[Johnny555]

The restriction is not on the machine, it's on the cloud based software that you have to use to send a design to the machine. (and there's no limit on printing designs that you create within their software, only on images that you upload and convert).

So technically, this isn't a limit on the hardware, but on the software, even if realistically it's the same thing if you print a lot of uploaded designs since you can't use the machine without using their cloud software.

So legally they are probably in the clear to put limits on the "free" software, even if morally it's the equivalent of a hardware restriction.

[ddingus]

Lets phrase this differently.

People who buy a machine, ultimately buy the work product of said machine.

How that happens is a layer above the core value proposition.

Technically, it is a limit on what they want / need to do, which is why they bought the machine.

Nits being picked higher up are not germane.

[Johnny555]

Nits being picked higher up are not germane.

Isn't that a key distinction? Users can create unlimited designs of their own and print (or whatever it's called) them as many times as they want. The restriction is on importing external files, but once those are imported, there's no restriction on printing them.

So users have unlimited use of their machines which they paid for and own, but metered use of pattern imports using the cloud software that they license but do not own.

I think it's slimy business move and even unethical to charge for what was once free, but I'd be surprised if it's found to be illegal.

[ddingus]

How exactly does one create designs of their own without importing? How do they have others design for them without importing?

Secondly, the data involved in the entire process being open means we don't have to talk about these silly things. And that is what an unlimited looks like.

Actual open machines that take open data, are limited. Ones that are not open, that do not take open data are in fact quite Limited.

And I didn't say anything about legal. It probably is, and I'm sure they're team vetted it too.

I am all for revisiting what is legal and what is not, and or how we value things so Market forces determine that in a better way too. I don't care how it goes.

I care very much about machines being limited by software.

And be really clear, if there is preferred software for use with the machine, and it adds some real value of some kind, that's all fine and good. The perfectly Fair way to compete, and people will benefit from that value.

That isn't what's going on here.

The fact that the operation data stream isn't open, creates artificial value, but they're trading on. That'll ultimately comes at the expense of anyone who bought into this.

The real standard should be a decade from now someone finds one of these in a dumpster fixes it up and can drive it with whatever tools they feel like to make the data that they need.

Meta: I use voice input on this one sorry for the random capitalization typos.

[Johnny555]

How exactly does one create designs of their own without importing them?

I'm not a Cricut user, but Cricut said:

“Any project created within Design Space with images or fonts found in Design Space can be modified and do not count as a personal image upload. If users want to use images from other applications, such as a .jpg or .png, and upload those images to Design Space, that counts as a personal image upload.”

And I didn't say anything about legal. It probably is, and I'm sure they're team vetted it too.

Then I think we're arguing the same point -- what Cricut did is bad, but probably legal and well within their rights and it is what happens when people embrace closed platforms without understanding the drawbacks.

It's the same thing that leads people to buy $80 inkjet printers that only work with DRM'ed inkjet cartridges that cost $60 for a set of cartridges that contain $3 worth of ink.

[ddingus]

Yeah for what it's worth I don't buy those shitty printers either.

My favorite printer of all time with a PostScript printer my tektronix, made later by Xerox. You could literally FTP a PostScript file to it. And it without put a page. Loved it.

Printers pissed me off so much I don't currently own one. And I have a need coming up so I'm shopping around for some open basic printer that I can get used, or even pay a little more for new, that doesn't hassle me in these ways, and that can be driven with relatively open data.

Otherwise, it's cheaper just by few pages down then, or print where there printers available and deal. Which is exactly what I've done.

[ddingus]

Ultimately, work done that way is work done entirely within the scope and limitation of their software.

Ask anyone in design about how good those kinds of solutions are. There's a lot better software out there for doing design work. That makes all of what you put here a very severe limitation on how useful the machine actually is.

[playpause]

I can’t see that defence standing up if it is brought before a judge. The law isn’t always about enforcement of smallprint technicalities in favour of the unscrupulous. Equity law exists.

[Johnny555]

I'm not a lawyer, but I assume Cricut had their own lawyers vet this and that it's well covered by their terms of service. I'd be surprised if a court reverses this. But public opinion might.

[playpause]

I'm not a lawyer either, but I know that putting something in your terms of service doesn't give you legal carte blanche to deceive people. The law understands that most people don't read the whole ToS before clicking "I agree". This doesn't mean a ToS has no legal effect, but it's supposed to be for clarifying details. Any obviously major conditions (like "We might make your device stop working at some point in future and you'll have to pay us to make it work again") usually need to be stated in plain language, not buried in section 8 paragraph 9 of legal waffle. This sort of thing is what equity law is for, and why judges are paid so much - they often have to make rulings on what is 'reasonable'.

I agree Cricut must have had their legal team vet this decision, but that does not mean they necessarily believe they'd have a watertight defence if taken to court over it. It just indicates they made a business calculation and decided it's a good risk/reward ratio. Not many disputes make it to court. For example (pure speculation): maybe their lawyers estimated a 90% chance that they make lots of money out of this scam, just giving a few refunds and apologies to the angriest customers; a 9% chance that a serious lawsuit emerges (in which case they can probably just backtrack on the whole thing at some small cost); and a 1% chance that they somehow end up in serious hot water with a regulator.