Comment by alibarber

Comment by alibarber a day ago

279 replies

I also discovered that I couldn't use my Canon SLR to record more than 30 minutes of video continuously.

The problem however wasn't Canon, but that I lived in a region (EU) that would have imposed a customs tariff on cameras that could do that, but by keeping it under that, the camera would be classed as a 'stills' camera and so was therefore exempt.

Admittedly this is different from the case in the article - but it would appear that owning something that could physically do what you want it to is only half the battle for numerous reasons, and in this case it would have been my government demanding extra money to 'unlock' this functionality.

halgir a day ago

Reminds me of when lawyers successfully argued that X-Men are not human, so that their action figures would be classified as "toys" rather than "dolls" and thus charged a lower tariff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toy_Biz%2C_Inc._v._United_Stat...

  • walthamstow 19 hours ago

    Hoo boy we have some classics in that category in the UK.

    My personal fave is when morning TV host Lorraine Kelly successfully argued she wasn’t hosting as herself but acting a character called Lorraine Kelly, with very favourable tax consequences.

    • seanhunter 15 hours ago

      There was also the famous decision in the Jaffa Cake case where the VAT treatment depended on whether or not a Jaffa cake was a cake or a biscuit https://standrewseconomist.com/2023/12/31/let-them-eat-cake-...

      The tribunal decided that Jaffa Cakes were cakes because when they go stale they go hard like a cake whereas a biscuit tends to go soft when it goes stale.

      • ryao 15 hours ago

        I remember hearing about this because the one who wanted it classified as a biscuit proposed the test that determined it was a cake. That is the sole reason I remember this story.

      • walthamstow 13 hours ago

        There’s another one about Walkers taste sensations poppadom snacks. Question was, is it a crisp or not? Can’t remember the outcome

    • eitally 18 hours ago

      This is akin to Fox News arguing in court that it is, in fact, entertainment and not news, despite it's name.

      • thunky 17 hours ago

        It's true though. All cable news is "entertainment news", not "news".

        Nobody should have been getting their "news" from Tucker Carlson, Don Lemon, or Rachel Maddow.

        IMO they shouldn't be allowed to call themselves news without putting entertainment in front.

      • _n_b_ 17 hours ago

        What Fox News argued was a bit more nuanced than that all of Fox News isn't news. Rather, "Fox successfully argued that one particular segment on Tucker Carlson’s show could only be reasonably interpreted as making political arguments, not making factual assertions, and therefore couldn’t be defamation."[1]

        That feels like a fairly reasonable assertion for anybody watching Tucker Carlson.

        [1] https://popehat.substack.com/p/fox-news-v-fox-entertainment-...

      • TeMPOraL 13 hours ago

        Isn't it also how, many years ago, Top Gear got away with a hit job on Tesla by claiming they're just an entertainment show, so they're not obligated to do honest or truthful reviews?

    • Corrado 19 hours ago

      I think Steven Colbert hosted a show using himself as the host. I’m not sure about the tax implications though.

      • gwbas1c 18 hours ago

        And then when he tried using the "Steven Colbert" character on a different show, Comedy Central threatened him because Steven Colbert does not have rights to the "Steven Colbert" character.

      • technothrasher 18 hours ago

        I'm pretty sure that was Chuck Noblet pretending to be Steven Colbert.

      • DFHippie 18 hours ago

        If there were any tax implications, they were incidental. The show was parody, so the opinions he espoused in character were necessarily ones he didn't actually hold.

    • panzi 17 hours ago

      I'm not from the UK, but wasn't there also a cake Vs biscuits thing for tax reasons?

    • immibis 18 hours ago

      Alex Jones argued this, with the obvious implication, that whoever buys Infowars also owns the character of Alex Jones, and Alex Jones cannot play Alex Jones any more without infringing their copyright. (But I suspect this incoming government doesn't care to apply logical consistency to his case)

    • FireBeyond 12 hours ago

      I had a friend that argued that Marshall Mathers (Eminem) could never actually be sued for defamation because most of the defamatory things "he" said wasn't actually him saying it, but Slim Shady.

      Hah.

  • huhtenberg a day ago

    There's also Converse that adds a piece of cloth to the soles of their sneakers to be able to classify them as slippers for "taxation purposes".

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/this-is-why-your-c...

    • breakingcups 17 hours ago

      Wonder if you could either sue them for delivering an insufficient product (it does not function as a slipper under the definition for longer than a day after walking) or keep returning them under warranty.

  • Pawka a day ago

    Sounds insane. But what is more surprising to me - is why dolls were taxed differently than other toys. At first glance, it looks like stupid rules force to play silly games.

    • soco 21 hours ago

      Some trade war from the XIX century or something? Or maybe because dolls were historically thought for girls?

      • RobotToaster 15 hours ago

        Possibly, bisque and china dolls were often imported from Germany.

    • pkphilip 19 hours ago

      In India, the pizza base has a different tax rate than the topping and so some restaurants will have two separate lines on your pizza bill - one for the base at 5% tax and another for the topping at 18% tax.

      The tax on popcorn is also totally crazy. "Unpackaged and unlabelled popcorn with salt and spices is categorised as 'namkeen' and taxed at 5%. Pre-packed and labelled ready-to-eat popcorn attracts a 12% GST rate. Caramelized popcorn with added sugar is taxed at a higher rate of 18%."

