[HN Gopher] Ask HN: Is the EULA on my new $30k RED cinema camera...
___________________________________________________________________
Ask HN: Is the EULA on my new $30k RED cinema camera legal?
TLDR: I bought a $30K professional cinema camera that doesn't work
unless I sign away my rights to privacy and possibly the video
content I make with it ( at least it seems ) Over the past few
years my photography business has seen a surge in demand for ultra
high quality video production work. In an effort to meet this
demand, I picked up one of RED Digital Cinema's newest pro camera
bodies, the RED V-RAPTOR. Considering this camera is used by
professional filmmakers to create films destined for cinemas, it's
not surprising that it came with a $30k price tag. After unboxing
and assembling it, I power the camera on and the first thing I see
is a wall of legal text on the embedded LCD. Turns out it's a
"Software License Agreement" that I'm required to consent to using
the on-camera menu buttons before any of the camera's functionality
becomes available. I can give consent or power the camera off. The
full text can be found on the manufacturer's website at
https://www.red.com/legal/license-agreements . Here are a few
highlights > 4. CONSENT TO USE OF DATA. You agree that RED and its
affiliates may collect, maintain, process, transmit, and use
technical, diagnostic, usage and related information, including but
not limited to information about your RED Camera, Camera Module,
computer, system and application software, usage, content, and
peripherals. RED may use the information to provide and improve
RED's products and services, including providing the information to
RED's licensors. RED may also provide the information to third
party advertisers for the purpose of providing advertising
statistics without identifying you personally ... > 5. UPDATES.
RED and its licensors have no obligation to provide updates, bug
fixes or error correction. If RED provides updates, such updates
may be automatic and may delete or change the nature or features of
the Software, including functions you may rely upon and you may
lose data. You consent to updates by RED ... I snapped a few
photos of the camera and the on-screen license agreement for those
interested https://ibb.co/ZzBMPWm https://ibb.co/wy5Qjq7 I'm
annoyed that I must consent to accepting all software updates which
they admit could result in the loss of my data but the part that
really has me stuck is section 4. I'm interpreting it to mean that
RED and whoever they see fit may access not only data on and about
my personal computer but also the actual video content that I
create with my camera. Furthermore, they are permitted to share all
that with advertisers. It seems like I must be misunderstanding
this because I can't imagine professional videographers being
willing to consent to such blatant violations of their own
customer's expectations of privacy and discretion. Many of the jobs
I get are product shoots for prototypes and things yet to be
released. Some of them even require an NDA from me. There's no way
my clients would work with me if they knew that my camera might be
capturing frames from their commissioned videos and transmitting
them behind the scenes to advertisers. This camera has been
assembled but collecting dust for over a week now. I'm on the verge
of returning it and eating the 2k I spent on compatible
peripherals. I would love some input from anyone who can offer
clarity. My questions are as follows: 1. Is my assessment of the
implications of this license agreement correct or am I
misunderstanding the legalese? 2. Is this type of EULA, where the
most basic functionality of a hardware device is held hostage
pending the user consents to some arbitrary agreement legal in the
USA and/or Europe? Is there actually a legal precedent allowing for
it? 3. For film pros, do the top of the line Arris and Panavisions
take these same liberties?
Author : red_throwaway
Score : 151 points
Date : 2022-04-29 17:31 UTC (5 hours ago)
| zacharycohn wrote:
| IANAL but I read "information about .... content" as metadata,
| not the data itself.
|
| Also, based on the size of the videos that thing must make, I
| don't see any feasible way they could or would exfiltrate the
| video content you're shooting.
| red_throwaway wrote:
| > Also, based on the size of the videos that thing must make, I
| don't see any feasible way they could or would exfiltrate the
| video content you're shooting.
|
| They don't need the whole clip. They can easily grab a single
| frame, encoded and compressed to minimize the filesize. The
| camera also has a wifi radio in it which does who knows what
| behind the scenes. Since the firmware is very much not open
| source, I have no way to tell what it's doing. It could be
| constantly trying to phone home over open wireless networks (or
| partner hotspots). Hell for all I know the thing could have a
| 3g radio in it, constantly talking to home.
| justizin wrote:
| > They don't need the whole clip. They can easily grab a
| single frame, encoded and compressed to minimize the
| filesize.
|
| Yeah, that would be valid telemetry, though telemetry should
| be opt-out, it's fairly innocuous.
|
| > It could be constantly trying to phone home over open
| wireless networks (or partner hotspots). Hell for all I know
| the thing could have a 3g radio in it, constantly talking to
| home.
|
| It's pretty silly to imagine a product that is primarily used
| by hollywood studios doing this. I have interfaced directly
| with folks working on-set for major productions supporting
| the systems that actually capture and share the content for
| collaboration purposes.
|
| Let me tell you, even for a company whose ENTIRE business is
| doing this, it's fucking HARD. It still involves producers
| taking bags of memory cards into their hotel room at the end
| of the day and uploading them on a laptop, in almost all
| cases.
|
| The only connected set I'm aware of ever existing is
| Mindhunter[0], and it involved our engineers being on set and
| operating our entire cloud stack within roadie cases.
|
| Simply put, the things that people are afraid RED would do
| are so complicated as to be nearly technically infeasible
| when major studios are willing to pay for them.
|
| [0] https://thefincheranalyst.com/2019/07/10/pix-onset-makes-
| con...
| BizarroLand wrote:
| Plus, RED's goal is to move product. Sell Cameras. Become
| the de Facto standard camera for aspiring, indie, and
| professional movie and TV studios around the world.
|
| Stealing a single picture out of a 60fps camera for no
| particular purpose won't put money in their back pocket.
| Building a 3g modem into a camera and paying cellular data
| fees to occasionally snoop into their users' memory cards
| won't earn them a penny.
|
| The only people whom I could understand being rightfully
| paranoid about this are either making embarrassing fetish
| pornography or videotaping illegal acts for money.
| turbinerneiter wrote:
| 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.
| digitallyfree wrote:
| I've followed this project from the start (10 years ago or so)
| and they haven't really made a viable product. It's a cool idea
| but actually implementing this stuff is harder than it looks.
| Joeboy wrote:
| A few years ago I was quite keen on the idea of this, but at
| this point it seems a lot like vapourware.
| namibj wrote:
| There was one at last chaos communications congress
| (operational; pointed at a table and with a live monitor next
| to it).
| thedrbrian wrote:
| Blow a few more of your spare change on a lawyer and fine out if
| it's admirable in court.
| BonoboIO wrote:
| Maybe quit RED all together an switch to Black Magic
|
| https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/at/products/blackmagicursam...
