[HN Gopher] Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a ...
___________________________________________________________________
Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam
Author : romanzipp
Score : 955 points
Date : 2025-01-17 08:50 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (romanzipp.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (romanzipp.com)
| brian-armstrong wrote:
| Yikes. Searching around a bit, it seems people frequently use an
| Elgato capture card or similar to interface with OBS
| ragazzina wrote:
| 5$ to unblock such a feature is already infuriating. But when you
| read the article, it explains it's 5$ PER MONTH.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| In fact, the problem is that you have to buy a subscription,
| with all the implications in terms of loss of control, privacy,
| security, etc...
|
| $5 on a $6299 camera is nothing, just pay for it, petty but not
| really infuriating. Even at $500 I would simply pay should I
| need it. If I had reasons to buy a $6299 camera, it probably
| means a budget in the tens of thousands, for lenses, lighting,
| accessories, etc... $500 is peanuts by comparison.
|
| But I certainly wouldn't want my very expensive setup to fail
| just because some server is down.
| doix wrote:
| > However, Canon is a hardware company, not a software company,
|
| That probably makes it pretty easy to reverse engineer their
| software to bypass the restrictions.
| resource_waste wrote:
| There are things we could do with our time...
|
| I suppose I'm glad some people find time to do this.
| ElectRabbit wrote:
| CHDK back then had quiet a few people from Canon helping - as
| far as I remember the floor gossip.
| HenryBemis wrote:
| > However, Canon is a hardware company, not a software company,
|
| Canon is a company that is in the business of making profit
| (not just software or just hardware).
|
| If they realize that they can charge you $1 for every time you
| chew gum while taking photos, and people will actually pay for
| that privilege $1-per-chewing-gum-session (disclaimer: chewing
| gum not provided) they would charge you!
|
| Remember BMW and heating in the UK
| (https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-62142208)??
|
| Getting paid $6k for a camera once is good. Getting paid
| another $50 a year for doing nothing is even better.
|
| I assume the great brain who came with the idea is: "we got 10
| million cameras out there, if 0.5% of those camera owners pay
| $50 pa, then that's 10m x 0.5% x $50 = $2.5m pa. If I could get
| a 100k bonus for bringing $2.5m gross to my company I would
| also suggest this idea.
| vegadw wrote:
| Yunno, I wouldn't. Even for 100k on the table. I wouldn't
| suggest it. I have bills to pay, student loan debt, etc. but
| for one, I wouldn't want to suggest something that would have
| long term negative brand impact, and two, but more
| importantly, I wouldn't want to suggest developing something
| that if I were to use would piss me off. Make the world you
| want to see. Engineers share in the responsibility for things
| like this existing.
| doix wrote:
| Sure, and that's why I don't think they'd invest heavily in
| anti-piracy measures. It requires a special skillset, your
| average developer isn't going to really know much about it.
| If I had to guess, there's a single "isProTier" function call
| that you just patch to return true. Maybe it's inlined and
| it's slightly more annoying. I doubt they did much more than
| that, but maybe I'm completely wrong.
| tobyhinloopen wrote:
| Canon truly is the HP of cameras.
|
| Good thing there's Sony and Nikon.
| franga2000 wrote:
| The latest firmware update for the Sony A7S III has introduced
| unlockable licenses and a website where you can buy them. The
| first one (for DCI 4K) is free, but it looks like they'll be
| chraging for unlocking more "professional" firmware features in
| the future.
| eurekin wrote:
| I'm not sure this is the case, but to play devils advocate -
| Sony themselves might have to license it from a third party
| davidgerard wrote:
| There is no reason to bend over backwards to _make up_
| excuses for bad behaviour.
| eurekin wrote:
| It's just experience from a video monitoring project we
| made for a Telco operator - we had to pay up quite a few
| JPEG related tech, just to get a certification. Even
| despite that tech being free.
|
| Historically video related field was one of the most
| patent and license encumbered. That's why AV1 exists.
| tobyhinloopen wrote:
| Hah I am aware. There's a lot of shit in Sony camp, but Canon
| is a whole other level.
|
| Nikon seems to be the "good guy" these days.
| nicbou wrote:
| Yep. This is a sign that the meetings have already happened,
| and that the course has already been set. The idea was
| already sold, has picked some momentum, and possibly defines
| a few people's bonuses.
| xmprt wrote:
| I wonder when we'll reach a tipping point for the subscription
| hell that the world is moving towards. On the other hand, with
| the amount of consolidation and difficulty competing (especially
| with Lina Khan out) I'm not sure if that will ever happen.
| InDubioProRubio wrote:
| Im still waiting for mass-piracy where large parts of the
| population walk out on the subscription systems leaving the
| vendors to starve.
| mrweasel wrote:
| At some point I feel like it just has to collapse. The thing I
| don't really understand is subscriptions like the one in the
| article, how many of those types of subscriptions are
| effectively dead, in the sense that yes the customer keeps
| paying, but aren't actually using the "service" anymore.
| VBprogrammer wrote:
| The gym revenue model.
|
| The indie / startup space has been so all in on subscription
| revenue that I guess it's not a huge surprise that the big
| companies eventually tried to get in on the act.
| Terr_ wrote:
| I tend to think of insufficient competition as a root cause.
| abecedarius wrote:
| And behind that at least in part is the tangle of bad laws,
| esp. in IP.
| veltas wrote:
| And this is probably because Canon corporate won't justify a
| budget for developing this software unless they expect separate
| revenue for it, even though it's clearly just value-add to the
| (already very expensive) hardware.
| tobyhinloopen wrote:
| Bit of a weird argument considering you can use other brand
| cameras as webcams without any third party software. At least,
| all my Sony cameras can just be plugged in using USB and it
| works immediately. No drivers required.
| franga2000 wrote:
| Are you sure? The article talks about using it as a webcam
| and none of the Sony gear I've used supports that (A6500, A7
| I/RI/II/SII/III/RIII/SIII).
|
| They did make the "Imaging Edge Webcam" program, I think some
| time during the pandemic, but AFAIK it's just a PTP preview
| to webcam driver, so the quality is pretty terrible and you
| can do that with OBS+gphoto2.
| tobyhinloopen wrote:
| A7RV + A6700 here. If you plug in a USB cable, it shows the
| usual "usb selection screen", but it includes a "USB
| streaming" option. It works immediately, flawlessly, on
| windows and macOS. For remote shooting, there's still the
| "PC remote" option.
|
| My older Sony cameras (A6300 is my newest "old" Sony
| camera) don't have the feature (unless you use that
| terrible software you mentioned) Im surprised to read that
| even the reasonably modern A7SIII doesn't support it. It
| must be one of the last models without USB streaming
| support.
| josephg wrote:
| Fellow Sony a7iv owner here. I can confirm this works on
| my camera too.
|
| For older cameras, probably the easiest way to do it (if
| you don't want to install anything) is to pick up a ~$20
| usb HDMI capture card from amazon. Connect the HDMI
| output on the camera to the capture card. And then set
| your camera up to output a "clean" video source via the
| HDMI port.
|
| As I understand it, modern capture cards work without
| drivers on every OS, just like the modern sony cameras
| do.
| h1fra wrote:
| but the software has already been built so the budget was still
| found somehow. My gut feeling is that it's mostly useful for
| streamers, and some of them have big budgets so they went for a
| high price
| ta1243 wrote:
| The development was presumably funded off the back of
| expected revenue.
|
| For your "streamer" stuff, I'd expect them to use something
| appropiate to the job - something connecting direct to a
| network outputting NDI, or something with SDI output.
| swiftcoder wrote:
| > For your "streamer" stuff, I'd expect them to use
| something appropiate to the job
|
| They mostly don't, though. The standard "high-end"
| streaming setup is whatever second-hand mirrorless camera
| has a clear HDMI output, and an HDMI capture card.
| snacksmcgee wrote:
| This is because this behavior is simply not illegal, and
| companies can get away with it.
| wat10000 wrote:
| It reminds me a little of the time Apple charged $2 for a WiFi
| driver update, claiming some accounting rule said they couldn't
| distribute it for free.
|
| I guess they figured out a better way to do the accounting,
| since they never did that particular stunt again.
| Gormo wrote:
| But it sounds like Canon actually invested _extra_ development
| time to create crippled firmware that deviates from industry
| standards.
| vishnugupta wrote:
| I guess someone higher up said "well, someone who has forked out
| over $6k won't even blink for an additional $5"
| franga2000 wrote:
| I'm not sure since I don't have any Canon gear, but it's very
| likely that the app just uses the PTP protocol, which is an old
| but stil common standard. The main ioen source implementation is
| libgphoto2 and there's an OBS Studio plugin to use it as a camera
| source, after which you can use its built-in virtual webcam mode
| to use it as a webcam.
| looofooo0 wrote:
| Canon G5 X mark 2 does not seem to be supported by gphoto:
|
| http://www.gphoto.org/proj/libgphoto2/support.php
| ChrisMLane wrote:
| Worth a try compiling a custom version after adding to https:
| //github.com/knro/libgphoto2/blob/master/camlibs/canon...
| Hopefully it's as easy as that.
|
| I'm able to pipe gphoto2 frames to a pipewire sink or v4l2
| device and it works great for making my Canon EOS 250D into a
| webcam.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| Newer Nikon and apparently also some Sony cameras simply
| support USB UVC ("the webcam protocol"), which makes this pure
| plug and play, but apparently Canon doesn't. For older cameras
| there's a Nikon webcam utility or something like that, which
| does exactly what you suggest: grab preview frames via PTP and
| stuff them into a video source. Or you get an HDMI/USB dongle
| for 10$.
| frankchn wrote:
| Recent Canons support UVC as well (specifically the R1, R5
| Mark II, R6 Mark II, R8, and R50).
| DLoupe wrote:
| Why $6,2999 when the article says he payed around $900?
| tobyhinloopen wrote:
| He likely bought an old model second-hand :)
|
| Edit: The camera he uses is a 2019 pocket camera. The 6299 must
| be another model that has the same restrictions.
| phony-account wrote:
| > Why $6,2999 when the article says he payed around $900?
|
| In the fifth paragraph:
|
| "Admittedly, it did not cost me the $6300 from the article's
| title, much closer to $900. Nonetheless, everything I'm
| describing translates to every other Canon camera model!"
| thatBilly wrote:
| He discovered this information about his $900 camera but has
| found that it also applies to other models, likely the Canon
| EOS-1D X Mark III.
| KomoD wrote:
| Because it gets more clicks.
| eurekin wrote:
| Right there with the infamous $18 BMW heated seats subscription
| danw1979 wrote:
| The heated steering wheel software unlock on my X1 is a more
| reasonably priced PS200.
| bambax wrote:
| Not all companies. The DJI Action camera has a built-in webcam
| mode that you can select whenever you plug it in via USB, and it
| just works.
| bilinguliar wrote:
| DJI is a potential backdoor.
| 4ggr0 wrote:
| other cameras aren't?
| Rodmine wrote:
| Reasons like this is why the Japanese companies are eating sh*t
| and are VERY interested in pushing for a US-China war just like
| the western companies.
|
| Everything coming out of China is way more customer friendly,
| usually way cheaper and getting better and better to a point
| that they are surpassing everything else that exists. If DJI
| releases a full-frame mirrorless camera with L-mount (which
| they are going to), Canon, Nikon, Fuji and all these companies
| with firmware from the 90s will die and I am not going to miss
| them.
|
| They have made absolutely no effort to provide any value and a
| whole lot of tacit collusion is going on. They still sell you
| SD cards instead of including an SSD which would be MUCH
| cheaper and faster. Same with battery technology.
| Compatibility, apps, software... everything.
| strogonoff wrote:
| Regarding products from China being cheaper: remember that
| Japanese, Korean, and Western companies are the ones mostly
| innovating and absorbing the R&D costs. Remember how modern
| OLEDs were made feasible basically by LG and Samsung? Having
| stolen that IP[0][1][2], without any R&D costs but with dirt
| cheap manufacturing due to direct and indirect subsidies like
| relatively almost nonexistent labour protection laws, PRC
| companies could of course immediately flood the market with
| cheaper alternatives.
|
| You can choose your suppliers by other measures than merely
| price. Arguably, you _should_ if the market you are
| particupating in is not free and fair in this way.
|
| Personally, as a happy owner of a Japanese-made under-$2k
| camera that works perfectly well for all purposes and even
| has official CAD files published for accessory 3D printing
| enthusiasts, I see no reason to switch to a Chinese brand
| (well, also there is no product that beats it on both specs
| and price, but even if there was I would think twice). People
| tend to over-generalize, but reality is not as simple as "all
| manufacturers from %country1% are better because X and all
| manufacturers from %country2% suffer from issue Y".
|
| [0] https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.amp.asp?newsIdx=
| 113...
|
| [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/technology/south-korea-
| indic...
|
| [2] https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/2024-07-19/busi
| nes...
| adrian_b wrote:
| What you say about innovation has been true mostly in the
| distant past and mostly for technologies that are used in
| business-to-business products.
|
| For consumer products from recent years, like smartphones
| or computers, the vast majority of innovative products are
| Chinese, even if the quality or documentation is frequently
| subpar.
|
| Now I see very frequently cases when US companies or
| Japanese companies should better start to copy the Chinese
| if they want to stay competitive, but instead of doing
| that, they push for the same kind of tariff protections for
| which the US heavily criticized any other country in the
| past and blackmailed them in various ways to force them to
| remove the tariff protections against US companies.
| strogonoff wrote:
| In the OLED example people were indicted in 2018 and went
| to prison in 2023 or 2024. You are making it seem like
| it's an old story, but it's not really true.
| tempo23058 wrote:
| "Long before the United States began accusing other
| countries of stealing ideas, the U.S. government encouraged
| intellectual piracy to catch up with England's
| technological advances. According to historian Doron Ben-
| Atar, in his book, Trade Secrets, "the United States
| emerged as the world's industrial leader by illicitly
| appropriating mechanical and scientific innovations from
| Europe."
|
| Everyone is a thief.
|
| https://www.history.com/news/industrial-revolution-spies-
| eur...
| strogonoff wrote:
| Weren't people in the US doing so at that point actually
| fresh English/Irish themselves who just moved or were
| moving to the new world? Can you elaborate how it is
| similar to the situation with PRC now, unless you suggest
| it's freshly founded by Americans?
| Dalewyn wrote:
| >Remember how modern OLEDs were made feasible basically by
| LG and Samsung?
|
| That was Japan's game to lose and their loss was absolutely
| deserved. Japanese companies are more interested in
| bickering with each other, while Korean and Chinese
| companies have bigger worldly goals.
|
| Japan Display[1] and Renesas[2] could have been the
| LG/Samsung had Japan realized much sooner that there are
| better things to be doing than dragging each other down.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Display
|
| [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renesas_Electronics
| strogonoff wrote:
| I am not sure what you are saying. LG and Samsung are
| both Korean... They had the original OLED tech that was
| leaked to China. LG recently had to shut down a factory
| due to reduced demand IIRC. Hard to compete with fully
| state-controlled command economy.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| >I am not sure what you are saying.
|
| Japanese companies spent time and money investing in new
| technologies and then proceeded to waste them because
| they were far more interested in keeping trade secrets to
| themselves and dragging each other down, rather than
| coming together and acting as one national industry like
| Korean and Chinese companies. The Japanese companies did
| come together eventually (Japan Display, et al.), but way
| too late.
| mafribe wrote:
| Samsung is not exactly averse to IP theft eg [1, 2] ... If
| you are responsible for 22.4% of South Korea's GDP [3], one
| may wonder if we even hear about all other cases ...
|
| [1] https://www.theregister.com/2015/08/25/tsmc_samsung_esp
| ionag...
|
| [2] https://www.reuters.com/legal/samsung-hit-with-303-mln-
| jury-...
|
| [3] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1314374/south-
| korea-sams...
| Dracophoenix wrote:
| > Personally, as a happy owner of a Japanese-made under-$2k
| camera that works perfectly well for all purposes and even
| has official CAD files published for accessory 3D printing
| enthusiasts,
|
| Which camera is that?
| PetitPrince wrote:
| > They still sell you SD cards instead of including an SSD
| which would be MUCH cheaper and faster.
|
| I don't think the power draw of an SSD plays well with the
| current battery tech.
|
| Plus most user value the fact that you can rapidly swap those
| thing. The last thing you want to do during a wedding is
| having to wait for the data to transfer and/or the battery to
| recharge.
| jcass8695 wrote:
| Enshitification, incarnate.
| alibarber wrote:
| 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 would appear that owning something that could physically do
| what you want it to is only half the battle for numerous reasons,
| and in this case it would have been my government demanding extra
| money to 'unlock' this functionality.
| tobyhinloopen wrote:
| It would likely overheat anyway hah. Old Sony cameras have the
| same restrictions.
| sam_lowry_ wrote:
| No, this is not the reason. If the camera records video for
| more than 30min, then it is a video camera, see the question
| answered here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34640107
|
| In short, there is no good reason anymore, but originally
| this was because of EU import tarifs.
| the-grump wrote:
| GP didn't claim that's not the reason. They're making a
| joke that if the camera kept recording past 30min, it would
| overheat.
|
| It's a joke.
| sam_lowry_ wrote:
| It's not a joke, older DSLR cameras would often overheat
| when recording continuously. My good old Canon 6D would
| overheat once in a while when used as a webcam with
| v4l2loopback.
| randerson wrote:
| Even as recently as the Canon R5 Mark I mirrorless camera
| (which you can still buy new), overheats within 15
| minutes if you're recording 8K30 or 4K120.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| Some cameras do overheat from extended recording
| sessions, so depending on the model it's not entirely a
| joke.
| tobyhinloopen wrote:
| It's a joke, but it's also the truth. Many cameras won't
| even get to 30 minutes before overheating.
| the-grump wrote:
| Yeah I knew what you meant. I have one :)
| tartoran wrote:
| IT's not a joke. When filming for more than 30 minutes
| the cameras at the time (10-15 years ago) would warm up
| and eventually shut off automatically to cool off.
| shultays wrote:
| Sometimes there are hidden menus or settings that might allow
| you to toggle those features. I used to work on TVs and we had
| a secret menu that toggles various features. Some of those
| features would be disabled for specific countries (mainly for
| patents)
| umanwizard wrote:
| This vaguely reminds me of the fact that in many countries,
| pure ethanol sold for industrial purposes is intentionally made
| poisonous, so you can't drink it and thus merchants don't have
| to charge the taxes on it that they would for spirits.
| ivan_gammel wrote:
| It's more like "so you can't drink it" without the taxes
| part. Those taxes play important role in reducing alcohol
| consumption (though they are of course not the only tool), so
| making cheap ethanol poisonous and with different color
| closes the loophole in healthcare policy rather than opens a
| loophole in taxation.
|
| E.g. study: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3860576/
| amelius wrote:
| Couldn't they just make it taste bad, for safety's sake?
| umanwizard wrote:
| In some countries that is allowed, but in others it has
| to actually be poisonous.
| amelius wrote:
| Well, I hope it is both then.
