While topics like privacy and DRM are important, framing the discussion in those terms de facto obscures/distracts from the issue of property rights. Using someone's property (to e.g. to spy on them) after they purchased it is usually some sort of crime: trespassing, theft, vandalism, etc. If "intellectual property" is "property", then destroying someone's property (with DRM or other remote control) is a crime such as vandalism. The manufacturer lost their rights at the first sale of the good to the customer.

This is why tech companies have been pushing to reframe the sales of their goods as a service. They abuse[1] copyright by claiming yu need to license the software/firmware. This is like claiming when you purchase a book it isn't your property because they only "licensed" the book's story. However, trying to extend copyright (which only grants rights related to making more copies) into property rights is a misuse of copyright[1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_misuse

> DRM and internet dependency are the ultimate tools in capitalisms planned obsolescence toolbox.

They are also the ultimate tools in authoritarian government’s toolboxes. Nothing like the ministry of truth having the ability to prevent the citizens from seeing unapproved “harmful” content that might disrupt society’s harmony.

As the sibling points out, the real issue here is the devaluation of property rights (more specifically your control over your own devices). These type of controls should be fought even in non-capitalist environments.

Not saying a manufacturer might not think about making a TV that must be connected to the internet but, even leaving aside privacy etc. issues, that's a huge minefield. Not everyone has internet everywhere that they might care to install a TV.

And it wouldn't take much for Best Buy or Walmart to stop carrying your product after one too many customers return it because it wouldn't work.

Ahh, I misunderstood! I would say that is when it gets returned if I need internet to operate my TV.