Arrest Under New NY Anti-Piracy Law

AxminsterLeuven writes "The BBC is carrying a story on new tightened New York anti-piracy legislation: A man has been arrested, after smuggling video recording equipment into a theater showing the new Transformers movie. 'Kalidou Diallo, 48, has been charged with unauthorized use of a video camera in a cinema. Under upgraded legislation, he could face six months in jail and fines of up to $5,000 (£2,487) if found guilty,' the BBC reports."

Comments

Why?

[blaster151]

I've never understood the appeal of these pirated works. I'm very skeptical that, as a consumer of such a bootleg, I could find the viewing experience enjoyable with the quality levels rendered by a homemade video of a movie--especially one that I could experience in a theater at a matinee showing for five to seven bucks. More than fifteen days of jail time seems excessive to me.

Re:Why?

[mulvane]

Some people are just desperate. Its like most of the people here and women. Least with bootleg video's they can actually touch something and watch it do its thing.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

What does your enjoyment of the viewing experience have to do with the jail sentence?

Re:Why?

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Because some of those cams (Telesyncs) or the Telecines look REALLY good. Also, people in other countries don't get the movie until way later. Columbia doesn't get it until the 20th of July, for example.

Re:Why?

[Chirs]

The better recordings are made from the projection booth with the cooperation of the projector tech. The camera is on a stable tripod, sound is patched directly from the board.

Having a reasonable quality electronic copy available while the movie is still in theaters could reasonably be expected to have an impact on both DVD sales and box office revenue...especially if the movie isn't all that great.

Re:Why?

[ThosLives]

Also, people in other countries don't get the movie until way later. Columbia doesn't get it until the 20th of July, for example.

Hrm... better be careful there. Some people in South Carolina still wish they had succeeded in getting their own country.

(Normally I don't pick at things like this, but geez do people not even care about the difference between 'Columbia' and 'Colombia'?)

Re:Why?

[twistedcubic]

I saw the transformers last night. There is NO WAY an audience cam is going to capture the effects. If you want to watch this particular movie, I think you have to go to the theater. People should stick to downloading movies that suck, so they won't have to waste money.

Re:Why?

[poot_rootbeer]

Columbia doesn't get it until the 20th of July, for example.

That's bullshit. There's no reason that it should take THAT long for the movie to make it from the theaters of downtown Manhattan up to 110th Street!

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

A cam isn't the same as TeleSync. Both use a camcorder, but in the first instance it's just a guy pointing it at the screen from inside the theater. A TS is recorded direct from the projector, with the sound pulled off the same source being fed to the theater amps. Most Telesyncs are pretty good quality, and about the lowest watchable quality you're likely to find. Most cams are so bad they're best avoided at all costs.

Re:Why?

[FiveDollarYoBet]

We would get them sent to us when I was deployed to Iraq. Most of them were of laughable quality but it was the only way to see a new release.

Re:Why?

[Hognoxious]

I think they just want to see it before everyone else. It's pointless willy-waving, like being the first to hack a copy protected game or getting a FP on slashdot. Er, no offence...

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

especially one that I could experience in a theater at a matinee showing for five to seven bucks.

Here's the thing: that doesn't apply to most people. It applies to most Americans, but in the rest of the world, this film won't be released for quite a while, and even if it was, in many places five to seven bucks is a huge amount of money. The pirates aren't competing with the cinemas, there's no competition for them at all. It's either get a pirated copy, or don't watch it.

Plus, maybe some people prefer low quality video and peace rather than high quality video and loads of kids running around screaming and throwing popcorn. I've only been to the cinema once in the USA, and it was a really weird experience. People cheered and stuff when things happened on the screen. That's really distracting and if it was the same over here in the UK, I'd never go to the cinema again. Is that usual, or was I just really unlucky?

Re:Why?

[a-zarkon!]

Obviously you've never seen the bootleg of "Cry Cry Again"

*obscure Seinfeld reference*

Re:Why?

[MyDixieWrecked]

well, I've got friends who generally won't pay the $11 to see a movie at the theatre and would rather pick up the $5 DVD from the mexican lady in the subway. typically, the purchase is an impulse buy... they see Grindhouse sitting there, and since they missed it in the theatres, they'll pick it up, or they'll decide that $5 beats the $44 it would cost to go see it as a group and pick it up.

the problem is that they use such cheap DVDs when making the copies that 3/4 of the time, the movie won't play through. Sometimes the DVD won't even play.

I'm 100% against buying the bootlegs, though. They typically have abhorrent sound quality and the video quality is questionable, at best. Frequently, they also have people standing up in front of the camera and those "ooohs" and "ahhhs" of the crowd.

Lame.

Re:Why?

[notasheep]

A cam is just what it sounds like, camcorder video and camcorder sound. A Telesync is camcorder video with an alternate audio source - usually plugged in to a audio output for the hearing impaired. Which is great since you won't hear the people talking in the next row. A Telecine is recorded directly from a projection source.

Re:Why?

[dosius]

Never seen it happen in any cinema I've gone to, in Poughkeepsie, Red Hook, Oswego, or Niagara Falls... Theatergoers here are usually pretty quiet, maybe it's just that I don't much go to kiddie flix.

-uso.

Re:Why?

[BobMcD]

I'm very skeptical that, as a consumer of such a bootleg, I could find the viewing experience enjoyable with the quality levels rendered by a homemade video of a movie--especially one that I could experience in a theater at a matinee showing for five to seven bucks. Transformers is an excellent example of a movie where this might work for me, personally. I'm not interested in screeners either, but I hate, hate, hate Michael Bay. I don't relish the idea of missing out on a popular thing, missing the laugh in jokes and quotes, and generally not participating in this part of my culture. On the other hand, I'm not real hot on putting any money towards Transformers. Especially when it would mean burning favors to have someone watch my young children, burning a 'turn' to pick a movie that my wife doesn't want to see, etc. The $8 isn't that big of a deal...

What I'd rather see, though, is one of those six-minute condensed versions - or maybe more like twenty minutes. Something that has all the good jokes, all the plot, and a sampling of the visuals would be awesome. Because, and lets be honest here, few movies these days really need the full ninety minutes to deliver everything they have to offer.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

The jail sentence should be proportional to the quality of the rip: Nothing if you describe the movie from memory after viewing it. Maximum if you did a digital HiDef copy. Somewhere in between for a quality in between.

Re:Why?

[KillerCow]

Obviously you've never seen the bootleg of "Cry Cry Again"

I saw it, but I didn't get the ending.

Re:Why?

[Red Flayer]

That's bullshit. There's no reason that it should take THAT long for the movie to make it from the theaters of downtown Manhattan up to 110th Street!

RTFA :). Diallo was arrested in the Bronx. It would be surprising if he made it to 110th Street in Manhattan at all, let alone by July 20.

Re:Why?

[karnal]

For some reason, I think you have an attraction to fire.

Re:Why?

[db32]

I saw tons of new(ish) movies in Iraq. They were all being sold for $2-4 bucks for a DVD with 2-4 new(ish) releases by some random local in a wooden hut on the road near camp. In the meantime the MPAA and friends are chasing down 17yr olds to put them in jail...wonder why they don't go to Iraq and stop the piracy themselves. (Ignoring that Hillary Rosen was on the ground in Iraq in the very very early days begging the new Iraqi government to adopt her proposals on copyright...yeah...they need help with food, water, and security, and this psychotic bitch is going to go and talk to them about music downloads?)

I'm a little disappointed with the Iraqi government for their lack of progress...they should have shot her ass on the spot for that nonsense.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Diallo was arrested in the Bronx. It would be surprising if he made it to 110th Street in Manhattan at all, let alone by July 20. Especially after being shot 41 times.

And don't you mean 116th St.?

Re:Why?

[chaosite]

Sometimes the audio output is for the hearing impaired, but other times, the camera is sitting on a tripod in a very good position in an empty theater.

Telesyncs can be actually pretty good.

Re:Why?

[YouTookMyStapler]

Everything I have heard about these type of bootlegs is that they are grainy with bad sound. I can't see that as a great entertainment experience.

On the other hand, in Wired magazine a few months ago they had an article relating to high quality unauthorized/pirated movies (from academy screening DVDs and so forth) being distributed on the internet. The article concluded that most seemed to be inside jobs.

Re:Why?

[lazlo]

Well, first off, your experience isn't universal. You can see a matinée for five to seven bucks. It costs me about $50-60. I *could* go off and watch a movie and leave the kids home with my wife... but the divorce would probably cost quite a bit more. So I start out paying two tickets, plus gas, call it $15. It's a two hour movie, plus a half hour drive time each way, plus some fudge factor, call it 4 hours. Cheap babysitters are $10/hr. There have been movies I've taken my kids to. "Cars" was excellent. Other movies, I've gotten to see the opening credits, 5 minutes of movie... and then had to leave. And many movies that I'd like to see, I wouldn't take them to even if I knew they would be well-behaved throughout.

So, if I want to see Transformers (actually, I kinda do...) I have three options:
1) bite the bullet, pay $60, and go see the movie.
2) Arrrrrr... get it from a pirate.
3) wait for it to come out on DVD.

#1 has happened, but not in years. After the first few times I've paid $60 to see a movie that sucked, I pretty much decided not to do that anymore. It would have been worth it for some, but there's little way to know beforehand.

#2 I don't do, but I certainly understand the motivation for.

so I'm stuck waiting for the DVD. And once the DVD comes out, if I think the movie really rocks, and is actually *worth* paying $60 to see on a big screen with big-theater sound, I'm SOL, because if it's out on DVD, it's probably not in theaters anymore.

So yeah, the systems sucks for me. I seem to recall that some movies have had a DVD release coincide with the theatrical release, which would solve all my problems, but the idea doesn't seem to have caught on widely.

Re:Why?

[mcmonkey]

I don't relish the idea of missing out on a popular thing, missing the laugh in jokes and quotes, and generally not participating in this part of my culture.

"More than meets the eye."

There you are, all caught up with the in-jokes and quotes.

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=megan+fox

Now you're hip to the plot and visuals.

Feel better?

Re:Why?

[davel23]

But who got the final Deathblow?

Re:Why?

[Lumpy]

Most illegitimate copies are telecined. Right there in the projection booth. I helped a friend back in the early 90's set up such a thing at the theater he worked at. we jacked into the audio system to a mixer to reduce levels to the camera. we then recorded off the smaller screen in the booth for testing. it was so bright we had to use 2 ND2 filters to get the picture within acceptable limits for that VHS camcorder.

Worked awesome too. beautiful copies we enjoyed in his home for years afterwards. the parties with movies that were currently running in the theater was cool as well. I guarantee that most of the good copies are dont that way and I know that we were not the only ones doing it back then and only more would be doing it now.

