Ohio Prison Shows Pirated Movies To Inmates

An anonymous reader writes "Richard Humphrey was sentenced to 29 months in prison for selling pirated copies of movies through the subscription-based USAWAREZ.com. He was later sent to the Lorain County prison in February for a parole violation and while he was a prisoner, he says guards showed inmates Ride Along and The Wolf of Wall Street before they were released on DVD. A spokesperson for Lorain County Correctional Institution Warden Kimberly Clipper said prison officials are aware that pirated movies are being shown to prisoners and the issue is being investigated. But she said she couldn't comment further because the investigation is ongoing."

Comments

Odd Selection

[Stormy Dragon]

Is The Wolf of Wall Street the kind of movie you should be showing prisoners anyways?

Re:Odd Selection

[SJHillman]

If you want violent felons to have any hope of being rehabilitated, you need to show them what true criminals look like.

Re:Odd Selection

[Anonymous Coward]

Is The Wolf of Wall Street the kind of movie you should be showing prisoners anyways?

Well, probably better Tango and Cash, Demolition Man, or Escape from Alcatraz.

Re:Odd Selection

[Kenja]

"We know most of you will be back in here after you get out, but here's an example of how to be a better criminal so you can get upgraded to rich people jail"

Re:Odd Selection

[Anonymous Coward]

Only matters if yo believe that watching movies causes people to become criminals.
Typically the inability to control impulses are a greater concern.
Recent studies shows that voluntary Ritalin usage works better at preventing repeat offenses when it comes to violent criminals.
I don't know if any studies have been made on non-violent criminals but I suspect that the ideal choice of rehabilitation method varies a lot depending on type of crime.
You can't expect that the same thing that works for drug addicts is efficient for white collar criminals.

Re:Odd Selection

[Stormy Dragon]

I don't think movies make people become criminals, but these people don't need to become criminals; they're alredy there. I do worry about movies undermining attempts at rehabilitation by glamorizing the criminal lifestyle.

Re:Odd Selection

[GTRacer]

Are you thinking what I'm thinking, that TWoWS is cruel and unusual punishment?

Re:Odd Selection

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want violent felons to have any hope of being rehabilitated, you need to show them what true criminals look like.

So, they should be watching C-SPAN all day?

Re:Odd Selection

[ColdWetDog]

You do realize that 'voluntary Ritalin usage" is another way of say methamphetamine abuse.

Re:Odd Selection

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no rehabilitation in prison. Regardless of minimum vs maximum security. Retard.

Re:Odd Selection

[Idarubicin]

You do realize that 'voluntary Ritalin usage" is another way of say methamphetamine abuse.

Well no, it's not, actually. The active ingredient in Ritalin, methylphenidate is quite distinct, chemically, from amphetamine, methamphetamine, or any of the related close derivatives. While methylphenidate and methamphetamine both start with the same four letters, their biochemical effects are different. (For example, both compounds are dopamine reuptake inhibitors, but only methamphetamine is a dopamine releasing agent. The two compounds have opposite effects on neuronal firing rates. And so forth.)

Re:Odd Selection

[jeffmflanagan]

Are you thinking what I'm thinking, that TWoWS is cruel and unusual punishment?

Is it? A friend that I generally trust recommended it to me, but I haven't gotten to it yet.

Re:Odd Selection

[dogbowl]

Couldn't you make the argument that enticing an inmate with pirated movies is cruel and unusual punishment to an inmate that was convicted of pirating movies?

Wouldn't it be the same if they lock up an inmate for drug use, and then offered him the same drugs while in prison?

Re:Odd Selection

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the subjective effects that matter, and snorting and shooting ritalin feels like a cross between meth and coke... i.e. damn fucking good. So I hear. From... tv.

Re:Odd Selection

[ubrgeek]

Warden: Mr. Cash? The record company asks you not to play any songs that would remind the prisoners that they are in jail.

Johnny Cash: Do you think they forget?

- Walk the Line

Re:Odd Selection

[Stormy Dragon]

Cash's songs didn't glorify being a criminal though. They were all about how much being in jail sucked.

Re:Odd Selection

[Anonymous Coward]

Amphetamine is a dopamine and norepinephrine releasing agent, Methamphetamine releases dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin

Methylphenidate (known as "poor man's cocaine") is to cocaine what amphetamine is to methaphetamine - it inhibits the reuptake of dopamine and norepinephrine, while cocaine inhibits the reuptake of dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin.

Re:Odd Selection

[countach]

They need to be shown how to steal the legal way.

Re:Odd Selection

[russotto]

Yeah, GP confused Ritalin with Adderall.

Re:Odd Selection

[Anonymous Coward]

u know nothing about jail

Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't try to sell them and you're mostly in the clear.

Re:Difference

[mi]

Don't try to sell them and you're mostly in the clear.

Generally, you are right — the particular prisoner's case is different. However — content-owners have tried to make "non-profit" infringers (people making copyrighted material available for free to others) into examples by suing them for large sums of money (though no jail-time).

And second, the prison officials aren't just watching the material themselves — they are showing it to a large number of people (entire prison population). This is something, which you can not legally do even with a DVD you purchased in a store — they are only licensed for private viewing.

They should be busted and, ideally, someone ought to end up in the cell next to the protagonist — even if for a shorter sentence.

Re:Difference

[geekoid]

The code clearly states that distributions by unauthorized person is a crime. charging is irrelevant.

If I where to print my own copy of Game of thrones, and then give the copies I printed away, I would be in violation
However, the people buying the books would not have violated any current laws.

Re:Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Selling them for profit, would most likely lead to sting operation...

Re:Difference

[John.Banister]

Ask the owner of any bar about people wanting money for "public performance" of copyrighted entertainment.

Re:Difference

[mi]

The code clearly states that distributions by unauthorized person is a crime. charging is irrelevant.

False. Though all unauthorized distribution is illegal, not all of it constitutes a criminal offense. To make the perpetrator a felon, according to paragraphs; 506 federal Title 17 of the United States Code, the distribution must be committed:

1. for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
2. by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or
3. by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.

Our protagonist qualifies for the first item above. And so do his current jailers. Small-time non-profit distributors — such as torrent-users, who keep the stuff they just downloaded available, but not for long enough to qualify for the second case — do not.

Re:Difference

[nabsltd]

This is something, which you can not legally do even with a DVD you purchased in a store — they are only licensed for private viewing.

Although there is wording on DVDs to the effect that they are "licensed", this is not true. If you purchase a copy, you own that copy and retain all first-sale rights.

The actual phrasing in 17 USC concerns "public performance". If these DVDs had been legally purchased (instead of definitely pirated), it's possible the prison performance would not be considered "public". After all, can you just walk in and watch movies with the prisoners? Remember that size of audience is unimportant for determining "private" or "public". A wedding with 500 guests where only people with invitations are allowed in is "private", while a bar with seating for 3 people is "public".

Re:Difference

[mi]

Although there is wording on DVDs to the effect that they are "licensed", this is not true. If you purchase a copy, you own that copy and retain all first-sale rights.

This is interesting... Could you offer a link, where this legal quirk is convincingly explained? Because right now it sounds like one of those "you don't have to pay your income tax" proclamations...

The actual phrasing in 17 USC concerns "public performance".

If, indeed, I can do anything I want with the purchased DVD, as you claimed at the beginning, then this part becomes irrelevant, no?

it's possible the prison performance would not be considered "public"

It is possible...

