If the movie industry wants regulation of what people can do in music theaters,
I tend to think that they should be able to get whatever rules
they want, as long as they pay the costs of enforcement. (by contrast, the
internet "belongs to us", the world-wide user community, and no movie industry
or music industry should be allowed to interfere with how we choose to network
or computers together.)
But why on earth should taypayers have to pay for enforcement of these rules?
If preventing camcorders is movie theaters is so important to their business,
they should pay for the cost of preventing it. Anything else is a form of
subsidy of the music industry. Taypayer money should be spend on protecting
the security of people. Subsidies (in any form) are justified only if an
industry which is important for providing necessities of life to the population
is otherwise likely to suffer significant harm. In this case, there is no
justification: The movie industry does not provide any necessities, just
luxerious. Also, the movie industry would be quite capable of paying the costs
of enforcing the rules they asked for. By paying for enforcement of this rule,
Senate intends to rob the poor (taypayers) and giev to the rich (movie
industry).
I stand corrected in my other post... I guess people will get worked up over this. So what you're saying is that we shouldn't have to pay for law enforcement to stop people from robbing your local McDonalds as well? If something is wrong, it's wrong, and if there's a law made against it, then officers should be in place to uphold that law. Otherwise our laws mean nothing. If you don't like this law, use your vote to show that. I really don't mind the government spending less than a penny per person on this when they're throwing a lot more money around on REALLY stupid projects.
So what you're saying is that we shouldn't have to pay for law enforcement to stop people from robbing your local McDonalds as well?
No, that falls under "protecting the security of people", in this case of the people working at McDonalds.
I don't object to using tay money on enforcing laws against robbery. Regardless of whether using a camcording in a cinema is legal or not, it's definately not a form of robbery. It's something else.
No, it's not. It's copyright infringement. Theft and copyright infringement are two different things for very good reasons; look it up an a law school library or something if you don't believe me.
You're taking a copy of something that doesn't belong to you. If that isn't stealing, what is it?
It's copyright infringement (and if there's a rule against camcorders in cinemas, then it's also a form of NDA violation), but it's not theft.
The difference is that if you steal something from me, I don't have it anymore. If you infringe my copyright, I still have my creative work, but I'm likely to make less money from it.
If you steal my car, then tomorrow I can't use it to go out with my famaily. The
Nobody said it wasn't theft -- the poster said that it's not robbery. Stealing doesn't hurt people physically, only financially. Robbery is a physical thing.
Per m-w.com: robbery: larceny from the person or presence of another by violence or threat
stealing: to come or go secretly, unobtrusively, gradually, or unexpectedly
When someone robs a McDonalds, the general public is endangered. If you record a movie, the only ones endangered are the investors.
I don't like the idea of diverting funds from, let's say, prosicuting carjackers, to prosecuting cammers. Even if they both get convicted, there are only so many jail cells. Why lock up someone for something stupid like this? Just assign a stiff fine and be done with it.
On a side note, there will probably be at least one stupid conviction. I forsee a grandmother or touris
All businesses in Knoxville, Tennessee are required by law to have a hitching post on the premesis for horses. Should my tax money go to pay for the enforcement of this law?
We might as well give the proprieters of those businesses a few years in prison, to prevent any repeat offenses. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
If you don't like this law, use your vote to show that.
Um...Wasn't this bill passed unanimously? That would lead me to believe that it would be quite hard to vote for someone who didn't support this bill.
I would love to take a hollow shell of a camcorder into a movie theater and get arrested for this crime. I just don't want to be convicted, which I fear might actually happen...
"Um...Wasn't this bill passed unanimously? That would lead me to believe that it would be quite hard to vote for someone who didn't support this bill."
Dude, wake up. There are more than two political parties out there.
When you go to a bank, are there tax funded police officers standing guard or is it a private security company that guards the bank? The bank pays for their own security. It's only when a crime is occuring that they call in the police.
Same thing should happen with the movie theaters -- they should pay for their own security and only call in the cops when a crime has occured.
