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.

Comments

So?

[Oculus Habent]

To put it simply: Good

Taking a camcorder into a theater is breaking the law. If they can spot people with night vision goggles, that's great. They shouldn't be doing it.

Completely setting the MPAA aside, this is blatant copyright violation. It's clearly prohibited, and no one can reasonably feign ignorance on this. How many people reasonably take the camcorder for purely personal viewing with no intent to distribute the copy?

If it's for personal viewing, they can wait, spent $4 more, buy the DVD, and be legal.

Re:So?

[drmike0099]

Amen, you beat me to posting this. If anything, this is exactly what we want the MPAA to be spending its time and resources combating, not running around trying to get laws passed that prohibit legitimate fair use. These are the people that cost them actual money, and if they could shut them down, they would no longer be able to show that piracy is causing them so much damage that they need ridiculous legal protections that screw over people like you and me. Thank god they're doing this.

Re:So?

[mahdi13]

I agree, why are people getting upset about someone going to jail for breaking the law?
sam0ht seems to be a bit irate over this for some reason...if you are going to break a law, don't bitch when you get busted!
If you drive your car over the speed limit and get a ticket, it's not the cops fault.
If you do drugs and your parents catch you, it's not their fault
If you have sex in a public place and you get arrested for indecency, it's not the police's fault.

"If you do the crime, you better be prepared to do the time"

Re:So?

[RT Alec]

I agree. This is not the battle to fight, it is a clear cut case of breaking the law. If this is where the MPAA wants to direct their resources, so be it.

Re:So?

[cgranade]

That may be, but one may feel (as I do) that perhaps if it is such a big deal, the police ought to be the ones taking action, not vigilantes from the MPAA, and that perhaps a year of jail time does not fit the offense. So MPAA lost a couple hundred dollars in profit. Boo-hoo. Mayhaps a fine would work just as well, then? As it is, this strikes me as another minor crime that lawmakers have overinflated, filling our prisions at taxpayer's expense. Look at the cost of keeping someone in prision for a year, and compare that to the amount that MPAA might have lost from this offense.

Now, note that I'm not defending this guy, but rather making the point that there's a serious problem with scale here. If things like this really mattered to lawmakers, wouldn't Ken Lay be in jail? He hasn't seen a day of jail time from the Enron scandals. I guess the moral is, then, only screw those people without the money to defend themselves. That was this guy's big mistake...

Re:So?

[WIAKywbfatw]

I have issue with this law as it stands. Taking a camcorder into a cinema shouldn't be illegal, what should be illegal is taking it in and using it to record the film being screened.

If I visit New York as a tourist, camcorder in hand, and decide to go to the movies on the spur on the moment I shouldn't be treated as a criminal because of something that may be at the bottom of my backpack.

Some people might consider that scenario to be unlikely, or one that is avoidable, but what do you want to bet that the legislation as it's worded covers all equipment capable of recording video, including laptops, PDAs and even video mobiles? Do we really want to make criminals of anyone who has a mobile phone in their pocket?

Re:So?

[Your_Mom]

BEGIN_TROLL
Exactly, just like if you're going to bypass CSS encryption, it's not the DVD company's fault.
END_TROLL

There are lots of ways to look at breaking the law, you can break laws as an act of civil disobedience, although I can almost guarentee this is not the case for this story.

Re:So?

[Austerity Empowers]

You have your reasoning and you're entitled to it, however I think our limited jail cell space ought to be used for more significant crimes. To me, taping a movie on your camcorder is a misdemeanor offense, such criminals ought to have to go pick up highway trash for a few months and other "rehabilitating" punishments. Selling copies of said tapes to the public ought to land you in prison for a year or so, that's the real crime.

Re:So?

[frodo from middle ea]

Yes but is the one year in jail term , right ?

I mean, the only reason they have such severe sentence , is to serve an example to others and deter others from doing it. But is it legally or morally justifiable to make an example out of one offender , to deter others.

Even riot control police fire in air first and then use rubber bullets, they don't shot real bullets at random people , hoping it will deter other rioters.

Re:So?

[pete-classic]

I agree that camming is pretty hard to defend.

On the other hand The Law is not something handed down from God.

Ideally, it is a public agreement to restrict ourselves in certain ways for common benefit. In practice it more often degrades into power-hungry groups imposing their will on their fellow man.

Consider respecting your fellow man instead of respecting the law.

-Peter

Re:So?

[thomasa]

Personally, I think you misunderstand. The point he is trying to make is that this will have little impact on the bootlegging of movies. Just as the drug laws are just employment laws for the police and have little impact on actual drug consumption.

At least that is my opinion.

Re:So?

[cgranade]

As I've said before, here as well as other places, then why isn't Ken Lay in jail? One year for a few hundred bucks that aren't even stolen directly? In the examples you gave, there are many points that you haven't addressed:

• You probably aren't going to go to jail over a speeding ticket, nor Ford is likely to give you the speeding ticket.
• It isn't universally agreed that one should go to jail over drug crimes... far from it. This is a very recent idea in law enforcement. For many, many years, there were no such laws. Besides, if you're parents catch you, then that can very easily be handled inside the family without causing the taxpayer expense of keeping someone in prison who isn't that dangerous!
• Define public place. Certainally, there are times and places where this would be inappropiate, but would you also be opposed to a couple (married, even!) having sex, at night, on a beach when no one else was there? Or during a camping trip? A national park might be considered a "public place." So, really, have we even established that the hypothetical couple has commited a moral offense?

Laws are not always right, nor are the associated punishments. Just because something is a "crime," doesn't mean that you need to go to jail for it. I hope I never see the day that people go to jail over speeding tickets.

Re:So?

[rzbx]

If you share your future electronic book with a friend and he doesn't pay the book licensing fee and your both in jail for 10 years, don't blame the publishers, it is obviously your fault. That has to be some ridiculous reasonining you have there. Who was upset when MLK went to jail? Why not? If the law is unjust, then of course we should be upset. You may be a boy scout now, but 10-20 years from now even you will be finding yourself breaking laws that you had no idea existed before. The problem with this law is that it is a pointless extension of a law that already exists. Consistantly increasing penalties for such small crimes while we still have bigger problems to solve. People that murder, steal, rape, molest, etc. are being penalized less than someon who uses a drug, shares a song, or bypasses the encryption on their DVD to play a movie they bought. Do you see the problem here? Did you know that child molesters have a better chance of being released from prison earlier than those with drug offenses? What do you know? Why should business interests worry about child molesters, it doesn't cost them any money (directly at least). It makes me even more sad that there those that moderate your post insightful. It has little insight, simply a bunch of remarks to defend the established law system that needs rewriting, NOT EXTENDING. How about the next law we put in place is 10 year minimum sentence to anyone caught downloading an mp3? Sound fair?

Re:So?

[Oculus Habent]

Law enforcement was called in to arrest them. It's not MPAA vigilantes; if no one reported the crime to the police, they would never know about it.

The theaters aren't just fighting for the MPAA - many don't like the MPAA, who sucks up much of the ticket cost - they are doing it because it's potentially lost income, not to mention that laws are being broken on their premises.

Re:So?

[WIAKywbfatw]

Let's make one thing clear: the law as it stands makes you a criminal for possessing any video recording device whilst in a cinema, regardless of whether it's switched on off and in your backpack, or whether it's on and in your hand. That's a bad thing: it's the equivalent of punishing someone for having a packet of cigarettes in their pocket when they visit a non-smoking restaurant or bar.

