Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Seeking a concise Canon CHDK (Firmware hack) site?

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Seeking a concise Canon CHDK (Firmware hack) site?

 
 
Walter Banks
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-08-2011


Bruce wrote:

> If you cannot see the significant difference between (1) a
> collaborative non-profit venture that delivers great benefits but no
> disbenefits to anyone


Except Canon.

> and (2) a commercial organisation that blatantly
> flouts intellectual property laws to make a fast buck (or millions of
> them) then you are beyond help. There are none so blind as those that
> will not see.


The assumption in your argument is the only harm is
financial then judge on that basis and then ignore the
fiscal harm to Canon when it inconveniently gets in the way.

Many parts of the CHDK that is downloaded is a
copyright violation of Canon's IP rights. You are
missing the ethics issues.


w..

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Walter Banks
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-09-2011


Bruce wrote:

> Walter Banks <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >Bruce wrote:
> >
> >> If you cannot see the significant difference between (1) a
> >> collaborative non-profit venture that delivers great benefits but no
> >> disbenefits to anyone

> >
> >Except Canon.

>
> On the contrary, Canon gets the benefits of (1) increased feature sets
> and therefore (2) the likelihood of increased sales without spending a
> penny on development. Win/win.
>
> >> and (2) a commercial organisation that blatantly
> >> flouts intellectual property laws to make a fast buck (or millions of
> >> them) then you are beyond help. There are none so blind as those that
> >> will not see.

> >
> >The assumption in your argument is the only harm is
> >financial then judge on that basis and then ignore the
> >fiscal harm to Canon when it inconveniently gets in the way.

>
> See above. There is no fiscal harm whatsoever to Canon. In practice,
> quite the opposite.


How does that make it ethically correct?

> >Many parts of the CHDK that is downloaded is a
> >copyright violation of Canon's IP rights. You are
> >missing the ethics issues.

>
> Clearly Canon is also missing those issues, otherwise Canon would have
> sued the ass of the CHDK developers a long time ago. Canon's
> continuing indifference to CHDK should be seen a tacit approval of
> what the CHDK developers are doing. It strongly suggests that CHDK is
> to Canon's benefit.


That is quite a jump. Copyright violation to tacit approval to
corporate policy. I grew up in the 60's I want some of what you
have been smoking.

> Please reply to my previous question which was as follows (your
> statement to which I responded is re-quoted to give context):
>
> >Canon gets to support all the people who screw up the loader in
> >the camera trying to install CHDK and complaits of noise in modified
> >feature high ISO images. I don't think it is a win for them.

>
> That's something of a mystery. Perhaps you could explain how many
> people are thus affected, and how they are affected?


> (It would be a pity if this remained a mystery due to your apparent
> reluctance to reply. After all, you made a serious allegation.)


I stand by my comment. It is a nasty problem for Canon in order to
protect their reputation they are put in a position of supporting or
defending
against customers who are using a hacked product.

w..

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
DanP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-09-2011
On Jun 9, 11:46*am, Walter Banks <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Bruce wrote:
> > Walter Banks <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > >Bruce wrote:

>
> > >> If you cannot see the significant difference between (1) a
> > >> collaborative non-profit venture that delivers great benefits but no
> > >> disbenefits to anyone

>
> > >Except Canon.

>
> > On the contrary, Canon gets the benefits of (1) increased feature sets
> > and therefore (2) the likelihood of increased sales without spending a
> > penny on development. *Win/win.

>
> > >> and (2) a commercial organisation that blatantly
> > >> flouts intellectual property laws to make a fast buck (or millions of
> > >> them) then you are beyond help. *There are none so blind as those that
> > >> will not see.

>
> > >The assumption in your argument is the only harm is
> > >financial then judge on that basis and then ignore the
> > >fiscal harm to Canon when it inconveniently gets in the way.

>
> > See above. *There is no fiscal harm whatsoever to Canon. *In practice,
> > quite the opposite.

>
> How does that make it ethically correct?
>
> > >Many parts of the CHDK that is downloaded is a
> > >copyright violation of Canon's IP rights. You are
> > >missing the ethics issues.

>
> > Clearly Canon is also missing those issues, otherwise Canon would have
> > sued the ass of the CHDK developers a long time ago. *Canon's
> > continuing indifference to CHDK should be seen a tacit approval of
> > what the CHDK developers are doing. *It strongly suggests that CHDK is
> > to Canon's benefit.

>
> That is quite a jump. Copyright violation to tacit approval to
> corporate policy. I grew up in the 60's I want some of what you
> have been smoking.
>
> > Please reply to my previous question which was as follows (your
> > statement to which I responded is re-quoted to give context):

>
> > >Canon gets to support all the people who screw up the loader in
> > >the camera trying to install CHDK and complaits of noise in modified
> > >feature high ISO images. *I don't think it is a win for them.

