Senator Kevin Murray is a happy man.

His SB passed the Assembly Public Safety Committee yesterday, meaning it's now a misdemeanor for anyone to record a movie in a theater without the consent of the theater owner.

MPAA boss Smilin' Jack Valenti is a happy man too.

"We are gratified that Senator Murray is championing this critical legislation that will be an extremely important weapon in our arsenal to combat camcording of movies in theatres," he said and snapping smartly to attention, added:

"We salute Senator Murray's energy and vision in our efforts to curtail the primary source of the unauthorized uploading of movies on P2P networks for free on the Internet."

"His SB passed the Assembly Public Safety Committee yesterday, meaning it's now a misdemeanor for anyone to record a movie in a theater without the consent of the theater owner."

OH REALLY? So is it some committee, and not House of Representatives and Senate that accept the bills? AFAIK about US legislative process, any bill must pass Rep. House, Senate, and be signed by President (Dubya that means, in order to be enacted into law. Now it's only a proposal YET. There'a time to STOP it.

Cheerz!
Critto

I would rather have a professional copy anyway, not some POS that some retard recorded while stuffing JuJuBees down his fat ass.

Like this is going to stop piracy, give me a break.

I do agree its wrong to copy movies illegally, but this is just another law to add to the billions we have already.

don't they have more important things to do in congress, like attend fundraisers

This is a California law. This is not national.

I don't agree with the ways these "laws" are created, but I do agree that taping a movie while in the theater is wrong. When I share music, it is something that I have purchased and own. Some dude with a camcorder certainly cannot claim he has any ownership of the film.

the only thing that law is gonna stop is the poorest copies from being circulated. id say its a good thing. the best copies are leaked dvd and ultra high bandwidth traffic interception. films get transfered over internet and hackers intercept them

Yeah, go get the ultra low quality movie pirates. Cus we all know they undermine the theater experience. I mean who in the world wants to watch any movie without the Blair Witch effect? Not me. I don't want surnound sound. I don't want clear crisp video. I want to boot up my movie machine and watch overly compressed hand recored flicks brought to me by someone with the shakes. Way to crack down guys. A+

ConsumersAbyss,

I agree totally with what you said! I can't stand to watch those copies. The experience is anything but pleasant. Washed out color, radio quality sound, coughing in the background, whispers, laughs, it's like watching a really bad episode of Mystery Science Theater 2000 on Scifi.

I have not yet boycotted the MPAA (I know, throw your geers at me), 'cause I get quality on the DVD's. They look great on my 'puter and sound awesome with my 6.1 Surround. I'll pay $15 for a DVD over $18 for a cd any day.

I only buy the movies that fit my genre tastes and have the actors/actresses that I know will make the DVD worth every cent.

DVDs bought this year: 9
cds bought this year: 0

Yeah, they're makin' a ton of money off-a me! :^)

Lols, I almost agree that it should be illegal to pass copies made in such a manner. It only supports that it isn't worth the time downloading to begin with.

Now your copies you download will be of higher quality faithfully supplied by those that screen the movies before they make it to the box office. At the least, far better quality.

Boy, this one was really thought out well...

Yeah the I don't mind this new law about coping movies anyway. I can wait till they come out on DVD/video anyway. I watch one movie before the day it came out and it looked like it was from the 80s or something but when I watch the legit ver it was fresh new and 21 century.

the funny part the good quality cam'd movies are done in closed threatres on tripods with the sound directly from the reel or the hearing impaired ear phone jack. so obviously these people are either owners of theatres or managers or some other worker that has unrestricted access to the theatre alone. this law is very meaningless even if it would become a federal law as it would stop (or attempt to stop) only the worst copies of movies that people sell on street corners lol

Yeah I've downloaded a few cam'd movies and after seeing how crappy they looked I quit trying if the movie is still in the theatres. I buy a lot of DVD movies every month plus I go to see just about every new movie in theatres and don't mind paying for them now since the prices have come down. Some jerk with a camcorder is in my opinion wrong. But, when the DVD copying technology catches up (like with CD burning) I will probably continue to develope an even more extended collection of DVD+/-R copys. If someday (I can only hope) that P2P will allow for DVD quality movies to be downloaded and burned to disc like MP3s are today then I will probably download and watch every movie free before I even think about buying it.

the Cam corder versions of movies, are such poor quality that they arn't any good, if the movie is really good, the person will go see it in a theatre or buy the dvd to see a real quality of it, and if the movie is crap, well this is where the MPAA losses money

Critto, do you honestly thing George Bush actually reads the bills that get put onto his desk? Or that he would question a bill that he was probably paid to pass?

So, before today, i could legally record a movie without consent in california? does this mean it's still legal in other states?

Seriously... wasn't this already illegal? How lame.

Umm has anyone noticed about NINETY PERCENT of all these cammed shows ARE OVERSEAS like Japan and Malasia? Ya this bill will hit the cam cord guys here since it seems there aren't many.

Has it hit any of these clowns that the ones that hurt them aren't the little downloading kid down the street but the MASS MARKET Piracy groups that copy these and SELL THEM DUH!!! Most just get them to preview them NOT SELL THEM.

Sure they may or may not (depending on if they like it I believe most would then go and see it at the theater if its good ya just can't beat the big screen for some shows) be out 7 bucks at the theater but we don't download it make two million copies and go out and sell them. But once again they can't or won't go after the hardcore groups and just want some easy money from the people who actually BUY THEIR STUFF!!

hey, does anyone know why no movie I download ever plays? I even got DivX player, but it still never works. Just hoping for some help...

Actually, a good idea. I don't see many movies, the prices are just too high for a guy on a tight budget. Using a digital cam to record a movie in the theater is wrong, and has been looked down on for some time. Sure, the guy recording the movie paid his 10 bucks or so to get in, but he paid for one showing, and not for total ownership. Cam quality sucks anyway, no matter where it comes from. I wouldn't waste my time downloading a cam recorded movie in the first place.

It does say, though, "without the theater owner's permission", so it still leaves the loophole. I suppose if I saw a killer movie I wanted to watch again, and I knew the manager or owner of my local theater, I could have him do a cam record for me, so I could watch it again before the DVD was released.........but, man, it used to be that a movie would take two to three YEARS to hit video, now it's on DVD in a matter of months, and usually with a couple of "director's cut" releases thrown in for good measure.

Besides, I don't mind paying for a movie. For your $20, including junk food you get:

guy flick: an excuse to hang out with the boys, go see an action movie, then usually hit the bars with an over-inflated opinion of your own mortality, and try to pick up on chicks after downing a dozen beers or so. Ah, hell, it's fun.

chick flick: You get a night out with your girlfriend/wife where she's not spending more time on the phone or with the kids than with you. Sappy movie, hire an overnight babysitter, you'll be gettin' some. Hey, why do you think guys invented chick flicks?

Silence, copying a movie directly from the source image is illegal, but by the wording of the law, "source image" means a direct duplication of the actual celluloid film, and didn't effectively cover camcorders and the like.

Slydder, no kidding, the major TRUE piracy market is overseas. By piracy, I mean people who make copies of the media, then replicate the packaging, right down to the warranty and anti-piracy warnings, and sell them as the real thing. That's nothing new, it's been going on for years, and not just in media. Chanel, Oakley, Prada....even the fashion designers have been fighting that plague. The difference there is that the consumer is being duped into believing he has the real product. Heck, you can buy a copy of XP in China for $1 USD, right on a street corner. I wouldn't vouch for its legality, or authenticity, though. That's the main difference between them and us......we, sharing MP3 files, are NOT representing the file we share as the actual packaged product, nor are we making money off of the trading of the file.

