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.
Beautiful. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Beautiful. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Beautiful. (Score:5, Funny)
Hmm...a question (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Hmm...a question (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Hmm...a question (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hmm...a question (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Hmm...a question (Score:5, Interesting)
And nobody who works at the theater sees any of this dough. Workers get paid 6.50 an hour, 10 cent raise after a year - if you're lucky. Managers get paid around 9 dollars an hour. Projectionists about 8. The only full time staff member we have is the General Manager - so nobody gets benefits. Given that our HR manager drives a fifteen year old toyota, and our GM drives a Porche 911, I can imagine where the money goes.
Missing the point (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
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.
Re:Hmm...a question (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.
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.
The Drug Warrior speaks! (Score:5, Interesting)
Then it should be abandoned. Except that calling it a "failure" is a huge understatement. It has failed in every single one of its goals, killed and maimed innocent people in the process, and destroyed our freedoms (4th amendment, anyone?).
but that doesn't necessarily mean there's a good alternative
If it has failed it its goals (which you admit), then it is not achieving anything. Going back to the way it was before would necessarily be better, espcecially given that the War on Some Drugs also brings unintended consequences [salon.com].
You can't say for sure that things would be better if we legalized drugs.
Things would be better because:
a> Citizens would no longer forfeit property (contra the 4th amendment) simply because the government suspects that it was used as part of a drug sale
b> We would have better police protection, as the police would be trying to catch predators rather than people who merely want to use a product that some people don't happen to like
c> Productive members our society who are holding jobs and hiring people that happen to use drugs would not be put in jail
d> The drugs would become less expensive and the profit (and, consequently, crime) motives for selling them would be removed
e> The U.S. military could focus on its real job (protecting the country) rather than enforcing idiotic drug laws
f> The U.S. Government could reduce in size
I could go on and on!
Perhaps *bad* is an improvement over *worse*.
Except that you have assumed that things would be worse if drugs were legalized. You have not shown it. Most people claim that things would be worse if drugs were legalized because
Re:Language Evolves, Matey (Score:4, Funny)
(ducks)
Re:Hmm...a question (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Hmm...a question (Score:5, Funny)
WHAT!! We don't believe... wait... woaahhh! My hand looks like a care bear. What was the question again?
Re:Hmm...a question (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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:Hmm...a question (Score:4, Insightful)
>>I have an expectation of some privacy while watching a movie.
Um... no. No, you don't. You have *no* expectation of privacy while watching a movie. Movie theatres are a *public* place. You may not, for instance, whack off while watching a movie - at least, not without getting arrested and being societally shunned. Not even if you're the only person in the Kitty-Kat Theatre (thank you, Pee-Wee Herman).
Your behavior and actions are limited while you are in the theatre, and one of the limits is this: thou shalt not electronically record the movie you're watching. If you don't like being (potentially) watched, well, don't go out in public.
>>The day they [install metal detectors] is the day I completely stop going to movies;
Exactly. That's a valid choice - and probably the choice I'd make too. But just complaining about the fact that people can see you when you're in public is not valid.
Re:Beautiful. (Score:4, Informative)
Nitpick: that was Dogbert, the consultant's idea, not marketing's.
Google bomb (Score:5, Funny)
So? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:5, Insightful)
I could go rent it, but it's a pain in the ass.
Taking a cam corder into a movie theater is breaking the law, and deserves to be punished.
Assuming I keep the movie, and all other provisions, etc
So... you defend the law by only following it when it's convenient and you defend your actions by saying you'll accept the consequences IF they ever come and subject to provisions you invent?
How the fuck is this insightful? You can't selectively follow and defend laws based on your own personal convenience and have any credibility. If they're going to waste the public's money dragging people with camcorders from the theatre into a police cruiser, then they ought to do the same to you for using your internet connection to do exactly the same thing: violate copyright. The mechanism for infringement is irrelevant.
Look, I'm sorry to just go ad hominem on this guy's ass, but that was a stupid post, and this person is stupid for posting it.
Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)
At least that is my opinion.
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:
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)
Personally, I hope they take their time and nail this guy to the wall.
Re:So? (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
The projectionist with the night vision goggles usually keeps pretty quiet about that one.
There's only one problem with that attitude (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:The contract (Score:4, Insightful)
The fine print on the back of my movie stub seems to back up the grandparent post's point that a movie ticket lets you sit in a seat for the duration (+ buffer time) of the performance, space and whatnot permitting. Note that there's no signature line or text notifying me that by purchasing said ticket, I have agreed to a contract/license.
Damn Straight... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, but your indignation, based on your lack of understanding of how contracts work, does not invalidate the contract you enter with a theater house. You can "forget it", but then don't expect them to forget it too.
Virg
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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, Insightful)
The theaters aren't just fighting for the MPAA - many don't like the MPAA, who sucks up much of the ticket cost - they are doing it because it's potentially lost income, not to mention that laws are being broken on their premises.
