my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » New laws regarding videotaping in a theatre (Page 2)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5

Author Topic: New laws regarding videotaping in a theatre Carl Martin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1424 From: Oakland, CA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 11-14-2003 06:08 AM                        to clarify and elaborate upon my last post.... i think clear distinctions can be drawn between shoplifting and copyright infringement. in the former case, the victim suffers an actual loss. the stick of gum that was in the store is now gone. in the latter case, there is no actual loss (let's say nothing was physically stolen). the victim's complaint is (most likely) that profit did not come to him that otherwise might have. the victimhood rests on an imaginary scenario. there is no guarantee that the forgone profit would ever have been gained. there's no guarantee that the stick of gum would have been bought either, but after it's stolen the proprietor can't chew it. the copyright victim can still enjoy his work. [i realize that this anti-copyright view can be seen as political, but no more so than the pro-copyright comments i'm rebutting. oh what the hell, go ahead and close the thread.] now take this case, where it isn't even necessary for copyright infringement to occur. we're two generations removed from actual harm now. the thinking behind this boils down to: "if we can't make the charges stick on the guilty-looking people, we'll make it illegal to look guilty." look at how specific it gets. it's only about film, and especially about film "intended for commercial distribution". it's pure special-needs legislation. yeah, like most legislation. c'mon, valenti is behind it. you know it's bad! carl  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 11-14-2003 08:16 AM                        Information about US Copyright law: http://www.copyright.gov/ http://www.copyright.gov/title17/ http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ45.pdf http://www.copyright.gov/title17/chapter05.pdf  |  IP: Logged Greg Mueller Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1687 From: Port Gamble, WA Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-14-2003 09:39 AM                        I have no problem with the philosophy of copyright. It's "their" product, the fruits of "their" labor. I also disagree that they are not losing something through illegal duplication. If there was only one place to get something, they would be making money off that thing. If you wanted it you would buy it from them, the end. If someone else comes along and illegally duplicates that item and sells it, each of the buyers now has an option. The legitimate owner's product or the thieves product. So there IS loss of income to the thieves. I don't see how there is a difference between stealing the gum and stealing any other product. This morning I heard an NPR story about this issue and it turns out that "they" figure it's insiders making the videos anyway. Seems kind of obvious to me, when the video hits the Internet before the movie hits the theaters. Maybe cut off one of their hands or pluck out one of their eyeballs. I hate thieves more than anything  |  IP: Logged Dennis Benjamin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1445 From: Denton, MD Registered: Feb 2002 posted 11-15-2003 01:30 AM                        You know you have heard it from me before: I went to the 'local fleamarket' again today. ALL the pirated movies the guy was selling (Matrix Revolutions, Kill Bill, Texas Chainsaw, Elf, Mystic River, Brother Bear, ETC ETC ETC) THEY WERE FLAWLESS SCREENER COPIES. NOT, I repeat, NOT filmed inside a movie theatre. I had him run them on a DVD player for me. Some of them had the "PROPERTY OF MIRAMAX FILMS" or other 'tickers' running at the bottom stating it is a federal crime to be watching the thing. Anyways - I have personally contacted the FBI regarding this guy and he still is making a buttload of money selling these things. So they could pass a law saying people will go to jail for life - BUT NOBODY CARES! ....I do......  |  IP: Logged Dave Williams Wet nipple scene Posts: 1836 From: Salt Lake City, UT, USA Registered: Jan 2000 posted 11-16-2003 04:57 PM                        My philosophy is that there should NEVER be jail time for any non violent offence. Jail time for violent offenses should be indefinate, until it is as certain as possible that a repeat will not occur. And lastly, the death penalty is barbaric. Regardless of the horrific nature of some crimes, it is not human to lower ourselves to the level that these dastardly criminals go to. What would be more appropriate is life with hard labor, no parole. As for copyright infringement, how about the loss of drivers licence in all 50 states, now and forever? Loss of voting rights? Loss of income (garnishement)? Public humiliation (printing of infringers name on an internet watch site once prosecuted). Jail time scares not the infringer, but losing ones ability to legally drive oneself? To lose the ability to get a full paycheck? Having every potential employer know you are a thief of the lowest caliber? Dave  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 11-16-2003 05:31 PM                  Not to burst your bubble Dave, but there are already MANY 10,000's of unlicensed (and BTW uninsured) drivers driving around every day...especially in CA, NM, AZ, and TX. That sure wont work. The cops have much better things to do than stop everyone to see if they have a valid DL. Also, jail time in many cases is the only answer... some fat-cat could just laff at the fines and re-open under another "storefront" after paying the fine. This is a problem, but as with many complex problems, there are no easy answers. >>> Phil  |  IP: Logged Jason Black Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1723 From: Myrtle Beach, SC, USA Registered: Nov 2000 posted 11-16-2003 08:02 PM                        In response to Carl Martins comment regarding theft of gum ... Surely, you can't believe the words you typed? Theft is theft, plain and simple. The gum is a GOOD. The film is both a GOOD & SERVICE. The store owner provided a tangible product (the gum), the theatre provides a SERVICE by providing the product (the actual film) to the consumer. If one took the gum without paying, they stole it. No money will be made on that pack. If one pirates a movie (insider or not), they have taken the ability for the film-maker and theatre (no to mention everyone in-between) to make additional sales. Theft of a service is still theft. As to the death penalty comment by Dave.. I agree iwth you that time shoud be served 'hard labor.. no parole'. I DO believe in the death