Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Camcorder use in theatre now a federal crime

This is topic Camcorder use in theatre now a federal crime in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=001425

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-27-2005, 05:12 PM:

Got this in an email from NATO today:

This morning, President Bush signed S. 167, the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005, into law – the first title of which is our federal camcorder bill, and which includes the critical theatre immunity provisions we lobbied to include in the bill. You may now say with total confidence to patrons and local law enforcement that it is a federal crime to use a camcorder in a movie theatre.

Posted by Adam Wilbert (Member # 1184) on 04-27-2005, 06:03 PM:

(i'd link to the source, but its not a stable url... just go to thomas.loc.gov and search for s.167)

quote: thomas.loc.gov
`(d) Immunity for Theaters- With reasonable cause, the owner or lessee of a motion picture exhibition facility where a motion picture or other audiovisual work is being exhibited, the authorized agent or employee of such owner or lessee, the licensor of the motion picture or other audiovisual work being exhibited, or the agent or employee of such licensor--

`(1) may detain, in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time, any person suspected of a violation of this section with respect to that motion picture or audiovisual work for the purpose of questioning or summoning a law enforcement officer; and

`(2) shall not be held liable in any civil or criminal action arising out of a detention under paragraph (1).

a couple of observations:
We get to legally detain people suspected of videotaping the screen without fear of consequence.
Their definition of "audiovisual device" would seem to include camera phones...

[edited to fix the web link, there should be no "www"]

[ 04-28-2005, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: Adam Wilbert ]

Posted by David Buckley (Member # 2600) on 04-27-2005, 09:43 PM:

"With reasonable cause"

Is that the same reasonable cause that applies to normal police procedure,??

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 04-28-2005, 12:11 AM:

I suppose it means theater staff can now legally detain a suspected camcorder/cell phone pirate until the police arrive, just as a shopkeeper can do with a suspected shoplifter (some form of Citizen's Arrest I take it). I'd like to see how this plays out in the real world.

Of course, this law means nothing outside of the US, where most camcordering takes place. Here we're much more sophisticated, using Academy screeners or post-production sources... [Big Grin]

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-28-2005, 11:18 AM:

Does this mean that if the theatre has posted signs or shown trailers warning that using a camera on site is prohibited, that they could legally seize the camera as evidence, and demand personal identification (e.g., a driver's license) so the police or FBI can prosecute the owner? [Confused]

I personally would not want to attempt to physically restrain or "detain" the person until the authorities arrive. [uhoh]

Posted by Adam Wilbert (Member # 1184) on 04-28-2005, 12:09 PM:

thats why you verify their activities while doing a theatre check, then let them sit in their comfy theatre, merrily recording away, until the police do arrive. [Big Grin]

I too am interested to see how this plays out. We should start a film-tech pool: first person to have someone arrested under the new law wins!

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 04-28-2005, 12:56 PM:

Won't be our theater!
...Last time some jackoff brought a camera into the theater it was to take pictures of each other...Some theater party nonsense.

I can see the large chain theaters pulling this crap at some point.

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 04-28-2005, 01:11 PM:

Is it illegal to take pictures of the theatre itself with a camcorder now?? I have videotape from over 10 years ago of the theater I worked, with pictures of the inside of the theaters and the booth, I did NOT tape any movies (I did shoot a few seconds off one of the screens to show how bad it looks when you try to do that though, there's a bad flickering). I still don't think that's a viable way to steal a movie, but does this mean it's now a crime to shoot anything at all inside a theater??
Does this mean no more training videos either? [Wink]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-28-2005, 03:16 PM:

I haven't read the law in question, but I'm sure it contains wording to the effect that using a camcorder to record a movie off the screen is what's illegal.

