NefMoto

What constitutes stealing when it comes to ECU tunes?

Technically all ME7 tuners are only modifying the systems that were made by Bosch. No one says we are stealing from Bosch by enabling systems that are disabled in OEM engine computers. No one says we are stealing from Bosch by tuning data to produce more power then the OEM tunes due.

Thoughts?

Like you said, we are all modifying Bosch's equipment; however when you sell a tune, you are not selling the SW, you are selling a SERVICE. AFAIK nobody has a license to sell Bosch's copyrighted SW.

Now stealing would be just blatently copying someone's elses tune and call it as their own or just flashing or cloning something you didn't pay for. I think its pretty simple.

I agree that if you take someones work, and then sell it unmodified, and call it your own, then that is stealing. You are making money off of someones work without giving them credit.

Ultimately I believe that when you get a tune for your car, you are paying the tuner to tune your car. You are either paying them to put a copy of a standard tune on your car, or paying them to create a custom tune for your car. Once the tune is on your car, it belongs to you and not the tuner. If you sign an agreement saying otherwise, then that is another matter.

Personally I see the value in a skilled tuners time to tune a car. Selling copies of a standard tune for hundreds of dollars each is not fair in my opinion, because there is no limit in the number of copies that can be made, and no effort is needed to create another copy. Paying for the service of the tuner to custom tune your car seems much more realistic to me.

Also if you buy a car that already has tuned sw in it, purchased by one of the previous owners how could you be held accountable for what ever you choose to do with the ecu or sw .
I think sharing files is fine for r&d for your own knowledge ,Im sure tuners look at each others work if the get the chance.
Bazaa

Another thing I think about when it comes to copying tunes is copy protection. If a tuner believes the tune they made really is worth a lot of money, then they should invest in good copy protection like APR.

My view point on this is as follows.

Only Bosch holds the rights to ECU software and only they can possibly pursue after and sue people for modifying or selling their software.

No tuner has the right or legal foot to go after anybody replicating "their" tune as the file doesn't belong to them at all.

Moreover, they need to sit quiet and enjoy the qui pro quo situation they're in and collect money from people who have no skills to modify it on their own.


End of story.

Now if said tuner came out with their own engine management system, invested years of development into its software and was selling thatm, then sure, they would hold the rights to software and could go after anybody they wanted.

This is how I feel.

On the topic of reusing pieces of code brought up in the anti-lag thread: I like to see code shared openly so long as the original developer(s) are properly credited.

Well I agree with you partly on this. I do tuning for a fee, so you will get a tuners point of view: I always do custom tuning, and I ask the customer if they feel the tune is good or if it needs any tweaks. I never reflash the same ol' file over and over and over again. However, someone buying a tune from me doesn't grant them the right to re-use any of my modified maps/code into making a tune for someone else. I don't mind them tweaking it for their own use, however, I already offer this for free.
One thing is looking at someone else's work and another is copying maps to tune other cars with.

Im sure a lot of people look at another person's work. The thing is that sometimes some individuals just take the easy route and copy some maps over, change the numbers slightly and call it their own...
Well what about Revo? Their trials are KNOWN to fudge with your ECU so after the trial is over, your car is slower. Not to mention other things they do to ME7/MED9 to make other tuner's lives miserable and make them look bad.

That's not protection; that's being a jerk.

Put yourself in a tuner's shoes and ask yourself if you would like everyone that has a 15 dollar dongle and pirated software (and Im not saying anyone on here does this, bear with me) to be able to copy your tune and/or even sell it without you getting one cent for all your hard work?

Just so everyone knows, Im not against this forum or anybody on here at all. Im here to share info.

I have a few comments as a newb: -

Most other forms of hacking are open and free. Jailbreaks for phones and consoles being a good example. In these cases the copyrighted code is never distributed - it is always patched in order to remain legal. This is an honest question, how come tuners sell BIN files that are 90% Bosch code without the same fears?


I have heard this often and even repeated it myself here, but can you please link to any test evidence of this (probably best in a new thread though).

It all comes down to moral's of the individual, i can copy out a unitronic big turbo tune, and flash ecu's and sell them all day as unitronic big turbo ECU's and make money, however, i dont believe in that practice, nor should anyone do that. 

Now would a company have an legal protection against this? Not really.  Lets say i change a few things in the maps and now sell it as my own, now im no different than any other tuner.  Im not saying tuners copy off each other, but we all modify bosch code, at the end of the day.  The only person who may have potential rights to this software would be bosch, but clearly its not an issue to them that i know of.

The most one could take legal action on is intellectual property rights.  That is not always easy to win.

I honestly couldn't care less seeing that I could tune my car from scratch in one day and have it decently running.

OTS tunes don't deserve to be paid more than what the hourly rate to hire a mechanic costs, which would be about 100 per tune if you can't be bothered to do it yourself.

The only reason OTS tunes are so expensive is:

#1 because the companies spent a lot of money making futile attempts to protect the 5 maps they changed

#2 people generally don't know how to make changes

#3 there is a bit of equipment and software required to make such changes

Custom tune on a DYNO, different story. But then you can't just copy custom tune and have it working right on some other car so there is an inherent protection from people grabbing these.

I own ECU tunes, did I steal them? no. I was given them or asked for them..

Stealing would be taking without the owners permission. So who owns these files? The tuner or the person that paid the tuner to install the file on his ecu...

So what about the Dealers who buy their maps from someone else under franchise like Revo? Does the tuner own them or Revo.. You pay your money to the tuner..

 

If it's not specifically copyrighted, and you haven't entered a contract stating you will not do such (sometimes a purchase agreement), it's not stealing.

That's not to say it's ethical tho

I don't think off the shelf tunes are worth $600 USD. Hec, not even custom tunes for a stock car is worth that much.

With that said, just the fact that they are overpriced doesn't grant anyone the right to copy their file. If you don't like the price, just don't buy it. Plain simple.

I think the issue is pretty cut-and-dry.

If you use somebody else's code, and it causes them a direct loss of revenue, then you are stealing.

For example if you copy APR's map switching code and don't pay them, or worse use it as your own and sell it as a feature, you are stealing from APR.

If you take somebody's calibration that you didn't pay for and use it, you are stealing.  If you sell it as your own, you're stealing.

If you take somebody's calibration and tweak it slightly, it's a grey area... on one hand you're probably smart enough to have started from scratch, but on the other hand, their calibration as a baseline likely saved you time.

Bosch likely doesn't care what we do because we do not cause a loss of revenue for them.  If Bosch was selling aftermarket tunes, then I'm sure they'd take exception.  If we cloned the hardware, and then used their code for a car we were building to mass produce, then I'm sure they'd have an issue as it would be considered a loss in revenue.

Edit:  I also agree $600 off-the-shelf tunes are bullshit.  $600 should include 3 dyno pulls with a wideband, and tweaks to the file specific to your car if required.

Most of the opinions have now been expressed.

I have a Revo Stage 2 on my car. I guess it would have been a relatively simple matter to flash it off my ECU and post it up here and, specifically, to have benchmarked the key maps against the base 240 PS TT Clubsport and 225 PS maps so we could get a good handle on which maps the pro tuners change and how.

Something tells me this is hacking though, or is it that I don't want the dealer to find out in case they get huffy and refuse to work on my car. It might not be technically illegal, but my conscience has stopped me up to now.

Are pro tuners licensed by the OEM of the ECU (usually Bosch) to 'reverse engineer, dissassemble and modify' their software code? Surely the ECU codes are treated legally the same as any computer software with respect to hacking/tweaking?

The bordeline must be if someone sells, publishes or passes off modified code as their own. Messing with your own ECU doesn't cause a material or financial loss to anyone.

Doug

^^^Apparently Revo already stole that code from APR.

So the rumour goes. However, I couldn't possibly comment! ;-)

After having looked into tuning in a bit more depth, I now appreciate that states of tune are relatively minor tweaks and adjustments in key sections of a small number of maps so it's academic. Had I decided to get it done a month earlier, the car would have had an APR flavour Stage 2 instead.

Doug

Doug

I agree
I suppose Bosch are not to concerned as i dont see they make a loss from this ,they make their money from the sale of the ecu's ect to the vehicle manufacturer .
unlike the computer/games industry who dont like their code adjusted in any way as this is used to defraud them out of where their real money comes from the selling of games/software.Bosch's concern would probably only be if you had some chinese ecu/ clone with their software/designs used.
Barry

I agree with parts of almost everyone here.  It really is a tough call.  There are a couple of cases where I see it clearly as unethical, and one is:
- An individual straight clones another's modified ECU and sells it as their own (like, say, the alleged 10secS4 Marc situation, if he didn't tweak it)

Other than that, we're all modifying someone else's stuff.  And I agree that we're paying the tuner for a service (ie to modify our maps), and after that, I have the right to do whatever I want with it on my personal stuff (like, for example, I paid retail to an authorized GIAC dealer for a stage 1+ tune for my B6 A4, and I wish I would've copied the tune before I sold the car so that I could put it on another B6 if I ever get one).

Same goes for hardware for me.  For example, if I pay someone to design and fabricate me a custom, one-off piece of hardware (maybe a turbo inlet or something), then I would feel no shame in getting that replicated in China and selling it, or whatever.  I paid the designer good money for his time to design and fabricate something that I requested of him, and I then own the hardware and am free to do what I will with the design and hardware that I bought off of him.  This is all IMO.

Well lets flip the cards around now.

If some community-driven code gets released, is it correct for me to sell it in a tune?
Some of you think its OK to copy someone else's tune, but what if I used some code you released here on the forums and sell it for a profit?

Like I said before, I believe they are paying for the service.  I'm sure the people who are contributing here are already well at terms with that possibility.  If someone is willing to pay for a tune, then so be it.  I just hope at least that the tuner is competent enough and put his effort into understanding the stuff though, but I can't see how people who would be happy taking someone else's code could be conflicted about someone using their freely released code.  Plus, most of what is released by the community are rough baselines that need to be tuned for the car anyways, so it's not really a cut-and-paste deal.

Well see some people take take and do not give back.
I wouldn't be surprised if someone who thinks they can use someone else's tune without paying for it say that its sacrilege for me to sell tunes with openly released code.

I could post right now a tune and make it open source so we can improve it, but all that is going to happen is that only 2 individuals out of 150 will pitch in.The rest will be like "ooo! free tune!" and just flash it on their car without knowing what they put in there. Or even worse, just sell it without even changing the identifying strings I write in all my tunes.

I don't understand why are you so bitter about possibility of somebody selling tunes... They are posted here for FREE, if somebody wants to come around and resell them, what do we care, I mean really care?

This idea of this site is based on openness and allowing people to do what previously they had to pay for @ tuners. Since anybody can come and grab a tune and then flash it for a total of $15 (for cable) them this in itself will limit a number of possible clients and reseller can get since now the stuff is for free. Why would anybody pay for free stuff then except maybe and small fee for doing actual flashing if you don't have a cable!

The apparent value of tunes to date was in difficulty to obtain any information regarding tuning process on ME 7.x and lack of tools to do it "on a budged". This era just ended. What was worth $599 at APR just couple of months ago is now FREE here, or will be shortly anyway.

So post all relevant info without holding back as this will advance the research. If you're holding back - enjoy. If you have no resources or skills to contribute but still want to participate, take tunes, test them, spread the word, whatever - just enjoy.

If you're completely clueless, there are alternatives to paying somebody for doing the tuning work/flashing, like Maestro from Eurodyne. All in-one product that will still allow you to do high-level tuning but takes care of flashing/logging and other associated headaches with creating tunes in current state of affairs.

I'm not bitter, at all. The fact that I contribute to this forum (or at least try) should tell you something.

I just don't like people being spoonfed. Nobody spoonfed me.
Next thing you know this forum will be swamped with noobies asking the same questions again and again and trying to get a free tune. I've been involved in a lot of scenes and seen this happen over and over again.

