Canon's EOS-1D an example of all-controlling IP?

There's no doubt that the matter of intellectual property has become more prominent in the age of the internet now that some products -- like music -- have begun to lose their physical properties entirely. This shift has led to an increase in use of licenses designed to protect the IP of certain goods; so when you buy a song from the majority of online music services, that purchase is often accompanied by an agreement between you and the creator of the music. Some argue that manufacturers of electronic products have gone too far with their licenses, an opinion aired over at an article in The New Republic. One particular example of outlandish licensing agreements is that of Canon's EOS-1D which includes a separate agreement related specifically to the software that runs on the camera -- effectively the consumer does not own the software that keeps the camera running; he or she is instead licensed the right to use it. One clause of the disclaimer actually removes Canon's obligation to service or repair the camera if the software fails. These kind of agreements aren't completely watertight: courts can invalidate licenses if the company tries to impose excessive limits, the problem is that often they choose to favor companies over the individuals because it is felt that protection is required for fast moving areas like software design. Ultimately though, the threat of aggressive IP will never overrule the consumer's killer wallet-closing combo move. If consumers are unfairly restricted by certain companies, isn't it logical to assume that people won't buy that company's products anymore?

[Via Against Monopoly]

[JAFBC @ Nov 18th 2006 11:44PM]

I believe this EULA? is the result of the infamous russian firmware hack to the old 300 which essentially upgraded the camera to the 10D and would save the buyer $300.

http://www.bahneman.com/liem/photos/tricks/article.php?story=20050324210316821

[bill @ Nov 19th 2006 1:11AM]

They'll make the killer move IF they know about the exposure. The essence of the EULA is usually to deny the opportunity for that exposure. "But, sir, clearly, here, in para twelve subpara four (A) of our EULA, you agreed that your first born...."

[Minuk @ Nov 19th 2006 2:53AM]

This is where IP law fails to define "true ownership".

It's nothing new, really. When you buy a copy of Windows XP, you're not buying software. You are buying a license to use the software under agreed terms (EULA).

True ownership implies you can use the software whenever and however you desire. Things like this and DRM is bad because it gives content producers all the rights, and the public gets nothing except to be the content producer's slave.

IP was designed to encourage innovation by rewarding content producers for a limited time, but with the ultimate goal being that it benefits the public domain.

Obviously this agreement is starting to crack. We need to re-evaluate ownership of information, before corporations own it all.

[Tech^Cellfish @ Nov 19th 2006 1:07PM]

Are you a member of a pirate party? I agree to your post, and have donated money to the swedish pirate party to do something about this IP thingie.

[sdgfgjfsdgdf @ Nov 19th 2006 4:43AM]

@bill: I completely agree. This is one of those cases when the market is NOT going to solve the problem.
When people are going to notice to what kind of contract they have agreed it will be to late for them. This would not be a big problem for a cheap product that people buy regularly, but it IS a problem for an expensive product like a SLR camera.

[Eric @ Nov 19th 2006 5:48AM]

This has been litigated back and forth...the case that I believe went to the Supreme Court had to do with DSL modems that were taken as collateral when some ISP went TU, and the vendor essentially said "Knock yourself out, but we aren't licensing the firmware to you, so enjoy that scrap metal". The arguments have revolved around the software being included vs. being an integral essential part of the product.

My firm builds a device that sells in the more-than-a-Yugo/less-than-a-Caddy price range that includes licensed software that is maintained in non-volatile memory - we no longer call it firmware. Our license agreement is straightforward, our terms exceedingly generous, but it's protection for us, beyond our patent, that if you buy one of our instruments, copy our circuit design and suck out our software, we can do something about it beyond simple copyright claims.

One advantage to consumers from this approach is that the structures that make this legal maneuver possible can also make it easier to craft third-party firmware for consumer electronics devices. Compare what I can do with my Cisco DSL modem to what I can do with a $50 Linksys router, in terms of replacing the off-the-shelf code with something customized and community-driven.

E

[GhostDoggy @ Nov 19th 2006 10:43AM]

I guess I will do with a camera what I did with my wireless router, which was to replace the firmware with an open source firmware. Oh, wait a minute. I don't own a Canon. Ka-lique!

[Jack @ Nov 19th 2006 11:49AM]

>>>If consumers are unfairly restricted by certain companies, isn't it logical to assume that people won't buy that company's products anymore?

I agree that the fine print is out of hand but your argument is still light-years away from �logical�.

A consumer isn�t restricted until a company actually moves to restrict him. Which they rarely do.

I�m sure you own any number of consumer products with licenses that are crafted just as ungraciously.

The fact of the matter is that most consumers don�t particularly care what companies put in license agreements. They care what companies do.

Canon makes regular free firmware upgrades available. If you take the camera in for a sensor cleaning (also free) they upgrade the firmware as a matter of routine.

I have had problems with their equipment but they have always greeted my concerns cheerfully and efficiently.

They have corrected every problem promptly and without charge (even some out-of-warrantee stuff) that they felt bad about.

As long as Canon supports their software and lets me carry around in my camera I�m good with the deal.

It�s like buying a computer from Microsoft or Apple under the condition that they upgrade the software for the life of the product.

I think a lot of consumers would jump at that offer. Regardless of whether or not they ever actually �owned� the software.

[Ken @ Nov 19th 2006 1:42PM]

This "IP thingie" is why you're not living in a cave. Everything between you and that cave started as IP.

[kinda @ Nov 19th 2006 5:09PM]

yeah i stopped buying canon products a long time ago. long story short, this company needs to learn what customer service means.

[mike dixon @ Nov 19th 2006 9:21PM]

"effectively the consumer does not own the software that keeps the camera running; he or she is instead licensed the right to use it."

Uh, it's called a license for a reason. What do you think the "L" in EULA stands for? If you owned the software you'd be able to do whatever you wanted with it.

[waggss @ Nov 20th 2006 9:06AM]

The biggest problem with canon doing it or if nikon does it you're SOL. Once you buy the canon or nikon lenses you're pretty much obligated to stick it out unless you want to shell out thousands more dollars to buy new lenses when you try to buy a new camera to switch companies. Have fun with that.