Slashdot Mirror
California Makes Recording in Cinema a Crime
Maharet writes "According to this article in the Sacramento Bee, recording devices will be outlawed and you will be able to make a citizen's arrest if you observe someone recording a movie. I don't advocate piracy, but this just looks to me like industry pressure (although the MPAA, et. al. are not mentioned). What if my cellphone has a camera? My favorite quote from an LA city attorney: 'If you carry one of these into a movie theater, you have to ask yourself, "Do I feel lucky?"'"
...is there anything coming out of Hollywood that is worth recording? Well...okay...pr0n...
it looks like it's going to be a lot easier to get those idiots with their cellphones on in theaters forcibly removed ;)
And so we go, on with our lives
We know the truth, but prefer lies
Lies are simple, simple is bliss
Okay, first off is this really wise? I mean do you really want people make citizens arrests over movie recording. I mean if I saw someone with a cell phone equipped camera chatting during a movie I be tempted to citizen arrest them to shut them up.
Then again maybe this is a good idea.
You have a right to record anything you see.
I guess all the movie pirates in CA will have to drive to Oregon and Nevada to record movies. darn. Drive-ins are always good.
---- "Excuse me. Where's the children's gun section?"
It's only because...
In Aahnold's Calleefoneeah, tha cinema should record yoo!
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
Then you should be taken out of the theater immediately for bringing a cell phone in! This is a law meant to slow down piracy that actually makes sense for once. Bravo
I mean seriously, if you're carrying a recorder into a theater, you've obviously going to pirate this movie. The submitter gives the ridiculous and extreme example of one of those stupid video phones which don't have the bandwidth or anything to make a even half decent copy anyhow. To me, this is a good thing, people are blatantly trying to copy a movie in whatever way they can, and this seems like a real logical choice to me. Industry pressure from the MPAA? Yeah right, this is more like common sense. Good on California for taking a stand against piracy.
To make a pun demonstrates the highest understanding of a language
What if my cellphone has a camera?
Regardless of where one stands on this issue, stupid comments like this one only diminish the arguments of those who agree with the parent. So WHAT if your cellphone has a camera ? Unless you're USING YOUR CELLPHONE TO RECORD THE MOVIE, there is no problem. But I guess it sure sounds good. Yet another example of how FUD can come from BOTH sides of an argument.
I had actually thought that this was already a law. I mean, at each and every live theatre preformance I've attended, before the show starts, we are told that all recording devices are to be shut off and put away at this time. I assume that failure to comply will result in eviction. Why wouldn't or shouldn't it be the same in a movie theatre?
If someone catches another person illegal recording the movie, don't you think they'd be smart enough to know what they are doing and that they could just download the movie for free online from the same guy in about an hour after the movie ends?
I never liked shaky cam movies anyway. Hopefully, the quality of VCD's will now improve.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. The story is a dupe, the topic is boring, the facts weren't checked. WE GET IT!!
And in the Land of Litigation, who's going to risk performing a citizens arrest anyway?
Thank goodness eDonkey won't be flooded with these crappy versions of movies anymore. Straight to DVD Screener rip, baby!
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
Does this allow one to conceal a weapon and make a citizen's arrest at the same time?
I think that phrase should be: "You feelin' lucky, punk?"
If I can't arrest someone for talking loudly, blocking my view, using a cell phone, or shining a laser pointer at the screen, I'm not interested. Let the MPAA hire their own police force.
Consider the following. I know from first hand experience that many people visiting NYC carry those digital video recorders wherever they go, because they want to record the sights and sounds of the city. I also imagine that many people touring the city in such a manner would like to see a movie while out on the town without having to return to their hotel or apartment. This type of law would turn a common tourist into a common criminal.
Just another instance of law-makers not fully thinking through the laws they are creating.
Couldn't agree more. No one will arrest someone for a "cell phone camera". However, based on my experience (and I have a couple years of it) from downloading pirated movies off bittorrent and other places, most movies that are posted (to the net) are screeners or if they where taped with the person was sitting in the box (up top). Bluntly speaking - I don't know if I agree with the 92 percent statistic they give for number of pirated films that are "recorded by people sitting in the audience" in theaters.
This won't really make a difference in pirated movies online - it will simply stop the small time piraters (like some guy that makes a copy for his friend). I mean if your going to make money off stolen films you are probably going to find a better way to do it then stand in a noisy theater and try to tape a film. Politicians aren't stupid - they know this... however they have to do something to respond to the money they get from the MPAA (Pressure = Money).
Laws- Mankinds way of justifing stupidity (not a troll - simply my 2cp)
There is always a frontier where there is an open and willing mind
.... was that a crime too?
Except you can just download them off you favorite P2P network or some webstie in the Phillipines since some kid already bought the knock off from the unofficial night run of the Chinese People's Army's company printing up the real DVD's that will go on sale in nine months.
Fucking dots, more bullshit, for what, for nothing. No one records movies at the movies anymore, least of all in the US. And even if they did, no one would want their ass copy because it's so easy to get a better one.
And then the fucking ad campaign. Give me a break. Never in the histroy of film has a set dresser, gaffer, or best boy electric ever recieved back end points for their contribution to the film making process. Everytime I see one of their grossly dishonest emotional pleas it makes me want to pirate movies on principle! They should all be shot in the head for being lying sacks of shit. And their children should be sold into prosititution. I consider myself a 'moderate.'
Along the same lines, if technology advanced enough that you could download memories from the brain of someone with extremely good memory, would the brain be an illegal recording device? I read once that your brain can recall almost everything. Some of the material merely needs coaxing out (like with hypnosis). Hmmm....
Now the movie industry really does have a say with the governator... expect more industry friendly laws!
They invent a car, then a faster car, then the speed limit. They invent a camera, then comes along cool stuff to take pictures of, then you can't take pictures of that stuff. We are only creating the illusion of progress in our society. Anytime something with potential comes along, it is thrown in a legal lock box.
You have been well tutored. That was priceless.
Watching some poor sap get dragged out of a theater by the cops, kicking and screaming because his cell phone rang, could be the most entertaining thing coming out of Hollywierd in years !
And please stop talking about cellphones with cameras. Those usually have cheapass cmos image sensors and optics, they can barely catch a face right.
The Raven
My point? There are many opportunities to copy the films, and if one small, low-tech method is cut out, it will serve to make the other avenues more lucrative.
The more important point, what's with the "turn in your neighbor to the movie cops" deal? That is one sick society.
-cp-
President Bush to Liberate Alaska
I know what you're thinking. Did he use up six tapes or only five? Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But being as this is a Canon XL-1 S, the most powerful camcorder in the world, and would film your head nice and clean, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya punk?
You're a funny man, Sully, I like you. That's why I'm going to kill you last.
When I was a kid I actually snuck a tape recorder into the theatre with me under my winter coat. Of course, back in 1977 there weren't too many other options.
It wasn't a microcassette recorder either - it was the BIG honking black Radio Shack model - the one that doubled as a data storage unit for the TRS-80. Amazing I got away with that.
Years later I could still recite pretty much the whole movie by heart. Thank God for those T-120 tapes!
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
(Hopes no MPAA people read Slashdot)
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
The real question is, how come none of you are complaining while your country is slowly becoming the first police state in the west?
What are they going to do in the future, when people routinely wear computing systems, complete with microphones, video cameras and mass storage? It wont just be some weird guy from MIT in his gargoyle rig.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
You show id, you sign, they sign, camera gets
tagged, and put into a locked room on a shelf with
all the other cameras. Or, you walk back to your
hotel and store the camera there.
-- "It was as if the paint factories had decided to deal direct with the art galleries." - Thursday Next
The opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent those of anybody at all. Deal with it.
Why would I(or anyone) want to go to California?
It's too hot, there's not much of value to see, you can't smoke anywhere, and there's shitloads of traffic.
I mean, comeon, wtf would you want to live there. There are other beaches, nice ones.
Isn't copyright infringment a civil issue - not a criminal one?
Should people be sent to jail for something like this? Shouldn't the punishment suit the "crime"?
The people that download copyright infringing movies via the internet are usually the really big movie buffs who will watch it in the theater anyway, or those that would never pay to see the movie. Now people doing this may offend your own personal sense of morality, but there isn't financial loss to the content creators. If you don't believe me just wait for the B.O. resutls to ROTK when it comes out, even though it will be available on the 'net. The real losses come from the street vendor type piracy in asia, the middle east and other lands afar, but that will continue as long as they don't put the movie fares there into proportion with the citizens of those places incomes.
True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
you will be able to make a citizen's arrest if you observe someone recording a movie
I woke up today and was wondering to myself, "How can I work for the MPAA for free today?" And here it is.
So if I see someone recording a movie, I'm supposed to incur the massive legal risks involved involved in having them arrested as a citizen. Got it. Ri-ight. And if the charges don't stick, oh yeah, I'm the one slapped with the false arrest suits.
That's a pretty good deal, but I think I have a better one: How about I give them the finger, and they pay their own damn business expenses?
Did you get so excited during the Death Star battle that you jumped up, causing the recorder to fall out of your coat and ensuring that we all learn a valuable lesson by the end of the episode?
I would gladly halt an arrest in progress of some poor shmuck caught in the act of this 'crime'. Maybe I should start carrying a tire iron to the movies.
Fortunately, most movies don't require a brain so I won't be missing anything by not taking it into a theater.
Remembering is copying. Copying is theft.
If your cell phone has a camera you leave it off and in your pocket during the movie. Most movies seem to play a short blurb beforehand reminding you to turn your cell phone off during the movie already anyways. I can't see where the problem would be.
-BrentI hope people who don't do a citizens arrest won't themselves be arrested. It's unlikely but you always have to be careful.
Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
I might be being facetious... or not...
I think something needs to be done. They should ban all those electronic devices. When I pay $10 to see a movie I want to see the movie. I don't want to listen to people's pagers, cellphones, watches, car alarms, pacemakers vibrators going off every 3 seconds. Let alone have some moron in front of me whip out a camcorder and start acting like they are trying to win the Oscar for best pirated movie. Then there are the other idiots that have 35 James Bond type cameras stashed all over their bodies. Talk about annoying having a 500lb midget doing Yoga moves in front of you just to get that "perfect shot" I swear every time I walk by some of those people my pacemaker skips due to the electromagnetic fields generated by all their CIA approved surveillance equipment. Hell I ight even be sterile now. I smell a lawsuit!!
smokes the POLE!
It would not unless the tourist was a complete idiot. They simply have to keep the camera in it's case (if they don't have one, they're an idiot) and not take it out while in the theatre, so nobody would know they had it.
I think this is one of those rare cases that the courts are right. You can only take fair use so far. Taking a video camera to a movie is like taking one to a concert. We can use the whole I wanna back-up my cd's and my DVD's incase some aliens come by and steal my shit, but the movie AT the movie theater is not yours.
Now who is going to bring up the issue that some crazzed idiot is going to expand this to copying rented DVD's? The same issue, if you don't buy it, you can't back it up.
This SIG pulled due to lack of funding. (This damn war is costing too much!)
all the better quality telesyncs are filmed from the projection booth...
boy, that mpaa sure is precise.
The law, which was signed by former Gov. Gray Davis, was written to also include future technologies and could be enforced against people recording all or parts of a film with a tape recorder, handheld computer or even a cell phone.
So no matter how rediculous it is now to think of someone trying to record a movie with a cellphone using today's technology, this law makes it illegal to carry your cell phone into the theater.
The new law, which takes effect Jan. 1, allows moviegoers to make a citizen's arrest if they see someone in a theater with a recording device.
Note that all you need to do is be CARRYING a recording device such as a cell phone, and you are breaking the law. It's a dumb law. Our legislature run amuck. Terrible, terrible restriction on our freedoms.
I may hate when you carry a cell phone in a theater, but I will fight for your right to do so.
Perhaps the person doing the recording is a selfish bastard who wishes only to keep a copy for themself. Or maybe they'll just share it with their friends. There's plenty of other possibilities besides the one you reference. Yes, yours is a valid one, but there is ALWAYS another view to look at.
I know I don't. These actions are different, because no one is being threatened by these actions. Those artists/distributors/labels are simply losing cash (maybe).
I dunno, sometimes it seems like the corporations have too much control over the legal system...
This is actually a great law and will end the days of shitty cams! I hate it when I'm watching a cam of a 1st run movie on a pc and someone stands up in the theater a fucks it all up for me!
With this and the news of a judge allowing screeners again this ensures all criminals...I mean...customers will have the highest quality product available.
I wondered how long it take that walking corpse Jack Valentini to make it unacceptable for criminals...I mean...customers...to view a substandard product. With this great news it only ensures the felons...I mean...customers will have an easier time getting a higher quality print, i.e. screeners.
Thank you Jack...
and they said you had no grasp on the issues and the technology involved!!
You really showed 'em this time!!!
You aren't free to do anything, until you've lost everything.
The big cities that have movie piraters also have pirates setting the outragous ticket prices. I'm sad that I've gotten used to the price of a $10 ticket and not to the poor image and sound quality I've seen in bootlegs.
... the reports we've seen here in the past seem to indicate the overwhelming majority of pirated movies come from 'insiders' who have access to it in production/editing/promotion, wouldn't the logical extension of this to be prohibit all camera's on movie sets? Now i realize that kind of defeats the prupose of a 'visual' medium, but hey, the **AA has said repeatedly we need to be tougher on piracy. we will all have to make sacrafices...
