I have recently become infuriated that it is considered illegal to break copy protections or bypass feature licenses when companies actually refuse to take your money for access, making the ONLY access technically illegal

what we need is amendments to GLOBAL copyright law, after a defined REASONABLE period for software
which should be defined to match current software usage trends, or after termination of all legal new sales

basically if you refuse to take my money for access to the rights to use hardware or software features, you must also give up your rights to stop copies or bypassing firmware locking of "advanced" hardware features

simple, if copy protection and software locks are about protecting sales, then when you stop selling it you directly imply you do not care about copies anymore, making it "DMCA abuse" by definition
maybe it is ok to protect it for a period of time, say if a restructuring is in progress, but due to some pieces of software being critical to remain functional permanently, during the period of time you have the rights to temporarily bypass if you had an original license, and can negotiate to be grandfathered in for a reasonable fee, but no termination of software access after sale should be legal at all ever

refuse to sell means refuse to protect copyright, making bypassing locks legal, not just ignored as "not worth protecting

we need to define this, to avoid punishing someone for simply continuing to enjoy hardware or software without technically breaking a law because it is impossible to legally use teh hardware or software anymore, contributing to e-waste and effectively stealing/deceptive sales to consumers

if you disagree by definition you think improper definitions of terms of sale and e-waste are good, and you thing we should fill landfills with toxic materials and let companies effectively rob consumers, by definition

it is NOT piracy when your offer to pay for it is refused, copyright exists ONLY to protect intellectual property compensation, if you are literally not allowed to compensate because they refuse your money, then there is no compensation loss, so it is not violating copyright, by the original intent of law

you refuse to sell access, you refuse the right to call copies "piracy", either you agree or you are anti-consumer rights, so you better agree, or show your bank balance to prove you shouldn't have a say