Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Your Rights Online News

MPAA Close to Another "Stealth Victory" in Ohio 84

Posted by Hemos from the stupid-stupid-laws dept.
Tsar writes "The Ohio State Legislature has passed House Bill #179 (PDF / HTML / Status) which, among other unrelated issues, makes it illegal to make an AV-recording in any theater or retail store where a motion picture is being displayed. Walk into a store that sells video gear and hit 'Record' on any camcorder, digital camera or PDA; the first click is a misdemeanor, the rest are felonies. Oh, and the janitor (or any employee) can detain you in or near the store until police arrive if they think you hit 'Record'. Actually recording any of a film (or even knowing that a film was being shown) is not required for a conviction. This bill now awaits Governor Bob Taft's signature--Ohioans, let him know what a bad law this is!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MPAA Close to Another "Stealth Victory" in Ohio More

MPAA Close to Another "Stealth Victory" in Ohio

Comments Filter:

  • news stories? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ministerofsickeningr ( 524980 ) on Monday November 24, 2003 @07:47AM (#7546811) Homepage
    for example: wouldnt any news crew that does entertainment pieces, or, ghod forbid does a story after the bill gets passed, (doing a story in front of a best buy for example) be potentially liable for it? any tv screens in front windows, jumbo-trons in times square, large format displayed at music events, anything thats getting picked up even "accidentally" would invite a potential pummeling.

    • Re:news stories? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by kevin lyda ( 4803 ) * on Monday November 24, 2003 @08:10AM (#7546923) Homepage
      what about cctv in a video store? mobile phones that can take quick videos with audio are beginning to come out - what if you use one to decide on a movie in the local video store - or even just use the phone since they can detain you on suspicion.
      • I haven't read the bill in detail, but given that the summary mentions PDAs and digital cameras, I think current model camera phones would already be affected.

    • Re:news stories? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 24, 2003 @08:26AM (#7547003)
      Unfortunately, this is the basic problem with law today. From a geeks perspective, false positives are horrenduously bad. From a lawmaker's perspective, they aren't intending for anyone to prosecute these "fringe" cases and so don't consider it to be a big deal. Unfortunately, this is increasingly heading towards a state whereby everybody is guily of something, which is not good for the civil liberties front - if the government/bigco doesn't like you for whatever reason, they are bound to find something to nail you with.
    • Just for the record - Times Square is in New York, not Ohio. :)

      (Well, okay, there is that large screen in the Columbus Arena District which has been known to show little film snippets as part of Nationwide's plan to sponsor more entropy, presumably to raise insurance premiums or something. Or whatever their reason is for putting all that gaudy junk there.)

    • Re:news stories? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by rmohr02 ( 208447 ) <mohr.42@DALIosu.edu minus painter> on Monday November 24, 2003 @09:12AM (#7547254)
      If you're a cop, arrest a news crew for this. The law is in the books, and I'm sure the news crew will take care of educating the public afterwards.
    • "any tv screens in front windows, jumbo-trons in times square, large format displayed at music events, anything thats getting picked up even "accidentally" would invite a potential pummeling." Well since this law is enacted in Ohio and Times Square is in New York, I think any reporter who reports with Times Square visible in the picture is either safe by not being in Ohio or has one hell of a digital zoom on their camera.

  • +1, Funny (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dago ( 25724 ) on Monday November 24, 2003 @07:51AM (#7546824)
    what, you mean it's not a joke ?

    • Add this to the list of silly US laws. If only the world didn't follow blindly so fast...

      In your-town-here, it is illegal to your-behavior-which-is-perfectly-legal-elsewhere.

  • I call for a namechange.

    The United States of America are from this day forth called The United States of Insanity.

  • Seems like they're hiring programmers to debug the legal system, find security holes, etc.
    "Well,, somebody /could/ walk in to a store that's showing off one of our movies to promote their new big-screen TV, and stand there for hours as the movie plays, hoping that nobody actually responds to the promotion, blocking the shot"
    "Uhm.. would anyone actually do that?"
    "In my experience, these theives are willing to do anything, investing thousands of hours and dollars into the piracy of our intellectual property.