Re:Why?

[Nolde Huruska]

More than fifteen days of jail time seems excessive to me.

At least they didn't shoot him 41 times.

Re:Why?

[Alsee]

could reasonably be expected to have an impact on both DVD sales and box office revenue...especially if the movie isn't all that great.

Copy, cut, swap, paste:

if the movie isn't all that great could reasonably be expected to have an impact on both DVD sales and box office revenue

Eureka! I've made an ASTOUNDING discovery! Quick, someone e-mail that to all the Hollywood studio executives!

-

Re:Why?

[An ominous Cow art]

I don't relish the idea of missing out on a popular thing, missing the laugh in jokes and quotes, and generally not participating in this part of my culture. Hi there! Nice to meet you. I'm your complete opposite :-).

Re:Why?

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Is a camcorder involved? If so, it's a cam, but with a slightly better picture and much better audio.

Re:Why?

[LilBlackDemon]

Sadly, my first thought on reading the perp's name was what person was going to make that rather tasteless joke. That tore NYC apart, and people definitely don't like talking about it, much less joking about it.

Re:Why?

[cayenne8]

"I saw the transformers last night. There is NO WAY an audience cam is going to capture the effects. If you want to watch this particular movie, I think you have to go to the theater."

Man, I cannot honestly remember the last movie I went to see in a theater...either was the last Star Wars, or the first Spiderman movie.

I'm not interested in the lower quality copies discussed here, nor am I particularly over anxious by seeing a movie a year (or less) after it premiers via regular quality DVD. I have a good projector, fantastic sound system....and I can watch it with friends, eat better food, pause for bathroom breaks.....and I have a fully stocked bar.

I really rarely see a reason to ever go out to a movie theater again...I hate having to put up with the inconsiderate asshats that have cell phones ring (not to mention TALKING ON THEM), people that bring in small children (crying, noise, etc). And then...there are the ones that have to talk back to the screen.

Nah....I don't enjoy the 'movie experience' out. I've got a huge, quality picture that is large enough to fill my vision, and I can turn my sound up to where it should be.

I like to get out to see things, sporting events, live music, but, for movies....I think those are best enjoyed at my home, or a friend's with a similar setup.

Re:Why?

[wiredlogic]

Film prints are expensive and making too many of them cuts into profits. For every movie there is a sweet spot in the number of prints that need to be made to maximize profit. "Second-tier" countries have to wait for a film to play out in its opening theaters before they will receive a print. This is the only legitimate reason for having phased movie releases. This is of course also a driving force behind the popularity of cams and bootleg telecines in these countries. The advent of digital cinema will make phased releases obsolete in the future.

Re:Why?

[darthflo]

Is that usual, or was I just really unlucky?

I hasn't been to american theatres often enough to relevantly judge about this, but I assume you've just been in a "weird" screening (where the audience cheers, applaudes etc). Those seem to occur in all countries I know about and are rather rare (in my experience opening nights are more susceptible than later screenings).

Re:Why?

[cayenne8]

"Especially when it would mean burning favors to have someone watch my young children, burning a 'turn' to pick a movie that my wife doesn't want to see, etc. The $8 isn't that big of a deal..."

How about leaving HER at home to watch the kid...and go check out the movie yourself? You *do* have friends still outside the marriage don't you?

:-)

Re:Why?

[cayenne8]

"I *could* go off and watch a movie and leave the kids home with my wife... but the divorce would probably cost quite a bit more."

You mean you don't EVER go out and do things on your own or with friends anymore??? You don't get time off away from the wife and she doesn't get time out away from you?

Ouch...wow, if this is the way most married people live, I can now see why the divorce rate is so high. I'd go nuts if after I said "I do"...I'd never have any life ever again and have to only see and do things with one other person the rest of my life.

I dunno. I guess it works for some people. I'm more like the friends I have that work around this sort of thing. One friend of mine in particular...he gets out EVERY Friday night to do what he wants away from the house. I often met up with him (pre-Katrina) to ride motorcycles out, goof off...etc. He made this deal when he got married...I guess you have to lay down the rules at the beginning. She is free to get out and run with the girls when she wants...although she doesn't seem to want to do that very often.

But man, I could never see myself cooped up with one other person ALL the freaking time. I'd have kill them....

Re:Why?

[BobMcD]

That'd cost triple, I'm afraid... :P

Re:Why?

[Maxo-Texas]

Columboia is the one where they all wear scruffy rain coats and ask irritating questions that they all know the answers to and relate stories about their missus. Be careful-- they are much smarter than they seem!

Re:Why?

[Maxo-Texas]

On the other hand- the fight scenes will are equally incomprehensible whether cam'd or on the big screen. Micheal Bay needs to break his habit of zooming in so close that you are not even sure what the hell you are looking at much less having a clue about who is fighting whom.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but all cam, TS and TC releases are complete and utter shit. At best it's the projectionist hooking up to their internal telecine device which is rather rubbish and offers cheap (~$5k) output to a monitor. Real telecine machines cost over $400k, and that's not what these projectionists have access too. If you see a good one, it's a studio level leak like LoTR. Which even though was in the wild at DVD quality for 6+ months before DVDs hit the stores, hardly reduced DVD sales.

Re:Why?

[westlake]

More than fifteen days of jail time seems excessive to me.

If Bush was in tech and not politics his arguments against jail time for white collar crime would sound perfectly Geek.

Re:Why?

[Dachannien]

Investing in a good home theater system is pretty much as good as seeing it in the theater. I mean, if somebody's cell phone rings at home, you can actually do something about it.

Re:Why?

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

Some people like to see films before they're released in theaters. These same people may or may not then go see the movie in a theater.

Re:Why?

[noidentity]

"People should stick to completely avoiding movies that suck, so they won't have to waste money or time."

There, corrected that for you.

Re:Why?

[lazlo]

Well, yes and no. I do go out on my own... and work. My wife's stuck at home with the kids on her own 50 hours a week or so, and she tends to get a bit stir crazy. I don't. So it's fine with me if she goes out to see a movie now and then, which she does. If I really wanted to push the issue, we could probably come to some agreement, but it's just not worth it to me to do so. The other factor is, most of the movies I like, she likes also. However, there are many movies that she likes that I have zero interest in. So me seeing a movie on my own not only keeps her stuck in the house with the kids for even longer, it likely ends up as a movie that she wants to see that we can't watch for the first time together. If that makes any sense...

I'm not saying that this is how most married people live... It's how I live, and I'm fine with it. It may not be perfect, but it sure does beat the alternatives (for me). And even for me, it's a temporary situation. My wife is a stay-at-home mom. We have an expectation that once our youngest goes into Kindergarten, she'll go back to having a W2 job, and things will be a bit more relaxed - she won't go stir crazy in the house, and so we can take turns escaping on our own. But for now, she's taking care of the kids 9 hours a day while I'm at work, so I feel it's only fair for me to put in a similar amount of time when I'm home. YMMV.

Re:Why?

[billcopc]

Ditto. Sure, there's something kinda wrong about camcording a movie, but I wouldn't ever want to watch a cam copy anyway. I can wait a few months and down^H^H^H^Hrent the DVD.

But then, I'm also the kind of guy who doesn't like bootleg audio recordings, unless they're tapped from the mixing deck, and even then I tend to prefer a professionally mastered recording over an unmixed dub.

I don't agree with the MAFIAA's practices, nor do I think it's acceptable to fine and jail people for camcording (just throw them out, it's a private establishment). Still, I wish the warez kiddies would quit flooding the pipes with horrible cammed movies; there are far more interesting things to download than a fuzzy shaky tinny blur.

Re:Why?

[lazlo]

Yeah... but. There aren't that many movies that I like that can really benefit from a good home theater. Maybe a dozen or so. Last I checked, a really good system would cost me about $3K. So that would be about $250 per really good movie. That's a bit much. Of course, all the crappy movies would look at least a little better on a good home theater. But as the saying goes, you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear. Of course, as components of mine die, I'll probably replace them with much nicer ones. But I'm in no hurry to do a massive overhaul.

Re:Why?

[Jurrasic]

It depends on the movie. Certain films, and/or certain moments in films (the destruction of the Death Stars at the ends of Star Wars and Return of the Jedi stand out in my childhood memories of films where people stood and cheered, this in more 'reserved' Canada) will elicit a response where people will cheer or react other then just laughing at a funny moment. There were a couple scenes in "Highlander II" where fans of the original (like me) stood and loudly booed, or threw popcorn at the screen, too. If you want to see something REALLY bizarre, go to a midnight screening of "The Rocky Horror Picture Show". That's the same wherever you are in the world.

Re:Why?

[poormanjoe]

Just another reason why The Simpsons will be the greatest movie of the summer....And our lives!!

Opens worldwide July 27th.

Re:Why?

[db32]

Now...I guess I didn't address the quality issue in my other post. So here it goes. If we are going to call an MRE that has been baking in the desert sun in cardboard boxes for weeks to months "Food", I am going to say those DVDs at the little huts are HDDVD quality. If you have really been you cannot POSSIBLY disagree. It wasn't until I was back stateside that I realized that the cheese isn't normally supposed to be all lumpy with all the oil separated out...it actually resembles normal squeezy cheese type products.

Re:Why?

[bdjacobson]

A cam is just what it sounds like, camcorder video and camcorder sound. A Telesync is camcorder video with an alternate audio source - usually plugged in to a audio output for the hearing impaired. Which is great since you won't hear the people talking in the next row. A Telecine is recorded directly from a projection source. Everyone talks about how horrible it is at the movies and how so many people talk etc. etc... last time I had a problem with someone talking for more than 15 seconds ANYWHERE in the theater was....many years ago. Cell phones ring occasionally, but...it's not that bad. Maybe it's just the location (down south people are more courteous?) but people talking is never a deterrent for going to the movies.

Perhaps the people angry at the MPAA are searching for other ways to prove their choice to avoid the theaters. I can't see many other reasons to why they'd make such a fuss about relatively nothing.

Even with prices the way they are...I can work 1.5 hours at a construction job at $8/h (or 2h at McD) and get exactly that much or more than that much time back in entertainment. The prices are nasty, but it's not like they're $30/ticket or anything. Just don't buy the popcorn.

Re:Why?

[bryan1945]

"Hillary Rosen was on the ground in Iraq in the very very early days begging the new Iraqi government to adopt her proposals on copyright."

I have not heard this. Are you f'n serious! She did this! I seriously hate some politicians.

Also, thank you for your service.

Re:Why?

[bryan1945]

Oops, sorry, I got Rosen confused with an actual senator.

Don't like the RIAA either, though.