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| Were you presented with the licence agreement before you bought
| the camera? If not then how can it apply to you?
| sneak wrote:
| DJI does this same bullshit on their offline, stand-alone
| cameras. They have to be "activated" with PII like an iPhone.
|
| Customer-abusing behavior is becoming commonplace.
|
| "I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it any further."
| cyral wrote:
| Not saying it isn't for nefarious purposes, but the online
| activation for DJI drones is for their warranty and insurance
| (or protection plan really). They know when you launch the
| drone for the first time and give you X days (I think it's 3 or
| maybe even 48 hours) to purchase some protection plan through
| them. This way you can't crash your drone and then claim you
| want to sign up for the protection plan. (Unless it's within
| the period, then you could scam them, but this does cut down on
| a lot of fraud)
| sneak wrote:
| I am talking about standalone Osmo cameras.
| core-utility wrote:
| Except he makes no mention of having to connect it to the
| internet to activate it. This is just a standard CYA from RED
| of saying that if you do connect it to the internet, they may
| collect telemetry (e.g. crash analytics) and that they're not
| legally obligated to provide updates.
| asiekierka wrote:
| If $30k is at stake, it might be better to spend a little bit
| more money and ask a professional lawyer.
| b20000 wrote:
| You probably use google and facebook anyway, perhaps to promote
| your business. You have probably already signed similar
| agreements due to you using those platforms. I'm not a lawyer,
| and you should probably talk to one. Just my 2 cents.
| bawolff wrote:
| You don't have to go all the way to big evil google. Even some
| open source products collect anonoymized metadata, and pretty
| much all of them have a liability/warranty disclaimer.
| throwaway69123 wrote:
| What would happen if you had a monkey press accept?
| epolanski wrote:
| Don't quote me on this but EULAs have low legal validity and are
| hard to bring in court.
| blairanderson wrote:
| Dude they're not trying to take ownership of the content.
|
| Everyone with software needs you to agree to them capturing
| analytics data.
| Sporktacular wrote:
| Maybe write to Red and ask them if this means they have a right
| to your footage? Say that you will publish the response. Their
| reply could be no, yes or no/yes but... and their response will
| be usable in litigation, so they'll have to weigh the legal
| protection with the PR damage.
|
| If they just repeat the EULA then treat it as a yes, hammer their
| social media comparing it to Apple's, ARRI's, Panasonic's etc.
| stance and let the EFF warn everyone.
| danamit wrote:
| I'd just use it, they have the right to collect and you have the
| right to prevent them from collecting/updating.
| red_throwaway wrote:
| nescioquid wrote:
| 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.
|
| Would be lovely to provide or deny consent for each of those
| actions detailed in the EULA -- the EULA becomes configuration.
| redwall_hp wrote:
| 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'm unaware of a high profile case
| where such a thing happened, but as far as I'm aware EULAs are
| very similar to the state of DMCA takedowns: widely used as a
| cudgel against the little guy, since most people don't have the
| resources to fight it out in court, and in the rare cases of
| resistance they go for an out of court settlement.
| xtracto wrote:
| I'm not from the USA, but why hasn't someone actively gone
| through the law system to take EULAs to their final
| consequences (hopefully being dismissed by a court as one for
| a). I understand that companies would try to settle out of
| court, but why hasn't someone setup a company that _doesnt_
| settle just for the sake of establishing precedent?
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| > EULAs have not really been tested in court
|
| In Europe they do not need to be tested in court. They are not
| part of the contract of sale because you cannot see them before
| you complete the purchase. They are unenforceable.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| On consumer relations that is very clear. Any rule that isn't
| on the marketing material does not exist.
|
| But on business relations, things are way more complex. I
| wouldn't be surprised if some rules were perfectly
| enforceable.
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| It's not part of the contract of sale if it is not possible
| to read it before agreeing to buy. You can't impose extra
| conditions on the buyer after the sale.
|
| I suppose I should point out that I'm not a lawyer and that
| the US situation might be very different. The OP should
| consult a lawyer or return the camera for a refund if he
| feels unsure about the meaning of the agreement.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| The rule is the same in the USA. Which in practice doesn't
| matter much.
| tpxl wrote:
| I find this questionable. You buy the hardware, then get 'the
| software' for 'free' after the fact. I imagine crypto miners
| would throw a fit after nVidia made it harder to mine some
| coins, but none of them ever did? With the amount of money
| they earn I'd imagine they would.
| throwaway821909 wrote:
| From https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2021/05/18/lhr/
|
| Because these GPUs originally launched with a full hash
| rate, we want to ensure that customers know exactly what
| they're getting when they buy GeForce products. To help
| with this, our GeForce partners are labeling the GeForce
| RTX 3080, RTX 3070 and RTX 3060 Ti cards with a "Lite Hash
| Rate," or "LHR," identifier. The identifier will be in
| retail product listings and on the box.
|
| This reduced hash rate only applies to newly manufactured
| cards with the LHR identifier and not to cards already
| purchased.
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| Meanwhile in the USA, we prioritize corporate profits over
| consumers. "Caveat emptor" is the motto. It's your own fault
| for not doing research!
| hvdijk wrote:
| They may be enforceable even in Europe. The situation in the
| Netherlands is explained at
| <https://blog.iusmentis.com/2008/04/05/de-rechtsgeldigheid-
| va...>; in short, for general terms and conditions that apply
| to everyone, you merely need to have been suitably informed
| beforehand and the terms cannot be unreasonably burdensome.
| In Belgium, a judge ruled in October last year that an EULA
| cannot prohibit decompilation of software, <https://curia.eur
| opa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&do...>, a ruling
| that rather directly implies that EULAs are valid in general
| in Belgium, it is only specific clauses in EULAs that may be
| deemed invalid. I do not know where this idea that EULAs are
| invalid throughout the EU comes from. It is simply not true.
| [deleted]
| robocat wrote:
| Perhaps get a tween to click it, or someone else that you are not
| responsible for. There is probably some clause to ensure that the
| person that clicks it passes on the licence, but that clause
| would be difficult to enforce. If you told a very young child to
| do it, then you would probably be held responsible. Outcomes
| would vary depending on jurisdiction too?
|
| Edit: "You agree that RED and its affiliates may collect,
| maintain, process, transmit, and use technical, diagnostic, usage
| and related information, including but not limited to information
| about your RED Camera". This implies you allow RED to have a
| person follow you around to watch what you are doing? They don't
| limit the collection to just what to device records, nor do they
| limit the scope of what may be collected?
| codazoda wrote:
| I'm actually curious if this would work.
|
| Related, if someone asks me to help them set something up and I
| simply agree to the EULA, does it bind them to the EULA? Does
| it bind me?
|
| This happens all the time for me.
| abruzzi wrote:
| I like that--sell it for a dollar to someone you trust, with a
| written contract to the sale, have them press the ok button,
| then have them sell it back to you with a written contract for
| a dollar.
| paulcole wrote:
| Does it even matter if it's legal or not? What would you rather
| do, use the camera or spend your time/money fighting it?
| HelloNurse wrote:
| Obviously, use another camera, paid with the
| refund/damages/settlement from RED.
| red_throwaway wrote:
| If it means what I think it means, I'd rather return it and
| invest in a company that doesn't abuse their users.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| If you're uncomfortable with these terms you should return
| the product and ask for your money back. It's perfectly legal
| as far as I know (IANAL).
|
| This reads like a typical "we collect telemetry and there's
| nothing you can do about it" disclaimer, which I personally
| find quite offensive for such an expensive piece of kit. Just
| the 30k you paid is more than enough to fund a whole
| development cycle to add an opt-in dialogue to the camera
| software.
|
| I don't know if you'll find any equivalent hardware that
| don't include such policies in their EULA, though.
| core-utility wrote:
| RED is used by major film studios all over the place, on
| films that I'm sure many would pay good money to see early
| clips or b-roll of. If they don't have a concern of RED
| collecting this, it's unlikely you have a problem.
|
| Not to mention, exfiltrating actual recordings would be crazy
| amounts of data. Unless you see in your internet traffic that
| the camera is uploading at several MB/s for hours on end,
| they're not doing what you claim they're doing.
| Stevvo wrote:
| 1) You misunderstood. The relevant part is "technical,
| diagnostic, usage and related information". Note it doesn't say
| 'video' anywhere there, and even it did it wouldn't hold up
| court.
| red_throwaway wrote:
| But that sentence continues with
|
| > including but not limited to information about your RED
| Camera, Camera Module, computer, system and application
| software, usage, content, and peripherals
|
| Should I be reading the "content" part as "information about
| your content" ? As in, metadata about the content? Lens focal
| lengths, recording quality, codecs, etc? That would make more
| sense.
