Auto manufacturers want copyright law to cover ECU programing

[schnazzy]

This has happened with Sony and other suing people hacking/cracking/modifying their playstations and other equipment and now it seems the auto manufacturers have a friend in the DMCA.

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/04/20/a...s-car-repairs/

Say it isn't so! Hopefully EFF will prevail but in the end, probably not.

[jwilliams]

Isn't that why the JB4 and alike will not be affected. As essentially the software has not even been looked at. Its just manipulating certain things?

[CanAutM3]

More and more automakers are using the "one engine fits all" approach where the characteristics of the engines are adjusted to the vehicle application mainly through software. In many cases, that means a simple adjustment in a software leads to more power for a given engine. I am not even talking aftermarket tuning here, just running a different factory map. I am guessing that this is mostly what automotive manufacturers are trying to protect with this lobbying

[mc3456]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

More and more automakers are using the "one engine fits all" approach where the characteristics of the engines are adjusted to the vehicle application mainly through software. In many cases, that means a simple adjustment in a software leads to more power for a given engine. I am not even talking aftermarket tuning here, just running a different factory map. I am guessing that this is mostly what automotive manufacturers are trying to protect with this lobbying

The AMG 6.2 Liter was the exact same engine in the C63, E63, ML63, CLS63, CL63, S63, SL63, yet there was 75HP spread between the models. I have to believe it was just software tuning to create the space along the pricing continuum.

[irablumberg]

Originally Posted by mc3456

The AMG 6.2 Liter was the exact same engine in the C63, E63, ML63, CLS63, CL63, S63, SL63, yet there was 75HP spread between the models. I have to believe it was just software tuning to create the space along the pricing continuum.

The more powerful versions of that engine used forged internals versus the lower cost (comparatively speaking) versions which used cast parts. Other than those hardware differences, and perhaps some variations in intake and exhaust due to space and packaging, it is true that all these engines ran differently based on the engine control software. It is also true that all versions of this engine responded very well to tuning and really woke up with a good tune.

It would be a shame for the enthusiast community if manufacturers used the highly misguided DMCA to eliminate tuning.

[irablumberg]

Unfortunately, car makers don't need the DMCA to shut down tuners. The DMCA makes it a violation of copyright to "crack" encryption. Thus, if the ECU code is encrypted and a tuner figures out how to overcome the encryption and sells software or services that break the encryption, then it is a violation of the DMCA.

However, the actual software in the ECU is also copyrighted and the copyright belongs to the car maker. If a tuner copies that code to a computer, modifies it and then distributes the modified version, this is a classic violation of copyright. This violation gives the car maker the right to sue the tuner and force it to pay damages and to cease all activities related to the original code.

This does not apply to piggyback technology which never touches the ECU code. However, if they wanted to, car makers could shut down all ECU tuning today, even without the DMCA.

I certainly hope this does not happen, but I can understand that car makers don't want the expense of warranty claims caused by modified vehicles or the risk of being held liable for some terrible accident potentially caused by faulty tuning. While we think the risks of such things are low, car makers have lots of paranoid lawyers who spend long hours worrying about things like this.

In addition, as has been stated, car makers are increasingly relying on software to differentiate vehicles and justify price differences. If tuners can enable features and performance in lower cost vehicles, car makers will lose profit from the higher priced vehicles. This also gives increased incentive to shut down tuners.

[Vectors2final]

Doesn't change the fact that automakers want you to go to the dealership for everything, and not your local trusted mechanic, tuning or not.

Just GM throwing a hissy fit because there onboard "telematics" are going to be commonplace.

[Brosef]

this move is going to fail. it violates the freedom that people have as consumers. now, if people were re-selling the ECU software that any car manufacturer developed, that would be a clear case of copyright infringement. but I cannot see the courts granting any motion to eliminate the individuals' right to maintain (and even modify) their cars.

