Slashdot Mirror
Guerrilla Drive-Ins
An anonymous reader submits "A NY Times story yesterday talked about a new fad sweeping the underground: guerrilla drive-ins. Essentially, someone sets up a DVD player, LCD projector, and wireless transmitter next to any blank wall (preferably on someone else's property - to make it more fun), and people come to watch movies. As you would expect, the movie studios aren't too thrilled." The idea that this is a notable fad reminds of when the residents of Doonesbury's Walden jokingly informed intrepid reporter Roland Burton Hedley, Jr. ("Rollie") about imaginary trends in the college drug scene. On the other hand, anything that knocks down the price of projectors is fine with me!
I feel like a member of the trendy youth of tomorrow. This is how I saw the Matrix for the first time...wall of a dorm at MIT, couple of years ago.
You probably just need a better projector. It's all about the Lumens.
When film was very new (1900's, 1910's, even into 1920's), projectionists would travel from town to town and show films this way, outdoors.
There is a semi-regularly scheduled monthly movie showing like this in the San Francisco Bay area these days.
The game of Go (Igo, Weiqi, Baduk) has the simplest concept and the deepest play.
From the article:
If you want to rant ("used to being screwed by the _______"), it is best to get your bogeyman right.
It's not the RIAA, it's the MPA or the MPAA that would be involved with DVDs which show moving images, not simply recorded audio.
MPA is the Motion Picture Association. MPAA is the Motion Picture Association of America. See MPA.
RIAA is the Recording Institute (for audio recordings).
The game of Go (Igo, Weiqi, Baduk) has the simplest concept and the deepest play.
DVDs are usually licenced for Home use
False. DVD's are not licenced at all. You no more need a licence to watch a DVD you own than you need a licence to read a book you own.
The only time you ever get a licence is when you are licenced the rights to create new copies, to distribute those copies, and to public performance (and there are all sorts of exception where you can do those things without a licence). Nothing available on the ordinary consumer market ever comes with a licence to do any of those things, therefore they are all completely licence free.
Ordinary unlicened products come with no licence at all, so they come with no licence for public performance. US copyright law defines:
To perform or display a work ''publicly'' means - to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered
So what they are doing probably qualifies as copyright infringment, but IMO it would be a borderline case if they made an effort to ensure no outsiders were present.
I have heard of a figure of 12 to 15 people being the limit of home use
Read the definition in law above, there is no limit on the number. You could show a movie at a wedding with hundreds of people if there is no "substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances". Groom's family and social acquaintances, Bride's familty and social acquaintances, and a non-substantial number of servers and other employees.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
In answer to almost all the "Is it possible to..." and "How hard is to..." questions. The answers is: yes and not hard at all.
7 30/
0 720/
Check out the Santa Cruz Guerilla Drive-In DIY page: www.thespoon.com/drivein/start-your-own.html
In the NYT photo you can see how hi-tech our arrangement is: a VCR, a DVD Player, an Amplifier, and a video switch racked in a milk crate. All of it donated or scrounged. Except for the LCD projector of course, which costs around a thousand bucks for a high luminosity. low wattage one now.
As for being hipsters and slackers the trendsetting youth of the future: don't know nutin about that. We're just poor schmucks who wanted to watch movies with our friends without spending ten bucks a pop.
Other links:
NY Times article minus ads and login: http://www.thespoon.com/drivein/press/nytimes-040
Local press: http://www.thespoon.com/drivein/press/sentinel-04
Rico Thunder
Guerilla Drive-In Collective
Santa Cruz
All fine and good, but what exactly constitutes unauthorized exhibition of a motion picture or video tape?
According to 17 USC 101 and 106:
So, yes, churches, summer camps etc. movies are illegal. When I was in high school, we showed films (16mm, multi-reel) every few weeks after school. The rental included a performance fee that legalized our doing so. Blockbuster doesn't pay that fee for you, and neither does NetFlix."Just because we can do a thing does not mean that we must do it." The technology does not imply the right.
Ahem, ONE MORE TIME, only this time, I'll emphasize something you skipped over:
Your statement assumes that electronic stores (which often are also selling the very DVD they are playing) are not obtaining permission to use certain movies for those purposes.common sense: noun
What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
Try a deep-cycle battery and inverter. Or borrow power from neighbors with a long extension cord. We often do both. Rico
Uh, no, I was talking about the judiciary.
Quite frankly, the whole "home use" label is probably illegal, because there is no legal definition of "home" that anyone would consider acceptable for all situations.
Actually the law doesn't mention "home use", it talks about public performance or display, which it defines thusly (Title 17 USC, section 101):
So if you can convince a judge that the people watching the show are your "normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances", and that the place you're showing it isn't "open to the public", then you're fine. If you can't convince a judge of those facts then you're breaking the law. I think it's pretty clear where the activity described in the article falls.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
NO NO NO. Do NOT do this. That is a stupid urban legend. Modern forensic science is very advanced and you WILL be caught. Now it looks like you have something to hide, and you have squandered any sympathy the DA or jury might have had for you.
If you kill someone who has burgled your house or attacked you, that is a good thing and you do not need to apologize for it. People will sometimes make statements that they were "sorry" for killing the dirtbag, or that they "regret" it. Don't do this. You have performed a public service.
To protect yourself, make sure witnesses hear you say, as soon after the shooting as possible, something like "He didn't give me any choice! I was sure he was about to kill me!" Then shut up until you talk to a lawyer.
Another thing-- Don't shoot warning shots and don't shoot to wound. Shoot to STOP the attack. You don't have the right to use deadly force unless you reasonably believe your life is in danger. (Such a threat is legally presumed any time someone breaks into an occupied building, under the laws of most US states.)
If you reasonably believe your life is in danger, you may use any force necessary to stop the attack. Therefore shoot for center of mass, as this is most likely to stop it. If you shoot to wound, a smart and vindictive prosecutor will make it look like you were not fearful enough for your life to make any use of deadly force justified.
You must never say so out loud if it happens to you, but killing the perpetrator also ensures that you will not be sued for his nursing home bills if he becomes a lifelong head-injury vegetable. Plus, let's face it, anybody who would burgle a house with people in it is a worthless piece of filth who deserves everything he gets.
Don't go looking for trouble, but if it comes to you, deal with it with sudden ruthless righteous violence. Let it be known you feared for your life, then shut up and take quiet pride in ridding the world of one more worthless waste of oxygen who preyed on decent citizens.
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
At the same time, for all its grandure, I am not sure that open source techniques are able to reproduce something the likes of a major movie. "Open source" music is certainly possible and profitable and has existed officially or not for thousands of years.
;)
3D animation and digital video editing is becoming a LOT easier as computers get more powerful, and will continue this way as long as they dont bring in their vile "trusted" computing platforms. (more like... "WE" dont "TRUST" you)
I point out these examples:
Animwatch All sorts of indie 3D animated films
This hame made retro star trek episode
Rocketmen vs Robots
Machinima films
lots of other examples... red vs blue, killer bean, rustboy, brickfilms
These films are usually better than some of the that hollywood comes out with. So don't discount the 'opensource' film scene which is still in it's infancy. (and needs another matrix trilogy to fully revolutionize filmmaking
Cops nailing you for DMCA violation? First: What does the DMCA have to do with anything? This is just simple copyright violation: unlicensed public screening. Second: Copyright doesnt self-enforce by the law alone, nobody is going to arrest you because they see you with a projector unless a complaint is made by the copyright holder. A police officer has no authority to tell you "stop playing that movie, it's copyrighted!" unless he has been informed by the copyright holder that a violation is taking place- yes, even if you are sitting there out in the open mass-burning DVD copies, it is not a policeman's job to assume that it is illegal. If he wanted to be an asshole he could call the copyright holder and ask them to file charges, but that sounds more like the kind of thing an asshole neighbor would do (a cop can just ask for ID and then shoot you when you pull out your wallet if he wants to be an asshole anyway)
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All