Next up: camera eyepatches with the storage hidden in the included stuffed parrot. Arrrrrr mateys!
--
Power to the Peaceful
One thing I do when I go to a movie is to read on my PDA before it starts. Some PDAs come with cameras, and many nowadays come with microphones, even if they don't have a way to record video (does the law specify video recording? The article says "recording devices" but then says that the law is aimed at camcorders. "Recording devices" is just vague enough to cause concern, in my opinion, even though it's damned unlikely that a camera-equipped cell phone or PDA is going to be able to get the whole movie, and certainly not with any quality.
/never/ seen a recorded film for sale over the Internet. I suspect this is more spin, because even though all copyright infringement is against the law, people sometimes think differently about selling vs giving away for free.
(although the MPAA, et. al. are not mentioned).
Wow, do the SUBMITTERS not read the story anymore? I quote from it:
The effort is aimed mainly at camcorders, which account for 92 percent of all illegal copies of films that appear for sale over the Internet and are sold on street corners, according to the Motion Picture Association of America. The MPAA is seeking to enact similar laws in other states and is backing an effort to make the illegal taping of a film a federal felony.
Heh.
And a final note, I've
Besides, if people are recording the movies in theatres, then won't the large reddish brown spots that flash in the middle of the picture make them useless and unviewable?
we're too lazy to complain
Maybe this means all the bootlegs on P2P networks will improve in quality and all be DVD rips of prerealeases. Bootlegs recorded in the theatre are of such low quality it's hardly worth watching them.
Well yeah, a man's gotta know his limitations...
"Welcome to Cinema Crimewatch. Here are some of the course you will be learning. "How to Blind Using Milk Duds." "Using the Sticky Floor as a Restraint." "Hurdle Jumping Seats." "Tripping Granny With the Camcorder." "Snitching as a Form of Amusement." "How to Frisk the Wheelchair Bound." "Hot Butter A Movie Pirate and the Art of Full Body Cavity Searching." after you learn these subjects you will be official Cinema Crimewatch Members"
For once I agree with the law. While I was overseas in May of this year, I actually saw films that had been recorded via camcorder in a theatre. Sure the quality wasn't there, but it was still better than broadcast TV. Guess where they came from? United States theaters. (And no, I didn't have the option to report the pirated films due to where I was located, which wouldn't have been smart.)
-- There is no spoon. Only fork.
The effort is aimed mainly at camcorders, which account for 92 percent of all illegal copies of films that appear for sale over the Internet and are sold on street corners, according to the Motion Picture Association of America.
Who do they think they're kidding? The professional duplicators work from the highest-quality originals they can get (be they original movie reels, DVDs, whatever). The amateurs might be sneaking a camcorder into a theater, but given how easy it is to get a good copy online, there's little point.
In short, I call shennanigans on this theory that there's an army of pirates armed not with swords but minicams, poised to destroy the industry.
Besides, copyright infringement is already illegal (that's the 'infringement' part). So what's the point of passing this new law? To produce the illusion of doing something, at the expense of everyone involved, as far as anyone can tell.
High-speed Road Trip (18.000KPH)
And of course, carrying a camcorder (small ones typically weigh a pound or so) is somewhat geeky now, but what happens when they become the size of cigarette lighters? Panasonic already has a solid state one the size of a cigarette pack, though it records only 10 minutes of DVD-quality video so it won't hold a whole movie. That 10 minute limitation won't last, and it can already hold a whole movie at lower resolution.
There's a simple cure. They should have security checkpoints with baggage X-rays at every movie theater, just like at airports. That will really solve the MPAA problem once and for all, since ticket sales will drop to zero.
I mean, the only way such bootleg copies could save me a lot of money is if all of Hollywood's movies were so crappy that, after watching the bootleg, I would decide they are not worth spending money on! So how...
Wait...
I get it now. Never mind.
Huzzah! Brilliant! VOR!! (voice of reason)
now, i don't like the mpaa as much as the next guy but... i don't get the outrage. i mean, if you go to a concert and record it on a reel-to-reel hidden in yr trench coat (i admit i'm thinking of the 70's here) you can be charged.
remember how the grateful dead were conidered "radical" because the permitted "bootleg" copies of their shows? they were radical because the standard response to recording a concert was to charge the bootlegger.
how are movies any different? how is this response "new"?
2 1337 4 u!
Im shure arnie will not back down from pressure from hollywood studios.
Kudos inteligent voters of america. Keep going, next thing youll get is another run of your beloved Lex Luthor ^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h president bush...
NO SIG
As to the issue of cell phones with camera's, I think they are a horrible idea. The are prime to invade the privacy rights of others. I can just imagine horny teenage boys taking photos of women in dressing rooms. Or in locker rooms. Someone can pretend they are chatting on the cell phone, and then the moment you turn you back on them, ZAPP they get a picture of your rear. Or jelous girlfriends. The possibilities of humiliating photo's are endless.
For the law about camcorders in theaters, I too thought that was law already. You gotta be asking for it if they catch you with a camcorder in a theater. They should force that person to sit through the advertising and pre-views as punishment.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
I realize this is a Geek news site so we're not all up to speed on recording devices and sports but cellphones with cameras have been banned from any and all professional sports games. College games they still allow photography. You can thank the advertising industry for such bans.
There was a Canon commercial for a high end digital camera and the guy taking pictures at a football game. Pretty bad advertising considering that very expensive camera would be confiscated if you took it anywhere near an NFL game.
It's not surprising they're cracking down in the same manner on theaters now.
"So, as another poster asked, what happens if you forget to take your camcorder OUT of your car when you go to the drive-in (and yes, there are still drive-ins in California)?"
You explain to the nice security guard that you had no intention of using it to film anything and if they ask, you hand it over to them to hold it for you until you're ready to leave.
Same as they do with sports games.
This is a non-issue.
"is sufficent to create the possiblity of arrest and prosecution"
That's a definite maybe.
If you're in such a situation, don't be an ass and cooperate. They're not out to get you. They're out to prevent you from recording anything. Big difference.
One involves a box in the office to hold your phone while you watch the movie. The other involves a judge and 12 of your new friends.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
In response to Ohio resident's concerns on a similar bill now before Gov. Taft (concerns like having a cell-phone-camera in a movie theater can make you a felon ... and pressing record at Best Buy will now makes you a felon) ... MPAA was heard to say (paraphrase from NPR) "Gov. Taft, just sign the current bill into law and you can pass another bill sometime later to fix it"
Must be like the 20th Amendment to the Constitution of the Consumer States of America.
A theater is PRIVATE property. You check your rights at the door.
Are you going to fight for your "right" to not have to wear a shirt or shoes and still get service?
You can't carry recording devices of any form into professional sports games either.
If you have a phone with a camera, keep it in your pocket (turned off) and if security spots you, don't be an ass whinning about imaginary rights. Give them the phone and pick it up on your way out.
This is not an issue. At all.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
"...while a motion picture is being exhibited,..."
Now this would lead me to believe that there is nothing anybody can do about me carrying a device into a movie theatre as long as I turn it off before the feature presentation. Now i'm all for paying a fair price for goods and services, but movie prices are just way too out of hand. Damn the man!
Who was that pointy-eared bastard?
BILL NUMBER: SB 1032 CHAPTERED/ sb_1001-105 0/sb_1032_bill_20031003_chaptered.html
_ 00 01-0050/sb_23_bill_19990719_chaptered.html
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen
Here's the core part
SECTION 1. Section 653z is added to the Penal Code, to read:
653z. (a) Every person who operates a recording device in a
motion picture theater while a motion picture is being exhibited, for
the purpose of recording a theatrical motion picture and without the
express written authority of the owner of the motion picture
theater, is guilty of a public offense and shall be punished by
imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, by a fine not
exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by both that
fine and imprisonment.
(b) For the purposes of this section, the following terms have the
following meanings:
(1) "Recording device" means a photographic, digital or video
camera, or other audio or video recording device capable of recording
the sounds and images of a motion picture or any portion of a motion
picture.
(2) "Motion picture theater" means a theater or other premises in
which a motion picture is exhibited.
(c) Nothing in this section shall preclude prosecution under any
other provision of law.
Brought to you by the same CA government which
defined olypmic target pistols as assault weapons
(since the magazine is in front of the grip!)
Never trust politicans - they'll sell your
mom if they can!
SEC. 7. Section 12276.1 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon"
shall also mean any of the following:
[..]
(4) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a
detachable magazine and any one of the following:
[..]
(D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location
outside of the pistol grip.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/sen/sb
We're NOT talking about a machine gun here!
SO THERE you have it - the same num-nutz - gotta
watch them!
yeah - the definitions for an Assault Rifle are bad also in Kalifornia
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to
accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action
of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.
They'll do ANYTHING to recoup the costs from Gighli, won't they?
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
so now, let's say I'm walking around LA of a hot afternoon, and I think I might like to duck into a cinema to get out of the sun and take in a movie..
Oh no, wait, I can't. My cellphone has a camera built into it, and I am not willing to assume the risk of carrying it into a cinema. That's another ticket hollywood doesn't sell.
Guess I'll have to download a copy off those helpful Oscar judges..
On a more serious note, what is the status of a citizen's arrest? I understand that the police have certain obligations when arresting people (miranda act, etc). What's the story with a citizen's arrest? Because if I am sitting in the cinema and some anonymous citizen pops out of nowhere and physically grabs me, he's going home with his teeth in his pocket.
There must be a clearly defined process in these matters - given the USA's mania for litigation, and California in particular, I can see this dragging cinemas, studios and private citizens into problematic court cases.
How about evidence? After all, if there's CCTV in the auditorium, then the cinema is in breach of the law..
Comment removed based on user account deletion
As a proud and canny dumpster diver, I reached in and grabbed an entire reel of 'Road to Perdition' w/ Tom Hanks.
It's currently sitting in a Hefty bag, not ten feet from me right now.
What to do with it? I don't know. I thought about eBaying it, but a pal told me it's illegal to even have it. Anyone know?
I'd like to off it, but I don't know what to do with it. As it's not Tom's earlier work (Bosom Buddies, Mazes & Monsters), I don't care too much.
I may just light it on fire, and watch the SOB flashburn. Or, maybe I'll needle the MPAA somehow. Any ideas?
I'd love to kill two birds with one stone, and strangle Jack Valenti with it. That would be the ultimate irony, and make great 'Must See TV' as well.
The article makes this bill out to be much worse than it is. The bill states you have to be operating the camera, and for the express purpose of making an illegal copy. This bill, then, has almost zero net impact to civil rights or law enforcement's abilities to prosecute copyright infringement.
(chuck tape under some seats)
I have every right to have this camcorder while watching a movie as long as I don't record anything. Check it for yourself.
all you could do is sue in civil court for
damages. But in this case is beyond contracts,
it is about actually going to jail because
you copied (into a low-quality medium) some
parts of the movie. You get to go to jail
for, essentially, for stealing peanuts from
the movie barons, while McBride and his gang
of criminals are free to rob the public without
any real change of being arrested through
citizen's arrest or ever going to jail. We are
talking about applying heavy-handed penalties
to common citizens, while ignoring applying
similar concepts to common criminals.
(Mr.Goody2Shoes) Hey Movie-Pirate-Man! Stop pirating this movie! You're under "Citizens Arrest!
:)
(Movie-Pirate-Man) (STAB!)(STAB!)(PUNCH!)(PUNCH!)(STAB!)
(Mr.Goody2Shoes) Why did the mean pirate-man kill me...
Now I'd buy a ticket to THAT for 9 Dollars!
Question - did anyone actually bother to read the bill? Quoting:
Every person who operates a recording device in a motion picture theater while a motion picture is being exhibited, for the purpose of recording a theatrical motion picture and without the express written authority of the owner of the motion picture theater...This does not cover talking on a camera-equipped cellphone, working on a camera-equipped PDA, or even having a camcorder in your purse. The law only prohibits pointing the camera at the screen while a movie is being shown. It's a very narrowly tailored law that addresses what it seeks to address - piracy.
Speaking of which - take a look at VCDQuality and note the number of movies that show up as "CAM" or "Telesync" first, and then tell me camcording in a movie theater isn't occurring.
Then, skip on over to VCDMovieBox.com and note the movies being offered for sale that are obviously camcords (Master and Commander, Brother Bear, Elf, etc....
geek. lawyer.
Given how absolutely awful most movies are nowadays, can really blame the industry for wanting to prevent movie-goers from sharing the experience with others? :)
Bowie J. Poag
Fortunately someone posted the actual law and it's the recording itself that constitutes the crime. But the law also says, "any portion" and "audio," so cell phones and some PDAs can be instruments of this dastardly "crime."
The real messiness comes in another portion. The old law required the theatre owner to request that you stop recording--silly in itself since the owner isn't likely to be there. The new law gives those charged no warning. Since even property trespass generally requires a warning, it may face constitutional challenge.
The nastiness of the bill's four authors comes in the "no reimbursement" clause at the end. The state will give communities no money to arrest, book or prosecute these criminals. Imagine for a moment a cop in a theatre fussing with this silly law and thus unable to respond quickly enough to a rape or shooting. That one reason I suspect many theater owners and police departments will ignore this law and theatre owners will follow the old "ask to stop" principle.
