Canon May 'Bring the Might of Its Legal Team' if You Modify 1DX or 1DC Firmware

S

Simon Shasha

Well-known member
LINK: http://nofilmschool.com/2013/01/canon-legal-team-modify-hack-firmware-1d-x-1d-c/

AND HERE: http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/01/inside-the-canon-eos-1d-c/

If this is true, one has to ask; why hasn't Canon brought the "might of their legal team" against Magic Lantern for their firmware mods of sub $3000 Canon cameras? I guess the answer is really simple in business terms; profits. Magic Lantern helps Canon shift more DSLRs to the independent film community.

Assuming the threats of legal action are true, and assuming that you could turn a 1DX into a 1DC via firmware, I think it's really unfortunate that Canon has gone down this path - I really feel that even if Canon took away the still photography function on the 1DC and priced it in the same price-range as the 1DX, it would not only be successful, but I think far more successful then it ever will be at its current price-range.
 
One thing I have learned first-hand about Canon's corporate structure: their reps on the ground don't know what they are talking about. I'd want to know exactly who this information came from before I trust it's accurate. An anonymous "someone at Canon" isn't a reputable source - the internet has been led astray by these kinds of reports before.

Doesn't really matter in this case - as I've stated before, confirmed by these links, and contrary to the reports of bloggers with more influence than they deserve, the 1DC and 1DX are different hardware and a simple firmware hack is not going to turn one into the other.
 
It'll be impossible for them to enforce this against potential hackers, and the hack will be as easy to remove as formatting the card, what a load of bull.
 
Sounds more like a challenge to me. I think they want someone to look under the hood to see what's there. Probably some easter eggs from the engineering dept to help boost sales for these very pricey cameras. Until they start boosting dynamic range, they are going to have some pretty stiff competition from Scarlet and Black Magic Design. There had better be something more than just these specs to get people to open their wallets.
 
nothing said:
Doesn't really matter in this case - as I've stated before, confirmed by these links, and contrary to the reports of bloggers with more influence than they deserve, the 1DC and 1DX are different hardware and a simple firmware hack is not going to turn one into the other.
Click to expand...


Ok, so how would you know this to be true? What's different about the hardware that you have seen and what is that you do which allows you to state this so emphatically? I mean not much difference between anonymous sources and someone named "nothing" afterall. :-)
 
Last edited:
yoclay said:
Ok, so how would you know this to be true? What's different about the hardware that you have seen and what is that you do which allows you to state this so emphatically? I mean not much difference between anonymous sources and someone named "nothing" afterall. :-)
Click to expand...

If you can click links, you'll see that the original post in this thread confirms this. You can also click on my sig and see how anonymous I am not, despite my self-deprecating username. And lastly, you can search my posting history and see that I've named my sources at Canon.
 
Last edited:
nothing said:
If you can click links, you'll see that the original post in this thread confirms this.
Click to expand...

Actually what you'll see if you click that link is, "but with a quote like above, there is no doubt that the 1D X is probably capable of a lot more internally than the company is allowing at the moment," a statement which is obviously correct.

"Canon is probably trying to save a few dollars on R&D by producing almost the same camera twice for two different markets, but charging much more for the other one (which is a common practice by most companies). We can’t say which internal hardware parts are different yet other than the added heatsink, because a proper teardown has not been conducted of both simultaneously." is another winner.

They're making these threats because, a) They don't want people realizing that the 1D C is essentially the same camera at an outrageous mark-up and b) if someone tries to record 4K on the lesser-heatsinked 1D X and it melts down, they will give Canon hell about it even though it's their own fault.

The correct solution to this problem would've been to increase the 1D X price by the $5 that a beefier heatsink costs and not have a 1D C. Sales of that 1D X would be noticeably higher than the combined sales of the 1D X and 1D C we got. The Japanese camera companies have this insane habit of claiming that they're inflating prices to cover lower volumes while not realizing that they only have lower volumes because they've inflated prices.
 
Last edited:
Lee Saxon said:
Actually what you'll see if you click that link is...
Click to expand...

The only thing on those pages that is not speculation (like your quotes) or unattributed hearsay is the fact that the hardware IS different, confirmed by a teardown. Period.

Shoe on the other foot: what evidence is there that they are the same hardware? Especially in light of the evidence against that presented here?
 
Last edited:
As long as I know hardware is ALMOST identical ALMOST but not fully. 1D X doesn't have the same cooling system like 1D C does. 1DX is capable of more than it is now but it's not 1DC and it won't do what 1DC can. It will simply overheat. Maybe hardware and firmware hack could help, who knows.
 
Khachik Mkrtchyan said:
As long as I know hardware is ALMOST identical ALMOST but not fully. 1D X doesn't have the same cooling system like 1D C does. 1DX is capable of more than it is now but it's not 1DC and it won't do what 1DC can. It will simply overheat. Maybe hardware and firmware hack could help, who knows.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there will be a way to mod the heatsink (assuming the heatsink is the only difference). My best friend is an extremely talented electrical engineer, I'd love if we could get both cameras and let him have a look inside.
 
