Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ohio Also Passes Law Against Recording In Cinema

michael posted more than 10 years ago | from the money-talks dept.

Movies 379

madmancarman writes "Following California's lead, Ohio has also passed a law making recording in a movie theatre a crime. A first offense would be punishable by six months in jail and up to $1,000 fine, which is lighter than the legislation introduced in Michigan that would bring up to 5 years in jail and a $250,000 fine. The most interesting quote concerns a study by AT&T Labs: 'Their conclusion: 77 percent of the films came from insider sources, either motion picture companies or theater employees taping from the projection booth.' I searched Ohio Gov. Bob Taft's press releases, but couldn't find any mention of it."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

FP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7874449)

FIRST POST YEAH SOFt ahhahha

[OT] Damn little jumper pins (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7874467)

Anyone know where I can get some of those teeny-tiny little jumpers for the pins on the bottom of Seagate SCSI drives? Or any other way to jumper them so I can set things like parity, termination and motor spinup?

Re:[OT] Damn little jumper pins (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7874482)

use a wire

Ask Slashdot (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7874451)

As a straight male, I find myself sexually attracted to Darl McBride and Bill Gates. What have other Slashdot readers experienced? What should I do?

Re:Ask Slashdot (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7874456)

have sex with a mare

Re:Ask Slashdot (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7874534)

I'd fuck her [asia1.com.sg] and most definitely her [go.com] .

Powerful women are such a huge turn-on for me...

This is news? (2, Interesting)

JoeBaldwin (727345) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874453)

So Ohio passes a law making sure that at least there are less pirate movies. What is wrong with that?

Censorship. That is what is wrong (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7874480)

So Ohio passes a law making sure that at least there are less pirate movies. What is wrong with that?

It's wrong to censor anything, even "pirate movies". Besides, these are only technically "pirated" if they are sold.

Re:This is news? (4, Funny)

zakezuke (229119) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874512)

Is that what it's about? I thought it was about back row theater pornography, where in many cases the people engaging in concentual sex acts are not quite of their majority. After all, this is a major problem too.

Re:This is news? (4, Funny)

willtsmith (466546) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874582)

This is what the infrared settings on camcorders are for. There should be special exceptions for people taping patrons vs the movie ;-)

Re:This is news? (5, Insightful)

bsdfish (518693) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874525)

Why does something have to be wrong to be news? Some people may like this law, others may not, but it's certainly newsworthy as it's one of the first state laws of its kind, and the relative laxness of its penalties are also notable.

Waste of taxpayer resources (5, Insightful)

Brahmastra (685988) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874454)

A movie theater is a private place. They can throw out anyone they want. Why don't they use their own security personnel to throw out people with cameras? Why should tax payers foot the bill for what the movie theater can prevent without new laws?

Re:Waste of taxpayer resources (2, Funny)

n0nsensical (633430) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874475)

You can't seriously be suggesting that politicians avoid spending tax dollars, can you?

Re:Waste of taxpayer resources (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7874479)

Because movie theaters don't care if you tape a movie. The last thing they're going to do is piss off their paying patrons.

Re:Waste of taxpayer resources (5, Insightful)

netsharc (195805) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874750)

Shouldn't they be more afraid of the MPAA Mafia? "Ban all cameras, or you'll have to pay 50% more for each film reel we sell to you.", or worse, the MPAA can just stop giving them the licence/whatever to show the films.

To comment on the article, I don't understand why idiots even bother downloading cam-rips, the quality is so shit, you're not getting the real film: the angle is wrong, the color is usually gone, the audio can be good when ripped from source when it's an inside job (ha nowadays an MPAA cop sits in the projection booth, the article claims), but if they used the camcorder mic to record it, that's not exactly CD quality is it?

The only thing it's doing is helping the FUD for those who claim "Star Wars 2 was available on the internet in digital quality 30 minutes after its grand opening.". Digital quality? F'ing idiots.

Re:Waste of taxpayer resources (3, Insightful)

DoorFrame (22108) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874497)

Well, because it's not really the movie theater's individually who are angry... it's the film executives. They don't own the movie theaters, they own the movie producing companies. Now, if only they had a monopoly on venues as well as production, we'd be in a much better situation.

Re:Waste of taxpayer resources (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7874721)

Now, if only they had a monopoly on venues as well as production, we'd be in a much better situation.

I don't even know where to start with this one.
Do you work for microsoft?

~dank

Re:Waste of taxpayer resources (2, Informative)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874755)

if only they had a monopoly on venues as well as production

They used to and they would if they could. They are forbidden by law. Actually, the studios are charging the theaters so much to show the crappy films they produce that the theaters have to charge 8.50 and 9 bucks just to break even.

-B

Re:Waste of taxpayer resources (5, Insightful)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874535)

With the percentage quoted for insider jobs, their own security personnel are probably in on it.

