Reading mode: Light Dark

We will end up in jail!!!

Go to last post
well a free 10D - that is what everyone here wants?
Steve Fink said:
The music industry is only making money on what they sell. They
have to mark up the items to make up for the theft.

Steve
Tommy_T said:
Steve Fink said:
1) Canon does have "Some" customers that are disappointed that
functions are turned off in the 300D.

2) Canon hopes to sell future cameras to those same cutomers.

3) If the hacker's firmware makes happy Canon customers, Canon may
continue to sell to their same customers in the future as the
customers remain happy. They may even forget that those features
were turned off to begin with.

Steve
dLESKO said:
without encryption there is no breaking of the DMCA and without a
patent on the actual software there is no basis to seek patent
protection.

Also, reverse engineering is legal in many countries, especially
when it is to make a piece of equipment work as the owner of said
equipment desires.

dlesko
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Daniella said:
then how do you explain that Sigma is making lens for Canon and
Canon cannot stop them from doing so?
Click to expand...
Possibly because they don't want to! The relationship between lenses and cameras vs. printer ink and printers is not the same. It's quite possible that Canon thinks that more EF lenses are a good thing. Not too many non-Canon lenses, mind you, so we'll throw them a curve ball by changing the interface now and then and certainly not make it easy for them. But more people with more EF lenses equals more people who will find it harder and harder to justify getting anything other than EF lenses and Canon EOS cameras. Worked on me! I've got my Rebel now and small collection of lenses. It would take alot to make me switch...

Someone buying a brand X ink cartridge though instead of a Canon is a 100% loss with no upside for Canon, and the printer division makes most of its money on consumables.

--
http://www.pbase.com/nwalker/favorites
 
The big question at the moment for Canon vis a vis the 300D is probably - how many potential 300D users will we lose to the D70, and thus loose to the Nikon system?

Potentially this could be a greater cost than damage to sales of other models.

The problem is that the 300D is going to be compared to any DSLR that is noticeably cheaper than other models in whichever manufacturer's range - even if they are considerably more expensive than the 300D. The 300D was deliberately made to appear 'unprofessional', this means that its at a serious disadvantage when it's compared to other DSLRs that are designed to at least appear more professional. In the case of the D70 the problem is obvious - the 300D is being compared with a more expensive camera, designed to appear more professional (it may well be, that's not the point).

If the 300D was less obviously unprofessional, then it would shift the debate away from features, and more towards price, which is currently overlooked, almost by assumption that the two cameras are aimed at the same market.

Price and image quality are the two trump card the 300D has to play, the trick from a marketing point of view is to shift the course of the game in such a way to use them: a few thoughts to ponder: 10D Mk II, maybe a 33D between the 300D and the 10D (Mk II)?

--
Peter Nordberg

You look at the photos, not the camera: we take the photos, not the
camera.
 
Hmmm.........the UK joins the US (or the US join the UK)..........interesting possibility. Kind of the anthithesis of the 1770's and 80's. Stranger things have happened.
--

Photography has suprisingly little to do with cameras; but indeed almost everything to do with the person behind the camera.
 
No D70 for me. I need a true upgrade, not slightly improvement. I will buy a 1D II quality camera when the price drop below $2000.

JUN
PHGN said:
The big question at the moment for Canon vis a vis the 300D is
probably - how many potential 300D users will we lose to the D70,
and thus loose to the Nikon system?

Potentially this could be a greater cost than damage to sales of
other models.

The problem is that the 300D is going to be compared to any DSLR
that is noticeably cheaper than other models in whichever
manufacturer's range - even if they are considerably more expensive
than the 300D. The 300D was deliberately made to appear
'unprofessional', this means that its at a serious disadvantage
when it's compared to other DSLRs that are designed to at least
appear more professional. In the case of the D70 the problem is
obvious - the 300D is being compared with a more expensive camera,
designed to appear more professional (it may well be, that's not
the point).

If the 300D was less obviously unprofessional, then it would shift
the debate away from features, and more towards price, which is
currently overlooked, almost by assumption that the two cameras are
aimed at the same market.

Price and image quality are the two trump card the 300D has to
play, the trick from a marketing point of view is to shift the
course of the game in such a way to use them: a few thoughts to
ponder: 10D Mk II, maybe a 33D between the 300D and the 10D (Mk II)?

--
Peter Nordberg

You look at the photos, not the camera: we take the photos, not the
camera.
Click to expand...
 
