rawshooter

No longer than offloading it. You can basically use Slimraw as an offloading tool  to copy and simultaneously compress your footage from the SD card to your computer's hard drive.

I shouldn't even reply given the tone in which you write.
None of what you state above disproves (or is in contradiction) to what I wrote. Here's the company registration info on Cinemeridian:
https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_ca/C3626603 
The registered company address is: 
20 MURAL ST UNIT 7
RICHMOND HILL ON CANADA L4B 1K3
...which is actually the company address of Ienso Inc.. That means that Cinemeridian (the company that produced Digital Bolex) was a full subsidiary of Ienso. The company registration page also tells Cinemeridian is: 
Branch of CINEMERIDIAN INCORPORATED (Delaware (US))
i.e., using a matroska puppet construction for the company.  If we're looking up the registration of Cinemeridian Inc. on https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_de/5047665, we get:
108 WEST 13TH ST, WILMINGTON, New Castle, DE, 19801
 
As I wrote, this was probably done for tax reasons, since Delaware is considered a tax shelter state within the U.S.: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/092515/4-reasons-why-delaware-considered-tax-shelter.asp
A company "Digital Bolex" never existed, since the trademarks for Bolex remains with the original Swiss Bolex company, and their trademark was only licensed for the D16.
One of the launch videos for D16, which was posted here in this thread before by someone else, was uploaded and advertised as " the first film shot on the new Digital Bolex" (it still says so on the Vimeo page):
 
...but if you only look at the very beginning of the video - actually right at 00:01 -, you see that it was shot with the Prosilica GX2300:
 

 

 
So, if you would use moral categories (which I didn't do, but many people here in this thread), then Digital Bolex lied to its customers. (The statement "the first film shot on the new Digital Bolex" is objectively untrue.)
But I also wrote that in the end, the D16 was a real camera and people were happy with it - in fact, I wouldn't mind having that camera myself! 
 

I indeed have to withdraw my allegation that the two Digital Bolex representatives were just hired influencers. I tried to dig deeper into the matter, and it's really complicated - Cinemeridian was founded by your friend Joe, but apparently became a subsidiary of Ienso. (There are also online sources that state that Cinemeridian was a joint-venture of Ienso and Swiss Bolex:.)
There's been a discussion on the company's ownership on the Personal View forum in 2013, with Elle Schneider chiming in:
https://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/2568/digital-bolex-raw-camera-no-longer-made/p24

(But nowhere did I write that their Kickstarter campaign was fraud!)

Philip Bloom is - by his standards: unusually - outspoken on the R5:
"This is the first camera I have used in memory that punishes you for using it. [...] I spent £4200 on a camera I cannot use most of the time and that’s ludicrous! I truly hope they find a way to fix this debacle."
 
 

Philip Bloom is - by his standards: unusually - outspoken on the R5:
"This is the first camera I have used in memory that punishes you for using it. [...] I spent £4200 on a camera I cannot use most of the time and that’s ludicrous! I truly hope they find a way to fix this debacle."
 
 

If you buy an Apple Mac Pro, it also says "Made in USA" although all the components were made in Asia. And to celebrate the "Made in USA" fact, they even pulled this stunt at the factory:

The Mac Pro actually contains components made by a dozen different US companies so it is a different situation to the REDMAGs.
It also benefits from this somewhat opaque dispensation from the US government which allows it to satisfy the "Made In The USA" criteria.
"The US manufacturing of Mac Pro is made possible following a federal product exclusion Apple is receiving for certain necessary components. "
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/09/apples-new-mac-pro-to-be-made-in-texas/
 

If you buy an Apple Mac Pro, it also says "Made in USA" although all the components were made in Asia. And to celebrate the "Made in USA" fact, they even pulled this stunt at the factory:

I shouldn't even reply given the tone in which you write.
None of what you state above disproves (or is in contradiction) to what I wrote. Here's the company registration info on Cinemeridian:
https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_ca/C3626603 
The registered company address is: 
20 MURAL ST UNIT 7
RICHMOND HILL ON CANADA L4B 1K3
...which is actually the company address of Ienso Inc.. That means that Cinemeridian (the company that produced Digital Bolex) was a full subsidiary of Ienso. The company registration page also tells Cinemeridian is: 
Branch of CINEMERIDIAN INCORPORATED (Delaware (US))
i.e., using a matroska puppet construction for the company.  If we're looking up the registration of Cinemeridian Inc. on https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_de/5047665, we get:
108 WEST 13TH ST, WILMINGTON, New Castle, DE, 19801
 