Re:Why?

[bryan1945]

"last time I had a problem with someone talking for more than 15 seconds ANYWHERE in the theater was....many years ago."

You just have to avoid the times when all the teenagers go to the movies, ie. Friday and Saturday nights. My wife and I go to "adult" movies in the early afternoon, and for "kid" movies later at night. Of course, we don't have kids yet.

Re:Why?

[bdjacobson]

"last time I had a problem with someone talking for more than 15 seconds ANYWHERE in the theater was....many years ago."

You just have to avoid the times when all the teenagers go to the movies, ie. Friday and Saturday nights. My wife and I go to "adult" movies in the early afternoon, and for "kid" movies later at night. Of course, we don't have kids yet. Ya I go to the "teen" movies Fri/Sat night. No problems.

Re:Why?

[bryan1945]

Hmmm. Got no answer for that. Well, I'm glad for you.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most cams are so bad they're best avoided at all costs.

Well now, that depends upon (a) what you pay for it, and (b) are you watching the movie for the effects or for the plot? And, if you're blind, what then?

There's a local theatre in my area (the town hall, actually) with a fairly large floor area (270 seats?) and a smaller balcony. I have gone to movies with a blind friend and asked to be seated in the (usually closed) balcony (closed unless it's a full house) for the purpose of narrating the movie (color commentary?) to my friend.

The management was more than acommodating and only requested that we keep our voices low. The said that they get requests all the time and have no probs with it. They only charge US$2 for tickets - all ages, all shows, and are happy that people are willing to help their visually-impaired friends.

Re:Why?

[redcane]

They have said "opens worldwide" for a lot of movies in the past. This just means it opens *somewhere* worldwide on that date. There are very few movies simultaneously released (and available to watch) worldwide. Kind of like (as I understand it) the world series baseball, which only had American teams...

Re:Why?

[sakasune]

Kind of like (as I understand it) the world series baseball, which only had American teams. Save for the Toronto Blue Jays and Montreal Expos, but I know what you mean. Actually I only found out today that the Expos were moved and renamed the Washington Nationals, so there is only one Canadian team. The Blue Jays won the World Series twice in the 90s, I don't know if the Expos ever made it though.

Seems like a clean arrest

[pembo13]

6 months seems fair, maybe even lenient - I can't really of any valid reasons for bringing in video recording equipment into a cinema. 6 months seems even more fair considering the poor quality of these kind of recordings after engineerings spent so many hours creating the "pretty" graphics.

Re:Seems like a clean arrest

[mulvane]

You are SO right. I think he should be brought up on charges. People might actually view this bootleg and think "WOW! That movie shitty! You would think a movie studio could at least get rid of all the background noise! And did they film this thin on a boat?!?!?! What's with all the shaking of the movie not to mention the horrible grainy experience!! I won't spend a dime going to watch that movie or even think of renting it!"

Re:Seems like a clean arrest

[WrongSizeGlass]

6 months seems even more fair considering the poor quality of these kind of recordings after engineerings spent so many hours creating the "pretty" graphics. I agree. Let's make it 6 months in jail and then an hour in a locked room with everyone who bought a crappy quality pirated DVD.

Re:Seems like a clean arrest

[kcbanner]

No. If someone is downloading a cam they obviously know what to expect. Its no just like it fell on some luser's desktop. No.

Re:Seems like a clean arrest

[kat_skan]

I can't really of any valid reasons for bringing in video recording equipment into a cinema.

What about Professor Mann's EyeTap and similar devices? Closer to home, what about half the cell phones released in the past five years or so?

Re:Seems like a clean arrest

[russ1337]

Now that the tape is probably going to be used in proceedings, will it be available for public viewing under some official information request?

Or will they just charge the Jury and Court audience $8 to view the tape?

Re:Seems like a clean arrest

[mulvane]

Its like that guy who had the sarcasm truck run him over, back up over him, and run over him again and he never got a look at it and was just left banged up and not knowing what the hell just happened to him.

Re:Seems like a clean arrest

[eln]

Actually, everyone in the jury and the court room will be charged with piracy. In each of those trials, the tape will be shown again, and everyone in THOSE court rooms will have to be charged with piracy. Eventually, the entire country will be in prison for piracy because of this one videotape. This is why video piracy is so very, very bad.

Re:Seems like a clean arrest

[neoform]

So if I'm a tourist going around town with my videocamera, then stop by to see a movie.. I can be arrested for the crime of possessing a video capture device?

What about cellphones, am I going to be arrested if I've got a cell on me that can record video?

The crime should be distribution of copyrighted works, not recording them.

Re:Seems like a clean arrest

[Anonymous Coward]

6 months seems fair, maybe even lenient - I can't really of any valid reasons for bringing in video recording equipment into a cinema. 6 months seems even more fair considering the poor quality of these kind of recordings after engineerings spent so many hours creating the "pretty" graphics.

Wouldn't capital punishment be more appropriate for such a horrible crime?

Re:Seems like a clean arrest

[HTH NE1]

What about Professor Mann's EyeTap and similar devices?

Man, I'd like one of those to identify and replace all the billboards with simple black-on-white images like "Stay Asleep", "Obey", "Watch TV", and "Marry and Reproduce", money with "This Is Your God", and alien zombie-like faces on all politicians.

Re:Seems like a clean arrest

[Intron]

Six months seems fair as long as it is a penalty equally applied to all lawbreakers. The warrantless FBI recordings of private phone conversations seem to be of about equal criminal value, for example. Not sure about the quality of the recordings, but the FBI ought to be able to buy decent equipment.

Re:Seems like a clean arrest

[Anonymous Coward]

Achtung! German alert, German alert!

Re:Seems like a clean arrest

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that any time in jail is too long for a "crime" where nobody got hurt and no one was deprived of property or well being.

If he was distributing the bootleg, then I'd be more accepting, but that's not what he was charged with.

At best, this was a minor infraction warranting a small fine (like riding the bus without a ticket), at worst, it's a civil matter.

Re:Seems like a clean arrest

[jofny]

can't really of any valid reasons for bringing in video recording equipment into a cinema

Having brought relatively high quality video equipment into a theater with me recently, I can tell you: How about if you're fairly far from home on a trip, were video taping a family event, and everyone wants to go see a movie? Sorry, no, I have a camera in my pocket.

Thats just dumb.

Re:Seems like a clean arrest

[GrayCalx]

Damn, thats horrible. Is he alright?

Re:Seems like a clean arrest

[moeinvt]

"What about cellphones, am I going to be arrested if I've got a cell on me . . ."

No, but if it rings during the movie you're going to be shot.

Re:Seems like a clean arrest

[kat_skan]

I like the way you think. I suggest mounting the device in the lens of a WWII gas mask to heighten the effect.

Re:Seems like a clean arrest

[masterzora]

Oh! So that's where the idea for The Ring came from!

Re:Seems like a clean arrest

[sad little hobbit]

Sure he is. It went right over his head.

Scooter Libby....

[Anonymous Coward]

...probably knows a few people that could help commute that jail sentence.

Re:Scooter Libby....

[ari_j]

But not the fine, whether it's $5,000 or $250,000.

Re:Scooter Libby....

[superbus1929]

Oh, don't worry, that's coming eventually.

Re:Scooter Libby....

[Anonymous Coward]

So does Marc Rich...

Re:Scooter Libby....

[PyroPenguin]

Oh, don't worry, that's coming eventually. Not unless they are going to give him a refund. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19617734/

Re:Scooter Libby....

[Maxo-Texas]

Fines are so stupid in a world where Halliburton can give you a $250k bonus a few years from now at the behest of one of it's officers.

Re:Scooter Libby....

[xquercus]

Fines are so stupid in a world where Halliburton can give you a $250k bonus a few years from now at the behest of one of it's officers.

Jail time is so stupid for non-violent offenders in a world where we have to spend something like $40k per year to keep someone behind bars. If we handed out community service sentences like we hand out prison time for non-violent offenders we'd have a shortage of charitable organizations to handle all the "volunteers" instead of a shortage of prison beds.

Re:Scooter Libby....

[Maxo-Texas]

And that is going to make the executive branch ignore the law less how?

And that is going to make corporate executives ignore the law less how?

Hard prison time and fines that represent a significant portion of a person's holdings get their attention.

I think some crimes shouldn't be crimes (tho not in this case).

In the end, I agree that stiff community service punishment (as in 12 months 8 hours a day helping in a soup kitchen and cleaning up trash for someone like Libby) is probably okay. Not the 80 hours they give most of them. Of course, you get at the edge of slavery with community service punishments.

Re:Scooter Libby....

[PylonHead]

If we were to eliminate jail times for non-violent offenses, then you would reduce our system of laws to an ala carte menu... If you have enough money, you pick and choose which ones you want to obey.

Does that sound democratic to you?

Re:Scooter Libby....

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

13th Amendment: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction...."

So it is not against the Constitution as a punishment for crime, unless it violates another provision (8th Amendment, etc).

Re:Scooter Libby....

[that this is not und]

Or Sandy Burglar. He somehow managed to get his deal fixed pretty well, too.

Re:Scooter Libby....

[Squalish]

There are plenty of nonviolent offenses that require jail time as a deterrent. Perjury is one.

We wouldn't have any problems with jail capacity if we took two seconds of our time to reconsider our drug policies, minus moral crusades manufactured to turn a vague Puritan urge to deny pleasurable experiences into election victories. They are damaging a large portion of our society, and the tens of billions of dollars that we would save directly could go into actually catching criminals who hurt other people, whether with guns or by breaking oaths, whether of truth or secrecy; Not to mention perhaps attempting to help those who found themselves vulnerable to dangerous addictions.

Amadou

[Hatta]

I wonder if he knew Amadou Diallo.

Re:Amadou

[stinerman]

Unlikely. AFAIK "Diallo" is a very common last name in Guinea. Quoth wikipedia:

On April 18, 2000, Diallo's mother, Kadiatou, and his stepfather, Sankarella Diallo...

So his stepfather was also named Diallo.

Certainly they may have known each other, but it is near the chances of two Smiths in NYC knowing each other.

Re:Amadou

[Red Flayer]

Or Mamadou Diallo. Somewhat (OK, entirely) on a tangent, when Mamadou Diallo played for DC United, he brutally tackled the Metrostars keeper and injured him quite severely. Until Diallo began playing for the Metrostars, the chants from the ESC section of the stands whenever they played DC usually included "They shot the wrong Diallo."

At any rate, Diallo is a common name among people from West Africa; it is one of the four divisions of the Fulbe people.

