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 […]
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.
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Exactly: the DMCA needs to be repealed and it needs to become illegal to DRM the device to prevent the user from loading a third-party OS on it.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)
Hey I’m not saying I agree with it, just pointing out how you would have to attack it
Ah, right. Sorry!