Senate Unanimously Passes Anti-Camcorder Bill 637
jamonterrell writes "The US Senate just unanimously passed a bill allowing the criminal prosecution of recording movies with a camcorder in theatres. Victims of the new bill would face 3 years in prison on first offense (5 if it was done for profit), repeat offenders would get 10 years. As a side note, it will cost taxpayers an additional 5 million dollars per year through 2009 for enforcement." Several states have made recording in theaters a crime, although none of them have penalties nearly as harsh as this Senate bill.
Not only will this make CAM recordings more rare (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not likely. (Score:3, Funny)
If I wanted to get a shaky-hand-held-recording, I could just take a nice clear rip downloaded from the local pirate server, and record it with a camcorder.
But what's the point. I know... you were joking.
Re:Not likely. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you don't have the right to do all that nonsense in someone else's house. The only reason you have the right to do it at home is because a lot of fair use is just a reasonable expectation of privacy. We make fair use because we don't want companies coming into our homes and determining our activities. A movie theatre is a public place and there is no such expectation.
Also, when you pay your $10 at the theatre...that $10 is for the right to sit in the theatre and watch whatever the theatre decides to display and at their convenience, not yours. Your $10 is not to purchase a copy of a film, it is for a one time viewing of said film.
There is no possible way you can justify making videotaping first run movies in the theatre legal. Way too over the top utopian socialist viewpoint. If you don't allow companies to at least establish cursory protection of their property...they won't produce it for you to steal. I'm not suggesting we allow them into our homes, but likewise, you shouldn't be able to go into their house and steal their product.
If the EFF were to "fight" this law, they'd be fighting for it. For the right for an individual or a corporation to prevent others from videotaping on private property. Otherwise, when you become Maddonna/Esther, the paparazzi could legally come onto your property to videotape you eating dinner.
Absolutely Absurd (Score:3, Insightful)
The way I read it was they werent paying for the cursory protection.
All this bill does is manufactures criminals.
If the MPAA is so damned concerned about this, they need to pay to have metal detectors put up and gaurds posted at all entrances
Re:Not likely. (Score:4, Insightful)
Except that it is not true. The creator has a time-limited monopoly. Aren't many of the most famous paintings in the public domain?
Re:Not likely. (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe because flash photography can degrade a painting.
Robocop would be illegal (Score:3, Insightful)
What happens when there are cyborgs walking around recording everything they see?
"His memory is admissible in court"
That's interesting. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:That's interesting. (Score:4, Funny)
"Sir..."
"Zzzzzzzwhazat?"
"Ye
"What? Oh, no, It's cool, I was kinda sleepy, so I'm time-shifting this for tomorrow morning."
"Well, all right."
"Yeah, whatever. ZZZZzzzzzzz..."
Re:That's interesting. (Score:4, Insightful)
So theoretically, would this make it worth your while to kill anyone who noticed you using the camcorder, if there was, say, a 60% chance that killing them allowed you to successfully escape? There must be some probability threshold before a "manslaughter-equivalent" jail sentance for videoing makes it worth your while to do bad things if you get caught...
How does the person sitting next to you in the cinema feel about this, compared to say, the managing director of the company who invested in the film?
Re:That's interesting. (Score:3, Informative)
The second definition of first degree
Re:That's interesting. (Score:3, Interesting)
The exact list of crimes on there varies from state to state.
Int
Bill text (Score:5, Informative)
Here is the bill text [nw.dc.us], which should really have been included in the story. (Actually, IMHO, Slashdot policy should be to require a link to bill text when submitting a story on new legislation.)
Re:Bill text (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bill text (Score:5, Insightful)
If Congress doesn't read it before voting on it, why should we?
*grumble*
Re:Bill text (Score:5, Interesting)
Can't mod up as I've already posted.
Seriously, what is the reason there is not a minimum time for review till bills can be passed? Shouldn't the final text of bills be public long enough for the public to be able to provide some feedback before voting? Whouldn't that at least allow somewhat for greater public approval?
Hah! A cooling off period for legislation.
Doubt that it would change much for bills that don't get media attention, but it might have influenced the Patriot Act.
Re:Bill text (Score:4, Insightful)
'Course, something like this could never come to pass--it'd be used for filibuster tactics, how do you define "reasonable", who determines what's an acceptable answer, etc. But it's a scary thought-experiment to realize that something like this would drastically change the face of Congress.
