Jump to content

Automatic movie restart is disabled in future versions of Magic Lantern due to legal uncertainty


palubalis
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

I just saw this on the magic lantern nightly builds changelog:

 

http://nanomad.magiclantern.fm/nightly/ChangeLog.txt

 

e1ead7b9719f | 2013-01-08 | alex: Disabled movie restart on all DIGIC V cameras due to legal uncertainity

Personnaly I use auto Movie Restart a lot during interviews. Anyone knows what king of legal uncertainty this is about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cameras that can record more than 30 minutes of video or so need to pay an extra tax as they are considered video cameras. Not sure if this is only an Europe thing, but it's why even newer non FAT DSLRs still have recording time limitations. ML are probably worried this could be used against them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sad the Canon is going to kill these guys.  Why else would anyone want to buy a 600D or any other cheap rebel if not for ML?  I see so many guys with 600Ds, 5dmkIIs, all with ML.  And now with the threat of legal action, for no less their diamond studded 1DC, now ML is going to start "disabling" features because of the threat of legal action by Canon.  Jeez Canon, I guess you really want to kill the indie filmmaker.  Goes back to Andrew's recent post about Canon and the pandora's box they opened.  Sad day this is, but all the more to support the underground efforts that these guys do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cameras that can record more than 30 minutes of video or so need to pay an extra tax as they are considered video cameras. Not sure if this is only an Europe thing, but it's why even newer non FAT DSLRs still have recording time limitations. ML are probably worried this could be used against them.

That can't be the reason. Automatic movie restart is just that a restart unlike the GH2 hack that really does remove the 30 minute recording limit on PAL cameras. It's the same as if the user pressed the record button again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's just a detail, but I guess their reasoning at this point is "better safe than sorry", but you'd have to ask them.

 

If someone was to go against them, the tax angle could be a strong one, as they could play it in a way that shows they're not only breaking Canon's copyright but also taking tax money away from the government.

 

Keep in mind that this is not my opinion, but a lot of details like these could be used against them, no matter how farfetched.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the court battle will happen at some point and prove it's ok to code for a piece of hardware you bought and share the results.

 

It isn't though.... Better not to spread the myth that what they are doing is legal. It simply isn't.

 

Do i think they are doing any harm to Canon? No. Is it legal? No.

 

If you all want ML to continue, it is better that they use caution and only add features that are not gonna get Canon mad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canon and everyone else need to see the potential in this and open up their cameras for 3rd party apps.

Some consumer cameras already support Android apps, I'd love to see professional cameras go the same route.

Imagine if the BMCC supported 3rd party apps, no one would be complaining about the lack of audio meters and tools as you'd probably be able to choose between a bunch of different audio metering apps. Same goes for every single software feature request, they would only have to worry about doing a solid camera with a good SDK, and the rest would be taken care of by third party developers. Also, different users want different things, and the way one feature is implemented might be perfect for one user but totally backwards for another user, this way we'd have options, just look at how many photography apps are out there for the iPhone, and compare what they do to what the standard Camera app does. There's no reason every single camera couldn't be like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canon own the copyright on the software/firmware.... Any modification is in breach of that copyright, therefore illegal.

 

Bruno - I think Android based cameras are really exciting, Java is a very powerful language and has the potential to add many cool features... I just hope a manufacturer is brave enough to open up the full hardware. From what i understand, not many variables are open to the Android devs on the recent cameras. It is more about applying filters and features once the image is stored, rather than manipulating the image off the sensor.

 

Early days though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A breach of copyright is not illegal i.e. the cops will not turn up & arrest you & charge you in court. The most that can happen is that the copyright owner sues the alleged infringer which when it's an Open Source project makes it a little difficult to see who they would sue. In any case Magic Lantern reverse engineers the Canon firmware & adds new functions. Reverse engineering is perfectly legal. CHDK the original parent & inspiration for Magic Lantern has been doing a similar job for Canon point & shoot cameras for many years again it's Open Source reverse engineering.

 

Magic Lantern in principle is not so different from jailbreaking an iPhone & even in the US this has been explicitly declared to be legal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A breach of copyright is not illegal i.e. the cops will not turn up & arrest you & charge you in court.

 

That doesn't mean it is not illegal.... Canon's lawyers would just serve them papers, you think a cop is involved in every lawsuit?

 

It has nothing to do with digital rights management, which is what affects the jail broken iphone. You may as well say ripping a film is legal too, as that also takes place in the digital domain.

 

I don't know what good comes from spreading myths? I work in the software industry. ML is a clear breach of copyright laws, eg, illegal. This is not me saying they are wrong to do it, i'm all for ML.... But misinformation is not gonna help anyone.

 

If ML stick to adding small features that don't affect Canon's bottom line, i'm sure they will be fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am spreading no myths & it's also the opinion of the Magic Lantern developers that what they are doing is perfectly legal. Jailbreaking an iPhone is nothing to do with DRM & is exactly analogous to what Magic Lantern does i.e. reverse engineering code on the device to introduce your own code that bypasses built-in functions & to add other new features of your own.

 

A major practical objection to Canon contemplating sending in the lawyers even if their case were valid is the problems of chasing an Open Source Software project. The example of DeCSS shows that nowadays with the Internet that once the genie is out the bottle it's impossible to put it back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry mate it'syou who don't seem to undertsand the terms.

 

DRM is concerned with rights holders managing content http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management

 

Jailbreaking an iPhone is concerned with running unsigned code on a device that you own to deliver extra functionality not available out of the box & nothing to do with evading whatever controls rights holders may have placed on their content http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_jailbreaking This is in principle just the same as running Magic Lantern on your Canon camera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taken from the link you just posted and seem to be getting your key info from.....

 

"Jailbreaking a device involves circumventing its technological protection measures (in order to allow root access and running alternative software), so its legal status is affected by laws regarding circumvention of digital locks, such as laws protecting digital rights management (DRM) mechanisms."

 

 

Or from a more researched site - http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/07/apple-loses-big-in-drm-ruling-jailbreaks-are-fair-use/

 

"The Electronic Frontier Foundation argued that jailbreaking one's iPhone should be allowed, even though it required one to bypass some DRM and then to reuse a small bit of Apple's copyright firmware code".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, it is beside the point.

 

Just because one software issue is deemed legal (for now) it does not mean all software issues are legal. That would just be ridiculous.

 

This whole thread started because of this "Disabled movie restart on all DIGIC V cameras due to legal uncertainity"

 

So, while you seem very sure of yourself, the guys at ML clearly aren't. Probably because what they are doing is, unfortunately, 100% illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...