11 ms·

Who owns this camera, Nikon? Me or you? [video]

227 points by josephcsible 3y ago

NoRelToEmber 3y ago
The video is about Nikon blocking international sales of their used camera parts on eBay. It may be due to "free trade" agreements forbidding the import/export of patented goods without the IP-holder's permission, but I only know industry groups tried to include such terms - I don't know if any agreements in force actually contain them.
- bb88 3y ago
  As Louis Rossmann has pointed out in other videos he's made from the comfort of his lay-z-boy, it's not just Nikon wanting to restrict their goods coming in overseas. (In this case it's to protect Nikon's pricing structure between different continents.) Refurbished Apple parts have been caught up in import restrictions as well, not because they're fake, but because they have an Apple logo on them, and Apple insists that everything overseas coming into the US with an Apple logo must be counterfeit. https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/9pe9yd/us_customs_border_protection_seizes_louis/ https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/9pe9yd/us_customs...
  - RajT88 3y ago
    > (In this case it's to protect Nikon's pricing structure between different continents.) Ah ha - so what seems to be different in this case is that he's selling products from the US, shipping to the EU. In the US, this is already settled law. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/thai-student-protected-by-first-sale-supreme-court-rules/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/thai-student-pro... Same concern. Not sure how they're allowed to do this in the EU, but I assume it's to do with them not having precedent, or some EU regulation which disallows it somehow.
    - shagie 3y ago
      There is such a regulation and it is very settled law. From 1998 https://cms-lawnow.com/en/ealerts/1998/10/the-ecj-has-delivered-a-landmark-ruling-which-allows-trade-mark-owners-to-block-the-sale-of-goods-bearing-their-trademarks-within-the-eu-where-the https://cms-lawnow.com/en/ealerts/1998/10/the-ecj-has-delive... > The ECJ has delivered a landmark ruling which effectively allows trade mark owners to block the sale of goods bearing their trademarks within the EU, where the goods have been obtained on the so-called 'grey market' from suppliers outside the EU. The ruling means that the holder of a trade mark in the UK, or other EU country, can prevent the sale of parallel-imported goods from outside the EU even though such goods have been legitimately sold abroad in the first place. This means, in practice, that a trade mark holder can prevent retailers from obtaining goods bearing its trade mark cheaply from markets such as Asia or the US and selling them at a discount within Europe without its authorisation. And more recently (2022): https://trademarkblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/10/21/court-of-justice-allows-destroying-genuine-grey-market-goods-when-rights-arent-exhausted/ https://trademarkblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/10/21/court-of-ju... > The court may order that infringing goods be removed from the market, returned to the rightful owner, or destroyed. When making a decision, the courts consider the gravity of the infringement as well as the interests of third parties. Also, Article 10(1) of Directive 2004/48 (Enforcement Directive) states that a judge may order “destruction” of goods to enforce intellectual property rights.
      - Beldin 3y ago
        Just to add: the EU mandates certain standards that other territories do not necessarily impose. For example: turn signals on cars: in the EU, they must be separate from brake lights and colored yellow or orange. That is: (1) vendors may abide by different standards elsewhere, and (2) implementation of those different standards may cause incompatibility (eg. US rear lights may not be compatible with EU models). While that might not completely justify such rules in all cases, they're not always fully anti-consumer either.
        NoRelToEmber 3y ago
        But if a product does not comply with EU standards, it is illegal to sell/import/use it in the EU regardless of if the trademark owner allows its sale - it's not up to them. So yes, deputizing trademark owners to police imports, on the off chance that maybe sometimes their decisions will align with other consumer-protection laws, is always fully anti-consumer.
  - KennyBlanken 3y ago
    You're conflating product made by the company but intended for sale in a particular market...with goods being made not by the company. Either in factories that have nothing to do with Apple, or being made in factories contracted by Apple, but in ghost production lines in parallel to the official ones, or "after hours." Rossman was knowingly buying and importing parts made in Apple-contracted factories that were being made "off the clock" (ie, Apple parts are made from say, 9-5 and then from 6-10, the factory makes more, without telling Apple, and sells them through their own channels.) That's a contractual violation, which is a civil matter...but the factory was using the Apple logo on the labels of the batteries, which is a trademark violation, and that's where customs gets involved. So...yes, actually. Rossman has some valid points but he's also a slimy shyster. Everyone else in the repair and parts biz was buying batteries without Apple logos, Rossman knew that, and knew that he could charge more, or more easily sell, the apple-branded batteries. Apple has not, to the best of my knowledge, harassed anyone importing or using third party parts that lack an apple logo. It's hilarious that you're pissed about literally the whole point of a trademark.
    - vegardx 3y ago
      This is just part of the story. The other part of the issue has been importing refurbished items, like screens and other components. The parts are literally pulled out of Apple produced products, as is. But since Apple puts their logo everywhere on the parts, it's almost impossible to import them. They just claim they're counterfeit, without having to provide any evidence that they are. This went all the way to the supreme court in Norway, and the supreme court sided with Apple. It's too expensive to remove the Apple branding on genuine and refurbished parts, so now we're stuck with actual counterfeits, often from the same factory as the originals, just without the logo. But we could have just used perfectly fine refurbished parts.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      The guy kind of immediately struck as someone who would not check the ruls forst, or outright ignore them, only to turn around and rant about him not being allowed to cheat. E.g. by selling basically counterfeight batteries when everyone else uses non-branded batteries is cheating those other repair shops. That he wants to ride the, very legitimate, right-to-repair wave only seems fitting. Right to repair does not allow you to use counterfeight parts or illegal sources and ignore customs.