Weighing their own profits above the life or health of others sound just like the movie industry we all know and love.
IANAL, i just did some research on it now cuz i was interested. citizens arrest is very risky business. the person doing citizens arrest has alot of things against them. I do not know about the miranda rights reading. I believe it is unnecessary, let the confession be done to an officer of the peace, anything they say to you might as well be thrown out of court. i dunno, gray area i guess. -assault/battery charges. If they attempt to apprehend someone with more force than that of the person they are arresting, they can be up for assault and battery charges. I dont know wehter they will be prosecuted or not though. In other words, they really can just hold one by the shirt or arm and say they are under arrest. -Civil litigation, if the above happens and the person claims injury caused, then they do have a right to sue. -false imprisonment, unfair imprissonment, unlawful search and seizure. whatever, if the person attempts to detain you and you have a) done nothing wrong, and there was considerable evidence that this is true. b) the person has detained you for an excessive period of time. They can be charged with False imprissonment, and can also be dealt with in a civil court. -further a citizens right to self preservation exist against other citizens, and that includes the arrestor, (life threatening). (cannot be prosecuted for resisting citizens arrest, because they are not a recognized official, but you sure as hell cen be prosecuted for assault and battery, even making a physical threat to any person can result in assault charges.) risky business i say again, and very scary. and then there is the fact that you never know what the person you are arresting has in their possession. And the citizens arrest law varies by state.
This is further evidence to support my new-found intuition that every law passed in the United States is nothing but a further infringement upon our personal rights in the name of some ethereal 'security.'
One wonders how many more crimes can be invented by ambitious politicians.
Is there a petition somewhere out there which proposes an immidiate freeze on all penal-code legislation? What would Slashdotter's opinions be on such a petition?
I think that says it all.
It was actually piggybacked onto a bill that suspends someone's license for not paying at a gas station. The single subject is "theft." I believe this bill was signed on 11/13, so it will become live law on 2/13.
Either way, sounds like the MPAA is lobbying hard....
HB 179
Sec. 2913.07. (A) As used in this section:
(1) "Audiovisual recording function" means the capability of a device to record or transmit a motion picture or any part of a motion picture by means of any technology existing on, or developed after, the effective date of this section.
(2) "Facility" includes all retail establishments and movie theaters.
(B) No person, without the written consent of the owner or lessee of the facility and of the licensor of the motion picture, shall knowingly operate an audiovisual recording function of a device in a facility in which a motion picture is being shown.
(C) Whoever violates division (B) of this section is guilty of motion picture piracy, a misdemeanor of the first degree on the first offense and a felony of the fifth degree on each subsequent offense.
(D) This section does not prohibit or restrict a lawfully authorized investigative, law enforcement, protective, or intelligence gathering employee or agent of the government of this state or a political subdivision of this state, or of the federal government, when acting in an official capacity, from operating an audiovisual recording function of a device in any facility in which a motion picture is being shown.
(E) Division (B) of this section does not limit or affect the application of any other prohibition in the Revised Code. Any act that is a violation of both division (B) of this section and another provision of the Revised Code may be prosecuted under this section, under the other provision of the Revised Code, or under both this section and the other provision of the Revised Code.
What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Then again, they want to make it so if you buy a gun, they will take your name off a list of people who bought guns within 24 hours (background check data) but still keep a database of people who check out certain books from the library.
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Minor technical point... You can already make a citizen's arrest whenever you see fit. But you better be sure you're right, and maybe have a good headlock. This law doesn't change that, it only defines a new crime.
Is this really so controversial? I see a lot of posts on this thread complaining about the validity of a law that makes it easier to punish someone who's stealing. Since when is being into technology (as all /. readers are) synonymous with advocating theft (as many people seem to be doing in this thread) ? Anyone over the age of eight years old would be hard pressed to feign ignorance in a situation like this. How does that one go.. "Oops, did I bring my camcorder and tripod into the theater by mistake? Hehe, sorry officer.." I don't think so. Anyone dumb enough to steal should be willing to pay the consequences.
P.S. Nobody is going to get arrested for having a phone with a still camera unless their sitting there taking pictures of the screen with it - in which case they should be.
And then the fucking ad campaign. Give me a break. Never in the histroy of film has a set dresser, gaffer, or best boy electric ever recieved back end points for their contribution to the film making process.
I think you are taking that concept a little too literally.
Every time a media product is pirated takes away some of the incentive for the production company to make more. If they *do* make more, they will likely employ the same people who did a good job the last time around. If they don't, those people have to find something else to pay their bills.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
I wonder if we can score an arrest on someone who tells us spoilers for movies. I'd call it deliberate and selective destruction of the copyright-holders! Nobody is safe! Likewise, listeners would be classed as receivers of pirated goods. And now we can citizens-arrest them all! Question: do you have to be a citizen to arrest? If not, I'm booking my plane tickets to California today!
Have you looked at the rate of return on a movie? An investment that lasts for more than a century? But will frequently pay back 100% of the initial investment in months and continue to generate tremendous income for a century? Are you fucking kidding me?!
The damn painter's kids should starve because their daddy's horrible lies made the baby Jesus cry.
I don't know why Warren Buffet bothers with stocks, he should start a production company, and (for a twist) employ people who enjoy and know a little something about movies.
Those ads are about protecting a source of revenue for future gold plated poolside shark tank bar construction, not the job of some guy in Encino who lost it to some guy in Sydney or Vancouver.
As a premptive strike: The movies that kill studios, (Cutthroat Island, anyone?), no one pirates them. For God's sake, Waterworld, I don't know how, made money. Are you telling me there wasn't anything better to do for free, in the SUMMER?!?
Here's a hint: Get a fucking clue.
This is reality, not some hippie kingdom where everyone plays frisbee and listens to rock-and-roll.
What if my cellphone has a camera?
Then turn it off and keep it in your fucking pocket. I don't believe that this law is going to mandate pat downs and strip searches.
When I went to see Freddy Vs. Jason some asshole kept sending and receiving text messages. He kept right on doing it for about 20 minutes until I had enough and yelled at him like he was a child in front of a theater full of people.
Yes, I too have a cell phone. Yes, I too have a PDA. You know what I do when I am in a movie theater? I turn them the fuck off! Have a little consideration for everyone else.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
For a start I think that theatres are public spaces so you are not with in your right to eject someone from the primises without reason, where as pubs are private establishments per whatever liquar act is applicable. And I'm even sure that they are allowed to do this which is why they always ask you to leave before they give you the bums rush - as I've been told.
Also, even if you take it as being a private space, trespass is a tort, a civil action, meaing that you only have the right to sue the person in question for damages not to charge them as a criminal. I know this because recently some guy decided to park their car in my driveway and the police informed me that I couldn't do a god damn thing about it for the above reason. I think the key is you have to have a mens rea or criminal intent but like I say IANAL.
No doubt slashdot is so crowded nowadays that a legelise loving geek will point you to the right act and precedent. I mean don't you think that if they could do that they wouldn't be doing it already like doh.
How BS like this got modded up as insightful is anyones guess.
from the article: ... allows moviegoers to make a citizen's arrest if they see someone in a theater with a recording device.
A short range video transmitter with a mini 3CCD (or even one chip) camera is *not* a recording device. Recording video image from the receiver outside theater can be morally questionable. Some good people in CA might be thinking that they can finally make a good use of X10 security cam.
fuck yeah.
give it to them !
that will teach those bastards, not to provide me with some shitty low-quality-cinema-rip-off, but decent dvd rip!
Recording in cinema in Hong Kong is already a criminal offence. So is software piracy.
-What about bringing a camera with an FM transmitter, and a pal out in the parking lot receiving and recording the signal?....
Sure I'll leave my camera outside in the car where it is easy to steal...
They going to install bagage lockers in theaters now?
realkiwi
this wont do anything.
I cant recall the last time I watched a camera recording of a movie.
pretty much all the divx/xvid/mpeg I've seen over the past year filling up folks bandwidth and abusing their usage policies has been insider work. DVD quality or staright from the digital projector or movie studio
the movie industry is more leaky than Microsofts buffer code
The law is vague to allow for improvements in technology. The quality of camcorders has improved dramatically in the last ten years. Broadcast quality cameras go for a few grand now and are a fraction the size and weight of the original VHS camcorders. It's possible in the next ten years that PDAs and Celphones will be capible of broadcast quality. If the law didn't allow for that in ten years you'd be calling it shortsighted. The current problem with camcorders is massive. Films are far too easy to duplicate. I'm a filmmaker myself and I'm currently wrapping up the post on a film. It's an independent and we decided not to allow crew copies to be distributed until the film is sold. Independent films have become extremely hard to sell in the last few years. Buyers are very concerned about the films being pirated before the can sell them to their clients. The problem is far worse foreign and that's where most sales for independents occur. A film coming out as a pirate is more than enough to scare off buyers for small films and prevent them from getting a proper release. In independent films it's not profit these days it's returning your initial cost that is the concern. If you can't even return those costs you aren't going to make many films. The big studios are better insulated. It's the independents that are most at risk. People are more likely to buy a store copy of a major feature to get the quality. On an independent film they are willing to accept a little less quality. The foreign markets mostly don't care so long as it's cheaper. Screening a film can in several cities can improve the sellability of a film and dramatically increase the return. Unfortunately it increases the risk of piracy. The free advertising angle really doesn't pan out. I've never in my life known some one to see a pirate copy of a film and run out and buy a store copy. If that was true China would be a massive customer. At least they are a solid customer, they buy one copy of every film made.
If this was going to happen anywhere it makes sense that california would be first. It's the same reason that cheating a casino is a felony in NV, I mean it's where they get most of their revenue. Even though it may not be CA's main source of revenue, it is the movie capitol of the world.
God Bless America! Yay red, white and blue! America rocks! Death to terrorists!
I'm assuming next we'll be guilty of aiding/abetting if we notice but fail to report a person with a recording device. Also: Deputizing the public didn't work for GW Bush and Operation TIPS, and it hasn't become any better of an idea since.
I wonder what effect this will have with Joe Average tourist who's recording that next epic film of their family on vacation and they decide to stop in a theater. Could possibly effect tourism revenue for theaters out there.
:)
I know I wouldn't feel safe leaving an $800 cam corder with a minimum wage theater worker while I watch a film. Though I'm not sure what degree tourism gives revenue to theaters. I'm just glad I don't live in California.
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
How long before possession of a car capable of 150 mph is considered an offense in and of itself? I mean, obviously the owner intends to exceed the speed limit, and cars are weapons and all...
And if you don't take it out of your pocket and start taking pictures with it during the film how will they know it's a camera phone?
You still have rights to privacy [well at least from search and siezure] do you not?
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
If that's a preview for a Costner movie you're going to have to answer to a tribunal! And if there is any justice a firing squad.
If you don't like the law, stop going to the movies. Why is this so hard to grasp?
-----
PGP Key ID 0xCB8FF658
Always first to see the lead lining huh?
You know the person you're trying to arrest could just shoot you and then get off on an affirmative defense. You don't always have to dwell on the downside you know.
Every time a media product is pirated takes away some of the incentive for the production company to make more.
Liar. Liar. Liar. I am going to make this real clear. I *never* buy certian magazines or music products. However, if I read an article in a magazine at my friends house the publisher is not being ripped off. Likewise for music, or a DVD.
In those cases I got the benefit but paid nothing. Zero. Zilch.
Now, what *exactly* is the difference if that MP3 was e-mailed to me? Nothing. None. I still didnt buy it (I wasnt going to, anyways), and they still didnt sell it.
The same thought extends to P2P.
There is no way in hell I am paying for $14, or $12, or $9 CD. Period. Not-going-to-happen. I havent bought a mass produced CD for myself in... well, probably ever (if you dont count 2nd hand CDs).
The fact is that a download does not constitute a lost sale. It *may*, but it does'nt necessarily mean a sale was lost.
One last point: the main effect of pirating movies and lost revenues that may occur from it will be a reduction of top-tier movie stars. Regardless of what these bozo's in the ad campaigns tell you, there jobs are not really at risk. You need light guys, you need sound guys, you need reel guys, stunt guys, etc. You *have* to have them. You do not need to pay an actor $25-million instead of $22.5 million, or $20 million, or $10 million.
In fact, if I knew that my pirating would induce a Tom Cruise or Bruce Willis or Susan Sarandon to lose a few million bucks over a course career, I'd be doing it for sport.
Cam recordings suck, anyway...you always end up with some cropped video by a guy recording from the far right side of the theater. I'll wait for a screener DVD rip :-P
old business methods not able to keep up with technology, an dthe refusal to change the business methods to work in accord with technology.
Otherwise.... We have the technology to cure cancer and a bunch of other real world problems but politics is keeping alive old business practices instead.
Priority is to support outdated business.... fuck life.
This seems just so fsck-ing stupid to someone outside the US of A (like myself). You can watlz around with a fsck-ing hand-gun and shoot people if they look like they might threaten you (like by saying "trick or treat" or by trying to steal your car which is insured anyway), but thay'll send you to gaol (jail) for recording a movie.
