8 ms·

It is my right to do with my printer whatever I want.

parasubvert 4mo ago
The hardware yes. Bambu's software, not quite. If you want to flash it with 3rd party firmware & use 3rd party slicers, have at it. If you want to use Bambu's software against their TOS, OK you wouldn't be alone in that, but there's no moral high ground in it.
- tannertech 4mo ago
  Its the people's software though, used under AGPL by Bambu. It never was Bambu's software.
- shakna 4mo ago
  Sure there is. When purchased, it was able to do something. Due to an update, the customer has now been misled, because a feature was removed. In most countries, that would violate consumer rights. There's an ethics argument here.
  - parasubvert 4mo ago
    That's a highly creative interpretation of events. The software license agreement usually upfront covers what can or cannot not change. It is pretty rare in most countries to see successful legal action for changed features, but best of luck.
    - josephg 4mo ago
      Taking functionality away from a product after you bought it is a scum move. If the law lets them get away with it, the law should be changed. When I buy a product, I look at reviews and make my purchasing decision on the features and functionality at the time of sale. If a software update later ruins that, I want the option to get my money back.
      - parasubvert 4mo ago
        [flagged]
    - mystraline 4mo ago
      The "agreement" is at best coerced, and under blackmail of hardware you bought and paid for. At worst, its a fraudulent indefinite rental masquerading as a 'sale'. And lets discuss 'updates that fuck over your hardware'. In dwcent countries, thats hacking, and a serious criminal charge. But lol, companies are somehow exempt.
      - parasubvert 4mo ago
        [flagged]
    - mttpwll 4mo ago
      No, it’s not creative at all, it’s what happened — I have first hand experience to corroborate this. Regardless, at least in the US, not only are software-based ToS becoming unenforceable, but there’s a large upswing towards “right to repair” legislation, which, I think, is what you’re arguing against here… and I really think you’re going to be on the wrong side of history with your current line of thinking (despite what Bambu Labs does).
      - parasubvert 4mo ago
        [flagged]
        mttpwll 4mo ago
        No, it is with you -- the legislators are doing "fine" (and, again, are heading in a fine direction wrt RTR and software ToS). I have no idea why you think copyright violations apply here? You seem to be throwing legal terms around without regard for their actual meaning. It's clear you're here to argue for the sake of argument, but I'd really encourage you to reflect and think about why you're so loyal to a corporate entity instead of your fellow consumers (of which there are many in the parent and sibling comments... hint: you may be on the wrong side). Just for fun, pretend you bought a propane grill for cooking on Monday. On Tuesday, you cooked some bbq chicken and some corn. Later on Thursday, and without your knowledge or authorization, the grill no longer allowed you to use the propane apparatus for cooking non-meats unless you call a special telephone number and said a magic word whenever the call was answered. As a minimum, I feel, it'd be very confusing because, even though you're doing the exact same thing as Tuesday, the outcome is not the same. Your freedoms have been restricted by someone else; if you are okay with that, then have fun licking boots. The rest of us will still be here advocating for your freedoms.
    - shakna 4mo ago
      The ACCC is more than happy to explain unenforceable terms, if you'd like to do business with Australia. Feel free to consult Steam, Google, Meta and others, if a software license is enough to ignore consumer rights.
      - parasubvert 4mo ago
        I look forward to them sternly changing Bambu Labs' practices!
        tankenmate 4mo ago
        They will just fine them into oblivion; they are known to fine companies AUD10M to AUD50M for this sort of thing, and from 1st April this year they can now fine up to AUD100M. Will this mean that Bambu will withdraw from the Australian market? Possibly maybe probably, but the ACCC takes a very hard stance against bait and switch.
        autoexec 4mo ago
        It's a whole lot better than the US, but AUD100M isn't enough to scare a lot of companies. A law with real teeth would go after an increasing percentage of their revenue for each offense.
        marcus_holmes 4mo ago
        As a percentage of global revenue, sure, it's not much. But as a percentage of what that company is likely to make in the Australian market, it can be significant.
        anakaine 4mo ago
        The largest ACCC fine to date for a company undertaking anti consumer practices is $483m against an educational provider for misleading students. I'd be reasonably happy to lodge a complaint if I could find a version that's reasonably articulated. As a Bambu customer in Australia I switched my printer to local mode and its been great.
