6 ms·

Looks like boilerplate to me. 4 is telemetry, with a catch-all that any data may be transmitted - which is necessary if a crash dump might contain image data.

Looks like boilerplate to me. 4 is telemetry, with a catch-all that any data may be transmitted - which is necessary if a crash dump might contain image data. 5 is updates, with the catch-all that updates may break stuff or remove features (often buggy features or features too rarely used to be worth maintaining). Pretty standard stuff for anything containing software, and perhaps because the camera is so expensive they feel obliged to cover their arses even more. RED Cameras are good and widely used, iirc - probably worth giving them the benefit of the doubt as they’ll not want to damage their reputation and profits by abusing their T&Cs.

cbm-vic-20 4y ago
> probably worth giving them the benefit of the doubt My lawyer would have a seizure if I showed this to them. If I had a lawyer, of course.
- kube-system 4y ago
  I've hired a few, and they're all well aware that sloppy boilerplate is commonplace. They often suggest you take a realist approach to the situation as a whole, and consider the incentives of those involved.
  - et2o 4y ago
    This is exactly the answer. Why would the manufacturer of a professional-targeted camera take an action that would destroy their business?
    - anm89 4y ago
      Modern companies do this constantly and nobody cares.
    - scsilver 4y ago
      Like Kodak?
      - Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
        Other than blow the opportunity to be the leader in digital cameras, what have they done to destroy themselves?
      - jobs_throwaway 4y ago
        you're referencing when Kodak didn't pivot to digital? Or some T&C abuse I'm not aware of?
      - ribosometronome 4y ago
        Failing to see how a market will change and change with it is not quite the same as "a camera company intentionally stealing movies to share with others".
    - JaimeThompson 4y ago
      >Why would the manufacturer of a professional-targeted camera take an action that would destroy their business? To make the next quarters number look better.
      - renewiltord 4y ago
        It won't. Any material so created would immediately receive an injunction at a court and the risk would be so high that you wouldn't even do it because you can't use the material. Also, there are zero people in movies who can tell you whether a movie will succeed. You can't make the bet. The incentives force RED to not abuse.
        eslaught 4y ago
        And plus, this is raw footage. You could leak it for the lulz, but it's laughable to think you could make any money off of it even if you tried. A vast amount (possibly the majority?) of creative energy goes into the editing/post-production process after all the raw footage is captured.
        JaimeThompson 4y ago
        >The incentives force RED to not abuse. Boeing, Enron, and too many others to list here show that one can't really apply rational thinking when some, not everyone, desire that bonus / stock bump / whatever no matter the long term cost.
      - googlryas 4y ago
        How does that even work? Are they going to somehow get all the video data off of everyone's cameras, and cut and release it as films before anyone else can?
        cyral 4y ago
        Not to mention how that would destroy the trust in their brand
        ipaddr 4y ago
    - myself248 4y ago
      You'd think Eventbrite would've known better too.. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/23/eventbrite-apologises-for-footage-rights-grab https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/23/eventbrite-apo... This shit happens all the time. Someone has to call them out and get lucky enough for the calling-out to go viral, before they walk it back.
    - syshum 4y ago
      Of course history has shown that while a company is profitable they will be "good" however if the company starts going off the cliff all bets are off See the many many once "good" companies that end up patent trolling
  - synicalx 4y ago
    I've worked with lawyers who all shared that same "it's probably fine" attitude, which genuinely surprised me until I went out drinking with them one night...
- NikolaNovak 4y ago
  Interestingly, I think that's the trick. Myself and fellow geeks approach many things as computer code - assumption that it's fully logical, consistent, repeatable, and reading of code will fundamentally tell you exactly and a priori what happens when it executes. Agreeing that they'll always take caution and safety, in my limited world at least, I've repeatedly been surprised when accountants and lawyers take a practical approach of "This is how the world works / This is what'll actually happen / This is what and how you should care about" (which is sometimes more and sometimes less strict than the letter), in addition and sometimes as priority over strict textual interpretation of something. Which is to say, our computer geeky interpretation of what a lawyer might say / react is sometimes based more on our assumption of how world and law work, than realities of legal profession :)
vmception 4y ago
- kstrauser 4y ago
  That's not appeal to authority. That's just advice to take their reputation into consideration.
vmception 4y ago
> RED Cameras are good and widely used, iirc - probably worth giving them the benefit of the doubt as they’ll not want to damage their reputation and profits by abusing their T&Cs. This is an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. That particular niche of users has likely never brought it up to people attention. EULA are rarely brought up at all, and when they are its just in some software within tech circles because tech sector enthusiasts like to review. It doesn't matter that high powered hollywood execs and prosumer gearheads have used it and ignored it. It is very valid to assume it simply never has been challenged. The question "is it legal" not "will it hurt me" not "will it hurt them".
- ChrisLomont 4y ago
  >This is an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy Fallacy fallacy. The appeal to authority fallacy would be to claim it's ok for them to do it because they're the best. The OP did not write that. The OP wrote that on the spectrum of how to be worried, since this vendor has a track record of good behavior, and since the EULA pieces are pretty reasonable for the vendor to manage the software (which most film makers likely don't care to manage), that it's more likely that this will not be the issue that some make it out to be. Stop making everything a (false) fallacy claim and simply address the discussion.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - vmception 4y ago
    The question "is it legal" not "will it hurt me" not "will it hurt them". Thats the discussion I'm choosing to follow, its right there in the title.
  - garbagetime 4y ago
    I don't think that's a fallacy fallacy. Fallacy fallacy is when there really is a fallacy in a person's argument, and that fact is used to reason that the argument's conclusion is false.

