Is what DJI does with the Mavic legal?

[dwallersv]

Stoping (or even "put away") idiots for obstructing a rescue operation is one thing. And I don't think anyone would argue on that.

You have been.

If not, then what is it you are complaining about?

 

[MacPap]

... IF anyone could actually get into a courtroom to argue such a case, the first thing the DJI lawyers will say is, "She was under no obligation to update to the newer version, she could have continued using her DJI product exactly as she was with the existing version of GO4 installed on her device".

At that point, the judge would dismiss the case -- with prejudice, and probably make you pay DJIs legal fees....

That is not entirely true cause at some point the app won't be compatible with the OS in use. And that is when people with have to update (with all that could mean) or buy a dedicated tablet phone whatever that will never be updated again... And that was not part of initial deal as advertised when "she" decided to buy the drone.
Again this is NOT a simple case of software..

 

[MacPap]

Stoping (or even "put away") idiots for obstructing a rescue operation is one thing. And I don't think anyone would argue on that.

You have been.

If not, then what is it you are complaining about?

I have? Where was that?

 

[dwallersv]

What makes me smile however is that every one is Dji is right this Dji is right that and nothing will happen and .....
But most of these people remain put on .400.
Either way well know soon enough.

I've stated, very recently, why I am still on .400. One of the reasons, but certainly not the primary one, was concern over the issue we're discussing.

I no longer have any concern about that -- AT ALL.

 

[dwallersv]

That is not entirely true cause at some point the app won't be compatible with the OS in use. And that is when people with have to update (with all that could mean) or buy a dedicated tablet phone whatever that will never be updated again... And that was not part of initial deal as advertised when "she" decided to buy the drone.
Again this is NOT a simple case of software..

Fair enough. I'm done arguing with people that don't have the actual background to discuss this in an informed way.

If you believe you have a legal case, file a suit. I wish you luck.

 

[MacPap]

I've stated, very recently, why I am still on .400. One of the reasons, but certainly not the primary one, was concern over the issue we're discussing.

I no longer have any concern about that -- AT ALL.

Good for you I hope you are right. Me on the other hand I don't trust anyone who is trying to impose restrictions not previously present on a product by force. That is something not even a government does. Even laws are not enforced backwards....

 

[MacPap]

Fair enough. I'm done arguing with people that don't have the actual background to discuss this in an informed way.

If you believe you have a legal case, file a suit. I wish you luck.

That is your prerogative. ME however am not doing anything but asking is what they do even legal? And it seems people do not agree on that...

 

[Robbyg]

What makes me smile however is that every one is Dji is right this Dji is right that and nothing will happen and .....
But most of these people remain put on .400.
Either way well know soon enough.

Yes it is kind of interesting that almost everyone who is arguing the point is still sitting on .400 firmware. They updated the App because they feel it is an easy downgrade if they ever need to do it.

Rob

 

[DronePilotOne]

Arbitrary rules are always great news for the competition.

 

[dwallersv]

Yes it is kind of interesting that almost everyone who is arguing the point is still sitting on .400 firmware. They updated the App because they feel it is an easy downgrade if they ever need to do it.

Rob

Rob, do you see the clear distinction between the question of whether something is legal or not, and whether or not one personally agrees with that 'something'?

I've been arguing that what DJI is doing is abundantly legal. (BTW, don't you guys believe that DJI has a competent and well-staffed legal dept.?)

At the same time I've also said in this thread that I don't like what they're doing, hence I'm exercising my legal right NOT to update (see? nothing's forced), so I don't have to accept their new restrictive functionality. I'm staying on .400

I've given up trying to explain this to @MacPap. Somehow, he and others are able to hold two logically mutually exclusive ideas at the same time without their heads exploding. Namely, that I'm being both forced to update, and not forced to update at the same time. Perhaps a quantum superposition? When DJI releases the firmware, the wave-function will collapse to -- he expects -- the forced update state?

But then how do I indeed stay on .400? I'm so confused.