    • Re:I think they're hiring programmers.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by JofCoRe ( 315438 ) on Monday November 24, 2003 @03:20PM (#7550318) Journal
      And let me tell you, when you catch them, you do not want them to be caught without a law specifically forbidding the exact method they employ

      I think that's the important part... These new laws they're passing are unneccessary. Don't we already have laws that make copyright infringement illegal? Which would mean that if someone actually did tape something in a store like this, they would be infringing copyright, which we already have a law for.

      Argh.

      It's like drugs. The drugs themselves shouldn't be illegal. If someone wants to purchase and/or use drugs, it's their body, let them. If they start doing things because of the drugs that affect other people (like robbing, shooting, driving cars into things, etc), then they should be prosecuted for the crimes they commit. Another example of redundant and unneccessary laws.

      We already have laws for the crimes, we don't need laws for every possible method or action that might lead you to the breaking of the already existing laws.

  • equipment (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gibi ( 581962 ) on Monday November 24, 2003 @08:17AM (#7546952)
    And if you're in a multimedia store, you not even need to bring your own equipment.

    "What did I do?"
    "You stand to close to the camcorder which we put up for demonstration purpose. We will arrest you until we checked if you hit any record button."
  • can detain anybody, and even get them convicted as it's not needed that they were actually doing it?
    i can see this as a bit of a problem on large town squares & etc where there are av equipemnt shops that display tv's and stuff on windows, do they efficiently make it illegal to do any filming in the whole goddamn town?

    surely it can't be this boneheaded?

    i for one welcome the new ohio janitor overlords.

    • I don't know about you, but if store security (nevermind a janitor) tried to lay hands on me or otherwise restrain me, I'd assault them quite violently and worry about the charges later. I might do worse if they tried to grab my wife. I'm certain this would happen the first time it was tried on someone who is a member of a 'militia', or even has such leanings.

      I'm pretty sure this law won't pass, even in the current legislative environment in the States, but I'm comforted by the fact that I'm north of the

      • Er, reread the newspost - it already has passed. At this point it just requires Governor Taft's signature.

        It only affects those of us in Ohio, though. (Cold comfort for me. At least it doesn't include, say, audio players like my Neuros...)

        • Re:so a janitor.. (Score:5, Interesting)

          by erasmus_ ( 119185 ) on Monday November 24, 2003 @09:04AM (#7547206)
          My note reads:

          I am writing this note to let you know that I am strongly opposed to House Bill #179, specifically its provision about motion picture recording. Although I do not support piracy, the wording of this law is far too imprecise, and I believe will lead to wrongful convictions and problems for citizens who are not innocent of any crime. There is a world of difference between someone sneaking in a video camera into a movie theater for the purpose of making a bootleg tape, and someone innocently using the record function of a device at a store where a movie may or may not even be shown. I believe trying to sneak this provision in among others is deceitful, and I would strongly oppose anyone supporting this bill in its current form at the next election. Thank you.
          • Gov. Taft, I am outraged at the proposed changes that are included in H.B. 179. The proposed changes to O.R.C. are overly broad and would make criminals out of any electronics store customers and employees simply by testing out any of the recording equipment in the store. Any store that sold cameras or video-cameras would not be allowed to play videos on the same premises. It could be further suggested that modern cellular phones that include cameras would be considered recording devices and further put
          • ...and I believe will lead to wrongful convictions and problems for citizens who are
            not innocent of any crime.

            not?

