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@lemmy.world for recommending the brand “Sceptre” when buying my next (dumb) TV.

EDIT2: Shout out to @0110010001100010@lemmy.world 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.

  • NateNate60@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1712·
    10 months ago

    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.

      • NateNate60@lemmy.worldEnglish
        62·
        10 months ago

        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.

          • NateNate60@lemmy.worldEnglish
            5·
            10 months ago

            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.

              • NateNate60@lemmy.worldEnglish
                1·
                10 months ago

                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.

                  • NateNate60@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    11·
                    10 months ago

                    (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.

    • Mic_Check_One_Two@reddthat.comEnglish
      1·
      10 months ago

      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@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        10 months ago

        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.