Mazda recently surprised customers by requiring them to sign up for a subscription in order to keep certain services. Now, notable right-to-repair advocate Louis Rossmann is calling out the brand.

It’s important to clarify that there are two very different types of remote start we’re talking about here. The first type is the one many people are familiar with where you use the key fob to start the vehicle. The second method involves using another device like a smartphone to start the car. In the latter, connected services do the heavy lifting.

Transition to paid services

What is wild is that Mazda used to offer the first option on the fob. Now, it only offers the second kind, where one starts the car via phone through its connected services for a $10 monthly subscription, which comes to $120 a year. Rossmann points out that one individual, Brandon Rorthweiler, developed a workaround in 2023 to enable remote start without Mazda’s subscription fees.

However, according to Ars Technica, Mazda filed a DMCA takedown notice to kill that open-source project. The company claimed it contained code that violated “[Mazda’s] copyright ownership” and used “certain Mazda information, including proprietary API information.”

  • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 month ago

    And if they want to attack car owners for doing what they want with their own car let’s go to court and see how fast their bullshit holds up.

    • T156@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      1 month ago

      Can’t wait for the inevitable “You don’t actually own the car, you just have a lifetime licence/lease to use the car”

      • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 month ago

        That’s being normalized right now with video games. It’ll happen with other things soon enough too.

      • milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Frankly, for a lot of places, I don’t know that would be such a bad idea.

        Now doing the same for land, that would be bad…

        • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 month ago

          It could make sense if the price were reflecting of not owning the car. But we know damn well that you would pay full price as if the car was yours, but you just wouldn’t own it.

          • milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            Oh well, “if buying isn’t owning…” Time to watch some Lockpicking Lawyer and trundle down to the car licensing lot and indulge in a little piracy >;-)