cbm-vic-20 4y ago

> probably worth giving them the benefit of the doubt My lawyer would have a seizure if I showed this to them. If I had a lawyer, of course.

kube-system 4y ago
I've hired a few, and they're all well aware that sloppy boilerplate is commonplace. They often suggest you take a realist approach to the situation as a whole, and consider the incentives of those involved.
- et2o 4y ago
  This is exactly the answer. Why would the manufacturer of a professional-targeted camera take an action that would destroy their business?
  - anm89 4y ago
    Modern companies do this constantly and nobody cares.
  - scsilver 4y ago
    Like Kodak?
    - Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
      Other than blow the opportunity to be the leader in digital cameras, what have they done to destroy themselves?
    - jobs_throwaway 4y ago
      you're referencing when Kodak didn't pivot to digital? Or some T&C abuse I'm not aware of?
    - ribosometronome 4y ago
      Failing to see how a market will change and change with it is not quite the same as "a camera company intentionally stealing movies to share with others".
  - JaimeThompson 4y ago
    >Why would the manufacturer of a professional-targeted camera take an action that would destroy their business? To make the next quarters number look better.
    - renewiltord 4y ago
      It won't. Any material so created would immediately receive an injunction at a court and the risk would be so high that you wouldn't even do it because you can't use the material. Also, there are zero people in movies who can tell you whether a movie will succeed. You can't make the bet. The incentives force RED to not abuse.
      - eslaught 4y ago
        And plus, this is raw footage. You could leak it for the lulz, but it's laughable to think you could make any money off of it even if you tried. A vast amount (possibly the majority?) of creative energy goes into the editing/post-production process after all the raw footage is captured.
      - JaimeThompson 4y ago
        >The incentives force RED to not abuse. Boeing, Enron, and too many others to list here show that one can't really apply rational thinking when some, not everyone, desire that bonus / stock bump / whatever no matter the long term cost.
    - googlryas 4y ago
      How does that even work? Are they going to somehow get all the video data off of everyone's cameras, and cut and release it as films before anyone else can?
      - cyral 4y ago
        Not to mention how that would destroy the trust in their brand
      - ipaddr 4y ago
  - myself248 4y ago
    You'd think Eventbrite would've known better too.. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/23/eventbrite-apologises-for-footage-rights-grab https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/23/eventbrite-apo... This shit happens all the time. Someone has to call them out and get lucky enough for the calling-out to go viral, before they walk it back.
  - syshum 4y ago
    Of course history has shown that while a company is profitable they will be "good" however if the company starts going off the cliff all bets are off See the many many once "good" companies that end up patent trolling
- synicalx 4y ago
  I've worked with lawyers who all shared that same "it's probably fine" attitude, which genuinely surprised me until I went out drinking with them one night...
NikolaNovak 4y ago
Interestingly, I think that's the trick. Myself and fellow geeks approach many things as computer code - assumption that it's fully logical, consistent, repeatable, and reading of code will fundamentally tell you exactly and a priori what happens when it executes. Agreeing that they'll always take caution and safety, in my limited world at least, I've repeatedly been surprised when accountants and lawyers take a practical approach of "This is how the world works / This is what'll actually happen / This is what and how you should care about" (which is sometimes more and sometimes less strict than the letter), in addition and sometimes as priority over strict textual interpretation of something. Which is to say, our computer geeky interpretation of what a lawyer might say / react is sometimes based more on our assumption of how world and law work, than realities of legal profession :)

vmception 4y ago

kstrauser 4y ago
That's not appeal to authority. That's just advice to take their reputation into consideration.

vmception 4y ago

> RED Cameras are good and widely used, iirc - probably worth giving them the benefit of the doubt as they’ll not want to damage their reputation and profits by abusing their T&Cs. This is an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. That particular niche of users has likely never brought it up to people attention. EULA are rarely brought up at all, and when they are its just in some software within tech circles because tech sector enthusiasts like to review. It doesn't matter that high powered hollywood execs and prosumer gearheads have used it and ignored it. It is very valid to assume it simply never has been challenged. The question "is it legal" not "will it hurt me" not "will it hurt them".

ChrisLomont 4y ago
>This is an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy Fallacy fallacy. The appeal to authority fallacy would be to claim it's ok for them to do it because they're the best. The OP did not write that. The OP wrote that on the spectrum of how to be worried, since this vendor has a track record of good behavior, and since the EULA pieces are pretty reasonable for the vendor to manage the software (which most film makers likely don't care to manage), that it's more likely that this will not be the issue that some make it out to be. Stop making everything a (false) fallacy claim and simply address the discussion.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- vmception 4y ago
  The question "is it legal" not "will it hurt me" not "will it hurt them". Thats the discussion I'm choosing to follow, its right there in the title.
- garbagetime 4y ago
  I don't think that's a fallacy fallacy. Fallacy fallacy is when there really is a fallacy in a person's argument, and that fact is used to reason that the argument's conclusion is false.