years (as the Fed is predicting) the Republicans will be out of power for a generation. And before too very long the Dems will also own the Federal government with a 60 seat majority. If there is anything they want to undo or do then there is nothing standing in their way.
So, let's let poor Ralph off the hook because the end result here is more power than Dems dared to even dream about 9 years ago.
Parent
Re:Prediction (Score:5, Insightful)
And the idea of any political party having that type of power should be giving you nightmares.
Parent
Re:Prediction (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you really want politicians to sit there and debate about everything and not actually get anything done?
Yes.
Parent
Re:Prediction (Score:5, Insightful)
in Socialist Europe, 60-70% taxation.
Here on the Left coast, we're already there...
California state income tax is ~10%, California sales tax is 9%, Federal income tax is 36%, SSI 6%, Medicare 2%, plus all the little add on stuff to the phone bill, electricity, vehicle license fee.
Except that my RSU stocks are taxed at 70% of value the day they are granted. So they are basically worthless... (RSUs are Registered Shares that high tech workers now get instead of options, thank the Carpenters Union)
A friend of mine lost his house over RSUs, he did not unload them when he received them. In the 2001 crash, they went from $70 to $13, and the tax bill was 70% of $70, so he had a tax bill of $49 on an asset worth $13. Multiply this by a few thousand RSUs.
The tax man was less than sympathetic.
Parent
Re:Prediction (Score:5, Insightful)
Because he thought he'd make it big. He'd not be complaining if they went from $70 to $200. He took a gamble, and he lost. He was, or should have been, aware of the risks.
Honestly, neither am I. The stock market is not a zero risk endeavor.
Parent
Re:Prediction (Score:5, Insightful)
How the hell can you blame a guy for running for president when it was the *millions* of other people who voted for the guy who was actually elected? Or are people not suppose to vote for the guy who they feel is the most qualified? When did casting a ballot equate to throwing away your vote if your guy doesn't get elected?
What kind of democracy do you expect to have, where any qualified candidate is required to sell their soul for the funding required from one of your two parties, who stand for nothing more than merely getting their own reelected? They've both been running to center trying to grind out the votes necessary to win without any concern for what principles or political values they're even suppose to stand for anymore. Isn't politics suppose to be the art of comprise rather than forcing down your tyranny of the majority as an entitlement program? Shouldn't be have politicians more focused on what is best for all of us, rather than those they are beholden to? Do you really enjoy run on sound bites and highlight reels rather than any meaningful political discourse?
I understand you're bitter. I'm pretty bitter too. But why derisively spit at anyone who wants to try and stand up and thinks they might be able to do a better job than the other guy. Or maybe just because they believe the other guy is wrong. Do you really find that the politicians getting elected actually represent you and your world view?
Parent
Re:Prediction (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, it's still Nader's fault, because despite the faults of the US voting system, Nader knew those faults, and knew exactly what he was doing. He thought that getting more funding for his party was worth 4 years of George Bush and as I recall he didn't even get enough votes to get the extra funding anyway so he shafted us, and everything he stood for for 8 years to prove a point.
That is utter bullshit. I didn't vote for Nader, but even I understand that the only reason Nader got votes is because he offered something the other parties didn't. Blaming Nader for being the best choice in some people's eyes is like saying that the only people who should be allowed to vote are those will vote for the status quo.
Parent
Re:Prediction (Score:5, Insightful)
With elections seeming to get even closer, third parties have increasingly more importance.
Parent
Re:Prediction (Score:5, Insightful)
No, Washington thought there shouldn't be any political parties at all.
Which he probably got from Rousseau, who reckoned that political parties made democracy impossible.
Parent
Re:Prediction (Score:5, Insightful)
The Whigs and Tory parties have been around for about as long as the Parliamentary system. Even before that there were factional grouping that were analogous to parties.
