Jinni.Tech vs. RED Part 4 (1hr long)

[Emanuel]

40 minutes ago, Video Hummus said:

The latest video went deep into US Universal Commercial Code Law (yeah, sounds exciting right....) which are laws in the US to protect consumers and business from writing unfair contracts that will expose them to liability.

He clearly lays out by reading the relative parts of REDs terms of service and makes a good case, he thinks, that they are in violation of several clauses as laid out in the UCC law.

Standard-form contracts are a plague but this is nothing about a single company. I protest against them practically in a daily basis and I don't need to tell the world there's a demon to kill. However, my point still stands in the same side as Jinni.Tech's for that matter.

  

40 minutes ago, Video Hummus said:

He makes other points about REDs extensive litigious behavior towards other companies and individuals, including himself and JinniTech. Some of it for even having the word RED in your company name in a completely different industry. None of that is conspiracy theory. It’s all documented in the public record.

So it’s not a conspiracy theory when he is actually going to court over it. The courts, thankfully, don’t put up with that shit.

Trademark. It's a protected name and its usage. Obviously not for every single industry existent on planet earth. WIPO treaties gives anyone such right to fight for. If there are Courts to protect one side, this applies both ways.

There's a principle in every legal system: equity. That is, there's no place to burn one side in the public square in advance.

[rawshooter]

45 minutes ago, Video Hummus said:

He makes other points about REDs extensive litigious behavior towards other companies and individuals, including himself and JinniTech. Some of it for even having the word RED in your company name in a completely different industry. None of that is conspiracy theory. It’s all documented in the public record.

Yes, but this makes no real difference to how companies, industries (and capitalism for that matter) generally work. Companies sue each other over trademarks and patents all the time, especially in industries like tech and pharmaceuticals.

[Emanuel]

It is invariably the only way to put the legal system to work. People/companies just protect their own. No need for guns : X

Law is the most civil and proper approach. This tells how respectful a business should be run.

[BTM_Pix]

Whilst the latest instalment was largely focused on the administrative aspects and an implied interpretation of them, I think its worth remembering how this all started and what caused Jinnitech to go down this rabbit hole in the first place.

This is one of my own "Made In USA" 128g REDMAGs.

According to the Federal Trade Commission, for a product to qualify as "Made In USA" ....

"The product should contain no — or negligible — foreign content."

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/complying-made-usa-standard

That Toshiba SSD being made in the Philippines and it representing far more than a "negligible" part of the product clearly suggests that it disqualifies it from being able to use that claim.

And thats before we get to the issue of the modern MiniMAGs having misleading definition of their actual capacity.

Everything else that has flowed or been explored about RED in the subsequent videos has stemmed from the revelations about the drives.

So, amongst the rest of it, don't lose sight of the fact that in the short term at least, the drives are the real story here because contravening the FTC regulations is actionable and the Lanham Act gives individuals and companies the right to sue anyone making such a false claim if they have been impacted by it.

How RED have conducted themselves regarding patents and corporate structures and so on are one thing but if anyone can explain why the use of "Made In USA" isn't anything but deceptive then I'm all ears.

Also, if any of you have your own opened REDMAGs that you can show pictures of to demonstrate that a claim of "Made In USA" is viable for your one then, of course, I'm all eyes.

[Emanuel]

Yeah, there's a point there indeed. That one. People have the right to claim for their rights. The fact is they're not alone on this game to be honest. Many others do the same. But did anyone succeed to penalize them so far?

They will surely say the same as other manufacturers in the past to comprehend design and assembling in their defense, very likely.

In any case, this has damaged their reputation. The fact per se is subject to be liable for that. I guess Jinni.Tech cannot be afraid. They have how to prove it, isn't it? ; ) Even though, liability doesn't end there, it is a very serious match for both sides and costs money. I wouldn't surprise myself if the mountain laboured and brought forth a mouse in the tail end.

[sanveer]

5 hours ago, rawshooter said:

With all due respect, but unless "Jinnitech" manages to clearly put down and explain what is supposedly wrong with RED instead of churning out convoluted, suggestive and unclear mystery tales, this is all just some QAnon-style YouTube-"truther" conspiracy BS... 

Maybe you should watch all his videos, and preferably a few times. He explains everything rather well. With facts, history, law, court filings, technology etc. If you still think it's a conspiracy theory, maybe its beyond your ability to understand the basic jargon in reference.