| ted_bunny wrote:
| And in some, it's a tourist attraction. Don't drink
| "White Elephant" in Vietnam unless you want to wake up
| blind and pissing blood, at least according to a friend!
| sampullman wrote:
| I don't know exactly what "White Elephant" refers to, but
| I've had plenty of homemade liquor in Vietnam and am
| mostly fine.
| jampekka wrote:
| In some countries it's done so and poisoning is banned.
| E.g. Finland and Poland got an exemption from the EU to
| do this because so many people died from the poisonings.
| amelius wrote:
| Where can I read more about this? What poison were they
| using?
| snaily wrote:
| Methanol has been used, as has rubbing alcohol and methyl
| ethyl ketone.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denatured_alcohol for
| further reading.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denatonium is used to make
| it unpalatable. Fun fact: the same chemical is also
| coated onto Nintendo Switch cartridges to discourage
| children from putting them in their mouths.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| We used to use denatonium (Bitrex) in firefighting to
| test the efficacy of your face mask seal - you'd put on
| your mask, a filter, and a hood - Bitrex would be
| aerosolized into the hood and if you could taste it,
| there was not a good seal.
|
| Nowadays we just measure pressure differentials.
| jampekka wrote:
| It was specifically about methanol. Methanol wasn't
| explicitly used as a denaturation agent but ethanol
| methanol mixture sales were (forced to be) allowed. Can't
| find much in English but here's a brief story.
|
| Methanol sales were banned in Finland prior to EU and
| Finland applied for the exemption already in the EU
| application in the early 1990s. It was finally granted in
| 2019. Probably around 500 people died and many got
| blinded meanwhile.
|
| https://yle.fi/a/3-7841018
| beAbU wrote:
| Addiction is one helluva motivator, and some people will
| put up with horrible tasting stuff as long as it's a
| cheap high.
| szszrk wrote:
| Not that pure spirit is something you drink for the
| wonderful taste, in the first place.
| poincaredisk wrote:
| I live in one of the countries that just made it taste
| bad (because enough people died of poisoning it was
| allowed as an exception by the EU). I've drank a shot of
| denaturated alcohol once - half out of curiosity, half
| because I was already out of liquor at home for that
| evening.
|
| If you close your nose the taste is just bitter, but
| bearable. The additives are supposed to make you vomit,
| but for me I only had vomit reflex for ~5 seconds after
| swallowing. I could live with that if I was addicted and
| couldn't afford a regular alcohol. I'm sure many people
| do.
|
| Not sure what the moral is. I guess that addiction is a
| really strong motivator, and tax evasion is not a good
| enough reason to justify killing people with poison.
| bluGill wrote:
| Including not checking as one person I know found out
| after drinking hand sanitizer. (some hand sanitizer is
| just alcohol that is made to taste bad, some of it isn't
| even alcohol, she got the later)
| weberer wrote:
| That doesn't seem to stop people from drinking IPAs.
| flerchin wrote:
| I'll save you from them.
| chongli wrote:
| Chinese cooking wines avoid alcohol taxes by adding salt.
| The salt is useful as a seasoning for food but makes the
| wine undrinkable!
| _trampeltier wrote:
| Does remind me when I talked to a chef from a big
| restaurant about wine and cooking. He said, a lot of
| people who work in a kitchen have often an smaller or
| bigger alcohol problem. He said, as soon as wine is
| opened in the kitchen for cooking, he does add just a bit
| salt, so people in the team don't even try to drink some
| cooking wine.
| Eavolution wrote:
| That doesn't seem like a good idea as a lot of people
| would try to reduce salt intake due to blood pressure
| concerns, where the alcohol in this wouldn't be a concern
| for that as it would likely be cooked off
| chongli wrote:
| That's going to be tough. Shaoxing wine and soy sauce
| both have lots of sodium in them because they're intended
| for seasoning dishes without the need to add salt
| separately. Even douchi (fermented black soybeans), which
| offer a similar flavour profile to soy sauce in solid
| form, have a lot of salt.
| apricot wrote:
| Chicago does it: https://malort.com/
| depressedpanda wrote:
| 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.
| umanwizard wrote:
| I'm not sure how this is different from what I'm saying?
| contrast wrote:
| The thread is about bad things because of tax policy,
| your post is about a good thing because of health policy
| - but you don't say it's a good thing, or that it's about
| heath not taxes.
|
| The post pointing this out has different content to
| yours, which reads as if your meaning is "this reminds me
| of another bad thing caused by tax policies" - even if
| that's not what you meant.
| umanwizard wrote:
| > you don't say it's a good thing
|
| But I also never said OP's anecdote was a bad thing. (Why
| shouldn't countries be able to tax video cameras coming
| in...). What's the difference?
| jeffhuys wrote:
| You can't win arguments on the internet. Best case: they
| ghost you. Cowards, I say!
| 15155 wrote:
| Every legal allowance I disagree with is a "loophole",
| every legal allowance I take advantage of is intended
| functionality.
| poincaredisk wrote:
| 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.
| 15155 wrote:
| > 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."
| Spivak wrote:
| 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
| adolph wrote:
| >> 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.
|
| POSIWID
| wnoise wrote:
| The "gunshow" loophole is really a "private sellers"
| exemption. If you don't regularly sell guns, then you
| don't need an FFL to merely sell a small number, and
| don't have to do background checks (indeed there's no
| process such that you _can_ do firearms checks).
|
| Now, it might be reasonable to remove this exemption, but
| the only way it's a "gunshow" loophole is that gun shows
| are a place where gun fans wanting to buy are going to
| meet gun fans wanting to sell.
|
| Making it trivial for someone to do firearms checks seems
| like an easy thing that everyone should support, but alas
| no one in power seems to actually want such a thing.
| jrockway wrote:
| > making cheap ethanol poisonous and with different color
| closes the loophole in healthcare policy
|
| I have never seen this as anything other than the death
| penalty for evading taxes. If the tax were designed to
| reduce consumption across the population, it needs to scale
| with income or net worth. Otherwise, it's just a tax on the
| poor.
| rsynnott wrote:
| FWIW, many countries no longer allow denaturing via poisonous
| agents, just via extremely unpleasant tasting ones (eg
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denatonium).
| beAbU wrote:
| I heat my house with oil, a truck comes every couple of
| months and fills a massive tank in my back yard.
|
| This "oil" is basically diesel. It smells and feels identical
| to diesel. But it's about 70 cents cheaper per litre compared
| to road diesel. It's dyed red, and you are not supposed to
| put it in your car, but I reckon it'll be more than fine for
| older diesel engines.
|
| The red diesel is not taxed like road diesel, and is much
| cheaper.
| kotaKat wrote:
| > I reckon it'll be more than fine for older diesel engines
|
| There's always the risk of getting your fuel tank dipped if
| you're on road. Moreso for trucks, but some jurisdictions
| will set up inspections and check for dyed fuel and tear
| you an absolute new one when they catch it.
| bluGill wrote:
| The exit of off road events is a common place to check
| this. So much so that there is a reputation in the off
| road community and now they don't even need to check
| often anymore since nobody is stupid enough to risk
| driving a truck that has ever had off road fuel in it
| there.
| extraduder_ire wrote:
| Here, that's commonly called red diesel (despite them
| changing to green decades ago) and it's sold for
| agricultural use. There are a number of cross border
| smuggling operations where criminals remove the dye and
| resell it for somewhere between the two prices.
|
| Though primarily done to trucks, there are occasional fuel
| tests done by police. Even if your tank is currently clean,
| they'll occasionally pull out the fuel filters and check
| those for dye.
| jorvi wrote:
| That sounds like a relic left over from a bygone era. Like the
| digital storage levy we still pay despite music and movie
| piracy only being rampant from 1990s-2000s :)
|
| I love the EU but it certainly has its idiosyncrasies.
| c120 wrote:
| This levy is not meant for piracy, but for legal access -
| like copying the CDs you already bought to your phone.
| Compared to what we used to pay on blank media it's not so
| bad. If the alternative is that you are not allowed to keep
| private copies of anything...
| sam_lowry_ wrote:
| > If the alternative is that you are not allowed to keep
| private copies of anything
|
| The alternative is that we download torrents pretty much
| everywhere except Germany which developed a private
| industry of lawyers extracting money from leachers and
| seeders alike.
|
| Germans instead have VPNs set up in Poland or Ukraine and
| use their streaming websites.
| dspillett wrote:
| Oddities in German copyright or related law don't just
| have that effect on piracy, they make certain forms of
| "copyleft trolling" by third parties (who may be in no
| way linked to the content creator) possible, or at least
| far easier. This isn't the only route to copyleft
| trolling, of course.
|
| Refs:
|
| https://doctorow.medium.com/a-bug-in-early-creative-
| commons-...
|
| https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyleft_troll
| ing
| immibis wrote:
| Fun fact: Stack Overflow possibly violated Creative
| Commons licensing by putting a Mullenweg-style checkbox
| in front of downloading the quarterly data dumps. They
| were notified more than 30 days ago. Therefore, almost
| all content older than 30 days on Stack Overflow is there
| illegally. Any lawyers reading? Go nuts.
| sam_lowry_ wrote:
| Um... I am tempted to to file a 5000EUR claim in the
| small claims court against SO in my jurisdiction for
| violating the licence to my contributions.
|
| Easy money...
| vasco wrote:
| I reject this view of the law completely at least in
| Portugal. The law was introduced to add a tax to every
| storage media one can purchase with the premise that a
| percentage of that storage media will be used for what they
| call piracy. This in effect means everyone is assumed to be
| breaking the law in advance and paying for it in advance.
|
| As for your point about alternatives, if they add a tax on
| oxygen you breathe, will you also then say "it's not so bad
| if the alternative is you are not allowed to breathe at
| all"?
| cfn wrote:
| And the funniest part is that when you buy from Amazon
| (ES, DE, etc) that tax is not applied further hurting the
| local shops.
| ErneX wrote:
| In Spain every device you buy that has some kind of storage
| is taxed for piracy, the money goes to the local equivalent
| of the RIIA or book editors associations.
| JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B wrote:
| Same in France where the money goes to the local RIAA.
| Even if it's a hard drive meant for Linux, or to store
| public domain stuff. It's basically a mafia that gets our
| money despite copying for backup purposes being
| completely legal.
| Joker_vD wrote:
| I wonder if the artists see any share of that money...
| JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B wrote:
| In France it's called the SACEM and I know a few bands
| that are affiliated to this association because it's
| pretty much mandatory if you want to sell anything.
|
| Those bands are not famous but despite making sales, they
| only get a few bucks every year, or it's the SACEM saying
| "we forgot to send you the check lol, no biggies." It's
| the biggest legal mafia I can think of right now.
|
| Most of the money collected is sent to huge artists (like
| what Spotify is doing), there is nothing indie about it
| even if they pretend it's for the glory of French music.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Taxation has overhead. If they were to actually track
| everyone's use and intention on a case-by-case basis,
| everything would get _massively_ more expensive, just to
| offset the amount of extra bureaucracy needed to handle
| this.
|
| It's the same idea as to why reducing the amount of
| means-testing and other hoops to jump to get social
| benefits would _save_ taxpayers money - sure, more people
| who don 't need benefits would get them, but that's more
| than offset by what would be saved by eliminating the
| workload of (and government jobs dedicated to) gate-
| keeping those benefits.
| stavros wrote:
| The alternative should be that you can backup the stuff you
| own for free.
| jampekka wrote:
| > If the alternative is that you are not allowed to keep
| private copies of anything...
|
| That's of course not the only alternative. But the
| recording media levy isn't that bad at least in Finland.
| The income from those is distributed directly to authors
| and artists, skipping the labels and publishers altogether.
| JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B wrote:
| > This levy is not meant for piracy, but for legal access
|
| Backups are already legal in France. It's pure greed. Why
| should we pay twice? Also this levy goes to major labels,
| why should I fund the local Taylor Swift if I want to
| backup my computer?
|
| > blank media
|
| But we still pay that levy on blank media, phones, tablets,
| computers, hard drives, and USB keys. They even wanted to
| put that tax on refurbished items.
|
| > the alternative is that you are not allowed
|
| But it was already legal for the past 50 years. They added
| this tax, it's not a gift for us, it's yet another
| restriction on what was previously legal.
| fmbb wrote:
| > I love the EU but it certainly has its idiosyncrasies.
|
| This issue does not appear weird.
|
| There is some legally technical difference between a video
| camera and a still photo camera. Probably different tariffs
| or something. Not weird at all and it is not uncommon
| anywhere in the world for different classes och products to
| be classified differently, infallibly because of industry
| lobbyism to reduce their costs or to reduce their prices for
| their specific product.
|
| The manufacturer chose to limit the product for the consumer
| for their own economic benefit. Nothing is stopping them from
| playing ball except their own profit motive.
| alibarber wrote:
| 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.
| jampekka wrote:
| Tariffs aren't to protect you. They are to protect
| domestic industry.
|
| https://www.reuters.com/article/technology/eu-to-hit-
| some-di...
| tempaccount420 wrote:
| And "domestic industry" in EU means German :)
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Don't be too jealous. Your industry won't win with German
| anyway, but at least German industry won't lose to China
| like the rest of the world, so as long as you're in the
| EU, you're still ahead :).
| master-lincoln wrote:
| > but to protect me, the European, my device must do
| less?
|
| No, I think it's to protect the European producer of
| devices that can do more from being out-competed by
| imports.
| Certhas wrote:
| 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 political favor and lobbying of local industry.
| gorbypark wrote:
| Yeah, once upon a time I lived in the mountains in Canada
| and bought a lot of stuff from the US because at the time
| the Canadian dollar was more or less at par and far
| cheaper down in the US. I randomly came across the fact
| that mountaineering equipment was tariffed at 0% because
| back in like 1920 Canada, like many countries, thought
| being the first to climb whatever mountain would bring us
| national glory. Anyways, I would drive down Blain, WA to
| a parcel shop and collect the stuff I bought online and
| had shipped there, drive back up and claim it was all
| "mountaineering" equipment. Nope, those ain't ski boots,
| they're mountaineering boots, and etc.
|
| I'd still have to pay tax on it, though. IIRC there
| wasn't any personal exemption amount if you'd left Canada
| for under 24 hours, unlike they have now. Sometimes
| they'd just wave you through even when trying to declare
| something, which was always a nice little bonus savings.
| alibarber wrote:
| >> 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]
| c0n5pir4cy wrote:
| It was just a outdated import fee from a time when it
| made sense to protect the domestic industry - due to
| technological developments the import duty was removed.
| In fact it was removed almost 10 years ago.
|
| https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-8-2016-00
| 127...
| dingdingdang wrote:
| > I love the EU but it certainly has its idiosyncrasies.
|
| That is an acceptable position and you will likely nor
| require further investigation as long as the criticism
| remains vague and is offset by positive sentiment. I too love
| the EU.
| dnh44 wrote:
| I have a family member of retirement age who got into the
| habit of anonymously expressing their love of the EU in the
| comments section of a local newspaper.
|
| After a few months of this they received a phone call on
| their landline warning them that such public expressions
| are inappropriate and that there could be consequences
| should they not find a new hobby.
|
| I too love the EU but I loved it much more 15 years ago.
| lazide wrote:
| Someone at the newspaper, or someone in state security?
| dnh44 wrote:
| Not 100% sure as they didn't introduce themselves but
| whoever called was able to get the phone number that the
| IP address was linked to and I assume both would have to
| have been involved in order to do that.
| lazide wrote:
| Creepy. If you don't mind me asking - eastern eu?
| dnh44 wrote:
| Yes; former communist but not former soviet union. Old
| habits die hard I guess.
| lazide wrote:
| Not sure if we're talking about the same situation, but
| the last time I was in Bulgaria, there was massive brain
| drain and a lot of, eh, 'false nostalgia' for a very
| different past.
|
| But tons of money coming in from the EU. I can imagine a
| lot of public quiet, private 'angst' about the kind of
| situation you're describing.
|
| Wild guess - Romania? (If not Bulgaria)
| bluGill wrote:
| If this story is true then I'm suddenly in favor of
| brexit while before I thought it was worse for everyone.
| Of course I live in the US and so my opinion should be of
| zero interest on anyway. Still if you live in the EU I
| would hope you are concerned.
| throw94838211 wrote:
| What is this load of BS, nobody from the EU called
| because of facebook comments, your family member lied.
| dnh44 wrote:
| I never said someone from the EU called, we think it was
| someone from the national government. Or it could just be
| someone from the newspaper who knows someone at the
| telecom company and they decided to have a laugh.
| rsynnott wrote:
| More or less all tariffs and sales tax systems are like this;
| the rules are _always_ kind of all over the place.
|
| My personal favourite example is when the Irish Supreme Court
| determined that Subway bread was not bread:
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/01/irish-court-
| ru... (Bread had advantageous treatment for VAT purposes, but
| Subway's 'bread' has too much sugar to qualify.)
|
| There's also the famous Jaffa Cake case, of course:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa_Cakes#Legal_status , but
| I think the Subway one has an extra element of absurdity
| because it went all the way to the _Supreme Court_.
| hulitu wrote:
| > My personal favourite example is when the Irish Supreme
| Court determined that Subway bread was not bread
|
| Because it is not. Cola is not water either.
| TRiG_Ireland wrote:
| Importantly, Subway bread is not bread for tax purposes.
| For food standards purposes, it is.
| aredox wrote:
| The very _raison-d 'etre_ of the EU is to remove all tarriffs
| between 20+ countries.
|
| Without the EU, there would be a worse patchwork of rules and
| exceptions.
| hylaride wrote:
| Patchworks of rules and exceptions can be beneficial. It
| allows for experimentation and/or competition as well as
| the fact that regulations can often enough not keep up with
| change and they can be more entrenched if done at a higher
| level. Where, when, and what is better harmonized across a
| whole market VS allowing variation is a matter of debate.
| _fizz_buzz_ wrote:
| > I love the EU but it certainly has its idiosyncrasies.
|
| Tariffs around the world have weird stuff like that. Very
| little to do with the EU itself. Expect a lot more weird
| things like that to happen in the US now with the new US
| government implementing new tariffs.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| > music and movie piracy only being rampant from 1990s-2000s
|
| Huh? It may have dipped at the time Netflix had everything
| streamable, but there's been a resurgence in the now years
| since it hasn't.
| halgir wrote:
| 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...
| huhtenberg wrote:
| 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...
| Y_Y wrote:
| Snuggies are "used" and not "worn" in their promotional
| materials, because it's better to be taxed as a blanket
| than a garment.
|
| https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2017/02/snuggies-
| ar...
| breakingcups wrote:
| 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.
| Pawka wrote:
| Sounds insane. But what is more surprising to me - is why
| dolls were taxed differently than other toys. At first
| glance, it looks like stupid rules force to play silly games.
| liontwist wrote:
| This. It's a pretty reasonable answer to a stupid question.
| Dolls depict people.
| soco wrote:
| Some trade war from the XIX century or something? Or maybe
| because dolls were historically thought for girls?
| RobotToaster wrote:
| Possibly, bisque and china dolls were often imported from
| Germany.
