rtbathula

As more and more young people criticize the government through various platforms like YouTube and Twitter (X), the BJP government is stepping up with a new Broadcasting Bill to suppress freedom of expression following the failure of their Fact Check Units.

This is a classic case of what happens when laws are legislated without objective definitions. Vilifying corporations makes businesses step back and engage in silent protest, as Facebook has done now.

I have created this Kickstarter site to raise for funds for my film against the dictators.

The findings of the Lexmark International case(the link you have provided) are very important to understand in this context, as they provide us with all the information we need.

1. Is the software lock protected by copyright law? If so, no one should copy it.

2. Did McDonald's/Taylor defraud the users? If so, the users can sue them.

3. Is Kytch copying the software lock and selling it? If so, that would be a violation. However, you have said that they are not copying it; they are simply reading error codes and providing a different output. In that case, I do not see why they would need to invoke DMCA 1201 for an exemption. This is a completely different situation, like someone creating a keyboard or stand for my laptop. Kytch should apply for their own copyright in this case. Their appeal should be made in this direction.

Although different items can come together to form a product, it is McDonald's who brought them together as a WHOLE. This is strictly their property, and they have the right to keep their trade secrets, regardless of how bad they are.

If customers have problems with the machines, they should not buy them or use them. They have the freedom to choose. Additionally, if McDonald's has defrauded them in any way, they should sue McDonald's. There is a free choice.

iFixit may be great engineers who can perform magic, but they are literally asking Congress for an exemption to violate copyright law. This will not end with McDonald's; others will follow suit.

As for Ayn Rand's argument, because it provides the right expression in one line.

In which direction it's not? McDonald has a copyright of their machine — others shouldn't reproduce it. It's like saying some movie has bad scenes and I want the right to fix it by violating the copyright.

It's a violation of patent laws. And I can summarize it in one expression from the novel Atlas Shrugged "Why Rearden could only have Rearden Metal?"