This is a big deal, actually. It's a EULA for cars.
Presuming that such "EULAs for cars" are not legally binding, the next step will be cars that simply will not do the "forbidden" action, because their software detects and prevents it. Thence comes the next round of lawsuits...
> Initially, the vehicle fleet will take no action except to note the position of road signs, bridges and other stationary objects, mapping the world according to radar. The car computer will then silently compare when it would have braked to the driver action and upload that to the Tesla database. If several cars drive safely past a given radar object, whether Autopilot is turned on or off, then that object is added to the geocoded whitelist.
So, you will likely be accessing a service to use the self-driving features. At that point, I think it's technically within Tesla's rights to dictate how that service is used.
I can understand (and fully agree with) limiting usage that can hurt them (like you cant use their object db in your own non-tesla car, and you can't use it as free storage for images or something), but limiting how you USE the system in a way that it's meant to be used?
I've only ever seen this kind of stuff in shitty B2B programs, and even there it was a big enough issue to deter us. This is a big deal and could really open the floodgates to some really shitty practices.
Slightly exaggerating of course, this means that if there are a few locals that routinely blast through a given stop sign, your future Tesla will happily do the same. So much for better safety through automated driving.
All those years marketing departments have preached about the "personality" of car brands, now we might finally get it (an aggregation of driving patterns of the worst of the brand's customers, if it was strictly a whitelist algorithm which I sure don't hope it is)
Edit: Though you can have your car join that network sooo. Mostly just means they don't want to sell to Uber, heh.
People need to fight this BS.
This seems like an appropriate quote here. If we want to protect our rights we should not settle for conveniences. The software world in 90s is a good example of what happens.
One company does something to fuck over consumers and the others hold their breath for a minute to see what happens, then stampede to do it too.
It's why we have binding arbitration agreements and no right to class action lawsuits in EULAs for game consoles.
It's why we have every company around trying to extract their 30% cut by sticking themselves in as a middle man.
It's why we will end up losing the right to use our cars as we see fit. I don't the buy the argument that it's a "software platform" now. The amount of software in cars has been increasing for decades and this being a bit smarter doesn't suddenly mean that Tesla should get to take this step.
They need to be stopped. It's not some Stallman-esque FOSS zealotry, it's just wanting to preserve the basic concept that I own my car.
If you buy a self-driving Tesla in the future, you do own it. Drive it anywhere you like. But the software is under license and may not be used for certain things. Demanding that they open up their software to interfacing with who-knows-what is to demand that they introduce new security measures and functionalities, dependent on unpredictable third parties with unknown properties.
Also, there's an easy way to avoid not feeling like you own your Tesla: don't buy a Tesla. I mean, as of now you really have to go out of your way to get one - so if they're "fucking over consumers" so bad with this, why would you buy it? This isn't something they're springing on you after a purchase, they're warning you years in advance.
I won't, but did you read what I posted? Allowing this to pass unchallenged will hurt everyone.
Being able to read and modify your car's software is hardly an "essential liberty". I'm pretty sure the source of this quote had things like freedom of speech, non-oppression, etc. in mind, not copy-left.
Edit: I take it back. See reply.
It's certainly the case that most off-the-shelf EULAs aren't open to negotiation because the Customer is often inconsequentially small to the software "manufacturer". Larger Customers (particularly governments) certainly negotiate for license terms with major software "manufacturers", however.
Absolutely monstrous.