WARNING TO RED: your warranty policy may be illegal

[Manfred Lopez]

This is in regards to all the discussion of transfering warranties.



So, if you purchase directly from the original purchaser, RED may not honor the Standard Warranty if the original purchaser does not submit the claim.



Dear Red

I humbly believe that your policy of not transfering your written waranty is unlawful and illegal (but I still love you all :innocent: ... Please don't black list me :innocent: ). Acording to the TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 50 Section § 2304 of the Federal Trade Code, Red must honor a written warranty. Here is why:


SECTION § 2304
[All emphasis and underlining mine]


SUBSECTION (a)

In order for a warrantor warranting a consumer product by means of a written warranty to meet the Federal minimum standards for warranty—
(1) such warrantor must as a minimum remedy such consumer product within a reasonable time and without charge, in the case of a defect, malfunction, or failure to conform with such written warranty;

SUBSECTION (b)

(4) The duties under subsection (a) of this section extend from the warrantor to each person who is a consumer with respect to the consumer product.

TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 50 > § 2301. DEFINITIONS:

(3) The term “consumer” means a buyer (other than for purposes of resale) of any consumer product, any person to whom such product is transferred during the duration of an implied or written warranty (or service contract) applicable to the product, and any other person who is entitled by the terms of such warranty (or service contract) or under applicable State law to enforce against the warrantor (or service contractor) the obligations of the warranty (or service contract).


F U R T H E R M O R E....


SUBSECTION (b)
Duties and conditions imposed on consumer by warrantor

(1) In fulfilling the duties under subsection (a) of this section respecting a written warranty, the warrantor shall not impose any duty other than notification upon any consumer as a condition of securing remedy of any consumer product which malfunctions, is defective, or does not conform to the written warranty [...]

...

In other words... Red may not impose any 'creative' restrictions on warranty to try to manipulate or control the second-hand market. So maybe it's time for Red to consult lawyers on this.

Anyway, just trying to be helpful while I myself are considering a Red One purchase as a second-hand item.


EDIT:

Citation: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00002304----000-.html

[Manfred Lopez]

Oh, one more thing...

Red cannot require one to 'Register' the product in order to secure or 'activate' the warranty. The law is very clear on this.

[Darwin]

Warranties are often made nontransferable.

[Michael "Dorkman" Scott]

I think the main thing is that, if you sell your RED, RED needs to know that. The cameras are all linked up to their buyers, and if the owner of RED #42 sells it to someone else, and that someone else tries to get RED #42 serviced, for all they know, that someone else stole RED #42.

As quoted in the laws above:

"any person to whom such product is transferred during the duration of an implied or written warranty"

Emphasis mine. RED is just saying that there is a procedure for said transfer to make sure it's all in order.

At least, that's how I interpret it. I could be way off.

[Manfred Lopez]

Warranties are often made nontransferable.

Just because a bunch of manufacturers try to make it so doesn't mean it is legal. For example, just the other day I bought a new matress and the sales person swore up and down that in order to activate the warranty I had to use a supplied USB key (For a matress???). Anyway, consumer reports very clearly states that you in fact do not have to activate anything. The warranty is in effect the second you buy it.





"any person to whom such product is transferred during the duration of an implied or written warranty"

Emphasis mine. RED is just saying that there is a procedure for said transfer to make sure it's all in order.

At least, that's how I interpret it. I could be way off.

In fact, Red does not need to know and track every single owner. Also, they are not the police and therefore should not be responsible for tracking stolen property. The consumer movement in this country basically guaranteed, among many things, privacy to buyers of products.

Also, regarding the "transfer" of the product, the subsection on Federal minimum standards for warranties specifies that manufacturers may NOT impose duties ($500 asesment fee) or conditions (it has to go through this person just because our web site is set up that way). I mean, the TITLE of the subsection is called Duties and conditions imposed on consumer by warrantor. The law cannot be any more clear than this.

[istvanttt]

TheThe,
usually I'm very paranoid with anybody who tries to “personalize” warranty issues, but in the case of RED they gave us much more then any Government Law did: it protects as the buyer (he can get an up-to-date version of the camera) as the seller (you don’t sell an old camera, even if you have used it for 2-3 years).

Next, look at the price: 500S$?!!! I would be happy even if they would have considered 20% of the purchase price for this service. Usually producers try to sell the newest product and don’t care to protect your earlier investment.

Maybe we should remember that we talk about a Mission Critical product, so the highest possible quality is mandatory and the present solution (if it doesn’t change:) will help us all to keep our investment valid.
Istvan

[Martin Drew]

This legislation appears to relate to consumer products. I presume most purchasers of the RedOne will use it in a professional capacity and as such the legislation would not apply.

Interesting to speculate what the situation would be if a wealthy consumer did purchase the camera just to play with. I presume it is the usage of the product which determines if it is professional or conusmer, not the nature of the product itself. If the consumer came from the EU they may well be entitled to a 2 year warranty.

M

[Gunleik Groven]

Martin

Hardly if he/she bought it from the US

In Norway "Equipment one should expect to have a lifespan of at least 5 years" have such a warranty for consumers. Thus recently cell-phones were granted 5 years under Norwegian Consumer law (to mach griefby the importers) by the High Court.

But, for pro's and companies the warranty is only one year - if you don't buy extra time from the manufacturer.

The warranty would follow the equipment and not the buyer, though.

Main point is:
If you buy something from somewhere else, "somewhere else´s" laws apply.

Gunleik

[number6]

TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 50 > § 2301. DEFINITIONS:

(3) The term “consumer” means a buyer (other than for purposes of resale) of any consumer product, any person to whom such product is transferred during the duration of an implied or written warranty (or service contract) applicable to the product, and any other person who is entitled by the terms of such warranty (or service contract) or under applicable State law to enforce against the warrantor (or service contractor) the obligations of the warranty (or service contract).[/COLOR]



...or under applicable State law...

Being "legal-speak" challenged, can anyone tell me if this has any bearing?

[Manfred Lopez]

...or under applicable State law...

Being "legal-speak" challenged, can anyone tell me if this has any bearing?

Not really since California has the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Song Beverly) and the California Commercial Code (UCC). Both are state laws regulating this stuff and from what I understand they go even further than the federal minimum requirements. California has some of the most stringent regulations in the US when it comes to business.

[sbroock]

Although (hopefully) well intentioned, this is a very silly and misleading thread.

RED's non-transferability of warranty is valid, typical, and expressly stated.

The sections of Code that you are citing are general statements of warranty, and ignore provisions that allow a manufacturer to tailor the terms of its warranty.

Among other reasons, that is why the definition of consumer includes "any other person who is entitled by the terms of such warranty."

Key here, of course is "by the terms of the warranty."

[Paul Hazlett]

there are many warranty situations where a warranty is not transferred.
One of the biggest examples are cars.

[Anthony Gratl]

Although (hopefully) well intentioned, this is a very silly and misleading thread.
Well, first off, this isn't silly and misleading at all. If you're going to make statements like this, you better back them up, because the lack of transferability of warranty is a huge issue for most of us, and the fact that you make retorts like this without bringing up any ACTUAL points of the law, indicates that your response is in fact silly and misleading, not the thread.


RED's non-transferability of warranty is valid, typical, and expressly stated

Well, I guess that's where you and I (alongside many others) have to disagree. Red's warranty was actually only for 6 months at one point, until the issue was raised. It isn't valid or typical, and that's really the point of this thread, and the points of law that the originator brought up, to state that.
And who are you to tell us that Red's warranty is all legit, without presenting any evidence at all?



The sections of Code that you are citing are general statements of warranty, and ignore provisions that allow a manufacturer to tailor the terms of its warranty.."

Well, why don't you include those provisions of the law, if you're so adamant that the thread is silly. Squash it with facts, not rhetoric.



