3 ms·

Can you supply more practical information about this device and why someone would put up with it? A machine is an extension of its owner. Whips, billy clubs, g

Can you supply more practical information about this device and why someone would put up with it? A machine is an extension of its owner. Whips, billy clubs, guns, and knives don't get into trouble when they're used to damage or kill people. The people that use them are. The same logic would apply here. Why wouldn't it? In the end all laws that would apply in this situation (unless OP provides more information) already exist and have existed since the first written laws.

logicallee 6y ago
>Can you supply more practical information about this device and why someone would put up with it? cheap ultra-hd TV. you can unplug it, doesn't have a battery. but if you don't unplug it it sounds an alarm if its camera is covered. if it sees a product competing with its sponsors, it punishes you by making you wait through a sponsorship punishment before watching whatever they're trying to watch. So if someone is out shopping and thinking about buying coke or pepsi then they will remember they have to sit through sponsorship punishments if they don't buy coke. As for why people would put up with it: well, because the TV is cheap. Maybe they don't care that much about coke/pepsi (aren't that loyal.). Maybe the actual punishment is done locally, doesn't invade their privacy. you can always just unplug the tv if you are not willing to put up with the punishment delay. I'm putting it in terms of punishment because I don't want to give marketers any ideas. (Obviously they would not call it a sponsorship punishment.) People already put up with unskipable advertisements on youtube, for example. You mention that a machine is an extension of its owner, but in this case the owner is the user but the software is run by another company. (the manuifacturer). you mention whips and billy clubs: if a television had a robot arm and whipped or billy clubbed you, you could sue the company for personal injury. but how about punishment advertisements? Can you sue them for emotional distress? Anything else? What makes this different? On what grounds would it be illegal specifically? (You mention "all laws already exist" but you don't mention any.)
- kleer001 6y ago
  None of those are the behaviour of a master to their slave. They're merely inconveniences. Your definition of punishment is odd to me. The barrier to entry seems spectacularly low. Watching advertisements, though universally loathed, is not actually punishment, by any broadly accepted definition. The generally accepted notion of a punishment, the important one here to our discussion, is an imposition that cannot be stopped. If I get an unskippable advert on youtube I can always close youtube. Nobody is forcing them to keep the TV, or even buy it in the first place. People would be up in arms quickly about awful TVs like that and nobody would buy them. Those laws are assault and/or battery laws. Here's a clip from Hamurabi: http://45338297.weebly.com/laws-on-assault-and-battery.html http://45338297.weebly.com/laws-on-assault-and-battery.html Without doing any research I can guarantee you every Country has laws against assault. It's called the "Monopoly on Violence" and one of the most important cornerstones of civilization. Only the state can injure or murder people without repercussion. There's no such thing as a punishment (in the literal sense) advertisement. It's fiction. See Black Mirror Season 1 episode 2, "Fifteen Million Merits".
  - logicallee 6y ago
    This answer is fantastic, thank you. I'd like to ask about this part: "Nobody is forcing them to keep the TV, or even buy it in the first place. People would be up in arms quickly about awful TVs like that and nobody would buy them. Those laws are assault and/or battery laws." A loud noise isn't assault and battery. You mention the possibility of "closing youtube". What if the television were "impossible" to close, had a battery long enough to punish you for a month even if you unplug it, and just would not stop playing an inconvenience noise until you did what it asked? You mention nobody would buy it. Well, that is one possibility. However, I think people would buy it. What law would a consumer device violate that the user couldn't practically open or disable, and which was partially subsidized by advertisements, and played an advertisement until the user bought the product advertised (a bottle of coke for example)? What if it did so even when the user wasn't interacting with it? You claim that nobody would buy such an ultra hd TV but I think some people would. What consumer protection laws would they violate? If right now my TV turned on and played an advertisement, after receicing an over the air update from my wifi, how could I demand that the company turm this off if it was programmed not to and breaking its firmware is beyond my capability? Could I or a class of people sue the company under consumer protection laws? Would, indeed, they violate any consumer protection laws? Indeed: if right now Samsung rolled out an update that turned on all their TV's, even if currently off, and played an advertisement, would they violate any law by doing so? It is irrelevant whether they would want to do that (you say they would lose market share). My question is what law they would violate?