Re: faking filming.... (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing that bothers me most about this law is the way the movie indus
Re: faking filming.... (Score:3, Insightful)
The reasonable presumption is that you or someone else is going to see what you recorded, and that person would otherwise be paying to see the movie (perhaps not for the first time.) That is where the damage comes in, and the activity is no longer victimless.
Music industry losses (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Bill text (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That's interesting. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's interesting. (Score:4, Funny)
Campaign contributions from the MPAA.
What about the borg and the handicapped? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't suppose anyone is going to come up with an argument saying that they are in the theaters with their camcorders excersizing their right to time shift...
You lose that bet.
A camcorder can be assistive technology. Keeping them out of the movie theater can be as unethical as turning away people with seeing eye dogs or wheelchairs.
There are quite valid reasons for having and/or using a camcorder or similar device in a theater.
Surely this is a civil, not a criminal matter... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Surely this is a civil, not a criminal matter.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Surely this is a civil, not a criminal matter.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Surely this is a civil, not a criminal matter.. (Score:4, Insightful)
You'd get less time... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not standing up for the crime, but isn't the punishment supposed to match it?
Sickening...
What Country are YOU living in? (Score:5, Insightful)
Pirating films isn't white-collar enough to warrant a light sentence. The only crimes that have stiff sentences are the ones that wealthy people don't commit.
Re:What Country are YOU living in? (Score:5, Insightful)
We're a bit behind the times down here. I can't think of any recent examples of a local company using it's financial power to put draconian laws into affect. Give us another six months or so to catch up on that one.
Hopefully we'll tear up and burn that Fraud Trade Agreement Bush "offered" us, and we won't have to worry about it any time soon either.
The only way to change things. (Score:3, Interesting)
Move to the Free State [freestateproject.org]. about 200,000 libertarian Slashdotters should be able to make a big impact there.
Their goal is to create a Free State out of New Hampshire, that will combine the personal freedom of Holland with the economic freedom of Hong Kong. They are already attempting to change gun laws to allow concealed weapon carrying without a license. Raw milk sales are not regulated. Congresspeople are part-timers and get paid $100 a year. The state government is small and the crime rate is low. If the F
Re:The only way to change things. (Score:3, Interesting)
That does look very interesting, and the people do seem to be sincere about everything. Before reading their information, I just assumed that New Hampshire was just as bad as any other New England state. It was surprising to see that they appear to be a tiny oasis in the middle of a liberal swampland.
For me, the main concern with their choice of New Hampshire is not with how things are today, but some years down t
Re:What Country are YOU living in? (Score:3, Interesting)
This law isn't about punishing American malefactors. I would bet the problem of pirating films with vidcams isn't even serious in the USA. This law was passed so that we can show our international trading partners (East Asia, among others) that we're serious about intellectual property and hence so should they be. The USA has to create and impose some way of protecting intellectual property, because nowadays, it's among our major exports.
The fact that it's easy enough for anyone with a CD-R to "produce" th
Re:What Country are YOU living in? (Score:5, Funny)
Mycroft
Re:What Country are YOU living in? (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh, that's funny. I'd have sworn Dennis Koslowski [nydailynews.com] is accused not only of looting his own company, but tax evasion in the millions as well -- and various conspiracies to cover up his alleged crimes.
Not to mention the allegations against Ken Lay and the other alleged Enron conspirators : not only are they alleged to have conned their own investors, they are also alleged to have manufactured fake power shortages in order to over-charge California, according to seized tapes: [cbsnews.com]
But even if you were correct in claiming that "white collar criminals tend to only commit one crime", if that single crime nets the criminal millions of dollars, well, those ill-gotten gains will last a lifetime longer than the take from knocking over a liqueur store.
I'm sure that if by robbing a liqueur store you could make millions, the hold up men would be happy to retire afterward -- or be driven out of thievery by competition from greedy MBAs.
But tell me one thing: why are you so willing to be sympathetic to those who steal the investments of pensioners and pension plans in order to live it up yachting on the Riviera, and so unsympathetic to the poor junkie from the projects who just wants to steal enough to get by for one more miserable day?