            • Darn it, should have proofread that a little better. That was obviously supposed to be either "not guilty" or "innocent". Thanks for pointing it out anyway.
              • I don't know, I imagine it could cause problems convicting people who are not innocent as well. The law seems to make a crime of performing an action (possessing/using equipment capable of making an infringing copy in circumstances where such would be possible) even without any illegal/infringing action taking place. That looks overly broad to me. I'm sure glad it won't be my taxes being spent to enforce this. Then again, I'm sure Ohio can afford it with the massive budget surplusses they corrently have, a
        • I wouldn't be so sure about your Neuros, (if it can record at all). All you have to do to meet the definition of "audiovisual recording function" is be able to record any part of the motion picture. The audio is part of the movie, so sound only recorders are covered.
      • well i wouldn't except them to restrain you physically, but i'd rather deal with the police on site(so i can bitch to them how fucking stupid the asshole janitor/securitywannabe/clerk is and how i obviously did nothing wrong and would raise hell on the poor sobs) than have them come to my home afterwards(appearances are everything, plus if i assaulted the clerk/securitywannabe/janitor i'd definetely get charges for it).

  • video DRM (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tiled_rainbows ( 686195 ) on Monday November 24, 2003 @08:37AM (#7547051) Homepage Journal
    Hey, maybe you could make it the law that all consumer-grade video display equipment (TVs, projectors, advertising displays, etc) has to emit light polarised in a certain direction only, and that all consumer-grade video recording equipment (camcorders, etc) only records light polarised in the other direction.

    Then, video displays will appear black if filmed.

    Problem solved!

    Disclaimer: I think this proposed bill is as stupid as you all think it is, but I had this interesting idea.

    • Re:video DRM (Score:4, Funny)

      by iain ( 30832 ) <slashNO@SPAMiain.georgeson.me.uk> on Monday November 24, 2003 @09:52AM (#7547561) Homepage
      Cue hordes of arrests under the DMCA for circumventing a copy control measure, by holding a camera on its side.
      Just a minute while I fit a spirit level to my camera...
      • Er, all new cameras have to be fitted with mercury switches that cut the power unless it's held the correct, non-copyright-circumventing way up.

        Or maybe forget the polarisation idea, but have all video equipment fitted with highly accurate clocks synched to a central transmitter that makes sure that the refresh cycle of recording devices (cameras) is 180 degrees out of phase with display devices. No, that wouldn't work either.

        Well, that's a relief.

        • Just ban all cameras. The possibility of copyright violation is too high. I mean what if I was to take a picture of my house but a bus was passing and it had a copyright picture in one of the advertisments. Oh my god Im going to jail.......... On a serious note as I understand copyright it is regarding DISTRIBUTION not copy.

          What gets me is there are such sick people in society that they would work for the *IAA. If anybody knows one of these people tell them to get a real job. (Some of you will say people

  • Interesting method to control customers (Score:3, Interesting)

    by abulafia ( 7826 ) on Monday November 24, 2003 @08:39AM (#7547064)
    Many places do not want customers taking pictures on their premises for various reasons. The MPAA just gave them a fairly cheap method of making it a felony to do so, and deputized the staff to enforce it. All for a low, low royalty fee...

  • Circuit City (Score:5, Insightful)

    by image ( 13487 ) on Monday November 24, 2003 @08:44AM (#7547086) Homepage
    According to my interpretation of this law, consider the Circuit City delima. As Circuit City sells televisions and their floor models are constantly playing movies for demonstration purposes, the following things are now illegal inside the store:

    * As a customer, taking a video recording of your friends with your own cell phone.

    * As a customer, trying out the video recording feature of a cell phone that you are interested in purchasing.

    * As a customer, trying out the video recording capabilities of a camcorder or other dv device before purchasing.

    * As a salesperson, demonstrating the video capabilities of cell phones or camcorders.

    * As the store itself, recording images from their own security cameras.

    Because of this law, Circuit City would have to disallow their customers from trying out in the store the very products they sell, stop their salespeople from demostrating their own products, and disable their own security cameras.

    Only in America, folks, would we let corporations making such a laughing stock of the public.

    • the following things are now illegal inside the store

      And if the store is inside a mall, possibly would be illegal inside the entire mall. No more taking video of your friends in the food court.

      As the store itself, recording images from their own security cameras.

      I'm sure they'd be able to get written consent of the licensor of the motion picture, which they have to get in order to show the motion picture anyway.

