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 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!
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.
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?
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
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.