Slashdot Mirror
Projectionists Using Night Vision Goggles in Theaters
sam0ht writes "Los Angeles police arrested Ruben Centero Moreno, 34, after the projectionist used night vision goggles to spot his video camera in a showing of The Alamo. He has been charged under the new California anti-camcorder law, and could face up to 1 year in jail if convicted. The BBC reports that 'The MPAA has established a nationwide telephone hotline for cinema employees to report violations, and studios and cinemas are also investing in metal detectors and night-vision goggles'. Motion Picture Ass. Head Jack Valenti said he hoped it would 'send a clear signal such crimes will not be tolerated'. Clearly, the 'War on Copyright Violation' is following the successful strategy used for the War on Drugs, with significant resources of technology and police time mobilised to send violators to jail for a long time. Soon, copied films will be as rare as students lighting up a joint after their exams." The lesson is clear: stay out of movie theaters and you won't get arrested.
It does not matter if the recording is for personal viewing or for distribution. You still do not have a license to record the movie. Your ticket gives your the right to watch the movie once in that theater at that time, and that is all.
Personally, I hope they take their time and nail this guy to the wall.
learn what "steal" means. seriously.
then learn what "copyright violation" is.
Then compare the two and realise that they are nothing like each other, morally, legally, or otherwise.
It's not that I condone filming movies with camcorders in cinemas, but please don't fall for the "copyright violation == stealing" propaganda.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
Nitpick: that was Dogbert, the consultant's idea, not marketing's.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Because as it stands, you will spend more time in jail for bringing a camcorder into a movie theater than you would for physically assaulting an usher. Plus, the MPAA keeps trying to get legislation to cripple home electronic equipment in an incredibly futile attempt to do something about piracy.
The first thing tells everyone that a giant company's financial interests are more important than the physical safety of an individual. The second thing tells those of us who DON'T pirate movies that we have to suffer because the MPAA doesn't have a clue how to deal with the problem sanely. Crippling my computer is NOT going to prevent people from downloading movies in any way. Cap Codes prevent me from enjoying a movie I *paid* to see. *That's* what pisses me off.
If the law says X, and a company uses X to their advantage, it's hard to fault them... unless the law is unjust, stupid, ineffective, or otherwise bad. Nobody with half a clue thinks that the movie industry should just give up and let everyone pirate their movies. But copyright should be handled in the civil court system, not the criminal system. The fact that the MPAA is in the legal right doesn't excuse the parts of their behavior that are doing everyone harm and nobody good (hell, they're hurting themselves by acting like this!).
Oh, and good work lumping all Slashdotters into a single mold by pretending we all like to claim that "the MPAA needs to find a 'new business model'" as if that were the answer to the problem. That's a real, real valid way to argue.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
I used to be very close friends with the regional manager of a major theater chain. We'd "preview" movies the night before they were released, to "make sure they work". We'd smoke, drink beer and be generally obnoxious through movies. Of course, it was only theater staff at the previews.
:) Ok, for normal humans, it doesn't make much of a difference.
:)
Basically, he told me that the local theater never saw anything of the ticket sales. Most of it went back to the movie companies themselves, with a small part going back to the theater chain. They generated their income from concession sales. That's why they'll usually push you to upsize your drink or popcorn, or offer you candy with your snacks.
"You can upsize from a large to Bladder Buster for only 25 cents more!"
For them to "sneak" someone in the door, while completely against theater policy, and the movie companies would have a cow, happens all the time. But to the local shift manager, what's the difference if they had several hundred tickets sold in a night, who cares if a couple people get in free. Well, the movie companies do. Say 4 people get in free in a given night at one theater. Multiply that by how many theaters are running their movies, and it makes a real dollar amount. It could the difference between schwarzenegger getting 3 or 4 new Hummers this month.
But to be on topic, I just find it wierd thinking the projectionist is watching what we're doing in the theaters. What happened to just taking the camera away? I've seen bootlegged movies before. I've never watched the whole thing, simply because they suck. Well, unless you really like seeing a really low quality version of the movie, with the sound picked up on a camcorder's microphone. Ick. There's nothing like watching only part of the screen, and having the shot move around all the time. Camcorders are fine for recording your kids birthday party, but they're anything but acceptable for duplicating feature movies. They should worry more about people dubbing screeners. Those are decent quality, most of the time. Nothing can beat being friends with a theater manager, and previewing the movies in the theater with a couple cases of beer, and all the free popcorn we could eat, even if we did have to start watching movies at like 3am.
Oh, I miss the good ol' days.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.