Senate Unanimously Passes Anti-Camcorder Bill

jamonterrell writes "The US Senate just unanimously passed a bill allowing the criminal prosecution of recording movies with a camcorder in theatres. Victims of the new bill would face 3 years in prison on first offense (5 if it was done for profit), repeat offenders would get 10 years. As a side note, it will cost taxpayers an additional 5 million dollars per year through 2009 for enforcement." Several states have made recording in theaters a crime, although none of them have penalties nearly as harsh as this Senate bill.

Comments

Not only will this make CAM recordings more rare

[Osmosis_Garett]

It will make them more elite and thus more sought after by release groups.

That's interesting.

[Photo_Nut]

I don't suppose anyone is going to come up with an argument saying that they are in the theaters with their camcorders excersizing their right to time shift... :)

Re:That's interesting.

[fenix down]

"Zzzzzzzzzzz..."
"Sir..."
"Zzzzzzzwhazat?"
"Yea h, uh, we're gonna be placing you under arrest..."
"What? Oh, no, It's cool, I was kinda sleepy, so I'm time-shifting this for tomorrow morning."
"Well, all right."
"Yeah, whatever. ZZZZzzzzzzz..."

Re:That's interesting.

[gnu-generation-one]

"I don't suppose anyone is going to come up with an argument saying that they are in the theaters with their camcorders excersizing their right to time shift... :)"

So theoretically, would this make it worth your while to kill anyone who noticed you using the camcorder, if there was, say, a 60% chance that killing them allowed you to successfully escape? There must be some probability threshold before a "manslaughter-equivalent" jail sentance for videoing makes it worth your while to do bad things if you get caught...

How does the person sitting next to you in the cinema feel about this, compared to say, the managing director of the company who invested in the film?

Re:That's interesting.

[uncoveror]

While no one will likely bash this law claiming a right to videotape in theatres, I will say that this law is way too draconian. Three years in prison if it's not for profit, and five if it is when nothing tangible has been taken? Fines would be more appropriate. If they are going to be draconian, why not just sentance camcorder "pirates" to death? What are those senators smoking?

Re:That's interesting.

[Seven001]

I think people SHOULD be sent to jail for releasing such movies. Have you seen how crappy looking they are? Just wait for the DVD you impatient fucks.

Re:That's interesting.

[berzerke]

...If they are going to be draconian, why not just sentance camcorder "pirates" to death? What are those senators smoking?

Campaign contributions from the MPAA.

Re:That's interesting.

[smaug195]

Answer: There are several types of first degree murder, all of which are defined by A.R.S. 13-1105. The first definition of first degree murder is causing the death of another person with either the intent or knowledge that the conduct will cause death and with premeditation. Premeditation is often described as 'malice aforethought,' which basically means that you probably considered the consequence of your conduct for at least a second before you committed the act.

The second definition of first degree murder is causing the death of another person while committing or attempting to commit another crime like sexual conduct with a minor, sexual assault, molestation of a child, various drug-related crimes, kidnapping, burglary, arson, robbery, escape from jail, child abuse, or unlawful flight from a pursuing law enforcement vehicle, or while fleeing from the scene where you committed any of these offenses.

The third definition of first degree murder is causing the death of a law enforcement officer in the line of duty while intending or knowing that the conduct will cause the officer's death.

Re:That's interesting.

[Colazar]

he second definition of first degree murder is causing the death of another person while committing or attempting to commit another crime like sexual conduct with a minor, sexual assault, molestation of a child, various drug-related crimes, kidnapping, burglary, arson, robbery, escape from jail, child abuse, or unlawful flight from a pursuing law enforcement vehicle, or while fleeing from the scene where you committed any of these offenses.

The exact list of crimes on there varies from state to state.

Interestingly enough, in Washington state we're in the middle of a big brouhaha because one of the crimes that had been on the list was "assault," and the State Supreme Court recently ruled that silly. The reasoning was that it was impossible to commit murder without also committing assault, and so having assault automatically escalate the murder to 1st degree murder effectively eliminated the existence of 2nd degree murder.

It makes since, but the effect has been to overturn a whole bunch of murder convictions, which is causing quite a mess.

Re:That's interesting.

[LabRat007]

In the town were I grew up local man took advantage of one of my best freind's sister. He also got several of her freinds. He served only 3 years in prison. Equating that kind of horror to recording a movie illegally is insulting to her, the family, and everyone harmed in a similar crime. Clearly, the Senate is being presured into passing brutal laws which seek to scare the public into obedience. Know of any good web based movments against ill concieved laws? I've just started looking and could use the help.

One that I like for watching money trails is here

Orwell got the year wrong...

Re:That's interesting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure there is a legal legimate reason for a patron to have a camcorder with them. They had it with them before the movie (perhaps on vacation).

Making tougher laws because the weaker ones aren't being enforced is just plain stupid. Just because you can't think of a reason this law shouldn't be passed, doesn't mean it should be.

A good rule of thumb when making a decision on something like this is to look at the consequences of not doing it. In this case they would have to fall back to existing copyright laws. Another way to evaluate it is to try to see what it makes illegal that wasn't before. If it was illegal before it didn't need a new law.

Surely this is a civil, not a criminal matter...

[Catroaster]

I would have thought that night-vision equipment and kicking perpetrators out of cinemas would work.

You'd get less time...

[EvilCabbage]

... if you beat up a video store clerk and steal some real, actual copies of a film on DVD or VHS.

I'm not standing up for the crime, but isn't the punishment supposed to match it?

Sickening...

Re:You'd get less time...

[EvilCabbage]

"Let me guess--you're one of those people who thinks that corporate executives should get many years in prison rather than fines because of the economic damage their misdeeds cause."
There is real, measurable damage when some clown in a business suit robs someone of their retirement fund. They destroy lives. I'm yet to see a poor starving industry executive begging me for money when I buy my groceries because some kid downloaded a copy of "Crossroads".

"Well, movie pirates likewise cause millions in economic damage."
If I hadn't been able to download a few episodes of The Sopranos, I never would have bought the entire DVD collection. Viewing times just don't suit my work habits unfortunately, and I'm not abou to shell out $100 on something that might just be garbage.

But wait, you're talking about those poor unfortunate people like set builders and painters, the hard workers who make their living supporting the movie industry, and I'm hurting them, right?
If that's the case, they'd have a big complaint to lodge with those behind Sky Captain And The World Of Tomorrow. The whole movie filmed without a single set being built, everything CG apart from the main actors.
The movie industry is playing catch-up to consumer demands. They either adapt, of their business model dies.
Is it really that hard to grasp?

Re:You'd get less time...

[Granos]

... if you beat up a video store clerk and steal some real, actual copies of a film on DVD or VHS.

I'm not standing up for the crime, but isn't the punishment supposed to match it?

Great analogy, except that you're comparing the ACTUAL time you would probably get for a crime to the MAXIMUM time you could get for another crime. The MAXIMUM punishment for felony aggravated assault and felony robbery would probably be about 30+ years, depending on the state. Why do people on slashdot have such trouble comprehending maximum punishment? Go look at some laws. Most crimes have suprisingly high maximum punishents. Most people don't get the maximum. That's why it's called a maximum punishment, not a standard punishemnt.

Re:You'd get less time...

[freejung]

Well, movie pirates likewise cause millions in economic damage

They do. But this law would give you up to three years in prison even if you don't do it for profit. While many people stealing movies for personal use may collectively cause millions in economic damage, individually you have only cost a few bucks. So the punishment should fit the crime, that is, it should only be worth a few bucks, not millions.

If somebody pirates a movie for profit and makes millions themselves, I can see this argument holding and requiring a stiff sentence. But for individual pirates stealing for personal use, it's just insane.

Re:You'd get less time...

[EvilCabbage]

30+ years? Excellent. I'm glad punks that beat up on store clerks can potentially get that kind of punishment, but tell me how often that happens in practice.

Someone steals $500 from a convenience store, they're not going to go down for 30 years. They'll get a few months and then maybe 12 months of probation.

Sitting in a cinema with a camcorder should not be punishable by any prison time. It is not a violent act, it makes nobody rich, it isn't going to fund any drug cartel. It is a simple civil violation, not something comitted by a criminal mastermind or a thug with a weapon.

I stand by my original comment.

Re:You'd get less time...

[mumblestheclown]

There is real, measurable damage when some clown in a business suit robs someone of their retirement fund

Sigh. Would it be too much to ask you to think for one minute before posting? What the hell do you think 'retirement funds' invest in? That's right - for profit businesses! So when you hurt for-profit companies, you hurt the poor old people with the retirement funds AND ultimately the set painters and whatever other lovable tramp characters you want to put in your menagerie.