I think the default state of a parliamentary system or any reasonably free group of humans is for factions to form around individuals. Later on those factions become bound by ideology and become parties. Actually even inside a political party there are always competing factions based around individuals. The winning individual gets to define the ideology to some extent so long as they are party leader. Actually that defining process is really a test whether they still are leader - most British Prime Ministers go because the rest of their party opposes on some ideological issue and unseats them. Arguably even the ones that lose elections have already lost the suppport of their own party.
So I'm not sure what you mean by "the British originally had no political parties". Even during the days of absolute monarchy there were competing factions at court. In fact there were regular uprisings where one faction would try to take over. Post Glorious Revolution the power of the monarchy was limited and the factions moved to Parliament. Formal parties formed soon after. Actual the Conservative party was very informal until quite recently - it was much more like a club or faction, 17th Century style. E.g. leaders 'emerged' rather than being elected until 1965 [wikipedia.org].
A free society is really a set of rules that everyone agrees to on how to decide which faction is in charge peacefully. Those factions would still exist in an unfree society, it's just that they would have to compete for power in a non peaceful way. Given the pressure of open competition factions will turn into parties with more formalised rules eventually. Though the Conservatives managed to do OK as an informal 'faction' for a hundred and thirty years.
Actually the LDP is Japan is an interesting example. It has been in power for most of the time since Japan was a democracy. Still it is highly factional and the policies of one LDP faction can be completely different from another. Back before it lost elections it was widely touted as an alternative model to a multi party system - essentially a single party which contained mutiple competing factions. Even now it's longevity is probably due to the fact that it is not really one party in the normal sense.
Zhao Ziyang, the Chinese Premier said to Gorbachev that "in the short term we will democratize the [Chinese Communist]Party but in the long run a multi party system is inevitable". Of course he was deposed and imprisoned by more traditional types and Leninist party discipline was reimposed ruthlessly. Still it's easy to imagine that his model would work a bit like the LDP in Japan for a while until some factions turned themselves into alternative parties.
Actually the KMT in Taiwan used to be the only party but looks like it has managed to transition to being a Conservative style natural party of government in a democracy. Quite possibly if the CCP had followed Zhao's advice it would have been able to pull off the same trick.
Parent
Re:Prediction (Score:5, Informative)
Washington was against political parties, and said so in his Farwell Address [yale.edu]:
In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection.
. . .
However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
But not everyone agreed, even back then. Washington was the first and last President to not belong to a major political party (except, kinda, John Tyler, who was thrown out of the Whig party).
Parent
Re:Prediction (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, very simply, you could use range voting [wikipedia.org] which is not limited by Arrow's impossibility theorem as it does not satisfy the hypotheses.
In reality, pretty much any voting system other than the current first past the post [wikipedia.org] would be a massive improvement due to strategic voting [wikipedia.org]. All voting systems have problems with it, but under plurality voting, it essentially forces a two-party system. By allowing voters to rank their preferences, votes would come much closer to revealing the true preferences of the electorate, and therefore the government would be closer to what the people really want (or at the very least, the politicians would be claiming to support what the people really want).
In the current system, the major parties are able to shape the debate and effectively silence any opposing viewpoints as no major party candidate holds them so they will get no votes. Admittedly, the major parties tend to absorb popular third-party positions in order to avoid getting voted out, but that is a very slow process.
The voting system does not have to be perfect, but you must keep in mind that it indirectly influences political debate and the responsiveness of the government to the people.
To be fair, the choice of a voting system (and the entire structure of the political process) is a choice of what actually matters in government. A two-party system theoretically forces moderate views and compromise instead of ending up with multiple warring parties sharing power. Also the argument can be made that plurality voting is easier to understand, especially when compared to range voting. That is part of why, despite its flaws, I suspect instant-runoff voting [wikipedia.org] is the most reasonable choice for a voting system.
Parent
Re:Prediction (Score:5, Insightful)
And that is bad... how?
Parent
Re:Prediction (Score:5, Insightful)
Me too. The Corvair was a cool little car, especially if you dropped a 350 in it. Unsafe at any speed my ass.
If it is equally unsafe regardless of speed, it makes perfect sense to drive as fast as possible so you can get to your destination sooner.
Seems like you're using sound logic to me.