In this thread people have compared taping a movie to holding up a liquer store, and robbing a McDonalds. These are both violent crimes. A better analogy might be shoplifting. I don't pay for those bubble cams and security guards with taxes, I pay for them with higher prices on the goods in those stores. If a theater wants to enforce this, which they will probably have to to get any more top movies, then they should have to pay for it with higher prices on tickets or snacks. This will make us realize that
Your right, that once distributed, one download doesn't equal a loss of $19.95, or even necessarily a loss (hadn't thought about that). I was saying (apparently not very clearly) that just taping the film does not imply you will distribute it, so that taping it should be no more than a $19.95 loss. If I stole a DVD, the courts wouldn't assume that I would rip and distribute it to millions of people. I don't think its fair to assume that would be the case here. The taper might just want to watch it again
Its a nonviolent crime that in itself removes about 19.95 (price of a new DVD) from the economy.
Here the goal of the movie companies is to prevent copies of the film from showing up on P2P filesharing before they start selling DVDs of the film (at that stage it's impossible to prevent). Hence a single camcorder rule violation might cause millions of people to watch an illegal copy of the film in the convenience of their own homes instead of going out to the movie theater.
Using the same argument, why should taxpayers pay for the enforcement of the law regarding bank robberies instead of the banks? Or murder? Surely, if I get murdered, it's my responsibility to bequeath enough money to ensure my killer is caught?
$5 million is a tiny, tiny fraction of the amount of tax revenue the entire movie industry (studios, distributors, cinemas, actors, crew, etc.) bring in annually. In short, by paying their taxes, the film industry is in fact paying for the enforcement of these laws. The "why should taxpayers pay?" line is so broken, you really go and do some very, very basic study of economics.
MancDiceman wrote: Using the same argument, why should taxpayers pay for the enforcement of the law regarding bank robberies instead of the banks? Or murder? Surely, if I get murdered, it's my responsibility to bequeath enough money to ensure my killer is caught?
I had written: "Taypayer money should be spend on protecting the security of people." This includes enforcing laws against murder and robbery.
Enforcing a rule against camcorders is like enforcing other kinds of NDAs. Whether or not you think t
And, do you really think that it's right when taxpayer money is spent on camcorder rule enforcement but not on GPL enforcement just because currently the movie industry pays more taxes than the Free Software industry?
Hmm. That's interestingly put. Yeah, good point...why *isn't* violation of the GPL criminalized, if we're going to be pulling this kind of stuff? Compared to some random entertainment content, the systems built with GPLed software are a whole hell of a lot more important.
Whether or not you think that NDAs are morally acceptable, it's not right to use taxpayer money on enforcing them.
Huh? Taxpayers pay for NDA enforcement every day of the week, because everyone has a vested interest in seeing that valid contracts remain legally binding. You may pay for your own lawyer if someone violates a contract they have with you, but the taxpayers pay for the building your case will be heard in, the judge who will decide it, and the sheriffs or marshals who actually enforce the cour
Bank robbers endanger the general public. Also, banks hire private security. The cops are only needed if the situation escalates.
Murder needs to be prosicuted so that the general public can feel safe and do their jobs.
$5M may be a small ammount, but it's still five fucking million dolars! Let's use it to train 2 more cops and have them patrol streets.
The movie industry probably pays less tax than you think. I read an analasys of how these things work. Basicly, a company is formed to produce the film. The company leases all the equipment and sets from MGM or Mirimax or Disney. Then the film is made. After the profits start rolling in, the company has to pay MGM for the rentals. The rental prices are set to absorb any real profits. Then the company declares bankruptcy. MGM ends up with all the money by basicly renting the equipment to itself.
I'm sure these companies pay tax. But if you and I are taxed at 20% to 30% of our income, big production companies probably pay closer to 5%. Think about that. You lose 1 of every 3 dolars you make so that police can enforce the rights of a company that pays 2 out of every 50 dollars it makes.