Why don't the politicians pass a law to really throw the book at bank-robbers who double-park during the robbery?

Re:Waste of taxpayer resources (1)

zakezuke (229119) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874574)

Why don't they use their own security personnel to throw out people with cameras?

Perhaps because a person with a camcorder is still a paying customer... and if I were hollywood, I would be paranoid that theaters would be tolerent of this fact.

Besides, then they would have to employ more people, and why bother when you can get the police to do it if it's a crime?

Re:Waste of taxpayer resources (0)

mobby_6kl (668092) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874649)

>Why should tax payers foot the bill for what the movie theater can prevent without new laws?

Studios and the whole movie industry also pays taxes... less piracy -> more taxes collected.

Re:Waste of taxpayer resources (2, Insightful)

c1ay (703047) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874691)

So basically the police can now arrest you for making a movie in a private business but they won't write a ticket for an auto accident in the parking lot of that same private business. Something looks mighty screwy here.

Re:Waste of taxpayer resources (4, Insightful)

dirk (87083) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874698)

It's also private property in a store, yet it is still illegal to shoplift. Why don't they just throw people out of the store and forget about it? The whole point of making something illegal is to discourage people from doing it. The only way to discourage someone from doing something is to have some kind of consequence. Getting thrown out of a movie theatre is not the kind of consequence that will stop people from doing something. Hell, it won;t even keep people quiet during a movie.

So what (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7874455)

How is this news? The recordings suck ass, which renders this whole exercise pointless.

OMG D00D (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7874484)

kan u get me teh leet 0day screenerz? klthnx

Re:OMG D00D (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7874742)

The Assault Rifle Ban Makes Me So Mad I Want to Go on a Shooting Spree!

The assault rifle ban is coming up for renewal, and Bush said he supports it. That sucks, yo. Gun regulations are always made by people who don't know jack about guns (that's why they hate them), and the assault weapon ban pretty much defines an assault weapon as any gun that looks cool or has an awesome name. And all these laws are never retroactive (do you want to be the one going door to door asking people for their guns?), so they make the pre-ban guns really expensive. Soon, the ability to kill lots of people quickly will solely be in the hands on the rich. That because - and remember this - Democrats hate poor people.

Anyway, I think citizens should be able to own real assault weapons, and I mean the ones that are fully automatic rifles with large capacity clips (or belt fed). Here are ten reasons why:

TOP TEN REASONS REGULAR CITIZENS SHOULD BE ABLE TO OWN ASSAULT RIFLES

10. Sometimes you're too mad for just a normal gun.

9. If you see a dozen deer in one meadow, how else are you supposed to shoot them all before they run away?

8. Self-defense sometimes involves "assaulting" a fortress.

7. Keeping control of a fully automatic weapon helps build upper body strength.

6. If we're not allowed to have assault rifles, that will make us mad and we have other guns.

5. Not as impressive writing your name in the wall with a semi-automatic.

4. For elderly people with arthritis, it may be painful for them to hit the trigger multiple times.

3. What if dragons are real and one tries to mug you in a dark alley.

2. I don't how good a reason this is, but after I've had a few beers in me I'm always like, "Man, would it be cool to have an assault rifle right now."

And the number one reason regular citizens should be able to own assault rifles...

This is America; we don't have to give a g'damn reason for owning something.

Jail??? (5, Insightful)

pragueexpat (674635) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874474)

It seems that we are getting lazier and lazier with out punishments. Just throw everyone in the slammer for every infraction. Is jail really necessary for this crime? I think a much higher fine and/or serious community service would benefit society much more...

Re:Jail??? (5, Funny)

Kenja (541830) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874516)

They should force the perps to watch the whole Matrix trillogy front to back unless they promise to be good from now on.

Re:Jail??? (2, Funny)

tangent3 (449222) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874662)

That ain't so bad. Make them watch Reloaded and Revolutions and deny them from the original Matrix.

even better... (1)

ecalkin (468811) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874777)

gigli!

Re:Jail??? (5, Insightful)

willtsmith (466546) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874547)

Agreed, lots of community service would probably serve the public better. Of course, the MPAA lobby isn't concerned with the public's interest, they are concerned with their own.

The biggest deterrent is probably to just confiscate a $500 camera. This would keep most amateurs from engaging in the activity.

The jail time should be reserved for those who sell bootleg tapes. That's a commercial endeavor. Simple fines won't discourage them. Thats just a cost of doing business for them.

Re:Jail??? (3, Funny)

Interruach (680347) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874548)

Why not make all the people so obviously anxious to record things, go out and make endless endless public advice films. "Here is Bob. He thought he'd make a few bucks down at his local cinema...."
Could use it as advertising. Each one different. We're in favour of that, aren't we?

