Osmosis_Garett [slashdot.org] wrote:
Not only will this make CAM recordings more rare It will make them more elite and thus more sought after by release groups.
Piracy groups always go for quality first. Besides, once someone cracks the DVD the copying game is over.
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.
Good. I hope they nail these fuckers to the wall. Recording from theatres is not only ethically wrong, but stupid. I have a hard time understanding how this is such an incredible threat to the motion picture industry. Nobody wants a camcorder recording of a movie. For all the trouble it takes to get one from the web, it's easier to just go to the video store and wait for the release. Unless you like spending the weekend downloading, only to get a camcorder recording of some movie you were never really inter
Piracy groups never go for quality first. They go for first release.
Tell me how on earth you expect them to "crack the DVD" when it hasn't even hit the cinema's yet? The occasional DVD screener, yes. But most have a telecine or cam rip first.
This law will stop nothing. What they're doing is already illegal.
It might have some effect. I know i'd be a helluva lot less willing to record a movie if i knew i was going to get 3-5 years in pound-me-in-the-ass federal prison for it.
If I pay $10 to watch a movie I expect to be able to watch it at my own pace and pause,rewind or fast-forward as necessary. I have a right to take my camcorder to the theatre because I already paid for the ticket and I should be able to the contents for backup or timeshifting purposes. If I have a right to tape a show from my TV, taping it at the movies should also be allowed!
Does anyone know if the EFF is fighting this law?
Umm, dude, you don't have the right to take the camcorder to the theatre. You pay for a ticket...why? so you can watch the movie in a theatre. What you're saying is that we have the right to "backup" what we take in with our eyes? That's breaking copyright. Why do you think they don't want people taking pictures of some of the most famous paintings or things. Because it will devalue the item. The creator has exclusive rights to reproduce something IN ANY FORM. Sure you could start spouting the "fair use" po
Why do you think they don't want people taking pictures of some of the most famous paintings or things. Because it will devalue the item. The creator has exclusive rights to reproduce something IN ANY FORM.
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?
They also don't let you photograph restaraunts, architecture, etc. Also, newer art and photo art cannot be photographed. Some items at trade shows cannot be photographed. Even if you paid to enter, they can prevent you from photographing things.
Same way colors fade when being exposed to direct sunlight.
You have never seen paintings exposed in such a way, have you? Flash creates high intensity light beam, and however short it is one, the cumulative effect from all of them would be equivalent to pretty long exposure. If you think about it, higher energy UV photons, most probably, break pigments and IR photons are breaking oil.
Maybe because flash photography can degrade a painting.
Maybe so. But why don't you try using a tripod (and no flash) in an art gallery, and see how long it takes to have your gear confiscated? The original poster didn't say anything about using a flash...
The difference here is only partly due to the flash degrading a painting. What subtle point is being missed is that priceless artwork is typically displayed in privately owned museum. Their property, their rules.
Would you want someone to set up a camera on a tripod (No flash!) in your home and take pictures of YOU without your permission? Yeah, extreme and a kinda dumb analogy, but sufficient at the moment.
what happens when you take everything to the extreme? Anything relating to law, or regulations which govern how we interact with breaks down if you push it far enough. It's simple to avoid getting thrown in jail for recording a movie with a camera in a theatre...don't do it. Give a reason besides "backing" for recording a movie in a theatre with a cam.
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.
I didn't say that I wanted to distribute the copies. I only want to make the copies for personal use within my own home. Is this copyright infringment?
My grandfather started developing Alzheimer's and his short term memory is getting pretty bad. Sometimes we need to repeat things to him a few times before he remembers it. If he were to take a camcorder to the movie theatre in order to watch it a few more times at home so that he can understand it and remember the plot, would that be stealing? It seems lik
Dude, you're whacko. When you buy a DVD you purchase a license to own a copy of it, the copy not the actual work itself. Therefore under fair use you can make a backup copy for PERSONAL use only.
But in a theater you didn't buy a license to own a copy of it, you purchased the right to view it ONE time in the theater. You didn't purchase a reel of film to take home, you purchased permission to sit in a room with nice seats and good sound (hopefully... if you don't live here at least) to see the movie on this
It is quite possible to agree that taping a film in a theater is wrong and still thing that this law is too harsh?
Or perhaps you would prefer to make it even harsher? Just take the offenders out in the street and shoot them?
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.
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
It will make them more elite and thus more sought after by release groups
Almost as elite as old time cam recordings copied X times onto VCR cassettes...sigh...oh how I long for the days when a man could buy a high quality recording on the streets.
It is a supreme waste of time. As is the "war" on terror, and the liberation of Iraq. I have nothing against helping the Iraqis acheive their own freedom with assistance (supplies), but sending Americans or anyone else there to die is pointless. Other countries helped the US liberate itself from British rule, but that didn't mean that they came to fight our war. There will always be "nutcase whackos" and having a war on terror will do nothing, as mother nature will always make more.
Other countries didn't come to help us liberate ourselves from British rule? The ignorance of that statement greatly weakens the rest of your post. The French took an active role, without which we might well have lost. Granted, they were doing it far more to screw the British than to help us - being an imperial national themselves - but they still helped.
There were more than a few German mercenaries in Washington's army, and a German general himself came over to help train Washinton's force and turn it
As for the war on terror being a waste of time, would you much rather that instead of sending our army out to kill the terrorists in their countries, we instead wait for them to come here and kill more innocent people? I wouldn't.
Wow, I must have missed the announcement that we invaded Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.
If we actually were killing terrorists in their countries you would have a point. As that is not the case, you don't.
So those insurgents we're killing in Iraq aren't terrorists? So Zarqawi suddenly stopped being an important member of Al Qaeda? So the terrorists rushing into Iraq to fight us and to try to prevent an Iraqi return to sovereignty and bring down that new sovereign goverment, aren't being kept busy there, in their own backyard, instead of coming to ours?
Or are you saying they just aren't being killed. Either way, you don't know what you're talking about. And of course, terror
However, the law itself is not unjust. The penalty is just a bit over the top.
This is an understatement. Jail time for what? Dubbing an extremely shitty copy of the movie that you probably wouldn't watch if you couldn't download it? Where is the "loss" involved? You likely wouldn't have downloaded if you really liked it, and probably only "cammed" it for a friend who wasn't sure they'd like it at all.
Next we'll be cutting your hand off if you stole a piece of candy at the grocery store (even accidentall
Oh, I'm all for harsh punishments for real crimes.
There's nothing wrong with caning. Have you ever been to Singapore? It's a great place. Indeed, my favorite place in the world. Caning is a pretty effective deterrent for a lot of things. So are the hefty fines + rigorous enforcement they impose.
Chopping of hands, well, the trouble with that is the same trouble as with the death penalty. If new evidence comes to light that the party was innocent, you can't undo the penalty. It's true that you can't
I'll tell you what. Rather than my shoot holes in these ideas, why don't you go think about it for a day or two and then come back here and post a list of potential problems.
If I tell you what is wrong with them, you may just dismiss me out of hand. If you figure it out for yourself, you'll learn something and everybody wins.
I will throw out one hint, though: just because a person is wrongly convicted, that doesn't mean anyone lied. Indeed, most false convictions are based on the best evidence at hand,
There's nothing wrong with caning. Have you ever been to Singapore? It's a great place. Indeed, my favorite place in the world. Caning is a pretty effective deterrent for a lot of things. So are the hefty fines + rigorous enforcement they impose.
Haha! Singapore. I have to laugh at you. This is a place where you cannot dance in a club without a license, you are fined for spitting, gum ($1000-$2000 fine) is illegal, you cannot forget to flush a toilet without a $500 fine. Singapore may be a beautiful pl
Hmm, let's see. Dancing is very popular in Singapore and people do it all over the place. Big clubs. Small clubs. All kinds of clubs. I've done it myself. You sound like a person who has never been there and just believes what some other (ignorant) person said about it. Singapore is a paradise. If there's a better country on earth, I have not yet been there.
Fines for spitting? Sure, no problem. People shouldn't spit on the sidewalk. Fine for not flushing the toilet? No problem. You shouldn't h
Do you also consider burglary and shoplifting to be not criminal? Extortion? Stock fraud? Insurance fraud?
There has to be some penalty beyond actual losses or there isn't much risk for the perpetrator. This type of action isn't accidental, there is obvious malice of forethought.
Nope, it'll lower the number of cam rips. There are usually a few higher quality non-cam rips flowing in from Asia these usually are out a week or so after the initial rips, but they can't gain penitration, now they should be able to and fill the void left. So the end result higher quality rips... Besides catching a cam rip after the dvd releases have hit the web sucks. Might help in that respect too.
Friends, agree or disagree with this law, but it's just a small additional step to make creating dvd rips punishable by 3 to 5 under the same public policy (which became public policy thanks to the political contributions of MPAA members)
The amount of weight an evangelist carries with the almighty is measured
in billigrahams.
Not only will this make CAM recordings more rare (Score:4, Interesting)
Not likely. (Score:1)
Piracy groups always go for quality first. Besides, once someone cracks the DVD the copying game is over.
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:2)
Re:Not likely. (Score:1, Insightful)
Tell me how on earth you expect them to "crack the DVD" when it hasn't even hit the cinema's yet? The occasional DVD screener, yes. But most have a telecine or cam rip first.
This law will stop nothing. What they're doing is already illegal.
Re:Not likely. (Score:2)
Re:Not likely. (Score:2, Funny)
Does anyone know if the EFF is fighting this law?
Re:Not likely. (Score:1)
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.
Re:Not likely. (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Not likely. (Score:1)
Are you kidding, or is this actually true?
If so, how does this work?
