Reasons for hacking DSOs

[Brumby]

And you can still make as many archive copies of that Afghani-sourced movie as you like, as long as you keep them locked away and out of the hands of others. It is the DISTRIBUTION of said copyrighted materials that will land you in jail.

Distribution will land you in jail, certainly, but it is not the only right that is exclusively held by the copyright owner.  Right alongside that is the right to copy.

Herein lies a fundamental problem with interpretation of the law - separating observation from legislation.

As it has been pointed out, merely copying copyrighted material (outside of any provisions, such as archival copy) IS illegal.  The issue of going to jail or not is a matter of DISCOVERY.  The copyright owner won't prosecute if they don't know it's happening.  If you distribute, you attract their attention - but if a nosey neighbour dobs you in, you are still eligible for a change of wardrobe - something in a bright orange, perhaps.

As for throwing in Afghanistan as a qualifier for the argument, that is a rather weak tactic.  You know why - so don't plead ignorance.

[kcbrown]

As for throwing in Afghanistan as a qualifier for the argument, that is a rather weak tactic.  You know why - so don't plead ignorance.

I used Afghanistan in order to satisfy mnementh's conditions, to illustrate that even if the copyrighted work is initially obtained in a country with the most lax copyright laws, it is the laws of the country in which the copying is taking place that count.

Which is to say, I did that in order to give his side of the argument the maximum strength possible, since if his argument cannot prevail when it is under conditions most favorable to him, then it clearly cannot prevail under any weaker conditions.


I did not use it as a means to justify any claims of legality of copying.   


If you were talking to mnementh in the above, then my apologies for the confusion on my part.

[mnementh]

And you can still make as many archive copies of that Afghani-sourced movie as you like, as long as you keep them locked away and out of the hands of others. It is the DISTRIBUTION of said copyrighted materials that will land you in jail.

Distribution will land you in jail, certainly, but it is not the only right that is exclusively held by the copyright owner.  Right alongside that is the right to copy.

Herein lies a fundamental problem with interpretation of the law - separating observation from legislation.

As it has been pointed out, merely copying copyrighted material (outside of any provisions, such as archival copy) IS illegal.  The issue of going to jail or not is a matter of DISCOVERY.  The copyright owner won't prosecute if they don't know it's happening.  If you distribute, you attract their attention - but if a nosey neighbour dobs you in, you are still eligible for a change of wardrobe - something in a bright orange, perhaps.

As for throwing in Afghanistan as a qualifier for the argument, that is a rather weak tactic.  You know why - so don't plead ignorance.

Umm, NO. You STILL have the right to make an archive copy for your own use, even of Copyrighted material, under the Fair Use act. The DMCA does NOT take that away. That is what I'm saying. If you like to play your DVDs and smash them on the floor afterwards, you have the right to make two dozen copies and smash one every night for a fortnight to protect your original, as long as you keep them all safely out of the hands of others. It is DISTRIBUTION that turns your "Fair Use" into "Copyright Infringement". You've been listening to too much RIAA/MPAA propaganda. SERIOUSLY.

MicroSpunk fought this for over a decade before getting spanked in nearly every court on 7 continents. THAT is why they stopped making controlled media their primary means of copyright protection, rather delivering digitally and actually making it  the end-user's responsibility to make archive copies of install media for archive. They turned a money sucking product weakness into the customers' problem.

There is even more; you have the right to copy AND DISTRIBUTE "Excerpts" of a copyrighted property for review and parody purposers. If you are an educator, you can copy entire properties and distribute them to your students as part of your instruction; my wife is an educator and does this all the time.

I'll agree that throwing the Afghan-sourced movie was a bit skewed, but it was relevant given my prior argument that copyright didn't apply as these 'scopes were made and sold in China. My argument revolves around understanding that these are NOT "Copyrightable" softwares, as they are INTRINSIC to the function of a hard good sold for a particular purpose. This is ALSO why you have the right to copy and dismantle that code; no licensing agreement is present, because that kind of licensing right has to be EXPRESS, as opposed to IMPLIED or INTRINSIC rights in the case of CopyRight. And in this case, no such licensing has been made express in the purchase agreement or the use of the device.

