Slashdot Mirror
MPAA Close to Another "Stealth Victory" in Ohio
Tsar writes "The Ohio State Legislature has passed House Bill #179 (PDF / HTML / Status) which, among other unrelated issues, makes it illegal to make an AV-recording in any theater or retail store where a motion picture is being displayed. Walk into a store that sells video gear and hit 'Record' on any camcorder, digital camera or PDA; the first click is a misdemeanor, the rest are felonies. Oh, and the janitor (or any employee) can detain you in or near the store until police arrive if they think you hit 'Record'. Actually recording any of a film (or even knowing that a film was being shown) is not required for a conviction. This bill now awaits Governor Bob Taft's signature--Ohioans, let him know what a bad law this is!"
for example: wouldnt any news crew that does entertainment pieces, or, ghod forbid does a story after the bill gets passed, (doing a story in front of a best buy for example) be potentially liable for it? any tv screens in front windows, jumbo-trons in times square, large format displayed at music events, anything thats getting picked up even "accidentally" would invite a potential pummeling.
And if you're in a multimedia store, you not even need to bring your own equipment.
"What did I do?"
"You stand to close to the camcorder which we put up for demonstration purpose. We will arrest you until we checked if you hit any record button."
Hey, maybe you could make it the law that all consumer-grade video display equipment (TVs, projectors, advertising displays, etc) has to emit light polarised in a certain direction only, and that all consumer-grade video recording equipment (camcorders, etc) only records light polarised in the other direction.
Then, video displays will appear black if filmed.
Problem solved!
Disclaimer: I think this proposed bill is as stupid as you all think it is, but I had this interesting idea.
evil math within Nature's Cubic Creation!
According to my interpretation of this law, consider the Circuit City delima. As Circuit City sells televisions and their floor models are constantly playing movies for demonstration purposes, the following things are now illegal inside the store:
* As a customer, taking a video recording of your friends with your own cell phone.
* As a customer, trying out the video recording feature of a cell phone that you are interested in purchasing.
* As a customer, trying out the video recording capabilities of a camcorder or other dv device before purchasing.
* As a salesperson, demonstrating the video capabilities of cell phones or camcorders.
* As the store itself, recording images from their own security cameras.
Because of this law, Circuit City would have to disallow their customers from trying out in the store the very products they sell, stop their salespeople from demostrating their own products, and disable their own security cameras.
Only in America, folks, would we let corporations making such a laughing stock of the public.
A hilarious side effect of this law is that you can now block news reporters from filming you at all. Simply film a few minutes of footage of your cat, the traffic, or a blank wall. Purchase a portable video players, such as the Archos AV300. Walk around in public holding the video player in the air for all to see while looping your recording. You own the rights to the recording, but you have not granted the rights to operate recording gear to anyone in your proximity.
You have now made it illegal for anyone to film you. Interestingly, you may be able to carry this device into a bank, government office, etc., and require that they turn off their security cameras as well, lest they are in violation of the law.
My note reads:
I am writing this note to let you know that I am strongly opposed to House Bill #179, specifically its provision about motion picture recording. Although I do not support piracy, the wording of this law is far too imprecise, and I believe will lead to wrongful convictions and problems for citizens who are not innocent of any crime. There is a world of difference between someone sneaking in a video camera into a movie theater for the purpose of making a bootleg tape, and someone innocently using the record function of a device at a store where a movie may or may not even be shown. I believe trying to sneak this provision in among others is deceitful, and I would strongly oppose anyone supporting this bill in its current form at the next election. Thank you.
Please subscribe to see the more insightful version of th
Well, the Ohio governor has a line-item veto, so he can veto certain parts of bills.
1) The provisions of being detained if you're believed to be trying to walk off with copyrighted material has been there already; this bill doesn't change that.
2) This only applies to theaters and retail stores, and appears to have exceptions for government recording for security purposes. (It doesn't mention private industry security, though.)
3) The bill just mentions usage of such a device in the facility; it doesn't mention recording actual copyrighted content (this is the major reason why I'm bothered by it).
4) The bill appears to leave judgement, for the most part, up to the retailers themselves; they're expected to enforce it. (So I doubt demo units are going to be a serious issue, unless there's an overzealous MPAA policeman nearby.)
In short, the only flaws I see are that it covers things it has no business covering (uncopyrighted content) and it doesn't allow for those two common industry practices of demonstration and security cameras. Change those and I think it's OK.
I know that some places already prohibit recordings of any kind anyways, but there's a world of difference between being kicked out of the theater and being arrested. I think being arrested for taking a picture of your kids in the lobby is going a little far. (I'm hoping that theater employees will be relatively sane about such things, though, since enforcement is left to them.)
--
viqsi - See "vixen"
If we do not change our direction we are likely to end up where we are headed.
You head over to Best Buy to look at TV's. While there you happen to swing by the entertainment center display and see one that you think the SO would particularly like. Since (s)he ain't with ya at the time you whip out the cell phone and snap a pic of it to show them later.
Congrats, you've just broken the law. If you snap a second entertainment center for comparison purposes it gets even worse.
No, the problem with laws like these is that they are overly broad, poorly written, and most important don't stop the activity that they're trying to outlaw.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Dear Governor Taft,
I am writing regarding the recently-passed bill Ohio Sub H. B. 179. While this bill has provisions unrelated to my concerns, I wish to voice my extreme trepidation with regards to the provisions prohibiting activation of a video recording device inside any facility where a copyrighted movie is being shown.
The bill is incredibly poorly written. It would prohibit, for example, the following innocuous activities:
* Patrons at retail stores like Wal-Mart could be arrested for testing out the assortment of video cameras if any movie was being shown in the store (and stores generally like to show the movies that they're trying to sell).
* News reporters would not be permitted to record video at retail stores or movie theaters if a movie were being shown at the time; an investigative reporter could be arrested for doing a story on health violations at the concession stand if a movie is playing in the theater and the theater owner decides to call the police.
* Retail store owners and theater owners could be arrested for running security cameras in their buildings if they did not obtain the written permission from the copyright holders for every movie they show. This includes stores like Blockbuster, which shows numerous movies on their TVs in an effort to generate more rentals, and runs security cameras to help prevent crime; each store owner would have to obtain permission individually for every copyright holder of the movies they show, and while they wait for a response, they would either have to let their TVs go dark or their security cameras go blind in order to conform to the law.
Obviously, this bill has numerous issues with regards to these provisions - and these issues far outweigh any benefits that could be generated. This is especially true since a much simpler bill stating that "video recording of a publicly-performed motion picture is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder" would suffice.
Well... except for the part where we already have federal laws that state that.
Please veto this bill, and demand that the State Legislature return to you a bill that includes only the other unrelated provisions of the bill.
And let me tell you, when you catch them, you do not want them to be caught without a law specifically forbidding the exact method they employ
I think that's the important part... These new laws they're passing are unneccessary. Don't we already have laws that make copyright infringement illegal? Which would mean that if someone actually did tape something in a store like this, they would be infringing copyright, which we already have a law for.
Argh.
It's like drugs. The drugs themselves shouldn't be illegal. If someone wants to purchase and/or use drugs, it's their body, let them. If they start doing things because of the drugs that affect other people (like robbing, shooting, driving cars into things, etc), then they should be prosecuted for the crimes they commit. Another example of redundant and unneccessary laws.
We already have laws for the crimes, we don't need laws for every possible method or action that might lead you to the breaking of the already existing laws.
Place sig here.