Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies Media Government The Courts News

Projectionists Using Night Vision Goggles in Theaters 1080

Posted by michael
from the sneak-and-peek dept.
sam0ht writes "Los Angeles police arrested Ruben Centero Moreno, 34, after the projectionist used night vision goggles to spot his video camera in a showing of The Alamo. He has been charged under the new California anti-camcorder law, and could face up to 1 year in jail if convicted. The BBC reports that 'The MPAA has established a nationwide telephone hotline for cinema employees to report violations, and studios and cinemas are also investing in metal detectors and night-vision goggles'. Motion Picture Ass. Head Jack Valenti said he hoped it would 'send a clear signal such crimes will not be tolerated'. Clearly, the 'War on Copyright Violation' is following the successful strategy used for the War on Drugs, with significant resources of technology and police time mobilised to send violators to jail for a long time. Soon, copied films will be as rare as students lighting up a joint after their exams." The lesson is clear: stay out of movie theaters and you won't get arrested.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Projectionists Using Night Vision Goggles in Theaters

Comments Filter:
  • Beautiful. (Score:5, Funny)

    by American AC in Paris (230456) * on Thursday April 15, 2004 @10:43AM (#8868928) Homepage
    From this day forward, I shall refer to Jack Valenti as "Motion Picture Ass Head". Thank you, sam0ht.
    • by sfled (231432) <sfled.yahoo@com> on Thursday April 15, 2004 @10:46AM (#8868988) Journal
      The position itself will be "Motion Picture Ass." head. The Ass.'s current head is Mr. Valenti. Or current head of the Ass., if you prefer.
    • by zoward (188110) * <email.me.at.zoward.at.gmail.com> on Thursday April 15, 2004 @10:48AM (#8869016) Homepage
      LOL - It reminds me of one of my favorite Dilbert cartoons, in which the Pointy Haired Boss tells his secretary that his title is "Director Of Product Enhancements", and to stop referring to him using the acronym... ...to which she replies, "I didn't know you were Director Of Product Enhancements".
      • Hmm...a question (Score:5, Insightful)

        by bonch (38532) on Thursday April 15, 2004 @11:27AM (#8869679)
        What exactly is wrong with the MPAA not wanting people to film movies? That is, after all, a crime and is also immoral to a degree. Slashdotters have yet to legally or morally justify pirating movies.

        Is it okay to pirate games and software? You know, stuff that programmers made? Can I pirate the fuck out of Doom 3 when it comes out? OH, THAT'S RIGHT--the subject of software piracy is never mentioned because Slashdot is made up of a lot of programmers and developers. Since software piracy would affect them, it's bad, right? They'll stick up for their hero John Carmack and tell you to buy the game when it comes out.

        And why all the sudden is there an equation to the War on Drugs? It's completely irrelevant. Does that mean that Slashdot editors also believe drugs should be legalized?

        This article fits all the attributes required for being propaganda. Even the juvenile "Ass. Head" remark, which does nothing to intellectualize your argument.

        Try all you want, but making a desperate connection to the War on Drugs, calling him an Ass. Head, and pretending it's some sort of bad thing that they used night vision goggles to spot a camera (the pirates are using high-tech gadgets, so what is wrong with the theater doing the same damn thing? I don't expect any answer to this...) in order to arrest him for doing something illegal, is not going to change the fact that you're wrong if you think movie piracy is okay and that everyone should just "accept" it. I'm sure people will bring out the tired old "the MPAA needs to find a 'new business model'", which is something Slashdotters love to say. Except that these business majors never mention what the new model is supposed to be other than giving away shit for free. Yeah--that'll work.
        • by maddskillz (207500) on Thursday April 15, 2004 @11:33AM (#8869770)
          I agree with you, that's it's not justified. But the Ass. Head thing was still pretty funny.
        • by rjelks (635588) on Thursday April 15, 2004 @11:42AM (#8869914) Homepage
          I'm more concerned about them busting people for "outside food." I mean really, I could get a steak dinner for the price of their popcorn and a drink!
          • Re:Hmm...a question (Score:4, Interesting)

            by bishiraver (707931) on Thursday April 15, 2004 @12:53PM (#8871112) Homepage
            Agreed. Hell, I work at a theater and I agree.

            My managers don't agree and bust my ass when they find out I've let someone in with a bag from Bear Rock Cafe or Wendy's in. I tell 'em, "Hey, do we sell deli quality sandwiches, or spicy chicken sandwiches and chili?"

            I figure we have two options: make them eat it outside the theater, or let them eat it inside the theater.

            Upside to the first one is that if they want something in the theater, they've got to buy it there. Downside is, they're likely pissed off and won't buy anything anyways. In fact, they're likely to not even come back to the same theater.

            If we let 'em eat it inside, upside is they might want some popcorn to supplument it, or some candy or something. Upside is, they won't get upset. Upside is, we get a repeat customer. Downside is we have to clean up their shit if they leave it behind.
          • Missing the point (Score:4, Insightful)

            by theantix (466036) on Thursday April 15, 2004 @03:48PM (#8873616) Journal
            I'm more concerned about them busting people for "outside food." I mean really, I could get a steak dinner for the price of their popcorn and a drink!

            As everyone and their dog knows, the theatres make most of their money on food and drink sales. Many people take this as a sign they should whinge and complain about the greedy theatre companies, but that's missing the point. The point is, the cost of the ticket is actually a good deal because by charging exhorbatent prices for popcorn they can get money from people with more disposable income while still allowing people with less disposable income to see the movie.

            See the point now? If you don't like wasting money you win, because you are paying less than you would if similar profit margins were applied to the ticket prices and the concessions. If you don't mind paying $5 for popcorn, you can and the theatre stays in business as a result. The only loss to regular folk is that they don't get cheap food while they watch an underpriced ticket -- I say tough beans because you're getting a pretty good deal as it is.
        • by Mr. Slippery (47854) <.ten.suomafni. .ta. .smt.> on Thursday April 15, 2004 @11:52AM (#8870063) Homepage
          Is it okay to pirate games and software?

          Please don't use the same word to refer to robbery and murder on the high seas, and copyright violation. It's not just inaccurate, it's stupid.

          And why all the sudden is there an equation to the War on Drugs? It's completely irrelevant. Does that mean that Slashdot editors also believe drugs should be legalized?