I understand and appreciate your sentiment however, you will be happy to know that, technically, when you become an American you can keep your Canadian citizenship.
 
Steve Fink said:
Canon made the profit on each 300D that they sold. No one got a
free DRebel, did they?

The music industry is only making money on what they sell. They
have to mark up the items to make up for the theft.

Steve
Click to expand...
That's the biggest lie perpetrated by the RIAA. They just don't get it. There are lots of reasons sales are down and only a small amount is due to file swapping.

Don't be sucked in by the total and arrogant BS of that lot.
 
The 10D list at $1,499 (I believe). I paid the list price of $999 with kit lens for my DRebel. With depreciation of time the 10D may have beeen worth $100 less to make it $1,399. The 300D body goes for $899. So let's call it a $500 difference.

What does the 10D offer that the 300D never can offer, even with the "hack"?

1) a black metal professional looking body
2) mirror lock-up can't be done even with the hack
3) choosing AI one-shot or AI Servo can't be done
4) true FEC, even with the other program
5) faster continuous shooting with bigger buffer

Did I miss any significant ones?

Steve

Even if many of the features match the 10D the 300D
Tommy_T said:
Steve Fink said:
The music industry is only making money on what they sell. They
have to mark up the items to make up for the theft.

Steve
Tommy_T said:
Steve Fink said:
1) Canon does have "Some" customers that are disappointed that
functions are turned off in the 300D.

2) Canon hopes to sell future cameras to those same cutomers.

3) If the hacker's firmware makes happy Canon customers, Canon may
continue to sell to their same customers in the future as the
customers remain happy. They may even forget that those features
were turned off to begin with.

Steve
dLESKO said:
without encryption there is no breaking of the DMCA and without a
patent on the actual software there is no basis to seek patent
protection.

Also, reverse engineering is legal in many countries, especially
when it is to make a piece of equipment work as the owner of said
equipment desires.

dlesko
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Steve

Minds are like parachutes, they only work when they are open - Unknown
 
José Luís Malaquias said:
Most Americans I know are not aware of the facts that cause them to
be hated. So, I don't think they are too blame. If anything they
should pay more attention to what their politicians do, but that is
not a crime in my book.
Click to expand...
We Americans are hated all right...until you need financial support, then everyone suddenly wants to be our friends....or until someone invades your country or threatens your country, then everyone suddenly wants our military might...or until your own dictators and tyrants take your freedom or your money (socialists and communists), suppress your speech or your religion or race or ethnicity, then suddenly everyone wants to immigrate here...or until someone wants to go to the moon, or Mars ( cough Beagle cough)...or until someone wants or wants or wants....

How much of Europe would be speaking German or Russian if it were not for the good ol' USA.
José Luís Malaquias said:
I, for one, don't hate you, and I love visiting your country,
living and working with you.

Still, I think the DMCA is arrogant and imperialist, and I know
many Americans who agree with me on this. In fact, I think most
Americans hate that law, and it was voted by cheer lobby pressure.
I wonder if it would ever get 10% approval in a nation-wide
referendum.
Click to expand...
I agree that the DCMA is outrageous legislation.
José Luís Malaquias said:
Now, if you take the position that you have the money and the power
and so you can do whatever you want, then you WILL attract hatred.
And you may find yourself in trouble when you see that you can't
foot the bill on your own cause you're not as rich as you thought,
and you have to go ask other people to help you get out of the mess
you got yourselves into.
Click to expand...
And when has that been in the last fifty years? When has America been bailed out by zeropaland because we couldn't foot the bill?
José Luís Malaquias said:
But, again, I don't think most Americans share that view. Most
Americans are reasonable people. Like most Europeans. It's just
that the hot heads scream louder.

In fact, most Americans didn't vote for this President.
Click to expand...
Oh, but it was President CLINTON who signed the DCMA into law October 28, 1999. And for those not up on American constitutional law (oh, yeah, the oldest constitution in the world, btw) the President is not elected by a majority vote...ever...he's elected by the Electoral College members. (Jesus, most of the heads of state of the world including europe aren't elected by a majority of the voters given the broadly multi-party elections...where they're elected at all, that is)
José Luís Malaquias said:
salspalden said:
Yep, that's us. You have us pegged. Capitalist Imperialist pig-dogs.

As a nation, we're used to being hated.

We really don't care.

Know why?

Cause we have all the power and money.