Why do we allow the wealthy to bend us over and rob us, and then fawn all over them at their parole parties? Why do we beleive that a CEO really "earns" a salary plus benefits in the tens of millions of dollars, while the average worker gets his jib outsourced?
Is it because we respect wealth -- earned or stolen -- so much, or just because we respect ourselves so little?
Is this still the country that Jefferson and the Adamses risked their "lives, fortunes, and scared honors" for, or some European-style feudalism with the thieving rich taking the place of an idle aristocracy?
Re:What Country are YOU living in? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this still the country that Jefferson and the Adamses risked their "lives, fortunes, and scared honors" for, or some European-style feudalism with the thieving rich taking the place of an idle aristocracy?
Seriously, how do you think the European aristocracy came into being? It was rich and wealthy merchants using their money and power to buy themselves rights and more power. America is not a classless society, it just defines its classes differently. Your powerful families are growing just as they did in Europe hundreds of years ago - basically same system, different part of the curve.
Re:What Country are YOU living in? (Score:5, Interesting)
This isn't entirely correct. A nobility title came with land (a feud), not with wealth. You could be piss poor and still be an aristocrate, and then again, in the Middle Ages, you could be the richest merchant in the world and still not hold any title. This was, at least in part, because of religion: trading was considered to be usury (for obvioud reasons -- noone would sell goods for the price they bought them), and usury was considered to be a mortal sin.
Re:What Country are YOU living in? (Score:3)
Re:What Country are YOU living in? (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought you could only be punished for crimes you have been charged for and found guilty of having commit. Not for crimes you may have done or are likely to do.
Re:What Country are YOU living in? (Score:3, Insightful)
See recent US activities in
Re:Name one person. (Score:5, Informative)
Why? Typically people who ask for things like that will simply dismiss any names given as not being REAL enough.
Here's a list of names - you can decide for yourself if the penalties they faced or face are REAL enough to suit you: Andrew Fastow, Michael Milken, Ivan Boesky, Dennis Levine, Martin Seigel, Ben Glisan, Michael Kopper. And many, many more.
Re:Name one person. (Score:3, Insightful)
While I won't usually cite USA Today as a source, the myth of the "Club Fed" prisons is just that: a myth.
They're certainly not as dank or dangerous as a maximum security state prison, but they're not country clubs, either.
USA Today article, RE: Martha Stewart and what she faces in prison [usatoday.com]
Similar article from Globe and Mail [theglobeandmail.com]
Article from Australia's The Age regarding white collar criminals in the US [theage.com.au]
-l
Re:You'd get less time... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not standing up for the crime, but isn't the punishment supposed to match it?
Great analogy, except that you're comparing the ACTUAL time you would probably get for a crime to the MAXIMUM time you could get for another crime. The MAXIMUM punishment for felony aggravated assault and felony robbery would probably be about 30+ years, depending on the state. Why do people on slashdot have such trouble comprehending maximum punishment? Go look at some laws. Most crimes have suprisingly high maximum punishents. Most people don't get the maximum. That's why it's called a maximum punishment, not a standard punishemnt.
Re:You'd get less time... (Score:3, Insightful)
Someone steals $500 from a convenience store, they're not going to go down for 30 years. They'll get a few months and then maybe 12 months of probation.
Sitting in a cinema with a camcorder should not be punishable by any prison time. It is not a violent act, it makes nobody rich, it isn't going to fund any drug cartel. It is a simple civil violat
Rome (Score:5, Insightful)
Laws and crimes and what gets emphasized are entirely random now. for instance, we have multi millions of illegal immigrants. People who jump the border have committed a felony, yet it is almost universally ignored, they are allowed to live freely almost anyplace inside the US. At best if they find a huge group of them near the border they'll just be shipped back over, they rarely serve any jail time. We also have laws that make hiring an illegal immigrant a federal crime, with a 10,000$ fine per incident, but you never hear much of any arrests in those cases, even though the practice is blatant.
There's more, that's just a blatant example. Law enforcement is political, it's not any sort of even or fair, it's whatever the elite class wants that season. They give the orders, their enforcers click heels and jump to it. If they are ordered to ignore certain crimes, they will do so, even if they are aware of them.
