Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

romanzipp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 665 posts

Re: Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

#191

Post by brushfoot »

dspillett wrote: post #176
brushfoot wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should the manufacturer raise the price of the camera for you and me just to implement something extra OP wants that they can already do through HDMI?

It is already implemented, otherwise they wouldn't be able to enable it once the subscription is active. Why should the OP need to pay a subscription to enable a feature that is build into the camera, that is a standard feature on other cameras and imposes no ongoing costs to the manufacturer¹? This is an example of gouging, pure and simple. ---- [1] unless they are forcing the user to use their hosted service for st…

> Why should the OP need to pay a subscription to enable a feature that is build into the camera

Getting video into your computer through USB is _not_ built into the camera. Else why is OP downloading an app to do it?

The app is part of the implementation, and it costs money. I have no problem with the manufacturer charging separately for that. The rest of us can use a video cable to get video into our computers.

Re: Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

#193

Post by spuz »

alibarber wrote: post #20

I also discovered that I couldn't use my Canon SLR to record more than 30 minutes of video continuously. The problem however wasn't Canon, but that I lived in a region (EU) that would have imposed a customs tariff on cameras that could do that, but by keeping it under that, the camera would be classed as a 'stills' camera and so was therefore exempt. Admittedly this is different from the case in the article - but it…

Funnily enough, I have actually used the 30 minute limit as a "feature" on my Panasonic Lumix G80 (the cousin to the unrestricted G85) as sometimes I would want to set up my camera and leave it recording for 20-30 minutes while I walked away to do things but wouldn't physically be able to return to switch it off. It would save me battery and SD card space because it automatically stops after 30 minutes.

Re: Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

#194

Post by formerly_proven »

franga2000 wrote: post #9

I'm not sure since I don't have any Canon gear, but it's very likely that the app just uses the PTP protocol, which is an old but stil common standard. The main ioen source implementation is libgphoto2 and there's an OBS Studio plugin to use it as a camera source, after which you can use its built-in virtual webcam mode to use it as a webcam.

Newer Nikon and apparently also some Sony cameras simply support USB UVC ("the webcam protocol"), which makes this pure plug and play, but apparently Canon doesn't. For older cameras there's a Nikon webcam utility or something like that, which does exactly what you suggest: grab preview frames via PTP and stuff them into a video source. Or you get an HDMI/USB dongle for 10$.

Re: Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

#195

Post by Ntrails »

halgir wrote: post #68
alibarber wrote: post #20

I also discovered that I couldn't use my Canon SLR to record more than 30 minutes of video continuously. The problem however wasn't Canon, but that I lived in a region (EU) that would have imposed a customs tariff on cameras that could do that, but by keeping it under that, the camera would be classed as a 'stills' camera and so was therefore exempt. Admittedly this is different from the case in the article - but it…

Reminds me of when lawyers successfully argued that X-Men are not human, so that their action figures would be classified as "toys" rather than "dolls" and thus charged a lower tariff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toy_Biz%2C_Inc._v._United_Stat...

A bunch of fun articles around these areas in the UK (free to read, think you might need an account though - apologies). Two food and one toy:

https://www.ft.com/content/5af5b182-349a-4a25-b4fb-4551908f2...

https://www.ft.com/content/a6a54008-6059-4052-99ae-282f148f2...

https://www.ft.com/content/a8d6413e-1184-4f89-9bcb-4f6cb8d7a...

Re: Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

#196

Post by formerly_proven »

jolmg wrote: post #167

> and they should—due to the lack of standards—provide software that allows you to use their cameras as intended. There is a standard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_video_device_class

Yes, the articles complaints (no free way to use it as a webcam, 30 minute limits etc.) doesn't seem to apply to many camera brands apart from Canon.

Re: Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

#197

Post by magicalhippo »

halgir wrote: post #68
alibarber wrote: post #20

I also discovered that I couldn't use my Canon SLR to record more than 30 minutes of video continuously. The problem however wasn't Canon, but that I lived in a region (EU) that would have imposed a customs tariff on cameras that could do that, but by keeping it under that, the camera would be classed as a 'stills' camera and so was therefore exempt. Admittedly this is different from the case in the article - but it…

Reminds me of when lawyers successfully argued that X-Men are not human, so that their action figures would be classified as "toys" rather than "dolls" and thus charged a lower tariff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toy_Biz%2C_Inc._v._United_Stat...

Or when the makers of Jaffa Cakes baked a giant 12 inch version[1] and brought it to the court to argue they were cakes and not biscuits to get lower VAT.

[1]: https://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2015/10/time-compan...

Re: Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

#198

Post by contrast »

School-Cotton wrote: post #98
ivan_gammel wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more like "so you can't drink it" without the taxes part. Those taxes play important role in reducing alcohol consumption (though they are of course not the only tool), so making cheap ethanol poisonous and with different color closes the loophole in healthcare policy rather than opens a loophole in taxation. E.g. study: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3860576/

I’m not sure how this is different from what I’m saying?

The thread is about bad things because of tax policy, your post is about a good thing because of health policy - but you don’t say it’s a good thing, or that it’s about heath not taxes.

The post pointing this out has different content to yours, which reads as if your meaning is “this reminds me of another bad thing caused by tax policies” - even if that’s not what you meant.

Re: Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

#199

Post by bayindirh »

mongol wrote: post #189
bayindirh wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That requirement is reversed in the last five years IIRC. My Sony A7-III doesn't have that, for example. Neither modern Canons, AFAIK. The funnier thing is, you can't use the videos out of your camera for commercial purposes, because the video codecs inside your camera doesn't come with commercial licenses out of the box. So if you are going to use your camera for production which you'll earn money, you need to pay c…

Do you need to sign an agreement to this effect before starting filming? I don't see how it can legally hold.

Nominally, yes. These are checked before your movie is being distributed, and you'll most probably face legal consequences if you don't pay for your licenses.

Not getting caught for some time doesn't count either. You'll pay retroactively, with some interest, probably.

Licensing page is at [0]. Considering the previous shenanigans they pulled against open video and audio formats in the past [1], these guys are not sleeping around. These guys call people for patent pools in a format, and license these pools as format licenses.

[0]: https://www.via-la.com/licensing-2/avc-h-264/avc-h-264-licen...

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG_LA#Criticism

Re: Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

#200

Post by MrDOS »

Dwedit wrote: post #117
nudgeee wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hilarious. Reminds me of Pioneer CDJs as well, even on the flagship CDJ-3000 models. If you read the user manual it says: > About using MP3 files > This product has been licensed for nonprofit use. This product has not been licensed for commercial purposes (for profit-making use), […]. You need to acquire the corresponding licenses for such uses. For details, see […] Best use an open audio codec instead.

Nowadays, MP3 is an open audio codec. The patents have expired.

The format itself is patent-unencumbered. That doesn't mean I couldn't still write a non-free decoder and license it to Pioneer for use in their CDJs. Due to organizational inertia, I suspect that's what's going on here (e.g., they licensed a decoder from Fraunhofer or another commercial implementer twenty years ago, and have been using the same one since).
Post reply on HN