Manufacturers Are Trying To Make It Illegal For Us To Work On Our Own Rides

There was once a time when you could buy a vehicle, take it home and do with it what you pleased. Buying a car meant that it was 100 per cent your property. Manufacturers didn’t care what happened to the car after they made their money selling it. They thought, “Want to paint it? Go ahead. Want to chop it in half and stitch it back together? Be our guest.” Oh, but times are changing. The lines are blurred that separate a private owner’s property and the intellectual property that remains in the hands of the vehicle’s creator.

Every three years, the US Copyright Office reviews proposed exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a copyright law intended to prevent access to copyrighted work by bypassing some type of access control module. The law allows these exemptions so that consumers are not barred from making full use of their product (like jail-breaking mobile phones). Other uses like research and education usually make their way on the exemption list. The exemptions, once approved, are issued by the Librarian of Congress.

There are two proposed classes for exemption in this matter. Class 21 would allow access to vehicle software to diagnose, repair, personalise, modify or improve the vehicle. Class 22 would allow access to vehicle software to test vehicle safety and security. A group of proponents have made powerful arguments supporting the exemption, which were then countered by responses from dealers and manufacturers. The biggest push against the proposed exemption comes from the Auto Alliance, made of these manufactures:

• BMW Group
• Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
• Ford Motor Company
• General Motors
• Jaguar Land Rover
• Mazda
• Mercedes-Benz USA
• Mitsubishi Motors
• Porsche Cars North America
• Toyota
• Volkswagen Group of America
• Volvo Car Corporation

Why do car makers want to ban us from software mods? The short answer: money. If the only place that can legally service our cars is an authorised dealer, then they’re getting rich. The manufactures have a different answer, though. They insist in lengthy rebuttal that we (car owners and non-dealer mechanics) are not capable of safely modifying our own cars with vehicle software. We have not been trained by the manufacturers, therefore we are not qualified to do the work.

They also throw in the classic emissions excuse, saying we will “unravel” the system meant to protect our air quality. The representative from GM explained that over 30 ECUs are present in their vehicles that do anything from regulating emissions to controlling the stereo. The fact that auto makers want all ECUs protected from consumers should scare you.

The opponents struggled to present a good reason an exemption should not be made to allow safety and security testing. They resorted to pointing fingers at no-good hacks who would use testing as an excuse to steal and copy their software. In the initial hearing, the representative for the Auto Alliance testified that the auto makers are not scared or threatened by independent research, but are instead worried about their software getting into the wrong hands. It sounds a lot like the cliché remark you may have heard from your parents as a young driver: “It’s not you I’m worried about. It’s all the other crazy drivers on the road.”

Now almost seven months into the review, the US Copyright Office has sent a request for all parties to answer three final questions before 22nd June. Here are the abbreviated questions:

1. Could the exemption impact other content such as vehicle communication and entertainment systems?
2. How will used car buyers know if the previous owner modified the software if they are not allowed to access it themselves? How much would it cost to have this checked, and what equipment would be necessary?
3. What are the costs and availability of manufacturing information to create aftermarket parts and diagnostic tools that individuals can use without violating the law?

It seems as though the US Copyright Office is on the right track to protect consumers’ rights, but we will have to wait for the outcome when the verdict is announced. While I can certainly understand the safety concerns, I feel as though manufacturers are trying to take away my right to work on my own car. With that, the representatives from the dealers and manufacturers have made their way onto the list of people who are not allowed in my garage.