
EU drops rule that would prevent self-driving car data from being copyrighted - lnguyen
https://boingboing.net/2018/10/10/corporate-kitts.html
======
mrmondo
IMO the title is a little misleading - I read 'EU drops rule' as that the EU
had removed a rule / cancelled it.

Should probably be something like "EU states that telemetry data collected
from self-driving cars may be subject to copyright protection".

Then the bigger discussion should probably be - 'What is telemetry data?'.

If telemetry data is _any_ data collected from a car that could be remotely
accessed, then in theory I'd argue that digital oil sensor readings, digital
odometer readings and digital tyre pressure readings are all telemetry data if
they are stored in a place that can be remotely read.

If that's the case - it could lead to the situation where car manufacturers
demand (by law) that you are only allowed to service your car with them and
not be a mechanic of your choice.

That may start as a small inconvenience that luxury car owners may be able to
afford but as those features come to lower end models it may hurt average or
less well off consumers.

Further more, what happened to 'facts' not being copyrightable (generally
speaking).

~~~
tjoff
If I take a picture with my camera the camera manufacturer will not get the
copyright. How on earth are car manufacturers gonna be the ones that get the
copyright?

(I'm sure you are correct but it feels absurd)

Will software companies claim copyright on logs?

~~~
agitator
I don't think this is a fair comparison. It's like saying all the work I do on
my computer belongs to apple. Which doesn't make sense. But apple does keep
logs and telemetry of performance and crashes and uses that to improve it's
products.

With self driving cars, and other devices (like apple electronics) the logs
they keep give you really really good insight into what sensors, techniques,
and algorithmic approaches they are taking to problems, and those directly
expose proprietary information. I would argue that this information entirely
belongs to those companies (with an agreement to send this data to their
servers).

Also most AI and self driving companies use the data collected by their
existing fleet to further improve AI systems in these vehicles. The
competitive advantage of most of these companies is how much data, with what
sensors they are able to collect. Making that information public will have a
huge negative impact on the tech and AI industry, essentially pulling the
carpet out from underneath everyone.

~~~
dwiel
They ask permission before they transfer that telemetry data. An important
distinction.

~~~
TomMarius
Because it potentially contains private information, telemetry data from cars
doesn't have to.

~~~
tjoff
Driving location and driving patterns is private information. Especially if
video and/or lidar information is present.

This is doubly so when driving on private property or in sensitive areas that
forbid photography.

~~~
TomMarius
Sure it is, but the telemetry data doesn't have to contain it to be useful.

~~~
tjoff
Agree, but do anyone, for even a nanosecond, believe it isn't?

------
Hermel
The title is very misleading. The parliament just voted to not include a
clause that would have explicitely made that data not copyrightable.
Unfortunately, the article does not tell us why this clause was removed. Maybe
it was just removed because it is unnecessary?

~~~
jandrewrogers
Automotive telemetry data in many countries is subject to multiple regulatory
regimes, not the least of which is GDPR, related to use of this data and who
is entitled to access it. Exclusion from copyright protection would appear to
be at odds with these regulatory regimes. Entitlement to access usually
includes the government and manufacturer.

~~~
comex
How so? The scope of GPDR includes a lot of data that is not copyrighted or
copyrightable – including anything purely factual in nature rather than
creative, such as my IP address, net worth, choice of religion, etc. (Well,
technically in the EU you can own 'database rights', which are similar to
copyright, on large databases of facts, but only in certain conditions and
subject to expiry and exemptions; GPDR has no such limits.)

~~~
jandrewrogers
This data is the equivalent of tracking all the data off the mobile phone of
an unknown person -- it is anonymous but trivially identifiable. The data is
also definitely copyrightable in nature, being complex engineering analytics
customized for the vehicle by the manufacturer and used for a wide variety of
internal purposes. The contents and semantics of this data varies widely
across manufacturers. It goes _far_ beyond dumb telemetry.