 

[MisterMavic]

How can you miss the so very obvious? Are you too busy talking about tin foil hats with each and every post?
Tin foil hat would be far superior to your peril-o-matic sunglasses!(see below for a full description)

The Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses have been designed to help people develop a relaxed attitude to danger. They follow the principle "what you don't know can't hurt you" and turn completely dark and opaque at the first sign of danger. This prevents you from seeing anything that might alarm you. This does, however, mean that you see absolutely nothing, including where you're going.

Perhaps you should re-read my post:
There is no conspiracy but rather a clear line of evolution to de-evolution thanks to people's ignorance and acceptance of the rights being decimated. (their rights)
I think that is pretty anti-tin foil hat!

Your reply highlights a weak cognizance and you most likely haven't considered the full scope of DJI's notes regarding updates and consequences. Instead you have to stoop to personal insults instead of clearly debating your untenable point of view (whatever that might be).
By attacking people with your absurd "tin foil hat and x-ray glasses" comment you are simply highlighting your lack of vocabulary and gross inability to articulate your point of view clearly.

• You really should be ashamed and embarrassed!

Please I implore you, instead of baseless insults either add to the debate (right or wrong) or don't, but please stop insulting other members.

To finish up, DJI are probably legally entitled but with my recent experience with a Forced Upgrade they are on moral thin ice.

Insert yawn here

 

[DSGDSG]

Yet, you are posting idiotic garbage in response, and apparently have a reading comprehension problem.

The Terms of Use were presented to you when you downloaded and installed the DJI GO 4 app. You could not have done so without agreeing to those Terms of Use.

As is the very legal, very common practice, under those terms DJI did not give you ownership of the software. In fact, you did not pay for it, so DJI demanded other consideration in exchange for your right to use the software. That "consideration" was the surrendering of all sort of rights, agreement that DJI is not liable for anything, and that they may change the software features, functionality, etc. in any way the choose in future update.

That's what you agreed to. Its no different than most apps you install on your phone or tablet. It's entirely legal, and DJI has no fear of any lawsuit of any kind for changing DJI GO 4, the account and service model for their servers, etc. Why? Because you already agreed to it the first time you accepted the ToU for GO4, downloaded it, and installed it.

Oh, and by the way, when you agreed to those terms they also included a clause that you would use binding arbitration to resolve any dispute, and you explicitly agreed NOT to join any class action.

Now, if you file a lawsuit over these changes to GO4, what do you think the very first thing DJI's lawyers are going to throw in your face?No, they don't.

I have a problem with comprehending what I am reading? So you're telling me that there wasn't a single post in this thread, or any other thread related to this topic that specifically stated I agreed to the TOS when I purchased my mavic? I won't waste my time going back to prove there are as you and I both know it and there's no problem with my reading comprehension.

Regarding software I license, if I choose not to update that software, my software will work just as it did the last time it was updated as is evidenced by every single software I've ever owned that I've decided to not update for whatever reason. Nothing was slipped into previous updates I did do that gave control to the licencor to zap my product or alter the way it works. That I'm aware of anyway. If there was, plenty of companies would have had opportunity to demonstrate it was. And, none of those companies ever made any intimation that they would or could do it.

Idiotic assertion #2.

Manufacturers do not generally require any update to firmware in their devices after sale. Of course we have plenty of incentive to do so, but we don't have to. When we do, the manufacturer requires we agree to terms that protect them in exchange for the value if the update, in lieu of payment.

You can always not bother with updating firmware. Lord knows there's all sorts of stuff I own that has updates, but it just isn't important to me to bother.If there was a compelling safety or legal reason, they might.

So what's the point? Can you cite a manufacturer of a product that threatened to throttle the capabilities your purchased item to something that results in less than the features advertised when you made that purchase?

An your calling other people here idiotic?

Whew boy! I said I'd like to not have my time wasted reading such idiotic garbage. I NEVER called anyone here idiotic. Perhaps instead of worrying about my reading comprehension you should focus on your own? You know, glass houses and all that.

The exact opposite is true: Refuse the update, and you will not be limited in any way.

This is your opinion. You are in absolutely no position whatsoever to say with 100% certainty that your statement is true.

It's gotta be embarrassing to come on and accuse others of idiotic statements with, well, idiotic statements.

