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!

Comments

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[sql*kitten]

why would it suddenly be "illegal"?

From the article:

Michael Bergman, a Los Angeles-based entertainment lawyer, said the fact that Mr. Modes does not charge admission does not diminish his basic violation of copyright law. "The copyright proprietor for the film has the exclusive right to publicly perform the work," he said in a telephone interview. "Projecting a rented DVD onto the side of a building, where anybody who wants to can come and watch it, is certainly a violation of the copyright act."

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[Alsee]

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.

-

Guerilla Drive-In How-To

[Rico Thunder]

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.

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-0407 30/

Local press: http://www.thespoon.com/drivein/press/sentinel-040 720/

Rico Thunder
Guerilla Drive-In Collective
Santa Cruz

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[JohnQPublic]

All fine and good, but what exactly constitutes unauthorized exhibition of a motion picture or video tape?

According to 17 USC 101 and 106:

To perform or display a work ''publicly'' means -

(1)

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; or

...

Subject to sections 107 through 121, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

...

(4)

in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

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.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[swillden]

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):

To perform or display a work "publicly" means --

(1) 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; or [...]

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.