181–190 of 234 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
sadly high end electronics are typically written to prevent this, which is pretty awful
I was referring to not agreeing to the comtract but still clicking the "I agree" button to use the camera.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is legal. But under warranty law, they also have to deliver you a product that works or refund your money.
Depends on jurisdiction. Inside the EU, the EULA is not a valid contract and gives RED no rights to anything. This is true of any and all "license agreements" that are presented to the user after money has changed hands. You can safely click agree on any such things without actually agreeing to anything. I don't actually know, but I believe that in the US things are more complex.
It sounds reasonable to me personally, but not convincing in reality. There are 27 legislations in the EU.
Edit: Based on a quick web search it seems correct for Germany and Austria.
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)
You also need:
- an offer
- acceptance of that offer
- some sort of consideration, i.e. some exchange of value
- capacity (i.e. you can't contract with someone who is incapable of consenting)
- legality ("lets steal a car" is not a valid contract)
If they just repeat the EULA then treat it as a yes, hammer their social media comparing it to Apple's, ARRI's, Panasonic's etc. stance and let the EFF warn everyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That seems unlikely. My layman's understanding is that you have to purchase the hardware and license the software, and the two are considered distinct items. The hardware is entirely capable of what was promised, but OP will either have to agree to the terms of the software or create their own.
That exists in a lot of markets. Phones are advertised running OS' that require EULA's, computers are marketed running OS' and apps that require other EULA's, etc. I think my car even has an EULA on it.
It feels bad when there realistically isn't an alternative like there are with phone or computer OS', but I don't think there's anything legally different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It’s also likely to be useless footage for anyone but the person creating the content. Keep in mind the video will still need to be edited for color, adding or removing sound, and cropped. Then spliced into a final product.
It’s also useless for rights holders because 1. It’s easier to hash on the camera and send the hash only, not your video. And two, the camera isn’t recording the final product so there’s likely no music yet. Finally, for a professional video shoot, you’d acquire the rights anyway. Double finally, as a rights holder it’s far easier to do a content claim on YouTube, Netflix, Vimeo, or wherever the content is going to end up rather than on the first step of the process, the camera.
I don’t even know what law enforcement would want with random video footage of outtakes for a small, medium, or large video production.
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.
If you find your work on their site or in their promos, they are in violation of copyright laws and are liable. No judge would stand behind such weak boilerplate to allow RED to steal artist's work with impunity.
I hate to say it, but you're far too worried about this. I understand the misgivings but the reality of the situation doesn't match your concern over the matter, or to put it another way, you're making mountains out of molehills.
I have no clue about cameras, so I have not even the faintest idea if this can compare in any way to a professional camera, or even how far along the development is: https://www.apertus.org This is an open source and open hardware project, working on a camera because they dislike exactly the kind of stuff you described.
A few years ago I was quite keen on the idea of this, but at this point it seems a lot like vapourware.