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?"'"
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.
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.
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.
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.'
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
The real question is, how come none of you are complaining while your country is slowly becoming the first police state in the west?
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?
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
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.
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!
The simple extension of this is: everyone is born a criminal and deserves to be locked up. Based on some arbitrary sliding scale, those people who are more criminal than others at any given will actualy be sent to jail.
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
"...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?
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.
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.
Modded funny but, doesn't anyone else thing that Ahhhnold is in fact going to put certain personal agendas in relation to movies/entertainment ahead.
Case and point, he's severely pissed off many in Vancouver (BC, Canada) because he's decided to pump "local jobs in the film industry," "keeping it American blah blah."
Creating jobs might not be a bad thing, but anything to do with movies from an ex movie-star certainly seems to be something of a prejudiced agenda.
p.s. Any chances the RIAA helped fund Ahhhnold's campaign?
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
Any chances the RIAA helped fund Ahhhnold's campaign?
Well, duh, let's see. Arnold is worth several hundred million dollars, which presumably funded his campaign. Where did that enormous amount of money come from? Could it have come from his movie career? Salaries from movie companies?
P.S. The RIAA is music. MPAA is movies.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
Don't you get it? Cameras are cheap and getting cheaper. They have a useful purpose to *somebody* almost anywhere.
When a camera costs $0.05, takes a megapixel frame, 30x per second, and a week of media costs only $0.05, why wouldn't you record just about everything around you?
Assuming Moore's law continues, (and it has for 30 years!) we're only a decade or two from that point!
There's an interesting article which for me was the first the make it all clear. Privacy as we once new it will cease to exist in any form within a century, and as we know it today, will disapear within a few decades.
It's not necessarily a bad thing. People frequently will willingly choose power over privacy. It's happened many times before: The telephone, the VCR, the "public place" camera, the cell phone. Each time, people gave up some privacy for some new ability they felt was worth it.
Since privacy has been losing ground for over 100 years, it's not safe to assume things will suddenly turn around.
I suggest you read the above article. It makes very clear the things we need to keep in mind as this natural progression continues.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
If you don't like the law, stop going to the movies. Why is this so hard to grasp?
-----
PGP Key ID 0xCB8FF658
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.
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"
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
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....
So the guy was an asshole and made some noise in the theatre, and now he's a felon.
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
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.
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?
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."
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!
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'?