backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 58 comment(s) - last by xphile.. on Jul 23 at 11:37 PM

Anti-camcording law throws movie pirates behind bars

A Grandview, Montana man was arrested late last Friday for allegedly videotaping the new box-office smash Batman movie, “The Dark Knight.”

According to reports at the Kansas City Star, police were called around 9:40 p.m. to the Eastglen 16 cinemaplex in Lee’s Summit, Missouri, after theater personnel spotted a customer attempting to videotape the movie. The man, whose name was not released, was arrested shortly afterwards. A police raid at his house found “evidence” of a cache of pirate DVDs.

The report made no indication of whom, if anyone, the man might be working for.

It appears that the MPAA and publisher Warner Bros. are taking piracy extremely seriously this weekend, as “The Dark Knight” grossed more than $66.4 million – a new record – on the day it opened. Complimenting the movie’s blowout opening figures is the fact that almost 50,000 voters say the movie is worth a 9.5 rating on IMDb.com, placing it as “the best movie of all time” and beating out other classic films like The Godfather, Schindler’s List, and Casablanca.

TorrentFreak reports that movie industry representatives handed out night vision goggles to Australian theaters in an effort to prevent “camming,” or the act of videotaping a movie as it plays in theaters. Both the United States and Canada have “anti-camcording” legislation in effect, and this Grandview man’s plight is only the latest case to achieve worldwide publicity. A Montreal, Canada man was arrested last September for attempting to record “Dan in Real Life,” and a Virginia teenager was arrested one month prior for attempting to record 20 seconds from “Transformers” on a Canon Powershot digital camera.

The Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association will go so far as to offer theater employees a $500 reward for stopping cammers in their tracks.

In the United States, the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act, signed into law in 2005, makes camcording movies a federal felony, subjecting those caught to a maximum of five years in prison and $250,000 in fines.

Despite box office numbers sitting at an all-time high, the movie industry still claims $250m in losses due to movie piracy in its various forms.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

proportion
By tastyratz on 7/21/2008 9:35:52 AM , Rating: 5
I have to say my ears perked right up.
FELONY!?!?!?!
Did anyone else catch that?
Third degree identity theft is a misdemeanor and a camcorder in a movie theater regardless of your intentions with the tape is considered a FELONY!?!??

I wonder how many people got a free Mercedes courtesy of the MPAA for that one. If you ask me, that is FAR FAR out of proportion.




RE: proportion
By phattyboombatty on 7/21/2008 9:59:51 AM , Rating: 5
I was about to post the same comment before I saw yours. I agree completely. I about fell out of my chair when I read that it was a felony.

Felonies: murder, rape, kidnapping, arson, unauthorized videotaping of a movie


RE: proportion
By masher2 (blog) on 7/21/2008 10:19:58 AM , Rating: 2
Err, you forget a few felonies...the list is much, much longer. Simple possession (not use) of a weapon can net a felony charge, as can possession of a controlled substance. Cruelty to animals now has a felony variant, as does a huge host of property crimes such as larceny, forgery, receiving stolen property, and even (in some jurisdictions) resisting arrest.


RE: proportion
By phattyboombatty on 7/21/2008 10:57:03 AM , Rating: 3
Likewise, I could list many crimes that are commonly misdemeanors, not felonies, that most people would consider much more serious than videotaping a movie such as sexual assault, battery, DUI, etc.

Several of the felonies you listed would also be included (by me) in the category of crimes that should not be felonies. The sentencing disparities between crimes are even worse. My local community was a bit upset when it was discovered that a guy charged with a recent murder had actually been convicted of murder ten years ago and already was out of jail (he got a 15 yr sentence and only had to serve about 7 years, and that was with a long prior history of felony convictions). Had the same dude been convicted in federal court for possessing crack, he'd probably still be in jail.