[mc3456]

Originally Posted by irablumberg

The more powerful versions of that engine used forged internals versus the lower cost (comparatively speaking) versions which used cast parts. Other than those hardware differences, and perhaps some variations in intake and exhaust due to space and packaging, it is true that all these engines ran differently based on the engine control software. It is also true that all versions of this engine responded very well to tuning and really woke up with a good tune.

It would be a shame for the enthusiast community if manufacturers used the highly misguided DMCA to eliminate tuning.

Actually, that is incorrect. The only ones that used forged internals were the Black Series and the SLS. I am 99.999% positive the other engines were exactly the same minus different tunes and air intake pathways, despite the same intake box in the US, but Europe had a different airbox, which I had imported into the US.

After a tune, they all produced similar output numbers, minus SLS and BS.

[irablumberg]

Originally Posted by mc3456

Actually, that is incorrect. The only ones that used forged internals were the Black Series and the SLS. I am 99.999% positive the other engines were exactly the same minus different tunes and air intake pathways, despite the same intake box in the US, but Europe had a different airbox, which I had imported into the US.

After a tune, they all produced similar output numbers, minus SLS and BS.

Sorry, but if you look at the details, you will see that at least in the US, the C63 with the PP (performance package) included the forged internals as did the final C63 model the 507. Both of these cars also included higher performance software yielding higher output than the base C63.

I did extensive research on these points before purchasing a 2012 C63 with PP for my wife a few years back.

[mc3456]

Originally Posted by irablumberg

Sorry, but if you look at the details, you will see that at least in the US, the C63 with the PP (performance package) included the forged internals as did the final C63 model the 507. Both of these cars also included higher performance software yielding higher output than the base C63.

I did extensive research on these points before purchasing a 2012 C63 with PP for my wife a few years back.

In the case of the C63 507, I believe that is true, but not in the case of the other prior PP models. Software tuning was the only major engine difference, which is why aftermarket tuned base 63s and PP 63s produced the exact same output for the same models after tuning. The only real difference in most of those cases was LSD and other things like compound brake rotors, some plus minor cosmetic stuff.

[irablumberg]

Originally Posted by mc3456

In the case of the C63 507, I believe that is true, but not in the case of the other prior PP models. Software tuning was the only major engine difference, which is why aftermarket tuned base 63s and PP 63s produced the exact same output for the same models after tuning. The only real difference in most of those cases was LSD and other things like compound brake rotors, some plus minor cosmetic stuff.

Not to belabor this argument, but the LSD was NOT part of the P31 development package in the US. Rather, it was a separate option. Also, the P31 development package (for model years 2012 through 2014) DID include the forged pistons and other parts from the SLS. Here is a link to a 2013 Autoweek review that highlights the US options including the P31 package, http://autoweek.com/article/car-revi...e-review-notes.

Regardless, the forged internals were not what contributed to the higher horsepower. I agree that after a tune, all of these engines put out about the same power (give or take for intake and exhaust differences on different car models). However, MB clearly felt more comfortable using the forged internals for the higher output engines, most likely for reliability and durability.

[Woodengun]

Someone needs to write the "Linux" for automobiles lol.

[mc3456]

Originally Posted by irablumberg

Not to belabor this argument, but the LSD was NOT part of the P31 development package in the US. Rather, it was a separate option. Also, the P31 development package (for model years 2012 through 2014) DID include the forged pistons and other parts from the SLS. Here is a link to a 2013 Autoweek review that highlights the US options including the P31 package, http://autoweek.com/article/car-revi...e-review-notes.

Regardless, the forged internals were not what contributed to the higher horsepower. I agree that after a tune, all of these engines put out about the same power (give or take for intake and exhaust differences on different car models). However, MB clearly felt more comfortable using the forged internals for the higher output engines, most likely for reliability and durability.

You got me! I had a 2009 C63 pre-PP, a 2010 E63, 2008 CLK63, and later a 2014 E63S. Must have lost track between 2010-2014. Well, the key message was that software tuning was the major differentiator between a C63 and say a CL63.