M10 images leak

[MCTuomey]

The most convincing argument for me to keep my M240 is that it's paid for. Painful enough price at that time, I'm not about to do it over again so soon.

But kudos for the camera's improved high iso performance, viewfinder, and EVF (moveable focus point). Closer than ever to that "digital M7" concept.

I aspire to the concept that I will buy another M when I wear out the one I have, and not before.

 

[Duane Pandorf]

Why not just use a film M or a Sony A7..and buy your self a Rolex...lol..

Please tell me which Rolex I can buy with the left over funds? 😱 My 35 year old model costs new today: $9,475.00

 

[uhoh7]

Just a matter of adding up plusses and minuses. The M240 won out for my use. 🙂

But you don't care to elaborate on the math?

Reid is only 40USD, and if I was really getting ready to pull the trigger, I would probably subscribe. Many actually just did. He's doing very well out of the M10, and he deserves it for lots of hard work.

But when you explain your reasoning you really don't need to compromise him at all, I don't think. In fact if some came from his tests, some reference to them will encourage more to subscribe.

But by being so vague, and referencing Sean, some have the idea he has seen weaknesses in the M10.

But maybe he actually has all subscribers under a legally binding NDA, that even covers a general reference, e.g. "Sean noticed (x)"

Is that really the case?

 

[jaapv]

Except contracts require an exchange of value (usually money) to be valid. This is called consideration. Consideration means the other party compensates you in some significant, material way. Ask any attorney.

The subscriber benefits from the contract. They give the content creator money in exchange for access. This is straightforward.

Agreeing to forgo the right to fair usage would require a separate contact. The subscriber derives no benefit from surrendering their fair usage rights. The content provider benefits. But the content provider is also obligated to provide consideration.

Consideration - Something of value was promised in exchange for the specified action or nonaction. This can take the form of a significant expenditure of money or effort, a promise to perform some service, an agreement not to do something, or reliance on the promise. Consideration is the value that induces the parties to enter into the contract.


So there are two issues.

Does surrendering their First Amendment Fair Usage rights plus paying a subscription fee bestow value for the subscriber?

Second, to what extent can Constitutional rights be suspended for consideration? For instance It is legal to enter into a contract with consideration to surrender one's right to vote, right of assembly, right to bear arms. etc.? If not, then how is free speech (fair usage) any different?

You don't have a constitutional right to violate copyright.

 

[user237428934]

Why not just use a film M or a Sony A7..and buy your self a Rolex...lol..

Sure, if you like a pimp-watch 🙂

 

[Emile de Leon]

Sure, if you like a pimp-watch

Seiko....for you...lol..😀

Please tell me which Rolex I can buy with the left over funds? My 35 year old model costs new today: $9,475.00

Rolex starts at about $4300-..and goes up from there..thats at AD discount...brand new..
That's for the basic OP..
But if you want a pimped out Rolex...well..the sky is the limit..
And it will be around..a hell of a lot longer..than your m10...

 

[Fotobot]

Except contracts require an exchange of value (usually money) to be valid. This is called consideration. Consideration means the other party compensates you in some significant, material way. Ask any attorney.

The subscriber benefits from the contract. They give the content creator money in exchange for access. This is straightforward.

Agreeing to forgo the right to fair usage would require a separate contact. The subscriber derives no benefit from surrendering their fair usage rights. The content provider benefits. But the content provider is also obligated to provide consideration.

Consideration - Something of value was promised in exchange for the specified action or nonaction. This can take the form of a significant expenditure of money or effort, a promise to perform some service, an agreement not to do something, or reliance on the promise. Consideration is the value that induces the parties to enter into the contract.


So there are two issues.

Does surrendering their First Amendment Fair Usage rights plus paying a subscription fee bestow value for the subscriber?

Second, to what extent can Constitutional rights be suspended for consideration? For instance It is legal to enter into a contract with consideration to surrender one's right to vote, right of assembly, right to bear arms. etc.? If not, then how is free speech (fair usage) any different?

Wait ... wait ... wait ... you are way off base here! You are totally confusing two separate concepts: freedom of speech and fair use.

Each party gives consideration. Subscriber pays subscription. Provider gives content. Done and done. Yes, you do give up the right to share the info as per the contract. That's part of the deal. The consideration is the content the author gives you. No other consideration is needed.

Fair use is an exception to copyright law. It is not a Constitutional right. Fair use is an exception to the exclusive statutory right of copyright.

 

[Huss]

But if you want a pimped out Rolex...well..the sky is the limit..
And it will be around..a hell of a lot longer..than your m10...