DMCA does NOT invalidate Fair Use, no matter how much the music and movie industries wish it could.


mnem
ZZZzzZZZzzz...

[kcbrown]

Umm, NO. You STILL have the right to make an archive copy for your own use, even of Copyrighted material, under the Fair Use act. The DMCA does NOT take that away.

That is correct.  However, the DMCA might end up preventing you from being able to legally make that archival copy if the original software is protected by an access/copy control measure.   

That is what I'm saying. If you like to play your DVDs and smash them on the floor afterwards, you have the right to make two dozen copies and smash one every night for a fortnight to protect your original, as long as you keep them all safely out of the hands of others. It is DISTRIBUTION that turns your "Fair Use" into "Copyright Infringement". You've been listening to too much RIAA/MPAA propaganda. SERIOUSLY.

Look, you keep making these claims about the law.  Why don't you actually cite the exemptions you claim exist here?   DVDs fall under the DMCA because they are protected by an access control mechanism.

The DMCA contains no exemption in its text for archival copies, nor does the Library of Congress exemption mechanism cover it, because the Library of Congress has not seen fit to include archival copies in its list of exemptions.  Here's the latest list of LoC exemptions: http://copyright.gov/1201/2015/fedreg-publicinspectionFR.pdf

There is even more; you have the right to copy AND DISTRIBUTE "Excerpts" of a copyrighted property for review and parody purposers. If you are an educator, you can copy entire properties and distribute them to your students as part of your instruction; my wife is an educator and does this all the time.

Yes, and through the Library of Congress exemption mechanism, your wife is exempt from the DMCA for that.

I'll agree that throwing the Afghan-sourced movie was a bit skewed, but it was relevant given my prior argument that copyright didn't apply as these 'scopes were made and sold in China. My argument revolves around understanding that these are NOT "Copyrightable" softwares, as they are INTRINSIC to the function of a hard good sold for a particular purpose.

Really?   Where in the law is an exemption to copyright law made for that kind of software?  Indeed, if such software were exempt from copyright law, then cases such as LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. Static Control Components, Inc. would have been lost on the basis that the software itself was not a copyrightable work, and the court there wouldn't have even had to reach to the question of DMCA protection.

No, you're flat wrong on this.  The firmware is just as copyrightable as any other piece of software.

Where in the world do you get these ideas from???

This is ALSO why you have the right to copy and dismantle that code; no licensing agreement is present, because that kind of licensing right has to be EXPRESS, as opposed to IMPLIED or INTRINSIC rights in the case of CopyRight. And in this case, no such licensing has been made express in the purchase agreement or the use of the device.

Right.  Which means that standard copyright law controls.  And standard copyright law has a Fair Use exemption which the courts have interpreted to include reverse engineering!

In the absence of a license agreement, or an explicit statement from the copyright holder placing the work into the public domain, it is copyright law that determines what circumstances you can make copies.   It forbids all copies except those made under one or more of the exempting provisions.

DMCA does NOT invalidate Fair Use, no matter how much the music and movie industries wish it could.

I think you may be confused about what the DMCA is.

The DMCA is legislation that makes circumvention of access and copy control mechanisms illegal, as well as making illegal distribution, etc., of tools that have such circumvention as their primary purpose.   It does not address copying directly at all.

The DMCA's provisions do not contain a fair use exemption, which means that even though you may be able to copy excerpts of a copyrighted work for fair use purposes, if you must circumvent an access or copy protection mechanism in order to do that, you cannot legally accomplish that -- unless you happen to fall into one of the DMCA's exemptions.  Those are a separate set of exemptions.  Were that not the case, then the fair use doctrine would control DMCA as well as normal copyright, but it doesn't.