Know why?

Cause we're Capitalist Imperialist pig-dogs.

Haven't you been paying attention?

--
Sals...



You Talkin' To Me ?
Click to expand...
--
http://www.malaquias.net/en/joseluis/
Click to expand...
 
I would bet that if I committed Copy Right theft (for example printing thousands of books copyrighted in Portugal and sold them oversees while in the US) I would very well be arrested if I came to Portugal and told everyone about it. So while I committed the crime against Portugal while outside of the country, I become liable for those actions when I enter the country. (Trust me, I have had friends stung by this)

Don't get me wrong, I detest the DMCA, but I also don't like people making up stuff to spread propaganda.

Steven
José Luís Malaquias said:
No, but if, say, you commit an act that is illegal in Portugal but
not in the US, and then you travel here, you will be safe from
persecution. You didn't break any Portugues laws, because
Portuguese laws only apply in Portugal or to Portuguese citizens.
They never apply to an American living in the US: So, you can come
here, and you will only have to obbey our laws when you step out of
that airplane.
Everything you do before that, is not our business, with the only
possible exception of a crime against humanity.

Skylarov never broke any US laws in the US. He never broke any
Russian laws in Russia. Yet he was arrested for a law he didn't
even know he was breaking.
Click to expand...
Actually that again is far from true. But that just shows you know nothing about the case (even if it was a farse)

--
---
New and Updated!!!
Fall 2003: http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/image_a_week
Winter 2004: http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/animage_a_week_winter
 
Better yet.
Come visit us, and I will have you try my personal collection ;-)
salspalden said:
José Luís Malaquias said:
I kinda knew it was.
But since I get to hear that quite a lot, I took the chance to say
where I stand.
As for the wine, let me know about californian Port wine after you
tasted the REAL Port wine :-)
Click to expand...
I'll be the judge of that.

Please forward a case so I can commence testing.

--
Sals...



You Talkin' To Me ?
Click to expand...
--
http://www.malaquias.net/en/joseluis/
 
One of the reasons I want British Humour within our borders is the "Yes Minister" series. One of the best portraits of western politics ever.

There, Sir Humphrey explained explained it rather well.

"British policy has been the same for the last 500 year. To keep within Europe just enough to keep the continent divided. First we tried that the EEC didn't work. When that didn't happen, we had to join to stop it from working..."

I loved that explanation.

Actually, I think that the reason you are on counter-cycle is because you prefer to be the 51st star on someone else's flag than the 1st star on the EU's flag, where you should be after you leadered Europe into freedom in 1945.

Look at Ireland. Geographically, they are even further from Europe. Yet, they are one of the best integrated countries, and the one that has made the most of its European integration, often taking the oportunities that GB discarded, and which should have been hers.
PHGN said:
I'm not as Eurosceptic as I often sound -- in fact I see the EU and
its associated things as potentially a very good thing, but for the
continent not the UK. The UK does not share many of the
commonalities of the continent; fluid labour markets, easy cross
border trading, etc etc. Moreover in thing like economic 'cycles'
and so forth, we are much closer to the US than anyone else, even
pre-euro. That's why thing like tax-harmonization tend to get us on
edge, it may be necessary to do things with economic policy for the
good of the majority of the EU that will harm the minority, and
because of these sort of differences we'll probably tend to be in
that minority. I thin that though the EU is flawed and needs reform
it shouldn't be done away with. Perhaps Britain should gracefully
bow out. If that's the only way to avoid tighter integration then
the case appears even stronger for me -- and tighter integration is
probably in the best interests for the vast majority of continental
countries. But you do need a better foreign policy than 'the
opposite of what America wants'. (After all, that's not really your
own police, just the inverse of another.) ;)

--
Peter Nordberg

You look at the photos, not the camera: we take the photos, not the
camera.
Click to expand...
--
http://www.malaquias.net/en/joseluis/
 
Jun2 said:
What I against is that use Human right as political tool, instead
as something people actually believe in.

JUN
PHGN said:
So you think that whatever body that drafts international laws
should have the right to impose them on everyone? What if some of
us object? If some people want some laws and others others,
wouldn't it be better have, say, smaller groups of like minded
people being bound by their own laws. We could call the groupings
'countries'. I'm sick of having the EU forcing legislation down my
throat.

--
Peter Nordberg

You look at the photos, not the camera: we take the photos, not the
camera.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
http://www.malaquias.net/en/joseluis/
 
I agree with a few parts of what you say.

