Ask HN: Is the EULA on my new $30k RED cinema camera legal?
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's newest pro camera bodies, the RED V-RAPTOR. Considering this camera is used by professional filmmakers to create films destined for cinemas, it's not surprising that it came with a $30k price tag.
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's a "Software License Agreement" that I'm required to consent to using the on-camera menu buttons before any of the camera's functionality becomes available. I can give consent or power the camera off.
The full text can be found on the manufacturer's website at https://www.red.com/legal/license-agreements . Here are a few highlights
> 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 ...
> 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 ...
I snapped a few photos of the camera and the on-screen license agreement for those interested
https://ibb.co/ZzBMPWm
https://ibb.co/wy5Qjq7
I'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'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.
It seems like I must be misunderstanding this because I can't imagine professional videographers being willing to consent to such blatant violations of their own customer'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'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.
This camera has been assembled but collecting dust for over a week now. I'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:
1. Is my assessment of the implications of this license agreement correct or am I misunderstanding the legalese?
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/or Europe? Is there actually a legal precedent allowing for it?
3. For film pros, do the top of the line Arris and Panavisions take these same liberties?
233 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 250 ms ] thread> including but not limited to information about your RED Camera, Camera Module, computer, system and application software, usage, content, and peripherals
Should I be reading the "content" part as "information about your content" ? As in, metadata about the content? Lens focal lengths, recording quality, codecs, etc? That would make more sense.
What exactly that means in practice, we are all just guessing unless you go and ask them to clarify. Probably things like what settings you used for your videos so they can analyze which features are most popular/worth improving.
At least in the EU, if this EULA was not clearly accessible/communicated on the store page before purchase, it would just be invalid, and you'd have a case that the product doesn't work. They're banking on people having more important things to do and just clicking accept to use their product...
Sure, but that is preceded by “including but not limited to”, so that is a non-exhaustive list of examples.
Content might be anything stored on the camera in this case. I'm also glossing over the followup clause that states they are in their full right to remove in a future update features you already have.
I'd be more concerned about the "not limited to" part than the "information about ..." followed by a long list of things they can get information about part. But I think, in my lay (non-lawyer) reading of that that they've set the spirit of the agreement. They don't want to miss some little detail in their list, but they're setting an expectation that their telemetry (if any) and their support department in case the owner asks for support can access metadata.
Maybe a bit naive but definitely practical advice. I hear you.
Actually afaik in most jurisdictions the sale of goods carries an implicit warranty from the merchant that the goods are "fit for purpose" - essentially that it "will work like you expect it to", or at least in the way that most people would expect a hammer to work - as well as that it is of an even kind and quality for the good. So like, if they sell you a hammer and it's actually made of glass, or the head falls off after the first hit - both of those would carry an implied warranty from the merchant and you would get your money back (in small-claims court, if necessary).
The US is one such jurisdiction.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/implied_warranty_of_merchant...
IANAL, but the plain text is pretty obvious. Are you a lawyer, or can you explain how merchantability wouldn't apply?
These two aren't the same thing. That the hammer works as most expect a hammer to work isn't the same as that the hammer works as I expect it to work. If I try to take my hammer back because I thought hammers also worked on screws, I'm pretty sure they aren't obligated to take it back. It would be very hard to argue that your new RED camera isn't "fit for purpose" due to its onerous EULA, because plenty of people successfully make films with RED cameras.
If you buy a hammer and get mad that it doesn't make pizzas, the merchant isn't going to accept that, nor is a judge in small claims court going to be remotely amused. It's a hammer. Stop wasting my time, plaintiff pays all court fees and time for the defendant. They deal with bullshitters all day and they generally tend to be completely unamused by it.
If you ask the merchant nicely they will probably take it back, most retailers have return policies and most of them will stretch them even further to keep the business of a repeat customer. But merchantability is a thing, and they can't sell you a thing labeled as a hammer that doesn't work in the way an ordinary reasonable person would expect a hammer to work. One person being an unreasonable person doesn't really change that.
If you try and abuse it then the judge is gonna slap you down, but if they try and fuck you around about how a toaster is kind of a hammer in some ways then the judge is gonna slap them down.