Among other reasons, that is why the definition of consumer includes "any other person who is entitled by the terms of such warranty." ."
Right. So far you've made the thread originator's point.


Key here, of course is "by the terms of the warranty."

The terms of any warranty will be dictated by the rule of federal, state, and international law. So if you're going to make the case that a. this thread is silly, and b. that Red's warranty is legally on solid ground, then you better start making that case with evidence, not schoolyard banter.

[Anthony Gratl]

there are many warranty situations where a warranty is not transferred.
One of the biggest examples are cars.

This statement is incorrect, in that you aren't differentiating between original factory and extended warranties.
Original factory warranties for automobiles are transferred when resold. Extended warranties are a different situation, and specific to the terms signed between the parties involved.

[Anthony Gratl]

TheThe,
usually I'm very paranoid with anybody who tries to “personalize” warranty issues, but in the case of RED they gave us much more then any Government Law did: it protects as the buyer (he can get an up-to-date version of the camera) as the seller (you don’t sell an old camera, even if you have used it for 2-3 years).
That's called the reality of the new business model istvan. If you can sell people firmware updates that keep them at the leading edge, using the framework (ie. the red camera housing and software) as the foundation, you spend far less on R and D. Don't think that this is a happy accident. As far as "personalizing" warranties go, I'm all for following the rule of law.


Next, look at the price: 500S$?!!! I would be happy even if they would have considered 20% of the purchase price for this service. Usually producers try to sell the newest product and don’t care to protect your earlier investment.
That's very poor business acumen on your part. Sorry. You haven't read the small print in the warranty terms.


Maybe we should remember that we talk about a Mission Critical product, so the highest possible quality is mandatory and the present solution (if it doesn’t change:) will help us all to keep our investment valid.
Istvan

Mission Critical? You mean like global warming is critical? Or do you mean suit and tie talk, which seldom has anything to do with reality.
Keeping our investment valid has a. everything to do with the present 'solution' changing consistently, and b. little to do with a one year warranty, and c. everything to do with building long term infrastructure into the basic design of the camera (which JJ and crew have smartly done, as a little known startup surrounded by giants who have dominated the industry for years. Rather than slay the dragon all at once, chip away at the ankle until eventually it falls over)

[sbroock]

Well, first off, this isn't silly and misleading at all. If you're going to make statements like this, you better back them up, because the lack of transferability of warranty is a huge issue for most of us, and the fact that you make retorts like this without bringing up any ACTUAL points of the law, indicates that your response is in fact silly and misleading, not the thread.

The actual point of law is simply contract law. Where you are getting confused is that you are assuming that RED is under an obligation to give purchasers a full unlimited warranty, when in fact, they have no such obligation under Federal or State (e.g., CA) law.

The code provisions cited in this thread give general statements of warranty, but note that the language is neither "will" nor "must" provide warranty to second-hand purchasers in all cases.

Rather, the general rule is subject to the specific under the "terms" of each contract.

Here, RED has opted to provide a Limited, non-transferable warranty rather than an Unlimited, transferable warranty.

Those are the terms they offer, and when you agree to purchase the camera, they are the terms that control under Federal and, yes, California law.

What you are reacting to is the fact that you personally would like complete freedom to transfer the camera with warranty to anyone you choose, but ignoring that RED has the right under common and statutory law to provide otherwise. Your remedy, of course, is to not accept those terms, and not to buy the camera.

I'm also not seeing why it is burdensome or unreasonable for RED to condition the grant of a 90 day warranty to a new purchaser on an inspection and certification that everything is in working order. I am all for profiting on your RED investment whether through use or sale, but the fact that your margin might be hit by the re-certification requirement is a burden to be born in private negotiation between you and your buyer.

Asking that someone "cite the law" to show why RED can impose the terms that it does ignores the fact that the code segments cited support exactly such a policy.

For multiple examples of policies similar to RED's, simply google "non-transferable warranty california"

To clarify -- what I think is silly is the selective quotation of law -- at best it is confusing to people who are looking for an explanation. Wanting to know the answer to the warranty issue, of course, is not silly.

