p.3 #1 · Don't you dare modifying the 1DX, or else!
Rickuz wrote:
Yes, this is known. But I am pretty sure this is the first time they've actually threatend to take legal actions against the firmware community.
It smells desperate, and I wonder what gives them the right to stop me from modifying something that I have bought?
Well it is "someone at canon" who said something to someone at canorumors so it is not at all equivalent to Canon threatening legal action. We have no clue what position that unknown person holds in the company and how much of what she/he said has anything to do with what Canon actually plans to do.
p.3 #2 · Don't you dare modifying the 1DX, or else!
snapsy wrote:
It would be a legal fight between permitted reverse engineering precedents and copyright. That said, I'm guessing the 1DX hardware supports the 1DC 4K functionality but that the firmware image on the 1DX does not, so it's probably not as simple as finding a flag in the firmware image to turn it on. It likely would require someone to implement the full video processing logic themselves.
Although since it sounds like ML hasn't figured out how to do any low level chip read stuff, if they really are afraid of the conversion, I think it's got to already be in the 1DX firmware to a fair extent. Either that or if the firnware in the 1DC is considerably different then maybe you can take the 7D loader code and then swap some things around and then grab 1DC firmware and use a custom loader to load the 1DC firmware into a 1DX. Who wknows though, maybe you'd have to dig a lot, lot deeper than ML ever has and it would take a tremendous amount of time and sifting through disassembled code with zero documentation for important chip registers and functioning and it might not be something Canon has much of realistic need to fear since it take an absurd amount of time and effort to ever figure out (might be a cheap model with 4k out long before it was figured out) but maybe they tossed that out just in case.
Anyway I don't know that we will see this done, at least not publicly because:
it is well beyond the means of the average camera user
ML already says they will not do it because they fear future camera lockouts and I believe anyone else will likewise keep that in mind and won't put it out there for said reason
depending upon what needs to be done, perhaps certain things might have to be adjusted that stick and it might require a little risky tinkering and not many are going to want to toss a few 1DX copies by accident or something, groups I don't think will do it, and individuals would have to have certain skills plus potentially a lot of free time and be rather rich enough to afford an 1DX to begin and, on top, to not care if they end up needing a few to get it done (in which case they'd have less of a headache and cost to just nab a 1DC to begin with)
p.3 #3 · Don't you dare modifying the 1DX, or else!
kevinsullivan wrote:
There are several legal frameworks that might come into play here:
* Copyright -- to the extent that one is producing a "derivative work" based on Canon copyright software
* Licensing -- to the extent Canon licenses its embedded software on terms prohibiting reverse engineering/mods
* DCMA -- to the extent that modding their software involves circumventing devices to protect a copyrighted work
Kevin
DMCA does not do what you think it does. =p Things like this have been tried, and the courts have ruled against them. Lexmark put encryption on their ink cartridges then tried to use the DMCA to prevent people from making 3rd party cartridges. They got smacked down. There's been some other cases as well. The thing being protected must be some sort of content where it is the content itself that has the value, courts have ruled that if the encryption is there to protect some sort of hardware sales and not content, the DMCA protections don't apply. In this case, it's the camera as a whole that has value. Doesn't mean they couldn't try to hit you with it, though, I suppose.
Licensing: did anyone sign or agree to any sort of contract to take the camera out of the box and use it? Yeah, didn't think so. If you can get it to do a firmware dump, you can play with the firmware. If you downloaded the firmware though, you might have agreed to a click through license of some sort. Fortunately those aren't recognized as valid everywhere, so depends on where you are. I think it's still rather up in the air here in the US but i'm not a lawyer. So maybe.
Copyright: Definitely. If you were to modify and sell Canon's code you'd be in deep ****. And rightfully so. That'd be stealing someone else's work and then profiting from it! Even modifying it and distributing it for free would be a copyright violation. It isn't a grey area, it's just that in some cases it's bad publicity for companies to go after enthusiasts like that (why panasonic now tolerates and maybe even embraces the gh2 hacks, where at first they didn't).
What you could do, however:
1. Make a program entirely of your own code that you get the camera to recognize as valid, this code does things the stock firmware doesn't. I believe CHDK falls into this category, but I could be wrong.
2. Make a program containing only your own code that goes in and changes some bits around in the firmware to enable features.
Either way, and regardless of legality of it...if Canon really just made the 1dc as a 1dx with an extra heatsink and some other firmware, you can bet the 1dx will get hacked to turn it into a 1dc, it's only a matter of time. And Canon shouldn't get any sympathy when it happens, either, lol.
p.3 #4 · Don't you dare modifying the 1DX, or else!
