Night Goggles Capture Spider-Man Movie Bootlegger

linuxwrangler writes "According to SFGate.com/AP, a teen has been arrested for attempting to bootleg the Spider-Man 2 movie, after a projectionist using night-vision goggles spotted him. The teen was escorted from the theater by security guards and turned over to police. This may be the first arrest stemming from the use of NV goggles that were previously mentioned on Slashdot."

Comments

pathetic

[drfrog]

and now what?

copies of it already exist on most if not all p2p networks anyways

what has this stopped

come on disable the record button on my tape deck too!!!

Re:pathetic

[TheWordOfB]

Its the deterent. Now that people can and will be caught it'll make people think twice. And what if the 16 year old gets a harsh punishment? You think you'll enter a theatre again to pirate a movie you already paid to see so some stranger can see a crapy copy for free?

Re:pathetic

[Anonymous Coward]

this may deter other people from bootlegging it as well, which is the purpose of most laws deterrence.

As much as we may dislike some of the tatics they may be trying to use and as much we are trying to protect our rights to copy legitimately the stuff we paid for copying a movie in a theater with a cam corder is not one of them.

Re:pathetic

[jrockway]

It's sad that cops out trying to stop murders don't have night vision goggles, but the movie copyright "infringement prevention squad" has them.

Murder? Oh that's fine, go ahead please.
COPYING A MOVIE!!!!!??!?!?! OFF TO JAIL WITH YOU.

What a great society we live in.

Re:pathetic

[arb]

Why? The little fucker broke the law and should be man enough to face the penalties.

Re:pathetic

[anshil]

Where does law come from? Is it god given? Is it perfect? unquestionable?

Remember that witches BROKE THE LAW by beeing witches.
Gallileo BROKE THE LAW asserting the world isn't flat.
Some centries ago any black guy BROKE THE LAW asserting he isn't an inferior beeing.
America BROKE THE LAW by declaring independency to britain.

Do you think all of them should be man enough to face the penalities? justified? THE LAW is unquestionable?

Re:pathetic

[Anonymous Coward]

come on disable the record button on my tape deck too!!!

I think the MPAA will be satisfied with just removing the "l" from the "play" button.

Re:pathetic

[pediddle]

You know, normally I'm as anti-RIAA/MPAA as the next slashdotter. But you're just insane! All of your arguments can be applied against you in the same manner.

Is it your god-given right to receive free entertainment, at the cost of the filmmakers?

If not, then don't you think there's a good reason for this law to exist: to deter people who would steal copies of the filmmakers' films?

If not, then at least won't you recognize that every CAM-copy distributed on the internet is no better than sneaking in the back door of the theater? If these punks had been caught doing that, shouldn't they be subject to arrest under the law? Maybe the penalties for that would be a little lighter, but if you think about it from the perspective of the theater owners and filmmakers, a single CAM copy is worth thousands of back-door pilchers.

Re:pathetic

[fenix down]

You think you'll enter a theatre again to pirate a movie you already paid to see so some stranger can see a crapy copy for free?

Yep. The ugly facts of psychology. Between acting out of spite and acting out of self-interest, spite almost always wins. That's why torture never works. Between not having them jab a spike into your balls, and making the jerk who wants to do that feel like he's bad at torture, you go with making the guy feel bad.

A good half of the time, the guy you make the example of gets out and goes out and does it again, just on principle. That's why we invented "penitentiaries", you want to make the guy feel like he did something wrong before you let him out, otherwise you've just made it more likely he'll do it again.

Re:pathetic

[metalligoth]

Stealing something because you don't agree with the law is no defense. No-one is accusing this thief of being a witch, or declaring the world is round, or being black. He was caught with a camcorder, filming a movie.

Who the hell wants some crappy camcorder-made copy of a movie, anyways? I'll bet you only fans of the movie. People that buy that crap are only doing so to have a copy until the DVD is released. If they released DVDs and movies at the same time, there wouldn't be this problem. Or, at least we'd know his customers meant to infringe upon the copyright holders.

Also, once again, copyright infringement is NOT stealing. Nobody is deprived of property. That doesn't mean it's not a bad thing, but your comparing it to rape is incredibly extreme.

Re:pathetic

[barc0001]

Or would you not mind if I broke into your house, raped your wife/partner, took your tv and computer and set fire to the place on the way out? Surely if I don't see anything wrong with those actions I shouldn't be charged with any crimes?

I love these strawmen arguments. NOT THE SAME THING. There is no physical damage or loss here. Now, if you said "would you not mind if I paid to get into your house and have a conversation with you and your wife, then left, whilst secretly taping it all" that would be closer analogy. Kinda creepy, but not illegal in many jurisdictions. And of course it doesn't sound like something to get all upset about, calling for people's heads on pikes, etc.

Just like the music industry's argument of "You can't go onto a car lot and steal a car, so why 'steal' music?". No. But if you were able to borrow a friend's car for a minute (like you borrow their CD to rip it), and use a machine to make a perfect replica of the car, I bet your friend wouldn't give a crap, and neither would anyone else.

Re:pathetic

[ScouseMouse]

As the movie companies are paying for enforcing the law in this case yes, thats fine.

As you obviously care about this so much, why dont you present the cops with a box of Night vision goggles. I'm sure they would be very greatful.

The cops are underfunded. They always are. Yes, the cops should be able to buy things like this, but in real life if they wanted things like that they would have to get private individuals to pay for it because there isnt the budget.