As for the issue of mobile phones left on during a public performance, well, if you're arguing that it's both selfish and inconsiderate to other patrons then I agree with you totally. But, as I've pointed out, it's the mere possession of a device capable of recording video that makes you a criminal here, not its use, and asking all cinema-goers who have video mobiles to leave them at home is hardly the proper solution here. The most appropriate solution is to punish people who are caught breaching copyright, not those that are just watching the movie that they paid to see.

Re:So?

[Phillip2]

Perhaps he is irritated at the large amount of time and effort going to enforcing increasingly draconian efforts to support the failing business model of the movie industry.

Like the oil industry which requires us to make continual military interventions into many parts of the world to survive, the movie industry is asking society to spend enourmous amounts of cash and suffer attacks on its freedom so it can make money. This is the industry that told us that video recording was going to kill it. Actually it said that TV was going to kill it before that.

They should get a life, learn to compete with the new realities, and stop belly aching. Why they can not realise that there is money to be made out of enabling people to watch a film in comfort, with good sound and visuals I don't know. A wobbly camcorder image with the sound of hardening arteries from the popcorn eating kid in the next seat is not competition.

Phil

Re:So?

[infinite9]

I think the problem is that copyrights are supposed to be a civil issue. If what you're doing is a copyright violation, they should be able to sue you. But inacting a criminal law for this smacks of corporate america controling the legal system. Also, the punishments for these sorts of things are usually way too harsh. For example, what would you have to do with your car to get a year in jail on the first offense? DUI? No. Manslaughter? That would probably do it. What about drugs... go to jail for a year on the first offense for possesion? I don't think so. But all you have to do is enter a movie theater with a camcorder and you're busted. It may be wrong to record movies, but this law is certainly unjust.

Re:So?

[merky1]

I agree with you that putting this guy in jail for one year just for the camcorder hurts society as a whole. Not just from the prison costs, but imagine the after shock of spending a year in jail. Any IT managers hiring jailbirds? Community service, sure. Fines, hell yeah. Jail time, not unless you can prove that he is a MAJOR distributor of cams. At that point there is no defense.

Re:So?

[Kenja]

Civil disobedience requires you to EXPECT and ACEPT the consequences of your actions in the hope that your persecution will enlighten others as to the injustice of the law you're breaking. It is NOT being surprised and pissed off when you get caught. That is just being a petty criminal.

Re:So?

[miskatonic alumnus]

Here we go again. STEAL??? For the N-thousandth time, copyright infringement is not STEALING. If it were, then we wouldn't need extra laws and extra terminology. It would just be called stealing, for which there is extant laws, terminology, and punishment.

I don't see what the big deal is, personally. These copies aren't high quality. A year in jail is outrageous. Just throw the bum out of the theatre and ban him. Why does the United States have this OBSESSION with punishment. It is not sufficient to slap someone with a little fine; we have to bankrupt them, throw them in jail, ruin their lives, all for a trivial little offense. What the fuck!!! Show some goddamned common sense. After all, there are so many laws on the books, I feel I can safely say that 100% of the people in the U.S. are in violation of at least one of them at least once per year. It could be your turn next.

Re:So?

[zod1025]

There *definitely* is a mismatch between what should be a criminal offense and what should be a civil offense. Clearly copyright violations should be civil offenses, as should anything dealing with intellectual property, because it's all make-believe anyway (no humans were harmed in the violation of this copyright!)

So fine the dude a thousand or a million or whatever, ban him from theatres, whatever. But jail time? Get real. Completely inappropriate.

Re:So?

[Catbeller]

1. copying isn't stealing. it isn't rape, murder, barratry, assault, or slander, either. please stop murdering the english language. (or is that stealing the english language?) George Orwell is crying somewhere, while Gingrich is laughing.

2. making a bad copy of a movie does not warrant a felony conviction, jail time, loss of the right to vote, loss of the ability to make a living, or the loss of the right to serve on a jury. this is insane. it was a civil infraction, punishable by fine, until the MPAA and RIAA made it a federal crime more severe than the act of murder.(rape? angary? does semantics matter when money is on the line?)

3. as many have said, why isn't Ken Lay in jail if the Law is the LAW? Some schmuck is going to be raped for years and have his life extinguished because the MPAA bought a law? who the hell in Hollywood has gone to jail for raping a creator out of millions of dollars in royalties?

4. i keep hearing that he was in private establishment. but Paul Reubens (Pee Wee Herman) had his life ruined and his bank account drained for masturbating in a PUBLIC PLACE: the porno theater.

if the theater is a public place, this means we are not permitted to record video in public? Judge Scalia CAN confiscate voice recorders? if it is a private establishment where Constitutional rights are suspended, why was Reubens arrested and humiliated for being in public?

5. if the Law is the LAW, would it be right for a locality to execute you for a speeding ticket? After all, you are expected to know the consequences for your illegal actions. Discuss.

Re:So?

[theLOUDroom]

I agree, why are people getting upset about someone going to jail for breaking the law? sam0ht seems to be a bit irate over this for some reason...if you are going to break a law, don't bitch when you get busted!

IN A DEMOCRACY YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO EVALUATE THE A LAW AND ITS RESULTING PUNISHMENTS.

If you speed, you might get a ticked, but that doesn't mean that putting a 55 MPH speed limit and a road that was designed to the a 65 isn't anything but an excuse to rip people off.
Also, you want the punishment to fit the crime.
Are you aware that our prisons are bursting at the seams with non-violent drug offenders? So much so that violent criminals are being paroled sooner than usual?

"If you do the crime, you better be prepared to do the time"

Does that include MLK and Ghandi?

I'm not saying that this guy is Ghandi. I'm saying that your "The law's the law" attitude is absolutely stupid and counterproductive in a society where the law is CHANGEABLE and the citizenry expected to participate in this process of changing it.

When someone get's arrested and goes to jail it should be ok because that law makes sense to you and the punishment fits, not because "The law's the law".

With your attitude, we'd still be trading slaves, women couldn't vote, etc.

Re:So?

[the_mad_poster]

I could go rent it, but it's a pain in the ass.

Taking a cam corder into a movie theater is breaking the law, and deserves to be punished.

Assuming I keep the movie, and all other provisions, etc

So... you defend the law by only following it when it's convenient and you defend your actions by saying you'll accept the consequences IF they ever come and subject to provisions you invent?

How the fuck is this insightful? You can't selectively follow and defend laws based on your own personal convenience and have any credibility. If they're going to waste the public's money dragging people with camcorders from the theatre into a police cruiser, then they ought to do the same to you for using your internet connection to do exactly the same thing: violate copyright. The mechanism for infringement is irrelevant.

Look, I'm sorry to just go ad hominem on this guy's ass, but that was a stupid post, and this person is stupid for posting it.

Re:So?

[swv3752]

One- it is not theft. So stop trolling. It is a copyright violation, which should be a civil matter not a criminal one. Making civil violations criminal acts only leads to creating more criminals. Have we learned nothing from our past? (For those that have not figured it out- here is the clue bat: Prohibition).