[Dan Blanchett]

While I don't think this thread is silly (I understand people's sensitivity to this issue), I have to say that Sbroock is right.

Unless RED conspicuously designates a “full warranty” which they do not, they are not bound by that code. Further, I would not classify RED ONE as a consumer product, which is another requirement. And that classification is handled on a case by case basis in a court of law.

----

From Title 15, Chapter 50:

(a) Full (statement of duration) or limited warranty
Any warrantor warranting a consumer product by means of a written warranty shall clearly and conspicuously designate such warranty in the following manner, unless exempted from doing so by the Commission pursuant to subsection (c) of this section:

(1) If the written warranty meets the Federal minimum standards for warranty set forth in section 2304 of this title, then it shall be conspicuously designated a “full (statement of duration) warranty”.

----

The term “consumer product” means any tangible personal property which is distributed in commerce and which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes (including any such property intended to be attached to or installed in any real property without regard to whether it is so attached or installed).

[Dave Weber]

sbroock and thinkbug are correct.

WAAAAAY back in college, I took a few law classes and contract law was one.

They nailed it right on the head!

[John Hunt]

Yes, unless the law has changed, Red needn't warrant at all. Their terms are up to them, and I have a feeling the decision to limit warranty transference may be geared toward decreasing the value for speculators who fancy a quick flip and profit. That's their prerogative - and it's fine with me.

[Stephen Williams]

Yes, unless the law has changed, Red needn't warrant at all. Their terms are up to them, and I have a feeling the decision to limit warranty transference may be geared toward decreasing the value for speculators who fancy a quick flip and profit. That's their prerogative - and it's fine with me.

Hi,

I generally buy second hand equipment without any guarantees. Personally I am happy with the lower prices I pay. People who are risk adverse tend to buy new so that they can sleep at night.

Stephen

[Teague Kennedy]

I find it a bit silly that the people at Red would want to limit the possibilities for people who were part of the revolution and believed in the project from the get go, and helped spread the exitement on the web and elsewhere. I hope this whole "you cannot do this with your Red" attitude goes away. We are the people that helped in the marketing machine.

But, I, too, still like, no, love, you guys at Red : )

[John V]

A company does note leagally need to offer a warranty at all. So be happy ther is one. I hate people who are so negative

[Martin Drew]

Martin

Hardly if he/she bought it from the US

In Norway "Equipment one should expect to have a lifespan of at least 5 years" have such a warranty for consumers. Thus recently cell-phones were granted 5 years under Norwegian Consumer law (to mach griefby the importers) by the High Court.

But, for pro's and companies the warranty is only one year - if you don't buy extra time from the manufacturer.

The warranty would follow the equipment and not the buyer, though.

Main point is:
If you buy something from somewhere else, "somewhere else´s" laws apply.

Gunleik

Yup. Of course you are right. I didn't have my thinking cap on this morning. Duh! Consumer law in the UK states that any item sold must be of satisfactory quality and free of defects and it applies for 6 years from the date of purchase. In practise that means that even if the manufacturers warranty period is over you may still have a claim against the supplier if an item doesn't last for a reasonable length of time (and that will depend upon the item), up to a maximum of 6 years. I guess we are just spoilt over here.

M

[istvanttt]

That's called the reality of the new business model istvan. If you can sell people firmware updates that keep them at the leading edge, using the framework (ie. the red camera housing and software) as the foundation, you spend far less on R and D. Don't think that this is a happy accident. As far as "personalizing" warranties go, I'm all for following the rule of law.


That's very poor business acumen on your part. Sorry. You haven't read the small print in the warranty terms.



