269
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2024
269 points (98.2% liked)
Technology
1387 readers
181 users here now
Which posts fit here?
Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
We need legislation put in place that prevents companies from arbitrarily changing EULAs.
Changing a EULA should require the company to refund the price of the product (to be returned at the company’s expense), in addition to refunding customer purchases associated with the services associated with the product.
It should be locked to the EULA you signed/agreed to when you booted it up.
EULAs should just be prohibited entirely. A sale is a sale is a sale: you execute a contract with the retailer to exchange money for a good, and then you own that good no matter what some bullshit adhesion-contract EULA claims when the manufacturer tries to spring it on you after the fact. The manufacturer was never a party to the sale; they don't get to have a say in its terms!
The argument is they’re selling you a service. So you’d have to ban Eula on services and that’s just not feasible. Instead, limits on what they can and can’t do are needed.
So what? Their argument is wrong, end of.
Look, they could update the EULA on the Roku "channel" or even the Roku "channel store" if they want because those actually do rely on them continuing to maintain a server for it. But that's not the same thing as having an EULA for the entire device as a whole, including its local functions that don't rely on a connection to Roku servers!
Roku is selling a product that happens to be aggregated with some services. Disabling the whole product in order to coerce people into agreeing to new terms for the aggregated services is basically equivalent to a ransomware attack.
Hey I'm not saying I agree with it, just pointing out how you would have to attack it
Ah, right. Sorry!
The EULA is for the OS, not the physical hardware. So all it takes is them updating the OS for "security reasons" and they can sneak a new EULA into the deal, locking you out of using that OS on new versions if that's what they want to do. Unless you flash a new OS to your TV you're stuck using their software and following the rules of that software.
And there's really no way around that without really hurting legitimate software licensing situations other than maybe making it literally illegal to have devices ship with Auto-Updates enabled, forcing user consent to update anything, which sounds like a great way to piss off the general public.
Hmmm.... Maybe legally all devices must be flashable easily without removing or modifying physical bits of the device? That way if an OS Update goes a way you don't like then you can flash an old version or DIFFERENT OS entirely onto the device you own, regardless of if it's a TV, phone, microwave, whatever
That's pure sophistry*, because...
....they don't let you do that either!
When the hardware is DRM'd to only allow the use of an OS cryptographically signed by the manufacturer, denying the user use of the OS due to a poison-pill EULA is absolutely equivalent to denying them use of the hardware.
Exactly: the DMCA needs to be repealed and it needs to become illegal to DRM the device to prevent the user from loading a third-party OS on it.
(* on the part of the shysters trying to push that argument, not you explaining their position)
Well... isn't that what's happening here? You still own the box to do with as you please. To use Roku's services you have to agree to the new agreement.
No. They're disabling the whole thing, including (for example) using it with a local Jellyfin server without connecting outside your LAN at all.
It's already well established in case law on how companies are allowed to change their EULAs with Douglas v. Talk America being the most directly comparable case to what roku is doing. The problem with case law though is it's inherently flawed for your avarage consumer as you have to enter a costly legal battle that's may not even be worth the financial risk and corporations know this.
What we really need is for the regulatory bodies to start enforcing the laws we already have on the books with penalties that are not just a slap on the wrist.
AND the management who created the ToS update should be tarred and feathered on PBS.
Agree. And we need a legislation to show middle finger to such company and be able to change the operating system on those devices.