4 ms·

Too difficult to judge once it has been tampered with. The courts don't have time to judge each case on its merits and there's no reasonable surety that your mo

by KGIII 9y ago

Too difficult to judge once it has been tampered with. The courts don't have time to judge each case on its merits and there's no reasonable surety that your modification didn't harm the product. The line has to be drawn somewhere.

freedomben 9y ago
I agree. I would also rather have clear rules up front than have to rely on the (often arbitrary and subjective) decision of the judge.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  So, you prefer clear rules that say "fuck you" over unclear rules that say "whoever caused the damage has to bear the costs"?
  - freedomben 9y ago
    No, but thanks for consistently straw-manning my arguments. I prefer clear rules that say, "You can unlock your bootloader and flash whatever you want to the device, but if you do we aren't going to fix your screw-up" If it's a hardware defect that has nothing to do with flashing software, that's a different story. But the libertarian perspective (which is what was asked for) is that it's between you and the company. If it's not a mutually beneficial exchange of goods (money for a product) then it shouldn't take place. If you don't like the rules, you should buy from a different manufacturer.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
      > I prefer clear rules that say, "You can unlock your bootloader and flash whatever you want to the device, but if you do we aren't going to fix your screw-up" Well, except that at least my point was about laws, and this is not a useful law. The question is not what rules you would like to see from manufacturers, but what meta-rules you would like to see from the government that define how manufacturers can make rules that apply to you. > If it's a hardware defect that has nothing to do with flashing software, that's a different story. Why should there be any difference between the two? If either of them is defective as delivered, why should it not always be the responsibility ot the manufacturer/seller to fix the problem, and why should it play any role whether I modified the product, be it in software or in hardware, as long as my modification is not the cause for the defect? > But the libertarian perspective (which is what was asked for) is that it's between you and the company. Well, except it isn't, because whatever is between me and the company is ultimately governed by the framework provided by laws, and thus enforced by the government. An agreement that cannot be enforced is ultimately worthless. So, the interesting question is: What rules should the government enforce and which should it make effectively worthless by not enforcing them?
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
Who defines what counts as "tampering"? I didn't tamper with anything, I simply used the product the way I wanted to use it. I don't see how it's even remotely reasonable to allow the manufacturer to set rules as to how you may use the product, and if you don't follow those rules they disclaim all responsibility for delivering a non-defective product by claiming that it's "tampering". And how is the potential problem that some things are difficult to judge for a court a reason to therefore allow one party to dictate the judgement? And why would that party be the manufacturer? Why don't I as the customer get to dictate the outcome? Is there any reasonable surety that the manufacturer did do their quality control properly? How could it possibly be reasonable to assume that I am at fault because the manufacturer says so? How is it possibly a reasonable solution to the supposed problem that courts lack resources to simply declare one party the winner by law? And no, the line does not have to be drawn anywhere, why would it? If I am willing and able to prove to any sufficiently competent person in the matter that a defect existed when the product was delivered ... what could possibly be a reason to "draw the line" somewhere and ignore the evidence? How is it not obvious that at the very least, if I can demonstrate that a defect existed when the product was delivered, it should be completely irrelevant whether I also modified the product?
- KGIII 9y ago
  We aren't going to fill the courts with that. If there's a manufacturing defect, return it before tampering with it. If it is a common defect, it will be covered by a recall and not a warranty. Sorry, the line has to be drawn somewhere. You may be competent and I believe you are. However, Joe I Can Solder This With A Lighter is not qualified. We aren't going to tie up the courts determining the difference between you and him. It's just reality. In principle, I would love to agree with you. However, much like we can't assume perfect information, we're not going to assume perfect repairs. The courts are too valuable to be wasted with frivolity.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    > We aren't going to fill the courts with that. Why not? > If there's a manufacturing defect, return it before tampering with it. What if I discover the defect only after I have started using it? (Please stop calling using my property "tampering", or explain what you mean by "tampering" if that is not what you mean.) > Sorry, the line has to be drawn somewhere. Why? Just repeating this claims does nothing to justify it. > You may be competent and I believe you are. However, Joe I Can Solder This With A Lighter is not qualified. We aren't going to tie up the courts determining the difference between you and him. So, what are we going to do instead then? Let the manufacturer decide what they want to pay for? > However, much like we can't assume perfect information, we're not going to assume perfect repairs. Who is "assuming perfect repairs"? > The courts are too valuable to be wasted with frivolity. How is holding manufacturers responsible for defects in their products frivolity?