He can return it, or he can consent
Nothing here is illegal. This structure is common, even though you guys are saying "that's absurd"
Your indignation and lack of familiarity does not change that this is well accepted in international law
> Your indignation and lack of familiarity does not change that this is well accepted in international law
There is absolutely nothing whatsoever in international law that is even remotely related to these issues. Consumer rights and sales contracts are national (and in many countries even sub-national, e.g. state) issues.
If you're going to make strong assertions and tell people they're "missing the point" it might be a good idea to a) properly read & comprehend the comments you're replying to, and b) actually know what you are talking about.
You cannot.
Good day
.
> it might be a good idea to a) properly read
I'd say the same to you, frankly.
OP said "you're not entitled by law to take a hammer back if it doesn't work as you expect it to" and that's false, if it's sold as a hammer it needs to serve the ordinary purpose of a hammer, and that is covered by law in most jurisdictions (US/EU at the minimum).
Whether you could argue that a post-sale EULA (or EULA change) that renders the device inoperable for its ordinary purpose invokes merchantability is an interesting argument though, and that really gets back to "how much money do you have for lawyers", "how much are they willing to try and test their EULA's validity", etc. Tractors are probably an interesting example there (don't remember if it's been brought up here or not).
I think the big problem there is that merchantability is a claim against the merchant, and while you'd probably get your money back if you disagreed with the EULA a week after the sale, what happens if John Deere pushes an update a year after you buy the tractor and it's de-facto bricked at that point if you don't agree? The situation with software makes the whole thing so much more complicated, and the law is different there around ownership in general (you don't own the software, you have a license to use the software, but the tractor doesn't work without the software either).
It's shitty and the "ownership" situation with software really needs significant reform (that will never happen in the US). Ownership of a software license needs to be brought closer to ownership of a physical good, but that will break the business models of a lot of companies who will lobby to make sure that never happens.
Yes you are. If it’s not fit for the purpose you’re entitled to return it.
(Though in this case I think it's perfectly reasonable to claim that the camera is not fit for purpose if the EULA terms were not clearly disclosed before the purchase was made.)
For the purposes of that comment, I meant them to be equivalent ...under the presumption that a typical person knows what a hammer does. (I was avoiding the legalese)
For example, you are not legally entitled to return a camera because you thought it could shoot in 3D and it couldn't, unless the advertising falsely claimed that. The seller might accept a return, but they're not obliged to.
The EULA thing is sort of on the edge of that. Many (most?) devices come with EULAs these days. So you could make an argument that the buyer can't reasonably expect there to not be additional terms that they must accept before using it. I don't really find that argument very compelling, though, if the terms are not available to the buyer at the point of sale.
If a camera refuses to take pictures, why would you not be entitled to a refund?
The "smart hammers" are coming. And how about Peloton style group hammering.
Paging @internetofshit ...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Good luck getting a full refund without some restocking fee subtracted. Something like 15% of $30,000 is... reaching outside of small claims court
If you find your work on their site or in their promos, they are in violation of copyright laws and are liable. No judge would stand behind such weak boilerplate to allow RED to steal artist's work with impunity.
I hate to say it, but you're far too worried about this. I understand the misgivings but the reality of the situation doesn't match your concern over the matter, or to put it another way, you're making mountains out of molehills.
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.
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.
> Consideration in contracts refers to the benefit each party receives in exchange for what it gives up in the contract. It is a vital element that must be present in a contract in order to make it legally binding on the parties.
(though ofc., Google is also not a lawyer.)
There is no consideration here. (The purchase of the product is separate, or at least, ought to be, if these terms weren't considered by the buyer then. Otherwise, it's just bait & switch.)
You also need:
- an offer
- acceptance of that offer
- some sort of consideration, i.e. some exchange of value
- capacity (i.e. you can't contract with someone who is incapable of consenting)
- legality ("lets steal a car" is not a valid contract)
> 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.
By law?
This is true of any and all "license agreements" that are presented to the user after money has changed hands. You can safely click agree on any such things without actually agreeing to anything.
I don't actually know, but I believe that in the US things are more complex.
It sounds reasonable to me personally, but not convincing in reality. There are 27 legislations in the EU.
