Second of it, it's just sad that people have been brainwashed by the copyright cartel's propaganda to such a degree that they believe it's justified to harass people because they might be recording a movie screen (Oh, no!).
(b) why is this privacy issue so overblown here as apposed to the more 'real and present dangers' that exist
Because this literally affects the fundamental liberties of hundreds of millions of people.
Somehow you have concluded from this that "laws have been undoubtedly broken
I don't think you understand. What some judges think or don't think is irrelevant to me; I have a mind of my own. Regardless of what they think, I know it's unconstitutional (goes against the principles and rules spelled out in the constitution).
Wrong. When you vote for "lesser of two evils", you're still voting for someone (in this case, more evil). When you vote for someone, it means you agree to them being your representative.
Your logic is bad. You said, "No, they do represent the American people." Obviously, if people are only voting for them because they're the lesser of two evils (which is idiots), they aren't truly representing them at all.
That they do a bad job representative is your fault for choosing poorly.
The question of who's at fault is different from the question of whether or not they're presenting the people. Don't confuse the two.
Oh yes you can. Why is it only between those two guys? Why not vote for a third guy?
I already do.
No, other way around. Whether or not those people are truly representing the American people is irrelevant.
It is not irrelevant. You said they're representing the American people, and I disputed that claim. How could it possibly be irrelevant?
People are and have been trying to change copyright law. Thanks to how easy it is to bribe our government, change will take a while.
In the mean time, I have every right to criticize our government for committing immoral acts, and I have every right to criticize the people who enable them to do so.
I see you are ignorant of the U.S. Constitution, specifically article 1, section 8, paragraph 8, where copyright and patent law is specifically assigned to the federal government.
Incorrect. While the constitution does say that the government *may* create copyright and patent laws, it does *not* say that copyright infringement mustn't be a civil matter.
I see you are a worthless, anti-government zealot.
Anyone who's not completely ignorant of history is quite anti-government. I am skeptical of almost everything the government does, and think carefully before allowing the government to do a damn thing. And for good reason.
On the other hand, being a government cheerleader is unjustifiable. Thank you for making our society worse, and the government--and by extension, the rich and powerful--stronger.
I see that you didn't bother to answer the question, who should enforce copyright law?
Ideally, it wouldn't exist. But if it does exist, then it would be a civil matter, at least.
What is it like have the mentality of a greed two year old?
Who's the one with the mentality of a greedy two year old? The one who respects private property and freedom of speech, or the one who thinks it's right that the government considered them entitled to government-enforced monopolies over ideas? Quite the entitlement complex you have!
He was questioned, somebody turned up to inspect his device and he was released. Big deal.
It's quite a big deal that greedy, immoral companies have bribed our government to enforce copyright for them. It's quite a big deal that someone was detained because there is a possibility that they were recording a movie.
Sorry but the Government has collected data on its citizens since the beginning of Government.
You know what they didn't do, though? They didn't collect exploitable metadata by monitoring just about everyone's communications; they couldn't. You're confusing ordinary data with private data.
I remain convinced that the legal case for NSA abuses is still in the distrust phase and yet to be migrated any further.
Time for you to sit down and read the constitution. People can be damaged by having their rights infringed. Physical damage is not the only kind of damage.
While you sit here and wait for the inevitable conclusion of the government actually taking action against their targets by using the data, rights organizations like the ACLU and EFF are actually doing something.
Simple history says that the chances of your privacy being compromised by corporate folly remains 1000:1 times as high.
My privacy *is* being compromised by the government. This is not up for debate, as we already know they're collecting a massive amount of data.
And "X is worse than Y" is a meaningless statement. Having your privacy violated by corporations is bad, just like having your privacy violated by the government is bad. Additionally, any information corporations hold will be surrendered to the government, so distinguishing between the two has become quite difficult.
The FBI investigates federal crimes. They were investigating a possible federal crime.
The FBI should never have been called, nor should any copyright infringement be a federal crime. Are your monopolies so precious that you have to get worthless government thugs to stop even the mere possibility of someone recording a movie?
Who do you think should be investigating federal crimes?
It shouldn't be a federal crime to begin with. Since it is, though, citizens should just ignore the law and never contact the FBI or police for something like this.
Movie theaters don't like it? Kick the guy out.
And, really, you wouldn't know an unjust law if it bit you on the ass.
If you honestly think that it is appropriate for the FBI to enforce copyright, then you're idiotic beyond belief.
which can cost the film industry millions of dollars in lost revenue
It is impossible to lose money you never had and was never yours. It is, however, possible to lose tangible property that belongs to you, and that's what happens in burglaries.
The fact that you repeat this propaganda makes me believe that you think government-enforced monopolies over ideas are even remotely just, and that simply isn't the case.
Perhaps you should learn to understand the difference between laws and morality, or the difference between someone questioning the status quo and someone not understanding what the status quo is.
I'm well aware of our unjust laws. The FBI should not be involved. That is a moral statement.
The cinema chain should've just kicked the guy out. Normal people not only need to fight unjust laws like this, but ignore them and make them unenforceable; that speeds up the process of change.
