[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Again:

(a) MS advertises that the purchase of an XBOX gives you the benefits of Live (for a fee):

For a fee and on the condition that you adhere to the terms of service.

Originally Posted by Sonist

(b) you have been paying for Live fair and square;

Paying for yes, obeying the terms of service, no.

Originally Posted by Sonist

(c) MS has used modding as a competitive advantage, by conveniently failing to enforce modding restrictions, which over time has made its product more attractive precisely to those who are interested in modding.

Banning people from live is not enforcing modding restrictions?

Originally Posted by Sonist

There is a good argument, that there are some implied rights for those, who have modded for reasons other than stealing software (such as back ups.)

Ok, that I can agree with. There is a good argument for..........that is entirely different to "if you buy an Xbox you have the right to access Xbox live without any obligation to abide by the terms of service." Further, there being a good argument for something does not mean that the law will agree anyway.

Originally Posted by Sonist

If services such as Netflix streaming are affected, which clearly have nothing to do with stealing software or cheating, then Microsoft is on even shakier ground.

Netflix has to do with accessing Xbox live if I'm not mistaken. The terms of service do not state that you will only be banned from playing games. They say you will be banned from Xbox live if you mod your Xbox.

Originally Posted by Sonist

For what it's worth, I do believe, that at least part of the reason for this action, is an attempt to boost sales to those who like Live, and are willing to fork out another $200 to get it back before the holidays. I also hope that it backfires, and sales of the ugly, noisy beast fall...

I agree, it most likely is but thems the chances you take if you want to mod your Xbox.

Originally Posted by Sonist

And again, Apple's big stick against the content providers' attempts to force over $2 per song prices, was the threat of markedly increase "piracy."

Thus, in a generally non-competitive market, such as music, movies, or books, "piracy" often exerts downward pressure on prices and creates a de facto competitive market. Which may not be a bad thing for all consumers.

Cheers to you too.

My point about Apple is they are a company involved in the music industry that is attempting to implement new ways of doing business. Something DawnFalcon claimed no company was doing. The reasons for it don't interest me.

Cheers,
PKFFW