Vote out every incumbent in 2006
April 21, 2005 5:05 PM Subscribe
Recording a movie in a theater is now likely to get you more time in jail than if you are found guilty of involuntary mansaughter.
Don't fall victim to the dictatorship of moral relativism.
posted by mullingitover at 6:07 PM on April 21, 2005
posted by mullingitover at 6:07 PM on April 21, 2005
Recording a movie in a theater is now likely to get you more time in jail than if you are found guilty of involuntary mansaughter.
Then don't do it.
posted by billysumday at 6:11 PM on April 21, 2005
Then don't do it.
posted by billysumday at 6:11 PM on April 21, 2005
Another little known law allows Bruce Willis to come into your home and take anything he wants from your fridge, even your last beer.
posted by 2sheets at 6:12 PM on April 21, 2005
posted by 2sheets at 6:12 PM on April 21, 2005
"Family Entertainment and Copyright Act". Predictable addition of the word "family" to make it go down easier with those who reduce every political or social issue to "family values."
Corporations are imprisoning people for copyright infringement, with the enthusiastic help of congress, the people's representative. Revolting.
posted by squirrel at 6:13 PM on April 21, 2005
Corporations are imprisoning people for copyright infringement, with the enthusiastic help of congress, the people's representative. Revolting.
posted by squirrel at 6:13 PM on April 21, 2005
Since involuntary manslaughter brings, on average, anywhere from 0 to 36 months' incarceration, one might well question the morality of going harder on those who trade files than on those who negligently cut short the lives of fellow citizens.
What the hell does one thing have to do with the other? What do a footstool and a garden rake have in common? They both can't make a martini.
posted by Witty at 6:21 PM on April 21, 2005
What the hell does one thing have to do with the other? What do a footstool and a garden rake have in common? They both can't make a martini.
posted by Witty at 6:21 PM on April 21, 2005
Then don't do it
No, just wait a day or two and you can get it off the net anyways.
/not condoning, just saying...
posted by mikeweeney at 6:21 PM on April 21, 2005
No, just wait a day or two and you can get it off the net anyways.
/not condoning, just saying...
posted by mikeweeney at 6:21 PM on April 21, 2005
Can we pass a law that says we can shoot people who talk on cell phones during movies? I bet we can in Flordia.
posted by tkchrist at 6:21 PM on April 21, 2005
posted by tkchrist at 6:21 PM on April 21, 2005
billysumday
My concern is that the punishment seems harsh. How much does a shitty videotaped copy of a movie cut into the sales of that movie? My guess is about zero. I liken it to recording a Grateful Dead concert. That seemed to work out ok for them.
posted by Mr_Zero at 6:27 PM on April 21, 2005
My concern is that the punishment seems harsh. How much does a shitty videotaped copy of a movie cut into the sales of that movie? My guess is about zero. I liken it to recording a Grateful Dead concert. That seemed to work out ok for them.
posted by Mr_Zero at 6:27 PM on April 21, 2005
...kill filmmakers who portray [Islamic] faith in a poor light...
So your stance would be "then don't make those movies", right, billysumday? We shouldn't pay any attention to laws that we don't break, ourselves, right? Regardless of the penalty, regardless of who created the law or how it moved through our houses of congress, regardless of all implications. What an idiotic approach to law you espouse.
posted by squirrel at 6:30 PM on April 21, 2005
So your stance would be "then don't make those movies", right, billysumday? We shouldn't pay any attention to laws that we don't break, ourselves, right? Regardless of the penalty, regardless of who created the law or how it moved through our houses of congress, regardless of all implications. What an idiotic approach to law you espouse.
posted by squirrel at 6:30 PM on April 21, 2005
What the hell does one thing have to do with the other?
Well, that's part of the point, Witty. In one case, a life ends; in the other case... well... no one has ever quantifiably demonstrated how movie recording impacts copyright holders.
Yet, they have similar penalties. Doesn't that strike you as odd? The movie business has its own prison, for fuck's sake.
posted by squirrel at 6:36 PM on April 21, 2005
Well, that's part of the point, Witty. In one case, a life ends; in the other case... well... no one has ever quantifiably demonstrated how movie recording impacts copyright holders.