As I wrote, this was probably done for tax reasons, since Delaware is considered a tax shelter state within the U.S.: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/092515/4-reasons-why-delaware-considered-tax-shelter.asp
A company "Digital Bolex" never existed, since the trademarks for Bolex remains with the original Swiss Bolex company, and their trademark was only licensed for the D16.
One of the launch videos for D16, which was posted here in this thread before by someone else, was uploaded and advertised as " the first film shot on the new Digital Bolex" (it still says so on the Vimeo page):
 
...but if you only look at the very beginning of the video - actually right at 00:01 -, you see that it was shot with the Prosilica GX2300:
 

 

 
So, if you would use moral categories (which I didn't do, but many people here in this thread), then Digital Bolex lied to its customers. (The statement "the first film shot on the new Digital Bolex" is objectively untrue.)
But I also wrote that in the end, the D16 was a real camera and people were happy with it - in fact, I wouldn't mind having that camera myself! 
 

Philip Bloom is - by his standards: unusually - outspoken on the R5:
"This is the first camera I have used in memory that punishes you for using it. [...] I spent £4200 on a camera I cannot use most of the time and that’s ludicrous! I truly hope they find a way to fix this debacle."
 
 

Philip Bloom is - by his standards: unusually - outspoken on the R5:
"This is the first camera I have used in memory that punishes you for using it. [...] I spent £4200 on a camera I cannot use most of the time and that’s ludicrous! I truly hope they find a way to fix this debacle."
 
 

Yes, and then Blackmagic sued him over taking away trade secrets (I linked to a summary of the lawsuit).
As a result of that feud, we now have Blackmagic pushing its BRAW and not supporting ProRes RAW in Resolve, because it's Atomos technology. Atomos conversely pushes ProRes RAW which it jointly developed with Apple - and for which it pays license fees to RED, since RED legally threatened Atomos over breaching its compressed RAW video camera patent.
As a result of all these shenanigans, RAW video is a f*cked-up mess. (Again, I'm just bringing up all these examples to show the whole tech industry is Machiavellian, with lawsuits over overpriced proprietary technology being its routine business.)

Philip Bloom is - by his standards: unusually - outspoken on the R5:
"This is the first camera I have used in memory that punishes you for using it. [...] I spent £4200 on a camera I cannot use most of the time and that’s ludicrous! I truly hope they find a way to fix this debacle."
 
 

Philip Bloom is - by his standards: unusually - outspoken on the R5:
"This is the first camera I have used in memory that punishes you for using it. [...] I spent £4200 on a camera I cannot use most of the time and that’s ludicrous! I truly hope they find a way to fix this debacle."
 
 

And this is preposterous.
You could even say it was Malus-cious (I hope someone gets this joke please...).

Out of my head:
How HP and other printer manufacturers shut out third-party ink cartridge suppliers by putting DRM chips into their printers that would cause the printers to stop working and spew out error messages if you used a third-party ink cartridge. HP (and other "original" printer manufacturer) ink is several times more expensive per liter than Chanel No. 5 perfume and vintage Scotch whiskey. In fact, RED only copied the HP business model with its RED mags. How practically all camera manufacturers use DRM chips in their batteries to block the use of third-party batteries, and spread FUD (fear/uncertainty/doubt) that third-party batteries will damage your camera. - Just this week, I'm struggling with third-party battery error/warning messages from a Sony mirrorless camera after I installed a firmware update.  How Amazon sues all web stores that implement 1-click-buy buttons. How Apple sued everyone who used the word "App Store".  How Microsoft earns more patent royalties from Android licenses than from its own operating systems. How the MPEG-LA sues everyone who uses the h264 codec without paying them license fees.  

You brought in the moral category of the "good cause"...

Anyway, we could also extend the cause to other small-scale camera manufacturers. Take Digital Bolex, for example. When they were still in business, they pretended to be a filmmaker-run Kickstarter grassroots project. In reality, however, a company "Digital Bolex" never existed,  but the actual company was the large-scale Canadian electronics manufacturer Ienso. The people who posed, on fairs and in social media, as the "Digital Bolex" founders, were neither company owners, nor camera designers, but hired social media influencers.
On top of that, the supposed Digital Bolex D16 prototype presented at the SXSW festival to launch the Kickstarter campaign was a disguised third-party camera by another manufacturer (the Prosilica GX2300). Later, the company registration was changed from California and Canada to a letterbox company address in Delaware. Enough material for shocking YouTube revelations - objectively even more shocking than what's currently being 'revealed' about RED.
Nevertheless, the D16 turned out to be a real product, wasn't exactly affordable, and people were and still are happy with it.

