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?"'"
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
Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
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 real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
The opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent those of anybody at all. Deal with it.
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?
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.)
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?Very interesting to note (from the text of the bill):
[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:
I think we need a new law protecting the citizens of California from MORE LAWS.
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.
This bill was not signed by Arnold. It was Gray Davis who did it.