The "Adapt or your business model dies" argument of yours in this case is bullshit. There is a difference between a real technological shift and new methods of crime. The existence of bricks don't obsolete car windows or cause us to scream about how the car window manufacturers need to come up with new brick-resistant windows or go out of business. Rather, we say "find the idiots who are throwing bricks through windows." Movies have kept up with technological shifts in moviemaking quite well. But piracy is still piracy, even if you try to excuse it as "some kid downloading a copy of crossroads." at the end of the day, IN AGGREGATE, that kid IS hurting your hypothetical retirement fund.

Re:You'd get less time...

[EvilCabbage]

So you're saying that somebody distributing film has the same adverse affect on a retirement fund as misreporting of figures and stealing from the shareholders?

Can you come over and do my taxes? You appear to be better with magical numbers than my accountant.

Re:You'd get less time...

[kanthoney]

Criminal masterminds with access to a duplication unit capable of running off millions of DVDs do not sit in cinemas with camcorders. They hand that job off to an underling.

Re:You'd get less time...

[latroM]

While many people stealing movies for personal use may collectively cause millions in economic damage, individually you have only cost a few bucks

If somebody pirates a movie for profit and makes millions themselves, I can see this argument holding and requiring a stiff sentence. But for individual pirates stealing for personal use, it's just insane.

Copying isn't stealing. How many times that has to be told. Don't fall into the rhetoric of big media companies twisting the terms to make breaking the copyright law which allows a limited monopoly on copying "their" content morally equal to stealing. Illegal copying is something between stealing and "just copying, no harm". But it isn't stealing. Can't you use neutral terms in texts dealing with copyright instead of those made by the media companies?

Re:You'd get less time...

[idiot900]

The existence of bricks don't obsolete car windows or cause us to scream about how the car window manufacturers need to come up with new brick-resistant windows or go out of business. Rather, we say "find the idiots who are throwing bricks through windows."

That's a wonderful analogy. The recording industry wants to outlaw the bricks themselves (i.e. P2P). Then we couldn't use them to build houses and pave driveways (share noninfringing files).

Re:You'd get less time...

[fermion]

The issue is even more complex. The punishment for a crime should not encourage the suspect to use a greater level of violence to avoid capture than already in use in the crime. The punishment should also not put innocent bystanders at increased risk.

For example at sporting events certain behaviors are prohibited. The emphasized punishment for the behavior is ejection from the venue. If the action is a crime, the event may press charges. Most events that I have attended do not say that all prohibited action will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The reason, I believe, is because such statement might encourage suspects to be more resistant to the punishment, an in the process put innocent people at risk. For example, one can imagine some object accidently getting thrown onto the court. This obviously put player health at risk, and arguable could be the basis for a criminal prosecution. If the suspects thought that jail time was a real possibility, then they might choose to use violence to defend themselves, as the jail time might not be significantly increased. As it is, they have an incentive to leave quietly to avoid further punishment.

And this is what the theaters are missing. By attaching a five year penalty to a nonviolent action, they are endangering my health, the health of staff, and the well being of any police called to enforce the action. I mean is someone who is risking five years for recording a movie going to worry about 10 years for injuring the people around him in his attempt to avoid capture? Is such a person going to worry about the riot he or she causes as they pull a gun to try to escape? I know that this is the extreme possibility, but one must make a full analysis before passing these laws.

People will do really stupid stuff out of fear. In the US we try hard to have a fair and open process of law to minimize that fear. The problem is that process is becoming less fair, for instance by the reduced access to proper representation for those who cannot afford it, and as a consequence these parties tend to feel they have less to lose, which makes them more a threat to society.

Re:You'd get less time...

[gcaseye6677]

On that note, if you were a movie theater employee making minimum wage, how would you enfore this law? Would you find someone with a camcorder and say "Excuse me sir, I'm going to need you to wait over here for the cops to arrive"? Maybe if you have a death wish. Of course the cops could be called without the camcorder user being aware of it, but what if he isn't noticed until the movie is almost over? If the theaters can't employ a security force capable of detaining someone, and they won't because it would cost too much, the only reasonable conclusion is that the MPAA will lobby the government to put FBI agents in certain theaters for enforcement purposes. And what a great use of OUR money that would be.

Re:You'd get less time...

[Sontas]

You're forgetting the all important third option: Record/Pirate movie for non-personal non-profit distribution. For instance, putting it up on the internet for free download. That can cost a film maker (producers and directors), distributors, actors, and studios much dinero in lost theater, PayPerView, rental, and dvd/VHS sales. And this cost is only likely to increase as the use of high bandwidth internet connections increases. You may not agree with the degree of proposed punishment or the all-things-considered level of damage to the film makers and/or industry, but do not hide from the existence of the problem.

A final note, this bill can change as it goes through the House and back for conference (assuming the House passes a modified version) and before final passage for Presidential signing. *YOU* can make a difference by writing your congressional representatives or perhaps those running against the incumbent of your district in the upcoming elections. Register to vote so you have power. Contribute to campaigns representing your stances on the issues you care about. Involve yourself, no one else can do it for you.

What about....

[SlashdotLemming]

I was on vacation recently, running around with the camcorder. Almost stopped to see a movie as a break. Glad I didn't....

Re:What about....

[The Fanta Menace]

I've also never known anyone that happened to be on vacation, filming the city or what have you, and then be overcome with the sudden urge to pop in for a movie.

You don't know many people then. I see films all the time when I go on holiday. I generally have my camera with me. I travel by train, so I have no car to leave my camera in, and I stay in youth hostels, so leaving expensive equipment in the room is as good as leaving them on a table in a fast-food restaurant with a sign that says "STEAL ME".

So I will be taking my camera into cinemas for the forseeable future.

Why should taypayers pay for enforcement?

[bollow (a) NoLockIn]

If the movie industry wants regulation of what people can do in music theaters, I tend to think that they should be able to get whatever rules they want, as long as they pay the costs of enforcement. (by contrast, the internet "belongs to us", the world-wide user community, and no movie industry or music industry should be allowed to interfere with how we choose to network or computers together.)

But why on earth should taypayers have to pay for enforcement of these rules?

If preventing camcorders is movie theaters is so important to their business, they should pay for the cost of preventing it. Anything else is a form of subsidy of the music industry. Taypayer money should be spend on protecting the security of people. Subsidies (in any form) are justified only if an industry which is important for providing necessities of life to the population is otherwise likely to suffer significant harm. In this case, there is no justification: The movie industry does not provide any necessities, just luxerious. Also, the movie industry would be quite capable of paying the costs of enforcing the rules they asked for. By paying for enforcement of this rule, Senate intends to rob the poor (taypayers) and giev to the rich (movie industry).

Re:Why should taypayers pay for enforcement?

[TheFlyingGoat]

I stand corrected in my other post... I guess people will get worked up over this. So what you're saying is that we shouldn't have to pay for law enforcement to stop people from robbing your local McDonalds as well? If something is wrong, it's wrong, and if there's a law made against it, then officers should be in place to uphold that law. Otherwise our laws mean nothing. If you don't like this law, use your vote to show that. I really don't mind the government spending less than a penny per person on this when they're throwing a lot more money around on REALLY stupid projects.

Re:Why should taypayers pay for enforcement?

[MancDiceman]

Using the same argument, why should taxpayers pay for the enforcement of the law regarding bank robberies instead of the banks? Or murder? Surely, if I get murdered, it's my responsibility to bequeath enough money to ensure my killer is caught?

$5 million is a tiny, tiny fraction of the amount of tax revenue the entire movie industry (studios, distributors, cinemas, actors, crew, etc.) bring in annually. In short, by paying their taxes, the film industry is in fact paying for the enforcement of these laws. The "why should taxpayers pay?" line is so broken, you really go and do some very, very basic study of economics.

Re:Why should taypayers pay for enforcement?

[msblack]

Aha, so taxpayers should only pay for occupying countries like Iraq and Afghanistan which may hurt American security but not for protection from people trying to steal property from my home? Or should police only protect property of private homes but not business? What about Bill Gates' home? He's very wealthy and could afford his own army.

There's a strong case for protecting property and it seems Slashdot readers believe intellectual property should be free as it is in places like Thailand or China where enforcement is lax or nonexistent.

There's no instrinsic right to steal the property of others whether it be tangible like grandma's life savings or the intellectual property of powerful media conglomerates. A free market allows selllers to set the price of their merchandise or services. As movies are not a life necessity like food, housing, medicine, or housing, I don't see that media companies can be accused of overcharging for entertainment. This issue has nothing to do with the home taping act or unreasonably long copyright protections. This is plain theft.

Re:Why should taypayers pay for enforcement?

[bollow (a) NoLockIn]

MancDiceman wrote: Using the same argument, why should taxpayers pay for the enforcement of the law regarding bank robberies instead of the banks? Or murder? Surely, if I get murdered, it's my responsibility to bequeath enough money to ensure my killer is caught?

I had written: "Taypayer money should be spend on protecting the security of people." This includes enforcing laws against murder and robbery.

Enforcing a rule against camcorders is like enforcing other kinds of NDAs. Whether or not you think that NDAs are morally acceptable, it's not right to use taxpayer money on enforcing them.