RE: proportion
By just4U on 7/21/2008 12:33:26 PM , Rating: 3
I really don't know what to say to this sort of thing. People who download the movie are NOT likely to go see it anyway in my opinion. So 5 years in prison seems rather excessive. What do you get for video taping actors/actresses in compromising situations? 5- 10? No, you get paid huge sums of money for that. Things seem kind of screwed up if you ask me.


RE: proportion
By Souka on 7/21/2008 7:01:45 PM , Rating: 2
" maximum of five years in prison and $250,000 in fines"

MAXIMUM....

so if you're a college kid caught...a bunch of pirated DVDs/CDs in your dorm room found..but no obvious distribution intnent... figure a slap on the wrist...likely reduced so no felony on your record.

However... if you're a repeat copyright offender, large number of pirated material found in your appt/home...and intent to distribute... you'll likely get a larger consequence...

The judges assigning the penalities of this crime know that putting a copyright criminal behind bar for years means that a rapist/murderer (or similar offender) will likely be released sooner than later... so will often have a light sentence.

My $.02


RE: proportion
By phattyboombatty on 7/22/2008 10:30:53 AM , Rating: 2
You're right that there is some flexibility in the sentencing and that a first-time offender with a clean record will almost certainly not get a setence close to the maximum. However, there's no getting around the fact that the crime is a felony so that college kid you mentioned can kiss his voting rights goodbye along with his right to own a firearm. He would also find that his ability to get a job is severely curtailed.


RE: proportion
By Cheapshot on 7/23/2008 12:02:29 PM , Rating: 2
Depends on where the judges salary is subsidized from.


RE: proportion
By masher2 (blog) on 7/22/2008 10:08:15 AM , Rating: 2
> "People who download the movie are NOT likely to go see it anyway in my opinion"

People who steal Porsches are not likely to buy one either.


RE: proportion
By 4play on 7/22/2008 10:38:46 AM , Rating: 2
yeah, they wouldn't either. The difference is that they're hurting some by stealing the Porsche, the owner doesn't have it anymore. While the people who "steal" movies don't hurt anyone.


RE: proportion
By AnnihilatorX on 7/22/2008 1:16:11 PM , Rating: 2
What a coincidence a friend of mine was asking me where he can download a movie which is just up on the cinema. I told him well the ones you can download is probably cammed and he'd be better going to the cinema to watch it, or wait for the DVD.
He replied that he'd heard bad reviews so he's not going to pay for it, and the download is to satisfy his curiosity.


RE: proportion
By 4play on 7/22/2008 1:59:49 PM , Rating: 2
Whats your point? Sounds to me that he didn't want to watch it because it got bad reviews. Maybe Hollywood should make good movies to prevent piracy then, no?


RE: proportion
By JonnyBlaze on 7/22/2008 11:42:29 AM , Rating: 3
Downloading movies is not stealing.


RE: proportion
By kake on 7/22/2008 12:47:03 AM , Rating: 3
So by subtly suggesting I don't want the police to handcuff me I could receive a felony? That's impressive. I can see the headlines now: "Man Resists Cuffs Receives Chair"


RE: proportion
By UNHchabo on 7/22/2008 1:10:20 PM , Rating: 2
I know you were speaking in hyperbole, but this season the Supreme Court made it so that nobody can be executed for any offense which doesn't result in someone's death. In this particular case it involved the rape of a child, but I remember hearing about cases back in the early 20th century where people were executed for bank robberies, and stuff like that, even when nobody was killed.


RE: proportion
By das mod on 7/22/2008 3:22:48 PM , Rating: 4
"-what are you in here for?
-i raped my mother and decapitated my father, you?
-i tried to video tape The Dark Night"

....


RE: proportion
By Schrag4 on 7/21/2008 10:05:28 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I have to agree with you on this one. There are people in the US that, well, go a long way toward ruining other people's lives that basically get a slap on the wrist compared to this. Of course it depends where you live and what the judges are like there...


RE: proportion
By Moishe on 7/21/2008 11:01:55 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah... felony is going a bit far.
I think a decent penalty would simply be to permanently confiscate any equipment involved, a small fine < $500, and an entry in the person's record.