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

161–170 of 234 posts

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

#161

Post by ipaddr »

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?

You expressly agree to give the video to 3rd parties and copyright holders. They provide them to 3rd parties and get paid.

The third parties with take a few frames and will run through AI and categorize the film for the ad networks.

Rights holders will check content against hashes.

Law enforcement will have a handy copy available. Which makes friends and business opportunities.

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

#162

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#163

Post by rich_sasha »

It’s a shitty modern EULA. In terms of rights to your art, I wouldn’t worry:

- for one it would be utterly impossible for them to get their hands on the hundreds of gigabytes of footage this monster will create. How would they get it? Over the internet? With thousands of customers, I think it’s unlikely. Then storing this... just the scale of it seems impossible.

- also this doesn’t mention copyright. I guess they maybe could take a video of yours and use it purely to debug stuff, maybe share with a subcontractor. But they can’t use it in any way as their own, which is probably what you care about as a creator.

To me the shitty bit would be about features being deleted, but then usually upgrades are optional and avoidable.

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

#165

Post by kube-system »

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.

If the hammer could not drive nails, you would be entitled to a refund.

If a camera refuses to take pictures, why would you not be entitled to a refund?

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

#166

Post by deathanatos »

EMIRELADERO wrote: post #152
djbebs wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Contract law requires payment. What's the payment for acceptance of this eula?

No it does not. Contract law only requires a meeting of the minds between two parties. (Whether there is any meeting of the minds here is debatable)

IANAL, but as I understand it, the parent is correct. Specifically, in contracts it is known as "consideration"; Googling this even gets you,

> Consideration in contracts refers to the benefit each party receives in exchange for what it gives up in the contract. It is a vital element that must be present in a contract in order to make it legally binding on the parties.

(though ofc., Google is also not a lawyer.)

There is no consideration here. (The purchase of the product is separate, or at least, ought to be, if these terms weren't considered by the buyer then. Otherwise, it's just bait & switch.)

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

#167

Post by [deleted] »

EMIRELADERO wrote: post #152
djbebs wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Contract law requires payment. What's the payment for acceptance of this eula?

No it does not. Contract law only requires a meeting of the minds between two parties. (Whether there is any meeting of the minds here is debatable)

[deleted]

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

#168

Post by mikeyschaefer »

red_throwaway wrote: post #85
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.

I'm pretty sure I would be granted a refund if I asked for one. That being said, I'm not left with a lot of options after returning it because there aren't many comparable alternatives for this class of camera. In fact, I don't know of even one camera that's as high quality without also being almost double the price. RED has a lot of leverage here.

Unless you need to shoot a lot of high frame (60fps+) rates I think there a lot of alternative options. There is incredible and award winning work made made with Sonys, Canons and Black Magic cameras and of course Arris. Producers and creative directors with big budgets love to get excited about Red cameras but most often the reality is they wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between footage from different manufacturers. I think Red is a bit of a status symbol at this point as all the competition has pretty much caught up.

I think you could spend 50% of the price on a c500ii or a FX9 and get 90% of quality. That leaves a lot of money on the table for a decent set of cinema glass.

Or you can get a used Alexa Mini for the same price as a Raptor.

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

#169

Post by mindslight »

red_throwaway wrote: post #85
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.

I'm pretty sure I would be granted a refund if I asked for one. That being said, I'm not left with a lot of options after returning it because there aren't many comparable alternatives for this class of camera. In fact, I don't know of even one camera that's as high quality without also being almost double the price. RED has a lot of leverage here.

You could buy a used one where someone else already pressed "agree" on the purported contract. Installable software is only able to push bullshit EULAs on the theory that the installation process involves making a copy, which they claim requires an explicit license to do. But using a device with already installed embedded software doesn't involve making any copies of the software, and thus you don't need a license - rather you're buying the installed copy under the first sale doctrine.

But ultimately this is an abstract debate, because the main point of EULAs is to disclaim legal liability for the company, as contrasted with creating it for the user. Even if you do manage to avoid entering into their bullshit contract, the company will do whatever it wants with your data, and it will be up to you to sue them. Part of that uphill battle will be proving you didn't assent to their bullshit.

So really, like always, an end user's protection is ultimately of a technical nature. If the camera (or accompanying desktop software) does not have Internet access, then there is no way for RED to backhaul your footage and there is no issue to be worried about. If the camera does have Internet access, then your data will easily leave your control, and that's the real flaw with the product to focus on!

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

#170

Post by Jiro »

thfuran wrote: post #30
red_throwaway wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that sentence continues with > including but not limited to information about your RED Camera, Camera Module, computer, system and application software, usage, content, and peripherals Should I be reading the "content" part as "information about your content" ? As in, metadata about the content? Lens focal lengths, recording quality, codecs, etc? That would make more sense.

That's the correct reading but I'm not sure just how much leeway "including but not limited to" tends to get. Does that, in practice, mean "things like the following" or does it mean "literally anything"?

It means "things like the following". https://applawyers.org/blog/10317283
Post reply on HN