BTW, here is an update on the Law. Murder is *not* ok and the cops try to find murderers to the best of their ability and resources. It just happens to be easier to catch someone with a camcorder in a movie theitre, because you have a good idea on where to start looking for them.

Grow up. This boy was a criminal. He is too young to go to jail in the US, more's the pity. He was just unlucky enough to get caught.

Out of interest, exactly how would night vision goggles help the police to find murderers? indeed The only use for night vision goggles i can think of is while chasing someone down a very dark alley of some kind, during which, For them to be useful, the perp involved would also be blind without them.

Re:pathetic

[leomekenkamp]

No one is breaking in; one must pay to enter a cinema theatre. If you want to come into my house, pay me for that, and make a copy of my TV, then you are welcome.

For once and for all: (illegal) COPYING IS NOT STEALING


To go with your parent:
Whitches aided the devil in stealing souls.
Galileo wanted to steal faith from 'true believers'.
'Blacks' wanted to steal the 'obvious superiority' away from the 'whites'.
Americans wanted to steal about half of the British Empire.

All bullshit. Do NOT follow the newspeak and misuse of the word 'stealing' when something else is meant.

Re:pathetic

[Pieroxy]

There is no physical damage or loss here

Almost got it right! There is loss. Loss in seeing the value of the movie being diluted because some cretin put it on the internet for free.

Same thing as when the American Government prints some more green ones. You still have the same amount of dollars int your bank account, but every one of these dollars is now worth a little less.

You didn't loose, but you end up being a little less rich. Oh wait, that's the definition of loosing.

Re:pathetic

[arb]

No one is breaking in; one must pay to enter a cinema theatre. If you want to come into my house, pay me for that, and make a copy of my TV, then you are welcome.

For once and for all: (illegal) COPYING IS NOT STEALING

<Sigh>

*I* am only replying to the deluded parent who seems to think that a law prohibiting the use of recording instruments in a cinema is as bad as a law outlawing witchcraft, or removing the rights of coloured people. I chose an extreme example to show how flawed those arguments can be.

In a nutshell - the kid broke the law, get over it. Is the law a good law or a bad one? I'm opting for the good law side of the equation. Is "theft" involved? Beats the fuck out of me, but the little shit shouldn't have been doing what he was doing and should have known better.

Re:pathetic

[aussie_a]

As the movie companies are paying for enforcing the law in this case yes, thats fine.

Ooooh. This just sits wrong with me. It's a case of the rich being able to afford to have laws upheld. Been raped and want the criminal brought to justice? Throw money at the system and it shall be done. Want a murderer to be brought to justice? If you're rich it will happen, if you're poor no-one cares.

Re:pathetic

[aka-ed]

And what if the 16 year old gets a harsh punishment? You think you'll enter a theatre again to pirate a movie you already paid to see so some stranger can see a crapy copy for free?

I don't mean to single you out, because everybody is making the same assumption here. But where in the article is it established that this kid was planning on ripping and uploading? So far as I know, it hasn't yet been established that he was anything other than a Spidy-fan who wanted his own personal copy of the movie.

Sound dumb? At 16, I'd done dumber. Probably you, too, if you would care to admit it. There are still plenty of teens these days who have handicams and a love for Spidey, but no idea at all how to move an image from a videocam onto the Internet.

Until we know better what this kid was up to, it may be a little early to call for this 16-year-old's blood.

Re:pathetic

[RollingThunder]

The movie is being filmed. It is not yet being distributed. It is potential loss at that point, not real loss.

Re:pathetic

[aussie_a]

This shouldnt however stop the major laws being enforced on an even handed basis.

Yet. How long until people hire "private investigators" to investigate a crime and then pass the evidence onto the police? Sounds like a good thing. Until you realise that poor people can't afford this.

Re:pathetic

[Anonymous Coward]

Breaking IP laws isn't theft, clearly. But it's still a crime.

Re:pathetic

[ratamacue]

The cops are certainly not underfunded. They are overworked. The bulk of law enforcement efforts (in the US) goes straight to drug prohibition. The police are forced to worry about victimless crimes like using and selling drugs, instead of real crimes like theft, fraud, murder, rape which actually pose a threat to you and me.

We need to end drug prohibition and the violent black market it spawned, put our efforts towards solving real crimes (those which actually represent an initiation of force and a violation of property rights), and last but not least, let's give the cops a raise with all those billions we'll be saving.

Re:pathetic

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not normally engage in this kind of obvious flame war but I thought that I would address some of your concerns so you can stop your self-induced hysteria about the law.

In the examples you pointed out above (Galileo, witches, etc), indeed the LAW seemed poorly suited or established.

What is at the heart of your concerns is known as the legitimacy question - from where does the legitimacy to enforce law come?

For example, what is the difference between a police officer and a gun? Both can compel us - at threat of death - to do an action but yet we insist that the police officer is legitimate.

The answer to this question depends on the government. For most of the middle ages and, in fact, right until WWI and WWII, the sovereigns of Europe and most of the world insisted that they ruled by divine mandate. The will of the King was law because the King was a god appointee. (This is the view of the Saudi royal family).

What is interesting about this is that the King is outside the law - he can break any orders, he cannot be reviewed, he can even be cruel for no reason.

Hitler answered the legitimacy question in terms of biology - German Aryans were the obvious biological vehicles of power and thus derived their right to rule over the lesser people by virtue of superior "race."

The American constitution answered the question by saying that the people are the sovereign. This means that every man - including the President - is bound by the law, that the law ought to be blind and equally open to all, and that the burden ought to usually be on the government (hence "innocent until proven guilty," "proof beyon a reasonable doubt," etc).