[Brumby]

And you can still make as many archive copies of that Afghani-sourced movie as you like, as long as you keep them locked away and out of the hands of others. It is the DISTRIBUTION of said copyrighted materials that will land you in jail.

Distribution will land you in jail, certainly, but it is not the only right that is exclusively held by the copyright owner.  Right alongside that is the right to copy.

Herein lies a fundamental problem with interpretation of the law - separating observation from legislation.

As it has been pointed out, merely copying copyrighted material (outside of any provisions, such as archival copy) IS illegal.  The issue of going to jail or not is a matter of DISCOVERY.  The copyright owner won't prosecute if they don't know it's happening.  If you distribute, you attract their attention - but if a nosey neighbour dobs you in, you are still eligible for a change of wardrobe - something in a bright orange, perhaps.

As for throwing in Afghanistan as a qualifier for the argument, that is a rather weak tactic.  You know why - so don't plead ignorance.

Umm, NO. You STILL have the right to make an archive copy for your own use, even of Copyrighted material, under the Fair Use act.
ZZZzzZZZzzz...

Seriously ... I mean SERIOUSLY?

You can't even read what's right there in front of you.

[Brumby]

As for throwing in Afghanistan as a qualifier for the argument, that is a rather weak tactic.  You know why - so don't plead ignorance.

I used Afghanistan in order to satisfy mnementh's conditions, to illustrate that even if the copyrighted work is initially obtained in a country with the most lax copyright laws, it is the laws of the country in which the copying is taking place that count.

Which is to say, I did that in order to give his side of the argument the maximum strength possible, since if his argument cannot prevail when it is under conditions most favorable to him, then it clearly cannot prevail under any weaker conditions.


I did not use it as a means to justify any claims of legality of copying.   


If you were talking to mnementh in the above, then my apologies for the confusion on my part.

I must accept responsibility for the confusion and for that I do apologise.  My comment was not phrased clearly - but considering the lack of comprehension skills exhibited by another party, I can't see a clarification being worth the effort.  For that, too, I apologise.

[kcbrown]

If you were talking to mnementh in the above, then my apologies for the confusion on my part.

I must accept responsibility for the confusion and for that I do apologise.  My comment was not phrased clearly - but considering the lack of comprehension skills exhibited by another party, I can't see a clarification being worth the effort.  For that, too, I apologise.

No worries!

Since my discussion with mnementh has centered around U.S. law, I'm curious what the law in your part of the world is like.  Here in the U.S., the DMCA clearly has a disconnect from copyright law, in that even copies that are authorized by copyright law itself might be forbidden if they hide behind an access control mechanism.

Are the laws in your country disconnected in that way?  You'd think that if the law authorizes a copy, it would also authorize circumvention of access/copy control mechanisms for the purpose of making those copies.  But that would be expecting the law to actually be logical, which is probably too much to ask for. 

[Brumby]

I'm not aware of the exact state of affairs at this point in time, but I do believe we got the DMCA stick - without the carrot.  Something that came out of the 2004 FTA.  Our position is one where our limitations have become more concrete, but things like 'fair use' that the US enjoys still elude us.

I've no doubt oversimplified, but I don't have my finger on the pulse.

[NF6X]

You'd think that if the law authorizes a copy, it would also authorize circumvention of access/copy control mechanisms for the purpose of making those copies.  But that would be expecting the law to actually be logical, which is probably too much to ask for. 

"Making the copy is fine, but circumventing the copy protection is not" seems comparable to "It's not the volts that kill you; it's the amps."

[Zero999]

I'm not aware of the exact state of affairs at this point in time, but I do believe we got the DMCA stick - without the carrot.  Something that came out of the 2004 FTA.  Our position is one where our limitations have become more concrete, but things like 'fair use' that the US enjoys still elude us.

I've no doubt oversimplified, but I don't have my finger on the pulse.

