[RamAir02]

This thread has some info on how I utilized ACDelco TDS to build a service manual (post #3)

[SnakeEyeSS]

I looked into this years ago, here is what is CLAIMED to be going on(take this as more as a paraphrase than fact, It's been a few years since I read up on it. And laws may have changed, or what I read was wrong, but I found the claim on several sites and eBay pages that resell these)

The EU has some law on the books that says you have complete ownership of document, book or whatever, and can do what you want with it once you buy it.

So, some people in the EU bought the service manual, and started selling copies cheap

[arpad_m]

Originally Posted by olrocker

The question would then be, what exactly is "intellectual property" when YOU own YOUR car in it's entirety? You don't just own the engine, but not own the software and encoded encryption for all the ethernet functions, you own the whole god-dm thing. If you want to go into the encrypted software and kcuf everything up, why should ANYONE on the planet be able to stop you, either by law or by price? It's your car. Heck I know plenty of people who go into the BIOS of their home computer and f everything up when they have no business on earth even touching one of the F keys while it's booting up. There's no outrageous fees for the license or software to do that, no "intellectual property" arguments from Phoenix Technologies that in order to get into it you must purchase their 10,000 page manual for $300 or bring your computer into a PC store or otherwise you can't access anything and can't fix anything yourself if you do know what you're doing.

Why is there even a question of "intellectual property"? The property is that it's YOUR car! It has your name on the title, you've legally paid for it, you legally register it for use on public roads, and when it's stolen the people who stole the car get in trouble because it's not THEIR car - it's YOURS!

Apologies in advance, this will be a long post, hope it's still readable

I'm afraid the 75-year old problem concerning the ownership of infinitely multipliable intangibles has reared its ugly head again.

Let me preface this by stating that I'm a software engineer, but my take is that we can't apply the narrow traditional view of ownership, ie the fact that historically we always owned physical objects, copying which requires significant extra material, labor and time, because in the case of modern cars, an increasing portion of the asset is in software that can be multiplied (copied) infinitely with practically zero effort and extra materials.

Yes, you own the car 100% after paying it off and you can do with it whatever the fcuk you want (I did, too, just look at my sig). Yet, applying the same logic to its software would have undesired consequences. If IP is not considered to be a special case somehow, one needs to find new ways to ensure innovation, because first movers will unavoidably be penalized (and then turned off) by extremely easy IP duplication, which then becomes a race to the bottom, completely stifling innovation in the end, because there won't be any to cannibalize.

Look at the "output" of the automobile industry was able to produce in former socialist countries for decades, and you'll see where subtracting motive leads---Yugo, Trabant, Wartburg, just to name a few of these monstrosities. Again, this is a point about removing motivation, not intellectual property law, it's just an illustration of the same result. The only reason China gets away with their zero regard to intellectual property is that they historically provided cheap slave labor and thus a temporary symbiotic relationship with those that produce said intellectual property that they then happily steal and duplicate. I know this is a gross simplification, but everything is so complex nowadays that there is no way to discuss anything without abstracting some of it.

One also needs to acknowledge how difficult it is to produce quality software that runs 24/7 with no adverse behaviors, as it would normally be required in a vehicle---we aren't living in the 1980s anymore when a 1,000-line program was "pretty large". My favorite analogy is from architecture: software development is akin to architecting buildings of different sizes and complexities, except in software we work with infinite amounts of material immediately available, plus we get to (and have to) define the "laws of physics" and build the "universe" from scratch, there isn't much that would guide or force our hands as in the physical world.


Now, unfortunately, the IP protection crowd took this way too far towards the other extreme, which is eliminating ownership altogether and forcing everyone onto a licensing (you don't own the software at all) and subscription (you pay repeatedly and indefinitely for essentially the same software) model. While I can, if I squint hard enough, kind of understand why GM doesn't want everyone to see and be able to modify their vehicle control software, these companies took the paranoia too far, so I as someone who believes in balance, am completely with Louis Rossmann today.

In all honesty, however, I do not have a good general solution to this problem either. The truth must be somewhere in the middle, and the current status quo is a "truce" where some illegal activities are simply overlooked as fringe or niche, and as long as they remain just a nuisance and don't expand into massive evasion, participants on both sides tolerate the situation as a relative win-win.

This is probably why companies like HP Tuners are allowed to exist, for example, whose entire product portfolio is based on illegally reverse engineering manufacturers' software. If the majority of vehicle owners used these tuning products, the company would get shut down fast (and the EPA is already on their tail if I'm not mistaken). Until then, they generate interest and aftermarket sales that drive some manufacturer income, too, so they are tolerated. Also, your BIOS example is a bit weak, because Phoenix Technologies does care about manufacturers using their BIOS software without licensing it first, as long as it's somewhat current and relevant.

I think the lack of advanced controls in automotive software, similar to the F keys that give us access to detailed overclocking settings and whatnot in the BIOS, is simply a business decision, there are so few people who would use them and hopefully generate additional sales that car makers simply don't care to add any of this. Don't forget the massive liability scam industry either, but that would be a whole another topic.


Overall, it's a delicate balance, and that's also why selling stolen intellectual property such as a PDF service manual bothers me a bit---when this activity rises above the noise, we'll all lose because of the ensuing indiscriminate clampdown. Same reason I hate coal rolling, these dicks piss everyone off with their childish crap until enough people notice, then all mods are banned and we all lose.


(By the way, this is quite an enjoyable discussion, thank you very much.)

[MyNameIs]

Originally Posted by Arizona_Droptop

See if this links works:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Fow...ew?usp=sharing

That is a link to the 2017 service/repair manual I have on my one drive. No way could I email it to you. It's like 500 MB and thousands of pages long. But the info should be in there somewhere.

Cool....works!

[X24amd]

Originally Posted by Arizona_Droptop

See if this links works:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Fow...ew?usp=sharing

That is a link to the 2017 service/repair manual I have on my one drive. No way could I email it to you. It's like 500 MB and thousands of pages long. But the info should be in there somewhere.

Thank you!