Over the last 48 hours, Roku has slowly been rolling out a mandatory update to its terms of service. In this terms it changes the dispute resolution terms but it is not clear exactly why. When the new terms and conditions message shows up on a Roku Player or TV, your only option is to […]

  • PhAzE@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    It should be locked to the EULA you signed/agreed to when you booted it up.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      10 months ago

      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!

      • Lexi Sneptaur@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          The argument is they’re selling you a service.

          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.

          • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            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!

            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

            • grue@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              The EULA is for the OS, not the physical hardware.

              That’s pure sophistry*, because…

              Unless you flash a new OS to your TV you’re stuck using their software and following the rules of that software.

              …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.

              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

              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)

      • catloaf@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        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.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          No. They’re disabling the whole thing, including (for example) using it with a local Jellyfin server without connecting outside your LAN at all.