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.
From this day forward, I shall refer to Jack Valenti as "Motion Picture Ass Head". Thank you, sam0ht.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
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.
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
The thought of spending a year in "Le Hotel Cornhole" over The Alamo?! HA aha ahaha... man that's too funny.
Trolling is a art,
I bet the projectionist was making his own copy of the film and didnt want competition!
Projectionist = Centropy asshat customer = FTF
'The MPAA has established a nationwide telephone hotline for cinema employees to report violations'
1-800-88G-REED
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?
Soon, copied films will be as rare as students lighting up a joint after their exams"
....
Because we all know that the war on drugs has completely eradicated the evil scourge that is marijuana use
Lol.
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.
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?
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
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.
The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
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.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Soon, copied films will be as rare as students lighting up a joint after their exams.
Really? That prevalent? The rest of the article makes it sound like it's going to become quite rare.
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.
Who said Freedom was Fair?
So would they mind if you brought a massive flashlight with you?
That way when the fools with the night vision are peeping around, just turn on the flashlight quickly and listen for the scream.
Although, if they had metal detectors, that would foil my evil plan.
Der Tod ist der einzige Weg hier raus!
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...
This should eliminate a lot of the poor quality copies.
er... no. Let's try:
Welcome to Slashdot, would Sir like a knee-jerk reaction?
"This is your life, and it's ending one second at a time."
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.
Web Hosting Reviews
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.
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.
You haven't been to my dorm room!
When you get to hell -- tell 'em Itchy sent ya!
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?
"Motion Picture Ass. Head Jack Valenti said he hoped it would 'send a clear signal such crimes will not be tolerated'."
Suppose it's better than being an asshat.
Next time the camcorderist should sit in the upper right or upper left part, that way he can't be seen.
Somehow, I just don't see these crappy video CD and DivX distributions of zero day movies a threat to their profits. Sure, bored kids with no money might sit at home wasting hours downloading them but anyone with income to afford the DVD copy will most likely buy it.
Wasn't it Europe where the movie industry wanted to stop text messaging because people were messaging each other and giving advice as to which movies sucked, which supposidly undermined the advertising campaign that overhypes crap?
Just like software piracy, some 14 year old running 3dStudio Max on mom's PC is not a loss in profits.
Southeastern Virginia REPRESENT!
They should have arrested him for his taste in movies alone. The Alamo? ~shiver~
--I'm not talking about dance lessons. I'm talking about putting a brick through the other guy's windshield.-
I run a college movie group that sometimes does sneak previews of upcoming films. I was blown away when I heard that for our most recent preview (Gothika, total crap btw) they wanted to bring in night vision goggles. They wound up basically frisking everyone that came in too, and even turned away kids with cameras in their cell phones. The people who got in didn't actually seem to mind the search that much, they kind of understood. Nonetheless, it was the first time we had a major external security force at one of our screenings.
If the 'War on Copyright Violation' is ultimately as successful as the 'War on Drugs', I may never have to pay for a piece of copyrighted material ever again.
I think the real reason the projectionist wanted the night vision goggles is to watch people getting it on.
From the BBC piece...
Mr Joun was arrested after another audience member complained about a red light on a camcorder at the Pacific Theatre at the Grove.
Just how much hacking is needed to take the red light out of a consumer camcorder? He would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for that LED.
At a time when all goverment agencies are complaining that many of the 9/11 leads were not followed due to the fact that they had too much on their plate, it is great to see that the lessons have been learned.
Focus the attention of the police on the odd moviegoer that may have a videocamera, that is surely to do us all a great deal of good.
Since according to the studios, their very existence is on the line, next time a national tragedy occurs, we will be sad but glad to know that at least the studios were and saved and we will be able to go to the movies and realize the redeeming qualities of the Holywood crapola of the day.
Thanks. It's nice to see that we have the pulse of the times.
Pragmatism as an ideology is not particularly pragmatic in the long term. Keep it in mind when you dismiss Free Software
The lesson is clear: stay out of movie theaters and you won't get arrested.
I would bet that the number of people arrested each year outside of movie theaters is much greater than the number arrested inside of them. gheesh.
...that it would be cheaper for the cinemas to use Video Cameras with NightVision as oppossed to goggles...
Profit increase by prosecuting law/Cost of prosecuting law = Fiscal benefit of law
I would love to see if the MPAA/RIAA groups profit off of these laws, or if the morons just make fools of themselves.
In God we trust, all others require data.
And I have been calling Jack Valenti a shit head the whole time... I stand corrected.
Modest doubt is called the beacon of the wise - William Shakespeare
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
------- "From bored to fanboy in 3.8 asian girls" ----------
Projectionists Using Night Vision Goggles in Theaters
For a second there I thought there was a night vision version of google. I imagined an all red display that could be used by stargazers.
-Colin
Stay out of theaters...don't buy CD's...don't listen to corporate radio...don't eat fast food...don't drive SUVs...don't wear Nike...don't eat Martha Stewart...don't drink StarBucks...don't use Windows...don't use Macs...don't use Sony...don't drink Budwieser...don't watch The Simpsons...
I drank what? -- Socrates
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.
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
You couldn't pay me 7 dollars to watch a whole movie taped in a theater with a camecorder. No thanks.
Seems like a lot of money spent to prevent something that nobody wants to watch anyway. The real problem is the people who work at the theater and the people who copy DVD screeners or pre-release copies.
first they came for the people smuggling food into the theatres, but I didnt say anything because I wasnt a theatre food smuggler...
then they came for the cellular phone users, but I didnt say anything because I dont use a cellphone while watching movies at the theatre...
then they came for the camcorder users, but I didnt say anything because I didnt tape movies at the theatre...
when they came for me I didnt say anything, I just decided to spend my money elsewhere.
"Motion Picture Ass Head Jack Valenti"
maybe that's why so much crap comes out of his mouth.
Paul Rubens will soon have a lot of company in the pork-pull theatre gallery. Imagine what the projectionist will see at American Pie Three.
My other sig is drunk.
To err is human. To arr is pirate.
across the country, movie theater projectionists are being arrested for wanking off in projection booth while using night vision goggles to watch high school couples copulate in back row.
Lord I hate our government here in Cali. First they want to raise taxes on us in spite of the fact that we're already the most heavily taxed state in the lower 48. Then they pass laws mandating JAIL TIME for the petty crime of recording a movie with a video camera?
Nope, the government isn't bound by any special interests here...sheesh. I think I'd better get out before criticising the gov't in a public forum carries a death sentence!
Clever idea about the night vision goggles, though...
The message is don't videotape a movie playing in the theater. I mean really, is *this* a problem for you?
Paul Lenhart writes words!
I love movies of all kinds but I seldom go to theaters. It's not the guys with the video cameras that bother me (Is this REALLY so common?) but the morons with cell phones, the people who talk back to the screen (I checked and turns out the actors actually CANNOT hear the audience, unlike a stage play), and the $9 to $12/ticket price combined with $4 paper cups of soda and "no outside food permitted" rules.
Screw that. I miss watching good movies on big screens. On the other hand, indie films and film festivals are (a) squarely outside the MPAA's space; (b) less expensive; (c) attended by people who respect the art and keep their phones put away, so that's where I spend my film dollars.
Big deal, put the guy in jail. The Alamo has already been recorded and upload. Hell, the high quality screener has even been leaked.
Their attempts at stoping piracy are pretty lame, if you ask me.
Any time I read a story like this, it makes me want to download more movies than I already do. Any time I see one of those annoying anti-piracy commercials, "If you pirate movies, how am I supposed to buy $15 million dollar houses," I feel the same way. It's funny how they think this teaches people, but it only encourages them to do it more.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
And just think of all the Pee Wee Hermans out there who will avoid doing nasty-assed things in public, now that they know they could be seen and arrested. I bet quite a few more people engauge in heavy sexual activity in theatres than we'd suspect.
DVDs aren't that expensive anymore... it's worth it to buy a movie rather than even rent one, if you know it's a good film. Plus you avoid late fees (and I've paid likely thousands of dollars in those over the years!!!)
I strongly disagree with the MPAA and RIAA's tactics in general, but I do believe that movies recorded in theatres should be stopped because they are low quality!!
The house lights come on, WHOOP WHOOP WHOOP the klaxon howls. "UNAUTHORIZED BAG OF SKITTLES DETECTED IN ISLE 7! GUARDS, SECURE!" is heard over a PA speaker with a narrow range of fidelity. Troopers hustle down the isles and rip some kid out of his seat, skittles briefly rain down on nearby customers. Kid is hustled away, movie starts back up and house lights go down.
Southeastern Virginia REPRESENT!
I don't know if the analogy to drug use is a good one. I know a lot of people smoking up before AND after exams... Needless to say, I hope they're more successful with preventing video piracy, because that's actually bad.
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?
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Hide your camcorder in your tub of popcorn and you won't get arrested!
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).
All you have to do is wait until the film is released in the UK. Our government couldn't even afford to issues enough night-vision goggles to our troops invading Iraq, never mind cinema projectionists.
the only problem left is making sure that filems are released in the UK at the same time as the US.
Did I read this correctly?
> Motion Picture Ass. Head Jack Valenti
Ass Head, eh? Nice one!
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.
I don't necessarily think that this can compare with the War on Drugs. This MPAA "War" doesn't seem to rely on the police other than for arresting and prosecuting those ratted out by private sector employees (probably subidized/rewarded by the MPAA). Meanwhile the War on Drugs is ineffectively spending millions of taxpayer dollars patrolling the borders, criminalizing users of soft drugs and not really solving the root causes of Drugs and Drug Abuse in America.
I think the goggles are so that they can watch teenagers making out...
${YEAR+1} is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop!
You know, for a moment there I thought they were saying that pirated movies were going to become less common. Glad to know this copyright stuff works as well as the war on drugs does.
Say I'm a tourist (where doesn't really matter) and decide to take a 2 hour break from walking around and entertain myself by taking in a movie. Out of mistrust for my fellow man, I take my possessions inside, instead of leaving them in the lobby. As a tourist, I happen to have a video camera. Maybe I set it on the armrest beside me so I can keep a firm grasp on it and out of a thief's hands.
Would a projectionist have a duty to interrupt the movie and ask me why my camera is there? A duty to question my answer? Say the fuzz shows up and decides to do the questioning for the projectionist, who is at fault for the false accusation? Or am I resonably considered guilty for merely having a camera?
How dare they tell me I can't videotape a movie I PAID MONEY TO SEE! I want to make a copy of it, I paid for the movie after all.
Also, how dare they say I can't make a copy of my DVD. I want to make a copy of it to....um....well, I don't really know why I would make a copy of something that cost 14 bucks and doesn't really degrade from repeated viewing....but still, it's MY RIGHT to make as many copies as I want...doesn't matter that I really have no use for a copy.
Wait, if I make a copy of a dvd I OWN, I should be able to decide how I want those copies of that dvd that I OWN to be distributed. If I want to make 1000 copies of a dvd I OWN (get the picture, I bought and paid for the dvd), then I should be able to sell those 1000 copies...after all I OWN the original dvd!
I also think all movies should be free for anyone and everyone...no matter what. So what they spent millions of dollars making them, screw them! How dare they tell me I have to pay to see them! I thought this was a free country!!!!
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
But what about the other problems caused by theatres using night vision equipment? Although I never have illegally taped a movie, now I cannot ever go to a movie with either Paul Ruebens or Alanis Morissette.
> The lesson is clear: stay out of movie theaters and you won't get arrested.
No it's the MPAA, and they are a wing of the RIAA, so their goal is to deter business. You read the statement correctly...
The other day I was at IMAX watching the Nascar flick (most excellent, especially for those who my not understand the sport - turned my GF into a nascar fan instantly) - I took a number of still photos...
Anyone know if this could land a nice guy like me in jail?
>>rhyder
What's funny to me is that I was under the impression that some of the biggest offenders were the projectionists. I have several friends who do/have done that job and they frequently brought home high quality copies of films. They got perfect angles to the screen from their location and it was easy for them to hide the cams.
Catching some luser with a hand held cam should be a hell of a lot easier than using NV goggles. If someone is dumb enough to use a cam, they probably left the autofocus on. Anyone that has ever pointed a camera at a another camera with autofocus would see a big red dot flashing in the view finder. So a $250 handheld would have spotted this guy just as easy. Better yet, put a bunch of IR lights behind the screen, and ruin the ability to use a camcorder.