Australia has fair dealing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing

[vk6zgo]

Originally Patents & copyright were different,if related,ideas.

Patents were in the realm of real hardware,in that  you couldn't Patent an idea,like,say,Ohm's Law.
It had to be a way to create a real product.

Copyright,on the other hand,dealt with products of the creator's imagination,such as literature,music,works of Art,& similar things.

In the early days of Electronics strenuous efforts were made by some large manufacturers to tie up new developments  by Patent litigation.
Oddly enough,sometimes companies were on both sides of the divide,claiming Patent infringement,whilst at the same time,publishing "application notes" on the use of new devices.

Ultimately,this form of restriction  was unsuccessful,due to the wide publication of details of any new circuitry via "Radio" magazines which sprung up like weeds throughout the world.

Hardware folk have,thus,grown up in a world where hardware circuitry,was defacto,if not de jure--"open source".

Software,because it is "sort of " written,fell roughly into the copyright category.

Literary works supposedly are made of "full cloth" by the writer's imagination,with no prior use.
It wouldn't be hard to question this-----how many writers use the "Necronomicon" in Fantasy works?
Do they licence this use from HP Lovecraft's heirs & successors?

Poor old HP's Copyright has probably expired.though!

We can also question Software/Firmware.
Is this the sole product of the creator's mental processes?
Are there any precursors?

To be completely free of outside influences,surely the creator would have to devise their own programming language,use alternative "short cuts " within the program,& so on.

[mnementh]

Umm, NO. You STILL have the right to make an archive copy for your own use, even of Copyrighted material, under the Fair Use act. The DMCA does NOT take that away.

That is correct.  However, the DMCA might end up preventing you from being able to legally make that archival copy if the original software is protected by an access/copy control measure.   

That is what I'm saying. If you like to play your DVDs and smash them on the floor afterwards, you have the right to make two dozen copies and smash one every night for a fortnight to protect your original, as long as you keep them all safely out of the hands of others. It is DISTRIBUTION that turns your "Fair Use" into "Copyright Infringement". You've been listening to too much RIAA/MPAA propaganda. SERIOUSLY.

Look, you keep making these claims about the law.  Why don't you actually cite the exemptions you claim exist here?   DVDs fall under the DMCA because they are protected by an access control mechanism.

The DMCA contains no exemption in its text for archival copies, nor does the Library of Congress exemption mechanism cover it, because the Library of Congress has not seen fit to include archival copies in its list of exemptions.  Here's the latest list of LoC exemptions: http://copyright.gov/1201/2015/fedreg-publicinspectionFR.pdf

There is even more; you have the right to copy AND DISTRIBUTE "Excerpts" of a copyrighted property for review and parody purposers. If you are an educator, you can copy entire properties and distribute them to your students as part of your instruction; my wife is an educator and does this all the time.

Yes, and through the Library of Congress exemption mechanism, your wife is exempt from the DMCA for that.

I'll agree that throwing the Afghan-sourced movie was a bit skewed, but it was relevant given my prior argument that copyright didn't apply as these 'scopes were made and sold in China. My argument revolves around understanding that these are NOT "Copyrightable" softwares, as they are INTRINSIC to the function of a hard good sold for a particular purpose.

Really?   Where in the law is an exemption to copyright law made for that kind of software?  Indeed, if such software were exempt from copyright law, then cases such as LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. Static Control Components, Inc. would have been lost on the basis that the software itself was not a copyrightable work, and the court there wouldn't have even had to reach to the question of DMCA protection.

No, you're flat wrong on this.  The firmware is just as copyrightable as any other piece of software.

Where in the world do you get these ideas from???

This is ALSO why you have the right to copy and dismantle that code; no licensing agreement is present, because that kind of licensing right has to be EXPRESS, as opposed to IMPLIED or INTRINSIC rights in the case of CopyRight. And in this case, no such licensing has been made express in the purchase agreement or the use of the device.

