GM, Ford, And Others Want to Make Working on Your Own Car Illegal

BladeRunner wrote:https://www.yahoo.com/autos/s/gm-ford-others-want-working-own-car-illegal-160000229.html

Are you trying to say that corporations are more interested in their own profits than our rights?

I encourage all of you to boycott the corporations involved in this.

General Motors Company
BMW Group
FCA US LLC
Ford Motor Company
Jaguar Land Rover
Mazda
Mercedes-Benz USA
Mitsubishi Motors
Porsche
Toyota
Volkswagen Group of America
Volvo Cars North America

The good news? You can still buy a Tesla.

Paquette wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:https://www.yahoo.com/autos/s/gm-ford-others-want-working-own-car-illegal-160000229.html

Are you trying to say that corporations are more interested in their own profits than our rights?

Your comment was so typical of a progressive liberal trying to control the narrative through distortions, misrepresentations and outright lies.  The post by BladeRunner had nothing to do with companies in a system of free market capitalism trying to defraud consumers.  The post was really about companies who were trying to gain an advantage through government intervention.

This system of government intervention which is a product of progressive liberals and loved so much by them is known as crony capitalism.  That is the issue that should be discussed if you wish to address the excellent point made by BladeRunner.  

It is not an issue of corporations being more interested in their own profits than our rights, but in corporations being more interested in "rigging the system" rather than having to compete.   And it is very interesting to see the HEAVY UNION influence in these companies who like to participate in crony capitalism.  Once again it is progressive liberalism at the root of evil in this country.  We need to eradicate progressive liberalism if we want to regain our country.

If you think you can use progressive liberal distortions, misrepresentations and outright lies to control the narrative, you are wrong.  Conservatives are getting sick and tired of the antics of progressive liberals.  I suggest that you take your silly juvenile progressive liberal tactics to a liberal website where they will be appreciated.

Paquette wrote:I encourage all of you to boycott the corporations involved in this.

General Motors Company
BMW Group
FCA US LLC
Ford Motor Company
Jaguar Land Rover
Mazda
Mercedes-Benz USA
Mitsubishi Motors
Porsche
Toyota
Volkswagen Group of America
Volvo Cars North America

The good news? You can still buy a Tesla.

You can also still buy a Honda/Acura as well as an Audi. This may also be a time to check out KIA or Hyundai. You better be prepared to buy a very long power cord if you want a Tesla.

Jammer wrote:

Paquette wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:https://www.yahoo.com/autos/s/gm-ford-others-want-working-own-car-illegal-160000229.html

Are you trying to say that corporations are more interested in their own profits than our rights?

Your comment was so typical of a progressive liberal trying to control the narrative through distortions, misrepresentations and outright lies.  The post by BladeRunner had nothing to do with companies in a system of free market capitalism trying to defraud consumers.  The post was really about companies who were trying to gain an advantage through government intervention.

This system of government intervention which is a product of progressive liberals and loved so much by them is known as crony capitalism.  That is the issue that should be discussed if you wish to address the excellent point made by BladeRunner.  

It is not an issue of corporations being more interested in their own profits than our rights, but in corporations being more interested in "rigging the system" rather than having to compete.   And it is very interesting to see the HEAVY UNION influence in these companies who like to participate in crony capitalism.  Once again it is progressive liberalism at the root of evil in this country.  We need to eradicate progressive liberalism if we want to regain our country.

If you think you can use progressive liberal distortions, misrepresentations and outright lies to control the narrative, you are wrong.  Conservatives are getting sick and tired of the antics of progressive liberals.  I suggest that you take your silly juvenile progressive liberal tactics to a liberal website where they will be appreciated.

That is exactly my point, I'm glad you agree with me. Corporations and unions have an undue amount of influence in our government. With their out of proportion monetary influence on our representatives they can buy laws that help themselves but are not necessarily in the best interests of the people or our country. The current trade deal being "fast tracked" by Obama is a perfect example.