>
> > That's something of a mystery. *Perhaps you could explain how many
> > people are thus affected, and how they are affected?
> > (It would be a pity if this remained a mystery due to your apparent
> > reluctance to reply. *After all, you made a serious allegation.)

>
> I stand by my comment. It is a nasty problem for Canon in order to
> protect their reputation they are put in a position of supporting or
> defending
> against customers who are using a hacked product.
>
> w..


Suppose I have my car's ECU remapped (chipped) so I get more power out
of the engine. Would that break any manufacturer's rights?

With software user has a licence to use it and does not own it. With a
camera the user owns it and is free to modify it.

If Canon had a sound case about other people reverse engineering its
products it would have stopped Sigma/Tamron/Tokina long ago.


DanP
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-09-2011
On 6/9/2011 6:46 AM, Walter Banks wrote:
>
>
> Bruce wrote:
>
>> Walter Banks<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you cannot see the significant difference between (1) a
>>>> collaborative non-profit venture that delivers great benefits but no
>>>> disbenefits to anyone
>>>
>>> Except Canon.

>>
>> On the contrary, Canon gets the benefits of (1) increased feature sets
>> and therefore (2) the likelihood of increased sales without spending a
>> penny on development. Win/win.
>>
>>>> and (2) a commercial organisation that blatantly
>>>> flouts intellectual property laws to make a fast buck (or millions of
>>>> them) then you are beyond help. There are none so blind as those that
>>>> will not see.
>>>
>>> The assumption in your argument is the only harm is
>>> financial then judge on that basis and then ignore the
>>> fiscal harm to Canon when it inconveniently gets in the way.

>>
>> See above. There is no fiscal harm whatsoever to Canon. In practice,
>> quite the opposite.

>
> How does that make it ethically correct?
>
>>> Many parts of the CHDK that is downloaded is a
>>> copyright violation of Canon's IP rights. You are
>>> missing the ethics issues.

>>
>> Clearly Canon is also missing those issues, otherwise Canon would have
>> sued the ass of the CHDK developers a long time ago. Canon's
>> continuing indifference to CHDK should be seen a tacit approval of
>> what the CHDK developers are doing. It strongly suggests that CHDK is
>> to Canon's benefit.

>
> That is quite a jump. Copyright violation to tacit approval to
> corporate policy. I grew up in the 60's I want some of what you
> have been smoking.
>
>> Please reply to my previous question which was as follows (your
>> statement to which I responded is re-quoted to give context):
>>
>>> Canon gets to support all the people who screw up the loader in
>>> the camera trying to install CHDK and complaits of noise in modified
>>> feature high ISO images. I don't think it is a win for them.

>>
>> That's something of a mystery. Perhaps you could explain how many
>> people are thus affected, and how they are affected?

>
>> (It would be a pity if this remained a mystery due to your apparent
>> reluctance to reply. After all, you made a serious allegation.)

>
> I stand by my comment. It is a nasty problem for Canon in order to
> protect their reputation they are put in a position of supporting or
> defending
> against customers who are using a hacked product.
>


You both are missing an even more subtle conundrum. Under IP law if
Canon does not defend its IP rights, it looses them. If Canon made a
business decision to let the undefended rights quietly go into the
public domain, I am not privy to that information.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
Walter Banks
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-09-2011


PeterN wrote:

> You both are missing an even more subtle conundrum. Under IP law if
> Canon does not defend its IP rights, it looses them. If Canon made a
> business decision to let the undefended rights quietly go into the
> public domain, I am not privy to that information.


Canon has defended their IP rights for their products. They have also
demonstrated respect for others IP rights. They are not obliged
to fend off everyone to retain those rights. The original CHDK hack
was done in Russia. Canon has a well supported SDK for developers
and are clear about what information is in the public domain.

w..



 
Reply With Quote
 
Walter Banks
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-09-2011


DanP wrote:

> Suppose I have my car's ECU remapped (chipped) so I get more power out
> of the engine. Would that break any manufacturer's rights?


Some of our customers are third party ECU developers who independently
produce alternative code sets. Most notably the 500 - 1500 mile engines
used in competitive racing. NASCAR for example in 2012. The same code
sets can be used in street cars. Most of these trade engine life and
fuel economy for performance.

