It seems like nobody actually owns anything any more - that we're all just digital serfs living on someone else's land. I really don't know why anyone would willingly make such a deal.
They implicitly agree under duress, because their time is worth far too much to even read 10 pages of fine print for every product they use. I'm not being flippant; it bloody well is.
I'm not sure why courts consider that to hold any weight; to me it goes against the whole notion of informed consent in binding agreements. And to be fair, often the courts don't consider to hold any weight.
You don't need to read 10 pages of fine print for every product, because it's functionally the same fine print for every product.
If you don't like this, don't ever buy smart devices because they /all/ reserve the right to do this kind of stuff.
I avoid smart devices like the plague. If I want my speakers smart, I'll connect them to a suitable control unit. The only thing I want from my speakers is for them to translate electrical waves into pressure waves, the more accurate the better.
Another benefit is not having an audio player tethered in one place.
A third benefit is being able to change the audio settings from any one of a half dozen devices in my house.
https://www.theverge.com/2016/4/4/11362928/google-nest-revol...
That's the future. The dude with the 80's hifi setup knows what's up, in my opinion.
Another benefit is not having an audio player tethered in one place.
A third benefit is being able to change the audio settings from any one of a half dozen devices in my house.
Okay, but that's just wireless tech. Why do they need to be constantly connected to the internet and phoning home?
It seems odd then that you have to actually buy the device before you can even read the terms. I guess the idea is that you can always return it if you don't agree?
You only "own" something so long as you pay taxes (aka rents) for the right to do so, otherwise someone, usually the government, will take it from you. Even if you don't want to play along, you can only be somewhere public for so long until you're loitering and subject to fines (more rents), confiscation (again, more rents), or removal.
The whole system is pretty blatantly anti-competitive [1], detrimental to individuals [2][3], and rotting the system from the inside out [4][5].
1. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-rent-seeking-is-too...
2. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-22/us-economy-perverte...
3. https://hackernoon.com/rise-of-the-rent-seeker-how-the-subsc...
4. https://devinhelton.com/2013/04/14/rent-seeking-economy/
5. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-09-13/banks-and...
reviewing the rise of top-down city planning especially in recent modern cities like Brasilia (which systematically removed public space & spontaneous street interactions by design)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_Like_a_State https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bras%C3%ADlia
Thanks, it sounds like something I'd love; ordering a copy!
Now let's talk about having control over my speakers.
If I don't mow my lawn or pick up my garbage (labour) then my homeowners' association or local government can initiate legal proceedings which may end in me not "owning" my home.
Look, I'm actually for taxes generally, whatever you want to think about that, as long as they provide equal value to the people. However, our current system is designed so that any local government can arbitrarily decide that they're incorporated and I'm subject to their laws and taxation. 99% of us work towards putting more into the system than we get back and many do so exponentially.
Last time I checked, eminent domain and asset forfeiture are still actual things that happen in 2017.
We may not live in an outright "feudal system" but many of us live in a system closer to one than not.
No? Don't pay your property tax. See how fast you get evicted from that home you "own" by the sheriff.
People who didn't pay the "taxes" were evicted and their possessions given to loyalists; sounds a lot like renting.
The core of the issue really was that Britain defended the American colonies from French invasion during the Seven Year's War and the British taxpayer bore the brunt of the taxation (I can't remember exact figures, but Britons were taxed much, much heavier than Americans, even after the stamp duties and tea taxes). After the war, Parliament came looking for payback, understandably. So Britain wasn't using taxation to control the colonies, it was looking to recoup the costs of defending them.
On a sidenote, this is actually quite interesting in today's context over NATO military spending, where now it is Britain freeloading on American military spending.
This is an entirely legitimate statement.
> ...now it is Britain freeloading on American military spending.
...but this you're really going to have to back up. Can you point to a specific example and explain why it's 'freeloading'?
My argument wasn't sound - I'm glad you provided historically accurate facts that were both enjoyable and informative!
Your sidenote is also interesting - and on another note (albeit silly) - have you heard of the AMC drama TURN: Washington's Spies? I've started watching it and have quite enjoyed it so far.
On that subject: https://twitter.com/internetofshit/status/895881274614665217
Sonos sounds great, has nice features and "just works".
Perhaps not for long, if you do not accept their take-it-or-leave-it terms. Personally, I don't mind not accepting the TOS and simply leaving my software in the state that it currently is in, forever. My device is currently working acceptably, so I don't see why I need an update. But if they're saying it's going to eventually stop working, that's where any sane person should draw the line.
On the other hand, if I had to buy a $1000 device for the privilege of paying them $10/month, my anger level would probably depend on how many years I got utility out of that $1000 device before they shut down.
My willingness to have a poorer experience is unfortunately not as strong as some FOSS enthusiasts. I'm happy to relinquish some control to Apple so long as they continue to provide me with positive experiences (AirPlay, for instance). Fortunately everyone is piling into the "works with everything else" crowd, so you don't really have to opt for something particularly power-user-oriented anymore. HomeKit doesn't fall too short of an ISY-99i based system, for instance.