Re:So? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
So fine the dude a thousand or a million or whatever, ban him from theatres, whatever. But jail time? Get real. Completely inappropriate.
Re:So? (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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)
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
How dare they!!! (Score:5, Funny)
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!!!!
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
As for the issue of mobile phones left on during a public performance, well, if you're arguing that it's both selfish and inconsiderate to other patrons then I agree with you totally. But, as I've pointed out, it's the mere possession of a device capable of recording video that makes you a criminal here, not its use, and asking all cinema-goers who have video mobiles to leave them at home is hardly the proper solution here. The most appropriate solution is to punish people who are caught breaching copyright, not those that are just watching the movie that they paid to see.
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see what the big deal is, personally. These copies aren't high quality. A year in jail is outrageous. Just throw the bum out of the theatre and ban him. Why does the United States have this OBSESSION with punishment. It is not sufficient to slap someone with a little fine; we have to bankrupt them, throw them in jail, ruin their lives, all for a trivial little offense. What the fuck!!! Show some goddamned common sense. After all, there are so many laws on the books, I feel I can safely say that 100% of the people in the U.S. are in violation of at least one of them at least once per year. It could be your turn next.
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
2. making a bad copy of a movie does not warrant a felony conviction, jail time, loss of the right to vote, loss of the ability to make a living, or the loss of the right to serve on a jury. this is insane. it was a civil infraction, punishable by fine, until the MPAA and RIAA made it a federal crime more severe than the act of murder.(rape? angary? does semantics matter when money is on the line?)
3. as many have said, why isn't Ken Lay in jail if the Law is the LAW? Some schmuck is going to be raped for years and have his life extinguished because the MPAA bought a law? who the hell in Hollywood has gone to jail for raping a creator out of millions of dollars in royalties?
4. i keep hearing that he was in private establishment. but Paul Reubens (Pee Wee Herman) had his life ruined and his bank account drained for masturbating in a PUBLIC PLACE: the porno theater.
if the theater is a public place, this means we are not permitted to record video in public? Judge Scalia CAN confiscate voice recorders? if it is a private establishment where Constitutional rights are suspended, why was Reubens arrested and humiliated for being in public?
5. if the Law is the LAW, would it be right for a locality to execute you for a speeding ticket? After all, you are expected to know the consequences for your illegal actions. Discuss.
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
This was not exaggeration, it was pointing out that just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's stealing. It's very simple. Copyright violation and stealing are two different legal violations. The definitions are not the same. Analogizing copyright violation to not paying for a bus ride is also flawed: it costs the bus company money for you to be on that bus, in terms of more fuel used and more wear and tear on the equipment. In this case, you are stealing. Copyright violation does not cost the copyright holder money, it might cost the copyright holder potential money. This is the fundamental difference between copyright infringement and theft. Theft deprives the victim of something s/he has, copyright infringement deprives the victim of something s/he might have gotten. Hence the appropriate response to coyright infringement: determine the losses incurred by the infringer, and recoup money for the holder from the infringer. Making this a criminal violation achieves nothing.
Murder and rape are not less severe than copying
His point is that, in a sense, they are: neither murder nor rape is a federal crime (unless committed on federal property, while trafficking aliens, in pursuit of drug-related activity, and a few other exceptions). Violation of copyright is. Again, this is not an exaggeration, simply a statement of fact.
You will also note I didn't say I thought the punishment was proper, that is for a court to decide though, not the MPAA, as the trial hasn't gone through yet, we have no idea what the punishment will be
Partially correct. We have no idea whether jail time will be served, fines will be assessed, etc. However, we do know that if convicted of a felony, the guilty party loses the right to vote, the right to sit on a jury, and must make any employer aware of a felony conviction. This is independent of the penalties assessed, and is what the original poster was referring to. We do know these penalties will exist, assuming only that the violator is convicted.
Kenneth Lay has NOTHING to do with this story, stay on topic! Kenneth Lay should rot for what he did, no one will argue differently here. The person who commited this crime still did something wrong, and should be punished, once again, how much depends on what the judge rules, and how appeals go, this hasn't even been broached yet, so stop speculating wildly. And FYI, tons of Hollywood king pins have been sued, and they have lost, for the infringment of other people's copyrights, and for unfair contracts. It happens all the time, research before you post!
Completely correct. Just because Ken Lay should be in prison doesn't necessarily mean this guy shouldn't be. I couldn't agree more.
Once again, learn how to debate, excessive exaggeration DOES NOT make your point.
Well, it's poorly presented, to be sure. But the point is that just because something is illegal doesn't mean punishments should be arbitrarily onerous. Though clouded in dubious rhetoric, the original poster's point is valid, since s/he's trying to argue that the punishments being assessed for copyright infringement are excessive. Of course, one doesn't need to appeal to making speeding a capital crime to make this point, one only needs to look at the RIAA's "legal" tactics against Kazaa users.
