Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Copyright discussion

Mike 'Fireman' Ross said:
Eric Raymond gets it perfectly and puts it perfectly:

http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homesteading/magic-cauldron/ar01s18.html

"If you are a hardware vendor, you may fear that open-sourcing may reveal important things about how your hardware operates that competitors could copy, thus gaining an unfair competitive advantage. Back in the days of three- to five-year product cycles this was a valid argument. Today, the time your competitors' engineers would need to spend copying and understanding the copy is a damagingly large portion of the product cycle, time they are not spending innovating or differentiating their own product.


This is not a new insight. Former KGB chief Oleg Kalugin puts the case well:


For instance, when we stole IBMs in our blueprints, or some other electronic areas which the West made great strides in and we were behind, it would take years to implement the results of our intelligence efforts. By that time, in five or seven years, the West would go forward, and we would have to steal again and again, and we'd fall behind more and more.


But Rudyard Kipling put it better in his poem The Mary Gloster, nearly a century ago. He wrote:



And they asked me how I did it, and I gave 'em the Scripture text, 

"You keep your light so shining a little in front o' the next!''"
They copied all they could follow, but they couldn't copy my mind,

And I left 'em sweating and stealing a year and a half behind.

Acceleration to Internet time makes this effect bite harder. If you're really ahead of the game, plagiarism is a trap you want your competitors to fall into!"

Gavin makes some excellent points re. standardization. I've said before, and make no apology for repeating, this should especially apply to media. 35mm film was the standard for years. Digital media is mature enough for similar standardization to take place. RDC, Sony, Arri, and the rest should compete all out on cameras and other tech areas - but sit round a table and agree on a common standard for media, so you can use RED SSD in a Sony cam, or Sony media in an Alexa etc. etc. Markets don't like, and won't tolerate, artificial technical barriers to interoperability. Protect the brain, make the interfaces open; it may astonish you what third parties manage to add to your product.

I love RDC and their products, but I'm honest enough to say 'huh? That's just wrong!' when something doesn't seem right. Here's a good example: EVF interface. There was a LONG period when the original EVF was out of production but the Bomb wasn't yet ready. RED had nothing to sell. Yet the R1 manual said the EVF interface was undocumented and the pinout was 'not published'. I asked RED for the pinout and signal information; no dice. That's secret. So RED had nothing to sell, but third parties were locked-out of building or modifying EVFs to work directly with the RED interface. *That's* the kind of 'closed' attitude I don't like when I see it.

Mike
Click to expand...


If you are the creator - it's your rules period. You don't like it, create something yourself and make open source blueprints for free for people to build upon and expand. Not all parts are created equal and RED must also consider the quality of other people's stuff bringing the value of their intellectual property down, they should at very least have a right to say yes or no. Just because it's cheaper and "better" for customers for have these other brands out there doesn't mean that all other brands should exist. Wooden makes good stuff, Viewfactor makes great stuff, but at the end of the day none of it would exist unless there was an Epic, Scarlet, or REDONE... It's not difficult to understand, and you can never pay a man or inventor what he is worth so he must be protected. What Jim and Jarred are doing, if not popular right not, is one of the most admirable thing you can do for another human being. Can't afford a RED SPINNER MOUNT ... Save up, stop being cheap. This is not directed at anyone in the forum but rather just food for thought. Lawyers, some of them charge $1000 an hour... How many hours does an inventor spend creating new product, dreaming of new ways for it's use? ... C'mon guys... It's easy to see how this will unfold.

-E
 
Paul Ellington said:
...at the end of the day none of it would exist unless there was an Epic, Scarlet, or REDONE... [SNIP] ... C'mon guys... It's easy to see how this will unfold.
Click to expand...

Paul, with all due respect, the creator of a product is NOT automatically entitled to approve all of its accessories. What is at issue here is whether WC infringed on specific Red trade dress and a specific ornamental patent. This is not a cut and dry determination. I respect the spirit of where Red is coming from, but let's not pre-judge the merit of this specific claim.
 
Tim Morten said:
Paul, with all due respect, the creator of a product is NOT automatically entitled to approve all of its accessories. What is at issue here is whether WC infringed on specific Red trade dress and a specific ornamental patent. This is not a cut and dry determination. I respect the spirit of where Red is coming from, but let's not pre-judge the merit of this specific claim.
Click to expand...

You are entitled to your opinion but that does not make it law. Big changes are coming to protect the ideas of the smartest men in the room.