Re:Difference

[mrchaotica]

Although there is wording on DVDs to the effect that they are "licensed", this is not true. If you purchase a copy, you own that copy and retain all first-sale rights.

The actual phrasing in 17 USC concerns "public performance".

If, indeed, I can do anything I want with the purchased DVD, as you claimed at the beginning, then this part becomes irrelevant, no?

The fact that the DVDs are sold, not licensed, means that the copyright holder does not have the legal authority to impose extra conditions upon the buyer.

The "public performance" provision, however, is imposed not by the copyright holder but rather by the law itself. That's where the difference lies.

Re:Difference

[AvitarX]

As I read case 2, you would need 50 people to download from you within 180 days, if you keep your ratios 1:1, that's one download every 3 days, that seems pretty likely for casual use of torrent.

Re:Difference

[mi]

The "public performance" provision, however, is imposed not by the copyright holder but rather by the law itself. That's where the difference lies.

Ok, I see the distinction, but I don't see a difference. One way or another even a legally purchased DVD can only be used privately. (Whether showing it to inmates is still private, is another question.)

Re:Difference

[just_another_sean]

Maybe I shouldn't be mixing broadcasts vs. DVD but aren't there examples of churches, private parties, etc. being told they are infringing when offering to host Super Bowl parties or World Series showings?

The example I am thinking of is here. Is the difference that technically anyone could walk in off the street into a church and watch? Would they have been in the clear if the showed it in a private room in the church and limited invitations to the current congregation only?

I'm not disagreeing with you, I don't know enough to do so, but it seems to me based on the "dick-move" stories I've read over the years that if they* decide they* want to go after you than the legal means to do so is there...

*they - for various definitions of "they" but generally speaking content rights holders...

Re:Difference

[ArcadeMan]

The fact that the DVDs are sold, not licensed, means that the copyright holder does not have the legal authority to impose extra conditions upon the buyer.

If that's true, why is DVD ripping illegal in some countries?

Re:Difference

[mi]

that's one download every 3 days, that seems pretty likely for casual use of torrent.

Yep, sounds about right. Do not do it.

Re:Difference

[SydShamino]

Because the laws are different in other countries, and citing examples from other countries does not refute claims made by someone citing U.S. Code.

Re:Difference

[gl4ss]

taking money for entertaining(and guarding) a group of people and then showing them copied stuff kind of counts as selling.

Re:Difference

[SydShamino]

I suspect anyone who walked off the street or read about the event would be able to watch at the church, effectively making it a public event. If it were a private event, you never would have heard about it, and neither would have the NFL.

Re:Difference

[mrchaotica]

Sorry, I was only trying to address the question you asked directly, not the point you were making further upthread.

Re:Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

They pay a different (higher) fee for commercial establishments. It's not something the owners want, but the cable or dish folks impose on them automatically. Same with telephone lines, but that's a different story. It doesn't matter if it's for you small-town vet shop - if there's a tv in the lobby and you want cable there, they will charge you a higher fee with presumably a limited broadcasting rights. Same for music - just go to pandora.com and they have a "business" section for retailers.

Re:Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

it's possible the prison performance would not be considered "public"

From what I remember of the FBI warnings, prisons are explicitly mentioned in the list of places where it is not okay to "perform" a DVD.

Re:Difference

[Darinbob]

I think it's ok, because the guards showing the pirated movies are already in jail.

Re:Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the DVD is sold, but the film contained on it is licensed. You can reproduce the disc, being its owner, but if you reproduce the film by duplicating the imprinted data, the copyright holder never sold you the right to do so and so it remains illegal.

Ripping is only legal where either (1) there's no restriction on personal use reproduction or (2) where someone has specifically exempted ripping or format shifting from the law.

Re:Difference

[Jason Levine]

Because of the - rather idiotic if you ask me - distinction between the DVD content and the encryption "protecting" the DVD content.

I go into a store and buy a DVD. I then rip that DVD and store it on a hard drive for only my and my immediate, living-in-my-household family's use. Storing it on a hard drive wasn't the crime. It was breaking the encryption on the DVD disc that was illegal.

Actually, it might not even be me ripping the DVD that's illegal. Depending on local laws, this might be perfectly fine. However, making and offering a tool that breaks the DVD decryption would be considered an illegal act. In other words, doing X might be legal, but giving someone a tool that does X isn't.

Of course, about the only reason that ripping your own, legally purchased, DVDs and keeping them on your own systems (i.e. not sharing them out) might NOT be considered illegal is because it is an extremely hard action to catch. People who do this aren't leaving easily followed online tracks like people who share out rips do. While some might mention online that they do this, tracking down each person would take a ton of legal effort. The MPAA prefers the "low effort" route of suing people who share out rips and making the DVD ripping tools illegal.

Re:Difference

[Darinbob]

I think there is legal precedent here though. It's a complex issue and there are various laws that are both specific and vague. It really is not so simple to say what is "public performance" or not, in fact the rules for audio-only versus audio-visual are different. There are even legal rulings that seem to disagree with each other. One problem is that most sites you find that discuss public viewing are from the film industry and so can't really be trusted.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/...

Overall though, I'd say that a showing a DVD to a 500 person wedding is a public viewing, even if they all know each other and it was invitation only. Similarly you can't have a video-club of 500 persons and call it a private showing even if they all know each other and it's invitation only.

You do have first sale rights to the DVDs though. However no public performance rights. This means you can sell the DVD to other people, and then they can use it for private performances without obtaining permission from the copyright holders.

Re:Difference

[Darinbob]

There are rules about how many speakers, size of screens, and such, before it's considered public performance at a bar. (the "homestyle exemption")

Re:Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Although there is wording on DVDs to the effect that they are "licensed", this is not true.

It absolutely is true. Please tell me where I can purchase a $60 million film for $18.

If you purchase a copy, you own that copy and retain all first-sale rights.

The first part is true, but "retain all first-sale rights" is meaningless because first sale rights end at the first sale. As a customer, you neither acquire nor retain them, because they cease to exist once the copyright holder makes the first sale. What you get is the right to dispose of the physical article however you see fit (meaning that restrictions on your selling, lending, defacing, or otherwise tampering with the media are subject only to the laws of contract, not of copyright).

If these DVDs had been legally purchased (instead of definitely pirated), it's possible the prison performance would not be considered "public".

In the sense that they may have only been shown to a handful of inmates personally known the guard, then sure. If they were simply played to inmates in a generally organized recreational activity, then of course not.

Remember that size of audience is unimportant for determining "private" or "public".

Size of the audience is not determinative, but it is not unimportant. A private performance is one limited to a close circle of family and friends. A 500-person wedding is almost certainly a public performance for copyright purposes, invitation-only private event or not.

Re:Difference

[Belial6]

The movie is being shown in a business. It is being done for profit since it is being done in the context of running that business. None of the viewers are personal guests of the prison. They are all their in the context of that prising doing business. This is a public performance for profit. Definitly WAY into illegal territory.

Re:Difference

[Belial6]

Exactly. If this is a private performance, then every movie theater in the country is a private performance.

Re:Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that the DVDs are sold, not licensed,

It's not a dichotomous state. They're both sold (the media) and licensed (the content). Don't mistake the "sale or license" discussion with regard to a specific right as a categorical distinction for the transaction.