      • xandrius 19 hours ago

        All those make sense and are pretty common: bread is taxed lower than most pizza toppings.

        Raw ingredients are taxed less than ready-to-eat or sugar-coated ultra-processed good. And I'm totally ok with that.

      • dTal 17 hours ago

        The pizza thing seemed incredibly silly to me. Surely the restaurant has already paid the tax when they bought the raw ingredients? Must any product served in a restaurant be taxed according to the rate of the most highly taxed ingredient in it, regardless of proportion?

        So I looked it up. And yes, that is exactly the case, and it's an absurd situation that is causing massive headaches.

        https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-63281037

      • lazide 19 hours ago

        Luxury vs premium vs ‘esssential’ at work eh?

    • liontwist a day ago

      This. It’s a pretty reasonable answer to a stupid question. Dolls depict people.

    • RugnirViking 19 hours ago

      did you get a second glance? did you figure out why they are taxed differently?

  • rsynnott 21 hours ago

    This sort of thing happens relatively often; Sony also tried (unsuccessfully) to have the PS2 deemed a personal computer (which would have lead to 0 tariffs in the EU): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yabasic#PlayStation_2

    • theshrike79 21 hours ago

      IIRC the PS3 Linux option existed because of this same tariff.

    • ToucanLoucan 18 hours ago

      I often wonder what the ROI is on this. How much did Sony have to pay engineers to implement this interesting but seemingly pretty useless functionality vs. what it actually saved them in the aforementioned tariffs? I know the knee jerk reaction is to say it obviously saved them some money or they wouldn't have done it, but I've seen far too much corporate stupidity in my life to take that as a given. I'd love to see the data.

      • rsynnott 18 hours ago

        Well, in the end it didn't save them anything, because the EC didn't accept that having a toy basic interpreter made what was obviously a games console a PC. I can't imagine it was terribly expensive in the scheme of things, though.

      • pwg 17 hours ago

        When you ship millions of units of the kit, you only need a small savings per unit for the sum total to become a big enough saving to be noticeable to the financial dept. bean counters.

      • PetitPrince 18 hours ago

        Maybe it was just a passion project for the engineers or even Ken Kutaragi ? See also Net Yarose, Linux For Playstation 2, Other OS & Yellow Dog Linux for Playstation 3.

        • spookie 18 hours ago

          For sure, they had very interesting architectures. Used even in supercomputers as a number of them in parallel

  • magicalhippo 20 hours ago

    Or when the makers of Jaffa Cakes baked a giant 12 inch version[1] and brought it to the court to argue they were cakes and not biscuits to get lower VAT.

    [1]: https://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2015/10/time-compan...

    • petepete 19 hours ago

      I wish supermarkets would put them on the cake aisle instead and keep the biscuit aisle pure.

  • tommica 21 hours ago

    Which is fucking hilarious when you think that a lot of xmen storyline is about them wanting to be perceived as humans

    • rickdeckard 19 hours ago

      Which legally probably also makes it a fairy tale

      "It's a nice story and the court won't prevent you from telling it, but legally these beings in that story are clearly NOT humans"

      Hilarious.

    • [removed] 20 hours ago
      [deleted]
    • recursive 15 hours ago

      Pretty much fits. It probably wouldn't be such an issue if they were just human.

    • marcosdumay 17 hours ago

      And also, they are an "on your face" depiction of the dehumanization of the Holocaust victims...

      • alasdair_ 10 hours ago

        And Professor X is Martin Luthor King and Magneto is Malcolm X.

      • JBiserkov 15 hours ago

        Whoa, whoa, wait a minute! I can't have POLITICS in my comics, my comics are apolitical, there's good guys and bad guys, and it's always clear who the bad guys are - those that are not [like] me! /s

  • lmm 21 hours ago

    Sounds like Ford putting seats in the back of their vans so they could pay less tax when importing them from Mexico, then removing them before they're sold. Looks like they've now been fined, but they got away with it for a while.

  • Ntrails 20 hours ago

    A bunch of fun articles around these areas in the UK (free to read, think you might need an account though - apologies). Two food and one toy:

    https://www.ft.com/content/5af5b182-349a-4a25-b4fb-4551908f2...

    https://www.ft.com/content/a6a54008-6059-4052-99ae-282f148f2...

    https://www.ft.com/content/a8d6413e-1184-4f89-9bcb-4f6cb8d7a...

  • panosfilianos 19 hours ago

    I wonder if there is any place where one can look up all these sort of creative legal-tax shenanigan stories. They are so fun and such an interesting lens to see what _is_ via this interlinked, case-specific web of events.

  • steveBK123 20 hours ago

    When Trump set a tariff on German optics because he was mad at Germany, Leica had a workaround as well.

    Most of their equipment is made in Portugal and finished in Germany, with whatever WTO agreed % of value added that allows them to stamp "Made In Germany" on the goods.

    So for US markets they issues a series of lenses that were more fully finished in the Portuguese factory such that they could be stamped "Made In Portugal".

  • meitham 20 hours ago

    The tax system is over complicated! Why the distinction between toys and dolls?