Post: Sigged, for your pleasure.
The point here is sure it's copyright violation (I'm not sure if illegal is the pure right word here). BUT it's an example of people going overboard in law enforcement efforts.
I guess so long as no public funds are used to help them, more power to them. But I'd personally rather not have the cops/FBI wasting their time arresting people with video cameras and 12 year olds with kazaa when they could be preventing real crimes.
In Medieval Europe, denigrating certain symbols was a capital offense(i.e. stuff like throwing mud at a statue of the Virgin Mary during a religious parade could get you death by slow torture-and the only way to get a quicker death was to kiss a cross or something similar).
Hollywood seems to have taken on the role of the Vatican. The US has all kinds of pressing crime problems-and somehow, the MPAA manages to get their concerns at the top of the heap--and avoid jurisdictional issues between the states and the feds.
- Jack Valenti is indeed an Ass Head, and the MPAA sucks
- movie bootleggers are criminal asshats who also suck
- copyright infringement is not theft
Theft means directly taking something that isn't yours and depriving the owner of it. Camcorder guys do not prevent the theater from showing the movie, nor do they prevent fellow moviegoers from seeing it.To anyone who says "illegal copying == theft", I say "you are murdering both language and law." :p
Why has it become popular to complain about anti-drug efforts? Is there a large contingent of people in this country who resent that the government doesn't make it easy for them and others to become loser druggies dragging down the rest of society?
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
I gotta tell you, this makes me think twice before going to the theatres, as if the 9$/person and intimate contact with the greater unwashed didn't give me pause before. But its like chasing CD "pirates"; makes me not want to buy CDs. If CD sales are down, perhaps its because of gestapo tactics, so if/when movie takes drop, I guess we will have confirmation.
Funny when the Haves complain to the HaveNots about how their activities are causing them pain. Its such a hollow argument. And portrays the entire "industry" in the same light. One of these days the artists will realize that their representative bodies are ruining their craft and take it back. Or they will get outsourced/offshored.
Enjoy your dope.
andy
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
From now on everyone should wear caps with a IR emitters on the button.
In the UK it isn't illegal to own, buy or import cannabis seeds.
It's illegal to germninate the seeds and grow or tend the plants though.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Projectionists Using Night Vision Goggles in Theaters
My brain is engrained. I cannot see any word remotely similar to google and read it as anything other than that.
I did think it odd that projectionists were using a new google invention that allowed night vision, but, heck, knowing google beta stuff, I wasn't surprised....
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
What wrong with kids nowadays. Back in my day, we used to light up BEFORE the exam.
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.
-All that is gold does not glitter - Tolkien
www.ra
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
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 --
lol i hope im not the only one who finds this abbreviation funny...
Just a quick gedanken ... what will happen when/if memorised images can be retrieved from the brain (a la a whole bunch of movies / scifi books) ... how will such copying be controlled then?
To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
copyrighted works are not property.
The lesson is clear: stay out of movie theaters and you won't get arrested.
It'll also increase your life expectancy.
But not that much.
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
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.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
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.
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
Soon, copied films will be as rare as students lighting up a joint after their exams.
Wow, obviously they didn't goto my high school.
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!
The message is clear. No more making out in movie theatres. You're being watched, and may get carted off to jail.
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
So, will this make any difference what so ever?
The lesson is clear: stay out of movie theaters and you won't get arrested.
The real lesson is, 99% of Hollywood-spawned movies are sugar coated crap anyway, so save yourself 10-20 bucks and retain the 2 hours you would wish you could have back after seeing "The Alamo".
They call me the working man. I guess that's what I am.
WTF is that supposed to mean? You should have put: "The lesson is clear: break the law and you will go to jail."
I'm tired of all of this petty whining BS. Yes, the MPAA can suck at times, but this is the law. Oh wait, I forgot. This is America - no one resposible for their own actions. I suppose it's the usher's fault or the policeman's fault that someone went to jail.
Get a clue.
-Nick
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
The lesson is clear: stay out of movie theaters and you won't get arrested.
I can't wait for the day that you can moderate the little editorials. Michael would never get to post a story again.
The lesson is more like: don't break the fucking law and you won't get arrested.
Whats next? Now that we have gmail, this could be their next big thing.
Authorities have issued an arrest warrant for this man. : )
You're wrong. Copyright infringement is theft. Just because YOU don't believe that copyrights should be enforced, doesn't mean that it's not theft.
slightly offtopic, but have any of you guys seen the hilarious Hong Kong comedy/horror Bio Zombie? (www.imdb.com/title/tt0277605/)
The movie starts just like someone is taping it with a camcorder, with people passing in front of the camera, and people shushing, telling others to stop smoking, etc.
Proof that camcordering movies is seeping into pop culture.
I wouldnt be surprised if at some point some hollywood movie uses such a reference.
Soon, copied films will be as rare as students lighting up a joint after their exams.
An average Brit will spend 2000 GBP on dope over their lifetime!
I thought he was trying to create a google bomb. In fact, it's such a good idea, that I think I'll help him. Jack Valenti is a Motion Picture Ass Head.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
copyright infringement is not theft
But bringing a movie camera into the theatre is, at least in CA.
I wasn't clear enough in my comment. I was talking about general theft, not the movie itself.
That arresting your clients is not a productive tactic.
No-one argues about the rights and wrongs of copying movies like this. However the story is right on wrt:
- the likely success of this strategy, which is zero
- the value of jail sentences for such a crime, which is highly debatable
Indeed, like the war on drugs, the war on terror, the war on poverty, and so many other "wars", this is likely to turn into a self-justifying game of power in which the "good guys" get to run riot with technology and funds, the "bad guys" stay one step ahead because they are, after all, in it for the money, and the general public is totally ignored if not actively abused.
Projectionists with night goggles? Crooks will use smaller and less visible cameras. Cinemas install permanent video recording of the public? Crooks will use button hole recorders. Cinemas do stop/search at entry? crooks will use eye-glass recorders. Cinemas force the public to go through security barriers?
The key argument here is whether the strategy can work, and clearly it can't.
There is a better way to stop people making poor copies of movies in cinemas: provide high-quality digital downloads for $4.95, make cinemas more fun to visit (and cheaper!), and make the films so good that people want to buy the DVDs for their collections.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
"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!
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
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.
Hey, Jack: Fuck you. If you want to start using my public resources to prosecute your insanity, I want to start fucking prorating my taxes with you.
These people are off their fucking rockers! Since when did it become part of the common interest to send copyright violators (when they pick someone up in the theatre with a scabbard, an eyepatch and a goddamn parrot on their shoulder, I'll call them pirates) "to jail for a long time".
Fucking insanity...
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
... is that the projectionist was using the night vision googles to spy on the 16 year olds groping in the back 2 rows.
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
wait, under the anti-camcorder law, doesn't it specify any and all devices that digitize scenery? That would include nvg's.
And isn't there some sort of reasonable expectation of privacy in a dark theater? (aka one of the traditional make-out places) If that's true, the projectionist violated the anti-voyeur laws in California and probably some Federal survelliance laws.
Anyways, looks like there's gonna be a market for portable IR light sources (as jammers).
Summary: Camcorder copies are not a risk, because movie goers go more for the experience than the movie itself. If they only wanted to see the movie, they could easily wait to rent the DVD.
I don't understand why they're even bothering, really. The people who download the camcorder versions of the films either do so because
1)They can't afford to see the film right now / can't go to (underage) the film, yet want to see it just so they know what their friends / coworkers are talking about (Like, for example, I watch the Chappelle Show even though I hate most of it, just because my friends constantly quote it and I'm tired of not having the full picture of what they're talking about).
2) They think the movie as a whole will be trash, but it appeals to them in some way (like a funny preview, or a favorite actor is in it, or some bimbo actress they find attractive has a skin scene in it) and they want to see it yet still want to "vote with their dollars" so they don't give the Industry money for this type of film to convince them to make more.
3) "Try before they buy" They've been burned one too many times by a good preview, but shitty movie, and want to check it out before they give the industry money for tricking them with their marketing and boring the hell out of them for two hours.
Remember, the movie industry felt threatened by TV years ago and adopted several new techniques to keep movies viable. Many of these techniques still apply for why people would rather see a movie than wait for the DVD for movies they really want to see. They go almost more for the experience of the HUGE screens, widescreen, surround sound, etc. You can't get that with a shitty camcorder recorded at 4:3 aspect ratio which catches all the coughs and cell phone calls better than the in-movie sound, and has to be blasted through your speakers to make sense of what the hell the actors are saying, etc.
And even if they don't go to the movie after seeing it, there's still a REALLY good chance that if they liked the movie they will buy it when it comes out on DVD, which is more money for the execs anyway. Not to mention that in the mean time they'll be able to talk up the film to people who are more likely to see the film (which if he saw it earlier they could catch it in theaters, as opposed to lesser revenue from renting).
DVD Screeners are a much bigger threat, but mostly because it's likely to cannibalize future DVD sales.
Creator of the popular web game Proximity
The lesson really is "stay out of movie theaters" if they are going to treat you like a criminal.
The theater in my little university town was in financial trouble (they were paying too much rent), and then 9/11 came along, and they saw $$. All of the sudden, you couldn't bring in backpacks because of "security". This is a town I specifically moved to because I could walk to where I wanted to go -- and that often involved my backpack. (remember, this is a college town). It's pretty funny that they were trying to pass off their fear that someone might bring in outside food as a more justifyable fear that someone might blow up the place. People would be safer if the theater didn't pile their trash up against the emergency exit doors.
Anyway, the place was hostile to customers. I took my business down the block where they allowed backpacks. And I bought a lot of their popcorn.
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
The point is not that catching these people is bad - they broke the law, they got caught. That's all fine and good.
The problem is:
#1 - the use of night vision goggles, WITHOUT THE POSTING OF A WARNING TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY MIGHT BE USED, is likely an illegal search, bringing some form of liability on the theater for doing so. (IANAL)
#2 - the punishment greatly exceeds the crime. We're talking about throwing someone into jail. Granted they were copying movies, but even so, some form of monetary fine ought to be the end of it.
Let's face it folks, when the penalty for copying one singular MP3 is more jail time than you'd get for burning a dog or cat alive, the law is seriously fucked up. And we have Motion Picture Ass Head Jack Valenti to thank for it.
Just remember, your VCR is the equivalent of the Boston Strangler, too.
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.
Whoever modded this as flamebait might want to learn about the concept of irony...
On the other hand, it's not that far fetched! Last year the US House of Representatives Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property held a hearing into International Copyright Piracy: A Growing Problem With Links To Organized Crime And Terrorism. In the 50s it was communists. These days it's people taking camcorders into cinemas who are the enemy.
I can see it now. In the "War on Copyright Piracy" we'll be enlisting NSA ninjas to patrol our nation's theater's with night vision to catch videocam "terrorists."
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
Are we expected to turn off this recording device at the whims of "copyright holders"? "Oops, the radio is playing a song, gotta click this off." "Oops, someone talking in the room hasn't signed a form to let me record this, gotta click this off."
Previous Slashdot articles have discussed wearable cameras that record our day in snapshots, so it's not hard to extrapolate that out a bit.
Don't we have a right to remember what we experience? Is it a crime to present that experience to others? Give them those memories?
Interesting times ahead of us my friends.
If you agree with any of this, feel free to repost it in the future.
(1) I don't personally believe in copying CDs illegaly-- but I think we should
avoid using unkind words like "piracy" to describe those that do -- instead, we
should describe it as an "infringement", much like a parking infringement.
(2) I don't believe in the record companies emotively abusing the word "theft",
but I do believe in emotively abusing words like "information" and "sharing".
(3) I believe that piracy is driven by "overpriced CDs" even though CDs have
dropped in price over the years.
(4) I believe that piracy is driven by overly long copyright duration, even
though most pirated works are recent releases.
(5) I believe that illegitimately downloading music is giving the author "free
advertising". I don't buy any of the music I download, of course -- but lots of
other people probably do.
(6) I believe that ripping off the artists is wrong. The record companies
always rip off the artists. Artists support P2P, except the ones that don't
(like Metallica), and they don't agree with me, hence they're greedy or their
opinion doesn't count or something.