penalty. I do believe that certain crimes should be penalized by death. I don't feel that the public, read.. You and I, shoudl support, via taxation, prisons. I would love to see someone devise a system that would allow for a 'self-suporting' prison. It chaps my ass that some scumbag sitting in a cell that I help pay for can obtain an college level education at MY expense when I'm unelegible for grants/scholarships. I feel like that's being punished for being a productive member of society. I feel the same way about people who spit out kids by the dozen, collecting welfare/food stamps/gov't subsidies yet can't keep their F'ing legs closed long enough to go out, get a job and become a productive member of society rather than laying around being a leach! Sorry to have taken this off subject.. actually, no hell I'm not. It's the way I feel and that's the way it is... Back to the topic.. theft is theft, plain and simple. You either bought it legitimately or you didn't. I see no gray area involved. Disagree if you may, it's your choice.  |  IP: Logged Adam Martin I'm not even gonna point out the irony. Posts: 3686 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Nov 2000 posted 11-17-2003 12:48 AM                     Someone needs to go to jail for that Blockbuster commercial playing on screen in the Vista Ridge video.  |  IP: Logged Carl Martin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1424 From: Oakland, CA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 11-17-2003 05:25 AM                        quote: Surely, you can't believe the words you typed? Theft is theft, plain and simple. The gum is a GOOD. The film is both a GOOD & SERVICE. The store owner provided a tangible product (the gum), the theatre provides a SERVICE by providing the product (the actual film) to the consumer. If one took the gum without paying, they stole it. No money will be made on that pack. If one pirates a movie (insider or not), they have taken the ability for the film-maker and theatre (no to mention everyone in-between) to make additional sales. Theft of a service is still theft. sure, they are both theft under the law, but within that rubric we can distinguish different types of acts. there is direct physical theft (the gum) which unequivocally deprives the owner of his property. it is not necessary for the gum to be seen as a good, as an economic commodity, for this to be true. on the other hand, if a movie is pirated, it may still be sold by the copyright holder. and more importantly, it may still be enjoyed for all its other qualities, as an object, as a work of art. it's natural for economists to commodify everything as it's that aspect of life that they study. but this obsessive commodification should not be reflected in policy or, arguably, ethics. carl  |  IP: Logged Carl Martin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1424 From: Oakland, CA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 11-17-2003 05:26 AM                        Duplicate post deleted by moderator. Please do not use the "back" button after posting. doh! [ 11-17-2003, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: Carl Martin ]  |  IP: Logged Greg Mueller Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1687 From: Port Gamble, WA Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-17-2003 09:18 AM                        Carl Are we to believe that under your philosophy that it's ok to wait till the next #1 best seller comes out, then set up printing presses and run off a million copies and sell them for $1 less than the owner? Are you saying that's ok????  |  IP: Logged Carl Martin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1424 From: Oakland, CA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 11-17-2003 06:17 PM                        i think there should be no law against it. i don't think it's immoral. (i see those as identical statements.) but it's also a highly unlikely scenario. i don't think a pirated version of anything has sold anything near a million. since copyright began, there has always been an (ever-increasing) interval of time after which copies may be made freely. it makes no sense to me that 74 years after "one flew over the cuckoo's nest" is published i can be prosecuted for duplicating it but 75 years (or whatever) after it's ok. there's just no salient difference there. it's like when abortion is arbitrarily declared legal up to a certain date and not thereafter. it's a feel-good compromise that makes everyone feel their side has been at least partially conceded to, but it's morally bankrupt. republishing a book like that may not seem fair, or good business ethics, and a lot of people would agree with you on that. but life ain't fair, and most of life's unfairnesses are best remedied by people following their own codes of behavior, not top-down, by the legal system. there are plenty worse things going on routinely in business and elsewhere that are perfectly legal. art has been around a lot longer than copyright, so it's certainly not a prerequisite for creativity. arguably, the entrenched institutions of art production that we have today (like hollywood) do owe a lot to copyright. but these institutions are artistically corrupt. [it is my opinion that] art would benefit tremendously from weakening its ties to business. i don't advocate government subsidy of art at all; i advocate a laissez-faire model. as it is now, copyright is an artificial imposition that keeps art trapped in the business world. a building can only rise so high on a rotten foundation. carl  |  IP: Logged Greg Mueller Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1687 From: Port Gamble, WA Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-17-2003 07:36 PM                        wow Thankfully there are copyright laws that protect creative people from people who believe as you do, otherwise those creative people would never be able to make a living at what they do and would not do it, as they would always be getting ripped off by people who believe as you do. Maybe it would be helpful for you to think along the lines of why there ARE copyright and patent laws, to figure out how and why the world works.  |  IP: Logged Jim Spohn Film Handler Posts: 95 From: Bakersfield, CA, USA Registered: Jan 2003 posted 11-18-2003 10:36 AM                     I second Gregg's reply!!.... Jim Spohn  |  IP: Logged Daryl C. W. O'Shea Film God Posts: 3977 From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from) Registered: Jun 2002 posted 11-18-2003 10:53 AM                        I'd have to agree with Greg too. It astonishes me how much disregard you have for non-physical forms of property, along with how much you are seemingly against capitalization -- of words.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.