Because copyright law should be a civil matter. Or rather, it shouldn't exist at all, but at the very least, it should be a civil matter.
Commercial piracy, like recording movies for others, is a federal crime.
Looks like we might have ourselves a government stooge.
There is nothing pathetic about it.
You don't find anything pathetic about the FBI getting involved in a case where someone was (allegedly) recording a movie screen? Really? Your sense of priorities is warped beyond belief. I think even most people who support copyright law aren't standing with you here.
For many moves the property owners are conglomerates that hire studios not the movie theaters, they can't "kick the guy out".
It's up to the property owners to kick the guy out. Since it's private property, someone certainly can do it. Getting worthless government thugs involved is exactly the sort of thing that's wrong with this country.
This was made up by some crazy libertarian wanting to spread paranoia about the government.
If so, I wonder why anyone would bother? We already have the TSA, the NSA, stop-and-frisk, suspicious-less border searches, free speech zones, disgustingly draconian copyright laws, and a host of other nonsense, so what's the point? Our government is already plainly evil; no need to make up stories.
Why would police ever arrive? That's the part that really doesn't make sense. Just why are police wasting their time with copyright nonsense? Our laws are fucked.
Also, the piece of garbage known as Google Glass has multiple functions. It's not like a video camera.
He was using a video recording device (i.e. wearing it with the camera pointed at the screen) in a cinema.
What does this have to do with the FBI!? Are you idiots seriously saying the FBI should get involved with this trivial garbage? This is why copyright law needs to be scrapped.
It is their right to investigate. You asked for it by pointing a camera at the screen through a movie.
Yeah, this is almost as bad as running a lemonade stand without permission from the government. How horrible it is that someone might be recording a movie screen! Call the FBI!
It's absolutely pathetic if the FBI actually gets involved in cases like this. Oh, no... someone might be copying data or recording a movie screen! This looks like a job for the FBI! Certainly not a case where the property owners should just kick the guy out, no... the FBI!
Slashdot Mirror
You're parroting Fox News here.
Not just Fox News. I've heard this nonsensical propaganda on every channel, including Fox News.
Except that we do not live in a democracy, we live in a republic.
And they're supposed to be acting as our representatives, so if they're breaking the law, we still have the right to know.
Google Glass doesn't have to record anything.
Second of it, it's just sad that people have been brainwashed by the copyright cartel's propaganda to such a degree that they believe it's justified to harass people because they might be recording a movie screen (Oh, no!).
(b) why is this privacy issue so overblown here as apposed to the more 'real and present dangers' that exist
Because this literally affects the fundamental liberties of hundreds of millions of people.
Somehow you have concluded from this that "laws have been undoubtedly broken
I don't think you understand. What some judges think or don't think is irrelevant to me; I have a mind of my own. Regardless of what they think, I know it's unconstitutional (goes against the principles and rules spelled out in the constitution).
Last I checked, copyright was a federal law.
Last I checked, I never disputed that. I'm saying it's wrong and needs to change.
Wrong. When you vote for "lesser of two evils", you're still voting for someone (in this case, more evil). When you vote for someone, it means you agree to them being your representative.
Your logic is bad. You said, "No, they do represent the American people." Obviously, if people are only voting for them because they're the lesser of two evils (which is idiots), they aren't truly representing them at all.
That they do a bad job representative is your fault for choosing poorly.
The question of who's at fault is different from the question of whether or not they're presenting the people. Don't confuse the two.
Oh yes you can. Why is it only between those two guys? Why not vote for a third guy?
I already do.
No, other way around. Whether or not those people are truly representing the American people is irrelevant.
It is not irrelevant. You said they're representing the American people, and I disputed that claim. How could it possibly be irrelevant?
People are and have been trying to change copyright law. Thanks to how easy it is to bribe our government, change will take a while.
In the mean time, I have every right to criticize our government for committing immoral acts, and I have every right to criticize the people who enable them to do so.
I see you are ignorant of the U.S. Constitution, specifically article 1, section 8, paragraph 8, where copyright and patent law is specifically assigned to the federal government.
Incorrect. While the constitution does say that the government *may* create copyright and patent laws, it does *not* say that copyright infringement mustn't be a civil matter.
I see you are a worthless, anti-government zealot.
Anyone who's not completely ignorant of history is quite anti-government. I am skeptical of almost everything the government does, and think carefully before allowing the government to do a damn thing. And for good reason.
On the other hand, being a government cheerleader is unjustifiable. Thank you for making our society worse, and the government--and by extension, the rich and powerful--stronger.
I see that you didn't bother to answer the question, who should enforce copyright law?
Ideally, it wouldn't exist. But if it does exist, then it would be a civil matter, at least.
What is it like have the mentality of a greed two year old?
Who's the one with the mentality of a greedy two year old? The one who respects private property and freedom of speech, or the one who thinks it's right that the government considered them entitled to government-enforced monopolies over ideas? Quite the entitlement complex you have!
He was questioned, somebody turned up to inspect his device and he was released. Big deal.
It's quite a big deal that greedy, immoral companies have bribed our government to enforce copyright for them. It's quite a big deal that someone was detained because there is a possibility that they were recording a movie.
