Night Goggles Capture Spider-Man Movie Bootlegger 998
linuxwrangler writes "According to SFGate.com/AP, a teen has been arrested for attempting to bootleg the Spider-Man 2 movie, after a projectionist using night-vision goggles spotted him. The teen was escorted from the theater by security guards and turned over to police. This may be the first arrest stemming from the use of NV goggles that were previously mentioned on Slashdot."
More Info (Score:5, Funny)
I think to keep in the spirit, he should have donned a spidey outfit, and swung down from his little window to catch the guy.
Required reference: The Little Kicks - Seinfeld bootlegs a movie
Soon, only good divx on your favorite p2p network! (Score:5, Insightful)
Those guys have solved what I was personnaly considering as the only remaining weakness of p2p. Good.
--
Go Debian!
Most movie bootlegs are inside jobs anyhow (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Most movie bootlegs are inside jobs anyhow (Score:5, Informative)
Who's stupid...?
wonder who the real bootlegger is (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay sure if they can look out for that.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Okay sure if they can look out for that.. (Score:5, Funny)
What happens next time I bring a lady in with me and we sit up the back an eh... you know... do the things that slashdot never told you about... can this see us then?
No... of course not... don't let us bother you.
Chief Quimby over helicopter loud-speaker: "Don't mind us. Continue swimming naked. Oh, come on, continue! Aww..."
Nitpick (Score:5, Informative)
Chief Wiggum: "Do not be alarmed. Continue swimming naked...."
Re:Okay sure if they can look out for that.. (Score:4, Funny)
One of my first jobs was at a movie theater. There were these two people that we nicknamed the "Swing Kids", every few Sundays they'd come to an afternoon movie. They'd get it on in a dark corner of the theater. As soon as the crowd died down, we'd take turns going into the theater to check on them. As long as no customers complained, we didn't really care.
It was pretty funny, the guy looked like Lurch from the Adams family. The girl was kind of cute but she had a gimpy leg and walked with a limp. (Maybe because of Lurch wearing her out)After every movie, Lurch would go and sit on the bench while little miss gimp limped her way into the ladies room, presumably to freshen up.
Your
You never have to worry about that scenario unfolding.
LK
Re:Okay sure if they can look out for that.. (Score:3, Funny)
Then the projectionist with the night vision camcorder will release a video of you two on all the P-2-P networks. You've seen the quality of one made by a girl named Paris, but don't expect to get a TV contract out of it, just years and years of embarassment.
the AC
this is nothing but BS anyways... (Score:5, Interesting)
we did some tests and a pair of IR floods pointed at the audience at the sides of the screen makes it impossible for a camcorder to record the film without being massively washed out and looking like hell.
the movie companies are just trying to make examples and generate public fear.
if they pulled their heads out of their asses long enough to use simple solutions like I gave above it would be "solved". but they know that most bootlegs do not come from kids in a theatre but from staff at that theatre or in their own company.
that said, I have almost finised my head mounted high intensity IR strobe made from lots of Ir led's and I cant wait to use it at a theatre to see if I get the attention of a movie police.
Re:this is nothing but BS anyways... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not that I'm saying that movie companies arent just trying to create public fear by making a few loud examples.
At Last I Am Made Safe (Score:5, Funny)
Re:At Last I Am Made Safe (Score:5, Funny)
The next minimum-wage spotty cinema attendant who tries to spy on us with night vision goggles is gonna find out what a life with smoking holes where his retinas were is like.
And yes, I know that decent night vision goggles have a signal damper system to prevent flash overload, but I'm betting that the film industry aren't gonna spring the extra that those cost...
Good job MPAA (Score:5, Interesting)
Night Goggles Capture Spider-Man Movie Bootlegger" (Score:5, Funny)
Night Goggles!
The most feared and ruthless projectionist of all time!
Extra Extra: Night Goggles foils bank robbery!
Sorry, semantical nit picking
Re:Night Goggles Capture Spider-Man Movie Bootlegg (Score:5, Funny)
In the United States, the movies watch you!
so what? (Score:4, Informative)
most of the moovies on p2p networks comes from the dvds distributed to preview them
Re:so what? (Score:3, Informative)
Cams and Telesyncs are the major formats. They account for 90% of all releases. Go check the NFO sites if you don't believe me.