  - dataflow 3y ago
    > Refurbished Apple parts have been caught up in import restrictions as well, not because they're fake, but because they have an Apple logo on them, and Apple insists that everything overseas coming into the US with an Apple logo must be counterfeit. Apparently those Apple logos were indeed fake, unlike what was generally reported in the media. He mentions how he found this out from the court filings in his recent video, and how Vice News didn't correct their story after he provided them the details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj3YbdgZUO4&t=23s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj3YbdgZUO4&t=23s
    - dataflow 3y ago
      I'm confused what the downvote means here. Did I get the story wrong somehow? If so I'd love to know what actually happened.
      - bb88 3y ago
        Yeah, that's actually a different case. And yeah, Rossmann was wrong about that one. He's covered that before and told the story about it on his video blog.
- devoutsalsa 3y ago
  I don't know about what it takes to import a camera lens, but it's possible the lens itself would have trouble clearing customs in some places. I once tried to have a used laptop shipped to Mexico via FedEx, and I couldn't get it through customs (without an import partner & in less than a month or two). I had FedEx send the laptop back to a relative in the USA & had them fly down to Mexico to give it to me.
NotYourLawyer 3y ago
Does the EU not have anything analogous to patent exhaustion?
sottol 3y ago
I think it's just an attempt to stop "grey-market" imports if I had to guess and this old lens just got swept up in the dragnet. They're probably (ab-?)using ebay's IP protection systems though. Manufacturers sometimes have vastly different pricing based on region and want to protect profits, to the point that most (all?) manufacturers will not service "gray-market imported" lenses in the US. So large 3rd-party grey market importers like "E-Infinity" even offer their own warranty.
- NoRelToEmber 3y ago
  "Grey-market" means perfectly legal imports, just without the manufacturer's blessing. Even just calling them "grey" is a gross corporate invasion on ownership rights.
  - sottol 3y ago
    Agree, thus the scare-quotes.
  - someotherperson 3y ago
    To me, at least, "grey" indicates that the manufacturer support for updates or warranty is in a "grey" area, since a lot of that is localised to where it was originally purchased from.
    - xp84 3y ago
      And you’re super right that’s a good definition, but GP has a great point that if “black market” means it’s stolen merchandise, the very term grey market implies “kind of stolen” which is gross when it’s just “consumers using globalization in exactly the same way we do, in a way that slightly reduces our total margin dollars from the theoretical maximum”
      - hutzlibu 3y ago
        "black market” means it’s stolen merchandise" Black market is also drugs, guns, ... any trade not official allowed. And stolen goods often get sold legal via ebay, craigslist etc.
neilv 3y ago
I'm going to guess the problem isn't a "dual use" government export restriction. The VR AF-P 18-55 seems to be a plastic-mount kit lens for consumer DSLRs, though it does have some nice properties. Could it be an anti gray market diversion effort gone a bit astray? There's a place for those efforts, but I'd think they'd be solving their business problem for new product, and tackling it at the points of their contractual partners. Not product end users. Many photographers buy&sell used lenses, as they upgrade, experiment, change needs, etc. Photographers get married to proprietary lens systems, partly because they've bought into a particular system, but I've also seen a lot of brand goodwill. (I've had great experiences with Canon professional service, after buying into EF L glass, and also great experience with the Nikon parts service for some vintage strobe repairs I did on the side. I've often used the word "love" when talking about products from both brands.) I don't understand how messing with the sale of a used entry-level DSLR lens is worth risking alienating photogs to your hard-earned brand and system.
- hef19898 3y ago
  I did not whatch the video, yet. But my experience so far with Nikon is, that it is no problem to get used gear from outside the EU. Emphasis on used and as a consumer. Also, Nikon's repair service is pretty good, also for basically obsolete stuff. As long as parts are available that it, and you are ready to pay the hourly rate (which is also fine, because they are not running a charity). That being said, I prefer to buy within Europe, or even Germany, for simple reason of easier returns and no need for customs. Edit: Asking who owns the camera because certain sources forbspare parts are blocked, while spares in general are available, or because certain sales channels are not available is a strong question to ask. Because you can sell and repair your gear. Cameras are air gaped, so you don't even havebto perform OTA updates. Nikom cannot block you from repairing your gear yourself, other then voiding the warranty, or using it which ever way you want. Quite different from, say, John Deere... Edit 2: Just realized, every piece of used kit I bought, and had register for various reasons with Nikon ranging from repairs to servicing and cloud storage, was accepted by Nikon without problems. In one case I know the body was already sent in by someone else before, still no issue. I really have to watch the video, it seems. Edit 3: Ok, just watched it long enough to understand the perceived problem. And it has nothing to do with Nikon per se. You can easily buy, every day all day long, used Nikon stuff from Japan and have it shipped to the EU for example. And it was not customs that blocked it, it was eBay. And even then only for international shipping through eBay international shipping. Which, apparently, is perfectly in line with existing legislation, but I am not a lawyer. So everything Nikok did, and yes this sucks, was blocking the resale of a used lense to customers abroad / outside the US, not the sale itself. That is different from what Apple does (as mentioned in the video). To make it short: Yes, you own the kit and can sell it whenever you want. As every owner, you do not have the right to sell in whatever market on whatever plattform you want (commercial sellers are even more restricted). These restrictions have nothing to do with ownership rights. As I suspected, the video is based on so many misconceptions and misunderstandings, it is little more than a rant.