    • Because of this law, Circuit City would have to disallow their customers from trying out in the store the very products they sell, stop their salespeople from demostrating their own products, and disable their own security cameras.
      No, they'd just have to stop showing movies in-store. No big loss.

  • Why (Score:2)

    by aridhol ( 112307 )
    Why are they allowed to combine dissimmilar items on the same bill? Each law (and thus bill) should have a single focus, and any clause that is not related to this focus should be stricken. Whether it is stricken by the House and Senate before passing, or by the courts when someone gets charged, these submarine laws should be destroyed.

    • Re:Why (Score:4, Informative)

      by rmohr02 ( 208447 ) <mohr.42@DALIosu.edu minus painter> on Monday November 24, 2003 @09:17AM (#7547284)
      Well, the Ohio governor has a line-item veto, so he can veto certain parts of bills.
    • Both the gas and the movie provisions are in the same section of the law, so in the eyes of the legislators, the items aren't all that dissimilar. Both deal with "theft".

      You just have to bend your mind to the slant that recording any part of a movie which is being shown is theft.

      For the record, my mind is not bent in that particular manner, and I totally agree that a bill should have one and only one focus (kind of like the RISC version of government).

  • A Side Effect (Score:4, Interesting)

    by image ( 13487 ) on Monday November 24, 2003 @08:51AM (#7547123) Homepage
    A hilarious side effect of this law is that you can now block news reporters from filming you at all. Simply film a few minutes of footage of your cat, the traffic, or a blank wall. Purchase a portable video players, such as the Archos AV300 [archos.com]. Walk around in public holding the video player in the air for all to see while looping your recording. You own the rights to the recording, but you have not granted the rights to operate recording gear to anyone in your proximity.

    You have now made it illegal for anyone to film you. Interestingly, you may be able to carry this device into a bank, government office, etc., and require that they turn off their security cameras as well, lest they are in violation of the law.

    • Re:A Side Effect (Score:3, Informative)

      by Samus ( 1382 )
      Maybe it was too hard for you to read the law so here is the relevant section for you to read.

      (2) "Facility" includes all retail establishments and movie
      theaters.

      (B) No person, without the written consent of the owner or lessee of the facility and of the licensor of the motion picture, shall knowingly operate an audiovisual recording function of a device in a facility in which a motion picture is being shown.
      • I stand corrected -- thank you!
      • there's also an explicit exemption for surveilance and law enforcement purposes. The good ol' boys in the OSL had to make sure they covered their rear.
      • Ok, so his plan doesn't work out in the street. He can still walk into any retail establishment and show his home-made motion picture of a blank wall.

        It is then illegal for a news crew, or anyone for that matter, to record anything in your vicinity unless they get written permission from the owner of the store AND from you.

        -

        • Nice idea (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Baron_Yam ( 643147 )

          Got a beef with your local video store? Walk in with that portable display, and then have the store clerks, management, owners, etc all charged because they've recorded you via CCTV.

          The best bit is the provision that would allow you to restrain them pending the arrival of the police. You may not be an employee of the facility, but you're the copyright holder on your video, right?

    • Re:A Side Effect (Score:2, Informative)

      by Viqsi ( 534904 )
      Er, no. The bill only allows for movie theaters and retail stores. Sec. 2913.07 (A) (2).
  • I'm getting a video camera (stereo) implanted in my forehead, wiring it up to my heart for power, and hard-wiring the power *ON*.

    No matter where I go, what I do, everything is going to be recorded from now on, for *my* uses only.

    Lets see if they can turn *THAT* off.

    • I'm not aware of any technology that can harness the mechanical energy of the heart to generate electricity. However, there is a fuel cell that runs on blood, so I suppose you could have a recording device implanted and body-powered; hopefully the fuel cell has been designed to shut off if your blood doesn't have enough stored energy remaining - after all, you need some TO LIVE. The storage medium and data extraction are still going to be a bitch.

      • I think he meant his eyes... which you quite correctly pointed out - do not run on mechanical energy from the heart, but rather use blood as fuel, or rather the blood carries fuel if you really want to split hairs.