The point of making an analogy is to compare to things that have similarities. Camming movies and robbing banks aren't remotely similar, not even on the same fucking planet. Taping movies is a non-violent, non criminal (until this stupid law, anyway) offense that realistically knocks a few hundreths of a percent off of a movie studios theoretical profits, tops. Whereas a robbing a bank uses violence or the threat of violence, steals real world money, and costs all taxpayers money since bank account are f
if the movie companies have to foot the bill then they will just pass the costs on to their customers.
Screwed no matter what you do.
As long as a large part of society wants expensively-produced films, they'll be willing to pay for the cost of producing them, one way or the other. My point is that regardless of how big the part of society is which doesn't care about expensively-produced films, they shouldn't be forced to subsidize the production of such films.
Aha, so taxpayers should only pay for occupying countries like Iraq and Afghanistan which may hurt American security but not for protection from people trying to steal property from my home? Or should police only protect property of private homes but not business? What about Bill Gates' home? He's very wealthy and could afford his own army.
There's a strong case for protecting property and it seems Slashdot readers believe intellectual property should be free as it is in places like Thailand or China whe
I agree. Protecting the items that I rely on for doing what I need to do is part of protecting my security. As I wrote, I do think that it's right to spend tax money on protecting the security of people. The logical conclusions of this statement include that if someone breaks into Bill gate's house, or into a safe in the headquarters of Microsoft corporation, it is right to use tax money on pursecuting such a criminal. Similarly, if someone exploits one of
But why on earth should taypayers have to pay for enforcement of these rules?
Because they do in fact benefit. The movie industry is a major contributor to the economy, and US produced movies are a major export. There is an understandable knee-jerk reaction against anything the movie industry wants, sincewe all know that if they could figure out a way to get away with it, they'd undoubtedly try to charge us royalties for every time we watched a movie. Still, this seems to be a law with near-zero impact on
Note also that the costs will be minimal. The law does not require a policeman in each theater, any more than laws against shoplifting require a cop in each store. The potential for the theater to call the cops will function primarily as a deterrent, and the number of arrests will be very small.
You're right. This law in itself isn't a big problem - at least it isn't for me (there are many better ways for spending my time than watching illegally-copied films). But I consider it a big problem that apparan
But I consider it a big problem that apparantly politicians think that this type of law is right and just
Where's the injustice? I don't see anything in the Constitution about a right to tape in a movie theater. I can't think of any legitimate reason to do it. There certainly has never been a fair-use privilege to tape theatrical movies. And even if you don't give a damn about the studio's copyright, theater-filmed copies are crappy anyway. Even those who are into illicit copies are probably better off wit
The injustice is not in the no-camcorders rule, but in using tax money for enforcing it.
A lot of that tax money derives from the movie industry. After all, an immense number of people have jobs that depend on the movie industry, from those who create the films to those who distribute them, to those who work in theaters and video rental shops. And all of these people make money which they spend in businesses, which benefit indirectly. And they pay taxes on the money they make. So if it it makes you feel b
So if it it makes you feel better, you can think of it as a little bit of their money being invested to protect their livelihoods. What could be more just than that?
How do you justify movie industry tax money being spent on enforcing a "no camcorders" rule, but tax money from free software businesses not being spent on GPL enforcement?
How do you justify the unfair advantage that this kind of law gives movie studios that want to prevent leaks over competing movie studies which want to take a more relaxed
How do you justify movie industry tax money being spent on enforcing a "no camcorders" rule, but tax money from free software businesses not being spent on GPL enforcement?
As a contract, the GPL is enforced by the civil courts. The civil court system is subsidized by tax dollars. But even if it were not, that would be a foolish objection. Two wrongs don't make a right, so even if the GPL were not getting its fair share of tax dollars, fairness would not be increased by also denying those whose jobs depend
As a contract, the GPL is enforced by the civil courts.
The GPL is a license, not a contract. Hence a GPL violation is a copyright violation, not a contract violation. Unauthorized copying and distribution of films is also a copyright violation. Apart from this new law (which makes one of them but not the other a criminal matter) GPL violations and camcorder rule violations are fundamentally the same things.
