Re:Sol-Ark manufacturer reportedly disables all Deye inverte...
by account42 on Monday December 02, 2024 @05:43AM
(#42294877)
The real scam was selling the devices at vastly different prices in China vs. the US in the first place.
Re:Sol-Ark manufacturer reportedly disables all Deye inverte...
by yuliyp on Wednesday December 04, 2024 @09:23PM
(#42324181)
The analogy to theft is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Let's say it was a textbook that also had a label saying it was only to be sold in India. Would the US publisher have a right to steal such a book from someone in the U.S. that had it?
Let's say a guy in China buys the product from Deye, who stipulates under Chinese law that this is only for use in China and not authorized for export. The guy sells it on to you in the US anyway (so let's call him a "scammer" for violating law and misrepresenting the product to you, and innocent consumer looking for a good deal).
Why should Deye respect your rights at all and not brick the device? What rights should you have under Chinese law? If they don't brick the device, how can they disincentivize the scammers at scale? Sure you can say they should prosecute and rely on the deterrent aspect of the penal system, but that is not really going to be effective.
Basically it boils down to what rights the victims of scammers and criminals have. If you unknowingly bought stolen diamonds, what rights do you have when the original owner comes knocking?