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?
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.
But at the same time, your not running up to the projector and snatching the film or dvd. Plus your camera is not taking away from the other theatre patrons nor the theatres ability to continue showing the picture. Granted the "I want it for free" mentality applies to some, but there was a post made of the "I don't want to be extorted for crap entertainment". Why should I spend $20-$30 and walk away wishing I'd rather not have wasted the money and time on it? The cams will never take the place of actually go
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
"What could make a print job spool at unusually slow rates to the printer?"
In my experience, glacially slow printing times can usually be traced back to a third-rate operating system. As you've no doubt discovered since installing Linux, printer hassles [catb.org] are among the countless inconveniences you must suffer if you insist on using an operating system with no polish, no professionalism and no sense of responsibility to the end user. I would suggest buying a Mac, or, at the very least, switching back to Wind
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 statement that the cam removes about $19.99 from the economy is alittle flawed though, for everyone that downloads it may not run and purchase the dvd for any 1 of a 100 reasons (I.E. it sucks), there could still be that many who run and buy the dvd because they liked it. So it could drain more than that $19.99, or it could actually improve the sales of that particular film. I personally have never seen a cam that came close to even VHS quality, let alone DVD. So if the movie really was something of qu
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.
I do think that it's justified
"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 mo
Re:Why should taypayers pay for enforcement? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why should taypayers pay for enforcement? (Score:0)
And 3 years? wtf?
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:0)
Re:What is it then? (Score:2)
Re:What is it then? (Score:2)
Re:What is it then? (Score:0)
Why should I spend $20-$30 and walk away wishing I'd rather not have wasted the money and time on it? The cams will never take the place of actually go
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
Answer: Mediocre Operating System (Score:-1, Offtopic)
In my experience, glacially slow printing times can usually be traced back to a third-rate operating system. As you've no doubt discovered since installing Linux, printer hassles [catb.org] are among the countless inconveniences you must suffer if you insist on using an operating system with no polish, no professionalism and no sense of responsibility to the end user. I would suggest buying a Mac, or, at the very least, switching back to Wind
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:0)
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