My thoughts on legality

Discussion about legal issues regarding copyrights, fair use, reverse engineering, etc.

Moderator: Freon

My thoughts on legality

Postby Freon » Tue Nov 29, 2005 9:07 am

I wrote this in reply to another thread in the general forum, but snipped it and decided to post it here. This more my ramblings and miscellaneous thoughts than anything. The thread was asking about Cobb and Ecutek maps and ROMs.

I don't think this project has any business distributing copied ROMs from Cobb OTS flashed maps, or the actual data maps by themselves. They did and do continue to produce the actual data found in these maps, even if they do not own the format. Consider if I produce a novel and save it in Word document format, I own the IP of the novel, even if I don't own the Word document format.

However, I see no reason why someone could not use Street Tuner, Protuner, whatever, as an aid and tool in reverse engineering the ROM data definition. I.e. Flash to a stage 1 map, download, change one parameter, flash, download again, and compare. You now know the parameter location. The ROM data definition is strictly Subaru IP and no one but Subaru has any ground to stand on to try to protect it. Unintended use in itself is not illegal, as long it is not otherwise illegal. (you can use a gun to punch a hole in a can, but not rob a grocery store)

Ecutek:
Without specific information on what they claim to be their IP, and considering the tune is performed for a consulting fee by the tuner, not Ecutek, I don't see a problem copying an ECUtek MAP, but not full ROM image.
If the tuner wants the customer to sign an agreement that the IP of the tune itself is owned by the tuner, then I can see legal protection from distribution. But without an agreement, I consider it a consulting service, paid by the hour at a high rate ($100+/hr), and ownership, use, and storage of the tune is retained by the customer who paid for the tune. Same goes for a Protune. The method and tool used is irrelevent!
The Ecutek License itself, which we know little about, should not be circumvented, IMHO. I'd really hate to see Ecutek having to release blacklists of license serial numbers to tuners and such. Again, we really have no idea (yet) how this works. If it really comes down to it, Ecutek cannot bully anyone without specifically stating what infringement is occuring. Ecutek cannot claim full ownership of the format and data stored in their ROM flashes. I don't need to take a close look to realize their flashes are still a majority of Subaru spec data. At worst, I see Ecutek data being legally "tradable" as long as their license data, or any data or programming they are solely responsible for is blocked out. But the actual data? I say have at it.

I do believe Ecutek provides basemaps for their tuners to start with. As with Cobb OTS maps, I don't think event those maps should be distributed to those who did not pay for them.

I don't know precisely what they do, but if you were to copy a Cobb map to several cars, it may leave your AP married to all of those cars. Or maybe they store a code in the AP hardware that represents a non-writable, unique field on the ECU. Is there some sort of ECU serial number? I think doing this is certainly circumnavigating a copy protection scheme, which is illegal under the DMCA in the US. Cobb's copy protection is their own device, not owned by Subaru, and they certainly have the right to enforce it.

So the short of it:
Should not be done:
Bypassing copy protection schemes Cobb and Ecutek have created.
Concurrently, copying their entire ROM may defeat their copy protection, and I highly suggest that distribution of full ROMs of this nature be avoided at least for the time being.
Have at it:
Distribute data maps that you have paid a consultant to create for you, stored in a format that is open source or Subaru owned. I.e. screenshots of Enguinity, or if eventually created, an open source map file.
Needs to be investigated:
What do Cobb and Ecutek do to protect their work, so pirating it can be avoided.
What I'd like to see from Cobb and Ecutek:
Information on if copying full maps would defeat their copy protection or not, and if so, what information or memory addresses could be blocked out to avoid this. Then concurrently, some compliance by this community to build this avoidance into the tools.

Couple of other points:
Enforcability. Cobb and Ecutek cannot selectively attack a member of this community while simultaneously ignoring one another. Subaru and/or Denso or whatever ECU manufacturer owns almost entirely the IP that could ever come into question.

Cobb and Ecutek are doomed in the end, IMHO. I see no reason why anyone who pay $600-850 for a license that is completely unnecessary in leu of open source tools which do precisely the same thing. Cobb will still have map switching, Ecutek may still have launch control, but I think these features will be discovered legitimately by the community here. I highly suspect the Cobb "real time" map switching it little more than writing the learned volatile RAM map, and Ecutek's LC is inherent in the Subaru ECU somehow.
I think it is important that their entire ROM images not be shared so that these features can be discovered legitimately.

I'd much rather see the community come up with truly open source maps rather than steal Cobb or Ecutek's work. This is a great project with lots of potential. Let's not mar it by stealing the parts they truly DID create.
Freon
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 5:50 pm
Location: Indianapolis, IN

Postby Spiider » Tue Nov 29, 2005 1:09 pm

This train left the station about a year ago.....

I think you should read a bit, a lot of this has been discussed.
Spiider
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:16 pm

Postby Jeramie » Tue Nov 29, 2005 1:57 pm

LOL :D I was thinking the same thing.

Forget using "Canned" Maps. Everyone here now has the tools to create their own maps.