Parent
Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd like them to take it a step further and have it so the owner can see the error codes and refer to the manual. I got a check engine light on a 2 month old car while driving across country with no dealer for 800 miles. I chose to risk it rather than have to pay a local mechanic to look at it. As it turned out it was only a dirty fuel filter caused by crappy gas. Forcing me to worry and go to a dealer 700 miles before my destination is really a crappy way to squeeze money out of someone who just gave you 30 grand.
Re:Good. (Score:4, Interesting)
You can get readers for them which will clear the code after you fixed the problem. I've seen some that give a warning level on how bad the code is. Just because you have the code and maybe even the explanation, doesn't mean you'll know what to do though.
P0411 - secondary air injection incorrect flow
It means either a hose has a hole, or a solenoid, vavle, or pump isn't working. This is basically an emissions system which I'd rip out in a heartbeat if I didn't have to pass an emissions test.
Parent
Re:Good. (Score:4, Interesting)
Cars are already more or less pretty open with some proprietary stuff tacked on. ODB-II (or now CAN) has a set list of standard messages that everyone uses. Now car companies can choose to extend into their own messages if they want. Engine speed, throttle, etc all have a set upon CAN Id.
AutoZone and AdvanceAuto and every other car repair place will read these codes for free. They may be cryptic (Your fault could have probably been FUEL PRESS LOW or something), but Google and auto forums can decode them for you pretty easily.
There are also 3rd party options (at least for VW). Ross-Tech makes VAG-COM [ross-tech.com] which will let you connect to almost any ECM in your car and read diagnostics or monitor blocks which is much cheaper than VW's "OE" tool (Many $k).
Now letting them see the latest service manuals would help, many companies use MATLAB/Simulink to autocode their ECM software. The lines of code and the possibility for bugs is scary. And like software companies, no one is going to be doing software updates on 3-4 year old cars meaning instead of "Don't buy X car because the wheel bearing goes bad" you could get a bug report of "Don't buy X car because the throttle position sensor flips out".
Parent
Re:Good. (Score:5, Informative)
CAN is a wiring spec and a protocol and falls under OBD-II; You can read all about the SNAFU on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] but the short form is that there are five protocols including CAN, which is mandatory on 2008 and later vehicles. Wikipedia doesn't make it clear that CAN has been allowed for in OBD-II for years, if not all along, but that is indeed the case. AFAIK CAN is the most expensive of the protocols to implement, so some OBD-II interfaces don't include CAN support. CAN is also commonly used for communications between the PCM and the computer which operates the transmission, so your PCM might actually have multiple CAN interfaces, though only one of them pins out to the OBD-II connector.
Parent
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
A better option is to just reform software patent laws. If we make software patents work like machinery patents this whole thing would be solved.
Specifically-
Source code == Blueprint
Compiled code == working model
You can get a patent with one or the other, or both, but then you have to file it with the patent office.
Any changes to the patented design of a significant functional nature invalidate the patent, just like with hardware.
If I make a device that is designed to alter your product, it is NOT a patent or copyright violation, until you enter the world of software. This is horsecrap. Being able to not only patent a specific program, but an entire algorithm and everything it applies to is a drastic abuse of the very idea of patents.
sigh..
Parent
Re:Good. (Score:5, Informative)
The real problem right now is reprogramming data. OBD-II cars (everything 1996+ and some earlier) have standard protocol, connector, pinouts (kind of), et cetera. They also have standardized codes. But there are also manufacturer-specific codes which are only required to be provided for a reasonable fee which means (in practice) they can be presented as a book of text and they can charge you a hundred bucks. And most importantly there are manufacturer-specific codes which get sent to the PCM ("powertrain control module", what we used to call the ECU or "engine control unit"... but PCM is standardized terminology per OBD-II spec) which are used for tuning, for example for altitude.
Parent
Re:Good. (Score:4, Informative)
Also, generally if your engine light comes on, your car will go into limp home mode, which is a cut back operation that uses default configs and ignores either all or some of the sensors just to enable you to get home, or to a workshop somewhere without the working sensors.