Re:Jail??? (0, Troll)

Leffe (686621) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874597)

Jail *is* neccesary. As it is well known, the american jails have nothing to do with rehabilitation, the only purpose they serve is storage of people that will commit crimes if you let them go. There is also a secondary purpose... which includes penetration and pleasure... but I won't go into that this time.

The people that record in cinemas are very likely to do it again if they are not locked up in some place where they can not hurt the MPAA.

In my opinion, what should be revised is the prisons, they are anti-american in my opinion! Simply taking the freedom of the people away just like that, where did the freedom go?

Re:Jail??? (5, Insightful)

Simonetta (207550) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874697)

I agree. We need fewer idiot laws that don't do anything to address the underlying cause of the problem, but throw people into corporate-owned private prisons for chickenshit offenses.

When I was reviewing films for a small magazine, I would often bring a small hand-held microcassette recorder to capture the thoughts and opinions that I had on a scene or sequence as it was playing on the screen. I would review the taped comments afterwards and type up a detailed and helpful movie review.

Now this is a felony?

Plus if theatres are going to put twenty minutes of commercials and psuedo-news about the entertainment industry before showing the movie that we have paid for, then we should certainly be allowed to bring our own entertainment devices like portable DVD players and laptops to make productive use of this time. And since all digital devices today record as easily as playback data, then doing this is now a felony?

Threatening people with serious jail time for engaging in an activity is not really the best way to encourage people to want to do that activity. So why are people that depend on having other people putting their butts into seats watching a movie threatening jail time to people who come to theatres to watch movies? Whether or not they want to record a movie that they're watching is really the concern of the viewer and the theatre owner.

If the theatre owner were more concerned about providing the optimum movie-going experience to his paying customers, he wouldn't have to worry about anyone wanting to duplicate the experience outside of his venue.

The core problem of Hollywood is not how people chose to consume its product, it is that amount of time and money that people are willing to spend to consume its product is beginning to fall while the price of producing this product continues to rise uncontrollably.

Passing horseshit laws about camcorders in theatres doesn't address this core issue, and therefore will do nothing to solve it.

well, who cares? (0)

dummkopf (538393) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874477)

i cannot imagine such a taping has any good quality. what would anyone do with such a "copy" of a movie? of course there are, for example, the star wars lovers in kathmandu who would like to see the movie before it is officially released in their country. but then again, the big blockbusters seem to be released everywhere at the same time...

Michigan shouldn't worry about taping at all. (1)

ScottGant (642590) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874681)

I live in Michigan. To kind of show you how the theaters here are I drove 2.5 hours to Chicago to watch RotK.

Watching movies here at any of the theaters is like watching one with sunglasses on. You can barely work out that there are moving images being projected. It's really that bad. They also don't really care when you try to complain. TURN THE BULB ON THE PROJECTOR UP!

I hate this state...but I love my family.

Re:Michigan shouldn't worry about taping at all. (1)

criordan (733016) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874748)

No kidding! The last pirated movie I downloaded must have been taped near you.

Re:Michigan shouldn't worry about taping at all. (1)

thedillybar (677116) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874781)

I live in Michigan and it'd really be nice if you let all of us know what in the hell you are talking about.

I've seen plenty of movies in and out of state and I think you're crazy. Go to a better theater.

Re:Michigan shouldn't worry about taping at all. (1)

ScottGant (642590) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874796)

It's the area I live in...it's just crap here. I suppose if I drove to Kalamazoo or South Bend it might be better. But I know the Chicago area better.

But where I'm at it just horrible.

Good job (1, Insightful)

civilengineer (669209) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874478)

THere is nothing wrong with this law as far as I can tell. They made the movie to make money off it and they are ensuring that they will make money off it by preventing illegal copies.

Anyway, if the movie is worth watching people will pay to watch it in theatres rather than watch a crappy video off kazaa. So, if they make a good movie, they need not worry about losing millions due to such copies.

Re:Good job (2, Insightful)

Interruach (680347) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874524)

This doesn't prevent illegal copies any more than the current RIAA/FBI Screen-of-death does.
*Prevention* is having security staff there, monitoring you. Who wants to be strip-searched at the movies. Come on people....

Re:Good job (2, Insightful)

King_TJ (85913) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874563)

No, there's plenty wrong with this law. You can't simply judge the merits of new legislation based on the results it aims to achieve.

For a slightly more extreme example, what if I passed a new law that made it legal in Ohio to outlaw women's purses in all grocery stores? After all, I could probably make a pretty good case that much shoplifting happens when women have the ability to hide products in their purses.

The problem in both cases is this: You're not addressing the problem the best way. As others pointed out already, it's not that uncommon to carry a camcorder into a movie theater, simply because the family is on vacation, and decides to catch a movie right after some other activity. Why should they risk being pegged as criminals, simply because they didn't have a safe, convenient place to drop off their camcorder before they came in?

There's no need for legislation of this type. Where the legal system comes into play is with stopping the illegal resale of copied movies. Let the theaters deal with people filming movies on their own.