MancDiceman continued: $5 million is a tiny, tiny fraction of the amount of tax revenue the entire movie industry (studios, distributors, cinemas, actors, crew, etc.) bring in annually. In short, by paying their taxes, the film industry is in fact paying for the enforcement of these laws.

If a subsidy takes the form of a tax rebate, it's still a subsidy. And, do you really think that it's right when taxpayer money is spent on camcorder rule enforcement but not on GPL enforcement just because currently the movie industry pays more taxes than the Free Software industry? Either is a subsidy by nature, and where subsidies go should be decided on a basis of where they're needed and not on a basis of who pays more taxes. (I don't want to ask for subsidies for the Free Software industry, I don't think that such subsidies are needed - just give us a level playing field without unfair advantages for proprietary software companies, and we'll do very well. However I think it's clear that subsidies for the movie industry are much less justifiable.)

Re:Why should taypayers pay for enforcement?

[Bios_Hakr]

Bank robbers endanger the general public. Also, banks hire private security. The cops are only needed if the situation escalates.

Murder needs to be prosicuted so that the general public can feel safe and do their jobs.

$5M may be a small ammount, but it's still five fucking million dolars! Let's use it to train 2 more cops and have them patrol streets.

The movie industry probably pays less tax than you think. I read an analasys of how these things work. Basicly, a company is formed to produce the film. The company leases all the equipment and sets from MGM or Mirimax or Disney. Then the film is made. After the profits start rolling in, the company has to pay MGM for the rentals. The rental prices are set to absorb any real profits. Then the company declares bankruptcy. MGM ends up with all the money by basicly renting the equipment to itself.

I'm sure these companies pay tax. But if you and I are taxed at 20% to 30% of our income, big production companies probably pay closer to 5%. Think about that. You lose 1 of every 3 dolars you make so that police can enforce the rights of a company that pays 2 out of every 50 dollars it makes.

Thank God this passed....

[Iam18grey]

I'm sick of shaky camcorder job movies I've been downloading on Shareaza. Hopefully this will make the movies shared on P2P networks better quality.

Demand

[Cinematique]

There's an obvious demand for movies currently playing in theaters to be offered at home. HBO was originally founded on this notion, IIRC.

Solution: offer movies-on-demand at the same time they play in theaters.

Why miss out on profits from those that download these bootleg movies or buy them off the street? They could offer the movies for $4 a pop and people would buy.

I can't wait for an iTunes for movies.

I don't necessarily disagree with the intent but..

[supersandra]

I think that this is totally a legitimate thing to get people in trouble for... but I mean, 3 years if you didn't profit from it? 3 years seems harsh even for the people who sell those bad VCDs of movies in theatres.

If I broke out my cell phone video recorder and took a quick clip of a movie, does that warrant 3 years in prison?

How many...

[NEOtaku17]

How many years would I get if I physically broke into the theatre and started attacking the manager with a baseball bat? Less then 10 years I assure you.

What Country are YOU living in?

[Mark_MF-WN]

What country are YOU living in? Here in America (by which I mean the USA and Canada), punishment rarely fits the crime. If you steal a billion dollars from investors, you'll be asked to retire and pay a fine. Steal a hundred dollars from a liquour store, and you'll get twenty years in jail.

Pirating films isn't white-collar enough to warrant a light sentence. The only crimes that have stiff sentences are the ones that wealthy people don't commit.

Re:What Country are YOU living in?

[EvilCabbage]

I live in that big brown land of Australia.

We're a bit behind the times down here. I can't think of any recent examples of a local company using it's financial power to put draconian laws into affect. Give us another six months or so to catch up on that one.
Hopefully we'll tear up and burn that Fraud Trade Agreement Bush "offered" us, and we won't have to worry about it any time soon either.

Re:What Country are YOU living in?

[Mycroft_VIII]

Well actually it's they tend to only get caught in one (or one related set of) crime(s) then wise up and become a professional crook by running for office.

Mycroft

Re:What Country are YOU living in?

[orthogonal]

Ah yes, but most people who steal from liquor stores have committed many other crimes, and are likely to commit a lot more, whereas white collar criminals tend to only commit one crime.

Huh, that's funny. I'd have sworn Dennis Koslowski is accused not only of looting his own company, but tax evasion in the millions as well -- and various conspiracies to cover up his alleged crimes.

Not to mention the allegations against Ken Lay and the other alleged Enron conspirators : not only are they alleged to have conned their own investors, they are also alleged to have manufactured fake power shortages in order to over-charge California, according to seized tapes:

"They're fucking taking all the money back from you guys?" complains an Enron employee on the tapes. "All the money you guys stole from those poor grandmothers in California?"

"Yeah, grandma Millie, man"

"Yeah, now she wants her fucking money back for all the power you've charged right up, jammed right up her asshole for fucking $250 a megawatt hour."

And the tapes appear to link top Enron officials Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling to schemes that fueled the crisis.

"Government Affairs has to prove how valuable it is to Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling," says one trader.

But even if you were correct in claiming that "white collar criminals tend to only commit one crime", if that single crime nets the criminal millions of dollars, well, those ill-gotten gains will last a lifetime longer than the take from knocking over a liqueur store.

I'm sure that if by robbing a liqueur store you could make millions, the hold up men would be happy to retire afterward -- or be driven out of thievery by competition from greedy MBAs.

But tell me one thing: why are you so willing to be sympathetic to those who steal the investments of pensioners and pension plans in order to live it up yachting on the Riviera, and so unsympathetic to the poor junkie from the projects who just wants to steal enough to get by for one more miserable day?

Why do we allow the wealthy to bend us over and rob us, and then fawn all over them at their parole parties? Why do we beleive that a CEO really "earns" a salary plus benefits in the tens of millions of dollars, while the average worker gets his jib outsourced?

Is it because we respect wealth -- earned or stolen -- so much, or just because we respect ourselves so little?

Is this still the country that Jefferson and the Adamses risked their "lives, fortunes, and scared honors" for, or some European-style feudalism with the thieving rich taking the place of an idle aristocracy?

Re:What Country are YOU living in?

[edalytical]

most people who steal from liquor stores have commited many other crimes, and are likely to commit a lot more

I thought you could only be punished for crimes you have been charged for and found guilty of having commit. Not for crimes you may have done or are likely to do.

Re:What Country are YOU living in?

[blane.bramble]

Is this still the country that Jefferson and the Adamses risked their "lives, fortunes, and scared honors" for, or some European-style feudalism with the thieving rich taking the place of an idle aristocracy?

Seriously, how do you think the European aristocracy came into being? It was rich and wealthy merchants using their money and power to buy themselves rights and more power. America is not a classless society, it just defines its classes differently. Your powerful families are growing just as they did in Europe hundreds of years ago - basically same system, different part of the curve.

Re:What Country are YOU living in?

[really?]

Preemptive punishment?
See recent US activities in ... shit ... what's that large country in the Middle East ... it's on the tip of my brain ... Iraq??? ;-)

Re:What Country are YOU living in?

[Teekayfortoowon]

Police regularly create sting operations targeting drug users, johns, and pedophiles. There are no actual victims in these cases, unless you count undercover officers posing as decoys. Hence we are already punishing people for imaginary crimes. The only reason police don't use such tactics against other classes criminals (say, murderers) is that it's just not feasible. (Not that I see how any of this relates to video piracy.)

Re:What Country are YOU living in?

[daniil]

Seriously, how do you think the European aristocracy came into being? It was rich and wealthy merchants using their money and power to buy themselves rights and more power.

This isn't entirely correct. A nobility title came with land (a feud), not with wealth. You could be piss poor and still be an aristocrate, and then again, in the Middle Ages, you could be the richest merchant in the world and still not hold any title. This was, at least in part, because of religion: trading was considered to be usury (for obvioud reasons -- noone would sell goods for the price they bought them), and usury was considered to be a mortal sin.

Re:What Country are YOU living in?

[abirdman]

This law isn't about punishing American malefactors. I would bet the problem of pirating films with vidcams isn't even serious in the USA. This law was passed so that we can show our international trading partners (East Asia, among others) that we're serious about intellectual property and hence so should they be. The USA has to create and impose some way of protecting intellectual property, because nowadays, it's among our major exports.

The fact that it's easy enough for anyone with a CD-R to "produce" the same end-user product (whether it be a copy of Win XP or a copy of Dogma) means we have to resort to draconian measures to enforce ownership of the product. This means doing things like changing the word from "pirating" to "stealing". And, unfortunately, it also means people (who own IP rights) think we need to pass laws like this, that force courts to mete out punishments that are out of all proportion to the crime. If we don't have these laws, how can we expect Indonesia, Hong Kong, China, or any other country to enforce similar laws.

Watch for more of this. IP as a major export is a bit of a paradigm shift, and we're likely to see a lot of crazy and wrong-headed laws before figuring out how to actually make it work. And note that the owners of IP are also among "the wealthy". This type of law is passed to protect them.