    - tannertech 4mo ago
      The license agreement being the AGPLv3?
  - bcjdjsndon 4mo ago
    [flagged]
- armchairhacker 4mo ago
  Maybe legally, but morally “you have permanent physical access to this but don’t ’own’ it” and anti-circumvention are debatable. There’s a small benefit of anti-circumvention where businesses sell hardware for cheaper with restrictions and a TOS that prevents bypassing them. But even that doesn’t apply here because Bambu changed the software after purchase.
- shevy-java 4mo ago
  This reminds me of RMS and GPLv3. Now I personally don't use GPLv3, but this here is literally a case-in-point, and it is not even only limited to the "cloud-only". Because this now includes a company threatening to sue a developer. If they sue one developer, they, by proxy, sue all of them in principle. So RMS was kind of right. > If you want to use Bambu's software against their TOS How does the TOS get involved here? I don't use their TOS. Why would or should they be able to enforce it? Note that it also depends on the jurisdiction. For instance, Microsoft's EULA never had any legal bearings in the EU.
- vrganj 4mo ago
  > If specific terms in a contract are unfair, they are not binding on you and the trader may not rely on them. https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/unfair-treatment/unfair-contract-terms/index_en.htm https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/unfair-treat...
- IshKebab 4mo ago
  There's absolutely a moral high ground in it. That's the point. Nobody is arguing against Bambu's legal right to be arseholes.
- marcus_holmes 4mo ago
  Isn't their software based on AGPL'd code? If so, then yes, the software too
- dirasieb 4mo ago
  ESL? look up the definition of the word moral
- nwallin 4mo ago
  "Bambu's software" is forked from an AGPL project and is therefore itself AGPL. I have a right to fork, modify, and use it how I wish subject to the terms of the AGPL. Bambu's TOS is irrelevant. Their TOS is superceded by the terms of the AGPL.

The hardware yes. Bambu's software, not quite. If you want to flash it with 3rd party firmware & use 3rd party slicers, have at it. If you want to use Bambu's software against their TOS, OK you wouldn't be alone in that, but there's no moral high ground in it.

tannertech 4mo ago
Its the people's software though, used under AGPL by Bambu. It never was Bambu's software.
shakna 4mo ago
Sure there is. When purchased, it was able to do something. Due to an update, the customer has now been misled, because a feature was removed. In most countries, that would violate consumer rights. There's an ethics argument here.
- parasubvert 4mo ago
  That's a highly creative interpretation of events. The software license agreement usually upfront covers what can or cannot not change. It is pretty rare in most countries to see successful legal action for changed features, but best of luck.
  - josephg 4mo ago
    Taking functionality away from a product after you bought it is a scum move. If the law lets them get away with it, the law should be changed. When I buy a product, I look at reviews and make my purchasing decision on the features and functionality at the time of sale. If a software update later ruins that, I want the option to get my money back.
    - parasubvert 4mo ago
      [flagged]
  - mystraline 4mo ago
    The "agreement" is at best coerced, and under blackmail of hardware you bought and paid for. At worst, its a fraudulent indefinite rental masquerading as a 'sale'. And lets discuss 'updates that fuck over your hardware'. In dwcent countries, thats hacking, and a serious criminal charge. But lol, companies are somehow exempt.
    - parasubvert 4mo ago
      [flagged]
  - mttpwll 4mo ago
    No, it’s not creative at all, it’s what happened — I have first hand experience to corroborate this. Regardless, at least in the US, not only are software-based ToS becoming unenforceable, but there’s a large upswing towards “right to repair” legislation, which, I think, is what you’re arguing against here… and I really think you’re going to be on the wrong side of history with your current line of thinking (despite what Bambu Labs does).
