Slashdot Mirror


Declining LG's New Ad-friendly Privacy Policy Removes Features From Smart TVs

BUL2294 (1081735) writes "Techdirt and Consumerist posted articles about a user in the UK who, after a firmware update to his 2-year old LG Smart TV, declined their new Privacy Policy, only to find that most Internet-connected features (e.g. BBC iPlayer, Skype) of the TV now no longer work. From the Techdirt article: 'Does a manufacturer have the right to "brick" certain integral services just because the end user doesn't feel comfortable sharing a bunch of info with LG and other, unnamed third parties? LG certainly feels it has the right to do this. In fact, it makes no secret of this in its long Privacy Policy — a document that spends more time discussing the lack thereof, rather than privacy itself. The opening paragraph makes this perfectly clear.' To add, even declining the policy still results in non-specified information being sent to LG. LG's policy of spying on the viewing habits of customers, along with sending filenames of videos stored on USB devices connected to TVs, was previously discussed on Slashdot."

53 of 221 comments (clear)

  1. Send it back.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Return the TV for a full refund. Under UK law you cannot impose conditions after the point of sale.

    It looks like people are going to need 3 VLANs soon... One for WiFi, one for computers with private information and a 3rd with no external access except to addresses specifically allowed.

    1. Re:Send it back.... by erikkemperman · · Score: 2

      I recently got my first Smart TV (I had an almost 20yr old Philips that just would not die, and in the end it never did).

      It's a Samsung and I made a point of not accepting the privacy policy. So far I have noticed nothing that does not work, which made me wonder if Samsung actually bothers to check whether or not the policy was accepted.

      How would I know if they were selling my viewing habits anyway?

      --
      Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
    2. Re:Send it back.... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How would I know if they were selling my viewing habits anyway?

      You can probably assume that if you connected it to the internet, that it is.

      I seem to remember a story not so long ago where even if you said "no, I don't want to", some devices did anyway.

      Assume corporations are greedy and evil, and don't give a damn what you want. They probably are.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Send it back.... by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The answer is never buy a smart TV. They offer no advantages over a dumb TV and a Roku box and only offer disadvantages.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    4. Re:Send it back.... by contrapunctus · · Score: 4, Informative

      For all you know it's a placebo button ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... ) and they might still collect everything anyway (you many have to look at data sent). I remember news stories about someone who analyzed the network data and found data still being sent (that was an LG though, http://www.tomsguide.com/us/lg...).

    5. Re:Send it back.... by erikkemperman · · Score: 2

      Plus if companies do get caught on this kind of thing, they tend to be hardly punished (by regulators nor consumers). So there's almost no reason for them to play fair.

      Having said that, not connecting it at all is not an option for me, that would break netflix. If only we could configure our own hosts file on our tv, or something.

      Maybe APK can lead the way.

      --
      Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
    6. Re:Send it back.... by c0d3g33k · · Score: 2

      More importantly, does the fact that you declined the privacy policy mean that the services function without gathering your personal information or is it gathered regardless of your preference? In a way, the behavior of LG is more honest, since they have to spend money and resources to make the 'smart' services work. If you're not paying a subscription, you're paying with your valuable private information. I suspect that information is too valuable for other vendors like Samsung to ignore despite the pesky fact that you declined to accept the privacy policy. That's a revenue stream they just can't ignore, since there seems to be little consequence if they do, unless some government or lawyer decides to make something of it.

    7. Re:Send it back.... by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      Plus if companies do get caught on this kind of thing, they tend to be hardly punished (by regulators nor consumers).

      Especially since courts have upheld EULAs as being valid, even if they basically give themselves the power to do anything they like. And it's all nice and legal. For many consumers, they don't know or care -- sure I'll give you my data, just give me the stuff I want on the interwebs.

      Having said that, not connecting it at all is not an option for me, that would break netflix.

      See, my ISP gives me a 60GB/month cap, and $10/GB over that every month. Netflix was never an option for me.

      If only we could configure our own hosts file on our tv, or something.

      Well, depending on what you have at home, you could always figure out where the traffic goes and block the hosts at your router or use your own DNS server to redirect it to something else.

      But that would probably break it even more.

      For me, the only way to win is to not play -- I wouldn't consider connecting my TV to the internet. Because I don't use the services, and don't trust the companies who make the TVs.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    8. Re:Send it back.... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 4, Informative

      Having said that, not connecting it at all is not an option for me, that would break netflix.

      why plug the smart tv at all, and just get a roku or apple tv? both have way better interfaces than smart tv, offer more features, and better privacy protection. At the very least, the roku/apple tv are their own little boxes, so worst case they can only share information on your activities there and not on your entire living room experience.

      srsly, some tvs have a video camera for skype? talk about a telescreen. you never know when they're watching, so you have to assume they're watching all the time.