The ultimate arbiter of American government legitimacy is the people, at this level most specifically vested by form of a jury. Your fate is decided - not by God, nor the state, nor a judge - but by a group of random citizens like yourself who can understand and be swayed by your situation.

This is forever enshrined in American law by the 7th Amendment, which, along with the First, is probably our strongest safeguard against tyranny. (This is, in fact, the principle upheld by the Supreme Court in its recent "detainee" decisions).

Thus, if in self defense you were to kill a man who threatened your child with a knife, a jury might very well be able to put themselves in your shoes and say "given the same situation I would react similarly" and acquit you, even though you had murdered a person.

A conviction by a jury carries with it the assumption that you are punished by society and members of society who say that you broke the societal norm and did not, in fact, act the way they would in the same situation.

This is the reason that higher courts are loathe to overturn jury convictions. That only happens when there is absolutely incontrovertible proof of innocence (with never really existed to that level prior to DNA) or a gross miscarriage of justice (for example the jury trials in the South where no white man would fear being convicted of a lynching or similar horrid act).

In America the government is not a man with a gun but random people who decide how reasonnable you were in taking your action.

Back to the question - did this kid break the law? Well, he has his day in court to argue his side but, on a prima facie decision that he did perform all of the allegations, then he did break the law.

As you can see from the comments any group of 12 is likely to convict him because his behaviour was unreasonnable and outside the societal norm. He deserves to be be punished - he ought to be punished - precisely because he violated our laws and mores and this is not then some witch hunt of injustice unleashed upon an innocent bystander. He is legitimately punished by the government - the people - for breaking the law.

What you can see here is that, in America, the law isn't what is on the books because a jury can acquit. The law is a hyrbid of the written law, the legal

Re:pathetic

[ichimunki]

Is it your god-given right to receive free entertainment, at the cost of the filmmakers?

Separate the two questions and we can have a reasonable discussion. Whether works of art should be free is a different question from whether one has a right to compel others to create and distribute those works. As it is you are committing the logical fallacy "many questions", it seems. (Those more familiar with analyzing arguments for fallacious reasoning, please correct my analysis.)

don't you think there's a good reason for this law to exist: to deter people who would steal copies of the filmmakers' films?

Another logical fallacy: vagueness of language. Here you are using the word "steal" when you really mean "make", I believe. The copies are not being stolen. No one is sneaking into the projector booth and running off with reels of film (although that does happen, that's not-- I assume-- really what you mean here). The copies are being made. And it's a very important distinction. In the case of "stolen" a single piece of real property is being taken from someone. In the case of "copied" raw materials legitimately belonging to the copier are being used to reproduce another work.

won't you recognize that every CAM-copy distributed on the internet is no better than sneaking in the back door of the theater? If these punks had been caught doing that, shouldn't they be subject to arrest under the law?

No, I won't. Further it seems to me that in the drive to eliminate copying, the punishments for copying have been made more severe than if one actually stole the money or shoplifted "legitimate" copies of the movie directly, especially when one considers how many of one's own resources one must devote to the copying process.

Re:pathetic

[Anonymous Coward]

So far as I know, it hasn't yet been established that he was anything other than a Spidy-fan who wanted his own personal copy of the movie.

So he wanted his own copy. Let him buy the DVD.

Re:pathetic

[CrimsonAvenger]

Remember that witches BROKE THE LAW by beeing witches.

Well, no. No evidence any of the people hanged/burned (the former in America, the latter in Europe) for witchcraft were, in fact, witches.

Gallileo BROKE THE LAW asserting the world isn't flat.

Well, no. Galileo violated Church Law by asserting something contrary to Scripture that he could not prove. And he called the Pope a fool in one of his books. I suspect his Heresy trial was more inspired by the latter than the former.

Some centries ago any black guy BROKE THE LAW asserting he isn't an inferior beeing.

No. No law I am aware of forbade blacks from saying they weren't inferior beings. The South's "peculiar institution" did a lot of strange things, but I have never heard that that was one of them.

America BROKE THE LAW by declaring independency to britain.

Umm, no. At least, I don't think Britain has a law forbidding colonies from declaring their independence. Any Brits here know otherwise? Now, the US colonies broke quite a few British laws, at one time or anothe - like not dealing exclusively with British merchants, and retaining their arsenals...

As to your central thesis, no the Law is neither perfect nor unquestionable. However, breaking a law as a method of civil disobedience (the basic non-violent way of opposing a bad law) implies a willingness to do hard time. If you're not willing to take a chance on punishment for violating a law, don't break laws.

Re:pathetic

[Anonymous Coward]

This is complete bullshit.

any one older than 13 can easitly create a torrent and put it on one of the many popular bit torrent sites. Especially with a nice GUI interface, my sister could do it if I showed her twice.

If this kid was smart enough to sneak a camera into the theater and record the movie, then he is certainly smart enough to upload a torrent on the Web. Its not that difficult to learn how to use technology. I remeber being a teenager, they are smarter than you think, but thats irrelevant because brains have nothing to do with it.

And as far as his motives, they are impossible to speculate and to do so is just mental masturbation.

Re:pathetic

[Loco3KGT]

Who the hell wants some crappy camcorder-made copy of a movie, anyways? I'll bet you only fans of the movie. People that buy that crap are only doing so to have a copy until the DVD is released. If they released DVDs and movies at the same time, there wouldn't be this problem. Or, at least we'd know his customers meant to infringe upon the copyright holders.