My moto is: Give someone a fish and they eat for a day. Teach someone how to fish and they can eat for a lifetime. Guide people towards the light, but don't give them a 100% working file to flash and go. People should be here to LEARN not just get free stuff. Im not opposed to people having the ability to tune their ECU's with a cheap dongle and some TunerPro plugins. Im just against spoonfeeding. Spoonfeeding destroys communities.

Im not trying to get into a heated argument. I'm just giving my opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

I appreciate your point of view.

I merely tried to point out that for every person who can figure stuff out since they have a mix of necessary skills to succeed or at least get by, there are tons of people who are not programmers or have no necessary knowledge to at least properly tune a car but can still benefit from this forum and they are still very interested in cars. Maybe they can wrench much better than we can but are otherwise challenge when it comes to electronics and programming.


Influx of people with silly questions who can't even properly search is inevitable but I hope that at least the entry level of knowledge will stop the worst ones in their tracks :)

Cheers.

Funny what happens when you don't pay your employees-- they leave to start their own venture. No code was stolen, the intellectual property and brains behind that development walked out of APR on his own two feet.

Funny what happens when you sign a NDA and break it...

I agree about the n00b influx, but honestly the onus lies on us to make the wiki robust so people can quickly and easily find answers to questions.

If somebody wants to resell code found in the public domain, I don't have any problem with it - I think they should give credit where credit is due, but I'm not sure anybody will be willing to do that.  I look at it from a service standpoint that if somebody integrates code from multiple sources, and combine them into one big super file (anti-lag, launch control, map switching, etc) somebody who is lazy is just paying for their service.

The days of $600 tunes is coming to an end I hope - the perceived value in a $600 stage 2 tune is that you're adding 80bhp to an S4 for example, without even opening the hood.  That's why people were able to stomach the cost - because there was extreme value in return for the $600... Those of us who know better, roll our eyes...

Noobs:
If there is an influx of noob questions that become repetitive, then that just shows that the wiki or forum needs more information to help new users get started. If we can educate noobs on what it really means to tune a car, then they can learn to do it themselves, or they can learn the value of what a real tuner does. If more people know what it takes to tune a car, and the value that a skilled tuner provides, then hopefully more of them will be willing to pay a skilled tuner, instead of random person on eBay.

Copying tunes without understanding:
If the ME7 tuning community is open and accessible, then when people do their google searches looking for eBay tunes, they should instead be finding the information we post ,about why it is worth while to pay a professional tuner, or do it yourself instead. We can't stop people from taking credit for others work, but we can try to educate people about better options.

Using commercial tunes as reference:
Everyone used Bosch OEM code and data as a reference. Now amateurs are using commercial tunes with code and data changes as a reference. Maybe it's an oversimplification, but it seems like this is no different than what the tuners did to Bosch. You can say that the tuners paid a lot of money to learn what they know, but Bosch also paid a lot of money to develop the hardware and software in the first place.

Open tuning in the ME7 platform:
The ME7 platform is about a decade old. If tuning the ME7 and standard modifications to the code doesn't become public knowledge now, then why should I bother with this old car?

Ownership and stealing:
It is not possible to steal something from someone if they don't own it in the first place. Aside from Bosch, I don't know if any ME7 tuner is able to legally claim they own the files they tuned. Ethics aside, ownership is a legal issue.

Nope, if we get a noob influx, I guarantee you 120% they will ignore wiki and stickies and come and ask dumb questions like "Where can I get free tunez for my VEEDUB yo".
Spoonfeeding attracts undesirable people. Period.

I've seen this happen in a million other places.

With that said, this is not my site so I won't be the one worrying about getting my site flooded with n00bs and the more intelligent/knowledgeable folks leaving.

Make the knowledge available, yes. Say no to spoonfeeding though.
Unless you want to attract people like this:
(http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/6338/img55838bb.jpg)

PS: One thing I would really like to see come out of this community is recognition of skilled professional tuners. If companies like Eurodyne are going to push the envelope with anti-lag, while other companies just sell the same thing they did 5 years ago with a bad idle, we need to be promoting Eurodyne.

If noobs can't tune their cars themselves, and we don't want to promote bad tuners or copying of tunes without credit, then we need to help the noobs know who they should be paying their money to.

I've not seen any site that has well written Motronic guides. Only "what's in it for me" responses.

I wasn't talking specifically about sites about Motronic tuning guides but other 'scene' websites.

I was specifically talking about other motronic tuning "scene" websites :)

They're run by (and inhabited by) glass bead trading game wankers who want you to learn the secret handshake and swear to their "pro-tuner" brand of secrecy/idiocy. There's no documentation because "that would be giving it away for free, and what's in it for me, I have to recoup my $10k of money I spent on rumor and innuendo"

The worse the documentation, the more annoying the noobs are, because you can't say "read this first".

Good documentation takes care of 90% of those noobs. the remaining 10% can simply be ignored.

If, on the other hand, your site culture has a "i'll tell you if you give me something in return" aspect, you'll get the same question asked 100000000x by noobs, and it will never be answered satisfactorily.

Simple moderation can filter the noise and set the tone.

Well said!

Some good debate here guys. I'd like to add a few points of my own:

I've spent some time researching Motronic operation and tuning, but I'm still no way near confident enough to tinker with my own car and there's NO WAY I would download anything off the internet and flash it straight onto my car without applying a lot of checks and balances first. I trust the professionals, so newbies are operating at some risk just leeching off amateur internet tuning sites. It's not so much that I think that members are average tuners, it's just that internet forums are impersonal places and cowboys can hide behind cloaks of anonymity.

In the space of a few days, I've had PMs from two 'noobs'. I won't name users but one offered polite, sincere and profuse thanks for a contribution I made. The other, in stark contrast, was an offhand, irritating, desperate leecher.

Guess which I replied to?

Third, the previous forum I was a member of had a lot of technical information and social chat. I left for various reasons but up there on the long list of issues were the number of noobs asking the same old boring questions. Lack of basic technical & engineering knowledge and judgement irritated me intensely. E.g. a guy removed a 19 kg rear corner balance weight from a front heavy car, found the car went light at the back end during cornering and proudly proclaimed this to be a job well done. Two pages of calculations later refuting this idiocy and all you get is sarcasm, flamed and dumbass comments like "weight is weight!!!!!"

