Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 458 posts

Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

#371

Post by TremendousJudge »

tzs wrote: post #322
shirro wrote: post #166

There are so many advantages to turning off and disconnecting these days. Avoiding TOS is just a small part. There are too many demands on our attention and our wallets and most of us aren't getting more money or time. I cancelled all the family's streaming services in 2025. Everyone adapted. It turns out a lot of things we are told we need, we really don't. People lived without them as recently as a few years ago. A…

> It turns out a lot of things we are told we need, we really don't. People lived without them as recently as a few years ago. It also often turns out that when some new way comes along to do something that people like to do, the ways they used to do those things go away. If you don't like the new way you can't go back to how it used to be done. The last physical media video rental store within a reasonable drive of…

it's interesting that if you want to watch a movie, torrenting is pretty much the same it was 20 years ago. at this point I torrent movies that are on Netflix (that I have a subscription for) simply because it gets me a better bitrate much more reliably.

Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

#372

Post by gruez »

dpoloncsak wrote: post #364
gruez wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Of course, then you're spending $10 to save $10.... Most VPN subscriptions are around $5, whereas netflix with ads costs $8, and $18 without ads. Even at $18 though, it's still not 4K, whereas you can easily pirate 4K versions with your VPN subscription.

Appreciate the reality check. Mullvad has been a bill I don't think about twice when it comes around, and I cancelled streaming services years ago. To your point though, as I'm running my plex server on an old ~midrange laptop, 4K is pretty rough for me to stream as well. I'm sure better hardware fixes this, but that's higher cost. YMMV based on what hardware you have on hand to repurpose

>To your point though, as I'm running my plex server on an old ~midrange laptop, 4K is pretty rough for me to stream as well.

Unless you're doing reencodes processing power shouldn't matter. You can serve 4K video on a 2010s router if you wanted to. If you're doing reencodes, why bother? Download an encode that's appropriate for how you're watching it. 4K for the big screen and 1080p for mobile. Skip reencoding altogether.

Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

#373

Post by j45 »

The interesting thing is TOS changes by email might be more notification than currently is provided.

It seems likely that someone, somewhere, will turn LLMs against monitoring TOS' and help customers provide feedback when they want to but might not know how.

Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

#374

Post by ayaros »

If the Supreme Court justices uphold this, I'm sending the ones who vote yes emails, each with an EULA dictating that by opening and reading the email they agree to send me 100% of their salaries in perpetuity, as well as an initial, single lump sum payment consisting of all their assets thrown into a trust in my own name. If they push back on it, well they shouldn't be so upset about something they agreed to in the first place.

Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

#375

Post by TremendousJudge »

darkhorse222 wrote: post #366
devilbunny wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never run Plex, or Jellyfin for that matter. There's a video share on my NAS. I point Infuse on Apple TV 4K's at it. It works, and cleanly. Downsides: you have to pay for Infuse Pro to play some formats and deal with some audio codecs. It's IIRC $17 for a year, though, so pretty reasonable for continued development. Your non-technical friends and family can't do the initial setup themselves (it's shared over Tai…

It's just weird that it's this complicated. We should get a static IP from our DNS. We should use standard open source streaming conversion mechanisms. It should go over basic video codecs. Lately I've been working towards just using a webserver to host video files. Sure, it's not adaptive, but for goodness sakes it's simple.

yeah I'm on the same boat. I just have an old laptop hooked up to the tv, which can access a shared folder on my main computer that has all the media. I control it with a wireless mouse, and get an actual fast UI with a web browser instead of the usability nightmare that is a smart tv UI. this is all Windows though, I guess it's possible to have Linux access a Windows shared folder, I've been meaning to look into it for a while

Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

#376

Post by dataflow »

noirscape wrote: post #85
nickff wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless the user’s e-mail was controlled by their counter-party, what folder the message ended up in seems to be irrelevant to me. The user is the one who selected the e-mail inbox service provider, and has some degree of control over message categorization.

That does sound like there's an exploitable element there isn't it? Statistically speaking, most people use one of the biggest email providers, which use their own models to detect spam (or even quietly drop messages). If you're doing an unpopular TOS change, why not set the mail up to still be RFC compliant but in such a way where the mail isn't going to be allowed through by any of the providers. Then you can just…

The exploitability goes both ways, I think. Users can also mark similar emails as spam to keep such emails out of their inboxes. Not sure how one could deal with that.

Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

#377

Post by euroderf »

LunaSea wrote: post #128
miohtama wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not allowing to criticize is practically a law in some European countries https://ppc.land/german-businesses-systematically-delete-cri...

And the US with Oracle famously making it illegal to benchmark the performance of their database.

Nobody obeys this, right ? There's gotta be people anonymously posting performance results.

Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

#378

Post by gorjusborg »

stinkbeetle wrote: post #267
gorjusborg wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know discussing HN behavior is off topic, but parent's comment is a perfect example of something unpopular that adds to conversation. We shouldn't use votes to squelch opinions we don't hold. We should use them to improve the discourse.

It's funny. When I have a topic I am interested and passionate about, and want to find an improvement or solution, I welcome the chance to have my ideas questioned. To explain them, to in turn question the alternatives others put forward. In their frothing haste to put down my heresy here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47307056 , not one single commenter took just a second to understand what I actually wrote. M…

I try not to assume malice (i.e. Hanlon's Razor) when it happens to me. Unfortunately the mob rule seen on other user-curated sites seems to be infectious.

I try to gently call it out here when I see it, though, because HN is the one user-curated site where I still feel that people come to get to 'truths' versus 'agendas'. I want it to stay that way!

Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

#380

Post by dpoloncsak »

gruez wrote: post #372
dpoloncsak wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Appreciate the reality check. Mullvad has been a bill I don't think about twice when it comes around, and I cancelled streaming services years ago. To your point though, as I'm running my plex server on an old ~midrange laptop, 4K is pretty rough for me to stream as well. I'm sure better hardware fixes this, but that's higher cost. YMMV based on what hardware you have on hand to repurpose

>To your point though, as I'm running my plex server on an old ~midrange laptop, 4K is pretty rough for me to stream as well. Unless you're doing reencodes processing power shouldn't matter. You can serve 4K video on a 2010s router if you wanted to. If you're doing reencodes, why bother? Download an encode that's appropriate for how you're watching it. 4K for the big screen and 1080p for mobile. Skip reencoding altog…

Huh...maybe I'm just doing something wrong then. I'll re-examine tonight, thanks for the tip!
Post reply on HN