Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Is the EULA on my new $30k RED cinema camera legal?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 234 posts

Re: Ask HN: Is the EULA on my new $30k RED cinema camera legal?

#121

Post by tpxl »

kwhitefoot wrote: post #43
nescioquid wrote: post #25

I have been under the impression that EULAs have not really been tested in court and that there is probably some reticence to actually attempt enforcement in case the result would invalidate the practice of EULAs altogether. Normally, when you agree to a license, it is available for review and is agreed to before the purchase has been completed. Software EULAs -- presented after purchase -- seem more like a mugging.…

> EULAs have not really been tested in court In Europe they do not need to be tested in court. They are not part of the contract of sale because you cannot see them before you complete the purchase. They are unenforceable.

I find this questionable. You buy the hardware, then get 'the software' for 'free' after the fact. I imagine crypto miners would throw a fit after nVidia made it harder to mine some coins, but none of them ever did? With the amount of money they earn I'd imagine they would.

Re: Ask HN: Is the EULA on my new $30k RED cinema camera legal?

#122

Post by chx »

Jon_Lowtek wrote: post #70

Write to the company and ask for clarification and an option to opt-out. This has three benefits: 1) they may give you additional information what exactly they are doing 2) they get information that their customers find it suspicious and may clarify it for everyone and 3) they may actually add an option to opt out

If you want anything to actually to happen get a lawyer to write that mail.

The goal is to talk to RED legal and that won't happen if you shoot them a quick email.

Re: Ask HN: Is the EULA on my new $30k RED cinema camera legal?

#123

Post by JohnHaugeland »

EMIRELADERO wrote: post #107
eganist wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The purchase is completed before he gets it home and finds new conditions being imposed. That the part that I question about being legal. My experience (IANAL and I don't know the specific laws here): you can return the product if you don't agree to the bundled licensing terms, generally even if you've opened it and encountered the licensing terms after the fact (though not every retailer may appreciate this one).…

Or you can just use the product normally without agreeing to it. Look up "unconscionability"

sadly high end electronics are typically written to prevent this, which is pretty awful

Re: Ask HN: Is the EULA on my new $30k RED cinema camera legal?

#124

Post by JohnHaugeland »

jdsully wrote: post #78
technothrasher wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> or just got cold feet on your $30k purchase. You are typically not entitled to a refund in this situation. Many companies will allow it under a goodwill return policy, but they are not legally obligated in most situations.

There is an implied warranty of merchantability. If a EULA wasn’t disclosed until post purchase and is required for operation then the product isn’t operable and they would have to return it or find a way to make it operable. Your average store clerk will roll their eyes if you discuss this with them - you’d have to sue. For $30k it might be worth it, but most purchases it is not.

It's almost certain that the EULA is on the website

Re: Ask HN: Is the EULA on my new $30k RED cinema camera legal?

#125

Post by googlryas »

JaimeThompson wrote: post #86
et2o wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly the answer. Why would the manufacturer of a professional-targeted camera take an action that would destroy their business?

>Why would the manufacturer of a professional-targeted camera take an action that would destroy their business? To make the next quarters number look better.

How does that even work? Are they going to somehow get all the video data off of everyone's cameras, and cut and release it as films before anyone else can?

Re: Ask HN: Is the EULA on my new $30k RED cinema camera legal?

#126

Post by chrisseaton »

pessimizer wrote: post #91
kube-system wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you brought the hammer home and it didn't work as you expected it to, you can take it back. Just like you can with this camera, you can decline the EULA and send the product back.

You're not entitled by law to take a hammer back if it doesn't work as you expect it to.

> You're not entitled by law to take a hammer back if it doesn't work as you expect it to.

Yes you are. If it’s not fit for the purpose you’re entitled to return it.

Re: Ask HN: Is the EULA on my new $30k RED cinema camera legal?

