[cyckl]

oh the tyranny of having a product which you purchase and think you own have all functionality be remotely disabled—effectively becoming a multi thousand dollar paperweight—at the whim of a large international corporation with no real recourse...

[anonuser123456]

You have recourse by showing proof of purchase. Or you sue them.

[nate_meurer]

> You have recourse by showing proof of purchase

How does that help when the product is out of warranty?

> Or you sue them.

How exactly would you go about suing Samsung. Figure that out and let us know if it would be worth it for a TV.

[gruez]

> > You have recourse by showing proof of purchase

>How does that help when the product is out of warranty?

This is for TVs that were recently stolen. They'd definitely be in warranty (short of you not buying from an authorized reseller because you bought it out of the back of a truck), and you're reasonably likely to have the receipt.

[nate_meurer]

While TFA focuses on recently stolen goods, the broader concern here is the invasive remote control that Samsung has over your device. The concerns I'm reading in this thread include Samsung turning on invasive advertising, remote bricking, and possibly monitoring your media consumption.

So in light of the relevant debate here, how exactly does a proof-of-purchase help if the product is out of warranty?