a little overboard or not ?

[BJ_M]

Jan. 10, 2004

Hollywood, states fight film piracy with prison sentences

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- At a recent showing of "Big Fish," several moviegoers at a local theater held up camera-equipped cellphones and took snapshots of the screen. Doing the same with a video camera will soon be a crime. At Hollywood's urging, Ohio and several other states have passed laws that let police arrest people for videotaping movies in theaters. The new statutes augment a movie industry antipiracy arsenal that includes bag searches upon entering movie houses, a multifaceted response to technological strides that make digital video distribution a snap. (AP)

FULL STORY

[andkiich]

People shouldn't be taping movies at theatres. A little overboard? IMO no.

[BJ_M]

if you tape a concert - though not legal - and you can have your equipment taken and be thrown out ... at least you don't go to jail for it ...



just looking at both sides ...

[andkiich]

Good point. They should at least be consistent.

Or, would this mean that they can now have you arrested for doing this at concerts as well?

[FOO]

I'd like to know what kind of people can be found that will
work for minimum wage in a theater and be willing to
use physical force on unknown members of the most
dangerous animal on the planet.

[stiltman]

I'd like to know what kind of people can be found that will
work for minimum wage in a theater and be willing to
use physical force on unknown members of the most
dangerous animal on the planet.

ROTFLMAO so freakin true

[GizmoTheGremlin]

I used to work at the 24 Screen AMC Lennox by Ohio State University and I can assure you that the employees there would get a laugh out of it if they saw anyone with a camera. Some of the managers may see things differently, but they're not likely to catch anyone.

besides, many laws aren't made to be enforced, just to try and scare people away from doing something.

[housepig]

actually, I think THIS is even more overboard.

glad we're back down to "yellow"....

[The village idiot]

or maybe this.

Hollywood really shouldn't be concerned about crappy cam copies of the movies. They should really be concerned with crappy scripts and ideas!

[painkiller]

If you think those are bad.....

How about this.....


http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/07/news-sullivan.php

Try to find a judge who would through the book at 'police-wanna-bees' THESE days!

[spiderman2k1]

I knew a cop that work at a movie threater a while ago and he said if he see's any coping a movie he has to arrest them. He also said HollyWood send rep's out to check on movie threater and if the door to a room os locked and the rep is there he has to open the door.

You have to ask your self is it worth the problem if you get cought?

[Ripper2860]

I agree that the taping of a film should be punished. Posting onto the internet prior to release on DVD/Tape is the typical result of those taping efforts. The MPAA is going after the "pirate/distributors" of such and are not going after the consumer -- at least at this point. The cost of making and distruibuting a film is far greater than an audio CD. Theater revenues lost by folks seeing the film at home prior to the release on DVD/Tape cuts into profits.

Frankly a $16.00 DVD is a far greater value than an $16.00 audio CD and odds are you know you like the film you are buying on DVD. Unlike an Audio CD where you'll probably only like 2 or 3 of the 10 songs !!

The RIAA goes after the consumer thinking that if they cut demand, supply will dry up. Therefore they sue consumers -- their potential customers. The MPAA is going after "pirates/suppliers" thinking that if the supply is destroyed, the demand will simply be satisfied via the legitimate distribution methods -- Walmart! After all -- a $14-16.00 DVD movie really is a pretty good value.

Now as to enforcement ...

I don't know about you folks, but the only time I actually see a movie theater employee in the actual theater is when they come in to clean after the movie.

The film can be completely out of focus on the screen -- heck, it can even break and the lights come on -- and no one except for the paying customers are aware that anything is wrong !! Not until someone gets up (after everyone waits 15mins to see if someone else is gonna do it) and complains do they even know and show-up to correct the matter.

Who is going to monitor/police this !? The customer ?

[spiderman2k1]

THe one thing I saw on "60 Minute's" how HollyWood is think of downloading movie.That if people can download a copy people will not go t the threater's any more. 99% of all bootleg's to tell you the truth are not worth downloading. Download a MP3 and a movie is not the same thing. People like to get out of the house. That one of the big reason for going to the threater. And if HollyWood is to lose money it not from bootleg movie's it's from people copying the real DVD's.

[GizmoTheGremlin]

I think that the major flaw is assuming that all those who downloaded the movie or music for free, would otherwise have been willing to pay for it. I don't really understand how hollywood can sue individuals for lost revenue that can't possibly be proven. I somewhat understand suing a dealer, but not an individual user.

[spiderman2k1]

Alot of kid's I know do download the movie's but they still go to the threater's to see them and alot of them will not watch the bootleg until they see it in the threater. They say why wold you wantto watch a good movie ona bootleg vcd on a TV when the threater is DTS or DD and 50 feet screen. Also they say they keep the bootleg so when the movie is out of theeater they can still watch it and wait for the DVD to come out.