DVDs are sold, but motion pictures are licensed. This matters because if ownership of the disc stays with the copyright holder, then the whole of copyright law is essentially inapplicable because anything but the exact permission explicitly granted to a consumer would be an automatic infringement, and the doctrine of first sale would not apply. Unless you're an iron-fisted content giant, this is a bad thing, and the law generally reflects that a retail purchase of boxed media carries with it a transfer of ownership of that physical media (but again, not of the copyrighted work embodied in that media). There are still exceptions where ownership of the physical media does not go to the buyer, but generally only in the business-to-business realm.

[Sale] means that the copyright holder does not have the legal authority to impose extra conditions upon the buyer.

The copyright holder has all the legal authority in the world to impose whatever conditions on a buyer or licensee that s/he wants and that said customer is willing to accept, just not predicated on claiming ownership of the physical media, because that, in the absence of an express agreement to the contrary, automatically passes to the buyer upon taking legal possession of it at point of sale or delivery.

U.S. copyright law operates on a blacklist system for the copyright owner--s/he can do anything except those things that are expressly prohibited to the author or expressly granted to the customer. The Doctrine of First Sale says that I can't sell a DVD in a normal retail transaction and then claim to still own the disc itself "because copyright". It doesn't say the buyer gets to reproduce any content or that as two parties of legal autonomy, I can't offer you a deal in which you give up ownership of the media in exchange for something you want (lower price, greater convenience). It's just that such an arrangement has to be structured properly in light of first sale exhaustion rules.

The exchange of money for goods and services is usually much more complicated than people realize.

Re:Difference

[innocent_white_lamb]

The license that is required for showing motion pictures to prison inmates in the USA is available here:

http://institutions.swankmp.co...

Re:Difference

[jthill]

If you purchase a copy, you own that copy and retain all first-sale rights.

Could you offer a link, where this legal quirk is convincingly explained?

You got told copyright trumps first sale and you actually _believed_ it?

109 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Effect of transfer of particular copy or phonorecord (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, copies or phonorecords of works subject to restored copyright under section 104A [doesn't apply, chase the link yourself.]

First sale was settled in 1908 by the Supreme Court, and it's been statute law since copyright was codified in 1976. Anyone who claims to know anything at all about copyright and feeds you that line is playing you for a chump.

Re:Difference

[russotto]

The media is inseparable from the content. If you've bought the shiny disc, you've bought the copy of the audiovisual work embodied within it. There's no license necessary.

And copyright law does NOT operate on a blacklist system. There are specific rights granted to the copyright holder (which include reproduction, but not private performance, for example); they do not get "all rights except those excluded".

Re:Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

The media is inseparable from the content.

Decades of copyright law disagree. The purchase of a copy

If you've bought the shiny disc, you've bought the copy of the audiovisual work embodied within it. There's no license necessary.

You're right that there's no explicit license agreement necessary, but that's not the same thing as not being licensed. There's already a license inherent in the purchase of the copy--just as there is a software license inherent in the purchase of a toaster.

The only kind of true ownership is outright ownership in toto. Everything else is a license. The only part of the DVD you can exclusively exploit as an owner is the shiny disc, just like the only part of a lithographed print you own is the canvas. It's pointless to use "ownership of a copy" as an argument for any conduct outside that permitted by ownership of a copy, like a public performance.

And copyright law does NOT operate on a blacklist system. There are specific rights granted to the copyright holder (which include reproduction, but not private performance, for example); they do not get "all rights except those excluded".

Within the six specific rights governed by copyright, the copyright holder has the exclusive power to exercise those rights however they wish, except to the extent said exercise is specifically prohibited. That's a blacklist.

Re:Difference

[dbIII]

They should be busted

Or it should be used as an example of why the civil dispute of copyright infringement shouldn't carry criminal penalties. Why should a government be an unpaid enforcer for Hollywood on commercial matters? It's stupid on a variety of levels and costs a lot to lock people up when they should at worst be paying damages.

Re:Difference

[nabsltd]

Although there is wording on DVDs to the effect that they are "licensed", this is not true.

It absolutely is true.

No, it is not. The only thing that controls what you can do with the DVD you purchased is copyright law. Nothing written on the cover of the DVD can change that law. As an example, many DVDs have wording that say you can't rent them out to other people. This is a lie (in the US, at least). It is perfectly legal to purchase a DVD and then rent it to somebody else.

Please tell me where I can purchase a $60 million film for $18.

You are conflating purchasing a copy of copyright material with purchasing the copyright. Nobody in their right mind believes that buying a hardcover book for $20 gives them ownership of the copyright for that book. Movies on DVD are no different from books. When you purchase either, you don't own the copyright to the content, but you do own the content as it is embodied in that particular copy.

And, because you own it, you retain first-sale rights. Note that these rights are held by the purchaser, not the copyright owner. So, they really should be called "first purchase" rights. See the referenced Wikipedia page for more information on an attempt by a book publisher that who tried to claim limits on first sale rights in a very similar manner to wording on DVDs.

Also note that "first sale" is a misnomer in another way in that it really refers to the point at which the copyright holder lawfully transfers a copy of the copyrighted material to another entity. At that point, the object can then be passed on to any number of other people/businesses, all of whom have the same "first sale" rights in that they can sell, rent, etc., the object without requiring any permission from the copyright holder. So, this makes them "first purchase and beyond" rights.

Re:Difference

[AvitarX]

I'm olde and busy enough that I can't possibly spend enough on entertainment for it to be worth it.

That and subscription music services. My days of torrenting are basically past.

Re:Difference

[russotto]

The only part of the DVD you can exclusively exploit as an owner is the shiny disc, just like the only part of a lithographed print you own is the canvas.

Not just the canvas, but the ink on it, arranged as it is. This has actually been important in copyright cases; there's one where someone was buying poster prints, physically transferring the ink to canvas, and re-selling the canvas print for a higher price. They won; this was not an infringement of copyright.

Re:Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

if you reproduce the film by duplicating the imprinted data, the copyright holder never sold you the right to do so and so it remains illegal.

This is poorly worded at best. US copyright law provides for making copies under a wide variety of circumstances as an exercise of fair use rights. These rights ultimately derive from the 9th Amendment, which makes the Bill of Rights open-ended by providing for unspecified rights "retained by the people". For an example of a 9th Amendment argument (not specific to Copyright), see Roe vs. Wade.

This right can not be blocked by any form of contract, just as no contract can be written to purchase a murder. No contract or other form of permission is required to execute this right.

The 9th Amendment certainly protects reasonable conduct in any jurisdiction which understands the concepts of "ethical practice of law" and in which oaths to uphold the Bill of Rights have meaning.

Hence, to the extent that the copying is reasonable, the right to do so is protected (above and beyond the plethora of minute and generally irrelevant details found in case law specific to "fair use").

In practice, of course, things are not quite this simple.

Legal professionals are in a position of ethical conflict of interest with respect to recognizing the authority of the 9th Amendment. Thus, despite the oaths they all swear to never, ever (under any circumstances) violate any right reasonably asserted under it, in practice they do a lot of things that do exactly that (in the sure and certain knowledge that none of their peers will throw the first stone).

Hence, there is a big difference between what the law says and what the legal profession pretends the law says.

This is the same situation we face with respect to many of the other Amendments, of course.

These kinds of ethics problems make the US legal system a huge mess, and create all kinds of difficulties for society (such as providing shelter for government agencies acting in illegal ways).