| thfuran wrote:
| That's the correct reading but I'm not sure just how much
| leeway "including but not limited to" tends to get. Does
| that, in practice, mean "things like the following" or does
| it mean "literally anything"?
| Jiro wrote:
| It means "things like the following".
| https://applawyers.org/blog/10317283
| fjfbsufhdvfy wrote:
| It refers to the previous section of the same sentence,
| these things are given as examples of "technical,
| diagnostic, usage and related information". It'd be up to a
| court to decide whether something not part of the examples
| could be reasonably called that.
| fjfbsufhdvfy wrote:
| "usage" and "content" are part of a list following
| "information about", so they are collecting information about
| content, not content itself.
|
| What exactly that means in practice, we are all just guessing
| unless you go and ask them to clarify. Probably things like
| what settings you used for your videos so they can analyze
| which features are most popular/worth improving.
|
| At least in the EU, if this EULA was not clearly
| accessible/communicated on the store page before purchase, it
| would just be invalid, and you'd have a case that the product
| doesn't work. They're banking on people having more important
| things to do and just clicking accept to use their product...
| Aaargh20318 wrote:
| > "usage" and "content" are part of a list following
| "information about"
|
| Sure, but that is preceded by "including but not limited
| to", so that is a non-exhaustive list of examples.
| mhitza wrote:
| > but not limited to information about your RED Camera, Camera
| Module, computer, system and application software, usage,
| _content_ , and peripherals.
|
| Content might be anything stored on the camera in this case.
| I'm also glossing over the followup clause that states they are
| in their full right to remove in a future update features you
| already have.
| cestith wrote:
| Information about content is not the content itself. It's
| metadata as opposed to user data.
|
| I'd be more concerned about the "not limited to" part than
| the "information about ..." followed by a long list of things
| they can get information about part. But I think, in my lay
| (non-lawyer) reading of that that they've set the spirit of
| the agreement. They don't want to miss some little detail in
| their list, but they're setting an expectation that their
| telemetry (if any) and their support department in case the
| owner asks for support can access metadata.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| Yes, usually this turn of phrase is basically giving
| examples of what they mean while making sure it is clear
| that this is not the full, exhaustive list, if only just to
| be covered in case they decide to collect further
| diagnostic data down the road.
| wmf wrote:
| AFAIK these EULAs are legal. In reality, RED isn't exfiltrating
| their customers' video (the files are enormous so people would
| notice) and they would go out of business if they did. Probably
| every product has some objectionable clause in their EULA which
| no one reads, so you're better off not reading it and moving on
| with your life. If you want to be a freedom fighter, go work for
| the EFF; if you want to make video, make video.
| Bancakes wrote:
| This! OP, stop asking questions and raising concerns. Consume
| product, then get excited for next product.
| red_throwaway wrote:
| > Probably every product has some objectionable clause in their
| EULA which no one reads, so you're better off not reading it
| and moving on with your life. If you want to be a freedom
| fighter, go work for the EFF; if you want to make video, make
| video.
|
| Maybe a bit naive but definitely practical advice. I hear you.
| daniel-cussen wrote:
| > and they would go out of business if they did.
|
| That's what this is. This is a step in that process. This post
| on this forum, with both of us replying to it. You think what?
| There's a "scandal" and an "outrage" and then...what do you
| expect? The entire PR industry--a few others as well--is built
| to undermine scandals and outrage. Oh there's stuff on TV that
| sounds scandalous sure--every two months or so, in a merry-go-
| round set of industries...I only watch when there is nowhere in
| a restaurant I can avoid looking at it, but what are the
| scandals, steroids in baseball? A corporation that did
| something disgusting but isn't getting punished at all (as
| opposed to the many corporations that do get punished for real,
| TV hates showing those because then people learn what justice
| actually looks like). Or...some celebrity...some celebrity
| getting lynched. Or a rogue employee like on a crusade...or a
| lawsuit that the news wished had lost so they lie about it as
| much as possible to make the plaintiff look greedy (real easy
| if you just multiply the settlement by a lot, or report the
| claim instead of the awards, or lie about the award being
| reduced to what the plaintiff was asking for, or fucking insult
| the jury too while you're at it, even insult the judge, it's
| disgusting, they think they're strictly better than everybody).
|
| They wouldn't go out of business if they did that. They just
| have to do it in lockstep with the rest of their industry, then
| they'll be fine.
|
| > if you want to make video, make video.
|
| Now I very much don't want to make video, and frankly lost a
| lot of respect for digital video in general. And for contracts.
| And every time I hear the word "consent" I go on full alert, as
| I said in a previous comment,
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31104705 "...no rapey
| cookie "consent" contract, like those are just disgusting I
| hate getting asked for consent it means I'm about to get
| fucked. Every single time you get asked for consent it's
| because you're about to get fucked."
|
| You know why that is? Because in order to defend the act of
| fucking you, they have to say you consented. Or they get fucked
| just as hard as they fucked you. And they live in fear of that,
| fear of retribution, they know how harmful they are, this is
| like--justice is often eye for an eye[1], despite striking
| others blind (or in this case peeking through their eyes), I
| never want that to happen to me, so I need magic spells because
| otherwise I would feel the harm I do to others. So I need to
| get consent with a long disgusting contract, and further I need
| to get people to sign things as often as possible, for every
| little thing so they are desensitized to what it means to
| consent to being struck blind, and they give up on reading
| contracts.[2]
|
| [1] So justice basically is eye for an eye, historically,
| normally. These days it is both more and less. So you have on
| the one hand the Sacklers paying 10 billion instead of 3.4
| trillion, that's less than an eye for an eye. The Sacklers are
| paying with the eyes they stole, and have plenty left. Plenty
| of eyes to go around! Then in the halfway point you have
| murderers getting the death penalty for one murder, exactly an
| eye for an eye. Then, the multiple-eyes-for-an-eye, a convicted
| rapist will spend...it really depends, but like 10 years is a
| common one. And due to that conviction, will be targeted by the
| other inmates, with the guard's approval, to rape that convict
| as much as they please basically. In movies it's just one rape,
| one time, in real prisons it's continual. So what you get, is
| virgins who ipso facto didn't rape anybody getting raped about
| 3 times a day, for 10 years, so about 10000 times, on the basis
| they were accused of one rape. So to translate 10000 eyes for
| an eye, but not even a real eye, like a glass eye.
|
| Oh you didn't like talking about that? Too gross? But it's
| germane to the subject, we had been talking about consent this
| whole time!
|
| [2] There's a synergy between abusing people's eyes and getting
| them to sign contracts, now that I think about it. Blind people
| can't read contracts, like everybody screams from the pain in
| their ass when a blind man asks for a contract in braille, like
| the discrimination is very real. And they lie to them when
| reading out loud. So in this slightly different case, you could
| be filming your screen with a RED camera to identify
| manipulation in a contract--like shitty javascript moving items
| when you click--with a RED camera, but then RED looks at what
| you filmed, oh he's filming the signature of a contract, we
| don't want that, he's using this camera as an eye to READ a
| CONTRACT, let's add in our update the terms that we get to edit
| what he recorded so we delete the evidence. Oh wait, that's
| even more literal! Literal striking an eye blind just when you
| needed it to preserve evidence! Good synergy.
| _tom_ wrote:
| The purchase is completed before he gets it home and finds new
| conditions being imposed. That the part that I question about
| being legal.
| eganist wrote:
| > The purchase is completed before he gets it home and finds
| new conditions being imposed. That the part that I question
| about being legal.
|
| My experience (IANAL and I don't know the specific laws
| here): you can return the product if you don't agree to the
| bundled licensing terms, generally even if you've opened it
| and encountered the licensing terms after the fact (though
| not every retailer may appreciate this one).
|
| I've gotten a few "non-refundable" refunds after being given
| legal terms post-purchase that I didn't agree to. Most
| recently a talent release for an event. But in every case, I
| had to prove that the agreements weren't available pre-
| purchase.