I am not pro criminal, I just think the laws are terribly skewed and not enforced fairly across the board, and we have a variety of laws on the books now that are just ridiculous and shouldn't even be there. The US has a growth industry of gradually adding to laws that make more of the lower and middle classes "criminals". I think it's planned that way, to make a two class society eventually, technofeudalism. They are also apparently destroying as much of the middle class job structure as they can. Any job they can find that is exportable they will, any job that they can't exported they will import millions of illegals or too many legals to take those jobs. It's so completely obvious I won't even debate it with any debunkers now, the stats and realities are all over. It's been slow but verifiably steady, and the numbers increase yearly. Part of the plan, command and control, the same old dodge the old aristocrats have always pulled down through the ages.
As to recording in the cinema? I could care less, I've been boycotting movies for awhile now, and paid for music, I just quit. If a movie is free to copy, I might buy it. I have two here I got that the producer lets people make copies of. Music, again, if it's free over the radio by putting up with ads I occassionaly listen, but besides that, don't buy any-new. Used I will buy, it's just recycled, and the producers don't make another penny on it, but some guy at a yard sale will so I don't care, but even then not too much, a few examples of each a year. I even quit buying from the new but marked down bins, stopped that last year.
I think if enough people will stop placing so much importance on "entertainmnerts" of that sort, we'll see more sane pricing and reduce any demand for copying for profit. it's all I can do, tell people to boycott movies and music and professional sports and television fiction. it's gotten so ridiculous expensive it's stupid, and the time wasting aspects of it are lost to the wasters, I think in a lot of cases they don't realise how absuerdly addicted they get to it to the detriment of other more important things our society ignores too much. When you can get several million people in one weekend to go drop tens of millions of dollars all over the country to watch some new movie, with thousands in any random city you pick, and the same city can't get two dozen people to a community meeting to discuss local judicial corruption or the next multi million dollar school budget, etc, well, there's something wrong there in *general terms*. IMO anyway.
Rome when it was collapsing had it's bread and circuses to keep the people amused and occupied so they wouldn't pay attention to the rot that was collapsing their society around them.. We have the same thing now but people don't like to think they are droned out barbarians addicted to bre
Re:You'd get less time... (Score:4, Insightful)
For example at sporting events certain behaviors are prohibited. The emphasized punishment for the behavior is ejection from the venue. If the action is a crime, the event may press charges. Most events that I have attended do not say that all prohibited action will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The reason, I believe, is because such statement might encourage suspects to be more resistant to the punishment, an in the process put innocent people at risk. For example, one can imagine some object accidently getting thrown onto the court. This obviously put player health at risk, and arguable could be the basis for a criminal prosecution. If the suspects thought that jail time was a real possibility, then they might choose to use violence to defend themselves, as the jail time might not be significantly increased. As it is, they have an incentive to leave quietly to avoid further punishment.
And this is what the theaters are missing. By attaching a five year penalty to a nonviolent action, they are endangering my health, the health of staff, and the well being of any police called to enforce the action. I mean is someone who is risking five years for recording a movie going to worry about 10 years for injuring the people around him in his attempt to avoid capture? Is such a person going to worry about the riot he or she causes as they pull a gun to try to escape? I know that this is the extreme possibility, but one must make a full analysis before passing these laws.
People will do really stupid stuff out of fear. In the US we try hard to have a fair and open process of law to minimize that fear. The problem is that process is becoming less fair, for instance by the reduced access to proper representation for those who cannot afford it, and as a consequence these parties tend to feel they have less to lose, which makes them more a threat to society.
Re:You'd get less time... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You'd get less time... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is real, measurable damage when some clown in a business suit robs someone of their retirement fund. They destroy lives. I'm yet to see a poor starving industry executive begging me for money when I buy my groceries because some kid downloaded a copy of "Crossroads".
"Well, movie pirates likewise cause millions in economic damage."
If I hadn't been able to download a few episodes of The Sopranos, I never would have bought the entire DVD collection. Viewing times just don't suit my work habits unfortunately, and I'm not abou to shell out $100 on something that might just be garbage.
But wait, you're talking about those poor unfortunate people like set builders and painters, the hard workers who make their living supporting the movie industry, and I'm hurting them, right?
If that's the case, they'd have a big complaint to lodge with those behind Sky Captain And The World Of Tomorrow. The whole movie filmed without a single set being built, everything CG apart from the main actors.
