Quote:
Originally Posted by DawnFalcon
Only of it's directly related. If you flash the optical drive's firmware, that'll only affect the product having to be fit so far as it is directly related to the optical drive's alteration.
|
And which part of the Xbox 360 is advertised as coming with Xbox live service? Is it advertised that the Xbox 360
modem comes with Xbox live? Or the Xbox 360
optical drive? Or the Xbox 360
hard drive?
Or is the
Xbox 360 itself, and as a whole, supposedly advertised as coming with Xbox live?
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe you and Sonist have repeatedly claimed it is the
Xbox 360 that is advertised as coming with access to the Xbox live service.
Therefore if you mod the Xbox 360 in any way it will very likely be ruled by a court to be a product that is substantially different to the purchased product and therefore does not have any requirement to work as advertised.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DawnFalcon
And my limited understanding? You're the one who insist that, for example, the burden is on someone to prove in a ciivil case here that a term is unfair, when they just have to prove that it exists, it's potentially unfair...and then the company has to prove it's fair.
|
No, I said the burden of proof is on the claimant. Not that the claimant has to prove the term is unfair. You should take some reading and comprehension classes I think.
Now, if the term is automatically unfair, as you claim, the burden of proof becomes merely a case of proving that that "automatically unfair" T&C exists within the EULA. I'm sure the defendant would then argue that the term in question does not actually adhere to the definition of "automatically unfair". Then a judge would decide who was right.
It seems to me if the case was as open and shut as you claim at least one of those many millions upon millions of innocent bystanders who had been wrongly banned would have taken it to court and won by now. Or even someone who merely disliked MS would have done so just for the fun of it.
Cheers,
PKFFW