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

431–440 of 665 posts

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

#431

Post by throwaway48476 »

rsynnott wrote: post #387
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I often wonder what the ROI is on this. How much did Sony have to pay engineers to implement this interesting but seemingly pretty useless functionality vs. what it actually saved them in the aforementioned tariffs? I know the knee jerk reaction is to say it obviously saved them some money or they wouldn't have done it, but I've seen far too much corporate stupidity in my life to take that as a given. I'd love to see…

Well, in the end it didn't save them anything, because the EC didn't accept that having a toy basic interpreter made what was obviously a games console a PC. I can't imagine it was terribly expensive in the scheme of things, though.

If it can run a desktop linux environment it's a PC. That said it probably should only count if the preinstalled software is Linux and not some games OS.

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

#432

Post by theodorc »

pbasista wrote: post #403

This is another case in point that people should research the software capabilities of the devices they purchase. Typically, that can be reduced to one simple question: Can it run custom firmware or custom operating system? If it cannot, you have to make do with whatever restrictions the manufacturer has imposed in their software. Be it a subscription for webcam mode. Or even completely disabling your device if they…

Well, is there any camera that allow you do just that?

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

#433

Post by [deleted] »

divan wrote: post #71

I use my global shutter Sony A9 III as a webcam as well and it's amazing, but Sony has it's own WTF moment. It has a feature of showing custom grid line / frames in the camera screen (like for passport photo) and it costs $149 [1] :-) Quote from [1]: "At $149, this may be the most cost-effective camera accessory ever." All other features (including selection of on which eye - left or right - AI human tracking autofoc…

[deleted]

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

#434

Post by Spivak »

15155 wrote: post #293
poincaredisk wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

You're assigning a single mind to a group of uncoordinated actors to create a hypocrisy that probably doesn't exist in any specific individual.

It looks like a loophole, it could be in the textbook describing them. You have a law that establishes a rule, then creates a small exception that in effect opts out of the rule entirely. The people who want this provision eliminated don't know it was intended. That's pretty in the weeds of congress' internal negotiations

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

#435

Post by depressedpanda »

apricot wrote: post #339
amelius wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't they just make it taste bad, for safety's sake?

Chicago does it: https://malort.com/

Cute, didn't know it was a thing in Chicago!

I suppose wormwood is an acquired taste, but it's one I happen to like. They still put it in many different bitters here in Sweden.

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

#436

Post by _n_b_ »

eitally wrote: post #368
walthamstow wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hoo boy we have some classics in that category in the UK. My personal fave is when morning TV host Lorraine Kelly successfully argued she wasn’t hosting as herself but acting a character called Lorraine Kelly, with very favourable tax consequences.

This is akin to Fox News arguing in court that it is, in fact, entertainment and not news, despite it's name.

What Fox News argued was a bit more nuanced than that all of Fox News isn't news. Rather, "Fox successfully argued that one particular segment on Tucker Carlson’s show could only be reasonably interpreted as making political arguments, not making factual assertions, and therefore couldn’t be defamation."[1]

That feels like a fairly reasonable assertion for anybody watching Tucker Carlson.

[1] https://popehat.substack.com/p/fox-news-v-fox-entertainment-...

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

#437

Post by moomin »

halgir wrote: post #68
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…

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...

In universe, arguing the X-Men are not human would put you firmly in the villain category.

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

#438

Post by breakingcups »

huhtenberg wrote: post #76
halgir wrote: 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...

There's also Converse that adds a piece of cloth to the soles of their sneakers to be able to classify them as slippers for "taxation purposes". https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/this-is-why-your-c...

Wonder if you could either sue them for delivering an insufficient product (it does not function as a slipper under the definition for longer than a day after walking) or keep returning them under warranty.

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

#439

Post by alibarber »

Certhas wrote: post #140
alibarber wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So American and Asian consumers can pay the same price for the same device that can do more, but to protect me, the European, my device must do less? It is I the customer who will pay the tariffs (they are always paid by the importer) - the manufacturer gets the same amount per unit.

All countries have tariffs. All tariff systems classify goods in some way. On top of the fact that this is by necessity not ever absolutely accurate even initially, these classifications also lag technological development and consumer behaviour. If there is one thing the EU has absolutely achieved it is to massively reduce and harmonize tariffs and trade rules, and make the rules less susceptible to the whims of poli…

>> If there is one thing the EU has absolutely achieved it is to massively reduce and harmonize tariffs and trade rules, and make the rules less susceptible to the whims of political favor and lobbying of local industry.

To a (considerable) extent yes. But it appears to be going backwards - from 2021 online shops have had to know and apply VAT for a product to the buyers country, not the country in which they are based, and thresholds for charging and submitting this VAT were eliminated. Basically handing over more online retail to the likes of Amazon.

Different products have different VAT rates in each country, the only thing that can't be discriminated on is the (EU) country of origin. This is still absolutely susceptible to the whims of political favour and local industry lobbying. A recent example from Finland: https://yle.fi/a/74-20087643

[Admittedly I'm unlikely to be buying chocolate and crisps online from Germany, but if I were a German seller needs to charge the correct rate of VAT for each, which will likely be different from Germany and every other EU country]

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

#440

Post by jeffhuys »

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…

But the EU doesn’t do tariffs? I thought that was exclusive to the incoming US administration, because it’s stupid.
Post reply on HN