  • K0balt 21 hours ago

    Or my shirt that has a tiny, useless pocket on the inside of my shirt (down where it might often be tucked inside of your waistband.) It has a tag with a picture of sunglasses on it, and a reasonably sized pair of sunglasses might just tenuously perch inside.

    This makes it a jacket, and jackets are taxed at a lower rate than shirts.

    The same shenanigans more or less work for most types of taxation. There’s always an angle to reduce or even eliminate taxes, unless you work on salary or for wages. It’s clear who the system is built for lol.

    • indymike 19 hours ago

      You ought to see the magic they do when coding medical procedures for billing in the US. It makes these tax shenanigans look simple.

    • redox99 21 hours ago

      Why would jackets even be taxed differently than shirts. It's so silly.

      • ramses0 19 hours ago

        5% of a $100 jacket is $5

        15% of a $33 shirt is $5

        5% of a $33 jacket is $1.65

        ...it's definitely gamesmanship but if you squint you can see where it comes from.

      • lazide 19 hours ago

        Freezing to death is worse than looking nice?

      • wruza 17 hours ago

        It’s a silly world where people who never worked send people who only worked as mobsters to take money from people who work for a living. Then the first two groups share that money in 999999:1 proportion. They call it “taxation”.

        It has upsides like having an army for defense, roads and other common things. But don’t forget the primary nature and motivation behind it. They just want your money, and your offspring to please them in various ways.

    • rtkwe 15 hours ago

      I don't think I've ever seen that on any of my shirts here in the US. Is this in the US?

  • moomin 17 hours ago

    In universe, arguing the X-Men are not human would put you firmly in the villain category.

    • woodrowbarlow 17 hours ago

      exactly, that was core to the whole plot; oppressed mutants fighting to have their basic human rights recognized.

      • TeMPOraL 13 hours ago

        So it turns out that the final boss denying mutants their humanity are... the tax authorities.

    • JBiserkov 17 hours ago

      Capitalists? in the villain category? Impossible!

  • reverendsteveii 15 hours ago

    This has interesting implications for the Marvel canon, as the conflict between average humans and mutants is a primary plot driver for x-men

  • autoexec 14 hours ago

    > Reminds me of when lawyers successfully argued that X-Men are not human

    Isn't that true though?

bayindirh a day ago

That requirement is reversed in the last five years IIRC. My Sony A7-III doesn't have that, for example. Neither modern Canons, AFAIK.

The funnier thing is, you can't use the videos out of your camera for commercial purposes, because the video codecs inside your camera doesn't come with commercial licenses out of the box.

So if you are going to use your camera for production which you'll earn money, you need to pay commercial licenses for your cameras.

Hah.

  • Springtime 21 hours ago

    > The funnier thing is, you can't use the videos out of your camera for commercial purposes, because the video codecs inside your camera doesn't come with commercial licenses out of the box.

    Do you have a link? Could only find a 2010 article[1] that appears to have been debunked by MPEG-LA themselves (per the updates in the blog post).

    [1] https://www.osnews.com/story/23236/why-our-civilizations-vid...

    • bayindirh 21 hours ago

      Of course. Below a selection of some user manuals, with the texts copied verbatim.

      From Nikon D500 User Manual [0], page 22:

      From Nikon Z6/Z7 User Manual [1], page 236:

      Sony has a similar note for A9 [3], but can be grouped under here, which is almost the same:

      AVC Patent Portfolio License: THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED UNDER THE AVC PATENT PORTFOLIO LICENSE FOR THE PERSONAL AND NON - COMMERCIAL USE OF A CONSUMER TO (i) ENCODE VIDEO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AVC STANDARD (“AVC VIDEO”) AND/ OR (ii) DECODE AVC VIDEO THAT WAS ENCODED BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL AND NON - COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AND / OR WAS OBTAINED FROM A VIDEO PROVIDER LICENSED TO PROVIDE AVC VIDEO. NO LICENSE IS GRANTED OR SHALL BE IMPLIED FOR ANY OTHER USE. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED FROM MPEG LA, L.L.C. S EE http://www.mpegla.com

      From Canon R5 User Manual [2], page 939:

      “This product is licensed under AT&T patents for the MPEG-4 standard and may be used for encoding MPEG-4 compliant video and/or decoding MPEG-4 compliant video that was encoded only (1) for a personal and non-commercial purpose or (2) by a video provider licensed under the AT&T patents to provide MPEG-4 compliant video. No license is granted or implied for any other use for MPEG-4 standard.”

      THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED UNDER THE AVC PATENT PORTFOLIO LICENSE FOR THE PERSONAL USE OF A CONSUMER OR OTHER USES IN WHICH IT DOES NOT RECEIVE REMUNERATION TO (i) ENCODE VIDEO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AVC STANDARD (''AVC VIDEO'') AND/OR (ii) DECODE AVC VIDEO THAT WAS ENCODED BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL ACTIVITY AND/OR WAS OBTAINED FROM A VIDEO PROVIDER LICENSED TO PROVIDE AVC VIDEO. NO LICENSE IS GRANTED OR SHALL BE IMPLIED FOR ANY OTHER USE. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED FROM MPEG LA, L.L.C. SEE HTTP://WWW.MPEGLA.COM

      [0]: https://download.nikonimglib.com/archive3/4qUKV00WD5Bh04RdeC...