Right.  Which means that standard copyright law controls.  And standard copyright law has a Fair Use exemption which the courts have interpreted to include reverse engineering!

In the absence of a license agreement, or an explicit statement from the copyright holder placing the work into the public domain, it is copyright law that determines what circumstances you can make copies.   It forbids all copies except those made under one or more of the exempting provisions.

DMCA does NOT invalidate Fair Use, no matter how much the music and movie industries wish it could.

I think you may be confused about what the DMCA is.

The DMCA is legislation that makes circumvention of access and copy control mechanisms illegal, as well as making illegal distribution, etc., of tools that have such circumvention as their primary purpose.   It does not address copying directly at all.

The DMCA's provisions do not contain a fair use exemption, which means that even though you may be able to copy excerpts of a copyrighted work for fair use purposes, if you must circumvent an access or copy protection mechanism in order to do that, you cannot legally accomplish that -- unless you happen to fall into one of the DMCA's exemptions.  Those are a separate set of exemptions.  Were that not the case, then the fair use doctrine would control DMCA as well as normal copyright, but it doesn't.

The only reason there was any question was because of the use of "Shrinkwrap" or "break-seal" licensure in the product. This is one of those really over-reaching legal concepts that I referred to earlier, and that pretty much the entire rest of the civilized world has already killed and buried. There is no such licensure in the case of these scopes, therefore no copyright infringement. For something to be protected under copyright law, one HAS to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the general public... anybody who might be considered an end-user... is aware that one holds a property as copyrighted. One has to make a legal effort to RESERVE those rights; one does NOT have them automatically.

Also... even Scalia, that black-hearted corporate-owned SOB, admitted this was a case that could go on forever under a number of different guises, even though it was eventually decided in favor of SCC.

I find your interpretation of the DMCA interesting; there are a number of open-source programs available that allow one to record any video playing on your screen and whatever audio is also playing at the time to an H264 video file in user-defined level of resolution. Do you suppose this is legally considered "circumventing" that anti-copy process? If I actually watch the movie while recording it, I wonder if my First Amendment rights to chronicle my own experiences apply here?

Probably not... but an interesting tangent.


mnem
I didn't see that.

[kcbrown]

The only reason there was any question was because of the use of "Shrinkwrap" or "break-seal" licensure in the product. This is one of those really over-reaching legal concepts that I referred to earlier, and that pretty much the entire rest of the civilized world has already killed and buried.

True as that may be, it still has force here in the United States.  The law is not what either of us would like it to be (indeed, I doubt you'll find but perhaps a few who think that all of the law is as it should be).

There is no such licensure in the case of these scopes, therefore no copyright infringement.

The first is true.  The second is true only if nothing is copied in violation of copyright law.

Copyright law remains in effect unless a license supersedes it.  Indeed, it is because of copyright law that licenses can be imposed in the first place!  Licenses are authorization from the copyright holder to do things with the copyrighted content that otherwise would be forbidden by copyright law, plus other terms and conditions of that use.

Were that not the case, then people could simply modify the text of the click-through license agreement itself before "agreeing" to it, and be in the clear.  But because the agreement itself is a copyrighted work, or is embedded within a copyrighted work, copyright is in force there as well, and one thus cannot legally modify the license agreement before agreeing to it.

Additionally, it is because copyright law is in effect by default that one has to explicitly say that their work is being placed in the public domain for it to actually land there.   The default state of a work is that it is copyrighted at the time of creation (works for hire and anonymous/pseudonymous works can begin at time of publication).  Copyright is something you get automatically and by default on every expressive work you create unless you explicitly disclaim it.


Has it occurred to you to ask why the Free Software Foundation's license, and other free software licenses, exist?  Why the BSD license exists?  It's precisely because of things like the above.

For something to be protected under copyright law, one HAS to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the general public... anybody who might be considered an end-user... is aware that one holds a property as copyrighted. One has to make a legal effort to RESERVE those rights; one does NOT have them automatically.