| shortrounddev2 wrote:
| Probably lobbying from a local doll maker
| pkphilip wrote:
| 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. Caramelized popcorn
| with added sugar is taxed at a higher rate of 18%."
| lazide wrote:
| Luxury vs premium vs 'esssential' at work eh?
| xandrius wrote:
| 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.
| jonhohle wrote:
| But a pizza as a whole is a ready-to-eat good. And a
| pizza isn't a pizza without the crust.
| xandrius wrote:
| What I think is happening is that the place is
| specifically charging different tax rates for each part
| of the pizza. That does seem odd but the alternative
| would be to tax the whole of the pizza at a higher tax
| rate than the one presented. Example, most countries
| might put a whole pizza at, say, 10% VAT, while here part
| of it is at, say, 4% and the rest at 10%. Ideally that's
| cheaper.
| dTal wrote:
| The pizza thing seemed incredibly silly to me. Surely the
| restaurant has already paid the tax when they bought the
| raw ingredients? Must any product served in a restaurant
| be taxed according to the rate of the most highly taxed
| ingredient in it, regardless of proportion?
|
| So I looked it up. And yes, that is exactly the case, and
| it's an absurd situation that is causing massive
| headaches.
|
| https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-63281037
| RugnirViking wrote:
| did you get a second glance? did you figure out why they
| are taxed differently?
| K0balt wrote:
| Or my shirt that has a tiny, useless pocket on the inside of
| my shirt (down where it might often be tucked inside of your
| waistband.) It has a tag with a picture of sunglasses on it,
| and a reasonably sized pair of sunglasses might just
| tenuously perch inside.
|
| This makes it a jacket, and jackets are taxed at a lower rate
| than shirts.
|
| The same shenanigans more or less work for most types of
| taxation. There's always an angle to reduce or even eliminate
| taxes, unless you work on salary or for wages. It's clear who
| the system is built for lol.
| redox99 wrote:
| Why would jackets even be taxed differently than shirts.
| It's so silly.
| lazide wrote:
| Freezing to death is worse than looking nice?
| ramses0 wrote:
| 5% of a $100 jacket is $5
|
| 15% of a $33 shirt is $5
|
| 5% of a $33 jacket is $1.65
|
| ...it's definitely gamesmanship but if you squint you can
| see where it comes from.
| sharpshadow wrote:
| This reminds me of maybe the worst tax in human history
| which is also unconstitutional. The Pauschalabgabe[0] in
| Germany, which also got adopted in other countries,
| implements a freely decidable flatrate tax on all mediums
| which can be used to create a pirated copy.
|
| How much tax for a laser printer? Well it depends how
| fast it prints:
|
| Up to 14 pages/Minute: 25,00 EUR Up to 39 pages/Minute:
| 50,00 EUR From 40 pages/Minute: 87,50 EUR
|
| For every storage medium this tax has been paid, because
| of the possibility of making a pirated copy. Technically
| we all paid already to make pirates copies.
|
| 0. https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauschalabgabe
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Isn't this also what allows people to create copies for
| personal use, and what makes downloading pirated media
| legally clear, and only producing/distributing illegal?
| Sounds like a fine tradeoff, as fixing IP laws (and
| international treaties) is way too hard of a problem.
| sharpshadow wrote:
| It's the other way around the law got created because of
| the possibility of private copies and their fear of
| profit loss. A private copy is only legal if the source
| is legal. Circumventing copy protection makes it illegal.
| Pirated copies and temporary copies like streaming are
| afaik grey areas because the difficulty to prove and not
| a trade off.
| wruza wrote:
| It's a silly world where people who never worked send
| people who only worked as mobsters to take money from
| people who work for a living. Then the first two groups
| share that money in 999999:1 proportion. They call it
| "taxation".
|
| It has upsides like having an army for defense, roads and
| other common things. But don't forget the primary nature
| and motivation behind it. They just want your money, and
| your offspring to please them in various ways.
| indymike wrote:
| You ought to see the magic they do when coding medical
| procedures for billing in the US. It makes these tax
| shenanigans look simple.
| rtkwe wrote:
| I don't think I've ever seen that on any of my shirts here
| in the US. Is this in the US?
| rsynnott wrote:
| This sort of thing happens relatively often; Sony also tried
| (unsuccessfully) to have the PS2 deemed a personal computer
| (which would have lead to 0 tariffs in the EU):
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yabasic#PlayStation_2
| theshrike79 wrote:
| IIRC the PS3 Linux option existed because of this same
| tariff.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| 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 the data.
| PetitPrince wrote:
| Maybe it was just a passion project for the engineers or
| even Ken Kutaragi ? See also Net Yarose, Linux For
| Playstation 2, Other OS & Yellow Dog Linux for
| Playstation 3.
| spookie wrote:
| For sure, they had very interesting architectures. Used
| even in supercomputers as a number of them in parallel
| rsynnott wrote:
| 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.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| 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.
| Y_Y wrote:
| I would say that a PC should be compatible with the
| software and hardware of the IBM 5150.
| ngcc_hk wrote:
| Apple mac not a personal computer ?
| pwg wrote:
| When you ship millions of units of the kit, you only need
| a small savings per unit for the sum total to become a
| big enough saving to be noticeable to the financial dept.
| bean counters.
| tommica wrote:
| Which is fucking hilarious when you think that a lot of xmen
| storyline is about them wanting to be perceived as humans
| rickdeckard wrote:
| Which legally probably also makes it a fairy tale
|
| "It's a nice story and the court won't prevent you from
| telling it, but legally these beings in that story are
| clearly NOT humans"
|
| Hilarious.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| And also, they are an "on your face" depiction of the
| dehumanization of the Holocaust victims...
| JBiserkov wrote:
| Whoa, whoa, wait a minute! I can't have POLITICS in my
| comics, my comics are apolitical, there's good guys and
| bad guys, and it's always clear who the bad guys are -
| those that are not [like] me! /s
| alasdair_ wrote:
| And Professor X is Martin Luthor King and Magneto is
| Malcolm X.
| recursive wrote:
| Pretty much fits. It probably wouldn't be such an issue if
| they were just human.
| MasterScrat wrote:
| Thanks, amazing story! I found this nice coverage of the
| events: https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/92007/why-us-
| federal-cou...
| lmm wrote:
| Sounds like Ford putting seats in the back of their vans so
| they could pay less tax when importing them from Mexico, then
| removing them before they're sold. Looks like they've now
| been fined, but they got away with it for a while.
| whaleofatw2022 wrote:
| Technically the ones they got in hot water for were from EU
| to get around the Chicken Tax.
| mauvehaus wrote:
| This was also the reason for the (in)famous BRAT seats:
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subaru_BRAT
| Ntrails wrote:
| A bunch of fun articles around these areas in the UK (free to
| read, think you might need an account though - apologies).
| Two food and one toy:
|
| https://www.ft.com/content/5af5b182-349a-4a25-b4fb-4551908f2.
| ..
|
| https://www.ft.com/content/a6a54008-6059-4052-99ae-282f148f2.
| ..
|
| https://www.ft.com/content/a8d6413e-1184-4f89-9bcb-4f6cb8d7a.
| ..
| walthamstow wrote:
| FT Alphaville is such an excellent column
| magicalhippo wrote:
| Or when the makers of Jaffa Cakes baked a giant 12 inch
| version[1] and brought it to the court to argue they were
| cakes and not biscuits to get lower VAT.
|
| [1]: https://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2015/10/time-
| compan...
| op00to wrote:
| I would eat that.
| petepete wrote:
| I wish supermarkets would put them on the cake aisle
| instead and keep the biscuit aisle pure.
| klondike_klive wrote:
| That's a mass protest I could get behind
| meitham wrote:
| The tax system is over complicated! Why the distinction
| between toys and dolls?
| willcipriano wrote:
| Regulatory capture most likely
| mousetree wrote:
| The Doll Industrial Complex
| steveBK123 wrote:
| When Trump set a tariff on German optics because he was mad
| at Germany, Leica had a workaround as well.
|
| Most of their equipment is made in Portugal and finished in
| Germany, with whatever WTO agreed % of value added that
| allows them to stamp "Made In Germany" on the goods.
|
| So for US markets they issues a series of lenses that were
| more fully finished in the Portuguese factory such that they
| could be stamped "Made In Portugal".
| panosfilianos wrote:
| I wonder if there is any place where one can look up all
| these sort of creative legal-tax shenanigan stories. They are
| so fun and such an interesting lens to see what _is_ via this
| interlinked, case-specific web of events.
| mandibles wrote:
| The book is called Daylight Robbery: How Tax Shaped Our
| Past and Will Change Our Future
|
| https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/43805741-daylight-
| robber...
| walthamstow wrote:
| 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.
| Corrado wrote:
| I think Steven Colbert hosted a show using himself as the
| host. I'm not sure about the tax implications though.
| technothrasher wrote:
| I'm pretty sure that was Chuck Noblet pretending to be
| Steven Colbert.
| DFHippie wrote:
| If there were any tax implications, they were incidental.
| The show was parody, so the opinions he espoused in
| character were necessarily ones he didn't actually hold.
| gwbas1c wrote:
| 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.
| bloomingkales wrote:
| 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.
| treis wrote:
| It's not his identity, though. It's a character that he
| plays.
| mrkstu wrote:
| Yep- if Pee-wee Herman's character were instead named
| after the actor, Paul Reubens, that character could still
| be licensed/sold. Paul Ruebens could still do interviews,
| and take jobs under that name, without permission, but
| he'd better not show up in the Pee-wee outfit.
| ipaddr wrote:
| 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.
| kjs3 wrote:
| 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.
| gwbas1c wrote:
| > 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 2017 election
| when Trump was elected. Steven Colbert did a bit, in
| character as "Steven Colbert", with props from "The
| Colbert Report", and a guest appearance from Jon Stewart.
| (Because the main focus of "The Colbert Report" was to
| mock conservatives.) Otherwise, everything Steven Colbert
| (the person) does on "The Tonight Show featuring Steven
| Colbert" does not involve the "Steven Colbert" character
| from "The Colbert Report."
| jonhohle wrote:
| 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.
| Spoom wrote:
| 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.
| ipaddr wrote:
| 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.
| immibis wrote:
| Alex Jones argued this, with the obvious implication, that
| whoever buys Infowars also owns the character of Alex
| Jones, and Alex Jones cannot play Alex Jones any more
| without infringing their copyright. (But I suspect this
| incoming government doesn't care to apply logical
| consistency to his case)
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| Perhaps IP law has jumped the shark.
| eitally wrote:
| This is akin to Fox News arguing in court that it is, in
| fact, entertainment and not news, despite it's name.
| thunky wrote:
| It's true though. All cable news is "entertainment news",
| not "news".
|
| Nobody should have been getting their "news" from Tucker
| Carlson, Don Lemon, or Rachel Maddow.
|
| IMO they shouldn't be allowed to call themselves news
| without putting entertainment in front.
| dingnuts wrote:
| 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. The problem
| goes deeper. I despair.
| smallmancontrov wrote:
| 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 not the same, and anyone who argues that
| they are immediately reveals themselves to be partisan
| hacks.
| ipaddr wrote:
| 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.
| jonhohle wrote:
| 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.
| thunky wrote:
| From https://www.courthousenews.com/ninth-circuit-backs-
| dismissal...
|
| _[Judge Smith] found OAN and its parent company were
| unlikely to prevail on the defamation claim because the
| challenged speech was not a statement of fact and the
| context of Maddow's show made it likely her audience
| would expect her to make political opinions._
|
| Putting the details of the court case aside, the judge is
| clearly saying that he does not believe that Maddow's
| show was "news" and it shouldn't be treated as such.
| That's what GP was pointing out: the defense of being
| "not news", which both shows have in common.
| 1659447091 wrote:
| > the average person wouldn't understand that
| Entertainment News was different than News
|
| I think the 'average' person thinks of 'Entertainment
| News' as celebrity gossip, e.g., E! News[0] etc. Telling
| them the entertainment news/opinion/commentary they watch
| is not actually 'News' but is entertainment "news"
| doesn't compute
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E!_News
| _n_b_ wrote:
| 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-...
| skrebbel wrote:
| I know nothing about the case but isn't that a little
| like saying "look, we weren't lying, cause we never said
| we were saying the truth"?
| _n_b_ wrote:
| Well, context matters in looking at defamation claims.
|
| Let's say you were involved in a freak hunting accident
| and shot somebody, but you were never charged with any
| crimes.
|
| If the Fox News "hard news" program (if such a thing
| exists) said "skrebbel is a murderer" that is more likely
| to be understood to be a statement of fact, asserting
| something in a legalistic sense. [IANAL, but I think even
| this is unlikely to be defamation, although there is a
| somewhat similar case where ABC settled with Donald Trump
| over saying he was "liable for rape"]
|
| If somebody on Tucker Carlson Tonight said "You can't
| trust anything that skrebbel guy says, he's a murderer!"
| that is more likely to be understood as an opinion based
| on disclosed facts, not a fact. That person isn't
| asserting that you committed or were convicted of a
| specific crime of murder, but rather that you killed
| somebody and it might be your fault. On a show were
| people are arguing and exchanging opinionated views,
| viewers should understand that these things are opinions.
| And therefore that's not defamation, because it's an
| opinion.
| skrebbel wrote:
| > You can't trust anything that skrebbel guy says, he's a
| murderer!
|
| I am deeply offended and contemplating to sue you for
| defamation.
| vixen99 wrote:
| Political argument, as such, is worthwhile insofar as it
| can cause me to reexamine my own preconceptions. Facts I
| can pick up almost anytime.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Isn't it also how, many years ago, Top Gear got away with
| a hit job on Tesla by claiming they're just an
| entertainment show, so they're not obligated to do honest
| or truthful reviews?
| panzi wrote:
| I'm not from the UK, but wasn't there also a cake Vs
| biscuits thing for tax reasons?
| seabass-labrax wrote:
| Yes, Jaffa Cakes - minature sponge cakes flavoured with
| Jaffa oranges. Cakes aren't subject to Value Added Tax in
| the UK, which allows them to be sold more cheaply to the
| consumer or have a greater profit margin. A tribunal
| confirmed that they are true, real and genuine cakes, so
| you may feel entitled to enjoy your tax-free treat!
|
| https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailan
| dco...
| wbl wrote:
| There is a musical I saw at the fringe about this.
| pinkmuffinere wrote:
| I love strange musicals! Link in case anyone else is
| curious: https://playbill.com/article/is-it-a-cake-or-a-
| biscuit-a-jaf...
| JBiserkov wrote:
| And windows being covered with bricks for tax reasons.
| coldpie wrote:
| The window tax features prominently in a visual novel
| video game (The Great Ace Attorney Chronicles), which
| also contains a bunch of wildly outlandish historical
| nonsense and characters like mad-scientist inventors,
| teleportation devices, and Sherlock Holmes types. I was
| blown away to learn the window tax was actually a real
| thing, not something silly just made up for the game.
| crtasm wrote:
| Taxes were also part of the reason newspapers got so
| large: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadsheet#History
| mandibles wrote:
| Daylight Robbery [1]
|
| [1]:
| https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/43805741-daylight-
| robber...
| Macha wrote:
| Subway fell on the wrong side of similar tax laws in
| Ireland - their sugar content in their bread was too
| high, so for tax purposes, their subs are legally cakes:
| https://www.npr.org/2020/10/01/919189045/for-subway-a-
| ruling...
| seanhunter wrote:
| There was also the famous decision in the Jaffa Cake case
| where the VAT treatment depended on whether or not a Jaffa
| cake was a cake or a biscuit
| https://standrewseconomist.com/2023/12/31/let-them-eat-
| cake-...
|
| The tribunal decided that Jaffa Cakes were cakes because
| when they go stale they go hard like a cake whereas a
| biscuit tends to go soft when it goes stale.
| ryao wrote:
| I remember hearing about this because the one who wanted
| it classified as a biscuit proposed the test that
| determined it was a cake. That is the sole reason I
| remember this story.
| walthamstow wrote:
| There's another one about Walkers taste sensations
| poppadom snacks. Question was, is it a crisp or not?
| Can't remember the outcome
| epicalex wrote:
| The specifics were about whether it required any
| additional preparation like a traditional poppadom vs
| being a ready to eat snack like a crisp.
|
| Walkers lost the case.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/19/walkers-
| min...
| FireBeyond wrote:
| I had a friend that argued that Marshall Mathers (Eminem)
| could never actually be sued for defamation because most of
| the defamatory things "he" said wasn't actually him saying
| it, but Slim Shady.
|
| Hah.
| moomin wrote:
| In universe, arguing the X-Men are not human would put you
| firmly in the villain category.
| woodrowbarlow wrote:
| exactly, that was core to the whole plot; oppressed mutants
| fighting to have their basic human rights recognized.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| So it turns out that the final boss denying mutants their
| humanity are... the tax authorities.
| JBiserkov wrote:
| Capitalists? in the villain category? Impossible!
| reverendsteveii wrote:
| This has interesting implications for the Marvel canon, as
| the conflict between average humans and mutants is a primary
| plot driver for x-men
| RobotToaster wrote:
| Was their lawyer William Stryker?
| autoexec wrote:
| > Reminds me of when lawyers successfully argued that X-Men
| are not human
|
| Isn't that true though?
| WithinReason wrote:
| If your camera is compatible with magiclantern you could lift
| that limit and add some really cool features:
|
| https://www.magiclantern.fm/
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| I've come across this before and think it's brilliant. Are
| you aware of any comparable firmware for Nikon users (not
| that I really have any complaints about what Nikon has
| provided, but this is likely a case of not knowing what I'm
| missing out on)?
| WithinReason wrote:
| I'm not, and that's the reason why I went Canon. There is
| also CHDK for cheaper Canon cameras. Canon seems to be less
| litigous when it comes to hacking their firmware.
| bayindirh wrote:
| That requirement is reversed in the last five years IIRC. My
| Sony A7-III doesn't have that, for example. Neither modern
| Canons, AFAIK.
|
| The funnier thing is, you can't use the videos out of your
| camera for commercial purposes, because the video codecs inside
| your camera doesn't come with commercial licenses out of the
| box.
|
| So if you are going to use your camera for production which
| you'll earn money, you need to pay commercial licenses for your
| cameras.
|
| Hah.
| amelius wrote:
| That's fine, as long as I can record long movies with my
| iPhone.
| alibarber wrote:
| But is it a phone that records movies or a movie recorder
| that can make phone calls?
|
| [I jest, but these were almost literally the questions
| being asked by various commissions]
| nudgeee wrote:
| Hilarious. Reminds me of Pioneer CDJs as well, even on the
| flagship CDJ-3000 models. If you read the user manual it
| says:
|
| > About using MP3 files
|
| > This product has been licensed for nonprofit use. This
| product has not been licensed for commercial purposes (for
| profit-making use), [...]. You need to acquire the
| corresponding licenses for such uses. For details, see [...]
|
| Best use an open audio codec instead.
| Dwedit wrote:
| Nowadays, MP3 is an open audio codec. The patents have
| expired.
