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:This is news? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This is news? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This is news? (Score:2)
Yep...
1. Pay the $7.00 to go see a film, so you can sit in the back row with your camcorder on the infrared.
2. Start a subscription website of your filmings
3. PROFIT!!!!
Re:This is news? (Score:2)
Though, I'm sure that quite a bit of fun could be had by high-schoolers catching their classmates necking during some dumb-ass teen movie.
Re:This is news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is news? (Score:4, Insightful)
WHAT?!?! Kiss my ass. 6 months is jail is NOT lax! I don't want to spend 6 hours in the custody of the state.
I> A first offense would be punishable by six months in jail and up to $1,000 fine
First offense drunk drivers don't get 6 months in jail in Ohio.
Just because the pentalties aren't as draconian as California's doesn't mean that they're lax.
LK
Re:This is news? (Score:2)
So Ohio passes a law making sure that at least there are less pirate movies. What is wrong with that?
Lots. For one thing it decreases the supply of pirate movies. For another, it makes things illegal which were previously legal. Finally, it encourages state government to spend money enforcing it all.
Re:This is news? (Score:3, Insightful)
I live in California, so this is a familiar issue for us. It seems to me that this regulation will do little or nothing to stop piracy. The camcorder rips are only of value when they're released on the 'net BEFORE the movie hits theatres. This means either it was released in another country first (in which case this law is useless) or it was a sneak-preview for a focus group (in which case the industry
Waste of taxpayer resources (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Waste of taxpayer resources (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Waste of taxpayer resources (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Waste of taxpayer resources (Score:5, Insightful)
To comment on the article, I don't understand why idiots even bother downloading cam-rips, the quality is so shit, you're not getting the real film: the angle is wrong, the color is usually gone, the audio can be good when ripped from source when it's an inside job (ha nowadays an MPAA cop sits in the projection booth, the article claims), but if they used the camcorder mic to record it, that's not exactly CD quality is it?
The only thing it's doing is helping the FUD for those who claim "Star Wars 2 was available on the internet in digital quality 30 minutes after its grand opening.". Digital quality? F'ing idiots.
Screeners == digital (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, while I can't comment on Star Wars 2 specifically, many, if not most movies are in fact available online when the movie premieres, in full digital quality.
No one bothers with cams anymore, because screeners get leaked like there's no tomorrow. These are DVD copies of the final movie sent out for reviews, etc. Someone copies it, uploads to usenet/kazaa, and bam! I've seen many movies as of late that are in fact available days and weeks before they hit the theatre.
Cams are so 1999. And laws like this are absolutely pointless (and assinine), as most movie trading is done using screeners anyway.
Re:Waste of taxpayer resources (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Waste of taxpayer resources (Score:2, Funny)
I don't even know where to start with this one.
Do you work for microsoft?
~dank
Re:Waste of taxpayer resources (Score:3, Informative)
They used to and they would if they could. They are forbidden by law. Actually, the studios are charging the theaters so much to show the crappy films they produce that the theaters have to charge 8.50 and 9 bucks just to break even.
-B
Re:Waste of taxpayer resources (Score:3, Insightful)
Their profit is more likely to come out of selling expensive soft drinks and popcorn.
Re:Waste of taxpayer resources (Score:5, Insightful)
Why don't the politicians pass a law to really throw the book at bank-robbers who double-park during the robbery?
Re:Waste of taxpayer resources (Score:5, Insightful)
We should follow the military on this, you want a security clearence you know what they look for? They look at your financials like nothing else because that is how you're blackmailed or instable. Most of the spies that have damaged our country did it for the money, very few did it for ideology. You can probably have DUIs and drug arrests and become a secret service agent easier than having a some late bill payments on your credit.
What do you think goes throught the mind of a projector jockey making $6-$15 an hour showing the same shitty movies over and over and over. Shit, the managers of the places don't make crap. And it's not like the industry doesn't brag about its money, that's all you hear about movies in the news, "record breaking weekend," "record opening," "biggest budget ever." I mean in a recession, a movie and dinner date is what? $50 to $100 depending on if you have drinks with dinner, you think the people working at the theater can afford that with their disposable income?
