Topic: GMPP tune and HPTuners - can I copy it?

[wspohn]

The GMPP tune is free to install on any Kappa - once. Then it is linked to that car and can't be used for anything except reinstalling on the same car if there is a problem that requires that.  No dealer can install it without calling GM for an authorization number, so there's nothing your dealer could do for you.

[kennysabarese]

I can think of some situations where GM might do it, like if you wrecked your car, or bought a new one.

I'm going to call some dealers and see if they will do it. Sorry to hijack.

[lil goat]

WOW what a mess, let me try and clear this up, I am not confused.
First the new 3 bar sensors on a stock car, no they have no benefit unless you get the tune to go with it, this can be a GMPP tune a Werks tune a Trifeca tune or a Westers tune to name a few, the GMPP will most likely give you the least amount of gains. The stock sensors are 2.75 bar and in practical application will only allow a constant 25 psi, the new ones are 3 bar and will allow about 28 with the correct tune. The sensors are not the key, the tune is. Westers tune with the stock sensors makes more horsepower and torque than the GMPP kit, eventually his tune with the new sensors will certainly make more horsepower as he will be able to achieve more boost.

Selling a GMPP, no the dealer can't help you. You can however copy the tune with HP Tuners and put it on another car that has the sensors and it will work fine as long as it is the same model and year and transmission IE another 2007 Sky , you could not put it on a 2008 Sky or any Solstice. No the GMPP tune is not mated to the VIN, the only reason the dealer uses the VIN is to download the correct tune from GM as the VIN has all the relevant info in it, make, model and year, manual or auto. If you sold a GMPP setup that had been installed, there would be no warranty and no dealer support but it would work if you had HP Tuners and someone had the same make and model and year car, and was stupid enough to buy it.

If you bought a GMPP tune, and you want more, many of us warned you don't do it, I know I did, so either be happy with what you have or pay someone to modify your GMPP tune. Right now the Wester's modified GMPP is OK, needs work but that is what winter is for. I have heard Trifeca has had good results modifying the GMPP as have Werks.

If you already have a tune, like I do, you can indeed buy the sensors, like I did, and get whoever tuned your car to make you a tune to work with the new sensors, like I am going to do in the spring.

Whew I hope that clears some things up.

[wspohn]

Good post.

What isn't clear to me is whether there is any usefullness in having the new sensors if you don't boost above 25 psi.  I rather think not.

As for copying the GMPP via HP Tuners, that of course is theft and actionable as unauthorized appropriation of copyrighted material, should GM ever want to bother (I frankly doubt they would). I know theft doesn't bother many people, so that probably won't cut down on tune pirating much.

If you don't get that it is theft because we are talking about big old GM, think about it in the perspective of one of the small 'artisanal' tuners. You'd probably think that I would be wrong if I took one of Trifectas or someone else's tunes, paid for it and then started copying and selling them for half price to anyone that wanted them (assuming I had the technical expertise to do that) .  It's the same thing.

[kennysabarese]

I don't regret buying GMPP tune and sensors. At the time it was the cheapest way to buy the sensors. And I wanted the warranty coverage.

Whoever does my big turbo kit will retune my car.

[lil goat]

Good post.

What isn't clear to me is whether there is any usefullness in having the new sensors if you don't boost above 25 psi.  I rather think not.

As for copying the GMPP via HP Tuners, that of course is theft and actionable as unauthorized appropriation of copyrighted material, should GM ever want to bother (I frankly doubt they would). I know theft doesn't bother many people, so that probably won't cut down on tune pirating much.

If you don't get that it is theft because we are talking about big old GM, think about it in the perspective of one of the small 'artisanal' tuners. You'd probably think that I would be wrong if I took one of Trifectas or someone else's tunes, paid for it and then started copying and selling them for half price to anyone that wanted them (assuming I had the technical expertise to do that) .  It's the same thing.

While I agree it in some cases it would be theft, if you bought the GMPP tune, and choose to deinstall it and sell it that is NOT theft like Kenny was talking about doing, if you copied it and sold it is indeed theft. People have copied and sold many of Lyndon Wester's tunes, not only for the Solstice they have been stealing his Corvette tunes for years.

