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

561–570 of 665 posts

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

#561

Post by ryao »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #550
ryao wrote: post #538

Don’t most of these cameras have an hdmi output? During the pandemic, I assisted a local church with streaming after their plea for help reached me. We initially used a fairly cheap video camera’s hdmi output with a cheap HDMI to USB dongle to get a feed to OBS. It worked extremely well, although it was later replaced with a professional camera that had actuators to allow it to be moved via a remote during their serv…

Some foresaw this and add an OSD showing time/battery/etc to the HDMI output so you can’t get a clean feed.

Is there no option for turning that off?

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

#562

Post by ipaddr »

smallmancontrov wrote: post #540
dingnuts wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for pointing this out. Carlson and Maddow made nearly identical arguments in court and if both are not mentioned in the same breath, the speakers bias is instantly displayed to anyone who is educated on this topic. > IMO they shouldn't be allowed to call themselves news without putting entertainment in front. Agreed but the average person wouldn't understand that Entertainment News was different than News.…

Carlson's texts were wild, they proved that he knew he was spreading lies and did it anyway for views. That's why Fox settled with Dominion for $787 million dollars. Meanwhile, OAN sued Maddow for calling them Russian propaganda and her lawyers responded by flexing, doubling down with receipts under oath. Signing up for consequences if they were wrong, and receiving none because they were correct. So no, these are no…

They are not the same because one had text indicating they were aware? While the other claimed to be braindead and no texts to prove otherwise?

They are literally the same with one case having a text message.

They are both not news and if you think that one and not the other is news than you might be the partisan you are trying to label others as.

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

#563

Post by jonhohle »

smallmancontrov wrote: post #540
dingnuts wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for pointing this out. Carlson and Maddow made nearly identical arguments in court and if both are not mentioned in the same breath, the speakers bias is instantly displayed to anyone who is educated on this topic. > IMO they shouldn't be allowed to call themselves news without putting entertainment in front. Agreed but the average person wouldn't understand that Entertainment News was different than News.…

Carlson's texts were wild, they proved that he knew he was spreading lies and did it anyway for views. That's why Fox settled with Dominion for $787 million dollars. Meanwhile, OAN sued Maddow for calling them Russian propaganda and her lawyers responded by flexing, doubling down with receipts under oath. Signing up for consequences if they were wrong, and receiving none because they were correct. So no, these are no…

You may be interested in Young v. CNN going on right now. It probably won’t be a 9 figure judgment, but could be 8.

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

#564

Post by EvanAnderson »

wat10000 wrote: post #391
jwr wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, nobody cares. As long as consumers keep making uneducated choices and companies keep copying one another, that's what we will be getting, and honestly, that's what we deserve. After all, people watch "reviews" of video gear on YouTube (pretty much all "reviewers" get the gear for free and then pretend they are objective). These "reviewers" use the gear for all of several hours before making the video an…

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-- "recovering development costs").

I was heartened when mainstream media was up-in-arms over auto manufacturers trying to charge monthly fees for features like heated seats or remote start. I worry that consumers can't identify those kinds of gouging behavior with technology and will just accept and normalize these practices.

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

#565

Post by ipaddr »

bloomingkales wrote: post #494
gwbas1c wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then when he tried using the "Steven Colbert" character on a different show, Comedy Central threatened him because Steven Colbert does not have rights to the "Steven Colbert" character.

That doesn’t seem like that should be possible. He sold his identity for life? Hollywood really does ask for your soul huh. It would make sense why he’s never even jokingly gone back into that character on his new show.

And others can take your identity. If you happen to have the name Michael Jordan try putting out your own running shoes under your name.

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

#566

Post by sulam »

This article essentially boils down to “Canon is a hardware company, they shouldn’t be allowed to charge for software.” I’m surprised this is news to you, but Canon can make money any way they want (within the bounds of local law). There is no law saying a company known for their hardware cannot decide to sell software.

If Canon started trying to sell cameras that literally only work with their software (not the case today) then maybe you’d have a semi-valid beef, although such a camera would also sell very poorly in the market given the many alternatives that exist, including Canon’s own previous lineup. Even then it wouldn’t be illegal, just harder to justify from a business perspective. Perhaps they could give away a DSLR for a yearly subscription and the math would pencil out for some people. That would be mildly interesting. Canon would have to do a lot of work to close such a product, though, as all of their existing hardware is extremely open.

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

#567

Post by jonhohle »

gwbas1c wrote: post #513
kjs3 wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Al Shugart started Shugart Associates and pretty much created the 5 1/4" floppy market. He sold to Xerox. He later started Shugart Technology and was promptly threatened with a lawsuit because he literally had sold his rights to his own name (in the particular context). He changed the name to Seagate Technology and the rest is history. Yes, you can be enjoined from using your own name.

> Yes, you can be enjoined from using your own name. This is not that case. In popular media when "The Colbert Report" was broadcast, Steven Colbert was very open about the fact that he was playing a character on TV who happened to have the same name as him. In the case of "The Tonight Show featuring Steven Colbert," he is not playing the character from the Colbert Report. The very specific bit was from after the 201…

Prior to the Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert was a character on the Daily Show, also a CC property.

Craig Kilborn was able to leave the Daily Show and take bits like 5 questions with him. However, CC was a much smaller network at the time.

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

#568

Post by Spoom »

gwbas1c wrote: post #513
kjs3 wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Al Shugart started Shugart Associates and pretty much created the 5 1/4" floppy market. He sold to Xerox. He later started Shugart Technology and was promptly threatened with a lawsuit because he literally had sold his rights to his own name (in the particular context). He changed the name to Seagate Technology and the rest is history. Yes, you can be enjoined from using your own name.

> Yes, you can be enjoined from using your own name. This is not that case. In popular media when "The Colbert Report" was broadcast, Steven Colbert was very open about the fact that he was playing a character on TV who happened to have the same name as him. In the case of "The Tonight Show featuring Steven Colbert," he is not playing the character from the Colbert Report. The very specific bit was from after the 201…

To be fair, in Steven Colbert's case, he definitely was playing a character on The Colbert Report. A ridiculously conservative one that asked guests repeatedly if George W. Bush was a great president, or the greatest president. It was very over the top.

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

#569

Post by jonhohle »

xandrius wrote: post #302
pkphilip wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In India, the pizza base has a different tax rate than the topping and so some restaurants will have two separate lines on your pizza bill - one for the base at 5% tax and another for the topping at 18% tax. The tax on popcorn is also totally crazy. "Unpackaged and unlabelled popcorn with salt and spices is categorised as 'namkeen' and taxed at 5%. Pre-packed and labelled ready-to-eat popcorn attracts a 12% GST rate.…

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.

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

#570

Post by ipaddr »

gwbas1c wrote: post #513
kjs3 wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Al Shugart started Shugart Associates and pretty much created the 5 1/4" floppy market. He sold to Xerox. He later started Shugart Technology and was promptly threatened with a lawsuit because he literally had sold his rights to his own name (in the particular context). He changed the name to Seagate Technology and the rest is history. Yes, you can be enjoined from using your own name.

> Yes, you can be enjoined from using your own name. This is not that case. In popular media when "The Colbert Report" was broadcast, Steven Colbert was very open about the fact that he was playing a character on TV who happened to have the same name as him. In the case of "The Tonight Show featuring Steven Colbert," he is not playing the character from the Colbert Report. The very specific bit was from after the 201…

And that's when he stopped being funny. As a big fan I was confused by how unfunny his tonight show content was from day one compared to everything we saw upto that point. I can see why legal action when nowhere it's not the same product. Using the same name does cause confusion in the marketplace.
Post reply on HN