Why would I start developing a channel?
The roku seems like a great platform but I have just started to delve into the developer T&C's and have become rather confused and concerned about Roku's business model. I am hoping peeps here can hel...
Forum Discussion
You guys talking about DiscWorld here? 😛
That's how i mis-read it first, i wonder if it was because of firedup's avatar
The CYA cases of "should a legitimate need arise" are already covered by "necessary" in "if ... such action is prudent or necessary". Those might be the cases of VideoBuzz and PlayOn (i don't know details but take your word on it) - so let's not muddle the water with that. Let's focus on "prudent" - which allows things like the "DishWorld Event" - and worse. I would love to hear how that was a necessity.
Please note: that does not mean RokuCo are evil or cannot be trusted today - here i have seen only well-intended people and you can trust the Co as much as you want. Rather the point is developers' interests are not protected, should company start doing evil things (like teh DW Event) later. And i will repeat again: this is not unique to RokuCo, other companies also reserve the right to remove apps "as they see fit".
(*) Here i am making assumption you are not a lawyer and just like me are not qualified to give legal advice - but correct me if i guessed wrong.
That's how i mis-read it first, i wonder if it was because of firedup's avatar
"TheEndless" wrote:"EnTerr" wrote:
Heh, that's not what they said. If they wanted to say "if it violates Roku's terms or DMCA", they would have said it. Instead it says "if ... such action is prudent". "Prudent" being "Careful in regard to one's own interests; provident", that's a much broader "as they see fit".
I don't think this is unique to RokuCo though - e.g. Apple yanks apps from AppStore as they please, with no right to defend it in a formal hearing.
Regardless of how you interpret it, it's just them covering their collective butts. If they didn't reserve the right to pull a channel, they could get into some pretty nasty legal issues should a legitimate need arise. Wording it loosely allows some wiggle room for it to cover previously unforeseen scenarios.
The CYA cases of "should a legitimate need arise" are already covered by "necessary" in "if ... such action is prudent or necessary". Those might be the cases of VideoBuzz and PlayOn (i don't know details but take your word on it) - so let's not muddle the water with that. Let's focus on "prudent" - which allows things like the "DishWorld Event" - and worse. I would love to hear how that was a necessity.
Either way, I stand by my assertion that mtoto's is an extreme interpretation.Your personal "assertions" on this bear no legal weight*. Now, if somebody from RokuCo would step in and make statement what may happen and what will never happen, that's another story. But they won't, since such statements ("in writing" 🙂 ) may create future obligations. And of course RokuCo's legal counsel may update the agreement language to dispel developer doubts. (By all means - let me know if that happens!)
Please note: that does not mean RokuCo are evil or cannot be trusted today - here i have seen only well-intended people and you can trust the Co as much as you want. Rather the point is developers' interests are not protected, should company start doing evil things (like teh DW Event) later. And i will repeat again: this is not unique to RokuCo, other companies also reserve the right to remove apps "as they see fit".
(*) Here i am making assumption you are not a lawyer and just like me are not qualified to give legal advice - but correct me if i guessed wrong.
