I would say that a rule of thumb and by design that surveillance cameras are not designed for use maintenance. Given the speed that things change in the video surveillance market it makes no sense to do so because it only adds to product cost. Generally, cameras are obsolete long before they die, other than an overused PTZ.
I do think the software lockout is kind of dumb and just a ploy to get people to buy a replacement. On the other hand expecting it to last "forever" isn't reasonable either and the average consumer isn't going to take the camera down, take it apart and rebuild it or even perform simple maintenance.
Yes, but what we think may happen, or how different product tiers are marketed, is not how the legalities work (for my area, and warranties purchased and valid in this jurisdiction). Again, if they disclosed that they'd software-lock the camera, then that's fine. People are purchasing a product, expecting a function, without any limits if they aren't disclosed. If it breaks down, fine - that's the warranty coverage. If they want to provide a 1 year warranty on a consumer product, and a 10 year on a 20x more costly commercial product, that's also fine.
There is no case I can see here to defend the manufacturer. They need to get their act together, but often don't want to due to the loss of sales, if they state the product will stop working after <condition>. This is exactly what the (local) laws prohibit. I just heard a lawyer again discussing this exact thing yesterday with another product, and an active class action lawsuit. It's a common lawsuit for higher-value items, and common class action for lower-value goods. We (society) shouldn't need to resort to either one, but it's what happens when companies do things like this, and today a LOT do. Hence the many similar legal cases.
I'm not a lawyer, and would never want to be, but my background-audio "audio books" are listening to legal talks and discussions. Some people put on videos or music, I listen to legal talk
I find it all fascinating. I'm just stating what I believe Dahua is doing wrong, and that the consumer is in the right here based on precedent. I don't have anything more to add.
PS: Hopefully we get a remedy from Empire Tech. If someone is learning about this now and they wish to dispute/return the product for a full refund, they may want to contact the merchant next, often Amazon or Aliexpress, and document everything. After that, contact the payment bank or credit card. Statute of limitations would likely limit this action to around 6-years from date-of-purchase in most USA States, but earlier the better. Lastly, in small claims court fees are generally under $50 to file, if the bank or cc won't assist in the matter. Provide all prior evidence and correspondence, and it will help your case go quickly. Many times if you file in small claims, and lose, you will have difficulty bringing any followup lawsuit, so it would end there. Just figured I'd provide my opinion on the correct course of action, in appropriate order, to getting a remedy for this situation if a person wished to do so.
