Mazda's $10 subscription for remote start sparks backlash after killing open source workaround via DMCA takedown
Mazda's $10 subscription for remote start sparks backlash after killing open source workaround via DMCA takedown
Right-to-repair advocates believe that car owners should have full ownership of the technology embedded in their vehicles
Mazda recently surprised customers by requiring them to sign up for a subscription in order to keep certain services. Now, notable right-to-repair advocate Louis Rossmann is calling out the brand.
It’s important to clarify that there are two very different types of remote start we’re talking about here. The first type is the one many people are familiar with where you use the key fob to start the vehicle. The second method involves using another device like a smartphone to start the car. In the latter, connected services do the heavy lifting.
Transition to paid services
What is wild is that Mazda used to offer the first option on the fob. Now, it only offers the second kind, where one starts the car via phone through its connected services for a $10 monthly subscription, which comes to $120 a year. Rossmann points out that one individual, Brandon Rorthweiler, developed a workaround in 2023 to enable remote start without Mazda’s subscription fees.
However, according to Ars Technica, Mazda filed a DMCA takedown notice to kill that open-source project. The company claimed it contained code that violated “[Mazda’s] copyright ownership” and used “certain Mazda information, including proprietary API information.”
You're viewing a single thread.
An API is not copyrightable 🤔
Doesn't stop companies from sending bogus DMCA takedowns to sites like GitHub.
There are no penalties for filling a bogus DMCA takedown and the legal cost for restoring the content falls on the victim of such a takedown: the DMCA legislation was designed exactly for it to be used as Mazda and many other use it against individuals and small companies who can't spend thousands of dollars fighting bogus takedowns.
Why is there no big alternative hosted outside of the US where your DMCA does not apply?
There are other centralised code hosting services, for example Codeberg, but they are equally scared of any legal action even when it doesn't directly apply.
There are penalties. They require proof of intent, however. So there are no penalties.
It’s intent is harassment.
it seems everything is copyrightable if you are rich enough
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_Inc.
When two very rich entities argued about it it was determined you can't copyright API.
Sure, but if you're not rich and they sue you, you loose. No matter what, you'll run out of money before successfully using that case.
I wasn't disagreeing.
Where are the EFF fighting this?
You're assuming the law matters when a company can hire a team of lawyers and a solo dev can't
I'm saying that when both sides have "infinite money" the "truth" can be found lol.
And if they want to attack car owners for doing what they want with their own car let's go to court and see how fast their bullshit holds up.
Can't wait for the inevitable "You don't actually own the car, you just have a lifetime licence/lease to use the car"
That's being normalized right now with video games. It'll happen with other things soon enough too.
Frankly, for a lot of places, I don't know that would be such a bad idea.
Now doing the same for land, that would be bad...
It could make sense if the price were reflecting of not owning the car. But we know damn well that you would pay full price as if the car was yours, but you just wouldn't own it.
Oh well, "if buying isn't owning..." Time to watch some Lockpicking Lawyer and trundle down to the car licensing lot and indulge in a little piracy >;-)