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

Post by immibis » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 1:30 PM UTC

dspillett wrote: post #172

sam_lowry_ wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the alternative is that you are not allowed to keep private copies of anything The alternative is that we download torrents pretty much everywhere except Germany which developed a private industry of lawyers extracting money from leachers and seeders alike. Germans instead have VPNs set up in Poland or Ukraine and use their streaming websites.

Oddities in German copyright or related law don't just have that effect on piracy, they make certain forms of “copyleft trolling” by third parties (who may be in no way linked to the content creator) possible, or at least far easier. This isn't the only route to copyleft trolling, of course. Refs: https://doctorow.medium.com/a-bug-in-early-creative-commons-... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyleft_troll…

Post by deskr » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 1:31 PM UTC

Post by petecooper » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 1:33 PM UTC

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…

Post by baxtr » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 1:35 PM UTC

brushfoot wrote: post #327

bhickey wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Canon advertises their cameras as webcams.

No, they don't. They advertise that the camera can "turn into" a webcam with the right software or through HDMI out.

Post by sam_lowry_ » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 1:36 PM UTC

immibis wrote: post #341

dspillett wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oddities in German copyright or related law don't just have that effect on piracy, they make certain forms of “copyleft trolling” by third parties (who may be in no way linked to the content creator) possible, or at least far easier. This isn't the only route to copyleft trolling, of course. Refs: https://doctorow.medium.com/a-bug-in-early-creative-commons-... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyleft_troll…

Fun fact: Stack Overflow possibly violated Creative Commons licensing by putting a Mullenweg-style checkbox in front of downloading the quarterly data dumps. They were notified more than 30 days ago. Therefore, almost all content older than 30 days on Stack Overflow is there illegally. Any lawyers reading? Go nuts.