Two, what happens in five years when we all have cell phones more powerful than our desktops that can record full video for 10 hours? I already have a PDA more powerful with more RAM than a notebook I had several years ago. Do you really want to go to jail because you happened to check a page that vibrated in on the cell? That is the scenario we moving to.

Third, are all those five people household members? If not, then it is arguable that is a public showing. By your terms, you are a thief depriving those hard working people at the MPAA of thier rightful works. You may want to get off that high horse.

I am all for respecting others rights, but I also expect some reciprisosity. Copyrights were meant to be applied for a limited time; not for effectively forever. More and more laws are being passed to trample on my rights.

Re:So?

[3terrabyte]

Actually, I'd compare these guys camming as "Mules" in the drug trade. Something like 100-300 dollars for selling the copy seems to be as crappy as being a mule to me.

However, those buying these copies are making tons of money by making master DVD's and selling them.

Re:So?

[DavidBrown]

Bad cases make bad law. Sure, it's overkill to send someone to jail for sharing an mp3. But this isn't the case here. This guy was videotaping a film, in the freakin' movie theater. This isn't fair use under any stretch of the imagination. It's illegal, plain and simple, and the guy ought to be prosecuted and sent up the river. But he's not going to be prosecuted for a felony. He's going to be prosecuted for a misdemeanor, which carries a one-year max sentence. And even if he gets sentenced to one year, he'll be out in six months if he stays out of trouble in the county lockup. This is not a cruel or unusual punishment. It is not a ten-year sentence, so please stop with your Parade of Horribles already.

It's also not a small crime - what this guy was probably going to do was to take his video tape and turn it into a DVD and sell it to others. When Elf came out last year, Actor/Director Jon Favreau was a guest co-host on Jimmy Kimmel live. During a street-interview segment, a woman talked about buying DVD's and displayed her copy of Elf, which had been in the theaters for less than a week. This happens all of the time. Just do a search for bit.torrents and you'll find movies that haven't been released yet up for grabs. If you think that what this guy was doing wasn't a crime, you've got to be kidding. The law was passed for the simple reason that prosecutors had no way of convicting criminals like this guy of anything unless they actually caught him selling his ill-gotten goods. And please don't compare him to Martin Luther King, Jr. This isn't a civil rights case. He ain't Rosa Parks standing up for herself refusing to obey a discriminatory and unconstitutional law. He's a jerk out trying to make a few bucks at the expense of others.

Also, you're completely wrong when you say that people who murder, steal, rape, molest, etc. are being penalized less than someone who uses a drug, shares a song, or bypasses DVD encryption. That's an exaggeration intended to buttress the fantasy that this guy isn't doing anything wrong, or if he is, there's no victim and it's "fair use" anyway.

In reality, most people who get caught for drug possession charges (unless it's with intent to distribute) get into diversion programs on a first offense. Hell, in California, the penalty for ordinary possession of marijuana is a $50 fine. And penalties for serious crimes are very severe. Ever hear of 3-strikes? Yes, the drug war is stupid and drug laws should be revised, but that has nothing to do with this man's crime.

Re:So?

[Dun Malg]

This is not the battle to fight, it is a clear cut case of breaking the law. If this is where the MPAA wants to direct their resources, so be it.

The problem is, it's not the MPAA's resources. It's our taxpayer-funded municipal law enforcement organization that's doing the dirty work. That's why it shouldn't be a crime. The MPAA should have to devote THEIR resources through civil action, like everyone else does.

Re:So?

[Just Some Guy]

Your ticket gives your the right to watch the movie once in that theater at that time, and that is all.

No. No. No. No. I'm sick of these "implied contracts" that we've all supposedly agreed to without having seen. While I understand and agree with the idea that you shouldn't be recording the move, I didn't agree to a license of any type when I bought my ticket. I paid for the privilege of being allowed to occupy a given room at a given time. I may bring a book, stare at cute girls, or take a nap. If the theater is otherwise empty, I can even play "MST3K" with my friends and yell at the screen.

I'm tired of this "but your license says..." crap. I have yet to sign a contract regarding my rights to use a ticket, or DVD, or piece of software that I've purchased. Give me a piece of paper with clear terms and a signature line, and I'll be willing to admit that I have a business relationship with the entity I'm buying a product from. Until then, forget it.

Re:So?

[Kenja]

I may be wrong, but I dont recall Thoreau sitting around and whining when/if he got caught. Did he except the consequences of his actions or just bitch about it online?

"I have paid no poll tax for six years. I was put into a jail once on this account, for one night; and, as I stood considering the walls of solid stone, two or three feet thick, the door of wood and iron, a foot thick, and the iron grating which strained the light, I could not help being struck with the foolishness of that institution which treated my as if I were mere flesh and blood and bones, to be locked up. I wondered that it should have concluded at length that this was the best use it could put me to, and had never thought to avail itself of my services in some way. I saw that, if there was a wall of stone between me and my townsmen, there was a still more difficult one to climb or break through before they could get to be as free as I was. I did nor for a moment feel confined, and the walls seemed a great waste of stone and mortar. I felt as if I alone of all my townsmen had paid my tax. They plainly did not know how to treat me, but behaved like persons who are underbred. In every threat and in every compliment there was a blunder; for they thought that my chief desire was to stand the other side of that stone wall. I could not but smile to see how industriously they locked the door on my meditations, which followed them out again without let or hindrance, and they were really all that was dangerous. As they could not reach me, they had resolved to punish my body; just as boys, if they cannot come at some person against whom they have a spite, will abuse his dog. I saw that the State was half-witted, that it was timid as a lone woman with her silver spoons, and that it did not know its friends from its foes, and I lost all my remaining respect for it, and pitied it."

Seems that unlike your current champion of civil disobedience Thoreau was willing to except that his choices had consequences but that they where outweighed by injustices he was trying to stand against.

Re:So?

[dubl-u]

I never have and never will film a movie with a camcorder. I do sneak in food and drinks all the time though. I sure hope I can't get a year in jail for that.

You realize that criminalizing one makes as much sense as the other, right?

In both cases, somebody (studio, theater) does something (makes, shows a movie) with a particular plan about how to make money from it. Then somebody else finds a way to get the value without coughing up like the producer expected.

Videotaping a movie happens to be illegal, while bringing in your own drink is only against the rules. But that's only because the MPAA has more money to lobby. They're both equally wrong (or right, depending on your choice of moral frameworks).

Re:So?

[Control Group]

The violations of the law you posted are very far out from what copying is, using excessive exaggeration does not prove your point. Copying is stealing, just in the same way that riding a bus or train without a ticket is stealing, you're illegally taking something you didn't pay for, even if all it is, is time, space, or rights.

This was not exaggeration, it was pointing out that just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's stealing. It's very simple. Copyright violation and stealing are two different legal violations. The definitions are not the same. Analogizing copyright violation to not paying for a bus ride is also flawed: it costs the bus company money for you to be on that bus, in terms of more fuel used and more wear and tear on the equipment. In this case, you are stealing. Copyright violation does not cost the copyright holder money, it might cost the copyright holder potential money. This is the fundamental difference between copyright infringement and theft. Theft deprives the victim of something s/he has, copyright infringement deprives the victim of something s/he might have gotten. Hence the appropriate response to coyright infringement: determine the losses incurred by the infringer, and recoup money for the holder from the infringer. Making this a criminal violation achieves nothing.

