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

401–410 of 665 posts

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

#401

Post by bluGill »

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…

Back in the day Kodak had to buy back all their instant cameras after losing to Polaroid. Though I'm not sure if law has changed since then (it has, but I'm not sure if in relevant ways), or just that they did that because no being able to make film made them useless and so buyback was a goodwill gesture.

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

#402

Post by spookie »

PetitPrince wrote: post #373
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I often wonder what the ROI is on this. How much did Sony have to pay engineers to implement this interesting but seemingly pretty useless functionality vs. what it actually saved them in the aforementioned tariffs? I know the knee jerk reaction is to say it obviously saved them some money or they wouldn't have done it, but I've seen far too much corporate stupidity in my life to take that as a given. I'd love to see…

Maybe it was just a passion project for the engineers or even Ken Kutaragi ? See also Net Yarose, Linux For Playstation 2, Other OS & Yellow Dog Linux for Playstation 3.

For sure, they had very interesting architectures. Used even in supercomputers as a number of them in parallel

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

#403

Post by pbasista »

This is another case in point that people should research the software capabilities of the devices they purchase.

Typically, that can be reduced to one simple question: Can it run custom firmware or custom operating system?

If it cannot, you have to make do with whatever restrictions the manufacturer has imposed in their software. Be it a subscription for webcam mode. Or even completely disabling your device if they so decide.

If it can run custom firmware or operating system, there is a fair chance that the community creates software for this device that is actually good. One that allows you to do what you want with it.

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

#405

Post by tartoran »

stray wrote: post #389

As a Nikon guy, I'm using my Z50 as a webcam with little fuss. I've got a fake battery that plugs into AC power -- and my output is through HDMI to an Elgato Cam link 4k. It doesn't overheat even after hours of use (unlike most full-frame sensors), and I've got it capturing in monochrome because I just really like B&W. And because its face/eye detect autofocus is reasonably capable -- I can keep a wide aperture/shall…

That's nice but is it worth spending so much to get natural boketh in over team calls?

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

#406

Post by wat10000 »

golli wrote: post #257
dspillett wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 an…

That’s the really egregious thing. I think a bunch of programmers should be able to see the merit in charging money for software. It’s a bit of a bitter pill in a product that we mentally categorize as “device” rather than “computer” but it’s at least somewhat sensible. Software costs money to make, that money has to come from customers, and getting it from the customers who use it makes sense.

But requiring a subscription is such a blatant “fuck you, we want more profit without doing any work, and you’re going to provide it.”

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

#407

Post by bluGill »

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.

Including not checking as one person I know found out after drinking hand sanitizer. (some hand sanitizer is just alcohol that is made to taste bad, some of it isn't even alcohol, she got the later)

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

#408

Post by lazide »

dnh44 wrote: post #356
lazide wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone at the newspaper, or someone in state security?

Not 100% sure as they didn't introduce themselves but whoever called was able to get the phone number that the IP address was linked to and I assume both would have to have been involved in order to do that.

Creepy. If you don’t mind me asking - eastern eu?

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

#409

Post by formerly_proven »

tartoran wrote: post #405
stray wrote: post #389

As a Nikon guy, I'm using my Z50 as a webcam with little fuss. I've got a fake battery that plugs into AC power -- and my output is through HDMI to an Elgato Cam link 4k. It doesn't overheat even after hours of use (unlike most full-frame sensors), and I've got it capturing in monochrome because I just really like B&W. And because its face/eye detect autofocus is reasonably capable -- I can keep a wide aperture/shall…

That's nice but is it worth spending so much to get natural boketh in over team calls?

I don't think too many people are buying a Nikon solely for this purpose, but rather they already have it and _also_ use it as a webcam. The main advantage there is - in my view anyway - that it allows you to control the field of view easily, compared to the built-in webcam. The far better image quality is just a bonus.

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

#410

Post by bluGill »

kotaKat wrote: post #289
beAbU wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I heat my house with oil, a truck comes every couple of months and fills a massive tank in my back yard. This "oil" is basically diesel. It smells and feels identical to diesel. But it's about 70 cents cheaper per litre compared to road diesel. It's dyed red, and you are not supposed to put it in your car, but I reckon it'll be more than fine for older diesel engines. The red diesel is not taxed like road diesel, and…

> I reckon it'll be more than fine for older diesel engines There's always the risk of getting your fuel tank dipped if you're on road. Moreso for trucks, but some jurisdictions will set up inspections and check for dyed fuel and tear you an absolute new one when they catch it.

The exit of off road events is a common place to check this. So much so that there is a reputation in the off road community and now they don't even need to check often anymore since nobody is stupid enough to risk driving a truck that has ever had off road fuel in it there.
Post reply on HN