Re:What Country are YOU living in?

[alset_tech]

Actually, if you research the American Revolution and the civil unrest among the poor during it's time, you will realize that laws in this country have always favored the rich. Shortly after the Declaration of Independence, laws were passed to restrict all but the wealthiest ten percent of the population from holding office (restricted by stipulations of vast land ownership). Also, the rich could buy their way out of military service, while the poor could not. This, in addition to the fact that the poor saw the rich as totalitarian dictators, whom serving would hardly be different than serving the English, led the poor to riot all across the country.

It's just the beginning

[OMG]

Welcome to the free world ... free for whom?

Considering

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering most good quality pirated movies are captured in empty theaters with the help of theater employee's I'm wondering how it will be enforced? I'm sure it's easy to bust some guy with a camcorder in a crowded theater but what about the people that record telecine copies?

Re:Considering

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering most hot-ticket summer blockbusters are developing their DVD content before the film is even in theaters, I don't see why camcorders are even necessary. Post houses like Deluxe or Ascent are just overflowing with digital content that won't hit the streets for months. Any lower quality is a waste of time. If you're going to steal, might as well get it from the source...

Re:Not likely.

[Photo_Nut]

Ok, so I'm replying to myself.

If I wanted to get a shaky-hand-held-recording, I could just take a nice clear rip downloaded from the local pirate server, and record it with a camcorder.

But what's the point. I know... you were joking.

Phht

[Mark_MF-WN]

When they started playing ads in theatres, they lost their right to complain about piracy. So I say screw 'em.

I personally pledge to download and share one movie for every commercial that I see in a movie theater.

Re:Phht

[karstux]

Of course it sucks when you have to watch ads just after having had to pay a good deal of cash for the right to watch a movie. But I don't think the cinemas would survive without the ads - since most of the ticket price goes directly to the distributor.

Here at least (germany), the cinemas live on the ads, popcorn and cola - not on the movies. It's a neccessary evil, and completely unrelated to the copyright issue.

Re:Telesync

[Anonymous Coward]

For the record telesync is when audio is captured directly off the reel and a high quality camcorder is setup in an empty theather to capture the film on theater as best as possible. telecine captures everything directly of the reel and is usually as good as vhs/dvd.

Victims Prosecuted!

[TheOtherKiwi]

"Victims of the new bill would face 3 years in prison on first offense" -

Whoa! Victims are prosecuted now? Sheesh, where I come from, its perps that get it...to each their own it guess.

People who secretly videotape movies

[zakezuke]

People who secretly videotape movies when they are shown in theaters could go to prison for up to three years under a bill approved unanimously by the U.S. Senate on Friday. ---TFA

This is good! It looks like if you blatently go in a theater and tape you are free in clear. Fuck this secret business, I want my cam download to look like MST3k with heckling. Oh, and the shadows of heads holding camcorders is a bonus for those of us who want that black space filled with something when we view in letterbox format.

telesync and telecine

[Depris]

For the record telesync is when audio is captured directly off the reel and a high quality camcorder is setup in an empty theather to capture the film on as best as possible. telecine captures everything directly off the reel and is usually as good as vhs/dvd. both methods usually accomplished with help of theater employee's.

Touch of bias in the article

[91degrees]

Copies of hit movies frequently show up on the Internet while they're still in theaters, allowing skinflint fans to see new releases like "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" without coughing up the price of a ticket.

There are other reasons. In some countries, it hasn't even been released yet! And when it is released it's going to be dubbed. I don't think it's too tightfisted to not want to buy an airline ticket to another country just to see the film in the correct language.

And why is this suddenly a problem? You've been able to get pirate videos since the 1980's. Exactly the same thing - recorded on a camcorder. The only difference is that the distribution method has changed. Changed to one that doesn't actually make the copiers any money!

Re:Augh what the HELL?!

[halowolf]

It is the US Senate that made this bill into law. I suggest that you first start with fixing the way that your government is seemingly bought off at every turn by political "donations". It is so easy to see what is happening I don't understand why it is tolerated. I mean its corruption isn't it? Just corruption that is deemed acceptable.

Of course a counter argument is that we can play that game as well by paying off senators to help us instead of big business, but I'm sure big business has deeper pockets from which to give. Deep pockets that we as consumers give them. I'm sure there are controls on the size of "donations" but it creates an inherent conflict of interest that, in my opinion, shouldn't be tolerated.

Now label me as a troll and move along.

Re:I don't necessarily disagree with the intent bu

[kfg]

I think that this is totally a legitimate thing to get people in trouble for... but I mean, 3 years if you didn't profit from it?

Just wait until they make the logical extension. Filming a movie with a camcorder is no different than copying a CD or video. No different at all.

3 years federal time, buddy.

Distributing it will get you, oh, two more.

Oh, by the way, Federal laws already have redefined "profit" as possession, since you "profited" by not having to buy the item in question, so it's impossible not to profit from it by those laws. They just need to notice that they've already done that elsewhere and move it over.

KFG

Irrelevant legislation

[Jarnis]

Nobody bothers with cam copies anymore anyway. You can find good telecines/telesyncs within a few days of release already.

Telesync = empty theater, cam on a tripod, sound from the theater sound panels. So theater employees are helping or doing it. Studio's own fault for not securely handling the prints/theaters. Ah but the theaters want to get by with just one guy running multiple showings being paid just bit over minimum wage while working long hours. And you wonder why these guys 'leak' stuff?

Telecine = print of the movie, telecine machine, basically an unauthorized film-to-digital transfer. Requires complete access to the print at a location with a telecine machine. DEFINITELY means that studios don't handle the security of the prints as they should. Nobody should be able to walk out of a theater with the print to telecine it. Meaning some prints end up in wrong hands - either out of the theaters or from the studios themselves.

And since law is apparently only vs. cammers, getting the print telecined is still apparently just a copyright infringement.

Of course buying a law against teleciners would make the studios admit that their prints are not handled securely and that the movie theater employees are leaking like hell. If pirates commonly can get the whole print in their hands and run it thru a telecine machine at their leisure, that would possibly wake up the lawmakers that this law is beyond stupid and does nothing to curb piracy.

"I need to get out of here"

[boijames]

A friend of mine who is over here for a year on training (he's from Germany) had the best reply to this one: "This country is just going nuts.. I dont .. I really dont even know what to say. ... I just need to.. heh, get out of here as soon as possible.."

It's a sad day when you realize youre no longer internally proud of your own country.. that it's abandoned its own values and is becoming a de facto police state.

What happened, guys??

Re:"I need to get out of here"

[Hektor_Troy]

I think it can be traced back to a couple of things:

1) Changing the meaning of "patriot" to someone who is behind his government no matter what.
2) Changing the definition of "democracy" to "the lesser of two evils"
3) Changing the meaning of any political group to be derogatory.
4) Labeling anyone who speaks out against the government to be either a traitor or freedom hating commie bastard (this relates to #1)

Of course, I'm just a godless freedom hating commie bastard from Denmark of all places - hell, I'm even a member of the [warning for the faint of heart] Social Democrats AND I'm an atheis, so that absolutely PROVES that I'm a freedom hating godless commie bastard. Oh, and since I don't agree with your governments politics, and can really only stand Colin Powel, I hate America too.

Another example of corrupt politicians

[Anonymous Coward]

This kind of law is another example of legislation that could only ever be passed in a corporate dictatorship. This law fits the definition of political corruption - an obviously bought law. If there were similar penalties for price fixing or anti-competitive behaviour, perhaps that would go some way to deterring music company executives from their criminal behaviour. A prison sentence of any type is obviously absurd for something as benign as filming a cinema screen. Systems like region coding (which tramps all over free trade laws), and digital rights management (which makes it impossible for consumers to excercise their right to make copies on alternative media, or backups) are the problem for those greedy companies. They are angering consumers, already tired of their dismal formulaic offerings, and not able to purchase movies/music in the way the want to (again because of outdated distribtion systems of greedy record companies), then blaming the consumers for a decline in record sales. Music is overpriced, films are overpriced. Record and movie prices probably belong at about 25% of the present level. Maybe when they reach this point, and the quality improves, i would buy CDs or movies again.

Re:Corporate Coruption

[Jarnis]

Farenheit 9/11? Got any links to a .torrent of good telecine/telesync of it? :p

(ooops)

Re:Augh what the HELL?!

[Mycroft_VIII]

Actually the senate HAS NOT made this a law, they only passed it, it still has to pass the house. Then the President has to sign it. considering it was Unanimous, these seem fairly likely though.
In fact since the house hasn't passed it(unless I missed that in the article), they could quite easily drop it, or change it 1 year / 2 years or 10/50 years or whatever they feel like. Of course if they change it the senate has to re-pass the changed version and so on till they both agree and then Bush still has to sign it.

Mycroft

And?

[cyberzephyr]

"As a side note, it will cost taxpayers an additional 5 million dollars per year through 2009 for enforcement."