I hope you all appreciate how much of an enlightened bunch you guys seem after two years of that crap. :-)

Doug

I'm loving this debate. Nyet nailed it for me in his last post. As for the inevitable bottom feeders, could the SMITE ranking be used to quickly mute persistent poor behaviour?

A simple 'rep' feature will not stop anyone from asking dumb questions or being a jerk.

Real moderation will be needed in the near future.

Ultimately I am unsure what is the best way to prevent blatant copying of tunes and noobs that come to the site for nothing but free files. But the more I restrict that kind of thing, the more we restrict tuning development. People find this site through word of mouth and google search, if the content is not openly searchable then no one will find it. Forcing development or analysis of tuned files to be private, will prevent skilled people from ever finding the topics to join in the discussion on.

Angry Birds vs Tiny Wings: Imitation is the sincerest form of ornithology
http://www.dorkly.com/video/15953/dorkly-bits-angry-birds-vs-tiny-wings

The more I think about it the more convinced I am that putting probation where you cannot post/message on new accounts is the way to go. It would have to be a significant amount of time like 1 week or so so that "idiots" lose interest but people genuinely interested in the matter will either wait or find other means to speed up the process.

For the record, not a fan of any kind of moderation.

It just gives people a game to play, and moderators will be forced to waste their whole day playing the MMORPG that is the moderation game.

So you are a fan of noobdom and havoc then?  :P

As a complete NOOB, I'd like to chime in here. 

I don't intend to ask a bunch of the same old questions, but I'm sure I will.  If answers to those are hard to find, I'll either get lazy or frustrated with the search.  Then I'll feel like I'm stuck and need to ask something.  Documentation is a better way to ward off the pesky noobs than moderators, for reasons already stated. 

I'll use my situation as an example.  I'm at a decision point on my car, and will either start making simple modifications and learn to tune accordingly, stick with what I've got, or pay someone to tune it.  I'm interested in tuning myself, and would like to learn to do so.  However, I need a running car; preferably one that runs as well as the $500 OTS tune runs it, but accounting for the few small changes I'm making mechanically as I reinstall my engine.  I have little to no hope of becoming a tuner, by anyone's definition, in the next week.  I'm hoping to get my bench flash setup going (thanks to Matt Danger's blog and contributions by others), and find something to flash onto a spare ECU and get on the road.  I will have no clue whether that tune was well made, or how it was done, until I understand more of the process.  Once things are up and running, I'll have a much better ability to peruse the maps, look at the data, and learn the ins and outs. 

I've been in organizations before in which people invest really heavy amounts of time and energy building something; SAE racing teams, specifically.  In the end some of the people are happy to pass the knowledge on; knowing they did some good and improved themselves in doing so.  Others, however, are possessive of the information and think it unfair that someone can benefit from it without putting in tons of the exact same effort just to end up in the exact same spot.  It's silly, in a way, because they don't realize they themselves only got as far as they did because they didn't have to re-invent the wheel, the ECU, or Tuner Pro.  Pass on all the knowledge you can, document everything as well as you reasonably can, and watch it grow long after you have done your bit.  Don't make people needlessly reinvent your work out of selfishness.  Don't expect people to climb the same mountain just because you did.  If that happens, then only one mountain ever gets climbed. 

I look forward to working alongside you folks and figuring out what all of this is about.  I see this project following along the same lines as the DIY EFI project did.  It sarted because some clever folks didn't feel like paying for OTS ECU hardware like Haltech and the more expensive ones.  They realized the hardware only needed a few simple things to work, and started making ECU's.  They documented things well enough that someone who can handle it could get an ECU built.  Over the years a few people took that technology and made it even more accessible. MegaSquirt and VEMS resulted; both pretty huge improvements over the OTS stuff in terms of flexibility, tunability, and allowing for creativity.  This is the next step; using even less expensive technology and hardware (stock ECU's and hardware) and allowing a little of the same flexibility and tunability.  Every Noob who buys a basic megasquirt board and becomes proficient with it shouldn't feel bad he didn't start on the DIYEFI boards in 2000 and make his own board; neither should today's noobs here be made to struggle needlessly when they could be trained to advance the art instead of repeating it. 

I have a question concerning the development of XDF files and the legality of reverse engineering ECU definition files. 

How are "hack" files obtained or developed as described here- http://www.tunerpro.net/tutorials/CreatingECUs.htm

and if "hack" files are not used in the development of the XDF files, how do people reverse engineer the map locations. 

Was there anything obtained from Bosch illegally to further the development of XDF files?

The "hack files" are commented assembly code, someone has disassembled the machine code to assembly code and worked out what it does.
If you understand how the code works you can find the map locations, alternatively if you know the likely format of the map you're interested in then you could find it by manually looking through the file in a hex editor or comparing against known files.

i think this is all a bit mute TBH.

Especially with say the me7.5 you only really need 1 fully defined file, and there are some floating about and you can make any other me7.5 xdf file you want, simple map comparison of know maps and locations very easily identifies maps in other files. If you're still stuck then dissembling the file, and knowing which variables are related to each map you can easily cross reference the Ida pro disassembly to locate the map you need. FR and me7 logger can provide all the info you need. What Mark was describing in his article really was before we knew as much as we do now...

What's a little more difficult is defining the routines for each map, but there are plugins such as Andy whitakers and now revised versions on nef that will rename know routines making it easy to locate them, Having been a forum member for a few years now the advances have so great that what was once a tough task is now easy and so evolution continues, EEPROM , map switching, emulation, dissambley , removing limiting functions, add new functions.. So it goes on...

This disassembly seems like it should be illegal to me.  I am no patent lawyer (yet) but this appears to me to be a form of stealing...

Are you here to stop people from disassembling code?  I don't see how it "should be illegal" or a form of stealing at all. 

