Projectionists Using Night Vision Goggles in Theaters 1080
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.
Re:So? (Score:5, Informative)
Definitely out of touch (Score:0, Informative)
He hasn't been on a college campus lately, has he?
Re:So? (Score:5, Informative)
Personally, I hope they take their time and nail this guy to the wall.
Re:I guess the lesson isn't that clear after all.. (Score:5, Informative)
then learn what "copyright violation" is.
Then compare the two and realise that they are nothing like each other, morally, legally, or otherwise.
It's not that I condone filming movies with camcorders in cinemas, but please don't fall for the "copyright violation == stealing" propaganda.
Re:So? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Cam? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Beautiful. (Score:4, Informative)
Nitpick: that was Dogbert, the consultant's idea, not marketing's.
Re:So? (Score:1, Informative)
Nope. That was MLK & Ghandi's brand of Civil Disobedience. Thoreau, who originated the term, simply advocated ignoring all unjust laws. Definitely a petty criminal in your terms, I suppose. That bastard wouldn't even pay his taxes!
Re:Cam? (Score:3, Informative)
The word "telesync" is used for something shot from the projectionist booth in an empty cinema, with the sound sourced directly from the movie. Telesyncs require the aid of the cinema owner of projectionist, cams simply require somebody to do what the guy in the story attempted. I have seen movies that people called telesyncs which where really just good cams though.
As the grandparent noted, the best quality are "screeners". Screener, of course, is an old Hollywood name for the tapes given to actors/reviewers/awards judges etc. These are/were often in DVD form, allowing for perfect ripping. You know you are watching a screener when the "Not distribution, if you purchased this tape, please call 1-800-NO-COPIES" text or some version thereof, appears at the bottom.
Hollywood are fighting screener leaks by watermarking them, so that they can find out who is supplying the groups. They are fighting cams by way of methods like this (though it is dubious whether it will work - most cams I have seen have been shot outside the USA - Singapore, which often gets films early for the far east - seems common). Presumably there is a plan in place to start watermarking the films sent to cinemas as well, to find out which projectionists are allowing telesyncs to be made.
Anyway, if people stop making cams, I don't think anyone will be very upset. Only an idiot would watch a Cam of his own free will. Telesyncs are often not a lot better. Most hardcore downloaders I know will shun everything that isn't a screener - better to wait until the DVD comes at which point high quality copies are plentiful.
(Queue the Slashdot "piracy is BAAADD" choir. Can copy - will copy. Trying to stop people is stupid.)
That's the problem: it's the device that's illegal (Score:3, Informative)
They point out that the law is phrased to cover future recording devices and could even cover video-recording phones, so that taking your phone into a theatre would be an offence.
They word the law like this so that it's easier to prove guilt, but that doesn't make it a good law.
Re:Hmm...a question (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:So? (Score:1, Informative)
"As for adopting the ways which the State has provided for remedying the evil, I know not of such ways. They take too much time, and a man's life will be gone. I have other affairs to attend to. I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad."
Just because Thoreau didn't feel the injustice was sufficient to, what, kill the guy that arrested him? Doesn't mean that he was willingly accepting the consequences of this actions in order to reform the law. Instead he attempted to ignore the state as much as possible, and disregard or attack it when it came too near to wronging him personally.
"Show me a free state, and a court truly of justice, and I will fight for them, if need be. But show me Massachusetts, and I refuse her my allegience, and express contempt for her courts."
Re:The contract (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Hmm...a question (Score:3, Informative)
Easy to fuck with these guys (Score:1, Informative)
2. You and all your geek friends build cheap devices to mimic that appearance.
3. Movie theater staff goes apeshit upon seeing a theater apparently full of people with camcorders. Hilarity ensues.
4. Profit!
LOTR Trilogy Showing (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Theatres are huge consession stands (Score:4, Informative)
Basically, he told me that the local theater never saw anything of the ticket sales. Most of it went back to the movie companies themselves, with a small part going back to the theater chain. They generated their income from concession sales. That's why they'll usually push you to upsize your drink or popcorn, or offer you candy with your snacks.
"You can upsize from a large to Bladder Buster for only 25 cents more!"
For them to "sneak" someone in the door, while completely against theater policy, and the movie companies would have a cow, happens all the time. But to the local shift manager, what's the difference if they had several hundred tickets sold in a night, who cares if a couple people get in free. Well, the movie companies do. Say 4 people get in free in a given night at one theater. Multiply that by how many theaters are running their movies, and it makes a real dollar amount. It could the difference between schwarzenegger getting 3 or 4 new Hummers this month.
But to be on topic, I just find it wierd thinking the projectionist is watching what we're doing in the theaters. What happened to just taking the camera away? I've seen bootlegged movies before. I've never watched the whole thing, simply because they suck. Well, unless you really like seeing a really low quality version of the movie, with the sound picked up on a camcorder's microphone. Ick. There's nothing like watching only part of the screen, and having the shot move around all the time. Camcorders are fine for recording your kids birthday party, but they're anything but acceptable for duplicating feature movies. They should worry more about people dubbing screeners. Those are decent quality, most of the time. Nothing can beat being friends with a theater manager, and previewing the movies in the theater with a couple cases of beer, and all the free popcorn we could eat, even if we did have to start watching movies at like 3am.
Oh, I miss the good ol' days.
beowulf cluster of cyborgs watching the movies (Score:1, Informative)
Deny cyborgs access?
Re:Just the US? (Score:2, Informative)
Most of the time they don't seem to mind at all.
(I'm UK btw)