The civil court system is subsidized by tax dollars.
The civil court system is certainly important enough that such subsidies can be justified.
Of course. One of the reasons why it is important is that it enforces licenses and other contracts.
Unauthorized copying and distribution of films is also a copyright violation. Apart from this new law (which makes one of them but not the other a criminal matter) GPL violations and camcorder rule violations are fundamentally the same things.
The movie industry is a major contributor to the economy
The taxpayer is the one doing all the contributing here, though. And they get to contribute a second time to government inforcement of copyright laws, rather than having the studios do their own damn civil enforcement. Lucky us!
There is an understandable knee-jerk reaction against anything the movie industry wants
The only knee-jerking on is from the movie industries and their employees in Congress, as cams probably only take a few thousand doll
The taxpayer is the one doing all the contributing here, though. And they get to contribute a second time to government inforcement of copyright laws, rather than having the studios do their own damn civil enforcement. Lucky us!
However, the movie industry employees large numbers of people, from those who manufacture the films to those who distribute them, to those who work in theaters and video rental shops. And all of these people make money which they spend in businesses, which benefit indirectly. And m
However, the movie industry employees large numbers of people, from those who manufacture the films to those who distribute them, to those who work in theaters and video rental shops.
All of which is still paid for by theater customers.
And all of these people make money
And how many industry people have lost their jobs or even missed a pay raise because of camming in theaters? If its more than zero I would eat my hat.
So what is wrong with investing a tiny bit of their tax money in protecting their li
All of which is still paid for by theater customers.
You could just as well say that it was paid for the people who employed the theater customers, or by for by the people who used the services of the people who employed the theater customers, etc., etc. And since the economy is all connected, everybody in this chain benefits to some extent from the health of the motion picture industry. And all of these people pay taxes, some of which go to protect this component of the economy that benefits them. Seems
doubt if anybody knows. But a sale of a counterfeit tape on the street is at least occasionally a lost sale or rental for a video store. And the income of a video store determines what it can pay its employees. So it seems likely that some of the money that would otherwise go into the pockets of video store employees is instead going into the pockets of tapers.
Camming != taping. Notice I'm not talking about copyright infringement in general, but specifically camming. A cam is of far lesser quality than
Camming != taping. Notice I'm not talking about copyright infringement in general, but specifically camming. A cam is of far lesser quality than even a 3rd generation VHS dub.
The only tapers we are discussing are the ones who videotape movies in movie theaters. These are frequently the basis of bootleg and counterfeit videos. I have often seen such videos sold on the street.
Well, 1) its pissing their money away because of the aforementioned near-zero loss to camming
We aren't talking about guaranteeing the profits of businesses, we are talking about protecting the livelihood of individuals. Protecting their employers against illegal activities may be a means to that end, however. It seems to me that, given that people have their income taxed to support government, they are entitled to a say in what government is "for." There is certainly nothing in the Constitution that outlaws the use of government funds to protect people's income and employment.
Okay... well, going by your standards, why doesn't Congress pass a law criminalizing the eating or drinking of refreshments of non-theater refreshments in the theater?
Probably because nobody has made that case to Congress sufficiently convincingly. It seems like a harder sell; at worst, a person who sneaks a candy bar into a theater deprives the theater of a single sale, while somebody who sneaks a camera into a theater might well distribute the copied film widely. But I imagine if people managed to figur
"Be there. Aloha."
-- Steve McGarret, _Hawaii Five-Oh_
Why should taypayers pay for enforcement? (Score:5, Insightful)
But why on earth should taypayers have to pay for enforcement of these rules?
If preventing camcorders is movie theaters is so important to their business, they should pay for the cost of preventing it. Anything else is a form of subsidy of the music industry. Taypayer money should be spend on protecting the security of people. Subsidies (in any form) are justified only if an industry which is important for providing necessities of life to the population is otherwise likely to suffer significant harm. In this case, there is no justification: The movie industry does not provide any necessities, just luxerious. Also, the movie industry would be quite capable of paying the costs of enforcing the rules they asked for. By paying for enforcement of this rule, Senate intends to rob the poor (taypayers) and giev to the rich (movie industry).