Murder and rape are not less severe than copying

His point is that, in a sense, they are: neither murder nor rape is a federal crime (unless committed on federal property, while trafficking aliens, in pursuit of drug-related activity, and a few other exceptions). Violation of copyright is. Again, this is not an exaggeration, simply a statement of fact.

You will also note I didn't say I thought the punishment was proper, that is for a court to decide though, not the MPAA, as the trial hasn't gone through yet, we have no idea what the punishment will be

Partially correct. We have no idea whether jail time will be served, fines will be assessed, etc. However, we do know that if convicted of a felony, the guilty party loses the right to vote, the right to sit on a jury, and must make any employer aware of a felony conviction. This is independent of the penalties assessed, and is what the original poster was referring to. We do know these penalties will exist, assuming only that the violator is convicted.

Kenneth Lay has NOTHING to do with this story, stay on topic! Kenneth Lay should rot for what he did, no one will argue differently here. The person who commited this crime still did something wrong, and should be punished, once again, how much depends on what the judge rules, and how appeals go, this hasn't even been broached yet, so stop speculating wildly. And FYI, tons of Hollywood king pins have been sued, and they have lost, for the infringment of other people's copyrights, and for unfair contracts. It happens all the time, research before you post!

Completely correct. Just because Ken Lay should be in prison doesn't necessarily mean this guy shouldn't be. I couldn't agree more.

Once again, learn how to debate, excessive exaggeration DOES NOT make your point.

Well, it's poorly presented, to be sure. But the point is that just because something is illegal doesn't mean punishments should be arbitrarily onerous. Though clouded in dubious rhetoric, the original poster's point is valid, since s/he's trying to argue that the punishments being assessed for copyright infringement are excessive. Of course, one doesn't need to appeal to making speeding a capital crime to make this point, one only needs to look at the RIAA's "legal" tactics against Kazaa users.

Re:So?

[npsimons]

Why does the United States have this OBSESSION with punishment[?]

Because the United States was founded primarily by Puritans ("The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists. That is why they invented hell.").

Sure, we also got the Puritan work ethic ("the devil finds work for idle hands") and the Puritan education ethic (the true path to enlightenment is through study) which are the two primary reasons for America's success today (that and it's natural resources), but we are also unfortunately saddled with Puritan morality (ie, harsh punishment and much ado about nothing (a nipple)).

After all, there are so many laws on the books, I feel I can safely say that 100% of the people in the U.S. are in violation of at least one of them at least once per year.

I don't doubt it. It's frustrating, but what can you do?

Cam?

[lofoforabr]

In fact, I rarely get any camera recorded movies, because of the usual low quality.
Don't we all love TeleSync and (even better), DVD-Screeners?
IMHO, camera recorded movies aren't all that worth the download, are they?

yes, the message is clear... idiot.

[garcia]

The lesson is clear: stay out of movie theaters and you won't get arrested.

How about stay out a movie theatre with recording equipment, night vision goggles, and/or the intention of stealing stuff... Perhaps then you won't get arrested.

You missed the message

[duffbeer703]

If you don't film the movie with a camcorder, you will not be dragged off to prison from the theatre.

Does anyone honestely believe that this is a privacy issue?

I guess the lesson isn't that clear after all...

[ptomblin]

The lesson is clear: stay out of movie theaters and you won't get arrested.

Uh no, the lesson is don't fucking steal, dipwad.

Yay

[Omnifarious]

An excellent use of technology to catch a criminal. The contract for entering a movie theatre is clear about not having recording devices or food. It was so obviously wrong that even a projectionist had no qualms about wearing some night vision goggles to notice someone with a camera and eject them. This doesn't even need to invoke copyright law to be considered wrong.

The Lesson

[jaaron]

The lesson is clear: stay out of movie theaters and you won't get arrested.

The lesson is clear: don't be stupid and take a video camera into a movie theatre.

War on Drugs?

[mwhahaha]

Anyone else think the comparison with the War on Drugs is a bit much? Especially when the War on Drugs has been touted as a failure by many people for it's over spending and inability to really curb the influx of drugs into this country. So does that mean the MPAA is just going to blow tons of money and fail to get anything done? Maybe it's just me...

Quality

[Bartgroks]

This should eliminate a lot of the poor quality copies.

Asinine comments

[PorscheDriver]

The lesson is clear: stay out of movie theaters and you won't get arrested

er... no. Let's try:

The lesson is clear: don't record films in movie theaters using a camcorder and you won't get arrested

Welcome to Slashdot, would Sir like a knee-jerk reaction?

In other news..

[JusTyler]

The lesson is clear: stay out of movie theaters and you won't get arrested.

If you like getting into your car and driving around at 100mph, you might be arrested. Ah well, the lesson is clear: stay out of cars, and you won't get arrested!

I'm all for jumping over privacy invasions and the ever domineering power of the state, but cracking down on things which are blatantly illegal isn't a violation of our freedom.

So the original submitter..

[bob670]

thinks it's okay to bootleg movies, even poorly? Christ, get some standards, you can't steal everything you want. It might be an extreme method but as long as you aren't going to jail who cares? Easy solution, if material is released under a copyright or trademark that includes criminal charges if violated, don't F'in steal it! Not everyone wants to give away their work for free and you have no right to chose for them.

Leakes

[Manip]

Most of the illegal films on the internet are from within the movie industry it's self, although this will help reduce the number of 'cam' films being shared around, it will not help reduce over-all piracy.

Honestly, I have no good suggestions beyond giving up on cinemas and just release everything on DVD ASAP to reduce piracy. Thing is, people want the media, and they want it right now... and until the industry catches up with what people want this is going to continue.

Slashdot: News for trolls. Stuff that's biased.

[LostCluster]

From the /. write-up...
Motion Picture Ass. Head Jack Valenti
Was "Association" or even "Assoc." was too much to type there?

The lesson is clear: stay out of movie theaters and you won't get arrested.
Uhm, how about "Don't take video cameras into movie theaters and you won't get arrested?" They're not arresting random patrons, just the ones who are caught making illegal copies.

From the linked Register piece...
You've been out at the beach all day and you met a friend in a bar who says she is going to take in a film. You join her and caught up in the conversation and don't notice some of the new signs up at the cinema. Suddenly someone wants to search your back pack and the next thing you know you're in prison for a one year stretch for taking the camcorder which you forgot was in your pack, into a cinema. The $2,500 fine isn't funny either.
That's not the California law. The law requires that the camcorder operator demonstrate an intent to copy the movie. I don't quite see how you can accidently aim a camcorder at the movie screen and turn it on. Somebody "caught in the act" is clearly demonstrating intent, while somebody who has the camcorder off an in their backpack is clearly not.

The law has been written with future technologies in mind and can equally apply to any type of recorder, including a mobile phone. So in California at least it is soon going to be illegal to take your phone into the cinema.
Again, only if you're intent on copying the film. Don't aim your phone at the screen and hit record and you'll be fine. Besides, does anybody have a camera phone with two to three hours of memory?

Interesting...

[l33t-gu3lph1t3]

While I personally don't agree with being watched in a movie theatre, these guys are just trying to prevent the asshats from ripping off their stuff. If you want to watch a movie, you go to see it, rent it, or buy it. If it's really good enough to want to see then it's good enough to want to buy.