[c_hernandez32]

You know the MPAA is making everyone a criminal. Its not like any of the movie stars or recording artists are poor. Oh, poor Ben Affleck, instead of recieving 25 Million, hey only gets 20 Million because a few people downloaded Daredevil. Frankly it makes me sick! They spend more money on their dogs than I get paid a year. I think that if Kazaa really hurt the movie industry, Ben and JLo would be living in a one bedroom apartment instead of their huge southern mansion. What I am taking about, Ben and JLo have never made a movie good enough to download or even to watch.

[Alan69]

The real problem the MPAA has with it is that it lets peopld see the movie before hand. Then it has to be at least ok before they go see it!

This stops them from being able to show you candy (the trailers and commercials), get you into a dark alley (the theatre), and mug and rape you (take $10 up front and waste 2 hours of your life on a terrible movie that never should have been made).

This makes them have to work harder, and actually make a good movie and have a real job instead of be crooks. They all want to go back to the good ole days of being able to rob you blind on a crap film by creative editing of trailers and commercials. They LIKED the easy money. No duh!

Can you imagine Episode 1 if everyone had seen it the day before even in low quality? It was a 'BIG movie'. But they sure wouldn't have wanted everyone to know it was lackluster before they went to see it. All the fans etc would have of course gone eventually, but you can bet a lot of people would have waited for video..

I think GL and more than a few others are deathly afraid of the internet, and THEY have stepped on the MPAA's toes to stop everyone. People who make good movies wouldn't care much, seeing their good movie would make you want to go see it in the theatre. It's everyone else who's worried.

Their income was more steady before, because they could blindside you with a bath in crap that you paid for. It doesn't mean that their money should have ever been so easy that way, only that they aren't going to like the change. Actually I don't download and hardly ever even go to the theatre now because of the stupid crap films that were over hyped in the past. They make LESS money, because they've taken the easy money instead of trying harder to make good films on their own. Some do, many just don't worry about it being good though.

MPAA and the people making films are simply too 'short term' to even realize that they will make more money in the long run by being forced to make better films. The torture test of the internet will actually make them more money I think, they are just not good enough to think that far ahead. And no one wants to suffer a bit and not make their crap money on the crap films right now when they've made one. They can't even stand it when it's so bad that it does nothing from fast word of mouth, even when it deserves it.

Hell MPAA would ban all 'bad word of mouth' if it was up to them. They'd cut your tongue out for disparaging 'Glitter' and 'Gili' and making them less money if they could and not go to jail. And snip your fingers right off for typing on this board or backing up your own copy of a DVD. They are not the ones who should be in charge of anything really, they have only self interest in mind. And don't even have their own long term self interest in mind at that. They are dangerous even to their own potential long term profits, and much more so to the general public.

Alan

[Ripper2860]

I would never actually purchase a Lamborghini. Does not make it right for me to take one. I bet if they found one in my driveway the excuse that "I would never actually BUY one", would not hold a lot of water.

I'll admit I download the occassional movie and song, although much less frequently than before. The MPAA/RIAA only has to prove that you are in wrongful possession of their product and therefore have derived a benefit without paying for it. Their product is the movie or song and only those who have purchased it are entitled to enjoy it.

I feel though, that the underlying problem with the RIAA at least, is that people do not perceive the product to be a "value". $16 for 2-3 good songs is ludicrous. They would buy if they could get what they want at a reasonable price.

With the MPAA, I believe that people will buy or rent the movie, if it was available at the time they wanted it. Instead of waiting sometimes up to a year oer moire for a film to be released to DVD, they should make it available soon afterwards. Who would download something they could buy or rent today or tomorrow. The quality of most D/L's are awful and even with DSL/CABLE take a long time.

The RIAA and MPAA are certainly within their right to sue anyone who has even 1 pirated film or song. I agree that going after distributors is the sane way to go about it w/o pissing consumers off. However, when it comes to a consumer, if they don't actually own it -- it is theft. Whether they would have bought it or not!

[GizmoTheGremlin]

I guess in my own mind I see theft of a movie a little more complicated than theft of a car. If I went out and stole a car that I wouldn't have bought anyway, it's obviously theft because it's directly costing somebody money for which they could sue me. But if I downloaded a movie that I wouldn't have bought, that didn't really cost the MPAA anything, they can still sue me for what it potentially might have cost if I did want to buy the movie.

If I take my neighbor to court, I have to prove that he cost me a certain amount of money (via receipts or whatever). I couldn't sue him for what he potentially might have cost me.

