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 @[email protected] for recommending the brand “Sceptre” when buying my next (dumb) TV.
EDIT2: Shout out to @[email protected] 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.
§§ 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.
I ran Google Translate on these:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
It’s not coercive at all under that definition. It’s not an attempt to be coercive. Think about it more before replying.
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.