Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rash of parts thefts is leaving Freightliner trucks inoperable

freightwaves.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 180 posts

Re: Rash of parts thefts is leaving Freightliner trucks inoperable

#171

Post by teddyh »

pc86 wrote: post #165
teddyh wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you don't have a right to use it. Seems pretty straightforward. But why do I have to accept a license? I already have a copy of the software; what law says I can’t run the copy I have?

For the same reason "finders keepers" isn't codified law. By that logic, nobody is allowed to controls the means by which their software is run. You don't get to decide if people have to pay you, or if people have to have your permission first, or if they're allowed to (legally) copy it, etc.

> By that logic, nobody is allowed to controls the means by which their software is run.

As far as I know, this is true.

> You don't get to decide if people have to pay you,

No law says I have to, AFAIK.

> or if people have to have your permission first

There’s no law I know which gives authors this right of deciding whether anyone has the right to run the software.

> or if they're allowed to (legally) copy it, etc.

Copying is regulated by copyright law. But once I have acquired a copy, what law disallows me from running that copy however I want?

Re: Rash of parts thefts is leaving Freightliner trucks inoperable

#172

Post by teddyh »

Thorrez wrote: post #168
teddyh wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you don't have a right to use it. Seems pretty straightforward. But why do I have to accept a license? I already have a copy of the software; what law says I can’t run the copy I have?

How are you going to use it? You have to copy it to your hard drive, right?

AFAIK, many jurisdictions have rules clarifying that any incidental copies, like installing it, or copying it to RAM, or to the various CPU and SSD caches, are necesssary for the operation of the software, and are therefore not counted as breaches of copyright.

If this was not so, copyright holders could sue all the router and switch operators in the world for copying pirated works by merely having the network packets temporarily in their packet buffers.

Re: Rash of parts thefts is leaving Freightliner trucks inoperable

#173

Post by ehvatum »

pc86 wrote: post #150
konschubert wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or we could have a police force that prosecutes theft.

Exactly. Receiving stolen property is already a crime. We don't need some automated system that as a byproduct also prevents people from fixing their own cars.

Trespassing is already a crime. We don’t need some automated system that as a byproduct also prevents people from entering their own homes.

Re: Rash of parts thefts is leaving Freightliner trucks inoperable

#174

Post by Thorrez »

teddyh wrote: post #172
Thorrez wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are you going to use it? You have to copy it to your hard drive, right?

AFAIK, many jurisdictions have rules clarifying that any incidental copies, like installing it, or copying it to RAM, or to the various CPU and SSD caches, are necesssary for the operation of the software, and are therefore not counted as breaches of copyright. If this was not so, copyright holders could sue all the router and switch operators in the world for copying pirated works by merely having the network packet…

Yeah, I don't know the law about incidental copies and RAM and stuff. But I think we shouldn't lump that with using a dedicated piece of hardware, because I think there is a difference between the two. Whether that difference is relevant in the law, I'm not sure.

Wouldn't router and switch operators be considered distributors rather than publishers?

>Prior to the Internet, case law was clear that a liability line was drawn between publishers of content and distributors of content; a publisher would be expected to have awareness of material it was publishing and thus should be held liable for any illegal content it published, while a distributor would likely not be aware and thus would be immune.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230#Background_and_pas...

Re: Rash of parts thefts is leaving Freightliner trucks inoperable

#175

Post by teddyh »

pc86 wrote: post #147
teddyh wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is a “right to use” of software?

If software is licensed, and you don't comply with the license, you don't have a right to use it. Seems pretty straightforward. In this example, if you steal a piece of hardware with embedded software on it, it seems unlikely that you're licensed to use that piece of software.

> If software is licensed, and you don't comply with the license, you don't have a right to use it.

What law is this based on? If you say copyright law, then how can I be in violation if I have not made a copy? If you say contract law, arguing that the license is a form of contract, then how can I be bound by it if I have not signed it, agreed to it, or even read it?

Re: Rash of parts thefts is leaving Freightliner trucks inoperable

#176

Post by pc86 »

ehvatum wrote: post #173
pc86 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Receiving stolen property is already a crime. We don't need some automated system that as a byproduct also prevents people from fixing their own cars.

Trespassing is already a crime. We don’t need some automated system that as a byproduct also prevents people from entering their own homes.