Re:Amadou

[dissy]

The four officers fired forty-one shots, hitting Diallo nineteen times. Investigation found no weapons on Diallo's body- the item he had pulled out of his jacket was not a gun, but a wallet. Wow. 41 shots, 19 hit. Not only do these cops suck (for shooting so many times), but they suck at sucking (by missing so much!)

Re:Amadou

[Belacgod]

The guns they were issued were automatic pistols capable of firing 10 shots in about 2 seconds. With 4 cops, that's 2 seconds of firing, in a situation where it was dark enough so they mistook a wallet for a gun. I'm not surprised they fired as much as they did, or missed as much as they did. The crime was opening fire in the first place--once they'd started shooting, ~40 shots was about what you'd expect.

Re:Amadou

[dissy]

I didn't realize they would be automatic weapons. In that cause, the fire count makes more sense.
Around here, unless specially arranged, i've only seen cops carry semiauto's

Re:Amadou

[Belacgod]

Just to be clear, that doesn't take away from the tragedy or from the responsibility of the cops. It's just that the rallying cry should be "They shot an unarmed innocent!" rather than "41 shots!"

Actually, at the ensuing protests large crowds waved their wallets and shouted "It's a wallet, not a gun!"

Also, this is why New Yorkers find the specter of a Giuliani presidency disquieting. We know he's only got one mode, and that that's tough-as-nails and undiplomatic, plus in love with his own authority. Basically the least likely to clean up Bush's mess, and the least trustworthy with dramatically-expanded executive power.

Re:Amadou

[callmetheraven]

Amadou Diallo changed his name to "Amadou Whatever the Police Tell Me To" (according Charlie Brown Kwanzaa.)

Re:Amadou

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy (Amadou) did sell bootleg video tapes (I know - I bought one from him), but it's probably more a West African thing.

Re:Amadou

[deimtee]

4 cops x 10 bullets = 40 shots, not 41.
Who took time out to reload?

Re:Amadou

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe he adopted his step-father's name? That's not exactly uncommon in many societies.

Re:Amadou

[Belacgod]

It's not 10-bullet clips, it's 5 bullets a second. One of them fired for 2.2 seconds instead of 2 seconds.

Re:Amadou

[stinerman]

Yeah, I was expecting someone to comment on that. IIRC, the Wikipedia article said something to the effect of that it was just coincidental. The article has since been changed, and I don't feel like hunting down the old page.

I can support this ...

[A non-mouse Coward]

I cannot support anti-piracy controls that require use inside consumers homes.

DRM == Perpetual Motion Machines.

However, using some basic link-analysis to go after "well connected" nodes (in this case, the suppliers of the source) is much more intelligent and effective.

OK, MPAA. You can call it quits with anti-piracy DVD nonsense. You finally found a method that works. Leave John Q. Consumer alone.

Easy case

[techpawn]

I'm mean, more than a he-said-she-said. They have pretty good video evidence right?

Re:Easy case

[Anonymous Coward]

Cuz Decepticons deserve privacy too!

Seconded

[BobPaul]

But more because screeners are the lowest form of piracy.

You could do more time for drug posession.

[Anonymous Coward]

Half the country forces this drug (adderall) down their children's throat. Anyone else who posesses it is gets a felony conviction and possibly jail. For a crime with no victim.

At least this guy's crime has a victim.

The US is a prison state. Damn the man. Free Al Gore III.

Re:You could do more time for drug posession.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's what I hope happens to Al Gore III, and you too for that matter

Re:You could do more time for drug posession.

[Yold]

Perscription pill abuse usually accompanies other drug-issues. Its a schedule III drug, so I doubt you'd get prison time, unless you are trafficing.

    Adderall abuse pisses me off because it creates an unfair advantage in academic situations. Its fukin cheating. Like my buddy who drinks all week, goes to sleep early before a test, wakes up and studies 10-12 hours straight, and usually kicks the shit out of tests. 3000-5000 level classes too (major courses for mathematically intensive shit). I study for days, and have trouble concentrating, but I still do it the honest way.

Re:You could do more time for drug posession.

[Anonymous Coward]

Cry me a freakin geek river.
Did you ever think that your friend could actually have ADD and just didn't bother to go see a doctor?
Did you ever think you might need to go see one too?
Who the hell can concentrate on school when there are parties and the hottest hard bodied girls in the world walking around your campus?

Re:You could do more time for drug posession.

[TechnicolourSquirrel]

I hate to break it to you, but there have been people who have been able to get away with exactly the sort of academic strategy you describe since long before we had 'concentration' pills, so this 'unfair advantage' is nothing new. All students are not nor have they ever been created equal. Some people just learn some subjects way easier than other people do. If somebody is trying to pop some pill in order to get ahead, they are likely paying for that in some other way, so it changes exactly nothing about the balance of the world.

good

[grapeape]

If your so desperate to see a movie that you will watch a crappy copy of something someone took with a camcorder complete with the Mystery Science Theatre 3000 audience view in the bottom of the screen then just pay for $7 or wait for the DVD like everyone else. I have a friend that does this and is always asking if I want to watch some crap movie I wouldnt have paid to see, then claims he is doing it because he is anti-mpaa. If your really anti-mpaa then you wont bother to see it at all, just the fact that someone wastes an hour downloading a poor quality bootleg proves that it has some value to them. Its hard to fight increasing restrictions on fair use when bozos like this continue to make the MPAA's point for them.

Re:good

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent points, spot on I agree 100%. Have we fell so low that we need to resort to downloading home taped video's that look like crap instead of paying the seven bucks to watch the movie? Whether you are for or against the mpaa one should not lower their self esteem to the point they are viewing these crappy videos

Move Lover

Re:good

[bheer]

> just pay for $7 or wait for the DVD like everyone else

I wonder if this guy was just doing it for his friends, or if someone paid him to do it. Crappy camcorder prints are pretty popular in Eastern Europe (or used to be 10 years back) and South Asia, where these movies won't be released for months, if at all. If the MPAA was less lawsuit happy they'd look at releasing their movies at the same time around the world, and allowing internet screenings for countries where they won't release.

Re:good

[Anonymous Coward]

Fortunately you got modded up but the dumbass pasty nerds around seem to think that making movies is a Utopia and that because movies seem to be slumping lately it is their justification to do whatever they want.

I love it when Slashdot defends Thepiratebay.org, Allofmp3.com and Warez in general because when we were kids we used to do this kind of shit with Warez groups but it is funny to see a place like this take double standards on everything and how they love pirates/Anarchy in general. I love it how they love to bash the U.S. yet run to Russia to hide all their illegal shit and that country has one of the worst human abuse records and attack on their citizens privacy.

Re:good

[FrankieBaby1986]

You mean you actually sit there and wait while stuff downloads for an hour? I mean, Usually I just go find something else to do. No time invested. No Money invested. Get to see a movie that I otherwise wouldn't have seen until much later when it is no longer public interest. Sounds like a good deal to me.

Re:good

[pho3nixtar]

I do not think that downloading a movie from the internet is illegal. That's not how the law works.

The simple fact is, uploading is illegal. And just how do you think P2P software works? In order to download something someone else has/had to upload it. After all, isn't the elbow connected to the eth0-bone?

Re:good

[TheoMurpse]

Let's try this argument just for the hell of it:

You know, I don't like football. However, that's all the people I'm around all day talk about. Thus, I have to watch football in order to talk to my colleagues. I really don't like it, but it's the truth. There is no "then you should get other colleagues" for me. How many other people are in this situation?

I think movies and especially TV are the same--you either (sometimes unwillingly) see the film or get left out of the socialization. When your choices are (1) pay 10 bucks you don't want to spend and only are spending to be able to talk to the people you're surrounded by all day, or (2) pirate in order to have something to talk about, then the choice is obvious. It's almost "society-forced spending." It's the whole cooler talk thing:

A: Hey, man, did you see Spiderman?
B: No, I didn't want to see it.
A: Oh, OK. *walks away thinking that B is boring*

VERSUS

A: Hey, man, did you see Spiderman?
B: Yeah. That $SCENE was $EVALUATION *escapes having to do 8 hours straight of work with no socialization*

Video player?

[i_like_spam]

From the article:

Mr Diallo was arrested after allegedly smuggling a video recorder, video player and remote control into a preview of the film in the Bronx. WTF would he need a video player? Don't most modern recorders have built-in LCDs?

Re:Video player?

[WrongSizeGlass]

Maybe he was setting up a competing screen in the lobby next to the popcorn vendor?

Re:Video player?

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you think the writer of the story was technically adept? He probably doesn't know a fucking VCR from a hole in the ground.

Re:Video player?

[HTH NE1]

From the article:

Mr Diallo was arrested after allegedly smuggling a video recorder, video player and remote control into a preview of the film in the Bronx. WTF would he need a video player? Don't most modern recorders have built-in LCDs?

Much like how a CD copying operation in a garage with four 32x burners is reported as having the equivalent of 128 CD burners, the player probably was the one built into the camera.

Using a remote prevents jitter starting and stopping the recording as well as disassociation from the camera if it is found. Of course, a theater would be smart enough to stake out the camera until it is retrieved rather than prevent it from gathering evidence of the crime.

Now if you could get a cheap-ass wireless webcam with sufficient frame rate, you could be streaming the data to storage out in the parking lot and write off the camera. Even better, you could get multiple captures to improve the quality. (There was an open wireless router accessible in the theater at the last movie I attended.)

Re:Video player?

[Warbothong]

He also had a Blueray/HDDVD combo high def disc player integrated into a 42" plasma screen, 7.1 surround sound system and portable microwave with popcorn.

Y'know, so he could get that true cinema experience, right in the comfort of... Oh, wait

Re:Video player?

[Anonymous Coward]

He probably sells illegal DVDs as well when he isn't in a theater recording a movie. Those guys almost always have a portable video player with them so their prospective "customers" can preview the "quality."

How about stills?

[Anonymous Coward]

I took two still pictures during the credits of Transformers using my camera phone: one of the repeated title card, the other the first screenful of scrolled credits.

It's my new way to show that I'd been to a movie without having to hold onto ticket stubs. I did it with Spider-Man 3 (first) and with the latest Pirates of the Caribbean movie as well (as well as a shot of the "10 Years Later" addendum at the end after the credits).

It's really only for my own personal use. There's no real market for them, and I don't publish them on the web. (If I ever full-motion recorded anything in a theater and published them on the net, it would be the ads to complain how many there were.)

I just wish I didn't feel compelled to click the Post Anonymously check-button to tell you this. I'm glad I don't live in New York (tickets are cheaper here).

Re:How about stills?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you are in the clear. Legally I mean, you are still a moron for needing to 'show' you've been to a movie.

Re:How about stills?

[westlake]

I took two still pictures during the credits of Transformers using my camera phone

Personally, I'd say six months hard time sounds about right for bringing a phone into a theater.