I must have missed the union influence in this particular story. Does that mean that only corporations that have a union involved engage in this kind of practice? That could be, Tesla workers are not part of a union.

It is not an issue of corporations being more interested in their own profits than our rights, but in corporations being more interested in "rigging the system" rather than having to compete.

Doesn't that sentence kind of contradict it's self?

Jammer wrote:

Paquette wrote:I encourage all of you to boycott the corporations involved in this.

General Motors Company
BMW Group
FCA US LLC
Ford Motor Company
Jaguar Land Rover
Mazda
Mercedes-Benz USA
Mitsubishi Motors
Porsche
Toyota
Volkswagen Group of America
Volvo Cars North America

The good news? You can still buy a Tesla.

You can also still buy a Honda/Acura as well as an Audi.  This may also be a time to check out KIA or Hyundai.  You better be prepared to buy a very long power cord if you want a Tesla.

I have no plans to buy a Tesla but only because they don't make a vehicle that meets my needs. In different circumstances, like if my entire life's circumstances completely changed, I think it would be fun to own a Tesla.

I've never understood people's hatred of this company just because it doesn't fit their needs. Honda doesn't really make a vehicle that meets my needs but I feel no need to bash them.

Paquette wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Paquette wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:https://www.yahoo.com/autos/s/gm-ford-others-want-working-own-car-illegal-160000229.html

Are you trying to say that corporations are more interested in their own profits than our rights?

Your comment was so typical of a progressive liberal trying to control the narrative through distortions, misrepresentations and outright lies.  The post by BladeRunner had nothing to do with companies in a system of free market capitalism trying to defraud consumers.  The post was really about companies who were trying to gain an advantage through government intervention.

This system of government intervention which is a product of progressive liberals and loved so much by them is known as crony capitalism.  That is the issue that should be discussed if you wish to address the excellent point made by BladeRunner.  

It is not an issue of corporations being more interested in their own profits than our rights, but in corporations being more interested in "rigging the system" rather than having to compete.   And it is very interesting to see the HEAVY UNION influence in these companies who like to participate in crony capitalism.  Once again it is progressive liberalism at the root of evil in this country.  We need to eradicate progressive liberalism if we want to regain our country.

If you think you can use progressive liberal distortions, misrepresentations and outright lies to control the narrative, you are wrong.  Conservatives are getting sick and tired of the antics of progressive liberals.  I suggest that you take your silly juvenile progressive liberal tactics to a liberal website where they will be appreciated.

That is exactly my point, I'm glad you agree with me. Corporations and unions have an undue amount of influence in our government. With their out of proportion monetary influence on our representatives they can buy laws that help themselves but are not necessarily in the best interests of the people or our country. The current trade deal being "fast tracked" by Obama is a perfect example.

I must have missed the union influence in this particular story. Does that mean that only corporations that have a union involved engage in this kind of practice? That could be, Tesla workers are not part of a union.

It is not an issue of corporations being more interested in their own profits than our rights, but in corporations being more interested in "rigging the system" rather than having to compete.

Doesn't that sentence kind of contradict it's self?

You fool nobody on here. Your intention was to bash the system of capitalism through progressive liberal distortion and misrepresentation. You were caught and not you are trying to cover your tracks. But you forgot one thing, progressive liberals stink and you can never ever get rid of that smell. So cover all the tracks you want, we can still smell the stench of your evil agenda.

Jammer wrote:You fool nobody on here.  Your intention was to bash the system of capitalism through progressive liberal distortion and misrepresentation.  You were caught and not you are trying to cover your tracks.  But you forgot one thing, progressive liberals stink and you can never ever get rid of that smell.  So cover all the tracks you want, we can still smell the stench of your evil agenda.

You're the one who said corporations are "more interested in "rigging the system" rather than having to compete" and "trying to gain an advantage through government intervention".

Why do you hate the free market, mom, apple pie and baseball?

