p2pnet - rss feed: Camcording in cinemas
p2pnet.net news view:- Can you castigate an entire nation for the ill deeds of a few? Hollywood says you can and so, apparently, does the current Canadian government.
There have always been crooks and criminals looking out for Number One, and and there always will be. And it’s no different online.
Back in the days before the Net, home-made and professionally created counterfeits and duplicates known as bootlegs would ruin the movie and music industries, spokesman such as the the late Jack Valenti cried hysterically. But what happened? Exactly nothing. Meanwhile, both entertainment sectors continue to rake in eye-popping, mind-boggling profits. Just as they’ve always done.
Now they’re saying p2p technology and file sharing are devastating them. And, as part of their always-on disinformation programme, they’re insisting on lumping the men, women, and children who share digital files with each other together with counterfeiters and duplicaters, although the two groups bear absolutely no relation with, or to, each other.
Sharing used to be seen as something special - a good thing. Now it’s a criminal activity, according to the music and movie industries.
Before the Net and the arrival of 21st century digital technologies, taping music from the radio or from records, or copying movies on VCRs, was The Way. These days the process is far more complicated, but the end result is the same: backups of valuable sounds and motion; or, home-made copies to be shared in a very limited way with friends and family.
What isn’t acceptable however, is copying something by whatever means with the clear intent of selling it. That’s criminal, and people caught at it should be prosecuted to the fullest.
However, sharing is just that. Sharing. No money changes hands, no profits are made or lost, and nobody is deprived of something he or she used to own, and trying to equate people who share files with people who criminally copy them is like saying apples are oranges. To the contrary, it could be, and often is, said that far from depriving anybody of anything, sharing is an invaluable way of promoting it.
A reader sent me a scan from the May, 2007, Vogue magazine. It says Canadian singer songwriter Leslie Feist spent nearly three years touring for her last solo album.
It goes on, “When she played her first US show, she was surprised to find a full house singing along to her every word. Since the album hadn’t yet been released Stateside, she asked the audience how it knew the lyrics.
” ‘Illegal downloads!’ It yelled.”
And there are countless other examples.
But back to the charge being levelled at Canada and Canadians by Hollywood, that they’re using tiny hand-held camera recorders to illegally copy feature movies, I wouldn’t question that this is happening: I’d only question the extent. I’d also suggest the techniques being used to apprehend the alleged criminals are likely to cause more trouble for the audience than the bad guys.
Sending ushers equipped with night vision goggles creeping down corridors trying to spot camcording criminals is far more likely to interfere with the audience viewing pleasures than to result in the capture of illicit copiers. Professional camcording crooks aren’t stupid enough to be sitting there more or less openly aiming video camcorders at the big screen. So how do they get away with it?
Only name the ways …
One of the problems confronting the corporate entertainment industry is the fact the criminals it’s trying to nail tend to be far more technically advanced than the people running the corporations, their anti-piracy operatives or the members of the police forces who are trying to apprehend them.
How do the crooks do it? Only name the ways. And here’s one way a technically adept criminal might go about things, suggests a p2pnet reader >>>>>
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.
And while Hollywood screams it’s being ruined, it’s simultaneously reporting better-than-ever-before profits.
Jon Newton - p2pnet
Also See:
castigate an entire nation - Canada caves in to Hollywood, May 11, 2007
late Jack Valenti - Jack Valenti dies, aged 85, April 27, 2007
If your Net access is blocked by goverment restrictions, try Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at thIs the endSurvey: How Did Copyright Infringement Become Equated with Robbery? (of the Net) nigh?zze University of Toronto’s Munk Centre for International Studies. Go here for the official download, here for the p2pnet download, and here for details. And if you’re Chinese and you’re looking for a way to access independent Internet news sources, try Freegate, the DIT program written to help Chinese citizens circumvent web site blocking outside of China. Download it here.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php | | And use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site
Tired of being treated like a criminal? They depend on you, not the other way around. Don’t buy their ‘product’. Do bug your local politicians. Use emails, snail-mail, phone calls, faxes, IM, stop them in the street, blog. And if you’re into organizing, organize petitions, organize demonstrations and then turn up on your local political rep’s doorstep, making sure you’ve contacted your local tv/radio station/newspaper in advance. Don’t just complain. Do something!
