Comments on: Canada caves in to Hollywood http://www.p2pnet.net/story/12194 p2pnet.net - reader powered Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:11:09 -0300 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/12194/comment-page-1#comment-138178 Reader's Write Sun, 13 May 2007 18:25:05 +0000 #comment-138178 Depending on the price of the bribe, that may be too expensive. How much money would you want to get in order to risk 9 years in prison? If nailed, would you talk? Keep in mind that movies also have embedded watermarks which uniquely identify a film. If a cam is "too good" it USUALLY means that the cammer has had inside help. The only way I would trust a bribed manager or projectionist is if I were the projectionists or manager, or if I was friends with that person long before he or she worked in the theatre. Depending on the price of the bribe, that may be too expensive. How much money would you want to get in order to risk 9 years in prison? If nailed, would you talk? Keep in mind that movies also have embedded watermarks which uniquely identify a film. If a cam is “too good” it USUALLY means that the cammer has had inside help. The only way I would trust a bribed manager or projectionist is if I were the projectionists or manager, or if I was friends with that person long before he or she worked in the theatre.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/12194/comment-page-1#comment-138154 Reader's Write Sun, 13 May 2007 14:58:36 +0000 #comment-138154 Or you could just bribe the projectionist or manager. Or you could just bribe the projectionist or manager.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/12194/comment-page-1#comment-138121 Reader's Write Fri, 11 May 2007 14:51:37 +0000 #comment-138121 If I were going to cam a movie, I would have the following: 1. A small, wireless video camera with audio. 2. A cellphone equipped with a small, inconspicuous earphone but without video capability. 3. A partner on the outside of the theatre with a video receiver and another cellphone. 4. A video receiver with monitor. 5. A video recording device. I would conceal the wireless video camera in a hat or other article of clothing and sit so that the camera was aimed towards the screen. My partner would give me instructions that would allow me to adjust the camera's aim. Once the movie started, my partner would start the recording to capture the received video. Depending on the wording of the policy, I would not be technically breaking the policy since I would not have any video recording device in my possession if caught. I could say that I brought it in because I did not want anyone to steal it from my car. An entry in my checkbook stub will show that I recently purchased the equipment from a private person. If I'm busted, my partner only has to cash the check Since there is no video recording equipment (or recording itself) in my possession, there would be no real proof that I actually recorded a movie or intended to. Therefore, reasonable doubt may enter the equation. The cashed check and the entry in my checkbook would give me plausible deniability. If the wording of the law states that only mere possession of any kind of camera is grounds for conviction, then that would mean that just about everyone with a cellphone would be committing a crime. This would be a great issue to point out in any court. If I were going to cam a movie, I would have the following:

1. A small, wireless video camera with audio.

2. A cellphone equipped with a small, inconspicuous earphone but without video capability.

3. A partner on the outside of the theatre with a video receiver and another cellphone.

4. A video receiver with monitor.

5. A video recording device.

I would conceal the wireless video camera in a hat or other article of clothing and sit so that the camera was aimed towards the screen. My partner would give me instructions that would allow me to adjust the camera’s aim. Once the movie started, my partner would start the recording to capture the received video.

Depending on the wording of the policy, I would not be technically breaking the policy since I would not have any video recording device in my possession if caught. I could say that I brought it in because I did not want anyone to steal it from my car. An entry in my checkbook stub will show that I recently purchased the equipment from a private person. If I’m busted, my partner only has to cash the check Since there is no video recording equipment (or recording itself) in my possession, there would be no real proof that I actually recorded a movie or intended to. Therefore, reasonable doubt may enter the equation. The cashed check and the entry in my checkbook would give me plausible deniability. If the wording of the law states that only mere possession of any kind of camera is grounds for conviction, then that would mean that just about everyone with a cellphone would be committing a crime. This would be a great issue to point out in any court.

]]>