The movie industry is playing catch-up to consumer demands. They either adapt, of their business model dies.
Is it really that hard to grasp?
Re:You'd get less time... (Score:3, Interesting)
Can you come over and do my taxes? You appear to be better with magical numbers than my accountant.
Re:You'd get less time... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a wonderful analogy. The recording industry wants to outlaw the bricks themselves (i.e. P2P). Then we couldn't use them to build houses and pave driveways (share noninfringing files).
Re:You'd get less time... (Score:5, Insightful)
They do. But this law would give you up to three years in prison even if you don't do it for profit. While many people stealing movies for personal use may collectively cause millions in economic damage, individually you have only cost a few bucks. So the punishment should fit the crime, that is, it should only be worth a few bucks, not millions.
If somebody pirates a movie for profit and makes millions themselves, I can see this argument holding and requiring a stiff sentence. But for individual pirates stealing for personal use, it's just insane.
Re:You'd get less time... (Score:3, Insightful)
If somebody pirates a movie for profit and makes millions themselves, I can see this argument holding and requiring a stiff sentence. But for individual pirates stealing for personal use, it's just insane.
Copying isn't stealing. How many times that has to be told. Don't fall into the rhetoric of big media companies twisting the terms to make breaking the
Re:You'd get less time... (Score:3, Insightful)
What about.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What about.... (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't know many people then. I see films all the time when I go on holiday. I generally have my camera with me. I travel by train, so I have no car to leave my camera in, and I stay in youth hostels, so leaving expensive equipment in the room is as good as leaving them on a table in a fast-food restaurant with a sign that says "STEAL ME".
So I will be taking my camera into cinemas for the forseeable future.
Why should taypayers pay for enforcement? (Score:5, Insightful)
But why on earth should taypayers have to pay for enforcement of these rules?
If preventing camcorders is movie theaters is so important to their business, they should pay for the cost of preventing it. Anything else is a form of subsidy of the music industry. Taypayer money should be spend on protecting the security of people. Subsidies (in any form) are justified only if an industry which is important for providing necessities of life to the population is otherwise likely to suffer significant harm. In this case, there is no justification: The movie industry does not provide any necessities, just luxerious. Also, the movie industry would be quite capable of paying the costs of enforcing the rules they asked for. By paying for enforcement of this rule, Senate intends to rob the poor (taypayers) and giev to the rich (movie industry).
Re:Why should taypayers pay for enforcement? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why should taypayers pay for enforcement? (Score:4, Insightful)
$5 million is a tiny, tiny fraction of the amount of tax revenue the entire movie industry (studios, distributors, cinemas, actors, crew, etc.) bring in annually. In short, by paying their taxes, the film industry is in fact paying for the enforcement of these laws. The "why should taxpayers pay?" line is so broken, you really go and do some very, very basic study of economics.
Re:Why should taypayers pay for enforcement? (Score:3, Insightful)
I had written: "Taypayer money should be spend on protecting the security of people." This includes enforcing laws against murder and robbery.
Enforcing a rule against camcorders is like enforcing other kinds of NDAs. Whether or not you think t
Re:Why should taypayers pay for enforcement? (Score:4, Informative)
Murder needs to be prosicuted so that the general public can feel safe and do their jobs.
$5M may be a small ammount, but it's still five fucking million dolars! Let's use it to train 2 more cops and have them patrol streets.
The movie industry probably pays less tax than you think. I read an analasys of how these things work. Basicly, a company is formed to produce the film. The company leases all the equipment and sets from MGM or Mirimax or Disney. Then the film is made. After the profits start rolling in, the company has to pay MGM for the rentals. The rental prices are set to absorb any real profits. Then the company declares bankruptcy. MGM ends up with all the money by basicly renting the equipment to itself.
I'm sure these companies pay tax. But if you and I are taxed at 20% to 30% of our income, big production companies probably pay closer to 5%. Think about that. You lose 1 of every 3 dolars you make so that police can enforce the rights of a company that pays 2 out of every 50 dollars it makes.
Thank God this passed.... (Score:5, Funny)
Demand (Score:5, Insightful)
Solution: offer movies-on-demand at the same time they play in theaters.
Why miss out on profits from those that download these bootleg movies or buy them off the street? They could offer the movies for $4 a pop and people would buy.
