Ohio Also Passes Law Against Recording In Cinema

madmancarman writes "Following California's lead, Ohio has also passed a law making recording in a movie theatre a crime. A first offense would be punishable by six months in jail and up to $1,000 fine, which is lighter than the legislation introduced in Michigan that would bring up to 5 years in jail and a $250,000 fine. The most interesting quote concerns a study by AT&T Labs: 'Their conclusion: 77 percent of the films came from insider sources, either motion picture companies or theater employees taping from the projection booth.' I searched Ohio Gov. Bob Taft's press releases, but couldn't find any mention of it."

Comments

This is news?

[JoeBaldwin]

So Ohio passes a law making sure that at least there are less pirate movies. What is wrong with that?

Re:Waste of taxpayer resources

[Anonymous Coward]

Because movie theaters don't care if you tape a movie. The last thing they're going to do is piss off their paying patrons.

Re:Good job

[King_TJ]

Ok, but do you really think it's going to play out this way? I've often left theaters after the late movie ends at night, and there's barely any staff left in the building. You see a few guys sweeping the floors or maybe closing down the snack bar - but the ticket-takers and ushers look like they've all gone home.

If people tape the movie and then remove the tape from the camera, replacing it with an unused blank, whoever does inspect the camera isn't going to find anything, anyway.

I have a feeling they'll just decide "inspection" is too time-intensive and costs the theater more in paying staff to do it, so they'll just "call the cops" on anyone seen seated in the theater with a camcorder next to them.

Re:useless Ohio legislators

[drxyzzy]

I don't know about the Ohio legislature. But I have to wonder which
constituency was served by this recent regulation? Did voters
clamor for a stop to the making of bootleg recordings in theatres?

Bravo to the politicians for timely and effective response to the
the needs of those who elected them.

Well this affects you how?

[Grimster]

Ok so it's now punishable by law to record in a theater, does this affect you? Were you planning on doing it before it became illegal? I already considered this a "bad idea" figuring any theater that caught me recording their warez would throw me out immediately forfeiting my HEFTY entrance fee.

I mean it's not like they made it illegal to go watch a movie and tell your friends the plot and ending (though in some cases I almost wish that were illegal!).

Though I wish they'd waste their time more productively but how is illegalizing (is that even a word) something most anyone with a brain would already realize was not something you'd want to do anyway all that big of a deal?

Re:Well this affects you how?

[Mark Shewmaker]

Ok so it's now punishable by law to record in a theater, does this affect you?

Yes, it affects me.

Here are a couple examples:

1. Others have already given examples of common everyday folks "recording" things in a theatre--I mean, is it not absolutely *insane* to say that if you and 20 or so friends go see a movie as part of a group social outing, that *no one* will bring any sort of camera?

   I would think by now that it would be considered perfectly normal for weblogs and the like to include pictures of friends in situations like that!

   If the theatre owner sees that

   1. Your group is buying lots of snacks and
   2. exudes such fun and exitement in simply getting together that it rubs off on the other guests and makes them enjoy their time there more,

   and gives you a couple dozen free passes so as to get you back more often, would you think that he'd be likely to want to confiscate the cameras, cell-phones, camcorders, laptops, etc, of the group and make them want to leave?

   Do you think he'd be likely to be in favor of laws that not only require he confiscate such items, but also require that he have these customers arrested?

   I'm thinking the answer to both questions is "no".

   Not being able to record such social outings would make them comparatively boring.

   Fortunately, it's legal in my state to go to the theatre with a bunch of friends and have everyone enjoy the experience. It's too bad for the residents of California and Ohio that they're legally restrained from having as much fun.

2. A local film society group regularly rents out theatre space to show independent/little-known films.

   At the beginning of the show, a few people representing the group get up and talk about the film, random historical tidbits related to it, etc., the story about how they heard about it and were able to "get in line" to have the film and rights to show it for a few days, and so forth, plus a bit of a status update on films they're trying to get.

   During the yearly film festivals, producers, directors, actors, and others involved in the making of the films are often there as well. (Realize these are not-very-well-known independents, and for most of them it's still a novelty for them to talk about their work in front of an interested audience.)

