Also a valid strategy. It’s so nice of Masterlock to provide so many options. Really makes it feel like they care about the lock opening experience and can be tailored to the user’s preference.
This is allowed because the DMCA sucks. It specifically calls out that circumventing copy protection is a violation. This also means that any company that adds protection also is able to effectively deny your right to make a backup copy.
This doesn’t apply to physical goods where ownership actually has meaning.
The general idea is correct, but the Bambu Labs example is inaccurate. Bambu Labs incorrectly issued a DMCA takedown for the user interfacing with their GPL-licensed code. Bambu Labs are in violation of the terms of the GPL license.
Rossmann has several videos explaining this, and has offered $20K to fund the illegally targeted dev’s legal fees. Bambu Labs is pretty clearly in the wrong.
A better example would be John Deere blocking farmers from fixing their tractors, or Apple blocking users from replacing parts in their phones. According to the DMCA, you don’t own your tractor, and you don’t own your phone.
Does masterlock get to sue the companies that make lockpicks?
Come now, you don’t need something fancy like lockpicks to pick most Masterlocks.
Seriously. Sometimes a twig or a small yellow mallet will suffice.
From what I’ve seen, hitting it with another masterlock will do the trick lol
Also a valid strategy. It’s so nice of Masterlock to provide so many options. Really makes it feel like they care about the lock opening experience and can be tailored to the user’s preference.
“I’m going to open this Masterlock 420 with a Masterlock 420“ -McNally
Edit: Just checked and it doesn’t look like McNally has uploaded a new video for a year. That’s a damn shame.
Does masterlock get to sue the companies that make cotton swabs?
This is allowed because the DMCA sucks. It specifically calls out that circumventing copy protection is a violation. This also means that any company that adds protection also is able to effectively deny your right to make a backup copy.
This doesn’t apply to physical goods where ownership actually has meaning.
U.S.C. § 1201 can be used against your physical goods too since it’s so damn broad about circumventing DRM.
This is why your physical good like the good ol’ Bambu labs was able to file a DMCA notice against OrcaSlicer fork.
The general idea is correct, but the Bambu Labs example is inaccurate. Bambu Labs incorrectly issued a DMCA takedown for the user interfacing with their GPL-licensed code. Bambu Labs are in violation of the terms of the GPL license.
Rossmann has several videos explaining this, and has offered $20K to fund the illegally targeted dev’s legal fees. Bambu Labs is pretty clearly in the wrong.
A better example would be John Deere blocking farmers from fixing their tractors, or Apple blocking users from replacing parts in their phones. According to the DMCA, you don’t own your tractor, and you don’t own your phone.
Probably not, but that’s because the lockpicks are not digital and hence not covered by DMCA