Edit: Based on a quick web search it seems correct for Germany and Austria.
However, in this price class I could have my doubts whether consumer laws are applicable. Businesses are less protected, they are supposed to know what they do.
The question was about European laws. There mostly is no such thing (very few exceptions exist, like e.g. GDPR). Laws are national, so you have 30 of them. EU directives set some borderlines for those who are members or associated. But they are not always implemented in a timely manner, and even if they are the details are up to national legislation by design.
My experience (IANAL and I don't know the specific laws here): you can return the product if you don't agree to the bundled licensing terms, generally even if you've opened it and encountered the licensing terms after the fact (though not every retailer may appreciate this one).
I've gotten a few "non-refundable" refunds after being given legal terms post-purchase that I didn't agree to. Most recently a talent release for an event. But in every case, I had to prove that the agreements weren't available pre-purchase.
If you want to use the product, shrug. But if you suddenly don't, then hey, there's a potential exit.
That's what this is. This is a step in that process. This post on this forum, with both of us replying to it. You think what? There's a "scandal" and an "outrage" and then...what do you expect? The entire PR industry--a few others as well--is built to undermine scandals and outrage. Oh there's stuff on TV that sounds scandalous sure--every two months or so, in a merry-go-round set of industries...I only watch when there is nowhere in a restaurant I can avoid looking at it, but what are the scandals, steroids in baseball? A corporation that did something disgusting but isn't getting punished at all (as opposed to the many corporations that do get punished for real, TV hates showing those because then people learn what justice actually looks like). Or...some celebrity...some celebrity getting lynched. Or a rogue employee like on a crusade...or a lawsuit that the news wished had lost so they lie about it as much as possible to make the plaintiff look greedy (real easy if you just multiply the settlement by a lot, or report the claim instead of the awards, or lie about the award being reduced to what the plaintiff was asking for, or fucking insult the jury too while you're at it, even insult the judge, it's disgusting, they think they're strictly better than everybody).
They wouldn't go out of business if they did that. They just have to do it in lockstep with the rest of their industry, then they'll be fine.
> if you want to make video, make video.
Now I very much don't want to make video, and frankly lost a lot of respect for digital video in general. And for contracts. And every time I hear the word "consent" I go on full alert, as I said in a previous comment, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31104705 "...no rapey cookie "consent" contract, like those are just disgusting I hate getting asked for consent it means I'm about to get fucked. Every single time you get asked for consent it's because you're about to get fucked."
You know why that is? Because in order to defend the act of fucking you, they have to say you consented. Or they get fucked just as hard as they fucked you. And they live in fear of that, fear of retribution, they know how harmful they are, this is like--justice is often eye for an eye[1], despite striking others blind (or in this case peeking through their eyes), I never want that to happen to me, so I need magic spells because otherwise I would feel the harm I do to others. So I need to get consent with a long disgusting contract, and further I need to get people to sign things as often as possible, for every little thing so they are desensitized to what it means to consent to being struck blind, and they give up on reading contracts.[2]
[1] So justice basically is eye for an eye, historically, normally. These days it is both more and less. So you have on the one hand the Sacklers paying 10 billion instead of 3.4 trillion, that's less than an eye for an eye. The Sacklers are paying with the eyes they stole, and have plenty left. Plenty of eyes to go around! Then in the halfway point you have murderers getting the death penalty for one murder, exactly an eye for an eye. Then, the multiple-eyes-for-an-eye, a convicted rapist will spend...it really depends, but like 10 years is a common one. And due to that conviction, will be targeted by the other inmates, with the guard's approval, to rape that convict as much as they please basically. In movies it's just one rape, one time, in real prisons it's continual. So what you get, is virgins who ipso facto didn't rape anybody getting raped about 3 times a day, for 10 years, so about 10000 times, on the basis they were accused of one rape. So to translate 10000 eyes for an eye, but not even a real eye, like a glass eye.
If you want to do your own research, a good starting place would be https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/adhesion-contract.asp
IANAL so my opinion doesn't matter,but none of these sound shocking enough to me that i would expect it to be illegal.
> It seems like I must be misunderstanding this because I can't imagine professional videographers being willing to consent to such blatant violations of their own customer's expectations of privacy and discretion.
