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

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Ground Level » Camcorder use in theatre now a federal crime (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: Camcorder use in theatre now a federal crime

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 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.

| IP: Logged

Adam Wilbert
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 590
From: Bellingham, WA, USA
Registered: Mar 2002

posted 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 ]

| IP: Logged

David Buckley
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 525
From: Oxford, N. Canterbury, New Zealand
Registered: Aug 2004

posted 04-27-2005 09:43 PM

"With reasonable cause"

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

| IP: Logged

Paul Mayer
Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under!

Posts: 3836
From: Albuquerque, NM
Registered: Feb 2000

posted 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]

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 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]

| IP: Logged

Adam Wilbert
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 590
From: Bellingham, WA, USA
Registered: Mar 2002

posted 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!

| IP: Logged

Dominic Espinosa
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1172
From: California, U.S.A.
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 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.

| IP: Logged

Jesse Skeen
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1517
From: Sacramento, CA
Registered: Aug 2000

posted 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]

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 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.

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 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?

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 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.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 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.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 04-28-2005 03:46 PM

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

| IP: Logged

Adam Wilbert
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 590
From: Bellingham, WA, USA
Registered: Mar 2002

posted 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.

| IP: Logged

William Hooper
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1879
From: Mobile, AL USA
Registered: Jun 99

posted 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.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.