<story><title>Ask HN: Is the EULA on my new $30k RED cinema camera legal?</title><text>TLDR: I bought a $30K professional cinema camera that doesn&amp;#x27;t work unless I sign away my rights to privacy and possibly the video content I make with it ( at least it seems )&lt;p&gt;Over the past few years my photography business has seen a surge in demand for ultra high quality video production work.  In an effort to meet this demand, I picked up one of RED Digital Cinema&amp;#x27;s newest pro camera bodies, the RED V-RAPTOR.  Considering this camera is used by professional filmmakers to create films destined for cinemas, it&amp;#x27;s not surprising that it came with a $30k price tag.&lt;p&gt;After unboxing and assembling it, I power the camera on and the first thing I see is a wall of legal text on the embedded LCD.  Turns out it&amp;#x27;s a &amp;quot;Software License Agreement&amp;quot; that I&amp;#x27;m required to consent to using the on-camera menu buttons before any of the camera&amp;#x27;s functionality becomes available.  I can give consent or power the camera off.&lt;p&gt;The full text can be found on the manufacturer&amp;#x27;s website at https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.red.com&amp;#x2F;legal&amp;#x2F;license-agreements .  Here are a few highlights&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; 4. CONSENT TO USE OF DATA. You agree that RED and its affiliates may collect, maintain, process, transmit, and use technical, diagnostic, usage and related information, including but not limited to information about your RED Camera, Camera Module, computer, system and application software, usage, content, and peripherals. RED may use the information to provide and improve RED’s products and services, including providing the information to RED’s licensors. RED may also provide the information to third party advertisers for the purpose of providing advertising statistics without identifying you personally ...&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; 5. UPDATES. RED and its licensors have no obligation to provide updates, bug fixes or error correction. If RED provides updates, such updates may be automatic and may delete or change the nature or features of the Software, including functions you may rely upon and you may lose data. You consent to updates by RED ...&lt;p&gt;I snapped a few photos of the camera and the on-screen license agreement for those interested&lt;p&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;ibb.co&amp;#x2F;ZzBMPWm&lt;p&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;ibb.co&amp;#x2F;wy5Qjq7&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m annoyed that I must consent to accepting all software updates which they admit could result in the loss of my data but the part that really has me stuck is section 4.  I&amp;#x27;m interpreting it to mean that RED and whoever they see fit may access not only data on and about my personal computer but also the actual video content that I create with my camera.  Furthermore, they are permitted to share all that with advertisers.&lt;p&gt;It seems like I must be misunderstanding this because I can&amp;#x27;t imagine professional videographers being willing to consent to such blatant violations of their own customer&amp;#x27;s expectations of privacy and discretion.  Many of the jobs I get are product shoots for prototypes and things yet to be released.  Some of them even require an NDA from me.  There&amp;#x27;s no way my clients would work with me if they knew that my camera might be capturing frames from their commissioned videos and transmitting them behind the scenes to advertisers.&lt;p&gt;This camera has been assembled but collecting dust for over a week now.  I&amp;#x27;m on the verge of returning it and eating the 2k I spent on compatible peripherals.  I would love some input from anyone who can offer clarity.  My questions are as follows:&lt;p&gt;1. Is my assessment of the implications of this license agreement correct or am I misunderstanding the legalese?&lt;p&gt;2. Is this type of EULA, where the most basic functionality of a hardware device is held hostage pending the user consents to some arbitrary agreement legal in the USA and&amp;#x2F;or Europe?  Is there actually a legal precedent allowing for it?&lt;p&gt;3. For film pros, do the top of the line Arris and Panavisions take these same liberties?</text></story><parent_chain><item><author>et2o</author><text>This is exactly the answer. Why would the manufacturer of a professional-targeted camera take an action that would destroy their business?</text></item><item><author>kube-system</author><text>I&amp;#x27;ve hired a few, and they&amp;#x27;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.</text></item><item><author>cbm-vic-20</author><text>&amp;gt;  probably worth giving them the benefit of the doubt&lt;p&gt;My lawyer would have a seizure if I showed this to them.   If I had a lawyer, of course.</text></item><item><author>implements</author><text>Looks like boilerplate to me.&lt;p&gt;4 is telemetry, with a catch-all that any data may be transmitted - which is necessary if a crash dump might contain image data.&lt;p&gt;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).&lt;p&gt;Pretty standard stuff for anything containing software, and perhaps because the camera is so expensive they feel obliged to cover their arses even more.&lt;p&gt;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&amp;amp;Cs.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>myself248</author><text>You&amp;#x27;d think Eventbrite would&amp;#x27;ve known better too..&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.theguardian.com&amp;#x2F;world&amp;#x2F;2018&amp;#x2F;apr&amp;#x2F;23&amp;#x2F;eventbrite-apologises-for-footage-rights-grab&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.theguardian.com&amp;#x2F;world&amp;#x2F;2018&amp;#x2F;apr&amp;#x2F;23&amp;#x2F;eventbrite-apo...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;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.</text></comment>