Well, I'll tell ya. I have no firsthand knowledge about it but if I had to guess, it would be about as embarrassing as erroneously calling into question someone else's ability to comprehend what they read while demonstrating that my own that was in fact, seriously lacking. But like I said, it's just a guess.

 

[noimage]

Just keep flying your old firmware and app version offline. Everything stays like it is forever

Can't do that. The fact that it's forced means upgrade or they will severely limit your distance and speed.

 

[DSGDSG]

(BTW, don't you guys believe that DJI has a competent and well-staffed legal dept.?)

Ha, this is funny!. The same board where DJI cheerleaders argue that I can't take any statement officially released by DJI for what it actually says and must instead infer and decipher what they really meant because they are well known for not being capable of communicating well, I've got another cheerleader asserting I should believe that DJI has a competent and well staffed legal department. Competent legal department is automatically assumed but someone with even a basic grasp of the English language isn't even within the realm of possibility. For the record, I believe both should be true. Why having a competent and well staffed legal department unquestionably precludes them from mistakes or wrongdoing isn't something that makes sense to me, but whatever I just find the contradicting arguments amusing.

 

[plrogers1126]

Ha, this is funny!. The same board where DJI cheerleaders argue that I can't take any statement officially released by DJI for what it actually says and must instead infer and decipher what they really meant because they are well known for not being capable of communicating well, I've got another cheerleader asserting I should believe that DJI has a competent and well staffed legal department. Competent legal department is automatically assumed but someone with even a basic grasp of the English language isn't even within the realm of possibility. For the record, I believe both should be true. Why having a competent and well staffed legal department unquestionably precludes them from mistakes or wrongdoing isn't something that makes sense to me, but whatever I just find the contradicting arguments amusing.

Their communication was perfectly clear. The mistake was putting far too much detail in the message. The result, all the conspiracy theorist too stupid to understand plain English think they have the keyword to decipher the secret non existent cipher.

The message should have said. Next week we are releasing an update. It will reset your drone to factory default (you know beginner mode, that super secret kill switch they're sneaking in even though it came out of the box that way). Log into your dji account to unlock.

 

[reckless]

Insert yawn here

And still nothing to add but sarcasm....
Why do you even bother being on this forum if all you do is post about tin foil hats and yawn?
Do you have anything constructive to add?

 

[MisterMavic]

And still nothing to add but sarcasm....
Why do you even bother being on this forum if all you do is post about tin foil hats and yawn?
Do you have anything constructive to add?

......Maybe meds could help you?

 

[MacPap]

...I've been arguing that what DJI is doing is abundantly legal. (BTW, don't you guys believe that DJI has a competent and well-staffed legal dept.?)

Two things.
1) Yes they certainly do have access to a legal department. Although Ι would not be surprised if they did not have one in house (won't be the first time, nor the first company). But then again so did Volkswagen.
2) If everything about law was so clear as we are made to think then there would be no reason to have judges and courts... No?

 

[MacPap]

...I've given up trying to explain this to @MacPap. Somehow, he and others are able to hold two logically mutually exclusive ideas at the same time without their heads exploding. Namely, that I'm being both forced to update, and not forced to update at the same time. Perhaps a quantum superposition? When DJI releases the firmware, the wave-function will collapse to -- he expects -- the forced update state?
But then how do I indeed stay on .400? I'm so confused.

There are no 2 ideas.
Regardless of what will happen on July 1st.

A summary of the activation system is:
• On July 1, this feature will go live on all aircraft (except standalone A3 and N3) that have been upgraded to the latest firmware.
• If an application is not activated, or a legacy version of the SDK is being used, all camera live streams will be disabled, and fiight will be limited to a cylinder of 100m diameter and 30m height to ensure the aircraft stays within line of sight.

At some point you WILL be forced to upgrade. That point is when the OS of your phone or tablet will no longer support the present app (or vice versa). At that point if you are unable to sacrifice that device (which most are not) you will have to accept what they want to impose. Hence implement what ever it is they have installed in their firmware and app.
It is as simple as that.
We can argue until the the Pacific runs dry but that fact won't change. Translated in plain english "you either upgrade or you have to buy a new phone".
And I am not that sure that this is legal.... in my book it is called extortion or blackmail.