I can't wait for an iTunes for movies.
I don't necessarily disagree with the intent but.. (Score:3, Insightful)
If I broke out my cell phone video recorder and took a quick clip of a movie, does that warrant 3 years in prison?
Less Than A Penny (Score:2)
Considering (Score:4, Insightful)
Phht (Score:3, Interesting)
I personally pledge to download and share one movie for every commercial that I see in a movie theater.
Re:Phht (Score:5, Informative)
Here at least (germany), the cinemas live on the ads, popcorn and cola - not on the movies. It's a neccessary evil, and completely unrelated to the copyright issue.
People who secretly videotape movies (Score:5, Funny)
This is good! It looks like if you blatently go in a theater and tape you are free in clear. Fuck this secret business, I want my cam download to look like MST3k with heckling. Oh, and the shadows of heads holding camcorders is a bonus for those of us who want that black space filled with something when we view in letterbox format.
telesync and telecine (Score:5, Informative)
Irrelevant legislation (Score:5, Informative)
Telesync = empty theater, cam on a tripod, sound from the theater sound panels. So theater employees are helping or doing it. Studio's own fault for not securely handling the prints/theaters. Ah but the theaters want to get by with just one guy running multiple showings being paid just bit over minimum wage while working long hours. And you wonder why these guys 'leak' stuff?
Telecine = print of the movie, telecine machine, basically an unauthorized film-to-digital transfer. Requires complete access to the print at a location with a telecine machine. DEFINITELY means that studios don't handle the security of the prints as they should. Nobody should be able to walk out of a theater with the print to telecine it. Meaning some prints end up in wrong hands - either out of the theaters or from the studios themselves.
And since law is apparently only vs. cammers, getting the print telecined is still apparently just a copyright infringement.
Of course buying a law against teleciners would make the studios admit that their prints are not handled securely and that the movie theater employees are leaking like hell. If pirates commonly can get the whole print in their hands and run it thru a telecine machine at their leisure, that would possibly wake up the lawmakers that this law is beyond stupid and does nothing to curb piracy.
"I need to get out of here" (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a sad day when you realize youre no longer internally proud of your own country.. that it's abandoned its own values and is becoming a de facto police state.
What happened, guys??
Re:"I need to get out of here" (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Changing the meaning of "patriot" to someone who is behind his government no matter what.
2) Changing the definition of "democracy" to "the lesser of two evils"
3) Changing the meaning of any political group to be derogatory.
4) Labeling anyone who speaks out against the government to be either a traitor or freedom hating commie bastard (this relates to #1)
Of course, I'm just a godless freedom hating commie bastard from Denmark of all places - hell, I'm even a member of the [warning for the faint of heart] Social Democrats AND I'm an atheis, so that absolutely PROVES that I'm a freedom hating godless commie bastard. Oh, and since I don't agree with your governments politics, and can really only stand Colin Powel, I hate America too.
Another example of corrupt politicians (Score:4, Insightful)
A law aimed at the poorest in society (Score:3, Insightful)
This horrible law is targeted at the urban poor. It is poor urban dwellers who are the prime "offenders". This demographic already suffers a hideously high rate of incarceration, even for non-violent "crimes" like this. The urban poor are the only audience who would tolerate the low quality, shaky pictures, and muffled sound. Dolby 5.1? Not hardly. These videos aren't finding their way into the $30K home theaters of Malibu and the Hamptons.
I guess it doesn't matter to Jack Valenti and Barbara Streisand. Hey they've got to pay for their botox and Hummer SUVs. What's it matter if another nigga or two is locked away for a few years?
it doesnt just happen in america (Score:3, Insightful)
still leaks happen most commonly in the far east (when they are sent off for screenings and translations), ive seen untold numbers of cam and telesyncs from the far east.
this really wont stop piracy at all, its just another thing thats making america even more of a police state.
21st Century Law (Score:5, Insightful)
Wishes and dreams... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a huge problem when white-collar crimes are more vigorously prosecuted and receive proportionally tougher penalties than violent crimes. It just goes to show how much influence corporations have on our government. This is why we NEED campaign finance reform. This is why we NEED to get rid of soft money alltogether. ALL soft money. This is why we NEED to get rid of PACs - so daughters like mine can have justice instead of (or possibly in addition to) a lifetime of therapy.