  • Quick Five-Minute Analysis: (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Viqsi ( 534904 ) <jrhunter@menager ... minus physicist> on Monday November 24, 2003 @09:24AM (#7547320)
    1) The provisions of being detained if you're believed to be trying to walk off with copyrighted material has been there already; this bill doesn't change that.

    2) This only applies to theaters and retail stores, and appears to have exceptions for government recording for security purposes. (It doesn't mention private industry security, though.)

    3) The bill just mentions usage of such a device in the facility; it doesn't mention recording actual copyrighted content (this is the major reason why I'm bothered by it).

    4) The bill appears to leave judgement, for the most part, up to the retailers themselves; they're expected to enforce it. (So I doubt demo units are going to be a serious issue, unless there's an overzealous MPAA policeman nearby.)

    In short, the only flaws I see are that it covers things it has no business covering (uncopyrighted content) and it doesn't allow for those two common industry practices of demonstration and security cameras. Change those and I think it's OK.

    I know that some places already prohibit recordings of any kind anyways, but there's a world of difference between being kicked out of the theater and being arrested. I think being arrested for taking a picture of your kids in the lobby is going a little far. (I'm hoping that theater employees will be relatively sane about such things, though, since enforcement is left to them.)

    • Try this scenario (Score:4, Insightful)

      by TheConfusedOne ( 442158 ) <the,confused,one&gmail,com> on Monday November 24, 2003 @10:01AM (#7547611) Journal
      You head over to Best Buy to look at TV's. While there you happen to swing by the entertainment center display and see one that you think the SO would particularly like. Since (s)he ain't with ya at the time you whip out the cell phone and snap a pic of it to show them later.

      Congrats, you've just broken the law. If you snap a second entertainment center for comparison purposes it gets even worse.

      No, the problem with laws like these is that they are overly broad, poorly written, and most important don't stop the activity that they're trying to outlaw.
      • 1. Turn TV off. Try the power button, usually on the front.
        2. Capture picture of TV.
        3. Turn TV back on.
        4. Repeat as neccessary.

        Oh, I almost forgot...

        5. ???
        6. Profit.

        • However (and I could be wrong, since I haven't RTFA yet and am just going by comments, so you can ignore me if u wish :), I believe that according to the proposed bill, it's a crime to take a picture or make a recording in any building that currently is showing copyrighted content. So even tho the TeeVee is off, there's other screens in the store that are still probably playing movies, and therefore you are still breaking this wonderful (proposed) law.
  • If a CCTV camera in a video store records whats on the screens can the prosecute the CCTV company. This is partly funny but here in the UK we have so many CCTV cameras it could be relevent.

  • One small step for MPAA one giant leap... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jefu ( 53450 ) on Monday November 24, 2003 @10:19AM (#7547731) Homepage Journal
    backward for sense.

    At first glance this seemed reasonable. Then, I thought about it a bit and came up with a few minor problems.

    I find it hard to believe that customers would go in to a store, aim a camera at a tv and stand there for an hour or so to get a movie on video. (Sure a gang of such could get together and have a hundred people or so each grab a couple minutes, but that seems unlikely, difficult to manage, and most importantly unprofitable)

    I find it much easier to believe that employees might grab a dvd thats been returned (or otherwise opened), take it home and return it the next day. And I'm not sure this law covers that.

    In theatres, it might work, but I suspect that with the improvements in technology it would not be all that hard to get tiny (tiny!) cameras on wireless networks to a van outside the theatre and grab things that way. But if the cameras are small enough they'd be close to undetectable.

    And as above the insiders are probably the real problem. Don't forget the employee viewings of films on thursday nights which are (for all practical purposes) private viewings and hence it would be unlikely that the constabulary (or other authorities) would even know it was taking place. (The copies would exist, so you might manage to shut down a minimally profitable theatre in a small town from time to time - but somehow I doubt it would have much of an effect on the process in general.)

