^+1

I am not saying what he is doing is wrong, I understand he wants to protect his properties. However, someone wants to sell his Cobb AP here, just let them. Whoever buy it goes up to MM asking for map could be told afterward that he will not support second hand use and they will have to repurchase or whatever. There is no need to drop in doodoo in people's FS thread. If the person is really interested in MM AP, he/she should already know that the extra money will be necessary to purchase new map otherwise F OFF.

it has too much to read...and legal mumbo jumbo i dont really understand...but entertaining

What makes you think certain people don't already have them?

Plus you say they're worthless, yet you're going to enforce copyright on someone.

Following up on Jedi, Fail is the new Win. :cwm27:

I didn't say they're worthless. I said they don't make power.
Obviously they have value or people like the OP would use them as a selling point to increase the value of their item.

I think I might start adding a free Avatar Subscription Service to the AccessPORT from now on as a value-adder.

:bigok:

Hey now, I did buy more from you when I found out you took a loss on a part, even though it could have been bought cheaper.

I dont get this...




why does obama hate white people?

and how much for a cobb shipped to hawaii?

editz:96818

E, that comment was, more or less, directed at the whole SoCal crew since we all tend to get together from time to time. They and BHR like to bust each others' balls. :lol2:

Besides, I don't begrudge a brother for going where they find the cheapest price. With some easily acquired stuff that is really all that needs to matter. ;)

Then, there are other types of parts that one may want to consider from WHOM they are buying so as to get the kind of after-sale support they may want/need during the installation thereof.

I just wanted to start some shit....I have no problems.

Okay, so since we're talking about after-sale support and all that, will mazda maniac be lowering his price to 495, to restore his tuning 'At no additional cost' policy?


I'd certainly consider that.


How low can the op go on an accessport shipped to canadia.

Disclaimer, I'm no lawyer by any means but I like talking for the sake of talking, so I'm pretty sure copyright doesn't apply here.

Example, Gamestop sells new and used games, publishers get nothing out of the sale of a used game and there is nothing legally they can do about it even though their content is copyrighted. Same with anything else used like books. Once its sold to another user he has every right to resell it.

Its all about the licensing.
Games and software typically have a hardware-tied usage clause. The person that legally possesses the disk possesses the license to the software. The disk is all the purchaser actually owns - not the software, movie or music.

In the case of my calibrations, I license the use of the software to the original purchaser and they agree to that license by accepting the calibration.
The purchaser retains the use of the calibration as long as they continue to use the AccessPORT. Once the AccessPORT changes hands, the calibration goes back to the original owner - me.

Its pretty clearly laid out in the copyright notice that is displayed on the AccessPORT screen when you install the calibration as well as on my purchase page.

While that may be the case, I'd love to see a case like this actually tried in a court of law just to see what the outcome would be. The Apple vs Pystar case may give you some ground, but even that case seems legally shaky. I'm going to do some more research about conferences of "licenses" I do know that Windows OEM disk are supposed to be branded specially for that hardware only, but again have never seen that come up in court.

The calibrations are self-enforcing, anyway.

If you tried to install a customized calibration from one vehicle on another - even if it was the same year/model and had the same mods - you would have some, shall we say, "interesting" results.

Besides, I don't need the courts. I know where the customers live and I have "the keys" so to speak to their car.

I second this.

*Grabs popcorn*

LOL I'd be willing to bet if it came to that you'd be in court for a completely different reason. I don't think someone "stealing" your stuff would necessarily give you the right to mess with their cars or anything else.

But like I said before, I'm only here to discuss things because I like legal discussions, not like I have a stake in any of this.

Edit:

This is why I don't think your EULA is enforceable (and historically EULA have not stood up in court that I am aware of)

"The first-sale doctrine is a limitation on copyright that was recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1908 (see Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus) and subsequently codified in the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 109. The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained."

I think you missed my point.

A person that is trusting me to play with the most intimate parts of the code that runs their vehicle is not likely to steal from me.

