|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: jailed for filming in cinema
|
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 08-26-2014 01:44 AM
quote: Mike Blakesley
Notice it doesn't say what you're taking. Therefore it can be physical property, an idea, an experience, or anything you are SUPPOSED to be paying for. To watch a movie, say, without paying for a ticket is to "make use of wrongfully."
I guess if we search long enough, we'll find sufficient definitions to have stealing also encompasses us, dancing together on the moon while singing the latest polka hits. I'm pointing out to what the law makes from all of this. Copyright infringement is not stealing, it's breaking the Copyright law. That doesn't necessarily make it better, depending on what you've done and where you've done it, could have more dire consequences than murder...
quote: Justin Hamaker
This is where you are wrong. When it comes to intellectual property, you never own the actual content. You have purchased a license for the media, with all rights still held by the copyright holder. When you make an unlicensed copy, you are engaging in fraudulent behavior.
If you're copying the content, you're not taking the Intellectual Properties away from the original owners. In addition to that, if you legally purchase a copy, you did more than just purchase a license. There is something called the First-sale doctrine for example. Also, engaging in fraudulent behaviour doesn't automatically equate to theft, it could also just be... fraud.
quote: Chris Slycord
Legally, it is, stealing. It's literally called "theft of services."
Theft of services doesn't apply to intellectual property, it applies to services, it would probably apply to a cinema visit, it does apply to utilities, not paying for your cable but still using it, but it doesn't apply to someone making a copy of a protected work. That protected work isn't considered a service.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Marcel is wrong. I said earlier that he does know how to interpret whether it is theft or not. That is what a judge is for. In the case of camcording a movie in a theater and then selling it, it is theft, end of story.
You don't always have to physically take something from someone for some thing to be considered theft.
Yeah, as long as you can bash someone and add nothing worthwhile to the discussion at all, you're one happy camper.
Besides some oddball judge that was drunk while dreaming up the verdict, judges all over the planet label it for what it is: A violation of the Copyright law and not as theft. A violation of the Copyright law, is in many cases a criminal act and can carry severe consequences, depending on the (supposed) damage you've done.
P.S.: I've told several times now that the fact that it's physical or not doesn't matter at all.
quote: Jim Henk
So I suppose that no one arguing rabidly that it's all theft - never, ever, ever, EVER rips anything off of any DVD or BluRay? Not even trailers? Not even once? Really?
Oh, BTW, I suppose that they don't have any 35mm or 70mm prints of anything? That's still illicit as well, and also labeled 'theft' - you do realize...
So it seems to me like there's a floating line of distinction with every person.
Just wanting to see if anyone seriously wants to be the one that casts the first stone...
There are many cases where you might actually be infringing on Copyright laws, but which would be otherwise considered fair use by the general public. I've mentioned one, like the quotation of full articles on this site, which is in many cases, actually a form of copyright infringement. And no, it's not theft and no, we're not thieves. Theft is also a clear cut thing, copyright sometimes is all but clear.
Also, in the U.S., the governing copyright law actually allows you to make copies for your own personal use, but the D.M.C.A. forbids circumventing any kind of copy protection. Since practically all commercial DVDs and Blu-Rays come with a form of copy protection, you're actually breaking the law once you copy a DVD or Blu-Ray...
Failure to return a print might actually be theft, but you could also spin it as a "mistake". ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I'm certainly not the prime expert on anything "IP", but I had my fair dealings with rights holders, content distribution licenses, broadcast licenses, DRM, etc. the last 10 or so years...
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Buckley
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 525
From: Oxford, N. Canterbury, New Zealand
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted 08-26-2014 08:15 PM
In the end, it does absolutely come down to the actual legal definitions, not the defitinitions someone picks up off a dictionary off the internet.
For example, in one jurisdiction represented here, the police had problems getting convictions for people nicking cars, as some nicking of cars did not fulfill all the required legal attributes to be legally prosecuted as theft, and such prosecutions failed, even though the bloke did nick the car!. Thus the lawmakers came up with an entirely new offence of "Taking without owners consent", which had a different set of attributes that were required to be fulfilled for a prosecution to succeed.
In New Zealand, and I believe in a number of other jurisdictions, most copyright infringment is a civil wrong, meaning a policeman cannot arrest one for comitting a crime, as no crime has been comitted, even though a law has been broken. For a civil matter, the arguments are presented in court, and the judge (or jury, in some jurisdictions) will award a sum of money to be handed over between the parties, often called the damages.
On the other hand, do copyright infringment on a big enough scale and it becomes a ciminal offence for which one can be arrested and thrown into a cell.
