▲ 1191 ▼ Brother accused of locking down third-party printer ink cartridges via forced firmware updates, removing older firmware versions from support portals [see comments] (www.tomshardware.com) submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by misk@sopuli.xyz to c/technology@lemmy.world 247 comments fedilink hide all child comments Brother deny the claims: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/03/brother-denies-using-firmware-updates-to-brick-printers-with-third-party-ink/ via https://startrek.website/comment/15279250
[–] match@pawb.social 33 points 2 years ago (6 children) anyone know about jailbreaking printers permalink fedilink source hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] caseyweederman@lemmy.ca 38 points 2 years ago (3 children) It absolutely baffles me that there isn't a huge custom printer firmware movement. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago (2 children) I've have had this thought too and the only reason I can think of is that the inkjet printers are sold at such a rediculous loss, that anything that could be sold next to them without the offset price from ink would seem like a bad joke. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ripcord@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago* I think they meant - movement to release custom firmware for existing printers. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ApatheticCactus@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago I think it's a legal issue, honestly. When printers first came out there was a fear that people would just print money and other illegal things, so printer firmware had to print out security identifiers on everything in yellow ink so it can be traceable. That's also why yellow ink always goes out first, and why it complains about yellow ink when trying to only print black and white. If that's law, then it could be illegal to use firmware that does not have these features, and anyone making fimware that 'just prints' may be held liable. Thus is all just an educated guess though, but seems plausible. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Tja@programming.dev 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ask Richard Stallman ;) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] rob_t_firefly@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago 🪴 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] caseyweederman@lemmy.ca 38 points 2 years ago (3 children) It absolutely baffles me that there isn't a huge custom printer firmware movement. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago (2 children) I've have had this thought too and the only reason I can think of is that the inkjet printers are sold at such a rediculous loss, that anything that could be sold next to them without the offset price from ink would seem like a bad joke. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ripcord@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago* I think they meant - movement to release custom firmware for existing printers. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ApatheticCactus@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago I think it's a legal issue, honestly. When printers first came out there was a fear that people would just print money and other illegal things, so printer firmware had to print out security identifiers on everything in yellow ink so it can be traceable. That's also why yellow ink always goes out first, and why it complains about yellow ink when trying to only print black and white. If that's law, then it could be illegal to use firmware that does not have these features, and anyone making fimware that 'just prints' may be held liable. Thus is all just an educated guess though, but seems plausible. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago (2 children) I've have had this thought too and the only reason I can think of is that the inkjet printers are sold at such a rediculous loss, that anything that could be sold next to them without the offset price from ink would seem like a bad joke. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ripcord@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago* I think they meant - movement to release custom firmware for existing printers. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ApatheticCactus@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago I think it's a legal issue, honestly. When printers first came out there was a fear that people would just print money and other illegal things, so printer firmware had to print out security identifiers on everything in yellow ink so it can be traceable. That's also why yellow ink always goes out first, and why it complains about yellow ink when trying to only print black and white. If that's law, then it could be illegal to use firmware that does not have these features, and anyone making fimware that 'just prints' may be held liable. Thus is all just an educated guess though, but seems plausible. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago* I think they meant - movement to release custom firmware for existing printers. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ApatheticCactus@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago I think it's a legal issue, honestly. When printers first came out there was a fear that people would just print money and other illegal things, so printer firmware had to print out security identifiers on everything in yellow ink so it can be traceable. That's also why yellow ink always goes out first, and why it complains about yellow ink when trying to only print black and white. If that's law, then it could be illegal to use firmware that does not have these features, and anyone making fimware that 'just prints' may be held liable. Thus is all just an educated guess though, but seems plausible. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Tja@programming.dev 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ask Richard Stallman ;) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] rob_t_firefly@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago 🪴 permalink fedilink source parent