Mazda's DMCA Takedown Kills a Hobbyist's Smart Car API Tool (arstechnica.com) 28
Long-time Slashdot reader couchslug shares a report from Ars Technica, writing: "A new attack on the right to do with one's property as the owner sees fit. First step, threaten without providing evidence." From the report: Before last week, owners of certain Mazda vehicles who also had a Home Assistant setup could create some handy connections for their car. One CX60 driver had a charger that would only power on when it confirmed his car was plugged in and would alert him if he left the trunk open. Another used Home Assistant to control their charger based on the dynamic prices of an Agile Octopus energy plan. Yet another had really thought it through, using Home Assistant to check the gas before their morning commute, alert them if their windows were down before rain was forecast, and remotely unlock and start the car in cold conditions. The possibilities were vast, and purportedly beyond what Mazda's official app offered.
Mazda, however, had issues with the project, which was largely the free-time work of one software developer, Brandon Rothweiler. In a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) notice sent to GitHub, Mazda (or an authorized agent) alleges that Rothweiler's integration: contains code that "is violating [Mazda's] copyright ownership"; used "certain Mazda information, including proprietary API information," to "create code and information"; and contained code that "provides functionality same as what is currently" in Mazda's apps posted to the Apple App Store and Google Play Store for Android.
One day later, Rothweiler made a pull request to the Home Assistant core project: "I'm removing the Mazda integration due to a legal notice sent to me by Mazda." The Home Assistant project pushed an update to remove the integration, posted about the removal, and noted that they were "disappointed that Mazda has decided to take this position" and that "Mazda's first recourse was not to reach out to us and the maintainer but to send a cease and desist letter instead." One of the many commenters confused by Mazda's code claims said they couldn't find any of the copyrighted code the company referenced. Additionally, Ars Technica suggests the project "could be considered a fair use exception to the DMCA, as explained by the Electronic Frontier Foundation."
"When Mazda contacted me, my options were to either comply or open myself up to potential legal risk," said Rothweiler. "Even if I believe that what I'm doing is morally correct and legally protected, legal processes still have a financial cost. I can't afford to take on that financial risk for something that I do in my spare time to help others."
Mazda, however, had issues with the project, which was largely the free-time work of one software developer, Brandon Rothweiler. In a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) notice sent to GitHub, Mazda (or an authorized agent) alleges that Rothweiler's integration: contains code that "is violating [Mazda's] copyright ownership"; used "certain Mazda information, including proprietary API information," to "create code and information"; and contained code that "provides functionality same as what is currently" in Mazda's apps posted to the Apple App Store and Google Play Store for Android.
One day later, Rothweiler made a pull request to the Home Assistant core project: "I'm removing the Mazda integration due to a legal notice sent to me by Mazda." The Home Assistant project pushed an update to remove the integration, posted about the removal, and noted that they were "disappointed that Mazda has decided to take this position" and that "Mazda's first recourse was not to reach out to us and the maintainer but to send a cease and desist letter instead." One of the many commenters confused by Mazda's code claims said they couldn't find any of the copyrighted code the company referenced. Additionally, Ars Technica suggests the project "could be considered a fair use exception to the DMCA, as explained by the Electronic Frontier Foundation."
"When Mazda contacted me, my options were to either comply or open myself up to potential legal risk," said Rothweiler. "Even if I believe that what I'm doing is morally correct and legally protected, legal processes still have a financial cost. I can't afford to take on that financial risk for something that I do in my spare time to help others."
Bad DMCA take down requesters should pay... (Score:5, Interesting)
If a DMCA request is sent, and is proven to be invalid, the requester should pay a punitive fee in additional to all legal fees.
Re:Bad DMCA take down requesters should pay... (Score:5, Informative)
The people who wrote it and bought politicians to pass it into law made pretty sure they could fire blindly and never be held accountable for who they shot.
Re: (Score:1)
Mazda is based in Japan, which signed the Berne Convention.
Mazda has made 7 US copyright violations if the quoted list in Ars is accurate.
The EFF or some org that does have the financial means to defend our rights in court needs to hold Mazda accountable for these crimes.
$150k * 7 * each download of the software.
Or if from their US division, go for $350k per and citations against their lawyers that know beyond any doubt that none of those things are protected under copyright.
Holding them responsible for the
Re: Bad DMCA take down requesters should pay... (Score:3)
No one is going to defend our rights. What's worse is time and time again courts side with business. Non profits don't have the resources and the ones that do are the ones we're fighting.
