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...:)
"Zzzzzzzzzzz..." "Sir..." "Zzzzzzzwhazat?" "Yea h, uh, we're gonna be placing you under arrest..." "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..."
"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...:)"
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?
Well, perhaps SOME probability threshold, but since the charge would not be "manslaughter" but "first-degree murder" with the possibility of the death penalty, you'd have to think you had a pretty high chance of getting away with it in the middle of the theater to make it worth your while. This also assumes you had no additional moral objection to it.
No, not first-degree murder. That implies some form of forethough and planning. It would most likely be second degree, because you saw the guy, panicked about going to jail, and killed him to escape. So it's only, what, 20 to life instead of 25 to life?
Don't watch much law & order do you? Killing someone while committing another felony is first degree murder. Forethought, does not require rigorous planning, getting caught and thinking "Gee I'd better kill this guy cause he caught me" is plenty of forethought for a murder conviction.
Yes and I, as a hardened criminal learned everything about the law by watching TV...
I don't know how truthful Law + Order is, but I expect reading up will hold more sway over the sceptics!
Answer: There are several types of first degree murder, all of which are defined by A.R.S. 13-1105.
The first definition of first degree murder is causing the death of another person with either the intent or knowledge that the conduct will cause death and with premeditation. Premeditation is often described as 'malice aforethought,' which basically means that you probably considered the consequence of your conduct for at least a second before you committed the act.
he second definition of first degree murder is causing the death of another person while committing or attempting to commit another crime like sexual conduct with a minor, sexual assault, molestation of a child, various drug-related crimes, kidnapping, burglary, arson, robbery, escape from jail, child abuse, or unlawful flight from a pursuing law enforcement vehicle, or while fleeing from the scene where you committed any of these offenses.
The exact list of crimes on there varies from state to state.
>>How does the person sitting next to you in the cinema feel about this....
Probably not all that great since once you have been arrested, if your neighbor did not turn you in, he could be charged as an accessory.
Just remember, folks, that this is the sort of problems that our appointed leaders are spending their time and energy (and your tax money) on. Not on fixing the economy, not on getting us out of a ficticious war, not on improving healthcare or our general way of life. But making the world s
I wasn't aware that I had raised an objection. In fact, I don't have any objections to it, other than the fact that it is a matter better left to the states - one that does not merit federal enforcement. The point of my post is that this is a waste of resources and a distraction (or is it an excuse) from the more pertinent problems facing this country.
As for "overstuffing trolls", you truly are deluded if you think that the invasion of Iraq is "just" and "handsomely won". The fact that even after two years
The national debt is roughly on track with the GDP. It's not good, but it's not the disaster you seem to think it is.
The federal legislature has more than enough time to deal with many issues. Do not encourage them to take on more, because about 70% of federal money aready does more damage than good, and new activity all goes to the damage side.
What seemed most odd was the "unanimous" part of it.
Every single person in congress agreed that recording a film was worth 10 years in prison. Just note, they're depriving the artist of approximately $10 in revenue per person who watches their copy. Take the number of people who watch such a film, divide it into the amount of money stolen by enron, and multiply by 10 years to get the correct prison sentance for enron execs. Will it happen? Is copying a CD still depriving the artist of $350,000 per CD
Kind of makes me skeptical of claims that only Republicans are lapdogs for Big Business.
Where did you hear that crazy shit? All the politicians are lapdogs for big business that should be obvious to anybody with a scrap of sense at this point.
The Dems are (generally) in the pocket of the entertainment industry who get stupid shit like this and the DMCA passed.
The Republicans are (generally) in the pocket of the energy and weapons industries who get millions of people killed to jack up profits and in the
There is a man here in Minnesota who was pulled over recently for what will be his 23rd DWI.
The strib article mentioned that he had been imprisoned for the second one in...wait for it...2002. It is now the middle of 2004 and he has obviously been released again in order to go for his 23rd.
Why does someone who makes a shitty quality copy of a movie deserve a MINIMUM sentance thats greater than the time served by a man who has been caught drinking and driving without license or inssurance and endangeri
You *could* disable your camcorder (cover the lens or whatnot) and proceed to pretend to "film" the movie while watching it. It's quite legal, even if it might drive theater managers nuts. It also makes enforcement of this infeasible, if done widely enough.
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.)
No. They have rules about no camcorders in the Theaters. They will just kick your ass out if they find you have one. If you're recording you're going to jail.
Damn, funny, informative, and insightful at the same time.
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.
Or they could implement a quiz period before a vote: any congresscritter who can't answer reasonable questions about the bill (with a paper copy in front of him/her, but no electronics or aides) must either vote nay or abstain.
'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.
Great idea! My only complaint is you didn't go far enough. The same should be required for voting too. If you don't even know your candidates' stances on basic issues, why should your vote count as much as someone who actually pays attention?
It actually supposed to be a Representative Democracy. Rousseau had this to say about respresentation:
sovereignty cannot be represented...the peoples' deputies are not, and could not be, its representatives; they are merely its agents; and they cannot decide anything finally
Considering that is an 18th century thought, it is very telling in todays modern politics and it brings truth to your additional comment:
They don't care what the people think about what the
It's a great idea, as far as public disobedience and protesting is concerned. Only problem is, I suspect it would be treated much like waving around a realistic-looking toy gun. It's not illegal to have the toy gun, but you'd certainly at least get thrown out and waste your money you spent to see the movie. (Not to mention, probably get arrested and have to go through the hassle of proving you weren't actually doing anything wrong.)
The thing that bothers me most about this law is the way the movie indus
Don't use a real camera. Use a cardboard fake camera that you can take out of your pocket and fold up flat and hand to the manager while you're all standing there waiting for the cops to show up. Then watch him think about how he's going to explain it.
Your story is simple: You think that the law is a travesty, and that it allows idiot theater managers to physically detain people at risk to everyone concerned, just because they might *suspect* that filming is occurring, and that your perfectly peaceful, l
Well, just recording the film you paid to see is victimless, but that would be a foolish activity by itself. (Although your recording activity may make the viewing experience of someone near you less pleasant; I suppose there's a little damage there.)
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.
You're right though, it's disturbing that an industry that employs millions of people would have any pull with the government that they expect to protect their jobs.
And you're an idiot if, after reading that last sentence, you still think that stealing is a victimless crime.
Illegally copying a movie isn't great. But, in the grand scheme of things, it's a piece of entertainment.
Illegally copying, say, Linux, is IMHO much more damaging. It's a crucial piece of software that is used all over the world in important systems. There are a lot many more dollars involved in the software industry than in movies.
As a later poster pointed out, what if violating the GPL license was criminalized, with three years in federal prison for a violation without intent to profit, a
It shows how much the music industry owns the US government that the bill cites the 31% loss claims of the music industry in a law, and ignores the fact that all the academic studies, as well as the statistics gathering companies rebut the data rather convincingly.
Yeah, and they *could* confiscate your camcorder, which you'd have no valid use for in *their* theater in the first place. That would also be quite legal, even if it might drive the would-be "pankster" nuts. But here's a thought; how about trying to do the right thing inside of trying to irrationally defeat everyone's best intentions?
Actually, the theater staff can't confiscate your camcorder. How old are you people, anyway? This isn't high school, the teacher can't take your slingshot away until after class. What they'd do is call the police and let them sort it out. The police would escort your sorry butt out of the theater and arrest you. At some point, if you're lucky and don't piss anyone off terribly, they might give you a chance to explain yourself and show that there's nothing on the tape. And even then, if the law is vagu
Fair enough. By "confiscate" I meant the option to have them hold the item for the duration of your use of the theater. But you're right, baring your willful cooperation, they'd simply not allow you access to the theater, the same they'd do if you had "outside" food or drink or were carrying suspicious looking bags. Calling the police would only be an option of last resort, unless you've already managed to sneak in the camcorder.
Yeah, and they *could* confiscate your camcorder, which you'd have no valid use for in *their* theater in the first place. That would also be quite legal, even if it might drive the would-be "pankster" nuts.
No, it would not be legal. A private party cannot just confiscate another's property, even if they own the land that another person is on.
But here's a thought; how about trying to do the right thing inside of trying to irrationally defeat everyone's best intentions?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't airports frequently confiscate "dangerous" items? However, I see your point. What I meant by "confiscate" was the option to let the theater hold the item while you're in the theater, or simply not use the theater at all. I hope we can agree that theaters should be allowed a reasonable amount of control over how people use their facilities.
And I agree with your objection over the severity of the punishment. Although I'm not particularly surprised by the Senate's action. Af
Like it wouldn't drive *me* nuts to hold a camcorder while I'm trying to enjoy a movie? Who has time for shit like this? Quite frankly, I don't care if they want to put people in jail for filming movies in theatres so why in Hell would I want to disable a camcorder and pretend to film a movie to help out asshole pirates? You sir, are an asshat.
(waiting... waiting... has it been 20 seconds yet? waiting.... hmmmm, hmmm, hm, hm, hmmmmmm.... crap, now I have to wait another minute because I already posted? crap..... waiting... waiting... humming the Jeopardy tune... waiting... scraping a jam-covered crumb from my toast off the desk... sipping my coffee... waiting.... )
It doesn't have to do with whether you like pirates. It has to do with whether you dislike the new bill in question.
The sentences involved are *extreme*. They are not trivial (especially as it's made clear that deliberately taping the movie *with no intention of profiting*, such as to watch reruns at home) involves three *years* of prison time. You can get less prison time for deliberately stabbing someone.
We have civil copyright infringment law for a reason. I see no reason to criminalize an act like
You *could* disable your camcorder (cover the lens or whatnot) and proceed to pretend to "film" the movie while watching it. It's quite legal, even if it might drive theater managers nuts. It also makes enforcement of this infeasible, if done widely enough.
Ok, yea, sure. I can see it now. A grassroots movement in which thousands -- nay, millions -- of people flock to the theaters and begin setting up camcorders set to record, but with the lens caps on. One theater manager is quoted as saying, "They're
Ok, yea, sure. I can see it now. A grassroots movement in which thousands -- nay, millions -- of people flock to the theaters and begin setting up camcorders set to record, but with the lens caps on.
It doesn't take a whole lot of people doing it to make a manager stop. They don't have a whole lot of direct stake in nailing someone with a camera.
One theater manager is quoted as saying, "They're driving us NUTS!" Another mutters, "We'd have enforced that new law, if it weren't for those meddling kids..."
Ok, so I'm looking over my previous posts and realizing that I sound pointedly harsh. Obviously I am directly opposed to your position, but it's nothing personal.
I think defending theft is always a bad thing.
To comment on one of your other comments, you compared stealing a movie to stealing Linux. You were ok with the former and opposed to the latter. Enormous geek factor aside... Companies with investors who expect a return on their investments pour money into the production of movies, hiring thousan
Well...I think you might be a little harsh. What about the standard theft-in-extreme-situations justification of being starving, coming across a house with nobody in it, and stealing some bread? Would you really avoid stealing the bread in such a situation?
It might be bad in most normal situations, sure.
I won't be a dick about the "theft/copyright-infringment" thing.
To comment on one of your other comments, you compared stealing a movie to stealing Linux
While no one will likely bash this law claiming a right to videotape in theatres, I will say that this law is way too draconian. Three years in prison if it's not for profit, and five if it is when nothing tangible has been taken? Fines would be more appropriate. If they are going to be draconian, why not just sentance camcorder "pirates" to death? What are those senators smoking?
In my experience, the majority of the time when someone is fined for an act that they profit from, the fine is nowhere even near the profits they make from the act. Also there's a problem of where the fine would go to the theatre? the movie studio? the actors/directors/others involved in making the movie? (my personal guess would be that it goes 99% #2 and 1% divided between anyone else)
The point i'm trying to make is that instituting a fine will probably fail to stop anybody. (like I said, in my experien
If it's a fine, it would go to the government, who else?
But with proof, whoever owns the copyright can sue for damages - currently the owner can claim actual damages or statutory damages (which currently can reach $150K for willful infringement for a one time infringement).
Sure there is a legal legimate reason for a patron to have a camcorder with them. They had it with them before the movie (perhaps on vacation).
Making tougher laws because the weaker ones aren't being enforced is just plain stupid. Just because you can't think of a reason this law shouldn't be passed, doesn't mean it should be.
A good rule of thumb when making a decision on something like this is to look at the consequences of not doing it. In this case they would have to fall back to existing copyright
As a side note, it will cost taxpayers an additional 5 million dollars per year through 2009 for enforcement.
As opposed to the millions of dollars it costs movie studios when people pirate movies? You know, taxpayers are employed by movie studios, too...
I forgot, it should be legal to pirate absolutely everything under the sun so nobody gets paid for the fruits of their efforts. People who pirate music, movies, and software are freeloaders who get bitter when the free ride is taken away.
In the town were I grew up local man took advantage of one of my best freind's sister. He also got several of her freinds. He served only 3 years in prison. Equating that kind of horror to recording a movie illegally is insulting to her, the family, and everyone harmed in a similar crime. Clearly, the Senate is being presured into passing brutal laws which seek to scare the public into obedience. Know of any good web based movments against ill concieved laws? I've just started looking and could use th
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.
Time shifting. Movie theaters
have limited h
The amount of weight an evangelist carries with the almighty is measured
in billigrahams.
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:1)
Re:That's interesting. (Score:1)
Re:That's interesting. (Score:1)
Re:That's interesting. (Score:2)
I don't know how truthful Law + Order is, but I expect reading up will hold more sway over the sceptics!
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
Still no cure for cancer (Score:2, Offtopic)
Probably not all that great since once you have been arrested, if your neighbor did not turn you in, he could be charged as an accessory.
Just remember, folks, that this is the sort of problems that our appointed leaders are spending their time and energy (and your tax money) on. Not on fixing the economy, not on getting us out of a ficticious war, not on improving healthcare or our general way of life. But making the world s
Re:Still no cure for cancer (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:Still no cure for cancer (Score:1, Offtopic)
As for "overstuffing trolls", you truly are deluded if you think that the invasion of Iraq is "just" and "handsomely won". The fact that even after two years
Re:Still no cure for cancer (Score:2)
The federal legislature has more than enough time to deal with many issues. Do not encourage them to take on more, because about 70% of federal money aready does more damage than good, and new activity all goes to the damage side.
Re:Still no cure for cancer (Score:2)
Every single person in congress agreed that recording a film was worth 10 years in prison. Just note, they're depriving the artist of approximately $10 in revenue per person who watches their copy. Take the number of people who watch such a film, divide it into the amount of money stolen by enron, and multiply by 10 years to get the correct prison sentance for enron execs. Will it happen? Is copying a CD still depriving the artist of $350,000 per CD
Unanimity (Score:2)
Actually, I think it was just the Senate at this time.
But you have a good point about the lopsided vote. Kind of makes me skeptical of claims that only Republicans are lapdogs for Big Business.
Re:Unanimity (Score:1)
Where did you hear that crazy shit?
All the politicians are lapdogs for big business that should be obvious to anybody with a scrap of sense at this point.
The Dems are (generally) in the pocket of the entertainment industry who get stupid shit like this and the DMCA passed.
The Republicans are (generally) in the pocket of the energy and weapons industries who get millions of people killed to jack up profits and in the
Re:Still no cure for cancer (Score:2)
Every single person in congress agreed that recording a film was worth 10 years in prison.
So, how long until stealing a loaf of bread is worth 20 years?
Re:Still no cure for cancer (Score:2)
The strib article mentioned that he had been imprisoned for the second one in...wait for it...2002. It is now the middle of 2004 and he has obviously been released again in order to go for his 23rd.
Why does someone who makes a shitty quality copy of a movie deserve a MINIMUM sentance thats greater than the time served by a man who has been caught drinking and driving without license or inssurance and endangeri
Re:Still no cure for cancer (Score:2)
Or a hand...
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:1, 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:Bill text (Score:2)
Great idea! My only complaint is you didn't go far enough. The same should be required for voting too. If you don't even know your candidates' stances on basic issues, why should your vote count as much as someone who actually pays attention?
Re:Bill text (Score:1)
It actually supposed to be a Representative Democracy. Rousseau had this to say about respresentation:
sovereignty cannot be represented...the peoples' deputies are not, and could not be, its representatives; they are merely its agents; and they cannot decide anything finally
Considering that is an 18th century thought, it is very telling in todays modern politics and it brings truth to your additional comment:
They don't care what the people think about what the
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:1, Insightful)
Your story is simple: You think that the law is a travesty, and that it allows idiot theater managers to physically detain people at risk to everyone concerned, just because they might *suspect* that filming is occurring, and that your perfectly peaceful, l
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.
Re: faking filming.... (Score:2)
They have it completely figured out.
It does waste money, but it is completely effective at giving your money to their friends.
Re: faking filming.... (Score:1)
You're right though, it's disturbing that an industry that employs millions of people would have any pull with the government that they expect to protect their jobs.
And you're an idiot if, after reading that last sentence, you still think that stealing is a victimless crime.
Re: faking filming.... (Score:2)
Illegally copying a movie isn't great. But, in the grand scheme of things, it's a piece of entertainment.
Illegally copying, say, Linux, is IMHO much more damaging. It's a crucial piece of software that is used all over the world in important systems. There are a lot many more dollars involved in the software industry than in movies.
As a later poster pointed out, what if violating the GPL license was criminalized, with three years in federal prison for a violation without intent to profit, a
Re:Bill text (Score:2)
Music industry losses (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Bill text (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Bill text (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Bill text (Score:1)
Re:Bill text (Score:1)
Re:Bill text (Score:2)
No, it would not be legal. A private party cannot just confiscate another's property, even if they own the land that another person is on.
But here's a thought; how about trying to do the right thing inside of trying to irrationally defeat everyone's best intentions?
I believe that I am, and that I
Re:Bill text (Score:1)
And I agree with your objection over the severity of the punishment. Although I'm not particularly surprised by the Senate's action. Af
Re:Bill text (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bill text (Score:1)
(waiting... waiting... has it been 20 seconds yet? waiting.... hmmmm, hmmm, hm, hm, hmmmmmm.... crap, now I have to wait another minute because I already posted? crap..... waiting... waiting... humming the Jeopardy tune... waiting... scraping a jam-covered crumb from my toast off the desk... sipping my coffee... waiting.... )
Re:Bill text (Score:2)
The sentences involved are *extreme*. They are not trivial (especially as it's made clear that deliberately taping the movie *with no intention of profiting*, such as to watch reruns at home) involves three *years* of prison time. You can get less prison time for deliberately stabbing someone.
We have civil copyright infringment law for a reason. I see no reason to criminalize an act like
Re:Bill text (Score:1)
Ok, yea, sure. I can see it now. A grassroots movement in which thousands -- nay, millions -- of people flock to the theaters and begin setting up camcorders set to record, but with the lens caps on. One theater manager is quoted as saying, "They're
Re:Bill text (Score:2)
It doesn't take a whole lot of people doing it to make a manager stop. They don't have a whole lot of direct stake in nailing someone with a camera.
One theater manager is quoted as saying, "They're driving us NUTS!" Another mutters, "We'd have enforced that new law, if it weren't for those meddling kids..."
Re:Bill text (Score:1)
I think defending theft is always a bad thing.
To comment on one of your other comments, you compared stealing a movie to stealing Linux. You were ok with the former and opposed to the latter. Enormous geek factor aside... Companies with investors who expect a return on their investments pour money into the production of movies, hiring thousan
Re:Bill text (Score:2)
Well...I think you might be a little harsh. What about the standard theft-in-extreme-situations justification of being starving, coming across a house with nobody in it, and stealing some bread? Would you really avoid stealing the bread in such a situation?
It might be bad in most normal situations, sure.
I won't be a dick about the "theft/copyright-infringment" thing.
To comment on one of your other comments, you compared stealing a movie to stealing Linux
Re:That's interesting. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's interesting. (Score:4, Funny)
Campaign contributions from the MPAA.
Re:That's interesting. (Score:1)
Re:That's interesting. (Score:2)
But with proof, whoever owns the copyright can sue for damages - currently the owner can claim actual damages or statutory damages (which currently can reach $150K for willful infringement for a one time infringement).
Re:That's interesting. (Score:2, Insightful)
Making tougher laws because the weaker ones aren't being enforced is just plain stupid. Just because you can't think of a reason this law shouldn't be passed, doesn't mean it should be.
A good rule of thumb when making a decision on something like this is to look at the consequences of not doing it. In this case they would have to fall back to existing copyright
Re:That's interesting. (Score:1)
Re:That's interesting. (Score:2)
Amusingly enough, something that will get them [washingtoncitypaper.com] a mandatory minimum [usatoday.com] 5 year sentence [hr95.org].
Hmm, yeah, THAT'S not a biased article summary (Score:1)
As opposed to the millions of dollars it costs movie studios when people pirate movies? You know, taxpayers are employed by movie studios, too...
I forgot, it should be legal to pirate absolutely everything under the sun so nobody gets paid for the fruits of their efforts. People who pirate music, movies, and software are freeloaders who get bitter when the free ride is taken away.
Re:That's interesting. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:That's interesting. (Score:2, Funny)
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.