Lol now I'm confused, are we actually on the same side of this argument and not realising it?Echo136 said:No in fact, in real life the example does NOT WORK! Nowadays you dont get in trouble for fixing your own engine. You dont get in trouble for changing your own tires, and you wouldnt get in trouble for replacing the radio and speakers with some nice subwoofers. None of that works. Unless there are roadblocks at every street corner where a company man from the manufacturer checks your car to make sure its still all authentic, its an unrealistic scenario.Actual said:So he bought a replacement and they sued him, the analogy still works. It doesn't matter how he did it, he restored functionality to a broken product.Echo136 said:Thats a stupid example. Stereo's can be easily bought at a radioshack or best buy, and replace the old one LEGALLY. Why does everyone resort to using cars as an example for software piracy.Actual said:Wonderful how Sony doesn't even need to win the court case, they just need to throw so much money at it that a man can't afford to defend himself.
Love how money can buy the law.
This man fixed a broken product, the PS3, which Sony deliberately broke.
It's like if your car manufacturer turned off the stereo in your car because they were worried some people might use it to play pirated music and then sent you to prison for fixing it!
A closer to home analogy, Microsoft block internet access from every windows PC because of the fact that pirates use the internet. You bought a windows PC with the expectation that you'd be able to access the internet. You circumvent that you get sued.
Yes of course no-one would be punished for fixing their own car, that's my point. Why should you be punished for fixing your own console?
You have a point. We do forget to mention that only a small portion of the PS3 customers bought it for OtherOS. But a small portion of a huge number is still a large number.Arehexes said:Not gonna lie I doubt everyone bought the ps3 for that killer version of yellow dog linux. You make it seem like sony bricked the system so it can't play games period. While I'm against what sony did to the ps3, it kinda is unfair to rant and rave about a feature not everyone ran out and bought the system for in the first place. It's like if microsoft advertised a feature on windows 7 that barely anyone noticed and they removed it and people freaked the hell out over it.Actual said:Wonderful how Sony doesn't even need to win the court case, they just need to throw so much money at it that a man can't afford to defend himself.
Love how money can buy the law.
This man fixed a broken product, the PS3, which Sony deliberately broke.
It's like if your car manufacturer turned off the stereo in your car because they were worried some people might use it to play pirated music and then sent you to prison for fixing it!
And should we ignore customers rights just because there aren't very many of them?
So let's say Microsoft removed video editing from Windows, not a lot of people use that. And those who did being quite tech savvy just worked out a way around Microsoft's block and installed video editing software. Do you think Microsoft could sue those people? No of course they couldn't, so why is this situation different? Because Sony can hide behind the "pirates use it" shield.
Off for dinner, thanks for the debate gents.