Imagine if PB paid for the recovery then used the pirated movies as evidence :p

Reminds me of this:

https://www.hoax-slayer.net/burned-cigars-insurance-claim-hoax/

Having said that, I would imagine the harm done to PBTechs reputation over doing something like this (using the movies as evidence) would be worse than just letting it slide. 

CrashAndBurn:

 

Imagine if PB paid for the recovery then used the pirated movies as evidence :p

 

The guy would not even get the data recovered, he will just pocket the money.

CrashAndBurn: Imagine if PB paid for the recovery then used the pirated movies as evidence :p 

:-( Then they will sue and win for breach of privacy.

The justice system and media is geared in favour of offenders and not common sense in this country.

tripp:

CrashAndBurn:

Imagine if PB paid for the recovery then used the pirated movies as evidence :p

The guy would not even get the data recovered, he will just pocket the money.

I'm pretty pro consumer rights under the CGA but Jesus wept this is a facepalm.

BarTender:

tripp:

 

CrashAndBurn:

 

 

 

Imagine if PB paid for the recovery then used the pirated movies as evidence :p

 

 

 

 

 

 

The guy would not even get the data recovered, he will just pocket the money.

 

I would have thought that PB would be funding the recovery and getting the data back and returning it on a new HDD.
If I were in PBs situation that's what I would do. Since I would have thought legally the drive was PBs as soon as the customer returned it as faulty.
Then it could be rather murky if PB told the police about Copyright material as it would be a breach of the privacy act.

That's not how disputes tribunal works. It was a claim for money and he said that PB had paid him.

PB do have 30 days (I think) to appeal the decision, although the grounds to do so are fairly minimal. They may be able to but wouldn't count on it.

Having had my own DT hearing last year and a subsequent appeal (I won the original and defendant lost the appeal) it is a very interesting process. I recall the referee saying that she does not have to follow any case law but is not in the habit of ignoring district or high court rulings, disputes tribunal rulings do not set case law. They can be used as evidence but the referee is not obliged to take them into account when making their decision.

https://www.disputestribunal.govt.nz/disputes-decision-finder/?Filter_Jurisdiction=26

I can't find anything...

Would/should it be on that site?

The adjudicator hasn't taken into account that data on the drive is an abstraction which is quite different to the physical storage device.  The data can be duplicated infinitely for 0 cost (while the physical storage device does cost a bit of money, there is no actual cost for having multiple copies of the data).   

The adjudicator is clearly ignorant of the importance of backups, and of standard practice/understanding relating to data safety. 

PB Tech also should have argued their case a little better. 

surfisup1000:

The adjudicator hasn't taken into account that data on the drive is an abstraction which is quite different to the physical storage device.  The data can be duplicated infinitely for 0 cost (while the physical storage device does cost a bit of money, there is no actual cost for having multiple copies of the data).   

The adjudicator is clearly ignorant of the importance of backups, and of standard practice/understanding relating to data safety. 

PB Tech also should have argued their case a little better. 

All that needs to happen is , in clear writing, on the front of the packet (ie not hidden in tiny print on the back)

"Manufacturer and reseller accept no responsibility for data loss. It is the customers responsibility to backup data"

But no, because marketing dept has more sway engineering dept .
I'd bet this is on the manufacturers website somewhere, or in tiny writing somewhere in the enclosed docs in the packaging.

You could easily argue that the data loss was 100% caused by failure of the product, so manufacturer has some liability.

Consequential loss .
Its the same if your washing machine fails & floods the house  , sort of.

robjg63:

 

https://www.disputestribunal.govt.nz/disputes-decision-finder/?Filter_Jurisdiction=26

 

I can't find anything...

 

Would/should it be on that site?

 

Its not there (yet)... He said it was in Feb 2019.... there are no Feb 19 decisions posted yet....

tchart: Like I've already said I've had some many newish drives just crap out on me without misuse that makes me question the reliability. >

1101:

 

All that needs to happen is , in clear writing, on the front of the packet (ie not hidden in tiny print on the back)

 

"Manufacturer and reseller accept no responsibility for data loss. It is the customers responsibility to backup data"

 

 

 

We have had hardrives for at least 30 years in PCs, and all will likely eventually fail and cause loss of data i they are used until they fail. So a harddrive dying and people losing data is hardly new, and is something that will likely affect all harddrive eventually..  Not all washing machines will leak or cause damage.. Data can duplicated between devices at any time, so people should always have multiple backups. I do wonder if there is more to this DT result than meets the eye.I wonder how many cases there have been prior which have failed? I always remember Leo Laportes saying on his tech podcast, that if you don't have at least one backup of your data, then you don't have that data. Any computer  owner should know that they should always do their own backups of any data they want to keep. The proble is that cloud backups  and devices like ipads have given some people a false sense of security over backups.

I was thinking about this, and after my initial "WTF" I can actually get on board with this under some circumstances, particularly when the item is very new. For instance I had a friend who purchased a new SD card, went on honeymoon, took lots of snaps, and it failed a few days after he got home before he'd had time to download anything off it, and he lost all the photos from his honeymoon.