I don't know if I'm really explaining myself clearly, but I tend to agree with alan in that the movie industry is trying to control people and politics and theyre definately succeeding in politics to some extent. is it still paranoia if they really are after you? :P

Let me just add that I haven't downloaded a movie in a very long time, nor do I promote it. 8)

[The village idiot]

Alot of kid's I know do download the movie's but they still go to the threater's to see them and alot of them will not watch the bootleg until they see it in the threater. They say why wold you wantto watch a good movie ona bootleg vcd on a TV when the threater is DTS or DD and 50 feet screen. Also they say they keep the bootleg so when the movie is out of theeater they can still watch it and wait for the DVD to come out.

Because the theaters around me all suck! Speakers that are over driven or buzz from faulty cabinets, movie out of focus, hair and dirt on the print. And then add the 15 minutes of advertising you have to sit through, and I can understand wanting to download a crappy cam movie to see if it is worth going to the theater or not. That said, I don't watch too many recent movies, most ly I wait untyil they come out on disk, and even then, there are few I want to spend my money on to rent. I'll just point back to the lack of good ideas to their falling profits.

[GizmoTheGremlin]

why isn't it illegal if someone gives you a DVD (assuming it was originally gotten legally)? If you didn't pay for it, and potentially you might have bought a copy if someone didn't give it to you first, then it should be a similar situation in my mind.

[The village idiot]

If I take my neighbor to court, I have to prove that he cost me a certain amount of money (via receipts or whatever). I couldn't sue him for what he potentially might have cost me.

I hadn't thought of it that way. So if you possess a stolen movie, the only thing they should be able to get from you is a theater ticket, and the price of the DVD. Now I guess if you supply a movie for download, they should have to prove how many people got it from you, and then charge you for only that amount, not the rather large fees that they are trying to get.

[lordsmurf]

Hmmm. Almanacs, maps and flight sim games make you a terrorist? WTF? I've got maps in the car (duh!), and almanac on the bookshelf (doesn't everybody?), and the MS flight sim crap came free with the computer. (Does it mean Compaq is now supporting terrorism? And considering the alamanacs and maps came from Barnes & Noble and the local gas station, are they now funding "terrorism".)

This is kindergarten logic.

Videotaping movies goes to jail? Yeah, right, I see lots of cops giving a flying flip about that. They have drugs and other issues to worry about.

[Chuffster]

Can you imagine Episode 1 if everyone had seen it the day before even in low quality? It was a 'BIG movie'. But they sure wouldn't have wanted everyone to know it was lackluster before they went to see it. All the fans etc would have of course gone eventually, but you can bet a lot of people would have waited for video..

I raise my hand. I watched Episode 1 on pirate video, it was so appallingly bad (the film not the pirate video) that I never bothered to see, rent or buy the film. I have yet to bother watching Episode 2.

Still, inspite of the crap that Hollywood produces I still believe it is important for there to be a reasonable level of protection against piracy. It is not unreasonable to expect people with camcorders in cinemas to be prosecuted. For instance: who in their right mind would visit a convenience store, and expect to be able to take photos with their digital camera of a girly magazine that was on sale there? Really, this is what people who think camcorders should be allowed in cinemas are suggesting.

[painkiller]

Finally.

Someone gets it right. (Lordsmurf)

[Ripper2860]

I certainly agree that it is a very complex matter. While there is no MATERIAL theft in downloading pirated copies of movies and music, the argument is -- did the person derive a BENEFIT through the use of this downloaded film or song. It does not need to be a monetary benefit either.

In my opinion, the part that would have to be proved (criminal case) or at least a proponderence of the evidence needs to support (civil case) is merely that the person listened or viewed or intended to listen to or view the audio or video. After all, why else why was it downloaded -- unless it was to distribute. If you view it, you've derived a benefit that is reserved only for those that have purchased a ticket, the CD or the DVD. Even if the music or movies sucks, unless there is a MPAA/RIAA supported try-before-you buy, it's buyer beware.

Granted the penalties do seem obsessive and should only be levied to the amount of the purchase, unless the intent was distribution (via P2P, etc.) or sale.

I too have not downloaded in some time and fully expect that I will no longer download. In the past I have deluded myself into thinking, that if I would never purchase the movie or song -- no harm, no foul. But deep down, I always really knew better. I was stealing! There's no way around it.

[GizmoTheGremlin]

Well put, and I couldn't agree with you more. I didn't intend to sound like I was justifying or promoting piracy. Only that I feel the MPAA/RIAA are legally able to do things that they shouldn't be able to.

But if you are doing something that is obviously wrong, penalties should follow.