Does anyone can find post with link to screenshot DJI legal stating  upgrade optional and that .suasnews.com was not reporting correctly?

I wanted to state that if the recent screenshots can be proven to be  authentic, then it would appear that DJI's legal counsel went on record  by stating in writing that DJI is not going to "force" anyone to upgrade  if they don't want to, specifically as it applies to the upcoming  firmware and the new DJI Go and DJI Go 4 apps. Then if they recant or  renege on that, it could be grounds for class action.

But I can't find that post with the screenshot anywhere anymore.

Anyone know which one I'm talking about? Was it removed/redacted?!                                                

I think it's total hogwash this class action really take on a major Chinese company , such BS, what good do you think is supposed to come out of this.

hallmark007 Posted at 2017-5-21 09:25
I think it's total hogwash this class action really take on a major Chinese company , such BS, what good do you think is supposed to come out of this.

Deterrence against sliding down the slippery slope.

Plus you don't get what you don't fight for, see the recent FAA ruling for example.

bochen7 Posted at 2017-5-21 09:25
Deterrence against sliding down the slippery slope.

Plus you don't get what you don't fight for, see the recent FAA ruling for example.

The recent ruling against the FAA , will only result in congress getting involved in making the rules for drones, and look what happened when politicians got involved in making rules for SUA's in Sweden and Canada.
So while that might seem like a victory for drone communities in the interim wait and see might be prudent at this moment.
Class actions are an American phenomenon for this sort of thing, the rest of the world don't partake in such nonsense.

hallmark007 Posted at 2017-5-21 09:41
The recent ruling against the FAA , will only result in congress getting involved in making the rules for drones, and look what happened when politicians got involved in making rules for SUA's in Sweden and Canada.
So while that might seem like a victory for drone communities in the interim wait and see might be prudent at this moment.
Class actions are an American phenomenon for this sort of thing, the rest of the world don't partake in nonsense.

So no one knows which screenshot I'm talking about?

http://mavicpilots.com/threads/d ... -that-suasne.17201/


What is really strange is last night, if I recall correctly, I could have sworn I saw it on BOTH this DJI forum and on Mavicpilots forum and on reddit.com/r/djimavic but now I don't see it anywhere anymore.

Post #24 here

https://forum.dji.com/thread-96803-1-1.html

bochen7 Posted at 2017-5-21 09:43
http://mavicpilots.com/threads/d ... -that-suasne.17201/

https://forum.dji.com/forum.php? ... &fromuid=260008

No conspiracy so.

hallmark007 Posted at 2017-5-21 09:41
The recent ruling against the FAA , will only result in congress getting involved in making the rules for drones, and look what happened when politicians got involved in making rules for SUA's in Sweden and Canada.
So while that might seem like a victory for drone communities in the interim wait and see might be prudent at this moment.
Class actions are an American phenomenon for this sort of thing, the rest of the world don't partake in such nonsense.

The last guy I remember threatening to sue class action was from the UK.

thehippoz Posted at 2017-5-21 10:01
The last guy I remember threatening to sue class action was from the UK.

I expect that's where the US got it from.lol

Class actions is very new in UK since 2015.

The Doctor Posted at 2017-5-21 09:53
Post #24 here

https://forum.dji.com/thread-96803-1-1.html

Thanks!!!!


/////////


Update, found it:


https://i.imgur.com/hcA2Hl3.png

Antivirus scan for e00e800c9c31fd1204e175e35cdec77f435316d3c7b27afa8e2c1af9e985ac3c at 2017-05-21 17:56:14 UTC - VirusTotal

Brendan Schulman, Vice President of Policy and Legal Affairs at DJI, stated on or about May 20th 2017 that "You do not have to update the firmware and app if you don't want to." and that "If you do, you'll just need to reactivate with a single login"

So the real question is, if a user chooses or otherwise elects not to update the firmware and not to update the app, presumably the artificial limitations such as the 98 feet maximum altitude and 150 feet maximum range will not then nor at any point in the future retroactively take effect on this older firmware and app versions?