And Popcorn and hotdogs costs how much?

Re:Surely this is a civil, not a criminal matter..

[nounderscores]

It would have been, but let me say this: Whoever the MPAA uses for a lobby group is probably getting some kind of lobby group oscar right now.

Hell, steal the reel!

[Mark_MF-WN]

I bet you'd get less than ten years even if you broke in and stole the whole movie reel! You could still attack the manager, and kill an usher -- that might get you 10 years, altogether.

A law aimed at the poorest in society

[Anonymous Coward]

Who are the folks bringing the camcorders into the theaters, and to whom are they selling their wares? It's not the mini-van soccer mom who is happy to give her brood a 100 dollar bill and drop them off at the mall for the day.

This horrible law is targeted at the urban poor. It is poor urban dwellers who are the prime "offenders". This demographic already suffers a hideously high rate of incarceration, even for non-violent "crimes" like this. The urban poor are the only audience who would tolerate the low quality, shaky pictures, and muffled sound. Dolby 5.1? Not hardly. These videos aren't finding their way into the $30K home theaters of Malibu and the Hamptons.

I guess it doesn't matter to Jack Valenti and Barbara Streisand. Hey they've got to pay for their botox and Hummer SUVs. What's it matter if another nigga or two is locked away for a few years?

Re:Corporate Coruption

[Anonymous Coward]

i wonder if the passing of this bill and the release of this movie coincide for a reason? See this movie! Also there are good documentaries that have been available for a long time about the 2000 election and the lies about the the WMD. Its just cut and dry coruption.. bush is just the poster boy idiot that is dumb enough to let this happen to his country..

anyways.. see the movie even if its a telesync

peace..

it doesnt just happen in america

[kerp11]

ive seen camjobs from all over the world. this wont stop anything, but make the lawmakers feel they are doing a better job.

still leaks happen most commonly in the far east (when they are sent off for screenings and translations), ive seen untold numbers of cam and telesyncs from the far east.

this really wont stop piracy at all, its just another thing thats making america even more of a police state.

GREAT...

[SkunkPussy]

...now all the films I download will be high quality!

21st Century Law

[weave]

Crimes against corporations are to be punished far more severely than crimes against people.

Wishes and dreams...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish the guy who raped my daughter had gotten 3-10 years. Instead, he got off on a technicality and ended up raping and murdering another girl in our neighborhood the night he was freed. He'll be eligible for parole in 2008, a measly 10 years after his plea-bargain conviction of 3rd degree sexual assault and second degree manslaughter. The DA wanted a quick conviction so he could spend time prosecuting a high-profile, highly public insider trading case that would keep him in front of the cameras for a couple of months before his re-election.

There is a huge problem when white-collar crimes are more vigorously prosecuted and receive proportionally tougher penalties than violent crimes. It just goes to show how much influence corporations have on our government. This is why we NEED campaign finance reform. This is why we NEED to get rid of soft money alltogether. ALL soft money. This is why we NEED to get rid of PACs - so daughters like mine can have justice instead of (or possibly in addition to) a lifetime of therapy.

Re:Wishes and dreams...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to make light of the situation or anything, but rape & murder are state crimes and insider trading is federal, and wouldn't be prosecuted by the same entity. Maybe I'm just missing something.

-Restil

Re:Wishes and dreams...

[EmagGeek]

Rape and murder can also be tried in federal court, depending on jurisdictional issues. Then again, I got my law degree from watching "Law & Order," but I see it happen on that show all the time. Insider trading can also be a State crime, and I supposed this is especially so in New York and Illinois where the exchanges are. Again, just supposition, but I don't imagine it's that far off the mark.

Re:Augh what the HELL?!

[Stallmanite]

Three years in a Federal "POUND-ME-IN-THE-ASS" prison. Does that sound pretty messed up to anyone else?

What kind of a country sentences someone to get ass raped anyway? Western civilization should be ashamed of itself.

Ayn Rand quote

[alphakappa]

Why do we try to criminalize every act? Are we trying to create a nation of criminals?

"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against . . .We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

Atlas Shrugged

Re:Surely this is a civil, not a criminal matter..

[Jay9333]

I would have thought that night-vision equipment and kicking perpetrators out of cinemas would work. You're kidding, right? That isn't a deterrent at all. The goal is to deter people from thinking illegal recording is worth it. What fool would think recording a flick is worth a few years in prison? Not many. I guarantee you, though, lots of (morally defunct) fools think recording a flick is worth getting kicked out of a showing. I support deterring crime with actual punishment. 3 years should be the maximum though, for repeat offenders who do it for profit. 3 months seems like a good starting point to teach the thieves their lesson the first time. ~Jay9333

A nation of criminals

[eberry]

Ironically a report out earlier this week shows that the US imprisons more people than any other developed country. To give you a few figures from the article on
prisons not the answer for social problems, "There were 715 inmates for every 100,000 U.S. residents last June. Mexico's incarceration rate is 169 per 100,000, and Canada's rate is 116."

There are currently more than 2 million people in US jails. NPR is running a series this week on the ineffectiveness of the prison system.

Now I don't think for a minute that this sentence will ever be carried out. For one, didn't we already determine that most pirated movies come from people who get advanced copies on DVD? Can't find articles on that right now.

But if you want to change this ridiculous system of punishment please support initiatives like Downsize DC.

Re:A nation of criminals

[0x0d0a]

Remember that convicted felons cannot vote in most states in the United States. Making something a felony crime is an effective way of eliminating political opposition.

Re:makes Ralph Nader more attractive

[jellomizer]

Sometimes the point of elections are not always who is going to win. If you like Nader or some other 3rd party. Then vote for them. Even if they don't have a chance of winning. So say if 5% votes for Nader and Kerry Looses by close or under 5% then the democratic and the republican party will need to do some thinking about their stances and issues. Now 5% of the population is a good amount of people with some views.
If you don't like the companies policies (like the movie industry) BoyCott them (That means not going to any movie even the good ones). If you don't like the 2 party system then vote for a third party.
I am just sick of people going "We can't do anything with the problems in the US because of big government and large corporations who screw us over" Yes you can! Buy things from smaller companies (A lot of them have some good deals) vote for an other party. It is not a Win Loose situation you are making your way threw the numbers you are 0.0000001% Of your countries population (This could be bigger or smaller depending on your country) Now there are a lot of people with the same point of views out there. Now if they actually acted as Citizens and did their job as citizens and spoke up for the things they were against then it would be a lot different.

What about the PIRATE Act?

[MunchMunch]

Is this or is this not the PIRATE Act? I submitted a story about this from news.com.com that seems to say the PIRATE Act was passed unanimously on Friday. If so, this is more dramatic legislation than the accompanying camcording bill-- it's not even in the same class. This would mean the DoJ might be using taxpayer dollars to pick up the tab for the RIAA's lawsuits in the near future.

Someone want to confirm or deny this? Was the PIRATE Act passed "unanimously"?

Re:What about the PIRATE Act?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the PIRATE Act has passed Senate "by Unanimous Consent". From here is has to go to the house, so it is not law yet.

SHORT TITLE(S) AS REPORTED TO SENATE:
Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation Act of 2004

6/25/2004:
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN022 37:@@@L&summ2=m&

The accompanying bill called...

SHORT TITLE(S) AS REPORTED TO SENATE:
Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2004 ... the camcorder bill which is what this /. story is referring to also passed Senate:

6/25/2004:
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN019 32:@@@L&summ2=m&

Bill text

[0x0d0a]

You *could* disable your camcorder (cover the lens or whatnot) and proceed to pretend to "film" the movie while watching it. It's quite legal, even if it might drive theater managers nuts. It also makes enforcement of this infeasible, if done widely enough.

Here is the bill text, which should really have been included in the story. (Actually, IMHO, Slashdot policy should be to require a link to bill text when submitting a story on new legislation.)

Re:Bill text

[Lehk228]

AND the theater manager could ban your obnoxious ass from the theater.

Re:Bill text

[Entropius]

Why?

If Congress doesn't read it before voting on it, why should we?

*grumble*

Re:Bill text

[bezuwork's friend]

Damn, funny, informative, and insightful at the same time.

Can't mod up as I've already posted.

Seriously, what is the reason there is not a minimum time for review till bills can be passed? Shouldn't the final text of bills be public long enough for the public to be able to provide some feedback before voting? Whouldn't that at least allow somewhat for greater public approval?

Hah! A cooling off period for legislation.

Doubt that it would change much for bills that don't get media attention, but it might have influenced the Patriot Act.

Re:Bill text

[Entropius]

Or they could implement a quiz period before a vote: any congresscritter who can't answer reasonable questions about the bill (with a paper copy in front of him/her, but no electronics or aides) must either vote nay or abstain.

'Course, something like this could never come to pass--it'd be used for filibuster tactics, how do you define "reasonable", who determines what's an acceptable answer, etc. But it's a scary thought-experiment to realize that something like this would drastically change the face of Congress.

