141–150 of 234 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or you can just use the product normally without agreeing to it. Look up "unconscionability"
sadly high end electronics are typically written to prevent this, which is pretty awful
I have been under the impression that EULAs have not really been tested in court and that there is probably some reticence to actually attempt enforcement in case the result would invalidate the practice of EULAs altogether. Normally, when you agree to a license, it is available for review and is agreed to before the purchase has been completed. Software EULAs -- presented after purchase -- seem more like a mugging.…
I vaguely remember computer magazines in the early 2000s talking about that: some lawyers suggested that EULAs were of questionable enforcability because they were negotiated solely by one party with legal resources and signed by one party without. The general status quo seems to have been "make threats and settle out of court" ever since, avoiding any sort of legal precedent being set. I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps I…
You have three options now: accept it, and move on, pay a lawyer to explain their opinion of it to you or return it. Anything else is pointless.
I have no clue about cameras, so I have not even the faintest idea if this can compare in any way to a professional camera, or even how far along the development is: https://www.apertus.org This is an open source and open hardware project, working on a camera because they dislike exactly the kind of stuff you described.
Looks like boilerplate to me. 4 is telemetry, with a catch-all that any data may be transmitted - which is necessary if a crash dump might contain image data. 5 is updates, with the catch-all that updates may break stuff or remove features (often buggy features or features too rarely used to be worth maintaining). Pretty standard stuff for anything containing software, and perhaps because the camera is so expensive t…
> RED Cameras are good and widely used, iirc - probably worth giving them the benefit of the doubt as they’ll not want to damage their reputation and profits by abusing their T&Cs. This is an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. That particular niche of users has likely never brought it up to people attention. EULA are rarely brought up at all, and when they are its just in some software within tech circles becaus…
Fallacy fallacy.
The appeal to authority fallacy would be to claim it's ok for them to do it because they're the best. The OP did not write that.
The OP wrote that on the spectrum of how to be worried, since this vendor has a track record of good behavior, and since the EULA pieces are pretty reasonable for the vendor to manage the software (which most film makers likely don't care to manage), that it's more likely that this will not be the issue that some make it out to be.
Stop making everything a (false) fallacy claim and simply address the discussion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is an implied warranty of merchantability. If a EULA wasn’t disclosed until post purchase and is required for operation then the product isn’t operable and they would have to return it or find a way to make it operable. Your average store clerk will roll their eyes if you discuss this with them - you’d have to sue. For $30k it might be worth it, but most purchases it is not.
It's almost certain that the EULA is on the website
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> RED Cameras are good and widely used, iirc - probably worth giving them the benefit of the doubt as they’ll not want to damage their reputation and profits by abusing their T&Cs. This is an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. That particular niche of users has likely never brought it up to people attention. EULA are rarely brought up at all, and when they are its just in some software within tech circles becaus…
>This is an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy Fallacy fallacy. The appeal to authority fallacy would be to claim it's ok for them to do it because they're the best. The OP did not write that. The OP wrote that on the spectrum of how to be worried, since this vendor has a track record of good behavior, and since the EULA pieces are pretty reasonable for the vendor to manage the software (which most film makers li…
I mean, yes, metadata is bad enough and it’s still an awful license, but I really don’t agree this suggests RED would be “capturing frames from their commissioned videos and transmitting them behind the scenes to advertisers.”
Am I the only one reading it this way?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You're not entitled by law to take a hammer back if it doesn't work as you expect it to. Actually afaik in most jurisdictions the sale of goods carries an implicit warranty from the merchant that the goods are "fit for purpose" - essentially that it "will work like you expect it to", or at least in the way that most people would expect a hammer to work - as well as that it is of an even kind and quality for the goo…
I think it's a pretty long haul claiming that something isn't fit for purpose because you don't like an EULA that's available on the website prior to purchase