How about any college kid sitting on a fat pipe who doesn't want to pay for a movie because for the same price he could buy a case of beer? There's several thousands, even tens of thousands of people, right there.

Just out of curiosity, who said that you have the right to record a movie when you purchase a ticket to view it in the theater? Some people on here act as if they're supposed to be aloowed to, and I don't recall every in my life being told I was allowed to.

Re:pathetic

[phillymjs]

C'mon, renege on the $500 bonus?

You forget, these are the same people who claimed that they lost money on Forrest Gump, so they wouldn't have to pay Winston Groom, who wrote it (or at least the book on which it was based) the profit-based percentage he was owed.

In light of that, I fail to see how you expect them to be honest with minimum-wage theater workers who won't be able to afford legal recourse if they get stiffed. Sure, $500 is less than a percentage of millions, but these are some greedy motherfuckers we're talking about here-- no dollar amount is too small to weasel out of paying.

~Philly

Re:pathetic

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

Well, let's see. If he really wants the director's cut then I imagine he should buy that one. If he wants the 8 hours one then he should probably pick *that* one. If he wants the collector's edition then I'm thinking that purchasing that one would be a good call. However, since all evidence points to the kid not wanting to pay for anything other than one ticket one time, I'm thinking that your argument is pointless.

It's 2004, and multiple editions of dvd's are absolutely the norm. Since the kid has the requisite number of chromosomes to sneak a cam into a theater, I'm thinking he's smart enough to know that little fact. It'd be nice if all studios were up front about future releases like New Line / Peter Jackson, but they aren't. Period. If you're a collectors edition sort of guy and buy the regular version of a movie without at least looking down the road a little then you didn't get ripped off, you're just an idiot. And using that to justify what the kid did is 100% bullshit.

Re:pathetic

[FurryFeet]

You have seen too many Chuck Norris films and too little of real life.
Torture ALWAYS works. Always. Every single time. Because torture is a really terrifying affair, and having seen it on film does not make you an expert.
I have met and interviewed torture victims. There's nothing glamorous about it, and I really wish you didn't trivialize it so.

Re:pathetic

[Halo-]

Thankfully, I'm far from an expert on torture, but my understanding was that with the right interrogator, torture pretty much always works, but it depends on being able to keep the subject from going totally insane.

Once someone is broken down too far, they'll agree with anything and even make up detailed stories which support what the interrorgator wants to hear. It's a survival instinct. If I think you'll stop hurting me if I tell you the sky is green, it's entirely likely I'll eventually beleive the sky is green and tell you so. Breaking down someone's sense of ethics/responsibility/community is hard, and it's a short step to breaking down their sense of reality.

So yeah, it works, in that the victim will tell you anything. But the victim has to be in a mental state to actually know the right answer, and therein lies the problem.

Of course, in a lot of instances, the goal of torture is simply torture, so the information is moot. Wonderful world, eh?

Re:pathetic

[aka-ed]

I'm not arguing that what he did was legit. I was directing my initial comment to someone who seemed to think that this kid should get the book thrown at him. That's a year in jail, and a $25,000 fine.

I know kids in L.A. whose parents work in the business, they get screener DVDs which they freely swap with their friends. But let's lock up this middle-class kid and make his parents give up the college savings, because he turned on a camera in a theater.

Utterly insane.

Most movie bootlegs are inside jobs anyhow

[Ryu2]

Telesyncs or telecines... no one bothers with cams anymore. Where is the "enforcement" there?!

wonder who the real bootlegger is

[sethstorm]

If he were smart enough, he'd be doing projection work instead of holding the camera

Other sources

[_RidG_]

I would think that at this point, most of the movies that get distributed via BitTorrent, P2P etc. are not captured by a lone guy sitting in a packed theater.

I mean, say your buddy is the guy who sets up the movie in the theater, and sits there while it runs. You make nice with him, and he allows you to film the movie in relative security, rather than you sitting in audience, waiting to get busted by your neighbor or wandering security guys.

From my experience, anyway, it doesn't take much to convince a guy working a menial job like that to do something that may jeopardize his employment. Yeah, it's a broad generalization, but hey, it's consistent.

Not really.

[el-spectre]

If the tapes were distributed, you might have a case. But you don't have absolute privacy when you go to a public place. This isn't much different from a surveilance camera, for which we have a lot of precedence.

Re:Not really.

[Dhalka226]

Most obvious example: Phone conversations cannot be tapped without a court order because people have a reasonable assumption of privacy.

Which is one of the privacy guidelines established by the Supreme Court in determining government encroachments of your privacy. And with your specific example, there are also guiding wiretap laws.

However your privacy "rights" where it regards interaction with other private citizens are not nearly so developed. For instance, with very little reason, your employers can monitor your email, search your company-supplied desk drawers, etc. If you let me in your house, I'm not aware of any law that would prevent me from ruffling through your filing cabinet.

Now granted, there are some related restrictions. For example if I found your credit card number in one of those cabinets I couldn't go billing things to your card--but that's credit card fraud, not an issue of privacy. If I broke into your house to search, that's breaking and entering, not really an issue of privacy. (Breaking and entering laws might exist in part to protect our privacy, but breaking and entering is illegal because state legislatures say so.) Little by little, legislatures and courts are beginning to more narrowly define privacy rights with regards to interactions with other people (especially employer/employee relationships), but it is by no means as established as when the government may or may not tap your phones.

