this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2024

265 points (98.2% liked)

Technology

1331 readers

199 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 11 months ago

MODERATORS

BrikoX@lemmy.zip

265

Roku Issues a Mandatory Terms of Service Update That You Must Agree To or You Can't Use Your Roku (cordcuttersnews.com)

submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by BrikoX@lemmy.zip to c/technology@lemmy.zip

53 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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 […]

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] PrinceWith999Enemies@lemmy.world 111 points 8 months ago (4 children)

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.

[–] PhAzE@lemmy.ca 36 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

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

[–] grue@lemmy.world 42 points 8 months ago (3 children)

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!

[–] Sneptaur@pawb.social 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] Sneptaur@pawb.social 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Ah, right. Sorry!

[–] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] You999@sh.itjust.works 26 points 8 months ago

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.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago

AND the management who created the ToS update should be tarred and feathered on PBS.

[–] smileyhead@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 8 months ago

Agree. And we need a legislation to show middle finger to such company and be able to change the operating system on those devices.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 63 points 8 months ago (1 children)

This shit should be illegal for paid hardware. They should be forced to refund everyone the cost of their device purchase.

[–] HaywardT@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Seems like this behavior is perfect for triggering a class action.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

They don't even care. The cost of the class action lawsuit will be less than the profit they make from the changes. People need to go to jail, or be personally fined.

[–] HaywardT@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 8 months ago

This change seems to be about reducing the risk of a class action lawsuit rather than increasing profits.

[–] DAMunzy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 8 months ago

If everyone goes to arbitration over it they'll lose a bunch of money since they have to pay for each arbitration.

[–] stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub 46 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Lmao.

Can’t wait for all the ewaste this will fucking generate just to save this companies theoretic ass in a theoretical lawsuit which will likely end in consumers producing a lawsuit anyway on top of the ewaste it’ll create.

[–] RickyWars@lemmy.ca 50 points 8 months ago (4 children)

I'm sure most users will just agree and there won't be much ewaste...

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 29 points 8 months ago

Yeah, I just agreed because one sided bullshit being added to something I already own lets me continue to use it until whatever they added even comes up and someone else might sue them in the meantime because ever changing terms of service are not enforceable.

[–] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

His post is right on par with all the people that swore up and down that the password crackdown of Netflix was going to be their downfall.

[–] stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Additional ewaste is still additional. Regardless of amount, we’re talking about necessity and rate.

If I got this I’d be returning my tv as soon as possible but I know better and so do my friends and family because I talk about this stuff with them when stories like this come up or they bring it up

Most people, yes will likely just click ok and not think anything of it because they don’t see these spies physically in their windows, but I’m still not happy about the decision and the extra ewaste it will thus, proportionally, cause right now

[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 15 points 8 months ago (5 children)

I read through the whole fucking thing, considered posting it to Lemmy a day or two ago, even considered comparing it to other stream box thingies, and just decided it wasn't worth it. This fight isn't going to end because TheFartographer chose to change platforms.

At this point, I know we're losing and I'm getting really tired of carrying the torch. Ultimately, if I swapped all of our Rokus to anything else, I'd have to deal with my wife being upset that "having a smart house was supposed to be easy, why do you even care about suing Roku?"

Unfortunately, we're not all as oblivious as you seem to think we are. Some of us have just resigned to failure and are letting the steamroller finally run us over. For some stupid reason, I'm doing it with my eyes wide open.

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] NotAtWork@startrek.website 2 points 8 months ago

I heard you have to have the original remote to confirm the EULA, if you are using a different one it won't click through and you are stuck.

[–] radiohead37@lemmy.world 33 points 8 months ago (2 children)

It is ridiculous how long TOS agreements are. It is clearly not meant for a lay person to read. It is so much one-sided bullshit that it should be illegal.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 3 points 8 months ago

Yet they'll brick your TV. Whatcha gonna do? A class action suit? Yay, get 30 dollars back 5 years from now. Worth it!

Don't buy Roku, ever again.

[–] NotAtWork@startrek.website 3 points 8 months ago

It's probably not enforceable in court.

[–] AdmiralShat@programming.dev 19 points 8 months ago (4 children)

This is why all OSs need to be open source and we should only argue over hardware

[–] smileyhead@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 8 months ago

Or at least bare minimum in form of a documentation allowing other OSes to be develop for the hardware.

Starting with the phones...

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] nothingcorporate@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I am constantly elated that I decided years ago to buy a used micro PC on eBay and install Linux on it as my streaming box.

Fuck Roku, fuck Amazon, fuck Google, fuck Samsung, fuck Vizio.

[–] niartenyaw@midwest.social 8 points 8 months ago (2 children)

curious about your setup, do you have anything for remote control? do you just run everything through the browser?

[–] viking@infosec.pub 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Not OP, but a bluetooth mouse is an excellent remote control :-)

[–] jbk@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 8 months ago

Another device and KDE Connect (or at least Valent, an in-development GNOME port of it) works too :D

[–] nothingcorporate@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

Yeah, I use an old Dell optiplex micro running Zorin OS Lite, and watch all streaming services in my web browser.

This gives the bonus of blocking ads on sites like YouTube or Roku.

I use a Logitech wireless media keyboard with trackpad to control it. All hooked up to a dumb projector.

Fun fact, my parents have an Amazon Fire TV, and Amazon pushed an update 2 months ago that made it always turn on to an ad page, and slowed down all the interactions to the point of being almost unbearable.

Second fun fact: Vizio now makes more money selling access to advertisers than they make from selling tvs.

[–] Lem453@lemmy.ca 2 points 8 months ago

The equivalent today is a small n100 box. Similar size to a Nvidia shield.

[–] rekabis@lemmy.ca 12 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

This just ensures that I will never get a Roku. Thanks for making that decision for me, Roku!

Now if only Sony could make an OLED 4K dumb TV about 78″ or larger. Yes, I know the alternative is called “Digital Signage”, but almost all of DS is still just standard LCD and entry-level visual tech.

[–] enoqe@lemmy.ml 10 points 8 months ago

For anyone who gets this abhorrent soft brick on their Roku TV, MAC address filter your TV on your router (prevents it from accessing the internet and phoning home). Hard restart your TV (unplug and replug since they lock you out of restarting via GUI), and Bob’s your uncle (dumb TV with no forced agreement for continued "dumb" use).

Unclear how long this will last, but as long as you keep your TV off the internet you should be good to go.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, was considering buying a Roku TV, ain't ever going to happen now.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 1 points 8 months ago

This should have put you off as well.

https://lemmy.world/post/9840946

[–] chemicalwonka@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 8 months ago

ditch all this proprietary shit and start your path to freedom

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

allowing companies to update software was a mistake

[–] Marcbmann@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

This is not surprising. Roku enabled smart TVs do not function if they cannot communicate with Roku servers. Can't even watch TV or use a console.

[–] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 4 points 8 months ago

Is that new? I have a Roku enabled tv i just use as a computer screen. Am i talking about something different?

load more comments