71–80 of 234 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless the telemetry they are talking about is anonymized.
Which it absolutely isn't, since they're reserving themselves the right to use it for advertising purposes. If it was properly anonymised it would be completely useless for such purposes.
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."
> technical, diagnostic, usage and related information, including but not limited to information about your RED Camera, Camera Module, computer, system and application software, usage, content, and peripherals. They are doing CYA here, but what they are likely collecting here is metadata, not the content itself. And very likely they are referring to data collected for troubleshooting purposes.
That's what I suspect too but the terms don't read like that in my opinion. I'm hoping someone can chime in and explain why the terms don't allow for the content itself to be mined.
including but not limited to information about your:
* RED Camera
* Camera Module
* computer
* system and application software
* usage
* content; and
* peripherals
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?
Like Kodak?
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,…
The purchase is completed before he gets it home and finds new conditions being imposed. That the part that I question about being legal.
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.
Not to mention, exfiltrating actual recordings would be crazy amounts of data. Unless you see in your internet traffic that the camera is uploading at several MB/s for hours on end, they're not doing what you claim they're doing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're entitled to return it for a full refund. The same would be true if you took some video and didn't like how the camera worked, or just got cold feet on your $30k purchase. 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…
> 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.
Your average store clerk will roll their eyes if you discuss this with them - you’d have to sue. For $30k it might be worth it, but most purchases it is not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 think you're entitled to return it for a full refund. The same would be true if you took some video and didn't like how the camera worked, or just got cold feet on your $30k purchase. 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…
> 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.
I do want more. I want to have peace of mind that it's safe to use my camera. I don't think that's an unreasonable request. Especially considering the price tag.
I definitely don't want the sales people to be punished. It's not their fault. It's possible that they've never even seen this since you'd only have seen it if you set one up straight out of the box.
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?
Like Kodak?