Forum Discussion
TheEndless
11 years agoRoku Guru
"EnTerr" wrote:
Your personal "assertions" on this bear no legal weight*.
I never claimed they did, but a) the OP asked for our opinions, and b) he/she suggested that the wording indicated that Roku would pull a channel just because they wanted to release a channel that competed with it. There has been no indication that that would ever be the case. If he/she chooses to read it that way, then that's on them, but I'm still allowed to express my opinion on it being an extreme interpretation. Does it mean that Roku could do that? I suppose it does, but as you pointed out, I'm no lawyer. Do I have any reason to believe that they would? No.
"EnTerr" wrote:
which allows things like the "DishWorld Event"
Again, I'll share my opinion on that. The "DishWorld Event" is/was a special case, and was very specific in its scope. I think Roku found themselves without the expertise and/or legal knowledge to manage the growing amount of international content being made available on the device, so they chose to bring in a partner that did. That may have resulted in the loss of some valuable, legal content (YuppTV comes to mind) and the ire of a handful of international developers, but in the end it ensured that they weren't violating the rights of content owners outside of their purview.