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

More Info

[tod_miller]

The article cites night vision goggles, but you all know his spider sense was tingling :-)

I think to keep in the spirit, he should have donned a spidey outfit, and swung down from his little window to catch the guy.

Required reference: The Little Kicks - Seinfeld bootlegs a movie :-)

Most movie bootlegs are inside jobs anyhow

[Ryu2]

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

Re:Most movie bootlegs are inside jobs anyhow

[Anonymous Coward]

Telesyncs are cams done in an empty theater with a direct feed from the sound system. In other words, done by an employee, or at least with their assistance, which was the point of the original poster, as opposed to a copy shot by an audience member, which is the implied meaning of "cam" by most.

Who's stupid...?

wonder who the real bootlegger is

[sethstorm]

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

Okay sure if they can look out for that..

[caston]

What happens next time I bring a lady in with me and we sit up the back an eh... you know... do the things that slashdot never told you about... can this see us then?

Re:Okay sure if they can look out for that..

[cynic10508]

What happens next time I bring a lady in with me and we sit up the back an eh... you know... do the things that slashdot never told you about... can this see us then?

No... of course not... don't let us bother you.

Chief Quimby over helicopter loud-speaker: "Don't mind us. Continue swimming naked. Oh, come on, continue! Aww..."

Re:Okay sure if they can look out for that..

[Lord Kano]

What happens next time I bring a lady in with me and we sit up the back an eh... you know... do the things that slashdot never told you about... can this see us then?

One of my first jobs was at a movie theater. There were these two people that we nicknamed the "Swing Kids", every few Sundays they'd come to an afternoon movie. They'd get it on in a dark corner of the theater. As soon as the crowd died down, we'd take turns going into the theater to check on them. As long as no customers complained, we didn't really care.

It was pretty funny, the guy looked like Lurch from the Adams family. The girl was kind of cute but she had a gimpy leg and walked with a limp. (Maybe because of Lurch wearing her out)After every movie, Lurch would go and sit on the bench while little miss gimp limped her way into the ladies room, presumably to freshen up.

Your .sig... "I already have a job but I'm looking for a gf if any ladies are reading this in Perth West Australia. I am not pathetic.

You never have to worry about that scenario unfolding.

LK

Re:Okay sure if they can look out for that..

[anticypher]

What happens next time I bring a lady in with me and we sit up the back an eh...

Then the projectionist with the night vision camcorder will release a video of you two on all the P-2-P networks. You've seen the quality of one made by a girl named Paris, but don't expect to get a TV contract out of it, just years and years of embarassment.

the AC

At Last I Am Made Safe

[gadlaw]

Thank you Homeland Security, thank you FBI, thank you ATF. Thank god that the terrible scourge that is badly copied movies is finally getting the priority attention it deserves. But curses Night Vision Goggles, now I can't take a woman into the movies to just make out without every night vision goggled attendant busting me. I'm conflicted here.

Re:At Last I Am Made Safe

[JosKarith]

Fuck it. I'm going to the cinema with my SO tomorrow, time to get round to buy a laser pointer.
The next minimum-wage spotty cinema attendant who tries to spy on us with night vision goggles is gonna find out what a life with smoking holes where his retinas were is like.
And yes, I know that decent night vision goggles have a signal damper system to prevent flash overload, but I'm betting that the film industry aren't gonna spring the extra that those cost...

Good job MPAA

[kamapuaa]

It's encouraging to see movie studios go after the actual perpetrators, rather than raise a blanket assumption that everybody is guilty and everybody deserves restrictions to their activity. I remember Roger Ebert complaining that a year or so ago critics were being patted down before being allowed into movie screenings.

Re:Good job MPAA

[Zareste]

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

Night Goggles Capture Spider-Man Movie Bootlegger"

[tod_miller]

By day a lowly projectionist, by night he is...

Night Goggles!

The most feared and ruthless projectionist of all time!

Extra Extra: Night Goggles foils bank robbery!

Sorry, semantical nit picking :)

so what?

[xlyz]

most of the moovies on p2p networks comes from the dvds distributed to preview them

Re:so what?

[jcain]

Actually a lot of studios no longer release screeners (DVD or VHS) in wide circulation, due to piracy concerns.

A friend of mine was supposed to get Kill Bill Vol. 1 as a screener soon after the release of the film in theaters, but didn't.

Link for the skeptical

Re:so what?

[Inda]

You are very wrong.

Cams and Telesyncs are the major formats. They account for 90% of all releases. Go check the NFO sites if you don't believe me.

Re:so what?

