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

TLDR: I bought a $30K professional cinema camera that doesn't work unless I sign away my rights to privacy and possibly the video content I make with it ( at least it seems )

Over the past few years my photography business has seen a surge in demand for ultra high quality video production work. In an effort to meet this demand, I picked up one of RED Digital Cinema's newest pro camera bodies, the RED V-RAPTOR. Considering this camera is used by professional filmmakers to create films destined for cinemas, it's not surprising that it came with a $30k price tag.

After unboxing and assembling it, I power the camera on and the first thing I see is a wall of legal text on the embedded LCD. Turns out it's a "Software License Agreement" that I'm required to consent to using the on-camera menu buttons before any of the camera's functionality becomes available. I can give consent or power the camera off.

The full text can be found on the manufacturer's website at https://www.red.com/legal/license-agreements . Here are a few highlights

> 4. CONSENT TO USE OF DATA. You agree that RED and its affiliates may collect, maintain, process, transmit, and use 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. RED may use the information to provide and improve RED’s products and services, including providing the information to RED’s licensors. RED may also provide the information to third party advertisers for the purpose of providing advertising statistics without identifying you personally ...

> 5. UPDATES. RED and its licensors have no obligation to provide updates, bug fixes or error correction. If RED provides updates, such updates may be automatic and may delete or change the nature or features of the Software, including functions you may rely upon and you may lose data. You consent to updates by RED ...

I snapped a few photos of the camera and the on-screen license agreement for those interested

https://ibb.co/ZzBMPWm

https://ibb.co/wy5Qjq7

I'm annoyed that I must consent to accepting all software updates which they admit could result in the loss of my data but the part that really has me stuck is section 4. I'm interpreting it to mean that RED and whoever they see fit may access not only data on and about my personal computer but also the actual video content that I create with my camera. Furthermore, they are permitted to share all that with advertisers.

It seems like I must be misunderstanding this because I can't imagine professional videographers being willing to consent to such blatant violations of their own customer's expectations of privacy and discretion. Many of the jobs I get are product shoots for prototypes and things yet to be released. Some of them even require an NDA from me. There's no way my clients would work with me if they knew that my camera might be capturing frames from their commissioned videos and transmitting them behind the scenes to advertisers.

This camera has been assembled but collecting dust for over a week now. I'm on the verge of returning it and eating the 2k I spent on compatible peripherals. I would love some input from anyone who can offer clarity. My questions are as follows:

1. Is my assessment of the implications of this license agreement correct or am I misunderstanding the legalese?

2. Is this type of EULA, where the most basic functionality of a hardware device is held hostage pending the user consents to some arbitrary agreement legal in the USA and/or Europe? Is there actually a legal precedent allowing for it?

3. For film pros, do the top of the line Arris and Panavisions take these same liberties?

You probably use google and facebook anyway, perhaps to promote your business. You have probably already signed similar agreements due to you using those platforms. I'm not a lawyer, and you should probably talk to one. Just my 2 cents.

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, make video.

I'm sure it's the cyoa language like most Eula have. The bad publicity from actually enforcing stuff like this or attempting to enforce it is something most companies don't want to deal with but they stick this nonsense in anyway just in case.

Most of this looks fairly boilerplate ever looked through like a Windows license agreement or something. Even the agreement for purchasing this product probably has very similar languages as well.

The legal president around most of this is actually contract law. The sneaky thing is though they try and push this after you've already made the purchase which allows it to be questionable at best but then you have to fight it.

What you should do is sue the company for the time and cost that you sunk into compatible peripherals because they did not make this as an agreement up front. Seems the only way you would have known that you were required to agree to this was my purchasing the camera and turning it on. But again that's more cost and you're ultimately just ending up lining the lawyer's pockets so they're happy to write agreements like this because they get paid on both sides of it.

Ultimately the best solution is one we will likely and never see which would be an update to the Magnuson Moss warranty act. Something that would take these one-sided eula's and toss them right out the door. Something in there that would be if the company no longer wishes to produce or fix software updates for a product they must immediately release to any owner of the product and this can include second or third hand owners all of the source and the build tools and build chains so it can be maintained. I'm really afraid something like that will never happen simply because at the time of the Magnuson Moss warranty act that primarily dealt with automobiles but extended to other things as well people knew how to work on their automobiles for the most part understood the parts understood that aftermarket parts could be built and worth a thing and it was fine to reverse engineer those and make copies of them. All automanufacturers also released complete engineering diagrams of their vehicles and complete repair and assembly manuals for the vehicles and due to the idea that the manufacturer and the people who had to maintain them were completely separate entities.

Considering how little people understand that software is as an integral as a component to an electronic device as spark plugs are to a gasoline engine we will never see an update to include this idea that it's not just hardware that can be repaired and not violate the warranty it's the software as well.

> 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.