If you buy an ECU you can do with it as you please.  It's no one's but your own IMO.  Modifying code and claiming it is your OWN code (ie tuning an ECU) is not right, because it's NOT yours, it's Bosch code that has been "messaged". 

Modifying and ECU and selling it is not wrong as long as you're not claiming the ECU/code is yours because you modified it. 

Tuners are just selling their services. If I make a map/complete tune for a car that is running a standalone I don't own the map/variables.  The end user does and even more so if I don't lock the map in the ECU the own is absolutely free to do with it as he pleases in the end.  He paid me to use my knowledge to program the ECU in his car.  You can't patent a bunch of random numbers (although I'm sure Apple would try).

While I'm sure that legalities of reverse engineering code could be argued, the issue here is that bosch hasn't once asserted a right over the intellectual property AFAIK. As such, this is a moot point. In the event bosch DID want to go after tuners, I can assure you it would be the commercial entities that would be targeted. We're talking about semantics here.

Ridiculous. The law doesn't work that way.

Honestly, the only time I think Bosch would have issue with any modification of their code would be if someone would come along, take a sotck ME ECU, add LC, NLS, etc... and then rebrand the ECU as "Nyet's Super duper ECU" for instance.

Bosch could certainly claim ownership rights to the software and issue a EULA to a person purchasing a vehicle (i.e. "by purchasing this vehicle you agree you will not disassemble the engine operating software...", but they haven't.

Exactly-because lets face it, what we do doesn't have any effect on them AT ALL.

Good point.  And how would they control the used car market?  Not practical.

Sorry, let me clerify, disassembling, manipulating and reselling for profit seems like it should be illegal. Not the disassembling for personal use.

You're basing your argument on a misconception. When a tuner tunes a car, he isn't selling the code, or the software, but rather his time and expertise.

Not always true. I bought a physical second ecu from a tuner with a tuned file. I think your are not viewin the code as property developed by Bosch. You are viewing a tune as a service when i am viewing it is a product.

How is it different than modifying any other consumer product?  Plenty of engine builders will pop 11:1 compression pistons into a customer's engine for pay.  The engine designer had a specific set of goals in mind with his original creation; however, the customer (and his service provider, the engine builder), had other ideas.  Taken one step further, let's say the carb no longer functions as intended, so now we have to change jets etc.  And we want to advance the timing curve  ("tuning").  All of which we paid someone else to do.  (Well, not me, but you get the idea.)  As long as you aren't claiming that it came from the factory that way, and you don;t try and make a warranty claim when something stupid you did bites you in the butt.

Not much different with this as far as I can see.

The law doesn't work that way, and if it did, it wouldn't have a carveout for personal use.

The fact that anybody thinks reverse engineering is unethical always frightens me.

You actually can patent numbers. Software is covered under intellectual property law.  Bosch developed checksums which are an anti-tuning method of keeping people who purchase cars from modifying the code.  You can manipulate your own ecu just like you can manipulate your own DVD but the moment you sell it you are getting into some serious trouble.

Checksums were put in place to prevent engine damage in the event a file became corrupted, not to prevent tuning.

Then why does Bosch continue to spend money developing more methods to prevent flashing of alternative data to the ecu?

Seriously!?!?
 

See my comments re: warranty claims above.

Warranty claims, requests from manufacturers, things like that.

Bottom line, unless you're copying the hardware or rebranding the ecu (lol @ nyet's super duper ecu), you can modify the code however you like UNTIL someone tells you otherwise in a legally satisfactory manor.

Reverse engineering to an extent is a huge gray area ethically. This can lead to potential legal trouble as well. Intellectual property is very interesting to me and I am trying to understand (without ip law education) where this gray area morally turns to an illegal act by a bunch of tuners.  

I don't think you can relate modifying an engine and selling it to modifying an ecu and selling it.

No. It is not. All of science is based on reverse engineering. What is ethically bankrupt is when lobbiests cram things like the DMCA down our throats, criminalizing something that should be a civil matter.


The entire 'IP' regime (in the US anyway) is corrupt and broken, and has been for a century now.


Of course I can.

(http://nyet.org/images/double_facepalm.jpg)

Dude, quit while you are ahead.

Bosch did not develop/invent checksums.

They use checksums, just like many other mfg's of hardware/software to verify that the code being executed is sane.  It has nothing to do with tuner-protection.

Tuner protection is something that is thrown-around too loosely now a days.  And of course they're going to make it harder to tune the ECU's as time passes.  But not because you're a threat to Bosch, but because with the use of flashed ECU's people are taking advantage of car mfg's by using their warranties to cover MODIFED cars.  

If you crank the boost up on a K03 to 20psi and it lasts 6 months because you're over spinning it by working far outside it's efficiency range and then bring it into the dealership to have the turbo replaced for free that is STEALING.  And mfg's know this is happening and they are trying to curb that these days with various tactics (like making the ECU harder to be accessed, or with internal things like VAG's TD1 situation).

Yes, seriously. Checksums were originally used to check the integrity of the ecu data but were continually developed into a way of protecting the data from unothlrozed modification.   Bosch has continued with this protection idea and developed further technology that I would consider "anti-tuning" technogy.

http://www.sharkperformance.co.uk/news/article.asp?id=129

Hey Nyet-isn't that the like the third time you've used Riker and Picard this week?

lol... I read that page as it was posted on AZ (which is probably where you got it from).

The real problem here is this.

You seem to believe one persons view on this (the person who wrote that article).  Unfortunately many will agree that it is simply not true.  And now you're here after reading some random website arguing that checksums = tuner protection.

Why not? If there's a flaw in the logic, point it out, don't just say it doesn't fit.

The distinction you seem to be having trouble with is that no one is reverse engineering anything with an intent to clone it and claim it as his own.  They are modifying what is already there, and generally it is going back into the same car it came out of. 

If someone were to completely reverse engineer the device and produce it for use in a different line of motor vehicle (or even clone the patented aspects of the software), that is a different animal.

He can't point it out because he like many others just twist it all around to suit their argument instead of stepping back and seeing the whole picture.

Oh fer...