Re:Why should taypayers pay for enforcement? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why should taypayers pay for enforcement? (Score:1)
No, that falls under "protecting the security of people", in this case of the people working at McDonalds.
I don't object to using tay money on enforcing laws against robbery. Regardless of whether using a camcording in a cinema is legal or not, it's definately not a form of robbery. It's something else.
What is it then? (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the penalties in this bill are a bit harsh, but I'm really sick of this 'I want it for free' mentality.
Go ahead and mod me down
Re:What is it then? (Score:2)
Re:What is it then? (Score:2)
Re:What is it then? (Score:2)
Re:What is it then? (Score:1)
It's copyright infringement (and if there's a rule against camcorders in cinemas, then it's also a form of NDA violation), but it's not theft.
The difference is that if you steal something from me, I don't have it anymore. If you infringe my copyright, I still have my creative work, but I'm likely to make less money from it.
If you steal my car, then tomorrow I can't use it to go out with my famaily. The
Re:Why should taypayers pay for enforcement? (Score:1)
Per m-w.com:
robbery: larceny from the person or presence of another by violence or threat
stealing: to come or go secretly, unobtrusively, gradually, or unexpectedly
Re:Why should taypayers pay for enforcement? (Score:2)
I don't like the idea of diverting funds from, let's say, prosicuting carjackers, to prosecuting cammers. Even if they both get convicted, there are only so many jail cells. Why lock up someone for something stupid like this? Just assign a stiff fine and be done with it.
On a side note, there will probably be at least one stupid conviction. I forsee a grandmother or touris
Re:Why should taypayers pay for enforcement? (Score:2)
We might as well give the proprieters of those businesses a few years in prison, to prevent any repeat offenses. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Use our vote? (Score:2)
Um...Wasn't this bill passed unanimously? That would lead me to believe that it would be quite hard to vote for someone who didn't support this bill.
I would love to take a hollow shell of a camcorder into a movie theater and get arrested for this crime. I just don't want to be convicted, which I fear might actually happen...
Re:Use our vote? (Score:2)
Dude, wake up. There are more than two political parties out there.
Re:Why should taypayers pay for enforcement? (Score:1)
Same thing should happen with the movie theaters -- they should pay for their own security and only call in the cops when a crime has occured.
Re:Why should taypayers pay for enforcement? (Score:1)
A better analogy might be shoplifting. I don't pay for those bubble cams and security guards with taxes, I pay for them with higher prices on the goods in those stores.
If a theater wants to enforce this, which they will probably have to to get any more top movies, then they should have to pay for it with higher prices on tickets or snacks. This will make us realize that
Re:Why should taypayers pay for enforcement? (Score:1)
Re:Why should taxpayers pay for enforcement? (Score:1)
Here the goal of the movie companies is to prevent copies of the film from showing up on P2P filesharing before they start selling DVDs of the film (at that stage it's impossible to prevent). Hence a single camcorder rule violation might cause millions of people to watch an illegal copy of the film in the convenience of their own homes instead of going out to the movie theater.
I do think that it's justified
Re:Why should taypayers pay for enforcement? (Score:4, Insightful)
$5 million is a tiny, tiny fraction of the amount of tax revenue the entire movie industry (studios, distributors, cinemas, actors, crew, etc.) bring in annually. In short, by paying their taxes, the film industry is in fact paying for the enforcement of these laws. The "why should taxpayers pay?" line is so broken, you really go and do some very, very basic study of economics.
Re:Why should taypayers pay for enforcement? (Score:3, Insightful)
I had written: "Taypayer money should be spend on protecting the security of people." This includes enforcing laws against murder and robbery.
Enforcing a rule against camcorders is like enforcing other kinds of NDAs. Whether or not you think t
Re:Why should taypayers pay for enforcement? (Score:2)
Hmm. That's interestingly put. Yeah, good point...why *isn't* violation of the GPL criminalized, if we're going to be pulling this kind of stuff? Compared to some random entertainment content, the systems built with GPLed software are a whole hell of a lot more important.
