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.
In Nazi Germany, gassign Jews was legal.
Damn it, man, nobody's stolen anything here! Stop undermining your own statements with this mis-conception.
What if, one day in the near future, I get a cybernetic eye implant, that *also* happens to records everything I see... and I go see a movie? Will I be persecuted for a *crime* just for trying to watch a movie? Before a crime has actually even been committed? (ie, before I illegally distributed a copy of somebody else's work?)
A no-camcorder "law" is absurd, and should be stricken.
Also - lay off the editors, and the readers. While I'm sure there's the leech or two or 100 on slashdot, I would expect that most people respect copyrights on principle. What we object to is *criminal* prosecution for what should be civil offenses, ever-expanding restrictions on fair-use, and idiots who say "theft" when they mean "copyright infringement"
-ZOD-
the lesson is not "stay out of banks", but "don't rob banks"
You don't mind metal detectors at the movie theater? Thanks but no thanks. I deal with it at the airport 'cause sometimes I have to fly. I deal with it at government buildings because sometimes I have to deal with the government. I won't deal with it at the movies because I don't have to see them. I'm not going to take the swiss army knife off my keychain just so I don't get hassled while going into a theater. I don't know about you, but I generally don't go to a theater where I need to be protected from people packing heat.
No, the lesson, at least for me, is certainly "don't go to movie theaters anymore".
Night vision goggles use either near infrared, or phosphor amplification, right?
Can't do much about the phosphor amplification, so we'll just discount those and concentrate on the near infrared.
So what you do is put a bunch of high-intensity near infrared LED's and a battery pack together and shine back at them.
These will not disturb anyone else in the theatre because the light output is invisible to the naked eye.
If you want to be more creative, you can arrange the LED's into a marquee that reads, "F*** the MPAA"
As a bonus, you can also do this outside of the theatre. Security cameras are going to be mostly based on CCD's, which will pick up the near infrared to some extent. Don't believe me? Point a remote control at your digital camera and push a button on the remote while watching the viewfinder of the camera.
www.wavefront-av.com
What exactly is wrong with the MPAA not wanting people to film movies?
Because, while I have no doubt that they might find it in their best interests to not want such things to happen, that doesn't mean that strong, expansive copyrights are in everyone's best interests. The MPAA argument is basically the old 'what's good for General Motors is good for the country' routine, but that's not necessarily so.
It is entirely within the realm of possibility that at least some activities currently considered to be infringing are, in fact, beneficial to society as a whole.
[It is] immoral to a degree.
No, not really. Copyright, it seems to me, is pretty much amoral. Generally, it's neither morally good or bad to establish or to infringe copyrights. This isn't unusual; there's nothing immoral about jaywalking, typical parking or moving violations, zoning laws, etc. Not all laws are based in morality.
If morality is involved in any degree, I would say that morals are typically in favor of those that create, preserve, and disseminate knowledge, whether legally or illegally.
-- 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.