How Elon Takes Money

Guest Post by Eric Peters

Give Elon credit: He knows how to take money.

Not make it. That’s the result of honest, honorable work and the free exchange of value for value.

Elon’s work is of a different sort.

He uses leverage – force or its threat applied to coerce people to part with their money, unwillingly.

This includes people who bought his cars – and would like to repair them themselves.

The Boston Globe recently did a story (here) about one such owner, a man named Rich Benoit. He bought a salvage title’d Tesla S that had been damaged by flood waters and written off as totaled by the insurance company. He got a really good deal on it. The salvage yard sold him the car – which originally cost almost $80,000 to start – for $14,000.

But he would have to rebuild it in order to be able to drive it. People who can wrench – and want to save some bucks – do this sort of thing all the time.

So he began tearing into his new project car – at which point he realized he would need spare parts as well as access to the codes and other diagnostic data necessary to get the electric UBoat operational again. At which point, he ran into a wall.

Erected by Elon.

Tesla wouldn’t sell Benoit – or anyone else, for that matter – the parts he needed to fix the car, because it was considered an off-the-reservation Tesla, which is to say one over which Tesla no longer had control (more below).

The company also denied him – as well as any other “unauthorized” person – access to the diagnostic information needed to troubleshoot and fix the thing, necessary before replacement parts (whether new or used) could do much good.

Benoit told the Globe of his travails and the Globe contacted Tesla, which responded with the following very interesting statement:

“There are significant safety concerns when salvaged Teslas are repaired improperly or when Tesla parts are used outside of their original intent, as these vehicles could pose a danger to both the mechanic and other drivers on the road.”

Italics added.

This, of course, being a tacit admission about the auto-da-fe tendencies of Teslian battery packs. Why isn’t Tesla more “concerned” about the “safety” of its auto-piloted mobile crematoria?

Oh. Yes, of course. Those Teslas are still on the reservation (wait).

It’s also a dodge. Not the truck – but another way to mulct people. By forcing them to do business with Tesla in order to keep their Tesla going.

Or, as in this case, to get it going at all.

Of course, Tesla has the right to sell – or not sell – parts to anyone and at whatever price people are willing to pay. Price gouging is obnoxious but the parts do belong to Tesla  . . until they’re sold to someone else.

The car, on the other hand… .

People like Benoit are the owners, having paid (however much) for them in full. Elon’s name isn’t on the title, yet Elon asserts ownership – of the data in the car and of the means to access and decrypt it. This data can’t be easily accessed without Elon’s permission, which he refuses to give – and special equipment, which he forbids the “unauthorized” from using.

Neat.

It’s of a piece with the way Elon insists each Tesla be controlled by Tesla – which may (at Teslian whim) “unlock” – or lock – various functions such as how much charge the battery will accept. This latter came to light last fall (see here) during the hurricanes which forced evacuations from places about to be waterlogged to those above high tide.The high tide areas were outside the advertised range of the Teslas but – just like that – the range was miraculously extended via an “update” sent to each car over the electronic transom.

By implication, Tesla could almost certainly reduce the range – to zero, if it wished.

And it is certain Tesla is mining a mountain of data – yours. Where and how you go, possibly even live-stream video.

It’s interesting that Tesla doesn’t seem to think you own that.

And the penalty for disconnecting a Tesla – for jumping the reservation wall – is to be cast out from “updates” and blackballed from Teslian “authorized” parts and service.

This is not a new thing, unfortunately.

John Deere – the tractor company – does it, too. When one of their newer rigs needs service, the owner doesn’t service it because he can’t. The diagnostic data is denied him. His must haul the thing to an “authorized” Deere service center and pay the sum demanded.

Or, he can hack the tractor, if he’s good with electronics and software.

Deere of course takes umbrage – and audaciously asserts the software/coding in the tractor they sold still belongs to them.

That the “owner” is in fact a kind of renter who is given conditional use of the thing for however long.

Tesla is trying the same trick, basically.

Some states – like Massachusetts, where Benoit lives – have passed “right to repair laws” but Tesla’s dodge is that they don’t sell cars through dealerships in that state and so are exempted from the provision.

Tesla only sells cars online in Massachusetts.

Ho! Ho! Ho!

If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit. The spirit of Johnny Cochrane lives on.

From the crony capitalist perspective, it makes perfect sense.

Or rather, dollars.

Why hassle with trying to compete on the free market when you can have a captive one?

This is becoming the new business model – one pioneered by the insurance mafia, which was the first to leverage the power of government to force people to buy its services. Elon is merely among the new crop of “entrepreneurs” who have seen – and learned.

It will not get better – and is certain to get worse – until enough of us reassert not only our ownership of the things we buy but of ourselves. The government – and Elon, et al – takes our money on the principle that we don’t own ourselves; that they have a right to a portion of whatever we produce – which is just the same as saying they own a piece of us.

Stop that – and this stops, too.

-----------------------------------------------------
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal

-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
Click to visit the TBP Store for Great TBP Merchandise
As an Amazon Associate I Earn from Qualifying Purchases
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
14 Comments
El Kabong
El Kabong
March 14, 2019 3:42 pm

Well, as someone esle once said, you can’t spell “Felon” without “Elon”.