          Don't know about editors, but anyone with a lick of sense can see that after three decades, the War on (Some) Drugs is a failure in every way. Hard drugs are readily available in any urban area, our prisons are overflowing, our society several times more violent, and our liberties eroding.

          The comparison to the current push for a War on Copying is that both unauthorized copying and drug use are widespread non-violent activities. They are both impossible to stop, but both Wars require gross invasions of privacy and civil liberties to continue their futile attempts at enforcement.

          Except that these business majors never mention what the new model is supposed to be other than giving away shit for free.

          I've been suggesting for years that a model similar to that of songwriter royalites should be applied - copying is free (just like singing a song), profit-making use rquires royalties. Other models have been proposed [google.com], you apparently just haven't been paying attention.

        • by Abjifyicious (696433) on Thursday April 15, 2004 @11:56AM (#8870122)
          Is it okay to pirate games and software? You know, stuff that programmers made? Can I pirate the fuck out of Doom 3 when it comes out? OH, THAT'S RIGHT--the subject of software piracy is never mentioned because Slashdot is made up of a lot of programmers and developers. Since software piracy would affect them, it's bad, right?

          I think that if Microsoft started putting people in jail for pirating Windows, Slashdotters would be just as angry at them as they are at the MPAA right now.

          All in all, I think what makes poeple angry is that the punishment is way out of proportion to the crime that was commited. That's why it was compared to the War on Drugs.

        • by tenasius (707404) <tenasiusNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Thursday April 15, 2004 @11:59AM (#8870162)
          > Does that mean that Slashdot editors also believe drugs should be legalized?
          WHAT!! We don't believe... wait... woaahhh! My hand looks like a care bear. What was the question again?
        • by j-turkey (187775) on Thursday April 15, 2004 @12:01PM (#8870197) Homepage
          What exactly is wrong with the MPAA not wanting people to film movies? That is, after all, a crime and is also immoral to a degree. Slashdotters have yet to legally or morally justify pirating movies.

          There is nothing wrong with the MPAA not wanting people to film movies. However, I believe that there is something wrong with a lobbying group like the MPAA taking an existing law and tacking on additional penalties because the crime involves a computer (and worse, our congress approving such a measure). It's just wrong. Were the penalties not sufficient before? What really makes the crime any different now to justify such a steep penalty? Does one get a year in prison for stealing the film reel -- what about shoplifting a DVD from Blockbuster? I doubt it -- those sound more like misdemeanor petty larceny than a year-in-jail-felony-type-crime. Do you see where the discrepancy is now?

          As far as the war on drugs message goes -- I agree with you, it was totally out of left field. However, I didn't detect any sarcasm in the posting and don't agree with your analysis. I couldn't believe that I saw the word "success" appearing in a sentence with "war on drugs" without some kind of counterindicating word. Whoever wrote that musta been pretty high on something...I fail to see how the war on drugs has succeeded in any of its stated objectives.

        • Re:Hmm...a question (Score:5, Informative)

          by Dirtside (91468) on Thursday April 15, 2004 @12:10PM (#8870351) Journal
          Because as it stands, you will spend more time in jail for bringing a camcorder into a movie theater than you would for physically assaulting an usher. Plus, the MPAA keeps trying to get legislation to cripple home electronic equipment in an incredibly futile attempt to do something about piracy.

          The first thing tells everyone that a giant company's financial interests are more important than the physical safety of an individual. The second thing tells those of us who DON'T pirate movies that we have to suffer because the MPAA doesn't have a clue how to deal with the problem sanely. Crippling my computer is NOT going to prevent people from downloading movies in any way. Cap Codes prevent me from enjoying a movie I *paid* to see. *That's* what pisses me off.

          If the law says X, and a company uses X to their advantage, it's hard to fault them... unless the law is unjust, stupid, ineffective, or otherwise bad. Nobody with half a clue thinks that the movie industry should just give up and let everyone pirate their movies. But copyright should be handled in the civil court system, not the criminal system. The fact that the MPAA is in the legal right doesn't excuse the parts of their behavior that are doing everyone harm and nobody good (hell, they're hurting themselves by acting like this!).

          Oh, and good work lumping all Slashdotters into a single mold by pretending we all like to claim that "the MPAA needs to find a 'new business model'" as if that were the answer to the problem. That's a real, real valid way to argue.
    • Google bomb (Score:5, Funny)

      by xant (99438) on Thursday April 15, 2004 @11:17AM (#8869518) Homepage
      I thought he was trying to create a google bomb. In fact, it's such a good idea, that I think I'll help him. Jack Valenti is a Motion Picture Ass Head [mpaa.org].
  • So? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Oculus Habent (562837) * <.moc.liamg. .ta. .tnebah.suluco.> on Thursday April 15, 2004 @10:44AM (#8868942) Journal
    To put it simply: Good

    Taking a camcorder into a theater is breaking the law. If they can spot people with night vision goggles, that's great. They shouldn't be doing it.

    Completely setting the MPAA aside, this is blatant copyright violation. It's clearly prohibited, and no one can reasonably feign ignorance on this. How many people reasonably take the camcorder for purely personal viewing with no intent to distribute the copy?

    If it's for personal viewing, they can wait, spent $4 more, buy the DVD, and be legal.
    • Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by drmike0099 (625308) on Thursday April 15, 2004 @10:49AM (#8869050)
      Amen, you beat me to posting this. If anything, this is exactly what we want the MPAA to be spending its time and resources combating, not running around trying to get laws passed that prohibit legitimate fair use. These are the people that cost them actual money, and if they could shut them down, they would no longer be able to show that piracy is causing them so much damage that they need ridiculous legal protections that screw over people like you and me. Thank god they're doing this.
    • Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mahdi13 (660205) <icarus.lnx@gmail.com> on Thursday April 15, 2004 @10:50AM (#8869058) Journal
      I agree, why are people getting upset about someone going to jail for breaking the law?
      sam0ht seems to be a bit irate over this for some reason...if you are going to break a law, don't bitch when you get busted!
      If you drive your car over the speed limit and get a ticket, it's not the cops fault.
      If you do drugs and your parents catch you, it's not their fault
      If you have sex in a public place and you get arrested for indecency, it's not the police's fault.

