Roku TV bricked until agreeing to new terms of service

See title - very frustrating. There is no way to continue to use the TV without agreeing to the terms. I couldn’t use different inputs, or even go to settings from the home screen and disconnect from the internet to disable their services. If I don’t agree to their terms, then I don’t get access to their new products. That sucks, but fine - I don’t use their services except for the TV itself, and honestly, I’d rather by a dumb TV with a streaming box anyway, but I can’t find those anymore.

Anyway, the new terms are about waiving your right to a class action lawsuit. It’s weird to me because I’d never considered filing a class action lawsuit against Roku until this. They shouldn’t be able to hold my physical device hostage until I agree to new terms that I didn’t agree at the time of purchase or initial setup.

I wish Roku TVs weren’t cheap walmart brand sh*t. Someone with some actual money might sue them and sort this out…

EDIT: Shout out to @testfactor for recommending the brand “Sceptre” when buying my next (dumb) TV.

EDIT2: Shout out to @0110010001100010 for recommending LG smart TVs as a dumb-TV stand in. They apparently do require an agreement at startup, which is certainly NOT ideal, but the setup can be completed without an internet connection and it remembers input selection on powerup. So, once you have it setup, you’re good to rock and roll.

Ghostalmedia,
@Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world avatar

That sucks, but fine - I don’t use their services except for the TV itself, and honestly, I’d rather by a dumb TV with a streaming box anyway, but I can’t find those anymore.

Search for monitors, not televisions. For example, you can get an 48in and 55in OLEDs dumb monitors with multiple HDMI inputs.

fart_pickle,

This is a really good advice. I will be looking for a new TV soon and it seems like there are no more dumb TVs.

Death_Equity,

Commercial display TVs are dumb. They are TVs meant for store displays and lack “smart” functionality.

fart_pickle,

Another good idea. Will keep that in mind when looking for a TV.

FelipeFelop,

Be careful with this as monitors are usually a different aspect ratio to a TV so a you may get a distorted/cropped picture or black bars (depending what you connect to it) which will be noticeable at larger sizes.

NoRodent, (edited )
@NoRodent@lemmy.world avatar

monitors are usually a different aspect ratio to a TV

What? Aren’t like 90% of monitors and 99% of TVs 16:9? There are a few monitors that are 16:10, some extremely rare 5:4 and 4:3 and then there are the ultrawide monitors which are obviously a different aspect ratio but saying that monitors are “usually” a different aspect ratio is factually incorrect. If you’re deciding between a 4K TV and 4K monitor, then there’s no danger of accidentally buying something of different format.

foggy,

Nah there are more

5:4, 8:5, 21:9, 64:27. And more.

And these aren’t exact. There’s fault tolerance, so to speak. You can have slightly different sizes rectangles between several different 16:9 monitors.

NoRodent, (edited )
@NoRodent@lemmy.world avatar

Nah there are more

5:4, 8:5, 21:9, 64:27. And more

I already mentioned 5:4 and 8:5 equals 16:10.
21:9 and 64:27 are just ultrawide formats which I also mentioned and you can’t really mistake those for 16:9, can you? Same goes for 5:4 and 4:3 which are rather square-ish (4:3 was typical for old CRT monitors and TVs).

And these aren’t exact. There’s fault tolerance, so to speak.

I don’t think “fault tolerance” means what you think it means.

You can have slightly different sizes rectangles between several different 16:9 monitors.

Are you telling me that there are monitors that don’t have square pixels? Or that the number of (square) pixels doesn’t give an exact 16:9 ratio?

Anyway, yes, there are more aspect ratios out there but the important thing is how common they are. I just looked at the biggest local e-shop and if I try to filter parameters by resolution, I get this:

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/45682d28-eebe-43ce-b6b4-91118cb1113a.png

The number in the parenthesis next to the resolution is the number of products. (Note that this is only showing 1609 out of the total 1629 items - if I scroll down, there are 20 other options which all have 1 product each so I took the liberty to ignore those as those are ultra rare items (and some of them aren’t even regular monitors but just some specialized displays. Even here, for example the 2200×1024px is an e-ink touch screen)).

I simplified each ratio to the simplest form, so those are exact ratios (but for some added a ratio with X:9 or X:10 in the denominator in parenthesis for easier comparison to those more standard formats). Turns out that 1379 out of 1609 monitors are exactly 16:9, so that’s 85.7%. The biggest variety are among the ultrawides which I colored in purple but again, those are pretty much unmistakable. Just like the 5:4 and 4:3 in blue.
So realistically you have to watch out for the red ratios where 1379 out of 1426 are 16:9, that’s 96.7%.
So I really wonder how you came to the conclusion that “monitors are usually a different aspect ratio to a TV”.
Now of course one e-shop isn’t a completely representative sample but I hope we can agree that the numbers will be in the right ballpark. Feel free to make your own statistics from a different source.

fault tolerance

foggy, (edited )

1280 x 800 is 16:10

1280 x 768 is also 16:10.