Re:How about stills?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, maybe "to show" is the wrong way to put it. It's like a little piece of electronic memorabilia. I may never get the chance to see that movie on a big screen again. And as my mind goes later in my life, I'll still have that proof I paid to see it in a theater.

And it does feel good to think that each time I point the flip-phone's camera at the screen and hit the shutter button, it's like I've flipped off the MPAA in my own small symbolic way. (I haven't seen any anti-piracy ads lately, but I'd definitely snap a shot of that, and probably would put it on-line somehow.)

The phone of course is kept off during the movie's content (hence credits only), and I don't use a flash for the pictures. (People steal phones left in cars.)

life immitates art... oh wait, that wasn't art

[ajenteks]

Seems ironic that a man gets caught carrying a camera to film a movie about robots in disguise.

At least one anti-piracy law finally did the public some good :)

Re:life immitates art... oh wait, that wasn't art

[Anonymous Coward]

Tip: If you bring a Transformers toy with you to the theater, make sure it's not Soundwave.

Re:life immitates art... oh wait, that wasn't art

[Aliriza]

And don't forget to leave your video camera at home while going to the cinema.

ahh

[SolusSD]

stuff like this makes me mad-- not because it is illegal, but for the same reason it makes me mad when:
- people run their LCD monitors at less than native resolution
- people rip to mp3/ogg/wma only to burn it to a cd... that they'll probably end up ripping again
- people save things as jpegs (lossy) only to open them later, make changes, and save again.. and again.. and again..
etc....

Re:ahh

[Cedric Tsui]

This one makes me mad.

'people' go out and buy that fancy 8 megapixel camera for $500 and then shoot photos at lower quality to save on memory card space.

Re:ahh

[gstoddart]

people run their LCD monitors at less than native resolution

See, my problem with LCDs and their friggin "native" resolution, is I want a display device which will run at whetever frigging resolution I need it to be running at right now.

I may also need to adjust font sizes, and not use whatever (way too fscking small) font the guy who wrote the app figured I was allowed to use.

That's why I still have a 19" multisync monitor hooked up to my KVM at home -- multiple machines, multiple resolutions if need be, no shitty monitor which has been engineered to do exactly one resolution well, and all others looking like crap.

Who needs to resolution nazis telling you that you only get one resolution today? (And all others were implemented badly.) Sometimes, you need to use different resolutions for different tasks. Both my XP box and my FreeBSD box have hot keys for changing the resolution at run-time.

Cheers

Re:ahh

[MightyYar]

With the crappy lenses on some of those things, that's not actually a bad idea! :)

Re:ahh

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. I hate LCDs, and I only use them when I have no choice.

Back when I had a desktop computer, I only used CRTs. I had a 17" CRT and a 19" CRT in a dual-head setup. Now that my main machine is a laptop, I always keep my 19" CRT hooked up to it (it's not really a mobile machine anymore...my PDA phone succeeded my laptop as my mobile computer when I got it).

My work desktop has an LCD, unfortunately, but I have no choice. I don't think there's even a single CRT in the place.

Re:ahh

[tepples]

I may also need to adjust font sizes, and not use whatever (way too fscking small) font the guy who wrote the app figured I was allowed to use. Then get the source code, change the font size, and recompile the app.

Re:ahh

[toddestan]

The worst part is that the most common sized LCD I see out there are 17", followed by 19". These have a 5:4 aspect ratio to accomodate the oddball 1280x1024 resolution, which means that if you run it an any other resolution you also stretch the picture vertically. Just plain ugly.

I really wish that manufacturers would start selling high DPI desktop LCD's. A 1600x1200 resolution 15-17" LCD would be totally awesome.

The cost to society...

[ushering05401]

The reason it is wise to include jail time for violent offenders is that it is ultimately cheaper for society to pay for their room, board, and supervision than it is to potentially suffer another violent incident. Incarcerating violent offenders is one of the least controversial uses of tax money in modern America.

What is the justification for using taxpayer money to incarcerate a non-violent offender? Worse yet, what is the justification for incarcerating an individual who only potentially damaged a private company's profits?

Shouldn't a fine be sufficient considering only money was at stake?

Bootleggers are closely related to white collar criminals. The only impact is financial. In the case of Enron, or some other fraud situations, I would much rather have seen the offenders be forced to work the rest of their lives to repay the retirement funds they looted etc.. rather than getting what amounts to a monetary slap on the wrist and jail time. I am pretty sure the people who ended up getting pennies on the dollar out of the settlements would probably agree with me, just as I would bet most people would rather see the money spent on jailing this bootlegger spent on something like... oh... I don't know... anything that actually benefits society.

Regards.

Re:The cost to society...

[svendsen]

I agree. Make the fines VERY high and you will get your point across. Let's save the jail for the ones that really need to be removed from society.

Could you imagine a 10k fine + plus court costs + a record. Ouch

Re:The cost to society...

[OctoberSky]

The cost to society is more acturately based on the hourly rate of the cop who sat in the theater looking for criminals. Figure, 2.5 hours there, mileage reinbursement, popcorn reinbursement (or at least a tax deduction), 2 hours of paperwork and another 5 hours of overtime for the court appearneces.

Seriously, does the NYPD really not have enough to do that they can send thier officers into theaters to catch pirates? Also, how do I sign up for this detail?

Note: The undercover cop saw him move his arm in a weird angle at the begining of the film, then waited until it was over to make the arrest. Yeah, he was doing covert ops for those 2 hours, certainly he never looked up at the screen.

Re:The cost to society...

[ryturner]

I don't understand why people think non-violent crime does not negatively affect society as much as violent crime. Financial crimes can affect a much larger number of people and jail time is required. A fine does not do much to prevent a white-collar crime from ocuring. Just look at the recent Scooter Libby case. He doesn't care about the fine or probation, the man wants to stay out of jail and that is exactly what the president did for him.

Yes, I realize that this post is US centric and that if I lived in a third world country, violent crime would be a much bigger concern.

Re:The cost to society...

[johnny cashed]

Jail is just the stick to make sure The State gets paid. Unless he is a total loser (with no friends or family with any money), he should make bail in no time. I agree that prison is excessive for the violation, but more that likely, he won't see any prison, just some fines. Don't pay the fines? Then the big stick of jail is still there to ensure that the State gets paid. This is the big purpose for imprisonment for non-violent offenders.

Re:The cost to society...

[jedidiah]

I propose that we all go over to your house and give you a beating...

Then we'll ask you again whether or not you think violent crimes should be taken more seriously than white collar crimes.

Re:The cost to society...

[Thaelon]

You think the organizations that paid good money to get laws passed that make such things a crime really give a shit about wasting taxpayer money?

Re:The cost to society...

[ari_j]

How about those with not a dime to their names? $10,000 fine plus court costs doesn't mean all that much if you can't even afford the bus fare to get to court.

Re:The cost to society...

[ranton]

I would certainly be more pissed at someone who stole my house than someone who beat me up.

Re:The cost to society...

[Kenrod]

Nonsense. If you eliminate the prospect of jail time for all non-violent offenders, you would see an explosion in non-violent crime. You can't deter the bad behavior of someone who has no money with fines. And even the threat of a fine is simply not a serious deterrent.

Consider the most lowly form of crime - speeding. Does the threat of a fine or forced defensive driving classes (a form of community service) deter speeders? Hardly at all, everyone speeds, everyday. If the punishment was 30 days in lockup for first time speeding offenders, you would see a dramatic drop in speeding offenses. Jail is much more of a deterrent than a fine.

Re:The cost to society...

[chihowa]

he should make bail in no time...he won't see any prison,

Bail doesn't alleviate one of a sentenced term in prison. Bail keeps you out of jail prior to and during the trial. Bail is also not forfeited to the State unless the trial is skipped out on. Bail's not a fine, it's collateral and incentive to show up to the trial.

Re:The cost to society...

[Jaeph]

If all we do is make them pay a fine, then the fine becomes a cost of business. When the punishment involves freedom, it's a little more personal and not as easy to quantify.

As for Enron executives, they ruined the lives of many people. I hope all those enron executives get sent to federal pound-me prison, not the federal resort prison, for the crimes they committed.

-Jeff

Re:The cost to society...

[westlake]

What is the justification for using taxpayer money to incarcerate a non-violent offender?

Tolerance of laziness and deceit, greed and corruption, is far more dangerous to democratic institutions than physical violence.

It erodes trust in all authority when the celebrity, the politician, the corporate executive, yes, even the geek, begins to believe - correctly - that jail time is for others but never for him.

Re:The cost to society...

[geekoid]

Bail doesn't go to the state.

Just as big of a stick is community service. CLean some public rest rooms, trash, whatever.

Re:The cost to society...

[aliquis]

Retarded system if you can get out without any form of punishment just because you have got money. So rich people can just skip jail but poor people have to take their punishment?

Re:The cost to society...

[johnny cashed]

Bail goes to the State if you don't show up for court. So if they don't do the community service, do you threaten them with jail?

Re:The cost to society...

[johnny cashed]

Depends on what you consider punishment.

So rich people can just skip jail but poor people have to take their punishment?

You must be new here.

Seriously, this is the case already, unless you consider taking from one's wallet as punishment. Yes, the system is retarded. And broken.

'Bout Time these bastards got caught

[warren_spencer_1977]

The last thing any movie maker needs is someone taking a cheap copy and showing it to everyone on the planet, making them want to buy the high-quality version.

Re:'Bout Time these bastards got caught

[cdrguru]

I suppose you sit around waiting for reruns of television episodes?

If you have already seen it, why in the world would you want to pay money to see it again? I haven't seen many movies that I would want to see more than once in a single year.

$7

[twistedcubic]

Where in the USA are movies still only $7?

Re:$7

[Dog-Cow]

Metro-Detroit. I paid $5.75 to see Transformers two nights ago, at the Star John R.

Re:$7

[Anonymous Coward]

I took myself and three other people to a matinee showing of Ratatouille in a fairly nice theater for $23 after tax; that's $5.75 for a major new release. This was in a suburb of Dallas. I don't know what is wrong with people in other areas of the country who are willing to spend $11 to see a movie. The only theater around here that costs that much has leather seats.

Re:$7

[HTH NE1]

$6.50 in Lincoln, Nebraska. Douglas Theaters though has a monopoly on them here.

There used to be a nine-screen theater that had second-run movies for $2.50 (undercutting Blockbuster rentals!), but it has been torn down, and I haven't heard of them opening a replacement.

Re:$7

[masterzora]

$5.25 for a matinee, $7 for an evening show here in southern Oregon.

