Hacker News Reader

Comment by et2o | Hacker News Reader

This is exactly the answer. Why would the manufacturer of a professional-targeted camera take an action that would destroy their business?

View on HN

You'd think Eventbrite would've known better too..

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.

>Why would the manufacturer of a professional-targeted camera take an action that would destroy their business?

To make the next quarters number look better.

It won't. Any material so created would immediately receive an injunction at a court and the risk would be so high that you wouldn't even do it because you can't use the material. Also, there are zero people in movies who can tell you whether a movie will succeed. You can't make the bet.

The incentives force RED to not abuse.

And plus, this is raw footage. You could leak it for the lulz, but it's laughable to think you could make any money off of it even if you tried. A vast amount (possibly the majority?) of creative energy goes into the editing/post-production process after all the raw footage is captured.

>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.

How does that even work? Are they going to somehow get all the video data off of everyone's cameras, and cut and release it as films before anyone else can?

Not to mention how that would destroy the trust in their brand

You expressly agree to give the video to 3rd parties and copyright holders. They provide them to 3rd parties and get paid.

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.

The video these cameras capture is tens of gigabytes of data. I think you can expect about an hour worth of video on 1TB. It’s completely impractical to think they’re taking your video from the camera itself.

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.

They reserve the right to pull video content and other data from your computers as well.

That could include edited scenes, scripts, emails, zoom calls, etc, etc.

The EULA does not suggest that they do, unless you’re referring to something else.

> 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.

It’s uh, a privately held company..

Privately held companies can still issue bonuses tied to quarterly performance.

Modern companies do this constantly and nobody cares.

Like Kodak?

Other than blow the opportunity to be the leader in digital cameras, what have they done to destroy themselves?

you're referencing when Kodak didn't pivot to digital? Or some T&C abuse I'm not aware of?

Failing to see how a market will change and change with it is not quite the same as "a camera company intentionally stealing movies to share with others".

Of course history has shown that while a company is profitable they will be "good" however if the company starts going off the cliff all bets are off

See the many many once "good" companies that end up patent trolling

Reply on news.ycombinator.com