Another interesting angle is that most first-run films being distributed illegally are cam jobs shot from within the theater. It stands to reason that the actual file that said person distributes would be significantly altered from the original version (i.e. audience noise, the occasional head or shoulder entering the frame, etc.), and could then be deemed a derivative work. That said, the recorder would certainly be in violation of the copyrighted material that they filmed, but given that the recorder offered the material for free, they would be the only one responsible for the illegal distribution. Now certainly none of this would hold up in court, but I do think it is an interesting concept. If someone takes a camcorder to a movie theater and "shoots a documentary" of their theater experience, that is then unlawful distribution of a film. Hmm. If I were to download, say, a.torrent file stating that it was The Fantastic Four, I have no idea whether the torrent itself is even the real movie, or if it is someone's claymation rendition of the film, or their "moviegoing" documentary, or what? The bottom line is that the film industry is shooting themselves in the foot by charging exorbitantly high prices to go to the theater, not to mention the theater owners' charging $12 for popcorn and 5 bucks for a soda. They are encouraging rebellion. If you pay a couple of actors $6 million dollars each to be in your movie, then pay a fortune for special effects, marketing, etc., you are creating a product with an unreasonable expected ROI. They then tell the theater owners that they have to run the movie for two weeks in order to even get the reels, and they wonder why people are pissed. If you make a good movie and charge a reasonable price to see it, you'll make a lot of money. If you make a movie that may or may not be good, then expect to charge people a fortune to find out, you should expect people to find another way to see it. I'm certainly not advocating copyright infringement, but the movie studios and MPAA shouldn't be labeling people as criminals, and then playing the innocent victim.
Slashdot Mirror
Another interesting angle is that most first-run films being distributed illegally are cam jobs shot from within the theater. It stands to reason that the actual file that said person distributes would be significantly altered from the original version (i.e. audience noise, the occasional head or shoulder entering the frame, etc.), and could then be deemed a derivative work. That said, the recorder would certainly be in violation of the copyrighted material that they filmed, but given that the recorder offered the material for free, they would be the only one responsible for the illegal distribution. Now certainly none of this would hold up in court, but I do think it is an interesting concept. If someone takes a camcorder to a movie theater and "shoots a documentary" of their theater experience, that is then unlawful distribution of a film. Hmm. If I were to download, say, a .torrent file stating that it was The Fantastic Four, I have no idea whether the torrent itself is even the real movie, or if it is someone's claymation rendition of the film, or their "moviegoing" documentary, or what? The bottom line is that the film industry is shooting themselves in the foot by charging exorbitantly high prices to go to the theater, not to mention the theater owners' charging $12 for popcorn and 5 bucks for a soda. They are encouraging rebellion. If you pay a couple of actors $6 million dollars each to be in your movie, then pay a fortune for special effects, marketing, etc., you are creating a product with an unreasonable expected ROI. They then tell the theater owners that they have to run the movie for two weeks in order to even get the reels, and they wonder why people are pissed. If you make a good movie and charge a reasonable price to see it, you'll make a lot of money. If you make a movie that may or may not be good, then expect to charge people a fortune to find out, you should expect people to find another way to see it. I'm certainly not advocating copyright infringement, but the movie studios and MPAA shouldn't be labeling people as criminals, and then playing the innocent victim.