   Anyway, they're brought up on stage before and after the films, relating their viewpoint on things, answering questions, and basically doing a live and not-during-the-film version of a dvd's "directors soundtrack."

   Naturally, multiple people take pictures and record all this, (including and especially the folks involved in making the films--or at least they'll ask for copies later.)

   It can be a great social event, very interactive, and fun for everyone.

   But if you can't legally record any of it, then it won't be as much fun: The film society can't have pictures of their events in their newsletter or website, the people involved in the making of the films won't have hardcopy records of their memories, and the general mood of the event will be diminished given the shortsighted legal restrictions.

   Fortunately I live in a state that has not passed such a law. If a director of a small film is invited to a film festival in my state, and he has to decide between going to this film festival versus a similar event in California or Ohio, the fact that we don't legally limit him having fun like that means he's more likely to come to our event. Woohoo!

   I think it's quite magnanimous of the residents of California and Ohio to have their elected representitives limit their theatre experiences so that I might enjoy mine all the more--all without me having to vote for these representatives or contribute a dime to their compaigns!

Re:Well this affects you how?

[Mark Shewmaker]

Your logic does not follow.

You quote the article's description of one power supposedly granted to theaters with this Ohio law when the theater suspects people of videotaping movies, point out how taking pictures of friends is hardly videotaping a movie, then conclude that this doesn't affect anyone. Here are some mismatches in your logic:

1. The one power quoted is not the whole of the new law.
2. It's not just the theater who can do this. Police can do it too, and unfortunately police are often used for political reasons. I think of this law as just another potential method for someone in power to use to cause hardship for someone who might be embarassing.
3. You don't have to have "videotaped a movie" to be "supected of videotaping a movie", but now it's far easier to be so suspected. When they find out later that I haven't done what they think I've done, will they recompensate me for my time?
4. Why should videotaping parts of the movie not be considered fair use and be considered *very* socially acceptable in the first place? (Meaning restrictions on such activity would affect people.)
   1. You may have missed the part in the article where an EFF lawyer wonders whether he'd be committing a felony to take a 5-second clip in the theatre to mail to some friends to point out how bad the movie is. To frame the issue in terms of your reply: Would any "theatre owner/security guard in their right mind" bother someone doing this? Would they bother if he did this with something that looked more like a traditional camcorder?
   2. In the examples I gave, people were in the theatre taking picutures and even videotaping parts of the director question/answers--even a few times when someone involved in making the film went up to the screen to point at something of interest *during the film*. (So now when a director goes up to the screen during his own film to point out a hilarious/embarassing error, the people videotaping that, (probably the people paying for his trip there) could potentially be arrested for it. Is that not insane?)
   3. Two words: "Rocky Horror" Who would not think it would be cool to have videos of their friends in a theatre doing the time warp in sync with the move? Something to show their grandkids, heh. :-)
5. The biggest common effect I would imagine though, would be if searches on entering/leaving theatres became common--I can only hope that people wouldn't put up with such silly extra lines and just leave.

   In any even, having to go through police checkpoints on entering a movie is definitely something that would affect people.

Unrelated to your reply but:

1. As far as the bit about guards walking through the theatre wearing night-vision goggles: I'm sorry, but the first thing I thought of on reading that was how hilarious it would be to get one of those night-mode camcorders and record the guards walking around the theater, then sell that recording to a local news station.

   I'm guessing the camcorder would pick up the IR illumination the night-vision goggles use, and the news station could show "how your ticket money at thus-and-such theatre goes to pay for the guards to spy on you and your date watching a movie," and how the station is of course only doing the same thing themselves to expose the whole thing. (Who guards the guards, as it were.)

2. So if the California law were passed years ago, would it have made "Last Action Hero" illegal? Remember the film shows a person watching a movie in a theatre. Come to think of it, any movie now made where at some point the characters are themselves watching a movie in a theatre could run afowl of the law, unless the MPAA exempted themselves from their own law, of course.

damn

[SQLz]

Six months for this? People get less time for assault.