All of the third party code sets that I know about have appropriate code
licensing. It is primarily a myth about hacked ECU code magically providing
dramatic performance improvements. Getting rid of RPM limiters in hacked
code generally would be an invitation for broken valve springs and bearing
failures in street cars. It is a self correcting problem

Walter Banks
Byte Craft Limited

 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-09-2011
On 6/9/2011 9:27 AM, Walter Banks wrote:
>
>
> PeterN wrote:
>
>> You both are missing an even more subtle conundrum. Under IP law if
>> Canon does not defend its IP rights, it looses them. If Canon made a
>> business decision to let the undefended rights quietly go into the
>> public domain, I am not privy to that information.

>
> Canon has defended their IP rights for their products. They have also
> demonstrated respect for others IP rights. They are not obliged
> to fend off everyone to retain those rights. The original CHDK hack
> was done in Russia. Canon has a well supported SDK for developers
> and are clear about what information is in the public domain.
>


As well they should.
I was talking about only the IP rights that may have been violated using
CHDK.
Since I am not a Canon user I do not follow the detail.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-09-2011
On 6/9/2011 9:46 AM, Walter Banks wrote:
>
>
> DanP wrote:
>
>> Suppose I have my car's ECU remapped (chipped) so I get more power out
>> of the engine. Would that break any manufacturer's rights?

>
> Some of our customers are third party ECU developers who independently
> produce alternative code sets. Most notably the 500 - 1500 mile engines
> used in competitive racing. NASCAR for example in 2012. The same code
> sets can be used in street cars. Most of these trade engine life and
> fuel economy for performance.
>
> All of the third party code sets that I know about have appropriate code
> licensing. It is primarily a myth about hacked ECU code magically providing
> dramatic performance improvements. Getting rid of RPM limiters in hacked
> code generally would be an invitation for broken valve springs and bearing
> failures in street cars. It is a self correcting problem
>


It seems to me that using hacked code could void warrantys


--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
DanP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-09-2011
On Jun 9, 3:10*pm, PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 6/9/2011 9:46 AM, Walter Banks wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > DanP wrote:

>
> >> Suppose I have my car's ECU remapped (chipped) so I get more power out
> >> of the engine. Would that break any manufacturer's rights?

>
> > Some of our customers are third party ECU developers who independently
> > produce alternative code sets. Most notably the 500 - 1500 mile engines
> > used in competitive racing. NASCAR for example in 2012. The same code
> > sets can be used in street cars. Most of these trade engine life and
> > fuel economy for performance.

>
> > All of the third party code sets that I know about have appropriate code
> > licensing. It is primarily a myth about hacked ECU code magically providing
> > dramatic performance improvements. Getting rid of RPM limiters in hacked
> > code generally would be an invitation for broken valve springs and bearing
> > failures in street cars. It is a self correcting problem

>
> It seems to me that using hacked code could void warrantys
>
> --
> Peter


CHDK is run from a prepared SD card. After replacing the card with a
blank one there is no trace CHDK was run on that camera.
So unless the user hands in the camera with CHDK on it or admits using
it Canon has to service it.

DanP
 
Reply With Quote
 
DanP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-09-2011
On Jun 9, 2:46*pm, Walter Banks <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> DanP wrote:
> > Suppose I have my car's ECU remapped (chipped) so I get more power out
> > of the engine. Would that break any manufacturer's rights?

>
> Some of our customers are third party ECU developers who independently
> produce alternative code sets. Most notably the 500 - 1500 mile engines
> used in competitive racing. NASCAR for example in 2012. The same code
> sets can be used in street cars. Most of these trade engine life and
> fuel economy for performance.
>
> All of the third party code sets that I know about have appropriate code
> licensing. It is primarily a myth about hacked ECU code magically providing
> dramatic performance improvements. Getting rid of RPM limiters in hacked
> code generally would be an invitation for broken valve springs and bearing
> failures in street cars. It is a self correcting problem
>
> Walter Banks
> Byte Craft Limited


But the user can use non licensed codes, right? Losing the warranty of
course.
No car manufacturer would object to it, only advise against it.

DanP
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Seeking a concise Canon CHDK (Firmware hack) site? The Henchman Digital Photography 6 06-16-2011 06:50 PM
Re: CHDK NEWS: Year 2010 Powershots Just May Get CHDK After All RichA Digital Photography 5 08-18-2010 06:39 PM
CHDK NEWS: A Discussion Forum Dedicated to CHDK D. Larson Digital Photography 0 11-28-2007 02:45 AM
NEW CHDK Features for Canon Powershot Cameras, CHDK Build #144 and Later HokusPokus Digital Photography 23 07-16-2007 09:20 PM
Canon PowerShot A710 IS Concise Review rishil Digital Photography 2 12-16-2006 07:51 PM



Advertisments