The sensors don't work without a modified tune, so to try and quantify the value of them with out it doesn't really work. There are many advantages of the GMPP tune over the stock tune, besides the using the sensors and added boost. It also raises the torque limits inherent in the stock tune, which enables many mods that increase power to not be unlearned. An aftermarket exhaust will actually show benefits on a GMPP car, but it has nothing to do with the sensors, just can't have one without the other in the case of the GMPP. Any good aftermarket tune without the sensors has the same benefits, maybe more.

Kenny I wasn't picking on you, I just knew and said it won't be long before you can get everything in the GMPP kit for less, and it has yet to compete with the Wester's tune with the stock sensors. I of course never cared about the BS warranty crap, I have a Wester's tune and have never had an issue with any warranty work, and I have had more than most. If my ECM fails I will have to replace it out of my own pocket, I know. That would be why I have a spare.

[kennysabarese]

i know you weren't picking on me or else i would have gotten really defensive!

hopefully whoever does my big turbo kit will include tuning so then i won't feel so bad about the 600. but then again hopefully i will be able to get a big turbo... i gotta save for a big ring for my girlfriend... ugh

[lil goat]

The only thing more expensive to mod than a car, is a girlfriend, and it has only just begun my friend. 

[kennysabarese]

Well put. Is there a supporting vendor that sells diamonds? Group buy?

[wspohn]

The only thing more expensive to mod than a car, is a girlfriend, and it has only just begun my friend. 

No one that has ever owned a boat would believe that!

[lil goat]

I have owned a boat, it was a fiberglass hole in the water I poured money into, still say girlfriends are more expensive, they are more fun to ride too.

[Ben L]

You guys touched on an interesting, but murky, area of software copyright law.

There is a "first sale" doctrine in copyright law.  Its applicability is unsettled regarding software, copies of which software makes always say is licensed, not sold.

Arguably, if you buy an authorized copy of software installed on a particular medium or device, its perfectly legal to sell the the medium or device with the software still on it.  Neither the buyer or seller has infringed the underlying work, any more than the seller or buyer of a used copyrighted paperback novel has.  

However, in some recent decisions, courts have looked to the license agreement, and if it restricts sales of an authorized copy, that restriction will be enforced if the license was agreed to.  

But then, there's Vernor v. Autodesk, an October 2009 federal court decision out of Seattle, which involved a guy who bought used shrinkwrap AutoCAD copies and tried to sell them on e-bay. The court found that the nature of the original transaction between Autodesk and the buyer was a sale of a package of physical objects containing copyrighted material, and noted that Vernor bought and was attempting to resell the entire package, not a copy made from what he bought, and therefore, the first sale doctrine applied.  I do not know whether Autodesk is appealing, but the opinion in Vernor went to a lot of trouble to sort out the dog's breakfast that is the Ninth Circuit's current software first sale jurisprudence.

Also, it is generally legal to make an archival or backup copy of software, and to use it to restore an authorized copy.  But not to sell or distribute the copy.

So, without offering any specific advice, but speaking generally, I am not sure that making a copy and then selling the copy apart from the device on which it was installed would be kosher under either doctrine.  

Such is the stuff of which protracted and expensive litigation is made.  Caveat vendor et caveat emptor.  Your results may vary.  

God bless America.

[wspohn]

Ben - that's how we lawyers can afford to buy sports cars!   

In my view there would be nothing wrong with selling a car with the legitimate tune installed, but if you made a back up of it for your own possible use, you'd have to delete it; if you sold it you'd be in the soup.

[Ben L]

Jeez, is it that obvious?  Concur, on all counts, and I think Judge Jones in Seattle would, too.

[Uranium-238]

So, would selling the ECM be legal? Providing you have no backup of the tune? Like selling a computer with Windows installed?

[lil goat]

I know I don't think it's theft if you were to sell a copy and delete the original, but that does not make it legal. I love HP Tuners but have long questioned  it's legality, and how they can sell it because of what you can potentially do with it. When you buy a tune from Lyndon, he always wants a copy of your original tune. This way he is modifying your tune, not selling you GM's intellectual property.

I would say you could sell the ECM, but I will defer to the shysters, I mean lawyers on that.

[wspohn]

They only call them shysters in the US.    Up in Canada we are respectable barristers and solicitors!   

