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 *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.
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.
Great. The movie company loses their cut of $6, and if you're caught you face up to 10 years inside. That sounds like an appropriate and proportionate punishment to me.
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.
How fucking stupid. Everybody should bring camcorders to theaters and pretend they're recording, just to help out the pirates violating copyright law? Fucking idiot.
(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
"Be there. Aloha."
-- Steve McGarret, _Hawaii Five-Oh_
That's interesting. (Score:5, Funny)
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:0)
They don't care what the people think about what they do, they just do it.
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:0)
Great. The movie company loses their cut of $6, and if you're caught you face up to 10 years inside. That sounds like an appropriate and proportionate punishment to me.
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:0)
Re:Bill text (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bill text (Score:0)
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