Mission Critical? You mean like global warming is critical? Or do you mean suit and tie talk, which seldom has anything to do with reality.
Keeping our investment valid has a. everything to do with the present 'solution' changing consistently, and b. little to do with a one year warranty, and c. everything to do with building long term infrastructure into the basic design of the camera (which JJ and crew have smartly done, as a little known startup surrounded by giants who have dominated the industry for years. Rather than slay the dragon all at once, chip away at the ankle until eventually it falls over)

Sorry for the term Mission Critical. I took it from the software business and it indicates productes which influences the possibility to realize the own profession. In other words, if the sw is good and almost bugfree, you as user can improve your profession or make more money; if its bad you lose a lot. FCP is considered a mission critical sw; an utility to schedule better your day is not, even if very usefull.

In his meaning I used the term Mission Critical because I think that most of us buy the RED ONE to realize our own mission.

For the rest, I don't know about which "small print" you are talking about, but if RED is ofering to bring a 2-3 years old used camera for 500$ to the latest toplevel, then this indeed protects my investment more then any written Law.
Istvan

[Teague Kennedy]

A company does note leagally need to offer a warranty at all. So be happy ther is one. I hate people who are so negative

Meany.

It's not so much the warranty that tickles me, but the "beware, dare not sell your red" attitude.

[John V]

I dont have anything against selling the RED it is just a matter of protecting ones interests. RED does not wish to get sued from someone who bought a camera that could have been motified without checking it out first. Hence returning the camera to their offices to check it over. I am sure Jim will or already has a plan in place for this.

[Mark B.]

I dont have anything against selling the RED it is just a matter of protecting ones interests. RED does not wish to get sued from someone who bought a camera that could have been motified without checking it out first. Hence returning the camera to their offices to check it over. I am sure Jim will or already has a plan in place for this.

I doubt it's possible for Red to be sued if one person bought a used camera from another person. The transaction has nothing to do with Red, so they don't need to protect themselves. If they want to offer a service where a camera can be verified as being in good working order, that's fine, but it's a separate issue that shouldn't have anything to do with warranty transfers.

This warranty thing is very irksome. It's like Red made a beautiful painting and then hung it on a wall using a PVC frame and duct tape. Why not take that tiny little step and make the warranty as flexible as the camera?

[Manfred Lopez]

It's not so much the warranty that tickles me, but the "beware, dare not sell your red" attitude.

This thread has been very entertaining indeed... maybe it's because right now I am in the middle of writting a legal scene in my script. :)

First of all, I want to repeat that I love the Red mission and that I mean no harm or disrespect. :innocent:

Okay, so now on to the juicy stuff:

It is my humble opinion that many people here are correct in stating that Red has the right to manage their waranty however they like as long as it meets federal and california minimum standards. So they can say warranty doesn't transfer. And that is fine.

But what is really at issue here, and this seems to be what is ticking people off a bit, is that Red seems to be going so far as to inhibit others from updating the camera through firmware updates (or the daughter board implant, etz.). The message: If you buy it used, then you cannot have a password and access to our website. Now this, in my opinion, goes against the federal minimum standard of implied warranty, which every manufacturer has to follow.


To put it real simple:

1. Red One is still not a fully functioning product as promissed.

2. Red allows one to buy this product with the understanding that as new 'discoveries' or developments are made towards getting the camera up to advertised spec, the camera itself will be updated.

3. Red uses the slogan "Rendering Obsolescence Obsolete", but then turn around and says that it only aplies to the original owners once someone actually tries to sell the camera.


What people seem to be afraid of (and rightly so) is buying a Red one used and then being left out of the loop as far as bringing the camera up to spec. So, like I was saying, the issue is not expressed limited warranty, but rather implied warranty of product and its advertised full potential. I am sure these threads would not exist if the camera was fully functioning and you wouldn't need to grip onto a 'limited warranty' to just bring it to full spec.

So therefore, in my humble opinion, I believe Red should clarify if they intend to have all cameras from serial number one through 5000 end up with the same specs no matter who owns them... or if you sell one then they will stop bringing it up to date for free like the rest (just don't iBrick them please :) ). Maybe everyone should hold off selling them until we know what is going on. Or maybe Red right from the outset should just prohibit anyone from selling until the Red One has time to become a fully functinal death star of 4k mayhem. :gun:

.

