Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Movies Media Government The Courts News Your Rights Online

Arrest Under New NY Anti-Piracy Law 275

Posted by Zonk from the next-time-don't-wear-an-eyepatch-to-the-movies dept.
AxminsterLeuven writes "The BBC is carrying a story on new tightened New York anti-piracy legislation: A man has been arrested, after smuggling video recording equipment into a theater showing the new Transformers movie. 'Kalidou Diallo, 48, has been charged with unauthorized use of a video camera in a cinema. Under upgraded legislation, he could face six months in jail and fines of up to $5,000 (£2,487) if found guilty,' the BBC reports."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Arrest Under New NY Anti-Piracy Law More

Arrest Under New NY Anti-Piracy Law

Comments Filter:

  • Why? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by blaster151 ( 874280 ) * on Friday July 06, 2007 @02:42PM (#19770993)
    I've never understood the appeal of these pirated works. I'm very skeptical that, as a consumer of such a bootleg, I could find the viewing experience enjoyable with the quality levels rendered by a homemade video of a movie--especially one that I could experience in a theater at a matinee showing for five to seven bucks. More than fifteen days of jail time seems excessive to me.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by WhatAmIDoingHere ( 742870 ) *
      Because some of those cams (Telesyncs) or the Telecines look REALLY good. Also, people in other countries don't get the movie until way later. Columbia doesn't get it until the 20th of July, for example.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by ThosLives ( 686517 )

        Also, people in other countries don't get the movie until way later. Columbia doesn't get it until the 20th of July, for example.

        Hrm... better be careful there. Some people in South Carolina still wish they had succeeded in getting their own country.


        (Normally I don't pick at things like this, but geez do people not even care about the difference between 'Columbia' and 'Colombia'?)

      • Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by poot_rootbeer ( 188613 ) on Friday July 06, 2007 @02:54PM (#19771177)
        Columbia doesn't get it until the 20th of July, for example.

        That's bullshit. There's no reason that it should take THAT long for the movie to make it from the theaters of downtown Manhattan up to 110th Street!

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Red Flayer ( 890720 )

          That's bullshit. There's no reason that it should take THAT long for the movie to make it from the theaters of downtown Manhattan up to 110th Street!
          RTFA :). Diallo was arrested in the Bronx. It would be surprising if he made it to 110th Street in Manhattan at all, let alone by July 20.
        • Film prints are expensive and making too many of them cuts into profits. For every movie there is a sweet spot in the number of prints that need to be made to maximize profit. "Second-tier" countries have to wait for a film to play out in its opening theaters before they will receive a print. This is the only legitimate reason for having phased movie releases. This is of course also a driving force behind the popularity of cams and bootleg telecines in these countries. The advent of digital cinema will make
      • go cry me a river, Colombia. Sometimes there's -months- between a U.S. and a Europe release. Now I'm all for simultaneous releases, but...
        1. cost of film is prohibitive (yes, the things travel - which is fun if you get it after 8 other countries got it - mmm specks, dust, stripes.. the real movie experience)
        2. promotion happens locally. E.g. actors can't be at the opening night everywhere if it's all on the same day.
        a few weeks, for Transformers, is actually pretty good, and getting a cam'd version just

    • Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Chirs ( 87576 ) on Friday July 06, 2007 @02:49PM (#19771105)

      The better recordings are made from the projection booth with the cooperation of the projector tech. The camera is on a stable tripod, sound is patched directly from the board.

      Having a reasonable quality electronic copy available while the movie is still in theaters could reasonably be expected to have an impact on both DVD sales and box office revenue...especially if the movie isn't all that great.

      • Re:Why? (Score:5, Funny)

        by Alsee ( 515537 ) on Friday July 06, 2007 @04:13PM (#19772303) Homepage
        could reasonably be expected to have an impact on both DVD sales and box office revenue...especially if the movie isn't all that great.

        Copy, cut, swap, paste:

        if the movie isn't all that great could reasonably be expected to have an impact on both DVD sales and box office revenue

        Eureka! I've made an ASTOUNDING discovery! Quick, someone e-mail that to all the Hollywood studio executives!