Given the huge number of legislators and judges that are legal professionals, and the enormous lobbying power of the Bar associations, this situation isn't likely to change anytime soon.

Just as politics is far too important to entrust to politicians, law is far too important to entrust to the legal profession.

To be fair...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wolf of Wall Street counts as continuing education rather than entertainment in white-collar prison.

Re:To be fair...

[tquasar]

Where is Chris Hanson when we need him?

Perfect!

[mspohr]

Well, these are criminals, after all (some of them may be actual pirates).
Arrrgh... Of course they should be shown pirated movies.

Re:Perfect!

[Scutter]

They should show them pirated pirate movies.

Re:Perfect!

[Blue Stone]

Can you imagine if you were in jail on copyright infringement charges and the prison you were in was showing pirated movies?

Re:Perfect!

[sconeu]

I'm guessing those are rated Arrr?

Re:Perfect!

[TsuruchiBrian]

This is like going to jail for burglary and then finding out that the warden in the prison you are in takes people's lunches from the fridge.

Re:Perfect!

[Anonymous Coward]

Arrrr.

Re:Perfect!

[Anonymous Coward]

oh darn. I guess it was not funny then. *stops laughing*

Re:Perfect!

[tie_guy_matt]

Just don't show them the pirate movie "cutthroat island" ( http://business.time.com/2012/... .) After all, cruel and unusual punishment is unconstitutional!

Re:Perfect!

[interkin3tic]

That would be ironic, but considering prisons are in many cases taxpayer-supported higher education for turning minor drug offenders into hardened criminals, that's a relatively minor irony.

Re:Perfect!

[K. S. Kyosuke]

No, that would be like being incarcerated for violent crimes and then getting assaulted in the prison. Inconceivable!

Re:Perfect!

[lexman098]

I think it's more like having 10000 spoons when all you need is a knife.

Re:Perfect!

[geekmux]

Well, these are criminals, after all (some of them may be actual pirates). Arrrgh... Of course they should be shown pirated movies.

Uh, I think you perhaps missed the entire point of this article.

Richard Humphrey was sent to prison for pirating movies.

Finding the prison system engaging in the same illegal activity isn't just ironic, it's a slap in the face, and actually justifies a lawsuit.

Re:Perfect!

[funwithBSD]

Breakin' the law, Breakin' the law...

Re:Perfect!

[Anonymous Coward]

Boohoo. And the guards sell drugs, engage in rape of female prisoners, and a whole gamut of other criminal activity. And so do you. Some of us stay out of jail for it.

Re:Perfect!

[mspohr]

So, now he's an official convicted real pirate so he should be able to watch pirate movies.... aarrrrgghhh!
Off ye go, now!

Re:Perfect!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, only because there is so much booty.

Re:Perfect!

[BitterOak]

Can you imagine if you were in jail on copyright infringement charges and the prison you were in was showing pirated movies?

Can you imagine if you were in jail on drug offenses and there was an illicit drug trade going on in the prison? Oh, wait...

Re:Perfect!

[Belial6]

Cruel and unusual punishiment? I'm pretty sure that if I was on a jury, and was told that the prison was blatantly commiting crimes in front of a prisoner who was doing time for the same crime, I would consider it both "cruel" and "unusual".

Re:Perfect!

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering it was just something a guard did, it would be about as surprising as being in prison for a drug charge only to the prison also had tons of drugs, mostly brought in by guards.

Re:Perfect!

[djrobxx]

They should show them pirated pirate movies.

They could take video a pirated movie playing on an old 32" CRT TV. Have a couple people to sit in front of the TV that periodically obscure the picture for good measure.

Not neccessarily pirated

[Anonymous Coward]

It is possible that the Ohio prison in question got itself listed as a budget theater and was able to get legal copies of those movies between the main theatrical release and the DVD release.

I find that highly unlikely, but it is possible.

Re:Not neccessarily pirated

[Sarten-X]

I don't find it unlikely at all. It's amazing what can be pulled off in the name of a "good cause".

Somewhere in the chain, a distributor says to give the movies to somewhere good, intending charities or schools. Someone further down the chain considers a rehabilitation program to be a good charity, and somebody then considers the prison to be just as good as a rehab program. I'm not going to opine on whether these equivalencies are correct, but when you have a supply chain as long as that of a prison (or any other large program) no individual really has to stretch reason too far.

Re:Not neccessarily pirated

[c4320n]

Except the article says the movies were clearly cam rips.

Re:Not neccessarily pirated

[sjames]

From TFA:

In some cases, Humphrey said the movies appeared to have been illegally recorded by theater-goers. "You could see people walking in front of the camera," he said.

That's a pretty good sign it's not legit.

Re:Not neccessarily pirated

[Calydor]

Showing CAM rips?

That's gotta count as cruel and unusual punishment.

Re:Not neccessarily pirated

[K. S. Kyosuke]

I thought prisons were supposed to be rehab programs? At least for those people who are eventually going to be released? Definitely a good cause.

Re:Not neccessarily pirated

[TemporalBeing]

It is possible that the Ohio prison in question got itself listed as a budget theater and was able to get legal copies of those movies between the main theatrical release and the DVD release.

I find that highly unlikely, but it is possible.

Don't have to get listed; just have to give enough money to the distribution companies. If you have your own copy then you can also get a discount - e.g they charge extra to send you a copy to use that you then have to return. How much you pay depends on how well you can haggle the price; can easily be $350 (with DVD) or $700 PER film. Funny thing is, if you try to reach out and cannot get any traction then you've also done your "due diligence" and can just go ahead and show it - been there with Disney licensed Anime films. (We had a budget, wanted to pay them, but couldn't get anyone to stand up and take the money.)

So even if they did do a cam rip (probably bit torrent copy from somewhere), they very well may have had a license to show it.

And, at least in the Anime world, many of the distribution companies will even let you do it for free (e.g Pioneer, RightStuf) if you show all the ads they have on the DVDs and have asked them for permission to do so.

Re:Not neccessarily pirated

[Anonymous Coward]

The US prison system is sort of a superposition of rehabilitation, revenge, deterrence, and corporate slavery. Where any time you observe it it'll collapse into one of them largely at random.

Theoretically prisons are supposed to rehabilitate criminals, but using proven psychological behavior modification methods would be "brainwashing" and "unethical". At the same time a lot of the terms imposed by law are intended to be a deterrent or offer a wide rage where the judge can sentence you to a large or small amount of time based on whether they feel you deserve it (meaning you could get a sentance that's far to short for efefctive rehabilitation or one that's far to long and leaves you cut off from your former life unnecessarily), and spending time in prison makes you close to unemployable for some time after your release.

We also have a lot of crimes that allow for jail time that an average person don't really think should be illegal (drugs). We also have private for profit prisons (creating an industry that has reason to want there to be more criminals). And we have some crimes that get you short enough sentences that if you're homeless spending the winter in prison can look like a good plan.

Honestly I think it would take a concerted effort by some very smart people to come up with a system that is objectively less effective at it's stated goals than the US system.

Re:Not neccessarily pirated

[Sarten-X]

...but should a private prison be considered a rehab program when determining whether it's a charity deserving of special price breaks and benevolence?

Again, I'd rather not weigh in my opinion, but I can definitely see some grey area. Sure, ideally, prison is going to the noble cause of rehabilitating criminal members of our society. On the other hand, is it really just for prisoners to get early access to movies and other special treatment?