Sorry but the Government has collected data on its citizens since the beginning of Government.
You know what they didn't do, though? They didn't collect exploitable metadata by monitoring just about everyone's communications; they couldn't. You're confusing ordinary data with private data.
I remain convinced that the legal case for NSA abuses is still in the distrust phase and yet to be migrated any further.
Time for you to sit down and read the constitution. People can be damaged by having their rights infringed. Physical damage is not the only kind of damage.
While you sit here and wait for the inevitable conclusion of the government actually taking action against their targets by using the data, rights organizations like the ACLU and EFF are actually doing something.
Simple history says that the chances of your privacy being compromised by corporate folly remains 1000:1 times as high.
My privacy *is* being compromised by the government. This is not up for debate, as we already know they're collecting a massive amount of data.
And "X is worse than Y" is a meaningless statement. Having your privacy violated by corporations is bad, just like having your privacy violated by the government is bad. Additionally, any information corporations hold will be surrendered to the government, so distinguishing between the two has become quite difficult.
I'm saying that no one should've called the FBI to begin with.
The FBI investigates federal crimes. They were investigating a possible federal crime.
The FBI should never have been called, nor should any copyright infringement be a federal crime. Are your monopolies so precious that you have to get worthless government thugs to stop even the mere possibility of someone recording a movie?
Who do you think should be investigating federal crimes?
It shouldn't be a federal crime to begin with. Since it is, though, citizens should just ignore the law and never contact the FBI or police for something like this.
Movie theaters don't like it? Kick the guy out.
And, really, you wouldn't know an unjust law if it bit you on the ass.
If you honestly think that it is appropriate for the FBI to enforce copyright, then you're idiotic beyond belief.
Google Glass has multiple functions, and they had no proof he was recording anything. This whole situation is ridiculous.
which can cost the film industry millions of dollars in lost revenue
It is impossible to lose money you never had and was never yours. It is, however, possible to lose tangible property that belongs to you, and that's what happens in burglaries.
The fact that you repeat this propaganda makes me believe that you think government-enforced monopolies over ideas are even remotely just, and that simply isn't the case.
Perhaps you should learn to understand the difference between laws and morality, or the difference between someone questioning the status quo and someone not understanding what the status quo is.
I'm well aware of our unjust laws. The FBI should not be involved. That is a moral statement.
The cinema chain should've just kicked the guy out. Normal people not only need to fight unjust laws like this, but ignore them and make them unenforceable; that speeds up the process of change.
That's not the FBI's job.
It's the job of citizens to ignore and challenge these laws. To start with, the FBI should never have been called.
The "it" private property isn't owned by the owners of the movie.
That is irrelevant. If the owners of the movie theater don't like cameras in there at all, they can kick him out.
This is the "outrageous assault on our freedoms?"
Yes. The FBI should not be getting involved in copyright cases. Furthermore, if they didn't like it, they should have just kicked him out.
GET THE F@CK OVER YOURSELVES, Google Glass users.
Don't assume that everyone who disagrees with your nonsense is a Google Glass user.
How is it pathetic.
Because copyright law should be a civil matter. Or rather, it shouldn't exist at all, but at the very least, it should be a civil matter.
Commercial piracy, like recording movies for others, is a federal crime.
Looks like we might have ourselves a government stooge.
There is nothing pathetic about it.
You don't find anything pathetic about the FBI getting involved in a case where someone was (allegedly) recording a movie screen? Really? Your sense of priorities is warped beyond belief. I think even most people who support copyright law aren't standing with you here.
For many moves the property owners are conglomerates that hire studios not the movie theaters, they can't "kick the guy out".
It's up to the property owners to kick the guy out. Since it's private property, someone certainly can do it. Getting worthless government thugs involved is exactly the sort of thing that's wrong with this country.
Yes, it IS absurd, but it is the law.
Which absolutely everyone should ignore and oppose.
This was made up by some crazy libertarian wanting to spread paranoia about the government.
If so, I wonder why anyone would bother? We already have the TSA, the NSA, stop-and-frisk, suspicious-less border searches, free speech zones, disgustingly draconian copyright laws, and a host of other nonsense, so what's the point? Our government is already plainly evil; no need to make up stories.
Why would police ever arrive? That's the part that really doesn't make sense. Just why are police wasting their time with copyright nonsense? Our laws are fucked.
Also, the piece of garbage known as Google Glass has multiple functions. It's not like a video camera.
He was using a video recording device (i.e. wearing it with the camera pointed at the screen) in a cinema.
What does this have to do with the FBI!? Are you idiots seriously saying the FBI should get involved with this trivial garbage? This is why copyright law needs to be scrapped.
If they don't like it, kick him out.
It is their right to investigate. You asked for it by pointing a camera at the screen through a movie.
Yeah, this is almost as bad as running a lemonade stand without permission from the government. How horrible it is that someone might be recording a movie screen! Call the FBI!
It's absolutely pathetic if the FBI actually gets involved in cases like this. Oh, no... someone might be copying data or recording a movie screen! This looks like a job for the FBI! Certainly not a case where the property owners should just kick the guy out, no... the FBI!