21–30 of 234 posts
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.
Every product works this way.
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.
Every product works this way.
AFAIK these EULAs are legal. In reality, RED isn't exfiltrating their customers' video (the files are enormous so people would notice) and they would go out of business if they did. Probably every product has some objectionable clause in their EULA which no one reads, so you're better off not reading it and moving on with your life. If you want to be a freedom fighter, go work for the EFF; if you want to make video,…
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.
Yes, this! The sales person made absolutely no mention of any licensing terms or agreements that I would need to sign off on before my camera became usable as a camera.
I get the feeling that you want more than that (like a custom license agreement, or some punishment for the sales person for not mentioning the EULA), and I don't think you're going to get that. Return it for a refund, RED has to sell it as an "open box", and the EULA costs them a few hundred bucks this time. Or make a fabulous video and forget all about their updates that move things around in the UI, and just live with it because the video quality is so good. Those are the best possible outcomes here.
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.
Would be lovely to provide or deny consent for each of those actions detailed in the EULA -- the EULA becomes configuration.
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.
Every product works this way.
Does it even matter if it’s legal or not? What would you rather do, use the camera or spend your time/money fighting it?
If it means what I think it means, I'd rather return it and invest in a company that doesn't abuse their users.
This reads like a typical "we collect telemetry and there's nothing you can do about it" disclaimer, which I personally find quite offensive for such an expensive piece of kit. Just the 30k you paid is more than enough to fund a whole development cycle to add an opt-in dialogue to the camera software.
I don't know if you'll find any equivalent hardware that don't include such policies in their EULA, though.
It is incorrect--you still have your intellectual property rights, even if they somehow download all the videos off the camera.
You're not signing away your rights to the video content.
1) You misunderstood. The relevant part is "technical, diagnostic, usage and related information". Note it doesn't say 'video' anywhere there, and even it did it wouldn't hold up court.
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.