    9. Re:Send it back.... by erikkemperman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      srsly, some tvs have a video camera for skype? talk about a telescreen. you never know when they're watching, so you have to assume they're watching all the time.

      Yeah mine has a camera and mic. But I have duct tape, so that's all right.

      --
      Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
    10. Re:Send it back.... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Informative

      Especially since courts have upheld EULAs as being valid, even if they basically give themselves the power to do anything they like. And it's all nice and legal. For many consumers, they don't know or care -- sure I'll give you my data, just give me the stuff I want on the interwebs.

      Actually no, at least in the US they haven't. With the sole (and bizarre) exception of software.

      EULAs are hardly a new thing. They have been tried with everything from home appliances to garden shovels (yes, really). And the courts have consistently held that if you buy a product at retail, once you plunk down your money, the manufacturer or supplier cannot impose conditions on the use of the product. (They can void a warranty for activities that might damage the equipment, but that's about it.) There have been 2 exceptions, and they are very different kinds of exceptions:

      One has been software. However, that has still not been firmly tested in higher court. There is no rational reason why software should be different from just about every other good that is for sale.

      The other is when there is a prior agreement to use a product in a certain way. For example: your company has a contract or license with a software (or hardware!) company that imposes such rules. If you have an up-front agreement that mandates only certain kinds of use, it is enforceable.

      "Shrink-wrap licenses" (the most common form of EULA today) are generally not enforceable in the US when it is a retail purchase. But again, as I say, some courts have (bizarrely, irrationally, and against all precedent) upheld them for software, on thin grounds. If it is ever tested in the higher courts, chances are post-sale "licenses" will be struck down for software, just as they have for every other kind of product under the sun.

    11. Re:Send it back.... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Informative

      I left something out which is important:

      US courts have invalidated "license agreements" or "use restrictions" on retail products, even when those restrictions are clearly visible on a package or label before purchase. Yes, really. The reasoning is: you paid your money, you own it. You have a legal right to use your property in any manner you choose. Although, as I mentioned, some uses can void the warranty, IF the warranty conditions are reasonably tied to possible damage of the product.

    12. Re:Send it back.... by Arker · · Score: 2

      "Having said that, not connecting it at all is not an option for me, that would break netflix. If only we could configure our own hosts file on our tv, or something."

      My preferred solution is simply to refuse to buy this sort of hardware at all.

      That said, having it and apparently being unable to return it, what you want to do is figure out exactly what ports and addresses it needs access to in order to get your netflix, then program your router firewall to default deny that one device, and give it as small a whitelist as possible.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    13. Re:Send it back.... by mlts · · Score: 2

      I have similar as well. The devices that have a static IP are allowed to access out the gateway at will. However, anything using a DHCP-provided address will have all packets dropped, except for port 80 with an empty page on it. That way, a device can do all the POST or GET with data being sent as part of the URL all it likes, but it won't leave the LAN.

      Of course the next step we will see are smart TVs that require activation via a server, and constant contact with the server, perhaps as part of the next HDCP spec. If then, it might be just time to go back to the ghetto LCD projector and movie screen.

    14. Re:Send it back.... by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 2

      >How would I know if they were selling my viewing habits anyway?

      If this is done right (HUGE IF), there's no reason for you to care. If they operate like those of us who work with personal data, but preserve privacy, the data will all be anonymized and aggregated to be useful for analysis without identifying any individual. This may very well not be the case, in which case you do still need to care if you're interested in privacy.

    15. Re:Send it back.... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      How is buying a Roku box any different? You still have to agree to an EULA, they can still fuck you over at any time on a whim. Maybe if you had said "buy a Raspberry Pi and install XBMC" you might have had a point, assuming you never want to use services like Netflix.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    16. Re:Send it back.... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 2

      why not buy the best tv you want based on the price and features that are important to you, then just don't plug it in to the internet??? that way you're not shackled if a company doesn't want to make a dumb tv.

      speaking of shackled and dumb, you know what's a huge pet peeve of mine? When you go to best buy or wherever and they have a huge bank of TVs, but you can't see the most important thing - the remote control! the remote control is something you touch every day and if it doesn't work well then that sucks.

