4 ms·

Yes, this! The sales person made absolutely no mention of any licensing terms or agreements that I would need to sign off on before my camera became usable as a

Yes, this! The sales person made absolutely no mention of any licensing terms or agreements that I would need to sign off on before my camera became usable as a camera.

jrockway 4y ago
I think you're entitled to return it for a full refund. The same would be true if you took some video and didn't like how the camera worked, or just got cold feet on your $30k purchase. I get the feeling that you want more than that (like a custom license agreement, or some punishment for the sales person for not mentioning the EULA), and I don't think you're going to get that. Return it for a refund, RED has to sell it as an "open box", and the EULA costs them a few hundred bucks this time. Or make a fabulous video and forget all about their updates that move things around in the UI, and just live with it because the video quality is so good. Those are the best possible outcomes here.
- technothrasher 4y ago
  > or just got cold feet on your $30k purchase. You are typically not entitled to a refund in this situation. Many companies will allow it under a goodwill return policy, but they are not legally obligated in most situations.
  - jdsully 4y ago
    There is an implied warranty of merchantability. If a EULA wasn’t disclosed until post purchase and is required for operation then the product isn’t operable and they would have to return it or find a way to make it operable. Your average store clerk will roll their eyes if you discuss this with them - you’d have to sue. For $30k it might be worth it, but most purchases it is not.
    - JohnHaugeland 4y ago
      It's almost certain that the EULA is on the website
      - jhugo 4y ago
        If I walk into a store and buy something and they never mention the surprise extra contractual terms I need to go looking for on the website, then those surprise extra contractual terms aren't part of the sales contract. He's entitled to a refund if the EULA terms were not disclosed to him before purchase, because he purchased a camera and it can't be used as a camera until he agrees to an additional contract.
  - red_throwaway 4y ago
    I'm pretty sure I would be granted a refund if I asked for one. That being said, I'm not left with a lot of options after returning it because there aren't many comparable alternatives for this class of camera. In fact, I don't know of even one camera that's as high quality without also being almost double the price. RED has a lot of leverage here.
    - mikeyschaefer 4y ago
      Unless you need to shoot a lot of high frame (60fps+) rates I think there a lot of alternative options. There is incredible and award winning work made made with Sonys, Canons and Black Magic cameras and of course Arris. Producers and creative directors with big budgets love to get excited about Red cameras but most often the reality is they wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between footage from different manufacturers. I think Red is a bit of a status symbol at this point as all the competition has pretty much caught up. I think you could spend 50% of the price on a c500ii or a FX9 and get 90% of quality. That leaves a lot of money on the table for a decent set of cinema glass. Or you can get a used Alexa Mini for the same price as a Raptor.
    - mindslight 4y ago
      You could buy a used one where someone else already pressed "agree" on the purported contract. Installable software is only able to push bullshit EULAs on the theory that the installation process involves making a copy, which they claim requires an explicit license to do. But using a device with already installed embedded software doesn't involve making any copies of the software, and thus you don't need a license - rather you're buying the installed copy under the first sale doctrine. But ultimately this is an abstract debate, because the main point of EULAs is to disclaim legal liability for the company, as contrasted with creating it for the user. Even if you do manage to avoid entering into their bullshit contract, the company will do whatever it wants with your data, and it will be up to you to sue them. Part of that uphill battle will be proving you didn't assent to their bullshit. So really, like always, an end user's protection is ultimately of a technical nature. If the camera (or accompanying desktop software) does not have Internet access, then there is no way for RED to backhaul your footage and there is no issue to be worried about. If the camera does have Internet access, then your data will easily leave your control, and that's the real flaw with the product to focus on!
