Since when is an API call proprietary information? Can they even claim a DMCA against it? That's like claiming DMCA for telling someone how to flick a light switch.
[0]: >>37874220 [1]: >>37921584
In practice, the company still has a big advantage in arbitration.
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/why-binding-arbitratio...
> The problem is that companies generally know more than customers about an arbitrator’s record and thus are likely to strike out arbitrators who are more inclined to rule in favor of consumers. On average, each securities firm in the study had been involved in 81 other arbitrations. In non-securities disputes, such as those with cellular carriers, the average company had been in 133 hearings. By contrast, most consumers have never been involved in a previous arbitration and tend to strike arbitrators randomly. As a result, the firms’ informational advantage leads to systematically biased outcomes.
Looks like the pain was big enough.
> Proposed Class 7: Computer Programs— Vehicle Operational Data > MEMA petitions for a new exemption to ‘‘access, store, and share vehicle operational data, including diagnostic and telematics data’’ from ‘‘a lawfully acquired motorized land vehicle or marine vessel such as a personal automobile or boat, commercial vehicle or vessel, or mechanized agricultural vehicle or vessel.’’ 182 The petition limits circumvention to ‘‘lawful vehicle owners and lessees, or those acting on their behalf.’’ > The Office encourages proponents to develop the legal and factual administrative record in their initial submissions, including describing with specificity the relevant TPMs and whether their presence is adversely affecting noninfringing uses, whether eligible users may access such data through alternate channels that do not require circumvention, and the legal basis for concluding that the proposed uses are likely to be noninfringing. In general, the Office seeks comment on whether the proposed exemption should be adopted, including any proposed regulatory language.
- From Page 14, of October 19, 2023 – Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-10-19/pdf/2023-2...
The US Copyright Office goes on to say *they want feedback on this potential exemption*:
> The Office encourages proponents to develop the legal and factual administrative record in their initial submissions, including describing with specificity the relevant TPMs and whether their presence is adversely affecting noninfringing uses, whether eligible users may access such data through alternate channels that do not require circumvention, and the legal basis for concluding that the proposed uses are likely to be noninfringing. In general, the Office seeks comment on whether the proposed exemption should be adopted, including any proposed regulatory language.
Note that final sentence!
What is it about that device (or similar) that would put it out of scope?
[1] https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/19-046_6706ef32-...
So yes, the line was very obvious because these are events that happen in real life, risk that you say you wanted to eliminate by absolutely playing it safe: "_anything_, there is no such thing as excessive 'playing it safe'"
I can only assume that your original comment was reactionary and hyperbolic, but then got upset over where that kind of hyperbole lead in the past.