      "just get a universal remote!" --unwashed masses

      I don't like universal remotes becuase they're overly complex and by virtue of being designed for all tvs, they're not a great fit for any tv. Nothing's better than a simple well laid out ergonomic remote with thoughtful design. But you can't see this at best buy!! Try next time you're there, requesting to see the remote control.

      another thing that bugs me? start up time! it takes forever for my samsung tv to start up. I understand screen delay because of the lighting or whatever. But at least make a chime right away? What happens is I push the button and nothing happens, so I wonder if my button press registered, so I press it again but the TV did turn on before so now I'm actually turning it off, so I step away for a couple mins to have it settle into a particular state (on or off, just make up your mind!) then I try again.

    17. Re:Send it back.... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2

      You're absolutely correct but to be pedantic "high end" is not quite telling the whole story !

      Note: I have the Panny 60" VT60 and love it. (Along with an older 42" panny plasma.)

      Panasonic's highest end was the ZT60, followed by the VT60. I say 'was' because Panasonic exited the plasma business last year.[1] In March 2014 they were no longer selling plasma TVs (for both consumers and commercial use), so "high end" is becoming "relative". Many videophiles would agree the ZT60 is the Pioneer Kuro Elite "killer", but if plasma is no longer even available ... well, "high end" must be judged on what IS actually available.

      PQ (Picture Quality) ranked from best to worst is:

      1. OLED -- true blacks
      2. CRT
      3. Plasma
      4. LED / LCD -- horrible viewing angles

      Note: ALL of the displays have "problems": price, PQ, scalability, etc. Large OLED won't be affordable for at least another 10+ years due to crappy yields.

      [1] http://www.cnet.com/news/rip-p...

    18. Re:Send it back.... by Hamsterdan · · Score: 2

      Bell and Videotron in Montreal have those limits (they are also TV providers)

      --
      I've got better things to do tonight than die.
    19. Re:Send it back.... by DutchUncle · · Score: 2

      " I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further. "

    20. Re: Send it back.... by DutchUncle · · Score: 2

      But wouldnt it be better if we all just quit buying this crap until they got the message and built something we wanted?

      Yes. Unfortunately, as with so many other areas, the "votes" are the purchases, and we only get to vote on the options we are presented. The typical supermarket example: There is so much shelf space taken up with a dozen different sizes of the two most popular product in each category that there are few other options. Then when you ask why your favorite other option was discontinued, the store says that it wasn't selling as much as the popular brand, and they don't seem to see this as circular reasoning.

    21. Re:Send it back.... by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      That's why when I finally bought a new TV recently I made sure that it was a dumb tv. Then I just added Roku, and the total cost was still less than a smart tv while giving me more control and options. It's easier and cheaper to replace a $99 box if it does something stupid with privacy than to replace the entire tv.

    22. Re:Send it back.... by yoshi_mon · · Score: 2

      Honestly unless your TV has a remote that already ties into an audio system it is worthless. That is unless you think that the sound that comes out of TV speakers is acceptable.

      If you think that all "universal remotes" are created equal you have not done much research. Get a good programmable remote, like the Logitech line, and don't look back.

      --

      Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
    23. Re:Send it back.... by amorsen · · Score: 2

      CRT picture quality is crap. The colors are good and the black level too, but the geometry is completely off and the resolution is crap. For small displays you can get a half-decent resolution at perhaps 80Hz refresh, but as soon as you want something TV-size you have lost -- and even on the small displays the pixels are fuzzy and never in the right place.

      There is more to a good picture than color.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    24. Re:Send it back.... by meerling · · Score: 2

      I remember seeing news articles about this. There have been several cases in the US where they took someone to court over an EULA. In all of them, when it looked like the corporation was going to lose, they settled out of court, thus avoiding a legal precedent they wouldn't like. I don't know if things have changed in the last few years, but I haven't heard about it.
      Also, the courts have very explicitly stated that they don't give a damn what the license or eula says, you haven't given up your rights, period.
      (ianal)

  2. Nope. by Mitreya · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does a manufacturer have the right to "brick" certain integral services just because the end user doesn't feel comfortable sharing a bunch of info with LG and other, unnamed third parties?

    Of course they don't.
    I am sure that just in 3-4 years, after a lawsuit, affected customers will be able to get a $7.50 credit good towards purchase of a new LG TV.

  3. Why I Prefer Dumb Displays by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Shit like this is exactly why, so long as they're available, I will always opt for a 'dumb display' rather than a 'smart tv.'

