You're absolutely correct one should not base the legal argument on that article or that particular link...my fault for not being more clear. THIS is the link to read: https://www.copyright.gov/title37/201/37cfr201-40.html

The LEGAL and OFFICIAL, and latest ruling is from the US Copyright Office which I had referenced one post above.....this is the Federal entity that is tasked with the enforcement of copyright laws here in the USA. This 380HP tune I seek is my own Lawful Modification approved by the EPA, protected specifically in the language below as I would not be violating ANY US Department of Transportation regs, not any Environmental Protection Agencies' emissions limits as I'd be using an EPA approved tune level.


For those that dont know much about the structure of our American Government (Quoted from their own webpage....)see...


Overview of the Copyright Office


The United States Copyright Office, and the position of Register of Copyrights, were created by Congress in 1897.The Register directs the Copyright Office as a separate federal department within the Library of Congress, under the general oversight of the Librarian, pursuant to specific statutory authorities set forth in the United States Copyright Act. Earlier in the Nation’s history, from 1870-1896, the Librarian of Congress administered copyright registration (at that time mostly books) directly, and earlier still, from 1790-1896, U.S. district courts were responsible for doing so. Today, the Copyright Office is responsible for administering a complex and dynamic set of laws, which include registration, the recordation of title and licenses, a number of statutory licensing provisions, and other aspects of the 1976 Copyright Act and the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act. By statute, the Register of Copyrights is the principal advisor to Congress on national and international copyright matters, testifying upon request and providing ongoing leadership and impartial expertise on copyright law and policy.


I assure you that SEMA did not write this §201.40 below (where section (6) is of particular relevance to this "you can't crack your ECM" in the USA).

The final word in these matters, the US Copyright Office, has published we CAN legally tune our own ECU's here in the USA, they call it "Exemptions to prohibition against circumvention"....


Beginning Quote

(Sorry for the bold type, thats how it copied over when I pasted it.)

§201.40 Exemptions to prohibition against circumvention.....
.
.

(6) Computer programs that are contained in and control the functioning of a motorized land vehicle such as a personal automobile, commercial motor vehicle or mechanized agricultural vehicle, except for computer programs primarily designed for the control of telematics or entertainment systems for such vehicle, when circumvention is a necessary step undertaken by the authorized owner of the vehicle to allow the diagnosis, repair or lawful modification of a vehicle function; and where such circumvention does not constitute a violation of applicable law, including without limitation regulations promulgated by the Department of Transportation or the Environmental Protection Agency; and provided, however, that such circumvention is initiated no earlier than 12 months after the effective date of this regulation.

end quote

https://www.copyright.gov/title37/201/37cfr201-40.html

 

That provision certainly is on point. However, it may not be the last word on the subject... the Copyrght Office exemption applies only to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. It basically says that the DMCA may not be used to prohibit the enumerated activities.

It does not say whether those activities violate other rights of the copyright owners, such as the exclusive right to create derivative works, or the exclusive right to copy copyrighted source code.

 

I don't think the argument could be made that modifying your own ECU violates copyright. It's not as if he's proposing to copy the code, start up his own ECU company and start using the JLR tune bit-for-bit. Most reputable tuners, such as VAP, actually use your own ECU program as a starting point so that also gets around any worry that you'd used copyrighted material from another vehicle.

In fact that provision exclusively gives the end-user the right to circumvent any protection measures the OEM may have installed to prevent the end-user from modifying/repairing their ECU in most circumstances, as long as doing so doesn't violate other laws (EPA etc.) I don't see language that restricts the clause to granting exclusion only with respect to the DMCA when reading the full text either.

Cell phone manufacturers already tried and failed miserably to go down this path by arguing that jailbreaking phones violated their copyrights. It looks like auto manufacturers failed too, thankfully.

That said, I don't see how any of this has to do with warranty claims... if JLR were worried about you violating their copyright they'd have said so in their letter to you.

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree that you should be able to load the 380hp and 400hp tunes into your XE without losing warranty. Just don't see what copyright has to do with anything.

If JLR were smart, they'd run the math and figure out how much it would cost to change one really hard-to-reach part inside the engine on all of their up-tuned vehicles so that they could freely deny warranty claims when people tune them up without also changing that one part. Valve springs or something easy. Ideally (for JLR) the cost of the end-user changing that part in addition to the tune would be approximately equal (or greater) to the price difference between the 340 and 380 bhp vehicles. Then none of us would have any leg to stand on :P

 

Good point. Then they cannot claim offense regarding....... I guarantee that if you ask this of a typical Jaguar Employee, they will just threaten to invalidate your warranty as they have been trained to for decades. Thus my assertion that Jaguar will trample your consumer rights if you let them (by simply threatening to deny your paid-for warranty). I speak from first hand personal experience....this is what they did to me and began this entire forum discussion.

