MPAA Pushes Lawmakers to Criminalize Movie Camming

[Hairbautt]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v383/Hairbautt/News%20Images/CamPiracy.gif"The MPAA is currently on a world tour trying to convince politicians to introduce legislation that criminalizes the recording of movies in cinemas. The MPAA already succeeded in Canada, Japan and Italy, and their next stop is the UK."

"Their goal is to make movie camming a criminal instead of a civil offense to clear the way for more severe punishments. New laws often allow punishments up to several years jail time and exorbitant fines.

This week MPAA chairman Dan Glickman is visiting the UK to talk to UK film minister Margaret Hodge, advisors to the UK prime minister Gordon Brown, and representatives from the UK Film Council. Glickman will probably sum up the familiar made-up statistics we read in every MPAA press release to convince the lawmakers that pirates are in fact terrorists.

Crazy or not, unfortunately it seems like their approach is working. Theater owners slowly start to alienate their customers and go as fas as using metal detectors and night-vision goggles to track down movie cammers. Everyone could be a pirate these days and theater employees are trained and rewarded up to $500 for catching pirates.

As a result, a Virgin[i]a teenager was busted for recording a few seconds of the movie “Transformers” on her cell-phone. The only thing she wanted to do was show it to her 13 year old brother, however, under a new Zero-Tolerance Policy, police responded to the call from Regal Cinemas who promptly arrested Sejas.

On a sidenote, Hollywood just had its best summer ever. In a response to this great news MPAA chairman Dan Glickman said “As Shakespeare said, ‘The play is the thing.’ As long as we offer good quality stories that people like and a comfortable place to see them, people will go to the movies.” A comfortable place? Right."

:source: Source: TorrentFreak (http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-to-criminalize-movie-camming-070905/)

[Flash360]

They should, cams really suck :whistling

[WHiKWiRE]

They should, cams really suck :whistling

You took the words right out of my mouth. :lol:

[TheFoX]

In a response to this great news MPAA chairman Dan Glickman said “As Shakespeare said, ‘The play is the thing.’ As long as we offer good quality stories that people like and a comfortable place to see them, people will go to the movies.”


Well Dan, you'll find that you cannot get more comfortable than your own home.

That is the real crux behind the cinema. It is an outdated mode of delivery that was conceived in the days when television was not a medium for viewing. These days, many people have a home cinema setup, or very nearly, and most people prefer to view in the comfort, and the privacy, of their own home.

The last time I visited the cinema, I left half way through the film because a group of juveniles were ruining it for me, and the only two options open were to leave, or to get into a fight. In this instance, I don't think night vision goggles or metal detectors would have made any difference.

Ironic that undesirable people can ruin the cinema experience (mpaa hype) and the cinema is not interested one bit, yet produce some sort of recording device (cam, phone etc.) and they sit up and take note.

As for me, I beleive in having a choice. If I buy a DVD, I can watch it over and over again, yet the cinema only offers a one shot viewing, and you have to pay to watch it a second time (or a third time). That means that the price of a cinema ticket is actually very poor value for money.

[Mister Moo]

In a response to this great news MPAA chairman Dan Glickman said “As Shakespeare said, ‘The play is the thing.’ As long as we offer good quality stories that people like and a comfortable place to see them, people will go to the movies.”
Well Dan, you'll find that you cannot get more comfortable than your own home.

That is the real crux behind the cinema. It is an outdated mode of delivery that was conceived in the days when television was not a medium for viewing. These days, many people have a home cinema setup, or very nearly, and most people prefer to view in the comfort, and the privacy, of their own home.

The last time I visited the cinema, I left half way through the film because a group of juveniles were ruining it for me, and the only two options open were to leave, or to get into a fight. In this instance, I don't think night vision goggles or metal detectors would have made any difference.

Ironic that undesirable people can ruin the cinema experience (mpaa hype) and the cinema is not interested one bit, yet produce some sort of recording device (cam, phone etc.) and they sit up and take note.

As for me, I beleive in having a choice. If I buy a DVD, I can watch it over and over again, yet the cinema only offers a one shot viewing, and you have to pay to watch it a second time (or a third time). That means that the price of a cinema ticket is actually very poor value for money.


I completely disagree with your statement, I prefer watching movies in a cimena, you just dont get that great big screen experiance at home! take 300 for example, while amazing in the cinema, it was rather dull on my own television.:)

[phantom]

I completely disagree with your statement, I prefer watching movies in a cimena, you just dont get that great big screen experiance at home! take 300 for example, while amazing in the cinema, it was rather dull on my own television.:)

yes Mr.Moo, i agree with u... the big screen of cinema is something else, unique, but do u like to walk on cinema fo view a good movie and somebody to disturb u: sorry mr. but is somebody near u who make an illegal copy... :) or something like that... so in conclusion, when u go to the cinema u pay and u go, first, to see a good movie, and second, to see this movie in quite and in a little comfort... no?