logicallee 6y ago

>Can you supply more practical information about this device and why someone would put up with it? cheap ultra-hd TV. you can unplug it, doesn't have a battery. but if you don't unplug it it sounds an alarm if its camera is covered. if it sees a product competing with its sponsors, it punishes you by making you wait through a sponsorship punishment before watching whatever they're trying to watch. So if someone is out shopping and thinking about buying coke or pepsi then they will remember they have to sit through sponsorship punishments if they don't buy coke. As for why people would put up with it: well, because the TV is cheap. Maybe they don't care that much about coke/pepsi (aren't that loyal.). Maybe the actual punishment is done locally, doesn't invade their privacy. you can always just unplug the tv if you are not willing to put up with the punishment delay. I'm putting it in terms of punishment because I don't want to give marketers any ideas. (Obviously they would not call it a sponsorship punishment.) People already put up with unskipable advertisements on youtube, for example. You mention that a machine is an extension of its owner, but in this case the owner is the user but the software is run by another company. (the manuifacturer). you mention whips and billy clubs: if a television had a robot arm and whipped or billy clubbed you, you could sue the company for personal injury. but how about punishment advertisements? Can you sue them for emotional distress? Anything else? What makes this different? On what grounds would it be illegal specifically? (You mention "all laws already exist" but you don't mention any.)

kleer001 6y ago
None of those are the behaviour of a master to their slave. They're merely inconveniences. Your definition of punishment is odd to me. The barrier to entry seems spectacularly low. Watching advertisements, though universally loathed, is not actually punishment, by any broadly accepted definition. The generally accepted notion of a punishment, the important one here to our discussion, is an imposition that cannot be stopped. If I get an unskippable advert on youtube I can always close youtube. Nobody is forcing them to keep the TV, or even buy it in the first place. People would be up in arms quickly about awful TVs like that and nobody would buy them. Those laws are assault and/or battery laws. Here's a clip from Hamurabi: http://45338297.weebly.com/laws-on-assault-and-battery.html http://45338297.weebly.com/laws-on-assault-and-battery.html Without doing any research I can guarantee you every Country has laws against assault. It's called the "Monopoly on Violence" and one of the most important cornerstones of civilization. Only the state can injure or murder people without repercussion. There's no such thing as a punishment (in the literal sense) advertisement. It's fiction. See Black Mirror Season 1 episode 2, "Fifteen Million Merits".
- logicallee 6y ago
  This answer is fantastic, thank you. I'd like to ask about this part: "Nobody is forcing them to keep the TV, or even buy it in the first place. People would be up in arms quickly about awful TVs like that and nobody would buy them. Those laws are assault and/or battery laws." A loud noise isn't assault and battery. You mention the possibility of "closing youtube". What if the television were "impossible" to close, had a battery long enough to punish you for a month even if you unplug it, and just would not stop playing an inconvenience noise until you did what it asked? You mention nobody would buy it. Well, that is one possibility. However, I think people would buy it. What law would a consumer device violate that the user couldn't practically open or disable, and which was partially subsidized by advertisements, and played an advertisement until the user bought the product advertised (a bottle of coke for example)? What if it did so even when the user wasn't interacting with it? You claim that nobody would buy such an ultra hd TV but I think some people would. What consumer protection laws would they violate? If right now my TV turned on and played an advertisement, after receicing an over the air update from my wifi, how could I demand that the company turm this off if it was programmed not to and breaking its firmware is beyond my capability? Could I or a class of people sue the company under consumer protection laws? Would, indeed, they violate any consumer protection laws? Indeed: if right now Samsung rolled out an update that turned on all their TV's, even if currently off, and played an advertisement, would they violate any law by doing so? It is irrelevant whether they would want to do that (you say they would lose market share). My question is what law they would violate?