How do you explain that the manufacturer "clearly did not intend for them to be able to use" the features in question when the features in question exist in what they received? That is a contradictory position to take.
I did not intend my washing machine to be used to brew beer, but it is a feature that does exist in it. Will they honor the warranty?
The question of warranty is independent of the question of ethics as applied to the use of the product.
The warranty is an offer from the manufacturer that has terms and conditions associated with it. Some of those terms are required by law, and some terms are forbidden by law. Nevertheless, the terms of the warranty are what govern whether or not the product will be covered by a warranty claim.
If the terms are not met by the purchaser, the manufacturer then has the option to decline the warranty claim, but that doesn't mean they
must.
So, the answer to your question is that the manufacturer
might honor their warranty under those circumstances, but if your use of the product violates the terms of the warranty, then they don't
have to cover you.
You cannot give someone something and simultaneously say you're not giving it to them. That is "dishonest".
Said like a man who has never purchased software
My sarcasm detector is going off.
I
have purchased software. The purchase of the software gives me two things: a
copy of the software that I own (and, like any other copyrighted work, is covered by copyright law), and an authorization license to make copies of it under specific terms.
The installation of software onto a computer system is governed by copyright law, because installation of software onto a computer requires making a copy of the software, and there is no exemption in copyright law for that particular copy operation (there
is an exemption in the law for actual operation of the software on the computer once it's there, even though normal operation also involves the computer making copies of the software as it operates), which means that it is forbidden except when explicitly authorized by the copyright holder. The aforementioned license
is the exemption to copyright law's prohibitions, which would otherwise be in effect. That is what gives the license its power.
So in that case, I have not been given something while the copyright owner claims to not be giving it to me.
What I have been given is very specific.
Honesty is an attribute that measures adherence to truth. What did the person who gained access to features that existed in the scope that was willfully transferred to him do that resulted in him failing to adhere to truth?
Honesty is also being free from deceit. Paying for a feature-limited product, then unlocking features could be called deceitful.
Deceitful how? What claim or guarantee did the customer make when purchasing the product, and when, and how? Honesty means doing what you say you will do, and not doing what you say you will not. It doesn't cover what you don't say!
If someone believes I will behave in a certain way, but I have made no statements to indicate that I will behave in that way, is it
my fault that the other person is wrong when I don't behave in the way they believe I will? In what way? Can you imagine the amount of abuse such an expectation would eventually get if it were legitimized?
People have a remarkable ability to turn nothingness into a moral/ethical dilemma. That they label something a moral/ethical dilemma doesn't make it one, except perhaps to them.
People have a remarkable ability to avoid seeing a bit of sarcasm in a reply.
Well, yes, that is certainly true.
Ethics is about harm. But implicit in it is the notion that one will not do something so as to intentionally put himself in harm's way. Here, the manufacturers are clearly intentionally putting themselves in harm's way. We know this because we know (because I have shown how) that the manufacturers can trivially avoid any "harm" that may come from the actions we're discussing.
I though ethics was more about "a complex of moral precepts held or rules of conduct followed by an individual" (at least according to my dictionary). Harm doesn't make a mention, when did harm come into it?
If avoidance of harm to others isn't a necessary component of a code of ethics, then one can insist that
any set of rules that one follows is a "code of ethics", up to and including the most harmful. And that would make the term devoid of any meaning that would set it apart from a random set of rules. One could say, then, that those who participated in the Holocaust were acting "ethically" because they were adhering to "rules of conduct", even though those rules were the most abhorrent.
If that's how you want to treat the term, then fine, I'll see if I can find a different term to use here. But as regards this discussion, that seems a necessary component of the term for it to be meaningful
here.