If I was working at a theater, I could possibly start boot legging, you can buy a decent recorder cheap and then if you had the connections to sell the movies you could easily make a lot more than you'd ever get at a theater. That's just simple economics. You want loyalty you have to fork out some more money. I'm not saying it's right to do it or anything but you get what you pay for and the movie biz is extremely top heavy paying people 10s of millions of dollars regularly where the people taking your tickets and cleaning up the theaters and actually showing the movies make squat.
Re:Waste of taxpayer resources (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Waste of taxpayer resources (Score:3, Informative)
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 Q
Re:Waste of taxpayer resources (Score:2)
Perhaps because a person with a camcorder is still a paying customer... and if I were hollywood, I would be paranoid that theaters would be tolerent of this fact.
Besides, then they would have to employ more people, and why bother when you can get the police to do it if it's a crime?
Re:Waste of taxpayer resources (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Waste of taxpayer resources (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Waste of taxpayer resources (Score:3, Insightful)
Would it be OK if gov't made recording at all concerts illegal? And passed a law to jail anybody with a camera or a microphone recording a performance? Some venues and artists allow such recording, and it's none of governme
Jail??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Jail??? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Jail??? (Score:3, Funny)
even better... (Score:2)
Re:Jail??? (Score:3, Funny)
Hello? Cruel and unusual?
Re:Jail??? (Score:5, Insightful)
The biggest deterrent is probably to just confiscate a $500 camera. This would keep most amateurs from engaging in the activity.
The jail time should be reserved for those who sell bootleg tapes. That's a commercial endeavor. Simple fines won't discourage them. Thats just a cost of doing business for them.
Re:Jail??? (Score:3, Funny)
Could use it as advertising. Each one different. We're in favour of that, aren't we?
Re:Jail??? (Score:5, Insightful)
When I was reviewing films for a small magazine, I would often bring a small hand-held microcassette recorder to capture the thoughts and opinions that I had on a scene or sequence as it was playing on the screen. I would review the taped comments afterwards and type up a detailed and helpful movie review.
Now this is a felony?
Plus if theatres are going to put twenty minutes of commercials and psuedo-news about the entertainment industry before showing the movie that we have paid for, then we should certainly be allowed to bring our own entertainment devices like portable DVD players and laptops to make productive use of this time. And since all digital devices today record as easily as playback data, then doing this is now a felony?
Threatening people with serious jail time for engaging in an activity is not really the best way to encourage people to want to do that activity. So why are people that depend on having other people putting their butts into seats watching a movie threatening jail time to people who come to theatres to watch movies? Whether or not they want to record a movie that they're watching is really the concern of the viewer and the theatre owner.
If the theatre owner were more concerned about providing the optimum movie-going experience to his paying customers, he wouldn't have to worry about anyone wanting to duplicate the experience outside of his venue.
The core problem of Hollywood is not how people chose to consume its product, it is that amount of time and money that people are willing to spend to consume its product is beginning to fall while the price of producing this product continues to rise uncontrollably.
Passing horseshit laws about camcorders in theatres doesn't address this core issue, and therefore will do nothing to solve it.
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 t
Re:Jail??? (Score:5, Insightful)
When I was reviewing films for a small magazine, I would often bring a small hand-held microcassette recorder to capture the thoughts and opinions that I had on a scene or sequence as it was playing on the screen. I would review the taped comments afterwards and type up a detailed and helpful movie review.
Now this is a felony?
No. Not unless you were -VIDEO- taping the movie. Using an audio recorder and recording your comments does not fit this description.
Plus if theatres are going to put twenty minutes of commercials and psuedo-news about the entertainment industry before showing the movie that we have paid for, then we should certainly be allowed to bring our own entertainment devices like portable DVD players and laptops to make productive use of this time. And since all digital devices today record as easily as playback data, then doing this is now a felony?
Not unless you use the devices to record the movie.
If the theatre owner were more concerned about providing the optimum movie-going experience to his paying customers, he wouldn't have to worry about anyone wanting to duplicate the experience outside of his venue.
Why's that? People often sell these bootleg copies. Furthermore there are always people out there willing to get something for nothing or next to nothing. How can a theatre owner compete with someone selling bootleg copies for $1.00 a piece? These people are already willing to watch a crappy camera rip. I don't see how the theatre experience is really relevant at this point.
