This video took me on a little YouTube adventure which led me to this site[1] giving away a little thing to clip onto your K2.0 machine for a nicer looking bypass. I don't have a K2.0 machine so I can't verify that it works. But it appears to be free so what have you got to lose?
I applaud the fact that they don't seem worried about the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that makes it illegal to create devices that bypass DRM. DMCA is supposed to apply only to protecting copyrighted works, but prosecutors and lawyers in general try to extend the laws in all sort of crafty ways, and usually companies are too fearful to try anything proactive.
That depends. Does Keurig even consider this to be DRM and protected under the DMCA? Or is that just what we call it because that is what we talk about on HN.
"No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."
"[..] is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof"
Just about any software DRM exists to protect some kind of copyright. In this case, however, I don't think the Keurig authenticity check controls access to any copyrighted work (not even a trivial one like a logo or small program), so it wouldn't count.
The closest version is this one:
Chamberlain made garage door openers and claimed that the rolling code that opened the door protected access to their copyrighted "open the door" routine in their garage door opener... Since Skylink's replacement remotes caused that code to execute, they were bypassing the DRM. This was shot down.
There is also the lexmark one... They claimed that the numbers read out of their cartridges were a copyrighted algorithm (in a secret language!) that described how to measure the toner amount. Copying this code verbatim was copyright infringement. The courts ruled that this wasn't copyrightable because access controls weren't copyrightable (like you can't copyright a key). Even if it was an algorithm that was creative, it didn't really act like it. Lexmark was told to get lost.
Incidental note... Nintendo tried this with the gameboy and trademark law. It wouldn't load a 3rd party cartridge unless it had the nintendo logo in the ROM. Of course a 3rd party couldn't display that logo because that would be trademark infringement. Courts told nintendo that they lost the right to claim infringement when they required the use of that bitmap as an access control device.
--
So, no, I wouldn't worry about losing the DMCA here. Of course, getting sued just to hassle you is another thing - Kuering could file a case they knew they'd lose.
That was my thinking too. I don't think this K2.0 scheme really fits into the typical DRM scenarios. I'm trying to compare the main components of this set up and other DRM set ups. I can't quite make them match up logically. But something just doesn't add up for me.
Do we know that they think it can be protected under the DMCA?
We know they provided a technological measure meant to require the use of their branded cups. That doesn't neccesarily mean they think their measures are protected under the DMCA.
I hope they don't (and hope they are wrong if they do!). The DMCA is intended for copyrighted works, which a K-cup is not. (or shouldn't be, anyway, who knows what crazy things the courts will do).
[1] https://www.gourmet-coffee.com/Keurig-DRM-Freedom-Clip.html