I can see their point in that vehicles are becoming more like aircraft every year. Govt will tend to support the idea because the environmental controls on them will be made unalterable thus insuring the tree-huggers will be happy. On the other hand the shady tree mechanic will finally be relegated to the ash heap where he truly belongs. The car is a product of very sophisticated engineering and no longer the outgrowth of the backyard "inventor" who has inspired the advances of the past.

The latest innovations, tho they are really over 40yrs old now, involving anti collision systems could be a huge liability issue if they can be defeated by the driver who can't seem to be able to control the urge to tailgate and speed. The issue of who actually "owns" the car isn't a real issue at all, the proprietary nature of software and the illegality of modifying it is well established in fact for over 50yrs now. You may own the body but the company owns the soul.

Paquette wrote:

Jammer wrote:You fool nobody on here.  Your intention was to bash the system of capitalism through progressive liberal distortion and misrepresentation.  You were caught and not you are trying to cover your tracks.  But you forgot one thing, progressive liberals stink and you can never ever get rid of that smell.  So cover all the tracks you want, we can still smell the stench of your evil agenda.

You're the one who said corporations are "more interested in "rigging the system" rather than having to compete" and "trying to gain an advantage through government intervention".

Why do you hate the free market, mom, apple pie and baseball?

Once again, a progressive liberal attempt to control the narrative.  The real underlying issue is not which companies try to take advantage of crony capitalism, but it is who are the politicians and political ideology who make crony capitalism available in the first place.  It is a lot like getting mad at farmers for taking advantage of the farm program and subsidies.  Farmers aren't the problem, it is the politicians that make the program available and the political ideology they follow that is the problem.

But back to the issue of crony capitalism, various companies trying to "rig the system" can probably best be understood by looking at human nature.  It is human nature to always take the path of LEAST RESISTANCE and that is what crony capitalism does.  It makes it EASIER to "rig the system" than to compete and innovate.  There lies the problem and once again progressive liberalism is the root cause.

Clicker wrote:I can see their point in that vehicles are becoming more like aircraft every year. Govt will tend to support the idea because the environmental controls on them will be made unalterable thus insuring the tree-huggers will be happy. On the other hand the shady tree mechanic will finally be relegated to the ash heap where he truly belongs.  The car is a product of very sophisticated engineering and no longer the outgrowth of the backyard "inventor" who has inspired the advances of the past.

The latest innovations, tho they are really over 40yrs old now, involving anti collision systems could be a huge liability issue if they can be defeated by the driver who can't seem to be able to control the urge to tailgate and speed.  The issue of who actually "owns" the car isn't a real issue at all, the proprietary nature of software and the illegality of modifying it is well established in fact for over 50yrs now.  You may own the body but the company owns the soul.

Thank you, that was a rational and well thought out response that actually addresses the issue.

The headline for this article is wildly exaggerated. Working on your car wouldn't be illegal, only changing "key safety features" and presumably key environmental controls in the computer system it's self. It would still let you work on any other part of the car including limited parts of the computerized system.

But then again I would have to see the full details of the law, it's possible it goes beyond the official industry/government explanation. Not that industry or government would ever misrepresent the truth.  

DMCA does give a little bit of leeway, though. While the act could hypothetically lock customers out of key safety features, it would still allow owners the ability to repair other areas of the vehicle’s onboard computer as they see fit. It’s a slim compromise, but one that may be more closely based in reality.

One of the inherent rights of owning a vehicle is the ability to get on one’s backside — a wrench in one hand and a grease rag in the other, and just tinker to your little heart’s desire. Since the vehicle was invented, it’s been an important facet within the community of gearheads.

Have we ever really had the "right" to "tinker to your little heart’s desire"? I imagine we could have had the "right" to completely disconnect the brake system but would we have had the "right" to take it out on the road?

Rights have always been limited, the real question is if this infringes on my rights or protects the rights of everyone else on the road. I don't know which side of the spectrum this falls on so please feel free to educate me.