All contracts are negotiable if you have enough money/power.
Most of this looks fairly boilerplate ever looked through like a Windows license agreement or something. Even the agreement for purchasing this product probably has very similar languages as well.
The legal president around most of this is actually contract law. The sneaky thing is though they try and push this after you've already made the purchase which allows it to be questionable at best but then you have to fight it.
What you should do is sue the company for the time and cost that you sunk into compatible peripherals because they did not make this as an agreement up front. Seems the only way you would have known that you were required to agree to this was my purchasing the camera and turning it on. But again that's more cost and you're ultimately just ending up lining the lawyer's pockets so they're happy to write agreements like this because they get paid on both sides of it.
Ultimately the best solution is one we will likely and never see which would be an update to the Magnuson Moss warranty act. Something that would take these one-sided eula's and toss them right out the door. Something in there that would be if the company no longer wishes to produce or fix software updates for a product they must immediately release to any owner of the product and this can include second or third hand owners all of the source and the build tools and build chains so it can be maintained. I'm really afraid something like that will never happen simply because at the time of the Magnuson Moss warranty act that primarily dealt with automobiles but extended to other things as well people knew how to work on their automobiles for the most part understood the parts understood that aftermarket parts could be built and worth a thing and it was fine to reverse engineer those and make copies of them. All automanufacturers also released complete engineering diagrams of their vehicles and complete repair and assembly manuals for the vehicles and due to the idea that the manufacturer and the people who had to maintain them were completely separate entities.
Considering how little people understand that software is as an integral as a component to an electronic device as spark plugs are to a gasoline engine we will never see an update to include this idea that it's not just hardware that can be repaired and not violate the warranty it's the software as well.
I've never had a spark plug removed from an engine due to quarterly updates.
Tesla has pushed software updates to remove features.
Would they, though? I'd be interested in specific cases.
Additionally look up copyrights surrounding the sale of books and the attempt of placing a license agreements around books and how that failed yet somehow software that is sold in a very similar manner to books can be covered by both copyright and a license agreement.
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.
My lawyer would have a seizure if I showed this to them. If I had a lawyer, of course.
To make the next quarters number look better.
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.
The third parties with take a few frames and will run through AI and categorize the film for the ad networks.
Rights holders will check content against hashes.
Law enforcement will have a handy copy available. Which makes friends and business opportunities.
It’s also likely to be useless footage for anyone but the person creating the content. Keep in mind the video will still need to be edited for color, adding or removing sound, and cropped. Then spliced into a final product.
It’s also useless for rights holders because 1. It’s easier to hash on the camera and send the hash only, not your video. And two, the camera isn’t recording the final product so there’s likely no music yet. Finally, for a professional video shoot, you’d acquire the rights anyway. Double finally, as a rights holder it’s far easier to do a content claim on YouTube, Netflix, Vimeo, or wherever the content is going to end up rather than on the first step of the process, the camera.
I don’t even know what law enforcement would want with random video footage of outtakes for a small, medium, or large video production.
That could include edited scenes, scripts, emails, zoom calls, etc, etc.
> 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.
It specifies “information about…”
It also just doesn’t even make sense for RED to want any of those things. We’re talking about a company that makes money on cameras and overpriced peripherals.
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.
See the many many once "good" companies that end up patent trolling
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 :)
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".
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.
Thats the discussion I'm choosing to follow, its right there in the title.
They are doing CYA here, but what they are likely collecting here is metadata, not the content itself. And very likely they are referring to data collected for troubleshooting purposes.
including but not limited to information about your:
* RED Camera
* Camera Module
* computer
* system and application software
* usage
* content; and
* peripherals
This reads like a typical "we collect telemetry and there's nothing you can do about it" disclaimer, which I personally find quite offensive for such an expensive piece of kit. Just the 30k you paid is more than enough to fund a whole development cycle to add an opt-in dialogue to the camera software.
I don't know if you'll find any equivalent hardware that don't include such policies in their EULA, though.
Not to mention, exfiltrating actual recordings would be crazy amounts of data. Unless you see in your internet traffic that the camera is uploading at several MB/s for hours on end, they're not doing what you claim they're doing.