Re:so what? (Score:3, Funny)
I hereby put you, Mr. "xlyz", user 695304 of Slashdot of the Open Source Developers Netowrk, under citizens arrest. You could not have know such information without being a pirate yourself, so, on the authoritah of the MPAA, the DCMA, the RIAA, the MIAA, and the PIAA, I am taking you in. Please unplug your computer(s) and send them to me immediately via UPS next day. They are evidence of a crime(s) and if you fail to co
Other sources (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, say your buddy is the guy who sets up the movie in the theater, and sits there while it runs. You make nice with him, and he allows you to film the movie in relative security, rather than you sitting in audience, waiting to get busted by your neighbor or wandering security guys.
From my experience, anyway, it doesn't take much to convince a guy working a menial job like that to do something that may jeopardize his employment. Yeah, it's a broad generalization, but hey, it's consistent.
Re:Other sources (Score:5, Informative)
propaganda war (Score:5, Interesting)
Unconstitutional Sentencing? (Score:5, Interesting)
"The teen could be charged under a law that went into effect Jan. 1 and makes taking a recording device into a movie theater a crime punishable by up to one year in jail and a maximum fine of $2,500."
Potentially a year in jail for videotaping a movie? He didn't distribute it yet so they can't punish him for more broad piracy issues. A year in jail for a single instance of copyright violation? Could this be argued as a violation of 8th ammendment rights?
Re:Unconstitutional Sentencing? (Score:5, Informative)
If the kid is smart, he'll already have a lawyer on his side, working for him. This is how laws get challenged. The sentiment of, "You did the crime, now do the time," is a cop-out. Would you react the same way if speeding was punishable by up to a year in prison and a $2500 fine? What would you do if you killed someone in self defense and were charged with murder? Would you roll over and take it, because you obviously killed the person? People bitch and moan about lawyers and the judicial system, but they protect your rights. (I'm speaking of criminal lawyers, not the civil lawyers that live for the next big class action.) What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt? This may look cut and dried, but how do we know there weren't extenuating circumstances? Are night vision goggles really allowable, or is it an infringement on constitutional rights? (you don't have the constitutional right to bootleg movies, but you do have a constitutionally protected privacy that this may or may not infringe upon -- the only way to know is for the case to be tried in court and see what happens.) The kid might get off on what you consider a technicality, but that's justice. If the method of collecting evidence is questionable, and disallowed, and the case can't be proven otherwise, then the guy deserves to go free because you can't prove he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether it's a bootlegging case like this, a speeding ticket where the equipment used was out of calibration, or a more serious crime where evidence was gathered illegally (say, by tapping a phoneline without a warrant, or illegally searching someone's property without a warrant), it doesn't matter. If you can't prove the case beyond a shadow of a doubt without the disallowed evidence, there is no case. Period. End of story.
Complain if you like. That's your right. However, you should at least take the time to understand why the system is the way it is, and why even the obviously guilty still have a right to representation and a fair and speedy (speedy can be waived by the defendent, but not fair) trial by a jury of their peers. I don't want to take that right away from you. Why would you want to take it away from me?
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to know all of the circumstances of this case.
Bout time. (Score:3, Interesting)
I gave up going to the theatre due to high costs and lack of value. Now I just wait the three to 6 months and watch it at home on the wide screen. At least I won't get busted for making out with my fiancee if things get to heavy.
I am just waiting for the guy who works in the theatre, donning these new fangled night vision goggles, to sue the theatre because they didn't give him proper training . I am sure someone, somewhere will forget to take them off when the lights go on.
Barring human stupidity, I just wonder what effect on your vision wearing these things for, lets say 6 hrs a day, three days a week, for the average teen kid working at a theatre part time. I also wonder how the bright flashes of light comming from the screen effect your vision over time. Whenever you see a movie where some guy is hunting down some other guy, or girl for that matter, and is wearing night vision goggles, inevitably the hunted use some bright light to blind the hunter... Does anyone have any first hand knowlege of the damage to the eyes, or if the pain and squinting you see in the movies during these scenes is true to fact?
slander (Score:3, Insightful)
Move along, there's nothing to bitch about here (Score:4, Insightful)
The penalties may be a bit harsh, but that's better that than curtailing the rest of our freedoms.
LK
mpaa in denial (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh please. I've bought and downloaded many 'illegal copies' in my time, and that percentage is ridiculously high. You'd have to be nuts to buy a camcorder movie, when the 'direct copy of the dvd sent out as promo' version is available.