#127

Post by pessimizer »

paulmd wrote: post #96
pessimizer wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not entitled by law to take a hammer back if it doesn't work as you expect it to.

> You're not entitled by law to take a hammer back if it doesn't work as you expect it to. Actually afaik in most jurisdictions the sale of goods carries an implicit warranty from the merchant that the goods are "fit for purpose" - essentially that it "will work like you expect it to", or at least in the way that most people would expect a hammer to work - as well as that it is of an even kind and quality for the goo…

> "fit for purpose" - essentially that it "will work like you expect it to"

These two aren't the same thing. That the hammer works as most expect a hammer to work isn't the same as that the hammer works as I expect it to work. If I try to take my hammer back because I thought hammers also worked on screws, I'm pretty sure they aren't obligated to take it back. It would be very hard to argue that your new RED camera isn't "fit for purpose" due to its onerous EULA, because plenty of people successfully make films with RED cameras.

Re: Ask HN: Is the EULA on my new $30k RED cinema camera legal?

#128

Post by JohnHaugeland »

paulmd wrote: post #96
pessimizer wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not entitled by law to take a hammer back if it doesn't work as you expect it to.

> You're not entitled by law to take a hammer back if it doesn't work as you expect it to. Actually afaik in most jurisdictions the sale of goods carries an implicit warranty from the merchant that the goods are "fit for purpose" - essentially that it "will work like you expect it to", or at least in the way that most people would expect a hammer to work - as well as that it is of an even kind and quality for the goo…

I think it's a pretty long haul claiming that something isn't fit for purpose because you don't like an EULA that's available on the website prior to purchase

Re: Ask HN: Is the EULA on my new $30k RED cinema camera legal?

#129

Post by throwaway821909 »

tpxl wrote: post #121
kwhitefoot wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> EULAs have not really been tested in court In Europe they do not need to be tested in court. They are not part of the contract of sale because you cannot see them before you complete the purchase. They are unenforceable.

I find this questionable. You buy the hardware, then get 'the software' for 'free' after the fact. I imagine crypto miners would throw a fit after nVidia made it harder to mine some coins, but none of them ever did? With the amount of money they earn I'd imagine they would.

From https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2021/05/18/lhr/

Because these GPUs originally launched with a full hash rate, we want to ensure that customers know exactly what they’re getting when they buy GeForce products. To help with this, our GeForce partners are labeling the GeForce RTX 3080, RTX 3070 and RTX 3060 Ti cards with a “Lite Hash Rate,” or “LHR,” identifier. The identifier will be in retail product listings and on the box.

This reduced hash rate only applies to newly manufactured cards with the LHR identifier and not to cards already purchased.

Re: Ask HN: Is the EULA on my new $30k RED cinema camera legal?

#130

Post by hvdijk »

kwhitefoot wrote: post #43
nescioquid wrote: post #25

I have been under the impression that EULAs have not really been tested in court and that there is probably some reticence to actually attempt enforcement in case the result would invalidate the practice of EULAs altogether. Normally, when you agree to a license, it is available for review and is agreed to before the purchase has been completed. Software EULAs -- presented after purchase -- seem more like a mugging.…

> EULAs have not really been tested in court In Europe they do not need to be tested in court. They are not part of the contract of sale because you cannot see them before you complete the purchase. They are unenforceable.

They may be enforceable even in Europe. The situation in the Netherlands is explained at https://blog.iusmentis.com/2008/04/05/de-rechtsgeldigheid-va...>; in short, for general terms and conditions that apply to everyone, you merely need to have been suitably informed beforehand and the terms cannot be unreasonably burdensome. In Belgium, a judge ruled in October last year that an EULA cannot prohibit decompilation of software, https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&do...>, a ruling that rather directly implies that EULAs are valid in general in Belgium, it is only specific clauses in EULAs that may be deemed invalid. I do not know where this idea that EULAs are invalid throughout the EU comes from. It is simply not true.
Post reply on HN