Re: Not neccessarily pirated

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if you are a spoiled rich white kid.

Summary picture

[Anonymous Coward]

Who is this chachi in the article's summary icon?

http://a.fsdn.com/sd/articles/...

Apples and Oranges

[Anonymous Coward]

piracy for profit and piracy for personal use aren't comparable.

Re:Apples and Oranges

[Anonymous Coward]

Well if the prison guards are actually showing pirated movies, it isn't piracy for profit, but it isn't exactly piracy for personal use either.

Re:Apples and Oranges

[wisnoskij]

If it is a for profit prison, this actually would be showing pirated movies for profit.

Re:Apples and Oranges

[jeffmeden]

Well if the prison guards are actually showing pirated movies, it isn't piracy for profit, but it isn't exactly piracy for personal use either.

Given that the prisons in Ohio are privatized, yes anything provided to the inmates would be legally and practically "for profit". Still not sure why they would bother offering them anything but super old DVDs and VHS movies that have been scrapped at the local library, but one thing that comes to mind is a guard curtailed a favor from an inmate in exchange for something recent to watch. It will be interesting to see if the investigation turns anything up.

Re:Apples and Oranges

[Moof123]

" It will be interesting to see if the investigation turns anything up."

Don't hold your breath. If anyone remotely powerful is involved the standard tactic is to delay, I mean "investigate", until everyone's attention span has given way.

Re:Apples and Oranges

[Yebyen]

I think you mean curried... you curry favor, you curtail bad behavior.

Re:Apples and Oranges

[Ogive17]

Only the higher security prisons are private, I believe. The county jail where I am (somewhat rural Ohio) is still staffed by county employees.

Re:Apples and Oranges

[Anonymous Coward]

The MPAA has doesn't care if its for profit or not, it still costs them revenue.

Re:Apples and Oranges

[fldsofglry]

Having been born, raised, and currently living in Ohio, I wanted to double check your "prisons in Ohio are privatized", as I had never heard of all of Ohio's prisons being privatized.
According to wikipedia, only two are privatized: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...
This particular prison mentioned in the article is not privatized: http://www.drc.ohio.gov/public...
Here is an example of a page according to the ohio gov site that shows one that is privatized (it says privately operated near the address): http://www.drc.ohio.gov/public...

Re:Apples and Oranges

[JRV31]

Governments just make the laws. It's us peasants who have to follow them.

Re:Apples and Oranges

[ThatsDrDangerToYou]

Only the higher security prisons are private, I believe. The county jail where I am (somewhat rural Ohio) is still staffed by county employees.

So? What'd ya get? They let you surf /. in county?

Re:Apples and Oranges

[Anonymous Coward]

In short, because TV/ movies are a good babysitter and an entertained prison population is a complacent one. Take away cable and TV, and an uptick in violence, theft, staff assault, etc. will (likely) occur.

Re:Apples and Oranges

[Anonymous Coward]

You are assuming the decision of what to watch is made a anything approaching a high level. It is far more likely what every guard is in charge of the weekly movie night decided he wanted to watch recent movies instead old movies. Furthermore considering they likely have $0 per month purchase movies they were going to pirate them anyways. Finally when you realize a prison guard in charge of the weekly movie night is unlikely to be aware (or care to become aware) of the intricacies of copyright law this makes total sense.

Re:Apples and Oranges

[jeffmeden]

Only the higher security prisons are private, I believe. The county jail where I am (somewhat rural Ohio) is still staffed by county employees.

Jail != Prison...

Re:Apples and Oranges

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think he's in jail. He's referring to the county he lives in. County jails are usually much worse than regular prisons with regards to amenities and freedoms. There is no TV, windows, or clocks in my county jail. No soap either. They don't give you anything but a 1 inch thick mat and a roll of toilet paper when you get there. It's a large room with 6 tables in the middle and about 60 bunks. 6 community toilets and showers. The middle two are the shitters, and it's customary that no one piss there or else the seat gets all nasty for everyone. No ladders to climb into your bunk, and you will be bruised from climbing into the top bunk after a couple of days.

When I was there, they had inmates sleeping in the floors because all bunks were taken. Everyone is sick because there is no soap and everyone is in a room about 1/3 the size of a high school gym. They don't give you any cutlery to eat with. You will eat with your dirty nasty hands. Some people actually serve entire sentences there for misdemeanors. A few guys in my pod had been in there for over a year. A fucking year! I'd much rather be in federal prison where there are libraries, email, TV, clocks, etc.

This shit hole needs to be shutdown and everyone that's in charge of it arrested and tried for negligence. http://www.bentoncountysheriff.org/JailInfo.aspx

BTW, if you ever find yourself in that jail, here's a tip to work around the time-deprivation torture they do: Put in a maintenance request at the kiosk. There is plenty of broken shit. Then go back and review your maintenance request. It will have the time stamp that you put in the request.

Oh, and they only turn the phones on twice a day for about 30 minutes. It's not enough time for everyone to make a phone call. Seriously, that place needs shut the fuck down.

Re:Apples and Oranges

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and I forgot to mention how they steal your money when you first get there:

http://5newsonline.com/2013/04/26/inmate-sues-benton-county-jail-seeks-punitive-damages/

Re:Apples and Oranges

[rk]

The whole prison system in Ohio is massively corrupt, and based on profit. The worst thing you can do for a prisoner in Ohio is buy things for them and take phone calls from them (at $1/minute), because they will get their appeal denied, even if the victims of the crime come to the parole board and say "let him out, he's served enough time."

Re:Apples and Oranges

[Anonymous Coward]

If they want profit, and the prisoners are profitable, wouldn't they gain more on starting drug trafficing with the outside to make sure that more people go to jail?

Re:Apples and Oranges

[matria]

That's not unusual. One of my kids is in the Texas state pen, where they don't provide much at all... including no writing materials, no lunch on the weekends, no personal hygiene items, no Internet access thus no email. So I scraped up $20 to put in his account so he could at least write me every now and then and buy a toothbrush. The state took it all, as a repayment of the "services" that he is receiving as a "guest" of the state. And I thought Charles Dickens wrote about 19th century England.

So let them sue

[Anonymous Coward]

The copyright holders could sue, but sovereign immunity would make it difficult.

Re:So let them sue

[plover]

Sovereign immunity doesn't apply to private corporations, and apparently Ohio's prisons have all been privatized.

So that makes two suits. The first would be the MPAA against the prisons for multiple instances of showing pirated movies for profit. This demonstrates a pattern of violations, not just a single incident. If it took place repeatedly, and at multiple prisons owned by the same firm, then it's a pattern of corruption that management has either failed to halt or possibly actively encouraged.

Then some taxpayer organization could file suit against the state for contracting with a corrupt corporation to manage their prisons - that's where the immunity would probably kick in making a suit unrealistic, but it also would become something that would go to the state's legislature. Or maybe it's not a suit, but maybe an investigation into the contract processes followed by the state.

As long as the stupid laws are on the books, and continue to be interpreted as they have been, the MPAA has clearly been wronged here, and they should file suit. I hope they do.

Re:So let them sue

[mrvan]

See http://idle.slashdot.org/comme..., I seems that most (including the one talked about) are not actually privatized.