      [1]:https://download.nikonimglib.com/archive5/8Yygr00R9Ojb058Kwq...

      [2]: https://cam.start.canon/en/C003/manual/c003.pdf

      [3]: https://helpguide.sony.net/ilc/1830/v1/en/contents/TP0002351...

      • Springtime 20 hours ago

        Thanks. Yeah that seems to be the same AVC/h.264 'personal and non-commercial' text the 2010 article I linked centered on. MPEG-LA spoke to Engadget[1] (finally found a working link I could read) and said that a separate license for shooting commerical video isn't required and that distribution of commercial content via licensed providers (Google/Youtube, Apple, etc) is fine.

        It seems the one caveat, per the Engadget article, is directly distributing AVC video to end users (I suppose like a direct download link on a personal site) is what requires a license but that license is free to obtain.

        [1] https://www.engadget.com/2010-05-04-know-your-rights-h-264-p...

      • LegitShady 17 hours ago

        I wonder what the commercial licenses actually cost. I know there was a big movement of shooting movies and events with canons when good video on dslrs first became a thing. I never even thought about codec licenses, because that stuff shouldn't exist. the manufacturer should buy the license so the camera can use it forever, because its just a paperweight without it, and I dont think they should be able to sell cameras with hidden text licenses like that.

        • ska 15 hours ago

          This is a problem with 'prosumer' gear in general. If camera manufactures bought a transferable commercial license for everything in it, it would be too expense for consumer use, but the people licensing IP to them want a piece if you are making money with it.

          Similar to software that is free or low cost for non-commercial use only, even with the same functionality.

          The good news is typically nobody will chase you down on this unless you are making real money. The bad news is, once you are, they will.

  • nudgeee a day ago

    Hilarious. Reminds me of Pioneer CDJs as well, even on the flagship CDJ-3000 models. If you read the user manual it says:

    > About using MP3 files

    > This product has been licensed for nonprofit use. This product has not been licensed for commercial purposes (for profit-making use), […]. You need to acquire the corresponding licenses for such uses. For details, see […]

    Best use an open audio codec instead.

    • Dwedit a day ago

      Nowadays, MP3 is an open audio codec. The patents have expired.

      • MrDOS 20 hours ago

        The format itself is patent-unencumbered. That doesn't mean I couldn't still write a non-free decoder and license it to Pioneer for use in their CDJs. Due to organizational inertia, I suspect that's what's going on here (e.g., they licensed a decoder from Fraunhofer or another commercial implementer twenty years ago, and have been using the same one since).

        • immibis 18 hours ago

          In this case, everyone at Pioneer knows their CDJs are used almost exclusively for commercial purposes, and perhaps they couldn't get away with lying about it in the fine print.

    • troupo 20 hours ago

      > Best use an open audio codec instead.

      You will still need a separate license (or multiple separate licenses) for commercial purposes.

      Music licensing is unbelievably complicated

      • t0mas88 19 hours ago

        That's about the music royalties, the comment above is about the CDJs ability to play MP3 encoded audio.

  • mongol 21 hours ago

    Do you need to sign an agreement to this effect before starting filming? I don't see how it can legally hold.

    • bayindirh 20 hours ago

      Nominally, yes. These are checked before your movie is being distributed, and you'll most probably face legal consequences if you don't pay for your licenses.

      Not getting caught for some time doesn't count either. You'll pay retroactively, with some interest, probably.

      Licensing page is at [0]. Considering the previous shenanigans they pulled against open video and audio formats in the past [1], these guys are not sleeping around. These guys call people for patent pools in a format, and license these pools as format licenses.

      [0]: https://www.via-la.com/licensing-2/avc-h-264/avc-h-264-licen...

      [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG_LA#Criticism

      • hackingonempty 20 hours ago

        If you bought a legit licensed product the doctrine of first sale means their patent rights are exhausted.[0] They can't come after you for patent infringement. Those licenses are for manufacturers making new licensed products, not users of licensed products they purchased.

        Can you show a single court case or even a press release where someone using a legit licensed product bought on the open market was sued for codec patent infringement?

        [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_doctrine_under_U.S....

      • matt-p 19 hours ago

        Presumably there's no way of fingerprinting the footage itself as 'unlicenced' so the closest they get is asking the studio what camera serials they used to film.

        What about if you're a YouTuber, surely they don't pay?

  • BeFlatXIII 18 hours ago

    We need to normalize piracy like we're cheap Chinese knockoff manufacturers. Down with software patents.

  • [removed] 16 hours ago
    [deleted]
  • amelius a day ago

    That's fine, as long as I can record long movies with my iPhone.

    • alibarber a day ago

      But is it a phone that records movies or a movie recorder that can make phone calls?

      [I jest, but these were almost literally the questions being asked by various commissions]

  • xyst 17 hours ago

    Wipe the EXIF data on the images when you make it public and nobody will be the wiser ;)

    • bayindirh 15 hours ago

      I’m not sure. Like how color printers write their serial numbers and date and whatnot on every page, these devices might be watermarking every video subtly, and we might not know it.

      • ComputerGuru 15 hours ago

        It’s not exactly watermarking; each encoder works in a different way and it’s readily possible to determine (for one versed in such matters) which encoder was used to generate a video by inspecting the structure of the raw (eg h264) bitstream. This might not work reliably enough for simpler codecs like JPEG but for something as complicated as modern video codec where there are a million ways to generate a compatible payload it is as unique as a fingerprint.

WithinReason a day ago

If your camera is compatible with magiclantern you could lift that limit and add some really cool features:

https://www.magiclantern.fm/

  • ComputerGuru 15 hours ago

    I’ve come across this before and think it’s brilliant. Are you aware of any comparable firmware for Nikon users (not that I really have any complaints about what Nikon has provided, but this is likely a case of not knowing what I’m missing out on)?

    • WithinReason 15 hours ago

      I'm not, and that's the reason why I went Canon. There is also CHDK for cheaper Canon cameras. Canon seems to be less litigous when it comes to hacking their firmware.

umanwizard a day ago

This vaguely reminds me of the fact that in many countries, pure ethanol sold for industrial purposes is intentionally made poisonous, so you can’t drink it and thus merchants don’t have to charge the taxes on it that they would for spirits.

  • ivan_gammel a day ago

    It's more like "so you can't drink it" without the taxes part. Those taxes play important role in reducing alcohol consumption (though they are of course not the only tool), so making cheap ethanol poisonous and with different color closes the loophole in healthcare policy rather than opens a loophole in taxation.

    E.g. study: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3860576/

    • 15155 20 hours ago

      Every legal allowance I disagree with is a "loophole", every legal allowance I take advantage of is intended functionality.

      • poincaredisk 20 hours ago

        I think if it's working as intended and as designed then it's hard to call it a loophole. Loophole would be when dying your spirit purple would change the taxation, because someone codified the color of alcohol instead of it's content.

        But of course as you say it's largely semantics.

    • jrockway 17 hours ago

      > making cheap ethanol poisonous and with different color closes the loophole in healthcare policy

      I have never seen this as anything other than the death penalty for evading taxes. If the tax were designed to reduce consumption across the population, it needs to scale with income or net worth. Otherwise, it's just a tax on the poor.

    • umanwizard a day ago

      I’m not sure how this is different from what I’m saying?

      • contrast 20 hours ago

        The thread is about bad things because of tax policy, your post is about a good thing because of health policy - but you don’t say it’s a good thing, or that it’s about heath not taxes.

        The post pointing this out has different content to yours, which reads as if your meaning is “this reminds me of another bad thing caused by tax policies” - even if that’s not what you meant.

    • amelius a day ago

      Couldn't they just make it taste bad, for safety's sake?

      • jampekka 21 hours ago

        In some countries it's done so and poisoning is banned. E.g. Finland and Poland got an exemption from the EU to do this because so many people died from the poisonings.

      • chongli 19 hours ago

        Chinese cooking wines avoid alcohol taxes by adding salt. The salt is useful as a seasoning for food but makes the wine undrinkable!

      • weberer 20 hours ago

        That doesn't seem to stop people from drinking IPAs.

      • beAbU 20 hours ago

        Addiction is one helluva motivator, and some people will put up with horrible tasting stuff as long as it's a cheap high.

      • apricot 18 hours ago

        Chicago does it: https://malort.com/

        • depressedpanda 17 hours ago

          Cute, didn't know it was a thing in Chicago!

          I suppose wormwood is an acquired taste, but it's one I happen to like. They still put it in many different bitters here in Sweden.

      • umanwizard a day ago

        In some countries that is allowed, but in others it has to actually be poisonous.

  • beAbU 20 hours ago

    I heat my house with oil, a truck comes every couple of months and fills a massive tank in my back yard.

    This "oil" is basically diesel. It smells and feels identical to diesel. But it's about 70 cents cheaper per litre compared to road diesel. It's dyed red, and you are not supposed to put it in your car, but I reckon it'll be more than fine for older diesel engines.

    The red diesel is not taxed like road diesel, and is much cheaper.

    • extraduder_ire 19 hours ago

      Here, that's commonly called red diesel (despite them changing to green decades ago) and it's sold for agricultural use. There are a number of cross border smuggling operations where criminals remove the dye and resell it for somewhere between the two prices.

      Though primarily done to trucks, there are occasional fuel tests done by police. Even if your tank is currently clean, they'll occasionally pull out the fuel filters and check those for dye.

    • kotaKat 19 hours ago

      > I reckon it'll be more than fine for older diesel engines

      There's always the risk of getting your fuel tank dipped if you're on road. Moreso for trucks, but some jurisdictions will set up inspections and check for dyed fuel and tear you an absolute new one when they catch it.

      • bluGill 17 hours ago

        The exit of off road events is a common place to check this. So much so that there is a reputation in the off road community and now they don't even need to check often anymore since nobody is stupid enough to risk driving a truck that has ever had off road fuel in it there.

jcarrano 18 hours ago

In Germany, all storage products (e.g. USB sticks) have to pay a canon "because you could use it to pirate media". Now, if I pre-paid the canon for pirating, does it mean I'm authorized to?

  • hyperman1 13 hours ago

    In Belgium, the same tax is raised by Auvibel for private copying. It allows us, in theory, to make copies of everything (except sheet music) that we acquired legally, even if we don't have access to the original anymore. So lending anything from a library or a friend, and making and keeping a copy is fair game.