        -

    • Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)

      by twistedcubic ( 577194 ) on Friday July 06, 2007 @02:53PM (#19771165)
      I saw the transformers last night. There is NO WAY an audience cam is going to capture the effects. If you want to watch this particular movie, I think you have to go to the theater. People should stick to downloading movies that suck, so they won't have to waste money.
      • "I saw the transformers last night. There is NO WAY an audience cam is going to capture the effects. If you want to watch this particular movie, I think you have to go to the theater."

        Man, I cannot honestly remember the last movie I went to see in a theater...either was the last Star Wars, or the first Spiderman movie.

        I'm not interested in the lower quality copies discussed here, nor am I particularly over anxious by seeing a movie a year (or less) after it premiers via regular quality DVD. I have a good

    • Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by FiveDollarYoBet ( 956765 ) on Friday July 06, 2007 @03:02PM (#19771281)
      We would get them sent to us when I was deployed to Iraq. Most of them were of laughable quality but it was the only way to see a new release.

      • Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by db32 ( 862117 ) on Friday July 06, 2007 @03:34PM (#19771729) Journal
        I saw tons of new(ish) movies in Iraq. They were all being sold for $2-4 bucks for a DVD with 2-4 new(ish) releases by some random local in a wooden hut on the road near camp. In the meantime the MPAA and friends are chasing down 17yr olds to put them in jail...wonder why they don't go to Iraq and stop the piracy themselves. (Ignoring that Hillary Rosen was on the ground in Iraq in the very very early days begging the new Iraqi government to adopt her proposals on copyright...yeah...they need help with food, water, and security, and this psychotic bitch is going to go and talk to them about music downloads?)

        I'm a little disappointed with the Iraqi government for their lack of progress...they should have shot her ass on the spot for that nonsense.
    • I think they just want to see it before everyone else. It's pointless willy-waving, like being the first to hack a copy protected game or getting a FP on slashdot. Er, no offence...

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      especially one that I could experience in a theater at a matinee showing for five to seven bucks.

      Here's the thing: that doesn't apply to most people. It applies to most Americans, but in the rest of the world, this film won't be released for quite a while, and even if it was, in many places five to seven bucks is a huge amount of money. The pirates aren't competing with the cinemas, there's no competition for them at all. It's either get a pirated copy, or don't watch it.

      Plus, maybe some people pr

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dosius ( 230542 )
        Never seen it happen in any cinema I've gone to, in Poughkeepsie, Red Hook, Oswego, or Niagara Falls... Theatergoers here are usually pretty quiet, maybe it's just that I don't much go to kiddie flix.

        -uso.
    • well, I've got friends who generally won't pay the $11 to see a movie at the theatre and would rather pick up the $5 DVD from the mexican lady in the subway. typically, the purchase is an impulse buy... they see Grindhouse sitting there, and since they missed it in the theatres, they'll pick it up, or they'll decide that $5 beats the $44 it would cost to go see it as a group and pick it up.

      the problem is that they use such cheap DVDs when making the copies that 3/4 of the time, the movie won't play through.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by BobMcD ( 601576 )

      I'm very skeptical that, as a consumer of such a bootleg, I could find the viewing experience enjoyable with the quality levels rendered by a homemade video of a movie--especially one that I could experience in a theater at a matinee showing for five to seven bucks.

      Transformers is an excellent example of a movie where this might work for me, personally. I'm not interested in screeners either, but I hate, hate, hate Michael Bay. I don't relish the idea of missing out on a popular thing, missing the laugh in jokes and quotes, and generally not participating in this part of my culture. On the other hand, I'm not real hot on putting any money towards Transformers. Especially when it would mean burning favors to have someone watch my young children, burning a 'turn' t

    • Excessive? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by shiba_mac ( 415267 )
      More than fifteen days of jail time seems excessive? Anything more then being booted out of the cinema seems like a violation of human rights to me.