Re:Bill text

[Tellalian]

Yeah, and they *could* confiscate your camcorder, which you'd have no valid use for in *their* theater in the first place. That would also be quite legal, even if it might drive the would-be "pankster" nuts. But here's a thought; how about trying to do the right thing inside of trying to irrationally defeat everyone's best intentions?

Re:Bill text

[Chess_the_cat]

Like it wouldn't drive *me* nuts to hold a camcorder while I'm trying to enjoy a movie? Who has time for shit like this? Quite frankly, I don't care if they want to put people in jail for filming movies in theatres so why in Hell would I want to disable a camcorder and pretend to film a movie to help out asshole pirates? You sir, are an asshat.

* "Victims of this new bill" *

[fw3]

Sure, mod me down this is unlikely to be a popular VP on /.

Last time I looked 'we' stronly believe in copyright enforcement when / as it applies to GPL or other FOSS licensed material. But when the shoe's on the other foot, suddenly people who go to a fair bit of trouble to steal a copyright work are *victims*? I think not.

Many of the comments here run along the lines of 'ohh look at those really harsh penalties, compare them to (white-collar-crime, violent crime ...).

Kindly observe that this is *federal* legislation (and that are some states have enacted laws). That means that what's prosecuted under this is most likely going to be the 'theatre employee runs a showing off-hours explicitly to do a video rip' instances. *Hence* the stiffer penalties.

The pentalties for copyright theft are already out there, this isn't new - it's addressing a specific instance.

Sure we don't like DMCA, RIAA et al and I heartily agree that there are some 1st class morons in "the Industry" lobbying etc.

However in fact technology is making copyright theft easier and with the bar lowered there are going to be laws passed (DMCA etc) to try to address that.

Deal. And if the best way you can think of 'dealing' is to cry wolf about how people without respect for others property are 'victims' ... well you can expect more of the same kind of legislation.

Re:* "Victims of this new bill" *

[RickHunter]

*cough* BULLSHIT *cough*

The problem with this law is that it adds criminal penalties for what was formerly a civil offense. The civil penalties were in line with severity of a crime. This law has mandatory 10-year penalties for repeat offenders - those that have already spent 10-20 years in prison under this law.

That's more than serial rapists, murderers, or people who embezzle billions. That's more than most drug-related crime laws.

The problem isn't the enforcement but, rather, that the penalty is hideously out of whack with the severity of the crime.

Re:* "Victims of this new bill" *

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

Yes, *cough* BULLSHIT *cough* is appropriate for your post. The likelihood of this law being applied rather than a plea agreement happening in virtually all the cases is non-existent. And, repeat offenders probably should do jail time for being so damn stupid.

But the bottom-line it this: it's really a non-issue if you understand that it is wrong, illegal, and stupid to pirate a film with a video cam. Perhaps if this is too hard for you to grasp, you need to be culled from the herd as a benefit to everyone else.

Re:* "Victims of this new bill" *

[debest]

Last time I looked 'we' stronly believe in copyright enforcement when / as it applies to GPL or other FOSS licensed material. But when the shoe's on the other foot, suddenly people who go to a fair bit of trouble to steal a copyright work are *victims*? I think not.

Yes, "we" strongly believe in copyright enforcement ("we" in the reasonable-headed group of /.ers). That means living up to the agreement of the licence that the material was given out with. That means that if you break the agreement, you remedy it (by a number of means, including replacing offending code with new code, GPL'ing the application, cross-licencing the code from the author, or stop distributing the product). None of these involve criminal prosecution in any way, nor is it appropriate.

I seriously doubt that many here really think that jail time is appropriate punishment for the lazy coder at some corporation who inserted a module from GPL'ed sources to save himself some work. Or even for the management at said corporation who encouraged the practice to reduce development costs. Yet that is what we have for the copiers of "IP" belonging to big media.

if the best way you can think of 'dealing' is to cry wolf about how people without respect for others property are 'victims' ... well you can expect more of the same kind of legislation.

The best way to deal with this offence is in line with deed done: financially. Charging the offender for actual damages (likely about $20) plus appropriate punitive damages (a couple thousand at most) is the sane way to deal with this "crime". Taking a violation of civil law and making the punishment a criminal offence, with such rediculously small impact (please show me a credible study that proves any financial losses from shitty camcorder movies), is just stupid.

The only way to change things.

[Brandon Glass]

Move to the Free State. about 200,000 libertarian Slashdotters should be able to make a big impact there.

Their goal is to create a Free State out of New Hampshire, that will combine the personal freedom of Holland with the economic freedom of Hong Kong. They are already attempting to change gun laws to allow concealed weapon carrying without a license. Raw milk sales are not regulated. Congresspeople are part-timers and get paid $100 a year. The state government is small and the crime rate is low. If the Free State takes off, the Free State could act as an example to the rest of the US and there would probably be a lot of calling for overturning laws like the one mentioned in this article.

Re:The only way to change things.

[glitch!]

Move to the Free State. ... Their goal is to create a Free State out of New Hampshire, ...

That does look very interesting, and the people do seem to be sincere about everything. Before reading their information, I just assumed that New Hampshire was just as bad as any other New England state. It was surprising to see that they appear to be a tiny oasis in the middle of a liberal swampland.

For me, the main concern with their choice of New Hampshire is not with how things are today, but some years down the road if (when?) the state is overrun with refugees from Massachusetts that bring their city disease with them ("Massholes"). I read that they get about twenty thousand immigrants every year to their 1.2 million current population. If this increases, will the hypothetical twenty thousand freedom lovers be able to counter the influence of a flood of Massholes?

I am not just speculating here, I have already witnessed this exact same scenario play out between California and Nevada. It sure is a sad day when a lover of freedom starts wondering if democracy is a good idea or not. :-(

Wyoming, anyone? :-)

Rome

[zogger]

It depends on which state. A lot of states now have on the 2nd or 3rd felony conviction you get life. That's one of the reasons they have built so many prisons the past decade or so, and why we have such a high inmate population as a percentage of the entire population

Laws and crimes and what gets emphasized are entirely random now. for instance, we have multi millions of illegal immigrants. People who jump the border have committed a felony, yet it is almost universally ignored, they are allowed to live freely almost anyplace inside the US. At best if they find a huge group of them near the border they'll just be shipped back over, they rarely serve any jail time. We also have laws that make hiring an illegal immigrant a federal crime, with a 10,000$ fine per incident, but you never hear much of any arrests in those cases, even though the practice is blatant.

There's more, that's just a blatant example. Law enforcement is political, it's not any sort of even or fair, it's whatever the elite class wants that season. They give the orders, their enforcers click heels and jump to it. If they are ordered to ignore certain crimes, they will do so, even if they are aware of them.

I am not pro criminal, I just think the laws are terribly skewed and not enforced fairly across the board, and we have a variety of laws on the books now that are just ridiculous and shouldn't even be there. The US has a growth industry of gradually adding to laws that make more of the lower and middle classes "criminals". I think it's planned that way, to make a two class society eventually, technofeudalism. They are also apparently destroying as much of the middle class job structure as they can. Any job they can find that is exportable they will, any job that they can't exported they will import millions of illegals or too many legals to take those jobs. It's so completely obvious I won't even debate it with any debunkers now, the stats and realities are all over. It's been slow but verifiably steady, and the numbers increase yearly. Part of the plan, command and control, the same old dodge the old aristocrats have always pulled down through the ages.

As to recording in the cinema? I could care less, I've been boycotting movies for awhile now, and paid for music, I just quit. If a movie is free to copy, I might buy it. I have two here I got that the producer lets people make copies of. Music, again, if it's free over the radio by putting up with ads I occassionaly listen, but besides that, don't buy any-new. Used I will buy, it's just recycled, and the producers don't make another penny on it, but some guy at a yard sale will so I don't care, but even then not too much, a few examples of each a year. I even quit buying from the new but marked down bins, stopped that last year.

I think if enough people will stop placing so much importance on "entertainmnerts" of that sort, we'll see more sane pricing and reduce any demand for copying for profit. it's all I can do, tell people to boycott movies and music and professional sports and television fiction. it's gotten so ridiculous expensive it's stupid, and the time wasting aspects of it are lost to the wasters, I think in a lot of cases they don't realise how absuerdly addicted they get to it to the detriment of other more important things our society ignores too much. When you can get several million people in one weekend to go drop tens of millions of dollars all over the country to watch some new movie, with thousands in any random city you pick, and the same city can't get two dozen people to a community meeting to discuss local judicial corruption or the next multi million dollar school budget, etc, well, there's something wrong there in *general terms*. IMO anyway.

Rome when it was collapsing had it's bread and circuses to keep the people amused and occupied so they wouldn't pay attention to the rot that was collapsing their society around them.. We have the same thing now but people don't like to think they are droned out barbarians addicted to bre

Re:Name one person.

[general_re]

Name two people who are actually doing REAL prison time for defrauding investors.

Why? Typically people who ask for things like that will simply dismiss any names given as not being REAL enough.

Here's a list of names - you can decide for yourself if the penalties they faced or face are REAL enough to suit you: Andrew Fastow, Michael Milken, Ivan Boesky, Dennis Levine, Martin Seigel, Ben Glisan, Michael Kopper. And many, many more.

Re:Name one person.

[Jay9333]

Name two people who are actually doing REAL prison time for defrauding investors. Go on -- name 'em.

Easy...

Ben Glisan played a key role in designing Enron's web of infamous off-balance-sheet partnerships. On Septeber 12, 2003 he was sentenced to five years in federal prison. He was not assisting prosecuters in their investigation.

Frank Bergonzi, formerly Rite Aid's cfo, was sentenced to 28 months in prison on May 27 of this year. He pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit accounting fraud by manipulating the company's earnings and financial statements. Providing "substantial assistance" to prosecutors helped Bergonzi reduce the sentence. He also agreed to permanently be barred from serving as an officer or director of any publicly traded company.

Michael Kopper, a former deputy to Enron CFO Andrew Fastow, on the other hand is helping the feds in their case against the former chief financial officer. If he can help them prove their case, then they will likely go easier on him. Which makes sense... what we want is the big dogs to go down, the one's responsible for the robbery and the ones not willing to admit and correct their actions. Kopper agreed to turn over $12 million in ill-gotten gains and cooperate with government prosecutors. He hasn't been sentenced yet.

Lets keep in mind that these guys like Kopper didn't kill anyone or even threaten too (which is why armed liquor store robbers often get long prison sentences). These guys are more like petty pick pocket thieves, but just on a much larger scale. There is no assault with a deadly weapon, violence, or even the threat of violence involved. So if they can return what they stole, help prosecutors nab the big dogs responsible, and be banned from ever having responsibility over such large amounts of other peoples money... then that seems fair to me.

~jay9333

Draconian Punishments

[QCompson]

Anyone else notice lately how it seems every crime in America receives an absurdly harsh penalty? Even for crimes that are victimless and non-violent? It's no wonder we have such a massive prison population. I blame it partly on Joe Sixpack's bloodlust, and partly on the faulty belief that such long sentences actually deter people from committing the crimes in the first place. And let's not get into how Mr. and Mrs. Citizen USA will condemn a crime, but then condone and even joke about prison rape. It's all very sad.

Blame the voters.

[I am Jack's username]

"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No", said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd", said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did", said Ford. "It is."
"So", said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them", said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes", said Ford with a shrug, "of course".
"But", said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
"What?"
"I said", said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"
"I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."
Ford shrugged again.
"Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happened to them." he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."

Douglas Adams, So long, and thanks for all the fish, chapter 36.

This will do nothing except cost us $5M/year...

[Ifni]

...because most pirated copies (widely distributed ones, anyway) are Telesync, meaning they are done with the cooperation of (or BY) a projectionist, usually during off hours when there is no pesky audience to get in the frame (or report your camera). And the sentence is ludicrous - how about fining them enough that this covers its own enforcement costs, or even turns a profit? Okay, I didn't RTFL(egislation), so maybe there is a fine as well, but I have an excuse - I'm not fluent in legalese.

Also, can the perpetrators still be tried for damages in civil court? I'm pretty sure they can, so basically the movie industry has gotten the taxpayers to foot the bill for enforcement, and they can STILL sue for every penny they can squeeze from the perpetrators. Yay corporate lobbying!

MPAA - alternate What If solution

[octalgirl]

This back and forth between MPAA and RIAA and their cries over poverty and theft ruining their bottom line - then vehemently debated by many here proclaiming that these movie previews HELP spur more movie sales, not the other way around.

Wouldn't it be interesting if a different boycott could be arranged - one where instead of everyone saying 'don't buy music, don't movies', we just say - for one good movie - Don't record it? Do not let it hit the internet? Not one little copy? If we look back at the Matrix, Spiderman, et al., these were heavily taped and found online, only to have their ticket sales soar into the hundreds of millions. So many here could claim, 'See, it didn't hurt at all - it probably helped as advertising.' It is an argument that I agree with, that the people who take the time to hunt for and download a grainy copy are those who are the movies biggest fans anyway, and they just can't wait to see it. It won't stop them from going to the movie, buying the DVD - they just want to get their hands on all of it.

Soooo - what if? Let's take Spiderman2 about to come out soon. I suppose to prove a theory one way or the other, something needs to give. Otherwise it remains theory. So imagine if not one copy of Spiderman2 were released online? And what if, instead of a blockbuster, the movie only produced a lackluster performance? That could add fuel to the argument that the pre-recording really was helping after all, and the MPAA just shot themselves in foot - again. If sales are about the same, it could prove that the pre-recording didn't make a difference. Does the MPAA really think that they could have earned more than the 300 to 500 million some of these movies make? I know that there are many holes in my idea, and it would be almost impossible to pull together a united, worldwide 'freeze-frame' event. But still, it makes me wonder - what if?

Re:Not likely.

[bugmenot]

If I pay $10 to watch a movie I expect to be able to watch it at my own pace and pause,rewind or fast-forward as necessary. I have a right to take my camcorder to the theatre because I already paid for the ticket and I should be able to the contents for backup or timeshifting purposes. If I have a right to tape a show from my TV, taping it at the movies should also be allowed!
Does anyone know if the EFF is fighting this law?

Re:Not only will this make CAM recordings more rar

[xSauronx]

Im just happy our government is focusing on the real issues that plague our nation and the world around us.

Go priorities!

Re:Name one person.

[Loligo]

While I won't usually cite USA Today as a source, the myth of the "Club Fed" prisons is just that: a myth.

They're certainly not as dank or dangerous as a maximum security state prison, but they're not country clubs, either.

USA Today article, RE: Martha Stewart and what she faces in prison

Similar article from Globe and Mail

Article from Australia's The Age regarding white collar criminals in the US

-l

Re:Not likely.

[joshamania]

Dude/dudette...please...

No, you don't have the right to do all that nonsense in someone else's house. The only reason you have the right to do it at home is because a lot of fair use is just a reasonable expectation of privacy. We make fair use because we don't want companies coming into our homes and determining our activities. A movie theatre is a public place and there is no such expectation.

Also, when you pay your $10 at the theatre...that $10 is for the right to sit in the theatre and watch whatever the theatre decides to display and at their convenience, not yours. Your $10 is not to purchase a copy of a film, it is for a one time viewing of said film.

There is no possible way you can justify making videotaping first run movies in the theatre legal. Way too over the top utopian socialist viewpoint. If you don't allow companies to at least establish cursory protection of their property...they won't produce it for you to steal. I'm not suggesting we allow them into our homes, but likewise, you shouldn't be able to go into their house and steal their product.

If the EFF were to "fight" this law, they'd be fighting for it. For the right for an individual or a corporation to prevent others from videotaping on private property. Otherwise, when you become Maddonna/Esther, the paparazzi could legally come onto your property to videotape you eating dinner.

Re:Not likely.

[blueskies]

Why do you think they don't want people taking pictures of some of the most famous paintings or things. Because it will devalue the item. The creator has exclusive rights to reproduce something IN ANY FORM.

Except that it is not true. The creator has a time-limited monopoly. Aren't many of the most famous paintings in the public domain?

Re:Not likely.

[Jardine]

Why do you think they don't want people taking pictures of some of the most famous paintings or things

Maybe because flash photography can degrade a painting.

Robocop would be illegal

[AndyChrist]

What you're saying is that we have the right to "backup" what we take in with our eyes? That's breaking copyright.

What happens when there are cyborgs walking around recording everything they see?

"His memory is admissible in court"

Re: faking filming....

[King_TJ]

It's a great idea, as far as public disobedience and protesting is concerned. Only problem is, I suspect it would be treated much like waving around a realistic-looking toy gun. It's not illegal to have the toy gun, but you'd certainly at least get thrown out and waste your money you spent to see the movie. (Not to mention, probably get arrested and have to go through the hassle of proving you weren't actually doing anything wrong.)

The thing that bothers me most about this law is the way the movie industry has twisted govt's arm to protect their business interests at the taxpayer's expense. If I carry a camcorder into a theater and start filming a movie I *paid* to see in the first place, it's just as much a "victimless crime" as if I placed a few "illegal bets" on a sports event, or sat at home and smoked a joint, or you name it.... I guess the Senate still hasn't grasped the idea that prosecuting victimless crimes isn't effective and just wastes money.

Re:Surely this is a civil, not a criminal matter..

[jwlidtnet]

Um. Sentencing guidelines as deterrant...yeah, those work. You have any idea what minimum sentencing laws for drug offenses are like? And I hear people still toke up.

What about the borg and the handicapped?

[whitis]

I don't suppose anyone is going to come up with an argument saying that they are in the theaters with their camcorders excersizing their right to time shift...

You lose that bet.

A camcorder can be assistive technology. Keeping them out of the movie theater can be as unethical as turning away people with seeing eye dogs or wheelchairs.

There are quite valid reasons for having and/or using a camcorder or similar device in a theater.

• Time shifting. Movie theaters have limited hours that can make it very difficult for people who because of work or sleep disabilities do not run with the herd, schedule wise. There actually is a legitimate need to time shift movies from theaters or even video rentals (the weeks you can get to the video store are not necessarily the same weeks you have time to watch movies).
• People with artificial eyes.
• Narcoleptics who doze off intermittently throught the middle of the movie.
• People with parkinson's disease who fall asleep around the same time that movies are shown in theaters.
• People who carry a camcorder or digital camera with them at all times.

If you think time cannot be as big a barrier as space, I propose you undertake the following consciousness raising experiment. Divide into three groups. One group has to ride around in a wheel chair for a month. One group can only go outside the house or watch live tv or use the phone between the hours of 10PM and 6AM for the same month. The third group has no constraints on temporal or spacial mobility. Keep track of what each group was able to do and not do during the course of the month. And each group should try to excercise a broad range of activities. Go to a movie, rent a movie, rent a car, eat a decent meal out (late night bar food and fast food does NOT count), ride public transportation, enter a tournament, go to a hobby related club meeting, go to a park (most close at dark), go to the doctor, go call a friend on the phone, go to the library, go to a book store, go work out at the gym, go to the local health food store, go visit a juice bar, go buy groceries, go to a bar/nightclub, rent a canoe or tube, visit a saladbar, go for a hike in the woods, take a class, go to a live game, go see live theater, go rent a motel room (hint: you will be charged for two days if you sleep past noon), go talk to your bank manager, and try holding a decent job. Unless you live in the city that never sleeps, you are likely to find that those with the temporal constraints are as restricted as those with spacial constraints and face MUCH greater discrimation from businesses and government agencies. On the list above only two: bar/nightclub and non-healthfood grocery shopping are really workable. The person in the wheelchair won't be able to go on a hike but they can go to the park or canoeing/tubing. I am certainly not trying to downplay the hardships faced by the physical handicaps, but our society has come a long way in accomodating their needs compared to time related needs. And, to add insult to injury, try consulting with medical people about a sleep disability: "Thank you for calling the Sleep Center at the University of Virginia. Our office hours are from 9AM to 5PM, monday through friday."

Should handicapped people be forced to wait until a movie comes out on DVD and not be even further cut off socially from other people because they can't discuss movies while they are still a hot topic? And speaking of which, why the hell don't they project subtitles underneath the movies or transmit them via 802.11 to portable receivers (which you could borrow if you weren't one of the borg.)

"Wanna watch a movie together?" "Yes, but, honey, we live 500 miles apart?" "True, but we have high speed net access". People today form or maintain social and even romantic relation

Music industry losses

[Alan Cox]

It shows how much the music industry owns the US government that the bill cites the 31% loss claims of the music industry in a law, and ignores the fact that all the academic studies, as well as the statistics gathering companies rebut the data rather convincingly.

Summary of why this sucks

[TiggsPanther]

As usual we have the vocal comments from the "Record it eslewhere" crew and from the "But it's illegal, so why are you whining" collective. Both sides, as usual, seem to be missing the point.

Some people have touched on the real issues, but neither side (especially the "it's illegal!" side) seem to even notice the points.

1 - It's overkill
I think that in-cinema recording is wrong (though the over-the-top messages before movies make me want to do so out of spite, I admit). You bring in a camcorder to use in a film and there are very few things other than bootlegging that you can be doing. So I'm not disagreeing that it's illegal.

But come on here. This is walnut-with-a-sledgehammer territory. It's not a criminal offence - or shouldn't be. Hefty fine. Confiscation of equipment. Barred from cinemas. These would be acceptable - and actually stop repeat attempts. But prison-time? Yeah, great. Obligatory "bubba" gags aside, prison is usually a good place to pick up real skills and contacts.

2 - It's not the cause of the problem
As people keep saying, it's not camjobs that are doing the rounds and eating into postential ticket-sales. If anything is, it's be the high-quality Telesyncs that people keep on referring to here. It ain't punters-with-a-cam, it's cinema-workers with some "slightly better" kit.

Adding the two together, they're basically giving a vastly OTT punishment to the people who aren't even the main cause of bootlegging. And the cost of which will be passed onto the US taxpayer, and probably reflected in box-office prices too.

Honestly, they're probably losing more money (and customers) to trying to stamp out bootlegs than they do to the actual bootlegs.

Tiggs

Punishment does NOT match crime.

[rice_burners_suck]

Ten years in prison for videotaping a movie in a theater... I think the penalty for murder should be reduced to a month in jail, and the penalty for rape should be reduced to an hour of community service. But if you violate someone's intellectual property rights, they should throw you in Abu Ghraib for at least 50 years.

Specific information about this bill

[papercut2a]

For those who want to write to their Representatives to ask them to vote against the bill, the bill passed by the Senate is S.1932, the Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2004 (or ART Act for short). It has been assigned to the House Judiciary Committee.

Re:Corporate Coruption

[peter hoffman]

The URL in the parent post doesn't work (apparently due to slashdot software eating the underscore character because my preview failed the same way). Cut and paste the one below instead, you'll be glad you did.

http://fahrenheit_fact.blogspot.com/

Re: faking filming....

[ChrisMaple]

Well, just recording the film you paid to see is victimless, but that would be a foolish activity by itself. (Although your recording activity may make the viewing experience of someone near you less pleasant; I suppose there's a little damage there.)

The reasonable presumption is that you or someone else is going to see what you recorded, and that person would otherwise be paying to see the movie (perhaps not for the first time.) That is where the damage comes in, and the activity is no longer victimless. There's an issue of practicality from the standpoint of law enforcement here. Although the actual loss is primarily brought about by viewing the illegally obtained video, the viewing usually occurs in private and cannot be proven without violating the property rights of the owner of the property where the viewing takes place. But because there is no reasonable legal use for the recording, that is where the law can focus.

The use of logic and reasonable expectations is not foreign to the legal system.

Re:Not only will this make CAM recordings more rar

[mindmaster064]

However, the law itself is not unjust. The penalty is just a bit over the top.

This is an understatement. Jail time for what? Dubbing an extremely shitty copy of the movie that you probably wouldn't watch if you couldn't download it? Where is the "loss" involved? You likely wouldn't have downloaded if you really liked it, and probably only "cammed" it for a friend who wasn't sure they'd like it at all.

Next we'll be cutting your hand off if you stole a piece of candy at the grocery store (even accidentally) and handing out the cane lashes.

These aren't hallmarks of a good society, they are indicators of an oppressive form of government where the well-being of its citizens matters less than the well-being of the corporations and the system used to keep them down.

I wouldn't take a bullet for Halliburton, and that's what you're doing if you join the army now. And before you get all patriotic, remember how many americans got fired this year due to american corporation offshoring. I'm very patriotic and loyal to my fellow americans, but I will not look the other way when we are being raped by our system.

-Mind

Absolutely Absurd

[ForThePeople]

If you don't allow companies to at least establish cursory protection of their property...they won't produce it for you to steal. I'm not suggesting we allow them into our homes, but likewise, you shouldn't be able to go into their house and steal their product.

The way I read it was they werent paying for the cursory protection.
All this bill does is manufactures criminals.

If the MPAA is so damned concerned about this, they need to pay to have metal detectors put up and gaurds posted at all entrances and exits. Then no crime can be commited or criminal created in the first place. Yes of course people will still get through the "defenses" but then maybe they need to spend more money protecting their investment with better security.

Ya, its gunna suck to have to get frisked/metal-detected/interrogated to watch a movie.

Less people will go to the movies and they will have to balance their security spending against the publics opinion of the security.

This will also force them to get a clue about the actual statistics of how many people actually do this, how many do it for profit, and how much money they actually lose, which in my opinion is $0.00.

And most importantly, the taxpayers wont have to shell out their hard earned money to protect the business model of a few greedy entertainment CEO's to the detriment of free speech and everything this country stands for!

The problem here is not that so many people are doing this, but that it only takes one occurence to widely distribute the work. This new found technology the Internet has amplified the contradiction between speech and copyright. We can forget our beliefs of this country and keep the current copyright system or we can do a major overhaul to it or maybe even eliminate it all together.

What a waste of energy and money

[Shafe]

Does the Senate realize that the bulk of bootlegged films that make it on the Net are recorded in other countries? How many new movies have I downloaded that had some form of Chinese or perhaps French sub-titles at the bottom?

Re:Not only will this make CAM recordings more rar

[doctorfaustus]

Friends, agree or disagree with this law, but it's just a small additional step to make creating dvd rips punishable by 3 to 5 under the same public policy (which became public policy thanks to the political contributions of MPAA members)