The core problem of Hollywood is not how people chose to consume its product, it is that amount of time and money that people are willing to spend to consume its product is beginning to fall while the price of producing this product continues to rise uncontrollably.
Not true. The problem is, is that technology has made better and better quality rips (they still suck though) easy to do. Cameras have gotten much smaller, cheaper, and now they are digital making distribution a lot easier. It will always cost less for someone to video a movie than to produce it. Hence the cost for the bootlegs will always be less. As technology gets better the bootlegs will get better. As you know there will always be people willing to pay for an inferior product if it's considerably less.
Passing horseshit laws about camcorders in theatres doesn't address this core issue, and therefore will do nothing to solve it.
Ah, finally a somewhat true statement. Since according to the MPAA 77% of the bootleg copies are insider jobs, this will do nothing. However one thing it does do is take a portion of the piracy out of the theatre's control. Before the theatre had no incentive to kick people out for video taping movies. Now the police do it. I believe the punishment is crazy. I think confiscating the tape and maybe the camera would be much more reasonable. Reserve jail time for the people found selling the bootlegs. What's really nuts is that the punishment for doing this is worse than the one for a first offense DUI.
Re:Jail??? (Score:3, Informative)
Untrue. In Ohio a first offense DUI is a first-degree misdemeanor that has the same punishment as this crime. The difference is that a first offense DUI has a mandatory minimum of 3 days in jail or a 72-hour alcohol safety traffic school, $250 fine, 6 points against your license and a 6 month license suspension (you can get work driving rights). Other than you're right. This law has no place in the books
The real question is... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The real question is... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The real question is... (Score:2)
Re:The real question is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Morally? The fact that art used to define culture, art was an expression. Now it is OWNED. Thats a moral dilemma. Is the Cat in the Hat a movie or an AD to get my kids into Burger King? Thats just sad.
I personally dont download movies just because I am not going to sit around that long. Its just boring.
What guilt? (Score:2, Insightful)
If i download media, its beacuse i wasnt going to go see/purchase it in the first place.
Therefore there is no loss of revenue on their part.
Therefore there is no need for guilt.
If i was actually going to pay for the media, i wouldnt have downloaded it in the first place.
Unless it was to 'demo' it before i waste money on the purchase. If its worthy of my funds, then i go out and purhcase it.
For the record i do all 3... And if they would allow returns of poor product, then that would e
Re:Why guilt? (Score:2)
Do I really need to explain this to you, or are you just a troll?
Re:Why guilt? (Score:2)
once everyone just copies everything for each other for free, there won't be reason to make trilogies like Lord of the Rings because it won't even make enough money to cover initial expenses.
And then people would be forced to actually read the book. The horror!
P.S. (Score:3, Insightful)
This will stop the 53 people... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This will stop the 53 people... (Score:3, Insightful)
If anything, this law indicates more that the MPAA considers DVD piracy a lost cause and is shif
Re:This will stop the 53 people... (Score:2)
Or did Xing (or some engineer who worked for them) even do it on purpose?
Re:This will stop the 53 people... (Score:2)
Re:This will stop the 53 people... (Score:3, Insightful)
Overseas (Score:5, Informative)
If you want to stop copyright violations go to a foreign country and start busting the K-Mart and 7-Eleven equivalents that are selling LOTR and Matrix movies on store shelves while the movies are still in the theatres.
There is nothing wrong with this law, in my opinion. But, I find it an incredible waste.
maybe not this one (Score:2)
Then again, this is the same nation that treats breaking into a computer as a more serious crime than manslaughter. We should've expected this.
Re:Overseas (Score:4, Funny)
First to go should be Norway, for harboring that well-known economic and computing terrorist, Johansen.
Over here, over here (Score:5, Insightful)
The hordes of surreptitious filmers immediately ran out of the cinema, where they were aprehended by the local branch of the MPAA.
Not. I have never seen anyone filming in a theater, and the few pirate films I've seen that were made this way were incredibly unwatchable ("cough cough", shadows walking in front of the film, noises of coke being slurped and people making out in row 2.)
I mean... does this actually present a threat to the movie industry?
Surely a balanced law would also mandate prison for people who make movies like Matrix 2 and 3? This kind of crap product is a far greater threat to cinema revenues than pirates can ever be.
Re:Over here, over here (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but I think its because the MPAA (and RIAA to the same extent) are looking to shift blame away from certain facts.
People filming in the theater is so absurd that you'd have to be pretty hard pressed for entertainment to watch it.
The real trouble is coming from people ripping films distributed on DVD (I seem to remember an article on the Washington Post about this a few months ago). The trouble is, they won't do anything about the actual source of the leaks, so they blame their own customers.
Same with the RIAA...the big source of problem is organized crime making illegal copies by the thousands and millions. But those guys have guns and will kill you if you screw with them. Catching 12 year-old brittany is safer and makes better headlines and makes it look like they're doing something for their shareholders.
Its all a game, and the only ones fooled seem to be our congressmen and women.
Dont they use DVD Screeners? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dont they use DVD Screeners? (Score:5, Funny)
or the days that you knew it was recorded in hong kong, when you can see the shadows of people's heads below the screen, and all of them are holding small camcorders.
Re:Dont they use DVD Screeners? (Score:2)
No no no, that was baby jesus.
Re:Dont they use DVD Screeners? (Score:2)
But as usual they hound the consumers of the product citing dead old evidence of taping of movies that used to occur ages ago back in the days of dodgy video tapes.
But there isn't a requirement fo
Interesting how early pirates get in the game (Score:5, Insightful)
And of course, who wouldn't want to see Episode III: The Non-Crappy Version, complete with a Star Wars Kid cameo added by the pirate who actually edited together the flick...
Cell phones (Score:5, Funny)
Seinfeld (Score:5, Funny)
Jerry: What do you mean he's bootlegging the movie?
Kramer: Well, it's a perfectly legitimate business.
Jerry: It's not legitimate.
Kramer: It's a business.
Jerry: I don't care about Brody. I was up on 96th Street today, there was a kid couldn't have been more than ten years old. He was asking a street vendor if he had any other bootlegs as good as Death Blow. That's who I care about. The little kid who needs bootlegs, because his parent or guardian won't let him see the excessive violence and strong sexual content you and I take for granted.
George: I'm a bootlegger.
Anna: You're a what?
George: I'm bootleggin' a movie, baby!
Anna: Isn't that illegal?
George: I can do hard time for this one. And community service!
Frank: I'm sitting at home, reading a periodical, and this is the call I get? My son is a bootlegger? (He hits George in the head)
George: Ow! Dad...
Frank: Who put you up to this, was it her?
Elaine: All right. Wait a minute. I think you've got it backwards.
Frank: My George isn't clever enough to hatch a scheme like this.
Elaine: You got that right.
Frank: What the hell does that mean?
Elaine: It means whatever the hell you want it to mean.
Frank: You sayin' you want a piece of me?
Elaine: I could drop you like a bag of dirt.
Frank: You wanna piece of me? You got it!
Re:Seinfeld (Score:2)
If this was true, than these laws would be unfairly restricting the Seinfeld religion [smallcandles.com].
Uniformity? (Score:2)
The free market solved this years ago. (Score:5, Insightful)
If a theater wants to show new movies, they should already have rules about this. Because a theater is private property, they should be able to ban anything they want (free speech, weapons, anything). If they want to ban recording cameras, they're free to.
Maybe a theater may want to ALLOW cameras. In this case, the major movie production companies will probably decide not to show movies there. Smaller companies may want the cult-like home recorded movies and may possibly allow it. The free market has provided this solution already, and government now will mandate one more way for private movie theater owners to run their business.
We are no longer free, we are no longer capitalist. We live in a mercantilist system of oppressive regulation, taxes, and tariffs. None of this system helps the average citizen.
Jail for this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Righty-o (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Righty-o (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm glad you searched Taft's press releases-- (Score:5, Informative)
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?
Re:Well this affects you how? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok so it's now punishable by law to record in a theater, does this affect you?
If you go on vacation with a camcorder and decide, on a rainy day, to see a movie, then yes, it does affect you. What are you going to do? Leave a $1000 piece of electronics in your rental car?