1280 x 720 is 16:9

No, it is not exact. Yes there is a “fault tolerance” built into how we describe aspect ratios, unless you want to get way more specific.

en.m.wikipedia.org/…/List_of_common_resolutions

NoRodent, (edited )
@NoRodent@lemmy.world avatar

Dude, what the hell you’re onto?

1280 x 800 is 16:10

That’s exact.

1280 x 720 is 16:9

Also exact.

1280 x 768 is also 16:10.

In the link you provided, it literally says it’s 5:3. It even has its own line in the infographics. And while the article is titled “List of common resolutions”, it looks more like an exhaustive list of almost any resolution that has been ever used in any kind of consumer device. It’s definitely not limited just to standard computer monitors so that table isn’t really that relevant to the topic of the discussion.

Also show me a monitor with the 1280 x 768 resolution that’s currently available on sale.

You’re picking up some extremely rare cases to make an argument that your initial statement about “usually different aspect ratio” was correct but that’s not how it works. That’s just moving goalposts.

foggy,

No I’m looking at the most common cases but you do you.

Worx,

And where do you plug in the aerial to watch TV? Or doesn’t it work like that where you’re from?

Ghostalmedia,
@Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world avatar

You’ll need to buy TV tuner with HDMI to do that.

But honestly, I probably wouldn’t go the monitor route unless you were all in on streaming.

Riven,

Which most people are or should be tbh. Also, if anyone is searching for a dumb TV it’s more or less guaranteed they’re tech savvy enough to be running some sort of stream box/pc anyways for the TV.

Ghostalmedia,
@Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world avatar

Antenna TV is still kind of nice in that there is live coverage, it’s free, and it works when the internet is out. I get the appeal.

atrielienz, (edited )

TV tuners are fairly cheap.

Riven,

Never heard of them please elaborate a bit, I’m always open to learning new and better stuff.

TunaLobster,

HDHomeRun is one of the common brands. They have a couple that can even demodulate ATSC 3.0.

Raxiel, (edited )

I dumped my satellite TV subscription service last year when I realised all we ever watched on it were on-demand services. I hooked one of the dish feeds into the TVs own socket since it was there, but beyond testing it worked it’s had no more than an hours use in the last six months.
We just watch stuff on the TVs streaming apps instead of the satellite decoders streaming apps (saving about 100kWh a year).
One of the few times we watched live TV, it was just on in the background and we realised the show that was on seemed interesting, we’d missed the first 10 minutes but there was an option to press a button and open the on-demand app and restart immediately from the beginning.

atrielienz,

Hasn’t worked like that in the US for a couple decades. I remember early 2000’s there was a push to go digital and a lot of people with older TV’s that didn’t have coax or similar were given dongles by the government so they could make tv signals all digital. No more aerials on TVs.

nielsen.com/…/the-switch-from-analog-to-digital-t….

TunaLobster,

No clue what you’re talking about. I’ve got an SMA connector on the back of my TV. The did government subsidized conversation boxes. It worked about the same as a VCR. Tune the TV to a specific channel and then use the convertor as the tuner. That by no means caused TVs no to longer than SMA connectors. That was due to TV manufacturers also having their fingers in streaming services. Gotta love that vertical integration!

Raxiel,

Just make sure they have audio out too (unless your source can drive a soundbar directly). I just got a new monitor that had built in speakers. They’re dog shit, and I didn’t plan on using them anyway, but I hadn’t appreciated how useful it was having a device that can decode the audio stream from HDMI or DP.
I still have my old usb soundbar for the times I want a loudspeaker, but I can just leave my headphones plugged into the monitors jack and switch the output device on the computer.

grue, (edited )

Report Roku to the FBI for violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by hacking into and sabotaging your property.

That’s a sincere suggestion, by the way. This shit should literally be a crime.

NateNate60,

Don’t do this. This just creates more work for the FBI and you know that report is going straight into the rubbish bin. That is just wasting public resources.

ColeSloth,

Piss off. You’re not even an American. Don’t tell us what to do with our FBI.

NateNate60,

I am American.

ColeSloth, (edited )

Imposter! No Murcan would use “rubbish bin”.

ChunkMcHorkle, (edited )
@ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world avatar

“Offence” as opposed to offense, and “behaviour” instead of behavior are also non-standard for American English.

