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

641–650 of 665 posts

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

#641

Post by ekianjo »

RegW wrote: post #300
ekianjo wrote: post #54

What did you expect from proprietary software?

Proprietary software is just one part of this issue. There seems to be a growing trend in attempting to entrap a servile subscriber base within your own walled enclosure. To be successful you need to keep your buyer unaware of the trap until they have too much invested within your walls to cut their losses emotionally. Here the poster has bought a high cost camera (even at a discount) without realising there would be…

Proprietary software is absolutely the issue. Once you open that door you are just waiting for the long list of abuses to run down on you over time. Proprietary software puts the power on the publisher's part and therefore you are completely at their mercy.

> It can't even be used as a watch until you have signed in with a Google account and "consent to Google using my health and wellness data". Of course you don't get to see this before you break the seal on the box.

Fitbit is not supported but for many smart watches you can use gadgetbridge to avoid sending your data anywhere

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

#642

Post by walthamstow »

panzi wrote: post #624
seabass-labrax wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

It's wild to me that anything you can buy in a store, especially something frivolous like cake, might be tax free.

Sales tax is horrendously regressive and during a war you will find that things like cakes and biscuits are not actually frivolous at all. We drink a lot of tea.

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

#643

Post by K0balt »

rtkwe wrote: post #525
K0balt wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or my shirt that has a tiny, useless pocket on the inside of my shirt (down where it might often be tucked inside of your waistband.) It has a tag with a picture of sunglasses on it, and a reasonably sized pair of sunglasses might just tenuously perch inside. This makes it a jacket, and jackets are taxed at a lower rate than shirts. The same shenanigans more or less work for most types of taxation. There’s always an…

I don't think I've ever seen that on any of my shirts here in the US. Is this in the US?

I believe it was sold into the US market originally. I bought it second hand in a secondary market that sources its used articles primarily from the USA and Canada.

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

#644

Post by humptybumpty »

sitkack wrote: post #370
deskr wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is quickly becoming he most popular video. I'm also viewing the follow up video in my head.

I have only watch the first 1/3 of it and sent it to three friends. It is that good.

In the EU timezone we’re always late to the party.

This video has trended at the top of my home feed and all the good jokes and comments have been made.

All I can do is throw my upvotes in to the sea of tens of thousands.

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

#645

Post by SSLy »

azalemeth wrote: post #244
virtualritz wrote: post #224

That's reminds me when I was in South East Asia a few years back and wanted to do some time lapse or series photography with my Sony Alpha a7ii. A camera that I had paid close to 2k€ for (just body, no glass). It required an app to be installed on the camera that was paid-for. Which in term required the camera to be connected to a WiFi. Imagine discovering this while on a trip in the jungle or the desert or whatever…

Pentax cameras are much better at the ui and do not have any of this shit. They are also bulletproof and nearly indestructible, favoured by war photographers, and tend to have excellent spec sheets (if a bit of a a slow autofocus). The company went bankrupt and bought by Ricoh, which I sincerely hope will keep the brand alive. Capitalism does really seem to prefer the nickel and dime approach...

Ricoh still hasn't made a non-fixed-lens mirror-less. They're behind. OTOH that GRIIIx…

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

#646

Post by rmoriz »

jwr wrote: post #637
rmoriz wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elgato Cam Link 4K

Oh, good to know! I didn't manage to find this one. But this one is $100 in the US, and $120 in some other places. Which is quite a bit of additional money to pay on top of your camera, which already has USB and should just provide a video stream there… (this dongle is also USB-A, unfortunately)

There are cheaper ones but as noted above, most devices are not real 4K or poor quality and "unbranded". You should be able to convert USB-A to USB-C.

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

#647

Post by anticensor »

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…

First sale doctrine doesn't exist in my country for anything involving software, as business and business-adjacent software requires compulsory copyright registration and compulsory per-copy government-registered identifier here.

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

#648

Post by JBiserkov »

crtasm wrote: post #495
coldpie wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Fascinating!

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

#649

Post by mynameisvlad »

delta_p_delta_x wrote: post #632
mynameisvlad wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you bother to look up literally any part of your comment ? The Canon G5 X II has USB 3.1 over a USB-C port. All of what you said does not in any way shape or form apply to the topic at hand.

Without loss of generality, the USB spec doesn't matter. The overwhelming majority of dedicated cameras are not set up to supply high-quality video output through their USB ports. Mass storage definitely and MTP, maybe, but video out? No, and even if you get it, it is badly nerfed. The industry standard is HDMI capture, or writing to disks in slots—whether SD, CF Express, or even M.2 NVMe. This entire comment section…

No, the industry standard, as has been pointed out to you multiple times by multiple different people, is USB-over-video. Something that a camera with a USB 3.1 port is more than capable of handling.

Just because you didn't bother to do any amount of research whatsoever before going on your unhinged rants does not suddenly make them any more relevant when talking about this specific camera. We're not talking about generally ("loss of generality" ok Jan ), we're talking about a specific blog post from a specific person talking about a specific camera.

The fact that you still don't understand this shows you clearly are not responding in any type of good faith here. It's your way or the highway even if your way is wildly outdated and not relevant.

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

#650

Post by mynameisvlad »

delta_p_delta_x wrote: post #631
mynameisvlad wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whoosh. That was the entire point of the comment, to point out the slippery slope in the HDMI/cable card argument in the first place.

Eh? There's no slippery slope. A capture card is standard equipment for any broadcaster. There is an absolutely massive gulf between a one-time supplementary purchase of $100 versus a multi-million dollar studio, film crew, actors. The comment was ludicrous, sorry.

> There's no slippery slope. A capture card is standard equipment for any broadcaster.

Guess what. OP isn't a broadcaster. Neither is the commenter. And everybody else here and their moms find it ludicrous that someone has to spend another X, where X is literally any amount over 0, to do something that the camera can already clearly do. In high quality. As evidenced by the existence of the software in the first place.

> The comment was ludicrous, sorry.

Yeah no shit Sherlock. That was the whole point. Are you actually this dense in real life or are you playing it up to be a troll?

Post reply on HN