[limpdickkid]

yes Mr.Moo, i agree with u... the big screen of cinema is something else, unique, but do u like to walk on cinema fo view a good movie and somebody to disturb u: sorry mr. but is somebody near u who make an illegal copy... :) or something like that... so in conclusion, when u go to the cinema u pay and u go, first, to see a good movie, and second, to see this movie in quite and in a little comfort... no?

I have no idea as to what you just said.

But I agree with TheFox. Although I dont have a home "cinema", just a small screen, but I prefer watching movies on that with family and frineds in a more controlled environment where I dont have to buy rip-off priced snacks. Here in London if you get nachos and a drink it costs almost as much as the ticket. And if you're a student its more.

[TheFoX]

I would like to address Mister Moo's statement...


I completely disagree with your statement, I prefer watching movies in a cimena, you just dont get that great big screen experiance at home! take 300 for example, while amazing in the cinema, it was rather dull on my own television.http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/../images/smilies/smile.gif

My first sentence was...

Well Dan, you'll find that you cannot get more comfortable than your own home.

I won't comment on what sort of TV you view material on, but you have to remember that there is a massive choice of viewing equipment these days. We are no longer tied to 14" portables (hence 50" WideScreen, or even a home projector and White Screen).

Your own personal circumstances may well be different from everyone else who reads this post. I have to comment that I do find my seating at home much more comfortable than those fixed seats found at cinemas. I obviously cannot comment on the quality of your own seats, because I do not know what you sit on at home.

As for my second statement....

That is the real crux behind the cinema. It is an outdated mode of delivery that was conceived in the days when television was not a medium for viewing. These days, many people have a home cinema setup, or very nearly, and most people prefer to view in the comfort, and the privacy, of their own home.


Are you trying to tell me that something that dates back to the 1880's can compete with modern technology for deliverance. When we have cable, sattelite, digital and original analogue for delivery mechanisms, you think that leaving the comfort of your own home to travel to a dedicated building to view a show can compete with having that same material piped into your own home. I do not comment on the viewing device you use, but the method of delivery. If you chose to watch a film on a 14" portable, then seeing it on a large screen would do a film justice, but if you invest in a home cinema setup, then nothing beats being able to watch, at your leisure and in the comfort of your own home, the said material.

My final statement says it all. We should have a choice. If we wish to watch the material in an archaic institute, then that is our choice. Personally, I think the archaic institute should be for those who cannot afford to buy themselves a home cinema, as an option, with the choice to view at home for those of us who have invested in the technology to view films as they were intended to be watched.

The whole point of my post, Mister Moo, was to discuss the deliver method, and not ones own personal viewing device. I hope you finally get the point of my post.

[Mister Moo]

It is still delivered via the methods you want if you wait until the movie is out of theaters. Why would Hollywood make a movie available on disk or online when they can first make money in the cinemas then make money on the disk? Besides if it were available via modern technology on the release date it would be even easier to pirate a new product.

[spark]

2 bad!

[johnarama]

Seems a bit silly, the quality is so bad, plus someone who really wants to watch a camcorded version will eventually get their hands on a noncamcorded version (whether legally or not). The MPAA should worry more about theater conditions and theater prices... I used to be a manager at AMC Theaters, did you know that roughly 90% of box office goes back to movie studios?! Movie theaters make their money at the concession stands.

Plus, it's going to be hard stopping people from sharing movies, now there's encrypted file sharing apps that prevent outside parties from knowing what's being exchanged, like GigaTribe: www.gigatribe.com (http://www.gigatribe.com)

[true_neo]

It is still delivered via the methods you want if you wait until the movie is out of theaters. Why would Hollywood make a movie available on disk or online when they can first make money in the cinemas then make money on the disk? Besides if it were available via modern technology on the release date it would be even easier to pirate a new product.While it took me a few minutes to decipher the English used, this guy does have a point.

If people were given DRM-enabled content to watch in their own homes, they would complain because a large percentage of the not-so-computer-savvy users see "DRM" and instantly eat up what all the FUD spreaders have...well spread.

If people were given DRM free content to watch in their own homes, movie studios and theatres would lose out, and possibly even go bankrupt (a bit overdramatic, but the demographic of people preferring cinema or home may lean too heavily against movie theatres in some areas), thus removing the choice.

In short, the delay on the option for home entertainment is a double-edged sword, at least until such time as the public at large becomes more educated about DRM (that it doesn't necessarily give control of your TV/computer to The Man).

[WhiteWizard20]

Who would want to watch a 'Cam' anyways? They have poor quality, the movie will be released on DVD and eventually someone who actually 'buys' the DVD will rip it to their computer and upload it to the internet for others to download.