How is this a violation of rights? Security cameras are everywhere these days. I fail to see how this is any different. I do consider it a waste of time, however. Isn't the projectionist supposed to be watching the *movie* to make sure it's showing up in focus?

One thing that's kinda funny is the law that this dumbass is being charged under. Bringing a camcorder into theatres is illegal? Maybe the *use* of such devices should be illegal in a theatre, but not the mere presence. That's tantamount to charging someone with conspiracy to commit murder for owning a gun.

I believe what the theatre SHOULD do is reserve the right to confiscate any electronic equipment :)

Okay. So what equipment...

[sczimme]

will theatre owners/operators use to pinpoint the asshats making lots of noise during the movie?

Yes, the video cameras are prohibited but at least they're quiet. I guess making the moviegoing experience more enjoyable (tolerable?) isn't that high on the priority list.

/waits for movies to be released on DVD 'cause movie theatres are no longer enjoyable. YMMV.

C'mon

[p4ul13]

"The lesson is clear: stay out of movie theaters and you won't get arrested."

The message is don't videotape a movie playing in the theater. I mean really, is *this* a problem for you?

Come on, use some common brain cells.

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

The lesson is clear: stay out of movie theaters and you won't get arrested.

The whole feel of the implied editorial of this write-up is that there is something sinister and wrong about using noght-vision scopes to catch people who bring a video cam into a theater. But remember, it is people just like this ASSHOLE who got busted, that give RAII and the motion picture Nazis the fodder to shoot down P2P. Come on, there is no legitimate "fair use" excuse for bringing a video cam into a theater and filming the movie. Exactly who is the "ass-hat" here?

Re:Come on, use some common brain cells.

[Ryan_Terry]

agreed.

Its about time people realize that the world was never meant to be a place full of free stuff to take whenever you want it. This idea that its your right to do whatever the hell you want, and when a mega corporation tries to stop you they are suddenly infringing on your god given rights is ridiculous.

the war on drugs??

[neoThoth]

give me a fuggin break here. The illegal distribution of cocaine and herion is not an analogy I would ascribe to copying a movie! It's not like pirating produces junkies or even damages ones health if viewed (except those crap movies like Alamo).

How Medieval

[randall_burns]

In Medieval Europe, denigrating certain symbols was a capital offense(i.e. stuff like throwing mud at a statue of the Virgin Mary during a religious parade could get you death by slow torture-and the only way to get a quicker death was to kiss a cross or something similar).

Hollywood seems to have taken on the role of the Vatican. The US has all kinds of pressing crime problems-and somehow, the MPAA manages to get their concerns at the top of the heap--and avoid jurisdictional issues between the states and the feds.

Re:yes, the message is clear... idiot.

[frankie]

Let's get three facts straight:

1. Jack Valenti is indeed an Ass Head, and the MPAA sucks
2. movie bootleggers are criminal asshats who also suck
3. copyright infringement is not theft

Theft means directly taking something that isn't yours and depriving the owner of it. Camcorder guys do not prevent the theater from showing the movie, nor do they prevent fellow moviegoers from seeing it.

To anyone who says "illegal copying == theft", I say "you are murdering both language and law." :p

The problem is the penalty

[rben]

I have no problem with the cinemas using night goggles to find people illegally recording the movie. That is clearly just a reasonable attempt to protect their investment. What concerns me is the sentence of one year in prison. With our prisons already busting at the seams, do we really want a violent criminal released from prison to make room for a guy who illegally filmed a movie?

The penalties given out should fit the crime. Using a camcorder to tape a movie is an economic crime and should be dealt with on that basis. Give the guy a fine large enough to destroy any profits he could make plus some more to drive the lesson home and keep the prison space for people who are actually a danger to us.

Another thought. I've seen new parents who carry camcorders with them everywhere. They stuff it into the kids diaper bag. Are we going to send them to prison because they forgot to take the camera out of the bag and leave it in the car?

It's sad when anyone decides that their personal profits are more important than public safety. It's worse when members of congress race to suck up to such people and enact legislation at their bidding.

Useful for Other Violations

[ReadParse]

Always remember Pee Wee Herman. Yes, he was in a porno theater, which is an interesting bit of irony since there are only a couple of things one can imagine doing in a porno theater besides "watching" (yeah right) the movie, and what he did was the least offensive of them.

Anyway, the point is... how many times have you taken certain liberties in a darkened theater? Night vision goggles really turn those tables around, don't they? It's a point to ponder before doing something in the theater you wouldn't do in church.

RP

Costs?

[fatpelt]

Are the costs going to be passed down to us? While I don't dissagree with the move, I think it is a wonderful idea, are theaters going to be forced to charge us more to watch movies? If so, I will go even less than I already do! I just can't afford the nighttime prices, and work prohibits me from hitting a matinee --

Comparison to WoD

[Sloppy]

Clearly, the 'War on Copyright Violation' is following the successful strategy used for the War on Drugs

Did they seize his car and house?

Comparing this to the War on Drugs is absurd. The victims in the WoD are minding their own business when harassed by government, and not messing with anyone else without consent.

Theater pirates are entering someone else's movie theater, recording without consent, and messing with their market. The pirates are violating a law (copyright) which has a basis right in the constitution itself (article 1, section 8, clause 8).

One is a flagrant abuse of government power, and the other is at worst (and I'm not even 100% sure about that) overzealous/extreme enforcement of a popularly-recognized legitimate function of government.

You would probably need a constitutional ammendment to make the war on drugs legal, but you would also need a constitutional ammendment to eliminate copyright. The comparison is just absurd.

The real lesson? Tape over the red light.

[oneiros27]

Yes, it's against the law to copy the movie with a camcorder... And yes, they used night vision goggles to catch someone.

But the other guy that's been arrested for suspicion didn't even cover up or in someway disable the red 'recording' light on the camcorder. So he's also distracting other people around him, who have paid their money to see the movie.

C'mon, at least have some common curtesy for the rest of the people in the theatre with you.

At least I haven't any dumbasses playing the laser pointers in the movie theatres in a while. Or throwing things. Or with screaming children in an R-rated movie. Although, come to think of it, I also don't go to the movies very often anymore... that might have something to do with it.

What are all of you smoking?

[Ectospheno]

The lesson is clear: stay out of movie theaters and you won't get arrested.

That has to be the dumbest statement I've seen yet regarding the illegal copying of someone else's work.

Maybe I'm in the minority here but its not like this 34 year old person didn't know he shouldn't bring a video camera into a theater and record a movie. Sure the penalty may be a bit stiff in this case but something is needed to send a message to people that you can't just go around filming movies from your seat in the movie theater.

And no, the lesson here isn't that you should stay out of a movie theater, its that you should leave your camera at home!

sheesh!

Couldn't be more right...

[east coast]

"Soon, copied films will be as rare as students lighting up a joint after their exams."

As we all know that the prohibition of weed and the war on drugs has brought the flow of marijuana to a near stop.

Oh yeah...

Heh!

Hmm...a question

[bonch]

What exactly is wrong with the MPAA not wanting people to film movies? That is, after all, a crime and is also immoral to a degree. Slashdotters have yet to legally or morally justify pirating movies.

Is it okay to pirate games and software? You know, stuff that programmers made? Can I pirate the fuck out of Doom 3 when it comes out? OH, THAT'S RIGHT--the subject of software piracy is never mentioned because Slashdot is made up of a lot of programmers and developers. Since software piracy would affect them, it's bad, right? They'll stick up for their hero John Carmack and tell you to buy the game when it comes out.