May 13th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
In one week, it was reported that Spider-man 3 made over 600 million dollars. Even if you take into account that it cost $700 million to make, market and distribute, Sony only has to make $100 million more to start making a profit. They haven’t even started with the 5 different versions of DVD sales yet, so it seems very likely that Spider-man 3 will start showing a profit sometime this week.
Regardless of whether or not Spider-man 3 was a good movie or not, how has downloading affected it’s ability to turn a profit?
Even I have a home theater system, and occasionally, I buy pirated copies of movies, but when I do, they are always crappy quality recordings of equally crappy movies. The movies generally suck to begin with. It has nothing to do with my pirated copy. I wouldn’t even pay $2 to rent the movie, let alone pay $30 to go see it with my wife at the theatre. Why support an industry that makes shit?
Every once and awhile, a movie is released that I make the effort to go to see at the theatre, but that has everything to do with quality of movies Hollywood has been releasing and nothing to do with whether or not I can download it off the internet. If it’s a really good movie, I’ll even buy a legit DVD so I can get all the extras that don’t usually appear on pirated copies.
The other problem I see, is there is so much money spent on promotion and release dates to get the hype up, yet studios continue to release movies in foreign markets months after they are released in North America. Sometimes I have no choice but to download the movie since I live in one of those foreign markets.
When Spiderman 3 was released here in S. Korea, 4 days before the NA release, I was one of the first people in the theatres. Why wait 4 days to download it off a NA server when I can see it in all it’s glory on the big screen today?
May 14th, 2007 at 4:19 am
because you owe them for those movies that sucked too that never made their money back.
May 14th, 2007 at 9:49 am
The reason they did not make their money back because it most likely sucked. By making a good product and reforming their business practices, movie makers could be rolling in the dough. I watched a movie called. “Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning.” This parody was of good quality and had many special effects, yet it was produced in a two room flat by 5 friends and only cost a few thousand dollars.
This proves that good quality movies can be done on the cheap. Viral marketing can advertise and promote these movies and allow immense profit. With the marketing clout that the cartels enjoy, they should be able to make grat profits with the help of talented actors and producers.
See http://www.starwreck.com/ for more information and to legally download for free.
May 14th, 2007 at 11:40 am
While we can largely agree that camcordering isn’t a serious problem, what is the harm of actually making this activity clearly illegal and easy to prosecute?
I believe there are benefits. With this trivially wrong (but insignificant) problem out of the way, it may reduce some of the pressure to pass laws making the personal ownership/control of technology (IE: anti-circumvention, AKA: TPM/DRM protection laws). I don’t think anyone will be negatively impacted by a law against camcordering in theaters, but all creativity and the basic property rights (and dependant rights) of all citizens will be harmed by laws against the private ownership/control of technology.
I believe that opposing anti-camcording laws is harmful to our cause. Clarify this as being a low priority with little to no evidence of harm, but please don’t claim that camcordering movies should be legal.
May 14th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
hmmm, I agree it should be illegal. But I see it as a move by the copyright cartel to get a law on the books that involves copying a work that requires no actual distribution and of course will have a large penalty… they are hoping for ca$h to be paid to them of course.
May 15th, 2007 at 2:43 am
Those movies don’t profit because no one goes to see them because they’re crappy movies. I don’t owe them anything for crappy movies, however they may owe me for wasting 2 hours of my life that I will never get back. It’s simple. Make good movies people will go see and you will profit. Make shitty movies that no one wants to see, and you won’t make a dime.
May 15th, 2007 at 8:07 am
“I don’t think anyone will be negatively impacted by a law against camcordering in theaters, but all creativity and the basic property rights (and dependant rights) of all citizens will be harmed by laws against the private ownership/control of technology.”
Wrong. Probable some innocent tourist who knows nothing about local laws will be arrested and destroyed for life. This is what will happen to the victim:
a. The vacation will be ended.
b.will need to morgage his future to hire a lawyer.
c. He/she caanot leave the country until proseuted and has served whatever sentence was give.
d. The employment or studies back home will end.
e. With a criminal record all future employment is at risk.
f. The way out is to become a homeless drug addict or a drug dealer.