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
"I consider myself a 'moderate.' "
Oh, well I consider you an idiot.
There's no good reason for someone to have a recording device out at a theater. Period. I would have figured it was already against the law.
As to your drivel about gaffers not getting 'back end points' or whatever, the simple fact is when less money goes into Hollywood, less money goes to hiring gaffers. It's a simple concept.
Arrest me for rape. I'm carrying proper equipment with me.
You've got to like topics like this, for writers with a sense of humor, they're like early Christmas presents.
First off, you just have to shake your head and say, 'Only in Cali, man... only in Cali.'
Then you have to wonder about the nature of what's happening to the law in this country. The law can be made to fail in a lot of interesting ways. You can have wacko interpretation (e.g., judges who think putting up a shrine to the ten commandments). You can have dishonest implementation (the IRS being discouraged from going after corporations, the tax-cheats with the most money who happen to owe the most money).
The list is long, but some things make it far more intense. The law they're talking about has got to be neither more nor less than the movie industry using its influence to get sweaty and itchy about anyone's taking copywrited images out of a theater no matter how trivial the image may be. It has to be one true mark of people and organizations that have no sense whatsoever of quality.
In some earlier posts, some people were sidetracked by the idea of people's phones ringing during movies and how much they hated that, but had nothing to do with the article. Cellularphones are basically a nuisance. The actual law here seems something else altogether: a weird fusion of idiocy and intrusion.
Sure, there is a minor threat from people who sit in obscure movie theaters with a video camera on a tripod, but cellphones are a laugh here.
The only reason to use your phone to snap the screen is to be able to go back to the image later so you can say, 'dude...dude... Gigli is the best movie ever! You've gotta check it out.'
Of course, in a state where the motion picture industry can shoot for the moon in asking for rediculous legal extensions (RLE's), proposing or passing a law that specifically encourages overgrown members of the Mickey Mouse club to try a citizen's arrest on someone who could be packing has little liability for the industry, or for the lawmakers (people who, where it not for the enormous influence of Hollywood money, one would suspect of taking three-pipe lunches).
If there is anything really interesting about this story, it is how well it exemplifies one of the great flaws of modern American lawmaking: money and reelection turns politicians into short-sighted whores with no social vision with regard to what the policies in questions can do and at many levels, a good number of the nation's laws (like mandatory sentencing requirements) really do resemble a transaction between one man in a suit and a severely retarted person.
Life would be a lot better for everyone if there were a law on the books allowing lawmakers to be jailed for the consequences of misshapen policies.
Were it only so...
To mail me, remove the 'mailno' from my email addy.
"Yeah. It smells, too..."
going very well?
.controlling US/yOUR money?
/. putting stuff that matters into future storIEs? (Score:-1, Troll)
to be replaced by guidelines that serve the population/promote progress, as opposed to
lookout bullow. the daze of the corepirate nazi felon payper liesense stock markup fraud execrable, is WANing into coolapps/the abyss, at the speed of right.
the ?pr? ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking reminds one of last gasper 'bit players', firing blindly into the crowd, & demanding applause/compensation, from any/all survivors.
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 30, @12:01PM (#7592801)
just kidding?
see also: stuff that really matters/chips ahoya @ a dime # dozen?
eating it/at all? (Score:-1, Troll)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 30, @10:02AM (#7592314)
?eating? in 3rd wwworld countries, for example
score: mynuts won, nothing to buy here?
Posted by CmdrTaco on Sunday November 30, @09:13AM
from the tang-makes-me-ill (how annoying that must be for us, & the folks over at tang.com?) dept.
morons write "What do you think babies aboard the ?other? side of the planet had for Thanksgiving? Roasted turkey? Wrong answer. In "less fortunate" areas, the pateNTdead eyecon0meter tells us, they had little of nothing, and gives details about space in their little bodies, where food ought to be. If the dining view, 200 miles of rough road, is unattractive, preparing 'meals' is even more so. For example, there is no food, so the babies must remain hungry for long periods at +- room temperature. And you need to avoid thinking about this scenario. The real 'stuff that matters' overview contains additional references, and includes directions by the creators, for their/yOUR newclear power, & planet/population rescue initiatives/mandates.
( Read More... | that makes sense )
consult with/trust in yOUR creators... the lights are coming up now in order to assist in the avoidance of overheating the main processor, &, facilitation of the aforementioned ncp/ppr programs/mandates.
for each of the creators' innocents harmed, there is a badtoll that must/will be repaid by you/US, as the execrabilious corepirate nazi perpetraitors of the life0cide against the creators innocents, will not be available to make reparations.
see you there? tell 'em robbIE?
Yes, lets have the government regulate what we can take anywhere, because we *might* commit a crime with it.
Guns can kill people. That's worth a little restriction on freedom, that I don't have to worry about being shot in a courthouse. The worst a person with a camcorder is going to do is make a crappy copy of a movie.
As for the train, traffic sucks in most big cities. I live near Cleveland, which isn't as bad as most cities, yet despite owning a car, I still prefer to take RTA downtown. It's just easier than fighting traffic; it doesn't mean you're poor.
"What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
I *never* buy certian magazines or music products.
Unfortunately, you don't make up the universe, and there are plenty of people who do make economic decisions based on illegal downloads (don't buy the CD/pay to watch the movie).
As for me, I have never downloaded/ripped a music mp3 and rarely watch the crap Hollywood produces, so for me this is all pointless.
Open your head and put your brain back in.
Theatres are a thing of the past. Why go to the movies and spend $30 when nowadays you can have ten times a better experience at home.
Another irrelevant after the fact reaction by a dying industry.
...when your cell phone has a high-res video camera that can record 5 hours of data?
That's exactly why you have yo turn your brain off when you're watching the latest hollywood garbage.
Except with P2P, you're helping to redistribute the property if it's in a shared folder. This would more like your friend standing on a busy street corner with his magazine yelling "step right up and read it - I already paid for it!"
That's got to be one of the funniest comments of the day. If I wouldn't have wasted my mod points...
Dude, seriously, say no to drugs.
Yes, maybe in places like NYC there will be a lot of people that carry their "tourist kit" (camcorder et al) wherever they go. But this is not the norm (and besides, AFAIK, NYC is not in California; but I'm not very good on US geography). Most of the people that carries camcorders to movies is going to pirate them. Denying it doesn't make it less real.
I, for one, welcome our new camcorder-banning lords.
My weblog in spanish
If you read the bill, operating the device could well be playing a stupid game on your PDA during the assraping of advertisements they put up front.
After all, the brain is a pretty advanced storage device and eyes and ears are sensors that, in conjunction with it, can record and store information.
What if it is one day possible to read stored wet-memory and decode it to a form usable by eyeballs and ears? Will there then be MPAA-sanctioned MIBs memory wiping outside theaters?
What about artificial eyes that use camera technology? An IEEE paper sez "the first prosthetic devices using electronic implants and computer signal processing should emerge in the years 2010-2020". Will people using prosthetic vision devices be banned from theaters?
I won't even mention what will happen if Drexlerian nanotech general-purpose assemblers ever see the light of day.
It's a shame. Humans have achieved a technological improvement on memory in the form of the videocamera, but because they are not born with the device their freedom in using it as a sensor has been cut off. All because of copy rights? When Pharmacia owns the landscape down to the molecular design level, will picture-taking in the outdoors be illegal too?
If a theater owner wanted to enact this as a rule I'd see no problem with it. But why is it law, except to service the MPAA, California's secret overlords? How does it benefit the citizens?
[...] favorite quote from an LA city attorney: 'If you carry one of these into a movie theater, you have to ask yourself, "Do I feel lucky?"'...
No, that's a very wrong assumption by that LA city attorney...
After this law, what I really ask myself is "Do I really want to give $(insert ticket price) to MPAA?" or "Can I wait a bit and RENT the movie from the BlockBuster down the road for $3.99 and watch it in my living room?"...
Karma: Bad (but who really cares anyway?)
Lets compare it to a musical performance. The music in concert sounds very different than the studio tracks. The movie? Its the same every time. If you appreciate the difference between studio/live, this makes a concert bootleg a very different product. A bootleg theatre recording? The difference between home/theatre is the experience; but watching the recording at home removes that difference, and its just watching it at home. Also, the DVD is a far superior product.
Im not a fan of the RIAA, but the movie industry has a very honest point regarding recording in theatres, which are going to be sold on street corners, flea markets, and given away over the internet. BTW, I had thought this was already illegal?
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
"Do I feel lucky?"
If you are too young to understand this quote, you need an education in Clint Eastwoodisms. Fire up Kazaa and download all the Dirty Harry films.
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
Also... The brain has been known to put material in place when in a suggestive state, i.e. hypnosis.
There was a whole movie about a person who was used as a data transfer medium... Curious, isn't it, that Hollywood forgot about the brain...
The brain has the potential remember everything. Most of the time, it doesn't - because there are only so many neurons, and many, many more details.
So... Yes, the brain could be considered a recording device, but imperfect. (i.e. lossy in terms of detail, fragmented and possibly reordered as well)
I thought California elected the Terminator, not Dirty Harry.
Every time a media product is pirated takes away some of the incentive for the production company to make more.
Liar. Liar. Liar. I am going to make this real clear. I *never* buy certian magazines or music products. However, if I read an article in a magazine at my friends house the publisher is not being ripped off. Likewise for music, or a DVD.
I may not be true that they lose a sale, but everyone knows that every time you pirate a CD, Hillary Rosen kills a kitten.
Yeah this is just in time for LotR, RotK.
hmm...I thought it was already like that. Does this mean you can go and record stuff in the theater right now? I thought you couldn't... (I"m not in Cali... the rules are similar everywhere I'm guessing)...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
Fucking dots, more bullshit, for what, for nothing. No one records movies at the movies anymore, least of all in the US. And even if they did, no one would want their ass copy because it's so easy to get a better one.
Check out vcdquality - cam versions are released, but the fact is that you need to record a movie in one theater out of about 3000 for a average release. And please note that some theatres are owned by piracy-friendly people. Good luck catching pirates there.
And anyway, all this is just a temporary measure that will not have much effect for a few years, because it's difficult to implement it, but after a few years the technology will allow to record a movie much easier without being caught.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
If you just get a federal law passed, then you can get the feds involved and not worry about the 'gray' areas anymore. Just put them in the pen in masses and 'solve' your 'piracy' ( or free speech ) issues.. ..
Anything you don't approve of, criminalize it..
Remember, its harder for the public to repeal a law then it is for a large industry to con congress into passing one. ( much like taxes.. )
Regardless of the issue of if it should be a legal activity or not in the first place, isn't relevant it seems.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
There's no good reason for someone to have a recording device out at a theater
Ebert uses a pen and paper. BOOYA BEOTCH. That is, AFAIK, a useful method of transcribing and recording events. (Though from reading his reviews you wouldn't know it; and given his fascination with large breasts, I wouldn't be shocked if all he did was doodle boobies and then wing the review.)
A camera phone, to text your friends that the movie you're seeing would be utterly devoid of entertainment if it weren't for the urban youth shouting insults at each other across the theater.
An iPaq to read Rod Hilton's abridged scripts to kill time before the movie starts.
A camcorder, because now that you're done taking video of Mann's Chinese theater, it's time to merge with the history.
A Neuros MP3 player, for listening to FM, or some of the 20 Gigs of MP3 because 'The Twenty' is ass, and Nia Peoples can't even get hired for a comercial that's selling a product.
For gaffers to lose out, especially considering how they're losing out to cheaper labor abroad well before movie piracy beat out three card montey as the greatest help to Al-Queda and threat to democracy, movies have to have a rate of return inline with other investments.
And Moron, what, aside from insider trading, can turn a 100 million dollar investment into a billion dollar payday in 18 months? That's right, starting a drug cartel. Unless you're Brandon Lee, the odds are pretty good you're not going to get gunned down by making a movie. It's been mentioned elsewhere, that investment pays for more than ONE HUNDRED YEARS. F stocks. I want Nasdaq to get on a movie commodities exchange, and ASAP. That's of course granting you your dubious assumption that americans pirating movies costs the filmmakers sales. The movie pirates I know, they own a shit load of movies.
They made it illegal to record in a theater. And you can't bring your camera phone into the theater.
I CAN own a gun, but I can't shoot anyone.
Either they are being pricks or they want to curb cell phone's ringing during movies, which I would appluade.
Liar. Liar. Liar. I am going to make this real clear. I *never* buy certian magazines or music products. However, if I read an article in a magazine at my friends house the publisher is not being ripped off. Likewise for music, or a DVD. In those cases I got the benefit but paid nothing. Zero. Zilch.
You ARE ripping off the company. If you really weren't going to buy it or weren't interested, you wouldn't even use it/hear it/listen to it. The way you are using your argument (claiming that you never buy stuff) is nothing more than an excuse. If anything, you are simply behaving the way you do because the technologies that permit you to share/enjoy exist. For instance, if you couldn't copy/download a movie, or song, or whatever, you wouldn't even be using it.
Consider the following example. I'll never buy a Ferrari. But let me just take it out for a spin. I'll return it in the same condition.
Or how about software? Do you extend that view to software too? Should anyone be paying for ANY software?
The fact is that a download does not constitute a lost sale. It *may*, but it does'nt necessarily mean a sale was lost.
