Voiding warranty - what other surprises are there besides Global Media batteries?

[Les C.]

Les,

you might want to edit your first post in this thread.

Done. My apologies for being incorrect and not checking my facts.

Memory is a very tricky thing - and what we think we remember may often be dead wrong as it gets changed by all our experiences since the initial memory. This is why eye-witness testimony is often mistaken.

 

[Zeb B]

RED never has to answer questions with users like Lawyer Bill 'n da House! You go boy

 

[Tim Morten]

I for one am completely satisfied with the response Red gave. I'm sure they'll let us know if there's any specific guidance from here.

Big thanks to Red for having monitored the thread, and for having spoken up.

 

[Les C.]

The bottom line is: I really don't think any Court would conclude that a RED Camera is a "consumer product," ... unless you could convince the Court that you really bought that $35,000.00 Epic to shoot footage of your kids .... Because of
that, the normal "consumer" protections that are afforded to "consumer products" under California and Federal law, would provide little or no benefit or comfort to you in a warranty dispute with RED. And, oh, BTW, I don't play a lawyer on TV, but I do in real life.

By that logic, my grand piano, which cost many times more than Scarlet, and is unfortunately used in quite an amateurish fashion, wouldn't be a "consumer product" - as there are 'grands' available for just a few thousand. Not sure price is the defining criteria?

Not saying you're wrong, but ... it's the questions that are interesting in law, and "answers" are often less cut-in-stone than one would think - or so I've been told.

If someone did have a difference of opinion on a warranty issue with RED, how would you suggest handling it?

 

[Bill Sepaniak]

By that logic, my grand piano, which cost many times more than Scarlet, and is unfortunately used in quite an amateurish fashion, wouldn't be a "consumer product" - as there are 'grands' available for just a few thousand. Not sure price is the defining criteria?

Price or cost has nothing to do with whether the product or good is a "consumer product." Read the law that I quoted. It is not my logic. The key is whether the product is used primarily for personal, family or household purposes. If you are using your grand piano at home primarily for personal, family or household purposes .... even if it is a Bosendorfer Imperial Grand, (which is what .... about $180,000.00?), it is no doubt a "consumer product." I have already litigated this exact same issue. A sailboat manufacturer claimed its $500,000.00 sailboat was not a "consumer product" for warranty purposes. I represented the sailboat owner and we thought otherwise. The Court agreed with us. We won. The $500,000.00 sailboat was deemed a "consumer product" because the owner used it for solely for personal or family use. If he chartered it, leased it, or used it for competitive racing, it would have been a different story. As I said, if you can convince a Judge or a Jury that a $35,000.00 Epic was purchased by you to take family vacation videos, then, who knows, you might prevail in convincing a Court that you are entitled to "consumer warranty protections." That's why the man wears the black robes ... and we get the big bucks. You can always make your pitch to the Court. Good luck.

____________________________________
Scarlet X # 1859 “Bettie Page”
“… preparing to ‘whip’ the competition …”

Zeiss Lenses:

CY 21/2.8
ZF 28/2.0
CY 35-70/3.4
CY 50/1.4
ZF100/2.0

Nikon Lenses:
G 14-24/2.8
G 24-70/2.8
D 80-200/2.8

Tokina Lenses:

11-16/2.8

 

[Brandon J.F.]

To clarify Les, I did not use GMP batteries at all. It was a third party battery plate and cable. But the sequence of events is basically correct. I got an email saying that the fault was not mine, the camera was repaired and shipping the next morning. I heard nothing for 2 days. I then received an invoice 2 days later for the cost of repair because I had used third party power accessories. RED knew I used the third party power accessories because they told me to send in the accessories to help "diagnose the problem". I was never told what was wrong with the plate or cable. I don't want to have misconception out in the community.

Who was the battery plate from?

 

[Les C.]

Price or cost has nothing to do with whether the product or good is a "consumer product." Read the law that I quoted. It is not my logic. The key is whether the product is used primarily for personal, family or household purposes. If you are using your grand piano at home primarily for personal, family or household purposes .... even if it is a Bosendorfer Imperial Grand, (which is what .... about $180,000.00?), it is no doubt a "consumer product." I have already litigated this exact same issue. A sailboat manufacturer claimed its $500,000.00 sailboat was not a "consumer product" for warranty purposes. I represented the sailboat owner and we thought otherwise. The Court agreed with us. We won. The $500,000.00 sailboat was deemed a "consumer product" because the owner used it for solely for personal or family use. If he chartered it, leased it, or used it for competitive racing, it would have been a different story. As I said, if you can convince a Judge or a Jury that a $35,000.00 Epic was purchased by you to take family vacation videos, then, who knows, you might prevail in convincing a Court that you are entitled to "consumer warranty protections." That's why the man wears the black robes ... and we get the big bucks. You can always make your pitch to the Court. Good luck.

Good explanation!

My plan is to avoid causing any issues that will damage the camera, as waiting in a repair queue, no matter who pays for it, is not my idea of time well spent.

So far, that means to be careful about power (which I didn't know), and to be careful about audio (which I already knew).

And maybe other 3rd party accessories? I'm waiting to see how that develops.

 

[Zeb B]

@Bill
if what you say is true, and there exists no Approved 3rd Party Product List, then all RED owners void their warranty the second they attach any non-RED product to their camera. In reality, any warranty support is completely at the discretion of RED since, by the legal terms in our purchase agreement as you outlined, using a Canon lens on the RED/Canon mount voids our warranty. As would using a Sony monitor, Anton Bauer battery or any audio input.

This is why I loves me them lawyers!

 

[Michael Zeleny]

@Bill
if what you say is true, and there exists no Approved 3rd Party Product List, then all RED owners void their warranty the second they attach any non-RED product to their camera. In reality, any warranty support is completely at the discretion of RED since, by the legal terms in our purchase agreement as you outlined, using a Canon lens on the RED/Canon mount voids our warranty. As would using a Sony monitor, Anton Bauer battery or any audio input.

This is why I loves me them lawyers!

In light of around $500,000 that I consigned to the flames of complex business litigation over the past decade, Bill's analysis looks right on the money. As a Scarlet-X owner restricting all my cameras to personal use, I couldn't be more pleased with its implications for my warranty coverage.

 

[Bill Sepaniak]

@Bill
if what you say is true, and there exists no Approved 3rd Party Product List, then all RED owners void their warranty the second they attach any non-RED product to their camera. In reality, any warranty support is completely at the discretion of RED since, by the legal terms in our purchase agreement as you outlined, using a Canon lens on the RED/Canon mount voids our warranty. As would using a Sony monitor, Anton Bauer battery or any audio input.

The relevant language from RED'S Terms and Conditions of Sale is as follows:

"Red products are compatible with Red software, Red parts, and Red products only. Use of any software, parts, or products other than Red or Red approved software, parts, and products voids any and all warranties."

While I do not intend to second-guess RED, I find it hard to believe that RED would claim that using a Canon EOS mount lens on a RED/Canon mount (that was designed/marketed/sold by RED to specifically use Canon EOS mount lenses) would void the warranty. That makes absolutely no sense. It stands to reason that Canon EOS mount lenses are RED approved, or why would RED have a Canon EOS mount in the first place? A more interesting question would be using a Canon FD lens with a non-approved Canon FD lens mount, or using some other manual focus lens with a large flange (Leica) that might do damage to the sensor. As Jarred indicated this really is a common sense thing. If you read the above language, and take it literally, (which RED could, if they wanted to), then probably just about every owner has "in theory" voided their warranty by attaching some sort of after-market part or accessory. However, I would be very surprised indeed if that is RED'S policy or intention. Again ... a dose of common sense goes a long way.

Jarred already mentioned how audio issues are a "clusterfuck" in terms of problems / issues. I can certainly see that, and again maybe more is needed in terms of official "do's and don'ts" in such areas. I am sure that is one of the reasons why RED came out with its audio cable. When I need an audio cable, I'll just buy it from RED. Done. Cost a few bucks more to be sure, but what is the peace of mind worth for my investment ... priceless!

As to batteries, let's be honest. I will bet you "dollars-to-donuts" that the primary motivation for most people to use third party after-market batteries is to save money. Nothing wrong with that. Yes, RED'S batteries / power solutions are more expensive than what you can get from e-bay or some other reseller. I was considering GMP's. I'm not now. I will just stick with what RED has to offer. Same thing: Cost a few bucks more to be sure from RED, but what is the peace of mind worth for my investment ... priceless!

____________________________________
Scarlet X # 1859 “Bettie Page”
“… preparing to ‘whip’ the competition …”

Zeiss Lenses:

CY 21/2.8
ZF 28/2.0
CY 35-70/3.4
CY 50/1.4
ZF100/2.0

Nikon Lenses:
G 14-24/2.8
G 24-70/2.8
D 80-200/2.8

Tokina Lenses:

11-16/2.8

 

[Michael Hastings]

I think this really boils down to common sense. If you use a bad power supply that fries your camera, of course RED cannot be held responsible. If you fill crap gas into your Ferrari and it wrecks your engine, you would have to pay for the repair.