Your argument is logical one on a photography site. Let's compare the relative value and longevity of a camera to a watch.

Another comparison that makes as much sense. A blue fin tuna was auctioned off for $632,000. Doesn't that dood realize that not only is a Leica M10 a fraction of the cost, but it would most definitely last longer too?http://www.cbsnews.com/news/japan-bluefun-tuna-fetches-632000-tokyo-tsukiji-fish-auction/

🙂

 

[Emile de Leon]

Tuna...
Not if you hermetically encase the whole tuna and fire it into space for orbit around an unknown planet..in an unknown galaxy.....then quite possibly..said tuna.. will out live humanity itself..at the going rate that is..looking out from its tuna eyes..upon the unknown planet..
Esp..if you can it..and place small viewing window in there..to allow the tuna a good eyeful...of the planet below.....then.. 100,000 or more years from now..maybe some mutant human or perhaps..an alien of strange and unknown origen..will find tuna in space can.. looking out and lonely thru its lil window...and use their trusty vintage m10..to hammer the can open with their screwdriver..as that's all it will be good for...(the m10 that is) ...and enjoy a good sandwich by the rings of Saturn..and wonder..what does...m10 mean anyway...or tuna for that matter..and look at their Rolex watch..and say to themselves...its time to go...and toss their m10 into the glove compartment of their space buggy..never to be seen again...or the tuna..now all gone..

 

[fireblade]

Tuna...
Not if you hermetically encase the whole tuna and fire it into space for orbit around an unknown planet..in an unknown galaxy.....then quite possibly..said tuna.. will out live humanity itself..at the going rate that is..looking out from its tuna eyes..upon the unknown planet..
Esp..if you can it..and place small viewing window in there..to allow the tuna a good eyeful...of the planet below.....then.. 100,000 or more years from now..maybe some mutant human or perhaps..an alien of strange and unknown origen..will find tuna in space can.. looking out and lonely thru its lil window...and use their trusty vintage m10..to hammer the can open with their screwdriver..as that's all it will be good for...(the m10 that is) ...and enjoy a good sandwich by the rings of Saturn..and wonder..what does...m10 mean anyway...or tuna for that matter..and look at their Rolex watch..and say to themselves...its time to go...and toss their m10 into the glove compartment of their space buggy..never to be seen again...or the tuna..now all gone..

Ok, what drugs? 😀

 

[Huss]

I'm kinda diggin' Emile now.
🙂

 

[Emile de Leon]

😀

Ok, what drugs?

Just one beer...a good music session..and the times we live in..thats all..to activate the imagination..!
Good thing I wasnt taking any pics though..standing on my head in the yoga position..taking shots of the meanderings of my mind..against a blank wall..seeing everything in there..and wondering...why...

I'm kinda diggin' Emile now.

Bout time...! 😉

 

[benlees]

Your argument is logical one on a photography site. Let's compare the relative value and longevity of a camera to a watch.

Another comparison that makes as much sense. A blue fin tuna was auctioned off for $632,000. Doesn't that dood realize that not only is a Leica M10 a fraction of the cost, but it would most definitely last longer too?http://www.cbsnews.com/news/japan-bluefun-tuna-fetches-632000-tokyo-tsukiji-fish-auction/

🙂

Whoever bought the tuna is going to make money from that tuna. Can you say that about a Rolex?

 

[willie_901]

You don't have a constitutional right to violate copyright.

Of course not.

However acording to the United State Copyright Office, fair-use is not a violation of copyright .

"Fair use is a legal doctrine that promotes freedom of expression by permitting the unlicensed use of copyright-protected works in certain circumstances. Section 107 of the Copyright Act provides the statutory framework for determining whether something is a fair use and identifies certain types of uses—such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research—as examples of activities that may qualify as fair use. "

"Certain circumstances" are detailed in the link.

To be complete, at the end of the day contested fair use is decided by the court system. While there are precedents, each case is decided on its individual merits.

For example, an individual infrequently commenting or criticizing the contents of a subscription site is more likely to win a fair-use case than an individual who does so every time new content appears on the subscription site. The former has the right to comment and these comments do not necessarily harm the copyright owner. In fact fair use can be a form of publicity. The latter's comments could harm the copyright holder because people might read the regular commentary instead of subscribing.

 

[willie_901]

Wait ... wait ... wait ... you are way off base here! You are totally confusing two separate concepts: freedom of speech and fair use.

Each party gives consideration. Subscriber pays subscription. Provider gives content. Done and done. Yes, you do give up the right to share the info as per the contract. That's part of the deal. The consideration is the content the author gives you. No other consideration is needed.