But Iraq is a bad example. The ssanctions did work. Their purpose was to keep Iraq weak, the Curd and Shiite populations safe, and the government from developping WMD. They were a success on all three accounts, as it turned out.

I agree with enforcement. I just don't agree that one country or even two can go it alone. Some sort of world democratic representation has to be developped to make sure that enforcement depends on the will of the world people, and not on the will of one government.
PHGN said:
I'll double check, but the executive branch signing a treaty that
then is rejected by the legislative branch I think has no binding
effect under the US system - signing merely represents a promise to
put it forward for ratification. Technically things like treaties
and international affairs are the Senate's purview, subject to due
process though the rest of government.

As to what you can and can't do that depends on a) what the law
says, and if your law says you can, then you can, and b) wether you
can do it or not.

The latter is sure to raise objections, but at a basic level it is
true: laws have to be enforceable to carry any real effect. You can
have laws that exist purely through common consent, but the problem
with those is that as soon as people no longer agree to it it's not
much good. Perhaps laws that people don't agree to should be
repealed, but the difficult bit is when most people do, but some
don't. Some form of enforcement method is thus a necessity of any
law, if only to deal with the people who revert to the 'make me'
argument if they don't agree. Force is sometimes the lowest common
denominator of enforcement. That's where all the 'force is never
the answer' arguments fail. All it takes is one party to say 'make
me' and you have to - or you give up on that law. If sanctions etc
don't work, then you may well have no choice but to use force. Iraq
is a case in point - failure to enforce UN resolutions (the
sanctions didn't work and we spent so long giving them second
chances) meant that in the end they were worth very little.
Progress started to be made once the US started some saber
rattling. For various reasons it appeared that the threats would be
made hollow. The decision to act now makes the treat of force a
valid one - and a valid threat of force (if only implicit) makes
negotiation far easier, and indeed the need to use the force less.

Witness the recent progress made with other countries NBC programs.
By way of another example, a failure to enforce anything regarding
Israel's behavior now means that the Israeli government has more or
less a free hand in it affairs.

Conclusion: to avoid the use of force you must be both willing and
able to use it - and demonstrably so.

--
Peter Nordberg

You look at the photos, not the camera: we take the photos, not the
camera.
Click to expand...
--
http://www.malaquias.net/en/joseluis/
 
JRMartin said:
José
Why must you always make everything political? You don't love
America, you are, just as most are, jealous of what we have and
hate us for it. Remember, without us ugly Americans, you would not
exist in any life as you know it. We feed and cloth the world. We
have patents on all the important things in this world. Our guns,
our money and our willingness to fight the fights are what keeps
all the cowards of the world free to run us down. America is not
perfect but it is better than anywhere else. Please stay in your
third world country, nice and safe because of us. Sleep tight.
--
Thanks, JR.
Click to expand...
Those are exactly the grounds our communist leaders justified their imperialistic approach to their foreign policy. I have a strange and sad feeling America is more and more looks like the USSR in its worst years. Nothing personal.
--
CSB (Moscow, Russia)
 
Nope. You would be violating a US law, because the US signed world copyright treaties. The Portuguese company or the Portuguese embassy could sue you in American courts, but you would be safe and sound when you landed in Portugal.
Steven Noyes said:
Don't get me wrong, I detest the DMCA, but I also don't like people
making up stuff to spread propaganda.

Steven
José Luís Malaquias said:
No, but if, say, you commit an act that is illegal in Portugal but
not in the US, and then you travel here, you will be safe from
persecution. You didn't break any Portugues laws, because
Portuguese laws only apply in Portugal or to Portuguese citizens.
They never apply to an American living in the US: So, you can come
here, and you will only have to obbey our laws when you step out of
that airplane.
Everything you do before that, is not our business, with the only
possible exception of a crime against humanity.

Skylarov never broke any US laws in the US. He never broke any
Russian laws in Russia. Yet he was arrested for a law he didn't
even know he was breaking.
Click to expand...
Actually that again is far from true. But that just shows you know
nothing about the case (even if it was a farse)

--
---
New and Updated!!!
Fall 2003: http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/image_a_week
Winter 2004: http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/animage_a_week_winter
Click to expand...
--
http://www.malaquias.net/en/joseluis/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
We are all in the same boat
Replies
14
Views
15
Rich Gibson
R

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top