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| Or you can just use the product normally without agreeing
| to it. Look up "unconscionability"
| eganist wrote:
| I guess my point was moreso that legal agreements sprung
| upon you post-purchase could make for a useful escape
| hatch.
|
| If you want to use the product, _shrug._ But if you
| suddenly don 't, then hey, there's a potential exit.
| JohnHaugeland wrote:
| sadly high end electronics are typically written to
| prevent this, which is pretty awful
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| I was referring to not agreeing to the comtract but still
| clicking the "I agree" button to use the camera.
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| What good does this do? The machine and the company will
| still do things you don't want.
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| You can't use it without agreeing, unless you are saying
| there is 3rd party firmware you can install which doesn't
| have the eula and doesn't perform the data collection and
| unsolicited updates.
| [deleted]
| wmf wrote:
| Every product works this way.
| Bancakes wrote:
| Nothing works that way. My desktop, laptop, router, and
| phone were flashed with FOSS before the EULA popped up.
| Sadly, you can't flash working, simple software on RED
| cameras.
| bzxcvbn wrote:
| Nonsense. I bought a hammer the other day and could start
| using it without signing away any of my rights. It's pretty
| much only digital products that somehow force you to do
| that.
| kube-system wrote:
| If you brought the hammer home and it didn't work as you
| expected it to, you can take it back. Just like you can
| with this camera, you can decline the EULA and send the
| product back.
| pessimizer wrote:
| You're not entitled by law to take a hammer back if it
| doesn't work as you expect it to.
| paulmd wrote:
| > 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 good. So
| like, if they sell you a hammer and it's actually made of
| glass, or the head falls off after the first hit - both
| of those would carry an implied warranty from the
| merchant and you would get your money back (in small-
| claims court, if necessary).
|
| The US is one such jurisdiction.
|
| https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/implied_warranty_of_merch
| ant...
|
| IANAL, but the plain text is pretty obvious. Are you a
| lawyer, or can you explain how merchantability wouldn't
| apply?
| pessimizer wrote:
| > "fit for purpose" - essentially that it "will work like
| you expect it to"
|
| These two aren't the same thing. That the hammer works as
| most expect a hammer to work isn't the same as that the
| hammer works as I expect it to work. If I try to take my
| hammer back because I thought hammers also worked on
| screws, I'm pretty sure they aren't obligated to take it
| back. It would be very hard to argue that your new RED
| camera isn't "fit for purpose" due to its onerous EULA,
| because plenty of people successfully make films with RED
| cameras.
| paulmd wrote:
| To be a bit brusque - the law is technical, but it's also
| written by humans and interpreted by humans, and
| programmers who spend all day working on computers and
| broadly trend towards the autistic side always try to
| come up with clever end-runs around the law that will
| never actually work in reality. See also: every time
| securities law or KYC/AML is brought up in crypto
| threads. Your "clever exploit" of the law is not going to
| work, and is going to land you in jail.
|
| If you buy a hammer and get mad that it doesn't make
| pizzas, the merchant isn't going to accept that, nor is a
| judge in small claims court going to be remotely amused.
| It's a hammer. Stop wasting my time, plaintiff pays all
| court fees and time for the defendant. They deal with
| bullshitters all day and they generally tend to be
| completely unamused by it.
|
| If you ask the merchant nicely they will probably take it
| back, most retailers have return policies and most of
| them will stretch them even further to keep the business
| of a repeat customer. But merchantability is a thing, and
| they can't sell you a thing labeled as a hammer that
| doesn't work in the way an ordinary reasonable person
| would expect a hammer to work. One person being an
| unreasonable person doesn't really change that.
|
| If you try and abuse it then the judge is gonna slap you
| down, but if they try and fuck you around about how a
| toaster is kind of a hammer in some ways then the judge
| is gonna slap them down.
| [deleted]
| JohnHaugeland wrote:
| 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
| paulmd wrote:
| That's not a claim I made in my comment.
|
| OP said "you're not entitled by law to take a hammer back
| if it doesn't work as you expect it to" and that's false,
| if it's sold as a hammer it needs to serve the ordinary
| purpose of a hammer, and that is covered by law in most
| jurisdictions (US/EU at the minimum).
|
| Whether you could argue that a post-sale EULA (or EULA
| change) that renders the device inoperable for its
| ordinary purpose invokes merchantability is an
| interesting argument though, and that really gets back to
| "how much money do you have for lawyers", "how much are
| they willing to try and test their EULA's validity", etc.
| Tractors are probably an interesting example there (don't
| remember if it's been brought up here or not).
|
| I think the big problem there is that merchantability is
| a claim against the _merchant_ , and while you'd probably
| get your money back if you disagreed with the EULA a week
| after the sale, what happens if John Deere pushes an
| update a year after you buy the tractor and it's de-facto
| bricked at that point if you don't agree? The situation
| with software makes the whole thing so much more
| complicated, and the law is different there around
| ownership in general (you don't _own_ the software, you
| have a license to _use_ the software, but the tractor
| doesn 't work without the software either).
|
| It's shitty and the "ownership" situation with software
| really needs significant reform (that will never happen
| in the US). Ownership of _a software license_ needs to be
| brought closer to ownership of _a physical good_ , but
| that will break the business models of a lot of companies
| who will lobby to make sure that never happens.
| jhugo wrote:
| That's absurd. If you buy something in a store you may
| never have visited the website of the manufacturer. It's
| not fit for purpose if you need to agree to a new
| contract, the terms of which were not disclosed to you
| before you made the purchase, before you can use it for
| its intended purpose.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > You're not entitled by law to take a hammer back if it
| doesn't work as you expect it to.
|
| Yes you are. If it's not fit for the purpose you're
| entitled to return it.
| jhugo wrote:
| "Works as you expect it to" is not the same thing as "fit
| for purpose". The purpose of a hammer is (mostly) an
| objective fact. Your expectations of what the hammer can
| do, on the other hand, may or may not be reasonable.
|
| (Though in this case I think it's perfectly reasonable to
| claim that the camera is not fit for purpose if the EULA
| terms were not clearly disclosed before the purchase was
| made.)
| kube-system wrote:
| > "Works as you expect it to" is not the same thing as
| "fit for purpose"
|
| For the purposes of that comment, I meant them to be
| equivalent ...under the presumption that a typical person
| knows what a hammer does. (I was avoiding the legalese)
| kube-system wrote:
| If the hammer could not drive nails, you would be
| entitled to a refund.
|
| If a camera refuses to take pictures, why would you not
| be entitled to a refund?
| trhway wrote:
| >I bought a hammer the other day and could start using it
| without signing away any of my rights.
|
| The "smart hammers" are coming. And how about Peloton
| style group hammering.
| mysterydip wrote:
| Haven't you ever wondered how many hits you've done? Your
| accuracy to the center of the face? Could your swing be
| improved? What's your hits per minute average? How do
| your stats compare to other contractors, or workers for
| the same construction company? I bet company owners would
| be interested to know ;) Coming soon, just sign the EULA
| and run a firmware update!
| dboreham wrote:
| Hammer that auto-avoids your thumb.
| spacemanmatt wrote:
| AI thumb-seeking hammer.
| projektfu wrote:
| Recaptcha starts asking you to identify thumbs.
| kube-system wrote:
| And it requires your thumbprint to unlock.
| mardifoufs wrote:
| A hammer showing you how much force you applied per
| strike would actually be semi useful.
| mysterydip wrote:
| The more I wrote, the more concerned I got that I was
| talking about a viable product.
