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'
Hurmph. When I was a kid, we watched shadows on cave walls and we LIKED it.
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.
I heard a rumor that people who lose their licenses are still physically able to turn on and operate vehicles. If that's true, then I suppose it's possible that an LCD projector could project an image against the intentions of the studios.
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!
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 sure when the police find a bunch of people tresspassing on someone elses property, teens drinking, people smoking pot and watching DVDs, they'll be real upset at the copyright violations.
I think the whole thrill for the participants is that most of the activity is illegal...
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
Copying and use are different things. You need to understand the difference.
Your typical slashdotter is FOR copyable, changeable software, and for licenses which allow that. Your typical slashdotter ABIDES by licenses that prevent copying and changing but allow normal use, usually by avoiding the software altogether since there are usually Free alternatives.
Apply this line of thinking to movies: this is a license that prevents copying but also attempts to prevent normal use, that is, displaying that damn movie any way you like. Not copying or in any other way making multiple instances... but just the normal action of displaying it is somehow to be controlled.
This is what is offensive about such overly restrictive licenses. When I buy something I expect to get some fair use rights too. But restrictive licensing, encrpytion, drm, etc have the effect of preventing you getting even normal use out of the things you buy.
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.
From the article:
what next, televisions with IR cameras and computer vision software that demand a DVD be inserted by each person in the room before playing?
You may want to patent that...shit, then at least no one else could use it
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.
DVDs are usually licenced for Home use, a private party would not count as home use (even if it takes place in your home).
I have heard of a figure of 12 to 15 people being the limit of home use, although if the DVD is being shown in a public place or for commercial gain (including extra bar sales) then this would definately not be counted as home use.
As an alternative. Would Frank get in trouble for his watching movies with his friends on his 2000" TV (IIRC approx. the size of a Drive-in movie theater screen, or so I was told by a friend), that can be seen from 7 blocks away?
Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
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.
Don't worry, Trusted Computing will take care of that problem.
Spine World
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?
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.
The line between a public and private performance seems rather fuzzy, and fuzziness is rarely the catalyst for sane legislation.
You're right. They should set up a branch of the government to interpret the finer and more ambiguous points of laws.
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 soviet russia, dead horse flogs you.
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.
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.
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.