It's a complicated issue, though. Let me try to put it in perspective for you, though.

I work in the music instrument retail industry. I sell PA systems. Obviously, I need to demonstrate the speakers, EQ's and such. I need SOMETHING to demonstrate with. The shop I work for pays ASCAP and BMI, in order to use CD's to demo product. I don't have a problem with that, at all. I'm using an artist's creation to sell a product. Now, we pay full fees, and we don't have to. If you've ever visited an A/V store, that sells tv's, home theaters, etc, you notice they all play one movie only....they've paid for the rights to use that movie, and THAT movie ONLY. If they use another movie, and the copyright company happens to come in (and they do), you're in trouble. Again, I have no problem with that. If I play a song, and the sound of that song through the PA system I'm selling is what makes the sale, then I've made money by using another person's work. That person deserves the credit, and a cut of the cash. That's fair. Likewise, if I use a movie I downloaded to demo a large screen TV, that movie maker deserves a cut of my profits. His work made my money for me.

Where file sharing of any type falls short of this is simple: I'm NOT making money off it! In fact, in most cases, I'm sending a file to a friend, and urging him to buy the CD. So, in this case, the artist is making money from MY work.

There have been studies that show that most users who download music ALSO buy the CD, and use the P2P services as a means of previewing the CD, much like a theatrical trailer. However, those studies are usually swept under the carpet and ignored by the media, lawmakers, and industry. The way I see it, the average file sharer is doing the work previously done by highly paid advertising companies.

Personally, I like a band called Fighting Gravity. Local guys, I've worked with them both as a sound engineer and a fill-in bass player. I give a copy of a few songs to everybody I know. So where's my cut of the advertising money? Hm? Oh wait, I'm a PIRATE.

I'm off to put my eyepatch on and molest my parrot for awhile....or, as a cartoon I saw a long time ago said...

"ok, remember this time.....kill the MEN, rape the WOMEN, pilliage the VILLAGE. Let's get it right this time, you idiots!"

Wasn't cinema tapeing already illegal? Does this just make it more illegal?

Cams are the primary source only until the films released on DVD, and only if no copies have been leaked prerelease.

This doesn't really make a difference. Anyone willing and able to sneak a camera into the cinema wont be put off by makeing it slightly more illegal.

There has been some intrest in camcorder jamming technology which works by modulateing the screen intensity at a frequency too high for the human viewers, but which will create a beat flicker when filmed with a camera, similar to the effect seen when filming CRTs. But its experimental. There are still bugs to be worked out, such as how not to give half the audience terrible headaches and not having to ban anyone with photosensitive epilepsy. I know of at least one company working on it.

I am putting on my own eyepatch too. I dont have the parrot, but a budgie should be close enough. Now im going to install the latest in my collection of pirate games while listening to some music of dubious legality. Im not sure if its redistributable or not, its an amature song, but I cant be bothered to research it.

I will add something to my website describeing the procedure for modifying a camcorder to record from the hearing aid broadcast. Its some kind of modulated magnetic field I think. Ive got an electronics magazine in the loft which explains it. Certinly something any camer should be aware of.

Damn, now it's going to be harder to buy a movie that has coughing, people talking, someone's cell phone ringing,
people walking in front of the screen, the rustle of snack food bags, soda slurpers, and the camera shaking all over the place. What ever shall I do?

So does this mean that Jack Valenti's "Analog Hole" is now plugged?

No. As long as I have a video capture card in the loft (its waiting for the new PC) the analog hole is unpluged. There are only two ways it can be pluged:

1. Watermarks. Effective watermarks. Noones made a good one yet.

2. Encrypted HDTV which cant be converted to analog without degradeing to 480p, such as the CPSA system uses. Analog copies are then degraded.

Currently 1 is technicly impossible. The CPSA is working on 2, but without much success. Suscessfully implimenting it would make all existing HDTV equipment obsolete, which could annoy a few people.