Rich Benoit has a YouTube channel and I’ve watched a few of his videos. He’s very knowledgeable about both the cars and the company Tesla. If Tesla were smart, they’d hire him. He’s helped lots of other suckers, er…BUYERS fix their lemons.

Donkey Balls
Donkey Balls
March 14, 2019 4:09 pm

How does he take money? Up the ass?

Anonymous
Anonymous
March 14, 2019 4:37 pm

I have asked “what happens when a car company goes belly up?” The company gets broken up and the new owner of say, the software, gets nothing for dated software unless they can generate income like a subscription (rent?). So after you are done paying for the car you have to pay rent on the electronic gizmos. Forever. Because you never really own it. Or all of it anyway. I think I will get an answer soon. I will stick to my old ride.

Bill McGrath
Bill McGrath
March 14, 2019 4:39 pm

Do Tesla’s policies outlined above add to or reduce the value of their products?

Sounds like the gentleman should have done some research before buying. Then he might have realised the real value of the car was zero.

splurge
splurge
  Bill McGrath
March 14, 2019 7:01 pm

Or maybe less!

KaD
KaD
March 14, 2019 6:01 pm

More proof as if any was needed that anyone buying these overpriced duds is nuts.

Stucky
Stucky
March 14, 2019 6:26 pm

Great article. Tesla, a dream car for those who want to drive to Dystopia.

Oh, one other thing … now I hate John Deere also.

TampaRed
TampaRed
  Stucky
March 14, 2019 10:59 pm

stucky,
i posted that about john deere over a year ago–
there was a scotus decision that i thought had cleared up this issue & said that people had a right to work on their own property–
technically,the software that in newer autos tells you that your tire is low is copyrighted,so will they make it illegal to air up your tires?

RiNS
RiNS
  Stucky
March 15, 2019 6:55 am

a dream car for those who want to drive to Dystopia

That’s a good one Stuck..

I follow that Rich fellow on youtube. Even after all the fuckery that Elon and crew have committed on him he still drinks the kool-aid. He just bought a lightly used S model for 70 grand or so. Amazing!

TheDingus
TheDingus
March 14, 2019 8:41 pm

There is a problem with the whole premise of this article is an OEM is REQUIRED to sell parts to an individual or service to an individual, which they are not. Any OEM that doesnt do that is a pretty piss poor one but there is no obligation. As for singling out John Deere is pretty unfair as Cummins, MAN, Case IH, Caterpillar, Detroit, Navistar, Pacccar, Volvo all have their own DIAGNOSTICS. The customer owns a copy of a file created by that OEM, the non-automotive manufacturer has every right to use their diagnostics programs exclusively. Now using the strong arm of the government to persecute aftermarket programs is obviously wrong.

Wxtwxtr
Wxtwxtr
March 14, 2019 9:04 pm

There’s a sucker born every minute.
A fool and his money are soon parted.
As the age of Rothschild (so called ‘central’) banking counterfeiting comes to an end, will there be enough buyers suckers to keep the company afloat? If the company fails, will the suckers be able to service their cars? If they can’t, will they ever buy into the latest fad again? If they do, who cares? Put away the sympathy and get out the ROFLMAO smiley.

Stealth Spaniel
Stealth Spaniel
March 15, 2019 1:12 am

Just curious. Why would anyone want a Tesla? If you have to own an electric car, there is Prius, Volt, Bolt, or God knows how many others. I think Teslas are weird looking ,unsafe to drive, and have “precious” issues like cold weather and recharging stations. If I had a dream car budget, I’d go Ferrari.

Horst
Horst
March 15, 2019 10:28 am

Great article, but it buys the Elon tale. This guy is a frontman, there is an agenda. Supported and backed by the state. These space stories are tales too, red car in space, really?
There are videos on YouTube, Rich documented his efforts. Have watched many, interesting, he tears the Tesla down. Rich rebuilds.

Anonymous
Anonymous
March 15, 2019 2:03 pm

This is easy solved:

Art1 : “Any useful article that requires continuing software support from the manufacturer to keep functioning, shall made hardware details fully public so it can be reprogrammed in the case of support discontinuation, whether the support discontinuation is directed to the entire market or a particular individual”
Art2: “No cost increase for the software support above inflation rate is allowed. Initial cost of support shall be made fully public at the time of original sale”
Art3: “Lack of payment of agreed cost of support, is a valid reason for discontinuing support without the requirement of hardware disclosure. There shall be provisions at the time of sale as to how to resume support after a period of delinquency”
Art4: “Enhancements that imply an increase of the support cost shall be discretionary to the customer. Refusal is not a valid case of discontinuing support. In such a case, Art 1 provisions apply”
Art5: “The defense department is tasked with determining the cases where such disclosure may pose a national security risk.”
Art6: “Support cost should include the payments, other costs the customer shall incur to obtain the support and the time the customer has to dedicate, valued at the standing federal minimum wage”.
Art7: “Disclosure is not required when there is a repossession agreed at the time of sale in case of discontinuation, but the customer decides to keep the article”

Sold something that requires support: support it without increasing the cost , repossess it at a pre-negotiated price, or open it up. Exceptions for people that do not pay, or security critical items.