Nice strawman but poor argument. What you're actually looking for is a system where the homebuilder has the keys to the home, which is as ridiculous on its face and trying to prevent people from fixing things they bought.

Re: Rash of parts thefts is leaving Freightliner trucks inoperable

#177

Post by mminer237 »

hansvm wrote: post #151
pc86 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If software is licensed, and you don't comply with the license, you don't have a right to use it. Seems pretty straightforward. In this example, if you steal a piece of hardware with embedded software on it, it seems unlikely that you're licensed to use that piece of software.

Seems like a stretch. The person interacting with the hardware need not know or care about the software. Under that same logic I think you could: (1) Buy an alarm clock with an embedded chip (2) Contained in the packaging was a link to a license agreement. You never read it and certainly didn't agree to it. (3) A year later, weekday alarms are remotely disabled because you've used up your free trial. The license spec…

In that case, I think you'd potentially have a counter-claim for breach of implied warranty.

In your scenario, the buyer wouldn't have a contract other than they bought the clock and it was implied to work as a clock. You could have a claim for breaking the device, but the first-sale doctrine gives you copyright protection regardless of what you do to the clock.

In the article, thieves have no contract, so they have no right to anything to do with the devices.

Re: Rash of parts thefts is leaving Freightliner trucks inoperable

#178

Post by mminer237 »

teddyh wrote: post #175
pc86 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If software is licensed, and you don't comply with the license, you don't have a right to use it. Seems pretty straightforward. In this example, if you steal a piece of hardware with embedded software on it, it seems unlikely that you're licensed to use that piece of software.

> If software is licensed, and you don't comply with the license, you don't have a right to use it. What law is this based on? If you say copyright law, then how can I be in violation if I have not made a copy? If you say contract law, arguing that the license is a form of contract, then how can I be bound by it if I have not signed it, agreed to it, or even read it?

Hmmm...that's a fair point. It would definitely be copyright law, but I'm not sure if it would actually work. I know downloading copyrighted material into RAM still counts as a violation, so the argument would probably be that running the software illegally copies code they have no rights to from storage to RAM.

Re: Rash of parts thefts is leaving Freightliner trucks inoperable

#179

Post by teddyh »

mminer237 wrote: post #178
teddyh wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If software is licensed, and you don't comply with the license, you don't have a right to use it. What law is this based on? If you say copyright law, then how can I be in violation if I have not made a copy? If you say contract law, arguing that the license is a form of contract, then how can I be bound by it if I have not signed it, agreed to it, or even read it?

Hmmm...that's a fair point. It would definitely be copyright law, but I'm not sure if it would actually work. I know downloading copyrighted material into RAM still counts as a violation, so the argument would probably be that running the software illegally copies code they have no rights to from storage to RAM.

> I know downloading copyrighted material into RAM still counts as a violation,

Maybe in some jurisdictions, but I’m pretty sure many places exclude copies necessary for the operation of the software to not be violations of copyright law.

I mean, extend the same reasoning to web pages. Your web browser downloads a web page (let’s pretend this does not count as a copy). It keeps the HTML in an in-memory cache. The browser then sends the HTML to its internal renderer, which renders the page. Boom, a copy of the HTML (or at least a derived work of it) now exists in the renderer. Have you now violated the copyright of the page author?

Re: Rash of parts thefts is leaving Freightliner trucks inoperable

#180

Post by Schroedingersat »

bluGill wrote: post #125
nathanaldensr wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was thinking that, too. The thieves just steal the same modules over and over as each trucking line buys them from the black market. Nice business if you can get it.

This is why modern cars and tractors encode the VIN in computers and don't let you replace parts without dealer tools. You buy a black market part, even though it is perfectly good it can't be used without the dealer getting involved and the dealer tool can automatically check against a list of stolen parts. Right to repair has the downside of not checking for stolen parts like that. Which is why it isn't the black a…

If this is an absolute priority (and it's not, because the costs inuced by theft are dwarfed by the the costs incurred by forced obsolescence) then just have a public challenge-response server with open source code so it can be maintained and secrets controlled by a government department paid for by registration fees.

You have to log ID, provide a small payment and it logs the VIN the item is being tied to as well as having a list of stolen parts.

No anti-repair steps needed so you can stop shilling.

Post reply on HN