    If this only happens in Ohio it will have no effect whatever. Which means that the MPAA will need to pass these laws in every state for them to mean anything. But having such a law in one state will allow lobbyists to say "But the folks in Ohio have this law..." If they're smart though, they'll tack on extra provisions each time a law is passed so they can then go back to (say) Ohio and say "Now Indiana has a better law than you do, so you must pass this new law or you'll have a Law Gap and schoolchildren around the world will point at you and laugh!"

    So the law is both silly and dangerous.

    Which means we should all laugh hysterically while we flee in terror.

    • How about just buying the %$#@! DVD, taking it home, and copying it there? For a small $15-20 investment, you can avoid all of this nonsense and can aim the video camera at your *own* TV until your nuts fall off in copy-thefting glee. Or just burn a copy of the DVD and leave it at that. After all, if you're going to violate copyright laws, why not go for quality?

      What boggles my mind is who in the world is even doing this? Movie theaters I understand. But retail stores? That just doesn't make any sense.
      But
  • I shall simply relabel the 'Record' button on my camcorder to say 'Up Yours.' :)

    'No, Your Honour, I did not hit the "Record" button on my camcorder.'

  • What I wrote (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Dachannien ( 617929 ) on Monday November 24, 2003 @11:59AM (#7548650)
    Dear Governor Taft,

    I am writing regarding the recently-passed bill Ohio Sub H. B. 179. While this bill has provisions unrelated to my concerns, I wish to voice my extreme trepidation with regards to the provisions prohibiting activation of a video recording device inside any facility where a copyrighted movie is being shown.

    The bill is incredibly poorly written. It would prohibit, for example, the following innocuous activities:

    * Patrons at retail stores like Wal-Mart could be arrested for testing out the assortment of video cameras if any movie was being shown in the store (and stores generally like to show the movies that they're trying to sell).

    * News reporters would not be permitted to record video at retail stores or movie theaters if a movie were being shown at the time; an investigative reporter could be arrested for doing a story on health violations at the concession stand if a movie is playing in the theater and the theater owner decides to call the police.

    * Retail store owners and theater owners could be arrested for running security cameras in their buildings if they did not obtain the written permission from the copyright holders for every movie they show. This includes stores like Blockbuster, which shows numerous movies on their TVs in an effort to generate more rentals, and runs security cameras to help prevent crime; each store owner would have to obtain permission individually for every copyright holder of the movies they show, and while they wait for a response, they would either have to let their TVs go dark or their security cameras go blind in order to conform to the law.

    Obviously, this bill has numerous issues with regards to these provisions - and these issues far outweigh any benefits that could be generated. This is especially true since a much simpler bill stating that "video recording of a publicly-performed motion picture is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder" would suffice.

    Well... except for the part where we already have federal laws that state that.

    Please veto this bill, and demand that the State Legislature return to you a bill that includes only the other unrelated provisions of the bill.

  • GOOD! (Score:3)

    by Picass0 ( 147474 ) on Monday November 24, 2003 @12:08PM (#7548729) Homepage Journal
    The more this law sucks the better! The more the MPAA are hard-ass bastards enforcing it the better!

    A good hard slap in the face is what people need to wake up and see these issues. A bad law now will be quickly repealed, and the leasons learned will stay with people.

    When the RIAA threatened a 12 year old girl that did far more good than harm. She settled for $2000, and I bet they did some creative financing so she didn't really have to pay it. The bad press was sooo damaging the RIAA had to make it go away quickly.

    The MPAA is even more boneheaded than RIAA (hard to imagine) and I don't think it would play out the same when they threaten a teenager. Just look and how they have gone after the 16 year old author of DeCSS.

    Big dumb laws right now are less damaging in the long run than small incremental laws over the course of time. Let's hope the MPAA really shoots itself in the foot with this one.
  • That it's cheaper and more convenient to buy a video camera and film a movie playing in your local retail/video store for a few hours than it is to rent a video and copy it at home (either by bypassing Macrovision - easy - or by using said videocamera on your display device).

    The only thing it adds is criminal penalties for copying movies in a theatre. From many of the rips I've seen floating around, many of these are coming from the east anyhow.
  • Only a stupid law is so arbitrary and "off the wall" that people could break it unknowingly. I'm reminded of the Star Trek episode where Wesley is sentenced to death for walking on the grass.

    Suffice it to say, this issue was decided for me long ago: I'll not be spending any vacation time in the United Corporations of America, now or ever. Too risky.

  • Relax, Chicken Little (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RevMike ( 632002 ) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {ekiMver}> on Monday November 24, 2003 @02:54PM (#7550144) Journal

    The sky is not falling. We deal with poorly written laws like this all the time without civilization coming to an end.

    In reality, this is what needs to happen in order for this law to be enforced against someone trying out a camcorder at Best-Buy.

    1. A local retailer will have to risk not only losing the sale of an item the customer was demoing, but pissing off a potential customer, commiting an employee to detain that customer for some period of time when they could be doing something productive, and risk that customer suing for anything of a number of things that happened while they were detained.
    2. The police would have to be interested in actually arresting someone for trying out a camcorder. Few police officers are going to do all that paperwork for something like that.
    3. A district attorney will need to be interested in spending weeks preparing for and trying a case.
    4. After all that, the court will probably look at the legislative record and decide that the intent of the law was to prevent the piracy of copyrighted works, and dismiss the case.
    Anyone who thinks that this law will be used to prosecute the dad trying to buy a camcorder to record his daughter's soccer game is completely paranoid. It will probably be used against the people who bring a camcorder to the theatre in order to sell bootlegs, but that is it.

    • Re:Relax, Chicken Little (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I agree and disagree. The sky is not falling now, but it could later. Why do you wish to give more power to coorporations than they need? Give the only the basics.

      I agree that this law, if put into effect, would not be used to arrest a father for trying out a video camera, but why take that chance?

      "Sure, we'll give you the extra power that you request, even though we don't really see a need for you to have this power. Oh, and don't abuse it." Think about a chess game: you do subtle moves until you mo

      • I'm disappointed you posted this AC. It was a thoughtful response, and I would have "friended" you for it.

        I disagree that this will have no effect. It's just another move to set up the cooporations for the final slide to put the public into check-and-mate.

        I don't fear this eventuality as much as you do. Corporations are frequently considered "persons" by the law, but this is a legal fiction created for various economic and legal conveniences. Corporations do not vote. They can not serve as jurors.

    • You're probably right, and it most likely won't be used for that. The problem arises from the fact that it could be used like that. If the intent of the law is something different, then the law should be re-written to be more clean on its intent, so that it cannot be misused.

      As one other poster pointed out, a perfect example of how the law in its current state could be abused would be the news crew that's doing an investigative report or expose on the movie theater concession stand and its health violati
  • In the current environment, is it still legal for stores like Circuit City to show movies on their demonstration TVs? I remember a story about taxi cab drivers required to *not* play the radio while carrying paying customers. I know RIAA != MPAA, but wouldn't the same "logic" (or whatever-the-hell you want to call it) apply to retail stores?
  • Most stores and movie theaters forbid the use of cameras on the premisis anyway. Besides, the store would have to press charges or care in order for this bill to have any effect on somebody; and I doubt that many stores would unless it was apparant that your intent was to pirate something, as it would generate bad publicity for the store.
  • I happen to be an Ohio intellectual property attorney, and I've met the governer on a few occasions recently. I suspect that the letter I write to Gov. Taft tomorrow condemning the hell out of this insane bill will probably carry some weight.

    - David Stein

  • Why would someone stand in a store and tape a movie? I've seen a couple of videos that look like that's what someone did, and they're absolutely terrible. You've got background noise, the camera shakes, and people walking in front of the camera. I can't imagine why anyone would waste their time when they can rent the movie for $3 at Blockbuster. If you want to pirate a movie, do it right and copy the DVD, don't waste 2 hours of your life for a bad copy.

    So now we're getting a law to stop retarded pir

Slashdot Top Deals

"The one charm of marriage is that it makes a life of deception a neccessity." - Oscar Wilde

Close