Yes, some sales WILL be lost; some won't. Yes, the record companies exaggerate their figures. But it doesn't change the point.
One last point: the main effect of pirating movies and lost revenues that may occur from it will be a reduction of top-tier movie stars. Regardless of what these bozo's in the ad campaigns tell you, there jobs are not really at risk. You need light guys, you need sound guys, you need reel guys, stunt guys, etc. You *have* to have them. You do not need to pay an actor $25-million instead of $22.5 million, or $20 million, or $10 million.
That is NOT true under capitalism. Everyone will be impacted. Remember, any wage is permitted under capitalism (although government intervention and worker movements impact this somewhat via minimum wage laws, etc). If a company loses money, they won't just cut the high salary personnel! They generally do across the board cuts. Layoff people, make them work harder, lower their wages, etc. Have you looked at other industries? Who loses when a company struggles? Do CEOs lose their jobs, or get their wages cut?
In fact, if I knew that my pirating would induce a Tom Cruise or Bruce Willis or Susan Sarandon to lose a few million bucks over a course career, I'd be doing it for sport.
Apart from the fact that you are either cruel or jealous (like the latter), you can already do that. If you pirate movies, you WILL impact these actors (along with countless other workers). Of course, you need to get a movement going but it is quite within the power. There are already many right-wing anti-Hollywood movements that boycott.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
i mean next thing you know they'll be arresting people for merely talking about a movie outside of the theatre.
You don't like smoke, you don't go to the bar
So where can I listen to live local music without inhaling secondhand carcinogens?
"The MPAA is seeking to enact similar laws in other states and is backing an effort to make the illegal taping of a film a federal felony."
Read that again. Felony.
As in you don't get to vote ever again, not that it matters. It also goes on your permanent record and will probobly included jail time and some steep fines.
Between arresting citizens in theaters and hacking p2p users the media powers really are helping make joe average a more powerful man. I can't wait until they pass the law that says I can shoot on site (with tranquilizer) any street vendor selling unlicensed DVD's.
This is the best argument I've seen about the idiocy of modern day copyright.
(I found the link via google's news portal and they have some sort of agreement with the NY Times, so you shouldn't have to register to see the article.)
I agree that going into a movie theater and taping a movie is wrong. However, I don't like idea that Joe Moviegoer gets to play cop. That's scary. What happens if I go to a party and someone plays a DVD or rented movie for their friends? What if new laws get written that allow a guest to place the host under citizen arrest? Is this the future? Will the MPAA|RIAA grant them police rights as well? That's why this is a real dangerous slippery slope. Oh but wait, you say that's silly. My point is that MPAA|RIAA isn't going after movie pirates because it's morally wrong. They're going after movie pirates because of money. The movie industry threw a fit about libraries and movie rentals as well.
From the article:
Clutching a palm-sized camcorder in one hand, Delgadillo paraphrased the movie character "Dirty Harry," portrayed by actor Clint Eastwood. "If you carry one of these into a movie theater, you have to ask yourself, 'Do I feel lucky?'"
This is the kind of bravado that scares people. I mean, why don't you take this same effort and track down some serious criminals. It's the same argument against public cameras, data mining personal info, and extensive airport security. No one likes having big brother watching them. Most people probably have been hassled by someone who has taken trivial laws too far (i.e. zero tolerance in schools run amok). Apparently, kids are supposed to run in the other direction if someone starts a fight with them in school. The school has a right, if not a "duty" to hand my a kid a condom, but if I send them to school with Tylenol well, I've practically commited a felony
The article I've linked to makes the point that the battle over copyright law is nothing new. The reason they "get away with it" is because they essentially have a special privilege/ protection to do so. There were a lot of similar arguments about VCRs destroying the future of the movie industry. It didn't.
I guess that's why I'm so conflicted about this. I agree that file sharing is wrong, but I hate RIAA|MPAA because they're lobbyists with deep pockets who have done nothing but hock extreme violence and excessive sexuality. I don't like the fact that we live in a country where corporations write law. Yet these lobbyists manage to get more legislative action than people seeking things like education reform. Sorry, if I don't feel like helping the MPAA|RIAA do it's dirty work.
What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean....
I never realized doctors, barbers, and automechanics were such unrepentant sonsuvbitches! Just letting whoever walks in just read any old magazine they have lying around!! I can't believe they can afford to publish magazines at all. No wonder that self-titled magazine pimped that psychotic shrew Rosie O'Donnell tanked. Everyone was reading it for free. And Martha Stewart! My God, if everyone was forced to subscribe to her periodical for the morbidly obsessive compulsive she wouldn't have had the need to engage in insider trading.
What have we done?! We're monsters! We should all don loin cloths and neckerchiefs then follow Charlton Hestons example by going to the beach and screeming at a statue of Liberty in an almost comical special effects shot.
The VCD and DivX rips I've seen were solid. Hell one was the only way I got to see Hero. The DivX Harry Potter a friend showed me, principly for bragging purposes, was dark, but didn't look like it was done with a handycam.
Of course, a fair amount of what I've seen comes from, either a friend of a friend from Hong Kong, or a friend of a friend who drove up to chinatown in Vancouver BC to buy pirated movies.
This seems like a perfectly good idea, in fact im surprised its not illegal already. Id be even more surprised, if , legal or not, "Cammers" didnt attempt to conceal recording equipment anyway when sneaking into the theater.
The other bonus is that this should have a positive effect on the picture quality of movies downloaded on p2p systems. If we can weed out some of the amateur quality movie rips people can be more confident that the movie they just spent hours downloading isnt going to be wonky, distorted or have people standing up half-way through.(although it's been a long time since i had one like that!)
Lets face it the good quality rips are done from inside the industry (projectionist's, unscrupulous reveiewers, and even from the cutting room). I dont see this as being a major problem, in fact it will probably have a positive effect for people who download films.
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
I don't know about you, but every time I see that MPAA ad in front of a movie it seems to say that when you pirate a movie, this poor bastard at the bottom takes a pay cut. Heavens forbid profit for the big guys should dip from $200M to $198M.
I'm not a lawyer either, but I have read Title 17, U.S. Code.
I thought about eBaying it, but a pal told me it's illegal to even have it. Anyone know?
In general, it's lawful to resell a lawfully acquired lawful copy of a copyrighted work (17 USC 109). It appears dumpster diving is lawful ( California v. Greenwood ). You have a good consequential case as well because The Road to Perdition has been published (i.e. distributed in copies to the public) on DVD.
1) The RIAA, and MPAA probably did have a little hand in Ahnold's campaign. In so far as they are republican (because they're super-rich, and why wouldn't they be) and the republicans bought the election.
... he was in Red Heat....
2) The MPAA would rather make films in Canada, even if Canadians are all floppy headed queefs who would kill Saddam Hussein with their noxious ass-emitions, and yet allow Celine Dion to live on, and keep singing. It increases their margins.
3) Don't flatter yourselves. It had nothing to do with Canada, cheaper day-laborers, our natural hatred of the Spanish language, or deep abiding love of americanized mexican food (mmmmm sour cream...). California has the most electoral votes. Ahnold's assendancy was all about delivering those through flimsy and transparent photo-ops in 2004.
4) If there was another alterior motive, that motive is shits and giggles at the country club.
On the plus side, he should be even more entertaining than Jesse, who wished he could be reincarnated as a bra for large shapely breasts (but honestly who doesn't?), and he's never played second fiddle to a chimp. Eastwood can't say that. But
Wow your either can not read or you are stupid. Or both. Notice how the guy you are replying to is agreeing with every point you made ? TIME TO WAKE UP!
I see way too many people use "Information wants to be free" as a quote meaning that content, even entertainment, should be freely distributed. In this instance, that someone's going to free it from its horrible life of earning money. The quote is overused out of context.
Here comes the quote, from _The Media Lab: Inventing the Future at MIT_ by Stewart Brand (1987):
"Information wants to be free because it has become so cheap to distribute, copy, and recombine -- too cheap to meter. It wants to be expensive because it can be immeasurably valuable to the recipient. That tension will not go away. It leads to endless wrenching debate about price, copyright, intellectual property, the moral rightness of casual distribution, because each round of new (technological) devices makes the tension worse, not better."
It explains equally the two sides of content distribution. One side finds it easier and easier to freely distribute at lower and lower costs, while the other finds that more and more people want the content and can earn money faster and faster with such a demand.
It neither endorses nor condones free distribution, and it's not the full quote. Information wants to be free is solely part of the text, and not meant to be Information wants to be free.
Just debunking an old cliche. Thank you.
Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
Let's see...employees never screen movies themselves right?
Couldn't one of the employees record the movie during a "private" screening?
I think he just meant that most of the highly distributed copies are just ripped from Screeners DVDs
Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
do you honestly feel sorry for the actors loosing money? Cause in all honesty i couldnt give a rats ass if Tom Cruise cant buy his 5th beach house this year cause i downloaded the 'Last Samurai'. In all honesty i cant really take those anti-piracy comercials seiously cause when i see em they're on infront of the bick Blockbusters. So as Matrix Reloaded sets records for the amount of money it made in a weekend this guy is telling that his job is at risk. HMMMmmmm. And please dont try to tell youve NEVER watched a pirated movie or listened to a burned CD. If you went to the dentist and they were playing a CD you had a part in piracy ( according to the RIAA ). But i digress. It just makes me angry to think that as blockbuster movis are setting new records for the most money made in a single weekend ever im supposed to feel bad. Whats $13.50 CDN compared to 300 million dollars. Thats 0.000000045% Wow, do i feel bad now. .GM
I thought zealots were reserved to here in the midwest (hey, change one letter and the name of one God *cough*)
It takes one arrogant fuck to think they have the right to tell you to (not) do *anything*.
I guess with the unemployment rates up (nono they dropped a tenth of a percent, while gold continues to skyrocket and the rich get tax cuts and the old get free drugs, but don't don't mind the Bush behind the curtain, we're in a BOOM I SAY A BOOM) there must be lots of Self-Righteous Silicon Valley Assholes bored at the movies these days.
doesn't look like Steve Mann will be allowed to watch movies anymore.
Consider the following example. I'll never buy a Ferrari. But let me just take it out for a spin. I'll return it in the same condition.
Actually you won't. The depreciation, fewer miles are worth more, the wear on the car (especially the hard around town miles) the gas? A digital copy doesn't reduce the original in anyway. Ironic that you invoke an irreversible process in your appeal for authority. No?
>What if my cellphone has a camera? My favorite
>quote from an LA city attorney: 'If you carry one
>of these into a movie theater, you have to ask
>yourself, "Do I feel lucky?"'"
Yea, so preventing someone from possibly recording a few seconds of a movie (what camera phone could possibly be useful for recording a whole movie?) is more important than having cellphones around in case someone has a heart attack. What, everyone left their cellphone in the car like a good and considerate human being? Too bad for the almost dead guy, he'll have to wait an extra 2 or more minutes for help while someone finds a pay phone or theater employee to go find an office phone...
I'll tell you I've never watched a pirated movie, or listened to a pirated CD.
I'll also tell you that I consider those who pirate the garbage more honorable than those who pay money into the coffers of the RIAA and the MPAA.
Those who corrupt the legislatures, those who buy their own laws without heed to the damage they do to others, they have no moral right to live, much less to earn a profit. Of course, by the time you can afford to buy your own laws, you don't worry excessively about morality. You've made too many compromises along the way, so you no longer care, or even notice. (Some may start out that way, but this is a mere hypothesis. The visible end point is observed behavior...under interpretation, I must admit.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Since theatres operate on a 'one viewing per ticket' model, and release the movies to DVD a few months after the theatre run is over, recording movies in theatres is very obviously theft
Like any movie buff would make do with a second- or third-hand, shaky, hand-held camcorder (with audience heads taking up the bottom half of the screen) shot of a movie they want to see.
Puleeze.
A camcorder recording of a movie might be useful in deciding if the movie totally sucked, however. And if it looks like it sucks, people won't pay $10 (plus 5$ for a small popcorn) to see it. And that is what the MPAA is afraid of. Using a camcorder shot of a movie, not as a replacement for going to the theatre, but as a deciding factor in wether to go to the theater.
Better leave my brain at home then.
Drat, can't get it out.
Oh well, if it's illegal to watch movies then I'd better not watch any more.
Wow, a straw man, red herring and two non-sequiturs in one paragraph.
If you don't want to pay for it, don't watch it. Otherwise, drop your $9 and enjoy the film.
A citizens arrest sounds risky and inconvenient. It would be more effective to require the criminal to self arrest, which can be done by filling out this web form.
Yet another reason to stay away from movies. What else is there to say?
Are you so addicted to movies that you will expose yourself to felony prosecution to see them? Do you really want to give money to those who cause corrupt laws like this to be passed?
I don't. Haven't. And won't.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
There is a big difference between going around to your friend's house and reading a brand new magazine and just wandering into a shop, taking said magazine off the shelf and to a free photocopier and making yourself a copy.
Can you think of any shops that would let you do that?
This is all getting so theoretical. No, reading a magazine in the dentist's office is not a "rip-off." Advertising rates are set on a calculation that magazines are read by some multiple of the official circulation.
