Slashdot Mirror
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."
So Ohio passes a law making sure that at least there are less pirate movies. What is wrong with that?
I'm amazing. You aren't. SUCK IT
A movie theater is a private place. They can throw out anyone they want. Why don't they use their own security personnel to throw out people with cameras? Why should tax payers foot the bill for what the movie theater can prevent without new laws?
It seems that we are getting lazier and lazier with out punishments. Just throw everyone in the slammer for every infraction. Is jail really necessary for this crime? I think a much higher fine and/or serious community service would benefit society much more...
"The prohibition will be strongest when the group is nervous." - Paul Graham
How much longer before movie-downloading becomes so commonplace and convenient that Slashdotters start convincing themselves that they're justified in doing it to appease that pang of guilt they feel? They've already done it with mp3s. After movies, all that's left is warez, but for some reason everyone is opposed to that.
"Sufferin' succotash."
...who haven't figured out that you can get high quality DVD rips earlier and more reliably. This seems to be yet another solution in need of a problem.
If you want to stop copyright violations go to a foreign country and start busting the K-Mart and 7-Eleven equivalents that are selling LOTR and Matrix movies on store shelves while the movies are still in the theatres.
There is nothing wrong with this law, in my opinion. But, I find it an incredible waste.
Curiously, when "Master and Commander" came out in Belgium a month or so ago, it was proceeded by a bold notice that anyone caught filming in the cinema would be hunted down, skinned alive, and thrown naked and bleeding to the dogs. And their film and camera would be confiscated and maybe kept for like a week or so.
The hordes of surreptitious filmers immediately ran out of the cinema, where they were aprehended by the local branch of the MPAA.
Not. I have never seen anyone filming in a theater, and the few pirate films I've seen that were made this way were incredibly unwatchable ("cough cough", shadows walking in front of the film, noises of coke being slurped and people making out in row 2.)
I mean... does this actually present a threat to the movie industry?
Surely a balanced law would also mandate prison for people who make movies like Matrix 2 and 3? This kind of crap product is a far greater threat to cinema revenues than pirates can ever be.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
As far as I've seen recently, the majority of bootleg movies didn't come from a videotaped recording, but rather from award screener dvds instead. This law should have came in effect back in the hayday of bootleg VHSs when bootleggers relied on taping of the bigscreen. Back in the day you defintitely knew it was recorded in a theater, you could even hear babies crying in the background at times.
Nuclear war would really set back cable. - Ted Turner
This doesn't prevent illegal copies any more than the current RIAA/FBI Screen-of-death does.
*Prevention* is having security staff there, monitoring you. Who wants to be strip-searched at the movies. Come on people....
For example, the pirated version of The Hulk I saw (on a co-worker's laptop, Mr. MPAA Thug) was an early cut, with incomplete special effects and crappy audio. With movies like Cold Mountain and others being shot digitally and edited in Final Cut Pro, with DVD dailies being mastered regularly, it's concievable that the pirates will be soon beat the studios to post-production! Instead of the Special Edition Director's Cut, we could be downloading the Sp3c1@l Ub3r 1337 H@c|3r's Cut.
And of course, who wouldn't want to see Episode III: The Non-Crappy Version, complete with a Star Wars Kid cameo added by the pirate who actually edited together the flick...
Blogging Weight Loss, Distance Education, and more at verlin.com
What about rebroadcasting the entire movie with cell phones? Should they be allowed to transmit the entire movie over the airwaves? I'd like to see the morons in front of me who spend the entire movie talking sent to jail.
No, there's plenty wrong with this law. You can't simply judge the merits of new legislation based on the results it aims to achieve.
For a slightly more extreme example, what if I passed a new law that made it legal in Ohio to outlaw women's purses in all grocery stores? After all, I could probably make a pretty good case that much shoplifting happens when women have the ability to hide products in their purses.
The problem in both cases is this: You're not addressing the problem the best way. As others pointed out already, it's not that uncommon to carry a camcorder into a movie theater, simply because the family is on vacation, and decides to catch a movie right after some other activity. Why should they risk being pegged as criminals, simply because they didn't have a safe, convenient place to drop off their camcorder before they came in?