And why all the sudden is there an equation to the War on Drugs? It's completely irrelevant. Does that mean that Slashdot editors also believe drugs should be legalized?

This article fits all the attributes required for being propaganda. Even the juvenile "Ass. Head" remark, which does nothing to intellectualize your argument.

Try all you want, but making a desperate connection to the War on Drugs, calling him an Ass. Head, and pretending it's some sort of bad thing that they used night vision goggles to spot a camera (the pirates are using high-tech gadgets, so what is wrong with the theater doing the same damn thing? I don't expect any answer to this...) in order to arrest him for doing something illegal, is not going to change the fact that you're wrong if you think movie piracy is okay and that everyone should just "accept" it. I'm sure people will bring out the tired old "the MPAA needs to find a 'new business model'", which is something Slashdotters love to say. Except that these business majors never mention what the new model is supposed to be other than giving away shit for free. Yeah--that'll work.

Re:Hmm...a question

[rjelks]

I'm more concerned about them busting people for "outside food." I mean really, I could get a steak dinner for the price of their popcorn and a drink!

Re:Hmm...a question

[Anonymous Coward]

How about cruel and unusual punishment? Why should a guy who makes a shaky camcorder recording of a movie that he's already paid to watch (and isn't physically stealing anything) do more time and pay a greater fine than someone caught physically shoplifting, stealing a car, breaking into a house, beating his children, slapping his wife around, etc?

Re:Hmm...a question

[Mr. Slippery]

Is it okay to pirate games and software?

Please don't use the same word to refer to robbery and murder on the high seas, and copyright violation. It's not just inaccurate, it's stupid.

And why all the sudden is there an equation to the War on Drugs? It's completely irrelevant. Does that mean that Slashdot editors also believe drugs should be legalized?

Don't know about editors, but anyone with a lick of sense can see that after three decades, the War on (Some) Drugs is a failure in every way. Hard drugs are readily available in any urban area, our prisons are overflowing, our society several times more violent, and our liberties eroding.

The comparison to the current push for a War on Copying is that both unauthorized copying and drug use are widespread non-violent activities. They are both impossible to stop, but both Wars require gross invasions of privacy and civil liberties to continue their futile attempts at enforcement.

Except that these business majors never mention what the new model is supposed to be other than giving away shit for free.

I've been suggesting for years that a model similar to that of songwriter royalites should be applied - copying is free (just like singing a song), profit-making use rquires royalties. Other models have been proposed, you apparently just haven't been paying attention.

Re:Hmm...a question

[Abjifyicious]

Is it okay to pirate games and software? You know, stuff that programmers made? Can I pirate the fuck out of Doom 3 when it comes out? OH, THAT'S RIGHT--the subject of software piracy is never mentioned because Slashdot is made up of a lot of programmers and developers. Since software piracy would affect them, it's bad, right?

I think that if Microsoft started putting people in jail for pirating Windows, Slashdotters would be just as angry at them as they are at the MPAA right now.

All in all, I think what makes poeple angry is that the punishment is way out of proportion to the crime that was commited. That's why it was compared to the War on Drugs.

Re:Hmm...a question

[j-turkey]

What exactly is wrong with the MPAA not wanting people to film movies? That is, after all, a crime and is also immoral to a degree. Slashdotters have yet to legally or morally justify pirating movies.

There is nothing wrong with the MPAA not wanting people to film movies. However, I believe that there is something wrong with a lobbying group like the MPAA taking an existing law and tacking on additional penalties because the crime involves a computer (and worse, our congress approving such a measure). It's just wrong. Were the penalties not sufficient before? What really makes the crime any different now to justify such a steep penalty? Does one get a year in prison for stealing the film reel -- what about shoplifting a DVD from Blockbuster? I doubt it -- those sound more like misdemeanor petty larceny than a year-in-jail-felony-type-crime. Do you see where the discrepancy is now?

As far as the war on drugs message goes -- I agree with you, it was totally out of left field. However, I didn't detect any sarcasm in the posting and don't agree with your analysis. I couldn't believe that I saw the word "success" appearing in a sentence with "war on drugs" without some kind of counterindicating word. Whoever wrote that musta been pretty high on something...I fail to see how the war on drugs has succeeded in any of its stated objectives.

Re:Hmm...a question

[HPNpilot]

I think most people basically understand that bringing in a camcorder to make a copy (especially to sell) of a movie is wrong and to be discouraged.

However, the big issue I feel is in the heavy-handed approach to enforcement. I have never considered bringing a camcorder into a movie, but I cringe at the thought I am being watched by someone with NVGs. I have an expectation of some privacy while watching a movie. They want to install metal detectors? The day they do that is the day I completely stop going to movies; enough is enough!

Regarding penalties for unauthorized copying, I understand they want to get maximum publicity and "make examples" of people but let's have some semblence of balance here. There is a big difference between someone making a copy for their own use and someone making a copy so they can then make 10,000 copies to sell on the street, so let's have the penalties be different.

There is a lot of pent-up anger in people these days from the feeling of helplessness they feel against the political power of large industry groups such as the RIAA and MPAA. Politicians seemingly are more interested in protecting big donors than creating legislation that is well thought out and which is fair to both the public and the corporations.

Re:Hmm...a question

[D'Sphitz]

I bolded the relevant part for you so you don't have to think too hard.

pirate
n.

1. a. One who robs at sea or plunders the land from the sea without commission from a sovereign nation.
b. A ship used for this purpose.
2. One who preys on others; a plunderer.
3. One who makes use of or reproduces the work of another without authorization.
4. One that operates an unlicensed, illegal television or radio station.

Re:Hmm...a question

[BobGregg]

>>...I cringe at the thought I am being watched by someone with NVGs.
>>I have an expectation of some privacy while watching a movie.

Um... no. No, you don't. You have *no* expectation of privacy while watching a movie. Movie theatres are a *public* place. You may not, for instance, whack off while watching a movie - at least, not without getting arrested and being societally shunned. Not even if you're the only person in the Kitty-Kat Theatre (thank you, Pee-Wee Herman).

Your behavior and actions are limited while you are in the theatre, and one of the limits is this: thou shalt not electronically record the movie you're watching. If you don't like being (potentially) watched, well, don't go out in public.

>>The day they [install metal detectors] is the day I completely stop going to movies;

Exactly. That's a valid choice - and probably the choice I'd make too. But just complaining about the fact that people can see you when you're in public is not valid.

Re:Hmm...a question

[jobbegea]

I hardly buy anything in the theater. You would think people would be able to survive without food for 90 minutes.

Re:Hmm...a question

[swv3752]

Actually it being a crime is part of the problem.

Copyright violations used to be purely civil matters. Enforcement was left as a task for the Copyright holder. BeforeI justify te moralness of Copyright Violations, you need to justify where you get off criminalizing a civil matter. And justify why I need to pay for some big Corp to enforce thier copyright. Then justify why copyrights should last forever.

One we do not need to be sending more people to prison. Two, I should not have to pay for someone to enforce a State granted Monopoly.

Also, do you really want to be spied on in theater by some teenaged punk? The same guy that is suppse to be taking care of the jerks on thier cell phone and the screaming baby.