The production assistant two buildings over, the set dresser who lives in Larchmont, the special effects director over there in Encino has much more to be worried about from the competition by Orlando, Wilmington, Toronto, and Vancouver, and New York City than the guy with a camera in his lap at the cineplex over in Stockton. Shoot, the movie industry may have a bigger problem with cell phone texting spreading bad word of mouth on Friday night because the millions in advertising that used to buy a good weekend can only buy a good Friday.
Meanwhile, about this law, isn't it just a feel-good thing? Some legislator stands up and says "I did something about piracy." All right, congratulations. You still need someone in the audience to go tell management about the person in the next row who is taping the movie, because, if this is happening to any significant amount, it's because management cannot catch the behavior. But, if it is happening a lot, why aren't audience members getting those people ejected today? (And if telling management will shortly mean the local constabulary is called, doesn't that escalate the episode into something more dangerous for the audience, the theatre management, and the police?)
"Well, Carey, we hear the person in the Toyota Accura -- just ran a red light there -- is alleged to have taped a movie in the theater.""Thanks, Larry, when will people learn, you can't run away from the police and you can't tape movies in the theatre." When I hear that exchange while watching a televised medium-speed chase, then I'll know this law meant something.
Say I'm supposed to meet a friend for a movie. He never shows. I call to find out what's going on and leave a message; "Where are you?". In the background, a slice of dialog for the movie gets recorded. Do I do time? Does my friend?
Hmm...
If you really weren't going to buy it or weren't interested, you wouldn't even use it/hear it/listen to it.
So, I can't listen to songs on the radio? I mean, I don't PAY for them....
Unless I record a movie in the theater and then start illegally DISTRIBUTING the copyrighted material, I am not doing anything illegal. Have you ever heard of fair use? If I pay money for watching the movie and then record it, so I can watch it at a later time, but I do not distribute it, then it is not illegal. Capice?
You can't handle the truth.
Well, just how long do you think it will be before such a law is quietly extended such that cinema includes home theater?
I have come to expect that the majority of the posters here on Slashdot haven't read the article.
It happens less often, but even Slashdot submitters sometimes fail to read the article they are submitting.
What's really sad is when the person who wrote the article didn't even research the subject they are writing about.
According to the article, "The new law, which takes effect Jan. 1, allows moviegoers to make a citizen's arrest if they see someone in a theater with a recording device." Recording devices are illegal in a movie theatre! The cops are busting everyone with a PDA or a cellphone! That thought has understandably got everyone here all up in a lather.
The actual law states (emphasis is mine):
Section 653z is added to the Penal Code, to read:
653z. (a) Every person who operates a recording device in a motion picture theater while a motion picture is being exhibited, for the purpose of recording a theatrical motion picture and without the express written authority of the owner of the motion picture theater, is guilty of a public offense and shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by both that fine and imprisonment.
with a 20 pound camera in it (need to make sure it has no bees inside) will anyone notice?
You can't handle the truth.
1 FUCKING YEAR! that is a very long time to go to prision just for filming something, thats it we have already reached big brother stage and cinemas can fuck off. Im now only downloading films just like i only download music. Congratulations to the film industry they just lost another customer.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Anyone ever the see the episode of "The Andy Griffith Show" where Gomer Pyle performs a citizen's arrest on Barney Fife for doing a U turn on Main St?
I can picture someone standing up in a theatre yelling (with an horrible Southern accent) "Citizen's arrest! Citizen's arrest!!"
The article makes this bill out to be much worse than it is.
You have never met a Prosecutor. They will use this bill to charge people with Burglary for having entered the theater with the Criminal Intent to use their recording device. They prosecute accused shoplifters all the time for Burglary for having entered the store with intent to steal. This is known as overcharging, if they charge enough offenses it increases the cost of defense and renders it more likely that the defendant will plead to or be convicted of at least one offense.
Gee, yet another reason to want to get the fuck out of California.
Did Arnie sign this yet? Because if all they did was pass it through the state legislature it doesn't mean anything. But if it's been signed...
And I think I know where Arnie's going to stand on this issue.
Awwww, those pooor tourists. We'd just hate to inconvenience them a little.
Yes, this law will most likely be an inconvenience to some people. But so what? Since when is it the government's responsibility to make sure life is easy?
Now, whether the law is any good or not is a different matter. But inconveniencing people shouldn't be a deterrent to passing any law.
nt :)
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
so you're saying that reading a magazine at a friend's house is theft of the magazine.
What if I want to create a backup of the movie I just saw? I mean, what if I forget what happened?
What do you consider a "more realistic business model?"
I hate when Slashdotters pull this. It's the excuse for everything. MP3 piracy? The RIAA should adapt a more realistic business model! Studios putting out movies in theaters but--heaven forbid--don't want people filming it to put on the Internet? They need to adapt to a more realistic business model!
This is really a non-story. Yes, filming a movie in the theater to put online is wrong. No sane person should be arguing against this, unless you want to justify piracy.
"Sufferin' succotash."
You know... I've just about had it.
I'm tired of the MPAA assuming we are all criminals and soaking their legitimate consumers for the crimes of other people. I think I'll just not buy any movies and not go to any theaters. That should fix what's ailing the poor, destitute, no-pennies-to-rub-together MPAA.
Kind of like the way kids are taught to spy on their parents and report thoughtcrime if they see anything even remotely out of the ordinary.
Instead of dragging this on over a couple hundred years, why don't we all just join the Communist party today and get it over with?
With satellite radio you pay; with FM radio, advertisers pay; and with Internet radio it could be a combination of both, or the Internet radio station just absorbs the cost for gaining listeners. In any case of radio, the music is paid for.
As for actually pirating music or movies, it's pretty hypocritical for someone to appreciate other peoples' work (benefit from services rendered) but not want to support them. If you believe the price is too high for music or movies, then what you have is a philosophical difference with the production company producing the work, and if such exists, the difference should persuade one to avoid that production company's work (stolen or purchased).
You know, I don't know why people just don't apply the golden rule .. it's such a simple principle.
Let's say YOU make a movie, and sell it on DVD for $12.99.
One hundred people buy it, but five hundred people pirate it. Yah, you're not losing money. In fact, it's a great honor to be ripped off in this day and age.
Since most of the movies (at least most of the popular Hollywood movies that MPAA cares about) are released in the US first (except for those that have a simultaneous worldwide release) you need to get them there. And abroad the films are usually either dubbed or subtitled in a foreign language. So the pirated copies sold in Hong Kong or Vancouver are often of US origin.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Raise your hand if you'd like this guy in the balls. I'm sick and fucking tired of lawyers. Do you realize how much of our tax dollars these fuckers waste every year? We need a few serial killing cannibals with a taste for attorneys in this country.
The fundamental difference is that if you read the article at your friends house, you don't leave with the magazine. If you do then your friend no longer has the magazine either. It doesn't exist two places at once.
When you get into the electronic medium, things are simply different. The fact that you say 'I wasn't going to pay for it anyways' doesn't excuse theivery. Hell, MOST thieves who break into cars/houses aren't really going to actually buy any of the stuff they steal either. That's why their STEALING it.
Here it is in a nutshell, the movie/record producers produce a product that is valuable to a great many people. When you download a movie or MP3 you essentially are receiving that value at no cost. Just as the thief who stole my laptop last year received the VALUE of my laptop at no cost to him/herself. What your essentially saying is 'I don't value the music enough to spend $14 on the CD, but I DO Value it enough that if I can get it for free I will.' What about those who DO value the music enough to plop down $14? Now they too will tend to just download the music (it's free after all) without actually paying for it.
Fundamentally if you don't want to pay the cost of something, you have absolutely zero right to enjoy it. You may not want to spend $50 to get into Disney Land, but that doesn't give you the right to jump the fence to get in either.
Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
My favorite quote from an LA city attorney: 'If you carry one of these into a movie theater, you have to ask yourself, "Do I feel lucky?"'"
In related news, lawyers for the MPAA have filed a copyright infringement suit against the District Attorney's office for Los Angeles. The MPAA has hired attorney Kevin McBride to represent them in this action. He explained their position by saying, "The office of the District Attorney has shown a wanton disregard for the intellectual property of our clients. These signature statements are valuable commodities and their abuse by unlicensed consumers is damaging that value. If this kind of theft is allowed to go unchecked, it could be the end of the entire motion picture industry."
The Los Angeles District Attorney's office responded by releasing a statement that read simply, "Jesus Christ". No further comment was available.
Darth --
Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
I saw Mystic River. And it appeared to have these tell tale brown spots in two places. Althought I didn't like them, to say it makes the movie useless and unviewable is a gross exaggeration.
There is no conceivable way 1/5th of a second of brown spots can make two hours of movie useless and unviewable.
California just hasn't been the same since they banned all forms of carbohydrates.
Fundamentally if you don't want to pay the cost of something, you have absolutely zero right to enjoy it. Can you not see how monumentally FUCKED UP this statement is?
Those who corrupt the legislatures, those who buy their own laws without heed to the damage they do to others, they have no moral right to live, much less to earn a profit.
I share your outrage, but mine is mainly directed at the legislators selling the lawmaking.
Though in a bigger picture both sides are trapped in the system. If company A doesn't influence legislation in their direction, someone else will influence it in the opposite. And if legislator B doesn't sell his services, he will lose the election to someone who does.
Have a nice day!
First, the MPAA doesnt mandate that you are required to get popcorn. So your cost has just lowered. Second, there are matinee showings, special days, cheaper theatres, etc. For example, an AMC theatre near my house has, every tuesday, free parking, $5 admission, and one free small popcorn.
So are you telling me that $5 per person is too much? There are also theatres which show movies a few months after their main release, I think admission is $2. So if somebody REALLY wants to see a movie, there are tons of legal options; this is in sharp contrast to the RIAA vs. MP3 thing; until a few months ago, there werent even any legal ways to get MP3s aside from ripping them from CDs you already own, and they tried to stop even that.
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
I doubt it. I would think that for the majority of the world, the trailer is enough to make a person decide whether or not they want to see a movie. Has anyone ever actually gone to see a movie after watching a pirated version? It just seems that downloading a movie is already admission that you paying to see it is an impossibility.
Later,
Patrick
If you really weren't going to buy it or weren't interested, you wouldn't even use it/hear it/listen to it
When I do use it/listen to it, it's incidental. I couldn't care less. Literally, it's one way or another and I don't care.
If anything, you are simply behaving the way you do because the technologies that permit you to share/enjoy exist.
I actually dont pirate, cause like I said, I don't care. I dont enjoy the media, it's mostly crap. And seperating crap from not is hard.
Consider the following example. I'll never buy a Ferrari. But let me just take it out for a spin. I'll return it in the same condition. Go to a dealership. Ask for a test drive. So long as they think you aren't going to steal it, you can do exactly that. Really, really, really bad analogy.
Or how about software? Do you extend that view to software too? Should anyone be paying for ANY software?
I am all for enforcing personally made contracts. Most software you pay for you agree to a contract with additional limitations on top of copyright - an EULA. I agree to no such limitations with DVDs, Magazines, or CDs.
That is NOT true under capitalism. Everyone will be impacted. Remember, any wage is permitted under capitalism (although government intervention and worker movements impact this somewhat via minimum wage laws, etc). If a company loses money, they won't just cut the high salary personnel! They generally do across the board cuts. Layoff people, make them work harder, lower their wages, etc. Have you looked at other industries? Who loses when a company struggles? Do CEOs lose their jobs, or get their wages cut?
The fact is that there is not much fat that doesn't relate to top stars in a movie. There just isn't. If you want a movie, you need a certain number of people. In a lot of movies that number is as low or damn near as low as possible already. They've been squeezing them for *decades* in case you haven't been paying attention. The only place that hasn't felt the pinch of more movies and less audience is the top tier actors. They will be the first to feel a real pinch.
Apart from the fact that you are either cruel or jealous (like the latter), you can already do that. If you pirate movies, you WILL impact these actors (along with countless other workers). Of course, you need to get a movement going but it is quite within the power. There are already many right-wing anti-Hollywood movements that boycott.
No, I am not cruel. I have a sense of justice. Hollywood has been a meddelsome, condescending, elistist, racist, and obnoxious sore on this country for decades. They walk about moaning about how important the industry is, and how everyone must bend all of the laws to fit their silly needs. Well, frankly, it's time they realized they aren't a significantly large industry (small than all heavy industry, computers, software, video games, and lots of other stuff) to demand as much law making as they ask for. And best yet, they can go to pot for all I care. You abuse customers long enough, hard enough, and given the opportunity they will fuck you back when they can.
You are using the comapny's business model to determine whether or not something should be illegal? You are basically saying that because live shows are somewhat different from studio work, it makes the situation different, legally. That doesn't make much sense to me.
In my mind, both are copyright infringment (not theft), however, neither should be punished severly, unless it is on a massive scale.
IF it is criminal to film with a camera then only criminals will have cameras.
Maybe a seven day waiting period after a new movie comes out to buy a camera. A "cooling off" period.
In california, if it can "shoot" something, then it eventually be banned.
Psycho.
You have no honor.
last i checked if you do carry a camera into the theater just cuz, you dont prop it ona tripod pointing at the screen with tape recording in it, stop making it out to break your civil rights you fuckin twats
This is GREAT NEWS!!! Now I can be sure that the current movies I download to watch are nice, decent telesyncs done by industry insiders, and not crappy korean dubbed cam jobs shot crooked with someone's head in the way! :)
This space available.