That said, I also don't think Sovereign Immunity applies to local governments. In the Netherlands, it only applies to the State, and my reading of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... is that in the US it applies to State and Federal governments only. If it's a county prison I would guess that the local County is responsible, and hence that you can sue either the prison or the county.

Screw these Republicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

that always refuse to answer to the public. They have no respect for the people that they work for. Instead, they always circle the wagons and refuse to talk about their crimes. She should be arrested on conspiracy charges for trying to protect her criminal Republican (yes, that is redundant) friends. Cops should go to prison for refusing to talk about the crimes they are supposed to be preventing.

Re: Screw these Republicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed.

Re:Screw these Republicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

It really is precious that you still believe that there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Re:Screw these Republicans...

[Sarten-X]

Sure there is. They prefer different ways to screw over different groups of people.

Re:Screw these Republicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

What a crock-o-shite that is. There's not one bit of Republican (or Democrat, for that matter) reference in the entire thread above here, yet you can't wait to go off on your pet peeve. Grow up, loser.

Re:Screw these Republicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're obviously a stupid Libertarian whose too stupid to see the difference.

And you probably still vote Republican.

Prisons are Sanctioned Crime

[Lumpy]

Prisons break laws constantly, they are expected to violate rights, violate laws, etc... they are there only for punishing poor people.

Show me millionaires that are in prison that go to general population prison.

Re:Prisons are Sanctioned Crime

[TsuruchiBrian]

Bernie Madoff is in prison. He *used* to be a millionaire.

Re:Prisons are Sanctioned Crime

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Madoff got off easy. One year per $400M?! Try stealing a car.

Re:Prisons are Sanctioned Crime

[TsuruchiBrian]

ok...

oh yeah...

[Connie_Lingus]

as some of you know, i've spent time in the florida prison system...this stuff is SOP...prisons are basically just the streets with much higher prices.

imo, its great that inmates get to watch illegal movies, brought in the guards, while smoking their illegal weed, often brought in by the guards (and of course through other less...sanitary? ways), while talking on their illegal cell phones, often brought in by...well, you already know.

it's all mostly a big game...now i'm not saying people don't belong in prison, lord knows i've met plenty who do, but a dude running a pirate movie site?

not really, imho at least.

Re:oh yeah...

[Charliemopps]

Is there anyone living in Florida that hasn't been to prison? It's illegal to blink there... lol

Re:oh yeah...

[Connie_Lingus]

:)

Re:oh yeah...

[Anonymous Coward]

1) :)
2) ;)
3) ???
4) Free movies!

Re:oh yeah...

[Dins]

Wish I had mod points today. If I did, +1 Funny for you, sir!

Screw these Republicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

da fuq?

Off yore meds, mate?

Prison == New Free Cinema?

[danknight48]

Commit a crime, go prison, watch movies. Good times!

The issue here is:
- should these guys actually be watching movies or entertainment of any type?
- After all, they are in prison to reflect on their crimes and suffer for it.

At the end of the day, a pirated movie shouldn't be the topic here. But yet again, we ignore what needs the true attention with simplicity.

Re:Prison == New Free Cinema?

[deadweight]

Prison is not suppoed to be torture. Why not let them kick back and watch a movie? If you give them nothing to do, they will think up their own entertainment and it might not be good.

Re:Prison == New Free Cinema?

[rogoshen1]

I've wondered why we don't allow prisoners to play some kind of FPS (or ideally MMO) type games in prisons, and let them sort out their turf wars and aggression using that.

-- quite a few MMO players live very similar to convicts, in that they stay isolated in their cell for 20 hours a day.
-- shanking someone in a game would be far better than in real life.

Putting people in a confined space with no outlet and nothing to do for 20 hours a day -- and those who didn't already have violent or criminal tendencies will have them in short order. And the recreation they do find will not be something we want them to be doing.

Re:Prison == New Free Cinema?

[geekoid]

A) yes. You have angry people, conservative the balk at actual rehabilitation, so you need to distract them.
Also, just being in prison is pretty harsh punishment, even with TV.

B) That is not what a prison is for. At least not if you want one that's good for society., It's for rehabilitation. They idea of punishment for the sake of punishment is an idea of small minded people who have learned nothing form history.

Yes, the topic should be a corrupt guard system and how privatization of prisons has lead to them becomes warehouse, increases recidivism, and how the prison guard union have pushed to make more things punishable by prison, and 3 strikes laws.

Re:Prison == New Free Cinema?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am an idiot and have no idea what I'm talking about.

Once upon a time, this line didn't sum up 99.8% of your Slashdot posts. Then you contrived some imaginary universe around yourself where you're always right and everyone that disagrees with you is the problem. This makes you a fucking tool.

A) You don't know anything about the current prison system. I doubt you've ever even had a friend a year plus in a state pen.
B) You don't know anything about psychology, but that sure-as-fuck isn't going to stop you from being an armchair expert on the subject.
C) You have a warped sense of right and wrong. You've accepted both as "gray" for so long that you've ended up confusing black and white. You cannot have law without punishment. If there is no punishment for violating a law, then the law isn't a law. It's a suggestion. Suggestions don't guard society, and society must protect the innocent from the guilty or it may as well not exist. You speak of people that have "learned nothing from history" but you completely disregard history's first lesson and everything based upon it.

You speak of rehabilitation, but you can provide no incentives that wouldn't immediately be exploited by the kinds of horrible people you don't imagine meeting in your worst nightmares. You're completely dead in the water, intellectually on the subject, because you've spent so much time psychologically jerking off to your own fantasies that you've completely forsaken reality.

Prisons are a broken system, but they are not backward.

Re:Prison == New Free Cinema?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about you do some time in prison and find out?

All prison guards, police, prosecutors, judges and lawmakers should be required to spend at least a 90 days in jail, followed by 1 year in prison so that they know exactly what they're imposing on people when they put them through the process.

Re:Prison == New Free Cinema?

[UnknowingFool]

- should these guys actually be watching movies or entertainment of any type?

And what do you suggest should be done for prisoners for hours and hours of the day? Are you also surprised that prisoners get exercise time and books as well if they exhibit good behavior? Also how do you think guards and prison officials feel about showing them movies; I would bet you they are in favor as it keeps the population calmer.

After all, they are in prison to reflect on their crimes and suffer for it.

I'm sensing that you don't have a sense of what prison life is like. Watch any documentary on current prisons. Hell, watch any movie about prison life like the Shawshank Redemption. It's not a glamorous life. Showing them a movie now and then is not the same as letting them snort cocaine off a hooker.

Re:Prison == New Free Cinema?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

you've spent so much time psychologically jerking off to your own fantasies that you've completely forsaken reality.

...just like Norwegians, apparently. Perhaps he should move to Norway?

Re:Prison == New Free Cinema?

[Andrio]

People go to prison because they did something wrong and have to be removed from society for a while. The best thing a prison can do is "fix" the person so that they can integrate with society again.

You can't fix a person by taking away their humanity. So yes, they should get to watch TV, play video games, read books, have (consensual) sex. A "correctional facility" should do just that: correct a person. In a more perfect world criminals would come out of prison actually loving their fellow man. Or at the least, be able to integrate with society. Anyone coming out of prison should at least come out with GED equivalent. Preferably with some tradeskills too. Basically, if an employer sees that someone was an a correctional facility, they should think "hey this person has at least a basic education and some tradeskills"

That's how you keep them out of trouble and not going back to prison, just because they had to steal since they couldn't get a half decent job.