The highest Management at Jaguar (communicated by the Senior Liason, Jag USA) deliberately and with forethought chose to be the a-holes to me in this case by stating "Any" modifications "May" invalidate your warranty. That's the crux of this whole ordeal.

I have the right to mod my car within the established Jaguar Specifications. Period.

 

I could see a potential issue where modifying the ECU to give a higher torque output without also modifying the transmission to match the settings in the XE S would cause problems. I suspect they'd use that against your warranty claim as well.

to my knowledge nobody has been able to get into the transmission to tinker with the settings either, so it would be difficult to get around this.

In the F-type S, the final drive ratio is different from the 340 bhp version, and output goes to a limited slip differential. Both of those things JLR would use as grounds that putting the 380 bhp tune in the base vehicle was outside of accepted limits for those parts.

So if the transmission tune in the XE 380 bhp is different, that may give them an out.

Just playing devils advocate here

 

WOW I have been following this thread with amazement and a drink. I know little about the law but I think I remember from somewhere that you have no case without a case. I suggest Austin do the tune then grenade the engine, or trans, or the space frame then go to court. I think all of this is academic to that point! My bet is the public A-Hole comment will go far when and if!

 

Here is a definition of what I meant. Yup, the recognized definition includes "Entrenched Beliefs", "Do not recognize as a moral equal" "Immunized against the complaints of others". BTW I freely admit that I'm being one too, about this matter. ;-)


By the way I don't take three lanes at a time, take up two parking spots, nor do I berate the barista. This thread is my biggest automotive complaint in my life right now...I don't complain often. But when I do I generally get results.

But Jaguar does not treat me as a moral equivalent, and they are corporate-wide "Immunized against the complaints of people" with their misguided "Entrenched Beliefs" regarding ECU tuning. Fits the definition exactly. I stand by my comment, as it is very accurate.

My point is Jaguar ignores the law if they simply refuse service because you tuned your own ECU. Ergo A-xxxxs. I freely admit that I'm being one too, about this matter. ;-)


§201.40 Exemptions to prohibition against circumvention.....
.
.

(6) Computer programs that are contained in and control the functioning of a motorized land vehicle such as a personal automobile, commercial motor vehicle or mechanized agricultural vehicle, except for computer programs primarily designed for the control of telematics or entertainment systems for such vehicle, when circumvention is a necessary step undertaken by the authorized owner of the vehicle to allow the diagnosis, repair or lawful modification of a vehicle function; and where such circumvention does not constitute a violation of applicable law, including without limitation regulations promulgated by the Department of Transportation or the Environmental Protection Agency; and provided, however, that such circumvention is initiated no earlier than 12 months after the effective date of this regulation.

end quote

https://www.copyright.gov/title37/201/37cfr201-40.ht

Your warranty cannot be automatically denied by the manufacturer if they have been told or find out you tuned your car, and it is 'Incumbent' upon the manufacturer to prove your specific and exact mod is responsible for causing any premature failures....not the other way around.

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/doc...ag-mossfrn.pdf

FEDERAL STATUTE

"No warrantor may condition the continued validity of a warranty on the use of only authorized repair service and/or authorized replacement parts for non-warranty service and maintenance (other than an article or service provided without charge under the warranty or unless the warrantor has obtained a waiver pursuant to section 102(c) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 2302(c)). For example, provisionssuch as, “This warranty is void if service is performed by anyone other than an authorized ‘ABC’ dealer and all replacement parts must be genuine ‘ABC’ parts,” and the like, are prohibited where the service and parts are not covered by the warranty. "

All I want to do is tune my engine for more efficiency within the established limits of the manufacturer. IMHO there is nothing wrong with that, and USA law backs me up on this matter. Third party tuning is a Service...Jaguar does not see it this way.

 

I thought you wanted more power, which will mean more emissions. The EPA etc clauses may kick in.

 

Good point. I could and want to tune the car UP to the "S" tuning, knowing that I will still meet but not exceed the already EPA -approved 380HP tune on the identical mechanics found in each model. I would also have the right to tune the car DOWN for better fuel economy.

I might want to do this if I take like a 1000 mile drive, then re-tune back to performance when I get to my destination, for instance. My point is tuning the ECU is within my rights.

The 'Economy' button does basicly the same thing...But I have the right to program my own economy parameters and to take it beyond those settings for even better mileage at the sacrifice of some more performance, its the age old racing tradeoff..milage or HP. Indy cars are ALWAYS balancing on custom tunes...for those reasons.

The ability to do this ourselves has been built into the feature set of all modern Jaguars to begin with (OBDII port) so I am simply making use of a feature I purchased with this car...legally, and I am advocating for Jaguar Owner's Rights. If this makes me an axx, so be it. I'll take that bullet.