Yet, they have similar penalties. Doesn't that strike you as odd? The movie business has its own prison, for fuck's sake.
posted by squirrel at 6:36 PM on April 21, 2005
Recording a movie in a theater is now likely to get you more time in jail than if you are found guilty of involuntary mansaughter.Yeah, it's not like justice is about reasonable intervention with appropriate punishment. Just do as you're told.
Then don't do it.
posted by billysumday at 7:11 PM MST on April 21
posted by effwerd at 6:41 PM on April 21, 2005
I wonder who they'll find to run the projectors after they jail all the die-hard movie fanatics that permit or enable this kind of screen-taping from the projection room itself, rather than those half-assed in-the-seat tapings.
Also, I see a technological arms race developing, what with all the digital watermarking, lense-detection systems and all that.
I can't remember (or be bothered to find at the moment) where the lens-detection technology thread is that was posted on the blue a while ago, but I just had a thought about a way to defeat it. I bet covering the lens with a fine, matte/flat transparent mesh would defeat that system pretty easily, without effecting the recording quality too badly.
posted by loquacious at 6:57 PM on April 21, 2005
Also, I see a technological arms race developing, what with all the digital watermarking, lense-detection systems and all that.
I can't remember (or be bothered to find at the moment) where the lens-detection technology thread is that was posted on the blue a while ago, but I just had a thought about a way to defeat it. I bet covering the lens with a fine, matte/flat transparent mesh would defeat that system pretty easily, without effecting the recording quality too badly.
posted by loquacious at 6:57 PM on April 21, 2005
Recording a movie in a theater is now likely to get you more time in jail than if you are found guilty of involuntary mansaughter.
good, cuz if im gonna spend $5 on a bootleg at the busstop, i want that shit coming straight from an Oscar screener.
posted by tsarfan at 7:03 PM on April 21, 2005
good, cuz if im gonna spend $5 on a bootleg at the busstop, i want that shit coming straight from an Oscar screener.
posted by tsarfan at 7:03 PM on April 21, 2005
Good. People playing recorders in movie theaters should be summarily executed.
/drunk
posted by Baby_Balrog at 7:07 PM on April 21, 2005
/drunk
posted by Baby_Balrog at 7:07 PM on April 21, 2005
"Family Entertainment and Copyright Act". Predictable addition of the word "family" to make it go down easier with those who reduce every political or social issue to "family values."
I think they chose that name so that we can talk about the "Family Entertainment and Copyright Act Legislation" and then we can lament that a shitty acronym fits so well for such a shitty law.
I don't think that people should be taping in theaters--because they are annoying--and yet I don't think that the draconian punishment fits the crime.
posted by beelzbubba at 9:56 PM on April 21, 2005
FECAL... heh heh...
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:21 PM on April 21, 2005
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:21 PM on April 21, 2005
involuntary manslaughter = ACCIDENTAL
Hopefully that should have a short jail sentence.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 10:32 PM on April 21, 2005
Hopefully that should have a short jail sentence.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 10:32 PM on April 21, 2005
Then don't do it.
Okay, I won't, but can you pay my share of the cost it takes to keep these evil-doers in jail?
Isn't it hard to type with those Mickey Mouse gloves on?
posted by hellbient at 10:49 PM on April 21, 2005
Okay, I won't, but can you pay my share of the cost it takes to keep these evil-doers in jail?
Isn't it hard to type with those Mickey Mouse gloves on?
posted by hellbient at 10:49 PM on April 21, 2005
Well, you know, movie theater taping and pot smoking are this countries most pressing legal problems and we have the penal code to prove it.
posted by caddis at 11:41 PM on April 21, 2005
posted by caddis at 11:41 PM on April 21, 2005
Billy: Why, aside from the penalties, not? If you argue that the penalties justify not committing the act, and the penalties are justified by the act, then you're begging the question.
These penalties are unjustified.
Of course, if you'd like to welcome our totalitarian overlords... I just wish you'd move to a country like Myanmar, where your attitude can more congruently exist with the goverment.
posted by klangklangston at 12:01 AM on April 22, 2005
These penalties are unjustified.
