this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2025
275 points (98.2% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
63078 readers
542 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
🏴☠️ Other communities
FUCK ADOBE!
Torrenting/P2P:
- !seedboxes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !trackers@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !qbittorrent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !libretorrent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !soulseek@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Gaming:
- !steamdeckpirates@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !newyuzupiracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !switchpirates@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !3dspiracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !retropirates@lemmy.dbzer0.com
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No. That EU-citizen is fully protected by EU consumer laws. Has nothing to do with where that citizen make use of their product.
The person is protected, not the device. While the device is outside of the EU they can brick it. At least that’s how Apple does it
Apple would lose such a case in an instant. EU consumer protections applies to the consumer for products bought from a seller within the EU. The laws do not care the slightest whether you're using your devices on vacation or not.
Yes, they could brick it. But then you can open a warranty case when you are back in the EU.
Not true. For example, an EU resident (citizen is the wrong group) purchasing in the US is not covered by EU law.
I don't know any of the law for sure, but isn't that a different argument entirely?
In one case, an EU resident buys a product in the EU, decides to use it while in the US for a week/month whatever. The argument is that he's protected.
You're saying that's not true, because if he buys it in the USA, then he's not protected.
But, that wasn't the argument, was it? It's different?