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

131–140 of 234 posts

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

#131

Post by [deleted] »

eli wrote: post #84
johnklos wrote: post #82

RED has always had all sorts of BS licensing gobbleygook. When the first RED cameras finally became available, the software absolute shit. They had all sorts of stuff in their license agreements about not reverse engineering, not redistributing, et cetera. I had to figure out many parts of their software and make wrappers and separate tools so that queues could be started and run without monitoring, because their sof…

Doesn't pretty much all closed-source proprietary software prohibit reverse engineering and redistribution?

[deleted]

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

#132

Post by cyral »

googlryas wrote: post #125
JaimeThompson wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

Not to mention how that would destroy the trust in their brand

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

#133

Post by cyral »

sneak wrote: post #64

DJI does this same bullshit on their offline, stand-alone cameras. They have to be "activated" with PII like an iPhone. Customer-abusing behavior is becoming commonplace. "I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it any further."

Not saying it isn't for nefarious purposes, but the online activation for DJI drones is for their warranty and insurance (or protection plan really). They know when you launch the drone for the first time and give you X days (I think it's 3 or maybe even 48 hours) to purchase some protection plan through them. This way you can't crash your drone and then claim you want to sign up for the protection plan. (Unless it's within the period, then you could scam them, but this does cut down on a lot of fraud)

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

#134

Post by Mordisquitos »

dymk wrote: post #109
EMIRELADERO wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why shouldn't they be entitled to use the product fully without being bound by the EULA? Unconscionability could be at play here.

Because contract law is a thing. OP can return the camera and get a different one, or they can agree to the usage terms.

What about the $30,000 sales contract by which OP reasonably expected to receive a functional camera, rather than a surprise additional contract containing unfavourable clauses?

One could argue that, unless there is a mechanism by which OP can make use the camera without agreeing to the unexpected contract, OP has been a victim of false advertising.

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

#135

Post by NikolaNovak »

cbm-vic-20 wrote: post #41
implements wrote: post #8

Looks like boilerplate to me. 4 is telemetry, with a catch-all that any data may be transmitted - which is necessary if a crash dump might contain image data. 5 is updates, with the catch-all that updates may break stuff or remove features (often buggy features or features too rarely used to be worth maintaining). Pretty standard stuff for anything containing software, and perhaps because the camera is so expensive t…

> probably worth giving them the benefit of the doubt My lawyer would have a seizure if I showed this to them. If I had a lawyer, of course.

Interestingly, I think that's the trick.

Myself and fellow geeks approach many things as computer code - assumption that it's fully logical, consistent, repeatable, and reading of code will fundamentally tell you exactly and a priori what happens when it executes.

Agreeing that they'll always take caution and safety, in my limited world at least, I've repeatedly been surprised when accountants and lawyers take a practical approach of "This is how the world works / This is what'll actually happen / This is what and how you should care about" (which is sometimes more and sometimes less strict than the letter), in addition and sometimes as priority over strict textual interpretation of something.

Which is to say, our computer geeky interpretation of what a lawyer might say / react is sometimes based more on our assumption of how world and law work, than realities of legal profession :)

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

#137

Post by sneak »

cyral wrote: post #133
sneak wrote: post #64

DJI does this same bullshit on their offline, stand-alone cameras. They have to be "activated" with PII like an iPhone. Customer-abusing behavior is becoming commonplace. "I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it any further."

Not saying it isn't for nefarious purposes, but the online activation for DJI drones is for their warranty and insurance (or protection plan really). They know when you launch the drone for the first time and give you X days (I think it's 3 or maybe even 48 hours) to purchase some protection plan through them. This way you can't crash your drone and then claim you want to sign up for the protection plan. (Unless it's…

I am talking about standalone Osmo cameras.

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

#138

Post by paulmd »

pessimizer wrote: post #127
paulmd wrote: post #96

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. 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 i…

To be a bit brusque - the law is technical, but it's also written by humans and interpreted by humans, and programmers who spend all day working on computers and broadly trend towards the autistic side always try to come up with clever end-runs around the law that will never actually work in reality. See also: every time securities law or KYC/AML is brought up in crypto threads. Your "clever exploit" of the law is not going to work, and is going to land you in jail.

If you buy a hammer and get mad that it doesn't make pizzas, the merchant isn't going to accept that, nor is a judge in small claims court going to be remotely amused. It's a hammer. Stop wasting my time, plaintiff pays all court fees and time for the defendant. They deal with bullshitters all day and they generally tend to be completely unamused by it.

If you ask the merchant nicely they will probably take it back, most retailers have return policies and most of them will stretch them even further to keep the business of a repeat customer. But merchantability is a thing, and they can't sell you a thing labeled as a hammer that doesn't work in the way an ordinary reasonable person would expect a hammer to work. One person being an unreasonable person doesn't really change that.

If you try and abuse it then the judge is gonna slap you down, but if they try and fuck you around about how a toaster is kind of a hammer in some ways then the judge is gonna slap them down.

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

#139

Post by Jon_Lowtek »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #27

It would be against GDPR because you cannot sign away your privacy rights to get a service to work if that service does not need your private data to function - the camera does not need your data to function therefore contract not legal in Europe

i agree, this goes against GDPR.7.4 https://gdpr.eu/article-7-how-to-get-consent-to-collect-pers... see especially the recital https://gdpr.eu/Recital-43-Freely-given-consent/

>> Consent is presumed not to be freely given ... if the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is dependent on the consent despite such consent not being necessary for such performance.

Also note GDPR.7.3

>> The data subject shall have the right to withdraw his or her consent at any time. [...] It shall be as easy to withdraw as to give consent.

If you can't withdraw the consent, it is not consent. So this EULA is at least bad form. (from a european perspective)

For the far more interesting question if it is legal see https://gdpr.eu/article-6-how-to-process-personal-data-legal...

If it is not consent then it falls under GDPR.6.1.f "legitimate interests" which is far worse to discuss, as it puts your fundamental right to not have the usage of a product you bought be surveilled by the manufacturer - against their business interest to get telemetry. It would be far easier for everyone if they would just make it a separate checkbox you can toggle on and off (actual consent).

However note that you do not have to use the product, you can refund it, so arguing this is a massive violation of human rights isn't going to fly. Should you bring this case to your local data protection agency, they will first try to reach an agreement between you and the company that fulfills both sides interests. Note: no matter what the contract says your local agency is there to supports you as a first responder. The company will likely have to show some improvement, at best an actual consent checkbox, at least a change of the bad form.

If you actually go there you should wiretap the device and bring evidences what data the company collects. If it turns out to be a lot more than reasonable (id of the camera, time, gps locations, frames of the content) and the company is not cooperating, then the claws come out and its fining time. However if it turns out to be harmless, pseudonymous and processed to high standards, then the agency will ask you if you can accept that and saying no will turn into a lot of work in front of a court.

Disclaimer: i am not a layer and this is just laymen talk about my opinion about how things are.

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

#140

Post by EMIRELADERO »

dymk wrote: post #109
EMIRELADERO wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why shouldn't they be entitled to use the product fully without being bound by the EULA? Unconscionability could be at play here.

Because contract law is a thing. OP can return the camera and get a different one, or they can agree to the usage terms.

My point is that the contract could be unconscionable
Post reply on HN