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

The real question here is...

[Frennzy]

...is there anything coming out of Hollywood that is worth recording? Well...okay...pr0n...

Re:The real question here is...

[shalla]

Actually, I'd say the real question here is why certain industries have laws enacted specifically to protect jobs and income while other industries are forced to adopt more realistic business models in order to survive?

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?

Well...

[xactoguy]

it looks like it's going to be a lot easier to get those idiots with their cellphones on in theaters forcibly removed ;)

Another well thought idea

[RedHatLinux]

by our resident lawgivers.

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.

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:Another well thought idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I couldn't help notice you mispelled, "jubilant applause" as "shriek! faint."

HTH HAND

drive

[56ksucks]

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.

There's a good reason!

[wrinkledshirt]

It's only because...

In Aahnold's Calleefoneeah, tha cinema should record yoo!

Re:There's a good reason!

[phorm]

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?

Re:There's a good reason!

[cioxx]

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

"What if my cellphone has a camera?"

[Anonymous Coward]

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 am totally supporting this initiative

[Txiasaeia]

Handheld vid recorder rips of films have horrible quality. Bad audio, bad video, ambient theatre sounds, and whiny kids make vid recorder rips... unbearably unpleasant to watch. :)

Thank goodness eDonkey won't be flooded with these crappy versions of movies anymore. Straight to DVD Screener rip, baby!

Re:Bad

[etymxris]

I mean seriously, if you're carrying a recorder into a theater, you've obviously going to pirate this movie.

False! This a variant of the "argument from ignorance". Because you can't think of any reason that someone would legitimately carry a video recorder into a movie theater, there must be no such reason. Right? Wrong.

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.

You got the car? I got the road rage.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.'

What if I have a photographic memory?

[spongman]

Is it me, or do laws like this:

• completely fail to prevent the kind of activity they're meant to preventm,
• unduly limit the civil rights of otherwise law abiding citizens,
• waste the time of taxpayer-funded law courts and officials,

Re:I don't understand...

[trg83]

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....

Screw Your Neighbor

[core plexus]

I mean, c'mon! I had a job delivering films, in their containers, to various movie houses. I would take my time, get high with my friends, and otherwise screw around the whole day. We had racks of films in shelves at the warehouse.

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

Re:Good

[spongman]

No, It should be illegal to take, out of the theatre, a recording that you made during the showing. It should not be a crime to take a recoding device into the cinema because that assumes a precondition that the fact that you're taking such a device into such a place implies that you are going to commit a crime.

What happens if you got off a train in a city, went to a camera store and bought a camera that you couldn't buy in your upstate store and then went to see a film. Are you guilty of anything? No. This law says that you are. If you recorded the film while you were there and left with the media, then yes, you are guilty of copyright theft, but the law should not suppose criminality on otherwise legal behaviour (by definition).

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)?

Re:Good

[wozster]

We don't need more laws.

Movie theaters are private property and the mangement can remove anyone at will.

Finally, an answer!

[BigRedFish]

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?

I often use my brain as a recording device.

[gasp]

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.

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:Woot! Police state coming along nicely

[Frymaster]

first, in the event of a police state, recording movies will be the least of your worries!

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"?

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:The bill text - Seems Reasonable

[etymxris]

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.

Re:You got the car? I got the road rage.

[danheskett]

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.