[sbroock]

So, like I was saying, the issue is not expressed limited warranty, but rather implied warranty of product and its advertised full potential. I am sure these threads would not exist if the camera was fully functioning and you wouldn't need to grip onto a 'limited warranty' to just bring it to full spec.

.

Honestly, this is really counterproductive. Implied warranty has nothing to do with your original question of non-transferability and you are just introducing a red herring that will further confuse people. Your opinion about RED's policy as being against any type of Federal or State law is, frankly, just ill informed.

To quote the physicist Wolfgang Pauli: "This isn't even wrong."

[Manfred Lopez]

Honestly, this is really counterproductive. Implied warranty has nothing to do with your original question of non-transferability and you are just introducing a red herring that will further confuse people. Your opinion about RED's policy as being against any type of Federal or State law is, frankly, just ill informed.

To quote the physicist Wolfgang Pauli: "This isn't even wrong."

Um, I appologize for that. Like I said before, I love the Red mission and the last thing I want to do is confuse people. But the way I read the law and someone explained it to me is what I was trying to pass on. It seems that this topic is on a lot of people's minds. Some even seem to agree with some of my posts.

As a struggling producer I have long ago learned that it pays to pay attention to the law and know your rights and obligations. Red as a company has been nothing but nice and generous so far, and I love them for that. But this 'attitude' (as some have called it) against people selling their Reds is uncaracteristic and I am sure they will clarify their position which will turn out to be quite nice. So I don't think these posts are unproductive. It helps Red learn more about what's on everyone's minds and how the company is comming across to some.

Oh, and that bit about my post being ill informed is just your opinion... but you are stating it as a matter-of-fact. At least in my posts I try to use phrases like 'it is my humble opinion' or 'may' (like in the title of the thread), and then I provide links to the stuff I base my opinions on. Maybe it would help us all accept your statements-as-fact if you just state that you are an attorney with an expertise in this area (I am not... but I read). In the mean time my intention with this thread was to let Red know that there may be a potential problem... then again, it may turn out to be nothing. But it doesn't hurt to look into it.


EDIT:

Oh, and the wording of "WARNING TO RED" that I chose was a direct copy of Brent@RED's wording of "Warning: Purchasing a Previously-Owned RED ONE". This was meant as a comic imitation. I am not really screaming 'warning'. No, really. :)

[Jannard]

OK Guys... all bullshit aside!! If RED is not willing to take care of the people that put everything in "their" basket... then just let us know. "We" will do our best to go elsewhere... The "NON" communication or "lawyer speak" is getting on my last nerve. I have "zero" respect for lawyers...

Evidently loyalty means "jack"...

Imagine we get a camera back from the 2nd owner expecting us to warranty a "modified" camera and the new owner has no idea what he bought. We are struggling to figure out how to deal with this since we have realized that many owners are "experimenting" with their new toys. And we don't want to examine and fix problems created by "previous owners". We'll review our policy (as always) to try to come up with a fair solution. We just want to fix problems we created... and I think we have shown a willingness to bend over backwards to do that.

Andrew... please feel free to "go elsewhere" if you feel we are not taking care of our customers properly. In fact, you can contact me directly for your refund if you are so inclined.

Jim

[Rick Darge]

Oh snap!

[Charles Adams]

Just for comparison, here is Sony's warranty (http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/markets/10018/docs/ProductWarranty.pdf) for their professional products, including the HDW-F900R (http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/minisites/cinealta/shoot/hdwf900r.shtml), a $79,900 USD list price camera without lenses/accessories.

Sony's warranty? One year and NOT applicable for used products or those not purchased direct from Sony themselves.

Then there is Panasonic's warranty (ftp://ftp.panasonic.com/pub/Panasonic/Drivers/PBTS/manuals/WT_PBTS.pdf) for their VariCam AJ-HDC27H (http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ModelDetail?storeId=11201&catalogId=13051&itemId=94208&catGroupId=14569&surfModel=AJ-HDC27H&displayTab=R), a $45,000 USD camera.