There's no need for legislation of this type. Where the legal system comes into play is with stopping the illegal resale of copied movies. Let the theaters deal with people filming movies on their own.
Reminds me of Seinfeld episode 137:
Jerry: What do you mean he's bootlegging the movie?
Kramer: Well, it's a perfectly legitimate business.
Jerry: It's not legitimate.
Kramer: It's a business.
Jerry: I don't care about Brody. I was up on 96th Street today, there was a kid couldn't have been more than ten years old. He was asking a street vendor if he had any other bootlegs as good as Death Blow. That's who I care about. The little kid who needs bootlegs, because his parent or guardian won't let him see the excessive violence and strong sexual content you and I take for granted.
George: I'm a bootlegger.
Anna: You're a what?
George: I'm bootleggin' a movie, baby!
Anna: Isn't that illegal?
George: I can do hard time for this one. And community service!
Frank: I'm sitting at home, reading a periodical, and this is the call I get? My son is a bootlegger? (He hits George in the head)
George: Ow! Dad...
Frank: Who put you up to this, was it her?
Elaine: All right. Wait a minute. I think you've got it backwards.
Frank: My George isn't clever enough to hatch a scheme like this.
Elaine: You got that right.
Frank: What the hell does that mean?
Elaine: It means whatever the hell you want it to mean.
Frank: You sayin' you want a piece of me?
Elaine: I could drop you like a bag of dirt.
Frank: You wanna piece of me? You got it!
Copyright already covers this, and as previously stated, most are "insider" jobs anyway. This law is just to scare people.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
Here's a useless law. Government is not needed in this case (as in most new laws, they are not relevant).
If a theater wants to show new movies, they should already have rules about this. Because a theater is private property, they should be able to ban anything they want (free speech, weapons, anything). If they want to ban recording cameras, they're free to.
Maybe a theater may want to ALLOW cameras. In this case, the major movie production companies will probably decide not to show movies there. Smaller companies may want the cult-like home recorded movies and may possibly allow it. The free market has provided this solution already, and government now will mandate one more way for private movie theater owners to run their business.
We are no longer free, we are no longer capitalist. We live in a mercantilist system of oppressive regulation, taxes, and tariffs. None of this system helps the average citizen.
Its amazing that our society now days the answer for any violation of law is "Throw them in Jail" seems for minor infractions you get more time then you do for harsh infractions.. Why should the tax payer pay for the Movie company's property rights to be protected? Hrm..
"Their conclusion: 77 percent of the films came from insider sources, either motion picture companies or theater employees taping from the projection booth." I happen to be a projection manager at a local movie theater (not for bragging rights, just to set the stage that I actually know what I'm talking about) and I can safely say that taping a movie from a projection booth is the most retarded idea I have ever heard of. Actually, I doubt any clued-in projectionist would want to tape a movie from the booth. Most modern projectors are noisy as hell, likewise with the heat which is why film will melt extremely fast if the bulb gets too hot. The glass between the booth and the auditorium is usually (in a good theater) soundproof. Also, there isn't any sound in the projection booth with the exclusion of the "cute" hum of X number of projectors cranking away. Basically what that amounts to is: nobody likes standing next to projectors. Ever. You feed the film, start the film, and get the hell away. Repeat. Lastly, where I work, I am usually the only projectionist at night. This might be different, but trying to keep 14 projectors running at the same time gets to be a real pain. Nevermind having the time to be dicking around trying to setup a video camera to record Hollywood's next trashy movie. Cheers.
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.
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.
but did you also search the Slashdot archives before you posted this dupe? Check out the comments on that story for an explanation of why this law is super duper crazy.
We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
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?
--- www.f-theocean.com
Six months for this? People get less time for assault.
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.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
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.
This law seems like a waste of time to me, but why should we argue about it? Certainly there are valid reasons expressed here as to why in theory it's mostly irrelevant; but really - if you don't plan to illegally film a movie, and you don't view these illegal recordings, why does this matter to you?