Re:Good job (1)

civilengineer (669209) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874591)

Dude! Nobody will arrest you if you take a camcorder into a theatre. If you leave a theatre with a camcorder and they see that the camcorder has the movie recorded in it, then they will arrest you. if you want the convenience of taking a camcorder to the the theathre, you have to pay by having your comcorder inspected on exit.

Re:Good job (2, Interesting)

King_TJ (85913) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874657)

Ok, but do you really think it's going to play out this way? I've often left theaters after the late movie ends at night, and there's barely any staff left in the building. You see a few guys sweeping the floors or maybe closing down the snack bar - but the ticket-takers and ushers look like they've all gone home.

If people tape the movie and then remove the tape from the camera, replacing it with an unused blank, whoever does inspect the camera isn't going to find anything, anyway.

I have a feeling they'll just decide "inspection" is too time-intensive and costs the theater more in paying staff to do it, so they'll just "call the cops" on anyone seen seated in the theater with a camcorder next to them.

Re:Good job (2, Insightful)

BiggerIsBetter (682164) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874573)

Copyright already covers this, and as previously stated, most are "insider" jobs anyway. This law is just to scare people.

The real question is... (2, Insightful)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874481)

How much longer before movie-downloading becomes so commonplace and convenient that Slashdotters start convincing themselves that they're justified in doing it to appease that pang of guilt they feel? They've already done it with mp3s. After movies, all that's left is warez, but for some reason everyone is opposed to that.

Why guilt? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7874492)

How much longer before movie-downloading becomes so commonplace and convenient that Slashdotters start convincing themselves that they're justified in doing it to appease that pang of guilt they feel?

Why should any feelings of "guilt" be associated with free exchange of information? There is nothing to feel guilty about.

OVERLY CRITICAL? MORE LIKE OVERLY COCKSUCKING (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7874507)

Re:The real question is... (2, Funny)

obsid1an (665888) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874522)

Maybe a better question is how long until you can legally download movies. Their size is the biggest hold back but that won't last long. History has shown that people will pay for something they can get for free so long as there are benefits to it (good quality, fast download, legal, etc).

Re:The real question is... (1)

PacoTaco (577292) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874528)

Well, software costs a lot of money to develop while movies are basically free and the studio keeps all of the profits anyway...

Re:The real question is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7874647)

Interesting angle, I fail to see how movies are "basically free". I'm sure that some people in the movie industry would be interested how to buy a camera for nothing. Ignoring of course any other expenses, since the crew wont mind working for free.

Ah, Fair use. (0)

Interruach (680347) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874483)

So, how are you supposed to make an interesting film news and reviews show? If you can only use clips from the trailer you're only advertising. Isn't reporting news with necessary clips part of the fair use things you americans have? Say for example 'R2D2 wears a dress in the latest starwars films'. How do you back that up if the studio doesn't provide *those* clips? Just curious.

This will stop the 53 people... (5, Insightful)

gilrain (638808) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874489)

...who haven't figured out that you can get high quality DVD rips earlier and more reliably. This seems to be yet another solution in need of a problem.

Re:This will stop the 53 people... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7874556)

Yeah, this SHOULD be illegal, as it results in shitty pirate DVDs with no warning that the source is of low quality. Likewise although I'm in favour of the legalisation of all drugs, I still believe shitty fucking Moroccan soap and South American and Indian bushweed should remain illegal, to encourage homegrown and Dutch weed.

Re:This will stop the 53 people... (2, Insightful)

Chazmati (214538) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874564)

I'll bet they're more concerned with in-theater pirating going out on P2P networks while the films are still playing in the theaters, thereby reducing the take at the box office. That is, after all, the biggest source of income for the studios. Here on /. we're seen post after post about how CD's are so expensive relative to DVD's, neglecting to consider that the DVD sales are secondary to the box office take.

If anything, this law indicates more that the MPAA considers DVD piracy a lost cause and is shifting their efforst to hold onto the box office coffers.

Overseas (5, Informative)

oaf357 (661305) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874496)

Every bootleg I've ever seen has been recorded overseas.

If you want to stop copyright violations go to a foreign country and start busting the K-Mart and 7-Eleven equivalents that are selling LOTR and Matrix movies on store shelves while the movies are still in the theatres.

There is nothing wrong with this law, in my opinion. But, I find it an incredible waste.

Over here, over here (5, Insightful)

heironymouscoward (683461) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874499)

Curiously, when "Master and Commander" came out in Belgium a month or so ago, it was proceeded by a bold notice that anyone caught filming in the cinema would be hunted down, skinned alive, and thrown naked and bleeding to the dogs. And their film and camera would be confiscated and maybe kept for like a week or so.

The hordes of surreptitious filmers immediately ran out of the cinema, where they were aprehended by the local branch of the MPAA.

Not. I have never seen anyone filming in a theater, and the few pirate films I've seen that were made this way were incredibly unwatchable ("cough cough", shadows walking in front of the film, noises of coke being slurped and people making out in row 2.)

I mean... does this actually present a threat to the movie industry?

Surely a balanced law would also mandate prison for people who make movies like Matrix 2 and 3? This kind of crap product is a far greater threat to cinema revenues than pirates can ever be.

Re:Over here, over here (4, Insightful)

tkrotchko (124118) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874642)

"I mean... does this actually present a threat to the movie industry?"

No, but I think its because the MPAA (and RIAA to the same extent) are looking to shift blame away from certain facts.

People filming in the theater is so absurd that you'd have to be pretty hard pressed for entertainment to watch it.

The real trouble is coming from people ripping films distributed on DVD (I seem to remember an article on the Washington Post about this a few months ago). The trouble is, they won't do anything about the actual source of the leaks, so they blame their own customers.

Same with the RIAA...the big source of problem is organized crime making illegal copies by the thousands and millions. But those guys have guns and will kill you if you screw with them. Catching 12 year-old brittany is safer and makes better headlines and makes it look like they're doing something for their shareholders.

Its all a game, and the only ones fooled seem to be our congressmen and women.

Re:Over here, over here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7874703)

Why do you think they're more afraid of 'insiders'?

These are people working at some point in the creation or distribution of the movie. That's a lot of insiders, ranging from people working on the movie itself to cinema operators.

Now, a *good* theater rip is shot with multiple cameras in an empty cinema and telesynced. However, there are also sometimes *good* screener rips too. In reality, neither is quite up to DVD quality, but I've seen telesyncs that rival professional VCD quality.

Should the movie execs be afraid? Probably not. Noone in their right mind would consider LOTR:ROTK, grainy, with compression artifacts and scratchy sound, to compare to a 40 foot screen with THX-certified sound equipment.... But they will still bawl and sniffle and use their influence to get idiotic laws like this passed.

P.S. I'm so sick of hearing people whine about Matrix 2 or 3. Seriously. So sick of it. They were at least as good as the original, and the original got to CHEAT ITS ASS OFF by avoiding doing anything bigger than one ship and its crew, forget trying to be EPIC and deal with Zion and the Power Plant and the Machine City and.. nonono, it's COOL to bash the Matrix movies that tried to be more..

Dont they use DVD Screeners? (5, Insightful)

gotpaint32 (728082) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874501)

As far as I've seen recently, the majority of bootleg movies didn't come from a videotaped recording, but rather from award screener dvds instead. This law should have came in effect back in the hayday of bootleg VHSs when bootleggers relied on taping of the bigscreen. Back in the day you defintitely knew it was recorded in a theater, you could even hear babies crying in the background at times.

Re:Dont they use DVD Screeners? (4, Funny)

zakezuke (229119) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874531)

defintitely knew it was recorded in a theater

or the days that you knew it was recorded in hong kong, when you can see the shadows of people's heads below the screen, and all of them are holding small camcorders.

Re:Dont they use DVD Screeners? (1)

nathanh (1214) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874719)

Back in the day you defintitely knew it was recorded in a theater, you could even hear babies crying in the background at times.

No no no, that was baby jesus.

Re:Dont they use DVD Screeners? (1)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874751)

If they really, really wanted to stop piracy via DVD screeners, then all they've got to do is put bl00dy obvious watermarks that jump about the edges of the screen and are hard to digitally remove... whocking great copyright notices that subliminally flash at random times during the movie would be a help as well...

But as usual they hound the consumers of the product citing dead old evidence of taping of movies that used to occur ages ago back in the days of dodgy video tapes.

But there isn't a requirement for this law when effective laws already exist. The work is already protected by copyright law so why is there a need for this one???

Where will this madness end? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7874510)

What next? A ban on masturbating in a theater?

When masturbation is outlawed, only outlaws will masturbate.

Interesting how early pirates get in the game (5, Insightful)

Fortunato_NC (736786) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874526)

For example, the pirated version of The Hulk I saw (on a co-worker's laptop, Mr. MPAA Thug) was an early cut, with incomplete special effects and crappy audio. With movies like Cold Mountain and others being shot digitally and edited in Final Cut Pro, with DVD dailies being mastered regularly, it's concievable that the pirates will be soon beat the studios to post-production! Instead of the Special Edition Director's Cut, we could be downloading the Sp3c1@l Ub3r 1337 H@c|3r's Cut.

And of course, who wouldn't want to see Episode III: The Non-Crappy Version, complete with a Star Wars Kid cameo added by the pirate who actually edited together the flick...

Cell phones (4, Funny)

dattaway (3088) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874530)

What about rebroadcasting the entire movie with cell phones? Should they be allowed to transmit the entire movie over the airwaves? I'd like to see the morons in front of me who spend the entire movie talking sent to jail.

Movie theatre, why go (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7874532)

Why even fool with the theatres? DVDs are cheap compared to ticket (and parking) prices.

But I'd volunteer to gouge out the eyes of people making illegal recordings at theatres. Perhaps that would encourage people to actually understand copyright laws.

useless Ohio legislators (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7874536)

Ohio Legislators spend lots of time on
projects that have nothing to do with
promoting the welfare of the people they
serve. They are the most self serving
group of individuals you will ever see.

Re:useless Ohio legislators (2, Interesting)

drxyzzy (149370) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874704)

I don't know about the Ohio legislature. But I have to wonder which
constituency was served by this recent regulation? Did voters
clamor for a stop to the making of bootleg recordings in theatres?

Bravo to the politicians for timely and effective response to the
the needs of those who elected them.

Where's the fine... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7874543)

For leaving your cell phone on? Or bring a crying baby.

Re:Where's the fine... (1)

Gramie2 (411713) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874685)

There was a baby at the new Lord of the Rings movie -- the 9:30 pm showing, no less. Sure enough, it began crying about five minutes into the movie. And I thought that my friend was flirting with child abuse for bringing his 11-year-old son.

I also saw a 3-4 year old child being carried by her father when the lights came up.

C'mon you cheap bastards, spring for a babysitter!!!

Did I miss something? (-1, Troll)

James A. C. Joyce (733782) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874570)

Isn't recording in cinemas already illegal?

Mods: Parent is karma whore, troll. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7874675)

Check his history, journal.

Please do not mod this useless comment up. Parent is simply trying to abuse the system.

Seinfeld (5, Funny)

n0nsensical (633430) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874572)

Reminds me of Seinfeld episode 137:

Jerry: What do you mean he's bootlegging the movie?
Kramer: Well, it's a perfectly legitimate business.
Jerry: It's not legitimate.
Kramer: It's a business.

Jerry: I don't care about Brody. I was up on 96th Street today, there was a kid couldn't have been more than ten years old. He was asking a street vendor if he had any other bootlegs as good as Death Blow. That's who I care about. The little kid who needs bootlegs, because his parent or guardian won't let him see the excessive violence and strong sexual content you and I take for granted.

George: I'm a bootlegger.
Anna: You're a what?
George: I'm bootleggin' a movie, baby!
Anna: Isn't that illegal?
George: I can do hard time for this one. And community service!

Frank: I'm sitting at home, reading a periodical, and this is the call I get? My son is a bootlegger? (He hits George in the head)
George: Ow! Dad...
Frank: Who put you up to this, was it her?
Elaine: All right. Wait a minute. I think you've got it backwards.
Frank: My George isn't clever enough to hatch a scheme like this.
Elaine: You got that right.
Frank: What the hell does that mean?
Elaine: It means whatever the hell you want it to mean.
Frank: You sayin' you want a piece of me?
Elaine: I could drop you like a bag of dirt.
Frank: You wanna piece of me? You got it!

Re:Seinfeld (1)

willtsmith (466546) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874665)

I think that viewing (or taping) a bootleg movie should be added to the Festivus [karber.net] ritual.

If this was true, than these laws would be unfairly restricting the Seinfeld religion [smallcandles.com] .

That'll help (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7874585)

I swear, in Ohio, they're on crack. Remember, this is the place where they were prosecuting artists for having naked pictures of men.

What a state.

I record movies all the time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7874590)

I have this strange superpower called "memory". Maybe they should make a film about it.

Seriously, it SHOULD NOT BE A CRIME TO USE AUGMENTED MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES including but not limited to video cameras.

You're holding back the tide of human progress to favour a few decadent neonobles ("executives") in neofeudal fiefdoms ("corporations").

Fuck them. Not that I watch any of the movies _anyway_, but the concept of "ownership" of all copies of some information is abhorrent and barbaric and incompatible with a free society.

Ohio (-1, Troll)

rlp (11898) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874602)

You've got to remember that Ohio is a state that elected people like Dennis 'Tinfoil Hat' Kucinich and Jim 'Unmarked Twenties' Traficant.

Uniformity? (1)

isomeme (177414) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874616)

I wonder how they justify making this a separate and more serious offense from copyright infringement in general. Or do they even bother with justifications beyond the implicit "they paid me a boatload of money to pass this law" these days?

The free market solved this years ago. (5, Insightful)

dada21 (163177) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874617)

Here's a useless law. Government is not needed in this case (as in most new laws, they are not relevant).

If a theater wants to show new movies, they should already have rules about this. Because a theater is private property, they should be able to ban anything they want (free speech, weapons, anything). If they want to ban recording cameras, they're free to.

Maybe a theater may want to ALLOW cameras. In this case, the major movie production companies will probably decide not to show movies there. Smaller companies may want the cult-like home recorded movies and may possibly allow it. The free market has provided this solution already, and government now will mandate one more way for private movie theater owners to run their business.

We are no longer free, we are no longer capitalist. We live in a mercantilist system of oppressive regulation, taxes, and tariffs. None of this system helps the average citizen.

Jail for this? (5, Insightful)

WhitehatSystems.com (736014) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874620)

Its amazing that our society now days the answer for any violation of law is "Throw them in Jail" seems for minor infractions you get more time then you do for harsh infractions.. Why should the tax payer pay for the Movie company's property rights to be protected? Hrm..

Re:Jail for this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7874730)

Its not property. Don't buy into the myth

Silly Ohio.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7874624)

For reference, the state of Ohio has a bit of an inferiority complex at the moment. I'm sure this is one of those cases where the general assembly thought of themselves as being technologically progressive ("We're gonna be just like California!"). And they wonder why tech companies won't stick around, as seen by my personal experience. [starbak.com]

Righty-o (5, Informative)

finker (735219) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874633)

"Their conclusion: 77 percent of the films came from insider sources, either motion picture companies or theater employees taping from the projection booth." I happen to be a projection manager at a local movie theater (not for bragging rights, just to set the stage that I actually know what I'm talking about) and I can safely say that taping a movie from a projection booth is the most retarded idea I have ever heard of. Actually, I doubt any clued-in projectionist would want to tape a movie from the booth. Most modern projectors are noisy as hell, likewise with the heat which is why film will melt extremely fast if the bulb gets too hot. The glass between the booth and the auditorium is usually (in a good theater) soundproof. Also, there isn't any sound in the projection booth with the exclusion of the "cute" hum of X number of projectors cranking away. Basically what that amounts to is: nobody likes standing next to projectors. Ever. You feed the film, start the film, and get the hell away. Repeat. Lastly, where I work, I am usually the only projectionist at night. This might be different, but trying to keep 14 projectors running at the same time gets to be a real pain. Nevermind having the time to be dicking around trying to setup a video camera to record Hollywood's next trashy movie. Cheers.

Re:Righty-o (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7874782)

My friend is a manager at a movie theatre as well (really, there's no bragging rights there, man), and the way you would record sound is just to take a line out from the sound system. No projector noise, crying babies, etc.

and this makes a difference....how? (1)

baneblackblade (682424) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874635)

since movie theatres are private, they could already punish people who had cameras. they could throw them out, pay off a burly guard to punch them in the arm, and make them trip on the way. they couldn't send someone to jail, no. but, then again, someone in jail has the same effect on that theatre as someone banned from the theatre. and since most theatres seem to be owned by a couple of chains, it wouldn't be that hard to fax a memo to each theatre in the area with a picture of the pirate. They could do it like the coffee shop here does. when someone does something bad, their picture and a little text describing what a bad bad person they are goes up on a bulletin board behind the counter. Instant shame!

this has been discussed by /. before, and the consensus then seemed to be, "what does this law do?" Since most of the pirated copies are allegedly from overseas (oh, but that could be faked, says a MPAA representative) and DVD screeners, how does this really make a difference when the copies originating from Ohio movie theatres seem to be harder to find than a rare pokemon. (okay, bad example; those things are everywhere, but you know what I mean)

If they really want to make a difference, how about firewalling the US in a similar fashion to what China did? Or maybe producing a law that goes after the people who commit the largest percentage of these crimes, not the easiest to molest.

Re:and this makes a difference....how? (1)

willtsmith (466546) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874713)

and since most theatres seem to be owned by a couple of chains, it wouldn't be that hard to fax a memo to each theatre in the area with a picture of the pirate. They could do it like the coffee shop here does.

Movie theatres don't seem capable of keeping children out of R-rated movies. Using the same crack team, I hardly think they could pick out random people.

Shees, this is like expecting airlines to train their steward(ess)s to thwart terrorists. It is obviously government's job to protect THEIR profit centers (while avoiding taxation of course) ;-(

Re:and this makes a difference....how? (1)

baneblackblade (682424) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874775)

Movie theatres don't seem capable of keeping children out of R-rated movies

ah, good point. Maybe we should back down and let the FTAA in on this one as well. that way not only would they be in charge of throwing 12 year-old girls into unmarked vans for the RIAA, but also for throwing tear gas into theatres in order to thwart potential pirates.

seriously, though, you're probably right. it seems to me, that there isn't a good way to handle this other than releasing quality films so that people will think, "hey, they deserve to be paid for this. that was an awesome movie." rather than, "WTF?? that does it! I am now going to devote my entire life to stealing from the movie industry! buwaaahahahhaahaaaaaaa!!" Otherwise we either end up with ineffective theatre personnel, or laws that don't have any visible effect... take your pick.

Down with the RIAA! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7874677)

When are those corporate scumbags going to learn that piracy increases their sales? People download bootleg copies of movies just to SAMPLE them, and a Hungarian study proved that this leads to multiple viewings in theaters later on. Also, downloading copies of movies we've seen is just "fair use"! I'm boycotting movies until this draconian law is repealed.

Re:Down with the RIAA! (1)

baneblackblade (682424) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874716)

good luck with the repeal. I support you on this, as well. the only problem, is it probably says somewhere in the law, "X politition(s) will be granted Y percentage of all sales for services provided to the MPAA."
there's probably a section as well that allows for that to be carried over to the next person who takes office. it probably states very clearly that it is NOT a bribe, and is NOT illegal, no matter what it may look like...

I'm glad you searched Taft's press releases-- (4, Informative)

AEton (654737) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874718)

but did you also search the Slashdot archives [slashdot.org] before you posted this dupe? Check out the comments on that story for an explanation of why this law is super duper crazy.

Well this affects you how? (3, Interesting)

Grimster (127581) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874725)

Ok so it's now punishable by law to record in a theater, does this affect you? Were you planning on doing it before it became illegal? I already considered this a "bad idea" figuring any theater that caught me recording their warez would throw me out immediately forfeiting my HEFTY entrance fee.

I mean it's not like they made it illegal to go watch a movie and tell your friends the plot and ending (though in some cases I almost wish that were illegal!).

Though I wish they'd waste their time more productively but how is illegalizing (is that even a word) something most anyone with a brain would already realize was not something you'd want to do anyway all that big of a deal?

Music bootlegs okay but video bootlegs not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7874779)

Ok so it's now punishable by law to record in a theater, does this affect you? Were you planning on doing it before it became illegal?

Yeah man, it quite possibly does. Have you ever bootlegged a music performance? It's a rewarding experience, let me tell you. The technical details, reliving the moment, sharing with friends, etc. Bootlegging music doesn't carry penalties like this. All musicians are aware of bootlegging. Many are indifferent to it, knowing that the concert experience has special qualities you can't capture on a bootleg CD. Many musicians actually support the bootleg idea. Is bootlegging a movie different enough than bootlegging a music performance in concept to warrant prison time and large fines?

Re:Well this affects you how? (2, Insightful)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874790)

Ok so it's now punishable by law to record in a theater, does this affect you?

If you go on vacation with a camcorder and decide, on a rainy day, to see a movie, then yes, it does affect you. What are you going to do? Leave a $1000 piece of electronics in your rental car?

Our best guess on how these are taken (1)

grioghar (228683) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874759)

I have a friend who is the lead projectionist for both movie theaters in town. We were discussing how the l33t cams of new movies were taken. He was saying that the best time to snag the movie would be on the test run of the film they make the night before release, hence the same day, or night before release to the web.

This law that is passed shouldn't be all-encompassing. My guess, if I had to make one, is that the new cams probably come from someone working at the movie theaters, not a patron.

This leaves me torn on the neccessity of the laws in general; why pass a law that doesn't apply to 99% of the populace? Why not focus on where the offenders are coming from, and target those people not the rest of us. At the same time, should Joe Schmo (No, not the Spike TV guy) think it's funny to cam a movie and release it, I guess this law covers that. Don't know, but it seems uneccessary.

Oh Holy Dupes (1)

n1k0 (553546) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874766)

I hope the number of dupes goes down now that the holidays are over. Its really been out of control for the last few weeks.

-Nick

(hopefully) A Triumph for Privacy! (1)

ax10m5 (737795) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874778)

I wonder what the people who passed this legislation were thinking. I can see the sense in forbidding the veiwing and distribution of a bootleg film, but can't see the grounds for outlawing the act of videotaping anything. If movie companies can forbid someone from videotaping an event, I don't see how I couldn't argue for preventing someone from videotaping me. I'm concerned for my own privacy. What are the movie companies concerned about outside the likely (but certainly not inevitable) illegal viewing and distribution of thier films? The viewing and distribution is the only concrete wrong that I can see in the process. Stick to enforcing that, or grant the movie companies this and give me the right to say "Stop monitering me!" IANAL, but this should set a legal precedent that gives a person the right to fight for his privacy.

damn (3, Interesting)

SQLz (564901) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874788)

Six months for this? People get less time for assault.

Jail time? (1)

Jediman1138 (680354) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874795)

A bit harsh for recording/distributing a movie... What next? Bamboo-lashings for music-swappers?

Using an elephant gun to swat a mosquito (4, Interesting)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 10 years ago | (#7874797)

It reminds of the Great Wall of China. The Chinese built the wall to keep out the Mongols at a great financial and human cost. In its first 100 years it was breached 3 times. While the Mongols never successfully overran the defenses, the breaches did not come from superior Mongol weapon technology or military tactics. They came when Mongols successfully bribed guards. All that technology defeated by human factors.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?