Re:Well this affects you how? (Score:2)
Grammar Nazi Alert!!
Try "outlawing". That works better, and it's a perfectly good word.
damn (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:damn (Score:2, Insightful)
But corps have more rights than citizens.
Using an elephant gun to swat a mosquito (Score:5, Interesting)
Watermarks... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Watermarks... (Score:3, Informative)
I doubt those were watermarks, rather it was probably the DTS time-coding which you saw.
Read the second question on this page [suntimes.com], or do a google search on "cap code" dots [google.com] AKA "crap code" dots [google.com].
Who really cares? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Illegal law (Score:4, Informative)
17 USC 301 makes void any state law that is equivalent to any of the federally created copyrights. This Ohio statute sounds as though it pertains to duplication -- which is already covered in 17 USC 106, making it void, at least in regards to that portion of it.
Honestly, you'd really think that someone would've checked that sort of thing in advance.
laws & america (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that it mattered else but usually the stupid laws enforced there end up here, luckily with a big lag. As pointed out before, filming in private place like the cinema is the problem ought to be taken care by the Cinema, not by the goverment. And the penalties for a huge people destroying crime like that are just absurd.
It's clear that no one is going to feel satisfied by the quality of those CAM and TS releases, even PROPERs are plain shitty (while being as good as they can given the circumstances) which makes it really hard to enjoy or understand the film. But as the CAM or TS works as a preview, less people will see it. As this also works the other way around, Hollywood people should be more engouraged into hiring more talented scriptwrites and new directors than lawyers and lobbiers.
Just my 0,10e
Rape/Murder/Taping In A Theater (Score:3, Insightful)
Homicide: 71 months
Rape: 65 months
Sexual Assault: 35 months
---------------
Recording a movie
in a cinema in Michigan: 60 months
" in California: 12 months
Is it just me? Yes, I know that these are the maximum sentences, but many violent crimes carry maximum sentences around only 10 years, and they are often less than that anyway.
<sarcasm>Basically, the message here is that if someone tries to arrest you in a theater for videotaping the screen, you should shoot them, cause hey, it would only be another few months in jail if you get caught.
</sarcasm>
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:Good job (Score:2, Insightful)
*Prevention* is having security staff there, monitoring you. Who wants to be strip-searched at the movies. Come on people....
Re:Good job (Score:3, Insightful)
For a slightly more extreme example, what if I passed a new law that made it legal in Ohio to outlaw women's purses in all grocery stores? After all, I could probably make a pretty good case that much shoplifting happens when women have the ability to hide products in their purses.
The problem in both cases is this: You're not addressing the problem the best way. As other
Re:Good job (Score:2)
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'
Re:Good job (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good job (Score:3, Insightful)
Michigan shouldn't worry about taping at all. (Score:2)
Watching movies here at any of the theaters is like watching one with sunglasses on. You can barely work out that there are moving images being projected. It's really that bad. They also don't really care when you try to complain. TURN THE BULB ON THE PROJECTOR UP!
I hate this state...but I love my family.
Re:Michigan shouldn't worry about taping at all. (Score:2)
But where I'm at it just horrible.
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.
Re:useless Ohio legislators, an Ohio POV (Score:2)
Re:and this makes a difference....how? (Score:2)
Movie theatres don't seem capable of keeping children out of R-rated movies. Using the same crack team, I hardly think they could pick out random people.
Shees, this is like expecting airlines to train their steward(ess)s to thwart terrorists. It is obviously government's job to protect THEIR prof
Re:and this makes a difference....how? (Score:2)
Hollywood still has a good thing going. But as many would point out, Hollywood hangers on are even more paid than music biz hangers on.
Perhaps Hollywood should pay more attention when offering Pauly Shore $10 million for his next performance
Re:OMG D00D (Score:2)
"Cameras don't kill people, People with Guns kill people"
Re:Where's the fine... (Score:2)
During the day, the kids would be dropped off so parents can go to work. All kids do is watch Disney movies anyway, so the theatre is a natural place to warehouse your tikes.
Of course, during the evening kids could also be dropped into the playpen so they can watch Aladdin for the 200th time while mom and dad take in a steamy sex thriller.
Add an overnight facility and parents could have a one sho