Live data from Hacker News

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

romanzipp.com

291–300 of 665 posts

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

#291
post #134

I have cannon r5 and previously had sony cameras. I'm bamboozeled how in this day and age software connecting cameras with PCs is so bad, not to mention tethered shooting. And the fact that 5+k camera have slow wifi chips for no reason so you cant tether via wifi just angers me. Software on the actual camera is yet another question for me, why don't we have cameras with full fledged modern OS-es running custom androi…

> I have cannon r5

what caliber?

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

#292
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like a relic left over from a bygone era. Like the digital storage levy we still pay despite music and movie piracy only being rampant from 1990s-2000s :) I love the EU but it certainly has its idiosyncrasies.

More or less all tariffs and sales tax systems are like this; the rules are _always_ kind of all over the place. My personal favourite example is when the Irish Supreme Court determined that Subway bread was not bread: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/01/irish-court-ru... (Bread had advantageous treatment for VAT purposes, but Subway's 'bread' has too much sugar to qualify.) There's also the famous Jaffa Ca…

Importantly, Subway bread is not bread for tax purposes. For food standards purposes, it is.

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

#293
post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every legal allowance I disagree with is a "loophole", every legal allowance I take advantage of is intended functionality.

I think if it's working as intended and as designed then it's hard to call it a loophole. Loophole would be when dying your spirit purple would change the taxation, because someone codified the color of alcohol instead of it's content. But of course as you say it's largely semantics.

> I think if it's working as intended and as designed then it's hard to call it a loophole.

This assumes everyone acts in good faith.

A popular one these days is the "gun show 'loophole.'"

Rather than calling it "renegging on an explicitly-legislated compromise", it's a "loophole" that needs "closing."

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

#294
post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I love the EU but it certainly has its idiosyncrasies. That is an acceptable position and you will likely nor require further investigation as long as the criticism remains vague and is offset by positive sentiment. I too love the EU.

I have a family member of retirement age who got into the habit of anonymously expressing their love of the EU in the comments section of a local newspaper. After a few months of this they received a phone call on their landline warning them that such public expressions are inappropriate and that there could be consequences should they not find a new hobby. I too love the EU but I loved it much more 15 years ago.

Someone at the newspaper, or someone in state security?

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

#295
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds me of when lawyers successfully argued that X-Men are not human, so that their action figures would be classified as "toys" rather than "dolls" and thus charged a lower tariff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toy_Biz%2C_Inc._v._United_Stat...

The tax system is over complicated! Why the distinction between toys and dolls?

Regulatory capture most likely

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

#296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same in France where the money goes to the local RIAA. Even if it’s a hard drive meant for Linux, or to store public domain stuff. It’s basically a mafia that gets our money despite copying for backup purposes being completely legal.

I wonder if the artists see any share of that money...

In France it’s called the SACEM and I know a few bands that are affiliated to this association because it’s pretty much mandatory if you want to sell anything.

Those bands are not famous but despite making sales, they only get a few bucks every year, or it’s the SACEM saying "we forgot to send you the check lol, no biggies." It’s the biggest legal mafia I can think of right now.

Most of the money collected is sent to huge artists (like what Spotify is doing), there is nothing indie about it even if they pretend it’s for the glory of French music.

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

#297
post #95

The fact that its a subscription is what really rubs me up the wrong way. Not everything deserves to be a subscription. Why is everything a subscription these days?

The goal is to collect rent.

Find arbitrary reasons to justify squeezing customers on a regular basis. Customers are treated as assets. Often, but not exclusively, via software based subscriptions.

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

#298
post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This vaguely reminds me of the fact that in many countries, pure ethanol sold for industrial purposes is intentionally made poisonous, so you can’t drink it and thus merchants don’t have to charge the taxes on it that they would for spirits.

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…

Here, that's commonly called red diesel (despite them changing to green decades ago) and it's sold for agricultural use. There are a number of cross border smuggling operations where criminals remove the dye and resell it for somewhere between the two prices.

Though primarily done to trucks, there are occasional fuel tests done by police. Even if your tank is currently clean, they'll occasionally pull out the fuel filters and check those for dye.

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

#300
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 an on-going recurring cost.

Expensive propriety hardware, tied to propriety software, tied to an online account with telemetry, where nothing works without all the other bits is a wonderful trap. It works great for John Deer and I guess will soon be coming with your next vehicle.

Personally, someone bought me a Fitbit Sense 2 watch for Christmas. 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. And although the watch gathers lots of your data, you can't see it until after it has been upload to Google, and some of it is only available once you have signed up for Fitbit Premium.

But wait, it gets better. The time on the default watch face is tiny (for an old fart like me). I could download a larger one, if I signed up for Fitbit Premium. I could sign up to download the developer kit and write my own for free (a new watch face is a simple example). However, if I go too far and accidentally break the data collection, they reserve the right to suspend my accounts and turn my £200 "watch" into a brick.

I am still deciding if I can return my sanity using a hammer.

Post reply on HN