[dj245]

most of the moovies on p2p networks comes from the dvds distributed to preview them

I hereby put you, Mr. "xlyz", user 695304 of Slashdot of the Open Source Developers Netowrk, under citizens arrest. You could not have know such information without being a pirate yourself, so, on the authoritah of the MPAA, the DCMA, the RIAA, the MIAA, and the PIAA, I am taking you in. Please unplug your computer(s) and send them to me immediately via UPS next day. They are evidence of a crime(s) and if you fail to comply you will by snickered upon severly. If, after 10 days, you still have failed to comply with this motion, I will berate you ceaselessly and tsk-tsk you endlessly.

DJ245 550 Main St. Cincinnati, OH 45202

Re:so what?

[aixou]

most of the moovies on p2p networks comes from the dvds distributed to preview them

What's a "moovie"? Is that some kind of cow beastiality?

Invasion of privacy?

[evilviper]

I have to wonder if this might qualify as an invasion of privacy. I mean, people in a dark theatre assume they aren't being watched. If theatres were releasing video tapes of teenagers making out in the dark, there's be a huge outrage.

Well, IANAL, but I know I won't be going to a theatre again... I'll stick with rentals of the few movies I'm interested in.

Re:Invasion of privacy?

[phr2]

Using binoculars to look into the windows of someone else's residence (say from across the street) is indeed an invasion of privacy and can get you busted in my state, even though looking with the naked eye is permissible.

The night vision thing creeps me out. I imagine theater security goons walking around with those goggles on like Hannibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs. And if the film is political, for example Fahrenheit 911, the idea that they are watching your every move even in the dark is scary. 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. The night vision stuff really adds to the creep factor.

I'm glad that I almost never go to the movies any more.

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:Invasion of privacy?

[meta-monkey]

In high school I worked at a movie theatre. We had to watch this incredibly gay training film in which we learned two powerful upselling techniques. See, the medium was only a quarter more than the small, and the large was only a quarter more than the medium.

First was "the eclipse." In The Eclipse, I would hold up the medium cup the customer asked for and then, say, "for only a quarter more, you can have a large!" as I moved the large cup in front of the medium cup, "eclipsing" it.

The second was "the vanishing." "for only a quarter more, you can have a large!" and I drop the medium cup into the large cup. Isn't that worth it!

These days I make my living as a photographer. Recently meeting with a bride whose wedding we had photographed, I upsold her from a 10x10 album to an 11x14 buy moving it in front of the 10x10. It worked, but I felt so dirty. I still have nightmares about "the vanishing."

Re:Invasion of privacy?

[Dot Com Drew]

I don't want to sound like a wank, but do you have a link to back up the cops in the movie theater statement. Im more interested in reading about that rather than challenging the validity of your statement.

-drew

Re:Invasion of privacy?

[nacturation]

I upsold her from a 10x10 album to an 11x14 buy moving it in front of the 10x10. It worked, but I felt so dirty. I still have nightmares about "the vanishing."

What, did you drop the 10x10 down your pants and you got a paper cut out of it?

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.

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.

Re:Other sources

[tod_miller]

"to do something that may jeopardize his employment"

If they can prove (beyond reasonable doubt) he let you in to film it under those conditions, he is risking more than his emplyment. IANAL.

Re:Other sources

[furball]

If you actually read the article you'd know that there are $500 rewards for turning in people with camcorders. Now unless someone is overlooking the $500, this would make sense. But there's a good incentive for someone making shitty wage to rat out the camcorder monkeys.

Re:Other sources

[Overzeetop]

Would this be like getting tips? Can the Theaters now only pay him $2.01 per hour, since he has another source of income from the patrons of the theater? That would make it even more necessary to collect the reward, and make the employees far more attentive.

Even better, maybe he can be hired on a contract piecework basis, and ONLY get paid when he finds a camcorder. Running of the equipment is a necessary part of his contract, since no movie=no need to have a camcorder.

This could be quite a boon for all of those barley-making-it megaplexes.

(did I forget to open the sarcasm tag? oops, my bad)

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.

[evilviper]

Assumptions don't have a whole lot of bearing here.

No. Unfortunately, and ironically, you assume that assumptions don't have bearing. In fact, the assumptions of a reasonably person are indeed the deciding factor in numerous different laws.

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

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.

Re:pathetic

[0racle]

Ya but the guy working at the movie theater can finally feel like he looked cool wearing the night vision goggles.

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

[DNS-and-BIND]

It's worth it, if only to keep a crappy copy of a movie out of circulation, complete with coughing, laughing, and a fratboy constantly getting into frame as he gets up to piss every 30 minutes from the beer he smuggled in to the theater.