My legal analysis is that if DJI gives existing users BOTH the option NOT to upgrade firmware/app and ALSO do nothing in the way or preventing existing users who are choosing NOT to upgrade to be subjected to new limitations then there is nothing to see here. If there is not a "silent countdown timer" in firmware versions such as .200/.400/.500 etc that will at some yet to be unbeknownst point in time that disallows the Mavic from flying (or otherwise materially handicaps it in any way shape or form) until and unless the owner upgrades to this aforementioned "new firmware", "new app" that will require re-activation, re-login, etc then from a legal standpoint DJI is covered.

If however what attorney Schulman really meant when he said "You do not have to update the firmware and app if you don't want to." is that DJI is not legally compelling any user to perform the act of upgrading, however after a point in time, to be determined at DJI's discretion, those who don't upgrade will no longer be able to fly their Mavic and /or will be capped to 98 feet max altitude, 150 feet max range, no live feed, and other artificial limitations post-sales, retroactively and after the fact, without consent and without re-activation, without having to have consented to nor agreeing to new terms of service etc then potentially DJI at least in the US could be in legal troubles here if some customers so inclined were to wish to take legal action.

sounds right bochen7, in other countries it may constitute making the drone unfit for purpose and allow a return and refund - AFAIK it would here in Australia

quick_dry Posted at 2017-5-21 11:25
sounds right bochen7, in other countries it may constitute making the drone unfit for purpose and allow a return and refund - AFAIK it would here in Australia

Some have come to DJI's defense stating that drone flying is not a 'right', unlike for example free speech.
To that I would say what do  gives DJI the legal 'right' to handicap the Mavic of customers post-sales , retroactively and after the fact, without consent and without legal justification (ie it wasn't because of a good reason like the Go Pro Karma recall)

If DJI prioritizes appeasing governments or safety in the name of self preservation then so be it, but if it wants to handicap units already sold, then DJI has the obligation to at least give a partial / pro-rated if not full refund for those customers whom demand /request to be given the option to return their units and get their money back, since the product they got effectively was or had become materially different from what was represented to them at the time of purchase.

Sorry but no matter how DJI spins it, they can't have it both ways. Either DJI screwed up back then when the Mavic was on the drawing boards or DJI screwed up now, but why is the consumer subsidizing for DJI's mistake by getting less than what they paid for? Why is DJI allowed to effectively use tactics that could be construed as anti-competitive (artificially reducing battery safety margins to give better flight times against competitors on specs to publicize themselves to market, but then push out firmware updates to cap the battery usable levels after the fact, in the name of safety and the banner of security, without updating the true effectively flight time to reflect the change, etc) when they have ulterior motives and vested interests (increasing DJI Care profit margins for being more and more conservative in flight envelopes anyone?!) .... either way I don't see how dangling the carrot of  "no VR Goggles if you don't upgrade", and using the stick of "we'll handicap your Mavic if you don't  consent to our new terms of service" is anything but ineffective consent obtained by coercion or deception, or anything but 'evil'.

bochen7 Posted at 2017-5-21 10:12
Thanks!!!!

He didn't say anything wrong, but since my App has already warned that I have to, I interpret what he said as:  "You don't have to unless you want to fly farther than 98 feet."

I have mine under control now, completely cutoff from any DJI communication forever until attitudes change.  I own the drone.  They do not.

Xman1 Posted at 2017-5-21 11:35
He didn't say anything wrong, but since my App has already warned that I have to, I interpret what he said as:  "You don't have to unless you want to fly farther than 98 feet."

I have mine under control now, completely cutoff from any DJI communication forever until attitudes change.  I own the drone.  They do not.

If that is indeed turns out to be the case, then I see legal action coming.

For me personally, I was never a big fan of the VR, hololens, 3d movies, DJI Goggles.
As a DSLR hobbyist, I still like mirrored vs mirrorless.

I prefer to see the Mavic with my own eyes in VLOS, and for BVR, review  the 4k footage afterwards. The lag of the Goggles, however low latency  DJI might want to claim, isn't for me.

