Creating a hazard for pedestrians is sufficient grounds for impoundment. The fact that other hazards also exist doesn't change that. Second, the issue of wheth

Creating a hazard for pedestrians is sufficient grounds for impoundment. The fact that other hazards also exist doesn't change that. Second, the issue of whether the impoundment is justified is really quite irrelevant to the issue of whether the conversion of a bike legally purchased from the impound lot is legal - which is the subject of the EFF note. That bike is the purchaser's property, to do with as they choose, and people who generally treat ownership as a sacrament would be hypocrites if they started making exceptions whenever it suited them. Lastly, even aside from both of those issues, the attempted invocation of DMCA is clearly bogus. It's a horrible law generally, but still explicitly precludes the kind of abuse they were attempting. For them to go after the very person who had anticipated their behavior and worked to have those provisions added is ... well, not bright. It's a very stupid hill to die on, but if they and their fans want to then I'm glad to see them held up to ridicule.