  - matyasrichter 4y ago
    In the EU, you can return any goods purchased online (not sure about in-store) within 14 days without providing a reason. It's a different process from asking for a refund though the company's return policy.
- car_analogy 4y ago
  > I get the feeling that you want more than that Like the GDPR? I'm not an expert on it, but I think it does forbid a few of the liberties RED has taken with this EULA.
  - dahart 4y ago
    That doesn’t help US citizens.
- EMIRELADERO 4y ago
  Why shouldn't they be entitled to use the product fully without being bound by the EULA? Unconscionability could be at play here.
  - dymk 4y ago
    Because contract law is a thing. OP can return the camera and get a different one, or they can agree to the usage terms.
    - Mordisquitos 4y ago
      What about the $30,000 sales contract by which OP reasonably expected to receive a functional camera, rather than a surprise additional contract containing unfavourable clauses? One could argue that, unless there is a mechanism by which OP can make use the camera without agreeing to the unexpected contract, OP has been a victim of false advertising.
      - everforward 4y ago
        > One could argue that, unless there is a mechanism by which OP can make use the camera without agreeing to the unexpected contract, OP has been a victim of false advertising. That seems unlikely. My layman's understanding is that you have to purchase the hardware and license the software, and the two are considered distinct items. The hardware is entirely capable of what was promised, but OP will either have to agree to the terms of the software or create their own. That exists in a lot of markets. Phones are advertised running OS' that require EULA's, computers are marketed running OS' and apps that require other EULA's, etc. I think my car even has an EULA on it. It feels bad when there realistically isn't an alternative like there are with phone or computer OS', but I don't think there's anything legally different.
        ryandrake 4y ago
        This world where EULA's (and other one-sided "agreements") are treated just like contracts: Meeting of the minds between two equal-power parties, mutually understood and negotiated--needs to die. These things are take-it-or-leave-it law, unchangeable, non-negotiable, and dictated by some corporate counsel 1000 miles away. They should be all thrown out due to being unconscionable. If the US Supreme Court wasn't entirely captured by corporate interests this crap would have been scrapped long ago.
- red_throwaway 4y ago
  Good point on them taking a loss having to sell it as open box. It's not much but it's probably the best option I have that actually reprimands them for this. > I get the feeling that you want more than that (like a custom license agreement, or some punishment for the sales person for not mentioning the EULA), and I don't think you're going to get that. I do want more. I want to have peace of mind that it's safe to use my camera. I don't think that's an unreasonable request. Especially considering the price tag. I definitely don't want the sales people to be punished. It's not their fault. It's possible that they've never even seen this since you'd only have seen it if you set one up straight out of the box.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  > I think you're entitled to return it for a full refund. By law?
  - pbhjpbhj 4y ago
    In the UK I'd say yes, the product isn't as described prior to sale. Major defects have to be brought to attention of potential buyers.

