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!
According to the RIAA, if you rent or buy a movie, its for you only. Not your family, or your friends, but yours. If you let someone borrow it, or someone else watches it with you, its illegal. Of course they're pissed off. I think this is a great idea though. I'd do it if I were rich and had the $$ to bribe the police to sit down and shut up, because they'd bust the gathering thinking it was some kind of bizarre ritual.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
What next, playing your stereo at a party at a friends house will be illegal? What the hell is the world coming to?
I have difficulty seeing my projector sometimes on my cream, flat, wall. Are there that many buildings kicking around that have surfaces suitable for a projector to throw a visible picture on?
"I think everyone is an agnostic but just doesn't know" - Frazz
Define "public".
If I watch a DVD at home in the living room alone, it's legal.
If I watch that same DVD at home with friends, it's legal.
If I have a private party, set up a huge freakin' projection system, and watch the DVD with my friends in the yard, it's still legal.
Now if we all get together and drive out to a field, a parking lot, a park, or wherever else to watch that same DVD, why would it suddenly be "illegal"?
The only think "illegal" is if you a) charge to see the movie or b) set it up for a bunch of strangers to watch instead of friends (i.e., it's just you and your projector, there never were the group of friends, so no one but you and a group of strangers are watching.)
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
how difficult it must be to be an MPAA executive?
Just imagine how difficult it must be, laying awake at night, haunted by the thought that someone, somewhere out there, might be enjoying themselves.
Sounds similar to what I do when I throw a party. Set up a large screen in my backyard, directly behind an old trampoline, and watch it whilst hanging out and bouncing around with friends. Trampolines are only mildly less fun with over a dozen people.
Banaaaana!
the consuming public doesn't pay the big bad Corporations for the "privilege".
I'm not sure I understand why the movie studios would have a problem with this. Since it's kind of roving movie theater, almost all the people that are going to be there are going to be invited. This means that you're probably not going to have any more people watching the movie than you might invite to your house to watch a movie some night.
Of course, if you remember your history you might know that when the idea of home video was first proposed it was rejected by most studios (despite the fact that it only allowed you to watch a movie once) because they wouldn't be able to control how many people would watch it.
My DVDs are licensed for "noncommercial home use only." If you are projecting on the side of a home, and you don't charge admission, seems to me you are in total compliance with the license terms as written by the studios' high-priced lawyers. (Yes, it is a public performance, but the license trumps copyright law.) If the studios don't like it, how about tearing down some Wal-Marts and resurrecting the drive-ins that were torn down to build the Wal-Marts? Or how about building drive-ins atop the roofs of the Wal-Marts?
sigh. Every time slashdot runs an article dealing, however tangentially, with questions of piracy, digital rights management, etc., we go through the same cycle. Someone defends the pirates, someone makes the same cynical retort that "you'd be against this if it was software licenses instead of music/movies/whatever," then the radical information freedom crowd has to come back by saying that no, in fact, software licenses are just as evil as DVD restrictions. Can we just take it as read, and maybe throw in a good Soviet Russia joke for good measure?
I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
Illegal does not mean "wrong" (some things that are wrong are not illegal, some things that are illegal are not wrong).
So by your b) definition, all these electronics store (or stores that has an electronics department) would be illegally showing movies.
I've actually seen it... they're sometimes showing full version of Ice Age, RotK, Shrek 2, etc. Now whether they've already paid the royalty to do it, I don't know, but they are showing it to a bunch of "strangers".
Here's a kooky idea: why not use such a setup to promote knowledge of copyrights and the public domain? Show films that are in the public domain, and include a short bit to explain why such showings are legal, while showing other films is not. Besides showing good classic movies, or providing an opportunity for impromptu MST3K participation, you could actually educate people and make them more aware of how intellectual property issues affect them. Just an idea.
There is much pleasure to be gained in useless knowledge.
If it's not illegal now, you can bet that the RIAA will fix that very quickly. I imagine that the easiest way to do that would be to limit the number of people who can legally watch one DVD to 1. Then blockbuster will have an excuse to bump of their prices. So when you go to the cash register they'll ask you "how many people will be viewing this movie today" and charge you accordingly. I'm so used to being screwed by the RIAA that I can see it coming.
According to "The Importance Of..." which has been tracking the INDUCE Act relentlessly, the NY Times article violates the INDUCE Act itself: Hatch's Hit List #16 - The New York Times
This is a very good point. It's time to write some letters to the editors of the Times and other major media outlets pointing this out, and explaining why the INDUCE Act is dangerous to them. Whining on slashdot may not do anything, but the lawmakers in Washington do read the Times.
If one of you can write in summarizing the best posts on INDUCE and get your letter printed in the paper, it will be read by the people with power to do something about it. Getting the major media on our side might just tip the balance in the debate. Any of you slashdotters who read the Times regularly willing to help us out here?
Perhaps that should be a regular thing for slashdot: when a major political issue comes up, get a letter containing the best points of the slashdot discussion printed in the most influential newspapers, where the lawmakers can see it. I'm sure the editors would support this practice by posting front page articles showcasing successful letters and their effects on the debate.
So academic licenses are bad because they restrict normal use?
Look, it says right on the DVD case:
Seeing as how the terms are up front before you buy the disc, I don't see the problem. Much better than the "hit you with the EULA after you've spent $50 on our game" approach of software vendors
common sense: noun
What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
It is my home.
While I may be a typical technoweenie with a small group of friends, I also know people whose "small" parties are only 30-40 friends getting together.
Sorry, but the MPAA does not get to dictate how many friends I have, how large my home is, or what is legally, morally, or socially considered "home".
That could be a communal or shared accomodations, it could be a private mansion, it could be a shack on the shore of a lake. It is home because it's where I live.
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.
Lets take it to a (hopefully) ridiculous variant -- what of a bunch of homeless people who get together in their alley to watch a movie? It is, after all, their home.
Bottom line is the MPAA and the RIAA can kiss my ass when it comes to their perpetual greed. They call their shipments "product", it has a "purchase price", therefore it is mine after payment, and I'll damned well watch or listen to it with as many friends as I want wherever the hell I choose to call "home" at the time.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Does being illegal make it wrong?
Most voters simply don't have the attention span to digest the facts. They need heaping spoonfuls of mental sugar to get even the tiniest portion of these dull facts down. That's why CNN and FOX and the rest do so well.
I'm not saying it's right, but propoganda is the lingua franca of the average citizen. You can't have a meaningful political discussion with most people because they're awash in mindless rhetoric from their radio to their television set and everything in-between.
Moore operates at that level, and I'm not surprised that he's finally encountered resounding success. And it's a good movie. Whether or not it was deliberately or indeliberately misleading takes a backseat to whether it was entertaining -- much as it does in all our major resources for information these days.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
I would never know about all this stuff if the news didn't keep giving me such detailed instructions on whats new and hip in the we-don't-want-people-doing-this category. Let's hope they show the cheapest place to get projectors.
BTW, Here is an earlier story
Seeing as how the terms are up front before you buy the disc,
Those aren't "terms". It's just a reminder of what the US laws happen to be, not a license you agree to by purchase.
Even if the DVD didn't mention it, the law would still apply.
All fine and good, but what exactly constitutes unauthorized exhibition of a motion picture or video tape?
Can I just watch the tape myself? With my family? What about playing it during a party where some other folks might be able to also enjoy my lawfully purchased motion picture? You know that churches and the like often have parties or events where large groups of people all gather and watch a movie together? This also happens at schools, summercamps, and other nefarious locations. Someone must put a stop to this so-called "fair-use".
Anti-social? My code is just platform-specific.
The law is always "what you can convince a court to accept." It has no real external existence.
When a lawyer talks to his client, he accurately represents what the law will allow the client to do. When he talks to the public, he often lies through his teeth. That's his job... he's an advocate.
First of all, I think the fact that this is occuring is a sign that the restriction on exhibition of copyrighted works has gone too far, especially when combined with the DRM which is included in the system. I think that the only *right* solution is to avoid buying or renting such DVD's (ok, I will occasionally buy them used, while that is still permitted, though I sometimes even have a problem with that as it is propping up the salvage value for someone else).
But there is a larger problem here. That is that the content provider industries are used to a system which ensures their livelihood by restricting entertainment material. At the same time, technology is eroding the practical barriers to all manner of copy protections. I believe that more than anything else, this is driving the current trend towards DRM and the so far unsuccessful attempts to legislate it on every computing device sold.
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. Traditional folk music is basically similar methodologically to open source software, except that it tends to be more conservative and decentralized in its approach.
So now you have a problem where copyrights last a hundred years long, DRM is is now backed by the DMCA, and more on the way. On the other hand, technology is continuing to make most of these measures mostly ineffective, and the real pirates make millions of dollars while legitimate users are punished (happens with proprietary software too, re Product Activation).
I have concluded that we as a society are at a crossroads. Either our current system of copyright will be adjusted and we will be more free or we will have additional restrictions placed on our technology which will undermine our access to free *information.*
There is a pitched war in the political world over this. The RIAA/MPAA, etc. won an early victory with the DMCA, but they have been unable to win any other major victories in the US since. Similarly DVD's have become popular but the even more restrictive eBooks have not. So people are also voting with their pocketbooks against such restrictive technology.
There is a lot at stake. I can envision a world where copyrights are perpetually enforced, first through DRM and copyright law, and after the copyright term expires, through contractual restrictions.
I can even see a world where VA Software could be sued under the Induce act for even running the story that began this discussion.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
i, and most people will do what they feel is right, law be damned.
Sorry, but the MPAA does not get to dictate how many friends I have, how large my home is, or what is legally, morally, or socially considered "home".
Sorry, but the law does get to dictate how many friends you can have watch a movie with you.
The GP mentioned a limit of 12-15 people watching a movie at home. I don't know if such a rule actually exists, but I can imagine how one would come about.
At first, you have a general principle, which works as long as everyone respects the boundaries. For instance, you can show your DVD at home, to your friends, but you can't make copies for others or set up a cinema and have people pay you to watch it. (Otherwise, how would studios legitimately make money?) Reasonable people will see that there's a large gap, and nobody will try crossing it.
Then some smart-ass comes along and decided he wants to play games with the definitions. So he has a giant room, has 400 people come over and say they've just become his friends. "But I'm just inviting a few friends over to watch my movies!" (Kind of like how certain "atheletic clubs" were set up to get around anti-boxing laws; the boxers and all spectators had to join the club, and that made it legal.)
Then the other side has to start tightening the definitions by elaborating all the borderline cases. After the semantic arms race has gone on for awhile, the official rules are highly contorted and take up 20 pages.
This happens everywhere. Look at professional sports -- a lot of the highly details rules were put there to deal with one case where someone was able to beat the system for one game by doing something that clearly violated the spirit of some more general rule, but not the letter.
outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered
So wouldn't this technically apply mean that smaller churches, where everyone knows everyone else, are exempt? Especially I would think it would apply to the Pastor & family of said church...
IANAL but I think it'd be a valid interpretation ( I also haven't been to church for many years, but in the one I went to when young everyone knew everyone else.)
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
Are you kidding me? And all the people who respond to this saying "yah, I'm sure they've got some kind of licensing agreement..." REALITY CHECK!
The law says UNAUTHORIZED. If somebody called Sony's lawyers, and said "OMG! BestBuy is showing your movies in their store!!!1" what do you think they'd hear? *click*
Why on earth would a studio ask a store to pay for a license, when they sell the product and make them money? They wouldn't! They wouldn't give a flying crap! There probably exists no means of purchasing an "instore display" license! The studios don't have to explicitly authorize ANYBODY; they only UNAUTHORIZE the people they don't want publicly showin' the movies (i.e. schools, churches, you) and COSTING them money. A store that makes them money isn't going to need their permission. If I see Ice Age in the store, odds are better that I'll buy it than they are that I will stand around for 2 hours and watch the whole thing. If I saw it at school, on the other hand...
Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
The internet has surely changed past definitions of 'normal social aquaintances'.
Your social aquaintances can now be people who are interested in the same music/movies/tv/politics/whatever, who exist all over the world: society without geographic barriers.
What really is the difference between sharing your CD collection with members of your local chess club and members of a certain chess message board?
If it's geographical proximity - surely that view has passed into history, to anyone outside the vested inetrests of the Copyright Cartels?
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce