This problem stems from regressives screwing up contract law (bear with me it’s a long story). Some law professors though contract law needed to be updated and so they created the UCC which applies to certain types of contractual transactions. One of the requirements is an implied warranty of merchantability (meaning the warrant was required regardless of what the contract said). Unfortunately, in the early days of standalone s/w the products could not meet this warranty. As a result, they decide to license the s/w rather than sell it. This took them outside of the UCC and the implied warrant. Because the s/w is licensed not sold then it avoids the first sale doctrine. Also because the ability to enforce and obtain patents directed to software inventions was limited, s/w companies relied on their copyrights (which were weak), and their licensing agreements. As a result, their licensing agreements stated you would not reverse engineer, modify, or even look at the source code (of course they never provided it). However, I do not believe the auto companies sell you the car and license you the software. So I don’t think they have a leg to stand on under standard copyright law. But the DMCA may apply if the s/w is encrypted.

The UCC and weak or non-existent patent protection for s/w in the early years caused a number of other problems. Including that when you got the s/w you could not modify or integrate it into other s/w. This would be like buying a car and not being able to put different tires or a different muffler on it. This clearly frustrated many who were sophisticated in s/w which started another bad solution – radical open source (non-radical open source makes sense for many things – think of standardized interfaces). This would not have happened if there had been strong patent protection for s/w implemented inventions and the UCC did not have the implied warrant of merchantability.
So once again we see one idiotic do good thing by regressives over 50 years ago and one anti-property move by regressives over 40 years ago compounded into numerous problems – AND the solution is more patches rather than solving the underlying problems.

I think Harry Browne is right in his book on living free. I say on things like this, rely on the hackers to get you what you need to fix whats yours. Do it quietly and get the job done.

You really should be able to go in there and change the programming if you want to also.

If they want to lease it to you under the condition that you are their slave, so be it. But if they sell it to you, I say its yours, period.

I think that this can be attacked legally. I do not think that anyone buying a car/truck agreed to license to the software. This problem started with the UCC's requirement for a warrant of merchanitability. The chain of events is too long to describe here, but I have posted on this exact point on the gulch

Having been in the publishing biz I thought I was familiar with copyright laws. Wrong! This is not only a classic example of collateral damage, but it could spell the end of the independent mechanic. The independent mechanic is the very symbol of Americanism. Another way we have lost a part of the independent endeavor which once was the very symbol of how this country prospered.