Ask HN: Fable hacked my piano, can I release the results?

Three prevalent themes in the discussion

1. Legal risk of publishing the decoder/encoder
   Many commenters warn that sharing the reverse‑engineered code could provoke a cease‑and‑desist, a DMCA takedown, or even a lawsuit.

   “They might object to the existence of the software and demand ‘its destruction.’ Or sue your ass…or file a DCMA takedown with Github.” – brudgers

2. Publish anyway / ask forgiveness rather than permission
   A sizable contingent advises simply releasing the code (or anonymously) and dealing with any pushback only if it occurs, because getting explicit permission is unlikely.

   “Just publish the repo. Don't contact them. If they C&D you, take it down if you don't want to deal with the legal repercussions.” – georgemcbay

3. Jurisdictional nuances and reverse‑engineering exemptions
   Participants debate how laws differ by region (US DMCA, EU DMA, Australian TPM) and whether the obfuscation qualifies as an effective technical measure or falls under reverse‑engineering exceptions.

   “If you live in the USA, the 'decoy notes' may be considered an 'effective technical measure' from the 'Digital Millennium Copyright Act'. If you live in Europe, this restriction may be considered 'gatekeeping' and exempted by the Digital Markets Act.” – Giefo6ah
   “Section 1201(f) is designed to allow developers leeway in reverse engineering to make 'independently created computer programs' talk to other 'computer programs'.” – nerdsniper