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

491–500 of 665 posts

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

#491

Post by doix »

HenryBemis wrote: post #188
doix wrote: post #4

> However, Canon is a hardware company, not a software company, That probably makes it pretty easy to reverse engineer their software to bypass the restrictions.

> However, Canon is a hardware company, not a software company, Canon is a company that is in the business of making profit (not just software or just hardware). If they realize that they can charge you $1 for every time you chew gum while taking photos, and people will actually pay for that privilege $1-per-chewing-gum-session (disclaimer: chewing gum not provided) they would charge you! Remember BMW and heating in…

Sure, and that's why I don't think they'd invest heavily in anti-piracy measures. It requires a special skillset, your average developer isn't going to really know much about it. If I had to guess, there's a single "isProTier" function call that you just patch to return true. Maybe it's inlined and it's slightly more annoying. I doubt they did much more than that, but maybe I'm completely wrong.

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

#492

Post by skrebbel »

_n_b_ wrote: post #487
skrebbel wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know nothing about the case but isn't that a little like saying "look, we weren't lying, cause we never said we were saying the truth"?

Well, context matters in looking at defamation claims. Let's say you were involved in a freak hunting accident and shot somebody, but you were never charged with any crimes. If the Fox News "hard news" program (if such a thing exists) said "skrebbel is a murderer" that is more likely to be understood to be a statement of fact, asserting something in a legalistic sense. [IANAL, but I think even this is unlikely to be…

> You can't trust anything that skrebbel guy says, he's a murderer!

I am deeply offended and contemplating to sue you for defamation.

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

#493

Post by formerly_proven »

tartoran wrote: post #464
formerly_proven wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Absolutely but when you set up one as a webcam you usually leave it in place as a webcam setup unless you want natural bokeths only from time to time. It also depends on the line of work, if you're in some media related field and it is required to have pristine streaming, well, that is a whole different story.

For me it’s super quick to set up, I just put the 40/2 lens on, move two switches (photo/movie selector to movie and mode dial to a user preset position) and drop it into a quick release plate. Plug in HDMI and turn on/off as needed.

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

#494

Post by bloomingkales »

gwbas1c wrote: post #393
Corrado wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Steven Colbert hosted a show using himself as the host. I’m not sure about the tax implications though.

And then when he tried using the "Steven Colbert" character on a different show, Comedy Central threatened him because Steven Colbert does not have rights to the "Steven Colbert" character.

That doesn’t seem like that should be possible. He sold his identity for life? Hollywood really does ask for your soul huh.

It would make sense why he’s never even jokingly gone back into that character on his new show.

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

#495

Post by crtasm »

coldpie wrote: post #466
JBiserkov wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And windows being covered with bricks for tax reasons.

The window tax features prominently in a visual novel video game (The Great Ace Attorney Chronicles), which also contains a bunch of wildly outlandish historical nonsense and characters like mad-scientist inventors, teleportation devices, and Sherlock Holmes types. I was blown away to learn the window tax was actually a real thing, not something silly just made up for the game.

Taxes were also part of the reason newspapers got so large: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadsheet#History

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

#496

Post by wbl »

seabass-labrax wrote: post #441
panzi wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not from the UK, but wasn't there also a cake Vs biscuits thing for tax reasons?

Yes, Jaffa Cakes - minature sponge cakes flavoured with Jaffa oranges. Cakes aren't subject to Value Added Tax in the UK, which allows them to be sold more cheaply to the consumer or have a greater profit margin. A tribunal confirmed that they are true, real and genuine cakes, so you may feel entitled to enjoy your tax-free treat! https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandco...

There is a musical I saw at the fringe about this.

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

#497

Post by treis »

bloomingkales wrote: post #494
gwbas1c wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then when he tried using the "Steven Colbert" character on a different show, Comedy Central threatened him because Steven Colbert does not have rights to the "Steven Colbert" character.

That doesn’t seem like that should be possible. He sold his identity for life? Hollywood really does ask for your soul huh. It would make sense why he’s never even jokingly gone back into that character on his new show.

It's not his identity, though. It's a character that he plays.

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

#498

Post by mrtksn »

regularfry wrote: post #484
mrtksn wrote: post #23

It's just a business model like segmentation IMHO. BMWs or Tesla's having the hardware but require a payment for enabling it or CPU manufacturers disabling certain features to sell them at a lower price. IIRC the idea is that to let people pay what they can so you can have larger profits when allowing lower price points. In this case it appears to directly charge for a service(a software that needs to be created and…

With CPU manufacturers it at least makes sense for them to have a market for partially faulty chips. That's not what's going on here.

They don't just sell the defective one for cheap though, they have all kinds of tricks and the ratios fit the market.

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

#499

Post by kjs3 »

gwbas1c wrote: post #393
Corrado wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Steven Colbert hosted a show using himself as the host. I’m not sure about the tax implications though.

And then when he tried using the "Steven Colbert" character on a different show, Comedy Central threatened him because Steven Colbert does not have rights to the "Steven Colbert" character.

Al Shugart started Shugart Associates and pretty much created the 5 1/4" floppy market. He sold to Xerox. He later started Shugart Technology and was promptly threatened with a lawsuit because he literally had sold his rights to his own name (in the particular context). He changed the name to Seagate Technology and the rest is history.

Yes, you can be enjoined from using your own name.

Post reply on HN