Eprom content 86 911 Carrera(Euro spec)

[jriisnaes]

Just got myself an Eprom programmer. Anyone got the content of for example an Authority or Weltmeister(or other kind of performance chip) they can email me(the .bin file)?

thanks
JR

[ChrisBennet]

And what would you do with Authority or Weltmeister's intellectual property? Steal it?
-Chris

[jriisnaes]

Was going to replace my original eprom. The fuel and ignition maps have been posted on this forum(link from your website..) before so did not think about "copyright" issues. Sorry

Jon

[ChrisBennet]

Originally posted by jriisnaes
Was going to replace my original eprom. The fuel and ignition maps have been posted on this forum(link from your website..) before so did not think about "copyright" issues. Sorry

Jon

I kinda figured you were trying to steal something. In this day and age when stealing music is common place I think people delude themselves into thinking that if it is easy to steal it isn't the same as shoplifing.

As for the chip information on this BBS, posting some fuel and ignition maps for educational purposes is far cry from ripping someone off. No one is going to go and use the data posted to duplicate Weltmeister or Autothority's chip (who'd want to?). If you disagree, why don't you use that information and make your own chip?

Try PM'ing "Lorenfb". He may have what you're looking for.
-Chris

[dhoward]

Originally posted by ChrisBennet

Try PM'ing "Lorenfb". He may have what you're looking for.
-Chris

dog.

[Lorenfb]

I totally agree with Chris. ANY copying & reuse/sale of EPROM firmware is a
violation of copyright laws. Most/all chip vendors have basically infringed
on Porsche/Bosch's copyrights, as they have used most of the original 3.2
(& other Porsches) EPROM code and modified it.

This is the same situation (as many will remember) when Intel went after
AMD for using the math coprocessor codes for AMD's basic 486. Any code
which retains ANY similiarity to (or use of) the original code is a copyright
violation. It's the same as copying a page/paragraph from a published book
and using it in another's "work" without prior approval of the original creator.

It's common for semiconductor companies who produce microprocessors
to sue competitors who violate copyright laws by using either the micro
code (control store) or the actual instuction codes. So, Porsche could
sue the various chip vendors, if they really wanted to or the chip vendors
were a larger problem to Porsche owners causing warranty issues.

So, since the issue has been raised and if you follow copyright laws, most
chip vendors and resalers of performance chips have violated Porsche's
copyrights. Thanks Chris for raising the issue.

[toolman]

I have an old 24 pin Weltmeister chip out of my 87 I'll sell you cheap!

[jriisnaes]

Hmm this is interesting. If I make a chip from the content already posted on this board whos the guilty one? me for copying someone elses work?, the guy who posted the material?, or the manufacturer of the modchip(who has already stolen material from Porsche/Bosch).
I guess the modchip manufacturers never made a copyright of their content because they are afraid to get sewed by Porsche..
This must be something for the lawyers

Jon

[ChrisBennet]

Originally posted by jriisnaes
Hmm this is interesting. If I make a chip from the content already posted on this board whos the guilty one? me for copying someone elses work?, the guy who posted the material?, or the manufacturer of the modchip(who has already stolen material from Porsche/Bosch).
I guess the modchip manufacturers never made a copyright of their content because they are afraid to get sewed by Porsche..
This must be something for the lawyers

Jon

Jon.
Unless you're morally bankrupt, it's not really that hard to figure out. You should have learned this as a child: Stealing is taking something against the owner's will. Perhaps there are cultural differences that I am unaware of but I think the definition is pretty universal.
Everyone picks a point on the moral continuum where they feel comfortable. For me, I don't have any problem with making a copy of something I already own (my chip and its code) and modifying it - and I don't have a problem paying someone else to do it for me either.
-Chris

[ChrisBennet]

Originally posted by Lorenfb
So, since the issue has been raised and if you follow copyright laws, most chip vendors and resalers of performance chips have violated Porsche's copyrights. Thanks Chris for raising the issue.

That's a valid point. I suppose in order to not violate the copyright law technically, the chip vendor would need to reprogram your original chip by copying the contents, modifying it and then reburning the original Eprom.
-Chris

[Lorenfb]

"That's a valid point. I suppose in order to not violate the copyright law technically, the chip vendor would need to reprogram your original chip by copying the contents, modifying it and then reburning the original Eprom.
-Chris"

Two following examples indicate the contrary:

1. You own a Porsche publication which on one page it's not clear about the proper
DMF clutch assembly. Someone on the internet has modified that page by additional
text and a picture. He reprints that page & sells it. You send the old page and pay for
the new page.

2. You own a classic old film re-mastered for DVD which you'd like some frames modified
for better images. An internet company has decided to start modifying this DVD and
others to correct for the undesireable frames. The company starts selling the DVD
and asks that you send your old DVD with your order for the modified one.

Both examples are copyright violations, as each original "work" has been "taken"
and modified into a new "work". The original creator in both cases has lost control
of the "work" and future potential profits.

The key here is modification, no matter to what extent, and reuse of an original "work".
A modification still makes use of, or relies on, the original "work" for the new "creation",
i.e. it doesn't/can't "stand alone".

[ChrisBennet]

Originally posted by Lorenfb
"That's a valid point. I suppose in order to not violate the copyright law technically, the chip vendor would need to reprogram your original chip by copying the contents, modifying it and then reburning the original Eprom.
-Chris"

Two following examples indicate the contrary:

1. You own a Porsche publication which on one page it's not clear about the proper
DMF clutch assembly. Someone on the internet has modified that page by additional
text and a picture. He reprints that page & sells it. You send the old page and pay for
the new page.