Lastly, do a little historical research on Prohibition. Then look at the current Drug War. Now examine the new Copyright War. I see a number of parallels. Take a behavior that was not criminal and make it a criminal offense. Spend lots of money to prosecute it. Violate all sorts of rights and liberties to find the new criminals.

Re:Hmm...a question

[Anonymous Coward]

Increasing levels of lawlessness (and make no mistake: copying movies or songs the copyright holder has not given you permission to copy is theft -- a crime)

Make no mistake: its not _theft_, its a *copyright violation*.

Re:Hmm...a question

[herosw]

The issue I have is not that they are trying to stop piracy but the punishment doesn't fit the crime. I'm sure we could stop speeding if we make that a crime with mandantory jail time.

Re:Hmm...a question

[Mr. Slippery]

I mean really, is that your only argument?

Of course not. Touchy, aren't you?

It's still fucking _stealing_ you ass clown.

No, it's not. It may (or may not be) copyright infringment, but copying is not stealing. If there was ever any doubt - which there shouldn't have been - the Supreme Court removed it in the Dowling case. "[I]nterference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion or fraud." - Justice Blackmun.

Re:Hmm...a question

[SkunkPussy]

> It's still fucking _stealing_ you ass clown.

Mate (or should I say ass clown),

_stealing_ implies depriving the victim of property. "Piracy" deprives noone of property therefore is not stealing or theft. It is merely infringement of copyrights.

Smoke a joint while watching a new movie

[Anonymous Coward]

Two options to do this
(1) Go to theatre and smoke joint there. High odds of arrest in most countries.
(2) Smoke at home and watch the cam version. One bloke takes the risk for all the stoners.

I take (2) nearly every time.
Thanks to all the smugglers keeping me happy!

Re:I guess the lesson isn't that clear after all..

[Have Blue]

Conversely, don't fall for the propoganda that recording movies and distributing them on the internet is any less wrong than stealing just because "it's not stealing".

Apples and oranges

[bonch]

Indeed. Breaking CSS encryption to make a legal backup of your DVD or watch movies under Linux is "civil disobedience" that I can accept and understand.

Some moron going into a theater with a camcorder in order to put a movie online for others to download is just breaking the law, and is not "civil disobedience." I still don't understand how anybody could think they magically own the copyright to distribute someone else's works however they want. Why don't you spend a year or two making a movie or writing a major commercial software project, only to fire up eMule and see "your.Project.Sharereactor.rar" pop up with 357 sources? Let me know how you'd feel, and if it is "free advertising" for other people to decide to abuse your works however they want without asking you first.

Meanwhile, we complain when companies don't follow the copyright of the GPL...does anyone else see the hypocrisy in that?

This is just Slashdot wanting people to get up in arms over the fact that some guy is going to jail for a year, the theater was using night-vision goggles (which someone will probably have the audacity to argue is a privacy invasion--yuk yuk), and that for some reason this is supposed to be like the "War on Drugs," which I guess is the submitter's way of saying piracy should be legal just because it happens a lot.

Sometimes I get afraid this place is turning into a leftist hellhole like Kuro5hin...the anti-RIAA, anti-"M$", anti-capitalism spiel we hear all the time really gets on my nerves. Cool tech news, please? No more self-righteous movements and agendas.

Oh, I forgot, OSDN owns Slashdot so it's in their best interests to own a site claiming to be news,that posts articles derogatory toward competitors and such...

Interesting

[Slugworth01]

Kill a motorcyclist, get 100 days in the county jail, and get work release after 30 days.

Record a movie, get up to a year in prison.

This sends AWESOM-O into CPU overload, as it does not compute.

As usual, slashdotters missing the bigger picture.

[ph4s3]

Wow. I can't believe how many "don't take a camera into a theatre" posts there have been. It seems most people are, yet again, missing the point.

Several things here warrant serious attention...

1. Criminalization of acts covered by civil law
   • Last I checked, violating copyright was a civil issue. This law seeks to make a criminal case out of a clearly civil case.
   • It also acts as criminalizing the 'contract' that you enter into with a theatre, namely not bringing in outside food/drink or recording/flash devices. If one part is now criminal, why not the other?
   • The theatre has every right to make its own rules and kick people out violating them, but that is a distinctly civil law/contractual issue.
   • Why in the hell are we granting the power of the state, i.e. use of force, search and seizure, to movie theatres and studios? Talk about jack booted thugs.
2. posession of a recording device != copyright infringement
   • Just because I have a camera with me does not mean I am violating copyright. Perhaps I had it earlier in the day, couldn't get home, and won't leave it in the parking lot to get stolen. That should be my perogative, at the discression of the theatre if they authorize it.
   • Even if being used, that still doesn't mean I'm violating copyright, i.e. I'm recording an audience's reaction to a film or something. This law doesn't make provisions for that case, which would normally be granted by the movie theatre. Even if the theatre says it is okay, the law is still being broken.
   • If not true, then everyone that ever bought an optical drive for their PC should be arrested under similar laws for the potential of violating copyright law. This law is no different than outlawing posession of VCRs, DVRs, CD-R/W, DVD-R/W due to their potential use.
3. Ignoring real piracy sources.
   • The last time I looked, screeners where the most common dupes out there, not camcorder versions of the movies.
   • Why is the industry criminalizing what some schmuck does in a theatre that doesn't lead to wide spread piracy?
   • Why is the industry ignoring the real sources such as screener copies and digital copies of the reels that go out to the theatres?
   • There is no possible way you can convince me that the DVD quality copies with liner notes available on the streets of Hong Kong one day after the movie's release are from a camcorder of some guy in LA. How ridiculous.

Personally I couldn't care less about what goes on in theatres. My wife and I haven't been to the movies but maybe once or twice in the last six months since we started using NetFlix (which rules, by the way). However, this law and it's enforcement seems like just another encroachment on individual freedom instead of the policing and punishment of actual illegal criminal or civil activity. I mean, why do the hard job of policing the activity, when you can make the tool illegal and make your job 100 times easier.

Re:saw this first hand

[SmackCrackandPot]

and even turned away kids with cameras in their cell phones

Would a cell phone have enough juice to record and transmit 90 minutes worth of video? Even if it did, the call charge would probably be more than the cost of buying the DVD when it came out. And the resolution is going to be rather low, not forgetting the reduction in frame rate, plus the loss of stereo let alone Dolby surround sound.

Re:As usual, slashdotters missing the bigger pictu

[ph4s3]

D'oh! I forgot to mention the most important part...

1. • The California law makes posession of a recording device in a theatre a criminal offense, as opposed to using it to violate copyright.

Re:No you idiot you have it backwards.

[anachattak]

First of all: if you're in a public place (read: movie theater), it's reasonable to expect that somebody could be looking at you. It could be the guy sitting in front of you, it could be the girl sitting behind you, or it could be the usher with night-vision goggles. Worried that people might see what illegal acts you commit in public? Stay home and break the law in privacy. Courts understand certain things, such as bathrooms and public telephones, as places and objects where people have an expectation of privacy. But just because you're in a dark room, I doubt that a court will be sympathetic to your argument that you expected privacy "because the lights were off."

Now I'm no friend of the MPAA (the real Great Satan), but I don't have a problem with them keeping camcorders out of movie theaters. It's not unreasonable on their part. Do what I do: stop seeing movies in the theaters. I personally don't care to sit with a hundred total strangers, listening to them cough, sneeze and talk on their cell phones for two hours at a personal cost of $12.00+ per film.

