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?"'"
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 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.
"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."
Reading the article = good
Everyone that disagrees with me is a paid shill
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
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!
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
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
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.
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.
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."
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.
And what about F-ing fair use on that cell phone? I went to see The Matrix: Reloaded and at the end of the film, during the trailer for Revolutions, I squeezed off some shots with my Nokia 3650 and put them on my background for the phone. This is not theoretical, I actually did it.
Now I'm hearing one camp that says I'm a criminal and another camp that says it should be ok to merely poses the camera phone and not use it. Where's the camp saying, hey, this is not significant copyright violation and I should be able to do this?
I don't feel any more a criminal than guy using a VCR at home to tape HBO. I captured a few frames of a film for my own personal use. I payed to see the film. My recording was done in a way that didn't bother any of the other patrons (very important to me). This is fair and it should be legal.
People should stop buckling under this "no use is fair use" mentatlity hoisted on us by large copyright holders. Stand up and demand your right to fair personal-use copying!
TW
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?
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.
Recording in cinema in Hong Kong is already a criminal offence. So is software piracy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't think we should be promoting vigilantism so studio bigwigs can rake in huge salaries. I especially object to this law because it's based on the fallacious belief that recordings made in movie theaters are the source of most illegal copies. After all, didn't the MPAA try to ban all screeners because of piracy? And don't forget about the study which said that 77% of all pirated movies came from industry insiders.
So... why are we encouraging citizens to possibly harrass or harm others for something that is not the primary culprit in economic losses?
Can I make a citizen's arrest of tech CEOs who outsource jobs?
When it comes to the RIAA, they simply charge too much money for the product. The consumer feels a bit pissed on from price fixing and falsely high prices on music.
Music swapping will probably never die, but it also was around before the industry was making a big stink. I remember having about 200 cassette tapes, none originals back when I was a kid. About half were radio rips and the rest were copies from friends. Back then, a radio copy was about the same quality as a store bought cassette. Not that we could tell, since the hardware most kids had for playback was crap in those days.
It's not the simple fact of piracy being illegal, it's the "call for citizen's arrest" crap that goes with it. How about the government supporting more productive things? How about calling citizen's arrest on that jackass that runs you into the emergency lane on the interstate? What about calling citizen's arrest on obviously flu-ridden resturaunt employees you see handling food?
My point is, the priorities here are screwed up. Protecting capitalism is one thing, but a relatively small group of profiteers causing sweeping changes to the way americans conduct themselves is a bunch of bullshit, for lack of a better term.