WWLink 3y ago
[flagged]
- m348e912 3y ago
  >Tell me "Serious photogs only use Canon and Nikon, you n00b!" I could but it wouldn't be true. Sony has some amazing high end photography gear that a lot of 'serious photogs' use.
recycledmatt 3y ago
I would have to see the exact complaint. One interesting piece is that cameras are sold in the US by Nikon USA, and in the EU by Nikon Europe. It is possible that some regulations like Weee compliance, or maybe right to repair (manuals maybe?) that this older model does not comply with all of the EU law. Still ridiculous, but a possible different angle they are approaching it from.
ezconnect 3y ago
It's a crappy lens, maybe they just don't want it around anymore.
stevelini 3y ago
Another step in the end of property. You don't own anything. You license it.
- eimrine 3y ago
  It does not seem like the end of property - somebody keeps owning what you license from him.
qingcharles 3y ago
I lost $250,000 of Beanie Babies in 1998 by sending them from the UK to the USA in 800 separate packages to try to avoid grey import laws. It was illegal to send the Beanies because the same products were on sale in the USA. This used to affect people trying to import Levi's jeans from the USA to EU too.
- turnsout 3y ago
  You what
  - Balooga 3y ago
    IKR!
  - kazinator 3y ago
    Beanie Babies, man; research it. If you've never heard of the late 1990's Beanie Baby craze, you will be amazed. But what happened to Beanie Babies could never happen to Vancouver real estate. Your one bedroom condo will be worth $40 million by 2050, honest to god, no shit!
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      My favorite bit of Beanie Baby trivia is a divorcing couple had to pick through their collection one by one in front of a judge because they couldn't come to any agreement over who got what; there's a hilarious photo. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/beanie-baby-fever-in-1999_n_58af7d12e4b060480e0661fe https://www.huffpost.com/entry/beanie-baby-fever-in-1999_n_5... I wish someone would do a follow-up interview with them.
      - qingcharles 3y ago
        That's great, thank you. I probably sold them those Beanies. I basically extorted all the stores in the UK to sell the rare ones out of the back door and then sold them to rich husbands in the USA to give to their rich housewives. I would buy them from Ty employees too as they had the limited edition ones. I remember one I sold for $13,000 that I was playing soccer with in my living room before I boxed it up and mailed it out.
shagie 3y ago
Consider the situation where I go to Japan and buy a camera lens there and take it back with me to the US (it was cheaper there). The warranty on it is for Japan - not the US warranty repairs. This is fine for me and noting that if it breaks I'll likely have to send it to a friend in Japan (and hope customs doesn't intervene) and have them send it in for a warranty repair. If I was to sell this lens at US (or even slightly cheaper than US prices) to someone in the US and they tried sending it to the US warranty repair they would be in for a rude awaking. This most often shows up with camera equipment and B&H has a page on Grey Market ( https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/HelpCenter/USGrey.jsp https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/HelpCenter/USGrey.jsp ) and you'll note that B&H offers the warranty repair on the gear (rather than the official licensed import warranty repair company). You'll also note that a non-US resident buying a grey market item from B&H would face similar problems to what I would have hypothetically faced buying a camera lens in Japan. > A resident of the USA may wish to make the buying decision based on price since the cost of shipping to a US service center or to B&H should be about equal. A non-USA resident should consider the cost of returning a product to B&H in New York for servicing as opposed to the cost of taking the product to a local warranty service center. And likewise, for the video... the person has a (I presume) US warranty item that if imported into the UK would EU. From the video transcript: > ... for international buyers through eBay international shipping one of the benefits of eBay international shipping is that we may resolve Vero import issues on your behalf the Vero program is designed to protect you and protect rights owners intellectual property ... As the seller/exporter of the lens, if you are shipping it to the EU without the proper warranty ( https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/dealing-with-customers/consumer-contracts-guarantees/consumer-guarantees/index_en.htm https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/dealing-with-customers... ) it is quite possible to find yourself in a bit of trouble if they tried to get a warranty repair on it. Specifically for Nikon: https://www.nikonimgsupport.com/eu/BV_article?articleNo=000004838&configured=1&lang=en_GB https://www.nikonimgsupport.com/eu/BV_article?articleNo=0000... > What are Grey Market products? > Nikon products that are not imported by Nikon Europe B.V. and sold through it's sales channels are considered Grey Market products. These usually are genuine Nikon products that were intended for other Nikon markets; therefore, they may not meet Nikon’s specifications for European products and they may not perform as expected. > No Nikon Warranty > Grey Market products may contain a limited warranty from the seller, but they are not covered by a Nikon Europe warranty. > Not eligible for warranty repair service > Not eligible for Nikon Europe Warranty repair service, you will be charged. And so, the person is exporting to the EU and there is no Nikon warranty on it, and presumably there is no warranty from the person selling it which is in violation of EU warranty laws on products and Nikon doesn't want to get in trouble with the EU either.
xlii 3y ago
I wonder if that might have something to do with potential military use? I know there exist range of everyday goods that can be used in order to make weapons and they are more tightly controlled than other goods, especially in import/export. Does a (possibly) high quality lens fits into that? I don't know, but it rang a bell immediately I heard about the restriction.
- KennyBlanken 3y ago