    Just give me a decent size screen with a good resolution, refresh rate, and a handful of various input types.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    1. Re:Why I Prefer Dumb Displays by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nothing says that even after "dumb TVs" are no longer available, that you can't turn a "smart TV" into a dumb one. It's called not giving access to your WiFi

      Right up until they put something in the TV which says "I haven't connected to the internet in a while, I'm stopping working until I do". Kinda like Microsoft was talking about with the XBone.

      Of course, it's only a matter of time before a TV manufacturer puts in a SIM card into a TV and broadcasts over cellular

      And to whom would the phone companies send the bill? No way they're giving something free access to the cellular network ... and no way I'd pay for it.

      The point of the SIM is to figure out who to bill. I don't think they could just sneakily connect to it without someone paying for it.

      Suddenly I'm thinking of Reg the Blank from Max Headroom and thinking he had the right idea.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  4. Re:It's not a privacy policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Terms of use for physical product changed after purchase in such a way as to cripple said product? That's called "bait and switch."

  5. Why I won't own one ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The primary purpose of an internet connected TV is to generate ad revenue and marketing data about you -- or at least in my cynical view it is.

    Basically they've said "if you don't consent to give us this data, we're taking away features". Probably because they can't (or won't) make the services work without it, and it's just easier to cut you off.

    Connected devices have always been a huge privacy hole, and an opportunity to have someone continue to make money off you after they've sold you the TV.

    It's also why my last TV wasn't a "smart" TV. My TV receives inputs from sources, but otherwise is essentially just a monitor with speakers.

    I view this as more or less a predictable outcome of smart TVs, because companies view them as something you're using under license, and will only give you these services if they're getting what they want in return.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  6. Re:It's not a privacy policy by baldass_newbie · · Score: 2

    Moreover what about Terms of Use for the other content? I have not read the LG ToU, but it could be something as simple as 'hey we need to pass this information on and we will store it on your TV for you so you can use Netflix, iPlayer, etc. but we won't receive or store anything.'

    Without a copy of the agreement, it's hard to tell how nefarious this is.

    --
    The opposite of progress is congress
  7. Does a manufacturer have the right? by cardpuncher · · Score: 5, Informative

    No. Not in UK law, I'm pretty sure, though IANAL.

    The Data Protection Act (DPA) means you have to be able to opt out of this kind of intrusive data harvesting and if the disabling of advertised functionality isn't covered by the Sale of Goods Act, it would seem that the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations would apply. The DPA applies to your relationship with the data processor (LG) while the functionality of the TV is the responsibility of the retailer.

    The correct remedy would be to return the TV to the retailer and demand a refund or a "repair" and to go to the small claims court if they refuse. LG won't be happy when retailers start pushing back.

  8. There is a workaround for this by nimbius · · Score: 2, Informative

    customers can upgrade to a version compatible with LG's now 'dumb' televisions. this new firmware stores and receives digital media, imports users music, can be viewed in multiple rooms, and wont cripple your cat if you dont forward a list of your favourite shows to them.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  9. LG by mcgrew · · Score: 2

    I won't be buying anything marked LG for quite some time; I had one of their phones about ten years ago. Buggiest piece of shit I ever saw, made Windows 95 look good by comparison. The screen would often turn upside down, backwards, all white, all black, do all sorts of strange things. Thinking "factory defect" I sent it back, and the replacement was even worse. So I'm going to have to have a whole lot of people I trust telling me how well built their LG is before I buy anything from them. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

    As to their privacy policy, it's pretty obvious they stupidly and arrogantly hold their customers in contempt.

    That said, I don't want a "smart TV" at all. I'll stick with my old kubuntu computer I have plugged into my old TV's S-Video and the stereo with the big speakers, and when the TV finally dies I'll try to find one without a built-in computer, just because it makes vile shit like this possible.

  10. Sounds like Sony and the PS3 by bluelip · · Score: 2

    I bought the Playstation 3 because of the ability to run other OSs. I liked my LG TVs because they gave me a DB-9 serial connection. I'm just old, I suppose. I still prefer openness.

    --

    Yep, I never spell check.
    More incorrect spellings can be found he
  11. Re:It's not a privacy policy by geekoid · · Score: 2

    Who? who goes to Jail? the shareholders? the majority shareholder? the CEO? the Lawyer? The Engineer?

    It's a corporation, they understand money. Fine them 250 pounds per impacted TV. Give them 30 days to enable preexisting feature or fine them again.
    It will solve this problem, and it will mean other competitors won't do it.

