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?
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.)
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.
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?
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?
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: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:That's interesting. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's interesting. (Score:4, Funny)
Campaign contributions from the MPAA.