Ah, that is indeed a good point (and one I had not previously considered). That would probably you get you through most situations, but I guess the very existence of this thread proves that that reasoning is not entirely fool proof

Well, no - this thread is about something else: The use of my name (and my product) as a value-added service to someone's sale item without permission.

This is purely about the seller giving the impression that I am somehow "endorsing" their sale by giving it more value than it actually has.

Just out of reference to the above situation:
http://www.computerworlduk.com/manag...m?newsid=16946

It was ruled that it's perfectly legal to sell any software that you've purchased, and that software is owned and not simply "licensed". The catch is that if you sell it, you give up your rights to it's usage.

Not trying to argue against you Jeff, I'll be buying an AP from you soon enough on my own, but it may be important to note (coming from another programmer) that you may want to rethink "ownership" in regards to software.

Besides... car specific checks would probably be pretty easy to reverse out of the software if someone was actually bored and talented enough to do it. It's easy to trace execution paths.

None the less, keep up the good work Jeff. I'm sure I'll be working with you soon on my own AP.

EDIT:
However, do you have to support the new owner, no. Nothing says you do.
He can sell the maps you provided, but as you've stated, they wont work.

No, I don't really think it is. Looking at the original post the author is clearly only trying to sell something that you made that he didn't want anymore. He doesn't need your permission to do so.

Basically, you'd only have a complaint if the seller was selling something from which you did not make and attached your name to. Aka he was stealing your brand. Since this is not the case it appears you don't really have a legal leg to stand on so to speak.

Ahh, but there is the rub.

He is selling an AccessPORT. I didn't make that. That is Cobb.
He can sell the device all he wants.
However, the calibration that was made for his car belongs to me and is licensed to only to the OP.
Not only can he not sell his license, but it is dishonest to imply to a potential buyer that the aforementioned calibrations would work on their car or would be allowed to be installed on their car.
The seller is implying that this particular AccessPORT is imbued with the added value of a MazdaManiac calibration and it is not.

You guys are confusing how a EULA works, especially with regards to proprietary software.

If the "MazdaManiac Calibration" will not work on another RX-8 isn't the OP engaging in deceptive practices, either specifically or through inference? If it will work and will transfer from car-to-car, then screw it. It is one MM calibration and hardly worth the concern.

If you sell something to someone else they own it, not you. This has been made clear to you by not one, but two major cases in copyright law.

Further to the point, neither of us are confusing anything. You do not have the ability to take rights away from someone else just because you wrote a licensing agreement.

Honestly, if you're so sure you have this ability, put your money on it and sue the guy.

Do you know what "dicta" is?

While I see what your saying, their rulings are more important than why they ruled that way.

This isn't worth arguing guys... it's really not. It's already been stated that the tunes will not work on anyone else's cars. Ownership isn't really that important knowing that the buyer can't use the tunes anyway.

If anything it will reflect poorly on the seller for misinforming the buyer.

Well, t he never said out right that they would work, just that they would come with the purchase.

Dicta is the language in a court opinion that may not, and usually does not, have a direct impact or substantive basis for their ultimate ruling. Complex court cases cannot be summed up by culling one quote from the ruling. The legal profession likes to do that as a way of somewhat "indexing" the cases based on subject matter and what-not.

Here is a real-world example; I used to belong to a group called "Fathers for Equal Rights" and they had a couple hundred case cites that they used to buttress their arguments but their cases went nowhere. I joined the group and decided to review all their case cites. In doing so, I discovered that they were using dicta when the actual cases they were citing tended to be focusing on subject matter only slightly related to their legal theories.

I then reauthored the entire list of case cites and properly focused their uses. That group then had much more success and a greater understanding of how to use such case cites. They also learned what "dicta" was.

Of course it is; to those making the arguments and exchanging ideas. Nobody is bashing anyone here and we all enjoy the intellectual exercises. Much is learned through stringent use of the First Amendment.