They surely realise that any 'for sale' pirate version of the film came from an inside source, and this quote in the article is pure FUD.
Re:mpaa in denial (Score:4, Interesting)
On the internet, I don't belive that 92% of the files copied are cams. No way. That statistic is BOGUS.
But for the street vendors, pushing VCDs and crappy VHS dupes to idiots, it might even be true. Or might have been a few years back - nowdays with pirate DVDs of unreleased-to-DVD movies are more common, and with those the customers already demand a bit more quality than a cammed copy.
Lots of pirate _sales_ are made on the very first days the movie is out - and at that point the cammed version might be the only thing that's out there. The dumb pirate *buyers* do not know any better, and I could belive a hefty chunk of the sales are cammed copies. Tho I still think that 92% number must include telesyncs, which are made with a tripod, in an empty theater with the cooperation of the staff. And THAT problem is fixable by securing the handling and showing of the prints. Of course THAT would cost money. Probably more than what it costs to buy off new laws to toss camming kids to jail.
"Entertainment is Free" Solution (Score:4, Insightful)
If you argue that making copies of music or movies shouldn't be illegal, why not do a "shareware" entertainment industry. You go, see the movie and if you like it, pay the theater on the way out. Same with the popcorn. I hate the prepopped popcorn that is delivered and reheated. Tastes like styrofoam. If it's that popcorn, don't pay after getting it.
Ahh, but on the flip side, you are paid the same way for your work. The manager authorized payment only if you are doing the work you're supposed to be doing. Reading Slashdot? No pay for that time. On IM, no pay for that time (or reduced pay).
Wait wait. The network is working great. No problems in the past week. Hey, you haven't done any recovery work so you don't get that extra $1000 that week. The network crashed and you fixed it. Great, here's $1000 but minus $200 because it crashed.
Man, a shareware economy. Wouldn't that be great?
But why? (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, any film that plays 'Rain drops keep falling on my head' in full has problems.
*sigh*
Where do they get these figures? (Score:3, Interesting)
I saw Spidey today (Score:3, Informative)
Do they look for the camera, or the IR focus light (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder if they just need to glance in there, with the camera sticking out like a sore thumb, or if they actually need to see the camera itself?
This is a good move... but not for the MPAA (Score:5, Interesting)
This will homefully deter people from spreading poor quality bootlegs.
However, this means that the average movie spread on the internet will be of higher quality. I wonder if the MPAA really has thought this one through...
A CAM version of a movie is not a replacement for buying it. But if the only copies spread on the internet are DVD-rips, this could have a negative impact on VHS/DVD rentals and sales
So if people were encurraged to bring cameras to the theatre and shoot crappy bootlegs, the internet would be flooded by a lot of different versions of low quality files. And anyone downloading stuff would get dissapointed.
A personal note: I once watched a downloaded movie "filmed in Tilt-o-vision(tm) in front of a live theatre audience" and I woved to myself never to do that again because of the poor quality. I guess the MPAA feels the same way
Re:This is a good move... but not for the MPAA (Score:5, Funny)
Actually MST3K wasn't cancled. They simply finally caught the guy who was taping Tom, Crow and Mike.
Dangerous Spotty Teenager Arrested! (Score:5, Insightful)
Courageous anti terror law officials late last night breached a murky downtown theatre filled with potential criminals. Acting on a tip submitted by a courageous patriot our brave heroes bravely bested the bandit. Using stunguns and gas grenades the 16 year old felon (and suspected murder) was wrestled to the ground and wearing straight jacket, handcuffs and leg irons was dragged of to prison. In an impromptu press conference at the Dorothy Chandler pavilion Vice Chairman of Sleazy Pictures Entertainment, Joff Blackhole spoke to the thousands of gathered stars of screen and stage and said this was a great day for justice, truth and honor everywhere in the universe, when a sick twisted disgusting criminal like this could be brought to justice like this. A tearstricken Vice Chairman thanked his parents and his wife.
In other news, 20 American Soldiers were killed by terrorist in Baghdad officials haven't got any leads.