    Putting people in jail for this is a waste of time, money, jail space ad will accomplish very little.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  12. Re:It's not a privacy policy by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Terms of use for physical product changed after purchase in such a way as to cripple said product? That's called "bait and switch."

    Ho ho ho! Silly consumer! Does the physical product you purchased look at all crippled to you? Every pixel and transistor and unecessarily ugly bezel is exactly as it should be! It's only the software, which is licensed, not sold, and subject to the terms and conditions of the EULA, modifiable at any time by us, without notice, that has changed!

    (And this is why the 'licensed not sold' bullshit with software is ultimately so dangerous. If it just applied to stuff you bought on floppy disks and shoved into a computer, it'd be mostly a nuisance with occasional abuses. The fact that the same legal reasoning can be extended to cover firmware, which is just as much software; but also more or less entirely critical to the operation of a very large, and increasing, percentage of the 'hardware' devices you 'own', is where it really shows its teeth. Nearly anything of nontrivial complexity probably has some firmware in it somewhere, without which it isn't much good, and for which your replacement options are limited, sometimes by obscurity, sometimes by crypto bootloaders, which rather undermines the 'ownership' you might hope to have.)

  13. Re:What is this "LG" you speak of? by BUL2294 · · Score: 2

    What, you mean the "Goldstar" part of LG? If you remember any Goldstar computer products from the late-80s to mid-90s, they were absolute crap. How they ever surpassed Samsung & Sony is beyond me, especially given the "Lucky" part of "LG" is a chemical company that even makes toothpaste & laundry detergents! ("Lucky Goldstar" became "LG" in 1995...)

    --
    Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00
  14. Block their addresses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Most consumer routers have a simple blacklist for ip's per pc ip. Simply block their addresses. Google them or run a wireshark on an isolated hub+pc and make note.

    I have and LG TV and the new eula needs someone to go after it. It even sends audio recording if you use the mic to their servers.

    1. Re:Block their addresses by Overzeetop · · Score: 2

      "It even sends audio recording if you use the mic to their servers."

      How did you expect the voice recognition to work? That's not exactly a local-capable function on a lower power machine like a TV.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  15. mess with them by MooseTick · · Score: 4, Funny

    You could agree and then record/watch lots of Teletubbies or Barney Miller reruns while you aren't home. That will shew their data and maybe they will eventually give up.

  16. Re:Accept no computer you don't control by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 2, Informative

    Why, did you get one of those piece of shit ROKU boxes? I had one, for exactly one day. Turns out the piece of shit was directly engineered to separate me from my cash. The first thing it wanted was a fucking credit card so they could start happily billing me even more for the device I just paid $100 for. The final straw was after digging through it and all the stupid "apps" for it you have to buy, I finally figured out the only way it would play my LOCAL MEDIA that I specifically purchased it for was to BUY A FUCKING APP to do it for $4-5 bucks. That did it.

    The POS went back the next day flat, and I bought a WD-TV Live box instead. It did everything I ever wanted it to do, and it supports LOTS more a/v file formats, way more than the ROKU did. It will play .ISO DVD images directly, and understands .AVI, .MPG, .MP4, .MKV and whole host of other formats. The WD-TV Live was one of the best purchases I have made in the last few years. ROKU sucks donkey balls. Maybe they fixed this in later software upgrades, but somehow I doubt it, as I said it seemed engineered to drain my wallet, primarily...

    --
    -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
  17. Re:It's not a privacy policy by putaro · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Maybe it's time for "corporate jail" - the company's operations get suspended for the time it's in "jail" but it's required to continue paying employees. That might finally start getting their attention.

  18. Physical goods don't need to be copied by tepples · · Score: 3, Informative

    There is no rational reason why software should be different from just about every other good that is for sale.

    Unlike physical goods, works of authorship in digital form need to be copied into RAM in order to be used, bringing in copyright law. They also often need to be decrypted in order to be used, bringing in anticircumvention law.

    1. Re:Physical goods don't need to be copied by Arker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Copyright law actually makes an explicit exception for copying e.g. to RAM in the course of normal use. So that line will not hold up on court.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    2. Re:Physical goods don't need to be copied by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      Unlike physical goods, works of authorship in digital form need to be copied into RAM in order to be used, bringing in copyright law.

      Even if that were true, copyright law and EULAs are vastly different things. In fact, the First Sale Doctrine in copyright law says that a EULA is prima facie invalid. So invoking copyright law probably won't get you anywhere here.

      They also often need to be decrypted in order to be used, bringing in anticircumvention law.

