ReplayTV 4500: No Hacking, or Else

mcglk writes "I was happy to see that SonicBlue had released its new generation of ReplayTV, the 4500. And it was $250 cheaper than the 4000. Except for that $250 one-time service activation fee. Worse is the agreement that goes along with it. Term1A basically says, No more hacking. Term1G says that they can enable or disable anything they want without notice. And Term2C says that if someone even alleges you are infringing on copyright, you can be shut down with no notice, no recourse, and there's nothing you can do about itthe agreement indemnifies them completely. I was really looking forward to getting one of these, too." Under that agreement, SonicBlue claims the right to destroy your device when you connect for updates.

Comments

Re:Easy way out

[alexburke]

It's quite simple, really -- not once did you ever see the agreement, and therefore you couldn't possibly have agreed to it.

Need it spoonfed to you? Okay, keep reading.

By beginning the activation of your new ReplayTV unit here, you will be activating the unit without agreeing to the agreement that seems to have Slashdotters up in arms -- in actual fact, you won't even have seen such an agreement, period.

In some jurisdictions, click-through agreements are legally binding -- but I've yet to hear of a jurisdiction which would consider you bound to an agreement you didn't see or agree to whatsoever.

If I hear Linux Tivo-like Device one more time I..

[NickV]

will scream :P

Basically, WHENEVER there is a TIVO/ReplayTV device story on /., about a quarter of the posts are "Let's make our own!" posts. Yet, there are NO viable alternatives out there. Yes, alternatives exist, but none are as user friendly or work across as varied a user base as the Tivo or ReplayTV.

Sure, if I lived in Europe and had satellite television I'd be set with a DBS setup. Sure if I had a direct tuner on my tv (not a cable box) I'd be set.

But NOT one project I've seen (including the Linux VCR, the Linux-Tivo thing on /. before, etc) has found a way to change the channels on the CABLE box when you want to watch something else. This is something so incredibly obvious, and ridiculously needed to get ANY decent functionality on 90% of the televisions in the US, yet NOT one project supports this. TIVO and ReplayTV both have support by placing these little emitters above the cable box that sends the correct IR codes when a channel change is needed.

Simply, you can't use the built-in TV tuner for most analog cable hookups and ALL digital cable hookups.

Does ANY project do this? I'm working on coding my own using the TiVo emitters, but I really don't want to duplicate work.

Re:Legally binding or not, that is the question

[Zeinfeld]

To activate you have to click through the agreement. To do that you accept the terms. It's legal if the terms are legal.

I am not a lawyer, but you don't have a clue.

The courts are the ultimate arbiters of contract law. If the courts decline to enforce contract terms then they are void.

Shrinkwrap type 'contracts' are problematic in many ways, not least because there is unequal bargaining power. It is a unilateral declaration by one side of what the terms of the agreement are. Such can be declared 'contracts of adhesion' and considered invalid by the courts. Invalid does not mean illegal, a term may be perfectly legal in a contract negotiated between two parties but not legal when it is unilaterally imposed.

I often use the example of car parking stations. You generally just drive in and get a ticket and there are no terms obvious. Somewhere just inside the carpark will be a big sign with the terms of use displayed. If you don't like the terms you can generally go back out without payment but continuing on implies your acceptance of the terms. That's settled law in Australia at least.

Actually it is settled law but not the way you think. In contract law it is impossible to exclude claims in negligence. So if a multi story car park collapses due to lack of maintenance the owner/operator is liable irregardless of what he put on the ticket. In fact there can even be a contract term stating that the owner is not liable in that precise circumstance and it is still invalid.

Incidentally that is why legal constructs such as bills of lading and letters of credit are so interesting, they are not contracts and are not subject to contract law and cannot in fact be constructed using contract law. That is why the digital signature acts were required to recognise the legality of digital signatures on such documents.

Clauses that attempt to restrict remedies were almost always thrown out by the US courts 20 years ago. Today clauses that restrict redress to arbitration are sometimes recognised, but by no means in every case. I suspect however that the provisions put in to many cell phone contracts that prohibit class action lawsuits are unenforceable.