Re:Prison == New Free Cinema?

[Anonymous Coward]

Prison is not suppoed to be torture. Why not let them kick back and watch a movie? If you give them nothing to do, they will think up their own entertainment and it might not be good.

That's an interesting theory you have there, but you seem to have forgotten the entire fucking point of criminals being in a prison.

God forbid we make them learn a lesson, to you know, stop being criminals.

Re:Prison == New Free Cinema?

[locopuyo]

Well you have to look at what the goal of having someone in prison is. Is it just to punish them, or is it to fix them?

Re:Prison == New Free Cinema?

[danknight48]

That's how you keep them out of trouble and not going back to prison, just because they had to steal since they couldn't get a half decent job

By having the prison system so "relaxed", Its also how you encourage them to go back into prison and have the easy life.
All paid for by the tax payer (eg: me and you).

8 in 10 released inmates return to Del. prisons
http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

Yeah, systems working great.... Keep the movies going, pirated if you can to save the tax payer some money.

Re:Prison == New Free Cinema?

[Anonymous Coward]

If he thinks Anders Breivik is being successfully rehabilitated, I'll sell him Norway, because my family owns it.

I'm sure he'd be very surprised to learn that some prisons in America are extremely successful. They demand that the inmates respect one another and they provide sufficient protection to their inmates in return for respecting the rules (e.g. they work with gang leaders to make sure that incoming inmates don't get penned with rival gang members). They also make sure that life there is still uncomfortable enough that you don't want to come back.

Other prisons have entire cellblocks where they basically treat the inmates like caged animals, and that's how the inmates act. It's almost a badge of honor to get sent to "Cellblock D" because you're too wild to be penned with the general population. The statistically noticeable difference between the two is that the former deals with fewer, larger, more-established gangs and the latter has more, smaller, more-violent gangs (making names for themselves, establishing territory etc.). While other factors are obviously included, it seems to be one potent ingredient in an extremely complicated recipe. If Norway has ANY gang problems, I'm completely unaware of them.

Re:Prison == New Free Cinema?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Wow, a country of five million people and you pull out the one exception that tripled their annual murder rate. How predictable. Well, I guess that out of the Norwegian prison population, he is the closest to an American mass murderer that one could find.

Re:Prison == New Free Cinema?

[Anonymous Coward]

The purpose of imprisonment is to prevent crime. In a just society, we want to do that by rehabilitating those who can be rehabilitated, and segregating those who can't from the rest of society. Punishment is not justice.

Re:Prison == New Free Cinema?

[kesuki]

instead of cherry picking just one state, why not cherry pick 30 states. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rprts05p0510pr.cfm sure only 77% repeated within 5 years... but hell i was messed up for 20+ years and nothing worked until i was diagnosed and medicated. sure i didn't 'break' many laws and was only in police care until they could transport me to psychwards etc. and they were trying to help me. i would say they did good, because now i am stable and i'm a heavy streaming media user, rather than a heavy torrent user, now... though sometimes only torrents have things due to stupid unfair approaches to copyright... like licensing movies and tv content from separate parties and thus not having the movies available when the tv series is available... and i need to see the movie to understand how the storyline is from the tv series... (like movie 10 of the anime one piece) and keep in mind one piece has 600+ tv episodes with more to come and it doesn't make sense to just watch the anime without the movies because the movies make more sense (but except movie 10 are all non canaon of the manga or anime) if crunchyroll had the movies i would watch it there of course, but they don't and piracy is something many many people do, from radio mixtapes to vhs copying to dvd ripping most people have circumvented copyright if they had the resources to have a device but not the income to own content. so great i don't have to pirate movies because i can afford to stream them and i don't mind waiting for netflix or amazon or crunchyroll or don't mind hulu ads but when these sites only get partial content i have few options buying the movies off amazon is one possibility but at $20 a movie it then conflicts with my entertainment budget of $100 a month. anyways, i do have quite a backlog of movies to watch, and i easily spend $100 a month on entertainment so i probably sound pretty vain but i was taught that sharing is a good thing. that people are supposed to share the good parts of their life to others in hope they too lead an enjoyable life. copyright shouldn't be seen as a way to make the world a better place because it doesn't. it makes sharing a harder process and i don't always like the 'hyped' content for instance i spent $20 of my entertainment budget on the first 5 books of game of thrones(kindle edition) and have only gotten through the first chapter, so far. and if it doesn't get better it will be not very high on my list of things to do. if i had pirated the books i probably would have deleted them by now. as it is i feel obligated to keep the ebook until i finish the first book, because i know sometimes it takes authors a while to get a good storyline rolling.

Re:Prison == New Free Cinema?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah... while prison may not have to be torture, you probably shouldn't go out of your way to make it too pleasant either...

Re:Prison == New Free Cinema?

[Jack Griffin]

Even better someone should write a game specifically for prisons that offers all the psychological tricks of rehabilitation, and de-programming of violent tendencies. You could get a contract to supply all prisons, at least 2 million customers with a nationwide prison MMO that requires, non-violent co-operation and teamwork to succeed, and get the focus of prison away from stabbing each other, to game addiction. Sure it's not a perfect solution but it's lot better than whatever happens now. In-game success could be tied to real world rewards, good behaviour, early release etc. There is a lot of potential here to improve the current state of the prison system, and more importantly reduce recidivism which is a major blight on the way things are currently done.

Re:Prison == New Free Cinema?

[dbIII]

If you want an assembly line to produce broken people for their relatives support forever then you have a dehumanising prison, but that's a very Soviet way of doing things. Other places have something a bit like outside society so that when the prisoners are eventually released they will be more than just a burden to everyone around them.

Re:Prison == New Free Cinema?

[adolf]

Prison is not meant to be torture, but it is meant to be punishment.

The trouble with an FPS or an MMO, or routine fun in general, is that people would be more likely to do dumb things just so that they can live in prison: Three squares a day, one's own bunk, laundry service, and regular gaming sessions?

We've already got enough people who LIKE prison and jail. :-/

Re:Prison == New Free Cinema?

[adolf]

Paragraphs.

Pretty please.

Re:Prison == New Free Cinema?

[BrokenSoldier]

Having worked in a maximum security prison for a year, as a housing unit officer, yard officer, and adseg officer, I don't have a problem with most of this. The demoralizing dehumanizing factor of prison is the incarceration itself. Inmates are put there to segragate them from society, and to attempt rehabilitation. They don't go to prison to then be punished-prison IS the punishment. Its a subtle difference, and one lost on most anyone that has never had any aspect of their life under total control. The closest thing I can come up with as a civilian equivalent is BCT- years and years of BCT with no graduation, no promotion, and no relaxation of the structure, that you normally would get as a trainee.

Fair Use

[globaljustin]

This is the same as a preschool showing the kids a Disney movie if their carnival gets rained out.

it's fair use...

Re:Fair Use

[Torp]

I don't think that's considered fair use :) It's pretty much illegal. Even if they bought a legal DVD, they're not licensed for public performances.

Re:Fair Use

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Wan't there some standard exception for oil rigs, prisons, schools etc in the normal licensing?

Re:Fair Use

[kryliss]

I see what you did there....

Re:Fair Use

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC, the exception was that a private showing in such places was explicitly not allowed by the license.

Re:Fair Use

[Anonymous Coward]

:> :>

Re:Fair Use

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the same as a preschool showing the kids a Disney movie if their carnival gets rained out.

it's fair use...

