3 ms·
I honestly don't mind not being able to sue a media streaming/rental service over the service itself. It's a pretty straightforward relationship, I give them ~$
by wwweston 3y ago
I honestly don't mind not being able to sue a media streaming/rental service over the service itself. It's a pretty straightforward relationship, I give them ~$10-$20 monthly and they give me access to their library. If the service starts to suck, I can stop paying them, if I stop paying them, they can stop giving me service.
The problem is really more in what these "completely eliminate any kind of accountability" represent. It's almost always a harbinger that fundamentally abusive and corrupt people have the reins, and they'll be looking for ways to abuse the attention, data, and money of the people who buy in.
EDIT: appreciate the correction/emphasis on the sunk device cost
- CharlesW 3y agoRoku is retroactively forcing acceptance for devices, including televisions, not for media streaming/rental services.
- asudosandwich 3y agoThe terms changed for a device already paid for up front, not a monthly subscription. That’s the particular rub here.
- gamepsys 3y agoThere's dozens of ways Roku can fail bad enough to merit a lawsuit. It's absolutely crazy to force arbitration on consumer level devices. As a consumer, I refuse that level of liability. What if their rechargeable remotes start combusting due to a manufacturing defect?