Re:$7

[Anonymous Coward]

$9 in Philadelphia PA but only $7 with student ID or matinee.

Re:$7

[Anonymous Coward]

$9.75 in the Denver metro. And that's with a membership card that gives you $1 off (AMC).

And as you know, new DVD releases nationwide range from $25.99 to $19.99.

Being a movie fan can be crazy expensive - although I've started to hold off seeing anything until the DVD is sitting in the bargain bin for $4.

good law

[scharkalvin]

I mean it's damn rude of the guy. If I paid good money
for tickets to see a movie I don't want some bozo in the
row ahead of me to stick his stupid movie camera in my view
of the screen. Why that's only slightly less rude than leaving
your damn cell phone on and I have to hear your stupid ring
tones though out the picture.

Re:good law

[RingDev]

After the dot com burst (right as I got out of the military) I picked up a few odd jobs. One was working 3rd shift in the local state of the art theater. People do some weird crap in theaters, the weirdest though: One guy brought a miniature microwave oven in to a movie and popped his own pop corn.

Other tidbits:

*Snowday was the WORST movie to clean up after. I have no idea what that movie is about, but every f'ing night it looked like someone started a popcorn fight.

*Crossroads (the Britney Spears movie) had the most used condoms left behind.

*LotR, after week 10, had the highest alcohol consumption.

-Rick

PS: Ever since that job, I've been a big fan of watching movies at home.

Re:good law

[Dunbal]

Don't forget the screaming 9 month old!

Re:good law

[karnal]

*Crossroads (the Britney Spears movie) had the most used condoms left behind. Thank god you weren't there after Brokeback Mountain....

Re:good law

[Anonymous Coward]

I know the feeling. It's about half as annoying as having some pork eating chips continuously for the whole fucking movie which happens about 50% of the time.

Re:good law

[funkatron]

Everyone's rude in cinemas anyway. There's the screaming kids, the popcorn fights and the idiots muttering comments the whole time. Even the cinema itself tried to piss people off as much as possible. I went today and firstly they tried to take my food off me, I know this is standard practice but wtf, I want my food at a non extortionate price. Then they had the arrogance to show 20 minutes of adverts before the film. I paid for entertainment not to be messed around with that crap. I know both of these are pretty standard but if the place wants to continue to attract customers it should consider changing, especially as the competition doesn't have the annoyances. I know I sound a little annoyed. The film was Shrek 3.

Re:good law

[Lithdren]

Yeah! I mean comeon! I cant see the movie!

Thats worth atleast Six MONTHS in JAIL, right?

I need to move to canada..anyone got a spare room?

Re:good law

[westlake]

People do some weird crap in theaters, the weirdest though: One guy brought a miniature microwave oven in to a movie and popped his own pop corn.

That is why some promoters are finding that there is money to made in the home-theater like theater for adult admission only.

Luxury seating. No kids. No teens. No phones.

Re:good law

[bryan1945]

"One guy brought a miniature microwave oven in to a movie and popped his own pop corn."

How did he power it?

Re:good law

[RingDev]

Most theaters have power outlets distributed around the room for the cleaning crew to be able to plug in vacuums and buffers.

-Rick

Re:good law

[bryan1945]

I figured that the theatre would not allow that because of the possibility of people tripping on the cord.

However, I mentioned this to someone, and they told me that there are portable microwaves that can run off batteries! Just not for very long.

I just hope this guy didn't situate the 'wave over his family jewels.

Diallo: any relation?

[Anonymous Coward]

What does NY have against guys named Diallo?

And in this round:

[mad_psych0]

Robots: 1 Pirates: 0 Ninjas: ??

Re:And in this round:

[WilliamSChips]

Well, if it's Dr. McNinja then infinity, but if it's those stupid ninja from Naluto it's -2450.

At least this Diallo wasn't holding a wallet...

[Wannabe Code Monkey]

COP 1: He's got a gun!

DIALLO: Wait! Wait! I swear it's just a video camera.

COPS 1-4: Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang!

COP 2: Why does his gun have a rewind button?

COP 3: Crap... not again...

Re:At least this Diallo wasn't holding a wallet...

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks like the cops are more bullet efficient this time around.

I guess global warming is taking a toll on everyone!

Re:At least this Diallo wasn't holding a wallet...

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? This is funny?

Ok..

[bytesex]

Am I the only one who thinks that he should have been escorted out of the building by the bouncer, after having erased his tape/static ramdisk, and be blacklisted ? I mean, that's how it used to go.

Crazy numbers!

[kebes]

Hold on... TFA claims:

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) says more than 40% of bootlegged films in the US are secretly taped in New York cinemas.

But previously they claimed:

Canadian theatres were the source for nearly 50 per cent of illegal camcords across the globe

So, in essence, they claim that New York and Canada account for 90% of the problem... These numbers sound totally made up to me.

Re:Crazy numbers!

[leoc]

Of course they are, but politicians never fact-check claims made by powerful corporate lobbyists, which is why these made up numbers worked like a charm.

Re:Crazy numbers!

[Kainaw]

Hold on... TFA claims:

        The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) says more than 40% of bootlegged films in the US are secretly taped in New York cinemas.

But previously they claimed:

        Canadian theatres were the source for nearly 50 per cent of illegal camcords across the globe

So, in essence, they claim that New York and Canada account for 90% of the problem... These numbers sound totally made up to me.

Well, if you took sixth grade math, you would see that the first statement applies to 40% of the US. The second statement applies to 50% of the world. Contrary to what many in the US believe, it is merely a tiny country in a much larger world. So, for a made-up number, assume that the US problem is 10% of the entire world problem. They are claiming that 4% of the world problem is from New York. Therefore, 50% + 4% does not equal 90%.

Re:Crazy numbers!

[DerekLyons]

Try actually reading what you quote - it helps you avoid comparing apples to oranges;
 
  The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) says more than 40% of bootlegged films in the US are secretly taped in New York cinemas.
 
  Canadian theatres were the source for nearly 50 per cent of illegal camcords across the globe
 
The two claims are not incompatible.
 
 

So, in essence, they claim that New York and Canada account for 90% of the problem... These numbers sound totally made up to me.

A person who take two different numbers, and then makes up numbers of his own... Well, let's just say that people who live in glass houses should be careful of the trajectory of the stones they are throwing.

Re:Crazy numbers!

[kebes]

Err... yes I'm well-aware that the statements, from a purely logical standpoint, can be reconciled with one another. That doesn't mean they can be reconciled with reality. The joke I was making was meant to point out that the numbers are meaningless and probably made up.

Firstly the statements don't really make sense. In both statements they do not clearly define whether they are referring to the percentage of illegal camcording acts, or the percentage of camcording movies that originate from a particular region, or the percentage of bootleg copies that can be traced back to a particular region.

Secondly, the numbers themselves seem ridiculously inflated. Are we honestly supposed to believe that 40% of the US problem can be traced to a single US city or that 50% of the global problem originates from a single country with a rather small population? Such grandiose claims require serious evidence. In fact, these statistics have been debunked by others and shown to be false.

That the MPAA can engage in verbal acrobatics so as to not directly contradict themselves doesn't mean their numbers are in any way valid or credible.

Re:Crazy numbers!

[Rob T Firefly]

These numbers sound totally made up to me. Chances are you're right, since over 87% of statistics are made up.

Re:Crazy numbers!

[kebes]

See my other reply. Summing the two numbers to 90% was a joke, meant to point out that their numbers are ridiculous. Sorry that it wasn't more obvious that I was joking.

Re:Crazy numbers!

[Dunbal]

So, in essence, they claim that New York and Canada account for 90% of the problem... These numbers sound totally made up to me.

Either way they are too late

Re:Crazy numbers!

[LordKronos]

Are we honestly supposed to believe that 40% of the US problem can be traced to a single US

I can't speak about the Canadian figures, but as for the first part: Are you aware of the level of piracy that goes on in NYC, with so many street vendor selling bootleg DVDs? I know of no place else in the country that even begins to approach what goes on there. It seems reasonable enough to me that the source for many of those bootlegs could have been local.

I'm not saying the statistics are accurate, but I wouldn't be one bit surprised if they are.

Re:Crazy numbers!

[davester666]

No. The guy must be Canadian. A US citizen would never undermine his own economy in this way.

Re:Crazy numbers!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, let's just say that people who live in glass houses should be careful of the trajectory of the stones they are throwing. I always thought it was "You know what they say: People in glass houses sink sh... sh... sh... ships."

But I'm at work so go download Boondock Saints just to check...

Re:Crazy numbers!

[rtechie]

The two claims are not incompatible. Even so, it seems implausible to me that 40% of the movie piracy takes place in New York. I'm certain they also say that 40% of the piracy takes place in Los Angeles and 40% San Francisco as well. If you look into it a little bit, you'll see that for the most part these statistics are made up out of whole cloth. It's yet another bullshit rationale for trying to waste the justice system's time by making a civil tort (copyright infringement) into a criminal counterfeiting case.

6 months and $ 5000 fine, a little bit harsh

[vivaoporto]

Unless he actually recorded the movie and distributed the movie for profit, thus being criminal copyright infringment, that is a little bit harsh for such "victimless crime". Supposing he was successful in recording the movie and distributed it without the copyright owner permission, and the copyright owner found out and sued for damages, the financial penalty would probably be bigger, but without the jail time.

I'm not very fan of this kind of deterrent law, that makes the penalty for attempt haesher than the penalty for the actual infringement.

Re:6 months and $ 5000 fine, a little bit harsh

[Prof.Phreak]

I'm not very fan of this kind of deterrent law, that makes the penalty for attempt harsher than the penalty for the actual infringement.

In other words, ``you're only guilty if you're caught''.

New New York?

[Anonymous Coward]

Must have been the New Justice Team that caught him...SuperKing strikes again.

by comparison

[rodentia]

New York legislators apparently consider production of grainy, shakey, muffled copies of Hollywood poo the moral equivalent of 2 oz. of pot. I thank God every day that our peerless statesmen are so responsive to these twin evils. It is common knowledge that copyright infringement is a gateway anti-social behavior, leading rapidly to contempt for authority, drug abuse, armed robbery, rape and murder, in that order.

Re:by comparison

[Dunbal]

It is common knowledge that copyright infringement is a gateway anti-social behavior, leading rapidly to contempt for authority, drug abuse, armed robbery, rape and murder, in that order.

      What about terrorism and pedophilia? You forgot terrorism and pedophilia!

Re:by comparison

[friedman101]

Is this to imply that carrying around 2oz of a drug that has less of a psychological effect than alcohol should be punished by 6 months in jail and a career-ruining federal offense on your record? What's more - are you saying it's more criminal than stealing a copyrighted work and distributing it to thousands?