      But the "anticircumvention law" is anticompetitive and against pretty much all legal precedent prior to DMCA. I am pretty sure that one won't last, either.

    3. Re:Physical goods don't need to be copied by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      But the "anticircumvention law" is anticompetitive and against pretty much all legal precedent prior to DMCA. I am pretty sure that one won't last, either.

      The DMCA was enacted in 1998. It's been in effect for over 15 years already. Unfortunately, I think it will last.

      That being said, I agree that the anticircumvention language of the DMCA should be removed entirely. It's one thing to say "ripping a DVD and sharing it with fifteen people is against copyright law." It's another thing to say "ripping a DVD is against copyright law because if you do so you MIGHT share it with fifteen people." I could rip that DVD and keep the rip for my own personal use and it wouldn't run afoul of copyright law (except for the anticircumvention stuff).

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    4. Re:Physical goods don't need to be copied by Arker · · Score: 2

      "That being said, I agree that the anticircumvention language of the DMCA should be removed entirely. It's one thing to say "ripping a DVD and sharing it with fifteen people is against copyright law." It's another thing to say "ripping a DVD is against copyright law because if you do so you MIGHT share it with fifteen people."

      It's actually even wierder than that. Ripping the DVD is completely legal, however distributing a tool that allows you to rip the DVD is not. It may not even be legal to tell someone how to rip the dvd. But as long as they figure it out on their own, and dont tell anyone else, they're legal.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  19. Re:Sony did it with OtherOS by ZahrGnosis · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ah, good, someone pointed this out already. Of course... you got down-modded because you gave like ZERO useful information, so here's some elaboration:

    Sony upgraded the PS3 software and removed the capability to dual-boot into Linux (the "OtherOS" feature). There was a class action lawsuit that was dismissed apparently because the plaintiffs didn't do a good job showing actual damage.

    I remember some good analysis of the issue at the time. One analysis concluded that the PS3 owners had the right to reject the upgrade, and that the system itself could function as normal, but the ongoing use of the Sony servers represented a "continuing relationship" whereby the company did have the right to change the agreement and the users could either accept the changes or stop using the service entirely. The "service" was free, or paid monthly, and differentiated from the "hardware" which performed precisely as it was sold _if you didn't upgrade the firmware_.

    Of course this varied from country to country, but I know of no country where Sony was held liable (someone should correct me -- I could easily have missed one).

    I'm sure there was more nuance, but I'm paraphrasing something I read long ago. Anyway, the same logic may or may not apply here... did the LG TV advertise these features? Could the streaming "features" be considered a subscription based service, rather than tied to the hardware advertising? LG can argue that every online service faces some time-dependant obsolescence and change; they may end up being in the clear.

  20. Re:Sony did it with OtherOS by PRMan · · Score: 3, Informative

    The big issue is that almost all new Blu-Ray discs required a firmware update to play. I bought my PS3 when there were less than 100 Blu-Ray discs. How could I know that in 3 years I would have a choice between features A & B (movies and games) or C (linux)? I didn't pay for one or the other, I paid for both.

    --
    Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  21. Re:Accept no computer you don't control by PRMan · · Score: 2

    Just got a Roku 3 yesterday. Things may have changed, but here's the latest:

    * The credit card is clearly marked as an optional feature to allow convenient purchases across many apps.
    * I didn't have to buy any apps. Yes, there were some for sale, but I didn't pay for anything. (And Vudu gave me 5 free movies that I haven't seen. Thanks.)
    * I found 2 apps that would play from a USB drive for free. And I found one that will play from a Windows network share as well.
    * The app I saw claims to support .MPG, .MP4, .MKV and .MP3 and .OGG. I didn't test it, but since it's not hard to include FFMPEG, I don't see any reason why it wouldn't.
    * The search across everything feature is awesome. I tried an actor search and didn't even realize that Hulu had SNL, so I watched an episode.

    Again, other than the $8/month that I already pay Netflix and Hulu and the $80 I paid NewEgg for the refurbished Roku 3, I didn't pay a dime when I hooked it up.

    --
    Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  22. Glad to be rid of LG by scbrent · · Score: 2

    LG lost me as a customer when they decided that their need for a shiny corporate tower is more important than preserving an historical and natural treasure*. Shit like this just makes me feel even better about ditching them. *http://www.protectthepalisades.org/parisi_cho_petition

  23. Just one more reason by phoenix182 · · Score: 2

    to not allow networking of various devices. Obviously it would be better if nearly all corporations weren't inherently evil, but since they are the next best thing is to just refuse to play their games outright.