I use both RED Volts and a variety of V-lock batteries from name suppliers. I use a high quality charger for them, if a battery should be bad, it wouldn't get charged.

Also, if one type of battery should turn out to be frying cameras, I am sure we'd all heard about it by now.

tltr; Use common sense. Chill. Shoot pictures.

The problem here isn't common sense, the problem is a very vaguely worded policy that has been mentioned numerous times by Red employees on the board but has never been clearly defined - the main issue being "voiding the warranty" versus "we will not repair damage caused by ...." Using bad gas in your car can void the engine warranty but doesn't void the transmission warranty.

Simply saying "don't worry, be happy" go make movies isn't really an appropriate or responsible solution - the true meaning should be clarified.

Not fixing damage for free under warranty, that is caused by misuse or through other faulty equipment causing the problem is one thing and completely understandable, but legally speaking "voiding the warranty" would mean your warranty is terminated - i.e. you no longer have any warranty on any part - and I don't think anyone wants to test that in court so it would be nice to have a clearer statement of warranty policy that we can count on, not one that basically denies use of everything in the broadest possible terms so that it could only be sorted out by the lawyers (where usually the deepest pockets win), and as I said, I don't think any of us users want to go there, anyway.

It doesn't seem that out of hand denial of other configurations should be necessary and I don't think that is (or at least shouldn't be) the norm in an industry where so many different styles and evironments are encountered everyday that require creative solutions to achieve the artistic intent.

This is an industry where mounting cameras on jibs, cranes, helicopters, underwater housings, cars, beamsplitter 3D rigs, etc. is an everyday occurrence and often requires mounts or power supplies or cables or whatever to get the job done that aren't supplied by the manufacturer.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Not fixing damage for free under warranty, that is caused by misuse or through other faulty equipment causing the problem is one thing and completely understandable, but legally speaking "voiding the warranty" would mean your warranty is terminated - i.e. you no longer have any warranty on any part - and I don't think anyone wants to test that in court so it would be nice to have a clearer statement of warranty policy that we can count on, not one that basically denies use of everything in the broadest possible terms so that it could only be sorted out by the lawyers (where usually the deepest pockets win), and as I said, I don't think any of us users want to go there, anyway.

I don't think it does mean that "you no longer have any warranty on any part" though it is a very real possibility. What it does is create a basis for Red to void your warranty if they choose. It remains within their discretion. It allows them the opportunity to be as flexible as they choose to be.

 

[Sam Edwards]

So what's the final take away for the GMP batteries? Do they void your warranty?

 

[Zeb B]

Sam . . . dude, read the thread.

Any use of a non-RED product voids all warranties. As in "any", "all" and forever. There is no legally binding warranty on RED products once any non-RED product has been used with it. No conditions - no qualifiers. Just a wee bit one sided from my view. That being said, the day I have to hire a lawyer to challenge this is the day I donate all my RED gear to charity. Life is too short and I film for the joy and peace it brings - not to seek fairness in our jacked up legal system.

 

[Michael Hastings]

I didn't mean to re-open a hurtful can of worms. Erick has been through enough. My remark was short and on topic, could we stay in track please?

Scott:

There's a lot of misunderstanding on the Birger situation. It was my camera and one of my customer's that was damaged by 2 preproduction prototypes which we pushed Erik to release prematurely that used the RS-232/lens port on the side of the camera for power and control that caused an electrical problem that was never fully specified to us - but that issue was completely eliminated when Birger abandoned use of the the RS-232 port for all subsequent units.

As far as difficulty with i-data cable, the Birger mount was actually much more friendly as far as avoiding trouble with the i-data cable than the RED Nikon and PL mounts were, since the Red mounts required a kludgy storage of the cable within a channel cut into the adjuster portion. That was probably the best that could have been done when they switched from the original non adjustable PL mount to the adjustable one - but still a bit kludgy.

With the exception of implementing the canon data to i-data translation which was extremely useful, all of the mounts that Birger produced after our first 2 and therefore which would have been sent to RED, were virtually the same throughout the production run. The whole Birger thing came at a critical time for RED and I think that in hindsight we can see there was a bit of overreaction to third party stuff simply because RED was being overwhelmed with rapid growth at the time.

As far as Birger, I don't think the whole story will ever be told since it would only create animosity that isn't necessary - and it is water under the bridge, but hundreds have been used without issue, and I think people should appreciate that it provided a phenomenal capability to REDONE users, with some functionality (i.e. real follow focus, as well as wired remote control) that still is not yet available with the RED product on Epic/Scarlet.