I think it's actually quite clear that Tesla's general policy is to not even research the law until they get caught.
Perhaps you might wish to delete the above remark.
What does your legal analysis conclude regarding it being libelous? :wink:
Larry
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think it's actually quite clear that Tesla's general policy is to not even research the law until they get caught.
Agreed! Do you seriously think they are violating Federal Law? Or deleting posts by some of their most devoted customers? There must seriously be something else bothering these guys.
Perhaps you might wish to delete the above remark.
What does your legal analysis conclude regarding it be libelous? :wink:
Larry
I know for a fact that they're violating copyright law.
I'm in the US, and here true statements can't constitute libel. I gave the evidence -- did you read it? Tesla's annual report states outright that they haven't researched the motor vehicle dealership licensing laws in all 50 states, but that they are selling cars in all 50 states. Among other similar statements.
Well, those are not copyright, are they? So I suppose this won't interest you much.They are? Can you elaborate? I am honestly interested, as I have a very particular interest in trademark and patents.
They have a store in Texas, and mentioned explicitly that they're unsure whether they can get away with that without a dealership license, which they can't get in Texas.Yes but technically I believe they are 'selling' most of the cars out of California. I as a Georgia resident can purchase a car in South Carolina. Tesla is doing the same.
And as for libel you have to knowingly write damaging untruths. And I would assume Neroden believes his statements are factual, so he seems safe from here.
While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue.
We know for a fact that Tesla is violating federal copyright law, with civil penalties of $25,000 per car sold.
And as for libel you have to knowingly write damaging untruths. And I would assume Neroden believes his statements are factual, so he seems safe from here.
I have been forced to learn copyright law, whether I wanted to or not."Copyright" -- You keep using that word. I do not think that word means what you think it means.
UK libel law is different from US libel law, look it up.This was a very well covered topic when Tesla brought its case against Top Gear in the UK (technically it was for slander because it wasn't written, but same idea). It doesn't matter what your intent was if the statement is untrue.
Let me be very clear. They *will* violate warranty law *if* they behave in a particular way. So far, all they have done is make statements vaguely threatening to violate warranty law. They have not violated warranty law *yet*.That's not the only claim you are saying. You are also saying they violated: warranty,
They have violated copyright law. The copyright holders are likely to be generous if they fix the breach.copyright
Hmm. I should recheck the history of Tesla's escrow in Washington; perhaps they segregated payments from day one there, in which case they have not violated *Washington's* escrow law.and escrow law
UK libel law is different from US libel law, look it up.
I have been forced to learn copyright law, whether I wanted to or not.
You may want to take it easy for awhile -- you seem really wound up in an unhealthy way.
You keep saying "copyright law" for some software that Tesla is (allegedly) using, but you're not really explaining yourself. I have handled several copyright cases and actually have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not 100% sure that whatever your specific experience was is exactly analagous to whatever it is you think Tesla may have done.
Can you explain how Tesla's use of this software constitutes a copyright violation? A licensensing violation I can see, but copyright?
Well, those are not copyright, are they? So I suppose this won't interest you much.
We know from research -- watching bootup and service work on cars -- that Tesla is using the Linux kernel and Busybox in the firmware for both Roadster and Model S. Selling a car containing these constitutes distribution of Linux and Busybox. These pieces of software are both licensed *exclusively* under the Gnu General Public License. We know from people receiving Roadsters and Model S that they have not received "complete corresponding source code" for those two programs corresponding to the exact versions used in the firmware, which is required by the license as a condition of distribution. (Distributing the source code for these is ridiculously easy to do, which is why it's embarassing that they're not doing it.) Accordingly, each car sale consists of an unlicensed copy and distribution of (at least) two copyrighted works. The violation is wilful, given that they've been notified of this more than once. I believe both programs' copyrights have been registered (I should check, I'm not 100% sure about that), which if true makes the statutory penalties absurdly large.
I don't intend to report them to the copyright holders unless I get my own model S without complete corresponding source code and am therefore able to testify firsthand as to the license violation. I'm hoping they'll have this fixed before then (as I say it's easy, even trivial to comply with the license).
They have a store in Texas, and mentioned explicitly that they're unsure whether they can get away with that without a dealership license, which they can't get in Texas.
But that's not the only thing; Tesla warn that they haven't researched reservation payment laws in all 50 states, either, and that states other than Washington might require them to be segregated, but that they haven't checked.
Mods: Can we move the "copyright" conversations to a new thread in the off-topic section? This thread is for the discussion of Tesla's service plans.
Thanks,
--The Arrogant Idiot
you just have to offer to provide the source code, I think in writing. It could be in stack of purchase papers for all we know. Not saying it is, not saying it isn't. It seems like every OEM embedded Linux applications have this problem. I could easily see Tesla missing it, or catching it.
Well with GNU Public License you just have to offer to provide the source code, I think in writing. It could be in stack of purchase papers for all we know. Not saying it is, not saying it isn't.
Isn't that just the case? It's SLOPPY. Seriously sloppy.It seems like every OEM embedded Linux applications have this problem.
I could easily see Tesla missing it, or catching it.
OK, at least I see the possible connection to copyright law now, but let's unpack this a little. You say, "we know..." about the fact that (a) Tesla is using certain software (Linux and Busybox) in both Model S and Roadster, (b) that Roadster and Model S owners haven't received proper copies of the software as per the Gnu GPL, and (c) that Tesla has been notified of this more than once.
Tesla says they're using Linux in the entertainment console: Linux Today - Tesla CTO talks Model S, batteries and in-car Linux . I suppose they could claim not to be doing so, but really.Let's assume (a) is true (I'm not a tech guy and would need further proof than watching some videos, but OK),
I don't know for sure, and if I get my car and I find such a written offer (I always read through *everything*), that'll be lovely, thank you!how do you know (b)? Can't many Gnu GPL users satisfy the requirement by offering to send a CD (or web access) to the code? How do you know that offer's not buried in the owner's manual or something?
Because *I notified them*.And how do you know that Tesla has been notified of this, such that it would be a "willful" violation?
No, they couldn't.You seem to have made a lot of leaps of logic and fact to come to the inexorable conclusion that Tesla is violating the law, while I'm pretty confident that, at a minimum, Tesla's lawyers could put up a pretty good fight if anyone actually tried to enforce this against them.
Copyright law doesn't work that way, for better or worse. There would likely be no *retroactive* damages, but it's a new infringement for each act of distribution.More importantly, Tesla has been selling/distributing Roadsters since 2008, and it's now 4+ years later and this hasn't been an issue, so if it's so obvious that they're violating the law, laches would eventually come into play here for whomever would (now) try to enforce the license.
It seems like every OEM embedded Linux applications have this problem. I could easily see Tesla missing it, or catching it.
Not a lawyer, but I do have some passing experience with brand and IP protection - how defensible is the copyright if other violations have not been pursued?
100% defensible. You don't have to actively protect copyright. And can sue 1 person and not the 2nd for the exact same violation.
Like I said before copyright is broken and a huge mess.