    Still not a fan, and probably the EUCD makes most of this useless.

  • Falos 10 hours ago

    You're expected to! I think we could even calculate exactly how much.

spuz 21 hours ago

Funnily enough, I have actually used the 30 minute limit as a "feature" on my Panasonic Lumix G80 (the cousin to the unrestricted G85) as sometimes I would want to set up my camera and leave it recording for 20-30 minutes while I walked away to do things but wouldn't physically be able to return to switch it off. It would save me battery and SD card space because it automatically stops after 30 minutes.

shultays a day ago

Sometimes there are hidden menus or settings that might allow you to toggle those features. I used to work on TVs and we had a secret menu that toggles various features. Some of those features would be disabled for specific countries (mainly for patents)

jorvi a day ago

That sounds like a relic left over from a bygone era. Like the digital storage levy we still pay despite music and movie piracy only being rampant from 1990s-2000s :)

I love the EU but it certainly has its idiosyncrasies.

  • rsynnott 21 hours ago

    More or less all tariffs and sales tax systems are like this; the rules are _always_ kind of all over the place.

    My personal favourite example is when the Irish Supreme Court determined that Subway bread was not bread: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/01/irish-court-ru... (Bread had advantageous treatment for VAT purposes, but Subway's 'bread' has too much sugar to qualify.)

    There's also the famous Jaffa Cake case, of course: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa_Cakes#Legal_status , but I think the Subway one has an extra element of absurdity because it went all the way to the _Supreme Court_.

    • TRiG_Ireland 19 hours ago

      Importantly, Subway bread is not bread for tax purposes. For food standards purposes, it is.

    • hulitu 20 hours ago

      > My personal favourite example is when the Irish Supreme Court determined that Subway bread was not bread

      Because it is not. Cola is not water either.

  • dingdingdang 21 hours ago

    > I love the EU but it certainly has its idiosyncrasies.

    That is an acceptable position and you will likely nor require further investigation as long as the criticism remains vague and is offset by positive sentiment. I too love the EU.

    • dnh44 19 hours ago

      I have a family member of retirement age who got into the habit of anonymously expressing their love of the EU in the comments section of a local newspaper.

      After a few months of this they received a phone call on their landline warning them that such public expressions are inappropriate and that there could be consequences should they not find a new hobby.

      I too love the EU but I loved it much more 15 years ago.

      • bluGill 17 hours ago

        If this story is true then I'm suddenly in favor of brexit while before I thought it was worse for everyone. Of course I live in the US and so my opinion should be of zero interest on anyway. Still if you live in the EU I would hope you are concerned.

      • lazide 19 hours ago

        Someone at the newspaper, or someone in state security?

      • throw94838211 17 hours ago

        What is this load of BS, nobody from the EU called because of facebook comments, your family member lied.

        • dnh44 16 hours ago

          I never said someone from the EU called, we think it was someone from the national government. Or it could just be someone from the newspaper who knows someone at the telecom company and they decided to have a laugh.

  • aredox 21 hours ago

    The very raison-d'être of the EU is to remove all tarriffs between 20+ countries.

    Without the EU, there would be a worse patchwork of rules and exceptions.

    • hylaride 17 hours ago

      Patchworks of rules and exceptions can be beneficial. It allows for experimentation and/or competition as well as the fact that regulations can often enough not keep up with change and they can be more entrenched if done at a higher level. Where, when, and what is better harmonized across a whole market VS allowing variation is a matter of debate.

    • [removed] 20 hours ago
      [deleted]
  • fmbb a day ago

    > I love the EU but it certainly has its idiosyncrasies.

    This issue does not appear weird.

    There is some legally technical difference between a video camera and a still photo camera. Probably different tariffs or something. Not weird at all and it is not uncommon anywhere in the world for different classes och products to be classified differently, infallibly because of industry lobbyism to reduce their costs or to reduce their prices for their specific product.

    The manufacturer chose to limit the product for the consumer for their own economic benefit. Nothing is stopping them from playing ball except their own profit motive.

    • alibarber a day ago

      So American and Asian consumers can pay the same price for the same device that can do more, but to protect me, the European, my device must do less?

      It is I the customer who will pay the tariffs (they are always paid by the importer) - the manufacturer gets the same amount per unit.

      • Certhas 21 hours ago

        All countries have tariffs. All tariff systems classify goods in some way. On top of the fact that this is by necessity not ever absolutely accurate even initially, these classifications also lag technological development and consumer behaviour.

        If there is one thing the EU has absolutely achieved it is to massively reduce and harmonize tariffs and trade rules, and make the rules less susceptible to the whims of political favor and lobbying of local industry.

      • master-lincoln 21 hours ago

        > but to protect me, the European, my device must do less?

        No, I think it's to protect the European producer of devices that can do more from being out-competed by imports.

  • _fizz_buzz_ 19 hours ago

    > I love the EU but it certainly has its idiosyncrasies.

    Tariffs around the world have weird stuff like that. Very little to do with the EU itself. Expect a lot more weird things like that to happen in the US now with the new US government implementing new tariffs.