Again, magic lantern doesn't change anything in the software on the camera, and there is nothing legally Canon can do about that, absolutely nothing. This comes up all the time, yet lawsuits, few as they are that get filed, get shut down. It is a scare tactic and nothing else.
p.3 #5 · Don't you dare modifying the 1DX, or else!
I can't imagine that they would be making threats if they didn't think it was within the realms of the like of ML to do. I can't see that there are anywhere near enough interested parties to pony up the resources for a hacking effort at a higher level than the enthusiast ML. If so, the fact they are threatening it does rather mean that they are worried does it not?
p.3 #6 · Don't you dare modifying the 1DX, or else!
I imagine Canon weren't thrilled at having to keep supplies of the 5D Mk II up until Magic Lantern was ready with the Mk III. If I were they, I'd want to avoid that even more with a low-volume model like the 1DX.
Consider the trouble Microsoft got into with that, to the extent of shipping patches for 3rd part software that are spliced in when the executable is run. It is a substantial problem for them with OS releases. Apple learned the lesson and make breaking noncompliant software almost an art form.
It would make sense if Canon is making things easy for Magic Lantern with the 5 series, by retaining the hooks and maybe offering some assistance to developers they have confidence in, while not permitting it for the 1DX. That way, Magic Lantern gets to prototype features while getting the blame if they don't work, work well, or are a misfeature, while the 1DX is unaffected.
I find it hard to have sympathy for someone who wants to hack a $7000 camera in order not to buy a $15,000 camera. At this level, the $8,000 saved would be dwarfed by other production costs. Meanwhile, if it were allowed, stills shooters would see their firmware and even model updates delayed for compatibility testing.
p.3 #7 · Don't you dare modifying the 1DX, or else!
Beni wrote:
I can't imagine that they would be making threats if they didn't think it was within the realms of the like of ML to do. I can't see that there are anywhere near enough interested parties to pony up the resources for a hacking effort at a higher level than the enthusiast ML. If so, the fact they are threatening it does rather mean that they are worried does it not?
Again - this was a comment by some unknown random person at canon who we know nothing about. It is a big stretch to equate it to Canon being worried and making legal threats. Canon has not made any threat to anyone about it.
p.3 #8 · Don't you dare modifying the 1DX, or else!
I can't prove that a $5 heatsink is the only difference between these cameras, but the fact that they're horrified of 1D X hacked and practically encourage it with their other DSLRs sure is suspicious.
p.3 #9 · Don't you dare modifying the 1DX, or else!
Has Canon officially made annoucement/threaten statement to possible firmware hacker? a rumor?? hmmm..
I dont really see what wrong with 1Dc being $6000 more than 1DX.
Whether it is only a slight firmware different or whole "parts" different, It's the feature Canon trying to sell. The market's demand command the price. I wonder how many people need 4k video?
in an honest thought, I think $11k for the tool that'll make you money is cheap.
p.3 #11 · Don't you dare modifying the 1DX, or else!
Beni wrote:
I can't imagine that they would be making threats if they didn't think it was within the realms of the like of ML to do. I can't see that there are anywhere near enough interested parties to pony up the resources for a hacking effort at a higher level than the enthusiast ML. If so, the fact they are threatening it does rather mean that they are worried does it not?
Of course you'd be worried if you might lose $8K of fat off your camera, because someone worked out a way to make the 1D X output 4K video.
It'd be like say Intel doing something crazy and actually allowing someone to OC their processors and steal sales from their much more profitable processors. It's never going to happen.
p.3 #13 · Don't you dare modifying the 1DX, or else!
Apparently it is some kind of 3rd party hacked firmware/OS for adding video features. Primarily it has been used on the consumer cameras, but now there is a concern among some that it will be used to hack the pro 1D-X.
p.3 #14 · Don't you dare modifying the 1DX, or else!
DavidP wrote:
Is that all this "Magic Lantern" stuff is about? Making changes that affect VIDEO?
No, it affects still shooting also.
I don't shoot video but I installed ML on my 5d2 - it allows for focus peaking with MF lenses, 100% image zoom with one push of the magnify button, plus several other neat features.
Jan 13, 2013 at 09:33 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #15 · Don't you dare modifying the 1DX, or else!
jcolwell wrote:
I haven't seen one. I think this is more of an internet rumour than a Canon rumour.
It's just one of the hundreds of different rumors on the Canonrumor website. As usuall like the others it start with "I was told by someone at Canon.....blah blah............
p.3 #17 · Don't you dare modifying the 1DX, or else!
dolina wrote:
Isn't there a US law that states that once a consumer has fully paid for his item they have the right to modify it as they see fit?
Somehow I doubt that, given that the question of whether you can actually resell an item that you had bought is about to go to the Supreme Court. Common sense isn't all too common, esp. not in US law.