So I looked at his post history, and sure enough, there are multiple instances of “cheque” instead of check, “centralised” instead of centralized, and other obvious uses of British or Asian English.

Maybe NateNate60 is American by citizenship, but doesn’t appear to be a native American English speaker.

lazynooblet,
@lazynooblet@lazysoci.al avatar

It’s almost as if being American and speaking languages are separate things!

ChunkMcHorkle, (edited )
@ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world avatar

deleted by creator

ColeSloth,

Way to sleuth!

grue,

you know that report is going straight into the rubbish bin.

In that case, you should additionally complain to your Congressperson that the FBI isn’t doing their goddamn job.

NateNate60,

No, what’s more productive is writing that this should be a crime. It’s currently not.

If you think otherwise, let’s pretend you’re a prosecutor. Which offence do you accuse them of committing (use a legal citation to refer to a specific section), list out each of the elements of that offence and explain why you believe each of them is satisfied.

Mic_Check_One_Two,

It’s not a crime per se, but it does open them up to civil litigation. Because it’s a contract of adhesion, where the consumer gains nothing from the additional terms, cannot negotiate the terms prior to acceptance, and is forced into accepting the terms on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

In order for a contract to be enforceable, both sides need to be able to negotiate the terms, and both sides need to receive something meaningful from said contract.

NateNate60,

I think you’re likely right, but I think this is also why reporting it to the FBI is a waste of time. The FBI only deals with criminal matters.

barsoap, (edited )

It’s not a crime per se, but it does open them up to civil litigation.

If I am a shop owner and sell you a washing machine, and then three days later come into your house with a baseball bat saying “sign this or I’ll destroy the machine”, did I commit a crime?

The thing they want you to coerce you into is civil, yes, but that doesn’t make coercion a civil matter.

barsoap, (edited )

No, what’s more productive is writing that this should be a crime. It’s currently not.

It’s at the very least coercion by ways of property damage, at least in sane legal systems.

Also it’s generally not the job of citizens to figure out which paragraph exactly to throw at an accused, that’s what police and prosecutors are for.

NateNate60,

The parent commenter asserts that it is a crime. What I essentially said is “prove it”. I assert there is no law that makes this behaviour a criminal offence. Prove me wrong. Don’t say “Well, this is what the law should be”, tell me what the law is.

If you want to talk about what the law ought to be, write to your legislators. It’s not the FBI’s job to write the rules. They only enforce what’s already there.

I don’t think the behaviour is right, and it may be illegal in other ways, but it isn’t a crime, and if it isn’t a crime, reporting it to a law enforcement agency is just wasting your time.

barsoap,

and it may be illegal in other ways,

And it is the responsibility of law enforcement to figure that out. If I go to the police and say “that guy stole from me” and the actual criminal case ends up not being for theft but embezzlement, did I waste the agency’s time?

You don’t need to have a law degree to be entitled to file a complaint with the system.

NateNate60,

By “illegal in other ways” I mean “creates a civil cause of action”. This is not something the police can help with. You don’t need a law degree to complain but I think you’re just being purposefully obtuse.

barsoap,

Last I checked coercion is a crime over here. Property damage is, too.

You’re one of those people who hear a smoke alarm, want to call the fire brigade, but first wonder whether it’s actually opportune, whether you shouldn’t deal with it yourself, whether the situation is bad enough, aren’t you. The answer is yes it is the department rather moves out too often than not often enough and chalks up burnt potatoes at the bottom of a now dry pot under exercise.

You have a reason to believe that a crime could have occurred because your innate sense of justice got offended. You can articulate which action of a particular entity offended it. That’s enough, they’ll take it from there. Might it go into the bin and you be told “sorry that’s a civil matter”? Yes. But that’s their job. Just as it’s the job of the fire department to deal with you not being able to cook potatoes.

NateNate60, (edited )

My God. You just used words that you think are criminal offences, and then proclaimed that you think they applied. “Last I checked” my arse, you did not check at all.

And when I tell you to read the statutes and show why you think they apply, you go and say “No, that’s not my job” because you’re either too lazy to Google search the text of the law or you’re afraid of seeing that you wouldn’t be able to justify your point.

You claim this is a criminal offence. You can’t cite or don’t want to cite any criminal statutes substantiating your claim. Instead you just speak out of your ass instead of checking to make sure. The information’s there. You just don’t want to read it.

You’re wrong. Just quit the conversation already. You’re not winning this one.

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/a66d74a3-c460-4bbc-aa20-3c87cac58f6b.jpeg

barsoap, (edited )

You just used words that you think are criminal offences,

§§ 240, 303 StGB.

Yes I know that’s German law. I don’t know US law. But I bet if I sold you a fridge and three days later came into your house and said “sign this or I’ll destroy the fridge” that’s a crime in the US. “Computer sabotage” is the rough equivalent of “trespass” in this example, you still have property damage and coercion even if computer sabotage doesn’t apply for some reason.

NateNate60,

(1) Wer einen Menschen rechtswidrig mit Gewalt oder durch Drohung mit einem empfindlichen Übel zu einer Handlung, Duldung oder Unterlassung nötigt, wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu drei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft.

(1) Wer rechtswidrig eine fremde Sache beschädigt oder zerstört, wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu zwei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft.

(2) Ebenso wird bestraft, wer unbefugt das Erscheinungsbild einer fremden Sache nicht nur unerheblich und nicht nur vorübergehend verändert.

I ran Google Translate on these:

(1) Anyone who unlawfully coerces a person into an act, tolerance or omission by force or by threat of serious harm will be punished with a prison sentence of up to three years or a fine.

(1) Anyone who unlawfully damages or destroys someone else’s property will be punished with a prison sentence of up to two years or a fine.

(2) Anyone who unauthorizedly changes the appearance of someone else’s property in a way that is not just insignificant and not just temporary will also be punished.

Firstly, the terms and conditions screen is not “force”. Secondly, the television is not damaged by making you accept such conditions. The software doesn’t work but you don’t own the software, you own the hardware. Even if there is no way to install other software on the system. Thirdly, the terms and conditions originally agreed to allow this (changes to the terms and conditions) to happen. It is not unauthorised. Fourthly, and most importantly, you can just physically click the “agree” button to the terms and conditions to get back the functionality. The remedy is for a court to consider that agreement unenforceable.

barsoap, (edited )

Firstly, the terms and conditions screen is not “force”.

Threat of harm. Though “harm” is a bad translation think of it as evil as used in “the lesser evil”. “Do this or I’ll do the nasty” is considered coercion. Wilfully causing a traffic jam can be coercion – ask the climate protestors, they had to argue before court how their use of coercion wasn’t reprehensible (sentence 2). The reason that works is because they can quote a selfless motive, I very much doubt Roku manages to do that.

Also btw there’s an official translation, not that it’s any better at translating “Übel”, though.

Secondly, the television is not damaged by making you accept such conditions.

If a TV doesn’t TV then it’s damaged. It cannot fulfil its purpose of being a TV, any more. If it requires me to acquiesce to a nasty before it works, it’s functionally not a TV either because I have all right in the world to not tolerate nasty in any way whatsoever.

The software doesn’t work but you don’t own the software, you own the hardware.

Copyright, as in the right to sell the software, is a different thing than the use-rights in the software. By selling a TV that contains firmware, requires firmware to fulfil its purpose as a TV, you automatically license the shipped software to be used by the owner/operator of that device. Just as you’re required to deliver functioning hardware if you promise the consumer a TV, so are you required to deliver functioning software, if it should be necessary for the operation of the TV. If the license agreement says otherwise it’s void.

It’s important to distinguish this from computers, which are meant to run user-provided software. But especially as Rokus are (AFAIK) completely locked down and can’t run user-supplied software arguing that it’s a computer is bound to fail.

Thirdly, the terms and conditions originally agreed to allow this

If the terms and conditions allow me to break into your house and coerce you then those terms are void, and it’s still coercion.

Fourthly, and most importantly, you can just physically click the “agree” button to the terms and conditions to get back the functionality. The remedy is for a court to consider that agreement unenforceable.

Warranty would be another remedy (at least over here, we have mandatory warranty). Remedy being available doesn’t make something not coercion though, it just means that the attempt failed. But the attempt itself is punishable (sentence 3).

Now, granted, all that may not apply in the US. It really might be legal in the US. But it’s still not the duty of a citizen to know. If the FBI is tired of having to throw those cases into the bin then they’re free to ask the white house to try and get a law passed to make it illegal. Tons of laws are passed like that: It stands to reason that the executive, having to implement law, has some insight and inspiration to give to the legislature when it comes to which laws might be sensible.

NateNate60,

Again, this does not seem to be getting through to you.

You can click the “agree” button to get back full functionality.

A court would just rule that your clicking of that button does not bind you into a contract.

barsoap,

You can click the “agree” button to get back full functionality.

Not without acquiescing to a thing I do not want. Not without the fear and uncertainty of whether a civil court would actually agree with that. Whether I can afford to go up against company lawyers in court. Not without being a legal expert.

As said: Remedy being available doesn’t mean that an attempt to coerce was not made, and the attempt itself is punishable. What about “the attempt is punishable” do you not understand?

NateNate60,

It’s not coercive at all under that definition. It’s not an attempt to be coercive. Think about it more before replying.

barsoap,

under that definition.

First off: What definition are you referring to because I don’t see any mentioned that would imply what you said.

Not coercive would be giving the user the option to not agree to the new terms, not coercive would be not taking the telly hostage when the user wants to use it.

If Roku did not want to coerce its users to acquiesce, why did they choose such a drastic act? Is there any reasonable other motive? In defence you might argue technical necessity or such, very likely a losing battle but you might drag out the proceedings. but even then there’s still enough initial suspicion to start the case.

And, as said: It’s certainly not the job of an ordinary citizen to figure all that out. That’s the job of police and prosecutors.

BlackPenguins, (edited )

“We can’t solve your case until we solve all the murders first. All of them.”

Crime is crime dude.

pete_the_cat, (edited )

Yeah, that would definitely not go anywhere. Roku isn’t hacking into their device. OP probably bought a Roku Smart TV for like $75 (the cost is subsidized by Roku, hence why it’s so cheap) and is now complaining about it. It’s like buying an Amazon FireTV and then complaining about Amazon having control over the TV.

Edit: am I saying it’s right? No, but sometimes it pays to read the EULA. If you’re getting something for cheap, there’s probably a reason for it.

stellargmite,

Non American here, and also not a lawyer, but I’m curious what the correlation is between consumer rights (or lack of) and the relative cost of the product. This is somewhat different to buying a cheaply manufactured product and it unsurprisingly falling to bits - though in many jurisdictions there are even basic rights for that situation, the price is irrelevent. Someone elsewhere in chat has suggested suing in small claims for the cost of the product, due to Roku intentionally bricking their own product unless the rightful owner (is the purchaser even the owner?) agrees to certain terms, even though OP purchased it in good faith. If a straight up refund is not available during a straight forward opt OUT option, we have a very unfair situation for the rightful owner of this product. Needless to say opting out should be as straight forward as opting in. Your suggestions is that if a product is of or below a certain price you must bend over and gratefully accept the corporation you paid money to, then inserting anything they like up your rear end. In my opinion your thesis is not price based as this is a common practice unfortunately in the consumer (and enterprise for that matter) tech industry where we have had shiny brand even expensive products initially sensitively torpedoed up our various orifices, only for brand HQ weeks later to press a button which flicks open hidden blades in the torpedo. No one wants or deserves this. The question is what recourse is there in OP’s jurisdiction.

I may be misunderstanding you if actually you mean that any tech corp can do such a thing at any time that you have paid for. In which case we agree. But it’s far from ideal and shouldn’t be accepted.

pete_the_cat,

I’m not saying it’s right for them to do this, it’s a shitty practice and I’d definitely be pissed off. What I’m saying is there’s probably a clause in the EULA/TOS that pretty much says Roku has control over the function of the TV and either you accept those terms or you don’t use the TV. The price comparison was just pointing out the difference in experience between getting a $50-75 Amazon Fire tablet vs a $700 Samsung Galaxy tablet. The former is going to have ads all over it and Amazon controls it essentially, they tell you this, meanwhile the Galaxy tablet most likely has no advertising or additional strong-arming since you’re paying a lot more for it. The company is always out to get their income one way or another is simply the point I was making.

There is practically zero consumer protection in the US (assuming OP is from the US).

stellargmite,

Thanks for clarifying. Yeah none of this is ideal for consumers.

pete_the_cat,

No problem, this is essentially the Human Cent-iPad South Park episode playing out in real life… Obviously without the shit eating and mouth to ass sewing 😂

Ottomateeverything,

IANAL, and not that it really makes this bullshit any better but…

It’s unlikely that agreeing to terms of service that claim you waive rights to any class action lawsuit would actually hold up as legally binding in court. Many of these agreements aren’t reply binding are already legally gray… Plus, universally vaguely signing your legal rights away in any contract doesn’t hold any water either.

I highly doubt you’d actually lose any rights to a check box that’s bound to “you can’t ever sue us”.

T156,

I highly doubt you’d actually lose any rights to a check box that’s bound to “you can’t ever sue us”.

Could the agreement not force OP to use arbitration if they wanted to sue, making it economically infeasible to do so themselves?

chiliedogg,

Pretty much all arbitration clauses require the manufacturer to pay for the arbitration. That’s the consideration offered by the manufacturer to get the customer to waive their rights to sue.

It’s actuaoworked out well for me I the past, because once you start going down the arbitration path, they’re more likely to just give you what you want since that’ll be cheaper than the arbiter in the end win or lose.

Raxiel,

And as Elon found out, mandatory arbitration clauses can come back to bite you, like when a large number of claims have to be paid for separately all at once and can’t be consolidated to save costs.

DaleGribble88,
@DaleGribble88@programming.dev avatar

IANAL either, but I’m pretty sure you are correct. I put it in another comment somewhere, but I’m more upset about not being given a choice to refuse the change rather than the actual change itself. I don’t mind signing the waiver at amusement parks, or to buy a car with no warranty. I just want to know what I’m agreeing to, and I don’t like folks pulling the rug out from under me or changing the deal.

The situation feels like if I were to drop out of college, I would be given electroshocks until I’d forgotten anything learned in class.

Ottomateeverything,

Yeah, I totally agree with you, don’t get me wrong. I think it’s bullshit to switch terms. And also bullshit to write terms that just say “if we fuck you over, you can’t do anything about it”.

I just wanted to point out that the legality of it probably wouldn’t hold any actual water so don’t be totally paranoid about it and take it with a grain of salt. For anyone who’s a little more torn.

But yeah, Idk that I’d keep the device at that point either.

DaleGribble88, (edited )
@DaleGribble88@programming.dev avatar

Oh, I am definitely getting more paranoid as I get older, but that’s a different issue altogether. :D

Excrubulent, (edited )
@Excrubulent@slrpnk.net avatar

IANAL either, but from my understanding of contract law, not only are terms waiving your rights not legal, a contract necessarily entails mutual agreement followed by an exchange of a thing of value. In this case, they are holding a thing that you own (which they made and designed to work in this manner no less) hostage until you agree.

I don’t think that counts as an “exchange of a thing of value”. There’s no exchange there, so it doesn’t even qualify as a contract. Even if they’re supposedly adding features along with the update, if you didn’t agree to the features being added then that can’t be considered forming a contract either. Also it’s not free agreement on your part, so it fails on a number of levels.

In fact this behaviour sounds like it’s arguably illegal to me. It could even be the subject of a class action lawsuit. I imagine the courts would be especially unfavourable to the idea that they were doing this specifically to ask you to waive your right to do so.

thorbot,

IANAL either, but my understanding ends at the first letter in IANAL and all it means to me is that you do anal

Excrubulent, (edited )
@Excrubulent@slrpnk.net avatar

From the start of your comment it sounds like it’s mutual ¯_(ツ)_/¯

However I appreciate your feedback and from now on I will make it clearer that I ANAL.

Raxiel, (edited )

The legal term is “consideration”. To form a contract you must have three elements: Offer, consideration, and acceptance.
Unfortunately, I’m not sure it would help here. They would argue their consideration is whatever online services are tied to the product, but even without that, the contract isn’t being formed at this point (unless someone is going through first setup, at which point they can still return it). The contract was already formed and this is an amendment to those terms that the original wording likely has weasel words to permit.

That’s not to say the consumer has no recourse, consumer rights are probably the best bet. If the previous terms don’t expressly grant them the right to take away access to all features in circumstances like this, it may be possible to find them in breach, but unfortunately EULAs are usually pretty toothless when it comes to penalising the vendor.

Excrubulent,
@Excrubulent@slrpnk.net avatar

I would like to know how much of this has been tested in court, and how much has just been insinuated by the sheer volume of corporate lawyers insisting that they’re allowed to pull this crap. Because you can just write any old junk down, but lawyers don’t make the law.

Like, on the basic level of what a contract is, how can one party reserve the right to unilaterally change the terms? How can an EULA be binding when the exchange has already happened and no agreement was made except the delivery of a product? How can consideration be forced on one party while their property is held ransom? And esepcially how can a fundamental legal right be waived in such a manner?

If this happened in any other sphere it would be understood as some kind of vandalism, theft extortion, or something. Like your builder just shows up one day, “Hey, I installed a new sink in your kitchen! You can’t use your house until you agree I’m not liable for anything that happens to your house from this point forward. No, you can’t read it, just sign it. This is a real contract because I gave you something of value.” I suspect this isn’t happening because it’s perfectly legal, but because the internet of things hasn’t matured enough to have strong legal precedents established and there hasn’t yet been a big public backlash against it.

I think the more they try to pull this garbage the more people will start to realise that this is bullshit and do something about it.

Raxiel,

“How can one party reserve the right to unilaterally change the terms?”
When it comes to business to consumer contracts, often they can’t, due to “unfair terms” clauses in a lot of consumer protection laws.

In this specific case, the fact you can opt-out retrospectively (and inconveniently of course) is certainly due to those laws.

But like you say, it needs to be tested.

phx,

It’s like the waivers at skihills etc. Lots of stuff not legal, but it gives then deleting to waste your time and money on and the can afford the lawyers better than you can

darklamer,

Why do you call it “your” physical device?

DaleGribble88,
@DaleGribble88@programming.dev avatar

Lol, point well stated…

nullPointer,

use the search terms “commercial display” to find dumb tvs

pixelscience,

Except if you care about anything having to do with picture quality, brightness, contrast ratio or features such as HDR etc, then it’s going to be a really shitty TV. They’re made for the menus at McDonald’s, not a device for modern media.

FfaerieOxide,
FfaerieOxide avatar

Except if you care about anything having to do with picture quality

I still use 30 y/o CRTs to avoid all this "smart" bullshit. I very much do not.

pixelscience,

Do you still use a VHS player too? What sort of things do you watch on your CRT TV, genuinely curious?

FfaerieOxide,
FfaerieOxide avatar

Do you still use a VHS player too?

Only on roadtrips. It has it's own screen. This assumes you are intentionally making a distinction between VCP and VCR.

Something can be a VHS player and not be a VCR, something can be a VCR and unable to accept VHS, something can be a Video Tape Recorder that is unable to interact with any cassette.

What sort of things do you watch on your CRT TV, genuinely curious?

Depends which one, but in my view anything worth watching.

Yeah, that's videos of whatever format. Gaming systems of whatever stripe. Discs, be they DVD, VCD, CD-V, Vinyl (if I can get the belt running; Daj Boże), laserdisc (technically already mentioned). Blu-ray if I have to but I hate when filmmakers release exclusively to that format because I have to use a downstepper to convert the HDMI output they're only putting on the damned players these days and at that point just sell me a DVD. The picture quality would be comparable* and superior in the realms of ease of connecting to a computer more easily (you priced external BR drives? yeesh) and ease of watching. How many Blu-Ray players is a person liable to have, the one? Another? I hope you feel like watching it wherever they're set up. DVD you can throw in a a €9 external drive, any laptop made after 2007 and before you started needing external drives, any of a dozen cheap DVD players you may have haven't thrown away, a Playstation2, a hacked Wii, that karaoke machine you keep in your kitchen. They made mad portable players as I recall; you could watch your DVD film in a park

Also DVD menus don't utilize java. Fuck off. Much as I'm wont to point out ain't no tape ever told me [OPERATION PROHIBITED], no DVD has ever tried to connect to the internet while I watched it. Bad Disc!

*I haven't actually tested this but with the number of film sets sold with both editions and an RCA triswitch I easily could.

And yeah, you can get amassed cultural production and contemporary films on both DVD and VHS, but the great thing about analog signals is they're agnostic. You can convert the hell out of them. Convert Display to VGA then convert VGA to RCA then set your display port as a second monitor and you can wirecast anything you could watch through your display port (silverlight used to be snooty about that). Invideous tube instances, films off Archive.org, Vimeo, Peertube, Tubi, probably flash animations if you had a legacy player. Basically whatever the kids are watching these days you can A-hole out to the kind of TV Sonic would smash rings out of.

There are some media that just don't work, usually that utilizing really fine lines such as small text.

I view that as a failing of the media maker and not my viewing habits.
Make you lines thicker you want I should read them.

Most stuff (especially older but even most modern) looks fine-to-fantastic

Of course you don't have to "watch" anything as such. You can plug in a camcorder directly into a TV and pretend you're a news anchor.

nullPointer,

not quite. here’s one for ya

pixelscience,

Nice find!

I’d be curious to see RTINGS do a review of the panel on it.

Willie,

And be careful, a lot don't have built in speakers either. Don't just expect to get a TV out of a commercial display.

FfaerieOxide,
FfaerieOxide avatar

a lot don't have built in speakers either

Good. They won't fuck up videos you keep in front of the TV.

Chozo,
Chozo avatar

Eh, the built-in speakers on most TVs these days are all pretty trash across the board. You pretty much need a sound bar at the very least, these days.

blusterydayve26,

Did the old device agreement allow them to brick it until you agreed to the new agreement? If not, I say file that class action.

Quadhammer,

Ive got a TOS for them:

SECTION I

a. This contract expressly and to the fullest extent of the law binds that I did not read, nor am I bound to the terms and agreement laid out in any agreement that I agreed to. Any financial gains are automatically won by me in arbitration and any losses acrued are paid for by the Company to me with interest. Here is a vague copy/paste of about 9 more incoherent paragraphs full of “legal jargon” that never really state any clear purpose or definition of services rendered.

…

SECTION IX.

a. BY READING OR NOT READING THIS NOTICE COMPANY ASSUMES AND ACCEPTS ANY AND ALL FINANCIAL LIABILITY THEREIN. COMPANY AGREES TO PAY ME $75,000 FOR EDITING THIS CONTRACT (STANDARD GOING RATE PER DAY) PER DAY EFFECTIVE FOR 3 DAYS MAXIMUM TOTALING $225,000 PLUS TAXES AND INTEREST PAID.

b. COMPANY HAS UP TO 5 DAYS TO RESPOND TO AND DISPUTE THIS CONTRACT(They can’t. It is legally and eternally binding). THANKS FOR THE MONEY NERDS

bostonbananarama,

Anyway, the new terms are about waiving your right to a class action lawsuit. It’s weird to me because I’d never considered filing a class action lawsuit against Roku until this. I wish Roku TVs weren’t cheap walmart brand sh*t. Someone with some actual money might sue them and sort this out…

The good thing about class action lawsuits is that you don’t need money. The law firms are just about the only ones that get paid. If you pay attention to class action settlements it’s often something like $3m in attorneys fees, $5,000 to the named plaintiffs, and then a 3 month subscription to the companies own service or a refund of out of pocket expenses, during a specified period, not to exceed $150 per person.

Long story short, firms are more than happy to take on a class action that can be won, but you won’t get much.

dumpsterlid, (edited )

I like everyone saying “but this is surely illegal!” as if these corporations actually care. At least in the US, it really doesn’t matter what the law says at this point.

Corporations will do what they want and the law will be modified to reflect that, this is the current status quo and it is going to take significant political action (specifically making rich people afraid again to piss the rest of us off too much) to make it change.

PilferJynx,

It’s just an exhausting uphill battle that never ends. I don’t have the time or resources to combat monied corporations.

aesthelete, (edited )

At this point, it’s like they’re trying to get everyone to pirate everything.

CosmicCleric,
@CosmicCleric@lemmy.world avatar

It’s just an exhausting uphill battle that never ends. I don’t have the time or resources to combat monied corporations.

Call your House of Representative member and tell them that.

recapitated,

I would like to see legislation that forces optional recalls or refunds whenever TOS updates modify the usability and viability of a product.

Corkyskog,

Honestly I feel like the real reason they are working everyone down to the bone is so they don’t have time to go to small claims court. If everyone did that individually these companies would die so quickly.

recapitated,

2024: the year of the raspberry pi tv

JackbyDev,

You still need a TV though. OP cannot switch inputs.

theangryseal,

I have a dumb 4k tv. It’s cheap, it won’t meet everyone’s needs, but I really really really don’t want a smart tv.

It’s a Sceptre. Cheap enough that if it breaks it won’t break your heart to replace it.

recapitated,

Funny, I got a large Toshiba with fire TV because it was the cheapest option when I was looking, loaded with surveillance capitalism from Amazon.

Regretted it immediately, I would pay double for a dumb tv next time.

theangryseal,

My tv is wonky as hell sometimes. I have to spray the volume button with contact cleaner from time to time or it turns itself up or down.

It’s fine other than that though haha.

DaleGribble88,
@DaleGribble88@programming.dev avatar

Sceptre seems to be a popular brand mentioned in this thread. Thanks for the input!

timtoon,

Starting it up without an internet connection will prevent the pop-up from locking you out of your own device

timtoon,

You have 30 days to opt out by sending a letter to:

General Counsel, Roku Inc.
1701 Junction Court, Suite 100
San Jose, CA 95112

Letter must include:

  • Name of each person opting out, contact info
  • product model
  • software version
  • email address (optional)
  • copy of receipt (optional)
tomkatt,

Shit like this is why my LG C1 is restricted to LAN access only in my router (local network for automation purposes) and can’t communicate with the internet.

ohlaph,

I think the purpose of roku is to stream though, so it needs Internet. Unless it can serve local stuff, that I uave no idea about.

COASTER1921,

This is referring to the Roku built into many TVs. So you have no choice but to deal with it at least a little bit for switching between your HDMI/PC inputs. The reason this case is so bad is that it literally prevents you from using any input or device until you find the Roku remote that came with the TV and click accept. The TV is a “brick” until you do this.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • technology@lemmy.world
  • DreamBathrooms
  • magazineikmin
  • Youngstown
  • thenastyranch
  • rosin
  • slotface
  • ngwrru68w68
  • Durango
  • PowerRangers
  • kavyap
  • cisconetworking
  • tsrsr
  • everett
  • mdbf
  • anitta
  • tacticalgear
  • khanakhh
  • ethstaker
  • vwfavf
  • InstantRegret
  • tester
  • osvaldo12
  • cubers
  • GTA5RPClips
  • Leos
  • normalnudes
  • modclub
  • provamag3
  • All magazines
    •