Panasonic's warranty? One year and NON-TRANSFERABLE.

In other words, Red's warranty is in line with that of the industry, and perhaps better, considering their $500/90 day option.

Please keep this in mind. I think expectations are getting out of control...

[Martin Ludwig]

this is indeed a very funny discussion. If I would buy a used Red I would call Red and I´m sure they will offer me great help (as Sony and Panasonic did already in the past).
You should trust a company if you are working with them. Use your mouth to speak and you will get help.

[Gunleik Groven]

Seriously...

When I put down my order, no camera was present, much less a warranty.

From the number I see besides the avatars, many of you guys ordered way before me. -;) Even less of a camera and even less of a guarantee was then present.

We have always been promised our money back if we're not happy with... well... just about anything.

Some can have griefs over their cams being delayed:
Get your cash back

Some can feel bad about the guarantee:
Get your cash back

Some may still feel Red is a scam, after all -;)
Get your cash back

You aunt fell ill
Get your cash back

Really. Noone at Red is forcing any of us to hang around for this joyride (even though one could argue that the addictiveness of the joy and the ride would be of a sort that some might better have a chat with their doc for a pill or two. Can't afford it?
Get your cash back)

I have sometimes felt a bit coldhearted around here, because I have expected things to take (more) time, and I don't put my future at large for a temporal release date or a 6 vs 12 months guarantee.

To me this is pretty simple:
The camcomes when it comes
It can what it can at that moment
It has the guarantee that Red chooses to give it. Additional insurances can be bought.
And if I don't like it...
I could opt for the cashback -;)

Gunleik
(Who's gettin' his second shot of 4k footy today -;)

[Manfred Lopez]

Really. Noone at Red is forcing any of us to hang around for this joyride


Yeah, but it is fun. :) I wouldn't know what to do with myself if I couldn't hang out in these boards and speculate 'till the N'th degree while we all patiently wait for a Red to become available. (I mean for those of us who don't have one already).

And besides, Jim already came here and said he would look into the matter. It seems that everyone's bitching paid off. :innocent:

[dvpixl]

In other words, Red's warranty is in line with that of the industry, and perhaps better, considering their $500/90 day option.


what's this option about?

[Teague Kennedy]

Imagine we get a camera back from the 2nd owner expecting us to warranty a "modified" camera and the new owner has no idea what he bought. We are struggling to figure out how to deal with this since we have realized that many owners are "experimenting" with their new toys. And we don't want to examine and fix problems created by "previous owners". We'll review our policy (as always) to try to come up with a fair solution. We just want to fix problems we created... and I think we have shown a willingness to bend over backwards to do that.
Jim

I think this should put to rest the attitude of "sell your camera and you are damned." Thanks for chiming in, Jim. I think noone here wants to be unfair to Red. Their policies have been more than fair, IMHO. It's just the re-sale taboo that has been a little weird to me and it has possibly come more from the posters on the board than the Red team. Hey, it's your camera. You put down a deposit early. You waited. You shared in the excitement. Use it. Wear it as a necklace. Put in it a gold case under vaccuum. Sell it to someone if you're done with your big production, or you need the money, or you dang well please.

But, no, I sure the heck don't want my deposit back. : )

[planet e]

Jim, thank you for your patience and willingness to work out the details on these matters with the rest of the asylum...another tempest brewing in the teapot....

Folks need to chill out and look at more closely at what is authentic about RED's track record for serving its customers and less at their own fears. Okay, so there is not much track record, but the will and resolve behind RED to be the best camera company in the world is unmatched anywhere....

DanK put up what appears to be the first legitimate public RED sale, and RED responded to this "emerging" secondary market in a way that is in-line with the industry and appears to be trying to deal fairly with customers while keeping a necessary boundary about modded cameras. DanK will walk away several thousand dollars richer--and one outstanding camera poorer--without lifting a finger. He can buy a nice O'Connor tripod with the winnings. Good investment, good job backing a great horse.