Fair use is an exception to copyright law. It is not a Constitutional right. Fair use is an exception to the exclusive statutory right of copyright.

No. According to the United States Copyright Office Fair-Use "promotes freedom of expression". Freedom of expression is a Constitutional right.

 

[______]

No. According to the United States Copyright Office Fair-Use "promotes freedom of expression". Freedom of expression is a Constitutional right.

Fair Use is not a constitutional right, it is a statutory right, which Congress can expand or eliminate at any time. It is not the Copyright Office that said fair use promotes freedom of expression; it was Congress. It is in the text of Public Law 114-38 which was codified at 17 USC §107. And neither Congress nor the Copyright Office can confer constitutional rights. The Fair Use argument is a red herring in this discussion. Readers of that site are subject to a non-disclosure agreement. It is obvious you are not a lawyer, so stop pretending to be one, and focus on your photography. There you have a chance at saying something meaningful.

 

[brennanphotoguy]

Actually put an M10 in my hands today. I want it even more now. Ugh, it's so nice.

 

[______]

Actually put an M10 in my hands today. I want it even more now. Ugh, it's so nice.

I tried it out when I was in SF. If I found $10K on the sidewalk, I'd buy it with a 35mm Summicron.

 

[Fotobot]

No. According to the United States Copyright Office Fair-Use "promotes freedom of expression". Freedom of expression is a Constitutional right.

Freedom of expression is a Constitutional right. Fair use isn't. There is no fair use provision in the Constitution. Try to find it. You won't. Fair use is an exception to an exclusive statutory right, namely, copyright. You are mixing up fair use and freedom of expression. They are not the same thing. They are only related insofar as they fall under the broad umbrella of communication. Lots and lots of things promote communication and sometimes freedom of expression. It doesn't mean you have a Constitutional right to all of them. It also doesn't mean that no contract can ever abridge communication. A Leica M10 would very distinctly and beautifully promote my freedom of expression, but people would look at me like a total fool if I demanded a Leica M10 as a "Constitutional right".

Think about this: Reid asks subscribers to sign a nondisclosure agreement. If your argument about Fair Use being a Constitutional right were correct, no nondisclosure agreement would ever be valid or enforceable. And yet people sign and rely on nondisclosure agreements every day, in numerous fields and endeavors, and for numerous reasons. That's a fact. In other words, people don't sign nondisclosure agreements and then turn around and say Fair Use gives them a "free pass" to renege on the same agreements. That doesn't work because that would make all nondisclosure agreements absolutely worthless and void from the start. You know (or should know) that Fair Use doesn't work that way. If you did some research on nondisclosure agreements, you would find that plenty of them have been ruled to be valid and enforceable.

 

[jaapv]

But you don't care to elaborate on the math?

Reid is only 40USD, and if I was really getting ready to pull the trigger, I would probably subscribe. Many actually just did. He's doing very well out of the M10, and he deserves it for lots of hard work.

But when you explain your reasoning you really don't need to compromise him at all, I don't think. In fact if some came from his tests, some reference to them will encourage more to subscribe.

But by being so vague, and referencing Sean, some have the idea he has seen weaknesses in the M10.

But maybe he actually has all subscribers under a legally binding NDA, that even covers a general reference, e.g. "Sean noticed (x)"

Is that really the case?

That is absolute balderdash. You extrapolate the personal considerations of one person to the findings of an Internet reviewer who will show the strengths of the new camera but will not dictate my opinion..

I already listed my personal ideas on LUF but I will gladly repeat them here:

1. From everything I have seen in reviews and by reliable users image quality is marginally better than the M240 and SL, but mainly at high ISO and will not translate into print for my normal use. I am not a darkness shooter and can cope on the occasional night shot.
2. I like and use Video.
3. I use a mixture of film and digital M cameras. In general I prefer the ergonomics of the thicker bodies.
4. I would like to have a better EVF, but the EVF2 does the job, albeit not in a pretty manner.
5. I like the new viewfinder, but never found the present one limiting. (I found that I can focus lenses up to 270 mm on the M240 - albeit with difficulty and not quite reliably. (yes, there is a possibility of a 270 rangefinder coupled lens 😉))
6. The ISO wheel, although it is a nice throwback to the M3, is neither here nor there to my use.

7. Then there is the main argument for the M10: It appeals to my monkey instinct desiring the newest shiniest thing. I am as eager as any primate to drop a half-eaten apple in favour of a juicy one on the branch. But I made my 240 pretty enough to resist.😉

So there is no reason for me to spend money that can be pleasurably used for other purposes including photographic ones on a new M10 that basically gains me nothing significant.