2. You own a classic old film re-mastered DVD which you'd like some frames modified
for better images. An internet company has decided to start modifying this DVD and
others to correct for the undesireable frames. The company starts selling the DVD
and asks that you send your old DVD with your order for the modified one.

Both examples are copyright violations, as each original "work" has been "taken"
and modified into a new "work". The original creator in both cases has lost control
of the "work" and future potential profits.

The key here is modification, no matter to what extent, and reuse of an original "work".

Perhaps it is a fine distinction (hence the work "technically" in my original statement) but for #1 to be analogous to what I said it would have to read like this:
"You own a Porsche publication which on one page it's not clear about the proper DMF clutch assembly. Someone on the internet will modify your manual if you send it to them. He returns the original manual with modified pages and charges you."
-Chris

[schnellmann]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you guys are all a bit off the mark....

The mere act of copying the EPROM at all is a violation, regardless of whether you create and/or give away and/or sell derivative works.

This you can see from the text below, taken right off the US Copyright Office's web site (posted in ironic violation of the law itself):


WHAT IS COPYRIGHT?

Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of “original works of authorship,” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:

- To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;

- To prepare derivative works based upon the work;

- To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

- To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works;

- To display the copyrighted work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; and

- In the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

[Lorenfb]

Good Post! It's as simple that, and to the point.

[ChrisBennet]

Originally posted by schnellmann
Not to put too fine a point on it, but you guys are all a bit off the mark....

The mere act of copying the EPROM at all is a violation, regardless of whether you create and/or give away and/or sell derivative works.

Do some research on "Fair Use" as it applies to copyright. "Fair Use" is what allows you to make copies for personal use for example.

From Understanding Your Rights: The Public's Right of Fair Use
"What does the "fair use privilege" mean?
Several important limitations to the author's exclusive rights exist under copyright law to encourage citizens to fully and openly exchange and build upon information to increase the public's knowledge. The most important limitation to the author's exclusive rights is the public's right to exercise a "fair use privilege" regarding copyrighted works. Fair use refers to an individual's right to use copyrighted material in a reasonable manner without the consent of copyright owner. In Sony v. Universal City Studios; the U.S. Supreme Court stated, "any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a 'fair use;' the copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use." The fair use privilege was originally a judicially created doctrine, but has subsequently been codified by the copyright statute."

-Chris

[schnellmann]

True, making a copy of a CD or DVD or software program you legally acquired IS "fair use" if it's for the purposes, for example, of playing said CD in both YOUR home and YOUR car. But it is not "fair use" to create, give away or sell that copy or any derivative works from material copied under "fair use."

In the case of a Motronic EPROM, what possible fair use would there be unless, say, you had 2 DMEs and lost the chip for one of them and made a copy of the one you had?

Copying and modifying a fuel/ignition map, even if it's for your own fun, is not "fair use." That would be like decompiling a software program to see how it worked, then creating a new program from it. It's illegal and morally wrong, and in no way "fair use " w/o permission from the author.

My business is the creation of (digital) intellectual property, so from that perspective, I do not see any gray areas. Copying of intellectual property (if it's not for backup or academic or other similar purposes) is theft.

[jriisnaes]

Then publishing of the contents of for example the eprom(like have been done on this board) would also be illegal, right?

J

[RickM]

Quote Schnellmann: "The mere act of copying the EPROM at all is a violation, regardless of whether you create and/or give away and/or sell derivative works."

Second Quote Schnellmann: "I do not see any gray areas." "Copying of intellectual property (if it's not for backup or academic or other similar purposes) is theft."

You contradicted yourself....

[ChrisBennet]

Originally posted by schnellmann
Copying and modifying a fuel/ignition map, even if it's for your own fun, is not "fair use." That would be like decompiling a software program to see how it worked, then creating a new program from it. It's illegal and morally wrong, and in no way "fair use " w/o permission from the author.

I think you are dead wrong.

Both of your examples are totally legally and morally OK. If you own something you can do whatever you want to it as long as you don't make a profit (i.e personal use) or effect the copyright owner's future profits.

I can do whatever I want with a copyrighted work I own as long as it is for personal use. I can rip out all the odd pages of a book and put it back on my shelf. I can draw a mustache on any copyrighted image that I own, etc.

Perhaps you are confusing copyrights with the software industry's licensing agreements which state that you don't actually own the software - it's more like a permanent lease.

-Chris

[schnellmann]

Respectfully... I appreciate your points... and I neither contradicted myself nor am I confused about licensing or "fair use."

When you purchase a book, you own the paper it's printed on but not the words or images in it. When you buy a CD or DVD, you own the plastic disc, not the music or the movie. When you buy a DME chip, you own the silicon wafer, not the map (which is software) contained on it.

Like I said above, in all cases you own the media but not the content - which is why the RIAA went after the Napster kids even though they never made a thin dime off of sharing their music.

If you copy it not for fair use, but for the purposes of giving it away, reverse engineering it and/or modifying it, you've stolen intellectual property and have violated the copyright law in the same way as if you were a Hip Hop artist who sampled another band's melody and mixed it into your own track w/o permission or copied a CD for a friend.

You can be found in violation of copyright law and "fair use" exceptions even if you gave away your derivative works. That's all I'm saying.

But you CAN do it, it's not like you're going to get caught and hauled off to the slammer.