The only way to beat them is to make it so when they DMCA one thing, a dozen more copies pop up.
Copyright Law in the US isn't there to be fair, it's there to protect the intellectual property to ensure profits.
Re: (Score:3)
It certainly didn't protect Brandon Rothweiler's intellectual property.
Re: (Score:2)
I definitely believe in protecting people's intellectual property, copyright, patents, whatever else falls in that category. But I've never felt that copyright is the correct way to protect software. I especially feel that way seeing companies wield control over people's cars, computers, tractors, anything with company's software. You know, you don't own your car's software, or AutoCAD, or tax software, or your OS, or whatever, you're just "licensed" to use it.
Seems to me that software should be protected m
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I'm not so good with verbal communication and my wording was awkward, which is partly due to be attempting to be concise.
I was trying to say that software should be more protected by patents, rather than copyright. Or, another category altogether. But not that software deserves higher protection.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"Druish Princesses are attracted to money; and power...and I have both" -'Murica
Re: (Score:3)
Absolutely, for projects like this that don't use any copyrighted code, and for automated takedowns on YouTube, etc.
The Copyright lobby got ridiculous statutory damages enshrined in law ($750 per infringement, which really adds up when you join a Torrent swarm with 1000 peers...), so I think we should push for the same on the content producer side - $750 for each view of a video or use of a project that is impacted by an obviously invalid DMCA filing. If you can show that 10,000 people couldn't see your st
Re: (Score:2)
In theory you actually can go after them. If you refuse and they continue going after you to actual court, if the nonsense is egrarious enough, a court can leverage numerous penalties against the person filing the DMCA.
In practice however, its rare. I do remember some company getting reamed by the courts for abusing DMCA threats over porn, so it must happen occasionally.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they claimed they considered fair use but I don't think they did.
Typically use of an API is not protected by copyright.
Also purely functional or factual portions of works are not eligible for copyright protection
Still a lot to ask for a mall volunteer project to put up a huge legal fight.
F U Mazda...
part of there plan to lock any and all 3rd repair (Score:5, Informative)
part of there plan to lock any and all 3rd party repair
As Dick-the-Butcher famously said (Score:2)
"First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
-- Act IV, Sc ii, Henry VI, Part II
--
If my job can be done by an AI, is it really worth doing?
What a fantastically short sighted own-goal (Score:5, Insightful)
Surely Mazda want people to buy more of their cars? Doesn't the work they are taking down actually help advertise the brand? Help owners to get more out of their cars? Dare I say it, even make users dependent on the Mazda-specific APIs and thus make them less likely to switch brands?
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah thats surprising and sad at the same time.
I'm one of the rare Mx-30 owners and used to brag about Mazda giving their app for free to owners unlimited with all features unlocked within warranty time (which btw is 10+ years), and it even comes with E-sim cellphone which Mazda pays for, you... at no extra charge. It's mainly used for updating, and emergency calls (that lil red button in the roof) if you forget your cellphone.
Unexpected move from lil Mazda...Kinda dissapointed they'd react this way. It was
Mazda is a zombie company (Score:2)
Mazda is a zombie company, and will soon shrink to nothing.
Sad (Score:2)
Well (Score:4)
Fuck you Mazda. Another company added to the John Deere list.
My first car ever was an RX-7 (Score:1)
I have fond memories of this extinct and fun car, learning about the engine, tinkering with basic mechanical repairs on my first car as a high schooler. I now spend a lot of time tinkering with Home Assistant. And while I'm no longer a Mazda owner, I am reminded why they are no longer relevant. Because they really haven't done anything innovative since the rotary engine.
My memories now for Mazda will possibly be as an extinct car brand who used one of its last breaths paying a lawyer to kill an open-source
Tesla FTW (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
I posted this slashdot story to twitler (Score:2)
But I posted it from the mobile URL and the mobile site is so fucking busted that it didn't get thumbnailed.
Slashdot mobile is trash in every way, including failing pathetically at SEO.
I can not fucking believe anyone pays to advertise here.
Re: (Score:2)
But I posted it from the mobile URL and the mobile site is so fucking busted that it didn't get thumbnailed.
Slashdot mobile is trash in every way, including failing pathetically at SEO.
I can not fucking believe anyone pays to advertise here.
OK. Go elsewhere. Please.
Hire him! (Score:2)