  • c120 a day ago

    This levy is not meant for piracy, but for legal access - like copying the CDs you already bought to your phone. Compared to what we used to pay on blank media it's not so bad. If the alternative is that you are not allowed to keep private copies of anything...

    • vasco a day ago

      I reject this view of the law completely at least in Portugal. The law was introduced to add a tax to every storage media one can purchase with the premise that a percentage of that storage media will be used for what they call piracy. This in effect means everyone is assumed to be breaking the law in advance and paying for it in advance.

      As for your point about alternatives, if they add a tax on oxygen you breathe, will you also then say "it's not so bad if the alternative is you are not allowed to breathe at all"?

      • cfn 18 hours ago

        And the funniest part is that when you buy from Amazon (ES, DE, etc) that tax is not applied further hurting the local shops.

    • JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B 20 hours ago

      > This levy is not meant for piracy, but for legal access

      Backups are already legal in France. It’s pure greed. Why should we pay twice? Also this levy goes to major labels, why should I fund the local Taylor Swift if I want to backup my computer?

      > blank media

      But we still pay that levy on blank media, phones, tablets, computers, hard drives, and USB keys. They even wanted to put that tax on refurbished items.

      > the alternative is that you are not allowed

      But it was already legal for the past 50 years. They added this tax, it’s not a gift for us, it’s yet another restriction on what was previously legal.

    • sam_lowry_ a day ago

      > If the alternative is that you are not allowed to keep private copies of anything

      The alternative is that we download torrents pretty much everywhere except Germany which developed a private industry of lawyers extracting money from leachers and seeders alike.

      Germans instead have VPNs set up in Poland or Ukraine and use their streaming websites.

    • ErneX a day ago

      In Spain every device you buy that has some kind of storage is taxed for piracy, the money goes to the local equivalent of the RIIA or book editors associations.

      • JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B 20 hours ago

        Same in France where the money goes to the local RIAA. Even if it’s a hard drive meant for Linux, or to store public domain stuff. It’s basically a mafia that gets our money despite copying for backup purposes being completely legal.

    • jampekka 21 hours ago

      > If the alternative is that you are not allowed to keep private copies of anything...

      That's of course not the only alternative. But the recording media levy isn't that bad at least in Finland. The income from those is distributed directly to authors and artists, skipping the labels and publishers altogether.

    • stavros 21 hours ago

      The alternative should be that you can backup the stuff you own for free.

  • mixmastamyk 12 hours ago

    > music and movie piracy only being rampant from 1990s-2000s

    Huh? It may have dipped at the time Netflix had everything streamable, but there's been a resurgence in the now years since it hasn't.

vr46 20 hours ago

It may have been a customs and taxation issue here, but manufacturers are constantly adding costs of their own onto software before often reversing track.

Examples: Leica (for Fotos) charged a princely sum for various trifles before removing these fees.

Naim: charged £35 for the control app - which I paid - before going free, and now the app is the only way to control whole swathes of their increasingly-execrable hardware.

These two companies’ kit is expensive, luxury, premium, however you want to refer to it, and so they probably felt comfortable wringing their customers a little more. Probably understandable in the case of Leica owners who will pay £250 for a viewfinder dioptre correction lens (puts hand up again) but less so for hifi owners.

It is not that audiophiles haven’t been shown to spent inordinate sums on the dumbest, snakiest, oiliest tat this side of an Oxford Street souvenir shop, but it has to be material and palpable.

  • chefandy 20 hours ago

    It’s somewhat subjective, but I disagree it’s easier to fleece photographers than audiophiles. There are professional art photographers that use Leica cameras because they’re great, and $250 is pocket change for a lot of serious optical equipment. Look at the Canon L lenses and the like. Lots of people that buy that stuff don’t need it, but it’s not expensive solely for the sake of being expensive.

    I have yet to find a professional sound engineer, producer, or artist that calls themself an audiophile or uses the insanely overpriced gear marketed to them. Lots of that stuff is demonstrably bullshit and only valuable because it’s expensive.

jandrese 13 hours ago

That tariff difference between "video" and "stills" cameras having a 30 minute cutoff is funny. If you think about the vast majority of the time when shooting moving video with a handheld or tripod mounted camera it does not involve 30+ minute long continuous takes. You could have a professional movie camera with that restriction and it wouldn't be a problem in the vast majority of cases.

So the restriction ends up being between things like security cameras, vtc cameras, and traffic cameras vs all other times of cameras. The relatively shitty camera in a doorbell or on your dashboard end up being more expensive to import than the fancy DSLR just because it is used in a different application.

p0w3n3d 19 hours ago

There was a custom ROM for canon available quite a few years ago... Now all I can find is https://www.magiclantern.fm/ but I believe the previous one was called CHDK or something like that

  • p0w3n3d 19 hours ago

    Got it only in German here: https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_Hack_Development_Kit and on fandom.wiki there's a page ... But I used it like hundreds of years ago so not sure if it still works...

    • ElizabethGreene 17 hours ago

      CHDK is what came to mind for me too. I used to make great time lapses with it. 10/10 software.