      "If you do the crime, you better be prepared to do the time"
      • Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Your_Mom (94238)
        BEGIN_TROLL
        Exactly, just like if you're going to bypass CSS encryption, it's not the DVD company's fault.
        END_TROLL

        There are lots of ways to look at breaking the law, you can break laws as an act of civil disobedience, although I can almost guarentee this is not the case for this story.
        • Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Kenja (541830) on Thursday April 15, 2004 @11:10AM (#8869422)
          Civil disobedience requires you to EXPECT and ACEPT the consequences of your actions in the hope that your persecution will enlighten others as to the injustice of the law you're breaking. It is NOT being surprised and pissed off when you get caught. That is just being a petty criminal.
      • Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by pete-classic (75983) <hutnick@gmail.com> on Thursday April 15, 2004 @10:58AM (#8869207) Homepage Journal
        I agree that camming is pretty hard to defend.

        On the other hand The Law is not something handed down from God.

        Ideally, it is a public agreement to restrict ourselves in certain ways for common benefit. In practice it more often degrades into power-hungry groups imposing their will on their fellow man.

        Consider respecting your fellow man instead of respecting the law.

        -Peter
      • Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by thomasa (17495)
        Personally, I think you misunderstand. The point he is trying to make is that this will have little impact on the bootlegging of movies. Just as the drug laws are just employment laws for the police and have little impact on actual drug consumption.

        At least that is my opinion.
      • Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by cgranade (702534) <cgranade.gmail@com> on Thursday April 15, 2004 @11:01AM (#8869265) Homepage Journal

        As I've said before, here as well as other places, then why isn't Ken Lay in jail? One year for a few hundred bucks that aren't even stolen directly? In the examples you gave, there are many points that you haven't addressed:

        • You probably aren't going to go to jail over a speeding ticket, nor Ford is likely to give you the speeding ticket.
        • It isn't universally agreed that one should go to jail over drug crimes... far from it. This is a very recent idea in law enforcement. For many, many years, there were no such laws. Besides, if you're parents catch you, then that can very easily be handled inside the family without causing the taxpayer expense of keeping someone in prison who isn't that dangerous!
        • Define public place. Certainally, there are times and places where this would be inappropiate, but would you also be opposed to a couple (married, even!) having sex, at night, on a beach when no one else was there? Or during a camping trip? A national park might be considered a "public place." So, really, have we even established that the hypothetical couple has commited a moral offense?

        Laws are not always right, nor are the associated punishments. Just because something is a "crime," doesn't mean that you need to go to jail for it. I hope I never see the day that people go to jail over speeding tickets.

        • Re:So? (Score:5, Informative)

          by deanj (519759) on Thursday April 15, 2004 @11:09AM (#8869406)
          Ken Lay? Well, if you're going after all the corporate fraud that occurred during the 1990's an created the "great economy" that all turned out to be built on lies after it fell to pieces starting in March 2000, you better damn well have your ducks in a row before trying to nail the guy. Here's an article about just that [fool.com].

          Personally, I hope they take their time and nail this guy to the wall.

      • Re:So? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by timeOday (582209)
        I agree, unless he actually gets a year in jail. Good grief, I'm not interested in paying $100,000 of taxpayer money to put somebody through the system and incarcerate them for a year for that. How about a $1000 fine instead.

        I never have and never will film a movie with a camcorder. I do sneak in food and drinks all the time though. I sure hope I can't get a year in jail for that.

        That aside, I don't think I would care to attend the movies if an usher was going to stand next to me the whole time and

      • Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by rzbx (236929) <slashdot.rzbx@org> on Thursday April 15, 2004 @11:06AM (#8869346) Homepage
        If you share your future electronic book with a friend and he doesn't pay the book licensing fee and your both in jail for 10 years, don't blame the publishers, it is obviously your fault. That has to be some ridiculous reasonining you have there. Who was upset when MLK went to jail? Why not? If the law is unjust, then of course we should be upset. You may be a boy scout now, but 10-20 years from now even you will be finding yourself breaking laws that you had no idea existed before. The problem with this law is that it is a pointless extension of a law that already exists. Consistantly increasing penalties for such small crimes while we still have bigger problems to solve. People that murder, steal, rape, molest, etc. are being penalized less than someon who uses a drug, shares a song, or bypasses the encryption on their DVD to play a movie they bought. Do you see the problem here? Did you know that child molesters have a better chance of being released from prison earlier than those with drug offenses? What do you know? Why should business interests worry about child molesters, it doesn't cost them any money (directly at least). It makes me even more sad that there those that moderate your post insightful. It has little insight, simply a bunch of remarks to defend the established law system that needs rewriting, NOT EXTENDING. How about the next law we put in place is 10 year minimum sentence to anyone caught downloading an mp3? Sound fair?
        • Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by DavidBrown (177261) on Thursday April 15, 2004 @11:47AM (#8869989) Journal
          Bad cases make bad law. Sure, it's overkill to send someone to jail for sharing an mp3. But this isn't the case here. This guy was videotaping a film, in the freakin' movie theater. This isn't fair use under any stretch of the imagination. It's illegal, plain and simple, and the guy ought to be prosecuted and sent up the river. But he's not going to be prosecuted for a felony. He's going to be prosecuted for a misdemeanor, which carries a one-year max sentence. And even if he gets sentenced to one year, he'll be out in six months if he stays out of trouble in the county lockup. This is not a cruel or unusual punishment. It is not a ten-year sentence, so please stop with your Parade of Horribles already.

          It's also not a small crime - what this guy was probably going to do was to take his video tape and turn it into a DVD and sell it to others. When Elf came out last year, Actor/Director Jon Favreau was a guest co-host on Jimmy Kimmel live. During a street-interview segment, a woman talked about buying DVD's and displayed her copy of Elf, which had been in the theaters for less than a week. This happens all of the time. Just do a search for bit.torrents and you'll find movies that haven't been released yet up for grabs. If you think that what this guy was doing wasn't a crime, you've got to be kidding. The law was passed for the simple reason that prosecutors had no way of convicting criminals like this guy of anything unless they actually caught him selling his ill-gotten goods. And please don't compare him to Martin Luther King, Jr. This isn't a civil rights case. He ain't Rosa Parks standing up for herself refusing to obey a discriminatory and unconstitutional law. He's a jerk out trying to make a few bucks at the expense of others.