You ask a difficult question.  Generally you are always able to do pretty much what you want on something you have purchased (subject to any intellectual property licensing agreements you may have entered into like how many copies can be used).  If you sell the original to someone else, still normally OK.

But if you modify the original and THEN sell it, not so clear at all.  Mont Blanc (the pen manufacturer) has successfully stopped people that modified their products (making 'art' pens out of them) and resold them in the US, even though modifying them and keeping them was clearly alright.

[Uranium-238]

Here's another thing: When you install software, there is always a EULA, and if you don't agree to it, you can't install/use the software. Some EULA's state that you may not modify the software in any way. So, what's GM's EULA? If purchasing the car is seeing as agreeing to the EULA, why wasn't I informed of any EULA prior to signing the papers to purchase the car?

I'm not a lawyer, (though there are enough in my family.) but is seems like something is missing...

[LiquidPT]

Generally you are always able to do pretty much what you want on something you have purchased (subject to any intellectual property licensing agreements you may have entered into like how many copies can be used).

Not always true. Here in the US, we have the DCMA... hate that thing. Regardless of other copyright law (and, in particular, fair use) It's illegal to circumvent copy protection, even if it's for a legal purpose. Want to make backup copies of DVD cuz the kids tend to scratch em? Too bad... Want to watch those movies you bought on DVD on a portable device (such as an iPod)? Too bad. Even though it was perfectly legal to take CDs and copy them to tapes so you could play em in your car back in the day. it's fair use. You can't do the same with copy protected materials in the USA.

[Ben L]

Not missing at all.  Read my post. The license terms are where the inquiry begins.  Whether "first sale" principles apply to trump the licensing restrictions is the question.  

In Vernor, the court held that Autodesk did not have the right to enforce a "no further distribution" licensing term against the downstream buyer, notwithstanding the license's "if you install, use, or even look at  it, you agree" EULA term.

Cutting to the chase, its a lot clearer that selling the car or maybe even the ECM with authorized software installed is a valid "first sale" (or as they say in Canada, copyright "exhaustion") event, and I'd handicap the prospects of a licensor enforcing a "no distribution" EULA term in those circumstances, as pretty low, particularly if the EULA provision is "buried in the weeds" boilerplate that supposedly applies whether or not the buyer takes some affirmative act to accept it.

The Mont Blanc example may not be on point because I think that may have been a "trade dress" trademark issue and not a copyright issue, and Canada has a weird author's "moral rights" aspect to its copyright law.  

But I must defer to my distinguished beaver-eating colleague on that one.

[wspohn]

The Mont Blanc example may not be on point because I think that may have been a "trade dress" trademark issue and not a copyright issue, and Canada has a weird author's "moral rights" aspect to its copyright law. 

But I must defer to my distinguished beaver-eating colleague on that one.

You may be right on the MB case - while I collect pens I didn't follow that one closely.

No need to defer to me - you obviously practice in the area while I am a humble corporate and real estate type.

As for beaver eating, we (ahem) don't usually speak of such things pubically....er, publically.... 

[DeepBlueGXP]

guys/gals, this is a vendor sub forum.  Lets not make it difficult for someone trying to learn about the product for sale.  Time to split the topic.

[Uranium-238]

Time to split the topic.

Could a mod go ahead and do this? Because I still have questions...

Like, "Where is GM's EULA?" What type of software is the standard tune? Freeware? Shareware? Buy it, you own it and can do whatever so longs as you don't make a profit off if it?

I'm the type that actually reads EULAs, so I'm pretty curious as to what I may have (unknowingly) gotten myself into.

[Ben L]

Insert zipped lip emoticon here.

[snaponbob]

I know I don't think it's theft if you were to sell a copy and delete the original, but that does not make it legal. I love HP Tuners but have long questioned  it's legality, and how they can sell it because of what you can potentially do with it. When you buy a tune from Lyndon, he always wants a copy of your original tune. This way he is modifying your tune, not selling you GM's intellectual property.

I would say you could sell the ECM, but I will defer to the shysters, I mean lawyers on that.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. HP Tuners allows legal access to ECM software, but I would think that HP Tuners NEVER intended HPT to be used to hack/copy/resell intellectual or actual property. HPT = HP Tuners, NOT HP Pirating.