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.
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?
Thank goodness eDonkey won't be flooded with these crappy versions of movies anymore. Straight to DVD Screener rip, baby!
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
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
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.
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!
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?
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..."
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 opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent those of anybody at all. Deal with it.
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?
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.
I might be being facetious... or not...
No, but I could confidently quote anything from the movie on command. That was a nice skill to have in 5th grade. :)
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
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.
... 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.
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!
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
"...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?
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!
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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"
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...
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....
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
Well, just how long do you think it will be before such a law is quietly extended such that cinema includes home theater?
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!