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

[miketang16]

Go buy a ticket to Fahrenheit. It's worth it.

propaganda war

[kylemonger]

It's hard to believe the movie industry is getting so excited over wretchedly poor quality bootlegs. This strikes me as being more of a propaganda war than anything else. Every time an arrest is made some movie exec gets to come out and use the words "steal" and "movie" in the same sentence, as if making copies is at all the same thing as theft. They can jump up and down and say it's theft as many times as they want but that doesn't make it so.

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:Hmm. Hand him over to me...

[DNS-and-BIND]

You guys sure are badass, at Mount Berry Square Theaters. Your assistant manager Chad Moore would approve. Rome, Georgia, suburban bedroom community, home of total badasses and regulators. I'll watch my step if I ever come there, and stay far away from the mall and Mount Berry Square Theaters, in order to avoid a certain ass-whooping at the hands of ushers with girls' names.

It'll get worse soon...

[Anonymous Coward]

The kid's lucky that this recent bill isn't a law yet. He'd be looking at a maximum of 3 years instead...

Nitpick

[Zorilla]

Chief Quimby over helicopter loud-speaker: "Don't mind us. Continue swimming naked. Oh, come on, continue! Aww..."

Chief Wiggum: "Do not be alarmed. Continue swimming naked...."

Unconstitutional Sentencing?

[kenjib]

"The teen could be charged under a law that went into effect Jan. 1 and makes taking a recording device into a movie theater a crime punishable by up to one year in jail and a maximum fine of $2,500."

Potentially a year in jail for videotaping a movie? He didn't distribute it yet so they can't punish him for more broad piracy issues. A year in jail for a single instance of copyright violation? Could this be argued as a violation of 8th ammendment rights?

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.

Re:Unconstitutional Sentencing?

[Osty]

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.

If the kid is smart, he'll already have a lawyer on his side, working for him. This is how laws get challenged. The sentiment of, "You did the crime, now do the time," is a cop-out. Would you react the same way if speeding was punishable by up to a year in prison and a $2500 fine? What would you do if you killed someone in self defense and were charged with murder? Would you roll over and take it, because you obviously killed the person? People bitch and moan about lawyers and the judicial system, but they protect your rights. (I'm speaking of criminal lawyers, not the civil lawyers that live for the next big class action.) What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt? This may look cut and dried, but how do we know there weren't extenuating circumstances? Are night vision goggles really allowable, or is it an infringement on constitutional rights? (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 -- the only way to know is for the case to be tried in court and see what happens.) The kid might get off on what you consider a technicality, but that's justice. If the method of collecting evidence is questionable, and disallowed, and the case can't be proven otherwise, then the guy deserves to go free because you can't prove he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether it's a bootlegging case like this, a speeding ticket where the equipment used was out of calibration, or a more serious crime where evidence was gathered illegally (say, by tapping a phoneline without a warrant, or illegally searching someone's property without a warrant), it doesn't matter. If you can't prove the case beyond a shadow of a doubt without the disallowed evidence, there is no case. Period. End of story.

Complain if you like. That's your right. However, you should at least take the time to understand why the system is the way it is, and why even the obviously guilty still have a right to representation and a fair and speedy (speedy can be waived by the defendent, but not fair) trial by a jury of their peers. I don't want to take that right away from you. Why would you want to take it away from me?

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to know all of the circumstances of this case.

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.

Re:Unconstitutional Sentencing?

[Zakko]

In a hotel room you pay to have a 'reasonable expectation of privacy', whereas in a theatre, where you pay to sit in a large open room with a couple hundred people that you don't know, you have no such protection.

Bout time.

[howman]

It is about time theatres have taken it under their mandate to try and help the studios out on this one. Although, from various news sources and from /., I realize most recordings are inside jobs. Who knows it may go up to the top. If a manager knows it is happening or is actually in on it, I am sure there is a tidy bit of cash for him to make or at least favours to get by handing out copies to friends.
I gave up going to the theatre due to high costs and lack of value. Now I just wait the three to 6 months and watch it at home on the wide screen. At least I won't get busted for making out with my fiancee if things get to heavy.
I am just waiting for the guy who works in the theatre, donning these new fangled night vision goggles, to sue the theatre because they didn't give him proper training . I am sure someone, somewhere will forget to take them off when the lights go on.
Barring human stupidity, I just wonder what effect on your vision wearing these things for, lets say 6 hrs a day, three days a week, for the average teen kid working at a theatre part time. I also wonder how the bright flashes of light comming from the screen effect your vision over time. Whenever you see a movie where some guy is hunting down some other guy, or girl for that matter, and is wearing night vision goggles, inevitably the hunted use some bright light to blind the hunter... Does anyone have any first hand knowlege of the damage to the eyes, or if the pain and squinting you see in the movies during these scenes is true to fact?