          Also, you're completely wrong when you say that people who murder, steal, rape, molest, etc. are being penalized less than someone who uses a drug, shares a song, or bypasses DVD encryption. That's an exaggeration intended to buttress the fantasy that this guy isn't doing anything wrong, or if he is, there's no victim and it's "fair use" anyway.

          In reality, most people who get caught for drug possession charges (unless it's with intent to distribute) get into diversion programs on a first offense. Hell, in California, the penalty for ordinary possession of marijuana is a $50 fine. And penalties for serious crimes are very severe. Ever hear of 3-strikes? Yes, the drug war is stupid and drug laws should be revised, but that has nothing to do with this man's crime.

      • Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by infinite9 (319274) on Thursday April 15, 2004 @11:09AM (#8869407)
        I think the problem is that copyrights are supposed to be a civil issue. If what you're doing is a copyright violation, they should be able to sue you. But inacting a criminal law for this smacks of corporate america controling the legal system. Also, the punishments for these sorts of things are usually way too harsh. For example, what would you have to do with your car to get a year in jail on the first offense? DUI? No. Manslaughter? That would probably do it. What about drugs... go to jail for a year on the first offense for possesion? I don't think so. But all you have to do is enter a movie theater with a camcorder and you're busted. It may be wrong to record movies, but this law is certainly unjust.
      • Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by theLOUDroom (556455) on Thursday April 15, 2004 @11:27AM (#8869697)
        I agree, why are people getting upset about someone going to jail for breaking the law? sam0ht seems to be a bit irate over this for some reason...if you are going to break a law, don't bitch when you get busted!

        IN A DEMOCRACY YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO EVALUATE THE A LAW AND ITS RESULTING PUNISHMENTS.

        If you speed, you might get a ticked, but that doesn't mean that putting a 55 MPH speed limit and a road that was designed to the a 65 isn't anything but an excuse to rip people off.
        Also, you want the punishment to fit the crime.
        Are you aware that our prisons are bursting at the seams with non-violent drug offenders? So much so that violent criminals are being paroled sooner than usual?

        "If you do the crime, you better be prepared to do the time"

        Does that include MLK and Ghandi?

        I'm not saying that this guy is Ghandi. I'm saying that your "The law's the law" attitude is absolutely stupid and counterproductive in a society where the law is CHANGEABLE and the citizenry expected to participate in this process of changing it.

        When someone get's arrested and goes to jail it should be ok because that law makes sense to you and the punishment fits, not because "The law's the law".

        With your attitude, we'd still be trading slaves, women couldn't vote, etc.
      • Re:So? (Score:5, Funny)

        by ayjay29 (144994) on Thursday April 15, 2004 @11:28AM (#8869701)
        >>If you have sex in a public place and you get arrested for indecency

        The projectionist with the night vision goggles usually keeps pretty quiet about that one.

      • by HangingChad (677530) on Thursday April 15, 2004 @12:44PM (#8870945) Homepage
        Actually, there are a lot of problems with that dogmatic, simple-minded mentality, but I'll try to keep it easy and just focus one obvious point: With the increasing burden of regulation there are more and more rules to break. Between Congress, state legislatures, county and cities we're being taxed and regulated to death and having more of our behavior legally restricted. Which tends to be more of a burden on people who care about obeying the laws than those who don't.

        I think the real question is should we be spending legal and criminal resources on people taking camcorders into a theater? The same with burdening the legal system with two consenting adults having sex in the car? Unless the car happens to be parked on a grade school playground during recess, I'd say no to both of those.

        Personally, I'd rather see police and legal resources being directed against the big problems like violent crime, identity theft, burglary and terrorism, not busting kids with camcorders at the movies. There are civil courts for that and in most cases simply confiscating their equipment would be punishment enough.

        But I'm really glad life is so simple in your world, where you apparently have an infinite amount of resources to put people in jail and manage the criminal justice system. Because in mine we're going broke putting people in jail for stupid shit like this and our honest citizens are laboring under an increasing weight of legislation directed at nit-picky bullshit.

        I'm not sure which is more frightening: Your attiude, or the +5 insightful mod it got?

    • Re:So? (Score:5, Informative)

      by idesofmarch (730937) on Thursday April 15, 2004 @10:50AM (#8869059)
      It does not matter if the recording is for personal viewing or for distribution. You still do not have a license to record the movie. Your ticket gives your the right to watch the movie once in that theater at that time, and that is all.
      • Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Just Some Guy (3352) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Thursday April 15, 2004 @11:53AM (#8870082) Homepage Journal
        Your ticket gives your the right to watch the movie once in that theater at that time, and that is all.

        No. No. No. No. I'm sick of these "implied contracts" that we've all supposedly agreed to without having seen. While I understand and agree with the idea that you shouldn't be recording the move, I didn't agree to a license of any type when I bought my ticket. I paid for the privilege of being allowed to occupy a given room at a given time. I may bring a book, stare at cute girls, or take a nap. If the theater is otherwise empty, I can even play "MST3K" with my friends and yell at the screen.

        I'm tired of this "but your license says..." crap. I have yet to sign a contract regarding my rights to use a ticket, or DVD, or piece of software that I've purchased. Give me a piece of paper with clear terms and a signature line, and I'll be willing to admit that I have a business relationship with the entity I'm buying a product from. Until then, forget it.

    • Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by RT Alec (608475) * <alec@slashd[ ]chuckle.com ['ot.' in gap]> on Thursday April 15, 2004 @10:51AM (#8869084) Homepage Journal

      I agree. This is not the battle to fight, it is a clear cut case of breaking the law. If this is where the MPAA wants to direct their resources, so be it.

      • Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Dun Malg (230075) on Thursday April 15, 2004 @11:47AM (#8869991) Homepage
        This is not the battle to fight, it is a clear cut case of breaking the law. If this is where the MPAA wants to direct their resources, so be it.

        The problem is, it's not the MPAA's resources. It's our taxpayer-funded municipal law enforcement organization that's doing the dirty work. That's why it shouldn't be a crime. The MPAA should have to devote THEIR resources through civil action, like everyone else does.

    • Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cgranade (702534) <cgranade.gmail@com> on Thursday April 15, 2004 @10:52AM (#8869094) Homepage Journal

      That may be, but one may feel (as I do) that perhaps if it is such a big deal, the police ought to be the ones taking action, not vigilantes from the MPAA, and that perhaps a year of jail time does not fit the offense. So MPAA lost a couple hundred dollars in profit. Boo-hoo. Mayhaps a fine would work just as well, then? As it is, this strikes me as another minor crime that lawmakers have overinflated, filling our prisions at taxpayer's expense. Look at the cost of keeping someone in prision for a year, and compare that to the amount that MPAA might have lost from this offense.

      Now, note that I'm not defending this guy, but rather making the point that there's a serious problem with scale here. If things like this really mattered to lawmakers, wouldn't Ken Lay be in jail? He hasn't seen a day of jail time from the Enron scandals. I guess the moral is, then, only screw those people without the money to defend themselves. That was this guy's big mistake...

    • Re:So? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Xepo (69222) on Thursday April 15, 2004 @10:52AM (#8869096) Homepage
      Yes, it is good that they caught them. That's a good thing, most people on here would agree.

      What we disagree with is the fact that they're enforcing copyright violations as if it's drugs, or terroristic activities, or whatever. Putting someone *in jail* for filming a movie for "a long time" is what I disagree with. I don't think they should even go to jail, that's too harsh for a copyright violation. Simply slap them with a large fine, and be done with it.

      It's very similar to slashdot's general attitude towards malevolent hackers. We don't think it's right that someone is spreading a virus, or cracking into systems, and defacing a web site, but we also don't think it's right that these people are being punished like they killed someone.
    • Re:So? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jefe7777 (411081)
      you probably won't have much disagreement about the action in question being illegal.

      but I imagine many will question the penalty.

      so under 3 strikes, an 18 year old goes to prison for a very long time, if caught 3 times?

    • Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Austerity Empowers (669817) on Thursday April 15, 2004 @10:57AM (#8869175)
      You have your reasoning and you're entitled to it, however I think our limited jail cell space ought to be used for more significant crimes. To me, taping a movie on your camcorder is a misdemeanor offense, such criminals ought to have to go pick up highway trash for a few months and other "rehabilitating" punishments. Selling copies of said tapes to the public ought to land you in prison for a year or so, that's the real crime.
    • Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by frodo from middle ea (602941) on Thursday April 15, 2004 @10:57AM (#8869179) Homepage
      Yes but is the one year in jail term , right ?

      I mean, the only reason they have such severe sentence , is to serve an example to others and deter others from doing it. But is it legally or morally justifiable to make an example out of one offender , to deter others.

      Even riot control police fire in air first and then use rubber bullets, they don't shot real bullets at random people , hoping it will deter other rioters.

    • by ScottGant (642590) <scott_gant.sbcglobal@netNOT> on Thursday April 15, 2004 @10:59AM (#8869216) Homepage


      How dare they tell me I can't videotape a movie I PAID MONEY TO SEE! I want to make a copy of it, I paid for the movie after all.

      Also, how dare they say I can't make a copy of my DVD. I want to make a copy of it to....um....well, I don't really know why I would make a copy of something that cost 14 bucks and doesn't really degrade from repeated viewing....but still, it's MY RIGHT to make as many copies as I want...doesn't matter that I really have no use for a copy.

      Wait, if I make a copy of a dvd I OWN, I should be able to decide how I want those copies of that dvd that I OWN to be distributed. If I want to make 1000 copies of a dvd I OWN (get the picture, I bought and paid for the dvd), then I should be able to sell those 1000 copies...after all I OWN the original dvd!

      I also think all movies should be free for anyone and everyone...no matter what. So what they spent millions of dollars making them, screw them! How dare they tell me I have to pay to see them! I thought this was a free country!!!!

  • LOL (Score:5, Funny)

    by grub (11606) <slashdot@grub.net> on Thursday April 15, 2004 @10:44AM (#8868946) Homepage Journal

    The thought of spending a year in "Le Hotel Cornhole" over The Alamo [imdb.com]?! HA aha ahaha... man that's too funny.
  • by Gr33nNight (679837) on Thursday April 15, 2004 @10:45AM (#8868954)
    I bet the projectionist was making his own copy of the film and didnt want competition!

    Projectionist = Centropy asshat customer = FTF

  • by thebra (707939) * on Thursday April 15, 2004 @10:45AM (#8868960) Homepage Journal
    'The MPAA has established a nationwide telephone hotline for cinema employees to report violations'
    1-800-88G-REED
  • Cam? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lofoforabr (751004) on Thursday April 15, 2004 @10:45AM (#8868973) Homepage
    In fact, I rarely get any camera recorded movies, because of the usual low quality.
    Don't we all love TeleSync and (even better), DVD-Screeners?
    IMHO, camera recorded movies aren't all that worth the download, are they?
  • Hahahaha (Score:3, Funny)

    by Alranor (472986) on Thursday April 15, 2004 @10:45AM (#8868975)
    Soon, copied films will be as rare as students lighting up a joint after their exams"

    Because we all know that the war on drugs has completely eradicated the evil scourge that is marijuana use ....

    Lol.
  • by garcia (6573) * on Thursday April 15, 2004 @10:46AM (#8868978) Homepage
    The lesson is clear: stay out of movie theaters and you won't get arrested.

    How about stay out a movie theatre with recording equipment, night vision goggles, and/or the intention of stealing stuff... Perhaps then you won't get arrested.
    • by frankie (91710) on Thursday April 15, 2004 @11:01AM (#8869269) Journal
      Let's get three facts straight:
      1. Jack Valenti is indeed an Ass Head, and the MPAA sucks
      2. movie bootleggers are criminal asshats who also suck
      3. copyright infringement is not theft
      Theft means directly taking something that isn't yours and depriving the owner of it. Camcorder guys do not prevent the theater from showing the movie, nor do they prevent fellow moviegoers from seeing it.

      To anyone who says "illegal copying == theft", I say "you are murdering both language and law." :p

  • by duffbeer703 (177751) * on Thursday April 15, 2004 @10:46AM (#8868983)
    If you don't film the movie with a camcorder, you will not be dragged off to prison from the theatre.

    Does anyone honestely believe that this is a privacy issue?

    • If you don't film the movie with a camcorder, you will not be dragged off to prison from the theatre.

      Does anyone honestely believe that this is a privacy issue?