This is incorrect.  You're confusing copyright and trademark.  With trademarks, one has to make a reasonable effort to enforce them, at the risk of otherwise losing them.  There is no such requirement for copyright.  Again, were this not the case, then there would be no need to explicitly say that one is placing a work in the public domain.  One would need only to release the work, and that would be that.

I can see how you can be confused about these things.  Many people think of all of these things in terms of a single overarching "intellectual property" law, when the law is not nearly as coherent as all that.

I find your interpretation of the DMCA interesting;

My interpretation of the DMCA is based on a plain reading of the law itself, combined with what relevant case law I can find.  The same is true of copyright law.

I strongly encourage you to actually read the law for yourself, plus statements made by organizations, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which are active in the arena of copyright.

there are a number of open-source programs available that allow one to record any video playing on your screen and whatever audio is also playing at the time to an H264 video file in user-defined level of resolution. Do you suppose this is legally considered "circumventing" that anti-copy process?

If you're doing that while, say, watching a DVD on your computer, and the copyright holder hasn't given permission to do that, then yes, that is a violation of copyright.  How could it not be, when there is no format shifting exemption in copyright law?  And that goes for any other copying that isn't explicitly authorized by the copyright holder, save for copying that is explicitly exempted by copyright law.  And remember: the archival copy exemption is for computer programs only.  It is not a general exemption.

Look, just because you don't get caught at something doesn't make that something legal.  And just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's wrong.  Law and ethics are entirely different.


I am entirely in agreement with you that copyright law is far too draconian, especially with respect to durations.  But few value liberty the way I do.

If I actually watch the movie while recording it, I wonder if my First Amendment rights to chronicle my own experiences apply here?

A more interesting case would be if you use a video recorder to record your reactions and the screen and sound contents simultaneously.  That might be covered under fair use.  And because you're playing the DVD in an authorized manner, you wouldn't be running afoul of the DMCA, either.  However, it would most certainly be classified a derivative work, as it would incorporate the copyrighted work of another, so a fair use exemption would be your only hope.

There have been First Amendment challenges to some portions of copyright law, but they have failed, so I wouldn't count on that saving you, or for fair use to save you, either.  See, e.g., Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, as a case that may well be relevant here.

[mnementh]

The problem here is that we're arguing laws that are even now in a state of flux, and that have different meaning depending on where you are. These laws even now are being argued up and down and in a week or a month or a year or two, they may mean something completely different, and really... here it's a moot point anyways.

Bottom line is we CAN do it, we ARE doing it, and if we are evil bastards for doing it, we are the least of the evil bastards on the planet right now AND we have the manufacturer's tacit approval TO do it.

I have IRL to get back to, where I was just given a 3D printer to play with. When I get a good-enough paying job (or when I need it to troubleshoot this flipping printer) I'll buy one of the 'scopes in question and hack it. Then I'll get on with my life.


mnem
Because I can.

[tggzzz]

Bottom line is we CAN do it, we ARE doing it, and if we are evil bastards for doing it, we are the least of the evil bastards on the planet right now AND we have the manufacturer's tacit approval TO do it.

Strawman points, of course, since nobody is saying that. Multiple people do, however, think any arguments to the effect of "I can do it, They haven't prevented me, therefore it is right" are fallacious self-serving hypocritical nonsense.

When I get a good-enough paying job ... I'll buy one of the 'scopes in question and hack it.

Why am I not surprised by what that reveals.

[Teneyes]

AND we have the manufacturer's tacit approval TO do it.

Yes We can.

For Rigol it was a little more than Tacit!
After Dave showed everyone how to Hack the DS1052 , Rigol(distributor) sends  Dave all new DSOs to demo.
It is all part of marketing.

Not so with Agilent.

ps . I enjoyed the legal points

a token approval received as shown in picture

[rsjsouza]

Same here; the legal aspects were very interesting. 