Of course, if you'd like to welcome our totalitarian overlords... I just wish you'd move to a country like Myanmar, where your attitude can more congruently exist with the goverment.
posted by klangklangston at 12:01 AM on April 22, 2005
Yeah, thedevildancedlightly, I can't see arguing for long jail terms for accidental killers. I think that this FPP was unfortunately worded for just the reason you point out. It's astonishing enough that one can be imprisoned for three years for breaking copyright law; no need to bring a comparison into it. As this thread demonstrates, it's easy to get sidetracked that way.
posted by squirrel at 2:02 AM on April 22, 2005
posted by squirrel at 2:02 AM on April 22, 2005
Er...isn't involuntary manslaughter negligent rather than just accidental? You knew, or as a reasonable person should have known, that the consequence of your actions might cause death?
posted by Duug at 3:19 AM on April 22, 2005
posted by Duug at 3:19 AM on April 22, 2005
While I'm not really a movie industry fan (well not really a corporate world fan at all) I understand that they want to fight back and that seems reasonable to me.
But why imprisonment ? If the problem is "pirates" making movies, then one can use the night-vision equipment (it was done for some premiere) to spot the "evil" and turn on the lights and stop the movie ..then excuse the interruption to the audience announcing that they're expelling a "pirate" customer. This way, the pirate doesn't get his full copy and the mob gets angry at the pirate...it's match point, game.
I absolutely don't see the reason to give movietheater owners the possibility to restrict my personal freedom..an assistant could block out the camera vision by simply staying in front of the offending camera..there are a number of alternatives from giving cinema industry the right to imprison people.
It just seems like more and more corporate welfare with less and less social welfare , in line with privatization of profits socialization of costs.
posted by elpapacito at 3:26 AM on April 22, 2005
But why imprisonment ? If the problem is "pirates" making movies, then one can use the night-vision equipment (it was done for some premiere) to spot the "evil" and turn on the lights and stop the movie ..then excuse the interruption to the audience announcing that they're expelling a "pirate" customer. This way, the pirate doesn't get his full copy and the mob gets angry at the pirate...it's match point, game.
I absolutely don't see the reason to give movietheater owners the possibility to restrict my personal freedom..an assistant could block out the camera vision by simply staying in front of the offending camera..there are a number of alternatives from giving cinema industry the right to imprison people.
It just seems like more and more corporate welfare with less and less social welfare , in line with privatization of profits socialization of costs.
posted by elpapacito at 3:26 AM on April 22, 2005
I thought property theft punishment has always trumped personal assault type punishment - how can a materialistic culture have it any other way...
posted by fairmettle at 3:43 AM on April 22, 2005
posted by fairmettle at 3:43 AM on April 22, 2005
Well, that's part of the point, Witty. In one case, a life ends; in the other case... well... no one has ever quantifiably demonstrated how movie recording impacts copyright holders.
So what... there's no point in a comparison. We don't dole out punishment on any kind of obvious scale (and shouldn't)... a scale like, all life-ending crimes start at, at least, 5 years, while all non-life-ending crimes shall go no higher than 4 years... or whatever.
It's astonishing enough that one can be imprisoned for three years for breaking copyright law; no need to bring a comparison into it.
Right. If you think three years for copyright infringment is too long or excessive, that's fine. But trying to justify its excessiveness because other unrelated crimes receive similar punishments. A life doesn't end when a corporate CEO basically robs hundreds of families of their life-savings. But if you think they shouldn't go to jail for at the very LEAST, three years... well, then I don't know (life is what I'd call for).
posted by Witty at 4:29 AM on April 22, 2005
So what... there's no point in a comparison. We don't dole out punishment on any kind of obvious scale (and shouldn't)... a scale like, all life-ending crimes start at, at least, 5 years, while all non-life-ending crimes shall go no higher than 4 years... or whatever.
It's astonishing enough that one can be imprisoned for three years for breaking copyright law; no need to bring a comparison into it.