Re:by comparison

[jcgf]

uhh, pot doesn't lead to those things either.

Re:The fool...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately Libby only did one of those things, perjury; which is almost never prosecuted when there is no underlying crime as was the case.

Cellphone

[kryten_nl]

I would like to invite you to speculate when 'normal' cellphones will be considered 'video-recording-equipment'. Because I don't think that such a law can be enforced by then.

Re:Cellphone

[StrongAxe]

I would like to invite you to speculate when 'normal' cellphones will be considered 'video-recording-equipment'. Because I don't think that such a law can be enforced by then.

Yes, but it would be a hard sell to a jury, most of whom probably own cell phones, and go to movies themselves.

Where is the line drawn?

[Philotic]

Most new cell phones have the capability to record video, do they count?

Re:Where is the line drawn?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully.

I'd even be willing to put another dollar or so in to the ticket if they showed me the movie in a cell phone free theater.

It's retribution.

[KingSkippus]

what is the justification for incarcerating an individual who only potentially damaged a private company's profits?

Because it's not only about reform, it's about retribution.

It's the same reason we have the death penalty in this country. Sure, we can remove dangerous individuals from society. Hell, it's actually cheaper than killing them. No, the death penalty isn't a deterrent. Yes, we sometimes make mistakes. But it's not about what's best in the long run for society. It's about the sweet satisfaction you get from raw vengeance. It's not about the convict; nothing, and I mean nothing, is as cathartic for us as frying them in the chair.

The same is true about locking up non-violent offenders. We don't have to, and a lot of the time (especially in cases like these), it's not the best way to reform an individual. But the industry must have its pound of flesh from the evildoers that skimmed a few pennies from their deep, deep pockets.

sigh...

Re:It's retribution.

[Cadallin]

See, that's disgusting. The electric chair is an abomination for exactly the reason you cite. It's an excruciatingly painful and slow method of execution. Approximately equal to tossing a human being (instead of a lobster) into a huge pot of boiling water. I'm not actually against the death penalty. I think it should be used more widely than it is, but not the electric chair. A properly executed hanging is far more efficient and far less prurient than the electric chair (a split second drop followed by a broken neck at the base of the skull causes death about as instant as it gets). Hell, if we really wanted to be morally upstanding, we would perform executions by morphine overdose. Sleep followed by death through respiratory depression.

Revenge should have no part in it. It should be all about what is best for society. There are people out there that have a pathological urge to kill, rape, or perform other horrifically destructive acts (rob thousands of people of their life savings and retirement). Many of these are mentally retarded, or otherwise mentally ill, but in my opinion that's probably irrelevant. In the most extreme cases there is little we can do. And in the less extreme cases, we need to do better.

Re:It's retribution.

[bryanp]

No, the death penalty isn't a deterrent. ... It's about the sweet satisfaction you get from raw vengeance. It's not about the convict; nothing, and I mean nothing, is as cathartic for us as frying them in the chair.

You say this as if it's a bad thing. There are people in this world who need to die.

Personally, I'd like to see my former neighbor take the long walk. She was stealing pain meds from her own mother who was in the process of painfully dying of cancer. Got that? She was partying it up with drugs that were supposed to be easing her own mother's suffering in her final days. She didn't even get sent to jail.

Re:It's retribution.

[Anonymous Coward]

So why can't I kill the executive looters of Enron? Oh right, it isn't what you do but how you do it and who you know.

Re:It's retribution.

[CodeBuster]

Because it's not only about reform, it's about retribution.

People would do well to remember the admonition of Confucius before they so eagerly set out in search of their vengeance, "Before you embark upon a journey of revenge, dig two graves."

Re:It's retribution.

[Anonymous Coward]

All you really need to do is give a general anesthetic, they go to sleep, then you inject something that stops their heart, or paralyzes their nervous system. Painless. Quick. Effective.

Re:It's retribution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that because there is usually two of the bastards? Or are you just messing with their minds?

Re:The fool...

[brian0918]

I didn't say "convicted of", I said "committed".

Re:I hope he gets the max

[WilliamSChips]

I hope you get caught under piracy laws so that you get put next to your stupid letters and end up looking like a fool just like Limbaugh did

oh noes! 2 weeks!

[Animaether]

go cry me a river, Colombia. Sometimes there's -months- between a U.S. and a Europe release. Now I'm all for simultaneous releases, but...
1. cost of film is prohibitive (yes, the things travel - which is fun if you get it after 8 other countries got it - mmm specks, dust, stripes.. the real movie experience)
2. promotion happens locally. E.g. actors can't be at the opening night everywhere if it's all on the same day.
a few weeks, for Transformers, is actually pretty good, and getting a cam'd version just so you don't have to wait 2 weeks is lame. I can understand for 'months'.. though by then, get the DVD (undoubtedly released at that time) rip instead.. if you *must*.

Re:oh noes! 2 weeks!

[funkatron]

We'll point one could be a barrier but local promotion is a load of crap. There are only a few people that care about having actors and directors coming to their country to stroke their over inflated egos. As you can tell I am not one of them.

Re:oh noes! 2 weeks!

[tepples]

cost of film is prohibitive Even when the projection film is digital?

promotion happens locally. E.g. actors can't be at the opening night everywhere if it's all on the same day. Even when the movie opens in four regions in four consecutive weekends?

Re:oh noes! 2 weeks!

[that this is not und]

Is the projection film digital?

Is it digital in third world markets?

Easy Solution

[ThinkFr33ly]

While I think the punishment is a bit excessive (jail time is ridiculous), there is a very simple way to resolve this situation.

Don't bring a camera into a movie theater and try to tape the movie, dumbass.

Excessive?

[shiba_mac]

More than fifteen days of jail time seems excessive? Anything more then being booted out of the cinema seems like a violation of human rights to me.

Seriously, who is this guy harming that he deserves to spend time in jail? Who's being protected?

Nuke Them From Orbit

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's The Only Way to be Sure"

Re:The fool...

[notasheep]

Actually, he WAS convicted of the following:

Guilty: Obstruction of justice for intentionally deceiving a grand jury investigating the exposure of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative.

Guilty: Making a false statement for lying to FBI agents about a conversation with NBC newsman Tim Russert.

Guilty: Perjury for lying in court about his conversation with Russert.

Guilty: Perjury for lying in court about conversations with other reporters.

Not guilty: Making a false statement regarding a conversation he had with former Time magazine writer Matt Cooper.

Stop listening to Fox Not-News and Rush/O'Reilly/etc.

detention over-population

[subl33t]

How many MILLIONS of people are already in jails and prisons in the US?

The US government(s) can't afford to send more people to jail for this kind of 'theft'

The Law Is Wrong

[aldheorte]

It should not be illegal to bring a camcorder into a movie theater.

It should be legal for the theater owner to throw someone out for bringing a camcorder into their movie theater.

Recording the movie with a camcorder should not be illegal.

Showing the recording of the movie to friends without an exchange of money or physical property should not be illegal.

Showing recordings of the movie to anyone for money or physical property to should be illegal.

This is the way copyright law needs to go.

Re:The Law Is Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not copyright law though; that's just a complete absense of legislation.

Re:The Law Is Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

"Showing the recording of the movie to friends without an exchange of money or physical property should not be illegal"

This is flawed logic. With that statement, I'm not sure why you got "Score:4, Insightful"
Let me show you another anology that can apply with that: Stealing your car and giving it to my friend without them paying me should not be illegal.

You may not think that a movie is anything of physical value, but the creators/writers, director, actors, etc. all use that as a job. If you take a copy of the movie to your friends when they should have paid for it, none of the above get paid as they should of had your friends paid to see the movie in the theatre or bought/rented the DVD.

Re:The Law Is Wrong

[westlake]

This is flawed logic. With that statement, I'm not sure why you got "Score:4, Insightful"

It is precisely why he gets the mod +4, Insightful. On Slashdot.

Re:The Law Is Wrong

[geekoid]

"Showing the recording of the movie to friends without an exchange of money or physical property should not be illegal."

Yeah, at what point is it some friends, and at what point is it giving it away for free to hurt competition? At what point does it take away money from the rightfull copyright owners?

Copyright is a good thing, what it has becomer in the last 25 years is not.

Limited time copyright is a good compromise...by limited time I mean 20 years max. I think automatic copyright is good, and should be for 10 years, after that it's 25K for a 10 year extension.

Yes, this law is wrong.

Re:The Law Is Wrong

[bryan1945]

"Showing the recording of the movie to friends without an exchange of money or physical property should not be illegal."

I agree, my 50 million BitTorrent friends also agree.

Re:The Law Is Wrong

[zen-theorist]

Showing the recording of the movie to friends without an exchange of money or physical property should not be illegal.

this makes it legal for 10000 people to buy a DVD each for $20, and screen it for the remaining 9999. so each person gets to see 10000 movies for $20. you may replace screen by P2P-broadcast and 10000 by 100000000 and you will see why content producers cry about "lost business".

Re:The Law Is Wrong

[aldheorte]

It is a tenuous claim that all the people who would download and view a movie for free would watch it if they had to pay for it. Technology has moved on and rendered static media copyable to some extent. If content producers are not able to create a price point and features that encourage users to buy direct instead of getting it through their social networks, then it's time to move on. A business created by an artificial construct (in this case, over-reaching copyright law) is no business at all - it's a government subsidy.

Even something that is putatively free incurs acquisition costs. It's up to the content producers to find a way to offer a mechanism and features where the acquisition costs of getting it directly from them are better in the whole than getting it through social sharing networks. In the case of movie studios, they are just going to have to either come up with new entertainment features or figure out how to make and distribute movies less expensively.

Whatever they do, laws that interfere with people's rights to share information should not be allowed in an attempt to save an industry refusing to adapt to technological change.

Re:The Law Is Wrong

[TheQuantumShift]

Whether people paid to see the pirated copy or not, they're still not in the theatre. The mpaa and theatre owners are out money they otherwise would have received. Now of course this is not true in all cases as there are quite a few movies I wish I had downloaded and spent $8 on a nice six pack instead...

My real point is that if all of your statements became laws, there would be exactly one guy going to see every movie, and his ticket would cost ~$100M... How's he going to get that ~$100M? He's going to sell "shares" in his recording. And he's going to be a smart guy and sell enough "shares" to make ~$200M and he'd find some way to claim tax-exempt-non-profit-.org-holy-Jeebus status and get out of his taxes. And the government would see that logically the only way this would work at all is if everyone was required to bring a cam into the theatre, then ticket prices could get back to normal.

But it would be interesting to see the stats on which seat's view gets the most downloads...