      Yes, its clearly a violation of one's privacy to be in a public place, commit a crime (or even just break the rules of the public place like smoke, drink, etc), and get punished for it.
  • Yay (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Omnifarious (11933) * <eric-slash AT omnifarious DOT org> on Thursday April 15, 2004 @10:46AM (#8868985) Homepage Journal

    An excellent use of technology to catch a criminal. The contract for entering a movie theatre is clear about not having recording devices or food. It was so obviously wrong that even a projectionist had no qualms about wearing some night vision goggles to notice someone with a camera and eject them. This doesn't even need to invoke copyright law to be considered wrong.

  • The Lesson (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jaaron (551839) on Thursday April 15, 2004 @10:47AM (#8868994) Homepage
    The lesson is clear: stay out of movie theaters and you won't get arrested.

    The lesson is clear: don't be stupid and take a video camera into a movie theatre.
  • by Deflagro (187160) on Thursday April 15, 2004 @10:47AM (#8869002)
    So would they mind if you brought a massive flashlight with you?
    That way when the fools with the night vision are peeping around, just turn on the flashlight quickly and listen for the scream.
    Although, if they had metal detectors, that would foil my evil plan.

  • War on Drugs? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mwhahaha (172475) <mwhahaha@[ ]edu ['vt.' in gap]> on Thursday April 15, 2004 @10:47AM (#8869013)
    Anyone else think the comparison with the War on Drugs is a bit much? Especially when the War on Drugs has been touted as a failure by many people for it's over spending and inability to really curb the influx of drugs into this country. So does that mean the MPAA is just going to blow tons of money and fail to get anything done? Maybe it's just me...
  • In other news.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by JusTyler (707210) on Thursday April 15, 2004 @10:48AM (#8869020) Homepage
    The lesson is clear: stay out of movie theaters and you won't get arrested.

    If you like getting into your car and driving around at 100mph, you might be arrested. Ah well, the lesson is clear: stay out of cars, and you won't get arrested!

    I'm all for jumping over privacy invasions and the ever domineering power of the state, but cracking down on things which are blatantly illegal isn't a violation of our freedom.
  • by LostCluster (625375) * on Thursday April 15, 2004 @10:48AM (#8869031)
    From the /. write-up...
    Motion Picture Ass. Head Jack Valenti
    Was "Association" or even "Assoc." was too much to type there?

    The lesson is clear: stay out of movie theaters and you won't get arrested.
    Uhm, how about "Don't take video cameras into movie theaters and you won't get arrested?" They're not arresting random patrons, just the ones who are caught making illegal copies.

    From the linked Register piece...
    You've been out at the beach all day and you met a friend in a bar who says she is going to take in a film. You join her and caught up in the conversation and don't notice some of the new signs up at the cinema. Suddenly someone wants to search your back pack and the next thing you know you're in prison for a one year stretch for taking the camcorder which you forgot was in your pack, into a cinema. The $2,500 fine isn't funny either.
    That's not the California law. The law requires that the camcorder operator demonstrate an intent to copy the movie. I don't quite see how you can accidently aim a camcorder at the movie screen and turn it on. Somebody "caught in the act" is clearly demonstrating intent, while somebody who has the camcorder off an in their backpack is clearly not.

    The law has been written with future technologies in mind and can equally apply to any type of recorder, including a mobile phone. So in California at least it is soon going to be illegal to take your phone into the cinema.
    Again, only if you're intent on copying the film. Don't aim your phone at the screen and hit record and you'll be fine. Besides, does anybody have a camera phone with two to three hours of memory?
  • Next time.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by telemonster (605238) on Thursday April 15, 2004 @10:49AM (#8869045) Homepage
    Next time the camcorderist should sit in the upper right or upper left part, that way he can't be seen.

    Somehow, I just don't see these crappy video CD and DivX distributions of zero day movies a threat to their profits. Sure, bored kids with no money might sit at home wasting hours downloading them but anyone with income to afford the DVD copy will most likely buy it.

    Wasn't it Europe where the movie industry wanted to stop text messaging because people were messaging each other and giving advice as to which movies sucked, which supposidly undermined the advertising campaign that overhypes crap?

    Just like software piracy, some 14 year old running 3dStudio Max on mom's PC is not a loss in profits.
  • saw this first hand (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pojo (526049) * on Thursday April 15, 2004 @10:49AM (#8869055)
    I run a college movie group [rochester.edu] that sometimes does sneak previews of upcoming films. I was blown away when I heard that for our most recent preview (Gothika, total crap btw) they wanted to bring in night vision goggles. They wound up basically frisking everyone that came in too, and even turned away kids with cameras in their cell phones. The people who got in didn't actually seem to mind the search that much, they kind of understood. Nonetheless, it was the first time we had a major external security force at one of our screenings.
  • by LostCluster (625375) * on Thursday April 15, 2004 @10:51AM (#8869073)
    From the BBC piece...
    Mr Joun was arrested after another audience member complained about a red light on a camcorder at the Pacific Theatre at the Grove.
    Just how much hacking is needed to take the red light out of a consumer camcorder? He would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for that LED.
  • Ass Head (Score:5, Funny)

    by djhertz (322457) on Thursday April 15, 2004 @10:52AM (#8869091)
    And I have been calling Jack Valenti a shit head the whole time... I stand corrected.
  • Interesting... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by l33t-gu3lph1t3 (567059) <arch_angel16.hotmail@com> on Thursday April 15, 2004 @10:52AM (#8869092) Homepage
    While I personally don't agree with being watched in a movie theatre, these guys are just trying to prevent the asshats from ripping off their stuff. If you want to watch a movie, you go to see it, rent it, or buy it. If it's really good enough to want to see then it's good enough to want to buy.

    How is this a violation of rights? Security cameras are everywhere these days. I fail to see how this is any different. I do consider it a waste of time, however. Isn't the projectionist supposed to be watching the *movie* to make sure it's showing up in focus?

    One thing that's kinda funny is the law that this dumbass is being charged under. Bringing a camcorder into theatres is illegal? Maybe the *use* of such devices should be illegal in a theatre, but not the mere presence. That's tantamount to charging someone with conspiracy to commit murder for owning a gun.

    I believe what the theatre SHOULD do is reserve the right to confiscate any electronic equipment :)
  • by sczimme (603413) on Thursday April 15, 2004 @10:52AM (#8869103)

    will theatre owners/operators use to pinpoint the asshats making lots of noise during the movie?