Right. If you think three years for copyright infringment is too long or excessive, that's fine. But trying to justify its excessiveness because other unrelated crimes receive similar punishments. A life doesn't end when a corporate CEO basically robs hundreds of families of their life-savings. But if you think they shouldn't go to jail for at the very LEAST, three years... well, then I don't know (life is what I'd call for).
posted by Witty at 4:29 AM on April 22, 2005
Well, that settles it for me. I'm selling my miniature video camera setup and thinking about taking up manslaughter.
posted by zaelic at 4:35 AM on April 22, 2005
posted by zaelic at 4:35 AM on April 22, 2005
good, cuz if im gonna spend $5 on a bootleg at the busstop, i want that shit coming straight from an Oscar screener.
posted by tsarfan at 10:03 PM EST on April 21 [!]
Absolutely. And, thank the gods they're going after the videotapers and not the P2Ps this aggressively.
posted by Busithoth at 5:21 AM on April 22, 2005
posted by tsarfan at 10:03 PM EST on April 21 [!]
Absolutely. And, thank the gods they're going after the videotapers and not the P2Ps this aggressively.
posted by Busithoth at 5:21 AM on April 22, 2005
Welcome to Ghana now please pay royalties for singing the national anthem you miscreant.
posted by elpapacito at 5:48 AM on April 22, 2005
posted by elpapacito at 5:48 AM on April 22, 2005
billysumday
My concern is that the punishment seems harsh. How much does a shitty videotaped copy of a movie cut into the sales of that movie? My guess is about zero. I liken it to recording a Grateful Dead concert. That seemed to work out ok for them.
posted by Mr_Zero at 6:27 PM PST on April 21 [!]
The maximum penalty for this is three years. Do you know how much effort goes into a lot of these operations? These are professional criminals. I've gone to premieres here in Hollywood where security guards walk up and down the aisles with flashlights during the movies, and wear infrared goggles, to make sure that nobody is bootlegging. You have sympathy for these people?? THIS IS A WELL-ORCHESTRATED CRIMINAL OPERATION. They make tons of money selling these bootlegs all over the world, especially in Asia.
Seriously, I have no love for "the biz" or big corporations, but you people are motherfucking IDIOTS.
As I said before, don't do it. It should be pretty easy for those of us who aren't looking to make money off of the work of others to refrain from hauling a videocamera and tripod into a movie theater and taping the show. EEEEEDIOTS. Seriously, find some people and a cause that really deserves your sympathy. Your wasting your breath.
posted by billysumday at 9:15 AM on April 22, 2005
My concern is that the punishment seems harsh. How much does a shitty videotaped copy of a movie cut into the sales of that movie? My guess is about zero. I liken it to recording a Grateful Dead concert. That seemed to work out ok for them.
posted by Mr_Zero at 6:27 PM PST on April 21 [!]
The maximum penalty for this is three years. Do you know how much effort goes into a lot of these operations? These are professional criminals. I've gone to premieres here in Hollywood where security guards walk up and down the aisles with flashlights during the movies, and wear infrared goggles, to make sure that nobody is bootlegging. You have sympathy for these people?? THIS IS A WELL-ORCHESTRATED CRIMINAL OPERATION. They make tons of money selling these bootlegs all over the world, especially in Asia.
Seriously, I have no love for "the biz" or big corporations, but you people are motherfucking IDIOTS.
As I said before, don't do it. It should be pretty easy for those of us who aren't looking to make money off of the work of others to refrain from hauling a videocamera and tripod into a movie theater and taping the show. EEEEEDIOTS. Seriously, find some people and a cause that really deserves your sympathy. Your wasting your breath.
posted by billysumday at 9:15 AM on April 22, 2005
...kill filmmakers who portray [Islamic] faith in a poor light...
So your stance would be "then don't make those movies", right, billysumday? We shouldn't pay any attention to laws that we don't break, ourselves, right? Regardless of the penalty, regardless of who created the law or how it moved through our houses of congress, regardless of all implications. What an idiotic approach to law you espouse.
posted by squirrel at 6:30 PM PST on April 21 [!]
