Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonist
Well, your apparently unlimited "understanding of law," just got ran over by the Magnuson-Moss Act.
|
Please specify where I have claimed an unlimited knowledge of the law.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sonist
It has to do with modifications and warranties, and not with EULAs, but since you consistently confuse the two, it still applies to your post.
And I sincerely doubt, that Australia doesn't have its equivalent legislation.
|
1: I'm sure Australia does have a similar legislation though I can't remember the exact act at present.
2: The act, as far as I can tell, does not cover significant modifications and changes to a product that are not authorised or done by the manufacturer or by an authorised and qualified third party. For example if you were to personally modify the engine in a car the Magnuson-Moss Act would not apply.
It does mention the following in Wikipedia....
"Warrantors cannot require that only branded parts be used with the product in order to retain the warranty.[2] This is commonly referred to as the "tie-in sales" provisions[3], and is frequently mentioned in the context of third-party computer parts, such as memory and hard drives."
However, consoles have long been treated differently to computers for starters, being that they are sold and recognised as an all in one product. And secondly changing the firmware of a device, especially when done by someone not qualified and authorised to do so, has long been considered an "at your own risk" endeavour.
So I'm not so sure the Magnuson-Moss Act would apply to modding an Xbox but of course that is again something that would be decided by a Judge in a court of law and not by a Judge asking you and DawnFalcon what you think on the matter.
3: The Magnuson-Moss Act relates specifically to warranties and not to value added services, even if those services are advertised as being part of the product.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sonist
P.S. I am too lazy to search (this is just for fun, right?) but I bet, you and dmaul1114 took similar stance on the "1984" deletions by Amazon. And look how that one ended....
|
1: Of course it's all for fun. I wouldn't spend time replying to something I didn't find fun!
2: As far as I'm aware the "1984" Amazon incident ended with Amazon making a good will gesture by returning the deleted items. I know of no court decision that ruled Amazon had acted illegally in any way.
Cheers,
PKFFW