    - parasubvert 4mo ago
      [flagged]
      - mttpwll 4mo ago
        No, it is with you -- the legislators are doing "fine" (and, again, are heading in a fine direction wrt RTR and software ToS). I have no idea why you think copyright violations apply here? You seem to be throwing legal terms around without regard for their actual meaning. It's clear you're here to argue for the sake of argument, but I'd really encourage you to reflect and think about why you're so loyal to a corporate entity instead of your fellow consumers (of which there are many in the parent and sibling comments... hint: you may be on the wrong side). Just for fun, pretend you bought a propane grill for cooking on Monday. On Tuesday, you cooked some bbq chicken and some corn. Later on Thursday, and without your knowledge or authorization, the grill no longer allowed you to use the propane apparatus for cooking non-meats unless you call a special telephone number and said a magic word whenever the call was answered. As a minimum, I feel, it'd be very confusing because, even though you're doing the exact same thing as Tuesday, the outcome is not the same. Your freedoms have been restricted by someone else; if you are okay with that, then have fun licking boots. The rest of us will still be here advocating for your freedoms.
  - shakna 4mo ago
    The ACCC is more than happy to explain unenforceable terms, if you'd like to do business with Australia. Feel free to consult Steam, Google, Meta and others, if a software license is enough to ignore consumer rights.
    - parasubvert 4mo ago
      I look forward to them sternly changing Bambu Labs' practices!
      - tankenmate 4mo ago
        They will just fine them into oblivion; they are known to fine companies AUD10M to AUD50M for this sort of thing, and from 1st April this year they can now fine up to AUD100M. Will this mean that Bambu will withdraw from the Australian market? Possibly maybe probably, but the ACCC takes a very hard stance against bait and switch.
        autoexec 4mo ago
        It's a whole lot better than the US, but AUD100M isn't enough to scare a lot of companies. A law with real teeth would go after an increasing percentage of their revenue for each offense.
        marcus_holmes 4mo ago
        As a percentage of global revenue, sure, it's not much. But as a percentage of what that company is likely to make in the Australian market, it can be significant.
        anakaine 4mo ago
        The largest ACCC fine to date for a company undertaking anti consumer practices is $483m against an educational provider for misleading students. I'd be reasonably happy to lodge a complaint if I could find a version that's reasonably articulated. As a Bambu customer in Australia I switched my printer to local mode and its been great.
  - tannertech 4mo ago
    The license agreement being the AGPLv3?
- bcjdjsndon 4mo ago
  [flagged]
armchairhacker 4mo ago
Maybe legally, but morally “you have permanent physical access to this but don’t ’own’ it” and anti-circumvention are debatable. There’s a small benefit of anti-circumvention where businesses sell hardware for cheaper with restrictions and a TOS that prevents bypassing them. But even that doesn’t apply here because Bambu changed the software after purchase.
shevy-java 4mo ago
This reminds me of RMS and GPLv3. Now I personally don't use GPLv3, but this here is literally a case-in-point, and it is not even only limited to the "cloud-only". Because this now includes a company threatening to sue a developer. If they sue one developer, they, by proxy, sue all of them in principle. So RMS was kind of right. > If you want to use Bambu's software against their TOS How does the TOS get involved here? I don't use their TOS. Why would or should they be able to enforce it? Note that it also depends on the jurisdiction. For instance, Microsoft's EULA never had any legal bearings in the EU.
vrganj 4mo ago
> If specific terms in a contract are unfair, they are not binding on you and the trader may not rely on them. https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/unfair-treatment/unfair-contract-terms/index_en.htm https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/unfair-treat...
IshKebab 4mo ago
There's absolutely a moral high ground in it. That's the point. Nobody is arguing against Bambu's legal right to be arseholes.
marcus_holmes 4mo ago
Isn't their software based on AGPL'd code? If so, then yes, the software too
dirasieb 4mo ago
ESL? look up the definition of the word moral
nwallin 4mo ago
"Bambu's software" is forked from an AGPL project and is therefore itself AGPL. I have a right to fork, modify, and use it how I wish subject to the terms of the AGPL. Bambu's TOS is irrelevant. Their TOS is superceded by the terms of the AGPL.