Oh for fuck's sake. Though I do appreciate you putting words in my mouth and inferring how I view the law, your militancy against (??my three words??) is a little off. The world is full of problems, laws in this country are stupid (obviously and most notably drug laws), and sometimes good people go to jail. This isn't about that. This is about taking down the people who make hundreds of thousands of dollars off of stolen material. SAVE YOUR TEARS FOR SOMETHING ELSE. Like filmmakers who are killed for expressing themselves. (Please tell me what the hell my comment from another post has to do with this??)
posted by billysumday at 9:28 AM on April 22, 2005
So your stance would be "then don't make those movies", right, billysumday? We shouldn't pay any attention to laws that we don't break, ourselves, right? Regardless of the penalty, regardless of who created the law or how it moved through our houses of congress, regardless of all implications. What an idiotic approach to law you espouse.
posted by squirrel at 6:30 PM PST on April 21 [!]
Oh for fuck's sake. Though I do appreciate you putting words in my mouth and inferring how I view the law, your militancy against (??my three words??) is a little off. The world is full of problems, laws in this country are stupid (obviously and most notably drug laws), and sometimes good people go to jail. This isn't about that. This is about taking down the people who make hundreds of thousands of dollars off of stolen material. SAVE YOUR TEARS FOR SOMETHING ELSE. Like filmmakers who are killed for expressing themselves. (Please tell me what the hell my comment from another post has to do with this??)
posted by billysumday at 9:28 AM on April 22, 2005
billy tell me if the guy sitting with a video camera in the back row is getting paid $100,000 personally. Because if he gets caught, he certainly is the one getting the punishment. I don't remember ever paying for a movie I downloaded illegally off my internets.
anyway I agree with you about the retardedness of US law re: drugs and other things, it's just that with copyright infringement, some would worry that too much of the legislation is being pushed onto the general public by RIAA and MPAA lobbyists who need to be checked.
posted by plexiwatt at 10:13 AM on April 22, 2005
anyway I agree with you about the retardedness of US law re: drugs and other things, it's just that with copyright infringement, some would worry that too much of the legislation is being pushed onto the general public by RIAA and MPAA lobbyists who need to be checked.
posted by plexiwatt at 10:13 AM on April 22, 2005
Look at this way. As locquacious said, "I see a technological arms race developing, what with all the digital watermarking, lense-detection systems and all that." This is true. As long as bootleggers are trying to tape movies and sell them on the streets of Bangkok, the theaters and studios are going to try to combat it by the implementation of new technologies. This makes going to movies more expensive for everybody. As far as the guy taping in the back of the theater who got paid $100 to do it for one night, I'm guessing he's not going to get sentenced the maximum penalty. A judge can reasonably come to the conclusion that he needs to pay a large fine or go on probation or something. He'll save the 3 year term for the guy that gets caught numerous times or who, it can be proven, provides material to a distributor or outlet that makes thousands of copies of pirated material.
There is no reason to defend people who so flagrantly flout the law as these people do. Again, this is not a physical addiction like drug use. This is a well-greased profit-making criminal enterprise. If this fits into your increasing belief in a conspiracy of the corporatization of America, so be it, but there are much bigger problems with our society and our government than prosecuting people who are actually committing pretty obvious crimes.
posted by billysumday at 10:30 AM on April 22, 2005
There is no reason to defend people who so flagrantly flout the law as these people do. Again, this is not a physical addiction like drug use. This is a well-greased profit-making criminal enterprise. If this fits into your increasing belief in a conspiracy of the corporatization of America, so be it, but there are much bigger problems with our society and our government than prosecuting people who are actually committing pretty obvious crimes.
posted by billysumday at 10:30 AM on April 22, 2005
Hahahaha. I can't believe they named it FECAL.
Yet it also seems strangely appropriate.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:55 AM on April 22, 2005
Yet it also seems strangely appropriate.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:55 AM on April 22, 2005
What I want to know is who is going to stop me from leaving the theater while the fuzz is being summoned. I mean if it's that pimply faced 17 year old who just sold me the Hot-Tamales and the 55 gallon Coke. He's going to end up with a broken arm.
posted by CCK at 10:56 AM on April 22, 2005
posted by CCK at 10:56 AM on April 22, 2005
Plexiwatt nailed it pretty well.
If this fits into your increasing belief in a conspiracy of the corporatization of America, so be it...