#DeleteChrome
You just illustrated exactly what I was talking about. You've justified it as a "free exchange of information" with "nothing to feel guilty about." You're so used to the convenience of doing it that you've removed any moral guilt you might have had, by labelling it freedom. Never mind legal guilt.
"Sufferin' succotash."
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.
IT DOESN'T MATTER. You failed to notice this law doesn't say anything about recording ability. If you take any recording device into the building showing a motion picture, you are now breaking the law (oh and they forgot to mention 2nd offence is a felony). You don't need tape in camera. By the way it is worded, your cell phone with camera that can record video makes you a felon whether you use it or not. And they don't need to call the cops. This law has provisions for any employee of the company to detain you.
What is wrong with everyone here.. Just because the law MIGHT not be used to make everyone a criminal doesn't mean it should be on the books. MPAA made a statement in regards to the outcry to pressure Taft into signing bill and said 'if this law is too broad, just pass it anyways and fix it some point later'
Not in that it's unconstitutional in and of itself (though perhaps it does violate the Ohio Constitution) but rather because it's preempted by federal law.
17 USC 301 makes void any state law that is equivalent to any of the federally created copyrights. This Ohio statute sounds as though it pertains to duplication -- which is already covered in 17 USC 106, making it void, at least in regards to that portion of it.
Honestly, you'd really think that someone would've checked that sort of thing in advance.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
what the hell are you talking about? i am not guilty at all downloading mp3s. oh wait, because the ones i download are one of the following
A) Independant/small scale Musicians who want their sound out. (i downloaded apoptygma berzerk's mp3 off their website, for example)
B) really f'king good, to the point that i will go out and buy the artists album when i get the chanse(i have every one of jewel's albums that i can get my hands on...)
C) rare and or bootlegs that you just can't buy.(rocked, by rape, for example)
i will never feel guilty downloading music off the net.
now, imagine a world where the industry that deals with distrobution does not have the ability to send swat teams into teenagers bedrooms. this is the world that i see and if people out there have to do some currently illegal actions to bring it to actuality, then all the power to them. i personally try to avoid downloading copyrighted material(even though downloading said copyrighted works is legal here, in canada, allegedly), because I DONT WANT TO HEAR THAT SHIT. i will feel better as an induvidual if i have developed a style of my own(as a musician) independant of the big labels and their filth. and the further i distance from them as i increase my skill, the more credible as an alternative to them i become. after all, sure it'd be great if i were as good as led zepplin, pink floyd or trent reznor... but what if i took a turn and became something so new that nothing compared?
and i can tell you right now, that i feel a HELL of a lot more guilty when i go into a HMV and feed the MPAA/RIAA money through CD sales, than when i download off the net. and you should too. dont' shop at hmv, and don't buy cds from the riaa at all. but hey, everyone has a breaking point, but make sure to feel guilty when you finally break down and buy that album, after all, you are funding terror tactics by doing so.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
By judging from up here in Scandinavia, only bad laws get set in America. This once again proves that the saying "Americans have the best goverment money can buy" and your politicians aren't even being ashamed, no, they'r are busy setting the next best record for stupid laws.
Not that it mattered else but usually the stupid laws enforced there end up here, luckily with a big lag. As pointed out before, filming in private place like the cinema is the problem ought to be taken care by the Cinema, not by the goverment. And the penalties for a huge people destroying crime like that are just absurd.
It's clear that no one is going to feel satisfied by the quality of those CAM and TS releases, even PROPERs are plain shitty (while being as good as they can given the circumstances) which makes it really hard to enjoy or understand the film. But as the CAM or TS works as a preview, less people will see it. As this also works the other way around, Hollywood people should be more engouraged into hiring more talented scriptwrites and new directors than lawyers and lobbiers.
Just my 0,10e
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.
Average Time Served: (from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/psatsfv.pdf)
Homicide: 71 months
Rape: 65 months
Sexual Assault: 35 months
---------------
Recording a movie
in a cinema in Michigan: 60 months
" in California: 12 months
Is it just me? Yes, I know that these are the maximum sentences, but many violent crimes carry maximum sentences around only 10 years, and they are often less than that anyway.