Anyone watch the MTV show "Punk'd"? It recently had an episode where the victim sat in a theatre, and a guy next to him set up a camera for the purpose of recording...then left to "use the bathroom," whereupon the theatre people came in, accused the victim of camcording the movie and said "you'd better come with us." Then the camera owner came back, the victim said "there's the guy who owns it," and the camera guy denied knowing about it. It was pretty funny.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-28-2005, 03:18 PM:

Because, of course, there is no such thing as a public-domain movie. [Roll Eyes]

How (or will) this affect multiplexes which use security cameras (with no recording capability) to monitor the on-screen image from a remote location?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-28-2005, 03:18 PM:

Of course they mean video COPIES of feature films or other copyrighted material, not training videos made in the booth or concession area by authorized personnel. Live, non-recorded video for monitoring and security purposes of the screen or auditorium are likely not a concern.

As part of my work with the MPAA and FBI on the original (very tiny dot pattern) Kodak CAP Code team, I've seen enough pirated videos that were shot off screen with camcorders to know that it can be done with minimal flicker. On some, the quality is very poor, but others are remarkably good.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-28-2005, 03:33 PM:

Camera phones is taking things WAY too far. Whoever put that into the law should be beaten with a videocamera until they are dead.

Today's videocameras though are another story. A 24P DV camera can produce damned near DVD quality copies shot right off of the screen.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-28-2005, 03:46 PM:

Brad: You let the "cat out of the bag" on frame rate. [Wink]

Posted by Adam Wilbert (Member # 1184) on 04-28-2005, 09:52 PM:

Brad, do you have any 24p camcorder recomendations? I'm suddenly in the market for one. [Wink]

The law doesn't say "camera phones" but it fits the description to a T:

quote:
AUDIOVISUAL RECORDING DEVICE.—The term ‘audiovisual recording device’ means a digital or analog photographic or video camera, or any other technology or device capable of enabling the recording or transmission of a copyrighted motion picture or other audiovisual work, or any part there-of, regardless of whether audiovisual recording is the sole or primary purpose of the device.

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 04-29-2005, 12:28 AM:

That description includes still cameras. Take your camera into a movie theatre, be prepared to go up against the wall.

"Any part" means would easily be interpreted as encompassing a still photo of a copyrighted motion picture.

It may be stupid & you can call it stupid, but I wouldn't encourage anyone to try it, find out, & pay for the results.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 04-29-2005, 04:41 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
You may now say with total confidence to patrons and local law enforcement that it is a federal crime to use a camcorder in a movie theatre.

This is nothing new. It has been a federal crime for decades to copy films (except a single protection copy of a video that you already bought) by any method in any place at any time. What this law changes is that before, for a theatre owner to detain someone there could be lots of legal consequences. Those seem to be removed with the new provision.

The law does not extend the copyright protection of the copyright owners as has been done so many times in the past, but it seems to be geared to encouraging theatre personnel to become enforcers for the film companies. Unlike the store owner who detains a shoplifter, the theatre owner has no vested interest in stopping the video pirate unless there's probable cause that he's stealing nachos or popcorn from concessions.

So now the theatre owner, who the studio gives a whopping 10% of the ticket sales, is now expected to become the video police to protect the studios' product. Hey studioman, you want me to watch all my screens from first frame to last, them let me take grand or two off the top of the 20 to 60 MILLION you make the first weekend. Then I would be happy to hire extra personnel, even security guards to protect YOUR product. Barring that, you are free to hire whomever you want....you know, like how you have no qualms about hiring checkers to send into the theatres to make sure the exhibitor doesn't steal a penny from your 90%, so hire all the checkers you want to police all the screens your picture is playing on, I'll be happy to sell them all the tickets they want, but don't come around looking to put an extra financial burden on me or expect that I will put my people in harms way to feed your infringement paranoia.

I consider the theatre owner's reasonable effort to stop piracy in his theatre is fullfilled as soon as he posts a sign or two
saying that "The use of recording devices of any kind, anywhere in the theatre, is strictly prohibited and may result in federal criminal prosecution." Period. Responsibility complete. And I would post them about as infrequently as you see "All shoplifters will be prosecuted" signs in other commercial establishments.