Jaguar USA cannot carte blanche deny my warranty becuase I have done this myself, under the protections of Magnuson Moss, and USA copyright laws. Thus the point of this thread.


https://www.copyright.gov/title37/201/37cfr201-40.ht

 

Consumer rights to repair is a HUGE issue.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innova...air-180959764/

Consumers are fighting back. 12 states have sued, and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the Association of Global Automakers have agreed to a new NATIONAL STANDARD, here:

New National standard set by representatives for Jaguar Landrover(AAM). Considerable legal precedent set here, in favor of the consumer, specifically allowing aftermarket ECU access. Agreed to by the the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the Association of Global Automakers.

Jaguar Landrover is a participating member of the AAM, so they should know the law,

http://www.autonews.com/article/2014...to-repair-deal

I read it is now 12 states that are fighting for your consumer rights here (New Jersey's the latest).

http://repair.org/legislation/

"For more than a decade, independent car repair chains such as Jiffy Lube and parts retailers such as AutoZone have been lobbying for laws that would give them standardized access to the diagnostic tools that automakers give their franchised dealers.
Automakers have resisted, citing the cost of software changes required to make the information more accessible. But when Massachusetts legislators passed a law last year that automakers saw as a decent compromise, they decided to cut their losses.
Last week, two trade groups representing automakers -- the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the Association of Global Automakers -- announced an agreement with independent garages and retailers to make Massachusetts' law a national standard."

According to repair.org , under the agreement JLR's representatives at the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, agree. ,"Its also fully legal to modify, customize, or enhance embedded software for ones use."

Done. and done.

 

It still doesn't stop the manufacturers from denying warranty claims if the code is altered, just means its not illegal to change the code, something entirely different

 

Actually, that's exactly what the law does do. It stops manufactures from denying your warranty because you changed the vehicle by someone not affiliated with the manufacturer. Without this law, any time you got an oil change at Jiffy Lube or bought a new battery at AutoZone a car manufacturer could deny all further warranty repairs.

I'm from Massachusetts, and the Right to Repair bill was a big deal around here when it was being voted on. I believe Austin7 is fully in the right, but he's fighting a big uphill battle against corporate lawyers, and people on here trying to tell him that he's wrong isn't going to help him, or any of us consumers at all.

 

No, its a right to repair, so to access code to fault find and fix an issue. To actually change the code and then expect a manufacturer to warranty it is not what it is all about. The bit about the battery and oil has nothing to do with changing code if you think it is, you are deluded

 

Against my better judgment, I'll repeat some previous comments to illustrate why the Op is still way out in left field.

Yes, you can go to Jiffy lube for oil or Autozone for tires and a battery. But, Let's say the oil or battery or tire they sell you has a fault and causes both primary and secondary damage to the vehicle.

Don't expect Jag to help you out with warranty either directly or indirectly or provide any support other than a curt GFY. There is no law or warranty on any product that obliges the OEM to cover the failure of goods supplied by others. Whether they were sold as exact copies or not is irrelevant. It would be up to the consumer to pursue Jiffy Lube or Autozone for any and all damage. Good luck with that.

 

You are correct, they are not responsible for damages caused by those other repairs, but the crux of the issue is that they cannot categorically invalidate your warranty completely, which seems to be the issue Austin7 is rallying against. By saying that if you tune the car, it may void your warranty, they are threatening to not cover any warranty repairs, be they related to third party work or not.

 

Jag does not sell or install separate tunes for these engines, a different marketing practice than Ford- for example. That means the only present way of getting a tune is from a third party.

 

No, that's not quite it. Here's Jaguar's position from Austin's first posting:


"They then threw this legal statement at me: "alteration or modification of the vehicle, including changes to the body, chassis, or any tampering with the vehicle, tampering with the emissions systems or with other parts that affect these systems may impact coverage of your factory warranty for those items impacted."

This ^^^ is not a categorical invalidation of the warranty.

Not that I've read every posting but it seems this entire thread is a cure looking for a disease. The mods have not been made and Jaguar and Jaguar, as far as I can tell, hasn't denied any warranty coverage

Cheers
DD

 

everyone seems to be overlooking the "MAY"
you MAY die if you get in a accident and don't wear your seatbelt

 

If Jaguar did not want owners to re-map their ECM why didn't they password protect it that portion of the software?? I agree with Austin7 -it has been designed by the factory to be modified. If the Jaguar was concerned about an adverse affect on the warranty they would have taken appropriate precautions.

 

Why should they password protect it? They are the ones with final say on whether they want to deny your warranty claim or not. Who knows, maybe there is someone out there that does something that Jaguar may want to mimic later on? You don't want to eliminate all crowd based development of your product; which you can just claim and use for yourself later on.