| myself248 wrote:
| Soon "dumber than a sack of hammers" will mean something
| else entirely.
|
| Paging @internetofshit ...
| H8crilA wrote:
| Claw usage DLC for $5, with ads enabled.
| 83 wrote:
| As you level up handle firmness will be increased
| allowing for better accuracy and harder strikes. You can
| grind this to level up or buy 150 hammertokens for only
| $1 per token to max your stats.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| _Many_ digital products at least claim to work this way,
| but no not every product, and that doesn 't mean that it's
| actually legal (I don't know if it is, but lots of things
| persist regardless of legal force).
| kube-system wrote:
| It is legal. But under warranty law, they also have to
| deliver you a product that works or refund your money.
| Tuna-Fish wrote:
| Depends on jurisdiction. Inside the EU, the EULA is not a
| valid contract and gives RED no rights to anything.
|
| This is true of any and all "license agreements" that are
| presented to the user after money has changed hands. You
| can safely click agree on any such things without actually
| agreeing to anything.
|
| I don't actually know, but I believe that in the US things
| are more complex.
| usr1106 wrote:
| Do you have a reference for your claims, inside EU...?
|
| It sounds reasonable to me personally, but not convincing
| in reality. There are 27 legislations in the EU.
|
| Edit: Based on a quick web search it seems correct for
| Germany and Austria.
| usr1106 wrote:
| At least under German consumer law clauses that are
| suprising and harmful to the rights of the consumers have
| been repeatedly declared void and unenforceable by the
| courts.
|
| However, in this price class I could have my doubts whether
| consumer laws are applicable. Businesses are less
| protected, they are supposed to know what they do.
|
| The question was about European laws. There mostly is no
| such thing (very few exceptions exist, like e.g. GDPR).
| Laws are national, so you have 30 of them. EU directives
| set some borderlines for those who are members or
| associated. But they are not always implemented in a timely
| manner, and even if they are the details are up to national
| legislation by design.
| red_throwaway wrote:
| Yes, this! The sales person made absolutely no mention of any
| licensing terms or agreements that I would need to sign off
| on before my camera became usable as a camera.
| jrockway wrote:
| I think you're entitled to return it for a full refund. The
| same would be true if you took some video and didn't like
| how the camera worked, or just got cold feet on your $30k
| purchase.
|
| I get the feeling that you want more than that (like a
| custom license agreement, or some punishment for the sales
| person for not mentioning the EULA), and I don't think
| you're going to get that. Return it for a refund, RED has
| to sell it as an "open box", and the EULA costs them a few
| hundred bucks this time. Or make a fabulous video and
| forget all about their updates that move things around in
| the UI, and just live with it because the video quality is
| so good. Those are the best possible outcomes here.
| car_analogy wrote:
| > I get the feeling that you want more than that
|
| Like the GDPR? I'm not an expert on it, but I think it
| does forbid a few of the liberties RED has taken with
| this EULA.
| dahart wrote:
| That doesn't help US citizens.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > I think you're entitled to return it for a full refund.
|
| By law?
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| In the UK I'd say yes, the product isn't as described
| prior to sale. Major defects have to be brought to
| attention of potential buyers.
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| Why shouldn't they be entitled to use the product fully
| without being bound by the EULA? Unconscionability could
| be at play here.
| dymk wrote:
| Because contract law is a thing. OP can return the camera
| and get a different one, or they can agree to the usage
| terms.
| Mordisquitos wrote:
| What about the $30,000 sales contract by which OP
| reasonably expected to receive a functional camera,
| rather than a surprise additional contract containing
| unfavourable clauses?
|
| One could argue that, unless there is a mechanism by
| which OP can make use the camera without agreeing to the
| unexpected contract, OP has been a victim of false
| advertising.
| everforward wrote:
| > One could argue that, unless there is a mechanism by
| which OP can make use the camera without agreeing to the
| unexpected contract, OP has been a victim of false
| advertising.
|
| That seems unlikely. My layman's understanding is that
| you have to purchase the hardware and license the
| software, and the two are considered distinct items. The
| hardware is entirely capable of what was promised, but OP
| will either have to agree to the terms of the software or
| create their own.
|
| That exists in a lot of markets. Phones are advertised
| running OS' that require EULA's, computers are marketed
| running OS' and apps that require other EULA's, etc. I
| think my car even has an EULA on it.
|
| It feels bad when there realistically isn't an
| alternative like there are with phone or computer OS',
| but I don't think there's anything legally different.
| ryandrake wrote:
| This world where EULA's (and other one-sided
| "agreements") are treated just like contracts: Meeting of
| the minds between two equal-power parties, mutually
| understood and negotiated--needs to die. These things are
| take-it-or-leave-it law, unchangeable, non-negotiable,
| and dictated by some corporate counsel 1000 miles away.
| They should be all thrown out due to being
| unconscionable. If the US Supreme Court wasn't entirely
| captured by corporate interests this crap would have been
| scrapped long ago.
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| You don't _have to_ license the software. Copyright law
| only regulates copying and redistribution, not use. Just
| because they say "this software is licensed, not sold"
| doesn't mean they're right (even if they are the software
| makers themselves)
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| My point is that the contract could be unconscionable
| djbebs wrote:
| Contract law requires payment. What's the payment for
| acceptance of this eula?
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| No it does not. Contract law only requires a meeting of
| the minds between two parties. (Whether there is any
| meeting of the minds here is debatable)
| kube-system wrote:
| A "meeting of the minds" or "intention" is _one_ of the
| elements that is required for a valid contract. But it 's
| not the only one. (For example if two guys sit in a room
| and say "let's order a pizza" that is not a contract even
| though it does express an intention.)
|
| You also need:
|
| - an offer
|
| - acceptance of that offer
|
| - some sort of consideration, i.e. some exchange of value
|
| - capacity (i.e. you can't contract with someone who is
| incapable of consenting)
|
| - legality ("lets steal a car" is not a valid contract)
| deathanatos wrote:
| IANAL, but as I understand it, the parent is correct.
| Specifically, in contracts it is known as
| "consideration"; Googling this even gets you,
|
| > _Consideration in contracts refers to the benefit each
| party receives in exchange for what it gives up in the
| contract. It is a vital element that must be present in a
| contract in order to make it legally binding on the
| parties._
|
| (though ofc., Google is also not a lawyer.)
|
| There is no consideration here. (The purchase of the
| product is _separate_ , or at least, ought to be, if
| these terms weren't considered by the buyer then.
| Otherwise, it's just bait & switch.)
| [deleted]
| red_throwaway wrote:
| Good point on them taking a loss having to sell it as
| open box. It's not much but it's probably the best option
| I have that actually reprimands them for this.
|
| > I get the feeling that you want more than that (like a
| custom license agreement, or some punishment for the
| sales person for not mentioning the EULA), and I don't
| think you're going to get that.
|
| I do want more. I want to have peace of mind that it's
| safe to use my camera. I don't think that's an
| unreasonable request. Especially considering the price
| tag.
|
| I definitely don't want the sales people to be punished.
| It's not their fault. It's possible that they've never
| even seen this since you'd only have seen it if you set
| one up straight out of the box.
| technothrasher wrote:
| > or just got cold feet on your $30k purchase.
|
| You are typically not entitled to a refund in this
| situation. Many companies will allow it under a goodwill
| return policy, but they are not legally obligated in most
| situations.
| jdsully wrote:
| 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.
| JohnHaugeland wrote:
| It's almost certain that the EULA is on the website
| jhugo wrote:
| If I walk into a store and buy something and they never
| mention the surprise extra contractual terms I need to go
| looking for on the website, then those surprise extra
| contractual terms aren't part of the sales contract. He's
| entitled to a refund if the EULA terms were not disclosed
| to him before purchase, because he purchased a camera and
| it can't be used as a camera until he agrees to an
| additional contract.
| red_throwaway wrote:
| I'm pretty sure I would be granted a refund if I asked
| for one. That being said, I'm not left with a lot of
| options after returning it because there aren't many
| comparable alternatives for this class of camera.
|
| In fact, I don't know of even one camera that's as high
| quality without also being almost double the price. RED
| has a lot of leverage here.
| mikeyschaefer wrote:
| Unless you need to shoot a lot of high frame (60fps+)
| rates I think there a lot of alternative options. There
| is incredible and award winning work made made with
| Sonys, Canons and Black Magic cameras and of course
| Arris. Producers and creative directors with big budgets
| love to get excited about Red cameras but most often the
| reality is they wouldn't be able to tell the difference
| between footage from different manufacturers. I think Red
| is a bit of a status symbol at this point as all the
| competition has pretty much caught up.
|
| I think you could spend 50% of the price on a c500ii or a
| FX9 and get 90% of quality. That leaves a lot of money on
| the table for a decent set of cinema glass.
|
| Or you can get a used Alexa Mini for the same price as a
| Raptor.
| mindslight wrote:
| You could buy a used one where someone else already
| pressed "agree" on the purported contract. Installable
| software is only able to push bullshit EULAs on the
| theory that the installation process involves making a
| copy, which they claim requires an explicit license to
| do. But using a device with already installed embedded
| software doesn't involve making any copies of the
| software, and thus you don't need a license - rather
| you're buying the installed copy under the first sale
| doctrine.
|
| But ultimately this is an abstract debate, because the
| main point of EULAs is to disclaim legal liability for
| the company, as contrasted with creating it for the user.
| Even if you do manage to avoid entering into their
| bullshit contract, the company will do whatever it wants
| with your data, and it will be up to you to sue them.
| Part of that uphill battle will be proving you didn't
| assent to their bullshit.
|
| So really, like always, an end user's protection is
| ultimately of a technical nature. If the camera (or
| accompanying desktop software) does not have Internet
| access, then there is no way for RED to backhaul your
| footage and there is no issue to be worried about. If the
| camera does have Internet access, then your data will
| easily leave your control, and that's the real flaw with
| the product to focus on!
| inetknght wrote:
| > _I 'm pretty sure I would be granted a refund if I
| asked for one._
|
| Good luck getting a _full_ refund without some restocking
| fee subtracted. Something like 15% of $30,000 is...
| reaching outside of small claims court
| BizarroLand wrote:
| I think you're also overlooking the fact of the sheer
| file size of RED video footage. It would take them hours
| or days to upload that video to their servers just to
| view it to see if it were worth using, and on top of
| that, no where in it's verbiage does it give them license
| to use or view your copyrighted work in any way.
|
| If you find your work on their site or in their promos,
| they are in violation of copyright laws and are liable.
| No judge would stand behind such weak boilerplate to
| allow RED to steal artist's work with impunity.
|
| I hate to say it, but you're far too worried about this.
| I understand the misgivings but the reality of the
| situation doesn't match your concern over the matter, or
| to put it another way, you're making mountains out of
| molehills.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| It would be against GDPR because you cannot sign away your
| privacy rights to get a service to work if that service does not
| need your private data to function - the camera does not need
| your data to function therefore contract not legal in Europe
| Jon_Lowtek wrote:
| i agree, this goes against GDPR.7.4
| https://gdpr.eu/article-7-how-to-get-consent-to-collect-pers...
| see especially the recital https://gdpr.eu/Recital-43-Freely-
| given-consent/
|
| >> _Consent is presumed not to be freely given ... if the
| performance of a contract, including the provision of a
| service, is dependent on the consent despite such consent not
| being necessary for such performance._
|
| Also note GDPR.7.3
|
| >> _The data subject shall have the right to withdraw his or
| her consent at any time. [...] It shall be as easy to withdraw
| as to give consent._
|
| If you can't withdraw the consent, it is not consent. So this
| EULA is at least bad form. (from a european perspective)
|
| For the far more interesting question if it is _legal_ see
| https://gdpr.eu/article-6-how-to-process-personal-data-legal...
|
| If it is not consent then it falls under GDPR.6.1.f "legitimate
| interests" which is far worse to discuss, as it puts your
| fundamental right to not have the usage of a product you bought
| be surveilled by the manufacturer - against their business
| interest to get telemetry. It would be far easier for everyone
| if they would just make it a separate checkbox you can toggle
| on and off (actual consent).
|
| However note that you do not have to use the product, you can
| refund it, so arguing this is a massive violation of human
| rights isn't going to fly. Should you bring this case to your
| local data protection agency, they will first try to reach an
| agreement between you and the company that fulfills both sides
| interests. Note: no matter what the contract says your local
| agency is there to supports you as a first responder. The
| company will likely have to show some improvement, at best an
| actual consent checkbox, at least a change of the bad form.
|
| If you actually go there you should wiretap the device and
| bring evidences what data the company collects. If it turns out
| to be a lot more than reasonable (id of the camera, time, gps
| locations, frames of the content) and the company is not
| cooperating, then the claws come out and its fining time.
| However if it turns out to be harmless, pseudonymous and
| processed to high standards, then the agency will ask you if
| you can accept that and saying no will turn into a lot of work
| in front of a court.
|
| Disclaimer: i am not a layer and this is just laymen talk about
| my opinion about how things are.
| [deleted]
| kube-system wrote:
| Unless the telemetry they are talking about is anonymized.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Which it absolutely isn't, since they're reserving themselves
| the right to use it for advertising purposes. If it was
| properly anonymised it would be completely useless for such
| purposes.
| kube-system wrote:
| That is likely a fair assumption, but an assumption
| nonetheless. There exists marketing data which does not
| identify individuals.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| it's actually pretty difficult to anonymize data and not
| have it be able to de-anonymized, at any rate the
| question regarded privacy rights and if things are
| anonymized that's not what the question would be then.
| red_throwaway wrote:
| bawolff wrote:
| IANAL. If this actually matters to you, you should talk to one.
|
| If you want to do your own research, a good starting place would
| be https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/adhesion-contract.asp
|
| IANAL so my opinion doesn't matter,but none of these sound
| shocking enough to me that i would expect it to be illegal.
|
| > It seems like I must be misunderstanding this because I can't
| imagine professional videographers being willing to consent to
| such blatant violations of their own customer's expectations of
| privacy and discretion.
|
| All contracts are negotiable if you have enough money/power.
| elmerfud wrote:
| I'm sure it's the cyoa language like most Eula have. The bad
| publicity from actually enforcing stuff like this or attempting
| to enforce it is something most companies don't want to deal with
| but they stick this nonsense in anyway just in case.
|
| Most of this looks fairly boilerplate ever looked through like a
| Windows license agreement or something. Even the agreement for
| purchasing this product probably has very similar languages as
| well.
|
| The legal president around most of this is actually contract law.
| The sneaky thing is though they try and push this after you've
| already made the purchase which allows it to be questionable at
| best but then you have to fight it.
|
| What you should do is sue the company for the time and cost that
| you sunk into compatible peripherals because they did not make
| this as an agreement up front. Seems the only way you would have
| known that you were required to agree to this was my purchasing
| the camera and turning it on. But again that's more cost and
| you're ultimately just ending up lining the lawyer's pockets so
| they're happy to write agreements like this because they get paid
| on both sides of it.
|
| Ultimately the best solution is one we will likely and never see
| which would be an update to the Magnuson Moss warranty act.
| Something that would take these one-sided eula's and toss them
| right out the door. Something in there that would be if the
| company no longer wishes to produce or fix software updates for a
| product they must immediately release to any owner of the product
| and this can include second or third hand owners all of the
| source and the build tools and build chains so it can be
| maintained. I'm really afraid something like that will never
| happen simply because at the time of the Magnuson Moss warranty
| act that primarily dealt with automobiles but extended to other
| things as well people knew how to work on their automobiles for
| the most part understood the parts understood that aftermarket
| parts could be built and worth a thing and it was fine to reverse
| engineer those and make copies of them. All automanufacturers
| also released complete engineering diagrams of their vehicles and
| complete repair and assembly manuals for the vehicles and due to
| the idea that the manufacturer and the people who had to maintain
| them were completely separate entities.
|
| Considering how little people understand that software is as an
| integral as a component to an electronic device as spark plugs
| are to a gasoline engine we will never see an update to include
| this idea that it's not just hardware that can be repaired and
| not violate the warranty it's the software as well.
| cbm-vic-20 wrote:
| > software is as an integral as a component to an electronic
| device as spark plugs are to a gasoline engine
|
| I've never had a spark plug removed from an engine due to
| quarterly updates.
| kube-system wrote:
| Chevrolet replaced some folding keyfobs with old style fixed
| keys as a part of their ignition switch recalls.
|
| Tesla has pushed software updates to remove features.
| elmerfud wrote:
| And as part of updates / recalls to cars they've also
| removed functionality such as locking steering columns
| because they caused so many problems.
| elmerfud wrote:
| The relationship here is if a car manufacturer decided to
| stop selling spark plugs for their car and under the threat
| of a license agreement prevented anyone else from making a
| compatible spark plug the government would step in and stomp
| all over them. Yet there is no similar protections when you
| buy a device that requires software to run that the
| manufacturer has abandoned.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > the government would step in and stomp all over them.
|
| Would they, though? I'd be interested in specific cases.
| elmerfud wrote:
| The specific case is the Magnuson Moss warranty act this
| covers self repair and the use of aftermarket parts in
| the attempt of the manufacturer to deny claims based upon
| the use of an unrelated aftermarket part.
|
| Additionally look up copyrights surrounding the sale of
| books and the attempt of placing a license agreements
| around books and how that failed yet somehow software
| that is sold in a very similar manner to books can be
| covered by both copyright and a license agreement.
| Jon_Lowtek wrote:
| Write to the company and ask for clarification and an option to
| opt-out.
|
| This has three benefits: 1) they may give you additional
| information what exactly they are doing 2) they get information
| that their customers find it suspicious and may clarify it for
| everyone and 3) they may actually add an option to opt out
| red_throwaway wrote:
| This is great advice!
| zdragnar wrote:
| What's more likely is a help desk tech will see the email,
| maybe ask their boss about it, and ultimately write back that
| there is no option to opt out.
|
| They're not going to provide you with more information, because
| that would limit their ability to do something in the future
| (especially since the person writing the response isn't a
| product manager or engineer and doesn't know anything about it
| anyway).
|
| It's worth a shot, if you don't mind the time to write a quick
| message; I'm just skeptical that anyone would actually pass the
| message up the chain that their legal boilerplate noone ever
| reads is vaguely unsettling.
| ipaddr wrote:
| Write the CEO directly
| Jon_Lowtek wrote:
| and hope they pass it down the chain?
|
| write to their privacy officer, contact details can be
| found here: red.com/legal
| chx wrote:
| If you want anything to actually to happen get a lawyer to
| write that mail.
|
| The goal is to talk to RED legal and that won't happen if you
| shoot them a quick email.
| flaviut wrote:
| > assessment of the implications of this license agreement
| correct
|
| It is incorrect--you still have your intellectual property
| rights, even if they somehow download all the videos off the
| camera.
|
| You're not signing away your rights to the video content.
| pessimizer wrote:
| It reads like you're being forced to license it to RED and its
| vendors for arbitrary purposes, though. What's the [edit:
| _material_ ] difference?
| red_throwaway wrote:
| jasonlotito wrote:
| This is normal. You are misunderstanding the legalese.
|
| 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.
| chrismcb wrote:
| I'm not a lawyer. But typically any EULA that you have to agree
| to after purchasing (or better after opening the package) is
| unenforceable.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| It's a shitty modern EULA. In terms of rights to your art, I
| wouldn't worry:
|
| - for one it would be utterly impossible for them to get their
| hands on the hundreds of gigabytes of footage this monster will
| create. How would they get it? Over the internet? With thousands
| of customers, I think it's unlikely. Then storing this... just
| the scale of it seems impossible.
|
| - also this doesn't mention copyright. I guess they maybe could
| take a video of yours and use it purely to debug stuff, maybe
| share with a subcontractor. But they can't use it in any way as
| their own, which is probably what you care about as a creator.
|
| To me the shitty bit would be about features being deleted, but
| then usually upgrades are optional and avoidable.
| gjs278 wrote:
| implements wrote:
| 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 they feel obliged to
| cover their arses even more.
|
| 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.
| cbm-vic-20 wrote:
| > probably worth giving them the benefit of the doubt
|
| My lawyer would have a seizure if I showed this to them. If I
| had a lawyer, of course.
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| Interestingly, I think that's the trick.
|
| Myself and fellow geeks approach many things as computer code
| - assumption that it's fully logical, consistent, repeatable,
| and reading of code will fundamentally tell you exactly and a
| priori what happens when it executes.
|
| Agreeing that they'll always take caution and safety, in my
| limited world at least, I've repeatedly been surprised when
| accountants and lawyers take a practical approach of "This is
| how the world works / This is what'll actually happen / This
| is what and how you should care about" (which is sometimes
| more and sometimes less strict than the letter), in addition
| and sometimes as priority over strict textual interpretation
| of something.
|
| Which is to say, our computer geeky interpretation of what a
| lawyer might say / react is sometimes based more on our
| assumption of how world and law work, than realities of legal
| profession :)
| kube-system wrote:
| I've hired a few, and they're all well aware that sloppy
| boilerplate is commonplace. They often suggest you take a
| realist approach to the situation as a whole, and consider
| the incentives of those involved.
| et2o wrote:
| This is exactly the answer. Why would the manufacturer of a
| professional-targeted camera take an action that would
| destroy their business?
| syshum wrote:
| Of course history has shown that while a company is
| profitable they will be "good" however if the company
| starts going off the cliff all bets are off
|
| See the many many once "good" companies that end up
| patent trolling
| scsilver wrote:
| Like Kodak?
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| Other than blow the opportunity to be the leader in
| digital cameras, what have they done to destroy
| themselves?
| jobs_throwaway wrote:
| you're referencing when Kodak didn't pivot to digital? Or
| some T&C abuse I'm not aware of?
| ribosometronome wrote:
| Failing to see how a market will change and change with
| it is not quite the same as "a camera company
| intentionally stealing movies to share with others".
| myself248 wrote:
| You'd think Eventbrite would've known better too..
