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