    Yes, the video cameras are prohibited but at least they're quiet. I guess making the moviegoing experience more enjoyable (tolerable?) isn't that high on the priority list.

    /waits for movies to be released on DVD 'cause movie theatres are no longer enjoyable. YMMV.
  • first (Score:5, Funny)

    by WormholeFiend (674934) on Thursday April 15, 2004 @10:53AM (#8869109)
    first they came for the people smuggling food into the theatres, but I didnt say anything because I wasnt a theatre food smuggler...

    then they came for the cellular phone users, but I didnt say anything because I dont use a cellphone while watching movies at the theatre...

    then they came for the camcorder users, but I didnt say anything because I didnt tape movies at the theatre...

    when they came for me I didnt say anything, I just decided to spend my money elsewhere.

  • C'mon (Score:5, Insightful)

    by p4ul13 (560810) on Thursday April 15, 2004 @10:54AM (#8869133) Homepage
    "The lesson is clear: stay out of movie theaters and you won't get arrested."

    The message is don't videotape a movie playing in the theater. I mean really, is *this* a problem for you?

  • by Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) on Thursday April 15, 2004 @10:56AM (#8869158) Homepage
    The lesson is clear: stay out of movie theaters and you won't get arrested.

    The whole feel of the implied editorial of this write-up is that there is something sinister and wrong about using noght-vision scopes to catch people who bring a video cam into a theater. But remember, it is people just like this ASSHOLE who got busted, that give RAII and the motion picture Nazis the fodder to shoot down P2P. Come on, there is no legitimate "fair use" excuse for bringing a video cam into a theater and filming the movie. Exactly who is the "ass-hat" here?

    • agreed.

      Its about time people realize that the world was never meant to be a place full of free stuff to take whenever you want it. This idea that its your right to do whatever the hell you want, and when a mega corporation tries to stop you they are suddenly infringing on your god given rights is ridiculous.

      • by Loki_1929 (550940) on Thursday April 15, 2004 @11:58AM (#8870152) Journal
        "Its about time people realize that the world was never meant to be a place full of free stuff to take whenever you want it. This idea that its your right to do whatever the hell you want, and when a mega corporation tries to stop you they are suddenly infringing on your god given rights is ridiculous."

        I think the problem that I, and some others have with a situation like this is that the law was bought and paid for by Mega Corps. Aside from the fact that no company has any right buying off legislators (campaign contributions? give me a break...), we're turning civil matters into criminal matters, removing even the appearance of distinction between large companies and government. No longer do the movie companies have to bring up civil cases against copyright infringers. Now, with the help of a few bought-and-paid-for politicians, they can get the taxpayers to foot the bill for punishing the infringers. A secondary issue to that is the fact that the distinction between infringement for commercial gain and non-commercial infringement is rapidly evaporating.

        Personally, I would have no problem at all if the company that owns the copyright to the film in question were to fire off a lawsuit against the man whose obvious and unmistakable intent was to create a copy of that film. Instead, rather than go through that trouble, the film industry as a whole has essentially bribed members of the legislature to create a criminal offense from a civil matter, thus removing virtually all the burden of copyright enforcement from the copyright holder.

        I don't particularly care for copyrights and patents. I think it was a pretty good idea at one time, but I think that it's gotten way out of hand. The concepts behind intellectual property are now being used more often to stifle scientific and artistic growth, rather than to promote it. That being said, I still support the civil enforcement of copyrights by the rightful holder thereof. What I don't support is bribery, pandering, or the criminalization of civil offenses without good reason. This guy brought a camera into a movie theatre and tried to create a copy of a film. Why is it that we're ready and willing to give him more jail time than someone who beats the hell out of his wife? Why is it that we'll send this guy to jail for essentially trespassing across the front lawn of the MPAA? Why are the tax dollars of the people of California being (ab)used to fund the prosecution of a civil offense? These are my problems with this situation, and I suspect it's where much of where other peoples' problem comes from as well.

  • the war on drugs?? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by neoThoth (125081) on Thursday April 15, 2004 @10:56AM (#8869162) Homepage
    give me a fuggin break here. The illegal distribution of cocaine and herion is not an analogy I would ascribe to copying a movie! It's not like pirating produces junkies or even damages ones health if viewed (except those crap movies like Alamo).
  • Resonable doubt? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by chrysrobyn (106763) on Thursday April 15, 2004 @10:58AM (#8869205)

    Say I'm a tourist (where doesn't really matter) and decide to take a 2 hour break from walking around and entertain myself by taking in a movie. Out of mistrust for my fellow man, I take my possessions inside, instead of leaving them in the lobby. As a tourist, I happen to have a video camera. Maybe I set it on the armrest beside me so I can keep a firm grasp on it and out of a thief's hands.

    Would a projectionist have a duty to interrupt the movie and ask me why my camera is there? A duty to question my answer? Say the fuzz shows up and decides to do the questioning for the projectionist, who is at fault for the false accusation? Or am I resonably considered guilty for merely having a camera?

  • How Medieval (Score:3, Insightful)

    by randall_burns (108052) <randall_burns@hot[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Thursday April 15, 2004 @11:01AM (#8869258)
    In Medieval Europe, denigrating certain symbols was a capital offense(i.e. stuff like throwing mud at a statue of the Virgin Mary during a religious parade could get you death by slow torture-and the only way to get a quicker death was to kiss a cross or something similar).

    Hollywood seems to have taken on the role of the Vatican. The US has all kinds of pressing crime problems-and somehow, the MPAA manages to get their concerns at the top of the heap--and avoid jurisdictional issues between the states and the feds.
  • by unformed (225214) on Thursday April 15, 2004 @11:05AM (#8869326)
    What wrong with kids nowadays. Back in my day, we used to light up BEFORE the exam.
  • by rben (542324) on Thursday April 15, 2004 @11:05AM (#8869331) Homepage

    I have no problem with the cinemas using night goggles to find people illegally recording the movie. That is clearly just a reasonable attempt to protect their investment. What concerns me is the sentence of one year in prison. With our prisons already busting at the seams, do we really want a violent criminal released from prison to make room for a guy who illegally filmed a movie?

    The penalties given out should fit the crime. Using a camcorder to tape a movie is an economic crime and should be dealt with on that basis. Give the guy a fine large enough to destroy any profits he could make plus some more to drive the lesson home and keep the prison space for people who are actually a danger to us.