I wouldn't call you a fanboy or something, because it's difficult to understand why you have a bias against someone who is clearly highlighting facts.

 

[rawshooter]

37 minutes ago, sanveer said:

Maybe you should watch all his videos, and preferably a few times. He explains everything rather well. With facts, history, law, court filings, technology etc. If you still think it's a conspiracy theory, maybe its beyond your ability to understand the basic jargon in reference.

I wouldn't call you a fanboy or something, because it's difficult to understand why you have a bias against someone who is clearly highlighting facts.

 

Then he should make the effort of writing down his insights in a well-structured paper/article, with an abstract, summary and clearly laid out arguments, instead of producing convoluted truther-style videos. Sorry, but they don't meet even minimum standards of journalism or research, and wouldn't pass any editor (except maybe at Infowars.com).

And I actually would applaud if someone in the industry would stand up and sue RED so that its RAW video patent goes away.

The RED subculture is a strange one, both on the company's side and on the side of its enemies. It's like getting into a cult like Scientology. I personally want to keep my mind clear of that nonsense.

[BTM_Pix]

1 hour ago, Emanuel said:

Yeah, there's a point there indeed. That one. People have the right to claim for their rights. The fact is they're not alone on this game to be honest. Many others do the same. But did anyone succeed to penalize them so far?

 

If you mean has anyone ever been prosecuted for falsely claiming their goods were made in the USA then the answer is most definitely yes.

This whole can of worms - or can of overseas made components in this case - has been opened by using the "proprietary" and "made in the USA" angle as a way to attack Jinnitech for counterfeiting and making low grade products with low spec components that will fail in the field etc.

In this case, the kettle has quite rightly pointed out the very dark shade of grey of the pot itself when it comes to the components.

The relevance of the "$50 limited warranty" in the last video by the way also speaks to the fact that if the costly "proprietary" and "made in the USA" mags  fail, chew your data and write off a day of shooting then you actually have no more recourse (and actually less depending on the country of sale) than you would with 3rd party ones.

 

[Emanuel]

  

22 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

If you mean has anyone ever been prosecuted for falsely claiming their goods were made in the USA then the answer is most definitely yes.

I mean RED, not other cases. Many others exist, I am sure. But, is there any successful case study out there to point out? I am curious.

 

1 hour ago, rawshooter said:

The RED subculture is a strange one, both on the company's side and on the side of its enemies. It's like getting into a cult like Scientology. I personally want to keep my mind clear of that nonsense.

Right on the spot, thanks for summarizing my personal scope on it, very of my own too : ) The world is not B&W for Christ's sake! :- )

[sanveer]

1 hour ago, rawshooter said:

Then he should make the effort of writing down his insights in a well-structured paper/article, with an abstract, summary and clearly laid out arguments, instead of producing convoluted truther-style videos. Sorry, but they don't meet even minimum standards of journalism or research, and wouldn't pass any editor (except maybe at Infowars.com).

Hehehe. He is not a journalist. He is a activist consumer who has been forced to fight against RED because of false case(s) against him. So much so, that RED seems to be restructuring their company under some yet-unheard structure and which attempts to protect RED and its assets from all sorts of prospective lawsuits.

Hopefully, they send RED to the bottom of the earth, and all their money is paid in class action lawsuits and settlements, for ruthless harassment and bullying of customers and (self declared) competitors, under complete misuse of the legal system. It may also be a good time to discipline lawyers whose sole purpose seems to be bullying customers and competitors, especially the much smaller companies and not so affluent customers. 

[Shaocaholica]

1 hour ago, rawshooter said:

Then he should make the effort of writing down his insights in a well-structured paper/article, with an abstract, summary and clearly laid out arguments, instead of producing convoluted truther-style videos. Sorry, but they don't meet even minimum standards of journalism or research, and wouldn't pass any editor (except maybe at Infowars.com).

And I actually would applaud if someone in the industry would stand up and sue RED so that its RAW video patent goes away.

The RED subculture is a strange one, both on the company's side and on the side of its enemies. It's like getting into a cult like Scientology. I personally want to keep my mind clear of that nonsense.

Keep punching down on behalf of a heartless toxic tech bro corp.

[Emanuel]

I've been watching this part 5. Almost 1 hour long... I quit when I realized it's a comedy after all! I thought it was a drama instead : D Both sides.

In my country, we're used to say we cannot be more Popists than the Pope himself.