Parent
Re:Good. (Score:5, Informative)
Time to spend more of my state-sponsored education. The mandatory light on all 1996+ cars is known as the MIL or Malfunction Indicator Light. The MIL lights when your vehicle's emissions are out of spec for any reason. I shit you not, that light is there specifically to tell you that your car is putting out excessive emissions. This happens whenever any of the "monitors" fails. A monitor is a list of conditions. Most monitors are "trip" monitors; a trip is a certain set of driving conditions. For example, if you run the vehicle at 50% or more load for a certain period of time and then coast for a certain period of time the car will operate the EGR (exhaust gas recirculation) valve, and it then has a chance to test to see if it is working. There's also a comprehensive monitor which runs every so often (pretty often actually) and checks to see if any sensors are giving a value which seems exceptionally wacky, either on its own or compared to the state of other sensors.
The MIL will clear itself so long as the fault was not serious (IIRC there are four conditions) if the monitor which failed passes three times in succession. All this is from memory so, bear with me if I get something slightly wrong. When it happens a snapshot is also stored. This is some of that "black box" data that can tattle on you in an accident; the car knows the position of the accelerator pedal and how fast it thinks you were going (and usually also knows what gear you're in and how many RPMs you're making, anyway, from separate sensors/senders) as well as the state of every other sensor under the hood, and possibly some others. There may also be a CEL (check engine light) and if the manufacturer is feeling particularly benevolent, a "check gauges" (or even "check gages"... heh heh) light which lights if, say, your oil pressure is low or your coolant temperature is high, but not so high that the computer thinks that what the sender is saying can't possibly be right.
Anyway, when any major sensor/sender flails the car will go into limp-home mode. It will also happen if there are repeated misfires, but misfires cause at least one of the monitors to fail (I forget which one though, sorry) and should light the MIL. The limp-home mode will not only retard the timing and thus reduce performance and worsen emissions, but in some cases it will also restrict maximum speed. When limping home the vehicle usually runs rich, which can kill your catalytic converter but which helps reduce misfires due to many types of engine problem.
Parent
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Everything I have described above costs less than one air-bag, and should be standard equipment on all but the most basic models, and provided as an "at cost" option for any car it doesn't come standard on.
Should... in a fantasy world where the corporations are actually serving their customers.
Parent
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
They have the perfect excuse: Money.
They have the perfect backup bs excuse: Cars is hard!
They are protecting the poor, stupid, car owner. Who undoubtedly is incapable of understanding the workings of the modern car and therefore should always be directed to an authorized dealer to diagnose and repair any issues that pop up. Therefore, providing too much information must be avoided. The owner must prove they understand the workings of the car in order to access the information concerning the workings of their car.
You see, it's all for you really.
Parent
I can access codes on my car without any tool. (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting, numerous Cadillac models built after the start of OBD1 have the ability for the owner to both access and clear diagnostic codes by him/herself. My 1993 Cadillac Seville is one such car... I hold down two buttons on the dash, and I can access all of this information via the dash display.
In-dash text displays were rare in 1993, but now all most all cars have them... so this functionality really ought to be in all new vehicles.
It's YOUR car, isn't it? Then again, BMW has build a few models that have no dipstick and no oil cap (visible, anyway)... :(
Parent
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
you already can. Go get an OBD2 reader or have a shop pull the codes. Interpreting them is a bit harder - I thought there was legislation requiring manufacturers to divulge the codes, but I'm not sure.
Point of the article is that the standard OBD2 readers aren't cutting it anymore, they're giving the legally required (smog related) codes and nothing else. If you want a reader like the dealer uses, prepare to fork out more than you paid for the car... This is why the independent mechanics are feeling screwed.
Parent
This is a very old issue (Score:5, Interesting)
And I thought it was resolved long ago. But now that I am part owner of "big auto" since my government now owns controlling shares in it, I have to say that there is NO "trade secret" that should be allowed to supercede the right to repair or modifiy your personally owned equipment. This is especially true when the purpose of said "trade secret" is the protection measure itself.