*whew* Okay, then.
posted by squirrel at 10:57 AM on April 22, 2005
If this fits into your increasing belief in a conspiracy of the corporatization of America, so be it...
*whew* Okay, then.
posted by squirrel at 10:57 AM on April 22, 2005
CCK: "What I want to know is who is going to stop me from leaving the theater while the fuzz is being summoned."
From the article:
It also indemnifies theater operators against all criminal and civil liabilities arising from detaining suspects "in a reasonable manner."
Maybe they'll give the ushers net guns.
posted by Tenuki at 11:41 AM on April 22, 2005
From the article:
It also indemnifies theater operators against all criminal and civil liabilities arising from detaining suspects "in a reasonable manner."
Maybe they'll give the ushers net guns.
posted by Tenuki at 11:41 AM on April 22, 2005
What I want to know is who is going to stop me from leaving the theater while the fuzz is being summoned. I mean if it's that pimply faced 17 year old who just sold me the Hot-Tamales and the 55 gallon Coke. He's going to end up with a broken arm.
So you break the law, when someone tries to bring in the proper authorities, and when you flee the scene, you assault somebody? Wow, you're a real hero.
posted by Snyder at 2:10 PM on April 22, 2005
So you break the law, when someone tries to bring in the proper authorities, and when you flee the scene, you assault somebody? Wow, you're a real hero.
posted by Snyder at 2:10 PM on April 22, 2005
Snyder,
Its called SARCASM. But more importantly private citizens have no right to detain and thats what I was eluding to.
posted by CCK at 2:53 PM on April 22, 2005
Its called SARCASM. But more importantly private citizens have no right to detain and thats what I was eluding to.
posted by CCK at 2:53 PM on April 22, 2005
wow, I didn't even intend to use elude instead of allude. But if the shoe fits...
posted by CCK at 2:54 PM on April 22, 2005
posted by CCK at 2:54 PM on April 22, 2005
Hmm. I think that the people at the theater won't enforce this any more than they will people who buy (geriatric-rate) tickets online, then show up and go to show for less than full price.
posted by Busithoth at 4:17 PM on April 22, 2005
posted by Busithoth at 4:17 PM on April 22, 2005
...people who buy (geriatric-rate) tickets online, then show up and go to show for less than full price.
Thank you.
posted by Witty at 4:53 PM on April 22, 2005
Thank you.
posted by Witty at 4:53 PM on April 22, 2005
This always reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Kramer was recording movies in the theater.
posted by SisterHavana at 8:14 PM on April 22, 2005
posted by SisterHavana at 8:14 PM on April 22, 2005
Forget the sentencing - I'd be just as, or more, worried about:
Title II basically allows third parties to alter movies, as long as a "clear and conspicuous notice" is provided at the beginning. While this is obviously meant to provide a loophole in copyright infringement for "family-oriented" folks to remove nudity, obscenity, and so on from films, imagine the fun when some secular jokester decides to publish movies in which any reference to religion is removed, in accordance with the same law...
Title I, Sec 2319B allows theaters to basically smack the crap out of you with relative impunity. The actual wording is:
`(d) Immunity for Theaters- With reasonable cause, the owner or lessee of a motion picture exhibition facility where a motion picture or other audiovisual work is being exhibited, the authorized agent or employee of such owner or lessee, the licensor of the motion picture or other audiovisual work being exhibited, or the agent or employee of such licensor--
`(1) may detain, in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time, any person suspected of a violation of this section with respect to that motion picture or audiovisual work for the purpose of questioning or summoning a law enforcement officer; and
`(2) shall not be held liable in any civil or criminal action arising out of a detention under paragraph (1).'