Now doesn't that read like a "aren't we a bright bunch of people, you should give us your money" article?  Never seen that before.

Not all science is based off reverse engineering. Also some technologoes and sciences are not free to public knowledge and are property of the person or company who deceloped it. It sucks, but that's how the US works... Lol.

So are you admitting that it is illegal but shouldn't be?  If so, I agree.

Because engine blocks and ecu code are not treated the same in a legal setting.

Has anyone read this, it has surprisingly a lot of info on what is being discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering

Yes, I do believe that website. If someone can support some counter evidence I will gladly read it. It is very hard to find reliable information out there on this subject. I am sorry for trusting what appeared to be a legitimate software and hardware company to me... Ops.

Of course it is. All of it. Period, without question. Deriving the rules of the universe is absolutely done by reverse engineering.


Copyrighted material and patents are public knowledge. Are you talking about trade secrets?


Until you demonstrate any semblance of understanding the law, you have no credibility.

Seriously? You need proof that checksums are an *anti-copying* technology? Sorry, you are so full of fail its pissing me off.

You're contradicting yourself very heavily right now.

You say you believe that site for the reason is you are believing what some stranger with an unknown agenda is saying to anonymous people on the internet.  Yet at the same time you just said you're not even sure if they are in fact a legitimate hardware/software company since you're saying "what appeared to be".

So what is it now?  Do you in fact know they are a legitimate hardware/software company? Do you know 100% for a fact what they've written to be correct (already know the answer to that one considering your responses in here are based on a site that you yourself don't even know to be legit) or just saying what they themselves believe to be true in their own minds?

Really you need to take a look at what you're trying to argue here.

I think the issue here is that you're looking for evidence to support a pre-conceived notion rather than entering into this thing with an open mind.

Sorry. Just saw this. I agree this method is to prevent tampering with the ECU

That technique is commonly used in all sorts of places (not unique to Bosch). The problem is that fundamentally, it is a broken concept; cryptography depends on both ends being "trusted". In this case, the private key must be stored inside of the ECU for the ECU to validate the hash. The ECU fundamentally isn't "trusted" because it is in the hands of an "untrusted" 3rd party.

Look, I am not trying to offend anyone here, I just wanted to inspire discussion on this topic. Jesus guys... As far as the checksome thing, I have no clue on it. You guy day it's wrong and I have no clue who to believe on it. But it's kind of a moot point, there is still the question of legality when it comes to tuners. You guys are pretty steadfast in your beliefs that it shouldn't be illegal, I agree with that, but is it actually illegal?


I will try to keep my mind as open as possible. Assuming its a service, I think you are on point to call it legal, to assume it a product, the legality issues is still questioned in my mind.

I think your definition of reverse engineering is not fitting with the legal definition...

Actually, engine blocks (which doesn't capture the process I described, but OK) and ecu software are pretty analogous legally because there is no EULA granting only license to use the ECU software.  If you want to learn from a source that isn't quite so obviously trying to take your money:  http://www.chillingeffects.org/reverse/faq.cgi

The principal is the same, which is why the DMCA is so offensive.

Now I have a great way to waste an afternoon reading.  This is great stuff man, thanks! 

Stepping aside from the ethics, modern checksums definitely are developed so as to prevent altering the tune!

Actually, I should amend this; the private key is only needed on the ECU if it needs to authenticate itself against an outside source.

To validate a signed image, it only needs the signer's public key.

Some light reading on the state of software patents (in the US)

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130207163336819

Meow, are you really so bored between audirevolution and AZ that you gotta troll and spew dumb shit here?

You have been registered here for a while, haven't seen any contributions here other than you now calling everyone and everything into question ethically and legally?  How many files have you downloaded?  How many have you uploaded?

You confuse the fuck out of me honestly, one minute swinging from kurts nuts, next bashing him, next minute going for a ride on tonys balls, then shit talking him all over AR.

You need to figure out you.  Stay away from nef if you want to play your little two faced games that I am certain this is just another of.  BTW nice signature, you are so transparent and really not that smart.  Stop the games or just keep alienating yourself everywhere, your choice.

OOOOOHHHHHHHHHH

Now I understand.

Wow, that explains a lot.

Wow thank you for introducing me to the goldmine that is audirevoltion, I've never seen a forum filled with such angry elitists. Why are they all so angry?

This is pretty much what I figured, but wanted to give the benefit of doubt.

(http://imageshack.us/a/img831/8061/trollfunnypicsuper.jpg)

I double dog dare you to poke around the B5 section for a couple of mins lol. That place is a joke.

Starring sakimano, king of the clueless dipshits.

I see that you took a look lol.

LOL yea.

How can a guy that knows so little about cars jabber on like that?

It's pretty much his own kingdom of ignorance over there, as most constructive people do this when they find that forum

(http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/leaving-now-grandpa-simpsons.gif)

Didn't expect this from you man. Thought you would understand.  I wouldn't call anything I put in this thread "spewing dumb shit"... This threaded was started to specifically talk about the legality and morality of 'what is stealing'. I did not start anything up here at all. I just wanted to get some info from you guys about the technicalities. I was unaware of the background of developing xdf files for tunerpro. After the thread on audizine got technical i deceded to seek out those who have more info on the subject than me. Not trying to kiss ass, i literally didnt m know how xdf files were develope so I came here to ask. I wanted to see if they were something built off stolen or unethically obtained info. This offended a lot of people here. This was not my intent.  I am sorry for being ignorant in the development of xdf files, I guess no one here has sought out information before...

Stop the drama. Stop trying to attack my moral compass here. This thread and my posts are not attacks or accusations of you all being immoral theifs. It would be nice to just find out information and have an interesting discussion without people breathing down my throat and accusing me of being two faced.  The Kurt, tony, audirevolution bull needs to stay off this forum. I didn't bring this crap up and try hard not to. Please leave that garbage drama elsewhere.

I think I was very on topic with this... Far from trolling or spewing shit. So yeah, keep the drama out of this thread please.

More software patent news

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2013020817581919

and for a bit of background reading

http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=Patents2

This is one of the most interesting subjects I have encountered recently... I really want to learn more about this.