Using an elephant gun to swat a mosquito

[UnknowingFool]

It reminds of the Great Wall of China. The Chinese built the wall to keep out the Mongols at a great financial and human cost. In its first 100 years it was breached 3 times. While the Mongols never successfully overran the defenses, the breaches did not come from superior Mongol weapon technology or military tactics. They came when Mongols successfully bribed guards. All that technology defeated by human factors.

Re:Righty-o

[willtsmith]

Is it possible to run the audio feed directly from the sound system into the camcorder?? That would deal with all the coughs, screaming babies, etc... Assuming the glass in the booth is optically transparent AND there is a spare window (acounting for changeovers), couldn't a camcorder be used? In the projection booth.

Watermarks...

[anthony_dipierro]

On a related note, has anyone else noticed the watermarks they've been putting into movies lately (presumably to try to catch pirates)? My friend pointed out the patterns of pink dots which were appearing throughout "Master and Commander" (a terrible movie), and I couldn't help but notice them for the rest of the movie. Granted, if the movie hadn't been so boring maybe I wouldn't have noticed them, but still, they were quite annoying.

Re:Waste of taxpayer resources

[anthony_dipierro]

It's also private property in a store, yet it is still illegal to shoplift.

Not if you have permission of the store owner.

Getting thrown out of a movie theatre is not the kind of consequence that will stop people from doing something. Hell, it won;t even keep people quiet during a movie.

So would you support a law against talking during a movie?

Going "under the radar" to state governments

[-tji]

This appears to be a trend.. If getting these restrictions passed at a national level is too difficult, or is noticed and opposed by too many people, the lobbyists go to the state governments. This was the same tactic taken for the anti-VPN law and others I can't think of right now.

While in principal I agree that filming of these movies should not be allowed. I find it disturbing how easily lobbying groups can get their pet projects pushed through state legislatures.

Re:Jail???

[BiggerIsBetter]

Plus if theatres are going to put twenty minutes of commercials and psuedo-news about the entertainment industry before showing the movie that we have paid for...

We are actually paying to see 20+ minutes of advertisements, and this astounds me. I went to see LOTR a while back and as if a 3 hour film isn't long enough, I sat through 20 minutes of advertising at the start of it - that I paid 27 NZD to see! Sure, I'll obviously not buy anything from the advertisers, but is the public really so pacified that they accept this crap? Have we come to accept this visual and informational pollution everywhere? Viva la revolutione.

Misguided priorities

[Giro d'Italia]

Try getting state legislators to increase penalties for drunk driving or vehicular homicide, and nothing happens. Grease a few wheels with your well paid lobbyists and all of a sudden, mountains are moved. Lovely system.

Stopping flea market sales

[adzoox]

I noticed five different tables this morning at my local flea market with Paycheck, Kill Bill, and Matrix Revolutions.

At another local flea market (one of the largest in the country) there are as many as 50 tables that have pirated movies.

These sales should be stopped at a flea market management level or the OWNER of that market should be fined.

Hilarity ensues

[buckeyeguy]

As a former state employee, I can almost assure that Bob Taft signed this law in without ever reading it; he has people who read the important stuff for him. It probably sounded like common sense at the time, and he likely gave it no more thought than that. Sign the bill, move on.

Patently Offtopic Comment: Now for the really important stuff, Gov. Taft... former Gov. Voinovich left us a 'rainy day fund', i.e. a budget surplus that was to be kept in case of economic downturns. Where is it now?

OT reference to security clearances

[Infonaut]

You can probably have DUIs and drug arrests and become a secret service agent easier than having a some late bill payments on your credit.

I've known more than one SCI (Secret Compartmented Intelligence) holder who had done all kinds of crazy shit before they started working for The Man. But none of these people gave a damn.

FBI Questioner: "Did you fuck that chihuahua in Mexico City back in 1988, as your ex pain mistress asserts?"

Would Be Secret Agent: "Yep, I sure did, and damn that was fun."

FBI Quesitioner: "OK, you're good to go. Obviously you can't be blackmailed."

I also know someone who was refused a Top Secret, and it really screwed up his career. They don't even tell you why they reject you. They just give you the axe. Then everyone you work with thinks that there must be something really screwed up about you, so even keeping your existing job becomes an up hill battle.

Maybe the fact that he still lived with his mom had something to do with it.