Buy my table and I'll give you a free lamp. Never mind the fact that I cut the cord on the lamp. Point is that people will be tempted to buy based on the free gift, and in this case, IMO, the tune is worth more than the device. This makes the overall deal misleading because it's allowing him to inflate the device cost to a "new" price based on what's free.

I understand what your saying. Having said that, do you think that the two cases that have been quoted above or used in the proper context (going along with you example)

The two cases being Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus and Autodesk vs Verner. If you agree that these two cases are being used correctly to refute that once you sell software you still own it (aka the license or cd in this case) then I fail to see how the discussion of dicta adds anything to this conversation. If you don't agree, then please explain how they are being misused.

Ok, but there is nothing illegal about that.

Take lat night TV ads. A vast majority of those products are worthless and dont work as advertised. Yet despite people learning this time and time again, they still buy things sold in this manner. At this point its not the sellers fault, its the buyers for being stupid.

Price discussions also are really irrelevant to this discussion. Bottom line is he could try to sell the tune + device for a 1000, but someone has to be willing to pay it. A price is only inflated if he doesn't make a sale.

Very true, but in this case, the case I posted relates to the specific example. the case is in reference to the legality of selling "licensed" software due to the "owner" not actually being the software's owner.

The judge says that he's the owner because the company intended for him to keep it indefinitely, so that would be the basis of the ruling. Likewise, Jeff states that the data files are licensed, and not owned, and his service is intended to tune the car indefinitely, or until the patron needs more support, which would provide new files under the same presumption.

Now, Jeff can stipulate his level of service if the files change hands, but I don't think he can make an ownership claim since the files are intended for indefinite use. Simply put, only support original owners per "registration". Be it from an Access Port purchase, or directly from a tuning purchase. Support is non transferable.

Didn't he used to coach the Bears?

LMFAO...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Ditka

yep, very close sounding / spelling if you're not paying attention.

I explained the concept for those who may not be familiar.

If you have read the cases IN THEIR ENTIRETY, as opposed to the half-ass interpretations offered by most law schools (I have kicked the shit out of lawyers whom have attended many of the "elite" law schools in MI), then I will defer to your current expertise. Otherwise, I may get around to reading them myself and I will revisit the argument at another time.

Who would win in a fight between Ditka and God?



























































Trick question...Ditka is God ;)

Well there is your problem right there.

You know what is better than winning Gold in the Special Olympics right?

























Not being Retreaded...(in case Sarah is watching....)

ROTFL, I already said before I posted even one comment in this thread that I am not a lawyer, so what makes you think I would be able to out gun you in an arguement over case law? In laymens terms, the ruling seem simple enough to me (desite the fact that our legal system is incredibly more complex than I realize)

I simply said to prove what your saying. You havent really disagreed with me, just said that I problably dont have full command of the issue. But, if you dont want to prove me wrong, I understand, people have lives other than trying to spend them to prove me wrong. But I guess as it stands, my thoughts on the matter havent changed and the evidence at present seems to agree with me and Red.

I think if you all just look at it as Jeff is licensing his tune to the car instead of the owner of the AP you will get further along.

Doesnt really matter either way.

If the license is to the car and not the driver it makes a big difference.

Basically, RC is arguing that you can't license stuff; That when you buy a device with software on it, you own the software and the device.
This is the same as saying that when you buy a record, you not only own the record, you also own the music.

Of course this is completely wrong and goes totally against the basis of copyright, but that probably doesn't matter since he has his opinion about this and its academic, anyway.

And while I would understand his argument if you wrote the OS/firmware for the AP. Yes...you can not stop someone from having that firmware to make that device run. However, the configuration settings that the AP inputs into the ECU of the RX8 is not required to make that device run/work. It is a file that you provide to the RX8 that is transferred through said device.

I just want to buy a god damned accessport ):

This is not any different then me providing code to help someone run their applications. I did not write the application but my code is running on top it to meet the customers needs. They can not turn around and sell my code to someone else that is running the same software.

well stop being a cheap skate and pony up the asking price