  This is just Nikon being Nikon. Nikon for decades would refuse to even tell you if a particular camera serial number was for a US or Japanese market camera. Which...wouldn't be an issue, if, upon receiving your camera for service, they didn't refuse to work on a camera that wasn't in its proper market. Note I didn't mention warranty service/repair. For decades, they wouldn't even touch a Japanese-market product at the US service center, whether you were paying or not. At the time, Canon USA would happily warranty or otherwise service any Canon gear you sent to them, regardless of where it was bought. Vacation in Japan, decide you want to buy a lens for your US Nikon, or maybe your US Nikon lens is lost/stolen/breaks and you get a replacement...years go by, it stops working so you send it to nikon for service...and promptly are told to get fucked, and it's shipped back to you. I hear Canon is now pulling similar nonsense. I know someone who dropped several thousand dollars on a Canon mirrorless camera body at Abes Of Maine, only to find out (when the camera almost immediately had an issue) that the camera was a grey-market import and Canon told them to get fucked when they called for tech support. Abes Of Maine ghosted them until they threatened to do a chargeback ("goods delivered not as described", I believe.) Oh, also: Nikon were dicks about their warranties, too. Non-transferable and they required proof of purchase, so you couldn't even buy an unregistered camera from someone else and then register it yourself. Canon USA? At the time, they only cared if the "clock" hadn't run out, not who bought it. All this is why I bought into the Canon ecosystem multiple times. Nikon is never getting a dime from me.
  - RobotToaster 3y ago
    Do other camera manufacturers pull this shit? I don't think I've heard of pentax doing it.
hypfer 3y ago
Louis Rossmann really needs dial it back after that synology thing. The timespan between the initial thought/idea/emotional reaction and actual video being online has gotten just way too short. There's nothing good coming from this online drama content.
Lammy 3y ago
This is the same company that would really prefer for third-party batteries to not exist so people have to stay on the upgrade treadmill and not keep using the same camera body for a decade https://old.reddit.com/r/Nikon/comments/13ska1n/psa_thirdparty_batteries_are_not_working_with_the/ https://old.reddit.com/r/Nikon/comments/13ska1n/psa_thirdpar...
- suddenclarity 3y ago
  It makes sense that a manufacturer would protect their brand from people using third party batteries that might catch fire or otherwise cause issues, then blame Nikon. I used to work in a camera store and batteries were the most common issue next to flashes exploding and gimbal motors breaking due to user error. It's bad but still understandable. Especially in these cameras that seem to have heating issues anyway.
legohead 3y ago
Import/Export is a different beast than right to repair. He already has his hands full, and should focus on what he knows. Don't confuse your userbase and potentially damage your main goal.
Reventlov 3y ago
Nothing to do with the content of the video but… Am I the only one seeing a weird synchronization between the sound and the video ? It looks (and sounds) like the sound is a bit too early or late with regards to the video…
ceving 3y ago
Who cares? Camera industry has become extinct. Nikon just did not realize.
traceroute66 3y ago
I know people on HN like to bitch and moan about "$insert_name_of_big_evil_company not letting me do what I want". But there is more than this than meets the eye. First, "grey market" is actually FAR more than just an inconvenience to $evil_big_corp. "grey market", ESPECIALLY in tech and chips, is a major source of so-called "missing trader fraud"[1] which comes in many forms including carousel fraud. This ends up adding up to billions in tax which has been fraudulently misappropriated. Before they started clamping down on it, it was a major problem in the EU in the early 2000s, but also in other forms elsewhere in the world. Governments worldwide have been clamping down on missing trader fraud for some time now, and it should not come as a surprise to anyone that large consumer electronics companies, whose kit is an obvious target to the fraudsters, have to play their role in tightening the supply chain. Second, if a company has a trademark then part of maintaining that trademark is to act upon illegal use of it. If you don't act on trademark infringement, whether counterfeit or otherwise, then theoretically your trademark could be at risk of formal challenge. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_trader_fraud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_trader_fraud
- ajsnigrutin 3y ago
  It's a used lens, that's not manufactured anymore by the original manufacturer, so there's no way to get VAT on a new product. Also, if it's a legitimate nikon lens, then there is no trademark abuse. It's just big companies being assholes to their customers (until customers figure it out, and stop buying it... btw, never buy HP printers!)
- CogitoCogito 3y ago
  > Second, if a company has a trademark then part of maintaining that trademark is to act upon illegal use of it. If you don't act on trademark infringement, whether counterfeit or otherwise, then theoretically your trademark could be at risk of formal challenge. How does trademark infringement enter the conversation? The products aren't counterfeit right?
gerbilly 3y ago
Noted, companies have convinced governments to help protect their pricing structure. What I find disquieting are all the long comments discussing the intricacies of these 'grey market' tactics. To even discuss it lends this kind of bad faith dealing a legitimacy it does not deserve. It's like fan fiction. Maybe it's just me, but when powerful people conspire to screw me over, I'm not that interested in hearing their venal arguments about why it was reasonable and for my own good.
- dotancohen 3y ago
  > Maybe it's just me, but when powerful people conspire to screw me over, I'm not that interested > in hearing their venal arguments about why it was reasonable and for my own good. I am interested in hearing it - once. I'll consider then either accept or reject their stance. But the incessant repeating of variations of lies is attrition.
bullen 3y ago
Because it can be used for war? This tells me Raspberry 4 will never be for sale again. EVER!
whitej125 3y ago
Tangent: For the first 10 seconds of this video I thought it was computer generated (and that was the reason this was posted on HN). The inflection in the voice just didn't match the expression on the face or the body movements (lack thereof).