Time to start learning about tuning. :)
Jeramie
 
Posts: 155
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 12:45 pm
Location: Quakertown, PA

Postby Imp Guerra » Wed Nov 30, 2005 5:00 am

legal - illegal - legal - illegal....
people, are you not tired yet ?
ecutek was started in garage, they had Subaru Select Monitor and suked to dry Subaru protocol with oscilloscope with memory.
Is it legal ?
:lol:

read
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/opendiag/message/648
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/opendiag/message/644
also
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/opendiag/message/1218

now these people make big money
from ideas that were sucked from internet and from SSM
FHI do not claim.
It is profitable to FHI that their cars can be modified, can win at sport events...
just flash as u want with what u want and do not care a fig !
User avatar
Imp Guerra
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Minsk Soviet Union

Postby Jon [in CT] » Thu Dec 01, 2005 12:39 pm

Neither Cobb nor Ecutek have enforceable intellectual property rights to the ROM images their devices produce. At best, their ROM images would be deemed a "derivative work" by the US Copyright office (see http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf).
In any case where a protected work is used unlawfully,
that is, without the permission of the owner of copyright,
copyright will not be extended to the illegally used part.

WHO MAY PREPARE A DERIVATIVE WORK?

Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare,
or to authorize someone else to create, a new version
of that work. The owner is generally the author or someone
who has obtained rights from the author.


The only entity that has an enforceable copyright is the one that created the OEM ROM image, which I presume is FHI.
Jon [in CT]
 
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 10:23 am

Postby FrSTi » Thu Dec 01, 2005 2:12 pm

Jon [in CT] wrote:The only entity that has an enforceable copyright is the one that created the OEM ROM image, which I presume is FHI.


Denso did ;)
FrSTi
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 6:09 am
Location: facing my laptop

Postby m1borromeo » Thu Jan 19, 2006 4:49 pm

FrSTi wrote:
Jon [in CT] wrote:The only entity that has an enforceable copyright is the one that created the OEM ROM image, which I presume is FHI.


Denso did ;)


Under License from FHI
m1borromeo
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 8:24 am

Postby FrSTi » Thu Jan 26, 2006 8:17 am

m1borromeo wrote:
FrSTi wrote:
Jon [in CT] wrote:The only entity that has an enforceable copyright is the one that created the OEM ROM image, which I presume is FHI.


Denso did ;)


Under License from FHI


You might be right, but this is not stated in the ROM :wink:
FrSTi
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 6:09 am
Location: facing my laptop

Postby crispyduck » Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:09 am

Assume we are talking about the factory standard maps. What do we think about the Newage PPP offering? Is this copyright IM?
crispyduck
 
Posts: 186
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 1:15 pm
Location: www.scoobypedia.co.uk

Postby Spiider » Thu Jan 26, 2006 2:17 pm

IMO, no iterations of "prior art" are considered to be copyright to anyone other than the original owner.

They can copyright the method of reflashing if it is significantly different than prior methods, they can copyright the software interface if it is their own, but not the rom which was originally copyright by Subaru/Denso.

It says copyright denso inside every rom that I am aware of.
Spiider
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:16 pm

Postby FrSTi » Fri Jan 27, 2006 9:07 am

Spiider wrote:IMO, no iterations of "prior art" are considered to be copyright to anyone other than the original owner.

They can copyright the method of reflashing if it is significantly different than prior methods, they can copyright the software interface if it is their own, but not the rom which was originally copyright by Subaru/Denso.

It says copyright denso inside every rom that I am aware of.


You're right, at least in my opinion...

For info, I had a carefull look across a PPP reflash ROM and I didn't find any particular copyright mention on top of the 2 usual Denso's.
FrSTi
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 6:09 am
Location: facing my laptop

Postby Spiider » Fri Jan 27, 2006 5:54 pm

Bingo.

So who's to say who holds copyright to a particular rom (besides Denso) if there is no plainly identifiable info inside the rom?
Spiider
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:16 pm

Postby Nemis » Sun Jan 29, 2006 7:56 am

Spiider wrote:Bingo.

So who's to say who holds copyright to a particular rom (besides Denso) if there is no plainly identifiable info inside the rom?


open with notepad ah581-5122_cpu.hex or ah793_cpu.hex or aj870-8840_cpu.hex or other rom file, you can see Copy by and date 1998 or 2000 or 2004
Nemis
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 3:58 am
Location: italy

Postby Spiider » Mon Jan 30, 2006 4:37 am

Yes Nemis, these are the copyright notifications we are talking about.

Since it only says that it is copyright Denso, I do not think that we can really tell precisely who would otherwise hold a copyright, or even if the notification is a valid one.
Spiider
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:16 pm

Re:

Postby Mart » Mon Jun 14, 2010 6:49 am

old fun stuff :)



Imp Guerra wrote:legal - illegal - legal - illegal....
people, are you not tired yet ?
ecutek was started in garage, they had Subaru Select Monitor and suked to dry Subaru protocol with oscilloscope with memory.
Is it legal ?
:lol:

read
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/opendiag/message/648
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/opendiag/message/644
also
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/opendiag/message/1218

now these people make big money
from ideas that were sucked from internet and from SSM
FHI do not claim.
It is profitable to FHI that their cars can be modified, can win at sport events...
just flash as u want with what u want and do not care a fig !
Mart
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 5:51 pm

Next

Return to Legal

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest