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!
Drive about 30' behind a semi....now thats road trippin'
I thought most (if not all) DVDs come with a warning about not being used for public performances.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
Hurmph. When I was a kid, we watched shadows on cave walls and we LIKED it.
this was really common with me and my friends while i was at Texas A&m university. One of my friends who went to a Naval Academy said they even did it there. (they even put porn on the side of a building and only got in mild trouble for it) I guess if it's so well known it means my friends and I aren't as nerdy as we thought. Yay?
It's done best with the Yatta video
Che would be proud of all us guerilla drive-in commandos.
If you have to ask, you'll never know.
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
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!
We used to draw things on slides, and then project them with a slide projector out of our windows, when I was a kid.
We would draw swirfly ligns and project them onto the road at night to confuse cars driving by.
We would also draw funny faces and project it on our neighbours house. He would always open his window and yell at us. We drew the pictures such that him opening the window would be the "animated" part of our picture. I'll leave the themes we chose up to your immagination.
who | grep -i blond | date cd ~; unzip; touch; strip; finger; mount; gasp; yes; uptime; umount; sleep
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.
I've always wondered what a drive by shooting is.
I guess it's the opposite to a drive by screening like this one?
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.
The Dutch equivalent of the MPAA didn't like it, but I don't think the makers of the film would have objected much. Looks like great publicity for the movie.
-------
Warning: Slashdot may contain traces of nuts.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.