227 points by josephcsible 3y ago

The video is about Nikon blocking international sales of their used camera parts on eBay. It may be due to "free trade" agreements forbidding the import/export of patented goods without the IP-holder's permission, but I only know industry groups tried to include such terms - I don't know if any agreements in force actually contain them.

bb88 3y ago
As Louis Rossmann has pointed out in other videos he's made from the comfort of his lay-z-boy, it's not just Nikon wanting to restrict their goods coming in overseas. (In this case it's to protect Nikon's pricing structure between different continents.) Refurbished Apple parts have been caught up in import restrictions as well, not because they're fake, but because they have an Apple logo on them, and Apple insists that everything overseas coming into the US with an Apple logo must be counterfeit. https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/9pe9yd/us_customs_border_protection_seizes_louis/ https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/9pe9yd/us_customs...
- RajT88 3y ago
  > (In this case it's to protect Nikon's pricing structure between different continents.) Ah ha - so what seems to be different in this case is that he's selling products from the US, shipping to the EU. In the US, this is already settled law. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/thai-student-protected-by-first-sale-supreme-court-rules/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/thai-student-pro... Same concern. Not sure how they're allowed to do this in the EU, but I assume it's to do with them not having precedent, or some EU regulation which disallows it somehow.
  - shagie 3y ago
    There is such a regulation and it is very settled law. From 1998 https://cms-lawnow.com/en/ealerts/1998/10/the-ecj-has-delivered-a-landmark-ruling-which-allows-trade-mark-owners-to-block-the-sale-of-goods-bearing-their-trademarks-within-the-eu-where-the https://cms-lawnow.com/en/ealerts/1998/10/the-ecj-has-delive... > The ECJ has delivered a landmark ruling which effectively allows trade mark owners to block the sale of goods bearing their trademarks within the EU, where the goods have been obtained on the so-called 'grey market' from suppliers outside the EU. The ruling means that the holder of a trade mark in the UK, or other EU country, can prevent the sale of parallel-imported goods from outside the EU even though such goods have been legitimately sold abroad in the first place. This means, in practice, that a trade mark holder can prevent retailers from obtaining goods bearing its trade mark cheaply from markets such as Asia or the US and selling them at a discount within Europe without its authorisation. And more recently (2022): https://trademarkblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/10/21/court-of-justice-allows-destroying-genuine-grey-market-goods-when-rights-arent-exhausted/ https://trademarkblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/10/21/court-of-ju... > The court may order that infringing goods be removed from the market, returned to the rightful owner, or destroyed. When making a decision, the courts consider the gravity of the infringement as well as the interests of third parties. Also, Article 10(1) of Directive 2004/48 (Enforcement Directive) states that a judge may order “destruction” of goods to enforce intellectual property rights.
    - Beldin 3y ago
      Just to add: the EU mandates certain standards that other territories do not necessarily impose. For example: turn signals on cars: in the EU, they must be separate from brake lights and colored yellow or orange. That is: (1) vendors may abide by different standards elsewhere, and (2) implementation of those different standards may cause incompatibility (eg. US rear lights may not be compatible with EU models). While that might not completely justify such rules in all cases, they're not always fully anti-consumer either.
      - NoRelToEmber 3y ago
        But if a product does not comply with EU standards, it is illegal to sell/import/use it in the EU regardless of if the trademark owner allows its sale - it's not up to them. So yes, deputizing trademark owners to police imports, on the off chance that maybe sometimes their decisions will align with other consumer-protection laws, is always fully anti-consumer.
- KennyBlanken 3y ago
  You're conflating product made by the company but intended for sale in a particular market...with goods being made not by the company. Either in factories that have nothing to do with Apple, or being made in factories contracted by Apple, but in ghost production lines in parallel to the official ones, or "after hours." Rossman was knowingly buying and importing parts made in Apple-contracted factories that were being made "off the clock" (ie, Apple parts are made from say, 9-5 and then from 6-10, the factory makes more, without telling Apple, and sells them through their own channels.) That's a contractual violation, which is a civil matter...but the factory was using the Apple logo on the labels of the batteries, which is a trademark violation, and that's where customs gets involved. So...yes, actually. Rossman has some valid points but he's also a slimy shyster. Everyone else in the repair and parts biz was buying batteries without Apple logos, Rossman knew that, and knew that he could charge more, or more easily sell, the apple-branded batteries. Apple has not, to the best of my knowledge, harassed anyone importing or using third party parts that lack an apple logo. It's hilarious that you're pissed about literally the whole point of a trademark.
  - vegardx 3y ago
    This is just part of the story. The other part of the issue has been importing refurbished items, like screens and other components. The parts are literally pulled out of Apple produced products, as is. But since Apple puts their logo everywhere on the parts, it's almost impossible to import them. They just claim they're counterfeit, without having to provide any evidence that they are. This went all the way to the supreme court in Norway, and the supreme court sided with Apple. It's too expensive to remove the Apple branding on genuine and refurbished parts, so now we're stuck with actual counterfeits, often from the same factory as the originals, just without the logo. But we could have just used perfectly fine refurbished parts.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    The guy kind of immediately struck as someone who would not check the ruls forst, or outright ignore them, only to turn around and rant about him not being allowed to cheat. E.g. by selling basically counterfeight batteries when everyone else uses non-branded batteries is cheating those other repair shops. That he wants to ride the, very legitimate, right-to-repair wave only seems fitting. Right to repair does not allow you to use counterfeight parts or illegal sources and ignore customs.
- dataflow 3y ago
  > Refurbished Apple parts have been caught up in import restrictions as well, not because they're fake, but because they have an Apple logo on them, and Apple insists that everything overseas coming into the US with an Apple logo must be counterfeit. Apparently those Apple logos were indeed fake, unlike what was generally reported in the media. He mentions how he found this out from the court filings in his recent video, and how Vice News didn't correct their story after he provided them the details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj3YbdgZUO4&t=23s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj3YbdgZUO4&t=23s
  - dataflow 3y ago
    I'm confused what the downvote means here. Did I get the story wrong somehow? If so I'd love to know what actually happened.
    - bb88 3y ago
      Yeah, that's actually a different case. And yeah, Rossmann was wrong about that one. He's covered that before and told the story about it on his video blog.
devoutsalsa 3y ago
I don't know about what it takes to import a camera lens, but it's possible the lens itself would have trouble clearing customs in some places. I once tried to have a used laptop shipped to Mexico via FedEx, and I couldn't get it through customs (without an import partner & in less than a month or two). I had FedEx send the laptop back to a relative in the USA & had them fly down to Mexico to give it to me.

NotYourLawyer 3y ago

Does the EU not have anything analogous to patent exhaustion?

sottol 3y ago

I think it's just an attempt to stop "grey-market" imports if I had to guess and this old lens just got swept up in the dragnet. They're probably (ab-?)using ebay's IP protection systems though. Manufacturers sometimes have vastly different pricing based on region and want to protect profits, to the point that most (all?) manufacturers will not service "gray-market imported" lenses in the US. So large 3rd-party grey market importers like "E-Infinity" even offer their own warranty.

NoRelToEmber 3y ago
"Grey-market" means perfectly legal imports, just without the manufacturer's blessing. Even just calling them "grey" is a gross corporate invasion on ownership rights.
- sottol 3y ago
  Agree, thus the scare-quotes.
- someotherperson 3y ago
  To me, at least, "grey" indicates that the manufacturer support for updates or warranty is in a "grey" area, since a lot of that is localised to where it was originally purchased from.
  - xp84 3y ago
    And you’re super right that’s a good definition, but GP has a great point that if “black market” means it’s stolen merchandise, the very term grey market implies “kind of stolen” which is gross when it’s just “consumers using globalization in exactly the same way we do, in a way that slightly reduces our total margin dollars from the theoretical maximum”
    - hutzlibu 3y ago
      "black market” means it’s stolen merchandise" Black market is also drugs, guns, ... any trade not official allowed. And stolen goods often get sold legal via ebay, craigslist etc.

neilv 3y ago

I'm going to guess the problem isn't a "dual use" government export restriction. The VR AF-P 18-55 seems to be a plastic-mount kit lens for consumer DSLRs, though it does have some nice properties. Could it be an anti gray market diversion effort gone a bit astray? There's a place for those efforts, but I'd think they'd be solving their business problem for new product, and tackling it at the points of their contractual partners. Not product end users. Many photographers buy&sell used lenses, as they upgrade, experiment, change needs, etc. Photographers get married to proprietary lens systems, partly because they've bought into a particular system, but I've also seen a lot of brand goodwill. (I've had great experiences with Canon professional service, after buying into EF L glass, and also great experience with the Nikon parts service for some vintage strobe repairs I did on the side. I've often used the word "love" when talking about products from both brands.) I don't understand how messing with the sale of a used entry-level DSLR lens is worth risking alienating photogs to your hard-earned brand and system.

hef19898 3y ago
I did not whatch the video, yet. But my experience so far with Nikon is, that it is no problem to get used gear from outside the EU. Emphasis on used and as a consumer. Also, Nikon's repair service is pretty good, also for basically obsolete stuff. As long as parts are available that it, and you are ready to pay the hourly rate (which is also fine, because they are not running a charity). That being said, I prefer to buy within Europe, or even Germany, for simple reason of easier returns and no need for customs. Edit: Asking who owns the camera because certain sources forbspare parts are blocked, while spares in general are available, or because certain sales channels are not available is a strong question to ask. Because you can sell and repair your gear. Cameras are air gaped, so you don't even havebto perform OTA updates. Nikom cannot block you from repairing your gear yourself, other then voiding the warranty, or using it which ever way you want. Quite different from, say, John Deere... Edit 2: Just realized, every piece of used kit I bought, and had register for various reasons with Nikon ranging from repairs to servicing and cloud storage, was accepted by Nikon without problems. In one case I know the body was already sent in by someone else before, still no issue. I really have to watch the video, it seems. Edit 3: Ok, just watched it long enough to understand the perceived problem. And it has nothing to do with Nikon per se. You can easily buy, every day all day long, used Nikon stuff from Japan and have it shipped to the EU for example. And it was not customs that blocked it, it was eBay. And even then only for international shipping through eBay international shipping. Which, apparently, is perfectly in line with existing legislation, but I am not a lawyer. So everything Nikok did, and yes this sucks, was blocking the resale of a used lense to customers abroad / outside the US, not the sale itself. That is different from what Apple does (as mentioned in the video). To make it short: Yes, you own the kit and can sell it whenever you want. As every owner, you do not have the right to sell in whatever market on whatever plattform you want (commercial sellers are even more restricted). These restrictions have nothing to do with ownership rights. As I suspected, the video is based on so many misconceptions and misunderstandings, it is little more than a rant.

WWLink 3y ago

[flagged]

m348e912 3y ago
>Tell me "Serious photogs only use Canon and Nikon, you n00b!" I could but it wouldn't be true. Sony has some amazing high end photography gear that a lot of 'serious photogs' use.

recycledmatt 3y ago

I would have to see the exact complaint. One interesting piece is that cameras are sold in the US by Nikon USA, and in the EU by Nikon Europe. It is possible that some regulations like Weee compliance, or maybe right to repair (manuals maybe?) that this older model does not comply with all of the EU law. Still ridiculous, but a possible different angle they are approaching it from.

ezconnect 3y ago

It's a crappy lens, maybe they just don't want it around anymore.

stevelini 3y ago

Another step in the end of property. You don't own anything. You license it.

eimrine 3y ago
It does not seem like the end of property - somebody keeps owning what you license from him.

qingcharles 3y ago

I lost $250,000 of Beanie Babies in 1998 by sending them from the UK to the USA in 800 separate packages to try to avoid grey import laws. It was illegal to send the Beanies because the same products were on sale in the USA. This used to affect people trying to import Levi's jeans from the USA to EU too.

turnsout 3y ago
You what
- Balooga 3y ago
  IKR!
- kazinator 3y ago
  Beanie Babies, man; research it. If you've never heard of the late 1990's Beanie Baby craze, you will be amazed. But what happened to Beanie Babies could never happen to Vancouver real estate. Your one bedroom condo will be worth $40 million by 2050, honest to god, no shit!
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    My favorite bit of Beanie Baby trivia is a divorcing couple had to pick through their collection one by one in front of a judge because they couldn't come to any agreement over who got what; there's a hilarious photo. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/beanie-baby-fever-in-1999_n_58af7d12e4b060480e0661fe https://www.huffpost.com/entry/beanie-baby-fever-in-1999_n_5... I wish someone would do a follow-up interview with them.
    - qingcharles 3y ago
      That's great, thank you. I probably sold them those Beanies. I basically extorted all the stores in the UK to sell the rare ones out of the back door and then sold them to rich husbands in the USA to give to their rich housewives. I would buy them from Ty employees too as they had the limited edition ones. I remember one I sold for $13,000 that I was playing soccer with in my living room before I boxed it up and mailed it out.

shagie 3y ago

Consider the situation where I go to Japan and buy a camera lens there and take it back with me to the US (it was cheaper there). The warranty on it is for Japan - not the US warranty repairs. This is fine for me and noting that if it breaks I'll likely have to send it to a friend in Japan (and hope customs doesn't intervene) and have them send it in for a warranty repair. If I was to sell this lens at US (or even slightly cheaper than US prices) to someone in the US and they tried sending it to the US warranty repair they would be in for a rude awaking. This most often shows up with camera equipment and B&H has a page on Grey Market ( https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/HelpCenter/USGrey.jsp https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/HelpCenter/USGrey.jsp ) and you'll note that B&H offers the warranty repair on the gear (rather than the official licensed import warranty repair company). You'll also note that a non-US resident buying a grey market item from B&H would face similar problems to what I would have hypothetically faced buying a camera lens in Japan. > A resident of the USA may wish to make the buying decision based on price since the cost of shipping to a US service center or to B&H should be about equal. A non-USA resident should consider the cost of returning a product to B&H in New York for servicing as opposed to the cost of taking the product to a local warranty service center. And likewise, for the video... the person has a (I presume) US warranty item that if imported into the UK would EU. From the video transcript: > ... for international buyers through eBay international shipping one of the benefits of eBay international shipping is that we may resolve Vero import issues on your behalf the Vero program is designed to protect you and protect rights owners intellectual property ... As the seller/exporter of the lens, if you are shipping it to the EU without the proper warranty ( https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/dealing-with-customers/consumer-contracts-guarantees/consumer-guarantees/index_en.htm https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/dealing-with-customers... ) it is quite possible to find yourself in a bit of trouble if they tried to get a warranty repair on it. Specifically for Nikon: https://www.nikonimgsupport.com/eu/BV_article?articleNo=000004838&configured=1&lang=en_GB https://www.nikonimgsupport.com/eu/BV_article?articleNo=0000... > What are Grey Market products? > Nikon products that are not imported by Nikon Europe B.V. and sold through it's sales channels are considered Grey Market products. These usually are genuine Nikon products that were intended for other Nikon markets; therefore, they may not meet Nikon’s specifications for European products and they may not perform as expected. > No Nikon Warranty > Grey Market products may contain a limited warranty from the seller, but they are not covered by a Nikon Europe warranty. > Not eligible for warranty repair service > Not eligible for Nikon Europe Warranty repair service, you will be charged. And so, the person is exporting to the EU and there is no Nikon warranty on it, and presumably there is no warranty from the person selling it which is in violation of EU warranty laws on products and Nikon doesn't want to get in trouble with the EU either.

xlii 3y ago

I wonder if that might have something to do with potential military use? I know there exist range of everyday goods that can be used in order to make weapons and they are more tightly controlled than other goods, especially in import/export. Does a (possibly) high quality lens fits into that? I don't know, but it rang a bell immediately I heard about the restriction.

KennyBlanken 3y ago
This is just Nikon being Nikon. Nikon for decades would refuse to even tell you if a particular camera serial number was for a US or Japanese market camera. Which...wouldn't be an issue, if, upon receiving your camera for service, they didn't refuse to work on a camera that wasn't in its proper market. Note I didn't mention warranty service/repair. For decades, they wouldn't even touch a Japanese-market product at the US service center, whether you were paying or not. At the time, Canon USA would happily warranty or otherwise service any Canon gear you sent to them, regardless of where it was bought. Vacation in Japan, decide you want to buy a lens for your US Nikon, or maybe your US Nikon lens is lost/stolen/breaks and you get a replacement...years go by, it stops working so you send it to nikon for service...and promptly are told to get fucked, and it's shipped back to you. I hear Canon is now pulling similar nonsense. I know someone who dropped several thousand dollars on a Canon mirrorless camera body at Abes Of Maine, only to find out (when the camera almost immediately had an issue) that the camera was a grey-market import and Canon told them to get fucked when they called for tech support. Abes Of Maine ghosted them until they threatened to do a chargeback ("goods delivered not as described", I believe.) Oh, also: Nikon were dicks about their warranties, too. Non-transferable and they required proof of purchase, so you couldn't even buy an unregistered camera from someone else and then register it yourself. Canon USA? At the time, they only cared if the "clock" hadn't run out, not who bought it. All this is why I bought into the Canon ecosystem multiple times. Nikon is never getting a dime from me.
- RobotToaster 3y ago
  Do other camera manufacturers pull this shit? I don't think I've heard of pentax doing it.

hypfer 3y ago

Louis Rossmann really needs dial it back after that synology thing. The timespan between the initial thought/idea/emotional reaction and actual video being online has gotten just way too short. There's nothing good coming from this online drama content.

Lammy 3y ago

This is the same company that would really prefer for third-party batteries to not exist so people have to stay on the upgrade treadmill and not keep using the same camera body for a decade https://old.reddit.com/r/Nikon/comments/13ska1n/psa_thirdparty_batteries_are_not_working_with_the/ https://old.reddit.com/r/Nikon/comments/13ska1n/psa_thirdpar...

suddenclarity 3y ago
It makes sense that a manufacturer would protect their brand from people using third party batteries that might catch fire or otherwise cause issues, then blame Nikon. I used to work in a camera store and batteries were the most common issue next to flashes exploding and gimbal motors breaking due to user error. It's bad but still understandable. Especially in these cameras that seem to have heating issues anyway.

legohead 3y ago

Import/Export is a different beast than right to repair. He already has his hands full, and should focus on what he knows. Don't confuse your userbase and potentially damage your main goal.

Reventlov 3y ago

Nothing to do with the content of the video but… Am I the only one seeing a weird synchronization between the sound and the video ? It looks (and sounds) like the sound is a bit too early or late with regards to the video…

ceving 3y ago

Who cares? Camera industry has become extinct. Nikon just did not realize.

traceroute66 3y ago

I know people on HN like to bitch and moan about "$insert_name_of_big_evil_company not letting me do what I want". But there is more than this than meets the eye. First, "grey market" is actually FAR more than just an inconvenience to $evil_big_corp. "grey market", ESPECIALLY in tech and chips, is a major source of so-called "missing trader fraud"[1] which comes in many forms including carousel fraud. This ends up adding up to billions in tax which has been fraudulently misappropriated. Before they started clamping down on it, it was a major problem in the EU in the early 2000s, but also in other forms elsewhere in the world. Governments worldwide have been clamping down on missing trader fraud for some time now, and it should not come as a surprise to anyone that large consumer electronics companies, whose kit is an obvious target to the fraudsters, have to play their role in tightening the supply chain. Second, if a company has a trademark then part of maintaining that trademark is to act upon illegal use of it. If you don't act on trademark infringement, whether counterfeit or otherwise, then theoretically your trademark could be at risk of formal challenge. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_trader_fraud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_trader_fraud

ajsnigrutin 3y ago
It's a used lens, that's not manufactured anymore by the original manufacturer, so there's no way to get VAT on a new product. Also, if it's a legitimate nikon lens, then there is no trademark abuse. It's just big companies being assholes to their customers (until customers figure it out, and stop buying it... btw, never buy HP printers!)
CogitoCogito 3y ago
> Second, if a company has a trademark then part of maintaining that trademark is to act upon illegal use of it. If you don't act on trademark infringement, whether counterfeit or otherwise, then theoretically your trademark could be at risk of formal challenge. How does trademark infringement enter the conversation? The products aren't counterfeit right?

gerbilly 3y ago

Noted, companies have convinced governments to help protect their pricing structure. What I find disquieting are all the long comments discussing the intricacies of these 'grey market' tactics. To even discuss it lends this kind of bad faith dealing a legitimacy it does not deserve. It's like fan fiction. Maybe it's just me, but when powerful people conspire to screw me over, I'm not that interested in hearing their venal arguments about why it was reasonable and for my own good.

dotancohen 3y ago
> Maybe it's just me, but when powerful people conspire to screw me over, I'm not that interested > in hearing their venal arguments about why it was reasonable and for my own good. I am interested in hearing it - once. I'll consider then either accept or reject their stance. But the incessant repeating of variations of lies is attrition.

bullen 3y ago

Because it can be used for war? This tells me Raspberry 4 will never be for sale again. EVER!

whitej125 3y ago

Tangent: For the first 10 seconds of this video I thought it was computer generated (and that was the reason this was posted on HN). The inflection in the voice just didn't match the expression on the face or the body movements (lack thereof).