Re:The Law Is Wrong

[cdrguru]

There is no "price point" - free is the only price that matters. Content producers cannot compete with free, pirated content. There is no question of quality or of anything else - they are competing with themselves and one side is giving it away vs. the other charging an utterly outrageous amount of money for it. By outrageous I mean that $0.10 is outrageous when the only other price is $0.00.

Re:The fool...

[notasheep]

And as far as treason goes, the US Constitution defines it as:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

Since, at the time of Libby's actions, we were engaged in a war against terrorism - according to Bush the greatest threat the US has faced - I could successfully argue that taking/supporting/obfuscating an action (the outing of Plame) was an act of treason because it greatly diminished our ability to gather intelligence on terrorist groups and their acquisition of WMDs. Taking out your country's ability to monitor the enemy during war time seems like a treasonous act to me. YMMV.

We now return you to our regularly scheduled discussion - getting busted for videotaping movies in a theater....

The cost to Enron...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Then we'll ask you again whether or not you think violent crimes should be taken more seriously than white collar crimes."

What makes you think it's an either/or? Losing your house, or losing your life. It's all bad, and neither helps society.

Re:The cost to Enron...

[jedidiah]

Experience. Expertise.

The possibility of "living the rest of your life in a pain amplifier" is much more interesting consequence than being deprived of even all of your worldly posessions. Now that's just the end result of physical damage. Psychological damage adds an entirely other layer to the whole situation.

That's why burglary was always a crime even before white collar crime existed.

Taking your wallet is not quite the same sort of attack on your soul as rape or bludgeoning.

mnb Re:Seconded

[Anonymous Coward]

But more because screeners are the lowest form of piracy.

He would have been attempting to make a "cam".
A screener is a rip of a finished movie (unfinished = workprint) on VHS or DVD given to studio executives, academy voters, and the like.

Re:mnb Re:Seconded

[Anonymous Coward]

An aweful lot of cams are labeled as "screener" on torrent sites, etc.

We all sneak cameras to the cinema

[zukinux]

They are called MOBILE-PHONES. If they want us to come inside with our phones, the let must let us use it.

NOT GUILTY

Re:We all sneak cameras to the cinema

[Anonymous Coward]

That is absurd.

Re:The fool...

[Anonymous Coward]

Congress decides when we're at war, not the executive office.

The MPAA always delivers more than 100%

[twitter]

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) says more than 40% of bootlegged films in the US are secretly taped in New York cinemas.

and Canada does 50%, and we can be sure that China is responsible for another 50%, and Los Angeles another 40% and so on and so forth depending on who's nose they want to bloody today.

Films

[Anonymous Coward]

Jerry Seinfeld's version of "Cry, Cry Again" was better than anything this bootlegger filmed.

Camera rip isn't so bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

The quality of the main cam rip on PirateBay isn't *that* bad. It's watchable.

I'm a huge Transformers fan, watched the film on opening day, then downloaded it and watched the cam rip the same night.

-j

Humiliate. Don't Incarcerate

[DigiShaman]

Incarceration doesn't provide anything good except to keep the offender from harming others. For non-violent criminal activity, we should submit them to community service. This accomplishes three things.

1st, it's humiliating.
2nd, it keeps them from leaching our tax dollars.
3rd , it provides something productive for both the criminal and society.

Most important overall, it teaches a lessen you wouldn't forget. If your set to rot in jail however, it becomes a non-reforming way of life and ultimately punishes society as a whole.

Re:Humiliate. Don't Incarcerate

[Anonymous Coward]

why is community service humiliating? hell, it is potentially more useful contribution to society than the movie this guy tried to copy.

Re:Humiliate. Don't Incarcerate

[Joe U]

why is community service humiliating?

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,26334,12262 42,00.html

Hang him. It'll teach 'im a lesson.

[crovira]

Seriously though, I hate to watch those awful DVDs with people coughing and others standing up in front of the camera.

They manage to bring into my home everything I loathe about going to the theater: the presence of other people.

I believe he deserves a couple of months in the pokey to teach him better.

I feel safer at night

[Maxo-Texas]

knowing this dangerous criminal has been arrested.

Of course from the perfect framing it is clear most of the copies on the internet are probably tripod mounted and taken from the projection booth.

I predict a copy of the movie (hell multiple copies) will be on the torrent networks within the week. It will be about 700mb and have muddy video and sound quality.

Idiots.

[AlphaLop]

Well, I am sure this will help ease overcrowding in their already massive prison population, not to mention the cost to tax payers for housing him for 6 months. Shit like this needs to be tried in civil court, not criminal. If they are truly loosing money over this, then the MPAA will sue them, and if they are not loosing enough money to make it worthwhile to sue them then obviously it is not a big enough deal to lock someone up for.

Oh well, I guess they can early release another child molester or other criminal to make space for these dangerous individuals.

Let me get this straight...

[theuedimaster]

our government cares about people illegally recording movies than the FBI illegally recording our phone calls? It just kills me to see the priorities of our country.

Disturbing wake-up call for the USA

[Anonymous Coward]

$5,000 is now only worth £2,487.

good

[DragonTHC]

I think they should have strict penalties for this sort of action.

I do not think that downloading a movie from the internet is illegal. That's not how the law works.

The simple fact is, uploading is illegal.

All you *really* need

[Tony]

Bah. All you *really* need to do is give 'em a razor and make them watch a bootleg copy of "Transformers."

They'll take care of it themselves.

Remember: This IS NOT THEFT

[calciphus]

Despite what all the little previews before your overpriced movie tell you, videotaping a movie (or downloading a bootleg, etc) IS NOT THEFT. IT IS COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. This distinction often gets left out, because it benefits the **AA to be...forgotten.

Imagine you walked into a Kinkos with the latest NYT's Best Seller under your arm. Should they tackle you there? What if you put the first few pages into a copy machine? Should Kinko's call up a task force specially put in place to protect the 'creative' works of corporations?

Copyright Infringement laws traditionally kick in when the infringer has "profited materially" from the sale or distribution of copyrighted works. The act of making a copy doesn't constitute a material gain, so prior to NY's "special" laws, this would have been "Attempted Copyright Violation" - a crime so minuscule that it wouldn't be tried except by a massive organization with lawyers to spare.

By sponsoring legislation (more specifically, legislators) that would push through harsher punishments for something that can cost a company potential profits (note: this is not the same as a loss) the MPAA has successfully made it really easy to punish the wrong people. I promise you that this guy in NY was not going to be the one copy that makes it onto the internet. No, that'll happen when some organized crime group has one of their lackies either swipe the reel after the theater has closed for the night, or just snags a DVD from one of the many pre-releases that are distributed.

These new laws will be about as effective at stopping piracy as busting homeless crackheads is at stopping drug abuse. Sure, they can pat themselves on the back and remark what a great job they've done, but they're really just taking out the lowest hanging fruit. Good work, MPAA!

Because...

[droopycom]

I watched "Star Wars Episode 1" on my PC using a cam recording.

One of the reason was that I was in France at the time. I think the movie was released in May in the US, but it would have been October in France. I could not wait. I think now this is fixed with simultaneous worldwide releases.

Another reason is that it was exciting new possibility. At that time it was a lot harder to get those movies. This was mostly downloaded through IRC channels, you had to "trade" with other people etc... I didnt do it myself, but other students on the campus were doing it and sharing movies on the local network.

With every new technology (eg: bittorrent) people get excited, want to do ground-breaking stuff, etc...

But in the end off course it was not worth it for the movie itself...

Digital release

[soupforare]

The theatre I saw Transformers at wasn't showing it on film.
How long do you think it'll be before we start seeing scene releases ripped from the theatre's own digital distribution system?

It wasn't even that good of a movie.

[Bushido Hacks]

Why do people pirate movies that aren't that great?

How is that supposed to work?

[Solandri]

Showing the recording of the movie to friends without an exchange of money or physical property should not be illegal.

Showing recordings of the movie to anyone for money or physical property to should be illegal.

This is the way copyright law needs to go.

How are people supposed to make money off their work if anyone is allowed to copy it and give it to their friends for free?

I'm as anti-*IAA as everyone else here, but what you've described is worse than no copyright. If I'm a distributor and a competitor has the rights to a successful movie, I just make copies of it and give them away for free to kill off their revenue. At least with no copyright, I have a motivation to sell my copies at a price, thus ensuring that the original creator can still sell his copies.

Better Sources?

[Dial-Up]

Why are we getting a report about New York laws from the BBC? I have a hard time believing that they were the first to the story, so why not skip the telephone game and get it from the original source?

If they solve it in the developed world, then...

[tepples]

Is the projection film digital? Is it digital in third world markets?

Assuming the retcon definition of "third world" meaning a highly developed country, I don't know. But if the projection film is digital in the developed world, I don't see any reason why a major studio feature film can't be released theatrically in one region per week, even with actor appearances:

1. United States and anglophone Canada
2. United Kingdom
3. New Zealand and Australia
4. Quebec and mainland western Europe (once the European subtitles or dubs are finished)
5. Japan and Korea (once the Japanese and Korean subtitles or dubs are finished)

Heck, they could just open the film on the same day throughout the anglophone world and have different members of the cast show up in US, CA, UK, NZ, and AU.

1000 years early?

[RealGrouchy]

"Arrest under New NY Anti-Piracy Law"

I thought New New York only existed in Futurama?

- RG>

Re:If they solve it in the developed world, then..

[LordSnooty]

Yeah, but there'd never be enough women with walkie-talkies to organise all the brain-dead interviews.

Correction

[tepples]

Assuming the retcon definition of "third world" meaning a highly developed country Typo. Everyone knows what I meant: "Assuming the retcon definition of 'first, second, and third world' meaning a highly, medium, or less developed country"

reporters dont research, newfederal law is 3 years

[Anonymous Coward]

Reporters never research (in USA or UK). Thats a state law.
Federal law signed into being a year or so ago (the one that allowed people to play dvds on thier home players and skip scenes without getting sued or something like that), says even taking a cell phone screen shot is liable for THREE years in prison, not a mere few months.

Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005
http://www.publicknowledge.org/content/legislation /s167
"(2) AUDIOVISUAL RECORDING DEVICE- The term `audiovisual recording device' means a digital or analog photographic or video camera..."

So digital cameras and cell phone cameras count because it says photographic OR video camera. Someone could be prosecuted under that law for an instant 3 year jail sentnance just for taking a digital snapshot of the film.

BTW, the law also permits and indemnifies theatre operators from any civil/criminal lawsuits if they want to detain and interrogate you.
"(1) may detain, in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time, any person suspected of a violation of this section with respect to that motion picture or audiovisual work for the purpose of questioning..."
"(2) shall not be held liable in any civil or criminal action arising out of a detention under paragraph (1)"