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/23/eventbrite-
| apo...
|
| This shit happens all the time. Someone has to call them
| out and get lucky enough for the calling-out to go viral,
| before they walk it back.
| JaimeThompson wrote:
| >Why would the manufacturer of a professional-targeted
| camera take an action that would destroy their business?
|
| To make the next quarters number look better.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| It's uh, a privately held company..
| JaimeThompson wrote:
| Privately held companies can still issue bonuses tied to
| quarterly performance.
| googlryas wrote:
| How does that even work? Are they going to somehow get
| all the video data off of everyone's cameras, and cut and
| release it as films before anyone else can?
| cyral wrote:
| Not to mention how that would destroy the trust in their
| brand
| ipaddr wrote:
| You expressly agree to give the video to 3rd parties and
| copyright holders. They provide them to 3rd parties and
| get paid.
|
| The third parties with take a few frames and will run
| through AI and categorize the film for the ad networks.
|
| Rights holders will check content against hashes.
|
| Law enforcement will have a handy copy available. Which
| makes friends and business opportunities.
| lovehashbrowns wrote:
| The video these cameras capture is tens of gigabytes of
| data. I think you can expect about an hour worth of video
| on 1TB. It's completely impractical to think they're
| taking your video from the camera itself.
|
| It's also likely to be useless footage for anyone but the
| person creating the content. Keep in mind the video will
| still need to be edited for color, adding or removing
| sound, and cropped. Then spliced into a final product.
|
| It's also useless for rights holders because 1. It's
| easier to hash on the camera and send the hash only, not
| your video. And two, the camera isn't recording the final
| product so there's likely no music yet. Finally, for a
| professional video shoot, you'd acquire the rights
| anyway. Double finally, as a rights holder it's far
| easier to do a content claim on YouTube, Netflix, Vimeo,
| or wherever the content is going to end up rather than on
| the first step of the process, the camera.
|
| I don't even know what law enforcement would want with
| random video footage of outtakes for a small, medium, or
| large video production.
| renewiltord wrote:
| It won't. Any material so created would immediately
| receive an injunction at a court and the risk would be so
| high that you wouldn't even do it because you can't use
| the material. Also, there are zero people in movies who
| can tell you whether a movie will succeed. You can't make
| the bet.
|
| The incentives force RED to not abuse.
| JaimeThompson wrote:
| >The incentives force RED to not abuse.
|
| Boeing, Enron, and too many others to list here show that
| one can't really apply rational thinking when some, not
| everyone, desire that bonus / stock bump / whatever no
| matter the long term cost.
| eslaught wrote:
| And plus, this is raw footage. You could leak it for the
| lulz, but it's laughable to think you could make any
| money off of it even if you tried. A vast amount
| (possibly the majority?) of creative energy goes into the
| editing/post-production process after all the raw footage
| is captured.
| vmception wrote:
| kstrauser wrote:
| That's not appeal to authority. That's just advice to take
| their reputation into consideration.
| vmception wrote:
| > 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 because
| tech sector enthusiasts like to review. It doesn't matter that
| high powered hollywood execs and prosumer gearheads have used
| it and ignored it. It is very valid to assume it simply never
| has been challenged.
|
| The question "is it legal" not "will it hurt me" not "will it
| hurt them".
| ChrisLomont wrote:
| >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 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.
| vmception wrote:
| The question "is it legal" not "will it hurt me" not "will
| it hurt them".
|
| Thats the discussion I'm choosing to follow, its right
| there in the title.
| [deleted]
| Trias11 wrote:
| Nothing you can do about it.
|
| It is very well maybe that part of it is not enforceable in your
| area anyways.
|
| Nothing they can do about it.
| throw93232 wrote:
| EULA is normal, no worries there.
|
| But if you are worried about someone stealing your footage, why
| would you even allow this camera to access Internet? I do
| sensitive amateur porn, and it stays strictly offline with air
| gaps. It is not that hard, just a bit unconvinient.
| bumblebritches5 wrote:
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| If the EULA wasn't notified to you at the point of lease, or
| indeed of the transaction was described as a sale, then it's
| fraud as you were misled as to the nature of the product in order
| to provide a financial gain for Red. I think you have a good
| basis for a small claims court case to recoup spending on
| peripherals.
|
| I think it could go either way, but sadly the establishment
| aren't keen on limiting they overreach of companies which mislead
| when they call things sales and which try to own the World
| through Eulas.
|
| Thought: if their EULA is lawful then a post-transaction contract
| from your side should be lawful too ...? (YMMV, I am clearly not
| a lawyer and this is so far from legal advice.)
| thegagne wrote:
| > technical, diagnostic, usage and related information, including
| but not limited to information about your RED Camera, Camera
| Module, computer, system and application software, usage,
| content, and peripherals.
|
| They are doing CYA here, but what they are likely collecting here
| is metadata, not the content itself. And very likely they are
| referring to data collected for troubleshooting purposes.
| red_throwaway wrote:
| That's what I suspect too but the terms don't read like that in
| my opinion. I'm hoping someone can chime in and explain why the
| terms don't allow for the content itself to be mined.
| Jon_Lowtek wrote:
| well it says "information about ... content" which is
| different from the content itself. It's vague, and i find the
| whole thing unacceptable, i would not consent to a camera
| sharing usage information, but concerning this detail, it
| doesn't say "the content" .
| cweagans wrote:
| The EULA is talking about information about each of those
| individual items. It may make more sense if you format it
| like this:
|
| including but not limited to information about your:
|
| * RED Camera
|
| * Camera Module
|
| * computer
|
| * system and application software
|
| * usage
|
| * content; and
|
| * peripherals
| guff_se wrote:
| Am I the only one reading this differently? "including but not
| limited to information about your [RED Camera, Camera Module,
| computer, system and application software, usage, content, and
| peripherals]." As in: information about content, not actual
| content.
|
| 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?
| johnklos wrote:
| RED has always had all sorts of BS licensing gobbleygook. When
| the first RED cameras finally became available, the software
| absolute shit. They had all sorts of stuff in their license
| agreements about not reverse engineering, not redistributing, et
| cetera.
|
| I had to figure out many parts of their software and make
| wrappers and separate tools so that queues could be started and
| run without monitoring, because their software would famously
| have an error, then just stop, making batch transcoding a full-
| time job.
|
| I intentionally posted all sorts of things that were in violation
| of their license agreements in hopes that they'd take note and
| try to make a stink, but they didn't, probably because they
| didn't want to raise awareness of how badly their software sucks
| by fighting with people who were making it better.
|
| The company has always pretended to be much more grandiose than
| they really are (see their attempt at making a cell phone), but
| really, they're just OK.
|
| Honestly, though, the quality of their codecs suck. The color
| information just isn't there. You can watch Netflix and
| immediately tell which things were shot on RED, because they'll
| be grainy (which they think is a feature) and will lack nuanced
| color. Compare with anything shot on, say, Arri ALEXA, and you'll
| never look at RED the same way again.
|
| All of this is to say that the company probably won't do anything
| nefarious that would get tons of negative attention, but they do
| always think they're the Next Big Thing, so you never know when
| the crazy will outweigh the careful. If it were me, I'd return
| it.
| HNHatesUsers wrote:
| eli wrote:
| Doesn't pretty much all closed-source proprietary software
| prohibit reverse engineering and redistribution?
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Reverse engineering for interop is legal.
| ta988 wrote:
| Not everywhere.
| uncletammy wrote:
| Do you have a source for that claim? I wasn't aware that
| was necessarily true.
| [deleted]
| readbeard wrote:
| Granted, I'm not in the target market, but I don't understand why
| people keep buying RED cameras. They do stuff like this, charge
| an arm and a leg for what should be commodity parts but aren't,
| and claim dubious patent protections on things like compressed
| RAW video (IIRC, at least one compressed RAW image format existed
| prior to the release of the RED One).
|
| With really attractive options from companies like Blackmagic,
| Sony, and ARRI, what's so appealing about RED?
| lizardactivist wrote:
| Boilerplate, but yeah should they wish to do, well, literally
| anything and everything, then that EULA has them covered. And
| they know this of course.
| fxtentacle wrote:
| This is one of the reasons why people import their camera (apart
| from different pricing). If you buy the EU model, you get
| different terms that say they'll only collect data if you approve
| it and for EU models you can always email dataprivacy@red.com and
| they'll tell you what data they have stored and how it's used.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-04-29 23:01 UTC)