Re:Why should taypayers pay for enforcement? (Score:2)
Huh? Taxpayers pay for NDA enforcement every day of the week, because everyone has a vested interest in seeing that valid contracts remain legally binding. You may pay for your own lawyer if someone violates a contract they have with you, but the taxpayers pay for the building your case will be heard in, the judge who will decide it, and the sheriffs or marshals who actually enforce the cour
Re:Why should taypayers pay for enforcement? (Score:4, Informative)
Murder needs to be prosicuted so that the general public can feel safe and do their jobs.
$5M may be a small ammount, but it's still five fucking million dolars! Let's use it to train 2 more cops and have them patrol streets.
The movie industry probably pays less tax than you think. I read an analasys of how these things work. Basicly, a company is formed to produce the film. The company leases all the equipment and sets from MGM or Mirimax or Disney. Then the film is made. After the profits start rolling in, the company has to pay MGM for the rentals. The rental prices are set to absorb any real profits. Then the company declares bankruptcy. MGM ends up with all the money by basicly renting the equipment to itself.
I'm sure these companies pay tax. But if you and I are taxed at 20% to 30% of our income, big production companies probably pay closer to 5%. Think about that. You lose 1 of every 3 dolars you make so that police can enforce the rights of a company that pays 2 out of every 50 dollars it makes.
my god you are retarded (Score:1)
Re:Why should taypayers pay for enforcement? (Score:1)
Screwed no matter what you do.
As long as a large part of society wants expensively-produced films, they'll be willing to pay for the cost of producing them, one way or the other. My point is that regardless of how big the part of society is which doesn't care about expensively-produced films, they shouldn't be forced to subsidize the production of such films.
Re:Why should taypayers pay for enforcement? (Score:2, Insightful)
There's a strong case for protecting property and it seems Slashdot readers believe intellectual property should be free as it is in places like Thailand or China whe
Re:Why should taxpayers pay for enforcement? (Score:1)
I agree. Protecting the items that I rely on for doing what I need to do is part of protecting my security. As I wrote, I do think that it's right to spend tax money on protecting the security of people. The logical conclusions of this statement include that if someone breaks into Bill gate's house, or into a safe in the headquarters of Microsoft corporation, it is right to use tax money on pursecuting such a criminal. Similarly, if someone exploits one of
Re:Why should taypayers pay for enforcement? (Score:2)
Because they do in fact benefit. The movie industry is a major contributor to the economy, and US produced movies are a major export. There is an understandable knee-jerk reaction against anything the movie industry wants, sincewe all know that if they could figure out a way to get away with it, they'd undoubtedly try to charge us royalties for every time we watched a movie. Still, this seems to be a law with near-zero impact on
Re:Why should taypayers pay for enforcement? (Score:1)
You're right. This law in itself isn't a big problem - at least it isn't for me (there are many better ways for spending my time than watching illegally-copied films). But I consider it a big problem that apparan
Re:Why should taypayers pay for enforcement? (Score:2)
Where's the injustice? I don't see anything in the Constitution about a right to tape in a movie theater. I can't think of any legitimate reason to do it. There certainly has never been a fair-use privilege to tape theatrical movies. And even if you don't give a damn about the studio's copyright, theater-filmed copies are crappy anyway. Even those who are into illicit copies are probably better off wit
Re:Why should taxpayers pay for enforcement? (Score:1)
The injustice is not in the no-camcorders rule, but in using tax money for enforcing it. See my other comments for detailed arguments.
Re:Why should taxpayers pay for enforcement? (Score:2)
A lot of that tax money derives from the movie industry. After all, an immense number of people have jobs that depend on the movie industry, from those who create the films to those who distribute them, to those who work in theaters and video rental shops. And all of these people make money which they spend in businesses, which benefit indirectly. And they pay taxes on the money they make. So if it it makes you feel b
Re:Why should taxpayers pay for enforcement? (Score:1)
How do you justify movie industry tax money being spent on enforcing a "no camcorders" rule, but tax money from free software businesses not being spent on GPL enforcement?