PS And don't forget this!

* There is an 'expiry' of firmwares, currently set to not enforced. Notice 'antirollback=1' and 'enforce=0'
<dji>
<device id="wm220">
<firmware formal="01.03.0550">
<release version="01.03.0550" antirollback="1" enforce="0" from="2017/04/05" expire="2018/04/05">
<module id="0305" version="34.04.00.23" type="" group="ac" size="55072"

 

[SkunkWerx's]

Any restrictions can be implemented in either or both places (AC firmware, GO4 app). However, from a design perspective it needs to be done in the firmware to ensure these limitations are enforced when flying without the app, or using a 3rd party app that hasn't been updated to use the new SDK.

So, in my judgement (COO of small tech firm, have managed software R&D at various levels for the last 20 years) they definitely implemented it in the firmware, and likely didn't bother wasting the resources implementing these controls directly in the app, as engineering resources cost a lot of money, and there are all sorts of trivially easy way to get around the restrictions being enforced through the app.

That is all my opinion, of course. Informed opinion.Nope. When you updated the app to the version containing these controls, you agreed to them in the new Terms of Service for the app.

Really, I know this stuff like the back of my hand. I've been dealing with these sorts of legal issues for decades regarding software. The reason customers have absolutely no leg to stand on regarding ANY changes to the GO4 app is because they update it voluntarily, and agree to the new terms, addressing any changes in functionality, voluntarily.

IF anyone could actually get into a courtroom to argue such a case, the first thing the DJI lawyers will say is, "She was under no obligation to update to the newer version, she could have continued using her DJI product exactly as she was with the existing version of GO4 installed on her device".

At that point, the judge would dismiss the case -- with prejudice, and probably make you pay DJIs legal fees.

What some here just won't accept is that they have no right to future work from DJI, nor do they have any basis to assert rights they voluntarily surrendered when accepting a piece of software for free (GO4). In lieu of payment, DJI instead asks you to surrender certain rights regarding the use of the application in exchange for a license.

This is such routine, mundane legal stuff w.r.t. software I'm amazed so many here are chafing under the yoke of long-established contract law and industry practices.

I understand your view on the mater and why you are staying on the .400 FW ( Playing Safe I don't blame you ) Your very versed in the
legal side of this matter too, However I see some technicality's with DJI's way of going about it and the communication excuse with them to there customers ,I just don't buy it ....... Especially with the legal team they have, Its BS if you think about it ...... DJI plays both sides of the fence ex. Still send Drones to Casey N. for review even though they always knew how and where he flys them !!!!!! DJI comes out with a tracking antenna to increase the range of there already incredible original stock distance, is it really needed ????....... Why ????
If you look at there advertisements they show you actors flying around populated areas with tall building and all ....... Why ????? None of this post can be claimed as untrue.
I feel you distrust DJI as much as all of us here , you just haven't been pushed over the edge with all there BS , I don't believe theres a kill switch in the past software or FW , however I do wonder what all the updates were to the Resent GO4 that were done without the knowledge of the owner's ..... the last one was 2 Saturdays ago before the latest GO4 that contains the new TOS if you also upgraded the new FW ?????? The Litchi app also updated that same Saturday morning ...... I use Android v6.0.1 with no issues at all, I don't know if these upgrades were made also to ios ?? I just happen to catch these updates at the time it was at 4:30 am .
I also believe all the complaints and posts of treatment and distrust of DJI from there customers have somewhat slowed down there plans
what ever they may have been ........ It's not over ....... I can tell just by there past action ........ they seem to do things when it's least expected , like remove the Cleanest FW version from the list that had nothing to do with the NFZ issues and not leaving it or putting back up for the people that want it .... This is all too questionable to me to just be happening and the reason Why I feel it's being all Planed an theres more to come ....... Im done with DJI's SW/FW updates my drone is fine just the way it is.
Im not against any of your reasoning ...... much of what you say does resonate with me , But I do feel that DJI is tittering of the legal line even if electronic TOS"s are agreed upon ......... Only time is going to tell with this matter now .
FlySafe -FlyFree