At any rate, this won't effect me, this kind of tinkering is way beyond my shade tree abilities.

EDIT: I do have to admit that using the DMCA laws makes this look a lot more like protectionism than any concern over safety. The use of copyright laws makes it sound more like they're protecting their right to sell their own after market modifications while preventing other vendors from doing the same thing.

Here's a more informative and nuanced take on this. Yahoo has never been well known for being informative nor nuanced.

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/04/20/automakers-gearheads-car-repairs/

It sounds like this was a preemptive action initiated by the Electronic Frontier Foundation to protect the already legal after market changes, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers has come out opposing this action in the comment period before the matter is ruled on.

That's not to say that the automotive industry hasn't been trying to outlaw these modifications, they have.

The EFF thinks the industry's desire to block exemptions has more to do with profits than safety. As software becomes easier to update, automakers could sell these performance upgrades on an a la carte basis. Because a favorable ruling would strengthen their control of the software, the car companies could potentially force consumers to only have their vehicles fixed at their dealerships or preferred repair shops.

Last September, Ford took steps toward consolidating such control, filing a lawsuit against Autel US Inc., a diagnostic-equipment manufacturer based in Huntington, New York. Ford alleges the company unlawfully copied trade secrets and accessed on-board computer systems that relay technical information on diagnostic codes and repair data. The EFF says consumers should have the right to have their cars fixed by independent mechanics.

Jennifer Dukarski, an intellectual property and technology attorney from Michigan firm Butzel Long, said there's an additional reason automakers are getting more aggressive in the copyright realm. Court rulings in recent years have eroded their patent protections, so they're searching for alternate ways to protect investments in research and development.

This sounds much more like the industry is trying to squelch competition in the repair and after market industry to protect their dealerships and other authorized partners. It comes off as protectionism rather than strengthening the free market.

Paquette wrote:

This sounds much more like the industry is trying to squelch competition in the repair and after market industry to protect their dealerships and other authorized partners. It comes off as protectionism rather than strengthening the free market.

This has already happened. It is impossible to run an independent shop without having techs with the same training as the dealers require of theirs. I was a partner in an independent shop back in the early 80s. We were literally driven out of business by the smog requirements of Calif. In order to do work on any area of the car that was remotely related to the emission controls you had to be certified by the state. That meant you had to have a trained and certified tech on duty to do the work. That usually meant you had to offer a far greater pay incentive to the tech to get him in the shop and keep him there.
Today the auto tech can make a kings ransom wage working for a dealer. My grandson in law is a parts manager for a large dealer in the LA area, he tells me there are techs working at the dealership that are making over $100k per year working a 4ohr week. Not bad for a tech school grad.

Paquette wrote:

This sounds much more like the industry is trying to squelch competition in the repair and after market industry to protect their dealerships and other authorized partners. It comes off as protectionism rather than strengthening the free market.

Yes, that‘s right and it is called crony capitalism.  However, progressive liberals would never want that to be the subject of any discussion because that would look bad for them if people knew what they were really supporting crony capitalism.  Therefore, like all political discussions progressive liberals attempt to change the basis of the discussion to their advantage.

Just like when they change the discussion to race”, the “poor”, the “sick”, the “needy”, the “kids” or the “environment and they then look good when they are strongly FOR the issue being discussed and conservatives look bad for arguing against the issue.  So in this case if you can somehow change the narrative so the world thinks you are discussing the issue of “safety” and you are for it, obviously conservatives are against safety.  You would just be able to add conservatives’ “war on safety” to all of the other issues you have wrongly painted conservatives as being on the wrong side of.

Distortion, misrepresentation and outright lies are the main tools in the progressive liberals’ toolbox when it comes to political discussions.

Liberal will this hurt your car repair business ?

Shortie's Ex wrote:Liberal will this hurt your car repair business ?

Liberal actually works?