And fixed-wing mode offered no real value for me in a quad, if I wanted to fly a fixed wing rc aircraft I would have flown one.

Some have indicated just to use Litchi app instead of DJI Go app, but problem is DJI could strongarm litchi, something like if you don't force  update your Litchi apps to comply with our standards, we'll stop  letting you access to our SDK.                                                

bochen7 Posted at 2017-5-21 11:37
If that is indeed turns out to be the case, then I see legal action coming.

Get yourself a firewall app, install a firmware you are comfortable with forever (I'd recommend v0400), and block all drone comms to DJI until further notice.

https://play.google.com/store/ap ... greyshirts.firewall

There is no grounds for legal recourse against DJI. Know the law before threatening class action. The update clearly states that if you do not comply, then your drone may not function to full capability.  Legally, there is nothing to be done. They are not forcing you to update. Enjoy flying your drone. If you aren't doing anything stupid or illegal; what are you worried about.  Your iPhone or android tracks WAY more personal and sensitive data then your Mavic.

PM160Mavic Posted at 2017-5-21 11:42
There is no grounds for legal recourse against DJI. Know the law before threatening class action. The update clearly states that if you do not comply, then your drone may not function to full capability.  Legally, there is nothing to be done. They are not forcing you to update. Enjoy flying your drone. If you aren't doing anything stupid or illegal; what are you worried about.  Your iPhone or android tracks WAY more personal and sensitive data then your Mavic.

Why is DJI allowed to effectively use tactics that could be construed as anti-competitive (artificially reducing battery safety margins to give better flight times against competitors on specs to publicize themselves to market, but then push out firmware updates to cap the battery usable levels after the fact, in the name of safety and the banner of security, without updating the true effectively flight time to reflect the change, etc) when they have ulterior motives and vested interests (increasing DJI Care profit margins for being more and more conservative in flight envelopes anyone?!) .... either way I don't see how dangling the carrot of  "no VR Goggles if you don't upgrade", and using the stick of "we'll handicap your Mavic if you don't  consent to our new terms of service" is anything but ineffective consent obtained by coercion or deception, or anything but 'evil'. Not to mention material misrepresentation.

The Mavic that most users had spent good money on to purchase at the time had no disclaimer or clauses or provisions in its terms of service nor warning that one day it would be capped to 98 feet and 150 feet distance with live feed disabled etc until and unless users consented to "new firmware", "new app", and a brand new "terms of service", and a new "re"-activation, and new "re-login", post-sales, post delivery, post activation, post flight, retroactively and after the fact, and done through means of deception and coercion and without effective consent. There is very strong legal precendent for cause of action in these circumstances.

bochen7 Posted at 2017-5-21 11:43
Why is DJI allowed to effectively use tactics that could be construed as anti-competitive (artificially reducing battery safety margins to give better flight times against competitors on specs to publicize themselves to market, but then push out firmware updates to cap the battery usable levels after the fact, in the name of safety and the banner of security, without updating the true effectively flight time to reflect the change, etc) when they have ulterior motives and vested interests (increasing DJI Care profit margins for being more and more conservative in flight envelopes anyone?!) .... either way I don't see how dangling the carrot of  "no VR Goggles if you don't upgrade", and using the stick of "we'll handicap your Mavic if you don't  consent to our new terms of service" is anything but ineffective consent obtained by coercion or deception, or anything but 'evil'.

Again more rubbish about the batteries, I suppose you read that on the internet, so it must be true.

hallmark007 Posted at 2017-5-21 11:47
Again more rubbish about the batteries, I suppose you read that on the internet, so it must be true.

Firmware .700 forces autoland at 16% reserve /remaining battery, whereas previous firmware versions such as .400 forced autoland at 10% reserve.

Do the math, the actual effective usable battery level just went down from 90% to 84%.

How is it that DJI is still advertising and still claiming and still selling new Mavic's with the .700 firmware as "27 minute flight time", when it has already retroactively forced all Mavic's to be at the new 16% reserve?