It is very well maybe that part of it is not enforceable in your area anyways.
Nothing they can do about it.
Normally, when you agree to a license, it is available for review and is agreed to before the purchase has been completed. Software EULAs -- presented after purchase -- seem more like a mugging.
Would be lovely to provide or deny consent for each of those actions detailed in the EULA -- the EULA becomes configuration.
In Europe they do not need to be tested in court. They are not part of the contract of sale because you cannot see them before you complete the purchase. They are unenforceable.
But on business relations, things are way more complex. I wouldn't be surprised if some rules were perfectly enforceable.
I suppose I should point out that I'm not a lawyer and that the US situation might be very different. The OP should consult a lawyer or return the camera for a refund if he feels unsure about the meaning of the agreement.
Yes, but B2B sales come on all kinds of shapes. On some cases there is clear not an agreement on the EULA terms, but I'm not sure that is a universal rule.
Because these GPUs originally launched with a full hash rate, we want to ensure that customers know exactly what they’re getting when they buy GeForce products. To help with this, our GeForce partners are labeling the GeForce RTX 3080, RTX 3070 and RTX 3060 Ti cards with a “Lite Hash Rate,” or “LHR,” identifier. The identifier will be in retail product listings and on the box.
This reduced hash rate only applies to newly manufactured cards with the LHR identifier and not to cards already purchased.
I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps I'm unaware of a high profile case where such a thing happened, but as far as I'm aware EULAs are very similar to the state of DMCA takedowns: widely used as a cudgel against the little guy, since most people don't have the resources to fight it out in court, and in the rare cases of resistance they go for an out of court settlement.
As these datasets grow (and they only grow), it becomes trivial to tie anonymized profiles to a specific person. They leave off names and it's expected that the final consumer of the data do the "last mile" work of tying it to the name. The easy part.
>> Consent is presumed not to be freely given ... if the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is dependent on the consent despite such consent not being necessary for such performance.
Also note GDPR.7.3
>> The data subject shall have the right to withdraw his or her consent at any time. [...] It shall be as easy to withdraw as to give consent.
If you can't withdraw the consent, it is not consent. So this EULA is at least bad form. (from a european perspective)
For the far more interesting question if it is legal see https://gdpr.eu/article-6-how-to-process-personal-data-legal...
If it is not consent then it falls under GDPR.6.1.f "legitimate interests" which is far worse to discuss, as it puts your fundamental right to not have the usage of a product you bought be surveilled by the manufacturer - against their business interest to get telemetry. It would be far easier for everyone if they would just make it a separate checkbox you can toggle on and off (actual consent).
However note that you do not have to use the product, you can refund it, so arguing this is a massive violation of human rights isn't going to fly. Should you bring this case to your local data protection agency, they will first try to reach an agreement between you and the company that fulfills both sides interests. Note: no matter what the contract says your local agency is there to supports you as a first responder. The company will likely have to show some improvement, at best an actual consent checkbox, at least a change of the bad form.
If you actually go there you should wiretap the device and bring evidences what data the company collects. If it turns out to be a lot more than reasonable (id of the camera, time, gps locations, frames of the content) and the company is not cooperating, then the claws come out and its fining time. However if it turns out to be harmless, pseudonymous and processed to high standards, then the agency will ask you if you can accept that and saying no will turn into a lot of work in front of a court.
Disclaimer: i am not a layer and this is just laymen talk about my opinion about how things are.
It is incorrect--you still have your intellectual property rights, even if they somehow download all the videos off the camera.
You're not signing away your rights to the video content.
But if you are worried about someone stealing your footage, why would you even allow this camera to access Internet? I do sensitive amateur porn, and it stays strictly offline with air gaps. It is not that hard, just a bit unconvinient.
Also, based on the size of the videos that thing must make, I don't see any feasible way they could or would exfiltrate the video content you're shooting.
They don't need the whole clip. They can easily grab a single frame, encoded and compressed to minimize the filesize. The camera also has a wifi radio in it which does who knows what behind the scenes. Since the firmware is very much not open source, I have no way to tell what it's doing. It could be constantly trying to phone home over open wireless networks (or partner hotspots). Hell for all I know the thing could have a 3g radio in it, constantly talking to home.