Will this cut down on bootlegs? Just of new releases, and then maybe not that, depending on the enforcement of rules in other parts of the world (yay SE Asian pirates). If Jack Valenti wants to arrest moviegoers for piracy: be my guest. I think it's fair to say that person won't be filling a theater seat for some time to come.

Language Evolves, Matey

[RobotRunAmok]

Please don't use the same word to refer to robbery and murder on the high seas, and copyright violation. It's not just inaccurate, it's stupid.

Meh. Less inaccurate and stupid by the month. The phrase "pirating" meaning "to copy and/or distribute digital media without the consent of the copyright holder" is pervasive throughout all the media and academia. It's way past acceptance in the popular vernacular as well (L337 H4XXorzz who insist upon using "cracker" in lieu of "hacker," or "virii" instead of "viruses" are, happily, not consulted by the popular vernacularists). I'd say that the peg-legged fellers with the parrots on their shoulders will "officially" become joined at the llinguistic hip with their warez-dealing juvenile offender cousins in the OED imminently.

We may not like it, we may even view it as a victory by the "Evil Corporate PR Suit Machine," but language evolves, and no amount if kicking, screaming, or name-calling changes that.

The MPAA is right this time

[kitzilla]

The lesson is clear: stay out of movie theaters and you won't get arrested.

Actually, the message is "keep your camcorder out of movie theatres and you won't be arrested." It's still okay to go to the movies and get what you paid for: watching a show. Taping it, taking it home and making it available for download, or selling bootleg copies ain't part of the ticket price. Period.

Why do people think blatant piracy is acceptable? Stuff like this makes it easier for corporations to over-reach their authority and impede legitimate activities (such as ripping your own CDs to mp3).

Minor edit.

[Morologous]

[edit]
The lesson is clear: stay out of movie theaters while using video cameras and you won't get arrested
[/edit]

The matter of concern here isn't that the individual got in trouble for recording a movie in the theater, it's that he got arrested for what is generally a civil matter (copyright infringement). If the police had come and thrown him out and taken away his video tape/media this probably wouldn't have been news. But they booked him. That's news.

There's only one problem with that attitude

[HangingChad]

Actually, there are a lot of problems with that dogmatic, simple-minded mentality, but I'll try to keep it easy and just focus one obvious point: With the increasing burden of regulation there are more and more rules to break. Between Congress, state legislatures, county and cities we're being taxed and regulated to death and having more of our behavior legally restricted. Which tends to be more of a burden on people who care about obeying the laws than those who don't.

I think the real question is should we be spending legal and criminal resources on people taking camcorders into a theater? The same with burdening the legal system with two consenting adults having sex in the car? Unless the car happens to be parked on a grade school playground during recess, I'd say no to both of those.

Personally, I'd rather see police and legal resources being directed against the big problems like violent crime, identity theft, burglary and terrorism, not busting kids with camcorders at the movies. There are civil courts for that and in most cases simply confiscating their equipment would be punishment enough.

But I'm really glad life is so simple in your world, where you apparently have an infinite amount of resources to put people in jail and manage the criminal justice system. Because in mine we're going broke putting people in jail for stupid shit like this and our honest citizens are laboring under an increasing weight of legislation directed at nit-picky bullshit.

I'm not sure which is more frightening: Your attiude, or the +5 insightful mod it got?

Re:The contract

[necrognome]

GOOD FOR DATE AND SHOWTIME LISTED ONLY.
The management reserves the right to refuse admission on this ticket by refunding purchase price. Management also reserves the right to designate where the holder of this ticket shall be seated.

The fine print on the back of my movie stub seems to back up the grandparent post's point that a movie ticket lets you sit in a seat for the duration (+ buffer time) of the performance, space and whatnot permitting. Note that there's no signature line or text notifying me that by purchasing said ticket, I have agreed to a contract/license.

Re:I guess the lesson isn't that clear after all..

[MartinG]

fraud is more like stealing because if I defraud someone, I gain what someone else loses. When copyright is violated, I gain, but the copyright holders don't lose anything.

It's true that they potentially could have gained if I had paid instead of infringing copyright, and so it could be viewed as a lost sale.

However, that assumes that if I didn't infringe I would still want a copy of the work enough to pay for it.

The RIAA and MPAA etc want you to think like that, but the reality is that (as an example) of all the people downloading mp3s and not paying for them, there are huge numbers of people who, if they had no free of charge access to the music would not have bought most of it anyway. They are by far the majority IMO. It's in that majority of cases where nothing is "lost" by the copyright holder and so that's why its nothing like stealing.

As for films and "screener" filming, I don't think there are any reliable figures that convince me either way yet. I can't imagine someone watching the film at home instead of going to the cinema (in the same way that DVDs and home video don't reduce cinema going)
Perhaps it could hit DVD sales instead but then maybe they should release the DVDs sooner.

On the murder comparison, I dont think thats stealing a life either. Its destroying one. If i were to do that to some music then by analogy nobody would have a copy of it any more including the copyright holders.

Damn Straight...

[virg_mattes]

...and damn wrong. You may think that you can only subject yourself to a contract by signing something, but that's just not how contracts work. Your ticket contract isn't "implied" just because you didn't sign anything or read the back of your ticket (or the printed contract on the wall of the box office). It's still legally valid, whether you like it or not. The ticket is a contract, not a "right to occupy the room". Sure, you can do other things than watch the movie, but if you were right, they could just leave the lights up and not run the movie, and you'd have no right to ask for your money back, since they didn't lock you out of the theater.

Sorry, but your indignation, based on your lack of understanding of how contracts work, does not invalidate the contract you enter with a theater house. You can "forget it", but then don't expect them to forget it too.

Virg

Missing the point

[theantix]

I'm more concerned about them busting people for "outside food." I mean really, I could get a steak dinner for the price of their popcorn and a drink!

As everyone and their dog knows, the theatres make most of their money on food and drink sales. Many people take this as a sign they should whinge and complain about the greedy theatre companies, but that's missing the point. The point is, the cost of the ticket is actually a good deal because by charging exhorbatent prices for popcorn they can get money from people with more disposable income while still allowing people with less disposable income to see the movie.

See the point now? If you don't like wasting money you win, because you are paying less than you would if similar profit margins were applied to the ticket prices and the concessions. If you don't mind paying $5 for popcorn, you can and the theatre stays in business as a result. The only loss to regular folk is that they don't get cheap food while they watch an underpriced ticket -- I say tough beans because you're getting a pretty good deal as it is.

Re:Missing the point

[Randseed]

The point is, the cost of the ticket is actually a good deal because by charging exhorbatent prices for popcorn they can get money from people with more disposable income while still allowing people with less disposable income to see the movie.

That's exactly it. I mean, yeesh. If you don't want to buy the popcorn, eat your steak dinner before the theatre. That's what I do. Well, unless I don't want to look cheap to a date. :)

Re:Missing the point

[amaiman]

$9 + having to sit through up to ten commercials before the movie starts is not exactly an "underpriced" ticket. The theaters are getting plenty.

They have the right to charge whatever they want, though, as long as the people will pay it. I personally aim for the daytime shows, or go to theatres where they don't show as many ads.