helenslunch@feddit.nl 6 months ago
This reminds me of the hacked McDonalds ice cream machines. Except the shitty manufacturers won that one.
helenslunch@feddit.nl 6 months ago
This reminds me of the hacked McDonalds ice cream machines. Except the shitty manufacturers won that one.
damirK@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Sadly they will probably win this as well. Some claim there could safety concerns and it isn’t certified or could damage their brand… time for people’s manufacturing of products? Hehe
Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 6 months ago
But if the people controlled the means of production… that would be…
psud@aussie.zone 6 months ago
I think this one might go well. Company preventing a country’s trains from being serviced by a third party. I expect that train builder has already tanked their business, but it would be an interesting one to be litigated, the sort of case that can get the law changed
WallEx@feddit.de 6 months ago
I’m not firm in polish law, do they have the same laws as in the USA? Because that’s what you’re comparing right?
Aceticon@lemmy.world 6 months ago
As far as I know, there is no such thing as DMCA provisions against working around software protection mechanisms in the EU and in fact at an EU level the direction is to increase ownership rights, not decrease them.
However depending on the contract the train company might not legally own those trains (for example, it’s structured as a Lease), but if the hackers can show proof that the train company authorized them to do those changes it would be a case against the train company, not the hackers.
Aceticon@lemmy.world 6 months ago
This is an EU country, not the US.
Things like the DMCA provisions forbidding working around IP protection mechanisms (and software is copyrighted) don’t apply here.
IANAL (so take this it with a pinch), unless the trains are legally theirs rather than the train company’s, it’s not hacking, it’s just “software maintenance” and their only right this company has here is to withdraw product warranties because of “unauthorized changes”.
There might or not be a case against the train company (for example, if the contract forbade this or the train company tried to sell those trains onwards as if they were original) but not against the people who did the software changes on the trains when authorized by the owners of said trains.
damirK@lemmy.world 6 months ago
I assume EU has safety regulations and if a train suddenly loses its brakes they would be liable wouldn’t they? Now they can say someone has “hacked the train” and they can’t guarantee the brakes will work. I am not sure where the USA argument came from
Aceticon@lemmy.world 6 months ago
The responsability of circulating with a vehicle that abides by safety regulations is of the owners, not the makers.
You’ll notice that even in the consumer auto segment (which, since run-of-the-mill consumers are not expected to be “experts”, has all tons of ways to make sure they the car they buy is actually certified “road-worthy” upfront because they don’t have the know-how to make sure of it themselves) the actual car owners have the responsability of having a periodic inspection done to the car and repair those things that stop it from being road-worthy (at least that is the case in Europe).
Outside the consumer segment, I expect that the rules for trains are pretty similar to those for commercial aviation: the manufacturer has no responsability beyond a contractual one (i.e. the purchasing entity probably demands contractually that the vehicles they get comply with regulations, the parts they buy obbey certain specifications and maintenance done by a manufacturer-certified shop delivers a compliant vehicle) and all the regulatory responsability is in the hands of the owner (specifically the operator, as for example for leased planes the airline doesn’t actually own them but they do operate them hence they’re the ones with regulatory responsabilities).
The USA argument comes from the anti-circunvention legislation for software being part of the DMCA law, said legislation giving rights to the makers of the software to stop changes to it even in deviced they do not own. Where such legislation does not apply there is nothing “illegal” in somebody doing whatever changes they want to software as long as they have the authorization of the owner of the device whose software they are changing.