Much of this data is treated as a legitimate trade secret by the manufacturer
and is generally deemed to be owned by the manufacturer for legal purposes,
though they are sometimes required to share it with regulatory bodies.
Automotive companies would strongly object to this data becoming public
because it would adversely impact their ability to maintain a technological
competitive advantage. That their engineering trade secrets are covered under
GDPR makes it that much more awkward, but owning a copyright on this data at
least gives them legal standing to enforce compliance. I've worked with major
European automotive OEMs -- they would lose their minds if you told them this
data is no longer theirs to control.

------
llampx
Where did this People's Party comes from? Sounds very newspeak-ish,
considering they only push through legislation benefitting large corporates.

~~~
lumberjack
They are the centre-right coalition of all centre-right political parties in
Europe. It is beyond laughable levels how they corrupt they are. You can
predict their stance 100% of the time by assuming it is the business friendly
position.

~~~
Shiboleth
How the hell did a right wing organisation get the title "The People's Party"?

~~~
etatoby
Makes sense to me. If you are liars through and through, why be honest on your
party's name, of all things?

------
amelius
Related: Can we have a rule that crowdsourced data is public domain?

E.g.: Amazon reviews, IMDb reviews and data, YouTube videos, etc. Most of this
data belongs to our culture.

~~~
mindslight
Your comment is a bit weak ("can we have a rule") - but this is exactly the
type of thing we should be working _towards_. Why should software vendors gain
legal control over our data, simply because we use their software?

If the compiler vendors could have pulled this crap back in the 80s, the
Internet as we know it would not exist.

~~~
amelius
> Why should software vendors gain legal control over our data, simply because
> we use their software?

Well, probably because their EULA says so. Hence my question: "can we have a
rule".

~~~
mindslight
Saying "a rule" sounds like powerlessly wishing a problem gets fixed. The term
makes sense for the OP about a detail in the context of a larger process, but
you're talking about a more general topic that needs a wider legal-
philosophical push with how metastasized copyright and adhesion contracts have
become.

My question was rhetorical - asking what is right, not what legal mechanisms
are being abused to create the current state.

~~~
amelius
> Saying "a rule" sounds like powerlessly wishing a problem gets fixed.

Isn't that mostly the case when we post about some (perceived) injustice on
HN?

Take for instance the patent system. Every now and then people come up with
ideas for what the system should really be like, but nobody ever provides any
hints for actually getting these ideas implemented, and almost always the
forces that keep the current system in place are totally ignored.

~~~
mindslight
> _Isn 't that mostly the case when we post about some (perceived) injustice
> on HN?_

Talking generally about "what ought" seems distinct from powerlessness. At the
very least it delegitimizes the current status quo, even if only in a
subculture. For instance, all of the HN (and wider tech) discussion of the NSA
has done nothing to actually get those criminals any closer to prison. But
designers of new protocols start with a background of making them
surveillance-resistant rather than surveillance-supporting.

I apologize for starting my original comment somewhat aggressively - I wanted
to draw attention to your idea behind the phrasing, with constructive
criticism addressing why (hopefully) yours was downvoted, but edited it to be
(too) simpler.

------
Nasrudith
This is a bit radical but here is a question - what is the public interest
that copyrighting this data serves whatsoever - regardless of who it belongs
to?

------
pavlov
Not surprising considering the lobbying power of German car companies who are
investing in this field.

------
ucaetano
Isn't all telemetry data currently copyrighted? Streetview? Pictures of a
street? Satellite images?

Why would it be public domain?

Honest question, I'm not understanding how telemetry data is different than
airborne laser scanner data, Streetview, map data, satellite pictures, etc.

Or even server logs generated by an iPhone for Apple, Tesla's car data logs,
etc.

~~~
scotty79
> Why would it be public domain?

Not sure if that's the case but they do not have element of creativity. They
just copy real world so why would they deserve any monopoly?

~~~
ucaetano
Even copying the real world is copyrightable. If you take a picture of a
street, you own the copyright to it.

Shouldn't you?