They don't need to prove you were actually filming anything - according to (a), The possession by a person of an audiovisual recording device in a motion picture exhibition facility may be considered as evidence in any proceeding to determine whether that person committed an offense under this subsection, but shall not, by itself, be sufficient to support a conviction of that person for such offense. That's any audiovisual device, such as, say, a digital camera with recording capabilities, or a cell phone with recording capabilities, and so on. All you have to do is walk into a theater with something that can record in your pocket, never mind intent, and that allows the theater to drag your ass to a little room and hold you indefinitely (I don't exactly see a time limit in which an officer should be summoned), and suffer no liability if, for example, you get hurt in the process. The fun part is that, although the theater can use your walking in with a camera/cellphone as a reason for detainment, you can't be convicted unless you actually recorded a portion of the movie on it. So, I honestly doubt the theater's going to let that slide - it doesn't take much to hold you long enough to allow someone else to record a portion of the movie (the law doesn't indicate how much constitutes a recording, so I suspect a few minutes' worth is all it'll take to prove intent) and bring the device back, then call the cops. Most AV devices don't support biometrics or other metadata, so who's to prove what?
This will be fun to watch...
posted by FormlessOne at 10:43 PM on April 23, 2005
Title II basically allows third parties to alter movies, as long as a "clear and conspicuous notice" is provided at the beginning. While this is obviously meant to provide a loophole in copyright infringement for "family-oriented" folks to remove nudity, obscenity, and so on from films, imagine the fun when some secular jokester decides to publish movies in which any reference to religion is removed, in accordance with the same law...
Title I, Sec 2319B allows theaters to basically smack the crap out of you with relative impunity. The actual wording is:
`(d) Immunity for Theaters- With reasonable cause, the owner or lessee of a motion picture exhibition facility where a motion picture or other audiovisual work is being exhibited, the authorized agent or employee of such owner or lessee, the licensor of the motion picture or other audiovisual work being exhibited, or the agent or employee of such licensor--
`(1) may detain, in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time, any person suspected of a violation of this section with respect to that motion picture or audiovisual work for the purpose of questioning or summoning a law enforcement officer; and
`(2) shall not be held liable in any civil or criminal action arising out of a detention under paragraph (1).'
They don't need to prove you were actually filming anything - according to (a), The possession by a person of an audiovisual recording device in a motion picture exhibition facility may be considered as evidence in any proceeding to determine whether that person committed an offense under this subsection, but shall not, by itself, be sufficient to support a conviction of that person for such offense. That's any audiovisual device, such as, say, a digital camera with recording capabilities, or a cell phone with recording capabilities, and so on. All you have to do is walk into a theater with something that can record in your pocket, never mind intent, and that allows the theater to drag your ass to a little room and hold you indefinitely (I don't exactly see a time limit in which an officer should be summoned), and suffer no liability if, for example, you get hurt in the process. The fun part is that, although the theater can use your walking in with a camera/cellphone as a reason for detainment, you can't be convicted unless you actually recorded a portion of the movie on it. So, I honestly doubt the theater's going to let that slide - it doesn't take much to hold you long enough to allow someone else to record a portion of the movie (the law doesn't indicate how much constitutes a recording, so I suspect a few minutes' worth is all it'll take to prove intent) and bring the device back, then call the cops. Most AV devices don't support biometrics or other metadata, so who's to prove what?
This will be fun to watch...
posted by FormlessOne at 10:43 PM on April 23, 2005
This won't actually do anything to stop the theatre employees who are recording the films after hours, with the camcorder jacked directly into the sound system. Heh.
On the other hand, it offers full legal backing for anyone who wants to remix a film however they see fit, and re-sell it. I'm going to start a business that offers *more* nudity, drugs, and violence. I'll start by sexing up 'The Passion of the Christ': now with hookers and blow, plus Jesus escapes and gets revenge! And with more assplosions and burnination.
posted by mullingitover at 3:22 PM on April 25, 2005
On the other hand, it offers full legal backing for anyone who wants to remix a film however they see fit, and re-sell it. I'm going to start a business that offers *more* nudity, drugs, and violence. I'll start by sexing up 'The Passion of the Christ': now with hookers and blow, plus Jesus escapes and gets revenge! And with more assplosions and burnination.
posted by mullingitover at 3:22 PM on April 25, 2005
mullingitover made me feel better.
posted by schyler523 at 12:14 AM on May 5, 2005
posted by schyler523 at 12:14 AM on May 5, 2005
« Older Can you hear me now? | Jesus--that's J-E-S-U-S... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by furtive at 5:31 PM on April 21, 2005