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?"'"

Comments

Re:Another well thought idea

[Hungus]

You cant actually make a citizens arrest over something like this., Unless they specifically wrote it so you could. The liability for a CA is huge if you don't know what you are doing and or make a mistake you can be hit with a felony for unlawful detainment. (oh and of course it should be noted I work in the security business) Hense my address SSI Security and Investigations and yes the SSI stands for SSI Security and Investigations

Re:I don't understand how this can be.

[Frennzy]

Not true. If you pay to see something, you are signing a contract (essentially a license) which allows you to see it for that instance. It does not transfer that allowance to anyone else, and, in most cases, the license you buy to see it prohibits you from recording it in any fashion, and specifically prohibits you from selling/reselling that 'something' to others. I am not a lawyer. But I beat the fuck out of one on TV.

Re:Talk about FUD

[kscd]

"So WHAT if your cellphone has a camera? Unless you're USING YOUR CELLPHONE TO RECORD THE MOVIE, there is no problem. "

True. For now. But that's the danger of this and all slippery slopes. When they start banning all cell phones in theatres, and losing them mysteriously when you check them in, you might be as pissed off about this as this person is now.

Re:Talk about FUD

[whoever57]

Unless you're USING YOUR CELLPHONE TO RECORD THE MOVIE, there is no problem.

According to the article (but who reads that?) mere possesion of a video recording device in a theatre is sufficent to create the possiblity of arrest and prosecution.

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)?

The bill text

[Sneftel]

Merry Christmas, slashbots.

BILL NUMBER: SB 1032 CHAPTERED
BILL TEXT

CHAPTER 670
FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE OCTOBER 3, 2003
APPROVED BY GOVERNOR OCTOBER 2, 2003
PASSED THE SENATE SEPTEMBER 2, 2003
PASSED THE ASSEMBLY AUGUST 28, 2003
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY AUGUST 18, 2003
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 30, 2003
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 21, 2003

INTRODUCED BY Senator Murray
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Goldberg, Koretz, and Leno)

FEBRUARY 21, 2003

An act to add Section 653z to the Penal Code, relating to crime.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SB 1032, Murray. Motion picture theaters: unauthorized
recordings.
(1) Existing law provides that a person admitted to a theater in
which a motion picture is to be or is being exhibited who refuses to
cease the operation of a video recording device upon the request of
the theater owner is guilty of intentionally interfering with and
obstructing the operation of a lawful business, a misdemeanor.
This bill would provide, in addition, that 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 $2,500, or by both that
fine and imprisonment. By creating a new crime, this bill would
impose a state-mandated local program.
(2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse
local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
act for a specified reason.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

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.
SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because
the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school
district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or
infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty
for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the
Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the
meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
Constitution.

Won't reduce piracy

[phalse phace]

This won't reduce piracy one bit. Why? Because most of the pirated movies are the result of leaks by movie industry insiders. Isn't that why the MPAA is trying to stop the mailing of DVD and video screeners, as it's own members are the main source of piracy?

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?

Re:What "right" would that be?

[spongman]

20th amendment? "The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January..."? are you sure? do you know what the fuck you're talking about?

"You check your rights at the door." No, you give up no rights when you enter a private establishment. In fact it would be illegal for someone to require you to. However, the owner of said establishment reserves the right to expel you as they wish (although use of force is a crime, often abused and often overlooked).

This situation is different. It does infringe on your rights as a public citizen and goes far beyond expulsion from private property - it involves expulsion from public life: imprisonment.

Re:But what about PDAs?

[silentbozo]

Just to further the point, more devices that you'll have to leave behind or risk being turned into the resident of our jail system:

3rd generation iPods (recording feature is part of the rom.)

Pretty much every PDA manufactured after 1999.

All cellphones (if you use the transmitter interpretation that I put out above.)

Very interesting to note (from the text of the bill):

(1) Existing law provides that a person admitted to a theater in which a motion picture is to be or is being exhibited who refuses to cease the operation of a video recording device upon the request of the theater owner is guilty of intentionally interfering with and obstructing the operation of a lawful business, a misdemeanor.

In other words, it's ALREADY illegal to use a camcorder to tape a film, if they tell you to stop (duh.) So what is this new law going to do?

This bill would provide, in addition, that 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 $2,500, or by both that fine and imprisonment. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.[italics mine]

[State-mandated local program meaning a law that requires enforcement, the cost of which may or may not be reimbursed by the state - this bill offers no such reimbursement] In this instance, a recording device is defined as:

(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.

I think we need a new law protecting the citizens of California from MORE LAWS.

Re:But what about PDAs?

[phorm]

I've /never/ seen a recorded film for sale over the Internet

I'm not sure about over the internet, but in many a major city in China you can find them for sale (cheaply) without too much trouble. Some are screeners, some theatre rips.

What the law actually says

[crankyspice]

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....

similar bill passed in Ohio

[JimBobJoe]

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.

Citizen's Arrest

[serutan]

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.

Re:There's a good reason!

[cioxx]

This bill was not signed by Arnold. It was Gray Davis who did it.

MOD PARENT UP +5 Funny

[Anonymous Coward]

That's got to be one of the funniest comments of the day. If I wouldn't have wasted my mod points...

First sale

[tepples]

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.

Overused quote without recognition of its meaning

[DragonMagic]

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.