Re:Wishes and dreams... (Score:3, Insightful)
-Restil
Ayn Rand quote (Score:5, Insightful)
"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against . .
Atlas Shrugged
A nation of criminals (Score:4, Interesting)
prisons not the answer for social problems [fortwayne.com], "There were 715 inmates for every 100,000 U.S. residents last June. Mexico's incarceration rate is 169 per 100,000, and Canada's rate is 116."
There are currently more than 2 million people in US jails. NPR is running a series this week on the ineffectiveness of the prison [npr.org] system [npr.org].
Now I don't think for a minute that this sentence will ever be carried out. For one, didn't we already determine that most pirated movies come from people who get advanced copies on DVD? Can't find articles on that right now.
But if you want to change this ridiculous system of punishment please support initiatives like Downsize DC [downsizedc.org].
Re:A nation of criminals (Score:3, Insightful)
What about the PIRATE Act? (Score:4, Interesting)
Someone want to confirm or deny this? Was the PIRATE Act passed "unanimously"?
Re:What about the PIRATE Act? (Score:3, Informative)
SHORT TITLE(S) AS REPORTED TO SENATE:
Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation Act of 2004
6/25/2004:
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN022 37:@@@L&summ2=m& [loc.gov]
The accompanying bill called...
SHORT TITLE(S) AS REPORTED TO SENATE:
Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2004
* "Victims of this new bill" * (Score:5, Interesting)
Last time I looked 'we' stronly believe in copyright enforcement when / as it applies to GPL or other FOSS licensed material. But when the shoe's on the other foot, suddenly people who go to a fair bit of trouble to steal a copyright work are *victims*? I think not.
Many of the comments here run along the lines of 'ohh look at those really harsh penalties, compare them to (white-collar-crime, violent crime ...).
Kindly observe that this is *federal* legislation (and that are some states have enacted laws). That means that what's prosecuted under this is most likely going to be the 'theatre employee runs a showing off-hours explicitly to do a video rip' instances. *Hence* the stiffer penalties.
The pentalties for copyright theft are already out there, this isn't new - it's addressing a specific instance.
Sure we don't like DMCA, RIAA et al and I heartily agree that there are some 1st class morons in "the Industry" lobbying etc.
However in fact technology is making copyright theft easier and with the bar lowered there are going to be laws passed (DMCA etc) to try to address that.
Deal. And if the best way you can think of 'dealing' is to cry wolf about how people without respect for others property are 'victims' ... well you can expect more of the same kind of legislation.
Re:* "Victims of this new bill" * (Score:5, Insightful)
*cough* BULLSHIT *cough*
The problem with this law is that it adds criminal penalties for what was formerly a civil offense. The civil penalties were in line with severity of a crime. This law has mandatory 10-year penalties for repeat offenders - those that have already spent 10-20 years in prison under this law.
That's more than serial rapists, murderers, or people who embezzle billions. That's more than most drug-related crime laws.
The problem isn't the enforcement but, rather, that the penalty is hideously out of whack with the severity of the crime.
Re:* "Victims of this new bill" * (Score:3)
But the bottom-line it this: it's really a non-issue if you understand that it is wrong, illegal, and stupid to pirate a film with a video cam. Perhaps if this is too hard for you to grasp, you need to be culled from the herd as a benefit to everyone
Re:* "Victims of this new bill" * (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, "we" strongly believe in copyright enforcement ("we" in the reasonable-headed group of
I seriously doubt that many here really think that jail time is appropriate punishment for the lazy coder at some corporation who inserted a module from GPL'ed sources to save himself some work. Or even for the management at said corporation who encouraged the practice to reduce development costs. Yet that is what we have for the copiers of "IP" belonging to big media.
if the best way you can think of 'dealing' is to cry wolf about how people without respect for others property are 'victims'
The best way to deal with this offence is in line with deed done: financially. Charging the offender for actual damages (likely about $20) plus appropriate punitive damages (a couple thousand at most) is the sane way to deal with this "crime". Taking a violation of civil law and making the punishment a criminal offence, with such rediculously small impact (please show me a credible study that proves any financial losses from shitty camcorder movies), is just stupid.
Blame the voters. (Score:3, Informative)
MPAA - alternate What If solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Wouldn't it be interesting if a different boycott could be arranged - one where instead of everyone saying 'don't buy music, don't movies', we just say - for one good movie - Don't record it? Do not let it hit the internet? Not one little copy? If we look back at the Matrix, Spiderman, et al., these were heavily taped and found online, only to have their ticket sales soar into the hundreds of millions. So many here could claim, 'See, it didn't hurt at all - it probably helped as advertising.' It is an argument that I agree with, that the people who take the time to hunt for and download a grainy copy are those who are the movies biggest fans anyway, and they just can't wait to see it. It won't stop them from going to the movie, buying the DVD - they just want to get their hands on all of it.
Soooo - what if? Let's take Spiderman2 about to come out soon. I suppose to prove a theory one way or the other, something needs to give. Otherwise it remains theory. So imagine if not one copy of Spiderman2 were released online? And what if, instead of a blockbuster, the movie only produced a lackluster performance? That could add fuel to the argument that the pre-recording really was helping after all, and the MPAA just shot themselves in foot - again. If sales are about the same, it could prove that the pre-recording didn't make a difference. Does the MPAA really think that they could have earned more than the 300 to 500 million some of these movies make? I know that there are many holes in my idea, and it would be almost impossible to pull together a united, worldwide 'freeze-frame' event. But still, it makes me wonder - what if?
Summary of why this sucks (Score:3, Insightful)
As usual we have the vocal comments from the "Record it eslewhere" crew and from the "But it's illegal, so why are you whining" collective. Both sides, as usual, seem to be missing the point.
Some people have touched on the real issues, but neither side (especially the "it's illegal!" side) seem to even notice the points.
1 - It's overkill
I think that in-cinema recording is wrong (though the over-the-top messages before movies make me want to do so out of spite, I admit). You bring in a camcorder to use in a film and there are very few things other than bootlegging that you can be doing. So I'm not disagreeing that it's illegal.
But come on here. This is walnut-with-a-sledgehammer territory. It's not a criminal offence - or shouldn't be. Hefty fine. Confiscation of equipment. Barred from cinemas. These would be acceptable - and actually stop repeat attempts. But prison-time? Yeah, great. Obligatory "bubba" gags aside, prison is usually a good place to pick up real skills and contacts.
2 - It's not the cause of the problem
As people keep saying, it's not camjobs that are doing the rounds and eating into postential ticket-sales. If anything is, it's be the high-quality Telesyncs that people keep on referring to here. It ain't punters-with-a-cam, it's cinema-workers with some "slightly better" kit.
Adding the two together, they're basically giving a vastly OTT punishment to the people who aren't even the main cause of bootlegging. And the cost of which will be passed onto the US taxpayer, and probably reflected in box-office prices too.
Honestly, they're probably losing more money (and customers) to trying to stamp out bootlegs than they do to the actual bootlegs.
TiggsPunishment does NOT match crime. (Score:3, Insightful)
Specific information about this bill (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Augh what the HELL?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course a counter argument is that we can play that game as well by paying off senators to help us instead of big business, but I'm sure big business has deeper pockets from which to give. Deep pockets that we as consumers give them. I'm sure there are controls on the size of "donations" but it creates an inherent conflict of interest that, in my opinion, shouldn't be tolerated.
Now label me as a troll and move along.
Re:Augh what the HELL?! (Score:3, Informative)
In fact since the house hasn't passed it(unless I missed that in the article), they could quite easily drop it, or change it 1 year / 2 years or 10/50 years or whatever they feel like. Of course if they change it the senate has to re-pass the changed version and so on till they both agree and then Bush still ha
Re:Augh what the HELL?! (Score:3, Insightful)
What kind of a country sentences someone to get ass raped anyway? Western civilization should be ashamed of itself.
Re:Corporate Coruption (Score:5, Funny)
(ooops)
Re:Corporate Coruption (Score:4, Informative)
The URL in the parent post doesn't work (apparently due to slashdot software eating the underscore character because my preview failed the same way). Cut and paste the one below instead, you'll be glad you did.
http://fahrenheit_fact.blogspot.com/
Hell, steal the reel! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:makes Ralph Nader more attractive (Score:3, Interesting)
If you don't like the companies policies (like the movie industry) BoyCott them (That mean