HELLO....shoplifters don't need signs to know that shoplifting is a criminal offence. Movie pirates don't need signs or some stupid trailer to know that aiming a video camera at the screen is illegal. The only thing those signs and ESPECIALLY that trailer will do is insult your law-abiding customers who already plunked down their hard-earned money.

I'll reluctantly post a sign or two as inconspicuously as I can, I MIGHT tell ushers to keep an eye out for cams (and then simply point out that they are not permitted. but I won't run that trailer and I most DEFINATELY won't ever ask my theatre personnel to try to hold a pirate to wait for the cops (yah, like in NYC, a cop is gonna come lickety-split because some jerk pointed a camera at the screen....you might have to pin that pirate down on the ground for an hour before you'll get a live cop in your theatre). I don't think that is going to be on the top of their list of dangerous, life-threatening crimes that they have to hustle too. And besides....I'm sure they would be thinking, let the FBI deal with it -- after all, it's the FBI that has it's moniker emblazened in red on every laser dick, every DVD and every video....I'm sure the cops will only be to happy to let them send in their boys to deal with it.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-29-2005, 09:16 AM:

quote: Frank Angel
HELLO....shoplifters don't need signs to know that shoplifting is a criminal offence. Movie pirates don't need signs or some stupid trailer to know that aiming a video camera at the screen is illegal. The only thing those signs and ESPECIALLY that trailer will do is insult your law-abiding customers who already plunked down their hard-earned money.

Posting signs fulfills any legal requirements of formal notification.

Millions of dollars are spend putting legal notices in obscure newspapers that almost no one reads, but they are often a requirement of the law:

http://www.topekametro.com/legal%20archives%202003/legals09-17-04.html

http://www.plattecountylandmark.com/legal.htm

quote:
The Landmark Newspaper
Is The Leader in Legal Notice Publication For Platte County.
No other Platte County newspaper publishes more legal notices.
To subscribe or for more information, call us at 816-858-0363.
Are you with a law firm looking to place a
FORECLOSURE NOTICE?
A PROBATE NOTICE?
CONDEMNATION?
REQUEST FOR BIDS?
AN ELECTION NOTICE?
The Landmark's rates on publishing LEGAL NOTICES are the lowest around.

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 04-29-2005, 07:35 PM:

Quote Frank Angel:

"What this law changes is that before, for a theatre owner to detain someone there could be lots of legal consequences. Those seem to be removed with the new provision."

We would sure hope so, Frank. My fear is in the wording "detain in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time". Won't the lawyers have fun with that? [Eek!]

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 04-30-2005, 03:20 AM:

quote: John Pytlak
Of course they mean video COPIES of feature films or other copyrighted material, not training videos made in the booth or concession area by authorized personnel. Live, non-recorded video for monitoring and security purposes of the screen or auditorium are likely not a concern.

that may be the intent, but:

quote:
The term ‘audiovisual recording device’ means a digital or analog photographic or video camera, or any other technology or device capable of enabling the recording or transmission of a copyrighted motion picture or other audiovisual work, or any part there-of, regardless of whether audiovisual recording is the sole or primary purpose of the device.

and of course, as scott points out, not everything is copyrighted! i have had a film, one that i made, videotaped in a movie theater. i would do so again, too, the law be damned.

carl

Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 04-30-2005, 03:46 AM:

You don't have to worry about camcordering your own works, or, you can camcorder others works with their permission -

"(a) Offense- Any person who, without the authorization of the copyright owner, knowingly uses or attempts to use an audiovisual recording device to transmit or make a copy of a motion picture or other audiovisual work protected under title 17..."

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-01-2005, 09:14 PM:

If the law really does apply only to the recording of copyrighted works without permission from the copyright holder, then I can't say that I really have a problem with it. [thumbsup]