He likes to hear himself talk and have people pat him on the back

did you get my pm?

This thread was going so great, then ole boy opened his mouth.

That aside, I work in IT(hardware side of the house), now when I have a problem that I need a piece of software to fix, I hire an outside entity to develop that software, I am paying for his time and knowledge on the subject(programming) to develop a piece of software to do what I want it too, with the inputs I have provided.

Once I receive this program it is my Companies property in whichever fashion you want to call it, "intellectual" etc... If my in house programmers can look at the code and tell me how they can modify it to work better or adjust it down the road for advancements/changes in the company or to our process then it is our property now to do as such with. We are not required to call the person we paid to write it for us and ask permission to modify it because it was never his to begin with.

Pretty simple if you ask me....

If i look at a professional tune and compare it to a stock tune i then can see what they changed. if i then go to make my own tune it would inherently have similar changes. Did i just steal the work? no. changing A/F ratios and adjusting spark is likely to be similar among knowledgeable tuners. there are only so many ways to add power and should be standard among tuners and if somebody has a setting WAY out there from another tune then they are probably just an idiot. any stage 1 tune for the same car should be similar among many tuners. i mean nobody is going to add an extra 20* of spark advanced compared to others. so 2 tunes from two different tuners (if they are both of the same quality) should be very close, but neither stole from the other. so its not stealing but laziness if you start with someone else's tune and tweak it if you could have come to the same conclusion on your own with more time.

Did you know that since the Playstation Network was hacked, Sony changed the user agreements for the Playstaion gaming consoles? Basically It states that you are renting the unit indefinitely and any hardware or software inside is solely owned by Sony.

So what if the tuner has the same kind of legal documentation for their software? 

Are we really even allowed to dig into Bosch's ECU software and make changes without being licensed?

Problem with sony agreement is that it's between sony and the original purchaser, if they then sell it on, that user agreement is no longer valid and the purchaser legally needs to obtain sonys permission to resell it, as in theory you never own it but hire it.. I'm sure this will come unstuck for sony in court soon! Also if you are renting an item and it becomes faulty, then you are entitled for it to be fixed for free as it's not actually your item...

I can understand software being rented but not hardware!

My 2p.

The ECU's are supplied to the manufacturer on a perpetual license and resold to the end user.

So we own the ECU and it's software, it is our right to modify it. Hence paying someone or tuning it yourself is fine.

Moving on to who owns the tune, if you buy it you own it simples, however I don't think publishing other peoples 'work' is fair.

You can say most pro's will have worked hard for it and it shouldn't be made public.

No ECU manufacturer (or whoever owns the rights to sell/dictributed it, not clear to me if that's say VW/Audi or Bosch) ever cared to sue a tuner but I am fairly sure that they could easily since they are modifying and SELLING IP of theirs for FINANCIAL gain.

Taking Windows with license id of XYZ, permanently modifying it and then using that single copy to flahs to 100s of other computers, even if they already had some other copy of Windows with their respective keys is still violating a license of Windows' XYZ license.

This is the same with most of other software.

The only reason why they (BOsch/VW/Audi) don't sue the tuners is since they don't care as they're not losing any money on it, they even might gain by symbiotic relationship where old audi/vw cars that are very tunable keep up the value causing spill over effect to their new cars (keeping their future resale value higher which commands higher price for new units).

Well, I did not make mine, but i paid well for it.
Now it is mine, and I believe i can do with it what I want too.

There are two independent questions: what is moral, and what is legal.

Copyright law restricts redistribution, not modification (or even reverse engineering/hacking).

Patent law restricts redistribution of products made from patented technology. There are no "reverse engineering" restructions to patented technology since (ostensibly) the technology and its methods are publicly (and fully) disclosed in the patent itself.

Morality/ethics are far more subjective and arguing over that will never get anybody anywhere.

Just to be clear on this one.
i mean editing and working on it, not ever selling it or using in comercial ways.
That i see would be cheap shut.

Correct me if I am wrong, but don't all tuners "steal" ECU tunes by virtue of using what Bosch tuners originally wrote for any given application?   I mean, no tuner fully erases an ECU, and then starts from scratch and names his own parameters.  Some, if not most of the work belongs to the original designer/author/tuner.
So, GIAC can claim that someone is stealing their work, but aren't they, themselves, guilty of stealing, say Bosches work on the ME7, ME7.1, etc, etc,...>

+1

Yes, everyone is working off Bosch code.  People crying about people stealing their tune need to just stop.  When I tune someones car and they pay me for it, that file is now theirs, they can do whatever with it.  If they want to take that file that is tuned extremely tight to their car and spread it to others, I dont care because it wont be perfect on the others and they will end up paying me for one anyway.

That is why I dont lock my files, encrypt them, location swap them, or ever bother to disabling reading over obd which is enough to stop 95% of people.

I look down on tuners that think they are special and need to protect their precious IP, it actually makes me view them as less capable, like they are so worried the one piece of okay work they did wont continue to print them money or something.  If you are a good tuner, people will seek you out and want to pay you for your skills.  Relying on secrets to stay relevant is not an indication of knowledge or skill.

Revo is not a mess... Revo software is excellent calibrated and these guys are some of the few in this planet who have totally understand Motronic torque model and load model!
Revo sells massively so the tune is almost standard and safe!

Reading and editing the file from other company is illegal
Posting the file  from other company here in public is illegal
Saying " I got the XXX file and I am modifying it" is illegal

If you want, just do it beside the publicity and not inform the planet that you are playing with other's stuff from the time that Revo has signature and copyrights in the file...

Making your ECU back to stock is very easy and you can do it in 5mins
1) Flash the orignal file to your ECU
2) remove from eeprom the REVO signature, correct cks and flash it back to ECU. Otherwise you can flash the original FLASH to your ECU with NEFMOTO software and nefmoto will clear the REVO signature from eeprom but then you will have NEFMOTO signature inside

cheers,
Fotis

No, it isn't.

Unclear, but it is against forum policy.