(7) I believe that selling CDs is not a business model, but giving away things
for free on the internet is.
(8) I believe that artists should be compensated for their work -- preferably
by someone else. I mean, they can sell concert tickets (which someone else can
buy) or sell t-shirts (to someone else) or something. As long as someone else
subsidises my free ride, I'm coooooool with it.
(9) I believe in capitalism but only support music business models which
involve giving away the fruits of ones labor for free.
(10) I believe that copying someone elses music, and redistributing it to
my 1,000,000 "best friends" on the internet is sharing. Music is made for
sharing. It's my right.
(11) I believe that record companies cracking down on piracy is "greed", but
a mob demanding free entertainment is not.
(12) I believe that it's not really "piracy" unless you charge money for it,
because, receiving money is wrong, but taking a free ride is fine.
(13) I believe that disallowing copying and redistributing music over Napster
is the same as humming my favourite song in public. Because when I hum my
favourite song in public, everyone likes it so much that they run home, get
out their tape recorders and once they've got a recording of it, they aren't
interested in hearing the original any more.
(14) I believe that when illegal behaviour destroys a business, it's "free
enterprise at work".
What I find amusing is that the pirates seem unable or unwilling to distinguish between creative activity and brainless copying.
Since a lot of the people here are GPL/OSS advocates: the "OSS way" applied to
this domain is to learn how to play an instrument. Or how to sing or whatever.
Then get together with a bunch of other people who can also play music, and
make some noise.
One of the unfortunate things that has happened to the OSS movement is that a
lot of the loudmouth advocates for it don't understand what it's really about.
They view it primarily as a means to get free stuff, and then they turn their
eyes from the free stuff to the non-free stuff and think to themselves "maybe
I'm entitled to get that one for free too". The noble ideals of grass roots
participation in the creative process, and/or supporting it in a principled
way (namely, boosting the "free foo" movement by preferring free foo to
nonfree foo), or for that matter, any other form of moderately principled
codes of ethics, are completely lost on them.
I think it's a shame that these leeches use OSS, but there's not a whole lot
that can or should be done about that. But I'd be much happier if at the very
least, they wouldn't confuse the OSS movement (free as in freedom) with the
Napster driven movement (free as in "loader")
When York Student Cinema did their advance screening of The Girl Next Door last month, one of the the terms of us getting the film was that they be allowed to have their staff present to ensure no "dodgy dealings" went on with the film print. There was also a guy there with night-visions who was constantly looking for people trying to record the film.
The problem is that this law seems to not just cover camcorders, but most devices capable of recording/transmitting video or images. That may also mean your video-enabled cellphone, or your digital camera.
I tend to carry my digital camera with me everywhere in case something photogenic presents itself. I'm sure as heck not leaving my camera in the car, so it comes with me to theatres etc. Since I'm in Canada and most theatre employees have the brains to tell a camera from video-recorder, no problem, but if such a law was drafted here I could serious repercussions.
The law isn't a bad idea... but it needs to be limited:
a) Devices able to record X-minutes of video (rules out video-enabled cameras)
b) Devices capable of X-resolution at Y-FPS (rules out video-enabled phones)
c) Change the jail-time to a nice fine. I'm sorry but there's absolutely no call to stick somebody in prison with rapists or even car-thieves for supposedly recording a movie.
I think the tone of the main article was a bit harsh.
There are many, many things that the MPAA does that deserves this treatment. Catching someone red handed, taping a movie in the theater, is not one of them.
The steps mentioned of having night vision goggles, and a tip line to catch actual piracy, are fair ones.
You should have saved the "Ass. Head Jack Valenti" line for another time. God knows they give us enough legit opportunities.
Be Seeing You, Shawn Levasseur -Rockland ME
Movies are computer controlled. There are no more projectionists. I think these people are plants by the RIAA>
Remember kids, "Piracy funds Terrorism".
Unless you don't pay for it.
In re-reading my post, the last should read:
in jail with rapists or even just car thieves
It seems to indicate that the car thieves are worse than rapists, the intent was to indicate that a "copyright infringer" is no in the ballpark of either other variety of criminal... even a car thief tends to create damage or deprive somebody of property.
..for the playing of The Tailor of Panama. Anyone downloading that abyssmal trainwreck of a movie has been punished enough.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
Eh.. IR LEDs.. Most "Night vision" rigs are sensitive to IR/UV. Blind him invisibly.
Great ! You go to the cinema theatre and because of the 1337 spod next to you that tries to blind the night-goggled projectionist with a UV lamp, you get a nice suntan !
What a wonderful way to become a popular (though cinema-obsessed) geek without putting a single toe on the beach !
theefer
Really? That prevalent?
As one other poster noted, this may have been done by a projectionist who didn't want the competition.
My then-girlfreind worked as a manager for one and another local theatre with one of the Big Chains. There was a "gentlemen's agreement" between all of the managers for all of the chains allowing the "build screenings" (where they watch the movie after it is first spliced together to make sure it is in the correct order & direction... which was not always the case) were open to any local theatre employee, with one significant other allowed as a guest.... which is how I got to see this first hand.
The managers and some of the more senior trained staff generally took care of the projection duties. At the main theatre for the Other Big Chain, one of the projectionists had a $10K pro-level video camera up in the projection loft for every major release, making a quality copy for his cousin in NYC to redistribute. None of the other theatre managers cared, since it wasn't their theatre, and thus not their problem. The manager for that theatre didn't do anything either, since he was presumably getting a cut of the sale to the DVD maker, and was certainly busy doctoring the books to rob the chain of half the popcorn sales. I cared a little, but not enough to risk pissing off every other manager in town at my GF.
The projectionist had a better sense of timing than the manager-- he quit and left town about three months before the manager was audited and fired for theft. To the best of my knowlege, though, neither were ever caught for their piracy.
The majority of theatre employees, in my experience, are underbright, underpaid, overworked, and consider anything they can get away with five-finger discounting a "perk". (However, restaurant workers are worse on par.) And anyone who deals with computer threat assesment can tell you, the biggest threat to security is from an employee doing an inside job.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
If only they could add sniper rifles to these night vision scopes, and take care of the annoying kids that always sit directly behind me and won't stfu for the whole film.
drugdealer? copyright violator?
copyright violator? drugdealer?
damn. it's too hard. let's go for the copyright violator.
Privacy is terrorism.
Rare? Where the hell do you live?
Oh yeah... America, hahah :p
...enacting a criminal law for this smacks of corporate america controling the legal system
Hello? Where the hell have you been, darkest Africa?
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
copyright infringement != theft
copyright infringement is a violation of rights but is no more theft than vandalism is, except the opposite, vandalism takes property from it's owner illegally without gaining property for the vandal, infringement gains property for the infringer without depriving the owner of the property.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
... a better use for some usher with a pair of night vision goggles would be to find the kids who talk and generally muck about in a cinema and thereby ruin it for everyone else.
I pay to watch the film, not listen to teenagers chat with friends or put up with them throwing stuff about.
Preferably they'd be equipped with a crowbar and a tranquilliser-dart gun too.
---
"I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing and it was everything that I thought it could be."
Makes sense to me, put more non-violent criminals in jail....
The first theater I see with one of these, is the first theater I stop going to. Seriously, I don't tape movies, so why treat me like a criminal. I can already hear people saying "If you don't tape, why do you object?". At the airport I can understand why you want to keep people safe. So I don't mind having to take my shoes off. If I have to get patted down by some greasy college kid because someone is worried that Harry Potter is only going to make 1.1 Billion, and not 1.2, it's not worth it to go to the theater any more.
I hope I'm not alone in this sentiment.
Does anyone remember going to concerts with a portable cassette recorder even though it was illegal? Same concept here.
These days, at a major concert, the equipment can be discovered at the gate. THUS, preventing the NEEDLESS choking of our legal system with civil-turned-criminal matters. DUH. The more criminal law we create, the more we pay for content, even if EVERYONE adheres to the law.
It's liability towards the patrons.
The owner of the building is obliged to warn the patrons who have paid admission if something is going on. If I don't want to be scanned with night vision goggles, I have the right to know they're doing it so I can take my business elsewhere. Just like, if they have a security camera pointed down into the bathroom stalls, I have the right to know about it and be warned before some gay-ass security guard gets to jerk off watching me unzip on candid camera.
And as far as your "oh they'll never actually get jail time" - BULLSHIT. The maximum penalty under law should never be excessive, otherwise you're gonna get some poor slob railroaded because the MPAA paid off the DA with a nice shiny new convertible to get them sent to prison.
Wherever the law allows for abuses of the legal system, we can rest assured those abuses WILL occur. Just look at forum shopping over domain name lawsuits these days, something that in 1995 we were assured was "technically possible" but that would "never occur because there wouldn't be enough chance of it changing the outcome."
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!
Let the deniability and innocence until proven guilty start...
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".
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...
Camcorded movies are only going to significantly hurt the box office when a movie sucks it. I now there are a lot of people who view downloaded movies as a way to see an 'extended preview'. Then again, there are movies that they want to 'experience' as opposed to just 'view'. Lord of the Rings, The Passion of the Christ, Matrixesessses.... Consumers are taking control - right or wrong, it's happening. People are networking to find out the real deal. This is good for those who put out good product but can't afford the snaz. This is bad for those who do a good job of packaging crap because they're going to be found out before fooling enough people to get a return on their garbage. Why is it so hard to make a good movie? Why is it so hard to make a great album? Make great art that appeals to the population and you'll make bank. I know it's not easy to make really good films or music. How about simply not making huge piles of steaming crap? How many great screenplays are sitting in boxes? How many great songs are unrecorded? And all because some suit doesn't have the smooth round ones to go outside of whatever the current formula is. At the same time it's too bad that people need such specific laws because they have no concept of obeying common sense or the Golden Rule. We're in bad shape when it's laws that keep people in line. As for my government in the USofA. WTF!?! You boys and girls need to make a list of the stuff that really needs tending too and hop to it.
Record a movie, get up to a year in prison.
This sends AWESOM-O into CPU overload, as it does not compute.
Its pretty clear that who-ever came up with this law was either lighting up more than a joint at the time or is just corrupt - anyone care to argue differently? well thats settled there are corrupt or stoned politicians, why is no-one doing anything about it?
Sure filming off the screen is clearly violating copyright, and as stupid as i think that is its the law, but jail-time for this is is totally wrong!
It would seem to me that if your on their property they have the right to look around with night-vision goggles and kick you out if they want, but this is really going to cause a back-lash if it gets public attention, people wont like the feeling of being spied on especially if their doing something like eating food they didnt buy there or god-forbid making-out! (which will soon be illigal under Bushs war on freedom and sex)
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Oh, great. I bet they are also looking for people like me that sneak a $0.50 candy bar in bacause I don't want to pay $5.00 for it at the theater. That's where the real money is, I'm suprised the MPAA hasn't started cracking down on candy violators. They would make their money a lot faster at the concession stand!
dictionary.com says:
steal (v):
1) Take (the property of another) without right or permission.
Which one are you contradicting? That songs, movies, drug formulas, etc. are property? Or that these guys are taking it without right or permission?
Does this mean his face is the butt of many jokes?
What does one expect? Frankly I am surprised at the response that this has caused at /.
....
Did the Night vision goggles really make a difference on this guy getting caught or was he the only one in the theater and his actions were hard to miss.
I live in Dallas Texas and haven't met any one who has seen the Alamo yet
Movie theaters are investing in metal detectors? If I have to go through a metal detector and take off my belt and my steel shanked shoes like I occasionally have to when I go to the airport just to see a movie, I won't ever go see a movie again.
Eh, the 1.50 theater near here won't have the stuff until 2045 anyway, so I guess I'm safe, so long as I only want to see films when they're second run.
Hell, I think speed limits should be enforced, but that doesn't make speeding theft.
It's a different violation, period. This is irrespective of whether theft is right or wrong, or whether copyright infringment is right or wrong. Copyright infringement and theft are two different things. They may both be illegal, they may both be unethical, they may both be immoral. This does not make them the same thing. Embezzling != blackmail != robbery != rape != murder.
Calling copyright infringement "theft" is simply propaganda to leverage existing awareness of the immorality of theft. Which is in itself a good reason to be suspicious of the **AA; if their claims about how evil copyright infringement is are right, why do they have to cloud the issue with misleading terminology?