| MrDOS wrote:
| The _format itself_ is patent-unencumbered. That doesn 't
| mean I couldn't still write a non-free _decoder_ and
| license it to Pioneer for use in their CDJs. Due to
| organizational inertia, I suspect that 's what's going on
| here (e.g., they licensed a decoder from Fraunhofer or
| another commercial implementer twenty years ago, and have
| been using the same one since).
| immibis wrote:
| In this case, everyone at Pioneer knows their CDJs are
| used almost exclusively for commercial purposes, and
| perhaps they couldn't get away with lying about it in the
| fine print.
| troupo wrote:
| > Best use an open audio codec instead.
|
| You will still need a separate license (or multiple
| separate licenses) for commercial purposes.
|
| Music licensing is unbelievably complicated
| t0mas88 wrote:
| That's about the music royalties, the comment above is
| about the CDJs ability to play MP3 encoded audio.
| Springtime wrote:
| _> The funnier thing is, you can 't use the videos out of
| your camera for commercial purposes, because the video codecs
| inside your camera doesn't come with commercial licenses out
| of the box._
|
| Do you have a link? Could only find a 2010 article[1] that
| appears to have been debunked by MPEG-LA themselves (per the
| updates in the blog post).
|
| [1] https://www.osnews.com/story/23236/why-our-civilizations-
| vid...
| bayindirh wrote:
| Of course. Below a selection of some user manuals, with the
| texts copied verbatim.
|
| From Nikon D500 User Manual [0], page 22:
|
| From Nikon Z6/Z7 User Manual [1], page 236:
|
| Sony has a similar note for A9 [3], but can be grouped
| under here, which is almost the same:
|
| AVC Patent Portfolio License: THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED
| UNDER THE AVC PATENT PORTFOLIO LICENSE FOR THE PERSONAL AND
| NON - COMMERCIAL USE OF A CONSUMER TO (i) ENCODE VIDEO IN
| COMPLIANCE WITH THE AVC STANDARD ("AVC VIDEO") AND/ OR (ii)
| DECODE AVC VIDEO THAT WAS ENCODED BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN
| A PERSONAL AND NON - COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AND / OR WAS
| OBTAINED FROM A VIDEO PROVIDER LICENSED TO PROVIDE AVC
| VIDEO. NO LICENSE IS GRANTED OR SHALL BE IMPLIED FOR ANY
| OTHER USE. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED FROM MPEG
| LA, L.L.C. S EE http://www.mpegla.com
|
| From Canon R5 User Manual [2], page 939:
|
| "This product is licensed under AT&T patents for the MPEG-4
| standard and may be used for encoding MPEG-4 compliant
| video and/or decoding MPEG-4 compliant video that was
| encoded only (1) for a personal and non-commercial purpose
| or (2) by a video provider licensed under the AT&T patents
| to provide MPEG-4 compliant video. No license is granted or
| implied for any other use for MPEG-4 standard."
|
| THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED UNDER THE AVC PATENT PORTFOLIO
| LICENSE FOR THE PERSONAL USE OF A CONSUMER OR OTHER USES IN
| WHICH IT DOES NOT RECEIVE REMUNERATION TO (i) ENCODE VIDEO
| IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AVC STANDARD (''AVC VIDEO'') AND/OR
| (ii) DECODE AVC VIDEO THAT WAS ENCODED BY A CONSUMER
| ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL ACTIVITY AND/OR WAS OBTAINED FROM A
| VIDEO PROVIDER LICENSED TO PROVIDE AVC VIDEO. NO LICENSE IS
| GRANTED OR SHALL BE IMPLIED FOR ANY OTHER USE. ADDITIONAL
| INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED FROM MPEG LA, L.L.C. SEE
| HTTP://WWW.MPEGLA.COM
|
| [0]: https://download.nikonimglib.com/archive3/4qUKV00WD5Bh
| 04RdeC...
|
| [1]:https://download.nikonimglib.com/archive5/8Yygr00R9Ojb0
| 58Kwq...
|
| [2]: https://cam.start.canon/en/C003/manual/c003.pdf
|
| [3]: https://helpguide.sony.net/ilc/1830/v1/en/contents/TP0
| 002351...
| Springtime wrote:
| Thanks. Yeah that seems to be the same AVC/h.264
| 'personal and non-commercial' text the 2010 article I
| linked centered on. MPEG-LA spoke to Engadget[1] (finally
| found a working link I could read) and said that a
| separate license for shooting commerical video isn't
| required and that distribution of commercial content via
| licensed providers (Google/Youtube, Apple, etc) is fine.
|
| It seems the one caveat, per the Engadget article, is
| directly distributing AVC video to end users (I suppose
| like a direct download link on a personal site) is what
| requires a license but that license is free to obtain.
|
| [1] https://www.engadget.com/2010-05-04-know-your-
| rights-h-264-p...
| bayindirh wrote:
| I looked around VIA-LA (which acquired MPEG-LA in 2023),
| and I can't see any free licenses about H.264. "Request a
| license" gives you an e-mail address, and that's it.
|
| There are other license models, which is about
| manufacturers, publishers and TV stations, etc.
|
| But nowhere it says "there's a free license for these
| cases, just get it from here".
|
| This all looks like a rabbit hole for me.
| infogulch wrote:
| Can't wait for AV1 to supplant these bureaucratic rent-
| seekers.
| LegitShady wrote:
| I wonder what the commercial licenses actually cost. I
| know there was a big movement of shooting movies and
| events with canons when good video on dslrs first became
| a thing. I never even thought about codec licenses,
| because that stuff shouldn't exist. the manufacturer
| should buy the license so the camera can use it forever,
| because its just a paperweight without it, and I dont
| think they should be able to sell cameras with hidden
| text licenses like that.
| ska wrote:
| This is a problem with 'prosumer' gear in general. If
| camera manufactures bought a transferable commercial
| license for everything in it, it would be too expense for
| consumer use, but the people licensing IP to them want a
| piece if you are making money with it.
|
| Similar to software that is free or low cost for non-
| commercial use only, even with the same functionality.
|
| The good news is typically nobody will chase you down on
| this unless you are making real money. The bad news is,
| once you are, they will.
| mongol wrote:
| Do you need to sign an agreement to this effect before
| starting filming? I don't see how it can legally hold.
| bayindirh wrote:
| Nominally, yes. These are checked before your movie is
| being distributed, and you'll most probably face legal
| consequences if you don't pay for your licenses.
|
| Not getting caught for some time doesn't count either.
| You'll pay retroactively, with some interest, probably.
|
| Licensing page is at [0]. Considering the previous
| shenanigans they pulled against open video and audio
| formats in the past [1], these guys are not sleeping
| around. These guys call people for patent pools in a
| format, and license these pools as format licenses.
|
| [0]: https://www.via-
| la.com/licensing-2/avc-h-264/avc-h-264-licen...
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG_LA#Criticism
| hackingonempty wrote:
| If you bought a legit licensed product the doctrine of
| first sale means their patent rights are exhausted.[0]
| They can't come after you for patent infringement. Those
| licenses are for manufacturers making new licensed
| products, not users of licensed products they purchased.
|
| Can you show a single court case or even a press release
| where someone using a legit licensed product bought on
| the open market was sued for codec patent infringement?
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_doctrine_und
| er_U.S....
| bayindirh wrote:
| The license doesn't come attached to the device itself,
| but you as a entity (e.g. movie studio, broadcaster, or
| solo professional). Transferring the device doesn't
| transfer the license.
|
| You license the right to use the patent pool for
| commercial purposes, not the device itself.
| mongol wrote:
| My read of parent's link says differently.
| bluGill wrote:
| Back in the day Kodak had to buy back all their instant
| cameras after losing to Polaroid. Though I'm not sure if
| law has changed since then (it has, but I'm not sure if
| in relevant ways), or just that they did that because no
| being able to make film made them useless and so buyback
| was a goodwill gesture.
| mongol wrote:
| Could that not have been because they could not sell film
| for them anymore, rendering them useless? So it was to
| make customers whole?
|
| Edit: Missed the last part where you said the same
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| I believe this is why a number of products require you to
| manually activate a free personal license (by clicking a
| button and agreeing to TOS) in the settings instead of
| shipping with it. You are then separately licensing the
| tech from the software vendor and are personally liable
| for infringements.
| matt-p wrote:
| Presumably there's no way of fingerprinting the footage
| itself as 'unlicenced' so the closest they get is asking
| the studio what camera serials they used to film.
|
| What about if you're a YouTuber, surely they don't pay?
| BeFlatXIII wrote:
| We need to normalize piracy like we're cheap Chinese knockoff
| manufacturers. Down with software patents.
| xyst wrote:
| Wipe the EXIF data on the images when you make it public and
| nobody will be the wiser ;)
| bayindirh wrote:
| I'm not sure. Like how color printers write their serial
| numbers and date and whatnot on every page, these devices
| might be watermarking every video subtly, and we might not
| know it.
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| It's not exactly watermarking; each encoder works in a
| different way and it's readily possible to determine (for
| one versed in such matters) which encoder was used to
| generate a video by inspecting the structure of the raw
| (eg h264) bitstream. This might not work reliably enough
| for simpler codecs like JPEG but for something as
| complicated as modern video codec where there are a
| million ways to generate a compatible payload it is as
| unique as a fingerprint.
| bayindirh wrote:
| That's true, but I thought of embedding a serial number
| and a date into the video, periodically, for example,
| which can be quantized as noise, but not very visible
| unless you filter the frame a very specific way, or pass
| through a tool.
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| It's fairly useless since raw footage isn't typically
| distributed; it would be re-encoded first which would
| definitely destroy that watermark. So it would be a
| scandal that doesn't necessarily accomplish much.
| raverbashing wrote:
| Silly restrictions aside, I feel that most use cases don't have
| takes longer than 30min anyway (I mean, on cameras that you
| actually start and stop recording manually)
|
| But yeah technology evolves and the taxes remain. (Though don't
| complain too much or they will just pick the higher taxes for
| the newer cameras)
| amelius wrote:
| Camera manufacturers can just enable the functionality as an
| easter-egg.
|
| So they just publish some activation code on some consumer
| forum somewhere and from then on it's the consumer's
| responsibility.
|
| I think they did the same thing with DVD region restrictions.
| chongli wrote:
| Streaming is a major use case where the camera may be
| recording continuously for several hours at a time. Another
| one is for video meetings, though in that case I'd prefer it
| if my camera forced the end of the meeting after 30 mins.
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| I can't see why you think there's a usecase for 25 minute
| videos but not 35 minute ones.
|
| Speaking as an amateur photographer with multiple DSLRs: I've
| certainly needed longer than that for a number of gigs.
| liotier wrote:
| > I couldn't use my Canon SLR to record more than 30 minutes of
| video continuously
|
| Large sensors optimized for still photography overheat when
| operating continuously for video, so they feature safety
| limits. Sensor heat dissipation is a big problem and a major
| differentiating feature of top end cinema cameras.
| ansgri wrote:
| My Sony doesn't have this length limit, but will readily
| overheat and turn off after several minutes of highest-
| bitrate recording. So no, overheating is trivially protected
| against via temperature sensors, not some arbitrary timeout.
| Angostura wrote:
| I seem to recall that there is a special button sequence you
| can use on Canon cameras that disabled the restriction. It's.
| Been many years, but Google should have something for your
| model.
| sokz wrote:
| Reminds me of the Indian public discourse when the government
| wanted to tax caramel popcorn in movie theatres at 18% when the
| normal ones were taxed at 5%.
| spuz wrote:
| Funnily enough, I have actually used the 30 minute limit as a
| "feature" on my Panasonic Lumix G80 (the cousin to the
| unrestricted G85) as sometimes I would want to set up my camera
| and leave it recording for 20-30 minutes while I walked away to
| do things but wouldn't physically be able to return to switch
| it off. It would save me battery and SD card space because it
| automatically stops after 30 minutes.
| entropie wrote:
| That reminds me of https://xkcd.com/1172/
| vr46 wrote:
| It may have been a customs and taxation issue here, but
| manufacturers are constantly adding costs of their own onto
| software before often reversing track.
|
| Examples: Leica (for Fotos) charged a princely sum for various
| trifles before removing these fees.
|
| Naim: charged PS35 for the control app - which I paid - before
| going free, and now the app is the only way to control whole
| swathes of their increasingly-execrable hardware.
|
| These two companies' kit is expensive, luxury, premium, however
| you want to refer to it, and so they probably felt comfortable
| wringing their customers a little more. Probably understandable
| in the case of Leica owners who will pay PS250 for a viewfinder
| dioptre correction lens (puts hand up again) but less so for
| hifi owners.
|
| It is not that audiophiles haven't been shown to spent
| inordinate sums on the dumbest, snakiest, oiliest tat this side
| of an Oxford Street souvenir shop, but it has to be material
| and palpable.
| chefandy wrote:
| It's somewhat subjective, but I disagree it's easier to
| fleece photographers than audiophiles. There are professional
| art photographers that use Leica cameras because they're
| great, and $250 is pocket change for a lot of serious optical
| equipment. Look at the Canon L lenses and the like. Lots of
| people that buy that stuff don't _need_ it, but it's not
| expensive solely for the sake of being expensive.
|
| I have yet to find a professional sound engineer, producer,
| or artist that calls themself an _audiophile_ or uses the
| insanely overpriced gear marketed to them. Lots of that stuff
| is demonstrably bullshit and only valuable because it's
| expensive.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I think the time limit is because of the way the imports are
| classified.
|
| I believe that under 30 minutes, allows it to be a digicam, but
| over, requires it to be classified as a video camera.
|
| Most pros generally take scenes as groups of short runs, so
| that doesn't matter (Canon is used extensively in professional
| entertainment).
| p0w3n3d wrote:
| There was a custom ROM for canon available quite a few years
| ago... Now all I can find is https://www.magiclantern.fm/ but I
| believe the previous one was called CHDK or something like that
| p0w3n3d wrote:
| Got it only in German here:
| https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_Hack_Development_Kit
| and on fandom.wiki there's a page ... But I used it like
| hundreds of years ago so not sure if it still works...
| ElizabethGreene wrote:
| CHDK is what came to mind for me too. I used to make great
| time lapses with it. 10/10 software.
|
| It looks like they have firmware for the G5 X, but not the
| G5 X 2. :/
| plorg wrote:
| From my memory CHDK was a project for Canon's consumer/point-
| and-shoot cameras, and Magic Lantern is for the DSLRs.
| jcarrano wrote:
| In Germany, all storage products (e.g. USB sticks) have to pay
| a canon "because you could use it to pirate media". Now, if I
| pre-paid the canon for pirating, does it mean I'm authorized
| to?
| hyperman1 wrote:
| In Belgium, the same tax is raised by Auvibel for private
| copying. It allows us, in theory, to make copies of
| everything (except sheet music) that we acquired legally,
| even if we don't have access to the original anymore. So
| lending anything from a library or a friend, and making and
| keeping a copy is fair game.
|
| Still not a fan, and probably the EUCD makes most of this
| useless.
| Falos wrote:
| You're expected to! I think we could even calculate exactly
| how much.
| petecooper wrote:
| >I also discovered that I couldn't use my Canon SLR to record
| more than 30 minutes of video continuously.
|
| My (now ancient) Canon 5D mk2 is limited to ~28 minutes of
| video due to file system limitations.
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| Is the limitation the same regardless of quality, format,
| frame rate, etc? That would make me suspicious.
| jeffhuys wrote:
| But the EU doesn't do tariffs? I thought that was exclusive to
| the incoming US administration, because it's stupid.
| vladvasiliu wrote:
| Yes it does. You have a customs desk at every entry port,
| complete with a "goods to declare" sign. If you buy stuff
| online, you'll also have to pay up if the products are taxed.
|
| You can learn about those here: https://taxation-
| customs.ec.europa.eu/customs-4/calculation-...
|
| We also have VAT (sales tax) which is levied on top of the
| import duties (so the tax is taxed).
|
| There are even restrictions on the quantities of some
| products you are allowed to carry between member states, such
| as alcohol and tobacco, mostly because taxes on those vary by
| jurisdiction.
| pc86 wrote:
| One of the obvious "wtf?" things about this regulation is that
| regulators believe 29 minutes of video doesn't qualify as
| video?
| crashingintoyou wrote:
| I wonder if 3rd party camera firmware will become more of a
| thing - e.g. https://www.magiclantern.fm/ or
| https://chdk.fandom.com/wiki/CHDK
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| Do you know of anything equivalent for Nikon?
| mandibles wrote:
| Taxes Rule Everything Around Me
| sombragris wrote:
| There's the well-known case of Spain in 1985, that would impose
| a tariff on computers with 64 KB RAM or less. At that time,
| Amstrad launched the CPC 464 with 64KB worldwide, but for Spain
| launched the special model CPC 472, wich had a daughter board
| with an additional 8Kb chip not connected to the main RAM and
| thus unusable, but enough for circumventing the tariff. That
| tariff was short-lived.
| jandrese wrote:
| That tariff difference between "video" and "stills" cameras
| having a 30 minute cutoff is funny. If you think about the vast
| majority of the time when shooting moving video with a handheld
| or tripod mounted camera it does not involve 30+ minute long
| continuous takes. You could have a professional movie camera
| with that restriction and it wouldn't be a problem in the vast
| majority of cases.
|
| So the restriction ends up being between things like _security
| cameras_ , _vtc cameras_ , and _traffic cameras_ vs all other
| times of cameras. The relatively shitty camera in a doorbell or
| on your dashboard end up being more expensive to import than
| the fancy DSLR just because it is used in a different
| application.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| This happens even outside electronics and software. I ordered
| some tevas recently to replace my old ones and discovered they
| now have a light felt layer over the rubber bottom. If I had to
| guess its like the converse reason of adding a similar felt
| layer: to classify them as slippers.
| mrtksn wrote:
| It's just a business model like segmentation IMHO. BMWs or
| Tesla's having the hardware but require a payment for enabling it
| or CPU manufacturers disabling certain features to sell them at a
| lower price. IIRC the idea is that to let people pay what they
| can so you can have larger profits when allowing lower price
| points. In this case it appears to directly charge for a
| service(a software that needs to be created and maintained) that
| you may choose not to have.
|
| I don't have problem with these practices at all as long as they
| don't try to prevent it you from running your hardware through
| alternative means. If the camera police isn't trying to get you
| for writing your own software to avoid paying Canon 5$ a month,
| its all good.
| regularfry wrote:
| With CPU manufacturers it at least makes sense for them to have
| a market for partially faulty chips. That's not what's going on
| here.
| mrtksn wrote:
| They don't just sell the defective one for cheap though, they
| have all kinds of tricks and the ratios fit the market.
| martinbaun wrote:
| Great article, yeah it is quite sad with these things. Louis
| Rossman talked extensively on these issues.
|
| By the way, your images go to a weird url for me, maybe it is
| because it is Brave browser.
|
| For example
|
| https://romanzipp.com/blog/[%7B%22id%22:%22assets::blog//no-...
| romanzipp wrote:
| Yep, I'm on it. Thanks!!
| omegacharlie wrote:
| > Companies squeezing every last penny out out their customers is
| no news. And Canon is no stranger.
|
| In relation to the rent-seeking behavior of Canon they allegedly
| nudged a certain open-source camera firmware project not to
| support some of their most high-end cameras. But with Canon
| losing interest in DSLRs I hope the situation changes.
| jjcob wrote:
| In case you are considering Nikon as an alternative, their Webcam
| Utility might be free, but it doesn't work on the latest version
| of macOS.
|
| There are 3rd party utilities (paid), but I had trouble with
| autofocus when I tried them.
|
| I wish camera manufacturers put half as much effort into
| usability as smartphone companies. Why does a camera need drivers
| to be recognized as a webcam at all? Why doesn't my 2000EUR
| camera come with GPS and LTE built in? Why is the software still
| as crappy as in the 90ies?
| tobyhinloopen wrote:
| Modern Sony cameras can be used as webcam without any software.
| Just plug in, select usb streaming, and done.
| matwood wrote:
| Sonys are some of the better cameras for software, but that's
| a low bar. I love my Nikons for picture taking though.
| tobyhinloopen wrote:
| Nikon has been killing it lately. Z8, Z9, Z6iii, lots of
| cool lenses! If you're in the market for a full frame body
| and "the holy trinity" (16-35, 24-70, 70-200 F/2.8), you
| can't go wrong with any of the major 3. They're all very
| competitive.
|
| (but I would go with the Sony because I like their designs
| the most, Nikon would be my 2nd choice)
|
| Nikon users are missing out on a 16-35 2.8 though, but I'm
| sure Nikon is working on it.
| matwood wrote:
| I've only ever used Nikon starting with a D40 ~20 years
| ago. I regularly still use my D7100, but primarily use my
| Z5. The only time I'm ever envious of another camera
| system is when connection options like this come up. But
| then I go out and take pictures and I'm reminded why I'm
| probably Nikon for life :)
| matwood wrote:
| Wow, you made me go check and Nikon still hasn't fixed the
| software. Supported OS:
|
| macOS Ventura version 13 macOS Monterey version 12 macOS Big
| Sur version 11
| rozenmd wrote:
| I'm running my full frame Nikon DSLR as a webcam using a $15
| USB to HDMI dongle - works great.
| calgoo wrote:
| Same, i also got a "remote clicker" cable, and have modified
| the button to always stay pressed, so it does not switch off
| after MAX_TIME (camera model D3300)
| a-french-anon wrote:
| > Why doesn't my 2000EUR camera come with GPS and LTE built in?
|
| 2 seconds later on HN: why does my 2000EUR camera spies on me?
| If you want a smartphone, use one, leave us be with our sane
| tools.
| jjcob wrote:
| The problem is that right now, you need to install a Nikon
| Spyware app on your smartphone if you want geotagged photos.
|
| If the camera had GPS built-in, you could have geo-tagged
| photos without needing spyware on your phone.
|
| Geotagged photos are extremely useful, there's a reason why
| they sell GPS dongles for cameras. Cameras really should have
| that built-in (and I think the top-of-the-line models do)
| quixoticelixer- wrote:
| It does work there is just a bit more effort involved in
| setting it up
| stray wrote:
| Nikon's HDMI output works just fine on MacOS.
| jjcob wrote:
| Yes, but that requires extra hardware.
|
| I wish Nikon would just include useful features like USB
| webcam mode out of the box.
| delta_p_delta_x wrote:
| Is there a reason OP can't get themselves a $50 USB capture card
| and a $20 HDMI cable, and use OBS to capture the feed from the
| HDMI-out in the camera? Most decent capture cards also expose
| themselves as cameras to almost all applications. This is my
| setup, and it works perfectly. Nikon D7500 as a webcam. More
| professional setups use Atomos monitors with built-in NVMe drives
| mounted directly to the camera.
|
| I generally find the camera manufacturers' in-house programs
| absolutely terrible. Nikon's webcam utility is free[1], but has
| significant limitations over the capture card setup. Likewise for
| Sony. Both have considerable resolution and framerate limits, and
| I'd rather feed a 4K 60 FPS stream into my meeting program and
| let it handle the compression than have an XGA 1024x768 15 FPS
| output from the camera.
|
| [1]:
| https://downloadcenter.nikonimglib.com/en/products/548/Webca...
| timewizard wrote:
| Sure. I can do anything. It's the principle of the thing.
| brushfoot wrote:
| The principle is to use the right tool for the job.
|
| USB can do just about anything. Video out is one possibility.
| But HDMI can already do that.
|
| It doesn't make sense to expect the manufacturer to provide a
| free app to make USB do something you can already do over
| HDMI, and for which HDMI is intended.
|
| This article is rage bait where there's no real cause for
| outrage. But it's adjacent enough to "right to repair" and
| "subscription fatigue" that it sounds outrageous.
| tjoff wrote:
| The right too for the job most certainly is not HDMI.
|
| The video feed should (depending on usecase, sure) be
| compressed on the device and sent over USB.
|
| Sending uncompressed video just to be badly compressed in a
| capture device is most definitely not the right tool for
| the job.
| brushfoot wrote:
| On these cameras, HDMI is the right tool for the job. USB
| video quality is often poor where it's supported, and
| HDMI is there for video output.
|
| These cameras are not made to be webcams. OP is using
| theirs as one, and that's fine; I do too. But device-side
| compression for USB video out, a webcam app, etc. are
| webcam features. They come at a cost, and many camera
| buyers don't need them.
|
| For those of us using these cameras in these nonstandard
| ways, we can reach for HDMI, which is the right tool for
| this particular job.
| tjoff wrote:
| The camera already have high-quality compression since it
| needs that to store video. If maybe latency is poor or
| other reasons exist not to use that then fine. HDMI can
| be a _workaround_ , it still is an insanely bad tool for
| the job.
| brushfoot wrote:
| It's a workaround for the camera not bundling all the
| features that it needs to be a webcam, absolutely.
|
| The standalone cameras I've used haven't included free
| webcam functionality and I don't think that's outrageous,
| but apparently many people here who've been downvoting me
| disagree.
|
| Personally, I think HDMI is great for A/V tasks that a
| camera doesn't support out of the box since it's a widely
| supported standard.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Realtime compression in a portable device with limited
| processing power is going to reduce quality. It is better
| to transport uncompressed video and let the receiver
| decide how to manage it. USB-3 has adequate bandwidth for
| doing this. USB-C lets you switch to DisplayPort if the
| receiver can handle it.
| tjoff wrote:
| The camera already does realtime compression to the
| sdcard. It has dedicated hardware for this. USB-2 has
| adequate bandwidth for compressed audio+video.
|
| Your HDMI capture device (which is a cheap portable
| device with limited processing power) is probably going
| to do a much worse job.
|
| Sending uncompressed video over usb is absurd.
| elaus wrote:
| I mean why invest $70 (and a lot of ressources) in hardware
| when, in theory, you have everything you need, the software is
| just locked behind a paywall?
| delta_p_delta_x wrote:
| But you generally _don 't_ have everything you need. As I've
| mentioned most cameras' USB webcam output (if at all present)
| is quite bad, even via the official programs or gphoto. The
| 'correct' way to access video output is through their, well,
| video-out port (usually HDMI), which almost necessitates a
| capture card or monitor.
| morsch wrote:
| Evidently these cameras _are_ capable of exporting high
| quality video via USB, if you pay 5 bucks a month. This
| doesn 't sound like a hardware problem. It also has a
| control channel, unlike HDMI.
| delta_p_delta_x wrote:
| > these cameras are capable of exporting high quality
| video via USB
|
| No, they are not. The USB port is (usually) USB 2.0 and
| the video output, even though the application might
| _claim_ 1080p 30 FPS, is a 'digital upscale'[1] from XGA
| or 720p. That in my view is decidedly _not_ 'high
| quality'. My monitor has eight times that resolution and
| more than four times the framerate, totalling more than a
| 32x increase in bandwidth, and it is from 2021.
|
| If users want high-quality video out from their pro
| cameras, use a capture card or monitor. That's how it's
| _always_ been. As another commenter said, this article is
| rage-bait because the OP has purposely chosen a decidedly
| poorly-supported way to use their camera 's functionality
| instead of the industry standard.
|
| [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/canon/comments/1e32r51/cano
| n_eos_we...
| morsch wrote:
| Fair enough -- though I'd take 720p from my DSLR over
| 1080p+ from my webcam every time; that's enough pixels
| for a meeting. And I also had to get a capture card for
| it, because the USB access was locked behind
| proprietary/shitty software (Sony).
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| Did you bother to look up _literally any part of your
| comment_?
|
| The Canon G5 X II has USB 3.1 over a USB-C port. All of
| what you said does not in any way shape or form apply to
| the topic at hand.
| rozenmd wrote:
| You don't even need OBS for this - capture cards show up as
| digital cameras in macOS
| delta_p_delta_x wrote:
| Indeed.
| junaru wrote:
| You do, capture cards introduce latency something around
| 30-50ms (at least the cheaper ones) and if you are using non
| built in mic you need to resync everything up.
| michaelt wrote:
| How easy and slick this setup will be depends on the camera.
|
| For example, my camera can't operate and charge over USB at the
| same time, so you need a supplemental power supply. And it
| won't autofocus continuously or keep the exposure and white
| balance stable unless you're recording a video. And videos can
| only be so long.
|
| So I've got a HDMI-to-USB converter, a special HDMI cable, a
| special power brick and adaptor, a special tripod so all those
| cables don't pull the whole setup over, and I've got to restart
| video recording every 30 minutes or so, and wipe the microsd
| card regularly.
|
| Your camera's probably better suited to this than mine :)
| josephg wrote:
| What camera do you have? Why can't it autofocus when its not
| recording?
|
| I believe you, but thats very silly.
| vladvasiliu wrote:
| None of my stills cameras focused continuously out of the
| box, probably to save power (moving potentially heavy lens
| elements around requires energy). My Olympus mirrorless can
| be told to focus all the time, but it's not the default.
| entropie wrote:
| I can force my (canon) camera to autofocus while not
| recording but usually you want to avoid that. It really
| hits the battery because the lens is permanentely
| adjusting.
|
| Most mirrorless cameras a hybrids and you usually do not
| need this feature while takting stills.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| They -can-, they just don't, unless you specifically enable
| it for power reasons.
| brushfoot wrote:
| No offense, but this sounds like a terrible camera for your
| use case. It sounds like you know that.
|
| My Sony that I've been using as a webcam since COVID can do
| that, and it was 6 years old when I bought it. Upgrade when
| you can!
| delta_p_delta_x wrote:
| To be fair, I _also_ have the dummy battery + HDMI capture
| + desktop clamp mount + live view faff for my D7500, but
| once you set it up it 's just... there. I don't need to
| fiddle with it much further. It's a bit of a cable mess but
| I intend to upgrade to the Z6iii together with an upgrade
| to a desktop (so I can have a PCIe capture card), which
| will cut down the number of dongles all over.
| brushfoot wrote:
| I have that setup too. I was referring to this:
|
| > it won't autofocus continuously or keep the exposure
| and white balance stable unless you're recording a video
|
| That basically defeats our setup as now they're worrying
| about their recording time running out in the middle of a
| meeting.
| jeswin wrote:
| I've been using a Sony mirrorless (anything above a5100 will
| work) for over 6 years now; it needed a "dummy battery", and
| an HDMI capture card (about $25 for noname brands, or $80+
| for Elgato, BlackMagic etc). It auto-focuses, doesn't write
| to microsd, and works flawlessly.
|
| Even if you aren't buying Elgato, you can use Elgato's
| compatibility page to know which cameras work well:
| https://www.elgato.com/us/en/s/cam-link-camera-check
| brushfoot wrote:
| Same setup here, down to the brand.
|
| For those who don't know, the dummy battery is a power
| cable with a battery-shaped adapter that plugs in where the
| battery would go to provide continuous power.
| brushfoot wrote:
| A word of warning on capture cards: I first bought a no-
| name off Amazon, thinking to save money. The video quality
| was abysmal. Artifacts everywhere.
|
| I returned it and got an Elgato, which has worked great
| from day one.
| gol706 wrote:
| Weirdly I had the exact opposite experience. Elgato
| always felt laggy. I bought a no-name USB Stick format
| card and it looked great (once I got my camera settings
| dialed in) but would disconnect when I bumped my desk. I
| cracked the case open and soldered a USB cable I cut in
| half to the pads, and 3d printed a new case and it's been
| rock solid for the last 4 years. Only problem is the once
| in a blue moon I need to use Teams my video get's
| horizontally squished and I can't seem to fix it.
| brushfoot wrote:
| > Is there a reason OP can't get themselves a $50 USB capture
| card and a $20 HDMI cable, and use OBS to capture the feed?
|
| This is how I've used my Sony camera since COVID. It works
| great.
|
| I wasn't sure at first if OP was trying to do something
| nonstandard, because you get video to your computer with a
| video cable. Plus a way for your computer to capture that,
| which for me is CamLink.
|
| Honestly, I'm surprised there's a relevant manufacturer app at
| all. Not surprised that it costs money.
|
| This is a bit like not having power in your home to charge your
| camera with and asking the manufacturer for a generator. They
| may have a solution, but the price will be bad.
| SSLy wrote:
| OP wants to just use the USB cable, which makes sense for me.
| brushfoot wrote:
| Why should the manufacturer raise the price of the camera
| for you and me just to implement something extra OP wants
| that they can already do through HDMI?
| afandian wrote:
| They have already implemented it, otherwise it wouldn't
| work.
| brushfoot wrote:
| The app is part of the implementation. And they're
| apparently subsidizing the cost by charging separately
| for it.
|
| Drop the fee and that's now baked into the camera's base
| price.
| dspillett wrote:
| It is already implemented, otherwise they wouldn't be
| able to enable it once the subscription is active.
|
| Why should the OP need to pay a subscription to enable a
| feature that is build into the camera, that is a standard
| feature on other cameras and imposes no ongoing costs to
| the manufacturer1? This is an example of gouging, pure
| and simple.
|
| ----
|
| [1] unless they are forcing the user to use their hosted
| service for steaming the webcam output, in which case
| there is some bandwidth and perhaps other processing
| cost, but that is on them for having not just implemented
| a standard that enables local-only recording
| brushfoot wrote:
| > Why should the OP need to pay a subscription to enable
| a feature that is build into the camera
|
| Getting video into your computer through USB is _not_
| built into the camera. Else why is OP downloading an app
| to do it?
|
| The app is part of the implementation, and it costs
| money. I have no problem with the manufacturer charging
| separately for that. The rest of us can use a video cable
| to get video into our computers.
| dspillett wrote:
| You are entirely ignoring the subscription for what
| should, at most, be a one-off cost.
|
| _> The app is part of the implementation_
|
| Give other cameras can do it, there has a standard for it
| since 2003, and there are F/OSS implementations for
| others, maybe I'm asking the wrong question and instead
| should have asked "why should the OP pay a subscription
| for their bad choice of how to implement the feature?".
| brushfoot wrote:
| The company can charge whatever they want for this
| feature. Most people who can afford to use a good camera
| as their webcam will never use it, because they know the
| quality is worse and they'd rather use industry-standard
| HDMI.
|
| If I asked Sony for a power generator to charge my
| camera's battery, they could charge me a million a month
| if they'd like. Hopefully that would signal to me that
| there are better and more standard options.
| dspillett wrote:
| _> The company can charge whatever they want for this
| feature._
|
| They can. But that doesn't mean everyone is forced to be
| happy about it, and doesn't mean it can't be talked about
| so other people who might not be happy about it can use
| the information to chose a different camera from a
| different manufacturer instead of discovering the issue
| post-purchase.
|
| _> they 'd rather use industry-standard HDMI_
|
| Or the industry standards for video-over-USB, that this
| manufacturer chose not to implement because they couldn't
| easily gouge a subscription out of it.
| brushfoot wrote:
| OP bought a camera not sold as a webcam and is trying to
| use it as a webcam. Fair enough, I've done the same.
|
| A standard way of doing that is to use a video cable to
| get video output and plug that into a capture card on
| your computer. OP doesn't want to do that and would
| prefer that the manufacturer included webcam
| functionality out of the box.
|
| Also fair enough! But if that's the requirement, buy a
| camera that meets that requirement, and understand that
| it's not a standard feature in these cameras.
|
| I get subscription fatigue, but this is not a good hill
| to die on. It's getting outraged over expecting a camera
| to do what it wasn't designed to do, when there are
| already simple and standard ways of making it do that.
| SSLy wrote:
| Requiring a separate kit made of HDMI cap box, and two
| usb cables (assuming the box power is feedable via usb)
| also makes canon create further e-waste. That's only
| because they're greedy and that stuff is already inside.
| And nothing on the site of the camera https://www.canon-
| europe.com/cameras/powershot-g5-x-mark-ii/... gives any
| indication that such external app and subscription would
| be required.
| brushfoot wrote:
| > That's only because they're greedy
|
| No, it's because Canon didn't sell OP a webcam. There's
| no expectation for them to provide webcam software.
|
| If someone wants an external camera that doubles as a
| webcam with no adapters, that's totally fine for them!
| They should shop with that in mind.
| mzajc wrote:
| OP bought a camera, and the camera can be used as a
| webcam - but deliberately not with standard protocols.
| Pretending the limitation is of technical nature rather
| than a result of corporate greed is both delusional and
| harmful to consumer rights.
| brushfoot wrote:
| Nothing about this is deceptive or a violation of
| consumer rights. Far from it.
|
| This is common for cameras. My Sony works in the same
| way. It can be used as a webcam using HDMI and a capture
| card. Canon clearly states this in their marketing for
| OP's camera.
|
| OP apparently didn't understand this, but the solution is
| simple -- get an HDMI cable and a capture card.
| dspillett wrote:
| _> OP bought a camera not sold as a webcam and is trying
| to use it as a webcam. Fair enough, I 've done the same.
| A standard way of doing that is..._
|
| And another standard way, supported by at least some
| cameras, without even single extra charge never mind a
| subscription0, is apparently video over USB.
|
| _> I get subscription fatigue, but this is not a good
| hill to die on._
|
| No users are dying on this hill1. OP is just stating, in
| an exasperated tone admittedly, what the state of affairs
| is with this camera. Some of us are agreeing with him
| that it seems off, and is part of the ongoing
| enshitification of the software and hardware worlds.
| Others can use this information to help guide their
| choice of camera (or supplier of other equipment), or
| not, their choice.
|
| ----
|
| [0] Which implies they could decide to discontinue the
| feature at a whim later, no matter how much the user has
| paid between now and then.
|
| [1] I'll refrain2 from mentioning that you are putting up
| quite a determined fight for the "nah, this sort of thing
| is fine, really" hill.
|
| [2] Oops, I tell a lie...
| nohillside wrote:
| Indeed, we should be glad they don't charge us for each
| picture we take ...
| golli wrote:
| Also why does it have to be a subscription in the first
| place. If it is a non standard use that requires extra
| software you don't and you want to separate those costs
| from users that don't need it, then make it a one time
| payment at least.
|
| Subscriptions make sense when you have ongoing costs like
| significant load on servers that are needed for the
| service provided. But not for some piece of software you
| write once and are more or less done with (minus some
| small patches)
| wat10000 wrote:
| That's the really egregious thing. I think a bunch of
| programmers should be able to see the merit in charging
| money for software. It's a bit of a bitter pill in a
| product that we mentally categorize as "device" rather
| than "computer" but it's at least somewhat sensible.
| Software costs money to make, that money has to come from
| customers, and getting it from the customers who use it
| makes sense.
|
| But requiring a subscription is such a blatant "fuck you,
| we want more profit without doing any work, and you're
| going to provide it."
| mjevans wrote:
| USB 2.0, that bog standard version from 2000 that is
| assumed to be the lowest common denominator possible for
| any new hardware...
|
| Edit: 4am math correction...
|
| 480Mbit/sec transfer; Uncompressed, that's ~333333 pixels
| per frame for 60FPS. Not even considering overhead, but
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_video_device_class 1.1
| support from 2005 includes Motion JPEG (low compression,
| all patents probably expired given it was developed in the
| 90s) and MPEG2 (also sufficiently old, to be unencumbered
| now).
|
| However, if they'd use USB 3.0 ~ 5gbps, ideally over a
| USB-C port, the connection would be more modern, and easily
| able to handle even 4K video with now free from patents and
| well supported compression algorithms.
| SSLy wrote:
| the camera indeed has USB-C port, 3.2 gen1
| mjevans wrote:
| I like the new marketing names they finally settled on.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB#Connector_type_quick_re
| fer...
|
| USB ${N}Gbps instead of the confusing old labels and
| operation mode classifications.
|
| I'll assume you meant the 5Gbps version of the link,
| which ( 5000000000/8/3/60 ) can drive about 3.47M (24
| bit) pixels at 60fps, even raw. https://en.wikipedia.org/
| wiki/List_of_common_display_resolut... It looks like 4K
| mode would require the use of VP8 (likely no hardware
| included) or h264. Patent license issues are soon to
| expire, (though some BS one won't until 2030, not sure
| how that's even possible), but no remedy for older models
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Video_Coding#Licen
| sin... drat.
| baxtr wrote:
| OP expects the camera comes with some decent convenience at
| that price.
| brushfoot wrote:
| OP is using a camera as a webcam that's not sold as a
| webcam. That's fine, I do the same with mine, but it's also
| fine of the manufacturer to allow for that by simply
| providing A/V interfaces instead of trying to account for
| every use case.
| bhickey wrote:
| Canon advertises their cameras as webcams.
| brushfoot wrote:
| No, they don't. They advertise that the camera can "turn
| into" a webcam with the right software or through HDMI
| out.
| bhickey wrote:
| You're simply mistaken.
| brushfoot wrote:
| The marketing material for OP's model:
|
| > Use the EOS Utility Webcam Beta Software (Mac and
| Windows) to turn your Canon camera into a high-quality
| webcam, or do the same using a clean HDMI output.
| bhickey wrote:
| Marketing material changes over time and varies between
| models and regions. Canon customers bought their cameras
| because Canon advertised a set of features. I bought mine
| because Canon advertised that I could use it as a webcam.
| I don't think you're making a persuasive argument.
| brushfoot wrote:
| You still can use it as a webcam. It's right there in the
| marketing materials. Clean HDMI out. That lets you use it
| as a webcam.
|
| Canon advertising its potential to be used as a webcam
| doesn't mean it's a webcam. It means you can adapt it for
| use as one. And you still can. The adapter is an HDMI
| cable or software, which may or may not be free.
| baxtr wrote:
| That's basically the same though, isn't it?
| brushfoot wrote:
| That's what the marketers wanted us to think, sure.
|
| It's like me trying to sell you a car that can "turn
| into" a boat with the right attachments. Notice I didn't
| say how much the attachments cost.
| bhickey wrote:
| Respectfully, you're just making things up.
| brushfoot wrote:
| I resent that accusation. We should have a Zoom call on
| two Canon webcams to hash this out.
| bhickey wrote:
| Pay my subscription for the next decade and we have a
| deal.
| pluc wrote:
| Convenience is _always_ extra
| jwr wrote:
| > a $50 USB capture card and a $20 HDMI cable
|
| Are there any USB-connectable capture devices that can process
| 4K?
|
| Everything I see tries really hard to hide the fact that while
| they can input 4K, they can only produce 1920x1080.
| rmoriz wrote:
| Elgato Cam Link 4K
| radicality wrote:
| I've been using this with a Fuji XT4 for last 2 years as
| webcam, working great. Though for stuff like google meet, I
| usually set it to 1080p 60fps since that's the max res most
| meeting software will accept anyways, and frame rate is
| more important for live meeting than res.
| palijer wrote:
| This is exactly what I do. I'm also confused by this article...
| brushfoot wrote:
| It's rage bait. People hate subscriptions, understandably so,
| and people without A/V experience might expect a camera not
| sold as a webcam to easily double as a webcam since they both
| can capture video.
|
| It's just a really poor reason to be outraged at Canon (or
| Sony or any of the other companies whose non-webcam cameras
| don't seamlessly turn into webcams without some standard A/V
| adapters).
| bhickey wrote:
| Canon's webcam software was until recently free. It was the
| sole reason I bought a Cabin camera. This is a rug pull.
| brushfoot wrote:
| That's upsetting, but my point is the article itself is
| rage bait. It's not outrageous for Canon to charge for
| webcam software when there's HDMI video-out on the
| camera.
| BeFlatXIII wrote:
| Imagine stanning for nickel-and-diming.
| brushfoot wrote:
| I can imagine supporting my right to charge my customers
| for the software I build for them, absolutely. And I
| support Canon's right to do the same.
|
| Many of us have had the experience of clients telling us
| to "just" write code that they think is easy, but we know
| how that can go in reality.
|
| There's already a simple solution here in HDMI. I don't
| see a reason to be outraged at Canon over not providing
| another solution that most buyers will never even use.
| atonse wrote:
| When I was trying to get back into photography, the fact
| that Sony's camera has built-in webcam capabilities
| played a small (but not trivial) part in choosing to
| invest in Sony's ecosystem. They're just great cameras
| overall, but I can't say it didn't play a part.
|
| USB camera feeds work out of the box with Sony mirrorless
| cameras.
|
| So ultimately, if Canon wants to play these games, let's
| see if the market of NEW buyers like me respond in a way
| that will make Canon change their minds.
| roland35 wrote:
| At least with my camera the feed is low resolution and has the
| on screen overlays on it.
| Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote:
| Would this approach also give you control of camera settings? I
| think the OP's situation, he wanted that.
| deskr wrote:
| Exactly. But why does he need to buy a USB capture card and
| HDMI cable? He can just hire someone to come and record the
| videos for him. They'll also do the post processing.
|
| Why does he even even record the videos himself? He can just
| hire actors to do what he wants, probably a lot better.
|
| And what's the whole thing with buying a camera? He should just
| buy a studio and hire a crew to manage all that stuff.
| dmix wrote:
| Buying usb capture cards is a standard accessory for content
| creators. It's not a big deal.
| brushfoot wrote:
| Not a big deal at all.
|
| The outrage in this thread is incredible. Buying a couple
| A/V adapters to adapt a non-webcam camera into a webcam is
| somehow seen as a terrible burden.
|
| If someone doesn't want to do that, perhaps they should
| buy...a webcam. No adapters needed.
|
| A camera comes with more power at the cost of simplicity
| for this use case.
| delta_p_delta_x wrote:
| This is what's called a slippery slope.
|
| A capture card and HDMI cable together cost less than $100.
| Hiring someone will be _at least_ an order of magnitude more
| expensive--and more so the more people you hire.
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| Whoosh.
|
| That was the entire point of the comment, to point out the
| slippery slope in the HDMI/cable card argument in the first
| place.
| GranPC wrote:
| This is hugely dependent on whether the camera supports clean
| HDMI output - that is, without overlays. My Canon camera for
| example insists on showing a focus square over HDMI no matter
| what, and it is impossible to disable.
| archerx wrote:
| You can remove it by installing magic lantern. It lets me use
| my old 650D as a second camera.
| GranPC wrote:
| Unfortunately there is no port of ML to my specific model.
| I did some porting work myself by running the camera
| firmware in QEMU, but to be able to run it on hardware I
| apparently needed some signing key that only the Magic
| Lantern lead dev has. By the time I was doing all of this
| he was busy with real world stuff so ultimately I just
| borrowed a friend's Nikon camera.
| vr46 wrote:
| ML doesn't work on a lot of cameras - yet. It's quite far
| behind the last generation of SLRs and stays away from the
| flagship models.
| acjohnson55 wrote:
| The particular camera he's talking about, the G5 X Mark II,
| does support clean HDMI out. I used to use it as my webcam.
| bilinguliar wrote:
| Talking about solutions: Camlink. I use it with a very outdated
| camera for my online meetings. Works great and gave new life to a
| camera that I would throw away otherwise.
| stuaxo wrote:
| The Louis Rossman video on this, which hasn't been made yet - is
| already playing in my head.
| tomw1808 wrote:
| Now he already has 2 views on a video he didn't make yet.
| deskr wrote:
| This is quickly becoming he most popular video. I'm also
| viewing the follow up video in my head.
| sitkack wrote:
| I have only watch the first 1/3 of it and sent it to three
| friends. It is that good.
| throw738484848 wrote:
| > I've tried this at first in 2024 with macOS 14, which did not
| work.
|
| Why not blame Apple for not providing drivers? It is pretty
| normal in Linux to check hardware compatibility. You mainly buy
| hardware with good software support.
|
| Apple does not support this camera, so do not buy it!
| rashidae wrote:
| Today I had trouble using OBS Software with my suite of old
| MacBooks, IPhones and iPads... I thought keeping them would be
| useful
| gunian wrote:
| The question I have is why not make interoperability mandatory so
| both Apple and Canon have to make products that work with
| eachother instead of weird useless arbitrary rules?
|
| It's like people love the horrible experience lol rather trauma
| than education type shit Leibniz was so beyond wrong about this
| smh
| chikere232 wrote:
| Don't buy Canon. They've also been very shitty about third party
| lenses
| drclegg wrote:
| Yeah, that's pretty bad business practice.
|
| I have a few fuji cameras, and sadly their webcam software
| doesn't work for me, but for a cheap fix I bought a low-cost
| (~$10) HDMI USB capture card on AliExpress, and it works wonders.
| ben_w wrote:
| > Software development isn't free
|
| Given how long digital cameras have been around (more because
| that says it can be done with a codebase that fits in context
| rather than anything about memorisation), I wonder how good LLMs
| are at coding this specific thing.
|
| (I don't have a camera to try it with, or I'd give it a go
| myself).
| andrewstuart wrote:
| I had an oherwise perfectly fine Canon camera which I spent hours
| trying to make work as a webcam by downloading this and that and
| configuring this and that and in the end discovered it was not
| possible for some reason and got rid of the camera.
|
| If I buy a camera again (probably won't), #1 selection criteria
| will be connectivity.
| mihaaly wrote:
| The penny-fucking behaviour of huge organization in parallel of
| pushing at you unwanted (actually obstructing) messages in
| various ways, email, pop-ups and tootip suggestions and advices,
| CI/CD pushed on the user on a prominent way are repelling. In
| parallel to the rubbish web presence not working reliably or at
| all, far from being easy for clients but usually having bells and
| whistles for distraction. I saved quite a bit of money thinking
| twice if I want to be abused by products made for the benefit of
| the organization mainly. Sometimes with side benefits for the
| user, but that is more like coincidence, side effect of
| addressing the organization's needs. Less and less point buying
| consumer products if it just makes your life similarly difficult,
| not better.
| tiborsaas wrote:
| I thought it's weird to have "fillerbaszo" to have such a
| direct english counterpart, but then I checked your username :)
| mihaaly wrote:
| ; )
| jwr wrote:
| 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 and forgetting
| about the gear. But that's what people base their buying
| decisions on.
|
| And then, "competition" doesn't exist, because companies seem
| to be hell-bent on copying one another's idiotic ideas.
| Everybody is afraid to take a bolder step and make something
| different because, you know, next quarter's profits, and
| bonuses.
|
| So, nobody cares.
| nileshtrivedi wrote:
| Louis Rossmann is putting together a Consumer Action Task
| Force. If people care, now would be a good time to show it.
| dgb23 wrote:
| You're assuming that these practices are actually beneficial
| in any way on the market. That's a fallacy. Just because a
| company is making money, doesn't mean they are making good
| products.
| jollyllama wrote:
| Where do you get that idea? It's in no way implied in GP's
| comment. These practices don't have to benefit the company
| at all. GP is just saying, as long as enough people keep
| buying despite the practices, then the practices will
| continue.
| wat10000 wrote:
| 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 as a result. (Fans would point to Apple
| as a huge example, YMMV.) But even with an example to
| imitate, the incentives are almost impossible to overcome,
| especially since your revenue story will get worse before it
| gets better if you change course. And those rare good
| companies are vulnerable to change in leadership that takes
| them down the bad path.
| EvanAnderson wrote:
| > 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.
| wat10000 wrote:
| There's only a long-term hit to the extent that there are
| alternatives without these practices. (This could be a
| less-terrible competitor, a different category of
| product, or just going without.)
|
| If every car company charges a subscription for seat
| heaters, then maybe this will drive a few people who are
| on the fence to not buy a car at all, but it's going to
| be a very small effect. If there's a competitor that
| sucks less, the impact will be greater.
|
| If there's is no such competitor, then this behavior
| leaves an opening for one. But it's a total crapshoot as
| to whether any company will actually seize the
| opportunity.
| Falos wrote:
| People are /loosely/ averse and annoyed, but towards the
| market in general and that doesn't really materialize in
| a direct loss. "Boy I sure hate how _______ these days"
| isn't aimed at some particular product. The phrase names
| the scene at large.
|
| Yes, everything sucks now, will Joe Sixpack thus stop
| buying ...everything?
|
| In such an environment why WOULDN'T I take advantage of
| the nuisances that I can now safely get away with? I gain
| control, data, monopolistic single-sourcing, and good old
| revenue, all by being just a little bit shitty. No more
| than the next guy.
|
| "Quality" is greatly amorphous before buying a product
| and the stage is increasingly virtual. The only certain
| metric can be ye olde "bottom line" (price) and indulging
| shitty practices allows you to undercut. Consumer gets
| what they pay for but reckons most other offerings have
| the same shitty nuisances (and is mostly right) and
| reckons it's an uphill struggle to ferret out which ones
| are genuinely good quality and not consumer-second (and
| is definitely right, people crave the product opinions of
| genuine humans and these are being increasingly coopted)
| mihaaly wrote:
| > 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.
|
| So true! So sad!
| ekianjo wrote:
| What did you expect from proprietary software?
| RegW wrote:
| Proprietary software is just one part of this issue. There
| seems to be a growing trend in attempting to entrap a servile
| subscriber base within your own walled enclosure.
|
| To be successful you need to keep your buyer unaware of the
| trap until they have too much invested within your walls to cut
| their losses emotionally. Here the poster has bought a high
| cost camera (even at a discount) without realising there would
| be an on-going recurring cost.
|
| Expensive propriety hardware, tied to propriety software, tied
| to an online account with telemetry, where nothing works
| without all the other bits is a wonderful trap. It works great
| for John Deer and I guess will soon be coming with your next
| vehicle.
|
| Personally, someone bought me a Fitbit Sense 2 watch for
| Christmas. It can't even be used as a watch until you have
| signed in with a Google account and "consent to Google using my
| health and wellness data". Of course you don't get to see this
| before you break the seal on the box. And although the watch
| gathers lots of your data, you can't see it until after it has
| been upload to Google, and some of it is only available once
| you have signed up for Fitbit Premium.
|
| But wait, it gets better. The time on the default watch face is
| tiny (for an old fart like me). I could download a larger one,
| if I signed up for Fitbit Premium. I could sign up to download
| the developer kit and write my own for free (a new watch face
| is a simple example). However, if I go too far and accidentally
| break the data collection, they reserve the right to suspend my
| accounts and turn my PS200 "watch" into a brick.
|
| I am still deciding if I can return my sanity using a hammer.
| atoav wrote:
| HDMI output to 8 Euro USB-Grabber is the solution. However this
| is a case of: Why the fuck did they not just make it a class
| compliant webcam to begin with.
| m463 wrote:
| I wonder if you could just do it with the canon api?
|
| They have CCAPI which is the camera control api, I believe it is
| rest based.
| divan wrote:
| 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 autofocus should focus on) are free :)
|
| [1] https://alphauniverse.com/gridline-license/
| sitkack wrote:
| I can't believe the license is permanent! Sony is leaving so
| much on the table. I'd introduce a gridline-lite for 2
| gridlines and then a middle tier for 3 gridlines and a box.
|
| Another option would be to use blockchain and wifi so that
| customers (affiliates) could earn extra cash on vacation by
| pairing their camera with other tourists that see the feature
| and like it.
|
| That same blockchain technology could also enable off network
| usage based billing of say 25 cents each time a picture is
| taken. Pixel noise water mark cryptographic hashes to track
| compliance, of course.
| irusensei wrote:
| I have an EOS Kiss X4 (Rebel T2?) with Magic Lantern firmware. It
| uses the same software referenced in the article for MacOS and
| Windows. On Linux you can use v4l2loopback and gphoto2 but it
| requires loading an out of tree kernel module.
| reddalo wrote:
| I have an old EOS 550D (I think it's called Rebel T2 in the
| US?) and I can use the webcam software for free. I downloaded a
| copy back in 2020 when Covid hit and Canon decided to release
| it. Maybe that would be the key to reverse engineer it and make
| it free for everybody?
| irusensei wrote:
| Same model.
|
| I've bought it in Japan so the model is labeled Kiss X4.
| Apparently they give it a different name for the product
| depending on the market: EOS 550D = Rebel T2i = EOS Kiss X4
|
| Software works but you need to pay a recurring subscription
| (aargh I hate this model) to unlock features your hardware
| already supports.
| n00b_heal wrote:
| I know, some things you don't know beforehand, but by buying this
| you endorse this greed. You make it perpetuate. Don't
| helboi4 wrote:
| The fact that its a subscription is what really rubs me up the
| wrong way. Not everything deserves to be a subscription. Why is
| everything a subscription these days?
| liontwist wrote:
| Last cycle everyone thought adding an App Store to their
| product would bring developers out of the wood work to make
| them money.
|
| Just envy at the big players and hope for that sweet recurring
| revenue.
| lvturner wrote:
| The one metric that matters: Annual Recurring Revenue
| flr03 wrote:
| So that company don't have to make new products to get your
| money but print money forever, milk the cow to the last drop.
| dgb23 wrote:
| The goal is to collect rent.
|
| Find arbitrary reasons to justify squeezing customers on a
| regular basis. Customers are treated as assets. Often, but not
| exclusively, via software based subscriptions.
| popcalc wrote:
| When interest rates were near zero it was necessary for
| inflation resistant portfolio growth.
| uniq7 wrote:
| Because people pay them. If we refused to pay them and bought
| similar or even worse alternatives out of spite, they wouldn't
| exist.
| smft9 wrote:
| This wasn't true the first time America was ruled by
| monopolies, and it isn't true now.
| spokaneplumb wrote:
| The broader question of why companies are able to keep pushing
| us ever closer to the maximum we'd conceivably be willing to
| pay for a given good, is probably best answered with "we
| stopped trust-busting a few decades ago, so competition sucks
| and keeps getting worse".
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| >Why is everything a subscription these days?
|
| Software showed the world the incredible value of everyone
| being a renter instead of an owner.
|
| Ironically HN (as an ad for Ycombinator) exists largely to
| enforce that new paradigm
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| The reason for subscriptions is because we've applied a debt
| based financial model to everything. And for whatever reason
| customers do not understand the model and how bad they're
| getting screwed.
|
| $100 of one time purchase software is approximately $5-10 per
| year of recurring revenue. And so if they can convince you that
| $5 a month is "not bad" then you're effectively outlaying $1000
| for the software. In return you do get massive flexibility
| like, say, using the software for 1 month and then never again.
|
| Some of it is due to inflation, we'd choke if we saw the real
| capital cost.
|
| a quick google suggests that maybe Black Ops Cold War (2020):
| Over $700 million in development costs, 30 million copies sold.
| Thats $23 just in dev, not marketing and distribution,
| operation of the servers etc. Whereas black ops 3 was about $10
| a copy, but sold for $60. Most of us would balk at paying ~$140
| for a game, but that's roughly the inflationary pressures.
|
| Anyways long story, I dont like subscriptions either, but I
| also dont want to lay down $100s on a piece of software I might
| not use in a month's time, especially if there wasnt a free
| trial for me to confirm it's not total crap.
| nojokes2 wrote:
| Don't forget the fact that, uh, you can't get away from it.
| Please stop blaming customers for this. Literally nobody
| wants it this way, we just have no power to change it. What
| are we supposed to do, just never buy cameras or cars or
| software or computers ever again?
| nojokes2 wrote:
| If you're serious, it's called rent-seeking behavior, and it is
| an extractive component of modern financialism.
|
| One solution is to make a law that says it's illegal, and then
| enforce that law, ideally with harsh penalties so executives
| and companies can't get away with it.
|
| I hope this helps!
| swiftcoder wrote:
| The whole real-camera-as-webcam field seems like a complete
| disaster. The few models that do work well in this scenario
| (clean HDMI output, no auto-shutoff, etc) became very expensive
| during the early pandemic days.
| camtarn wrote:
| So, uh, has anybody noticed that the headline is false?
|
| You _can_ use your Canon camera as a webcam without having to pay
| for it. It even says so in the last image in the article! You
| plug it in via USB and you get a webcam. It 's just that you
| can't use any feature other than reading the video feed. But you
| can get other software for that.
|
| I guess "You can't use Canon's webcam software to adjust your
| video feed, or remote control the camera, or get 60fps video;
| that will be $5/month" would make a less catchy headline.
| Etheryte wrote:
| This is misleading. You don't get a proper video feed, you get
| 720p at 30 fps out of a camera that shoots 4K at 60 fps. On top
| of that, no white balance, no color correction, no etc. My
| laptop's built in webcam does better than that.
| camtarn wrote:
| You're arguing past me. What I'm saying is that without
| paying, the Canon is a webcam: it's a camera that plugs in
| and gives your computer a video input. It may not be the best
| possible webcam that it can be, for sure. And paying a
| subscription for the extra capabilities does suck! But
| nonetheless, the central point of the headline - "you cannot
| use it as a webcam" is false.
| frognumber wrote:
| I firmly believe this is the branch digital cameras are dying on,
| and at this point, probably must die on.
|
| If these opened up, at least to the level iPhone did in 2007,
| they'd have an ecosystem as people still used them. As-is, for
| most purposes, my Android phone is a better camera than my full
| frame interchangeable lens camera.
| liontwist wrote:
| I agree with your comment.
|
| But as phone cameras are reaching limits due to the physical
| amount of light that they can capture, "computational
| photography" ML models are essentially making up details that
| aren't there.
|
| So your Android photos may have the look you want, but be worse
| for many purposes.
| josephg wrote:
| I think I disagree on every point you've raised here.
|
| First, my sony camera (and all sony cameras released in the
| last ~3+ years) support USB video streaming out of the box,
| with no drivers. I suspect other brands are the same. It looks
| like canon is just stuck in the dark ages on this one. They
| also support remote camera control over USB, and all sorts of
| other things. Mostly - but not entirely - in an open ecosystem.
| I have several devices which can control the camera over the
| USB connection - so it can't be that hard.
|
| Second, are you sure your android phone takes better photos?
| What camera & lens do you have on your digital camera? Have you
| upgraded from the kit lens it came with?
|
| I got a sony a7iv last year. If I take the same photo with my
| a7 and my iphone, the photos are wildly different. The iphone's
| photos are lovely, but they have this very slightly AI
| generated gloss about them. Everything is slightly too clean
| somehow. Its like I'm looking at reality plus. In comparison,
| The photos from my sony camera feel like real photos. Dark
| things are dark. Light things are light. If I crank the ISO at
| night, the photos are noisy. If I blow out the aperature, the
| depth of field hits you like a truck made of clouds. The photos
| look like what I pointed my camera at.
|
| In short, I massively prefer the photos I get from my dedicated
| camera. I suspect if I showed you, you'd prefer them too.
| sbarre wrote:
| > I suspect other brands are the same.
|
| My research shows Sony is the outlier here. Fuji, Canon,
| Nikon and Panasonic all require software or drivers to be
| used as a USB camera (or at least did as of a year ago or
| so).
|
| Also, the camera control software these companies put out,
| for a computer or a phone, is almost always awful.
|
| Buggy, slow, unreliable.. It's a real problem.
| josephg wrote:
| > Also, the camera control software these companies put
| out, for a computer or a phone, is almost always awful.
|
| That's definitely true of Sony too. Just - thankfully - you
| don't need to install any of it to do most stuff. (With the
| one exception of sony's gyro based image stablisation).
|
| There's also several apps in the App Store which let you
| remotely control Sony cameras. I assume people have reverse
| engineered the protocol Sony's offical app uses.
| Toutouxc wrote:
| > my Android phone is a better camera than my full frame
|
| I'm probably a terrible photographer and I shoot with a
| "budget" kit (Canon R10, RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM, RF 35mm
| F1.8 IS STM), but looking at the 10 last photos I've taken and
| liked (so going back a year basically), I don't think I'd be
| able to retake a single one of them on my iPhone and get
| something comparable.
| PetitPrince wrote:
| > As-is, for most purposes, my Android phone is a better camera
| than my full frame interchangeable lens camera.
|
| The smartphone ate the market segment that was previously
| occupied by point and shoot cameras, not pro / enthusiast
| camera. I don't think dedicated / non-smart cameras as we have
| today will die. You will still need dedicated camera for
| wedding, sports, wildlife, etc. For these you don't need a
| software ecosystem, you need a robust hardware.
|
| I agree that for sharing to my family a photo of my dog looking
| cute my phone is a better camera. However for the use case I
| mentioned, I don't see how I can decently edit a 50 Mpx image
| on a screen that's not even a quarter of the size of my laptop.
|
| Not to say that better software/feature is not needed though; I
| would love to be able to do an efficient initial
| culling/sorting of a given shoot in-camera.
| entropie wrote:
| > As-is, for most purposes, my Android phone is a better camera
| than my full frame interchangeable lens camera.
|
| Any Android/iOS flagship phone right now is MILES behind
| current full-frame mirrorless technology, and I doubt they will
| ever be truly comparable. There are too many technical
| limitations.
|
| I am pretty sure we will eventually have consumer cameras with
| an Android-like OS and the equivalent of today's full-frame
| sensors, delivering awesome footage, but mobile devices will
| never come close to a (semi-)professional camera.
| ssijak wrote:
| I have cannon r5 and previously had sony cameras. I'm bamboozeled
| how in this day and age software connecting cameras with PCs is
| so bad, not to mention tethered shooting. And the fact that 5+k
| camera have slow wifi chips for no reason so you cant tether via
| wifi just angers me.
|
| Software on the actual camera is yet another question for me, why
| don't we have cameras with full fledged modern OS-es running
| custom androids for example with installable apps so you can
| finish a lot of stuff on the camera itself or make sharing to
| wherever a breeze.
| jpc0 wrote:
| No professional wants to deal with wifi, maybe ethernet.
|
| So it's at most a prosumer feature for which the wifi they have
| is fine.
|
| For professional use we want SDI which can transmit
| uncompressed video at whatever frame rate the camera supports,
| and we pay for that... Maybe HDMI but that has it's own
| headaches...
|
| And the moment you want Android with apps on it you run into
| all the problems that comes with Android with apps on it...
|
| You are then also responsible for keeping said app up to date.
| If you think android solves that problem you purely need to
| look at the custom modding community for how annoying firmware
| support is, and these cameras won't have generic phone camera
| chips, they have custom processors which would then require
| custom firmware.
|
| But my usual argument, if it's so easy go and do it. Many
| successful projects/companies has started exactly like that,
| why don't we have X? Go build it.
| ssijak wrote:
| Realistically, a better wifi chip would add almost nothing to
| production cost, but there are a lot of professionals doing
| product photography that would like fast wifi tethering.
|
| Well, that would prevent them from selling overpriced grips
| with integrated better wifis which is 999 usd from Cannon...
| PetitPrince wrote:
| > Software on the actual camera is yet another question for me,
| why don't we have cameras with full fledged modern OS-es
| running custom androids for example with installable apps so
| you can finish a lot of stuff on the camera itself or make
| sharing to wherever a breeze.
|
| A little more than 10 years ago Samsung tried that with their
| Galaxy NX (a bona fide DSLR running Android). It flopped and
| most reviewer noted that it a generally sluggish camera; a deal
| breaker when one of the design constraint of all their other
| competitor is to be reactive.
|
| We mustn't forget that the main purpose of a camera is to take
| pictures, not to connect to a network.
| ssijak wrote:
| I agree on what the main purpose is and that must be executed
| well, but it is 2025 and for a 5 000 usd camera we should be
| able to get both, great working camera with amazing and fast
| software.
| PetitPrince wrote:
| At this price point I suspect the camera goes from "nice
| tool of an artist" to "business expense ofa team". With
| that I think people with this budget prioritize modularity
| and reliability over the convenience of having a all-in-one
| device.
|
| Like for the Olympics there's mention of using a gizmo
| (PDT-FP1) whose sole role is to connect to the camera and
| transmit the picture wirelessly (even though the A9 have
| some wifi connectivity). And of course this wireless
| transmitter is quite expensive.
|
| In cinema they have the same approach, as you don't buy "a
| camera", but you rent a sensor, a lens, a monitor, a focus
| pull, a storage disk, etc.
| 4ggr0 wrote:
| > I have cannon r5
|
| what caliber?
| Bengalilol wrote:
| Out of nowhere comment, but I somehow stumbled upon this thread
| which seems to point to OBS for making it work. FWIW.
| <https://www.reddit.com/r/canon/comments/skdz89/experience_so...>
| Etheryte wrote:
| This doesn't fix the problems listed in the article, you'd
| still only get a 720p 30 fps feed out of a camera that shoots
| 4K at 60 fps. That thread helps with Zoom not finding the low
| quality feed to begin with.
| mgaunard wrote:
| Easy solution, don't use macOS.
| Etheryte wrote:
| It's the same experience on Windows, but you do you random
| internet rant guy.
| mgaunard wrote:
| I meant use a real OS like Linux.
| liontwist wrote:
| > Software development isn't free
|
| Part of the burden of this is on us.
|
| If a digital camera OS is a small embedded system running on a
| microcontroller it has a fixed cost, and lasts forever, just like
| the electrical components.
|
| If it's an instance of chromium running on Ubuntu server or
| Android, with hundreds of dependencies in your program alone than
| the cost to stop it from bricking is effectively infinite. (I'm
| even aware of medical surgery devices using Electron these days)
| nolist_policy wrote:
| The Dragon spacecraft uses Electron as well.
| liontwist wrote:
| I would not make that choice, but At least that has someone
| looking at it everyday. It's not a device that gets left to
| do its job for 5 years.
|
| Those early chromium devs had no idea the whole world would
| depend on them!
| chvid wrote:
| Wait until you hear about Canon printers.
| jcmfernandes wrote:
| I gave up on mine. It's more than obvious to me that it doesn't
| care if there's ink in the cartridge after some time and just
| starts malfunctioning.
| jolmg wrote:
| > and they should--due to the lack of standards--provide software
| that allows you to use their cameras as intended.
|
| There is a standard:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_video_device_class
| formerly_proven wrote:
| Yes, the articles complaints (no free way to use it as a
| webcam, 30 minute limits etc.) doesn't seem to apply to many
| camera brands apart from Canon.
| dmix wrote:
| And Canon's marketshare has been declining for years
|
| https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/content/latest-from-
| mpb/2024-chall...
|
| Sony encourages their use for vlogging/youtube because that's
| a huge market and let's you plug in HDMI to your computer
| without using special software
| frankchn wrote:
| It doesn't apply to Canon's recent cameras either. The R1, R5
| Mark II, R6 Mark II, R8, and R50 have built-in UVC support
| now.
| TheJoeMan wrote:
| devil's advocate, but this is not "using the cameras as
| intended". This is a camera for photography, I don't think a
| common person would see it and think "this is intended as a
| webcam".
|
| On the one hand, perhaps this fixed software should be a one-
| time purchase and not a subscription. However, if this software
| was provided for free, what incentive would the management at
| Cannon have for investing into updating the software for MacOS
| when it inevitably breaks? I think there is a small subset of
| users using this camera as a webcam, and frankly I'm surprised
| Cannon even has an official app.
| snthd wrote:
| This model is not listed as supported, but generally gphoto2 can
| do the webcam thing for DSLRs.
|
| http://gphoto.org/doc/remote/
| dghughes wrote:
| This reminds me of Samsung and the SPO2 the oxygen sensor on the
| S8+ (I think) phone. All was well until one day an update
| disabled access to the sensor. Worse it was only for Canada where
| it was blocked. The access to the physical sensor on a phone I
| had owned for a few years, gone. Oh but you could buy their new
| watch that had an SPO2 sensor on it.
|
| Disabling a physical component on a device a person owns and has
| owned for a while shouldn't be permitted.
| wat10000 wrote:
| Only disabling it in Canada sounds like a legal or licensing
| issue. Still Samsung's fault for not working that out ahead of
| time, but probably not a cash grab.
| wkjagt wrote:
| It's actually worse than the title suggests. It's $5 per month! I
| wonder what justifies this recurring cost.
| throwaway287391 wrote:
| Yes, I'm so completely fed up with recurring subscriptions for
| things with negligible or no recurring costs for the seller.
| This one is of course particularly obnoxious given the hardware
| itself is expensive and the recurring cost is 0. But for
| example I would've gotten an Oura ring by now if they would
| just charge twice the price for the ring itself and not require
| a subscription, even though the subscription fees over the
| lifetime of the hardware would probably add up to a
| significantly smaller amount. To me it's just incredibly off-
| putting -- it reeks of greed and feels like a blatant attempt
| to fool customers by obscuring the actual cost. I guess it must
| be working for them, but for me, the cost of anything with a
| recurring fee gets mentally rounded up to "approximately
| $infinity".
| strange_aeons wrote:
| My Canon EOS R8 can be configured to connect via USB-C as a
| webcam and works perfectly.
| Etheryte wrote:
| The EOS R8 was released less than a year ago and that output is
| still capped at 2K and 30 fps. Meanwhile the camera itself
| shoots 4K at 60 fps (if you go Full HD, you can even shoot 180
| fps). So saying it works perfectly is not quite accurate, you
| still need either extra hardware or extra software if you want
| to actually use it to the full capacity.
| cynicalsecurity wrote:
| The lad is using an Apple computer which is a closed walled
| garden architecture designed specifically for whales. I'm sorry,
| but this is an invitation to be fleeced. A loud cry to everyone
| around to put their hands into your purse and grab some money.
|
| Now you understand why people fight for open source software and
| use Linux. Join us or keep dealing with the walled garden scams.
| traverseda wrote:
| I know this isn't the point, but here's my nixos script for using
| a canon DSLR as a webcam
|
| https://codeberg.org/traverseda/nixos-config/src/commit/ee3f...
|
| To get this out of nixos you need to create 4 files
|
| dslrWebcamConfContent goes into your modprobe config
|
| dslrUdevRule goes into your udev rules
|
| dslrWebcamScript goes somewhere, probably /opt
|
| dslrWebcamService is a systemd service.
| stuartjohnson12 wrote:
| Upvoted for hacking on hacker news
| shahzaibmushtaq wrote:
| I saw people using Sony cameras as webcams, probably because of
| the easy plug and play setup.
| parkaboy wrote:
| The software in the article looks like a fun little oldschool
| cracking/RE project.
| virtualritz wrote:
| That's reminds me when I was in South East Asia a few years back
| and wanted to do some time lapse or series photography with my
| Sony Alpha a7ii. A camera that I had paid close to 2kEUR for
| (just body, no glass).
|
| It required an app to be installed on the camera that was paid-
| for. Which in term required the camera to be connected to a WiFi.
|
| Imagine discovering this while on a trip in the jungle or the
| desert or whatever ...
|
| It was a one time purchase (I think around 10EUR) but it was
| still a complete wtf.
|
| You had to purchase the app through the camera's app store. You
| read right.
|
| Ofc this failed as my CC was declined because I live in Germany
| and the transaction got marked as suspicious, coming from SEA.
|
| So I had to go to town and hunt down a wifi USB dongle so I could
| turn my laptop into a WiFi hotspot for the camera, while using
| the VPN masking the built-in WiFi to be connected to a German IP.
|
| You had to enter the CC details through the camera's on-screen
| keyboard that was operated with the joystick on the camera's
| body. It took me a good ten minutes.
|
| No words.
| azalemeth wrote:
| Pentax cameras are much better at the ui and do not have any of
| this shit. They are also bulletproof and nearly indestructible,
| favoured by war photographers, and tend to have excellent spec
| sheets (if a bit of a a slow autofocus).
|
| The company went bankrupt and bought by Ricoh, which I
| sincerely hope will keep the brand alive. Capitalism does
| really seem to prefer the nickel and dime approach...
| Symbiote wrote:
| > (if a bit of a a slow autofocus).
|
| Sony's killer feature is (or was at some point) amazingly
| fast autofocus, which is very useful when photographing
| animals in the jungle.
| fxtentacle wrote:
| Wow, I had the exact same experience with a Sony Alpha 6. Also
| used a laptop to VPN back home ...
| mastercheif wrote:
| Sony's software is still terrible... but fwiw they have built
| in timelapse functionality in their cams since the A7 III
| released in 2018.
| sitkack wrote:
| Welcome to the Enshitocene
|
| As William Shakespeare said, "The first thing we do, let's kill
| all the MBAs".
| wodenokoto wrote:
| That does sound completely absurd.
|
| How many people buy apps on their high end camera? Doesn't
| sound like it was worth developing an App Store for it.
| BolexNOLA wrote:
| The only app I've ever used with a camera was the Panasonic
| app on my GH5 for a shoot because it gave you full remote
| control of the settings/focus and monitoring (for free!) I
| find most apps for cameras are not necessary and often buggy
| but I get why some folks like them
| bluGill wrote:
| Back in 2010 the app store was the hot new thing and everyone
| had visions of how they would put on in their product. Most
| of them realized it was a stupid idea before they got around
| to writing code for it (much less release), but some of it
| escaped to the public.
|
| Sometimes the idea of apps might make sense (this is
| arguable, but lets not go there) but the old buy it on a real
| computer (phone allowed) and then load it is correct.
| Saris wrote:
| That's pretty wild for such a popular brand.
|
| My panasonic G9 just has that stuff built in.
| Damogran6 wrote:
| It's part of the enshittification cycle. I'd been a Nikon
| camera user and figured I'd upgrade...reviewing Nikon, Cannon
| and Sony, the new startup...Sony was the only body at that
| pricepoint that also had a motor in the body to let older
| class have auto-focus...that was a feature the other two were
| gatekeeping at higher priced bodies.
|
| Now that they're established, its time to chip away and add
| shareholder value.
| Aromasin wrote:
| The classic walled garden approach - make everyone buy
| lense mounts that only fit their cameras, people collect
| lenses for their brand of choice, then make them regret
| ever making the purchase by racking up subscription costs
| and introducing 3rd party spyware to sell your data. Sunk
| cost fallacy makes people eat shit because they're already
| too deep. Capitalism at it's finest.
| RajT88 wrote:
| Not that unusual for Sony.
|
| They have a lot of WTF product design decisions.
|
| I have a running joke with friends about how there must be
| some terrible engineer who is the CEO's son or something that
| gets to design one feature in every product.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _It required an app to be installed on the camera that was
| paid-for._
|
| Apple had a similar situation once. I was among the thousands
| of people who paid Apple something like $10 to get a CD-ROM in
| the mail containing a single CODEC for something video-related.
|
| Sorry for being vague, it was way back in the early days of OS
| X, so I can't remember exactly what the situation was. But I do
| know I still have the file in my archive, as I ran across it a
| few weeks ago.
| paradox460 wrote:
| Apple used to sell prorec and Sorenson stuff. Usually you
| could get them with a QuickTime pro license, final cut
| license, or similar
| dnpls wrote:
| I had a Panasonic GF1, which couldn't do timelapses as well
| (there was no such thing as apps for that camera, only firmware
| hacks). What I did was to buy a remote shutter release that had
| a timer and other functions, which allowed me to do so much
| more.
| KMnO4 wrote:
| Heh, your experience is not isolated. I needed the timelapse
| app when I was several days deep into Algonquin park in
| northern Ontario. I had barely a bar of service, so I had to
| hoist my phone up a tree with a rope to get enough data that I
| could tether the camera to it. Thanks Sony.
| etrautmann wrote:
| That is absurd and annoying - you might prefer to just get a
| USB remote shutter release for future work.
| jccalhoun wrote:
| Thankfully people have figured out how to add apps to some sony
| cameras https://github.com/ma1co/Sony-PMCA-RE
|
| https://github.com/jonasjuffinger/TimeLapse
| xiconfjs wrote:
| Didn't know about this project - you just have to love the
| open source concept
| jauntywundrkind wrote:
| It's the same thing, one is just the out of box locked down
| Sony app-store controlled version, and this is the somewhat
| liberated side loading & build chain. It's some kind of
| Android layer running atop the base camera.
|
| > _It is possible to develop custom Android apps for
| supported cameras. Keep in mind that they should be
| compatible with Android 2.3.7._
|
| https://github.com/ma1co/Sony-PMCA-RE?tab=readme-ov-
| file#wha...
|
| I wish Samsung had had better success with their Android
| native powered cameras (as opposed to the thin shell Sony
| grafted atop), had decided to stay around. Cellphones have
| amazing & fantastic photo apps available, where-as the
| professional systems baked into cameras emphasizes post-
| production tools for computational photography. Being able to
| have app devs everywhere making your digital camera better &
| more usable should be such an obvious priority.
|
| And the earlier Alpha cameras with their Android based shim
| they could run kind of got this. Sony did announce a new SDK
| 3 years ago for some of their highest end cameras, but it's a
| simpler remote-control only SDK.
| https://alphauniverse.com/stories/sony-announces-new-
| camera-...
| dawnerd wrote:
| Sony wanted something like 500USD to unlock 4k on my prosumer
| video camera. Kinda insane.
| ustad wrote:
| Ha. That made me laugh.
| davidgrenier wrote:
| v4l2-ctl on linux allows me to change such settings on a global
| level, maybe that might work if a version can be found on his OS.
| lvl155 wrote:
| Not to be off topic but Apple needs to build a fully featured
| full frame digital camera with an iPhone slot. That would be game
| over for so many users.
| notoverthere wrote:
| What do you mean by "an iPhone slot"?
|
| As in, so you can plug the camera into an iPhone and transfer
| photos from camera to phone?
| underlines wrote:
| I use my Sony a7iv as a webcam. Plug the USB C in and it is
| recognized as a webcam. I got asked a lot im teams calls what
| webcam I use
| otikik wrote:
| Eugh.
|
| Meanwhile, the 30 bucks camera I bought works out of the box. I
| didn't even need to install any software. Decent quality, no
| frills.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| Sony's "webcam" app that does the same purpose is free but buggy
| as fuck and not available on Apple M CPUs (at least not the one
| for the A7S2).
|
| I don't understand why this is necessary in the first place
| anyway. These cameras all have USB interfaces to expose the card
| content or even remote control, it wouldn't have cost them much
| engineering effort to add an UVC descriptor...
| rickdeckard wrote:
| "Yeah, we equipped your car with heated seats prior to
| transferring its ownership to you, but heating your seat is a
| license-protected comfort which requires a subscription"
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/7/23863258/bmw-cancel-heated...
|
| Many of those "features" were walked back on backlash, just to
| then be bundled "free" for the initial buyer only...
| WhyNotHugo wrote:
| Software development isn't free, but someone buying a camera
| shouldn't _need_ to pay the manufacturer to ship them custom
| software for scenarios such as this. The manufacturer should
| include documentation so that anyone owning the camera can write
| software to integrate with it.
|
| TBH, this is true of pretty much any form of consumer hardware.
| But this isn't a technical problem, it's a social one. So we
| can't solve it with tech; we need legislation around this kind of
| BS.
| thih9 wrote:
| > $5/mo, $50/yr
|
| A one time payment would have been inconvenient, I assumed that
| based on the title; but that's even worse.
| adamtaylor_13 wrote:
| This one behavior was the reason I bought a Sony instead of a
| canon, and will never buy a Canon. I'm just too old to fuck
| around with this type of bullshit anymore.
|
| I'm willing to offer so much loyalty to companies who aren't in
| the business of fucking over their customers.
|
| Fuck Canon, fuck shady ass business practices.
| deskr wrote:
| People need to start referring to those products with the
| "Enshittified" suffix.
|
| That's the Canon G5 X II Enshittified.
| hacym wrote:
| Canon makes lots of software, so a little disingenuous to say
| that they are a hardware company that doesn't get to charge for
| their software.
| foobarbecue wrote:
| Is chdk still a thing?
| thg wrote:
| Doesn't help the op, but I use my Nikon Z6 II as a webcam under
| Fedora and have been doing this for a few months now, mostly
| without any problems.
|
| Here's a guide for those interested (not by me):
| https://www.crackedthecode.co/how-to-use-your-dslr-as-a-webc...
| twothamendment wrote:
| I've been eyeing the R6 mark ii, which is u understand correctly
| will connect to a computer and present itself as a video device
| so you don't need any additional software. I only run Linux, so
| that sounds great!
|
| I haven't pulled the trigger on it, can anyone who owns it
| confirm or deny this?
| stray wrote:
| As a Nikon guy, I'm using my Z50 as a webcam with little fuss.
| I've got a fake battery that plugs into AC power -- and my output
| is through HDMI to an Elgato Cam link 4k.
|
| It doesn't overheat even after hours of use (unlike most full-
| frame sensors), and I've got it capturing in monochrome because I
| just really like B&W.
|
| And because its face/eye detect autofocus is reasonably capable
| -- I can keep a wide aperture/shallow depth of field, which in
| turn, results in beautiful bokeh... So no Teams filters to blur
| my background -- I'm using optics instead.
| tartoran wrote:
| That's nice but is it worth spending so much to get natural
| boketh in over team calls?
| formerly_proven wrote:
| I don't think too many people are buying a Nikon solely for
| this purpose, but rather they already have it and _also_ use
| it as a webcam. The main advantage there is - in my view
| anyway - that it allows you to control the field of view
| easily, compared to the built-in webcam. The far better image
| quality is just a bonus.
| tartoran wrote:
| Absolutely but when you set up one as a webcam you usually
| leave it in place as a webcam setup unless you want natural
| bokeths only from time to time. It also depends on the line
| of work, if you're in some media related field and it is
| required to have pristine streaming, well, that is a whole
| different story.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| For me it's super quick to set up, I just put the 40/2
| lens on, move two switches (photo/movie selector to movie
| and mode dial to a user preset position) and drop it into
| a quick release plate. Plug in HDMI and turn on/off as
| needed.
| jessekv wrote:
| Not sure its teams but half the video calls I am in feature
| someone's ear or hair flickering in and out of the focus
| mask. For me that can be quite distracting.
|
| One person I am in calls with regularly recently got a
| professional A/V setup for video calls and it is such a treat
| to get in a call with them.
|
| So I think people would notice and appreciate a good setup?
| redbell wrote:
| This reminds me of HP turning printing into a monthly
| subscription [1], BMW experimenting with heated seat
| subscriptions [2], and countless other manufacturers trying to
| rent us physical features or products we've already paid for.
| It's as if owning something outright is becoming a relic of the
| past. Honestly, this trend is getting out of hand.
|
| Imagine if we live to the day where fresh air becomes a monthly
| subscription--with tiered plans, of course! Basic air might be
| free but stale, while premium plans offer "mountain-fresh" or
| "ocean-breeze" options. And heaven forbid you forget to renew
| your subscription or your credit card expires--suddenly,
| breathing might not be in your favor!
|
| _____________
|
| 1. https://www.pcworld.com/article/2251993/the-nightmare-is-
| rea...
|
| 2. https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/12/23204950/bmw-
| subscription...
| gwbas1c wrote:
| This article is missing some very critical details.
|
| Do you have to use the software from Cannon? What about any other
| webcam software that runs on Mac?
|
| Does Cannon's software support non-Cannon webcams? IE, is it
| standalone software that the author prefers to use over other
| webcam software?
|
| Is this a case where most customers will never use the webcam
| software, thus Cannon is "passing the savings on to them" by
| charging separately for the software?
| vr46 wrote:
| Canon, and yes you do, the camera is not recognized without the
| drivers installed. Actually, it barely works even with the
| drivers installed. There is a free version that I have had
| working in the past, to glorious success, with the Canon 1DX,
| but the current 5Div does nothing, and I don't want to pay to
| find out that it still doesn't work.
|
| There's half a camera's worth of features in these things that
| people won't use, but they still pay for them.
| Koffiepoeder wrote:
| I use a Canon EOS 90D via hdmi & streamlink, so yes there are
| alternatives.
| pbasista wrote:
| 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
| so decide.
|
| If it can run custom firmware or operating system, there is a
| fair chance that the community creates software for this device
| that is actually good. One that allows you to do what _you_ want
| with it.
| theodorc wrote:
| Well, is there any camera that allow you do just that?
| pbasista wrote:
| I am not sure. I am unfamiliar with the consumer camera
| segment.
|
| I have heard about some "firmware enhancements" like Magic
| Lantern or CHDK for Canon which, if I understand correctly,
| are some kind of extensions that could be loaded by the
| camera's main firmware on startup and then provide additional
| functionality.
|
| It is not a custom firmware. But it offers similar
| functionality.
| jjkaczor wrote:
| Ugh - the continual "enshitification" of products and offerings.
| (Betchya 5-6 years ago this would have worked without issue)
|
| Am sick of basic features being pay-walled, or subscription-only
| - or abandoned/bricked when the company decides to "end-of-life"
| them after a couple years.
|
| While it ain't pretty - or small - at least it doesn't require a
| subscription... "CinePi"...
| (https://github.com/schoolpost/CinePI)
| oliwarner wrote:
| > Canon is a hardware company, not a software company
|
| The problem is we commercially enable hardware companies to be
| shitty software companies by buying hardware that lacks basic
| open protocols. We accept single platform lenses that _could_
| work in any similar mount. Photographers invite this
| mistreatment.
|
| It would be trivial for Canon to stream the live view out as UVC
| over USB and it would have _Just Worked(tm)_ as a webcam on every
| platform.
|
| This isn't just a Canon problem. It took Nikon several
| generations of dSLR to add standard USB ports. This could be
| Japanese hubris or a lack of competition or a lack of engineers
| actually talking to their customers.
| nroize wrote:
| During COVID, I was able to set up my 5DS (a ~10yo model now) as
| a webcam for free. Did they stop supporting the software they
| released to do that or just paywalled it?
| phkahler wrote:
| >> Software development isn't free, and I'm happy to pay for
| software I use regularly. However, Canon is a hardware company,
| not a software company, and they should--due to the lack of
| standards--provide software that allows you to use their cameras
| as intended.
|
| Software _development_ isn 't free, but everyone needs to hammer
| the message home to everyone they know that _the marginal cost of
| software is ZERO_. Any company continuing to charge for software
| is probably rolling that money back into enshittification which
| nobody wants anyway.
|
| This Canon software would actually make their product more
| valuable like the software inside the camera that they don't
| charge subscription for. Perhaps a one time price for an app, but
| this whole subscription and advertising trend is one I have not
| and will not join.
| mmaunder wrote:
| Amazing the market share Canon has considering how bad they are
| at software.
| knowitnone wrote:
| but you are using their software and they can choose how to sell
| that to you however the want. You're options is to vent and not
| buy another Canon. This subscription-based purchase is not new
| and will only get worst. Opensource FTW
| josefritzishere wrote:
| Canon can GTFO, this nonsense profiteering should be illegal, and
| probably will be eventually. It's hostile to customers and will
| be received poorly.
| reverendsteveii wrote:
| We seem to be passing the point where we discover new things that
| software can do and entering a phase where development is
| primarily going to be about gatekeeping, paywalling and
| eliminating capabilities. After all, why would you sell something
| when you can sell a subscription to that something and get paid
| every month? Even better, why not sell the thing and _then_ rent
| the ability to use the thing?
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| I'm sure Canon would like me to also pay every cent I have for
| every sip of water I take, and the ones I do not.
|
| Companies that focus on what they want, rather than what the
| customer wants, will cease to exist (or change hands).
| bloopernova wrote:
| What setup would people recommend? I've tried using an old
| android phone as a webcam on macOS but it kept flaking out and
| needing to be reset.
|
| What webcams, if any, have higher quality optics?
|
| Do other SLRs do the same thing as Canon and charge a
| subscription?
| slhck wrote:
| Some thoughts based on my anecdotal experience -- but it
| depends on the price you are willing to pay.
|
| You can get quite good webcams for $100-300 (from Insta360,
| Obsbot, Logitech maybe ...) which work out of the box with
| USB-C and have mostly okayish software that supports changing
| things like brightness, white balance, etc. These however still
| have small sensors and cannot achieve a good shallow depth-of-
| field (bokeh). Running them at higher sensitivity (ISO), e.g.
| in darker environments, inevitably causes noise. But if you
| just want to participate in meetings, it does not matter. I had
| a Logitech StreamCam and upgraded to an Insta360 Link 2C, which
| is definitely much better but still not on-par with a proper
| camera. You should at least get a good keylight or ring light.
|
| The next step up would be mirrorless cameras with built-in or
| interchangeable lenses made for vlogging, which also can be
| used like a webcam. They have much bigger sensors and better
| image quality at a pricing point of $400-1000, e.g. Sony ZV-E10
| II, Fuji X-M5, Canon EOS M50 Mark II, ... most of them claim
| webcam support with the provided software. Fuji's software is
| bad though, so I wouldn't recommend it on a Mac. I can't talk
| about the other ones. The benefit is that they also have a flip
| screen that you can use for better framing. They all support
| webcam modes.
|
| If you have a camera that has an HDMI output and that outputs a
| clean HDMI signal (without any overlays), you can also buy an
| HDMI USB capture device and feed that into OBS, which allows
| you to set up a virtual webcam. There are cheap no-name USB
| capture cards that produce mediocre images, and more top-of-the
| line ones like the Elgato Cam Link. This should be the most
| device-independent variant where you're also not dependent on
| any vendor's proprietary software.
| bloopernova wrote:
| Thank you for a comprehensive answer, I appreciate the time
| you put into it.
| ryao wrote:
| 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 services.
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| Some foresaw this and add an OSD showing time/battery/etc to
| the HDMI output so you can't get a clean feed.
| ryao wrote:
| Is there no option for turning that off?
| thtmnisamnstr wrote:
| Can't you still use the European site to download the EOS Webcam
| Utility for free? https://www.canon-europe.com/cameras/eos-
| webcam-utility/
| recursive wrote:
| Is this like how I have to pay my mobile carrier to use my own
| phone as a wifi hotspot?
| __mharrison__ wrote:
| I purchased a Canon M50 to use as a webcam during covid. I spend
| a lot of time doing remote training and quality video is
| paramount to me. At that time, the Canon webcam software worked
| fine on my Windows machine.
|
| I later moved back to a Mac as my daily driver and the Canon
| software was never reliable on m1 chips. The camera didn't have
| clean HDMI out. I was pretty frustrated because my fancy webcam
| no longer worked. Canon showed little desire to support Macs.
|
| I purchased a used Sony that had clean HDMI and it worked great
| with a cheap HDMI capture device.
|
| I now use an Insta360 webcam with a large sensor. Image quality
| and focus speed are great. It has slightly less bokeh effect than
| the Canon and Sony, but folks always comment about how good my
| video looks.
|
| They are also quite a bit cheaper than going the DSLR route for
| webcam.
| sulam wrote:
| 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.
| yapyap wrote:
| > Admittedly, it did not cost me the $6300 from the article's
| title, much closer to $900
|
| I am confused, I assume the 900 dollars is the cost of his camera
| but where did the 6300 figure come from?
| kiddico wrote:
| I know this isn't the point but investing in a usb capture card
| will permanently solve this issue for all future cameras.
| neycoda wrote:
| What sort of society are we careening toward? More power to the
| hackers!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-01-17 23:02 UTC)