[Zero999]

Strawman points, of course, since nobody is saying that. Multiple people do, however, think any arguments to the effect of "I can do it, They haven't prevented me, therefore it is right" are fallacious self-serving hypocritical nonsense.

The same could be said for the argument that lots of companies deliberately cripple their customer's hardware and charge them a ransom to unlock it, so it makes it right.

[Fungus]

The same could be said for the argument that lots of companies deliberately cripple their customer's hardware and charge them a ransom to unlock it, so it makes it right.

I'm not sure if you're trolling or genuinely confused.

[Zero999]

The same could be said for the argument that lots of companies deliberately cripple their customer's hardware and charge them a ransom to unlock it, so it makes it right.

I'm not sure if you're trolling or genuinely confused.

Perhaps I'm confused. Do you know what he meant by they statement which just seemed trollish to me?

[tggzzz]

The same could be said for the argument that lots of companies deliberately cripple their customer's hardware and charge them a ransom to unlock it, so it makes it right.

I'm not sure if you're trolling or genuinely confused.

Perhaps I'm confused. Do you know what he meant by they statement which just seemed trollish to me?

Perhaps you would understand if you hadn't snipped the context in which I made the remaining.

That type of misdirection is a typical tactic employed by trolls that want heat and don't want light.

[Zero999]

The same could be said for the argument that lots of companies deliberately cripple their customer's hardware and charge them a ransom to unlock it, so it makes it right.

I'm not sure if you're trolling or genuinely confused.

Perhaps I'm confused. Do you know what he meant by they statement which just seemed trollish to me?

Perhaps you would understand if you hadn't snipped the context in which I made the remaining.

That type of misdirection is a typical tactic employed by trolls that want heat and don't want light.

I still don't know what you were going on about?  After all isn't that what you did? Taking snippets of posts out of context.

[kcbrown]

Multiple people do, however, think any arguments to the effect of "I can do it, They haven't prevented me, therefore it is right" are fallacious self-serving hypocritical nonsense.

I'll raise the same point I think Hero999 is attempting to raise, but in a slightly different way.

Don't the companies that deliberately cripple their customer's hardware and charge them a ransom to unlock it adopt precisely the same argument as the one you reference above?

Companies are generally amoral actors.  Many seem to find that acceptable (even going so far as to justify it on the basis that "companies only have a responsibility to maximize the profits of their shareholders") while simultaneously not finding it acceptable for individuals to act in the same amoral fashion.  Isn't that latter a hypocritical stance to take?

[Zero999]

Now, let's go back. There are differing opinions here regarding morality of hacking oscilloscopes.

There are two parties:

The manufacturer:

1) Manufactures have the right to lock parts of the hardware they sell and charge customers any price they like to unlock them.

2) It is immoral for manufactures to lock parts of their customer's hardware and expect them to pay extra to unlock them.

And the consumer:

1) A customer who buys a product unlocks a feature they've not paid for is immoral because it deprives the manufacture of revenue.

2) When a customer buys a product, they can do with it what they please, including modify it to improve the performance and unlock whatever features they like.

Personally I side with the consumer on both accounts (they can modify and unlock features and crippleware is immoral) because the manufacturer wouldn't exist without them. If you want to disagree with me, that's fine but if you start accusing me of stealing or whatever because of my point of view then you're trolling.

[G0HZU]

1) A customer who buys a product unlocks a feature they've not paid for is immoral because it deprives the manufacture of revenue.

I would suggest that this kind of hacking activity is 'priced in' to the business model for the product by the manufacturer anyway.

If the hacking got to the point where the business model breaks down then they would change the way they control hardware and software features. But the business model may reveal that moderate levels of hacking may actually be of benefit to the business. Who here really knows?

2) When a customer buys a product, they can do with it what they please, including modify it to improve the performance and unlock whatever features they like.

For home/hobby use that's the way I see things.