Obviously untrue.

That said, modifying a tuned file that isn't your own is a bad idea for many, many, many reasons.

Someone better tell Revo et al as Bosch/Audi/VW did it first ;)

Exactly.

Didn't REVO steal everything that they have now from APR!?

this thread isn't dead yet?   ::)

I merged the irrelevant posts in the recent revo thread. I don't see the need for every post to turn into a debate on ethics.



So say the court documents at least.

Copy someone else's work is wrong, bottom line.

Cloning it for resale is wrong.

Cloning it and calling it yours is wrong.

Tweaking it and calling it yours is wrong.

Freely spreading someone elses' work without permission is wrong.

Legal or not, this is basic stuff that even a child could identify as wrong.

The whole we stole it from Bosch argument is a cope out used to justify doing shit that you know is wrong.

Neuspeed seems to have started it all as far as VW ECU tuning.

"Every NEUSPEED P-CHIP is still developed in-house by Aaron Neumann, one of our company founders and a 36-year veteran of the Audi/Volkswagen tuning industry. In 1975 (when many of our competitors were still in diapers) Aaron was already dyno-tuning small block V-8 motors and 4-cylinder overhead cam race motors. In 1990, Aaron and NEUSPEED were the first to offer a replacement EPROM for Volkswagens. Our Corrado G60 and Golf/Jetta II 2.0 16V chips were the first VW chips ever available."


SO, did REVO steal from APR who stole from Neuspeed who stole from Bosch?

Early REVO files even had APR signatures in them IIRC.

I don't remember the details, but I think REVO was founded by APR employees that saw an opportunity to start their own thing.

IMO when someone buys a tune, they buy the service of the tuner and resulting calibration.

My analogies suck, but say you hire a portrait painter and he paints a picture exactly to your liking. The purchaser then is free to sell the one original painting or paint over it and mess it all up. The purchaser can even sell the one messed up original. However, the purchased cannot reproduce the painting and give away or sell the reproductions. Even if the purchaser made minor changes to it.

I'm not interested in all of the legal bs that everyone will come back with. It's called principles.

Biz legalities and biz ethics do not follow the same course.

Shrug. I don't copy other people's tunes for purely practical reasons.

I trust stock code, though.

I don't even trust stock code a lot of the time. 

true that....go look at a rs3/ttrs.  LOL, id like to throat punch the calibration engineer's on those. 

Heh. Fair enough.

You are correct. Tuners that scream "So and so stole my code" are hypocrites, as they stole Bosch's code to start with. What is very interesting is there is the possibility that dis compiling Bosch software can be interpreted as a federal crime according to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. However all tuning in itself is illegal to begin with as your altering vehicle emissions, of which for it to be legal you would have to re-certify the engine's emissions after the changes. The EPA is beginning to crack down on this practice with some of the big diesel tuners.

However I don't think it's necessarily bad as it forces tuners to stay on top of their software and continually improve it to keep ahead of the other tuners who just copy and change someone else's tune.

Check out the Berne copyright convention. One way to look at it is that the bosch firmware was licensed with the sale of the ECU. Someone selling calibration changes may not be breaking any intellectual property laws. Whether in the USA the DCMA was violated or any torts were done against Bosch would probably not even be admissible in your defence unless Bosch was a plaintiff.  Assume the tuner can show source code and documentation to establish ownership on the patches/changes. If you take and even publish their material you could be liable. If you resell their patches you're definitely on shaky ground.

Hire an artist to paint a picture. You paid for it. Do you have the right to copy and resell it? Lots of people would say yes but the legal reality is generally without a release and assignment of rights you do not. Tons of case law to support it too. Hire a calibrator to tune your car. You could resell the map because it belongs to you. Right? How sure are you? $5,000 sure $50,000 sure? This is why lawyers get paid to make contracts and agreements.

Even if the plaintiff is not successful you'll have the costs in time, lost wages and or legal fees defending yourself. Unless their case is without merit it is also rare to have costs awarded back to you. Some years ago Hondata launched a suit against the owner of pgmfi (Dave) for not taking down a tool that allowed people to hack a k-pro "fast enough". Just for hosting a web forum where an unnamed user posted the software.

If you go rip off APR, eurodyne, or any other companys custom patches the risk of litigation is real. If you're unclear I'd encourage you to sit down for an hour with an intellectual property lawyer. This advice is far more valuable to have before you decide to post it up.

WHAT HE SAID x10!!!!! (lol, 'ya think that's loud enough? ;)

I can't understand why tuning companies absolutely refuse to provide ANY information to a consumer about what kind of re-calibrations they've done.

Of course the argument from them is "well it's proprietary and we have to protect our investment". That argument doesn't wash in my opinion. Letting me know what areas have been re-calibrated does not put your investment at risk. It's not as though I could take that information and copy a tune.

I ran into this issue with JHM when I looked into buying a 3.0 tune from them. I told them that I've heard good things about their tune, but for the $700 it would have cost me after shipping and exchange rates, I needed some assurance that it would have been an improvement on my existing Unitronic tune.

So here I am, on the phone with them saying "hey guys, I want to give you money, all you need to do is give me SOME idea of what you've actually done and why this tune will be worth the $700". The only answer I could get was "well just take our word for it, you'll love it". Needless to say, I don't have a JHM tune......

My concern about the lack of any information whatsoever is that it creates a real risk to the consumer that they could be overpaying for minimal amounts of effort. 99.9% of people who buy a tune never know what's really been done to the calibrations. I often wonder how extensive the re-calibrations really are on some of these files. If everyone suddenly knew exactly what has been done for the $400-600 they shelled out, would they be happy with the money they spent....?

Mister T i know exactly what you mean... I have experienced same problem with my VR6 24V tune... I want to know what they have done. I bought at tune for 400$ not so expensive but the tune was crappy as hell.. And then i called a "Serious tuning company" they wanted 800$ for a good tune.. Then i asked questions.. They never answered again. Quiet as the grave!

Depends on how it was licences from Bosch does it not? The ECU inc code might have bought with the car for example, still muddy waters.