You know, in the end, Canon couldn't do anything legally - once you buy something, it's yours. In the case of the 1DX, you can hack it, mod it, smash it, do whatever you want to it - so long as you don't profit directly by selling the firmware.

Like I stated in my original post, one has to ask why Canon has never threatened legal action about modding their sub-$3000 cameras with Magic Lantern - the answer is simple - Magic Lantern helps sell more Canon cameras. Given that the 1DC most likely came from the same R & D that birthed the 1DX, then I guess it's safe to assume that the profit margin for the 1DC must be very large - reselling the same camera with a software instruction set worth an extra $5000.

I think Andrew over at EOSHD summed up the entire situation, and feelings of many, pretty well with this post:

"When we buy a camera, a piece of hardware we want to be getting the full capabilities of that hardware and we want the production costs to decide the pricing. If I pay $6k more for a camera, there has to be a good reason for it. If I find out that my $6k went towards changing a line of code in firmware and adding a heat sink, I’d be annoyed. Equally, if I was a 1D X owner shooting rather poor 1080p on hardware that was actually capable of 4K in Canon LOG, I’d not be getting what I paid for in terms of the hardware and I’d wonder also as a 5D Mark III owner why my HDMI output was 720p not uncompressed 1080p like on the Nikon D800.

I don’t care about marketing or Canon’s business strategies but I do care about my 5D Mark III and 1D X being as good as they can possibly be, with nothing turned off in firmware.

As for Canon their reputation is at stake here. If when buying a Canon camera I am never sure if it is crippled to protect the one above it, I don’t have confidence in them as a company.

Is hacking legal? Firmware modification is generally legal but some hacking, like that done to open up the Playstation’s copy protection can be seen as assisting copyright infringement and piracy. Also firmware code itself is copyrighted like most software is. So was what Vitaliy Kiselev did for GH2 users illegal? Actually it was 100% legal. Vitality never distributed or sold or profited from modified firmware code. He simply built a tool, like the Magic Lantern team, to modify his own camera. In the same way it is not illegal to take apart your PC and upgrade the processor or tinker under the hood, it is not illegal to tinker with your own camera’s inner workings and reverse engineer it. In my opinion Magic Lantern should have nothing to worry about from Canon’s legal department no matter which camera they chose to modify."

LINK: http://www.eoshd.com/content/9432/1...hreatens-potential-hackers-with-legal-trouble
 
Have you never heard of a leading question?

Assuming this "Canon Source" is real... He/She might have been asked "would you come down hard on anyone trying to hack and share the firmware of the 1D-X?"... Answer, "Yes".

I'm sure you could insert any camera name in there and the answer would be yes.
 
Jay Birch said:
You really shouldn't take legal advice from a blogger with a grudge against Canon.

The moment someone shares that hacked firmware (or anything copyrighted), they are breaking copyright. It has nothing to do with profit. If you burn me a copy of a film and give it me, for free, you are still breaking the law.
Click to expand...

I never said anything about sharing it - I said "YOU", the individual - I'm making the point that an individual has the right to mod something that has become theirs once they have paid for it.
 
You are sharing quotes saying the what Vitally did was legal. It isn't, because he shared the hacked files.... That is nothing to do with "the individual"
 
Also, there's a difference between running your own code on your camera (which I think you can do, or should be able to do) and running Canon's code that you didn't pay for, on your camera. If there was a hack, you could think of it like a keygen that allows you to run some software on your computer. It's your computer, why shouldn't you be able to run the software there? Well, because it's not your software, and you didn't buy it.

Which doesn't mean I don't think Canon are being some nasty pricks with their prices since the C300 release...
 
There's a simple way to prove this.. the person who claims they're the same camera... purchases both... takes them a part and there we go a simple solution to prove his point...
 
Lee Saxon said:
The fact that Canon allows most of their VDSLRs to be hacked but is horrified of having the 1D X hacked.
Click to expand...
He asked for "evidence". As in, actual evidence, not "unnamed sources" and out-of-context quotes and insinuations and innuendoes and guesses, which is all that article actually is.
 
GaryinCalifornia said:
There's a simple way to prove this.. the person who claims they're the same camera... purchases both... takes them a part and there we go a simple solution to prove his point...
Click to expand...

You know what, forget the person that made the claim, Jim Jannard should buy both of them and open 'em up...and film the process on a Dragon sensor :grin:

Seriously though, I'd like to ask you guys a hypothetical; let's say that someone did purchase both cameras, and both cameras turned out to be identical in every aspect except for the firmware, how would you guys feel about Canon, and the pricing of the 1DC as compared to the pricing of the 1DX?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top