The magazine example is completely invalid. Advertising pays the real cost of producing a monthly (or weekly or whatever). Retail income is just gravy, and it's just high enough to discourage people from buying and not doing anything with it.
Also, if you weren't able to download music, would you then just not listen to any music? The only reason you'll never buy a CD is that you can download it for free, and that's my point of view anyways. If the download option were not available, what would you do?
I walked into this little store on the highway and I've been here for 4 years. They keep me chained to the cash register and won't let me leave. I didn't realize when I walked in, but they had a sign on the door that said they reserved the right to force customers to pay for goods with years of indentured servitude.
I know I checked my rights at the door, but it's so frustating. I was going to try to run away, but they got me this computer so I can read slashdot all day. It's really not so bad. I even get mod points now and then...
I would contend that you should not be charged with any crimes for trying to record a concert. Certianly, you can ba 'asked' to leave, but punishable by law? thats just wrong.
These laws are a waste of our representives time, and by extension, the tax payers money.
The reason wy this is 'new' is because of an age catagory that is just becoming aware of these kinds of abuses. Hopefully, they'll write letters, and take it to the voting booth.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"Consider the following example. I'll never buy a Ferrari. But let me just take it out for a spin. I'll return it in the same condition. "
Bad example, because it is not possible to use a physical item and have it stay the same. Wear and tear.
"Or how about software? Do you extend that view to software too? Should anyone be paying for ANY software?"
sure, if it is of value to you, and the price doesn't exceed the value. True capitalism.
"Yes, some sales WILL be lost; some won't. Yes, the record companies exaggerate their figures. But it doesn't change the point. "
Since the point is, not all downloads cost the industry money, I'd say it IS the point.
"That is NOT true under capitalism. Everyone will be impacted. Remember, any wage is permitted under capitalism (although government intervention and worker movements impact this somewhat via minimum wage laws, etc). If a company loses money, they won't just cut the high salary personnel! They generally do across the board cuts. Layoff people, make them work harder, lower their wages, etc. Have you looked at other industries? Who loses when a company struggles? Do CEOs lose their jobs, or get their wages cut? "
there is a minimum amount of people they will need to make a movie. Unless Tom Cruise is going to start moving set pieces(haha).
Fact is, if filming movies in a theater would destroy the industries, it would have already been destroyed.
unauthorized people making mass productions and then reselling them is where the loss comes in, not from some smoe filmimg in a theater.
Could you image seeing one of those records and going "Well I was going to buy this movie, but gosh darn, this horrible copy, with the sound of someone eating popcorn, is much better."?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Consider the following example. I'll never buy a Ferrari. But let me just take it out for a spin. I'll return it in the same condition
Fine! If you can bring my Ferrari back with all of the parts in exactly the same condition, i.e. with no miles added to the car, no extra wear on the engine, seats, or otherwise, and it wouldn't be during a time at which I would be using the car, then go right ahead. This argument is awful -- you are assuming, instead, that you will NOT return it in the same conditions -- i.e. that it will have some extra wear, and chance of an accident. This is not the case for movies/music.
Or how about software? Do you extend that view to software too? Should anyone be paying for ANY software?
You are totally missing the parent's point. If I would have otherwise bought the software, yes. For example, if I didn't use gimp, I would probably buy photoshop. But if I use photoshop for a little while anyway, I don't think it is that big of a deal. Pay for what you would have otherwise bought.
If a company loses money, they won't just cut the high salary personnel! They generally do across the board cuts. Layoff people, make them work harder, lower their wages, etc. Have you looked at other industries? Who loses when a company struggles? Do CEOs lose their jobs, or get their wages cut?
While it's true that businesses cut corners everywhere they can, I can assure you that some of the first to get the axe will be the higher-ups. If your business starts going down, they don't blame the gaffer. They blame the execs. And anyway, most of the lower-level workers have set wages by guilds/unions, so in the most literal sense, it does not directly cut their wages.
-----[0_o]-----
We are not amused.
What did you expect, Arnold (aka the TERMINATOR) rules. ;-)
With his close ties to movie industry..
A theater is not realistically going to kick someone out for a camera on a cell phone, unless the theatre was looking to lose business. A theater is, realistically, going to charge somebody caught with a (in this case, not so) hidden camera trying to pirate the movie. So you can all stop your bitching and whining and moaning. Thanks.
I don't know where they come from, but they are not handycam copies. That's why my bet is on the people working for Red Army Inc pressing the DVD's. Could they come from inside the movie production houses? Sure. Where ever they're coming from it isn't handycams in theaters. At least the ones I've seen.
FWIW Return of The King was released in New Zealand first.
I have downloaded a couple movies and then decided to see them in the theatre, either because the camed copy was really bad, or because it was a really good movie and I wanted to get the full theatre experience (huge screen, dark room, excellent surround sound, etc.)
uh.... watch the beginning of your rented or purchased copy of a movie, and I believe it will contain an FBI warning about the illegal nature of making unauthorized copies. That would include sitting in your home with a camcorder pointed at your home theater system (if you were to later distribute that copy). Nothing new here.
I have never heard, nor ever expect to, of a person who goes to the theatre after seeing the movie bootleg
Like I said, If they find out the movie sucks fromthe bootleg, they won't go see it. If they LIKE the movie, they would go see it 'on the big screen'.
More likely they are using it as a substitute for going to the theatre
Ummm... okay. If some people want to see a LOTR or Matrix movie in 160x120 pixels, 10fps, instead of on the big screen with chair-rattling Surround Sound, then I think they've punished themselves enough.
There are also theatres which show movies a few months after their main release
What happens to older movie films 1, 2, 5, even 10 years after they are released? Could someone lay hands on a collection of 5 or 10 year old films (propably cheap!!) and set up a theater playing the 'oldies'?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
making countless photocopies of that magazine article and giving them to anyone who wanted a copy
Like a Library? Libraries have magazines and books, and I've yet to see a library without a (coin operated- they're making a profit!!) copy machine.
and yes, there are still drive-ins in California
can you point me to any in orange county(or surrounding counties)? the one i used to go to is a walmart, and the only one i've seen other than that is apparently only showing 'swap meet'
Need a Catering Connection
First, the MPAA doesnt mandate that you are required to get popcorn.
shh! don't give them any ideas!
We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
After all, one could argue that PVR users are "stealing" television.
The issue here isn't what is or isn't "theft". The issue is what business models receive legal/gov't protection and which don't.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
I'm still unclear on this:
If you walk out of a theater brandishing a
camera, does anyone have the legal right or authority to demand to see what's on it?
Does having a camera in one's possesion constitute probable cause now?
Or does one have to be caught in the act?
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
What y'all expect from Sony California?
What y'all expect from Sony California?
More citizens arrest would be good...we should take turns "arresting" each other for every single stupid law...like after your GF [mythological creature sorry /.ers] gives "favors"...you shoud arrest each other afterword. Catch a cop speeding, get pals together and citizens arrest! If enough people started actually enforcing all the stupid laws out there to absolutely every letter, the politicans would have to do SOMETHING very quickly. Things like "registries" would be swamped overnight with silly claims, procecutors HAVE to register and try every vaild legal complaint!!! You could bury the legal system overnight...What could they do about the people simply enforcing the laws as written. Whenever legislatures are asked to fix the lawbooks it's too much of a problem, but this is like voting, everyone would have to do it to make it effective. LOL
What happens when we reach the tech point where you can duplicate a vaccine for zero, and some guy wants money for it? You can't claim that's a strawman without being hypocritical - it's a hell of a lot more accurate as an analogy than your copied MP3 versus stolen laptop scenario...
People are being threatened with longer jail terms and bigger fines for copying songs than they would get for murdering the singer. What kind of screwed-up "justice" system does that tell you we live in?
Who pays for all of the free zines at the doctors office? Why are they there? The music industry has lost the curve forever-they are in the past tense. Sony et all will build the price of CD sales they think they lost into the hardware they sell.
As I mentioned, you are impacting ALL workers, not just the ones at the top.
Whats $13.50 CDN compared to 300 million dollars. Thats 0.000000045% Wow, do i feel bad now.
If a million like-minded individuals did that, it would turn out to be $13,500,000. That's a lot of money. The studios GROSS $300million; they make less. Costs are $100m to $150m for blockbusters.
In any case, you are just jealous. With your philosophy, you can steal literally everything! IBM makes more than $10billion so let me just use all their stuff for free. Walmart makes billions so let me just go and take everything I want. Exonn Mobil makes tens of billions so let me just use some gasoline without paying. And best of all, banks make billions every quarter so let me just take some money for free...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
What you are describing is the modern form of capitalism (sometimes called corporatism). More than 70% of all companies are like that. If you follow a philosophy that applies to ALL such companies, I have no problem with you. But if you just pick on RIAA, or MPAA, or Microsoft, or whatever, I DO have a problem.
So... the question is: do you extend that view to other companies? Do you boycott Boeing (stop flying in their planes) because we all know how easily they have the politicians in their pocket? Do you avoid Exonn Mobil, Shell, and other oil companies because they heavily influence US politicians? Do you ignore products from IBM because it is one of the most powerful lobby group in the tech industry and influences a lot of legislation related to technology?
Do you even live in the modern world? I respect your principles. I'm an anti-capitalist who hates capitalism and its elite entities called corporations. But I am not as principled and I certainly don't hold the same attitude. So are you sticking to your principles?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
Tells you who the justice is for. The people with the money to by the rights to art as opposed to those who produce it.
You know, I thought about that. I thought someone would say that. I was going to mention software piracy but wanted something simpler. I'll see if I an come up with a better example.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
I think if you are just doing it for yourself, it's ok in my eyes. I only see a problem when people start doing it on a mass scale.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
Yeah, and in the past the clean upstanding porno viewers didn't have any problems with you video taping them wanki.. watching the movies.
Some of these are copies of the screeners, some are copies of the retail DVDs, some are leaked at the post-production or distribution stage, some are telecines and some are cam versions (although they obviously are a minority). And still, the point about them being of US origin remains.
As for the ROTK, it was premiered in New Zealand (one screning, I think), not released.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
SO, a movie costs $100m to make and you're still crying over the 20 million over $100m they make opening weekend. (And so what if a million individuals didnt go see the movie? That pays for what? One of the over paid actors? Wow i REALLY feel bad now. Besides, your taking my statements to the extreme. ( Except for Exon Mobil, they do make billions [in profits] and they shouldnt ). When IBM makes 10 Billion they spend it on research or other projects. When Walmart makes 10 billion they use it to make more stores, buy more products. Its not like im ever going to go to walmart, buy a vacume for 13.50 ( even though its worth 7.50 ) use it for 2 hours and never touch it again. But even if that was the case with that vacume i have the option of returning it because it sucks or it doesnt work. Your analogies sucked. Try something else.
IBM spending on R&D? lol Who cares? What difference does that make? Are they trying to improve the world? Nope! They are just doing it for profits. Walmart building stores? So that they can pay close to minimum wage to peddle their wares?
My analogy doesn't suck... your stance sucks. You cannot just criticize one company because they make a lot of profit! You either pick all of them or you don't pick any! You either support capitalism or you don't! Right now, you are simply being hypocritical. Do you support Hollywood studios that barely break even (say some independent studio making indie films)?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
When I do use it/listen to it, it's incidental. I couldn't care less. Literally, it's one way or another and I don't care.
:) ... So, are you saying that you don't support EULAs on DVDs/CDs/books/etc or you wouldn't have a problem if they put an EULA on them? If DVDs/etc started placing additional restrictions, would you be satisfied?
If you don't care, why are you even using it? Claiming you don't care while using it is hypocritical. I actually dont pirate, cause like I said, I don't care. I dont enjoy the media, it's mostly crap. And seperating crap from not is hard.
I think a lot of people who support your view have this notion that some product is either worthy or not. I'm not even a capitalist yet even I can say that there is no such thing as "bad" products. You don't like something? Your product failed? It's a risk you take. You can't buy a house and then return it since it is "crap". Under capitalism, EVERYTHING is worth what the MARKET determines. I could sell sand from Iraq for $100 and if people buy it, it is WORTH it--it certainly isn't "crap".
I am all for enforcing personally made contracts. Most software you pay for you agree to a contract with additional limitations on top of copyright - an EULA. I agree to no such limitations with DVDs, Magazines, or CDs.
hmm... you are not like the rest of the Slashdot crowd, who is generally anti-EULA
The fact is that there is not much fat that doesn't relate to top stars in a movie. There just isn't. If you want a movie, you need a certain number of people. In a lot of movies that number is as low or damn near as low as possible already. They've been squeezing them for *decades* in case you haven't been paying attention. The only place that hasn't felt the pinch of more movies and less audience is the top tier actors. They will be the first to feel a real pinch.
Again, I'm not going to go into something that simply ignores the tenets of capitalism. You are speculating on the "fat" in the movie industry. I'm anti-capitalist and could care less about capitalism (in fact I think it's going to collapse as Marx predicted), but I have no idea how you can say that some industry does or does not have "fat". Or the popular notion how people are overpaid. There is no such thing as being overpaid under capitalism. If a movie star makes $20m/movie they are worth that--the market pays that. Movie star salaries will come down around the time CEO salaries come down... which is to say, never (or until capitalism collapses).
No, I am not cruel. I have a sense of justice. Hollywood has been a meddelsome, condescending, elistist, racist, and obnoxious sore on this country for decades. They walk about moaning about how important the industry is, and how everyone must bend all of the laws to fit their silly needs. Well, frankly, it's time they realized they aren't a significantly large industry (small than all heavy industry, computers, software, video games, and lots of other stuff) to demand as much law making as they ask for. And best yet, they can go to pot for all I care. You abuse customers long enough, hard enough, and given the opportunity they will fuck you back when they can
I find it ironic that you talk about movies on your homepage yet say you could care less if they dissapear. You also claim that customers are being abused. Again, the market determines that under capitalism. No one is forcing people to watch movies. No one is taking money away from them. If someone pays for films, that's their problem. In any case, you clearly fit into the example that I cited: right-wing groups unhappy with liberal movies and hence want to see the destruction of Hollywood. Blaming Hollywood for being "meddelsome, condescending, elistist, racist, and obnoxious" is kind of lame, given that every other industry is like that. In fact, there are other industries that are far worse.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
Yes the car example was horrible.. have to come up with something better (thinking of books as an example but will see if there is something better)...
:( ) or someone who really isn't into the book, would do it. You can't deny the negative impact of electronic book piracy on the market (but it's just that it is irrelevant right now cuz it isn't there yet. Even the "best" pirated books suck).
sure, if it is of value to you, and the price doesn't exceed the value. True capitalism.
Not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying pirating software (say spreading beta copies or something) is perfectly ok with you? Just like movies?
Since the point is, not all downloads cost the industry money, I'd say it IS the point.
My point takes precedence over your point since it is more relevant. That is, there is a significant chunk of the population who download movies (I had some friends who did that when I was in school). This is more important than your point that other downloads don't cost any money.
In any case, if downloading movies is ok, is downloading software ok with you too?
there is a minimum amount of people they will need to make a movie. Unless Tom Cruise is going to start moving set pieces(haha).
This depends on whether you support capitalism or not. If you don't support capitalism (like me), you can legitimately say that some jobs/people/etc are overpaid. My problem is that most people who make that serious charge are in fact capitalists or quasi-capitalists. There is no basis for them claiming that someone is overpaid. You can't say Bruch Willis is overpaid, just like how you can't say Sam Palmisano (CEO of IBM) is overpaid. Pick one: do you support the notion that some people are overpaid (which is an attack on markets and the heart of capitalism)? Or do you not?
Fact is, if filming movies in a theater would destroy the industries, it would have already been destroyed. unauthorized people making mass productions and then reselling them is where the loss comes in, not from some smoe filmimg in a theater.
A lot of unauthorized productions come from filming in theaters. I already thought it was illegal film and that's why I was surprised that someone was introducing a bill for it (does that mean it is legal right now). A lot of the pirated films are from in-theater filming. It depends on the cases but in many cases people don't have access to the film (the actual film roll) or have to wait for films to get to Asia (which lags since premieres are in North America).
Could you image seeing one of those records and going "Well I was going to buy this movie, but gosh darn, this horrible copy, with the sound of someone eating popcorn, is much better."?
A true movie fan like me wouldn't go near it at all. But casual fans and others trying to save money will. It's like books. How many people pirate electronic books or something? Someone who is really into books wouldn't download a copy. But someone who can't afford it (say like me who is unemployed
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
You are totally missing the parent's point. If I would have otherwise bought the software, yes. For example, if I didn't use gimp, I would probably buy photoshop. But if I use photoshop for a little while anyway, I don't think it is that big of a deal. Pay for what you would have otherwise bought.
The problem with this is that capitalism encourages and rewards greed (yes, I realize capitalists are in total denial over this). So, most people will claim that they really wouldn't have purchased something. I could literally claim that I should pirate every single software because, well, I wasn't going to buy it anyway. I mean, why should I be buying this game for $50 when I'm only playing it for 20 hours? You see this all over the place, including businesses. Many small businesses pirate a lot of software. You can even find the owners justifying it with your reason: "oh, I wasn't using it much and wouldn't have bought it anyway".
If people were honest (or we were practicing another econopolitical system), I would support your position. It is very hard for me to support your position under capitalism.
While it's true that businesses cut corners everywhere they can, I can assure you that some of the first to get the axe will be the higher-ups. If your business starts going down, they don't blame the gaffer. They blame the execs. And anyway, most of the lower-level workers have set wages by guilds/unions, so in the most literal sense, it does not directly cut their wages.
I exaggerated my point a bit and you are doing the same. The executives are generally the ones that are LEAST impacted by this. There are MANY companies that struggle and yet the executives don't feel any pain. Even when they are terminated, they get perks and other compensation that is nowhere near what a lower class worker would get. It is not uncommon for executives to receive hundreads of thousands of dollars for "a job well done" even though they are being terminated. How many lower class workers get any sort of "bonus" for being terminated (other than the usual stuff)? And let's not even get into golden parachutes. Yes, executives get paid MORE for being terminated.
As far as wages being set by unions, well, first of all, this depends what country/region/etc you are in. In the vast majority of the earth's workers have no unions (most workers are in poor countries). In countries like USA, unions aren't that common either. Europe and Canada have quite a lot of unions. In any case, I agree that wages don't go down (economists refer to downward rigidity of wages). However, workers are adversely impacted (relative to executives). Many workers are laid off. Often, those that remain have to do the jobs of 1.5 people (or twice as much in some cases). This rarely ever happens in the senior levels. When was the last time a Controller was eliminated and a Chief Financial Officer ends up doing their work? Not that often. The further up you go, the less you are impacted.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
Magazines are paid for by advertisers. A book is a better example. Even with a book, the doctor's office (or whoever) pays for the book. I don't have a problem with that. But if they downloaded an electronic book and started passing it off, I would have a problem.
The music industry has lost the curve forever-they are in the past tense. Sony et all will build the price of CD sales they think they lost into the hardware they sell.
My problem is not the studios. I don't care about them. My problem are the artists. Most people who pirate simply don't pay anything for the artists. Yes, some do--but most don't. Why do you think the most downloaded songs/movies/etc are precisely the most popular ones (eg. Britney Spears, Justin Timerlake, P.Diddy, Nelly, etc)?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
I find it ironic that you talk about movies on your homepage yet say you could care less if they dissapear.
They are not important to the matter of my life. If they disappeared I would not be affected for the worse. Seeing a movie or two doesn't mean they are a substantial part of my life.
You also claim that customers are being abused. Again, the market determines that under capitalism.
Two things. First, rights are endowed by our creator, not by the economy. The US Constitution guarantees our rights to fair use. The media industry is constantly working to undermine that. Hence abuse.
Second, the media industry does not operate under capitalism. It is a natural monopoly. It operates under *entirely* different rules.
No one is forcing people to watch movies. No one is taking money away from them. No and yes. I never claimed they are being forced. However, value is being removed. The realm of what is legal to do with purchased media has declined. That loss of value is what the media industry calls piracy for them. For us, it's theft.
In any case, you clearly fit into the example that I cited: right-wing groups unhappy with liberal movies and hence want to see the destruction of Hollywood.
I couldnt care less about the liberal/not liberal aspect of Hollywood. I would love to see their destruction because of the meddlesome holier-than-thou atmosphere they project as well as the tangible harm they do to the nation abroad. For many peoples across the world all they know of America is it's media. And that cause lots and lots of problems, since the media is not an accurate representation of America. Imagine if all you knew of America was what you saw on "Will and Grace" or "Friends". Would you admire America?
Blaming Hollywood for being "meddelsome, condescending, elistist, racist, and obnoxious" is kind of lame, given that every other industry is like that. In fact, there are other industries that are far worse.
There are other industiries that are worse, but not many and not by much. Especially considering the size and influence ratio. They wield an unbelievable large club for such a small industry. And in terms of international influence I mentioned, they are pratically lethal. They have lobbied for more drastic legal changes than other industry out there. They meddle more than *any* other industry. Most industries goal is to stay far far far from government intervention or regulation. Now that the top down distrubition model of the media industry is threatened, they have to go screaming for uneeded laws that will not only 100% secure them of a prosperus future, but in fact increase their dominance and power to new levels. They are demanding a complete top-down reworking of *every* digital device created by the US for the purpose of protecting their works. In effect they want to cripple US high-tech industry (which is 100's of time bigger than the media industry), the software industry, the artistic community, the web industry, and stiffle innovation across dozens of fronts to protect thier monopoly on distribution. That is why I would be happy to see them take a hit. It's tim they realized they are *not* the most important industry in this country.
Im not saying it isnt possible some people behave this way, Im just saying its improbable. The people I know who are into pirating movies from Kazaa dont go to the theatre very often anymore. IMO it is a causal effect.
Ummm... okay. If some people want to see a LOTR or Matrix movie in 160x120 pixels, 10fps, instead of on the big screen with chair-rattling Surround Sound, then I think they've punished themselves enough.
Granted the quality is worse, but Im sure thats no consolation to the people responsible for funding/making the movie. Again, the situation isnt analogous to music just yet (yet being the operative word). MP3s are pretty damn close in sound quality to CDs, whereas MPEG-4 or DivX films are grainier and have less options than the actual DVD. But the time will come shortly when faster internet access will allow people to trade DVDs with a low compression format similiar to the ISOs which you can use for CDs.
Once that happens, there is no loss of quality, and they are undercutting the retail product. Most people just want to get the feeling that they are 'sticking it to The Man", even if they can technically afford to get things retail.
What happens to older movie films 1, 2, 5, even 10 years after they are released? Could someone lay hands on a collection of 5 or 10 year old films (propably cheap!!) and set up a theater playing the 'oldies'?
There are places which actually do this, but the problem is the media. Film quality wears out and degrades, often to the point where the film cannot be viewed properly anymore. But in the case of many 'classic' and foreign films, certain theatres still run them from time to time; I believe they are running a copy from a master print, however, and those arent cheap.
That situation can easily change once theatres switch over to digital formats, which will have many benefits to the theatres AND the movie industry. The theatres can then easily show things like televised sporting events, older movies (since they dont need the film), and hold special events (like corporate presentations).
The movie industry would also save hundreds of millions per year by doing away with the expensive process of using film: they could just send the movies to the theatre via a T-1. The problem at the moment is that the industry wants the theatres to foot the bill, while the theatres will not realize any huge benefits compared to the expense of switching. Obviously, they feel the industry should foot the bill.
A second facet to this is that the industry is probably dragging their feet on the whole digital thing until the piracy issue is resolved: obviously, if they had to worry about their movies being posted to the internet while they are in theatres, with no loss of quality, they stand to lose more than the hundreds of millions they would save versus film.
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
You would be surprised at the quality of a DivX or MPEG4 copy. I have seen a few, and its either equivalent or a little worse than VCR quality. The only problem is a movie may have to be put on 2-3 CDs. But since DVD burners and media are getting lower and lower, this will not be a problem for much longer.
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
I could realy sympathize with your problem if someone swiped your digital novel and a studio calls you up and offers you a contract for a movie about the novel that they never would have known about unless one of their guys had read the swiped version on hoorors-Slashdot!!! I still get my 40%.
can you point me to any in orange county(or surrounding counties)?
Well, perhaps my use of the plural was an exaggeration. The only one I know if is in San Jose.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Since my whole life is a special act I perform for monetary gain, I will wear a sandwich board with the same "FBI warning" that plays at the beginning of rented videos.
Should any surveillance camera record me in violation of my sacred copyright protections, I will have them arrested.
For example, security cameras pointed towards the parking lots of large retail stores.
Copyright and patent laws have created a distorted marketplace. Most people probably look at moves like this much like the early indigenous Americans looked upon the whole idea of land ownership.
It's true that artificial protections encourage research and creation of artistic works to a certain point.
But we're far past the point of maximizing the overall benefit.
Extended protection times for patents and copyrights have gone beyond symbiosis; they have become parasitic.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Hell, MOST thieves who break into cars/houses aren't really going to actually buy any of the stuff they steal either. That's why their [sic] STEALING it.
And when someone steals your (physical) stuff, are you upset because you no longer have it, or because they *also* have it? When copying something (be it digital or even analog) the person with the original is not deprived of it, the only difference is that someone else now has a copy.
Fundamentally if you don't want to pay the cost of something, you have absolutely zero right to enjoy it.
Ok, you're only allowed to enjoy things you buy? You can't enjoy the sky, or the crisp wind, or the smell of a bakery as you walk by?
I have a right to enjoy anything I want, whether I buy it or not. For one, I enjoy making fun of dumbasses like you, and I never paid a cent for that privilege. Does that mean I have a legal right to share copyrighted songs, movies or software that aren't mine? Probably not, but that's another issue entirely.
Yeah, and we all know that standing on a street corner giving away a magazine you bought is illegal. Once you're done with something you buy, you can only save it or destroy it, it is illegal and immoral to let someone else use it.
bash$ acrodict -add SSI "SSI Security and Investigations"
acrodict: "SSI" entry added successfully.
bash$ acrodict -R SSI
Stack overflow: pid 51764, proc kr, addr 0x11f7ffff0, pc 0x120001118
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
bash$
Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF