"Passage of the bill would add to a string of legislative successes for business since November's election, following class-action and bankruptcy reform.

The suppression of piracy has shot to the top of Hollywood's agenda amid concerns that studios could suffer the same devastation as their counterparts in the music business.

The film industry lost $3.5bn in box-office and DVD sales last year as the result of physical piracy, according to the Motion Picture Association of America, the industry's chief trade organisation, and an additional undetermined amount because of digital piracy, in which films are passed around the internet.

The Family Entertainment and Copyright Act, already approved by the Senate, is expected to be voted on by the House today and then sent to the White House for President George W. Bush's signature.

Although the camcorder bill, as it is sometimes called, has been overshadowed by the Grokster case heard before the Supreme Court, it has become a priority for the studios. It is estimated that as much as 90 per cent of pirated material originates from movies copied from the screen using digital camcorders.

Hollywood had become so concerned by the practice that studios distributed night-vision goggles to some cinemas to help staff spot pirates.

Camcording movies had previously been illegal in 21 states. However, entertainment executives are optimistic that the Justice Department will be able to take a more active role in cracking down on the practice if it becomes a federal crime."

And further down in the article

"The camcorder legislation is a very important step," said Rick Cotton, executive vice-president and general counsel at NBC Universal. "This was a priority piece of legislation for the industry."

The bill, which was lobbied for by top executives at MGM, NBC and others, also includes a provision that would permit parents to install software with the capacity to mute profanities and other potentially offensive content from DVDs.

Some entertainment executives are understood to have opposed provisions that would affect their content, although they assented in order to build broader support for the anti-piracy parts of the legislation.

The bill also includes language that would increase sanctions against consumers who upload films on to the internet before they have been released commercially.

"These two measures were things that were 'doable' in Congress without a protracted fight," said one lobbyist who worked on the bill. If passed, the bill would mark the first significant legislative victory for Dan Glickman, the new head of the MPAA, since he took over from Jack Valenti late last year."

From http://news.ft.com/cms/s/e773af06-b072-11d9-ab98-00000e2511c8.html

"The film industry lost $3.5bn in box-office and DVD sales last year as the result of physical piracy"... How do they come up with these numbers? I just looked at the list of current movies. The Amityville Horror is on top - a remake. Further down is Miss Congeniality 2...as if #1 wasn't enough. The only movie that people seem excited about is the new Star Wars movie. I think the movie industry should put some effort behind interesting, creative script writing and less legislation.

There's a funny Seinfeld episode where Jerry has to bootleg a movie. I guess they wouldn't have that kinda situation in a comedy now.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-camcorder19apr19,0,2559394.story?coll=la-home-business
Anti-Piracy Bill Sweet, Sour for Hollywood
It would stiffen penalties for bootlegging but also legalize products used to edit content of DVDs.
By Jon Healey
Times Staff Writer

April 19, 2005

Congress is poised to pass a bill ratcheting up the penalties for movie and music bootlegging, handing Hollywood a long-sought victory in its drive to prosecute pirates.

But the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005, which the House is expected to approve today, includes a bitter pill for the studios: It would legalize products that electronically snip offensive scenes or words from DVDs.

The measure — which President Bush is expected to sign — would in effect terminate a lawsuit that film directors and Hollywood studios brought against ClearPlay Inc., a company whose electronic filters let viewers skip over violent, suggestive or profane sections of DVDs. A federal judge in Colorado has yet to rule on the case.

Sponsored by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), the bill would make it a federal felony to record a movie as it was being projected in a theater. It also would ban offering a movie on a file-sharing network such as Kazaa before it goes on sale at video stores, or a song before it's released for sale.

The measure would set a maximum penalty of five years in federal prison and a $250,000 fine for first offenders. The maximum penalties would double for second or later offenses.

For Hollywood, most bootlegging starts with a person using a camcorder to surreptitiously record a film in a theater. Within days of a major film's release to theaters, copies start popping up online and in markets around the globe.

The entertainment industry has been making slow headway against the problem. It has persuaded 24 states to enact their own measures against camcording in theaters — it's a misdemeanor in California, for instance. The industry also has launched security programs that train and reward theater employees and helped state prosecutors bring criminal charges against half a dozen suspected professional camcorder pirates. But backers of the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act said more steps were needed to prod federal investigators and prosecutors into getting involved.

Laura Tunberg, who was the top anti-piracy executive at Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc. until the studio was acquired by Sony Corp., said making theater camcording a federal felony "would entice prosecutors to go after bigger fish" among video recorders. The bill also would make it easier to prosecute online pirates, she said, by removing the requirement that the bootlegged works be worth more than $1,000 — a tough threshold to meet for movies and songs not yet available for sale.

MGM executives lobbied for more than two years for the provisions against recording and sharing movies, with the help of other studios and theater owners. Tunberg said the provisions that would legalize electronic editing services were disappointing, but the chairman of a key House subcommittee, Rep. Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas), insisted upon them.

"Lamar Smith comes along and says, 'Well, if you want your anti-piracy bill, this is what you're going to get with it.' What do you say, no? I'm not going to support my own legislation?" Tunberg said.

Smith could not be reached for comment. The electronic editing provision was backed by social conservatives and by technology firms, whose political action committees were among the largest contributors to Smith's last campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

A Directors Guild of America spokesman said it would "continue in its efforts to vigorously defend the right of directors to protect their work from unauthorized alteration." The guild's suit also targets firms that sell movies permanently edited to remove violent or suggestive content, an approach the bill would not protect.

Spokesmen for two technology advocacy groups — Public Knowledge and the Electronic Frontier Foundation — said the issue was whether viewers would be able to do what they wished with the movies they owned.

"Once you have the DVD in your living room, it's nobody's business how you choose to watch it," EFF attorney Fred von Lohmann said.

"Tunberg said the provisions that would legalize electronic editing services were disappointing". If passed, would the bill allow technology firms to manufacture a dvd player that could skip the crap (promos) at the beginning of the movie?

"It also would ban offering a movie on a file-sharing network such as Kazaa before it goes on sale at video stores, or a song before it's released for sale."

Are they going to arrest the RIAA music executive that puts an unreleased song on Kazaa to start a buzz?? We all know the RIAA labels do that!!

" The bill, which was lobbied for by top executives at MGM, NBC and others, also includes a provision that would permit parents to install software with the capacity to mute profanities and other potentially offensive content from DVDs."

That is interesting - because as far as I am aware, such software is not available. Even if it were available, it would have to rely on either futuristic speech-recognition technology or information actively embedded into the DVDs by the studios.

"The film industry lost $3.5bn in box-office and DVD sales last year as the result of physical piracy..."

...as they simultaneously claimed their greatest box office figures ever.
-----

The software is called ClearPlay and the studios hate it, as well they should. It is programmed by a bunch of tight-assed Mormons in Salt Lake City who want to protest Hollywood's indecency by helping them sell more copies.

I certainly wouldn't defend a guy who brings a camcorder into a movie, because his most likely intention is to sell it for profit, making it actual piracy, which is bad.

But wouldn't it be sufficient to have a theatre policy which states, "if we catch you doing this we'll boot you out and confiscate your camera"?

Does it need to be a federal law?

Shoshidge -

That's copyright infringement, not piracy...Unless he floats in on a boat

"Once you have the DVD in your living room, it's nobody's business how you choose to watch it," EFF attorney Fred von Lohmann said.

I would tend to agree, being quite libertarian-oriented. But as goldenpi mentioned, the idea of editing offensive words and content may not happen without cooperation from the movie studios ("it would have to rely on either futuristic speech-recognition technology or information actively embedded into the DVDs by the studios themselves")-- an iffy proposition at best.

Such an option has appeal, though. It would be attractive for parents who wanted the whole family to watch a show that otherwise contains things they would rather not have their young children see or hear.

Someone having access to an application that strips DRM from MP3s, I say let them go for it.
Someone having access to a program that filters 'crap' from movies, I say them go for that too.

Dio, we may differ semantically here. While I am in full support of p2p and file sharing, I do not endorse the practice of someone making copies of other people's work without permission and selling it for their own profit.

I didn't label that practice "piracy", myself but it is the standard decriptive term.

It does bother me that the folks who oppose file sharing have used the term 'piracy' while condemning it, as the two practices are totally different.

Anyway, the point was that while I don't like guys who engage in was has come to be known as music or movie piracy, (copying for profit), i think federal legislation is overkill.

Shoshidge, yes, we differ semantically here...or, at least in regard to applicability. I was thinking of people who want flexibility with their MP3s that they purchased from Apple, let's say, but the DRM screws them out of their rights-of-use options.
I think it's only fair if they're able to make their songs portable for different players.
(I have no clue why they shouldn't be allowed to.)

No, I wasn't even thinking of those who want to copy stuff without permission and then sell it for profit; most all of us here on this site would agree that's wrong.

I reviewed this bill's "prior to commercial distribution" clause some time ago and it gives me worries.

It's worded so loosely that it could be interpreted as Any work regardless of commercial distribution.

Additionally, it's not specified which part of the proverbial "revenue stream" is pointed to by "commercial distribution".

Additionally, i raise concerns from the perspective of fansubbing in that fansubbed anime is currently in "commercial distribution" in japan, but not the US, which once again brings another nuance this loosely cobbled-together clause fails to give credence to.