Seems clear to me now the legal team or whoever wrote that disclaimer on limitation of liability had no single idea what was going on there.

That's the finest example how standard-form contracts are actually illegal and nobody had the mercy to inform them! LOL (E :- )

[seanzzxx]

I'm sorry, but as someone who actually has a legal background, you can't just pull up the law and guess at what it means. And trust me, while he attempts to sound very authoritative that is all that he is doing if you don't show your work. Show me precedent or other substantiated legal arguments otherwise this is just a complete joke. And this is coming from someone who doesn't like REDs aggressive litigative practices.

[BTM_Pix]

EDIT.

 

[Shaocaholica]

54 minutes ago, seanzzxx said:

I'm sorry, but as someone who actually has a legal background, you can't just pull up the law and guess at what it means. And trust me, while he attempts to sound very authoritative that is all that he is doing if you don't show your work. Show me precedent or other substantiated legal arguments otherwise this is just a complete joke. And this is coming from someone who doesn't like REDs aggressive litigative practices.

He's already going to court relatively soon.  I'm not sure what more you want from him?  Who else on youtube or TV or written press or (lol) social media does what you are asking for?  Super duper long form legal discussion for a lay-audience?

[sanveer]

1 hour ago, seanzzxx said:

I'm sorry, but as someone who actually has a legal background, you can't just pull up the law and guess at what it means. And trust me, while he attempts to sound very authoritative that is all that he is doing if you don't show your work. Show me precedent or other substantiated legal arguments otherwise this is just a complete joke. And this is coming from someone who doesn't like REDs aggressive litigative practices.

And his ignorance made him win Round 1 against RED which probably hired lawyers who charged as much per appearence, as most middle class Americans make in a year (and I am guessing way more than you make per appearance, if coursework is your forte). It's the same company that won the strangest Patent suits against Apple and a host of other multibillion-dollar  corporations. 

He's not going to be listing precedents, and all provision of law online. Or structure his actual arguments either. People are already whining that they can't understand anything, they will probably start jumping of off buildings, if he makes it any more technical. 

22 minutes ago, Shaocaholica said:

He's already going to court relatively soon.  I'm not sure what more you want from him?  Who else on youtube or TV or written press or (lol) social media does what you are asking for?  Super duper long form legal discussion for a lay-audience?

Well said. 

[seanzzxx]

His court case has nothing to do with his YouTube video on REDs user agreements.

[Shaocaholica]

8 hours ago, seanzzxx said:

His court case has nothing to do with his YouTube video on REDs user agreements.

That's probably for the best if he wants to win.

[seanzzxx]

I realize that, you were the one bringing up his court case. With some exceptions, all this video is doing is putting legal text next to a dictionary definition which is INCREDIBLY bad practice. Legal texts  are defined in court, often in very particular and sometimes counter-intuitive ways. I'm not saying that REDs user agreement is good or even legally enforceable, I'm saying this video tells you very little about the legality despite explicitly pretending to do so. You can give a legal argument that is aimed at laymen, however that is not what he is doing.

[IronFilm]

16 hours ago, rawshooter said:

Then he should make the effort of writing down his insights in a well-structured paper/article, with an abstract, summary and clearly laid out arguments, instead of producing convoluted truther-style videos. Sorry, but they don't meet even minimum standards of journalism or research, and wouldn't pass any editor (except maybe at Infowars.com).

"Truther-style videos"?? Wow. 
Clearly you either didn't watch his videos at all, or you did but just didn't comprehend them. As they after all covering YEARS of documented history of RED, and many aspects that RED has done wrong. (but yes, at the core it is all about the MiniMags like @BTM_Pix highlighted) If he was to try and just as thoroughly cover it with an article, that could easily turn into a multi series of them as well! You can't properly cover all of that in just a few paragraphs. But even a casual browsing of your videos should be enough for you to catch onto the history of lying and deception RED has been engaging in. 

I've got no problem with Jinni Tech choosing to use video format to tell it, not everyone is an expert journalist & skilled wordsmith, if he feels more comfortable in the video format (no surprise, he's a filmmaker) then that is what he should do. Plus I feel the visual medium works for what he's doing. 

This is such a major story (at least in our little niche of the world) that numerous others have covered this news as well, such as: Linus Torvalds, Newsshooter, CineD, RedSharkNews, ymcinema, NoFilmSchool, etc.... none of them are calling it "truther-style videos".