    Another thought. I've seen new parents who carry camcorders with them everywhere. They stuff it into the kids diaper bag. Are we going to send them to prison because they forgot to take the camera out of the bag and leave it in the car?

    It's sad when anyone decides that their personal profits are more important than public safety. It's worse when members of congress race to suck up to such people and enact legislation at their bidding.

  • by ReadParse (38517) <john@funnyUMLAUTcow.com minus punct> on Thursday April 15, 2004 @11:07AM (#8869359) Homepage
    Always remember Pee Wee Herman. Yes, he was in a porno theater, which is an interesting bit of irony since there are only a couple of things one can imagine doing in a porno theater besides "watching" (yeah right) the movie, and what he did was the least offensive of them.

    Anyway, the point is... how many times have you taken certain liberties in a darkened theater? Night vision goggles really turn those tables around, don't they? It's a point to ponder before doing something in the theater you wouldn't do in church.

    RP
  • by acoustix (123925) on Thursday April 15, 2004 @11:11AM (#8869436) Homepage
    The lesson is clear: stay out of movie theaters and you won't get arrested.

    WTF is that supposed to mean? You should have put: "The lesson is clear: break the law and you will go to jail."

    I'm tired of all of this petty whining BS. Yes, the MPAA can suck at times, but this is the law. Oh wait, I forgot. This is America - no one resposible for their own actions. I suppose it's the usher's fault or the policeman's fault that someone went to jail.

    Get a clue.

    -Nick

  • by jargoone (166102) * on Thursday April 15, 2004 @11:12AM (#8869442)
    The lesson is clear: stay out of movie theaters and you won't get arrested.

    I can't wait for the day that you can moderate the little editorials. Michael would never get to post a story again.

    The lesson is more like: don't break the fucking law and you won't get arrested.
  • by WormholeFiend (674934) on Thursday April 15, 2004 @11:16AM (#8869503)
    slightly offtopic, but have any of you guys seen the hilarious Hong Kong comedy/horror Bio Zombie? (www.imdb.com/title/tt0277605/)

    The movie starts just like someone is taping it with a camcorder, with people passing in front of the camera, and people shushing, telling others to stop smoking, etc.

    Proof that camcordering movies is seeping into pop culture.

    I wouldnt be surprised if at some point some hollywood movie uses such a reference.
  • by ph4s3 (634087) on Thursday April 15, 2004 @11:59AM (#8870165)
    Wow. I can't believe how many "don't take a camera into a theatre" posts there have been. It seems most people are, yet again, missing the point.

    Several things here warrant serious attention...
    1. Criminalization of acts covered by civil law
      • Last I checked, violating copyright was a civil issue. This law seeks to make a criminal case out of a clearly civil case.
      • It also acts as criminalizing the 'contract' that you enter into with a theatre, namely not bringing in outside food/drink or recording/flash devices. If one part is now criminal, why not the other?
      • The theatre has every right to make its own rules and kick people out violating them, but that is a distinctly civil law/contractual issue.
      • Why in the hell are we granting the power of the state, i.e. use of force, search and seizure, to movie theatres and studios? Talk about jack booted thugs.
    2. posession of a recording device != copyright infringement
      • Just because I have a camera with me does not mean I am violating copyright. Perhaps I had it earlier in the day, couldn't get home, and won't leave it in the parking lot to get stolen. That should be my perogative, at the discression of the theatre if they authorize it.
      • Even if being used, that still doesn't mean I'm violating copyright, i.e. I'm recording an audience's reaction to a film or something. This law doesn't make provisions for that case, which would normally be granted by the movie theatre. Even if the theatre says it is okay, the law is still being broken.
      • If not true, then everyone that ever bought an optical drive for their PC should be arrested under similar laws for the potential of violating copyright law. This law is no different than outlawing posession of VCRs, DVRs, CD-R/W, DVD-R/W due to their potential use.
    3. Ignoring real piracy sources.
      • The last time I looked, screeners where the most common dupes out there, not camcorder versions of the movies.
      • Why is the industry criminalizing what some schmuck does in a theatre that doesn't lead to wide spread piracy?
      • Why is the industry ignoring the real sources such as screener copies and digital copies of the reels that go out to the theatres?
      • There is no possible way you can convince me that the DVD quality copies with liner notes available on the streets of Hong Kong one day after the movie's release are from a camcorder of some guy in LA. How ridiculous.
    Personally I couldn't care less about what goes on in theatres. My wife and I haven't been to the movies but maybe once or twice in the last six months since we started using NetFlix (which rules, by the way). However, this law and it's enforcement seems like just another encroachment on individual freedom instead of the policing and punishment of actual illegal criminal or civil activity. I mean, why do the hard job of policing the activity, when you can make the tool illegal and make your job 100 times easier.
  • by kitzilla (266382) <paperfrog@gGINSBERGmail.com minus poet> on Thursday April 15, 2004 @12:24PM (#8870581) Homepage Journal
    The lesson is clear: stay out of movie theaters and you won't get arrested.

    Actually, the message is "keep your camcorder out of movie theatres and you won't be arrested." It's still okay to go to the movies and get what you paid for: watching a show. Taping it, taking it home and making it available for download, or selling bootleg copies ain't part of the ticket price. Period.

    Why do people think blatant piracy is acceptable? Stuff like this makes it easier for corporations to over-reach their authority and impede legitimate activities (such as ripping your own CDs to mp3).

  • Minor edit. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Morologous (201459) on Thursday April 15, 2004 @12:29PM (#8870654)
    [edit]
    The lesson is clear: stay out of movie theaters while using video cameras and you won't get arrested
    [/edit]

    The matter of concern here isn't that the individual got in trouble for recording a movie in the theater, it's that he got arrested for what is generally a civil matter (copyright infringement). If the police had come and thrown him out and taken away his video tape/media this probably wouldn't have been news. But they booked him. That's news.

  • Oh, the fun... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Eosha (242724) <(esomas) (at) (hotmail.com)> on Thursday April 15, 2004 @01:21PM (#8871534) Homepage
    Anyone else tempted to bring a few IR [shomertec.com] toys [shomertec.com] into the theater just to screw with the guys in the night-vision goggles...

The world is moving so fast these days that the man who says it can't be done is generally interrupted by someone doing it. -- E. Hubbard

Working...