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.

Next time, Mission impossible arrest.

[cerebis]

Since this is all about public perception and impact, the next time someone is spotted with nightvision goggles the RIAA will up the ante and have Tom Cruise rappel down directly above the perpetator and taser him; all the while the rest of the audience is brought into the moment with a Dolby Digital rendition of the Mission Impossible theme.

Stopping piracy short of denying consumers recordable devices; Mission Impossible!

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]

Actually...

On the internet, I don't belive that 92% of the files copied are cams. No way. That statistic is BOGUS.

But for the street vendors, pushing VCDs and crappy VHS dupes to idiots, it might even be true. Or might have been a few years back - nowdays with pirate DVDs of unreleased-to-DVD movies are more common, and with those the customers already demand a bit more quality than a cammed copy.

Lots of pirate _sales_ are made on the very first days the movie is out - and at that point the cammed version might be the only thing that's out there. The dumb pirate *buyers* do not know any better, and I could belive a hefty chunk of the sales are cammed copies. Tho I still think that 92% number must include telesyncs, which are made with a tripod, in an empty theater with the cooperation of the staff. And THAT problem is fixable by securing the handling and showing of the prints. Of course THAT would cost money. Probably more than what it costs to buy off new laws to toss camming kids to jail.

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.

Win-Win Solution

[KrisHolland]

Why not just pay homeless people $20 to tape it. If they are caught they get to get a free home and food, and if they are not then they get free money.

Paying homeless people to do civil disobedience is win-win.

Re:Win-Win Solution

[kylemonger]

And if they're smart they slip out the fire exit with your $500 video camera.

Re:Taking a recording device into the theatre...

[khisanth]

Best (or worst) one I saw was of Van Helsing. 1) Someones Nokia phone went off during a quiet scene in the film. 2) The perpetrators actually talked throughout the film. 3) The screen suddenly went blank and you heard a muffled "oh s**t, the b***ard is coming, cover it up!" Me and my gf were in stitches.

Re:pathetic

[arb]

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

Re:Interesting thing I noticed

[LaForce]

Even in the "pirate everything" community, there's a lot of people saying "Don't download it, go see it in a theater." It's the type of movie that needs to be seen on a large screen, not a computer monitor or small TV.

I agree 100%. I saw it in the theater, and I don't consider any bit of my money to be wasted. I even paid $2 extra to see the midnight show with my friends.

If I'd seen a cam it would have been blurry, low-res, and overexposed(oversaturated? whatever the word is), with crap audio. I likely would have been sorely disappointed, and I wouldn't have felt it was worth my (free) download. When comparing the theater with cams, you really do get what you pay for.

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

[djtripp]

You can't help but look cool wearing nvgs. I mean how cool is the guy in Splinter Cell and the dudes in the Army commercials.

2 words for all those who still are trying to record movies in the theatre... flash bang

Re:pathetic

[Trikenstein]

It may deter camcorder bootleggers for awhile.
But I'm betting on the movie companies reneging on the $500.00 bounties.
Once word spreads that the bounties aren't being paid,
snoopers will stop snooping.
And the pirates will be back in force.

Well, maybe the projectionists will keep snooping.
So they can have a monopoly on making bootleg copies.

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

[Blublu]

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.

Okay, next time I get tortured, I'll give them your name.

This is not a copy of the movie

[Fuzuli]

A bootleg is barely close to one you can see at the theatre as an entertainment experience. The sounds definitely suck, colors suck (until you're the depressive kind that likes to see the world dull), and heads swinging to left and right at the bottom of the screen most definitely suck. This is not a comment about the IPR or laws, but i think when considering bootlegs, it's not fair to say that this is an illegal copy of the movie, since it's very inferior in terms of quality. If anyone buys this stuff, knowing how horrible it's compared to the one at the theater, this means he does not value the movie as high as the ticket price. This is a kind of price discrimination. I wonder what would happen if the producers sold a bootleg version over Internet ? Come on, buy the crappy version from us, at least this comes from the owner of movie...

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

[anshil]

Don't you think the word "stealing" is in this case a bit falsly borrowed, stealing is TAKING AWAY. Now if I record something, whom did I what away so his has any less?

I think it's all a more complicated issue, since movies and any thus data like this are not normal goods in consumption. For example an apple is a normal, if I eat it, you can't, if take it you got one less. Movies are a totally different case, or for example the television set at home is the same problematic. If I consum it, I don't disable you consuming it also. Say one family member bought a TV, is it legimate for other family members to turn it on when he isn't at home? What your oppinion to this? On one hand he was the one who bought it, on the other hand he does not loose anything if some other family watches his favorite show when he is in the gym. It's more the problem of the freerider to calling it stealing.

And honestly this has absolutely nothing to do with breaking into my house, raping my wive, TAKING my TV and Computer, and setting it to fire.
Your throwing pure emotional random stuff in it.

For example I would agree if you say it has something to do with resting in a hot summer noon in the shadow of MY tree next to my house. You didn't pay for the tree, yet you benefit from it without compensating me.

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

[fenix down]

It sounds crazy, but that's what happens. Go Google for the article with the Israeli Mossad torture expert. You have deep subconsious shit that goes off to make you a martyr. It doesn't work for everybody, but for a lot of people it becomes just so satisfying to piss off the assholes trying to fuck with you at some point that you don't really care about the little nagging prison time and everything anymore.

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!

Re:pathetic

[mirko]

By breaking into my house, then raping my cat and killing everybody or whatever else, you might end with a sentency somehow lower than by camcording a blockbuster.

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

[anshil]

Hey, I didn't want to express that this law is necessarly false. I merly pointed out that just because something is THE LAW like the original poster said, it's not necessarly a right thing. History has shown us this many times in a painful way.

I'm for a system that allows maximum welfare for all (including movie watchers and producers). I agree that without any restrictions to copyright and/or exhibition movies could not be financed, which would be a pity and hurting welfare. However on the other hand granting maximum copyright/exhibition right to the procuders moves the scale a big way to the procuders, allowing whole cities to live from this, and people owning islands from the revenues taken from the public.

I confess that I'm downloading sometimes movies and music to watch and hear it. Yet I still love to make an evening going with my girl-friend to the cinema, buying (expensive) pop-corn and all that, altough I have the movie at home and could watch it on my 17" screen also eating cheap popcorn from the supermarket.

If for example a system living from the revenues of offering good evenings for people allows it to bring in the revenue for allowing the movies to be produced, I don't see the additional public welfare by forbidding private copies, except for some rich guys to be even more richers by selling video tapes CD's that self destruct and all that.

"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? :-)

Re:pathetic

[ChuckleBug]

Good gawd, this guy compares some idiot bootlegging a movie to the victims of witch trials, Galileo, civil rights activists and the American revolution -- then gets modded INSIGHTFUL?

Please, people: Don't drink and moderate. Think about it, won't you?

Re:pathetic

[anshil]

Hi! The greeks knew long before, but they weren't catholic, so the catholic world took until 1996 when the pope finally officially admitted that galileo might have been right after all.

Galileo moved the sun in the center of the system, made the earth spinng around itself, and not the universe around it, that was the actual crime not so much for calling it round.

While in Galileos model the planets made perfect cycles around the sun, Copernicus corrected that by noticing that they are eclipses, and postulating the various laws around that.

Re:pathetic

[mirko]

because some cretin put it on the internet for free.
The movie which was being filmed and its copy are not the same thing :
The original movie is being projected ona big screen with a huge digital sound.
The copy has a crappy and shaky 1-Mpixel picture and an almost monaural sound.

What you'll lose here will only be the public who'll realise how lame the movie could be.
The others will either end in a theater for the real thing and/or buying the DVD.

So, crappy camcording should rather be considered as alternative promoting.

Re:Eliminating the Competition

[nickol]

AFAIK, he already finished his job. I wonder why the poor kid could not download the movie.

Anyway, next time trying to capture movie in a cinema :

check whether it already exists in P2P networks

bring an IR laser with you. Very effective in eliminating those night goggles.

take a smaller camcorder

run faster

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*

Re:pathetic

[SlashdotLemming]

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm pretty damn sure I'm not), but didn't Copernicus, not Gallileo assert the world was not flat?

Quiet man, he's on a roll.

"Was it over when the German's bombed Pearl Harbor?"

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:Night Goggles Capture Spider-Man Movie Bootlegg

[howman]

Someone has to say it...

In the United States, the movies watch you!

Where do they get these figures?

[marsu_k]

From the article:

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.

Huh? First of all, weren't screeners supposed to be a more severe problem, as they offer significantly better quality (and yes, are occasionally sold as pirate copies)? And who here has seen TS/TC copies being _sold_? I can't recall having to pay anything to suprnova.org...

I saw Spidey today

[TheABomb]

and prior to the film, there was an advert reading something like Hollywood thanks you for last year's $6.7 billion record-breaking admissions. Now I understand just how badly these kids are sticking it to the industry.

MPAA's members should release the movie...

[xenobyte]

...everywhere on every format simultanously!

That way the pirates would only have those who can't or won't pay the full price as customers. Everybody else will be able to watch it where and when they want with a clean conscience because they paid for it.

As long as they continue to discriminate based on geographical location and format, there will be pirates filling those huge gaps in availability. What part of supply and demand don't MPAA understand?

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

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

[flossie]

While in Galileos model the planets made perfect cycles around the sun, Copernicus corrected that by noticing that they are eclipses, and postulating the various laws around that.

Actually, it was Kepler who came up with the laws of planetary motion - including elliptic orbits.

Copernicus introduced a helio-centric universe but used circular orbits.

Galileo, who was a contempary of Kepler, made experimental observations using the newly-invented telescope with which he found moons orbiting another planet (Jupiter).

Re:pathetic

[barc0001]

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

Oh, bullshit. You mean MARKETED for free. The first Spiderman was one of the most blatantly posted movies ever, and it was one of the biggest takers at the box office. You think anyone who would have paid to see that movie is going to look at a washed out, bad sounding, shaky cam-movie and decide not to see it? Half the point to these movies is the special effects, none of which are coming across to the little low-res tape.

Re:holy magic

[tarunthegreat2]

TRANSLATION:
How did the projectionist see the bootlegger, considering that everbody is facing the movie screen?

Easy, he looked for the guy who seemed to be staring at his chest....or something...

Do they look for the camera, or the IR focus light

[RollingThunder]

If I remember right, when you look at a videocamera with something IR-sensitive, you can see the focus light that it uses to put a strong known pattern on the scene in front of it.

I wonder if they just need to glance in there, with the camera sticking out like a sore thumb, or if they actually need to see the camera itself?

Re:Hypocrisy

[tarunthegreat2]

Out of curiosity..does Gigli fall under the "Art" or "Great Picture" category? *ducks*

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.

This is a good move... but not for the MPAA

[zz99]

I for one welcome this move to stop the distribution of movies filmed by the audience in theathers.

This will homefully deter people from spreading poor quality bootlegs.

However, this means that the average movie spread on the internet will be of higher quality. I wonder if the MPAA really has thought this one through...

A CAM version of a movie is not a replacement for buying it. But if the only copies spread on the internet are DVD-rips, this could have a negative impact on VHS/DVD rentals and sales

So if people were encurraged to bring cameras to the theatre and shoot crappy bootlegs, the internet would be flooded by a lot of different versions of low quality files. And anyone downloading stuff would get dissapointed.

A personal note: I once watched a downloaded movie "filmed in Tilt-o-vision(tm) in front of a live theatre audience" and I woved to myself never to do that again because of the poor quality. I guess the MPAA feels the same way :)

Re:This is a good move... but not for the MPAA

[east coast]

I want to hear the audence heckling the screen since MST3k was cancled.

Actually MST3K wasn't cancled. They simply finally caught the guy who was taping Tom, Crow and Mike.

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.

Re:pathetic

[Elledan]

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

What is the value of something if it can be copied (reproduced) for (near to) zero cost?

Fact is, after a song, a movie and anything else which can be stored in digital form has been produced, its value is as high as the cost of reproducing and distributing it. Using cheap PCs and broadband internet, this cost is usually pretty much negligible.

Money is an abstract representation of the value of an object or service. While one might need more coins to pay for the same product if more money is added to 'the system', the value of the products remains the same.

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.

Re: but just before you do...

[zz99]

... you might want to learn a thing or two on the filmmaker.

You can also read the response to some of the critic in Michael Moore responds to the wacko attackos.

Query

[pathwayX]

Before this degenerates into another "The MPAA suxx0rz" argument (oops! too late!), I'm going to field a question here:

Is there be a way to defeat these goggles by emitting light in a wavelength invisible to the human eye? And if there is, since creating a blind spot where you're sitting would immediately call attention to your evildoing antics (bwahahaha), would it be possible to use a beam, directed at the little window and the dude with the night goggles, effectively blinding them?

This is merely for the sake of curiosity, of course, since (a) I'm not about to go set up a camcorder in my local cinema, (b) The attendants where I live wouldn't know night vision goggles from ViewMaster ones and (c) Creating such an effect would immediately draw attention to yourself anyway.

Re:Query

[26199]

The way to defend against it is obvious... persuade enough people to do something which looks like it might be using a camcorder, but isn't. After they've argued with a few people they'll stop doing it.

Probably.

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.

projectionists perspective

[Snooweatinganima]

What about projectionists that refuse to play police in a movie theater? I would certainly not engage in such a surveillance action (nor would my employer ask me to, but that's sheer luck).

Dear MPAA, if you want security, pay for it. Send over a security guy that watches the cinemas your reels are visiting. I for certain won't do your lousy denunciatory job.

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

[FictionPimp]

The thing that plays before movies says no cell phones, laser pointers, talking, or crying babies. It says nothing about recording the show. Maybe thats the problem.

*note this post was written as a joke.*

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

[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.

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

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?

Far too Orwellian for my tastes

[yuud]

Ignoring the actual issues involving the supposed 'crime', I find public monitoring a little uncomfortable.. esp in a darkened theatre. I guess they should just stick up a sign above the screen titled 'big brother is watching you'.

A little creepy for my tastes, freedoms are lost one inch at a time.... remember that folks!

Re:This is not a good argument for harsh punishmen

[Chess_the_cat]

Your ideas are intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Why do you think the movie attendents....

[cruc]

...have night vision goggles in the first place?

It sure isn't to catch movie recording theives, though that works for tax writeoffs to purchase them:)

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:pathetic

[AKnightCowboy]

Its the deterent. Now that people can and will be caught it'll make people think twice.

And thus comes an end to Jerry Seinfeld's bootlegging career.

(It's sad I'm going to explain this to avoid a -1 offtopic, but Jerry Seinfeld was forced into bootlegging movies for a professional bootlegger in NY during his TV sitcom when the bootlegger ate too much candy and got a stomach ache and had to leave. He made Jerry finish the bootlegging of some movie and liked his camcorder work so much that he made him bootleg other movies.)

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

[murdocj]

C'mon, renege on the $500 bonus? How much do you think it's going to cost them? $10,000, $20,000? Against a movie cost of perhaps $50,000,000,000? If it prevents even a little piracy it's worth it to them.

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.

this is nothing but BS anyways...

[Lumpy]

They are doing this simply to make it a public spectacle and sensationalize it.

we did some tests and a pair of IR floods pointed at the audience at the sides of the screen makes it impossible for a camcorder to record the film without being massively washed out and looking like hell.

the movie companies are just trying to make examples and generate public fear.

if they pulled their heads out of their asses long enough to use simple solutions like I gave above it would be "solved". but they know that most bootlegs do not come from kids in a theatre but from staff at that theatre or in their own company.

that said, I have almost finised my head mounted high intensity IR strobe made from lots of Ir led's and I cant wait to use it at a theatre to see if I get the attention of a movie police.

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:this is nothing but BS anyways...

[fliptout]

It's my understanding that modern CCD cameras have IR filters anyways.. When you use NightShot on Sony handicams, it actually disables the IR filter.

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.

Oh, sorry, I misread that

[ThisIsFred]

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.

I read that as protectionist initially. I guess that word made sense in the context. It's amazing that someone would volunteer his time to do this. Theaters have to pay exorbitant prices to get reels in the door. So much in fact, that there is little left over to build or maintain a comfortable environment for moviegoers, or to pay their employees. So we go and sit on bolted-down plastic lawn chairs inside a concrete bunker, and we pay some 400% (based on prices for drinks) more than street price at the concessions stand.

The margin is so small theaters can't afford to show anything but the latest reels, and they quickly drop any release that shows weak attendance. The $10 ticket price pretty much insures that moviegoers aren't going to see more than one film in a weekend, so I'm sure this makes for lots of empty seats. Theater operators have almost no room to work with prices if attendance is low, or to maximize their time with a particular reel, since the studios pretty much control it all from pre-production all the way down to DVD release.

Too bad, I'm sure that projectionist needs the money, so he'd probably strip search the crowd if the MPAA gave the order. If that was me, I'd tell them to hire and equip security at their own expense. I'd also be an ex-projectionist in short order, I imagine.

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.

Protection against the Night Goggler

[cerberusss]

When you're taping the movie and the bastard with the night goggles spots you, just point your laser pen at him. The goggles will intensify the laser beam a THOUSAND TIMES leaving nothing but stinking, smoking holes where once his eyes were located...

BUUWAHAHAHAHAHA!

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:pathetic

[The Dobber]

That's quite the pricey movie. Kevin Costner would be proud.

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:CAM value

[chrwei]

have you ever actually seen a CAM video? my $deity, it's worth NOTHING! Sneaking in is worth A LOT more than a 100 CAM copies.

In general, those that watch CAM copies fit into one of these categories:
a) wasn't going to see it in the theater or on DVD anyway but since it's there and free...nothing lost
2. already saw it in the theater X-times and wouldnt mind watching it at home sometime before the DVD comes out, and will buy the DVD when it does come out...nothing lost here either
III: Want's to preview the PG or PG-13 to determine if the little ones can handle watching it or if a sitter will be in order (you can't trust the ratings, after all LOTR and Austin Powers are both PG-13 and there's NO WAY I'm letting my 8 year old see that 1.5 hour long penis joke)... only loose sales if the movie is crap to begin with
D) just likes collecting things, probably won't ever watch it anyway...nothing lost again

in summary: CAM's don't loose revenue.
CAM movie quality is crap at best, most of them are barely even watchable, you might as well stand at the door and try to watch through the crack. Telecine or telesync caps can be near DVD quality though, and are usualy take FROM THE BOOTH by the guy that runs the camera using a $2000 camera! This is the real piracy "problem", not the kid with the $300 dv-cam.

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

[tgibbs]

Who the hell wants some crappy camcorder-made copy of a movie, anyways?

I have often seen them for sale on the street. They are often sold in counterfeit packaging designed to look like a legitimate video, but inside is a crappy camcorder theater copy. Laws preventing theater taping are thus defensible in terms of protecting the consumer, as well as protecting the livelihoods of people who work in the movie, theater, or video rental industries, not to mention preventing legitimate theater goers from being annoyed by jerks with videocameras.

Re:pathetic

[KUHurdler]

No really, my chair has to have a clear view... Can you please just move over one seat?

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: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:pathetic

[revmoo]

SpiderMan.2.SVCD.TELESYNC-V****CD

No, he's not :p

(for the uninitiated, the term 'Telesync' refers to a higher-level than cam rip, with a direct audio feed, and is done in a usually empty theatre)

Re:CAM value

[jred]

after all LOTR and Austin Powers are both PG-13 and there's NO WAY I'm letting my 8 year old see that...

I hate to be the one to point this out to you, but PG-13 means parental guidance is suggested for those under 13. 8 definitely falls into the "under 13" category.

Of course, I let my 8yo watch both of those movies. Before she was 8, even. Most of the really adult themes were way over her head. Not only that, but I teach her how to handle inappropriate materials. Scarred for life? I doubt she even remembers the AP movies now...

Re:pathetic

[Phurd Phlegm]

And I always thought that it was the porjectionist that was supposed to bootleg movies. He's let the whole profession down... ;)

Not necessarily. He might just be reducing competition. The same principle applies in many extralegal trades--fink your competitor out to the cops and you're saved the trouble and expense of filling him with lead and dumping him into a sausage grinder. And that's not to mention that most projectionists are probably less than comfortable ventilating someone.

Re:pathetic

[mwood]

There is no need for evidence of intent to upload. The act of copying is itself a violation of the studio's copyright. He could have intended to take the tape home and bury it in the backyard forever and never ever watch it, but that has nothing to do with whether the studio has the legal right to prevent him making a copy in the first place.

Re:pathetic

[TCaptain]

Spidey sense isn't radar, it detects a threat and I think we all realize that a teen in a theater with a camcorder isn't much of a threat :)

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: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

[magarity]

You forget, these are the same people who claimed that they lost money on Forrest Gump, so they wouldn't have to ... the profit-based percentage he was owed.

No movie has ever made a profit; it is called "Hollywood Accounting". This is a well known practice to anyone who has taken even an intro to accounting course. The studios purposefully look for suckers to sign over rights in exchange for a share of profits they know will never appear. This is a perfect example of why EVERYONE, regardless of whether you're a sculptor, painter, or renassaince actor, should take take a few basic business courses so those who have taken a lot of business courses can't jerk you over.

Re:pathetic

[kippa]

The projectionist can usually be found splicing in frames of hard-core pornography and/or spanking it.

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

[C0rinthian]

This situation is a public performance, not a purchased copy of the move. So fair use doesn't apply.

Who?

[malakai]

What's Homeland Security, FBI, and ATF have to do with this?

The goggles were issued and paid for by Motion Picuture companies (ie, Warner Bros..etc). They are attempting to protect their product, no different then the camera that watches you try on clothes at the local Army Navy store.

I should mention, that your comment makes you appear as nothing more than a curmudgeon. To use a story such as this to try and make your malcontent point is short-sighted. Surely there are better places for arguments on Justice Department policy and direction.

I must admit, i do find your comment +Funny. But not so much laughing with you, as at you.

Re:pathetic

[Squorch]

Actually, torture is considered one of the least reliable interrogation methods due to the fact that when someone is in extreme pain, they'll tell you anything - most likely what they think you want to hear, regardless of whether it's the truth or not - to get you to stop inflicting said pain.

Re:pathetic

[Single GNU Theory]

fink your competitor out to the cops and you're saved the trouble and expense of filling him with lead and dumping him into a sausage grinder.

That's horrible! Lead is poisonous. Think of the children's breakfast! Use non-lead bullets instead. :-)

Re:pathetic

[Ryosen]

>>a teen in a theater with a camcorder isn't much of a threat

No, he's a thief. And is being treated appropriately.

Mods, in accordance with Slashdot rules, please proceed and mod me as a troll for this opinion.

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.

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.