How do you justify the unfair advantage that this kind of law gives movie studios that want to prevent leaks over competing movie studies which want to take a more relaxed
Re:Why should taxpayers pay for enforcement? (Score:2)
As a contract, the GPL is enforced by the civil courts. The civil court system is subsidized by tax dollars. But even if it were not, that would be a foolish objection. Two wrongs don't make a right, so even if the GPL were not getting its fair share of tax dollars, fairness would not be increased by also denying those whose jobs depend
Re:Why should taxpayers pay for enforcement? (Score:1)
The GPL is a license, not a contract. Hence a GPL violation is a copyright violation, not a contract violation. Unauthorized copying and distribution of films is also a copyright violation. Apart from this new law (which makes one of them but not the other a criminal matter) GPL violations and camcorder rule violations are fundamentally the same things.
The civil court system is subsidized by tax dollars.
The civil court system is certainly impor
Re:Why should taxpayers pay for enforcement? (Score:2)
Licenses are a type of contract.
The civil court system is certainly important enough that such subsidies can be justified.
Of course. One of the reasons why it is important is that it enforces licenses and other contracts.
Unauthorized copying and distribution of films is also a copyright violation. Apart from this new law (which makes one of them but not the other a criminal matter) GPL violations and camcorder rule violations are fundamentally the same things.
Re:Why should taypayers pay for enforcement? (Score:1)
The taxpayer is the one doing all the contributing here, though. And they get to contribute a second time to government inforcement of copyright laws, rather than having the studios do their own damn civil enforcement. Lucky us!
There is an understandable knee-jerk reaction against anything the movie industry wants
The only knee-jerking on is from the movie industries and their employees in Congress, as cams probably only take a few thousand doll
Re:Why should taypayers pay for enforcement? (Score:2)
However, the movie industry employees large numbers of people, from those who manufacture the films to those who distribute them, to those who work in theaters and video rental shops. And all of these people make money which they spend in businesses, which benefit indirectly. And m
Re:Why should taypayers pay for enforcement? (Score:1)
All of which is still paid for by theater customers.
And all of these people make money
And how many industry people have lost their jobs or even missed a pay raise because of camming in theaters? If its more than zero I would eat my hat.
So what is wrong with investing a tiny bit of their tax money in protecting their li
Re:Why should taypayers pay for enforcement? (Score:2)
You could just as well say that it was paid for the people who employed the theater customers, or by for by the people who used the services of the people who employed the theater customers, etc., etc. And since the economy is all connected, everybody in this chain benefits to some extent from the health of the motion picture industry. And all of these people pay taxes, some of which go to protect this component of the economy that benefits them. Seems
Re:Why should taypayers pay for enforcement? (Score:1)
Camming != taping. Notice I'm not talking about copyright infringement in general, but specifically camming. A cam is of far lesser quality than
Re:Why should taypayers pay for enforcement? (Score:2)
The only tapers we are discussing are the ones who videotape movies in movie theaters. These are frequently the basis of bootleg and counterfeit videos. I have often seen such videos sold on the street.
Well, 1) its pissing their money away because of the aforementioned near-zero loss to camming
You haven't demonstrated this, merel
Re:Why should taypayers pay for enforcement? (Score:2)
We aren't talking about guaranteeing the profits of businesses, we are talking about protecting the livelihood of individuals. Protecting their employers against illegal activities may be a means to that end, however. It seems to me that, given that people have their income taxed to support government, they are entitled to a say in what government is "for." There is certainly nothing in the Constitution that outlaws the use of government funds to protect people's income and employment.
Okay... well, going
Re:Why should taypayers pay for enforcement? (Score:2)
Probably because nobody has made that case to Congress sufficiently convincingly. It seems like a harder sell; at worst, a person who sneaks a candy bar into a theater deprives the theater of a single sale, while somebody who sneaks a camera into a theater might well distribute the copied film widely. But I imagine if people managed to figur