Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
"The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it." - G.B. Shaw
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?
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
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