It's a simple license issue. (Score:4, Insightful)
The agreement with the movie theaters is "I agree that I can come in and sit quietly and watch the movie. No, I can't record it. No, I can't sit in the back and sing the Spider Man cartoon theme at the top of my lungs. No, I can't piss on the people in the next row." Simply put, you're not allowed to disrupt their business. Yes, recording and distributing it before it leaves theaters disrupts their business, don't kid yourself. If you don't like it, DON'T GO TO THE THEATER. How difficult is this concept?
Wonderful. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, sorry, I misread that (Score:5, Interesting)
Protection against the Night Goggler (Score:5, Funny)
BUUWAHAHAHAHAHA!
Now that that is solved (Score:4, Insightful)
And Stan Lee? (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't it ironic that the same movie studios that are lobbying politicians to combat piracy with tougher laws are the same studios that are reluctant to pay royalties owed to the real creators of the intellectual property? If you're going ask politicians to enforce the law, you should follow it as well.
Not really. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not really. (Score:3, Informative)
No. Unfortunately, and ironically, you assume that assumptions don't have bearing. In fact, the assumptions of a reasonably person are indeed the deciding factor in numerous different laws.
Most obvious example: Phone conversations cannot be tapped without a court order because people have a reasonable assumption of privacy.
Re:Not really. (Score:5, Insightful)
Most obvious example: Phone conversations cannot be tapped without a court order because people have a reasonable assumption of privacy.
Which is one of the privacy guidelines established by the Supreme Court in determining government encroachments of your privacy. And with your specific example, there are also guiding wiretap laws.
However your privacy "rights" where it regards interaction with other private citizens are not nearly so developed. For instance, with very little reason, your employers can monitor your email, search your company-supplied desk drawers, etc. If you let me in your house, I'm not aware of any law that would prevent me from ruffling through your filing cabinet.
Now granted, there are some related restrictions. For example if I found your credit card number in one of those cabinets I couldn't go billing things to your card--but that's credit card fraud, not an issue of privacy. If I broke into your house to search, that's breaking and entering, not really an issue of privacy. (Breaking and entering laws might exist in part to protect our privacy, but breaking and entering is illegal because state legislatures say so.) Little by little, legislatures and courts are beginning to more narrowly define privacy rights with regards to interactions with other people (especially employer/employee relationships), but it is by no means as established as when the government may or may not tap your phones.
The grandparent's post, in its proper context, remains largely accurate; I have no idea how you got onto wiretaps. We're not talking about the government here, we're talking about movie theater people with NV goggles searching out movie pirates. Not only do I see absolutely no way it matters whether you expect they're doing that or not, but while we could argue all day about whether or not it is right, good for business or even effective, I see it as the fundamental right of theater owners to protect their revenues by stopping pirates. If they choose to use NV goggles to help them do so, that's their business.
In short, you were way too quick to try and pounce.
Re:Invasion of privacy? (Score:4, Interesting)
The night vision thing creeps me out. I imagine theater security goons walking around with those goggles on like Hannibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs. And if the film is political, for example Fahrenheit 911, the idea that they are watching your every move even in the dark is scary. At some F911 showings in rightwing areas, they have cops in the theater, supposedly to quell possible disturbances but in reality apparently just to intimidate people. The night vision stuff really adds to the creep factor.
I'm glad that I almost never go to the movies any more.
Re:Invasion of privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm...you have any evidence to back that up? Maybe there's actual reason to fear far-left extremism and hyperbole that is thrown out by Michael Moore (I admit, his movies are entertaining...unfortunately they are chocked full of lies [bowlingfortruth.com]). You know, anti-capitalists have this thing about rioting (see: Seattle G8 summit) to prove that they are peace-loving, bleeding-heart individuals.
I think it's rather funny that because someone sees a police officer in a theatre in a conservative area you assume that it is for intimidation. Perhaps you should collaborate with Moore on his next film, since you guys seem to do the same level of research before spouting off something as fact.
BTW: I'm not a fan of Bush...in fact...I can't stand him. However, left-wing nuts must be pointed out along with the right-wingers....
Peace.
Re:Invasion of privacy? (Score:4, Interesting)
First was "the eclipse." In The Eclipse, I would hold up the medium cup the customer asked for and then, say, "for only a quarter more, you can have a large!" as I moved the large cup in front of the medium cup, "eclipsing" it.
The second was "the vanishing." "for only a quarter more, you can have a large!" and I drop the medium cup into the large cup. Isn't that worth it!
