Ohio Also Passes Law Against Recording In Cinema 379
madmancarman writes "Following California's lead, Ohio has also passed a law making recording in a movie theatre a crime. A first offense would be punishable by six months in jail and up to $1,000 fine, which is lighter than the legislation introduced in Michigan that would bring up to 5 years in jail and a $250,000 fine. The most interesting quote concerns a study by AT&T Labs: 'Their conclusion: 77 percent of the films came from insider sources, either motion picture companies or theater employees taping from the projection booth.' I searched Ohio Gov. Bob Taft's press releases, but couldn't find any mention of it."
This is news? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Waste of taxpayer resources (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good job (Score:3, Interesting)
If people tape the movie and then remove the tape from the camera, replacing it with an unused blank, whoever does inspect the camera isn't going to find anything, anyway.
I have a feeling they'll just decide "inspection" is too time-intensive and costs the theater more in paying staff to do it, so they'll just "call the cops" on anyone seen seated in the theater with a camcorder next to them.
Re:useless Ohio legislators (Score:2, Interesting)
constituency was served by this recent regulation? Did voters
clamor for a stop to the making of bootleg recordings in theatres?
Bravo to the politicians for timely and effective response to the
the needs of those who elected them.
Well this affects you how? (Score:4, Interesting)
I mean it's not like they made it illegal to go watch a movie and tell your friends the plot and ending (though in some cases I almost wish that were illegal!).
Though I wish they'd waste their time more productively but how is illegalizing (is that even a word) something most anyone with a brain would already realize was not something you'd want to do anyway all that big of a deal?
damn (Score:4, Interesting)
Using an elephant gun to swat a mosquito (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Righty-o (Score:3, Interesting)
Watermarks... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Waste of taxpayer resources (Score:3, Interesting)
It's also private property in a store, yet it is still illegal to shoplift.
Not if you have permission of the store owner.
Getting thrown out of a movie theatre is not the kind of consequence that will stop people from doing something. Hell, it won;t even keep people quiet during a movie.
So would you support a law against talking during a movie?
Going "under the radar" to state governments (Score:4, Interesting)
While in principal I agree that filming of these movies should not be allowed. I find it disturbing how easily lobbying groups can get their pet projects pushed through state legislatures.
Re:Jail??? (Score:3, Interesting)
We are actually paying to see 20+ minutes of advertisements, and this astounds me. I went to see LOTR a while back and as if a 3 hour film isn't long enough, I sat through 20 minutes of advertising at the start of it - that I paid 27 NZD to see! Sure, I'll obviously not buy anything from the advertisers, but is the public really so pacified that they accept this crap? Have we come to accept this visual and informational pollution everywhere? Viva la revolutione.
Misguided priorities (Score:2, Interesting)
Stopping flea market sales (Score:3, Interesting)
At another local flea market (one of the largest in the country) there are as many as 50 tables that have pirated movies.
These sales should be stopped at a flea market management level or the OWNER of that market should be fined.
Hilarity ensues (Score:3, Interesting)
Patently Offtopic Comment: Now for the really important stuff, Gov. Taft... former Gov. Voinovich left us a 'rainy day fund', i.e. a budget surplus that was to be kept in case of economic downturns. Where is it now?
Re:Well this affects you how? (Score:2, Interesting)
Here are a couple examples:
I would think by now that it would be considered perfectly normal for weblogs and the like to include pictures of friends in situations like that!
If the theatre owner sees that
and gives you a couple dozen free passes so as to get you back more often, would you think that he'd be likely to want to confiscate the cameras, cell-phones, camcorders, laptops, etc, of the group and make them want to leave?
Do you think he'd be likely to be in favor of laws that not only require he confiscate such items, but also require that he have these customers arrested?
I'm thinking the answer to both questions is "no".
Not being able to record such social outings would make them comparatively boring.
Fortunately, it's legal in my state to go to the theatre with a bunch of friends and have everyone enjoy the experience. It's too bad for the residents of California and Ohio that they're legally restrained from having as much fun.
At the beginning of the show, a few people representing the group get up and talk about the film, random historical tidbits related to it, etc., the story about how they heard about it and were able to "get in line" to have the film and rights to show it for a few days, and so forth, plus a bit of a status update on films they're trying to get.
During the yearly film festivals, producers, directors, actors, and others involved in the making of the films are often there as well. (Realize these are not-very-well-known independents, and for most of them it's still a novelty for them to talk about their work in front of an interested audience.)
Anyway, they're brought up on stage before and after the films, relating their viewpoint on things, answering questions, and basically doing a live and not-during-the-film version of a dvd's "directors soundtrack."
Naturally, multiple people take pictures and record all this, (including and especially the folks involved in making the films--or at least they'll ask for copies later.)
It can be a great social event, very interactive, and fun for everyone.
But if you can't legally record any of it, then it won't be as much fun: The film society can't have pictures of their events in their newsletter or website, the people involved in the making of the films won't have hardcopy records of their memories, and the general mood of the event will be diminished given the shortsighted legal restrictions.
Fortunately I live in a state that has not passed such a law. If a director of a small film is invited to a film festival in my state, and he has to decide between going to this film festival versus a similar event in California or Ohio, the fact that we don't legally limit him having fun like that means he's more likely to come to our event. Woohoo!
I think it's quite magnanimous of the residents of California and Ohio to have their elected representitives limit their theatre experiences so that I might enjoy mine all the more--all without me having to vote for these representatives or contribute a dime to their compaigns!
OT reference to security clearances (Score:3, Interesting)
I've known more than one SCI (Secret Compartmented Intelligence) holder who had done all kinds of crazy shit before they started working for The Man. But none of these people gave a damn.
FBI Questioner: "Did you fuck that chihuahua in Mexico City back in 1988, as your ex pain mistress asserts?"
Would Be Secret Agent: "Yep, I sure did, and damn that was fun."
FBI Quesitioner: "OK, you're good to go. Obviously you can't be blackmailed."
I also know someone who was refused a Top Secret, and it really screwed up his career. They don't even tell you why they reject you. They just give you the axe. Then everyone you work with thinks that there must be something really screwed up about you, so even keeping your existing job becomes an up hill battle.
Maybe the fact that he still lived with his mom had something to do with it.
Re:Well this affects you how? (Score:2, Interesting)
You quote the article's description of one power supposedly granted to theaters with this Ohio law when the theater suspects people of videotaping movies, point out how taking pictures of friends is hardly videotaping a movie, then conclude that this doesn't affect anyone. Here are some mismatches in your logic:
In any even, having to go through police checkpoints on entering a movie is definitely something that would affect people.
I'm guessing the camcorder would pick up the IR illumination the night-vision goggles use, and the news station could show "how your ticket money at thus-and-such theatre goes to pay for the guards to spy on you and your date watching a movie," and how the station is of course only doing the same thing themselves to expose the whole thing. (Who guards the guards, as it were.)