Good point on them taking a loss having to sell it as open box. It's not much but it's probably the best option I have that actually reprimands them for this.

> I get the feeling that you want more than that (like a custom license agreement, or some punishment for the sales person for not mentioning the EULA), and I don't think you're going to get that.

I do want more. I want to have peace of mind that it's safe to use my camera. I don't think that's an unreasonable request. Especially considering the price tag.

I definitely don't want the sales people to be punished. It's not their fault. It's possible that they've never even seen this since you'd only have seen it if you set one up straight out of the box.

Why shouldn't they be entitled to use the product fully without being bound by the EULA? Unconscionability could be at play here.

Because contract law is a thing. OP can return the camera and get a different one, or they can agree to the usage terms.

What about the $30,000 sales contract by which OP reasonably expected to receive a functional camera, rather than a surprise additional contract containing unfavourable clauses?

One could argue that, unless there is a mechanism by which OP can make use the camera without agreeing to the unexpected contract, OP has been a victim of false advertising.

> One could argue that, unless there is a mechanism by which OP can make use the camera without agreeing to the unexpected contract, OP has been a victim of false advertising.

That seems unlikely. My layman's understanding is that you have to purchase the hardware and license the software, and the two are considered distinct items. The hardware is entirely capable of what was promised, but OP will either have to agree to the terms of the software or create their own.

That exists in a lot of markets. Phones are advertised running OS' that require EULA's, computers are marketed running OS' and apps that require other EULA's, etc. I think my car even has an EULA on it.

It feels bad when there realistically isn't an alternative like there are with phone or computer OS', but I don't think there's anything legally different.

This world where EULA's (and other one-sided "agreements") are treated just like contracts: Meeting of the minds between two equal-power parties, mutually understood and negotiated--needs to die. These things are take-it-or-leave-it law, unchangeable, non-negotiable, and dictated by some corporate counsel 1000 miles away. They should be all thrown out due to being unconscionable. If the US Supreme Court wasn't entirely captured by corporate interests this crap would have been scrapped long ago.

You don't have to license the software. Copyright law only regulates copying and redistribution, not use. Just because they say "this software is licensed, not sold" doesn't mean they're right (even if they are the software makers themselves)

Contract law requires payment. What's the payment for acceptance of this eula?

No it does not. Contract law only requires a meeting of the minds between two parties. (Whether there is any meeting of the minds here is debatable)

A "meeting of the minds" or "intention" is one of the elements that is required for a valid contract. But it's not the only one. (For example if two guys sit in a room and say "let's order a pizza" that is not a contract even though it does express an intention.)

You also need:

- an offer

- acceptance of that offer

- some sort of consideration, i.e. some exchange of value

- capacity (i.e. you can't contract with someone who is incapable of consenting)

- legality ("lets steal a car" is not a valid contract)

IANAL, but as I understand it, the parent is correct. Specifically, in contracts it is known as "consideration"; Googling this even gets you,

> Consideration in contracts refers to the benefit each party receives in exchange for what it gives up in the contract. It is a vital element that must be present in a contract in order to make it legally binding on the parties.

(though ofc., Google is also not a lawyer.)

There is no consideration here. (The purchase of the product is separate, or at least, ought to be, if these terms weren't considered by the buyer then. Otherwise, it's just bait & switch.)

My point is that the contract could be unconscionable

> or just got cold feet on your $30k purchase.

You are typically not entitled to a refund in this situation. Many companies will allow it under a goodwill return policy, but they are not legally obligated in most situations.

There is an implied warranty of merchantability. If a EULA wasn’t disclosed until post purchase and is required for operation then the product isn’t operable and they would have to return it or find a way to make it operable.

Your average store clerk will roll their eyes if you discuss this with them - you’d have to sue. For $30k it might be worth it, but most purchases it is not.

It's almost certain that the EULA is on the website

If I walk into a store and buy something and they never mention the surprise extra contractual terms I need to go looking for on the website, then those surprise extra contractual terms aren't part of the sales contract. He's entitled to a refund if the EULA terms were not disclosed to him before purchase, because he purchased a camera and it can't be used as a camera until he agrees to an additional contract.

I'm pretty sure I would be granted a refund if I asked for one. That being said, I'm not left with a lot of options after returning it because there aren't many comparable alternatives for this class of camera.

In fact, I don't know of even one camera that's as high quality without also being almost double the price. RED has a lot of leverage here.

Unless you need to shoot a lot of high frame (60fps+) rates I think there a lot of alternative options. There is incredible and award winning work made made with Sonys, Canons and Black Magic cameras and of course Arris. Producers and creative directors with big budgets love to get excited about Red cameras but most often the reality is they wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between footage from different manufacturers. I think Red is a bit of a status symbol at this point as all the competition has pretty much caught up.

I think you could spend 50% of the price on a c500ii or a FX9 and get 90% of quality. That leaves a lot of money on the table for a decent set of cinema glass.

Or you can get a used Alexa Mini for the same price as a Raptor.

I think you're also overlooking the fact of the sheer file size of RED video footage. It would take them hours or days to upload that video to their servers just to view it to see if it were worth using, and on top of that, no where in it's verbiage does it give them license to use or view your copyrighted work in any way.

If you find your work on their site or in their promos, they are in violation of copyright laws and are liable. No judge would stand behind such weak boilerplate to allow RED to steal artist's work with impunity.

I hate to say it, but you're far too worried about this. I understand the misgivings but the reality of the situation doesn't match your concern over the matter, or to put it another way, you're making mountains out of molehills.

You could buy a used one where someone else already pressed "agree" on the purported contract. Installable software is only able to push bullshit EULAs on the theory that the installation process involves making a copy, which they claim requires an explicit license to do. But using a device with already installed embedded software doesn't involve making any copies of the software, and thus you don't need a license - rather you're buying the installed copy under the first sale doctrine.

But ultimately this is an abstract debate, because the main point of EULAs is to disclaim legal liability for the company, as contrasted with creating it for the user. Even if you do manage to avoid entering into their bullshit contract, the company will do whatever it wants with your data, and it will be up to you to sue them. Part of that uphill battle will be proving you didn't assent to their bullshit.

So really, like always, an end user's protection is ultimately of a technical nature. If the camera (or accompanying desktop software) does not have Internet access, then there is no way for RED to backhaul your footage and there is no issue to be worried about. If the camera does have Internet access, then your data will easily leave your control, and that's the real flaw with the product to focus on!

> I'm pretty sure I would be granted a refund if I asked for one.

Good luck getting a full refund without some restocking fee subtracted. Something like 15% of $30,000 is... reaching outside of small claims court

In the EU, you can return any goods purchased online (not sure about in-store) within 14 days without providing a reason. It's a different process from asking for a refund though the company's return policy.

> I think you're entitled to return it for a full refund.

By law?

In the UK I'd say yes, the product isn't as described prior to sale. Major defects have to be brought to attention of potential buyers.

> I get the feeling that you want more than that

Like the GDPR? I'm not an expert on it, but I think it does forbid a few of the liberties RED has taken with this EULA.

That doesn’t help US citizens.