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

611–620 of 665 posts

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

#611

Post by chongli »

Eavolution wrote: post #610
chongli wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chinese cooking wines avoid alcohol taxes by adding salt. The salt is useful as a seasoning for food but makes the wine undrinkable!

That doesn't seem like a good idea as a lot of people would try to reduce salt intake due to blood pressure concerns, where the alcohol in this wouldn't be a concern for that as it would likely be cooked off

That’s going to be tough. Shaoxing wine and soy sauce both have lots of sodium in them because they’re intended for seasoning dishes without the need to add salt separately. Even dòuchǐ (fermented black soybeans), which offer a similar flavour profile to soy sauce in solid form, have a lot of salt.

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

#612

Post by kjkjadksj »

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…

This happens even outside electronics and software. I ordered some tevas recently to replace my old ones and discovered they now have a light felt layer over the rubber bottom. If I had to guess its like the converse reason of adding a similar felt layer: to classify them as slippers.

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

#613

Post by mjevans »

SSLy wrote: post #313
mjevans wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

USB 2.0, that bog standard version from 2000 that is assumed to be the lowest common denominator possible for any new hardware... Edit: 4am math correction... 480Mbit/sec transfer; Uncompressed, that's ~333333 pixels per frame for 60FPS. Not even considering overhead, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_video_device_class 1.1 support from 2005 includes Motion JPEG (low compression, all patents probably expired give…

the camera indeed has USB-C port, 3.2 gen1

I like the new marketing names they finally settled on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB#Connector_type_quick_refer...

USB ${N}Gbps instead of the confusing old labels and operation mode classifications.

I'll assume you meant the 5Gbps version of the link, which ( 5000000000/8/3/60 ) can drive about 3.47M (24 bit) pixels at 60fps, even raw. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_display_resolut... It looks like 4K mode would require the use of VP8 (likely no hardware included) or h264. Patent license issues are soon to expire, (though some BS one won't until 2030, not sure how that's even possible), but no remedy for older models https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Video_Coding#Licensin... drat.

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

#614

Post by epicalex »

walthamstow wrote: post #579
seanhunter wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was also the famous decision in the Jaffa Cake case where the VAT treatment depended on whether or not a Jaffa cake was a cake or a biscuit https://standrewseconomist.com/2023/12/31/let-them-eat-cake-... The tribunal decided that Jaffa Cakes were cakes because when they go stale they go hard like a cake whereas a biscuit tends to go soft when it goes stale.

There’s another one about Walkers taste sensations poppadom snacks. Question was, is it a crisp or not? Can’t remember the outcome

The specifics were about whether it required any additional preparation like a traditional poppadom vs being a ready to eat snack like a crisp.

Walkers lost the case.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/19/walkers-min...

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

#615

Post by xandrius »

jonhohle wrote: post #569
xandrius wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All those make sense and are pretty common: bread is taxed lower than most pizza toppings. Raw ingredients are taxed less than ready-to-eat or sugar-coated ultra-processed good. And I'm totally ok with that.

But a pizza as a whole is a ready-to-eat good. And a pizza isn’t a pizza without the crust.

What I think is happening is that the place is specifically charging different tax rates for each part of the pizza. That does seem odd but the alternative would be to tax the whole of the pizza at a higher tax rate than the one presented. Example, most countries might put a whole pizza at, say, 10% VAT, while here part of it is at, say, 4% and the rest at 10%. Ideally that's cheaper.

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

#617

Post by Falos »

jcarrano wrote: post #330
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…

In Germany, all storage products (e.g. USB sticks) have to pay a canon "because you could use it to pirate media". Now, if I pre-paid the canon for pirating, does it mean I'm authorized to?

You're expected to! I think we could even calculate exactly how much.

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

#618

Post by alasdair_ »

marcosdumay wrote: post #430
tommica wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is fucking hilarious when you think that a lot of xmen storyline is about them wanting to be perceived as humans

And also, they are an "on your face" depiction of the dehumanization of the Holocaust victims...

And Professor X is Martin Luthor King and Magneto is Malcolm X.

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

#619

Post by Falos »

EvanAnderson wrote: post #564
wat10000 wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The revenue boost you get from this dumb shit is easily measurable and attributable. “Let’s charge our existing customers $5 for some nonsense” -> bigger bonus that year. The long term revenue hit you get from pissing off your customers is nearly impossible to measure or attribute. Occasionally you’ll see a company where the leadership believes in the long term value of not doing this crap. They might do pretty well…

> The long term revenue hit you get from pissing off your customers is nearly impossible to measure or attribute. As people become accepting of this practice I worry there won't be a long-term hit. Tech consumers don't understand what kind of services actually warrant a subscription because there's a recurring cost to the provider (renting CPU or storage capacity) versus those that are just rent seeking (ahem-- "reco…

People are /loosely/ averse and annoyed, but towards the market in general and that doesn't really materialize in a direct loss. "Boy I sure hate how _______ these days" isn't aimed at some particular product. The phrase names the scene at large.

Yes, everything sucks now, will Joe Sixpack thus stop buying ...everything?

In such an environment why WOULDN'T I take advantage of the nuisances that I can now safely get away with? I gain control, data, monopolistic single-sourcing, and good old revenue, all by being just a little bit shitty. No more than the next guy.

"Quality" is greatly amorphous before buying a product and the stage is increasingly virtual. The only certain metric can be ye olde "bottom line" (price) and indulging shitty practices allows you to undercut. Consumer gets what they pay for but reckons most other offerings have the same shitty nuisances (and is mostly right) and reckons it's an uphill struggle to ferret out which ones are genuinely good quality and not consumer-second (and is definitely right, people crave the product opinions of genuine humans and these are being increasingly coopted)

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

#620

Post by sharpshadow »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #586
sharpshadow wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reminds me of maybe the worst tax in human history which is also unconstitutional. The Pauschalabgabe[0] in Germany, which also got adopted in other countries, implements a freely decidable flatrate tax on all mediums which can be used to create a pirated copy. How much tax for a laser printer? Well it depends how fast it prints: Up to 14 pages/Minute: 25,00 € Up to 39 pages/Minute: 50,00 € From 40 pages/Minute:…

Isn't this also what allows people to create copies for personal use, and what makes downloading pirated media legally clear, and only producing/distributing illegal? Sounds like a fine tradeoff, as fixing IP laws (and international treaties) is way too hard of a problem.

It’s the other way around the law got created because of the possibility of private copies and their fear of profit loss. A private copy is only legal if the source is legal. Circumventing copy protection makes it illegal. Pirated copies and temporary copies like streaming are afaik grey areas because the difficulty to prove and not a trade off.
Post reply on HN