this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2024
1285 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

58697 readers
4840 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.”

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] baggins@lemmy.ca 186 points 5 days ago (15 children)

An API is not copyrightable 🤔

[–] PriorityMotif@lemmy.world 100 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Doesn't stop companies from sending bogus DMCA takedowns to sites like GitHub.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 93 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
[–] boogiebored@lemmy.world 91 points 4 days ago (4 children)

"capitalism promotes healthy competition"

[–] spyd3r@sh.itjust.works -5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

And Communism does so much "better":

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] slaacaa@lemmy.world 33 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

Don’t forget innovation:

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Croquette@sh.itjust.works 26 points 4 days ago

One of the biggest lie of all time.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] LordCrom@lemmy.world 76 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Having a car without internet connectivity would be a feature for privacy minded consumers

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 69 points 4 days ago (5 children)

Bets on which car company is going to be the first to EOL a server and brick a bunch of cars because some key feature is now "unsupported"?

[–] ebc@lemmy.ca 23 points 4 days ago

Enel is currently doing exactly that with their electric car chargers (the Juicebox), they've decided to pull out from the North American market and just shut down the servers. Like WTF, at least open-source the thing...

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Fizz@lemmy.nz 62 points 5 days ago

Car manufacturers are being so blatant about this stuff. It goes to show that they know how slow regulation is and they can milk it for all its worth.

[–] phoneymouse@lemmy.world 58 points 5 days ago (44 children)

There is no need for the internet to use remote start

[–] the_tab_key@lemmy.world 24 points 4 days ago

I just bought a new car and it has internet enabled remote start. The salesman touted the feature. My response: "oh so I can start the car in [one state] while I'm in [another state] so it's ready for me when I get back?" He didn't have a good response for that. Nice car, dumbass feature.

load more comments (43 replies)
[–] firepenny@lemmy.world 49 points 5 days ago (5 children)

Why does the car need an internet connection? Rather get a car from 2005-2010 that doesn't connect to the internet, more have a stupid subscription.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 46 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Imagine a world where the laws are literally used to opress you!

Now open your eyes.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 45 points 5 days ago (11 children)

So...who is making the open source car?

[–] milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee 48 points 5 days ago (7 children)

Someone very rich who doesn't feel the need to get arbitrarily richer.

So no one.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Tygr@lemmy.world 41 points 5 days ago (4 children)

Well, crap! Was seriously looking at the CX50. I’m not paying monthly to use stuff that’s already equipped in the car. Just madness.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 37 points 4 days ago

Reason number 29474929273 why we should ban internet access on cars

[–] DudeImMacGyver@sh.itjust.works 26 points 3 days ago

Paid subscriptions to use features of the car you bought should be illegal

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›