If RED was the den of thieves being portrayed, DanK could not have pulled that off, because no one would have bid...this is a great company with one of the greatest CEOs/presidents/savants in the world at its helm.

This emperor wears some very nice clothes in 4K. Let the man do his job.

[jaadgy akanni]

DanK put up what appears to be the first legitimate public RED sale, and RED responded to this "emerging" secondary market in a way that is in-line with the industry and appears to be trying to deal fairly with customers while keeping a necessary boundary about modded cameras. DanK will walk away several thousand dollars richer--and one outstanding camera poorer--without lifting a finger. He can buy a nice O'Connor tripod with the winnings. Good investment, good job backing a great horse.


I stumbled upon something interesting on Dvinfo.net the other day... peep this:
http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=105141

[Jeff Kilgroe]

jaadgy, the topic doesn't exist or has been removed. So we can only guess about what was so interesting. :(

[jaadgy akanni]

I find it bizarre that the topic supposedly doesn't exist because it was current and I visited it this morning. It was a thread with a guy in Mexico who bought RED #76, second hand . I asked him if he was being able to get access to all the camera builds and he said yes. BTW, if I'm not mistaken, and judging from his name, the guy happens to be a relatively well known music video producer/director in Mexico. I do find it weird that they blocked that link.

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

I find it bizarre that the topic supposedly doesn't exist because it was current and I visited it this morning. It was a thread with a guy in Mexico who bought a second hand RED. I asked him if he was being able to get access to all the camera builds and he said yes. BTW, if I'm not mistaken, and judging from his name, the guy happens to be a relatively well known music video producer/director in Mexico. I do find it weird that they blocked that link.

And you couldn't find the thread back on Dvinfo itself too?
Was it posted in the RED forum?

[jaadgy akanni]

Let me try posting the link again:
http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=107260

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

Link now works, thanks!

[10s]

If I was a billionaire and had a few RED cameras to play around with, but had all this silly whinning irritating me, I might think about dropping the camera making business altogether.

How long will Jannard enjoy this camera business before he get's bored and tired of faceless whinners and calls it quits?

[Teague Kennedy]

If I was a billionaire and had a few RED cameras to play around with, but had all this silly whinning irritating me, I might think about dropping the camera making business altogether.

How long will Jannard enjoy this camera business before he get's bored and tired of faceless whinners and calls it quits?


Jim doesn't sit and cry over these posts. I imagine he takes to heart what he sees as valid and he throws the rest in the garbage and perhaps laughs about some of them. These faceless whinners have helped shaped this camera, because sometimes they have good ideas. He knows that, and that's why he plays along. IMHO.

[Joel Kaye]

If I was a billionaire... calls it quits?

Self made billionaires don't know the word quit. Don't lose any sleep.

[Anthony Gratl]

If I was a billionaire and had a few RED cameras to play around with, but had all this silly whinning irritating me, I might think about dropping the camera making business altogether.

How long will Jannard enjoy this camera business before he get's bored and tired of faceless whinners and calls it quits?

Youre not understanding the notion of making yourself into a household name.
And whining and whiners both have one n, not two. Winning and winners have two n's.

[Nathan Buxton]

Jim doesn't sit and cry over these posts. I imagine he takes to heart what he sees as valid and he throws the rest in the garbage and perhaps laughs about some of them. These faceless whinners have helped shaped this camera, because sometimes they have good ideas. He knows that, and that's why he plays along. IMHO.

My thoughts exactly. I sit back and laugh at them too...

I'm still in disbelief of all this... Jim Jannard is quite generous, but I hope this all turns out well for him. As he said before I have my fingers crossed as RED is a format I will choose if I ever have the need.


[edit] what am I kidding, now that the red is real he has everything he needs this doesnt have to work out any better than it already has :P i just hope for myself that it does.