These days I make my living as a photographer. Recently meeting with a bride whose wedding we had photographed, I upsold her from a 10x10 album to an 11x14 buy moving it in front of the 10x10. It worked, but I felt so dirty. I still have nightmares about "the vanishing."
Re:Invasion of privacy? (Score:4, Funny)
What, did you drop the 10x10 down your pants and you got a paper cut out of it?
Re:pathetic (Score:5, Funny)
Re:pathetic (Score:5, Funny)
2 words for all those who still are trying to record movies in the theatre... flash bang
Re:pathetic (Score:5, Funny)
Re:pathetic (Score:4, Funny)
Re:pathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:pathetic (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep. The ugly facts of psychology. Between acting out of spite and acting out of self-interest, spite almost always wins. That's why torture never works. Between not having them jab a spike into your balls, and making the jerk who wants to do that feel like he's bad at torture, you go with making the guy feel bad.
A good half of the time, the guy you make the example of gets
Re:pathetic (Score:5, Funny)
Okay, next time I get tortured, I'll give them your name.
Re:pathetic (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:pathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
Torture ALWAYS works. Always. Every single time. Because torture is a really terrifying affair, and having seen it on film does not make you an expert.
I have met and interviewed torture victims. There's nothing glamorous about it, and I really wish you didn't trivialize it so.
Re:pathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
Once someone is broken down too far, they'll agree with anything and even make up detailed stories which support what the interrorgator wants to hear. It's a survival instinct. If I think you'll stop hurting me if I tell you the sky is green, it's entirely likely I'll eventually beleive the sky is green and tell you so. Breaking down someone's sense of ethics/responsibility/community is hard, and it's a short step to breaking down their sense of reality.
So yeah, it works, in that the victim will tell you anything. But the victim has to be in a mental state to actually know the right answer, and therein lies the problem.
Of course, in a lot of instances, the goal of torture is simply torture, so the information is moot. Wonderful world, eh?
Re:pathetic (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't mean to single you out, because everybody is making the same assumption here. But where in the article is it established that this kid was planning on ripping and uploading? So far as I know, it hasn't yet been established that he was anything other than a Spidy-fan who wanted his own personal copy of the movie.
Sound
This is not a good argument for harsh punishments (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's take speed traps. What a joke right now. One cop sits there, finds a speeder, pulls them over, and writes them a $50 ticket while others continue to speed. That's not hars. So let's make a harsh deterrent. Let's have cops with M2s (.50 cal machine guns) and radar guns. You speed, they anihilate you and your car. Now THAT'S deterrence.
But it's ok, right? I mean those people that get killed broke the law, they should have known better. The harsh punishment will make people think twice before speeding. Fuck justice, we want DETERRENCE!
This is an extreme example, but does well to illustrate what you advocate. Harsh punishments for near harmless crimes are not just. In the US, we not only have a sense that the punishment should fit the crime, it's law, the highest law of the land (US Constituion, Ammendment 8).
In this case you have a kid, who paid to see a movie, that is making a video tape. You have NO proof of intent to distribute or anything else. So you have someone, that already paid to see it, that is making a copy. Show me the harm in that. Even if he does distribute it, empirical studies have shown that, indeed, internet copying doesn't have the huge economic impact the media industry wants to claim.
So you have someone that is comitting a non-violent crime, with no apparent profit motive, and no intent to distribute (at least not that you can infer from the article) and you want a HARSH punishment?
Look, if you really believe in justice like that, you really should consider moving to a country like Sinagpore, where they have a police state and minor crimes are punished harshly. However here in the US, that's not how things are supposed to be done. It's not just idealism, it is Constitution law. That overrides all other law, federal, state and local. It is the guiding framework to which all our laws must adhere.
So if you really do believe in screwing people who commit minor offences, then you probably shouldn't live here.
Re:This is not a good argument for harsh punishmen (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This is not a good argument for harsh punishmen (Score:5, Insightful)
Speed traps are not about "stopping speeding". They are about "revenue enhancement". Harsh enough penalties as to make people stop speeding would be counterproductive to the true objective - to make some extra money for the agency writing the tickets.
Re:This is not a good argument for harsh punishmen (Score:4, Insightful)
Traffic fines -- whether from speed traps, parking tickets, or red-light cameras -- are "stealth" taxes, pure and simple. States and municipalites COUNT on that cash flow for routine operations.
Re:pathetic (Score:4, Funny)
That's quite the pricey movie. Kevin Costner would be proud.
Re:pathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
You forget, these are the same people who claimed that they lost money on Forrest Gump, [uh.edu] so they wouldn't have to pay Winston Groom, who wrote it (or at least the book on which it was based) the profit-based percentage he was owed.
In light of that, I fail to see how you expect them to be honest with minimum-wage theater workers who won't be able to afford legal recourse if they get stiffed. Sure, $500 is less than a percentage of millions, but these are some greedy motherfuckers we're talking about here-- no dollar amount is too small to weasel out of paying.
~Philly
Re:pathetic (Score:5, Informative)
No movie has ever made a profit; it is called "Hollywood Accounting". This is a well known practice to anyone who has taken even an intro to accounting course. The studios purposefully look for suckers to sign over rights in exchange for a share of profits they know will never appear. This is a perfect example of why EVERYONE, regardless of whether you're a sculptor, painter, or renassaince actor, should take take a few basic business courses so those who have taken a lot of business courses can't jerk you over.
Re:pathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
As much as we may dislike some of the tatics they may be trying to use and as much we are trying to protect our rights to copy legitimately the stuff we paid for copying a movie in a theater with a cam corder is not one of them.
Re:pathetic (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember that witches BROKE THE LAW by beeing witches.
Gallileo BROKE THE LAW asserting the world isn't flat.
Some centries ago any black guy BROKE THE LAW asserting he isn't an inferior beeing.
America BROKE THE LAW by declaring independency to britain.
Do you think all of them should be man enough to face the penalities? justified? THE LAW is unquestionable?
Re:pathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it your god-given right to receive free entertainment, at the cost of the filmmakers?
If not, then don't you think there's a good reason for this law to exist: to deter people who would steal copies of the filmmakers' films?
If not, then at least won't you recognize that every CAM-copy distributed on the internet is no better than sneaking in the back door of the theater? If these punks had been caught doing that, shouldn't they be subject to arrest under the law? Maybe the penalties for that would be a little lighter, but if you think about it from the perspective of the theater owners and filmmakers, a single CAM copy is worth thousands of back-door pilchers.
Re:pathetic (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm for a system that allows maximum welfare for all (including movie watchers and producers). I agree that without any restrictions to copyright and/or exhibition movies could not be financed, which would be a pity and hurting welfare. However on the other hand gra
Re:pathetic (Score:5, Funny)
Please, people: Don't drink and moderate. Think about it, won't you?
Re:pathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
In the examples you pointed out above (Galileo, witches, etc), indeed the LAW seemed poorly suited or established.
What is at the heart of your concerns is known as the legitimacy question - from where does the legitimacy to enforce law come?
For example, what is the difference between a police officer and a gun? Both can compel us - at threat of death - to do an action but yet we insist that the police officer is legitimate.
The answer to this question depends on the government. For most of the middle ages and, in fact, right until WWI and WWII, the sovereigns of Europe and most of the world insisted that they ruled by divine mandate. The will of the King was law because the King was a god appointee. (This is the view of the Saudi royal family).
What is interesting about this is that the King is outside the law - he can break any orders, he cannot be reviewed, he can even be cruel for no reason.
Hitler answered the legitimacy question in terms of biology - German Aryans were the obvious biological vehicles of power and thus derived their right to rule over the lesser people by virtue of superior "race."
The American constitution answered the question by saying that the people are the sovereign. This means that every man - including the President - is bound by the law, that the law ought to be blind and equally open to all, and that the burden ought to usually be on the government (hence "innocent until proven guilty," "proof beyon a reasonable doubt," etc).
The ultimate arbiter of American government legitimacy is the people, at this level most specifically vested by form of a jury. Your fate is decided - not by God, nor the state, nor a judge - but by a group of random citizens like yourself who can understand and be swayed by your situation.
This is forever enshrined in American law by the 7th Amendment, which, along with the First, is probably our strongest safeguard against tyranny. (This is, in fact, the principle upheld by the Supreme Court in its recent "detainee" decisions).
Thus, if in self defense you were to kill a man who threatened your child with a knife, a jury might very well be able to put themselves in your shoes and say "given the same situation I would react similarly" and acquit you, even though you had murdered a person.
A conviction by a jury carries with it the assumption that you are punished by society and members of society who say that you broke the societal norm and did not, in fact, act the way they would in the same situation.
This is the reason that higher courts are loathe to overturn jury convictions. That only happens when there is absolutely incontrovertible proof of innocence (with never really existed to that level prior to DNA) or a gross miscarriage of justice (for example the jury trials in the South where no white man would fear being convicted of a lynching or similar horrid act).
In America the government is not a man with a gun but random people who decide how reasonnable you were in taking your action.
Back to the question - did this kid break the law? Well, he has his day in court to argue his side but, on a prima facie decision that he did perform all of the allegations, then he did break the law.
As you can see from the comments any group of 12 is likely to convict him because his behaviour was unreasonnable and outside the societal norm. He deserves to be be punished - he ought to be punished - precisely because he violated our laws and mores and this is not then some witch hunt of injustice unleashed upon an innocent bystander. He is legitimately punished by the government - the people - for breaking the law.
What you can see here is that, in America, the law isn't what is on the books because a jury can acquit. The law is a hyrbid of the written law, the legal
Re:pathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
Stealing something because you don't agree with the law is no defense. No-one is accusing this thief of being a witch, or declaring the world is round, or being black. He was caught with a camcorder, filming a movie.
Who the hell wants some crappy camcorder-made copy of a movie, anyways? I'll bet you only fans of the movie. People that buy that crap are only doing so to have a copy until the DVD is released. If they released DVDs and movies at the same time, there wouldn't be this problem. Or, at least we'd know his customers meant to infringe upon the copyright holders.
Also, once again, copyright infringement is NOT stealing. Nobody is deprived of property. That doesn't mean it's not a bad thing, but your comparing it to rape is incredibly extreme.
I would think fans are not the ones... (Score:3, Insightful)
I seriously doubt that. A fan would want to see their movie in half-decent quality.
:-)
These crappy movies must be selling reasonably well to the general public because you see "dodgy" market stalls with very dubious DVDs for sale.... well, at least, I don't think many studios use dot matrix printers for the DVD covers
If they didn't sell then the copyright infringers wouldn't bother pirating the
Re:pathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
I love these strawmen arguments. NOT THE SAME THING. There is no physical damage or loss here. Now, if you said "would you not mind if I paid to get into your house and have a conversation with you and your wife, then left, whilst secretly taping it all" that would be closer analogy. Kinda creepy, but not illegal in many jurisdictions. And of course it doesn't sound like something to get all upset about, calling for people's heads on pikes, etc.
Just like the music industry's argument of "You can't go onto a car lot and steal a car, so why 'steal' music?". No. But if you were able to borrow a friend's car for a minute (like you borrow their CD to rip it), and use a machine to make a perfect replica of the car, I bet your friend wouldn't give a crap, and neither would anyone else.
Re:pathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
Almost got it right! There is loss. Loss in seeing the value of the movie being diluted because some cretin put it on the internet for free.
Same thing as when the American Government prints some more green ones. You still have the same amount of dollars int your bank account, but every one of these dollars is now worth a little less.
You didn't loose, but you end up being a little less rich. Oh wait, that's the definition of loosing.
Re:pathetic (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:pathetic (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, bullshit. You mean MARKETED for free. The first Spiderman was one of the most blatantly posted movies ever, and it was one of the biggest takers at the box office. You think anyone who would have paid to see that movie is going to look at a washed out, bad sounding, shaky cam-movie and decide not to see it? Half the point to these movies is the special effects, none of which are c
Re:pathetic (Score:5, Informative)
What is the value of something if it can be copied (reproduced) for (near to) zero cost?
Fact is, after a song, a movie and anything else which can be stored in digital form has been produced, its value is as high as the cost of reproducing and distributing it. Using cheap PCs and broadband internet, this cost is usually pretty much negligible.
Money is an abstract representation of the value of an object or service. While one might need more coins to pay for the same product if more money is added to 'the system', the value of the products remains the same.
Re:pathetic (Score:3, Interesting)
I think it's all a more complicated issue, since movies and any thus data like this are not normal goods in consumption. For example an apple is a normal, if I eat it, you can't, if take it you got one less. Movies are a totally different case, or for example the television set at home is the same problematic. If I consum it, I don't disable
Re:pathetic (Score:4, Insightful)
For once and for all: (illegal) COPYING IS NOT STEALING
To go with your parent:
Whitches aided the devil in stealing souls.
Galileo wanted to steal faith from 'true believers'.
'Blacks' wanted to steal the 'obvious superiority' away from the 'whites'.
Americans wanted to steal about half of the British Empire.
All bullshit. Do NOT follow the newspeak and misuse of the word 'stealing' when something else is meant.
Re:pathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
For once and for all: (illegal) COPYING IS NOT STEALING
<Sigh>
*I* am only replying to the deluded parent who seems to think that a law prohibiting the use of recording instruments in a cinema is as bad as a law outlawing witchcraft, or removing the rights of coloured people. I chose an extreme example to show how flawed those arguments can be.
In a nutshell - the kid broke the law, get over it. Is the law a good law or a bad one? I'm opting for the good law side of the equation. Is "theft" involved? Beats the fuck out of me, but the little shit shouldn't have been doing what he was doing and should have known better.
Get a sense of perspective! (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure: you can fall on either side of the copyright debate, but if you think copyright related crimes, especially ones where nobody profits from the crime and the only loss is a theoretical and arguable one at best, are in the same ballpark as the other examples you gave... well... you need to get out more often.
And this is coming from an artist who has been (on rare occasion) paid for my work.
Cheers.
Re:pathetic (Score:3, Informative)
Galileo moved the sun in the center of the system, made the earth spinng around itself, and not the universe around it, that was the actual crime not so much for calling it round.
While in Galileos model the planets made perfect cycles around the sun, Copernicus corrected that by noticing that they are eclipses, and postulat
Re:pathetic (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, it was Kepler who came up with the laws of planetary motion [wikipedia.org] - including elliptic orbits.
Copernicus [wikipedia.org] introduced a helio-centric universe but used circular orbits.
Galileo, who was a contempary of Kepler, made experimental observations using the newly-invented telescope with which he found moons orbiting another planet (Jupiter).
Re:pathetic (Score:3, Funny)
Quiet man, he's on a roll.
"Was it over when the German's bombed Pearl Harbor?"
Re:pathetic (Score:5, Funny)
Re:pathetic (Score:3, Insightful)
Murder? Oh that's fine, go ahead please.
COPYING A MOVIE!!!!!??!?!?! OFF TO JAIL WITH YOU.
What a great society we live in.
Re:pathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
As you obviously care about this so much, why dont you present the cops with a box of Night vision goggles. I'm sure they would be very greatful.
The cops are underfunded. They always are. Yes, the cops should be able to buy things like this, but in real life if they wanted things like that they would have to get private individuals to pay for it because there isnt the budget.
BTW, here is an update on the Law. Murder is *not* ok and the cops try to find murderers to the best of their ability and resources. It just happens to be easier to catch someone with a camcorder in a movie theitre, because you have a good idea on where to start looking for them.
Grow up. This boy was a criminal. He is too young to go to jail in the US, more's the pity. He was just unlucky enough to get caught.
Out of interest, exactly how would night vision goggles help the police to find murderers? indeed The only use for night vision goggles i can think of is while chasing someone down a very dark alley of some kind, during which, For them to be useful, the perp involved would also be blind without them.
Re:pathetic (Score:4, Insightful)
Ooooh. This just sits wrong with me. It's a case of the rich being able to afford to have laws upheld. Been raped and want the criminal brought to justice? Throw money at the system and it shall be done. Want a murderer to be brought to justice? If you're rich it will happen, if you're poor no-one cares.
Re:pathetic (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet. How long until people hire "private investigators" to investigate a crime and then pass the evidence onto the police? Sounds like a good thing. Until you realise that poor people can't afford this.
Win-Win Solution (Score:3, Interesting)
Paying homeless people to do civil disobedience is win-win.
Re:Win-Win Solution (Score:5, Funny)
Re:pathetic-Argument (Score:3, Insightful)
the whole thing should be *irrelevant* because of presedence; if they wanted to stop people from recording they should have done so way back in the 60's by stoping the sale of recording mediums and recording devices
dont sell them and then accuse the consumers
that *relevant* enough?
im glad that in canada it is as permissible as photocopying a book
{see the previous
Re:$10 says it was TFA (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Taking a recording device into the theatre... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:4, Insightful)
I DO think what he did was wrong. He should be fined - probably a nominal amount. Maybe a few hours community service if he's a rich kid, since mommy and daddy probably lose $2500 in their couch cushions on a bad day. If I was still in CA, though, I sure as heck wouldn't want to pay my tax $ to put this prick in jail.