If 16% of the battery is never actually usable, then it is deceptive advertising practices to still claim the exact same 27 minute flight time. And to retroactively cap existing Mavic units after the fact, is akin and tantamount to theft by deception, fraudulent conveyance, false advertising, and many other things.

Note Netguard may be better.  Let me install that one.

https://www.netguard.me/

Edit:  Netguard blocks IPv6 but the tradeoff is less control.  I will try NoRoot Firewall on an LTE circuit later on and see if complete blocking still works even though individual site blocking may not work when using IPv6.  There is a chance it may not.

Xman1 Posted at 2017-5-21 11:54
Note Netguard may be better.  Let me install that one.

https://www.netguard.me/

I had an old version of DJI app that in Feb 17th required updating to  new version. I would install the old version, and if in airplane mode I  could fly with it. Then I would FORCE kill the app in Android, and then  when I connect to watch a netflix, then put tablet back in offline mode,  but when I start the old DJI app again it won't start and complains it  needs to be upgraded/updated.

So DJI has installed a backdoor on the device to have persistent  internet conneciton, that the moment it goes online, it will check, even  if app is not running at the time.                                                

bochen7 Posted at 2017-5-21 11:43
Why is DJI allowed to effectively use tactics that could be construed as anti-competitive (artificially reducing battery safety margins to give better flight times against competitors on specs to publicize themselves to market, but then push out firmware updates to cap the battery usable levels after the fact, in the name of safety and the banner of security, without updating the true effectively flight time to reflect the change, etc) when they have ulterior motives and vested interests (increasing DJI Care profit margins for being more and more conservative in flight envelopes anyone?!) .... either way I don't see how dangling the carrot of  "no VR Goggles if you don't upgrade", and using the stick of "we'll handicap your Mavic if you don't  consent to our new terms of service" is anything but ineffective consent obtained by coercion or deception, or anything but 'evil'. Not to mention material misrepresentation.

The Mavic that most users had spent good money on to purchase at the time had no disclaimer or clauses or provisions in its terms of service nor warning that one day it would be capped to 98 feet and 150 feet distance with live feed disabled etc until and unless users consented to "new firmware", "new app", and a brand new "terms of service", and a new "re"-activation, and new "re-login", post-sales, post delivery, post activation, post flight, retroactively and after the fact, and done through means of deception and coercion and without effective consent. There is very strong legal precendent for cause of action in these circumstances.

To be honest none of what you said will hold up in any legal setting.  At the end of the day, you as a consumer have a choice to either buy something or not.  New laws, regulations and procedures are made everyday and being created everyday.  I am sure this is nothing but DJI preparing for some change in law or to be in a more compliant position as a company.

They are not telling you that if you do not update your drone will not fly.  There is a legal reason they WILL cap you and not let you use live feed.  A company is not as dumb as you think.  They have thought of every possible way to fight a potential ripple, I'm not even going to entertain the word lawsuit or class action because that is just silly.  A company worth over a billion dollars has made sure what they are doing is legal and there would be no potential backfire.

Yes, you bought a drone.  Yes you fly a drone.  Most people on here fly the drone with no regard to the law or safety. (out of sight flying), yet you are concerned about a multi billion dollar company limiting your flying becuase you don't want to consent?  Sir, this is normal for a company this size making an effort to protect themselves.  You bought a drone under the assumption you would abide by all laws, not fly over 400 or 500 feet and keep it in line-of-sight.  Have you done that?  If you haven't then you don't have a case.  98 feet and 150 ft distance is very specific and it is very specific for a reason.  I am sure they have come under scrutiny and needed to do this due to idiots and people doing dumb things.

If you can't live with it, then sell your gear and find a "competitor" if there is one.  If not, register the bird and move on.

bochen7 Posted at 2017-5-21 11:54
I had an old version of DJI app that in Feb 17th required updating to  new version. I would install the old version, and if in airplane mode I  could fly with it. Then I would FORCE kill the app in Android, and then  when I connect to watch a netflix, then put tablet back in offline mode,  but when I start the old DJI app again it won't start and complains it  needs to be upgraded/updated.