I can only imagine if I wasn't excited by FOSS and linux to begin with. There is zero hope of escaping the cloud-trap for someone who doesn't have the knowledge or willingness.
That is the only way
If capitalists are not going to let us abolish copyright, we should abuse it, not pretend it does not exist.
I would much prefer it if all of these services followed a publicly documented protocol and allowed me to configure which endpoint they talked to. I can't see this ever happening without regulation though.
What part of the privacy policy do you specifically have an issue with?
Netflix and all other content providers collect "usage data" too, as does the devices these may run on such as "Roku" and other players.
I am trying to think of concrete examples of scenarios where actual harm would REALISTICALLY be done to individual consumers because of Sonos privacy policy.
2. Government compels Sonos to provide data on customers' listening histories.
3. Chilling effect, political implications, oppression.
"Alexa? Send details of my subversive plan to the government!"
"OK Google, upload the audio of the last 30mins discussion with my co-conspirators directly to PRISM!"
"Hey Siri? Which law enforcement agency needs to know about this surprise protest we just planned?"
As for the data collection you can't opt out of, it's super basic data like your ip and account registration info. How do you expect to use a cloud service if it doesn't know your ip?
> Sonos may modify or update this Statement when necessary to reflect customer feedback and changes in our Products and Service; so, please review it periodically. When we update this Statement, we will revise the “Last Updated” date at the top of the Statement. If there are material changes to the Statement or in how Sonos uses your personal data, we will notify you either by posting a notice of such changes before they take effect or by sending you a notification. We encourage you to periodically review this Statement to learn more about how Sonos is using and protecting your information. Your continued use of the Service or Products after any modification to this Statement will constitute your acceptance of such modification and updates.
I wouldn't have to just agree to the policy as you linked it today. One agrees to all future versions of the policy.
Perhaps, as with various other unreasonable or one-sided provisions, there should be a presumption under consumer protection laws that any such terms are invalid, that any substantial change in an agreement must have the customer's explicit, active consent, and that if the customer does not consent and this results in something they purchased no longer providing the expected benefit then the usual protections about broken purchases should apply. You'd have to be a bit careful, because sometimes these self-updating terms are used to deal with minor changes in the legal landscape that are formalities with no real impact on anyone, but that seems like the sort of thing a court could sensibly decide in the event of a dispute.
More importantly, I don't think consent is sufficient in this sort of situation. It has to be a real choice, so even if you choose not to consent to the change, you're not then losing out on something you already paid for or otherwise giving up your normal legal consumer rights as a consequence.
In a situation where the continued effective functioning of a purchased item is dependent on some other facility, and that facility and the related functionality can be turned off if you don't accept the manufacturer/vendor moving the goalposts retrospectively, I don't see much ethical or practical difference between using this dependency as a lever to force a customer to accept revisions in some other aspect of the deal and just doing the other thing without their consent anyway.
> Your continued use of the Service or Products after any
> modification to this Statement will constitute your
> acceptance of such modification and updates.
Too many hardware products are being tethered to opaque "updates" delivered via untrusted computer network, namely, "the Internet". Security issues of the delivery mechanism aside, purchasers of these products are given no options on whether and how they may choose to "update" the manufacturer's software, or replace the manufacturer's software with an open source alternative.
For example, if the manufacturer's software is closed source, the purchaser cannot verify what is in an "update". The manufacturer is under no legal obligation to tell her. As such, she may not be in a position to decide
[ ] YES, I could use this modification or
[ ] NO, this modification serves me no benefit
It may be bundled with some other modification that benefits the purchaser but the purchaser cannot choose to accept or reject the modifications individually.
Or the manufacturer may simply state a possibility that breeds fear among certain purchasers: that if purchaser does not accept all updates, then the hardware may "cease to function". Consideration by the purchaser of whether this is actually probable may be superseded by a perceived risk of not being able to use the hardware to its full capabilities.
(For example, a router company may inform the purchaser that only the router company's software will allow certain performance specificatons to be met. If the purchaser installs an open source alternative software, then she will not be able to obtain the same performance. Of course there may be other benefits to the open source alternative besides performance, but the perceived "loss" of not reaching the performance specs advertised by the manufacturer is enough to convince many purchasers to tether the router to the manufacturer's "updates".)
Purchasers own the hardware they purchase. It is the software, including "firmware", pre-installed by manufacturers that gives rise to these shenanigans. The less access and control, including choice of alternatives, that the purchaser has to such software, the better for the manufacturer who wishes to continue to exploit the sale of the hardware well-beyond the purchase date.
When the purchaser of hardware is forced to accept the manufacturer's software, then I tend to agree with the comment. Regardless of whether the purchaser owns the hardware, if the manufacture controls the software, e.g. the manufacturer can "update" it at will or break it at will for anyone who does not "update", then with all due respect I submit that the manufacture ultimately controls the hardware. Thought experiment: Apply the above view to every item of hardware you have ever purchased. Consider whether it will apply to the next item you purchase.