| |||||||||||||
Canon legal responseCanon legal responsePosted Jan 13, 2013 10:45 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091)In reply to: Canon legal response by giraffedata Parent article: Testing Magic Lantern 2.3 In fact I have never bought such an expensive camera, by an order of magnitude. Perhaps some lucky reader can enlighten us about whether Canon really places burdens before its customers in the form of contract agreements. Note that the original camera was not sold with software restrictions: the expensive new model is just now being released.
(Log in to post comments)
Canon legal response Posted Jan 15, 2013 15:50 UTC (Tue) by n8willis (editor, #43041) [Link] Perhaps some lucky reader can enlighten us about whether Canon really places burdens before its customers in the form of contract agreements. I've never seen or heard anything of the sort. When it comes to "making sense of" the legal-might quote, I think it's what it appears to be: an off-the-cuff remark. Perhaps intended to intimidate; more likely uttered by someone without a studied understanding of copyright law and reverse engineering -- particularly as applied to firmware replacement hacks. Nate
|
|||||||||||||