The law will spell out which approach is appropriate, and if its broderline or grey, then as ever, the courts will make that determination.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Slycord
Film God
Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007
|
posted 08-27-2014 01:50 AM
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Theft of services doesn't apply to intellectual property, it applies to services, it would probably apply to a cinema visit, it does apply to utilities, not paying for your cable but still using it, but it doesn't apply to someone making a copy of a protected work. That protected work isn't considered a service.
So, downloading a movie isn't theft of service but watching it is? To me, that's pretty much the definition of semantics.
Note: I mean that it sounds like you're saying that it's only theft of service once you utilize the service of watching it, so downloading it itself isn't as bad. But this ignores, imo, that people who download are going to watch no matter what.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 08-27-2014 02:31 AM
quote: Justin Hamaker
For me, a major part of the reason for defending this is theft is because it's hard enough to get the public to understand it's wrong. When you define it as theft, that's a rather straightforward concept that anyone can grasp. But when you start using terms like copyright infringement, you cloud the issue and make it more difficult for a layperson to understand it is wrong. It's bad enough that people don't view an unlicensed copy as stolen property.
There are so many things in this world that aren't technically theft and are equally wrong. Personally, I think it's rather disappointing if we really need to dumb down everything to the lowest common denominator.
Also, I'm afraid you're reaching the wrong audience with this anyway. It's not like those pirates don't know what they're doing is wrong.
Furthermore, I do think it's about time the content industry embraces their PAYING audience a bit more. Because frankly, they have been treating them like shit for the last decade and a half. Stuff like unskippable trailers and copyright warnings on DVDs, everything wrapped in 3 layers of DRM and even going as far as installing backdoors on people's computers, all while the pirates got the "good stuff" without the hassle. Combined with lawsuits against single mothers, that all but made them look good. Yeah, you could argue that they did have the right to defend themselves, but the P.R. they got about this wasn't really helping their cause. Combine this with the fact that it took them years and years to get their acts together and come up with some half-decent legal on-line alternatives. Still, many markets remain totally underserved in this aspect. There even was a minister in Belgium that told the press outright that they won't be going after people downloading copyrighted content, unless the content industry comes up with legal, on-line alternatives, because there were almost none...
And if you want to inform your audience about why they SHOULD pay for their content, show them spots what their money actually buys, how it helps to keep the industry afloat, instead of telling them that they're big time criminals if they even dare to take a photo of it. As far as I know, they're not running them in the U.S., but 20th Century Fox attaches a lengthy copyright warning in front of each and every feature around here, telling me, I'm a potential pirate and criminal scumbag. They make me feel like I'm supposed to wipe the movie out of my memory right after the show. (Well, sometimes I might actually want to have that feature.) You're telling this to an audience that already paid for their goods, only a small fraction of them are part of the scumbag group and they already know they're scumbags.
quote: Sam D. Chavez
One way or another, IP and copyright laws are getting stronger. We could argue that is a good or bad thing but the court ruling Samsung vs. Apple is pretty clear.
While I'm certainly in favor for protecting Intellectual Property rights, patent law has been getting out of hand. While I personally don't really care about those big behemoths fighting each other in court over some widgets in some gadgets, many of those overly broad patents aren't good for innovation and business in general in the long term. I've read one example that even if you run a small web-shop, you're already potentially breaking a dozen of patents. Most of which are extremely trivial, yet got rubber-stamped somewhere in the process. If you fight them in court, you're even likely to win all or most of them, but the question is if you could ride that one out as the little guy?
quote: Jim Henk
That's how lawyers are considered good or incompetent. A good or bad argument made in court can and does make the difference in that decision.
It's probably a combination of factors. Even the best lawyer can only do so much against an incompetent judge or jury. Many of those cases involving copyright law also involve computers, networks, etc. Many judges simply don't have the required technical knowledge and you can't really expect that from a jury either.
quote: Steve Matz
Now according to the Rules of Theft of Service at that time; listening to the Audio even though it was passed through normally with out doing anything to your TV or Converter
Cable always has been an interesting beast, because you need to subscribe to it to get the service. To get the service, you accepted their service contract. If this would've been broadcasted over the air, it probably wouldn't be illegal or in breach of anyone's contract.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I think a 10-year old can figure out that movie piracy is theft.
It's great to know that you managed to substantiate your point of view so much and add so much worthwhile insights into the discussion...
You know, it's not a crime to disagree with someone. You might even say that this is somewhat essential for a discussion... But it would be really great to get some depth into it. But heck, why am I even wasting my time trying to tell you this anyway?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
![[beer]](graemlins/beer.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic