Comment on Roku Issues a Mandatory Terms of Service Update That You Must Agree To or You Can't Use Your Roku | Cord Cutters News

• Sneptaur@pawb.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨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.

  source

  • grue@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    The argument is they’re selling you a service.

    So what? Their argument is wrong.

    source

    • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨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

      source

      • grue@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨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)

        source
    • Sneptaur@pawb.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Hey I’m not saying I agree with it, just pointing out how you would have to attack it

      source

      • grue@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Ah, right. Sorry!

        source