by KGIII 9y ago

freedomben 9y ago

I agree. I would also rather have clear rules up front than have to rely on the (often arbitrary and subjective) decision of the judge.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
So, you prefer clear rules that say "fuck you" over unclear rules that say "whoever caused the damage has to bear the costs"?
- freedomben 9y ago
  No, but thanks for consistently straw-manning my arguments. I prefer clear rules that say, "You can unlock your bootloader and flash whatever you want to the device, but if you do we aren't going to fix your screw-up" If it's a hardware defect that has nothing to do with flashing software, that's a different story. But the libertarian perspective (which is what was asked for) is that it's between you and the company. If it's not a mutually beneficial exchange of goods (money for a product) then it shouldn't take place. If you don't like the rules, you should buy from a different manufacturer.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    > I prefer clear rules that say, "You can unlock your bootloader and flash whatever you want to the device, but if you do we aren't going to fix your screw-up" Well, except that at least my point was about laws, and this is not a useful law. The question is not what rules you would like to see from manufacturers, but what meta-rules you would like to see from the government that define how manufacturers can make rules that apply to you. > If it's a hardware defect that has nothing to do with flashing software, that's a different story. Why should there be any difference between the two? If either of them is defective as delivered, why should it not always be the responsibility ot the manufacturer/seller to fix the problem, and why should it play any role whether I modified the product, be it in software or in hardware, as long as my modification is not the cause for the defect? > But the libertarian perspective (which is what was asked for) is that it's between you and the company. Well, except it isn't, because whatever is between me and the company is ultimately governed by the framework provided by laws, and thus enforced by the government. An agreement that cannot be enforced is ultimately worthless. So, the interesting question is: What rules should the government enforce and which should it make effectively worthless by not enforcing them?

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago

Who defines what counts as "tampering"? I didn't tamper with anything, I simply used the product the way I wanted to use it. I don't see how it's even remotely reasonable to allow the manufacturer to set rules as to how you may use the product, and if you don't follow those rules they disclaim all responsibility for delivering a non-defective product by claiming that it's "tampering". And how is the potential problem that some things are difficult to judge for a court a reason to therefore allow one party to dictate the judgement? And why would that party be the manufacturer? Why don't I as the customer get to dictate the outcome? Is there any reasonable surety that the manufacturer did do their quality control properly? How could it possibly be reasonable to assume that I am at fault because the manufacturer says so? How is it possibly a reasonable solution to the supposed problem that courts lack resources to simply declare one party the winner by law? And no, the line does not have to be drawn anywhere, why would it? If I am willing and able to prove to any sufficiently competent person in the matter that a defect existed when the product was delivered ... what could possibly be a reason to "draw the line" somewhere and ignore the evidence? How is it not obvious that at the very least, if I can demonstrate that a defect existed when the product was delivered, it should be completely irrelevant whether I also modified the product?

KGIII 9y ago
We aren't going to fill the courts with that. If there's a manufacturing defect, return it before tampering with it. If it is a common defect, it will be covered by a recall and not a warranty. Sorry, the line has to be drawn somewhere. You may be competent and I believe you are. However, Joe I Can Solder This With A Lighter is not qualified. We aren't going to tie up the courts determining the difference between you and him. It's just reality. In principle, I would love to agree with you. However, much like we can't assume perfect information, we're not going to assume perfect repairs. The courts are too valuable to be wasted with frivolity.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  > We aren't going to fill the courts with that. Why not? > If there's a manufacturing defect, return it before tampering with it. What if I discover the defect only after I have started using it? (Please stop calling using my property "tampering", or explain what you mean by "tampering" if that is not what you mean.) > Sorry, the line has to be drawn somewhere. Why? Just repeating this claims does nothing to justify it. > You may be competent and I believe you are. However, Joe I Can Solder This With A Lighter is not qualified. We aren't going to tie up the courts determining the difference between you and him. So, what are we going to do instead then? Let the manufacturer decide what they want to pay for? > However, much like we can't assume perfect information, we're not going to assume perfect repairs. Who is "assuming perfect repairs"? > The courts are too valuable to be wasted with frivolity. How is holding manufacturers responsible for defects in their products frivolity?