The grandparent's post, in its proper context, remains largely accurate; I have no idea how you got onto wiretaps. We're not talking about the government here, we're talking about movie theater people with NV goggles searching out movie pirates. Not only do I see absolutely no way it matters whether you expect they're doing that or not, but while we could argue all day about whether or not it is right, good for business or even effective, I see it as the fundamental right of theater owners to protect their revenues by stopping pirates. If they choose to use NV goggles to help them do so, that's their business.

In short, you were way too quick to try and pounce.

pathetic-Argument

[Anonymous Coward]

Insightful? Basically saying if you can't stop the crime then it's OK to do nothing. The record button on your VCR is irrelevent to this case. *sheesh* you guys overcomplicate the simplist of issues. Basically he was caught doing something he wasn't suppose to do, and was punished. The fact that the movie is now in the wild is irrelevent.

Re:pathetic-Argument

[drfrog]

i was talking audio tape recorders....like dead heads recording live performances of the grateful dead

the whole thing should be *irrelevant* because of presedence; if they wanted to stop people from recording they should have done so way back in the 60's by stoping the sale of recording mediums and recording devices

dont sell them and then accuse the consumers

that *relevant* enough?

im glad that in canada it is as permissible as photocopying a book
{see the previous /. article}

Re:$10 says it was TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

No one forces you to download the movies. And yet, you complain about the quality of it. People are risking fines and jail time for free movies, and other people complain about it. I'm surprised these people still do it.

slander

[Lymz]

"Hundreds of people have put tens of thousands of hours into making a truly great picture, and the notion of having it stolen and sent out for free around the world is just plain wrong," said Jeff Blake, vice chairman of Sony Pictures Entertainment. where did our legal system go? what happened to "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law"? they didn't catch him selling it or offering it online, that's slander.

Move along, there's nothing to bitch about here

[Lord Kano]

This is exactly what we've been saying is necessary. Instead of mandating spyware on all of our computers or forcing ISP to pay royalties for potential copyright infringement, they're actually trying to stop it at the source.

The penalties may be a bit harsh, but that's better that than curtailing the rest of our freedoms.

LK

mpaa in denial

[_generica]

"Camcorders account for 92 percent of all illegal copies of films that appear for sale over the Internet and are sold on street corners from Burbank to Beijing, according to the MPAA."

Oh please. I've bought and downloaded many 'illegal copies' in my time, and that percentage is ridiculously high. You'd have to be nuts to buy a camcorder movie, when the 'direct copy of the dvd sent out as promo' version is available.

They surely realise that any 'for sale' pirate version of the film came from an inside source, and this quote in the article is pure FUD.

Re:mpaa in denial

[Jarnis]

Night vision goggles wont catch telesync/telecine guys. They are doing it with the help of the theater staff. Sound is usually coming direct from the audio system (no mic used).

So in the context of this story, telesync and cam are way different.

Re:Invasion of privacy?

[twhiting9275]

What privacy would that be? You're in a public place, you have no privacy. It's not like the man saw that he was doing something in his home, by peeking through a window. No, you have no privacy in a public place people, this is why it's "public" not "private". Now if it were your own private showing, you might have something there, even if you owned the theatre, again, you might have something there, but not too likely.

Re:Unconstitutional Sentencing?

[twhiting9275]

"Potentially a year in jail for videotaping a movie?" Yes, he did the crime, now he's got to do the time. It's not that hard of a concept to imagine. Of course, I can see it now, the "I didn't know it was illegal" excuse, but it's a fact. He did the crime, he knew it was illegal (of course he did, how could you NOT), now he's got to do the time. Sad? You bet, but, if they don't enforce it on this kid, some lawyer down the road will take this case and use it against them.

Get a sense of perspective!

[localman]

Oh yes, that's very insightful: comparing rape, burglary, and arsen to copyright infringement. That's some of the most pitiful comment moderation I've seen in some time.

Sure: you can fall on either side of the copyright debate, but if you think copyright related crimes, especially ones where nobody profits from the crime and the only loss is a theoretical and arguable one at best, are in the same ballpark as the other examples you gave... well... you need to get out more often.

And this is coming from an artist who has been (on rare occasion) paid for my work.

Cheers.

Re:Get a sense of perspective!

[hwprog]

but if you think copyright related crimes, especially ones where nobody profits from the crime and the only loss is a theoretical and arguable one at best, are in the same ballpark as the other examples you gave... well... you need to get out more often.

I disagree. If he doesn't know the difference between rape, burglary and arson and copyright theft, then I think he should definitely stay in! We don't need any more sociopathic nutters on the streets!

"Entertainment is Free" Solution

[Bigbutt]

Simple enough.

If you argue that making copies of music or movies shouldn't be illegal, why not do a "shareware" entertainment industry. You go, see the movie and if you like it, pay the theater on the way out. Same with the popcorn. I hate the prepopped popcorn that is delivered and reheated. Tastes like styrofoam. If it's that popcorn, don't pay after getting it.

Ahh, but on the flip side, you are paid the same way for your work. The manager authorized payment only if you are doing the work you're supposed to be doing. Reading Slashdot? No pay for that time. On IM, no pay for that time (or reduced pay).

Wait wait. The network is working great. No problems in the past week. Hey, you haven't done any recovery work so you don't get that extra $1000 that week. The network crashed and you fixed it. Great, here's $1000 but minus $200 because it crashed.

Man, a shareware economy. Wouldn't that be great? :-)

But why?

[Ambush]

Some will think this is flamebait, or a troll (is there any difference?), but why on earth would anyone want to pirate this film? It's not worth the AU$11.50 to see it, let alone the the risk of getting caught pirating it.

I mean, any film that plays 'Rain drops keep falling on my head' in full has problems.

*sigh*

Dangerous Spotty Teenager Arrested!

[Snaller]

Dateline nowish
Courageous anti terror law officials late last night breached a murky downtown theatre filled with potential criminals. Acting on a tip submitted by a courageous patriot our brave heroes bravely bested the bandit. Using stunguns and gas grenades the 16 year old felon (and suspected murder) was wrestled to the ground and wearing straight jacket, handcuffs and leg irons was dragged of to prison. In an impromptu press conference at the Dorothy Chandler pavilion Vice Chairman of Sleazy Pictures Entertainment, Joff Blackhole spoke to the thousands of gathered stars of screen and stage and said this was a great day for justice, truth and honor everywhere in the universe, when a sick twisted disgusting criminal like this could be brought to justice like this. A tearstricken Vice Chairman thanked his parents and his wife.
In other news, 20 American Soldiers were killed by terrorist in Baghdad officials haven't got any leads.

I would think fans are not the ones...

[N Monkey]

Who the hell wants some crappy camcorder-made copy of a movie, anyways? I'll bet you only fans of the movie.

I seriously doubt that. A fan would want to see their movie in half-decent quality.

These crappy movies must be selling reasonably well to the general public because you see "dodgy" market stalls with very dubious DVDs for sale.... well, at least, I don't think many studios use dot matrix printers for the DVD covers :-)

If they didn't sell then the copyright infringers wouldn't bother pirating them. I suspect it's the average Joe Bloggs who sees these things for sale, sometimes only a few days after they are in the cinema, and buys one.

If they released DVDs and movies at the same time, there wouldn't be this problem.

Movies are not a charitable institution. Seeing them is not "a right" nor are they essential to your survival. If the maker wants to make more money by showing them in a cinema first, that seems perfectly reasonable to me.

If...

[The Fanta Menace]

...someone is going to bother watching one of those crap camcorder-filmed bootlegs, chances are they weren't ever going to pay to see the movie anyway.

If you're going to share a movie on the net, do it properly. Rip a DVD and share that.

This is not a good argument for harsh punishments

[Sycraft-fu]

And really, people need to get some god damn education and perspective that use it. I get really pissed when I hear someone saying "Good, if they punish them harshly, it'll deter other peopel form doing it." Ok, fine, then why don't we make ALL punishments harsh? I mean if we want deterrence, why do we half-ass it.

Let's take speed traps. What a joke right now. One cop sits there, finds a speeder, pulls them over, and writes them a $50 ticket while others continue to speed. That's not hars. So let's make a harsh deterrent. Let's have cops with M2s (.50 cal machine guns) and radar guns. You speed, they anihilate you and your car. Now THAT'S deterrence.

But it's ok, right? I mean those people that get killed broke the law, they should have known better. The harsh punishment will make people think twice before speeding. Fuck justice, we want DETERRENCE!

This is an extreme example, but does well to illustrate what you advocate. Harsh punishments for near harmless crimes are not just. In the US, we not only have a sense that the punishment should fit the crime, it's law, the highest law of the land (US Constituion, Ammendment 8).

In this case you have a kid, who paid to see a movie, that is making a video tape. You have NO proof of intent to distribute or anything else. So you have someone, that already paid to see it, that is making a copy. Show me the harm in that. Even if he does distribute it, empirical studies have shown that, indeed, internet copying doesn't have the huge economic impact the media industry wants to claim.

So you have someone that is comitting a non-violent crime, with no apparent profit motive, and no intent to distribute (at least not that you can infer from the article) and you want a HARSH punishment?

Look, if you really believe in justice like that, you really should consider moving to a country like Sinagpore, where they have a police state and minor crimes are punished harshly. However here in the US, that's not how things are supposed to be done. It's not just idealism, it is Constitution law. That overrides all other law, federal, state and local. It is the guiding framework to which all our laws must adhere.

So if you really do believe in screwing people who commit minor offences, then you probably shouldn't live here.

Being stupid isn't an excuse

[jasonhamilton]

I admit to having done dumber things at his age, but no one should expect to get away with it due to age. There are enough things you can get away with for being young as-is. I have no doubts the teen would share the file with his friends, and that there would be a good chance he or one of his friends would eventually share it with the world.

Re:Being stupid isn't an excuse

[jasonhamilton]

In today's world where you have Irons that have disclaimers stating it's not for use while Wearing clothing, I don't think it would be bad to ask people not to record or distribute the movie in any way. They do it on DVD and VHS tapes.

Re:Being stupid isn't an excuse

[mwood]

Establishing rules and then not enforcing them harms everyone by weakening society. Today you're thumbing your nose at the rule against violating some studio's copyright by making a crummy re-recording of a movie; tomorrow you're sending 200,000 troops off to kick the stuffing out of some country on the theory that just maybe they have something that might endanger your own country. Think about it.

Re:Being stupid isn't an excuse

[azuretek]

yea, they should all be thrown in jail... those theives, horrible horrible children... we should jail them, just like those kids that download mp3s.

seriously, have you never snuck into the theaters? have you never done anything "wrong" as a kid? Having something like this on your record, having to go to court, and having to explain to your parents that you were arrested! You realise in the future if he's ever arrested they see a previous record and they will go harder on him. Oh well, I dont really know what they did to him since I am late and I didn't read the article.

as for excusing people sneaking in... well I would ban them from the theater, but I wouldn't have the cops called..

Re:Being stupid isn't an excuse

[DarkVader]

It always depends on the crime.

Yeah, it's stupid to call the cops every time a crime occurs. Do you call the cops every time somebody's parking meter expires? Every time you see somebody run a red light? Do you call them on every car you see speeding?

I should hope not - because calling them for those crimes is stupid and wasteful of public resources.

A kid sneaking into a movie theater is a similar crime. Kick the kid out, or make them buy a ticket. Don't waste taxpayer money persecuting a 16 year old who hasn't done anything that's going to hurt anybody.

It's a simple license issue.

[bryanp]

How's that read GPL again? I agree that I can do whatever I want with GPL code, but if I want to distribute it I have to share my changes. If I break it there'd be Slashdotters calling for my nads on a stick.

The agreement with the movie theaters is "I agree that I can come in and sit quietly and watch the movie. No, I can't record it. No, I can't sit in the back and sing the Spider Man cartoon theme at the top of my lungs. No, I can't piss on the people in the next row." Simply put, you're not allowed to disrupt their business. Yes, recording and distributing it before it leaves theaters disrupts their business, don't kid yourself. If you don't like it, DON'T GO TO THE THEATER. How difficult is this concept?

Re:Good job MPAA

[Zareste]

You... used the phrase 'rather than' in place of 'and also'.

Re:Invasion of privacy?

[mirio]

At some F911 showings in rightwing areas, they have cops in the theater, supposedly to quell possible disturbances but in reality apparently just to intimidate people.

Hmm...you have any evidence to back that up? Maybe there's actual reason to fear far-left extremism and hyperbole that is thrown out by Michael Moore (I admit, his movies are entertaining...unfortunately they are chocked full of lies). You know, anti-capitalists have this thing about rioting (see: Seattle G8 summit) to prove that they are peace-loving, bleeding-heart individuals.

I think it's rather funny that because someone sees a police officer in a theatre in a conservative area you assume that it is for intimidation. Perhaps you should collaborate with Moore on his next film, since you guys seem to do the same level of research before spouting off something as fact.

BTW: I'm not a fan of Bush...in fact...I can't stand him. However, left-wing nuts must be pointed out along with the right-wingers....

Peace.

Soon, only good divx on your favorite p2p network!

[file-exists-p]

That's an excellent idea to protect the consumers from those low-quality divx encoded from a recorded movie. Soon, thanks to the MPAA, only excellent digital versions stolen directly in the studio will spread around. No more desappointing downloads!

Those guys have solved what I was personnaly considering as the only remaining weakness of p2p. Good.

--
Go Debian!

Re:MPAA's members should release the movie...

[TiggsPanther]

What part of supply and demand don't MPAA understand?

Heh. They want to demand exactly how they supply things.

I've said it before, but the genie was out of the bottle the moment communications technology improved, gained power with the Internet, and became unstoppabe with broadband. but it's not filesharing that started the ball rolling, it was just what finished it off.
The MPAA (and equivalents) sprung up aroudn the old infrastructure, found it profitable, and want to continue that way forever. It was 1989 when i first really noticed the lag between American and British film releases. And that was only because I spent the summer in Ohio. I spent 6 weeks seeing promos for Batman (and actually saw i), and Honey, I Shrunk The Kids. Batman didn't come out until I got back, and "Honey" didn't come out until either late '89 or early '90.

Then along came the Internet. Even in low-bandwidth, the MPAA methodology started to break down. It's easy to control releases when people don't know what's available elsewhere. The moment they do there is a demand. And if you don't actually release the film quickly then bootlegs are to be expected. It's not legal, but it's inevitable. People don't care about distribution rights and marketing, they want to see a film. Even knowing that a bootleg is technically illegal people will buy it if there's no other alternative.
This is in addition to those who'll go for the cheap/free alternative every time. But you'll never sell to them. Chasing them is a lost cause, it's the "Willing to pay, but not to wait" crowd you have to address.

The Industry lost their control the moment information could cross borders faster than normal media channels. They then refused to cater for the demand, and broadband suddenly opened up a supply. The industry had missed the boat. Simple as that.

Remember, we can now hear all about the status of a film, no matter where it's being filmed. it's more or less free advertising, as you know that a long-awaited film is closer and closer to release.
Oh, but you're a UK-resident, not a US-resident. So you'll have to wait week, maybe months. Before the Internet there wasn't that level of expectation. But now there is, and they still seem reluctant to address the issue at hand. They're treating the symptom (bootlegged films) instead of the cause (film not legitimately available yet in certain areas, even if willing to pay).

The longer delay also has another issue. The DVD can be available in another country whilst it's still in the cinema in your area.
You (legally) see a film at the cinema. You pay to see it several times. you love it. You want the DVD. It's out on legitimate DVD in another country. You import it, it makes perfect sense. It's more legal than downloading or buying a bootleg, but the industry hate it just as much.

They're finally changing their methods. Several films over the past 2 years have been released within a week in several countries. I'm pretty certain that if "piracy" wasn't a worry to the film companies that they'd not bother. Well although I don't advocate mass bootlegging of films, I certainly think that this is one case where something good has happened - at least for consumers. near-simultaneous releases of films in the cinema, then close DVD release dates for home viewing. It's long overdue, and probably owes more than a little to bootlegs.

And that is why although I don't like copyright infringement I'm firmly against the Industry's heavy-handed attempts to stamp out all piracy. Should they ever regain complete control I would bet that they'd go back to their old tricks of time-delayed releases. This would not be a good thing.
And them trying to accomplish that by wanting to set punishments out of proportion to the crime is not going to win them any friends. Well, not from the paying public anyway. I've said it before (first point), and recently too. Recording in a cinema is illegal, but it's not worth hard jail-time. You fine, steal, ban. You don't imprison.

Tiggs

Wonderful.

[Raven42rac]

The MPAA is screaming poverty, yet they are outfitting movie theaters with night-vision goggles? Something is very wrong with that picture. Don't they know most pirating is an inside job? Where do they think the screener rips come from? Or the ones where someone scans the film, and rips the sound digitally? Certainly not Joe Moviegoer. In all those trailers where the workers of the movie industry ask us not to pirate (which is before a movie to which you just bought a $10 ticket), I try to spot who the real pirates are. I already paid to get in the movie, you don't have to tell me not to pirate. That would be like telling a Nun to be celibate.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Overzeetop]

Hundreds of people have already been compensated for the hours they worked on that film. The owners of the IP contained in the film, however, have invested a great deal of money. Reducing the number of people who will pay to see the film reduces the value of their investment. You can argue whether or not you feel bad for a corporation who has invested a hundred million in a film not realizing the maximum potential profit, but don't even think about making this about whether or not the set caterer or one of the special effects computer administrators has been "wronged" by this kid.

I DO think what he did was wrong. He should be fined - probably a nominal amount. Maybe a few hours community service if he's a rich kid, since mommy and daddy probably lose $2500 in their couch cushions on a bad day. If I was still in CA, though, I sure as heck wouldn't want to pay my tax $ to put this prick in jail.

Re:This is not a good argument for harsh punishmen

[CrimsonAvenger]

Let's take speed traps. What a joke right now. One cop sits there, finds a speeder, pulls them over, and writes them a $50 ticket while others continue to speed. That's not hars. So let's make a harsh deterrent. Let's have cops with M2s (.50 cal machine guns) and radar guns. You speed, they anihilate you and your car. Now THAT'S deterrence.

Speed traps are not about "stopping speeding". They are about "revenue enhancement". Harsh enough penalties as to make people stop speeding would be counterproductive to the true objective - to make some extra money for the agency writing the tickets.

Now that that is solved

[cat_jesus]

Perhaps they can start working on ejecting people who talk during the movie. Other moviegoers inability to have respect for other people is the main reason I don't go to the movies any more. Or if I do, I try to do it on a weekday, late at night.

Re:this is nothing but BS anyways...

[puppet10]

Is there some reason someone couldnt simply use an IR filter (a hot mirror filter) on the camera to prevent most of the problem generated by an IR flood?

Not that I'm saying that movie companies arent just trying to create public fear by making a few loud examples.

Re:propaganda war

[bwalling]

Why do we have to continue to have this ridiculous argument over definitions? From Merriam Webster:

Steal - to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully

Appropriate - to take or make use of without authority or right

Are you saying that the person with the camcorder is somehow doing something different? Seems like the person is most certainly making use of it without authority, and likely has the intent to use it wrongfully. You seem to imply that "steal" is not the right word. Sure seems like it is. Now, you're right about the fact that it is not theft.

Re:This is not a good argument for harsh punishmen

[Tassach]

More to the point, the cost of having the cops on salary has already been paid. Regardless of whether they are out chasing REAL bad guys, eating doughnuts, or writing speeding tickets, you still have to pay their salaries and buy their equipment. Like having a lawyer on retainer, it's a sunk cost -- so you might as well have them bring in some revinue to offset what you're spending on them already.

Traffic fines -- whether from speed traps, parking tickets, or red-light cameras -- are "stealth" taxes, pure and simple. States and municipalites COUNT on that cash flow for routine operations.

Re:This is not a good argument for harsh punishmen

[cayenne8]

I wish they'd take the revenue stream out of the hands of the police, and see how long they'd keep spending so much time setting up speed traps??

Why not pool all the traffic fines, and and the end of a year...send out rebate checks to all the citizens of the city that did not recieve any tickets?

I'd much rather have the police out monitoring the crime ridden areas of town, looking out for cars driving 10 mph looking for trouble, rather than trying to catch people on their way to work going 10 mph over the limit.

Take away the traffic citation revenue stream....and get those officers busy looking for REAL crimes....

Re:Unconstitutional Sentencing?

[NeoSkandranon]

you don't have the constitutional right to bootleg movies, but you do have a constitutionally protected privacy that this may or may not infringe upon --

Not in a theater he doesn't. That's someone elses private property which you've been given the privlige of being on; the owner of which is free to watch or have you watched as they see fit. You dont like it, leave.

And Stan Lee?

[failedlogic]

If I recall, Stand Lee was suing Marvel and Sony because he wasn't getting the royalties he was promised (under contract) on the X-Men and Spiderman movies and associated spin-offs from the movies.

Isn't it ironic that the same movie studios that are lobbying politicians to combat piracy with tougher laws are the same studios that are reluctant to pay royalties owed to the real creators of the intellectual property? If you're going ask politicians to enforce the law, you should follow it as well.

Re:This is not a good argument for harsh punishmen

[itchy92]

That's not speeding, that's stupidity.

When I get ticketed for speeding when going down a clear, level interstate, with NO ONE in sight, that is revenue generation.

When the speed limit drops from 55MPH to 35MPH and increases back to 55MPH within the span of 1.5 miles for no apparent reason along a US highway, and there is a police officer waiting in 35MPH zone, that is revenue generation.

When I know that I am capable of driving at a higher speed than the posted limit, that my car is in good working order and that by all my cognitive abilities, it is no more dangerous to exceed said limit given the current conditions, yet an officer refuses to consider these factors and obey a relatively-arbitrary number posted on a sign, that is for revenue generation.