- E
 
Paul Ellington said:
You are entitled to your opinion but that does not make it law. Big changes are coming to protect the ideas of the smartest men in the room.

- E
Click to expand...

Big difference between creative smart and law smart.
 
Terry VerHaar said:
Mike - I don't always agree with your posts but this one is spot on. :thumbsup: There is no bigger fan of RED than me; and I am in awe of Jim Jannard's genius in matters both technical and business. But, sometimes I think too much money is given to the lawyers and not enough to the engineers. In general, I have been swayed by Lawrence Lessig's arguments over the years about opening up technology and changing our IP laws. The TED piece earlier in this thread is a good perspective on how our copyright laws can be stifling innovation. There is a better way than the "Disney" way. (A whole other discussion.)
Click to expand...

Thanks.

You know what?

"And they asked me how I did it, and I gave 'em the Scripture text, 

"You keep your light so shining a little in front o' the next!''"
They copied all they could follow, but they couldn't copy my mind,

And I left 'em sweating and stealing a year and a half behind."

Someone should sent that to Jim... and maybe to Arri... :smilewinkgrin:

Mike
 
Interesting case just in from the European equivalent of the Supreme Court. In summary, when you sell software with a license unlimited in time, the 'license' is a fig-leaf. You've *sold* the software, not 'licensed' it, and the purchaser is free to resell it if they so chose. Restrictive licensing terms purporting to prevent someone from selling 'used' software are unenforceable; the initial sale exhausts that right in accordance with first-sale copyright doctrine:

http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2012/07/05/usedsoft_vs_oracle_ruling_analysis/

This makes sense. You buy a camera, you can sell it if it no longer suits your need. You buy a photocopier, you can sell it if it proves unsuitable. You buy software, you can sell it if you don't need it any more.

Mike
 
Paul Ellington said:
Can't afford a RED SPINNER MOUNT ... Save up, stop being cheap.
-E
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying to some extent, but the spinner really isn't the best example.
I see no reason to pay over the odds for something when a cheaper alternative which does what its supposed to (without stealing a design) is available.
People don't want to kit out a $13,000 camera with the same stuff as a $40,000 camera, it just gets to a point where it doesn't make financial sense. This is the niche I feel Wooden camera falls into. I know 90% of the stuff on my Scarlet is from WC whereas ALL of the stuff on the EPICS is Red and VF. Both work well. The EVF mount from WC is certainly not as chic as the spinner, but I think the simplicity of it makes it a joy to use.

We don't all have bottomless pockets.
 
Paul Ellington said:
....This is not directed at anyone in the forum but If rather just food for thought. Lawyers, some of them charge $1000 an hour... How many hours does an inventor spend creating new product, dreaming of new ways for it's use? ... C'mon guys... It's easy to see how this will unfold.
-E
Click to expand...

$1,000 an hour lawyers...yes...That's why they call it picking and choosing your battles.
Because sometimes you win the battle only to wind up losing the war.
 
Paul Ellington said:
Who are you arguing with?
Click to expand...


I was just making the comment that sometimes the smartest man in the room isn't the most creative, he just happens to have unlimited resources.
 
Andrew Walker said:
I was just making the comment that sometimes the smartest man in the room isn't the most creative, he just happens to have unlimited resources.
Click to expand...


Thus the man picking the smartest men, to sit beside him is in fact ... Well, at least as smart as everyone else. :0)
 
Patrick Tresch said:
IMHO You will stay in business by doing great cameras.

Now I don't know how much profit you make through your accessories but I bet it's not your core business (?).

To make sure something won't be copied do it better, cheaper (and faster) than your competitor...

Kind of the RED way...

Pat
Click to expand...

A prudent business will cover all of it's bases, that includes portions of their business that may not necessarily make up their core offerings...

Losses are losses, and while small they will eventually add up.

Innovation is great, rapid progress is great. However like aforementioned, there really needs to be a predetermined agreement if you are going to expedite your research and development, by using a design that was created at the expense of another business.

Capitalism doesn't neccessarily innovate for the good of the people (like it or not lol), but to make a profit. While RED isn't known for hardcore profiteering like some of the other camera companies that demand several hundred thousand for their cameras, they still need to fight to maintain boundaries and keep what profits they do make, or else they will eventually fail...

All groundbreaking camera innovation aside, RED has created a price war that has and will bring out much more affordable cameras.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top