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

251–260 of 665 posts

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

#251

Post by weberer »

amelius wrote: post #91
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/

Couldn't they just make it taste bad, for safety's sake?

That doesn't seem to stop people from drinking IPAs.

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

#253

Post by hackingonempty »

bayindirh wrote: post #199
mongol wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sl…

If you bought a legit licensed product the doctrine of first sale means their patent rights are exhausted.[0] They can't come after you for patent infringement. Those licenses are for manufacturers making new licensed products, not users of licensed products they purchased.

Can you show a single court case or even a press release where someone using a legit licensed product bought on the open market was sued for codec patent infringement?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_doctrine_under_U.S....

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

#254

Post by steveBK123 »

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...

When Trump set a tariff on German optics because he was mad at Germany, Leica had a workaround as well.

Most of their equipment is made in Portugal and finished in Germany, with whatever WTO agreed % of value added that allows them to stamp "Made In Germany" on the goods.

So for US markets they issues a series of lenses that were more fully finished in the Portuguese factory such that they could be stamped "Made In Portugal".

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

#255

Post by notoverthere »

lvl155 wrote: post #246

Not to be off topic but Apple needs to build a fully featured full frame digital camera with an iPhone slot. That would be game over for so many users.

What do you mean by "an iPhone slot"?

As in, so you can plug the camera into an iPhone and transfer photos from camera to phone?

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

#256

Post by brushfoot »

dspillett wrote: post #236
brushfoot wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The company can charge whatever they want for this feature. Most people who can afford to use a good camera as their webcam will never use it, because they know the quality is worse and they'd rather use industry-standard HDMI. If I asked Sony for a power generator to charge my camera's battery, they could charge me a million a month if they'd like. Hopefully that would signal to me that there are better and more sta…

> The company can charge whatever they want for this feature. They can. But that doesn't mean everyone is forced to be happy about it, and doesn't mean it can't be talked about so other people who might not be happy about it can use the information to chose a different camera from a different manufacturer instead of discovering the issue post-purchase. > they'd rather use industry-standard HDMI Or the industry standa…

OP bought a camera not sold as a webcam and is trying to use it as a webcam. Fair enough, I've done the same.

A standard way of doing that is to use a video cable to get video output and plug that into a capture card on your computer. OP doesn't want to do that and would prefer that the manufacturer included webcam functionality out of the box.

Also fair enough! But if that's the requirement, buy a camera that meets that requirement, and understand that it's not a standard feature in these cameras.

I get subscription fatigue, but this is not a good hill to die on. It's getting outraged over expecting a camera to do what it wasn't designed to do, when there are already simple and standard ways of making it do that.

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

#257

Post by golli »

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…

Also why does it have to be a subscription in the first place. If it is a non standard use that requires extra software you don't and you want to separate those costs from users that don't need it, then make it a one time payment at least.

Subscriptions make sense when you have ongoing costs like significant load on servers that are needed for the service provided. But not for some piece of software you write once and are more or less done with (minus some small patches)

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

#258

Post by szszrk »

beAbU wrote: post #232
amelius wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't they just make it taste bad, for safety's sake?

Addiction is one helluva motivator, and some people will put up with horrible tasting stuff as long as it's a cheap high.

Not that pure spirit is something you drink for the wonderful taste, in the first place.

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

#259

Post by bayindirh »

hackingonempty wrote: post #253
bayindirh wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sl…

If you bought a legit licensed product the doctrine of first sale means their patent rights are exhausted.[0] They can't come after you for patent infringement. Those licenses are for manufacturers making new licensed products, not users of licensed products they purchased. Can you show a single court case or even a press release where someone using a legit licensed product bought on the open market was sued for code…

The license doesn't come attached to the device itself, but you as a entity (e.g. movie studio, broadcaster, or solo professional). Transferring the device doesn't transfer the license.

You license the right to use the patent pool for commercial purposes, not the device itself.

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

#260

Post by dnh44 »

dingdingdang wrote: post #135
jorvi wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like a relic left over from a bygone era. Like the digital storage levy we still pay despite music and movie piracy only being rampant from 1990s-2000s :) I love the EU but it certainly has its idiosyncrasies.

> I love the EU but it certainly has its idiosyncrasies. That is an acceptable position and you will likely nor require further investigation as long as the criticism remains vague and is offset by positive sentiment. I too love the EU.

I have a family member of retirement age who got into the habit of anonymously expressing their love of the EU in the comments section of a local newspaper.

After a few months of this they received a phone call on their landline warning them that such public expressions are inappropriate and that there could be consequences should they not find a new hobby.

I too love the EU but I loved it much more 15 years ago.

Post reply on HN