      It looks like they have firmware for the G5 X, but not the G5 X 2. :/

  • plorg 18 hours ago

    From my memory CHDK was a project for Canon's consumer/point-and-shoot cameras, and Magic Lantern is for the DSLRs.

sombragris 13 hours ago

There's the well-known case of Spain in 1985, that would impose a tariff on computers with 64 KB RAM or less. At that time, Amstrad launched the CPC 464 with 64KB worldwide, but for Spain launched the special model CPC 472, wich had a daughter board with an additional 8Kb chip not connected to the main RAM and thus unusable, but enough for circumventing the tariff. That tariff was short-lived.

liotier 21 hours ago

> I couldn't use my Canon SLR to record more than 30 minutes of video continuously

Large sensors optimized for still photography overheat when operating continuously for video, so they feature safety limits. Sensor heat dissipation is a big problem and a major differentiating feature of top end cinema cameras.

  • ansgri 13 hours ago

    My Sony doesn’t have this length limit, but will readily overheat and turn off after several minutes of highest-bitrate recording. So no, overheating is trivially protected against via temperature sensors, not some arbitrary timeout.

petecooper 18 hours ago

>I also discovered that I couldn't use my Canon SLR to record more than 30 minutes of video continuously.

My (now ancient) Canon 5D mk2 is limited to ~28 minutes of video due to file system limitations.

  • ComputerGuru 15 hours ago

    Is the limitation the same regardless of quality, format, frame rate, etc? That would make me suspicious.

ChrisMarshallNY 20 hours ago

I think the time limit is because of the way the imports are classified.

I believe that under 30 minutes, allows it to be a digicam, but over, requires it to be classified as a video camera.

Most pros generally take scenes as groups of short runs, so that doesn't matter (Canon is used extensively in professional entertainment).

Angostura 21 hours ago

I seem to recall that there is a special button sequence you can use on Canon cameras that disabled the restriction. It’s. Been many years, but Google should have something for your model.

pc86 17 hours ago

One of the obvious "wtf?" things about this regulation is that regulators believe 29 minutes of video doesn't qualify as video?

kjkjadksj 11 hours ago

This happens even outside electronics and software. I ordered some tevas recently to replace my old ones and discovered they now have a light felt layer over the rubber bottom. If I had to guess its like the converse reason of adding a similar felt layer: to classify them as slippers.

tobyhinloopen a day ago

It would likely overheat anyway hah. Old Sony cameras have the same restrictions.

  • sam_lowry_ a day ago

    No, this is not the reason. If the camera records video for more than 30min, then it is a video camera, see the question answered here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34640107

    In short, there is no good reason anymore, but originally this was because of EU import tarifs.

    • the-grump a day ago

      GP didn’t claim that’s not the reason. They’re making a joke that if the camera kept recording past 30min, it would overheat.

      It’s a joke.

      • sam_lowry_ a day ago

        It's not a joke, older DSLR cameras would often overheat when recording continuously. My good old Canon 6D would overheat once in a while when used as a webcam with v4l2loopback.

        • randerson 18 hours ago

          Even as recently as the Canon R5 Mark I mirrorless camera (which you can still buy new), overheats within 15 minutes if you're recording 8K30 or 4K120.

      • tobyhinloopen a day ago

        It's a joke, but it's also the truth. Many cameras won't even get to 30 minutes before overheating.

      • tartoran 18 hours ago

        IT's not a joke. When filming for more than 30 minutes the cameras at the time (10-15 years ago) would warm up and eventually shut off automatically to cool off.

      • Dalewyn a day ago

        Some cameras do overheat from extended recording sessions, so depending on the model it's not entirely a joke.

sokz 21 hours ago

Reminds me of the Indian public discourse when the government wanted to tax caramel popcorn in movie theatres at 18% when the normal ones were taxed at 5%.

raverbashing a day ago

Silly restrictions aside, I feel that most use cases don't have takes longer than 30min anyway (I mean, on cameras that you actually start and stop recording manually)

But yeah technology evolves and the taxes remain. (Though don't complain too much or they will just pick the higher taxes for the newer cameras)

  • ComputerGuru 15 hours ago

    I can’t see why you think there’s a usecase for 25 minute videos but not 35 minute ones.

    Speaking as an amateur photographer with multiple DSLRs: I’ve certainly needed longer than that for a number of gigs.

  • chongli 19 hours ago

    Streaming is a major use case where the camera may be recording continuously for several hours at a time. Another one is for video meetings, though in that case I’d prefer it if my camera forced the end of the meeting after 30 mins.

  • amelius 21 hours ago

    Camera manufacturers can just enable the functionality as an easter-egg.

    So they just publish some activation code on some consumer forum somewhere and from then on it's the consumer's responsibility.

    I think they did the same thing with DVD region restrictions.

jeffhuys 17 hours ago

But the EU doesn’t do tariffs? I thought that was exclusive to the incoming US administration, because it’s stupid.

  • vladvasiliu 17 hours ago

    Yes it does. You have a customs desk at every entry port, complete with a “goods to declare” sign. If you buy stuff online, you’ll also have to pay up if the products are taxed.

    You can learn about those here: https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/customs-4/calculation-...

    We also have VAT (sales tax) which is levied on top of the import duties (so the tax is taxed).

    There are even restrictions on the quantities of some products you are allowed to carry between member states, such as alcohol and tobacco, mostly because taxes on those vary by jurisdiction.