Re:Not likely. (Score:1)
You have never seen paintings exposed in such a way, have you? Flash creates high intensity light beam, and however short it is one, the cumulative effect from all of them would be equivalent to pretty long exposure. If you think about it, higher energy UV photons, most probably, break pigments and IR photons are breaking oil.
Re:Not likely. (Score:2)
Maybe so. But why don't you try using a tripod (and no flash) in an art gallery, and see how long it takes to have your gear confiscated? The original poster didn't say anything about using a flash
Re:Not likely. (Score:1)
Would you want someone to set up a camera on a tripod (No flash!) in your home and take pictures of YOU without your permission? Yeah, extreme and a kinda dumb analogy, but sufficient at the moment.
fs
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"
Re:Robocop would be illegal (Score:1)
Re:Robocop would be illegal (Score:2)
Re:Robocop would be illegal (Score:1)
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.
Re:Not likely. (Score:1)
My grandfather started developing Alzheimer's and his short term memory is getting pretty bad. Sometimes we need to repeat things to him a few times before he remembers it. If he were to take a camcorder to the movie theatre in order to watch it a few more times at home so that he can understand it and remember the plot, would that be stealing? It seems lik
Re:Not likely. (Score:1, Insightful)
But in a theater you didn't buy a license to own a copy of it, you purchased the right to view it ONE time in the theater. You didn't purchase a reel of film to take home, you purchased permission to sit in a room with nice seats and good sound (hopefully... if you don't live here at least) to see the movie on this
Re:Not likely. (Score:1)
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
Yuh huh (Score:1)
Re:Not likely. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Not likely. (Score:2)
Depends when the DVD is actually produced. There might well be quite a few movies where DVDs are produced before "release".
Re:Not only will this make CAM recordings more rar (Score:2)
Almost as elite as old time cam recordings copied X times onto VCR cassettes...sigh...oh how I long for the days when a man could buy a high quality recording on the streets.
Re:Not only will this make CAM recordings more rar (Score:2, Funny)
Go priorities!
Re:Not only will this make CAM recordings more rar (Score:1)
Back to the topic, h
Re:Not only will this make CAM recordings more rar (Score:1)
There were more than a few German mercenaries in Washington's army, and a German general himself came over to help train Washinton's force and turn it
Re:Not only will this make CAM recordings more rar (Score:1)
Wow, I must have missed the announcement that we invaded Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.
If we actually were killing terrorists in their countries you would have a point.
As that is not the case, you don't.
OT: Re:Not only will this make CAM recordings more (Score:1)
So those insurgents we're killing in Iraq aren't terrorists? So Zarqawi suddenly stopped being an important member of Al Qaeda? So the terrorists rushing into Iraq to fight us and to try to prevent an Iraqi return to sovereignty and bring down that new sovereign goverment, aren't being kept busy there, in their own backyard, instead of coming to ours?
Or are you saying they just aren't being killed. Either way, you don't know what you're talking about. And of course, terror
Re:Not only will this make CAM recordings more rar (Score:2, Insightful)
This is an understatement. Jail time for what? Dubbing an extremely shitty copy of the movie that you probably wouldn't watch if you couldn't download it? Where is the "loss" involved? You likely wouldn't have downloaded if you really liked it, and probably only "cammed" it for a friend who wasn't sure they'd like it at all.
Next we'll be cutting your hand off if you stole a piece of candy at the grocery store (even accidentall
Re:Not only will this make CAM recordings more rar (Score:1)
There's nothing wrong with caning. Have you ever been to Singapore? It's a great place. Indeed, my favorite place in the world. Caning is a pretty effective deterrent for a lot of things. So are the hefty fines + rigorous enforcement they impose.
Chopping of hands, well, the trouble with that is the same trouble as with the death penalty. If new evidence comes to light that the party was innocent, you can't undo the penalty. It's true that you can't
Re:Not only will this make CAM recordings more rar (Score:1)
If I tell you what is wrong with them, you may just dismiss me out of hand. If you figure it out for yourself, you'll learn something and everybody wins.
I will throw out one hint, though: just because a person is wrongly convicted, that doesn't mean anyone lied. Indeed, most false convictions are based on the best evidence at hand,
Re:Not only will this make CAM recordings more rar (Score:1)
Haha! Singapore. I have to laugh at you. This is a place where you cannot dance in a club without a license, you are fined for spitting, gum ($1000-$2000 fine) is illegal, you cannot forget to flush a toilet without a $500 fine. Singapore may be a beautiful pl
Re:Not only will this make CAM recordings more rar (Score:1)
Fines for spitting? Sure, no problem. People shouldn't spit on the sidewalk. Fine for not flushing the toilet? No problem. You shouldn't h
Criminal vs. Civil (Score:2)
There has to be some penalty beyond actual losses or there isn't much risk for the perpetrator. This type of action isn't accidental, there is obvious malice of forethought.
Re:Not only will this make CAM recordings more rar (Score:2)
Re:Not only will this make CAM recordings more rar (Score:1)
Re:Not only will this make CAM recordings more rar (Score:2, Insightful)