Re:This is a very old issue (Score:5, Insightful)
The argument for DRM in the car MIGHT fly in cars that are leased (which in my lay-person's brain sounds somewhat similar to a license for using software), but there can be absolutely no reason for preventing me from accessing information on something that I own outright.
Its not like I bought a license to drive the car (that was provided freely (sans a few yearly fees) by the government of my state), I own the metal. What possible argument can there be for preventing me from reading the information in my car's engine?
Parent
Re:This is a very old issue (Score:4, Insightful)
The same argument that says you can only used licensed DVD players to play the DVDs that you own.
Parent
Re:This is a very old issue (Score:5, Funny)
Holy crap, a reversed car analogy!
Parent
DRM when your life is at stake? (Score:5, Insightful)
Its one thing to introduce DRM to protect the copyright on a song, book or video. That isn't fair but it's also unlikely to get anyone killed. (Laws that introduce overly harsh penalties like jail time, ruin a career, or bankrupt someone are a whole other kettle of fish). How can any company justify pricing people out of having their car repaired? Lives are at stake. I wonder how long it'll take before people start suing because repair work was so unreasonably expensive via authorized channels that it leads to injury and death? It should be illegal to lock up certain kinds of information. It should be illegal to use laws like these to prevent competition where lives are at stake.
Re:DRM when your life is at stake? (Score:5, Insightful)
Lives are at stake
see: big pharma.
clue: no one cares about 'lives'. the world is only about money and power and control.
(sorry for the wake-up call).
Parent
Re:DRM when your life is at stake? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why then would you want to risk $800M in the first place when you can let your competitor spend the $800M, pay them a paltry $400M for the one thing that succeeded and then split the much larger profit to be made? Extra points if your marketing department is much better and you take a much larger fraction of the resulting market.
Parent
Not technically necessary, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
The article cites the DMCA as a legal problem, but this doesn't apply in this case. In fact, two of the cases it cites, garage door openers and printer ink cartridges, have already gone to court, and in both cases the judge determined that "lock-out" codes are not protected by the DMCA because they're meant to prevent interoperability, not copyright infringement.
Technically, this Right To Repair act is unnecessary. As long as you're bypassing the restrictions for the sake of interoperability, you're legally in the clear.
But that's only in a perfect world. Unfortunately, in this litigious society you're likely to get sued anyway. It's too bad doing something perfectly legal can still end up costing you thousands in legal fees. Hopefully with an actual law to back up the rulings, there will be a lot fewer lawsuits
some comments on OBD-II (Score:5, Insightful)
OBD-II (the UART mentioned in the article) does not really tell you what is wrong with your car. It gives you another clue. Experience, know-how, tools, other clues, and a process of elimination tells you what is wrong with your car. OBD-II tells you that something was detected like a knock, misfire, oxygen rich, emissions leak, etc. Now a mechanic has to hunt down the cause and fix that. I just wanted to make that clear. It is like looking at iostat not dtrace.
It will be nice to get the codes, but most of them are pretty much known by now. Some ranges are pretty defacto standard too. It's annoying though that the codes can be different on the same model car sold in CA vs IL though. That can trip you up when you have a code list that does not include the correct region.
Re:some comments on OBD-II (Score:5, Informative)
If the mix is rich, and the computer KNOWS that the mix is rich, that narrows it down quite a bit. Then the only possibilities are the airflow sensor, or possibly the fuel pressure regulator. (Of course, if it's a car without an airflow sensor, it could potentially be the throttle position sensor or maybe the manifold air pressure sensor. But most cars rely on a MAF sensor nowdays.)
If the mix is rich, and the computer claims "fuel mixture lean" or believes nothing at all is wrong, the problem is most likely the O2 sensor, and the computer is being fooled into enriching the mix.
I think the codes are quite useful. They let you know what the car is thinking.
Parent
I'm... I'm confused... (Score:4, Funny)
Do... do I still try to make a car analogy?
Maybe a simple "In Soviet Russia car analogy make you?"