PS: Not including the weird exceptions in the EU of monuments and such.

~~~
beefield
> Shouldn't you?

Somehow I have thought that monopolies are so generally accepted as harmful,
that it would be the proponents of monopolies that have the burden of proof.
Not the ones who oppose monopolies.

So instead of just assuming that copyrights are good for society, can you
provide some evidence?

~~~
ucaetano
Copyright of a picture of a street isn't a monopoly on that street, you can
head over there and take a picture of the street yourself.

Other than that, just thing of photographers who spend their life working on
photography. Copyright allows them to charge for their work, or for a software
developer to charge for their work.

Removing copyright entirely means you can only monetize your work based on the
marginal cost, the result is zero monetization for any type of work that has
near-zero marginal cost, such as a book, movies, photography, etc.

Sure, you can argue that we should move to the fairyland dream scenario where
everyone is beautifully funded by fans and so on. We've been there, it was how
art in the Middle Ages worked.

Anyway, that is a separate discussion:

1) Given that copyright exists, should X be copyrightable?

2) Should copyright exist?

------
noobermin
Ain't it great that it's the same group that pushed the copyright directive.
It's funny when the same actors end up being the bad guys.

~~~
sieabahlpark
I can't wait for someone from the EU to come in and defend this.

~~~
lucb1e
Let's not make this an "us vs. them" thread, that doesn't help anybody.

~~~
lsiebert
In general, or in this specific case? Because I can think of a number of times
us vs. them have been important for the advancement of justice, civil rights,
protection of individuals etc.

Copyright is intended for the protection of literary or artistic works, but
it's been extended to cover recordings and performances. Those arguably have
some artistic or creative properties, but I find it hard to argue that
telemetry data has any real creative properties.

The truth is, you don't need copyright on telemetry data for machines you
control and own, because that data never leaves your control.

It only matters for machines you don't both control and own. Who benefits from
differentiating between ownership and control?

------
Havoc
Copyright on telemetry seems pretty stupid in the first place.

------
hyperman1
This seems to open a big can of worms: If it can be copyrighted, it has an
author. So who is it?

* Is the driver the author of this data? If yes, does the car company need to get a license to fetch this data or are they pirates? Is the driver permitted to exercises authorship rights like distribution? Why not?

* Or is the car's creator author? Then the driver had no influence on the creation of the data, so can't be responsible for anything: His actions had no consequences.

* Or are both parties co authors? Then you need agreement from every author before you can do anything. This causes both problems at the top at the same time.

------
deytempo
I mean why wouldn’t you want a random video to pop up on mobile when you try
to view their site?

------
kevin_thibedeau
That's fine. Of course such data would be owned by the vehicle's owner.

------
choot
I wonder how this will help EU people.

This decision doesn't seem pro consumer.

Maybe automakers control EU and it's a way to secure their future cash cow.

------
nouveau0
Nice work with the title OP

------
torgian
This is why I’ll stick to old cars for as long as possible

~~~
Jyaif
Old cars are more dangerous; I'm glad to see natural selection getting rid of
technophobes.

~~~
swift532
I'm not sure how we're defining an old car here, but I'm pretty sure a car
from 2010 is not noticeably more dangerous than cars today.

Preferring a car with more freedomey™ qualities because you don't want to be
tracked, analyzed and want to increase the security of your car (as in, to be
managed only by yourself) hardly qualifies as being a luddite.

------
dang
Url changed from [https://jalopnik.com/eu-rules-that-any-data-your-
autonomous-...](https://jalopnik.com/eu-rules-that-any-data-your-autonomous-
car-generates-is-1829666845), which points to this.

------
drivingmenuts
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest very few people will own an
autonomous vehicle and will probably rent/lease them instead, which solves the
problem neatly, if it happens.

If you don't actually own the thing, then it's harder to claim the data is
yours.

~~~
visarga
Neatly for who?

~~~
drivingmenuts
Neatly for manufacturers. If the users don't own the vehicle, the data remains
the property of the manufacturers or the business renting them to users
(though I'd bet most of it would belong to the manufacturers).