Yeah, that would be valid telemetry, though telemetry should be opt-out, it's fairly innocuous.
> It could be constantly trying to phone home over open wireless networks (or partner hotspots). Hell for all I know the thing could have a 3g radio in it, constantly talking to home.
It's pretty silly to imagine a product that is primarily used by hollywood studios doing this. I have interfaced directly with folks working on-set for major productions supporting the systems that actually capture and share the content for collaboration purposes.
Let me tell you, even for a company whose ENTIRE business is doing this, it's fucking HARD. It still involves producers taking bags of memory cards into their hotel room at the end of the day and uploading them on a laptop, in almost all cases.
The only connected set I'm aware of ever existing is Mindhunter[0], and it involved our engineers being on set and operating our entire cloud stack within roadie cases.
Simply put, the things that people are afraid RED would do are so complicated as to be nearly technically infeasible when major studios are willing to pay for them.
[0] https://thefincheranalyst.com/2019/07/10/pix-onset-makes-con...
Stealing a single picture out of a 60fps camera for no particular purpose won't put money in their back pocket. Building a 3g modem into a camera and paying cellular data fees to occasionally snoop into their users' memory cards won't earn them a penny.
The only people whom I could understand being rightfully paranoid about this are either making embarrassing fetish pornography or videotaping illegal acts for money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
Customer-abusing behavior is becoming commonplace.
"I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it any further."
This has three benefits: 1) they may give you additional information what exactly they are doing 2) they get information that their customers find it suspicious and may clarify it for everyone and 3) they may actually add an option to opt out
They're not going to provide you with more information, because that would limit their ability to do something in the future (especially since the person writing the response isn't a product manager or engineer and doesn't know anything about it anyway).
It's worth a shot, if you don't mind the time to write a quick message; I'm just skeptical that anyone would actually pass the message up the chain that their legal boilerplate noone ever reads is vaguely unsettling.
write to their privacy officer, contact details can be found here: red.com/legal
The goal is to talk to RED legal and that won't happen if you shoot them a quick email.
I had to figure out many parts of their software and make wrappers and separate tools so that queues could be started and run without monitoring, because their software would famously have an error, then just stop, making batch transcoding a full-time job.
I intentionally posted all sorts of things that were in violation of their license agreements in hopes that they'd take note and try to make a stink, but they didn't, probably because they didn't want to raise awareness of how badly their software sucks by fighting with people who were making it better.
The company has always pretended to be much more grandiose than they really are (see their attempt at making a cell phone), but really, they're just OK.
Honestly, though, the quality of their codecs suck. The color information just isn't there. You can watch Netflix and immediately tell which things were shot on RED, because they'll be grainy (which they think is a feature) and will lack nuanced color. Compare with anything shot on, say, Arri ALEXA, and you'll never look at RED the same way again.
All of this is to say that the company probably won't do anything nefarious that would get tons of negative attention, but they do always think they're the Next Big Thing, so you never know when the crazy will outweigh the careful. If it were me, I'd return it.
This is all just false. Their codes allow you to record actual RAW data from the sensor in 16 bits. All the color nuance is there.
RED cameras are crazy expensive and are used by Hollywood, Netflix, and thousands of professional studios. They are the golden standard, along with Arri cameras.
You can immediately see if it was shot with a good camera or a RED.
https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/cameras-behind-netflix-orig...
Here's a very polite quote about some of the issues people have with RED:
"We did a lot of tests with the VariCam and the RED, and I was really happy with what the VariCam was giving us. We found that we were a little afraid of how the RED camera handles greens. We were going to be surrounded in greens while shooting summer in Atlanta, and the RED just looked a little too digital."
I think it could go either way, but sadly the establishment aren't keen on limiting they overreach of companies which mislead when they call things sales and which try to own the World through Eulas.
Thought: if their EULA is lawful then a post-transaction contract from your side should be lawful too ...? (YMMV, I am clearly not a lawyer and this is so far from legal advice.)
With really attractive options from companies like Blackmagic, Sony, and ARRI, what's so appealing about RED?