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
A blockage on the flow of knowledge could seem to imply that this is ok, common place, even, accepted. Pull yer heads out of yer asses and realize we're passing forward through time, not regressing. Resist the lure of the farmers of adult stagnancy and realize that we now have a huge potential to bootstrap humanity with a larger quantity of knowledge (and hence achieve better integration) than ever before. A stand for the restricted flow of information is a stand for repression of the printing press, and, for the general public, three's precious little free information left. If anything, there should be a push to use this new technology to break new ground and foster innovation, come up with new systems, rather that cowering to the old. Don't believe the hype, unlike the actors, your script is not written (tho whether its assumed may be another question entirely). Make films about making films in movies.
(and yes, for once an example of the correct usage of "irony" :)
> Since when is the MPAA a wing of the RIAA? I fucking swear, 90% of Slashdot posters just make everything up on the fucking spot and post like they have some form of digital Tourette's and just can't help themselves.
"A military operation involves deception. Even though you are competent, appear to be incompetent. Though effective, appear to be ineffective."
Sun-tzu, The Art of War. Strategic Assessments
The point is, RIAA and MPAA share the same goals; crush p2p and keep everything the way it was in 1980.
As far as the courts go, yes they are.
Copyrights and patents are both forms of intellectual property .
Yeah, but "Don't fucking violate copyrights, dipwad" dosen't have the same ring to it...
They're not taking it, they're using it, fuckwit. Get a clue.
Taking something from someone means that the person whom it was taken from no longer has it. And I don't want to hear any weak arguments about "they stole my sales". It is not the same. This has already been discussed a hundred times.
"Soon, copied films will be as rare as students lighting up a joint after their exams."
You're supposed to wait until after the exams? Damn, that'll be why I had to resit my first year then.
Is fraud stealing? Is it like stealing? Is it nothing like stealing?
What if you bought a bunch of stock in a company at $10 a share, and right after you bought it you learned that the CEO had been committing fraud that caused your shares to be worth only $0.01? Would that be stealing? You still have the shares, and still own the same amount of the company.
If you call it fraud, the we'll call "copyright violation" fraud, too. And just because it isn't "moving an object off of the owner's property," doesn't mean that it isn't like stealing, especially in a moral sense.
In common usage of the word "steal," copyright violation is theft. But just like stealing someone's life (murder), the punishment should perhaps be different than for simple breaking and entering.
Fellowship 9/11
The whole night-vision goggle thing to catch fools who bring their video cameras doesn't bother me, but installing metal detectors does. That does seem to be a privacy issue to me.
It's already bad enough in the airport where they regard you as a probable criminal. We really don't need to be all treated like criminals when we enter a movie theater.
Just stick to looking out for video cameras with the goggles, OK? Having to empty out my pockets and going through a metal detector every time I go to the movies would make me not want to go. I would probably want to just download the DVD-rips of the movies instead of going through all that.
The jail throwing was for the MPAA, um, I mean, copyright infring *cough* STEALING! of the movie. Which was more like attempted copyright infringement, because they busted him before he finished the job.
Throwing someone in jail for attempting civil law infringement is fucked up. So yeh, it wouldn't surprise me if you get busted one day for breaking the no food rule. After all, imagine how much money you are STEALING! from them by not paying the rip-off prices at the candy bar.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
Several things here warrant serious attention...
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0085271/ "Brainstorm"
Found it! What an excellent researcher, eh!?
However, anyone who downloads digital copies of movies (like me, terrible person that I am) knows that the vast majority are DVD/CD rips. Anything done with a camcorder is crappy quality (particularly the sound).
These shoddy captures don't hurt the cinema business. Most of the time a cinema customer is there to go to the cinema rather than to see a movie. If they were actually just interested in seeing the movie they would rent the DVD and save some money.
If anything, the proliferation of useless quality rips is helpful to those selling relatively high quality DVD products. A lot of people will get turned right off shared movies on the basis of seeing a couple of lemons.
If so, then I see a perfect alibi for movie-grabbers: "I'm blind, you insensitive clod! These are my eyes!"
If not, then: "Hang on - could you speak up so that I can get this on tape to play for my lawyer?"
This isn't an issue now, that I'm aware of, but what about 5 or 10 years from now?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Take a cell picture of crappy movie your watching and spend a year in jail and $2500 fine. I don't have license to distribute a video recording of a baseball or football game, but I'm not going to go to jail for snapping a few pictures off, why should the MPAA get special rights? Same things goes with art galleries, its all copyrighted material and illegal to distribute.
Another thing is that what If I'm reviewing the movie, its not copyright infringement if I record some scences for my review. Its perfectly legal and falls under fair use.
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
Now no guys will try the old extend-the-arm-over-the-girl trick for fear of being seen by the projectionist as the girl slaps him for trying it.
:)
Man, if I had a quarter for every time that happened... Uh, that is, uh, that's what I've HEARD can happen sometimes.
*
Omnytex Technologies - Where dreams and software unite
K&G Arcade - 26 games in one, a unique blend of action, adventure and humor
Invasion: Trivia! - Trivia, with a very sick twist!
Electro - The premiere electronics tool for PocketPC
If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
I believe that this statement was meant as sarcasm. The author was merely pointing out the futility of the "War on Drugs" which has really done nothing but put _many_ relatively innocent people behind bars for WAY too many years.
Basically, you can find kids lighting up joints on every college campus in the country (except maybe some of the Bible thumping ones)
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
...not the activity of recording. According to the Reg article quoted in the story it's illegal simply to bring the recording device into the theatre, irrespective of whether you record or intend to record the film. That point is backed up in this Sacremento Bee article.
They point out that the law is phrased to cover future recording devices and could even cover video-recording phones, so that taking your phone into a theatre would be an offence.
They word the law like this so that it's easier to prove guilt, but that doesn't make it a good law.
Are you talking morally or legally? If you want to talk degrees of wrong, let's look at the punishments for these offenses:
Steal a DVD from BestBuy? Think that is a year in jail? Hardly.
Here is the additional distinction that needs to be made when the "copyright infringement" vs "stealing" argument comes up. One is a CIVIL offense, and one is a CRIMINAL offense. The problem here is that they are imposing criminal punishments on civil offenses.
THAT is the real argument against this. I think the MPAA and the RIAA should crack down on piracy, but they should not be allowed to ruin someone's life for their offenses. The punishment should fit the crime.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
The projectionist had no other motive than to make sure that nobody else muscled in on the monopoly they already had in that theater. Of course, turning somebody else in would make it *seem* like the projectionist was on the side of the RIAA, so that side-benefit doesn't hurt, either.
RHCE; are you certified? Karma: ambiguous.
Hilary Rosen used to be the Recording Industry Ass Head but now Mitch Bainwol is the Recording Industry Ass Head.
The truth about Scientology, Xenu, and you: Operation Clambake
California Penal Code SECTION 484-502.9 (Theft/Larceny)
US Code Title 17, Chapter 5, Section 501 (Infringement of Copyright)
LEARN THE DIFFERENCE!
even if he gets the full one year sentence, he'll never serve it.
California jails are hemorrhaging prisoners, 50,000 released early last year in LA county alone, and they're giving a guy a year for setting up a video camera in a movie theater. i'm not saying this asshat shouldn't be punished, he should. i'm just saying that asshead jack valenti shouldn't get to write california state law just because he's the head of the largest trade association in the state.
No, you're wrong. Theft and copyright infringement are handled by two entirely separate parts of federal law. Theft has a very specific definition under the law, and copyright infringement does not mett that definition. Feel free to argue that it's the "moral equivalent" of theft if you like, but the law is very clear: copyright infringement is not theft.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
You suggest that people recording films in theatres will result in higher taxes, but you ignore reality, which is that this sort of thing doesn't ever effect the bottom line. Go after the REAL pirates-the scum who steal workprints to produce DVDs which they then sell for .50 each in Hong Kong and Taiwan. They're the ones who will make a difference, not someone with a camcorder in a theatre making a crappy copy.
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.
What law defines this concept of 'intellectual property'? The term 'intellectual property' (like EULAs) is an invention of corporate america*.
Copyrights and patents are rights, not property. They cannot be 'stolen' any more than one's right to a trial by jury can.
*: Ironicly, even corporate america doesn't really believe intellectual things are property, since they usually believe they should have control over something after they've sold it to someone else.
Normal service resumes.
Thank you movie pirates. I couldn't care less about you before but now I am pissed off that there is now some pervert in the projection booth watching me make out with my girlfriend in the theature with night vision googles. Great, just great.
Losing faith in humanity one person at a time.
I'm tired of this "but your license says..." crap. I have yet to sign a contract regarding my rights to use a ticket
Look at the back of any ticket to a live performance such as a concert, a play, or a sporting event. You'll likely see terms. A movie theater could just as easily offer a contract by posting terms on the box office window; your handing over money signifies your acceptance of these terms.
The original constitutional reason for copyrights and patents was to support "THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE AND USEFUL ARTS"--not to protect the creation of what the great Ralph Nader calls "violent corporate sponsored pornography".
I don't opposed government subsidies of "science and the useful arts"--if done on a basis that is fair and democratic --promoting technological development that creates the kind of advancements and culture much of the population wants. What Hollywood wants goes beyond free speech, or subsized technical advancements, Hollywood wants active government support of privately owned, corporate managed social control mechanisms. Given the fact that since protection of these mechanisms has intensified the last 40 years, we've seen a signficant drop in things like disposable income, and an increase in economic inequality, IMHO it is high time we use what political rights we have left and seriously look for alternatives here.
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).
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
did copyright violation move from civil law to criminal law?
Sure maybe it should be criminal when someone starts selling said copyrighted materials, however, this guy was caught copying a copyrighted material.
1 year in jail seems ridiculous when you boil it down to what it is.
How much you wanna bet that those night vision goggles spend most of their time glued to people making out in the back row of a really bad movie.
In the same theatre, during showing of "Home on the Range", Sally Rhodes, 9, was arrested when the night vision goggles revealed she was eating the Easter marshmallow favorite, "Peeps", clearly violating the theatres "NO OUTSIDE FOOD" rule.
Also in the same theatre, during a showing of "Walking Tall", the goggles revealed Jenny Fredericks, 14, seated in the very back of the auditorium performing fellatio on her boyfriend, Jason Isaccs, 15. Both were arrested and charged with several felony counts.
See how this can be a slippery slope?
Watch out Camera phone users......
When I first read the Slashdot summary, I thought they had arrested the projectionist for using night vision goggles, and I thought, "what the hell?" Then I read the article (I know, I know), and I thought, "good, serves them right. Maybe things like this will help keep piracy in check enough to keep some of the truly unreasonable things from happening."
Note: No, I don't really think this will lead to curbing the blatant violations of our rights that are happening, but I can hope, can't I?
"If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."
[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.
'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'
This is crap - The MPAA should be providing these things if they're so hell-bent on preventing piracy. Let them pick up the tab for these things.
[DISCLAIMER: This post is a work of satire and should not be misconstrued as a holy text upon which to base a religion.]
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
Open to the public does not mean that you are free to do whatever you wish.
My grandfather owned a bar. It was a public place -- anyone could walk in and buy a beer.
That does not mean that a patron can stand up and piss on the bar, or masturrbate on the pinball machine.
The definition of stealing is "the act of taking something from someone unlawfully"
Since movie studios can and do grant licenses to reproduce a film (for a fee), you are in effect unlawfully taking away their fee.
This sort of definition is common in civil and criminal law. If you shoplift something, the retail value of the object is used to determine your restitution -- not the wholesale cost.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
You break the law there should be consequences, even if you don't like the law. You COULD work to change it.
And you're wrong: it's stealing intellectual property. Oh, you can split hairs but you've made a fundamental violation.
Of course they guys are only making copies for their own personal use, right? HAHAHA - and I have some ocean beach land in Utah for you too.
These arguments just don't pass muster.
Get a life.
Oddly, the Flash Mountain phenomenon is the reverse - people pulling stuff because they know they're on camera.
"Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."
Rockland, eh? Going down to the Seadog or Black Bull Tavern for a beer this weekend? Multiple members of my family live in that area, and I know the owners of the Black Bull... good friends with my step-brother.
T
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
Exactly. Copyright infringment isn't less wrong because it's not stealing.
It's less wrong because it's less harmful than stealing. Of course, the exact magnitude of harm in copyright infringment cases is nearly impossible to determine, whereas the exact magnitude of harm in theft cases is extremely easy to determine. So there's that problem, too, with trying to claim that "copyright infringment is stealing!"
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Do you understand how long a year is?
Are you aware that 1/3 of all Americans are either in jail or on some form of parole or probation?
There's too much goddamn jail time in this country. It's actually our fastest growing industry.
Stop trying to put everybody in jail already!
Art Schools Dietzilla
Why would you give up your personal liberties for fucking entertainment?
(what's even worse you're doing them a favor by screening the movie and them watching your reactions.
Steven V.
I patented screwing your mom. But it got revoked for "prior art."
Hints for a better recording session:
p.s. For those longer movies, you might always duct-tape a military-style infrared flare (somewhat like those bright plastic Glo-Sticks that are used at raves, but IR) against the projection booth window. That'd make it really bright--just for the booth! hee hee hee...;-)Kids, don't try this at home. Void where prohibited. Professional driver on closed course. If you're caught, the secretary will disavow all knowledge of your actions. My thoughts are my own.
I like them showing advertisements for movies. I don't watch TV, read the newspaper, or listen to the radio. So the only way I learn about new movies is word-of-mouth, the few news sites (like Slashdot) that I do look at, or movie trailers. I therefor consider the trailers a service. :-)
I don't think the guy should've been thrown in jail for the camcorder, he should've just been ejected.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Guess it will be a little more risky to make out in the back row now.
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?
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Now, Slashdot moral quiz: Is that good or bad? Start the test...
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
It's the perfect comparison, if you ask me. Think about it: the War on Drugs" basically did nothing other than fill up our prisons. Drugs are still around, very easy to get, and tolerated by a sizable chunk of the population. Yet tens of thousands of people have had their lives ruined because they got caught doing something that millions of others do. All for no real benefit to society.
Let me relate my own personal "Camming" experience. Last year a friend got free passes to a preview for Disney's Haunted Mansion. Terrible movie, I wish Eddie Murphy would just die, blah blah. It was free, I'm a movie buff, so I went. First, we had our bags searched. Next, out came the metal detector wands. Finally, a good pat-down - as intimate, if not more so, than I've had at the airport. Eventually we got into the theatre and watched a really shitty movie.
I got home an hour after it ended and found torrents for it, as well as EDonkey and Kazaa entries. I even downloaded them to make sure it was actually the movie. It was.
I'm going to go so far as to suggest it's WORSE than the War on Drugs. Think: every single moviegoing patron harassed at the door. Potentially hundreds, if not thousands of new prison inmates a year.
AND ALL IT TAKES IS ONE PERSON TO GET AWAY WITH IT. That's it. ONE. And the entire scheme breaks down. You know damn well they're never going to be 100% on something like this, unless every single theatre does an X-ray and strip search of every patron, and every single projectionist/screener receipient/anyone else involved is also put through the same procedure. All it takes is one person to get away with it, and the internet handles the rest.
And in the meantime, the problem hasn't been solved IN THE SLIGHTEST, we've accepted being treated as criminals from the get-go, and we've created a lot of inmates. Unless of course, we go with what I suggested above.
Personally, no thanks. To properly implement this, we'd have to run our society as something less nice than it is now. You may have heard of it; it's called a Police State.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
That is just being a petty criminal.
Thousands of people broke the law to help slaves escape from the South before the Civil War. I guess they were "petty criminals" too eh?
Of course, that wasn't civil disobedience, it was just doing what was right. Law doesn't make something right, you know.
That said, this guy wasn't breaking the law because it was right and he deserves to be punished in some way. A year in jail seems excessive; people get less for violent crimes.
Regarding Ass Head Valenti, it's not his place to be saying things like 'send a clear signal such crimes will not be tolerated' - he's not in a position of law enforcement.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
The lesson is clear: stay out of movie theaters and you won't get arrested.
Or how about, DON'T BREAK THE LAW.
Sure it's a failure
... well, all of their reasons suck, and I believe yours will, too. Why don't you share them and we can discuss them?
Then it should be abandoned. Except that calling it a "failure" is a huge understatement. It has failed in every single one of its goals, killed and maimed innocent people in the process, and destroyed our freedoms (4th amendment, anyone?).
but that doesn't necessarily mean there's a good alternative
If it has failed it its goals (which you admit), then it is not achieving anything. Going back to the way it was before would necessarily be better, espcecially given that the War on Some Drugs also brings unintended consequences.
You can't say for sure that things would be better if we legalized drugs.
Things would be better because:
a> Citizens would no longer forfeit property (contra the 4th amendment) simply because the government suspects that it was used as part of a drug sale
b> We would have better police protection, as the police would be trying to catch predators rather than people who merely want to use a product that some people don't happen to like
c> Productive members our society who are holding jobs and hiring people that happen to use drugs would not be put in jail
d> The drugs would become less expensive and the profit (and, consequently, crime) motives for selling them would be removed
e> The U.S. military could focus on its real job (protecting the country) rather than enforcing idiotic drug laws
f> The U.S. Government could reduce in size
I could go on and on!
Perhaps *bad* is an improvement over *worse*.
Except that you have assumed that things would be worse if drugs were legalized. You have not shown it. Most people claim that things would be worse if drugs were legalized because
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
The problem is that most people don't know the difference between a LAW, Statute, Regulation, and Wish.
Driving a car over the speed limit is a violation of a REGULATION which, by signing your Driver's License Application, YOU AGREED TO.
Doing Drugs is not a crime. Crimes (in the traditional sense) REQUIRE an INJURED PARTY. If there's NO INJURED PARTY, THERE'S NO CRIME. (and don't give me that, well "Society" is harmed UNLESS you want to admit being a Socialist.
And Indecent Exposure, again, without an INJURED PARTY WITH STANDING BEFORE THE COURT, THERE IS NO CRIME.
"If a prosecutor doesn't know his job, and you don't call BULLSHIT, you deserve what you get..."
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
Some voyeur projectionist who likes to use night vision goggles to spy on couples making out during the movie is now justified by theoretically looking for pirates.
If you are going to try to justify copyright infringement, fine. But repeatedly pointing out that copyright infringement is not the same as stealing is not an intellectually adequate argument against enforcing copyright law.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Heh, please try to explain how sneaking in your own food/drink to a movie theatre is morally wrong? If i go see a movie at the mall, they have 12oz (or whatever the small size is) sodas for $2, or, right around the corner, is Sam Goody, that has 20oz bottles of soda for $1 (thats the only think i ever buy there). Also the good movie theatre here, with the Ultrascreen, is a parking lot away from a Target, and the Target has half an aisle of "Movie Theatre Candy" (wink/nudge), for about half what you'd pay at the cinema. I wouldn't mind paying a little more at the concession stand for the convinience and a product of comparable quality. But i'm not paying $10 for a large stale popcorn and a soda thats mixed wrong.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
There are many of us that still light up joints after our exams. In fact, many of us do it before our exams. Especially since New York state has decriminalized the stuff.
i have a theory about this dispute over exactly what constitutes fair use of intellectual property. i think there are generally two types of smart people in the world. the first type is the geek. that's most of us. we're the smart people who are technologically/mathematically inclined. the people who took up computer science, engineering, physics, etc. at a college like MIT or caltech. we enjoy using technology in clever ways. the other kind of smart person is less technologically inclined. they're not geeks but they're still smart. they're the kind of people who take up english lit, business, economics, political science, law, etc at someplace like harvard, yale, or oxford. they enjoy developing their careers and making lots of dough. the cause of the problem, i think, is that the spheres of influence of these two groups are starting to overlap. geeks have always enjoyed control of the technological system, which no one else understands. the other kind of smart person has dominance over virtually everything else, the financial, entertainment, judicial side of our society. because they perceive our technological tinkering as a threat to their way of doing business they have tried/and are trying to exert a greater amount of control on the technological sphere than they have tradionally possessed. of course, us geeks resent that. that's why we resent the mpaa, the riaa, the dcma, and the other bulldogs of the ip protection movement. just my two cents.
1. Find out what an operating camcorder looks like to someone wearing night vision goggles.
2. You and all your geek friends build cheap devices to mimic that appearance.
3. Movie theater staff goes apeshit upon seeing a theater apparently full of people with camcorders. Hilarity ensues.
4. Profit!
Last I knew, there were no illegal food consumption in theater laws. The most the theater could do would be to kick you out.
And if it's your second offense, then you're trespassing, and states have laws against trespassing that can put offenders behind bars.
What are you, a cop?
Who the hell gets to say who deserves to spend more than 1% of their life in a box?
You're saying a guy needs to spend fully 1-2% of his life in a box for *potentially* upsetting the economic interests of a non-entity. Is that what you're saying?
Art Schools Dietzilla
When I went to the LOTR trilogy showing in Portland, Oregon, they had 3 guys from New Line in the theater with night vision goggles. Since we were among the first to see it, they wanted to make sure we weren't recording/digitally rebroadcasting it to the net live. Pretty messed up stuff, but it's been happening for a long time. It's only news cause they finally caught someone.
Oh, so he means that soon *everyone* will be copying movies?
Or has he just been leading a *really* sheltered life recently...
this does not constitute a contract
Offer + Acceptance + Consideration = Contract.
(or any wacko could post a noitce in his window telling you to give him your firstborn).
Regulating the content of a contract is orthogonal to regulating the method of acceptance of a contract. Your contract that includes handing over custody of a child would fall under adoption contract law, which is more strict in most states than general business-to-consumer contract law.
It's a crime to give a false report to the police but nothing about a false report to the MPAA. This could quickly be squashed if everyone calls and reports one person in a theatre and the MPAA sends the cops out on a wild goose chase a few thousand times.
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.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
"Soon, copied films will be as rare as students lighting up a joint after their exams."
You mean people lighting up joints after their exams is rare? *shrug* I suppose people prefer glass these days.
Have you ever thought about that professor with all the headgear that records his surroundings? Hmm.
If the tech was ever cheap enough and I had large enough portable HD space, I'd want to store all live A/V from around me. I don't believe the theater or MPAA or the government has the right to prevent me from recording my life and reviewing it. If I paid for a ticket to a movie, I should be able to bring my life recording device with me and review my life after. It is also my right to sell parts of my life to others for a profit. (Work.)
What if the terms are printed in 12-point type (larger than newspaper print) on a sticker on the side of the box office window? Wouldn't such an offer be prominent enough to dictate the terms of what strangers do on the theater's private property?
Anyone else tempted to bring a few IR toys into the theater just to screw with the guys in the night-vision goggles...
I have a girlfriend whose name doesn't end in
I would say that the law sees copyright infringement as less wrong than stealing because stealing is a crime (ie, a criminal offence) and copyright infringement is not a crime (it's a civil offence)
However, I can't comment on the specifics of recording with a camcorder in a cinema. Obviously its specifically a crime in some of the more opressive countries/states.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
Civil law cases should remain in that area. By changing copyright law violations into criminal cases you move from copyright owners and civil courts enforcing copyright law into police and prisons enforcing copyright law. What is the next step? Calling the police for libel/slander cases?
Another point I dislike about this law is the punishment clause. One year in jail is seriously excessive. This law would be a prime candidate for 'community control' device. Unless you find a serial violator, there is no reason for jail/prison time. Leave jail/prison to violent/sexual criminal cases.
It is ignorant people like you that make me not post on slashdot very much anymore. No I am not a cop, I am just sick of this give me everything free attitude here. I also don't care for unprovoked name calling.
You should just slap people on the wrist who blatantly defy the law. Is that what you are saying. Fines are useless, a little jail time is not, and we both know that if someone is sentenced to 1 year they will probably get atleast half that time in probabtion.
"Who the hell gets to say who deserves to spend more than 1% of thier life in a box?"
Are you so stuck on hating any form of authority that you can't see it is the individuals breaking the law that are to blame for them spending this time in jail? If the law is on the books, and you know it is there yet you still break it then you are the one saying that you deserve that time in jail plain and simple.
Note that there's no signature line or text notifying me that by purchasing said ticket, I have agreed to a contract/license.
Yet.
It's not intended to be an argument against copyright law.
It's an argument against those who seek to confuse the two different things, apparently in an attempt to make copyright infringement sound more harmful.
Also, in this case, they are not enforcing copyright law (if they were this would be a civil matter not a criminal one and would take the form of a lawsuit)
they are enforcing a specific _criminal_ law against the possesion of unauthorised recording equipment in a theater.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
read it as "Projectionists Using Night Vision GOOGLES in Theaters"... damn :S
var sig = function() { sig(); }
Instead of 1 year in prison, we should make these types of offenders sell copies of the movie Gigli (or something else just as bad) on a highway off ramp.
Guys just remember, America is a democracy, if you dont like a law you know what you can do! Yes thats right you must form a large corporation and worm your way into the old-boys network that is congress and then influence the relevent politician into changing the law. Think im trolling? explain this: why are all these obviously crack/corruption induced laws around? you think normal everyday people would actually vote to have someone thrown in jail for just _possesion_ of a video camera in a cinema while assulting the projectionist would probably land you with less time!? Or maybe people are actually so stupid they've managed to consistently vote the worst politicians into power? You think if there wasnt corruption that a single organisation would be able to convince the government to make such a law in less time than it takes to organise a post-9/11 enquiry? America is just falling all the way down the drain, even the sewer rats think it stinks.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
They spotted the guy because he's the only one who bought a ticket for "The Alamo".
OK, heres a little lesson on rights, from what I get here alot of people don't undersand them ....
First off, people have rights - these rights exist - like gravity they are there, measurable, observable, and exist outside of the world of opinion.
Second off, people organize in the form of government to secure rights - government doesn't create rights - or even define what's good or bad. They especially don't create peoperty rights even though they've tried a few times with things like salvery (and now copyrights).
Third, people have a right to disobey the edicts of government and a right not to be punished for it, or to expect punishment, if they have violated no one. People also have a right to secure their rights.
Fourth, contrary to popular belief, copyrights are not any type of a right whatsoever. They destroy culture and are an adbomination to the concept of property rights at the very least.
Fith, Valenti can let whoever the hell he wants in his theatres for whatever reason. I say let him suffer the consequences of his choices. But copying is not a crime, and if he doesn't like people doing it he's free to expell them but not prosecute them. (besides, how do you know some foriegner wasn't just trying to prove to his friends that he went to an american movie
Prove that the person wasnt going to keep the tape for personal use. *Prove* intent.
Then you might have an argument. Until then you are just making an ASSumption..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Soon, copied films will be as rare as students lighting up a joint after their exams.
And students lighting up a spliff after an exam is rare.. how?
in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
Sure, I'm ignorant because I don't understand that it's perfectly okay to lock people up in boxes for crazy periods of time and then deny them jobs and housing.
s e-dontchooknoww-its-the-laaaawww' attitude. Fuck the law. Okay? Fuck the law. What have you got to say about that?
And no, Officer, I never said people should be slapped on the wrist for 'blatently defying the law.' I think that's too strict a penalty.
You're tired of this 'give-me-everything-free' attitude? Well I'm tired of this 'shut-the-fuck-up-and-obey-the-nice-officer-becau
Pop Quiz: If you know a law is on the books and you break it, then who's responsible for you being in jail?
The Answer: (drum roll please) Whoever The Fuck Put You There! Yay! The triumph of logic!
Art Schools Dietzilla
I'm sure this is redundant, but come on!
Jail time and a criminal record because a guy wants to film a movie? What did they do, take him down to the station, search him and finger print him?
If the movie is good, people will pay to see it in theater, period!
Its a very small group of people who have time to find, select, download, unpack, find missing parts, download, unpack again, burn and watch a degraded screener with shadow heads moving about.
If the movie is good, like LOTR, there is no way your going to watch a pirated version.
If the DVD is a good collector, same thing.
Fucking politics!
There is no doubt our freedoms are being eroded.
So what of the future when the technology is sufficient that you can't see the camera?
Its so small or cyber genetically implanted?
Let me guess, the government will be able to control what you record?
Yager and Evans
In the year 2525.
Good song to represent our society.
And please don't give me that "theft is theft" bullshit.
How about the ridiculous prices they charge for food and drink?
Even the ticket price is outrageous.
And don't tell me a DVD is worth over $20.
Now that's stealing.
Be reasonable and you won't have to have a war on everything.
Good quality illegal copies commonly are made by or with the help of the projectionist. Camcorder copies in a theatre can't be anywhere near as good.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
You mean this gut didn't pay any attention to the several anti-copying notices he must have seen before the main feature started? I am shocked and appalled. Why do we have them if they don't work?
Anyhow, tough luck, the guy's plans backfired on him. I could care less whether he gets away with a crappy copy of whatever crappy movie he's paid to see, But he knew he was in the wrong and he got busted for it. Bad luck, he took a risk and lost. But he chose to take it. The correct punishment is another matter entirely.
But wouldn't the projectionist's time be better spent scanning the back rows with his night-vision goggles?
The lesson is clear: stay out of movie theaters and you won't get arrested.
Man, I used to have to browse the comments for my daily dose of trollism but now I can get it right there on the front page! Hooray for progress!
Trailers are acceptable to me, and sometimes they're even a plus. But ads for the local used car dealer or the Los Angeles Times are infuriating.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Can you give an example of a reason to record a movie in a theater with a camcorder that is a) protected under fair use rights and b) not possible through any other channels?
Here is a possible tactic. Get a large group of people across the nation to carry vidcams with them to movies. The camera need to have is sound disabled, and the camera should point at the movie watcher. After trying to prosecute a couple of folks who are video taping themselves watching a movie they will get over this particular tact. The sound must be disabled, or you would capture copyrighted material. Peacefull resistance. These people only have so much money to spend. Lets make them spend it with no gain.
Is this purely a US problem? I go to the cinema quite a bit here in the UK and I almost always take my own food in. That's mainly because I like fruit or nuts not ice-cream and popcorn, but I take my own drinks as well. No-one's dared try and stop me yet.
Anyone in the UK ever been forbidden to take their own food in?
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
I agree. I won't go back to theaters that do that.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Repeated viewing is indeed the value in DVD purchasing. That is what makes it different than viewing at a theater, or renting for one night. Therefore, a user does have a reasonable expectation of longevity, and a right to take steps to insure that longevity.
I still don't back up my DVDs, but once I either have greater storage capacity or become happier with available codecs to transcode to, I undoubtably will start doing so. On a couple of my own DVDs, I can see some minor scratches, though none of them have caused problems .. yet. I'm sure your DVDs are faring better, and you can say you're not as clumsy or stupid as me. Whatever. I have the right to make copies of my DVDs, and it makes good sense for me to do so (to such an extent that I feel foolish for not doing it), and there will be no criminal intent or subversion of copyright's purpose...
Please do not suggest that DVD copying is anything remotely similar to recording a movie in a movie theater. One is copyright violation and one is not.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
"The lesson is clear: stay out of movie theaters and you won't get arrested." No, it's don't go into a movie theater with a camcorder to videotape the movie.
"I hope I never see the day that people go to jail over speeding tickets."
s s6 11
I regret to inform you that day has already come:
a google search for "Gail Atwater Arrest" turns up the following:
http://www.ocnsignal.com/speedtrapsOR.htm#aapre
http://www.legalbrief.co.za/view_1.php?artnum=
http://jl-site.com/ProPerInc/NYtimes.html
The above links provides a brief synopsis of a woman who was pulled over for a seatbelt violation in Texas.
The officer, Mr. Bart Turek, who pulled her over was pissed off at this "soccer mom" in her pickup who had ponited out a false accusation made by him earler about seatbelts (Mr. Tuek claimed her son was not wearing one when he was).
When he saw her again he got his second chance. He pulled over Ms. Gail Atwater again, and used foul language with her while her children were in the car. Ms. Atwater asked the officer not to use the language because of the presence of her children in the car with her.
That *really* annoyed him. While Texas law does not permit an officer to arrest a driver for "speeding", it does permit them to arrest suspected offenders for other minor traffic violations. Because Ms. Atwater, and her children were not wearing seatbelt as prescribed by texas law, that was all the excuse Mr. Turek needed to arrest her on the spot, force her crying children to be picked up by a friend at the police station, and incarcerate her before she paid the $50.00 maximum fine for the seatbelt violation.
So while you may not be arrested for speeding, make sure of the following the next time an officer pulls you over:
* all of your tail-lights are in full working order (including brake lights...)
* you use your turning signal for changing lanes or turning, (this includes being pulled over by the police)
* you are wearing your seat belt
because depending on the state you are, in these offenses allow the officer to arrest you.
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
Bad laws are bad. People who support them, vote them into existence, and enforce them are evil.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
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.
I know sarcasm isn't always portrayed very well in text but it was obviously meant as a joke and I found it pretty funny. :)
Joseph?
Crimes (in the traditional sense) REQUIRE an INJURED PARTY. If there's NO INJURED PARTY, THERE'S NO CRIME.
It sounds like a good idea, but that's not traditional. Victimless crimes have be prosecuted in traditional law-systems for centuries. Prostitution, gambling, sodomy... the list could go on.
Laws to protect "public morality" were a major feature of ancient codes.
To anyone who says "illegal copying == theft", I say "you are murdering both language and law."
Misusing language and misrepresenting the law is not murder. Sheesh.
...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
Blurry, low-res screen caps with people's heads in the way are piracy too!
Bunch of MPAA wankers.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
As a response to the MPAA and the general out of control nature of big entertainment I am not allowing myself to support any property controlled by them. This includes and is not limited to; Hollywood movies, Recorded music owned by large record companies, Subscribing to cable or satellite services and especially Micro$oft.
e eculture.pdf
The profits of these corporations are only percentage of revenue and just a small reduction of revenue would severely impact them (well except M$ where they would need a really big hit, but that is possible too)
Read Lawrence Lessig's new book Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity.
http://cyberlaw-temp.stanford.edu/fr
What the fuck are they going to do when I come in with my cybernetically enhanced eyeballs capable of recording full motion video in 10 maybe 15 years?
Deny cyborgs access?
Any would be pirates should just sit with the lovebirds in the back row, usually the back row is against the back row of the cinema and thus out of view of the projectionists windows directly above
Slashdot - The one stop shop for procrastination
The MPAA is going out of their way to tell you that no, you are not entitled to use a camcorder to record the movie. I have been to movies where it actually shows a slide that says "unauthorized recording of any part of this feature presentation is explicitly forbidden" and then it goes to outline the penalties. I have also seen a new MPAA campaign in which they use low-wage working joes from the movie industry to make thieves feel guilty.
The one I saw went for the throat, said something like "sure, if you steal the movie, the big shots are not getting hurt, but we the little guys do."
If you sit thru these ads and walk by the posters that explain the penalties, and you still get arrested, then you deserve it.
Pedro
----
The Insomniac Coder
You are dishonest.
Agreed. And I know a ton of people who are boycotting the music industry because of this. I knew maybe one or two people boycotting them before this PPP crackdown, DRM, and suing of 12yo's shit went down, but now I know several dozen, myself included. Also, their high album prices drive away a lot of customers.
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.
Just the fact that the grandparent poster invoked the murder comparision in what should be a civil matter makes his/her argument weak. Not too far from mentioning...something that would be sure to end this thread of discussion.
Fraud is as ridiculous a comparision as stealing, IMO, if not more so. Even if you can stretch the law to call it that, unless you're selling it, I don't imagine it holding up in court.
The Return of the King was the last movie I'll ever pay to see.
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.
501 Not Implemented
A statement of the proprietors wishes is not a contract.
But it is an offer. A contract needs offer, acceptance, and consideration to become binding. A cinema is private real property; anybody who enters a property to which he is denied entry commits the crime of trespassing. State laws dictate how an owner may indicate that persons are denied entry; such methods may include a sign on the door. Thus, entry to a building indicates that the person accepts the posted offer of terms under which the building's owner is willing to grant entry.
If a state decides that some of the terms listed in the offer are unenforceable, that's a completely orthogonal matter to whether or not a binding contract is present.
The lesson is clear.... don't steal movies and you won't get arrested.
"its all about enforcement and common sense - something america and california in particular arent great at."
Ohhhhhhhh.....SNAP!
It's sad that an AC was moderated down for telling the truth.
-Nick
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
That's reactionist BS. The message is clear though: Don't commit a crime and you won't get arrested.
While I agree it is the theater's responsibility, not the gvt's, to ensure people aren't taping movies, but to say if you go to a movie you'll be a arrested is way out of line.
Derek Greene
Despite very few of the pireted films coming from cinemas the studios are still putting a lot of effort into anoying cinema customers. As well as their efforts with audience survaliance they have an unsubtle method of tracking pireted films down to the releace print it was made from (yes cinemas still project from film not a digital format). These tracking systems (in the form of patterns of red dots) are highly destracting (once you know about them). I see (and get annoied by them) at virtually every film I go and see. Many projectionists refer to them as the Crap code (a varient on the name of an earlier (more subtle system)
Considering the theatres are traditional places for nibbling one's girlfriend, employing teenager "supervisors" with night vision technology should raise concerns.
Maybe a small projector with an infrared LED that would show something like "You pervert!" would be an interesting thing to do. Or a powerful infrared pulse generator that would confuse the night vision device's AGC circuits the way Macrovision works with VCRs...
Actually, I can. The Netherlands recently celebrated their 30th anniversary of decriminalizing marijuana and tolerating other drugs.
They get safe streets (I've been there) and reduced spending on law enforcement and prisons.
The Netherlands hasn't slid into the ocean. Not even once. Remember that a good part of the nation is below sea level and if the population is too stoned to keep the pumps and dikes working, the place actually will slide beneath the waves.
What have we gotten out of DRUGWARS? Nothing any sane, patriotic citizen would want, just a bunch of DRUGWAR profiteers (prison contractors, cushy jobs at "antidrug" organizations that produce nothing useful, and the biggest ones being the major drug traffickers whose business model is based on insane markups on what would otherwise be commodity products.
What are we going to get out a Federal war on copying?
Why are we expected to spend a comparable amount to the gross revenues of an industry just to protect a plainly unsustainable business model?
Why should I take a girlfriend to a movie theater where somebody with night vision goggles is watching us? Of course, if you're pro-DRUGWARS and pro-*AA companies, you probably don't have any personal concern with that because your girlfriend is inflatable.
Tech Public Policy stuff
As a nice addition, you can use a cluster of ultra-bright IR LEDs, and blink them in pattern that confuses the AGC circuits in the night vision device. The result should be similar to how AGC in VCRs reacts to Macrovision. Would need to be tested, but could theoretically work against cheaper equipment.
You're joking, right? You should have said "The lesson is clear: stay out of movie theaters if you plan on stealing something and you won't get arrested."
Jackass.
"Over here smoking Soon, copied films will be as rare as students lighting up a joint after their exams."
Well I'm from the Netherlands and smoking weed here is semi legal when you are above 18 jears old.
If they apply these statistics here this means that there will actuale be an increase in the number of people who use camcorders in cinama's
Or we might result to the same solution we use for weed, camcording is not legal but you won't be punished as long as the stuff you carry is ment for personal consumption
Then the system is too brittle. (Well, there is always some risk, but as long as it is more likely to say be killed by a lightning than to be killed because of a virus, it's still something I am willing to live with.) What ever went wrong with the idea of building things reliably? The network can go down because many more reasons than a worm; no electronic parts have unlimited lifetime, semiconductor junctions tend to degrade and electromigration is a bitch too.
One of my coworkers nearly died in a car accident in the middle of the night because we had to come in and make sure the systems had the latest virus signatures to protect against the outbreak of a new virus.
You don't disallow the executable content in emails and neuter javascripts in HTML messages? Why? What is it needed for? Why your application requires addressing the symptom (virus signatures) instead of the cause (allowing executable content in email, or allowing executing executable content from untrusted source)?
Maybe if we treated these people more like criminals and less like children it would send a message to others who might write a virus or even videotape a movie.
Don't forget those pesky jaywalkers. Somebody could get killed in an attempt to evade collision with them. They are the danger for the very foundation of the society. Lock'em up!
$18 for the wife and I to see "Funny Guy 3: Pratfalls and Flatulence" at the local Chaineplex is decidedly not a good deal.
Guess what? Paying $18 for that movie and skipping the $7 popcorn is a better deal than paying $23 to get in the door and $2 for popcorn. Why? Because people with only $18 to spend get to see the movie, and people with $25 can still get a movie and popcorn.
I'm not talking about the quality of movies out today, or the relative costs of DVD or second-run theatres. I'm talking about theatres using variable prices to maximize profits from the people best able to pay the money, which is a good deal for everyone.
501 Not Implemented
I am talking about the method of pricing, not the prices themselves. Put your frustration with ticket prices aside for a second and try to abstract the problem so you understand what I am saying. To use your coffee analogy, it would be a good deal if the coffee shops had their 16-ounce latte for $4 and sold the lid for $2 instead of having a fixed price of $6 for the coffee plus lid. In that situation, every customer is better off or equal with the variable pricing scheme than they would be with a fixed price. The same applies to movie ticket pricing.
Oh, and you seem to be under the mistaken impression that movie theatres are fleecing you... if that were true they would be making money hand over fist but guess what, they aren't. The cinema business is notoriously unprofitable, and major players routinely lose money or go bankrupt. Do you have idea idea how expensive real estate is? How about the costs of maintaining a large-scale enterprise like those huge multiplexes? I didn't think so. Someone is indeed fleecing you, but it's the movie production companies and the actors that are getting rich off your $12 tickets, not the shareholders of your local cinema.
501 Not Implemented
Well I am glad "Motion Picture Ass. Head" has compared the War on Pirated Movies to the War on Drugs. We all know that the War on drugs has failed and will continue to fail so with that in mind I know that there will always be Pirated Movies. Thanks For letting me know that Pirated Movies will be around for a long time ;-P
No. But...
In what we call a "free country" the idea is that you can do whatever you want unsess it can be proven to harm others.
The fact that you ask me to give a reason why one should be free by default shows that perhaps you don't care whether your country is free?
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
The problem with your entire argument is that you're talking about prostitution, not drugs. They are two different subjects.
Perhaps prostitution went down because our notions of fidelity have also dropped. The punishments for adultery have gone by the wayside. Divorce is not seen as a necessarily negative thing. Women are more likely to have sex for recreational purposes rather than because their husband wants them to. All of these things lead to the decrease of the demand for prostitutes and have nothing to do with the draconian law enforcement that you tacitly defend.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
It's an article about a guy getting arrested for filming a movie in a theater. That's already a dumb thing to do, but the submitter posts like it's a tragedy and even references the "War on Drugs."
:P
Then, it gets posted by michael with a headline "Projectionists Using Night Vision Goggles in Theaters." Huh? So now it's supposed to be bad that the theater employees scan for the cameras to begin with.
There is case after case of michael posting troll articles. I remember his insane, all-caps ranting at Intel in the 64-bit article a while back. I wish he'd join JonKatz in...you know...not being here.
"Soon, copied films will be as rare as students lighting up a joint after their exams." LMFAO. You guys should put a warning before posting alerious stuff like that, I almost pissed myself going to the washroom. Lets see here, lets talk pirated movies.
1) Movies ripped from the theatres are getting better in quality, but are not the same as a DVD. I consider them as a "preview" so you can download them and watch them. If you liked the movie, then for the full experience (surround sound with big giant screen), you go watch it in theatres. If it sucked, then forget it.
2) See, a movie now a day (except a the predictable ones) is like a surprise box. You pay for it, but you never know what your gonna get. So if the movie was good, well you had your 2 hours of fun, if it sucked, there goes 12$ down the drain. Its always a WIN-WIN situation for the Industry.
3) MONEY! Its all about the money, everything, everywhere. So lets talk about the over-priced food at the theatres. I bet you anything they would still make profit even if your ticket was free. So, a bag of pop corn at your local growcery costs around 2$. Fast foward to the Theatres, and all of the sudden you got a 250% raise in the price. (Im surprised they dont charge for the washroom, after all, they do make crap on a regular basis)
4) Then, they try to dissuade us from cam-cording movies by placing ads of hardworking people right before the movie starts. Quit complaining b*tch, I already paid your salary right there. I don't know if the ads would have the same impact if the multi-millionaire director of Miramax or ___insert big hollywood name___ was interviewed and asked about how miserable his life has become. How bout the 10 Million dollard actor paid to act in the crap you just saw?
5) DVDs are too d/amn expensive. 30$ for a DVD? Give me a break, ill rent it (5$), if its good ill rip it (5$ for the DVDR+), end of story. Blockbuster has my 5$ and Sony too.
6) Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutetly. I felt like putting that quote there. Since it goes in accordance to point#5. Ive heard people, that know people, that know a guy who owns a theatre and guess what(its true, im not joking)? Yes, he records movies at the end of the day when nobody is around to see/care.
7) And unless the internet suddenly shuts down, the sharing of movies, games, music etc, will grow expotentially. Sure the RIAA is busting kazaa users. Solution, projects like freenet (encrypted P2P) were born. One lesson everybody needs to know is: You cannot control the internet.
Conclusion: Lower the price and make quality material. Then it will be worth watching and paying. (And yes, im going to go, and pay, for Kill Bill volume 2 tommorow!!! WOOHOO!)
their goggles cant tell the difference between whats in an out of focus, what requires a scope lens and what doesnt, and what level of scratching on the film warrants it being removed from service.
i last went to the cinema and tried to watch lord of the rings #1. all the flaws above were in effect. I walked out after 45 mins, not been to a cinema since.
Cinemas suck, they are full of assholes. The 80s has a lot to answer for - i.e. videos. People watch films at home and can make as much fuss/noise/aggro as they like. Now films are back in fashion people act like it's their front room. When I know that my local cinema is selling *crisps* (thats 'chips' to you yanks) I know im never setting foot in there again.
Think again, numbskull.
1) When you "steal" a person's ID or a credit-card number, do they lose it, retard?
2) If you "steal" a ride on an empty bus, who loses, moron?
The word "steal" is applied whenever you TAKE (in the exclusive sense) or USE someone's property without their legal permission, dimwit.
dumbass.
At least none of the comments I've seen addressed this issue, so I'll go ahead and state the obvious--though it ought to be rated as insightful if you haven't already thought about it.
The experience of sitting in a movie theater with a big screen, excellent sound, and "social" atmosphere is distinctly different from the experience of watching a tiny little window with lousy sound and heads bobbing around in front of the movie. They are NOT in direct competition. If there is any relationship there, the low quality form is a kind of advertising, but the availability of those versions has very little effect on whether or not I go to see a particular movie. At least in my case, it's almost always the social aspect that causes me to go to a movie theatre. Or to put it more bluntly, I'll be willing to pay the big bucks if my date seems likely to enjoy it.
My basic reaction to this news is the usual "What greedy and aggressive bastards! Why should I contribute to making those rich pigs any richer?" Suffice it to say, I do not count this as an incentive to go see a movie. I'm sure their REAL concern is with making sure people don't spot the lemons before paying for the tickets.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
I guess it depends on what standard of proof you ask for. 99.999% of the time, someone taping a movie intends to violate copyright. I consider that reasonable grounds to assume that someone I see taping a movie is going to violate copyright unless explicitly prevented from doing so. If I see someone picking the lock on a closed store, there's a very small probability he's the legitimate owner who lost his keys and left something important inside, but chances are he's a burglar and calling the cops is understandable given the evidence.
Living in a free country doesn't mean that we are free to harm others and suffer the consequences later. We have established legal precedents stating that preventing extremely likely harm before it is actually committed is an acceptable infringement on freedom.
I have quite a few night vision equipment such as camcorders and digital still cameras. Night vision is basically Infrared light. Note that infrared cameras can be used to "see through" light, skin-tight, and thin clothing. We are not only dealing with priracy here, but also privacy.
http://www.palmzone.net
I never implied that the guy was innocent, or that we have a right to record films. However, several aspects of this case are cause for concern;
- the severity of the potential punishment
- the use of extensive public resources (police, court and prison) to protect the media industry in what would otherwise be a private civil matter
- the fact that we are now being surreptitiously watched while we watch a film
- the potential for all sorts of innocent devices (mobile phones, portable audio players) to lead to arrest
At the least, people should be aware of these aspects, even if they feel that they are justified in order to prevent copyright infringement.
As far as the war on drugs goes, the indirectness of any harm done, the fact that a significant proportion of the population consider it acceptable, and the consequent efforts to "educate" people to do what they're told, all group copyright infringement and drug abuse together as distinct from crimes like murder, robbery or assault, where there is a clear consensus that law and morality are aligned. So, I think the comparison is one that helps us to understand the current situation.
If you have some reasons why it's not a helpful analogy, rather than simply telling me I'm wrong, then I am all ears.
Slashdot at it's best.
/. at IT'S best!
Not that it's VERY good... but still,
-pyrrho
Mental note: no more fooling around with gf in the corner of the cinema. People are watching.
I remember going to a matinee quite some ime ago. I carried in a large purse containing sandwiches, fries, and drinks (yes, it was a big ass purse).
We got stopped by security (this wasn't too long after 9/11, maybe a month), they inspected the bag for weapons or bootlegging equipment. They saw the food clearly and let us go into the theatre with it, no problem.
For this violation of my civil liberty I got to enjoy my burger while watching the movie. I've carried my own food ever since and not once has anyone in the theatre ever objected.
In response to the likeness of the War on Drugs and the War on Copying, there is a seriously oft-overlooked economic problem.
It works like this. Policing resources are limited, which means like any other economic equation, when the resources are diverted or used to do one thing, they cannot be used to do another thing at the same time.
In respect to the Drug War, one of the premises behind increasing enforcement is that drug use causes crime, typically property crime. So what happens when resources are diverted from fighting property crime to drug crime? PROPERTY CRIME INCREASES because now there is less disincentive to commit property crime (less chance of getting caught).
Of course, the politicians turn this around and put even more enforcement into drug crime.
Now, imagine if the limited police resources are sent off to fight another somewhat pointless "war." You could expect increases in all other criminal activites (violent crime, property crime, traffic crime, etc).
Plus, more non-violent offenders in prison helps expel the violent offenders.
Funny how people seem to forget that all resources are limited, including enforcement resources. So basically, if you support the diversion of police resources to help fight copyright crime, remember what is being sacrificed.
It trains kids to parrot the line "drugs are bad" rather than think critically about what drugs do, and what the dangers and benefits of different drugs may be. Kids are taught that cannabis is as bad as heroin. They're taught that speed is bad, when what they don't know is that some of them are on it--it's a treatment for ADHD. The most they might be told about psychedelics is that they make you hallucinate, because that's an easy effect to spin as bad--in fact, LSD and mushrooms can give people spiritual experiences, help them change their lives in positive ways, and when used in therapeutic situations can be even more beneficial. The same is true of MDMA, minus the spiritual side.
I'm not saying that kids should be doing drugs--I'm saying that they shouldn't be brainwashed. DARE trains kids in a way that keeps many of them from making intelligent, informed decisions later in life.
I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
For those of you who complain about prices, I'd just like to make a few things clear as a member of the cinema workforce.
In a first run theater (meaning, theaters that show movies when they come out), the theater itself has very little control of the cost of the movie. The studios set the prices, and get 95% of the ticket sale. The amount we get back from each ticket is barely enough to cover the cost of running the box office. Unless they're doing close to sell out shows each weekend, they are often taking a loss on ticket sales.
This is why concessions cost so much, it's the only thing that the theater makes any money off of. Concessions is what pays for the staff that are needed to keep the theater open.
It's actually a rather ironic situation, really. The movie studios have pushed their rates up so high that they are slowly killing off their distribution mechanism. Ticket sales are down nationwide, and have been declining steadily over the past 5-10 years. Movies continue to break earnings records only because the studios are pushing ticket prices up and up.
Now, as for presentation quality, that one is entirely the theater's fault, and is largely due to greed by the big chain cinemas (CHOUGHregalCHOUGH). They cut back on equipment repair, print management, and quality staff hiring so that they can boost their bottom line.
I'm fortunate enough to work for a family owned chain that cares more about the performance, but I know they are the minority.
Incidentally, theaters aren't the only places that work this way. Gas stations also make only pennies per gallon. All their profits come from food sales.
A low-quality camcorder rip is more than likely going to be exactly that, shit. Perhaps they should give shit away so that end users will distribute their promos on their own bandwidth dime.
So far, nobody's demonstrated actual losses based on P2P distributions of MPAA content. If no demonstration has been made, what reason is there that taxpayers should pay for enforcement over and above what we already pay for anti-piracy enforcement? Or paying for keeping people in jail?
You seem to have some peculiar idea that getting a poor-quality camcorder rip via P2P is a reason for not buying the actual DVD. There's a bit of a quality difference here. Using a low-quality rip to preview a movie you like is simply going to persuade you to buy it when it hits the stores. If you can't tell the difference, your problem isn't with slashdotters, it's medical.
MPAA's real problem with this is that if a movie is going to be popular, just as P2P tracks drive record sales (see also Big Champagne), P2P video will drive sales via Internet word of mouth. If a movie is going to be a dud, Net word of mouth kills it faster, more than one movie has been DOA because the intended audience already knew better than to waste their money. This is not my problem and it isn't yours unless you personally own stock in a Hollywood entertainment cartel member. If you think we should pay for this out of altruism, write a check to the MPAA yourself and leave us out of this. Personally, I think that if MPAA members make a shit movie, they should be allowed to eat the costs. That's capitalism. You got a problem with it?
Perhaps they should put heavily compressed early versions of the movie on P2P networks themselves on purpose before committing big bucks to nationwide media promo campaigns.
You don't find nightvision goggles scanning you and your date in a movie audience intrusive? Do you think that camcorders are the only thing they're going to see? Perhaps you should spend less time here and spend it instead with some mysterious creatures called women and find out why that sort of thing matters.
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?
Well, if they're reasonably intelligent and clued, they probably do. If you don't, that's more of a grim (or funny) comment on you than anything else.
As for your not being able to spot the analogy, let's see, millions of people engaging in an activity that does no harm to society and having to fear going to jail to practice it. Sounds like something that can apply equally well either to DRUGWARS or *AA organization-style copyright enforcement.
The mod points tell me that 3 of the other moderators have been asleep at the switch again. I decided to post instead of giving your post a proper "Flamebait" negative point.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Calling the cops _is_ understandable, but what you are really doing is reporting somebody attempting unlawful entry (or whatever law your country has) not reporting lock picking because lock picking is (thankfully) not against the law.
As an aside, the only two times I have seem someone breaking into a property it has been the owner/tenant doing so. That's probably because if it were a burglar they would chose some less visible point of entry, whereas the owner would chose the one that causes least damage.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
Awwww.... whassa matter? Are you the original poster and now you're pissed off because I got your nonsense "Insightful" mods slapped silly? Ooo.. you read some Noam Chomsky once, huh? Watch me bow down to your obviously superior grasp of legal and social issues because you happened to read a book by somebody with insight into them. Hey, I read Plato once, am I fucking philospoher now?
I'll tell you what, why don't you go scarf your mushrooms and smoke your dope and leave the important issues up to someone who actually knows what the fuck they're talking about. Just because you're a pothead and you make broad statements about past situations of which you almost certainly can't understand the magnitude, doesn't mean you have any fucking clue how the real world works. You smoke pot and speed on the freeway whenever you feel like it? Well, when you get picked up for possession or charged with manslaughter for hitting a bus full of children at 80mph, I hope your mommy and daddy come bail you out.
If you care to come join the rest of us who understand action, reaction, and consequence, do feel free to put down the blunt and the book and start doing some of your own thinking. Otherwise, stop pretending that anybody gives a rat's ass what you have to say about things just because you think you're cool. Go impress some fifteen year olds with your cool, outlaw attitude and leave the rest of us who have some experience in reality alone.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
It was funny about a week or two ago there was a Dave Chappell marathon on Comedy Central, and one of the skits was about how "White Collar" and "Blue Collar" (thug) crimes are handled differently. Corporate crimes are dealt with kid gloves while drug crimes use battering rams and dogs. Well, he wanted to portray what would it be like if the process were reveresed.
White Collar Crime:
Husband comes home after a tough day in the office trying to cover up his mis-deeds on stealing people's pension money and telling his wife that it's tough out there and then he throws her on the bed and about to get "nasty" and "wid' it". Then the FEDS bust the door down with guns drawn telling him to get down and that he's under arrest. Then, in court at the trial, the Judge (Dave Chappell) tells the "white" guy how awful he is and the worse kind of human type to be and that he should be serverly punished. The Judge sentences the "white" guy to life in prison for stealing sooo much money and ruining sooo many people's lives.
Blue Collar (thug) Crime:
Drug deal is at home watching TV and gets a telephone call from the District Attorney apologizing to having to call and give him some bad news. The DA tells him that they are investigating the Drug Dealer for narcotics and if he can schedule a time to come down and turn himself in. They DA offers Wednesday, but the Thug say's it is a bad day how about the next day about 1:00 p.m. They DA agrees and assures him that they'll get this straightened out and apologizes again for distubing him. At the DA office that Thugs lawyers and the DA team try to come up with some sort of light punishment to apply to make the public happy. At trial the Judge tells the Thug that there will be a small fine and everthing else is suspended. The Thug then is cheering about the decision and thanks his attorneys with a winning CHEER!!
THE END!
Stealing a ride in the bus is also different. There is a limit to the number of people that can fit on the bus. You are "taking" space. Even if very little, you are making the bus heavier, and it costs more gas money. Copying music doesn't cost the makers ANYTHING, unless the people copying it were actually going to buy something. But most that were still will, and most that wouldn't have still won't. And even if that were the case most of the time, it is still not stealing. They are niether stealing money from their account nor stealing gas.
Get a fucking clue man.
Actually, in some instances I can. After all, some psychoactive drugs are recommended by doctors ("prescribed"); many people taking Valium or Prozac now would be better served by cannabis.
One of the greatest contributors to health problems is stress, and many "recreational" drugs are used to counteract stress. It may indeed by healthier for some people to have a little wine, or have a cup of tea, or eat a little chocolate (yes, it's a drug), or smoke (or eat) a little cannabis, than to not only deprive themselves of a stress remedy but to add to stress by surpressing a reasonably harmless desire. And some of these drugs have other beneficial health effects; evidence is growing that moderate wine drinking is beneficial - though of course, that depends on the individual. It's not beneficial for alcoholics, obviously.
This is not to say that drug use is not without risk, or that anti-stress benefits can't be gotten other ways; but the risk is different for each person.
Eating an order of french fries probably harms the body more than an effective dose of many recreational drugs. LSD, for example, is effective in such low doses that its side-effects on the body is virtually non-existant. For other drugs, the damage is more significant, but is increased several times when the drugs are purchased on the unregulated black market.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
I am a musician and I dont mind people downloading my music and playing it and sharing it with people. I do mind when people download music and then sell it to others. That is the issue here. Most people that bring video cameras to movie theaters are not going to use them for personal use, they will end up in small stores and they will be sold as videotapes or possibly DVDs before the movie is released to video stores. I think anybody on this list would not want something they created in anyform, being marketed by another person or business as their own. The average theater goer does not want the hassle of watching the movie thru a viewfinder. I dont think the projectionist is the best person for this duty though, it should be the manager. The projectionist should be concerned about the correct presention of the film and the proper maintenance of the projector not police duties.
what a jackass. You're too thickskulled to see the point until you're hit on the head with a 2-by-4, aren't you?
The point, you idiot, is precisely this:
1) The word "steal" derives its meaning from popular usage. It has been known to be used in all the cases I mention, with the semantics I mention.
2) Arguments that it is legally incorrect don't hold. The world "steal" is NEVER used in legalese. It is usually a technically precise term like "property theft", "breaking and entering" etc.
3) Who is making weak arguments here, numbnuts? Bus "slightly" heavier? Do you know the weight ratio of a person to a bus? Would it be acceptable if I dropped 10 cents in the bus whenever I use it, with the proviso that I would get off whenever it became full? You would argue that the bus service charge significantly more than that because they have to recoup the initial investment of buying the bus, paying salaries to the drivers, etc. That is exactly why the music industry charges much more than the cost of media. Don't like it? don't buy it, and don't steal it either. Dimwitted ape.
Life's kind of shortcharged you in the gray cells, hasn't it? Go hunt for your marbles again, numbskull.