17 U.S.C. 107 states that fair use only applies to "purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." So unless that Disney movie has demonstrable educational value (which it probably doesn't), then yes, that's copyright infringement.

Ride Along?

[ThatsNotPudding]

Wow; that *is* cruel and unusual punishment.

Prison guards may have broken the law?!

[Anonymous Coward]

I am shocked- SHOCKED- that law enforcement are accused of besmirching the good and decent laws of this country!

It's been happening a long time

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never been to a correctional facility where they don't show pirated movies. There's always a guard with the hookups on bad CAM vids and he always brings them in for everyone to see. Maybe that's because I'm also from Ohio. I pretty much thought everyone knew about this and just never said anything.

Re:NN Now

[Mr D from 63]

This can be blamed on the throttling of Netflix.

Other ways to get movies

[Anonymous Coward]

Could it be that the prison just got the film legitimately? I mean, theaters have to get movies somehow -- why not distribute to other institutions? I know my college has a club that gets film (literal film reels) of movies in between their run in theaters an release to home video.

Re:Other ways to get movies

[sjames]

They were cammed. According to TFA, you could see members of the audience occasionally blocking the movie.

They always protect their own

[Anonymous Coward]

She knows there was a crime committed, but she refuses to talk about it. These "no comment" cops that protect the bad ones are just as bad as the 90% that commit crimes on a daily basis. Some people defend the 10% cops that are honest, but when they refuse to comment and/or take action against the bad ones, they are just as responsible.

Prisons Breaking Rights

[Etherwalk]

Prisons break laws constantly, they are expected to violate rights, violate laws, etc... they are there only for punishing poor people.

Show me millionaires that are in prison that go to general population prison.

Um... not quite. Rich people are less likely to go to jail period (because they can afford better lawyers, are targeted less, and less frequently have incentive to commit crimes like bank robbery and burglary that get people caught). You really have to look at rich people who are convicted of burglary and poor people who are convicted of burglary before saying that the jails really just exist to punish the poor.

As for rights, yes, prisons frequently violate rights, but consider the *flipside* of that. In the United States, we make it relatively easy for criminals to *sue* for violation of their rights. So pretty much *every* prison guard, no matter how good or honest, gets sued by prisoners. It's not like prisons are trying to violate rights--they're generally trying to not get sued.

Re:Prisons Breaking Rights

[jeffmeden]

It's not like prisons are trying to violate rights--they're generally trying to [fill in the blank]

Of course not. What it IS like, is prisons are trying to turn a profit (lots of them are, anyway) and in doing so reduce the costs to the point where they (guards, admins, etc) have no choice but to abuse the prisoners just to keep them all in line.

Re:Prisons Breaking Rights

[Moof123]

"less frequently have incentive to commit crimes like bank robbery"

Why rob a bank when you can pay off a politician to make it legal for you to sell them rigged products and yank money out of the banks legally?

Re:Prisons Breaking Rights

[Threni]

> You really have to look at rich people who are convicted of burglary and poor people
> who are convicted of burglary before saying that the jails really just exist to punish
> the poor

No, you don't pick this or that crime and compare them; you break down the demographics by income, regardless of crime, and come to pretty obvious conclusions. There's no need to complicate things. Rape? Murder? Why would poor people be less/more likely to commit those crimes?

"can't comment"? well, we can...

[swschrad]

warden, meet Bubba. you get the bottom bunk.

China is ahead of us on that.

[Kaenneth]

There was a thing a few years ago where Chinese prison guards were forcing prisoners to farm WoW gold for them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:China is ahead of us on that.

[Anonymous Coward]

wow! talk about a win-win solution... :)

A, B or C.

[westlake]

Small-time non-profit distributors --- such as torrent-users, who keep the stuff they just downloaded available, but not for long enough to qualify for the second case ---- do not.

I disagree.

OR
by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public

Re: A, B or C.

[LocalH]

I think that part is intended for works that have not been released yet. Notice it says "being prepared for commercial distribution". As in, leaking things early.

When will the guards join the inmates?

[Anonymous Coward]

After all, stealing is stealing and all the guards must have known the movies were pirated. If none of the guards stepped up to stop it, then they are equally guilty of the "copyright violations".

And showing to a large crowd like that is a major violation, that the FBI will investigate and hunt down the perps..

I'd suggest these guards say goodbye to their families as they will be joining the inmates of the prison - short lived as they will be if they were not civil to the inmates.

martha stewart

[Anonymous Coward]

martha stewart

That's OK

[Anonymous Coward]

Prisons in Canada used to pirate US satellite service way back in the day. :P

Duh!

[easyTree]

Duh! they(tm) make the rules and break them at the location of your punishment for breaking the rules.

What better way to say "Fuck You from the System!" ?

"Democracy" in action; Awesome =D

Re:"can't comment"? well, we can...

[easyTree]

Warden squeals: "eeeeyay! just what I've always wanted! Bubba; you be warden now; punish me"

Definitely Fair Use

[globaljustin]

"teaching"

you give them a quiz at the end of the video about the major characters and their roles in the narrative...reinforces retention/comprehention and social skills

done....even the most pedantic, non-lawyer, tech dork who loves to make himself sound smart by misapplying laws about tech...even YOU can't counter that...FAIR USE VICTORY

no school district or prison has ever been sued for fair use and your logic wouldn't fly b/c conjuring a "educational" or "scholarship" reason is easy...

Fair Use Troll FAIL

I've never gone to prison but

[jamie.rishaw]

<tt>I've never gone to prison but this is commonplace in the more privileged "decks" or classifications (rehab unit, minimum security etc) of County jails all over Illinois.<br>It's not a "public performance" as much as it's crowd control and a way to reward inmates who act good and contribute (being a "trusty," working in the kitchen, or just general reinforcement of "you're not in jail, you're in Rehab") to the wellness and sanity of the institution.<br>First hand knowledge.<br></tt>

Re:The Big Difference

[hoboroadie]

Crimes committed while working Law Enforcement are not punished.

law code isnt analogous to computer code

[globaljustin]

It's not illegal at all for a preschool teacher to show kids a movie...at all...it's done everyday across the country and it'll never be challenged.

I showed National Geographic films all the time when I taught Geography and Current Events.

Showing prisoners films can indeed have as much an "educational" or "scholastic" aspect as showing films to pre-schoolers, and it's wrong to challenge its use. The only reason we're having this discussion (and for my downmod) is that tech-dorks like to show how smart they are by nitpicking and pedantry on legal topics....you don't know what you're talking about legally.

You can surely read the law code, and even copy it into a comment!...but that doesn't mean you understand how the law works *in practice*.

The "code" of a law is absolutely different from "code" in a computer system...all the entirety of human law since the dawn of time has it's ***appilcation*** which is completely up to human interpretation.

In reality, your argument is not convincing and orginates from a self-serving "one-upmanship" mentality

It's Fair Use. It's non-commercial for educational purposes.

Could have been...

[drunken_boxer777]

Steve Buscemi did an interview about a location shoot at a prison. He remarked that the warden even gave permission for some of the inmates to be extras. Steve said that the prisoners were all excited to meet him and they all told him that Con Air was there favorite movie, Garland Greene was their favorite character, and that Con Air was shown fairly often on movie night. He expressed his disbelief that they'd ever show that in a prison.