<sarcasm>Basically, the message here is that if someone tries to arrest you in a theater for videotaping the screen, you should shoot them, cause hey, it would only be another few months in jail if you get caught.
</sarcasm>
Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
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.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
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?
I'd have a personalized plate on my car, but "toxic bachelor" won't fit into 7 letters.
The only thing it's doing is helping the FUD for those who claim "Star Wars 2 was available on the internet in digital quality 30 minutes after its grand opening.". Digital quality?
Actually, while I can't comment on Star Wars 2 specifically, many, if not most movies are in fact available online when the movie premieres, in full digital quality.
No one bothers with cams anymore, because screeners get leaked like there's no tomorrow. These are DVD copies of the final movie sent out for reviews, etc. Someone copies it, uploads to usenet/kazaa, and bam! I've seen many movies as of late that are in fact available days and weeks before they hit the theatre.
Cams are so 1999. And laws like this are absolutely pointless (and assinine), as most movie trading is done using screeners anyway.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
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.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I know I'll get modded down for this, but whatever, I'll be the heretic in this thread (referencing another Slashdot story).
What's the problem here? Seriously, why are so many people so rabidly against this law? I've seen a lot of people in this thread saying something like, "We have laws against copyright infringement, whereas this law makes it illegal to operate a camera in a movie theatre."
WTF?!? I have NEVER had the desire to use a camera in a theatre, nor have any of my friends, nor have I ever seen anyone using a camera in a theatre.
Listen closely: THERE IS NO REASON ANYONE WOULD HAVE A CAMERA IN A THEATRE EXCEPT TO RECORD A MOVIE AND THAT'S ILLEGAL!!
If for some reason someone were using a camera in a theatre for reasons other than recording the movie (recording their friends, seeing who's in the theatre, getting that delicious down-blouse/up-skirt shot), they should rightfully have their ass kicked and get removed from the theatre for interrupting everyone else trying to actually watch the movie!
Sheesh, folks, pick your battles. Is this law a bit draconian? Maybe. Are there other offenses that most would agree are worse that receive lesser sentences? Probably.
But the point is that no one's rights are being infringed here.
Look, I'm no fan of the RIAA or MPAA (I think they're oligarchical monopolies that exist to conrol popular media to keep themselves in power and profitable) but don't let your hatred for them cause you to fight for something that just isn't worth fighting for.
/.: why the hell am I here?
I have to weigh in on this one.
I have a friend who routinely downloads camcordered movies off of IRC channels and such.
He thinks he's putting one over on the establishment somehow, like he's getting the full theater experience in his basement for free.
He'll spend all night... ALL NIGHT... trying to download a movie like "Shaft" or "Spider-Man" and then sit there gleefully watching it in its miserable handheld camcordered glory on his 17" computer screen.
He actually said to me, when Spider-Man was in the theaters, "Hey, dude, don't bother going to see Spider-Man in the theater. I've just downloaded it! Hee hee hee! Come over and watch it!"
And I replied, "You know what, dude? Given a choice between sitting on some rickety uncomfortable discarded old wooden dining room chair in your basement, watching a camcordered version of Spider-Man on your scratched-up 17" computer screen while you fill the air with cigarette smoke, pausing the movie every twenty minutes to go upstairs for more beer, or paying about six bucks to catch a matinee of a big-screen, Dolby Surround-Sound version of Spider-Man in a smoke-free, quiet, comfortable stadium-seating high-back chair envirornment, which do you think I'd pick?"
Needless to say, I went out soon afterward and saw Spider-Man in the theater, and enjoyed it pretty well.
Downloading or otherwise watching camcordered movies is, in my opinion, a crime that punishes itself.
Camcordered movies look and sound like hell.
You want to see a movie? Please do yourself a favor and just go to the damn theater, pay the pittance they're asking, and see it there, the way it was meant to be seen.
Roger Ebert said years ago that "If it's on TV, it ain't a movie," and I can't imagine what he'd say about what camcordered movies look like on a computer screen. I think he wouldn't even dignify it with a comment.
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.