Yes, this! The sales person made absolutely no mention of any licensing terms or agreements that I would need to sign off on before my camera became usable as a camera.

jrockway 4y ago

I think you're entitled to return it for a full refund. The same would be true if you took some video and didn't like how the camera worked, or just got cold feet on your $30k purchase. I get the feeling that you want more than that (like a custom license agreement, or some punishment for the sales person for not mentioning the EULA), and I don't think you're going to get that. Return it for a refund, RED has to sell it as an "open box", and the EULA costs them a few hundred bucks this time. Or make a fabulous video and forget all about their updates that move things around in the UI, and just live with it because the video quality is so good. Those are the best possible outcomes here.

technothrasher 4y ago
> or just got cold feet on your $30k purchase. You are typically not entitled to a refund in this situation. Many companies will allow it under a goodwill return policy, but they are not legally obligated in most situations.
- jdsully 4y ago
  There is an implied warranty of merchantability. If a EULA wasn’t disclosed until post purchase and is required for operation then the product isn’t operable and they would have to return it or find a way to make it operable. Your average store clerk will roll their eyes if you discuss this with them - you’d have to sue. For $30k it might be worth it, but most purchases it is not.
  - JohnHaugeland 4y ago
    It's almost certain that the EULA is on the website
    - jhugo 4y ago
      If I walk into a store and buy something and they never mention the surprise extra contractual terms I need to go looking for on the website, then those surprise extra contractual terms aren't part of the sales contract. He's entitled to a refund if the EULA terms were not disclosed to him before purchase, because he purchased a camera and it can't be used as a camera until he agrees to an additional contract.
- red_throwaway 4y ago
  I'm pretty sure I would be granted a refund if I asked for one. That being said, I'm not left with a lot of options after returning it because there aren't many comparable alternatives for this class of camera. In fact, I don't know of even one camera that's as high quality without also being almost double the price. RED has a lot of leverage here.
  - mikeyschaefer 4y ago
    Unless you need to shoot a lot of high frame (60fps+) rates I think there a lot of alternative options. There is incredible and award winning work made made with Sonys, Canons and Black Magic cameras and of course Arris. Producers and creative directors with big budgets love to get excited about Red cameras but most often the reality is they wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between footage from different manufacturers. I think Red is a bit of a status symbol at this point as all the competition has pretty much caught up. I think you could spend 50% of the price on a c500ii or a FX9 and get 90% of quality. That leaves a lot of money on the table for a decent set of cinema glass. Or you can get a used Alexa Mini for the same price as a Raptor.
  - mindslight 4y ago
    You could buy a used one where someone else already pressed "agree" on the purported contract. Installable software is only able to push bullshit EULAs on the theory that the installation process involves making a copy, which they claim requires an explicit license to do. But using a device with already installed embedded software doesn't involve making any copies of the software, and thus you don't need a license - rather you're buying the installed copy under the first sale doctrine. But ultimately this is an abstract debate, because the main point of EULAs is to disclaim legal liability for the company, as contrasted with creating it for the user. Even if you do manage to avoid entering into their bullshit contract, the company will do whatever it wants with your data, and it will be up to you to sue them. Part of that uphill battle will be proving you didn't assent to their bullshit. So really, like always, an end user's protection is ultimately of a technical nature. If the camera (or accompanying desktop software) does not have Internet access, then there is no way for RED to backhaul your footage and there is no issue to be worried about. If the camera does have Internet access, then your data will easily leave your control, and that's the real flaw with the product to focus on!
- matyasrichter 4y ago
  In the EU, you can return any goods purchased online (not sure about in-store) within 14 days without providing a reason. It's a different process from asking for a refund though the company's return policy.
car_analogy 4y ago
> I get the feeling that you want more than that Like the GDPR? I'm not an expert on it, but I think it does forbid a few of the liberties RED has taken with this EULA.
- dahart 4y ago
  That doesn’t help US citizens.
EMIRELADERO 4y ago
Why shouldn't they be entitled to use the product fully without being bound by the EULA? Unconscionability could be at play here.
- dymk 4y ago
  Because contract law is a thing. OP can return the camera and get a different one, or they can agree to the usage terms.
  - Mordisquitos 4y ago
    What about the $30,000 sales contract by which OP reasonably expected to receive a functional camera, rather than a surprise additional contract containing unfavourable clauses? One could argue that, unless there is a mechanism by which OP can make use the camera without agreeing to the unexpected contract, OP has been a victim of false advertising.
    - everforward 4y ago
      > One could argue that, unless there is a mechanism by which OP can make use the camera without agreeing to the unexpected contract, OP has been a victim of false advertising. That seems unlikely. My layman's understanding is that you have to purchase the hardware and license the software, and the two are considered distinct items. The hardware is entirely capable of what was promised, but OP will either have to agree to the terms of the software or create their own. That exists in a lot of markets. Phones are advertised running OS' that require EULA's, computers are marketed running OS' and apps that require other EULA's, etc. I think my car even has an EULA on it. It feels bad when there realistically isn't an alternative like there are with phone or computer OS', but I don't think there's anything legally different.
      - ryandrake 4y ago
        This world where EULA's (and other one-sided "agreements") are treated just like contracts: Meeting of the minds between two equal-power parties, mutually understood and negotiated--needs to die. These things are take-it-or-leave-it law, unchangeable, non-negotiable, and dictated by some corporate counsel 1000 miles away. They should be all thrown out due to being unconscionable. If the US Supreme Court wasn't entirely captured by corporate interests this crap would have been scrapped long ago.
red_throwaway 4y ago
Good point on them taking a loss having to sell it as open box. It's not much but it's probably the best option I have that actually reprimands them for this. > I get the feeling that you want more than that (like a custom license agreement, or some punishment for the sales person for not mentioning the EULA), and I don't think you're going to get that. I do want more. I want to have peace of mind that it's safe to use my camera. I don't think that's an unreasonable request. Especially considering the price tag. I definitely don't want the sales people to be punished. It's not their fault. It's possible that they've never even seen this since you'd only have seen it if you set one up straight out of the box.
pessimizer 4y ago
> I think you're entitled to return it for a full refund. By law?
- pbhjpbhj 4y ago
  In the UK I'd say yes, the product isn't as described prior to sale. Major defects have to be brought to attention of potential buyers.