      Seriously, who is this guy harming that he deserves to spend time in jail? Who's being protected?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by lazlo ( 15906 )
      Well, first off, your experience isn't universal. You can see a matinée for five to seven bucks. It costs me about $50-60. I *could* go off and watch a movie and leave the kids home with my wife... but the divorce would probably cost quite a bit more. So I start out paying two tickets, plus gas, call it $15. It's a two hour movie, plus a half hour drive time each way, plus some fudge factor, call it 4 hours. Cheap babysitters are $10/hr. There have been movies I've taken my kids to. "Cars" was

  • Amadou (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Hatta ( 162192 ) on Friday July 06, 2007 @02:46PM (#19771039) Journal
    I wonder if he knew Amadou Diallo [wikipedia.org].
    • Unlikely. AFAIK "Diallo" is a very common last name in Guinea. Quoth wikipedia:

      On April 18, 2000, Diallo's mother, Kadiatou, and his stepfather, Sankarella Diallo...

      So his stepfather was also named Diallo.

      Certainly they may have known each other, but it is near the chances of two Smiths in NYC knowing each other.
    • Or Mamadou Diallo [wikipedia.org]. Somewhat (OK, entirely) on a tangent, when Mamadou Diallo played for DC United, he brutally tackled the Metrostars keeper and injured him quite severely. Until Diallo began playing for the Metrostars, the chants from the ESC section of the stands whenever they played DC usually included "They shot the wrong Diallo."

      At any rate, Diallo is a common name among people from West Africa; it is one of the four divisions of the Fulbe people.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dissy ( 172727 )

      The four officers fired forty-one shots, hitting Diallo nineteen times. Investigation found no weapons on Diallo's body- the item he had pulled out of his jacket was not a gun, but a wallet.
      Wow. 41 shots, 19 hit. Not only do these cops suck (for shooting so many times), but they suck at sucking (by missing so much!)

  • good (Score:5, Insightful)

    by grapeape ( 137008 ) <mpope7 AT kc DOT rr DOT com> on Friday July 06, 2007 @02:49PM (#19771099) Homepage
    If your so desperate to see a movie that you will watch a crappy copy of something someone took with a camcorder complete with the Mystery Science Theatre 3000 audience view in the bottom of the screen then just pay for $7 or wait for the DVD like everyone else. I have a friend that does this and is always asking if I want to watch some crap movie I wouldnt have paid to see, then claims he is doing it because he is anti-mpaa. If your really anti-mpaa then you wont bother to see it at all, just the fact that someone wastes an hour downloading a poor quality bootleg proves that it has some value to them. Its hard to fight increasing restrictions on fair use when bozos like this continue to make the MPAA's point for them.
    • Where in the USA are movies still only $7?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Dog-Cow ( 21281 )
        Metro-Detroit. I paid $5.75 to see Transformers two nights ago, at the Star John R.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        I took myself and three other people to a matinee showing of Ratatouille in a fairly nice theater for $23 after tax; that's $5.75 for a major new release. This was in a suburb of Dallas. I don't know what is wrong with people in other areas of the country who are willing to spend $11 to see a movie. The only theater around here that costs that much has leather seats.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by HTH NE1 ( 675604 )
        $6.50 in Lincoln, Nebraska. Douglas Theaters though has a monopoly on them here.

        There used to be a nine-screen theater that had second-run movies for $2.50 (undercutting Blockbuster rentals!), but it has been torn down, and I haven't heard of them opening a replacement.
      • $5.25 for a matinee, $7 for an evening show here in southern Oregon.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by bheer ( 633842 )
      > just pay for $7 or wait for the DVD like everyone else

      I wonder if this guy was just doing it for his friends, or if someone paid him to do it. Crappy camcorder prints are pretty popular in Eastern Europe (or used to be 10 years back) and South Asia, where these movies won't be released for months, if at all. If the MPAA was less lawsuit happy they'd look at releasing their movies at the same time around the world, and allowing internet screenings for countries where they won't release.

  • Video player? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by i_like_spam ( 874080 ) on Friday July 06, 2007 @02:50PM (#19771111) Journal
    From the article:

    Mr Diallo was arrested after allegedly smuggling a video recorder, video player and remote control into a preview of the film in the Bronx.
    WTF would he need a video player? Don't most modern recorders have built-in LCDs?

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by WrongSizeGlass ( 838941 )
      Maybe he was setting up a competing screen in the lobby next to the popcorn vendor?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by HTH NE1 ( 675604 )

      From the article:

      Mr Diallo was arrested after allegedly smuggling a video recorder, video player and remote control into a preview of the film in the Bronx.

      WTF would he need a video player? Don't most modern recorders have built-in LCDs?

      Much like how a CD copying operation in a garage with four 32x burners is reported as having the equivalent of 128 CD burners, the player probably was the one built into the camera.

      Using a remote prevents jitter starting and stopping the recording as well as disassociation from the camera if it is found. Of course, a theater would be smart enough to stake out the camera until it is retrieved rather than pr

  • Seems ironic that a man gets caught carrying a camera to film a movie about robots in disguise.

    At least one anti-piracy law finally did the public some good :)

  • The cost to society... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ushering05401 ( 1086795 ) on Friday July 06, 2007 @02:54PM (#19771175) Journal
    The reason it is wise to include jail time for violent offenders is that it is ultimately cheaper for society to pay for their room, board, and supervision than it is to potentially suffer another violent incident. Incarcerating violent offenders is one of the least controversial uses of tax money in modern America.

    What is the justification for using taxpayer money to incarcerate a non-violent offender? Worse yet, what is the justification for incarcerating an individual who only potentially damaged a private company's profits?

    Shouldn't a fine be sufficient considering only money was at stake?

    Bootleggers are closely related to white collar criminals. The only impact is financial. In the case of Enron, or some other fraud situations, I would much rather have seen the offenders be forced to work the rest of their lives to repay the retirement funds they looted etc.. rather than getting what amounts to a monetary slap on the wrist and jail time. I am pretty sure the people who ended up getting pennies on the dollar out of the settlements would probably agree with me, just as I would bet most people would rather see the money spent on jailing this bootlegger spent on something like... oh... I don't know... anything that actually benefits society.

    Regards.
    • I agree. Make the fines VERY high and you will get your point across. Let's save the jail for the ones that really need to be removed from society.

      Could you imagine a 10k fine + plus court costs + a record. Ouch

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ari_j ( 90255 )
        How about those with not a dime to their names? $10,000 fine plus court costs doesn't mean all that much if you can't even afford the bus fare to get to court.

    • It's retribution. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by KingSkippus ( 799657 ) * on Friday July 06, 2007 @03:17PM (#19771477) Homepage Journal

      what is the justification for incarcerating an individual who only potentially damaged a private company's profits?

      Because it's not only about reform, it's about retribution.

      It's the same reason we have the death penalty in this country. Sure, we can remove dangerous individuals from society. Hell, it's actually cheaper than killing them. No, the death penalty isn't a deterrent. Yes, we sometimes make mistakes. But it's not about what's best in the long run for society. It's about the sweet satisfaction you get from raw vengeance. It's not about the convict; nothing, and I mean nothing, is as cathartic for us as frying them in the chair.

      The same is true about locking up non-violent offenders. We don't have to, and a lot of the time (especially in cases like these), it's not the best way to reform an individual. But the industry must have its pound of flesh from the evildoers that skimmed a few pennies from their deep, deep pockets.

      sigh...

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Cadallin ( 863437 )
        See, that's disgusting. The electric chair is an abomination for exactly the reason you cite. It's an excruciatingly painful and slow method of execution. Approximately equal to tossing a human being (instead of a lobster) into a huge pot of boiling water. I'm not actually against the death penalty. I think it should be used more widely than it is, but not the electric chair. A properly executed hanging is far more efficient and far less prurient than the electric chair (a split second drop followed b

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by bryanp ( 160522 )
        No, the death penalty isn't a deterrent. ... It's about the sweet satisfaction you get from raw vengeance. It's not about the convict; nothing, and I mean nothing, is as cathartic for us as frying them in the chair.

        You say this as if it's a bad thing. There are people in this world who need to die.

        Personally, I'd like to see my former neighbor take the long walk. She was stealing pain meds from her own mother who was in the process of painfully dying of cancer. Got that? She was partying it up with d
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by johnny cashed ( 590023 )
      Jail is just the stick to make sure The State gets paid. Unless he is a total loser (with no friends or family with any money), he should make bail in no time. I agree that prison is excessive for the violation, but more that likely, he won't see any prison, just some fines. Don't pay the fines? Then the big stick of jail is still there to ensure that the State gets paid. This is the big purpose for imprisonment for non-violent offenders.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by chihowa ( 366380 )

        he should make bail in no time...he won't see any prison,
        Bail doesn't alleviate one of a sentenced term in prison. Bail keeps you out of jail prior to and during the trial. Bail is also not forfeited to the State unless the trial is skipped out on. Bail's not a fine, it's collateral and incentive to show up to the trial.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Thaelon ( 250687 )
      You think the organizations that paid good money to get laws passed that make such things a crime really give a shit about wasting taxpayer money?

  • good law (Score:3, Insightful)

    by scharkalvin ( 72228 ) on Friday July 06, 2007 @03:00PM (#19771251) Homepage
    I mean it's damn rude of the guy. If I paid good money
    for tickets to see a movie I don't want some bozo in the
    row ahead of me to stick his stupid movie camera in my view
    of the screen. Why that's only slightly less rude than leaving
    your damn cell phone on and I have to hear your stupid ring
    tones though out the picture.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by RingDev ( 879105 )
      After the dot com burst (right as I got out of the military) I picked up a few odd jobs. One was working 3rd shift in the local state of the art theater. People do some weird crap in theaters, the weirdest though: One guy brought a miniature microwave oven in to a movie and popped his own pop corn.

      Other tidbits:

      *Snowday was the WORST movie to clean up after. I have no idea what that movie is about, but every f'ing night it looked like someone started a popcorn fight.

      *Crossroads (the Britney Spears movie) ha

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by karnal ( 22275 )

        *Crossroads (the Britney Spears movie) had the most used condoms left behind.
        Thank god you weren't there after Brokeback Mountain....

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Dunbal ( 464142 )
      Don't forget the screaming 9 month old!
  • Robots: 1 Pirates: 0 Ninjas: ??

  • COP 1: He's got a gun!

    DIALLO: Wait! Wait! I swear it's just a video camera.

    COPS 1-4: Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang!

    COP 2: Why does his gun have a rewind button?

    COP 3: Crap... not again... [wikipedia.org]

  • Ok.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bytesex ( 112972 ) on Friday July 06, 2007 @03:04PM (#19771309) Homepage
    Am I the only one who thinks that he should have been escorted out of the building by the bouncer, after having erased his tape/static ramdisk, and be blacklisted ? I mean, that's how it used to go.

  • Crazy numbers! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kebes ( 861706 ) on Friday July 06, 2007 @03:06PM (#19771331) Journal
    Hold on... TFA claims [bbc.co.uk]:

    The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) says more than 40% of bootlegged films in the US are secretly taped in New York cinemas.
    But previously they claimed: [theglobeandmail.com]

    Canadian theatres were the source for nearly 50 per cent of illegal camcords across the globe
    So, in essence, they claim that New York and Canada account for 90% of the problem... These numbers sound totally made up to me.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by leoc ( 4746 )
      Of course they are, but politicians never fact-check claims made by powerful corporate lobbyists, which is why these made up numbers worked like a charm [halifaxlive.com].

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Kainaw ( 676073 )
      Hold on... TFA claims:

      The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) says more than 40% of bootlegged films in the US are secretly taped in New York cinemas.

      But previously they claimed:

      Canadian theatres were the source for nearly 50 per cent of illegal camcords across the globe

      So, in essence, they claim that New York and Canada account for 90% of the problem... These numbers sound totally made up to me.

      Well, if you took sixth grade math, you would

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by kebes ( 861706 )
        Err... yes I'm well-aware that the statements, from a purely logical standpoint, can be reconciled with one another. That doesn't mean they can be reconciled with reality. The joke I was making was meant to point out that the numbers are meaningless and probably made up.

        Firstly the statements don't really make sense. In both statements they do not clearly define whether they are referring to the percentage of illegal camcording acts, or the percentage of camcording movies that originate from a particular re

        • Are we honestly supposed to believe that 40% of the US problem can be traced to a single US

          I can't speak about the Canadian figures, but as for the first part: Are you aware of the level of piracy that goes on in NYC, with so many street vendor selling bootleg DVDs? I know of no place else in the country that even begins to approach what goes on there. It seems reasonable enough to me that the source for many of those bootlegs could have been local.

          I'm not saying the statistics are accurate, but I wouldn't

    • Re:Crazy numbers! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DerekLyons ( 302214 ) <fairwater AT gmail DOT com> on Friday July 06, 2007 @03:18PM (#19771489) Homepage
      Try actually reading what you quote - it helps you avoid comparing apples to oranges;
       
        The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) says more than 40% of bootlegged films in the US are secretly taped in New York cinemas.
       
        Canadian theatres were the source for nearly 50 per cent of illegal camcords across the globe
       
      The two claims are not incompatible.
       
       

      So, in essence, they claim that New York and Canada account for 90% of the problem... These numbers sound totally made up to me.

      A person who take two different numbers, and then makes up numbers of his own... Well, let's just say that people who live in glass houses should be careful of the trajectory of the stones they are throwing.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by kebes ( 861706 )
        See my other reply [slashdot.org]. Summing the two numbers to 90% was a joke, meant to point out that their numbers are ridiculous. Sorry that it wasn't more obvious that I was joking.

    • These numbers sound totally made up to me.
      Chances are you're right, since over 87% of statistics are made up.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Dunbal ( 464142 )
      So, in essence, they claim that New York and Canada account for 90% of the problem... These numbers sound totally made up to me.

      Either way they are too late [thepiratebay.org]
  • Unless he actually recorded the movie and distributed the movie for profit, thus being criminal copyright infringment, that is a little bit harsh for such "victimless crime". Supposing he was successful in recording the movie and distributed it without the copyright owner permission, and the copyright owner found out and sued for damages, the financial penalty would probably be bigger, but without the jail time.

    I'm not very fan of this kind of deterrent law, that makes the penalty for attempt haesher th

  • by comparison (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rodentia ( 102779 ) on Friday July 06, 2007 @03:08PM (#19771367)

    New York legislators apparently consider production of grainy, shakey, muffled copies of Hollywood poo the moral equivalent of 2 oz. of pot [queensdefense.com]. I thank God every day that our peerless statesmen are so responsive to these twin evils. It is common knowledge that copyright infringement is a gateway anti-social behavior, leading rapidly to contempt for authority, drug abuse, armed robbery, rape and murder, in that order.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Dunbal ( 464142 )
      It is common knowledge that copyright infringement is a gateway anti-social behavior, leading rapidly to contempt for authority, drug abuse, armed robbery, rape and murder, in that order.

            What about terrorism and pedophilia? You forgot terrorism and pedophilia!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jcgf ( 688310 )
      uhh, pot doesn't lead to those things either.
  • I would like to invite you to speculate when 'normal' cellphones will be considered 'video-recording-equipment'. Because I don't think that such a law can be enforced by then.
    • I would like to invite you to speculate when 'normal' cellphones will be considered 'video-recording-equipment'. Because I don't think that such a law can be enforced by then.

      Yes, but it would be a hard sell to a jury, most of whom probably own cell phones, and go to movies themselves.
  • While I think the punishment is a bit excessive (jail time is ridiculous), there is a very simple way to resolve this situation.

    Don't bring a camera into a movie theater and try to tape the movie, dumbass.

  • The Law Is Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)

    by aldheorte ( 162967 ) on Friday July 06, 2007 @03:40PM (#19771819)
    It should not be illegal to bring a camcorder into a movie theater.

    It should be legal for the theater owner to throw someone out for bringing a camcorder into their movie theater.

    Recording the movie with a camcorder should not be illegal.

    Showing the recording of the movie to friends without an exchange of money or physical property should not be illegal.

    Showing recordings of the movie to anyone for money or physical property to should be illegal.

    This is the way copyright law needs to go.

Slashdot Top Deals

The goal of Computer Science is to build something that will last at least until we've finished building it.

Close