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

191–200 of 234 posts

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

#191

Post by BizarroLand »

justizin wrote: post #155
red_throwaway wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, based on the size of the videos that thing must make, I don't see any feasible way they could or would exfiltrate the video content you're shooting. They don't need the whole clip. They can easily grab a single frame, encoded and compressed to minimize the filesize. The camera also has a wifi radio in it which does who knows what behind the scenes. Since the firmware is very much not open source, I have no wa…

> They don't need the whole clip. They can easily grab a single frame, encoded and compressed to minimize the filesize. Yeah, that would be valid telemetry, though telemetry should be opt-out, it's fairly innocuous. > It could be constantly trying to phone home over open wireless networks (or partner hotspots). Hell for all I know the thing could have a 3g radio in it, constantly talking to home. It's pretty silly to…

Plus, RED's goal is to move product. Sell Cameras. Become the de Facto standard camera for aspiring, indie, and professional movie and TV studios around the world.

Stealing a single picture out of a 60fps camera for no particular purpose won't put money in their back pocket. Building a 3g modem into a camera and paying cellular data fees to occasionally snoop into their users' memory cards won't earn them a penny.

The only people whom I could understand being rightfully paranoid about this are either making embarrassing fetish pornography or videotaping illegal acts for money.

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

#194

Post by syshum »

et2o wrote: post #65
kube-system wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've hired a few, and they're all well aware that sloppy boilerplate is commonplace. They often suggest you take a realist approach to the situation as a whole, and consider the incentives of those involved.

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

Of course history has shown that while a company is profitable they will be "good" however if the company starts going off the cliff all bets are off

See the many many once "good" companies that end up patent trolling

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

#195

Post by quickthrowman »

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.

It’s uh, a privately held company..

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

#197

Post by Jon_Lowtek »

ipaddr wrote: post #177
zdragnar wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's more likely is a help desk tech will see the email, maybe ask their boss about it, and ultimately write back that there is no option to opt out. They're not going to provide you with more information, because that would limit their ability to do something in the future (especially since the person writing the response isn't a product manager or engineer and doesn't know anything about it anyway). It's worth a…

Write the CEO directly

and hope they pass it down the chain?

write to their privacy officer, contact details can be found here: red.com/legal

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

#198

Post by abruzzi »

robocat wrote: post #119

Perhaps get a tween to click it, or someone else that you are not responsible for. There is probably some clause to ensure that the person that clicks it passes on the licence, but that clause would be difficult to enforce. If you told a very young child to do it, then you would probably be held responsible. Outcomes would vary depending on jurisdiction too? Edit: “You agree that RED and its affiliates may collect, m…

I like that--sell it for a dollar to someone you trust, with a written contract to the sale, have them press the ok button, then have them sell it back to you with a written contract for a dollar.

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

#199

Post by ryandrake »

everforward wrote: post #186
Mordisquitos wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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 agre…

This world where EULA's (and other one-sided "agreements") are treated just like contracts: Meeting of the minds between two equal-power parties, mutually understood and negotiated--needs to die. These things are take-it-or-leave-it law, unchangeable, non-negotiable, and dictated by some corporate counsel 1000 miles away. They should be all thrown out due to being unconscionable. If the US Supreme Court wasn't entirely captured by corporate interests this crap would have been scrapped long ago.

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

#200

Post by EMIRELADERO »

everforward wrote: post #186
Mordisquitos wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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 agre…

You don't have to license the software. Copyright law only regulates copying and redistribution, not use. Just because they say "this software is licensed, not sold" doesn't mean they're right (even if they are the software makers themselves)
Post reply on HN