Open standards before cars can fly... (Score:5, Funny)
Outright Dangerous (Score:5, Interesting)
In my case it was an error code that Mini do everything they can to keep meaningless... as opposed to DRM. It was also potentially life threatening.
Coming back out of the mountains, the electric system shut off in the car, the engine cut out. There was no shoulder so the first place out of traffic we could get to was the gap between the main freeway traffic and an oncoming merge lane.
It was a fairly dangerous spot - no walls, no guard rail to get behind, between two streams of traffic moving at speed - but the best option we had.
The car restarted, flashing up CC-ID 354 - whatever that meant. Most likely, we'd be safe pulling away and finding a less risky spot. But, if it was about to fail again, as we accelerated, we'd be dumped, stalled, in the middle of moving traffic with no shoulder.
Obvious answer: Call Mini service. First Mini dealership couldn't get their service department to answer. They sent me to Mini Roadside Assistance. That muppet had a call sheet he had to work through and couldn't do anything as he couldn't find out VIN in the system. By this point, as we got buffeted by every passing big rig, my wife told him she didn't give a damn about whether we were in the system or not, we simply needed to know if 354 meant it was safe or unsafe to move... Turns out he has none of the details. All he can do is call a tow truck. We hung up and called another dealership's service. They at least answered but refused to say what it meant, only that we shouldn't drive it. No details about whether it would likely get us half a mile to the next off ramp, nothing.
An online search (thank you iPhones) turned up nothing (curse you googles). Turns out the codes are kept pretty much to Mini alone.
What angers me about the whole experience is that "Error 354 means a fuse has blown and the car will stall over 10mph" would've told me there really was no safe way off. "Error 354 means the keyless ignition charger has a faulty connection, drive with the key out of the charger and take it in for service." would have told me it was safe to get out of that exposed position. "It's a secret" did nothing save endanger us.
Legislation already in place (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, while the EU obviously has no bearing on the US, auto manufacture is a global industry, standard parts abound, and most US manufacturers have one or more European brands in their stables. You'd have to have some kind of Canute complex to think that if you were to try and charge the US drivers for this information, they wouldn't just turn to the net and ask their European associates for it.
Re:I believe in free market capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Way to miss the point, pornologist. In a free market, ANY mechanic would work on ANY car he/she felt like figuring out. We have a government-enforced monopoly on any car with a computer in it, thanks to the DMCA and similar laws. That's not freedom; that's not capitalism, that's corporatism.
Parent
Re:I believe in free market capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)
And that's why you pay top dollar at the dealership, and when they screw you without lube you just shut up and take it.
Most of us are trying to avoid that. Some of us even (gasp!) do the work ourselves, learning as we go along. YIKES!
Parent
Re:I believe in free market capitalism (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't want the mechanic who thinks he can figure it out.
Weeding guys out that don't know what they are doing is what the free market is for. It's the USA. No one is forcing you to go to an incompetent (see the word "compete" in there?) mechanic. If you want to go to the dealer, go to the dealer. Me? I'm going to keep driving my 10 year old Ford and take it to my broham, Juan, when it doesn't run well. He knows where to find and how to replace the several on board computers. And I support the local economy more directly by using an independent mechanic. Competition baby!
Parent
Re:I believe in free market capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody's arguing against your right to contract with a dealer and get whatever repairs done you'd like. Other people would like the liberty to choose a different path. Why do you want to deny them that?
Parent
Re:Meh. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Well, most car manufacturers ARE offering pretty reasonable warranties anymore. 10year/100,000Miles is not unheard of, and actually pretty common. When they're backing the car for that much time / wear should they not have an exclusive right to the work done on the vehicle?"
They are offering those to be competitive, it isn't generosity, and the warranties are not for every part of the car under every circumstance. For example, what about someone repairing crash damage? Should they be forced to go to a dealer?
A ten-year-old car is often not worth paying dealer labor rates to fix, so this is really "planned obsolescence by vendor lock". As a mechanic I gan get around this affordably by playing "swaptronics", but the general public are not so fortunate.
Parent