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
Two, what happens in five years when we all have cell phones more powerful than our desktops that can record full video for 10 hours? I already have a PDA more powerful with more RAM than a notebook I had several years ago. Do you really want to go to jail because you happened to check a page that vibrated in on the cell? That is the scenario we moving to.
Third, are all those five people household members? If not, then it is arguable that is a public showing. By your terms, you are a thief depriving those hard working people at the MPAA of thier rightful works. You may want to get off that high horse.
I am all for respecting others rights, but I also expect some reciprisosity. Copyrights were meant to be applied for a limited time; not for effectively forever. More and more laws are being passed to trample on my rights.
LOL (Score:5, Funny)
The thought of spending a year in "Le Hotel Cornhole" over The Alamo [imdb.com]?! HA aha ahaha... man that's too funny.
Yeah...right (Score:5, Funny)
Projectionist = Centropy asshat customer = FTF
I found the number (Score:5, Funny)
1-800-88G-REED
Cam? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Because we all know that the war on drugs has completely eradicated the evil scourge that is marijuana use
Lol.
yes, the message is clear... idiot. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:yes, the message is clear... idiot. (Score:4, Insightful)
- Jack Valenti is indeed an Ass Head, and the MPAA sucks
- movie bootleggers are criminal asshats who also suck
- 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
You missed the message (Score:5, Insightful)
Does anyone honestely believe that this is a privacy issue?
Re:You missed the message (Score:3, Funny)
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)
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)
The lesson is clear: don't be stupid and take a video camera into a movie theatre.
Big ol Flashlight. (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Big ol Flashlight. (Score:3, Interesting)
War on Drugs? (Score:4, Insightful)
In other news.. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Slashdot: News for trolls. Stuff that's biased. (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
Blinded by the light (Score:5, Funny)
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)
Interesting... (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Okay. So what equipment... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
first (Score:5, Funny)
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)
The message is don't videotape a movie playing in the theater. I mean really, is *this* a problem for you?
Come on, use some common brain cells. (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Come on, use some common brain cells. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Come on, use some common brain cells. (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
Resonable doubt? (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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.
The difference (Score:4, Offtopic)
The original constitutional reason for copyrights and patents was to support "THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE AND USEFUL ARTS [fepproject.org]"--not to protect the creation of what the great Ralph Nader [votenader.org] calls "violent corporate sponsored pornography".
I don't opposed government subsidies of "science and the useful arts"--if done on a basis that is fair and democratic --promoting technological development that creates the kind of advancements and culture much of the population wants. What Hollywood wants goes beyond free speech, or subsized technical advancements, Hollywood wants active government support of privately owned, corporate managed social control mechanisms. Given the fact that since protection of these mechanisms has intensified the last 40 years, we've seen a signficant drop in things like disposable income, and an increase in economic inequality, IMHO it is high time we use what political rights we have left and seriously look for alternatives here.
Smoking joints after exams? (Score:5, Funny)
The problem is the penalty (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Useful for Other Violations (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Stupid comment, Michael (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Editorial (-1, Flamebait) (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Cams in theatres are pop-culture now (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
As usual, slashdotters missing the bigger picture. (Score:5, Insightful)
Several things here warrant serious attention...
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.The MPAA is right this time (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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.
Yes, Really. (Score:4, Interesting)
Really? That prevalent?
As one other poster noted, this may have been done by a projectionist who didn't want the competition.
My then-girlfreind worked as a manager for one and another local theatre with one of the Big Chains. There was a "gentlemen's agreement" between all of the managers for all of the chains allowing the "build screenings" (where they watch the movie after it is first spliced together to make sure it is in the correct order & direction... which was not always the case) were open to any local theatre employee, with one significant other allowed as a guest.... which is how I got to see this first hand.
The managers and some of the more senior trained staff generally took care of the projection duties. At the main theatre for the Other Big Chain, one of the projectionists had a $10K pro-level video camera up in the projection loft for every major release, making a quality copy for his cousin in NYC to redistribute. None of the other theatre managers cared, since it wasn't their theatre, and thus not their problem. The manager for that theatre didn't do anything either, since he was presumably getting a cut of the sale to the DVD maker, and was certainly busy doctoring the books to rob the chain of half the popcorn sales. I cared a little, but not enough to risk pissing off every other manager in town at my GF.
The projectionist had a better sense of timing than the manager-- he quit and left town about three months before the manager was audited and fired for theft. To the best of my knowlege, though, neither were ever caught for their piracy.
The majority of theatre employees, in my experience, are underbright, underpaid, overworked, and consider anything they can get away with five-finger discounting a "perk". (However, restaurant workers are worse on par.) And anyone who deals with computer threat assesment can tell you, the biggest threat to security is from an employee doing an inside job.