Bottom line: I still fail to see how RED's business practices are categorically worse than those common in the industry. (And if you want to pick a really bad case, just take Olympus with their corruption scandal and past ties to Japanese organized crime.)

Please give me a break, this a business suing a business.
If we're turning this debate to one of "good vs. evil", we should go to churches, join cults or watch superhero movies. 
If you want to support a good cause, have a non-profit NGO like the EFF sue corporations like RED (or Apple, or basically the whole industry), but never trust another company.

You brought in the moral category of the "good cause"...

Anyway, we could also extend the cause to other small-scale camera manufacturers. Take Digital Bolex, for example. When they were still in business, they pretended to be a filmmaker-run Kickstarter grassroots project. In reality, however, a company "Digital Bolex" never existed,  but the actual company was the large-scale Canadian electronics manufacturer Ienso. The people who posed, on fairs and in social media, as the "Digital Bolex" founders, were neither company owners, nor camera designers, but hired social media influencers.
On top of that, the supposed Digital Bolex D16 prototype presented at the SXSW festival to launch the Kickstarter campaign was a disguised third-party camera by another manufacturer (the Prosilica GX2300). Later, the company registration was changed from California and Canada to a letterbox company address in Delaware. Enough material for shocking YouTube revelations - objectively even more shocking than what's currently being 'revealed' about RED.
Nevertheless, the D16 turned out to be a real product, wasn't exactly affordable, and people were and still are happy with it.

Bottom line: I still fail to see how RED's business practices are categorically worse than those common in the industry. (And if you want to pick a really bad case, just take Olympus with their corruption scandal and past ties to Japanese organized crime.)

Please give me a break, this a business suing a business.
If we're turning this debate to one of "good vs. evil", we should go to churches, join cults or watch superhero movies. 
If you want to support a good cause, have a non-profit NGO like the EFF sue corporations like RED (or Apple, or basically the whole industry), but never trust another company.

Just checking:
- Linus Torvalds - I couldn't find any mention, not even on LKLM.org (the Linux development mailing list). Do you have a pointer?
- Newsshooter: a single mention in an article one year ago on the "highly inflated prices" of the RED mags, https://www.newsshooter.com/2019/07/17/red-drops-prices-on-mini-mags-media/, no mention or coverage of the new video.
- CineD/C5D: same as Newsshooter, https://www.cined.com/red-mini-mag-and-redmag-controversy-second-video/
etc.etc.
I could find no coverage of the recent video anywhere on those sites. 
So what do Jinni Tech's supposedly so disruptive revelations actually tell? That RED uses inflated prices for its hardware, that it has a shady history of re-registering its company in different states and with different legal constructions, and that it puts EULA clauses into its products that give it a free pass from liability which is likely in violation of laws.
Yes, I agree that this is shady business practice. But you know what? This is how the entire tech industry works (actually, how capitalism works but I don't want to get into a political debate here). Look at Apple, for example:  grossly inflated prices for its accessories and replacement parts, shutting out third-party repair technicians by legal clauses, throttling its iPhones with older batteries without telling customers (i.e. actually having lied to customers for years), locking you into its EULAs with the iCloud tie-in of its products (just like Google, Microsoft and everyone else - only taking Apple as one example here). And guess what: Until recently, Apple was officially not a U.S., but a Dutch- and Irish-registered company for reasons of tax evasion. 
So I stand by statement: Jinni Tech's revelations are on the level of truther videos and are only shocking to people who must have very naive and idealistics concepts of how businesses do business.  
 

Yes, but this makes no real difference to how companies, industries (and capitalism for that matter) generally work. Companies sue each other over trademarks and patents all the time, especially in industries like tech and pharmaceuticals.

With all due respect, but unless "Jinnitech" manages to clearly put down and explain what is supposedly wrong with RED instead of churning out convoluted, suggestive and unclear mystery tales, this is all just some QAnon-style YouTube-"truther" conspiracy BS... 

I totally agree with your analysis, @Andrew Reid. RED is shooting itself in the foot by patent-trolling other camera manufacturers who implement raw video recording. They should continue making their high-profit margin cameras for the professional cine market and, instead of burning their money on nonsense like the Hydrogen phone, offer attractive license packages for their RAW codec so that it becomes a prosumer industry standard. Everyone would profit, RED probably the most.
As a long-time Linux user, I am reminded of the company SCO (which owned the copyrights of the historical Unix source code) and its attempt to patent-troll and bully Linux development through a gigantic lawsuit - and ended up going out of business because of that.

No longer than offloading it. You can basically use Slimraw as an offloading tool  to copy and simultaneously compress your footage from the SD card to your computer's hard drive.