<story><title>Ask HN: Is the EULA on my new $30k RED cinema camera legal?</title><text>TLDR: I bought a $30K professional cinema camera that doesn&amp;#x27;t work unless I sign away my rights to privacy and possibly the video content I make with it ( at least it seems )&lt;p&gt;Over the past few years my photography business has seen a surge in demand for ultra high quality video production work.  In an effort to meet this demand, I picked up one of RED Digital Cinema&amp;#x27;s newest pro camera bodies, the RED V-RAPTOR.  Considering this camera is used by professional filmmakers to create films destined for cinemas, it&amp;#x27;s not surprising that it came with a $30k price tag.&lt;p&gt;After unboxing and assembling it, I power the camera on and the first thing I see is a wall of legal text on the embedded LCD.  Turns out it&amp;#x27;s a &amp;quot;Software License Agreement&amp;quot; that I&amp;#x27;m required to consent to using the on-camera menu buttons before any of the camera&amp;#x27;s functionality becomes available.  I can give consent or power the camera off.&lt;p&gt;The full text can be found on the manufacturer&amp;#x27;s website at https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.red.com&amp;#x2F;legal&amp;#x2F;license-agreements .  Here are a few highlights&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; 4. CONSENT TO USE OF DATA. You agree that RED and its affiliates may collect, maintain, process, transmit, and use technical, diagnostic, usage and related information, including but not limited to information about your RED Camera, Camera Module, computer, system and application software, usage, content, and peripherals. RED may use the information to provide and improve RED’s products and services, including providing the information to RED’s licensors. RED may also provide the information to third party advertisers for the purpose of providing advertising statistics without identifying you personally ...&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; 5. UPDATES. RED and its licensors have no obligation to provide updates, bug fixes or error correction. If RED provides updates, such updates may be automatic and may delete or change the nature or features of the Software, including functions you may rely upon and you may lose data. You consent to updates by RED ...&lt;p&gt;I snapped a few photos of the camera and the on-screen license agreement for those interested&lt;p&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;ibb.co&amp;#x2F;ZzBMPWm&lt;p&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;ibb.co&amp;#x2F;wy5Qjq7&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m annoyed that I must consent to accepting all software updates which they admit could result in the loss of my data but the part that really has me stuck is section 4.  I&amp;#x27;m interpreting it to mean that RED and whoever they see fit may access not only data on and about my personal computer but also the actual video content that I create with my camera.  Furthermore, they are permitted to share all that with advertisers.&lt;p&gt;It seems like I must be misunderstanding this because I can&amp;#x27;t imagine professional videographers being willing to consent to such blatant violations of their own customer&amp;#x27;s expectations of privacy and discretion.  Many of the jobs I get are product shoots for prototypes and things yet to be released.  Some of them even require an NDA from me.  There&amp;#x27;s no way my clients would work with me if they knew that my camera might be capturing frames from their commissioned videos and transmitting them behind the scenes to advertisers.&lt;p&gt;This camera has been assembled but collecting dust for over a week now.  I&amp;#x27;m on the verge of returning it and eating the 2k I spent on compatible peripherals.  I would love some input from anyone who can offer clarity.  My questions are as follows:&lt;p&gt;1. Is my assessment of the implications of this license agreement correct or am I misunderstanding the legalese?&lt;p&gt;2. Is this type of EULA, where the most basic functionality of a hardware device is held hostage pending the user consents to some arbitrary agreement legal in the USA and&amp;#x2F;or Europe?  Is there actually a legal precedent allowing for it?&lt;p&gt;3. For film pros, do the top of the line Arris and Panavisions take these same liberties?</text></story><parent_chain><item><author>et2o</author><text>This is exactly the answer. Why would the manufacturer of a professional-targeted camera take an action that would destroy their business?</text></item><item><author>kube-system</author><text>I&amp;#x27;ve hired a few, and they&amp;#x27;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.</text></item><item><author>cbm-vic-20</author><text>&amp;gt;  probably worth giving them the benefit of the doubt&lt;p&gt;My lawyer would have a seizure if I showed this to them.   If I had a lawyer, of course.</text></item><item><author>implements</author><text>Looks like boilerplate to me.&lt;p&gt;4 is telemetry, with a catch-all that any data may be transmitted - which is necessary if a crash dump might contain image data.&lt;p&gt;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).&lt;p&gt;Pretty standard stuff for anything containing software, and perhaps because the camera is so expensive they feel obliged to cover their arses even more.&lt;p&gt;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&amp;amp;Cs.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>JaimeThompson</author><text>&amp;gt;Why would the manufacturer of a professional-targeted camera take an action that would destroy their business?&lt;p&gt;To make the next quarters number look better.</text></comment>