p2pnet - rss feed: MPAA vs Kids with Camcorders
p2p news / p2pnet: Having fired another salvo in Japan against kids with camcorders, the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America)’s own NATO organization wants to keep it happening.
The National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO) is among other things highlighting its cinema ushers’ bounty hunter program under which sleuths with flashlights who turn in patrons can “earn” up to $500 for, “reporting illegal recording activity”.
The news comes in the FightFilmTheft.org, a supposed ‘training’ body set up by the MPAA’s six owners, Time Warner, Viacom, Fox, Sony, NBC Universal and Disney.
“Illegal camcording in movie theaters is the source of over 90% of all illegally copied movies in their initial release form,” says NATO.
“The FightFilmTheft.org training program consists of a tutorial and quiz that outline the ‘who, what, where’ signs of camcording piracy,” states the MPAA, boasting that since 2004, US theater workers have, “successfully stopped 69 camcording incidents and the program has paid out rewards to 30 people”.
A similar $500 reward program exists for theater employees who take action to stop film theft in Canada, it adds.
Strangely, Sony still hasn’t been sued for producing millions of easy-to-hide mini camcorders and associated equipment of the exact type the other five MPAA owners are complaining about.
Also See:
another salvo - Hollywood’s Japan anti-p2p bill, March 12, 2006
exact type - Sony’s newest camcorder, February 22, 2006
March 13th, 2006 at 8:14 pm
yeh, right and the hollywood people who send screeners get to skate away free
March 14th, 2006 at 6:09 pm
Is there any legal use for camcorder?
Certainly they cannot be used for a birthday party, after all “Happy Birthday” is copyrighted (stolen from the public domain library may be a better word).
Also they cannot record any human activity, as a licence is required to record anyone’s image.
March 14th, 2006 at 6:20 pm
Are parents responsible or is the reponsible person who sold the kid the camcorder? Or is it the person who gave the camcorder to the kid as a gift? Or is the manufacturer of the camcorder responsible for the inducement?
Ansdwhat of the theater owner? After all, his/her projector and screens were used in the recording process Is the thater owner not a RIAA criminal like to the parent that owns the computers used by the kids to download songs?
Pehaps the RIAA lawyers should go to Japapn to advise the judges there on thier “theory of reponsibility theory”.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
March 15th, 2006 at 6:18 pm
Stolen from public domain? Laughable. It was never IN the public domain.
March 15th, 2006 at 6:18 pm
No, this is good. Who wants to watch those lame theater versions anyway? This will help only VCD’s be distributed.
March 15th, 2006 at 9:30 pm
The Melody to “Happy Birthday” is in the public domain. It was whatever one calls the converse of a lullaby, where mother’s would sing “Good Morning to You” to their infants or toddlers upon rousing them from bed in the 19th Century. The lyrics, however were adapted by the sisters (the name escapes me at the moment) from Kentucky. The lyrics were not actually copyrighted until some forty years after they were created, hence the appearance of a perpetual copyright.
Incidentally, the melody to the Star Spangled Banner was an old English drinking song that Francis Scott Key put the words to. He never asserted a copyright over them. I don’t know what those who slap an “encircled-C” on a rendition of the song think they are doing, but an infringement suit would likely get laughed out of court.
It would be like the RIAA trying to sue someone for having “Amazing Grace” in their shared directory.
–TG
March 15th, 2006 at 9:35 pm
You do not need a ‘license’ to record anyone’s image if they are out in public (in the US.) What you do with such an image may, in narrow circumstances, require a release. There is an provision for well known people called the “right of publicity” whereby they can take legal action if their image is used in a commercial context without their authorization.
One perfectly legal use for a camcorder is as a doorstop.
–TG
March 15th, 2006 at 9:44 pm
Judging from what I see posted on torrent sites, it would seem that most of the initial ‘leaks’ originate from within the motion picture industry, based on the number of screeners, working prints, etc, versus the number of ‘CAMs’. If there is a screener and a CAM version of the same film concurrently posted on a site, the CAM torrent usually dies a quick death.
I guess it’s easier to make teenagers with camcorders the boogeyman than it is to ruffle feathers in tinseltown tracking down those dastardly evil-doers on the inside who “spoil the magic of the movies for everyone.”
–TG
March 16th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
“but an infringement suit would likely get laughed out of court”
But in the meantime Star Spangled Banner is licensed by the performance collectives for profit and people are threated with lawsuits if they do not buy the collective licenses. Also anyone sued for using the star Spangled Banner will be advised by a lawyer to settle, that being more economical to get the court to laugh. Remember the download lawsuits and their settlement offers.
March 16th, 2006 at 1:18 pm
Fine, but do you know a camcorder owning kid who knows anything about the law?
Some questions:
What happens when you have a country of people who know nothing about the laws thay have to abide?
The solution is LEGAL GUIDES
Legislators/politicians should legislate so that when products require legal know how for proper use the product is sold with a legal guide. A camcorder is a good example. Any kid can run foul with the laws very easily… and wind up in jail for many years.
The law should apply to camcorder, cd burners, computers, tape recorder, mp3 players, etc. Anything that can make a criminal of a kid.
Sounds so simple I am amazed no one thought of it before. It is only fair that kids know what is prohibited before jailing them for breaking the rules. It’s the decent thing to do.
Of course there would be some minor problems with the making of the guides. Here are some:
- The guides would be written by lawyers and no one would understand what they say. After all everything depends on how a judge interprets the law and their ultra complex and frequently contradictory jurisprudence.
- Different guide would be required for each state, each country. Can you imagine a camcorder that costs $100 to make in China but 500 legal guides add a cost of $500?
- Kids have no patience to read complex instructions. When they buy a product they want to use it immediately. To master the contents of the legal guides would probably take a year of guide reading and legal studies.
- By the time the guides are read by the kids, they are probably obsolete… made obsolete by recent case jurisprudence.
- No lawyer may be willing to put their names on the guide. After all they could be sued if the slip with the slippery copyright laws and the related case jusrisprudence.
- No matter what one lawyers says about the law, another one will say the opposite. That is what the do all the time. It’s called litigation. So the guide, to be fair, must include the various legal theories that may apply so that the kids choose the one they like the most.
There will surely be many more problems with the guides, but they can all be overcome with dillgence and hard work of the brilliant legislators that people typically elect and that wind up in the copyright comitees in the legislatures.
Does anyone agree with me? Or are we going to jail all the kids?
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com