So DJI has installed a backdoor on the device to have persistent  internet conneciton, that the moment it goes online, it will check, even  if app is not running at the time.

One thing you should do is wipe all the DJI folders before starting/installing the app again.  Your problem is likely that an old cached item still exists that forced the update.

bochen7 Posted at 2017-5-21 11:53
Firmware .700 forces autoland at 16% reserve /remaining battery, whereas previous firmware versions such as .400 forced autoland at 10% reserve.

Do the math, the actual effective usable battery level just went down from 90% to 84%.

I can use the remaining battery to charge cell phones or other devices that use a USB cable.  Legally speaking it is not unusable battery.  Hence why they sell the adaptor for the batteries.  Another way they will beat any frivolous lawsuit or accusation.

Also, my Mavic does not auto land at 16%. I fly my bird usualy to 10% and it doesn not auto land.  By the time my battery is at 20% I am within feet of my home point.  You may be too far away from your home point and it calculates the remaining battery to be safe.

Just a FYI, DJI advertises the 27% minute flight time at 15.5 mph and with NO WIND at all.  They are not deceptive and clearly state that on the packaging and adverstising.  The drone can fly for 27 minutes or more in a controlled environment with no wind.  It's proven.  There's no arugment.  Look at the last one "overall flight time", that one is for you.  They clearly state 21 minutes normal flight WITH 15% battery remaining.  Sorry, you will loose your case.

Max Flight Time

27 minutes (no wind at a consistent 15.5 mph (25 kph))

Max Hovering Time	24 minutes (no wind)
Overall Flight Time	21 minutes ( In normal flight, 15% remaining battery level )

PM160Mavic Posted at 2017-5-21 12:08
I can use the remaining battery to charge cell phones or other devices that use a USB cable.  Legally speaking it is not unusable battery.  Hence why they sell the adaptor for the batteries.  Another way they will beat any frivolous lawsuit or accusation.

Also, my Mavic does not auto land at 16%. I fly my bird usualy to 10% and it doesn not auto land.  By the time my battery is at 20% I am within feet of my home point.  You may be too far away from your home point and it calculates the remaining battery to be safe.

Note that you shouldn't probably drain your battery farther than 20% anyway.  Damages it over time.

Xman1 Posted at 2017-5-21 12:20
Note that you shouldn't probably drain your battery farther than 20% anyway.  Damages it over time.

That a good point too.  Very true.

bochen7 Posted at 2017-5-21 11:53
Firmware .700 forces autoland at 16% reserve /remaining battery, whereas previous firmware versions such as .400 forced autoland at 10% reserve.

Do the math, the actual effective usable battery level just went down from 90% to 84%.

Mine is critical at 10% , remember you can fly these AC 500 meters high it takes awhile to land from 500meters so 10% will cover this , so all your creating is some fear here with some, most will think your off your head, I just wonder since you distrust dji so much why you would buy there products.

PM160Mavic Posted at 2017-5-21 12:08
I can use the remaining battery to charge cell phones or other devices that use a USB cable.  Legally speaking it is not unusable battery.  Hence why they sell the adaptor for the batteries.  Another way they will beat any frivolous lawsuit or accusation.

Also, my Mavic does not auto land at 16%. I fly my bird usualy to 10% and it doesn not auto land.  By the time my battery is at 20% I am within feet of my home point.  You may be too far away from your home point and it calculates the remaining battery to be safe.

If they keep upping the threshold requirement, I will win bigly.

PM160Mavic Posted at 2017-5-21 12:24
That a good point too.  Very true.

You shouldn't accelerate too fast in a car either, damages engines over time.

But do you see any car manufacturer after the fact artificially limiting a car that was pitched to do 0 to 60 in X amount of seconds and slowing it down after the fact, post sales, without consent?

Class action.

PM160Mavic Posted at 2017-5-21 12:08
I can use the remaining battery to charge cell phones or other devices that use a USB cable.  Legally speaking it is not unusable battery.  Hence why they sell the adaptor for the batteries.  Another way they will beat any frivolous lawsuit or accusation.

Also, my Mavic does not auto land at 16%. I fly my bird usualy to 10% and it doesn not auto land.  By the time my battery is at 20% I am within feet of my home point.  You may be too far away from your home point and it calculates the remaining battery to be safe.

Since you wish to get technical and down to the wire, you are one percent off, so yeah DJI is guilty of infringing. 15% is not 16%

bochen7 Posted at 2017-5-21 12:52
Since you wish to get technical and down to the wire, you are one percent off, so yeah DJI is guilty of infringing. 15% is not 16%

I think it's fair to say bochen7.  That the 3 threads you hav posted to this forum appear to have a strong tendency to look like fake news.
I don't think there will be any class action or any private law suit from any of this.

hallmark007 Posted at 2017-5-21 13:04
I think it's fair to say bochen7.  That the 3 threads you hav posted to this forum appear to have a strong tendency to look like fake news.
I don't think there will be any class action or any private law suit from any of this.

read this

http://mavicpilots.com/threads/d ... /page-4#post-197052

http://mavicpilots.com/threads/d ... /page-5#post-197143

I guess when you start losing an argument based on facts, based on law and merits, you go "FAKE NEWS" route.

bochen7 Posted at 2017-5-21 13:07
read this

http://mavicpilots.com/threads/dji-to-restrict-non-compliant-drones-at-next-software-update.17118/page-4#post-197052

I think your Mavic dancing on the bed was fake

I think you story about new release from dji was fake

I think your nonsense about class action is fake.
That's all I have to say but we will see soon enough who is right.

bochen7 Posted at 2017-5-21 12:50
You shouldn't accelerate too fast in a car either, damages engines over time.

But do you see any car manufacturer after the fact artificially limiting a car that was pitched to do 0 to 60 in X amount of seconds and slowing it down after the fact, post sales, without consent?

Full throttle acceleration in your car is far less damaging that idling in traffic or running when cold.

With that said, your battery will take the abuse and charge many times with you running it down to 0.  I'm guessing if you don't, its lifespan will be increased by hundreds of charges, but maybe this doesn't fit your expected usage patterns, and that is OK, you can just buy more batteries in the future when one of your cells goes bad.

Note cell phone manufacturers are taking a similar approach now days.  They are timing their 100% charge to the exact time you take your phone off the charger and they are reducing all background communication and going into power saving modes when below 20% power.  This will allow your phones battery to live for an extra couple years without replacement.

In the end, what we are really talking about is if your battery is going to hold up to the warranty period, and it will, or if you battery will live two to three times past that warranty period.

hallmark007 Posted at 2017-5-21 13:20
I think your Mavic dancing on the bed was fake

I think you story about new release from dji was fake

It won't be long now. I agree we shall see who is right.

Monday morning don't let me say I told you so.

You can't drive a car without INSURANCE. The car manufacturer made the car but didn't tell you in twenty years after making it, you'd need insurance. You're gonna go after the car maker now and sue them? Lol come on now. Bochen, Bochen, it's the same thing.  Yes your car can do upwards of 100 mph but laws govern you and stiff penalties.  You can't sue the car company for governing your vehicle like they do because the Law makes them.

DJI isn't limiting you at all. You just have to register as you would and have to register your vehicle, airplane, boat and get insurance on them. You aren't forced to, but if you're caught you face penalties and or jail time. This argument can go on all day.

Xman1 Posted at 2017-5-21 12:10
One thing you should do is wipe all the DJI folders before starting/installing the app again.  Your problem is likely that an old cached item still exists that forced the update.

Nope, I wiped my entire tablet just to do a controlled test.

Essentially, the DJI Go app is always on in the background even when you force kill it from the application.

From a wiped tablet, I install the DJI Go app (old version) and fly Mavic in airgapped mode just fine.
I terminate/kill the DJI Go app.
I make sure to wipe cache/temp files/folders.
I reboot the tablet.
I make sure in RAM that again no DJI app is running.
I connect tablet to Internet
I browse Firefox or watch Netflix
I disconnect from internet and put Tablet into airplane mode, airgapping it.
I reboot tablet.
I try to start the old DJI app, it complains that it needs to be upgraded, and forces shutdown of itself.

Something is fishy with the way DJI app works.... I'm telling you

PM160Mavic Posted at 2017-5-21 14:19
You can't drive a car without INSURANCE. The car manufacturer made the car but didn't tell you in twenty years after making it, you'd need insurance. You're gonna go after the car maker now and sue them? Lol come on now. Bochen, Bochen, it's the same thing.  Yes your car can do upwards of 100 mph but laws govern you and stiff penalties.  You can't sue the car company for governing your vehicle like they do because the Law makes them.

DJI isn't limiting you at all. You just have to register as you would and have to register your vehicle, airplane, boat and get insurance on them. You aren't forced to, but if you're caught you face penalties and or jail time. This argument can go on all day.

You are forgetting the part that existing users ALREADY registered, and ALREADY activated and ALREADY accepted the existing terms of service and use and have by and large ALREADY flown their Mavic and used the product that they bought and paid for.

You are also forgetting that capping the Mavic to only fly 98 feet high, and with a range of only 150 feet distance and with the Live feed disabled, and other handicaps if the user does not consent to RE-registering, RE-activating, RE-logging in to their DJI account, and RE-accepting a NEW terms of service, a NEW firmware, a NEW DJI Go app, and a new Eula, etc that they will essentially have a fancy paperweight.

There was no disclaimer nor any reasonable forewarning of the even the mere possibility of something like this to prospective and actual buyers at the time of said purchase, at the time of initial registration, activation, acceptance of terms  etc...

So it is nothing but grotesque doublespeak and cognitive dissonance for you to sprout that "DJI isn't limiting you at all".

I spent $1500 and bought and paid for a Mavic advertised to a certain set of capabilities, and then later post-sales my Mavic gets severely limited to only an altitude of 98 feet, to only a distance of 150 feet, to getting its Live feed disabled, recording disabled, and for all intents and purposes becomes a locked down paper weight, and you can tell me with a straight face that "DJI isn't limiting me at all"!?!?!?!?!?

nice try.....

PM160Mavic Posted at 2017-5-21 14:19
You can't drive a car without INSURANCE. The car manufacturer made the car but didn't tell you in twenty years after making it, you'd need insurance. You're gonna go after the car maker now and sue them? Lol come on now. Bochen, Bochen, it's the same thing.  Yes your car can do upwards of 100 mph but laws govern you and stiff penalties.  You can't sue the car company for governing your vehicle like they do because the Law makes them.

DJI isn't limiting you at all. You just have to register as you would and have to register your vehicle, airplane, boat and get insurance on them. You aren't forced to, but if you're caught you face penalties and or jail time. This argument can go on all day.

Has any car maker ever retroactively after the fact sneak into its customer's homes in the middle of the night, without consent, to install a device that checks to see whether or not the driver's insurance policy is up to date prior to allowing the engines to start?

No? then your argument is false.

It is not the car makers job to ENFORCE the driver's speed, nor his or her legal liability status.
Unless it was a government mandated recall, it is otherwise always ILLEGAL for a car maker to make modifications to customers cars without their knowledge and consent, especially after the car has already been sold and is property of the customers/owners/drivers.

The real analogy would be if Toyota decided that it was going to push an update to limit all existing cars to only a max speed of 30 mph (which is below highway speed limit, but then again, DJI's max height limit of 98 feet is WAY below the FAA's max alt limit of 400feet) and that any customer whom didn't accept these new rules will not be able to drive their cars more than 5 miles from their car garage..... and and  by the way, you will never be able to use the last 16% of your car's fuel gas tank because it will kill the engines once you are down to your last remaining 16% fuel level.....