Jarczak’s fork crossed the line by injecting falsified identity metadata into its network communication. “In simple terms: it pretended to be the official Bambu Studio client when communicating with our servers.”
If it’s easy enough to get access to your cloud infrastructure by just changing some metadata about the connection, then you really should re-think your authentication systems. If I were to publish the exact model and pinning of the lock on my house, it would be silly of me to be mad that someone used that to make their own keys.
The DMCA is literally written in a way that they could write “DO NOT USE” in a text file and include it with firmware and claim that using the firmware Ina way they didn’t like was “breaking a digital lock”
Honestly I’m perfectly fine with the DMCA just being entirely revoked at this point. It has enabled more bad than it has done good, even when things went “right”
They’re claiming that forking their open source code and using the user agent in it unchanged is “impersonation”. And the only reason that might be an issue is because Section 1201 of the DMCA makes it illegal to break any digital lock, even if it’s a shitty one. Whether this even counts as a lock is up for debate in my opinion, but that doesn’t stop people from getting sued and owing lawyers money.
If you share the lock and the key with the public and tell them (via AGPL copyleft open source license) they may use, share, modify it (or not), etc with no penalty, and they even give you the secret knock, i can’t in any way see how that’s breaking a lock.
If it’s easy enough to get access to your cloud infrastructure by just changing some metadata about the connection, then you really should re-think your authentication systems. If I were to publish the exact model and pinning of the lock on my house, it would be silly of me to be mad that someone used that to make their own keys.
The DMCA is literally written in a way that they could write “DO NOT USE” in a text file and include it with firmware and claim that using the firmware Ina way they didn’t like was “breaking a digital lock”
Honestly I’m perfectly fine with the DMCA just being entirely revoked at this point. It has enabled more bad than it has done good, even when things went “right”
There are even supposed to be safe harbor protections, but the reality is that individuals don’t have the legal resources for it to matter.
What, are they claiming the user agent their application uses is copyrightable IP?
They’re claiming that forking their open source code and using the user agent in it unchanged is “impersonation”. And the only reason that might be an issue is because Section 1201 of the DMCA makes it illegal to break any digital lock, even if it’s a shitty one. Whether this even counts as a lock is up for debate in my opinion, but that doesn’t stop people from getting sued and owing lawyers money.
If you share the lock and the key with the public and tell them (via AGPL copyleft open source license) they may use, share, modify it (or not), etc with no penalty, and they even give you the secret knock, i can’t in any way see how that’s breaking a lock.