ICE Takes To Twitter In Ridiculous Attempt To Defend Interrogating A Man In A Movie Theater For Wearing Google Glass

from the theft? dept

Thu, Jan 23rd 2014 9:44am — Mike Masnick

Earlier this week there was a report about a guy being yanked out of his seat in a movie theater for wearing Google Glass during the movie. Glass was turned off, and the guy kept them on because he had prescription lenses installed and wears them as his regular glasses. Both the MPAA and federal agents were called to interrogate the guy for a few hours, asking him a bunch of ridiculous questions until late in the night, before someone finally realized he hadn't done anything. Both the MPAA and ICE confirmed the incident happened, and yesterday folks at ICE -- who have recently been transitioned into the new Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) organization -- decided to take to their bizarrely named twitter account, @wwwicegov, to further "defend" these actions, by talking up how they're in charge of dealing with "movie theft." Because, apparently, Homeland Security Investigations doesn't understand the law, and doesn't realize that (1) infringement is not, and has never been, "theft" and (2) a dude wearing a powered-off Google Glass is not doing anything wrong. Here are the tweets:

As you can see, there's a lot of ridiculousness there -- just the fact that they repeatedly refer to it as "theft," as mentioned above. The problem is that ICE's role as "the lead agency to combat piracy" is a joke. As ICE, it was supposed to focus on stopping counterfeit physical products from crossing the border. But with the help of Joe Biden and Hollywood, that mandate has been twisted repeatedly, so that what started as a very narrow mandate is now being treated as this broad mandate from an organization that doesn't even understand the issues. For years now, the group has made sure to conflate the very, very different issues of counterfeits at the border with copyright infringement, as it tries to expand its own mandate.

And now that's reached the absolutely insane point of yanking people out of their movie seats for doing nothing wrong, entirely on the say so of the MPAA -- a private group which has a long history of overreacting badly to new technologies.

What comes out of this is that ICE/HSI now appears to be incredibly gullible, falling for basically every bullshit claim from the MPAA. Just imagine if ICE/HSI had been around and had this sort of broad stupid made-up power over "intellectual property theft" during the introduction of the VCR -- back when the MPAA was declaring it illegal? ICE would be out there raiding and shutting down electronics stores for selling the devices. All because the MPAA said so.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, google glass, homeland security, hsi, ice, infringement, movie theft
Companies: amc, mpaa

179 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 23 Jan 2014 @ 9:49am

Good rant, but YES, copyright infringement IS theft!
You're just trying to sneak in the notion that it'd be perfectly legal for someone to have actually recorded the movie and "shared" it.

Copyright infringement IS illegal. Had this guy even accidentally recorded the movie, he'd be in a fix right now. -- And that's as should be, because no matter the other points you put up for smoke and fog: taking someone else's move is THEFT.
You're not on the leading edge of new production models, Mike, just advocating plain old-fashioned theft with new gadgets.

05:49:42[g-402-6]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 23 Jan 2014 @ 9:51am

Re: Good rant, but YES, copyright infringement IS theft!
^^^ "move" should be "movie". One wonders whether typos make people slow down to parse twice and thereby absorb more of the message, but I don't do it intentionally.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 9:54am

Don't forget their new website
www.twitteriswwwicegov.gov.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 9:56am

Excuses, excuses...
"briefly interviewed the individual"

Bullshit. Confinscating the glasses, hooking it up to a computer and going through the content would take time and normally require a warrant to search. If the "individual" weren't so cooperative, this could have been a major issue.

"we help ... authorities w/ legitimate requests for assistance"

A one time issue by a single person is a legitimate reason for federal agents to come and interrogate someone? Last time I checked the local police can handle a single unarmed person. Wish my tax dollars went to better use...

"If your phone appears to be recording the film then law enforcement will be contacted"

Nothing was indicating a recording. As the man wearing the device noted, there would be a light on indicating the glasses were powered with the capability of recording.

I'm not sure what to make of this, but it sounds to me like the ICE is trying really really really hard to justify their response to a situation that was never a situation so they can continue to be respond to stupid situations. The ICE is nothing more than MPAA puppets at this point...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 9:58am

About OOTB
I can't say if it's really a bad thing for this clown to be here... He/She provides for a great deal of entertainment here.

I wonder if the OOTB account is just being passed around to all the government & MAFIAA shills for use?

While I can agree the Copyright infringement is illegal, I do not subscribe to it be qualified as theft. If it was... then everyone stole the very words of their language!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 10:02am

Re: Good rant, but YES, copyright infringement IS theft!
I agree that copyright infringement is theft, but surely you can concede that detaining this guy for several hours is ridiculous. It can't possibly take that long to figure out he wasn't recording the film.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
silverscarcat (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 10:02am

Re:
What's being stolen?

To steal, you have to deprive someone of something else.

A recording is not stealing.

Stop using steal for copyright infringement.

Piracy is NOT a moral issue, blue, stop making it one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 10:02am

Re: Good rant, but YES, copyright infringement IS theft!
"taking someone else's move is THEFT"

What he was accused of doing wasn't taking the movie, but copying it. This leaves the original in tact. The theater still has the movie, so they lose nothing (except potentially sales).

"Copyright infringement IS illegal"

No one is arguing against this. But you're making the mistake of saying that because it's illegal, it's theft. It's not. It's making illegal copies or copyright infringement.

Also, no infringement happened. However the patron did get harrassed. It was for simply having a everyday (perscription glasses) device capable of recording. People aren't harrassed just for having a cell phone when they go to the theaters, so why glasses?

Remind me again what happens when you start harassing customers? Oh yea, you start to lose sales. So who is the real theft here....?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Baron von Robber, 23 Jan 2014 @ 10:04am

Re: Good rant, but YES, copyright infringement IS theft!
When you sit at the computer, your mind becomes more active.

When your mind is more active, your OCP becomes worse.

When your OCP becomes worse, you wear out the light switches in your house.

When you wear out the light switches in your house, your OCP makes your mind even more irrational.

When your mind becomes more irrational, you start to become obsessed with people named Mike.

When you become obessed with people named Mike, you post under the name Out_of_the_Blue.

Don't post under the name Out_of_the_Blue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 10:06am

the only sensible thing they could do is stop taking notice of anything the entertainment industries tell them and go back to looking after borders and illegal immigrants. if the industries were to listen to and take notice of the people they rely on for their existence, there wouldn't be any issues with caming, copying, copyright infringement or anything else. it only exists as it is because of what these industries dont do anyway!! thick as fuck!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 10:07am

Re: Good rant, but YES, copyright infringement IS theft!
"Copyright infringement IS illegal. Had this guy even accidentally recorded the movie, he'd be in a fix right now. -- And that's as should be, because no matter the other points you put up for smoke and fog: taking someone else's move is THEFT."

For once, we agree. Taking someone else's movie is theft. Now, given that this guy did absolutely nothing wrong, who does he contact to get the movie back that was taken from HIM?

Or better yet, who does he contact to get the TIME that he lost (and can NEVER recover) back? They deprived him of the movie, and wasted HIS time for nothing.

If you're going to be so vigilant in declaring copying movies theft, then I would at least expect to you realize when the assholes who pay you fuck up, they ALSO need to be held accountable.

I anxiously await your pathetic, unapologetic response, you paid corporate douchebag shill.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AricTheRed (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 10:07am

Like Momma always said...
When it comes to the behavior of some local, state, and federal agencies and their personnel, not to mention elected officials and their appointees.

"Douchey, douche-copters are as Douchey, douche-copters do"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Baron von Robber, 23 Jan 2014 @ 10:07am

Re: Re: Good rant, but YES, copyright infringement IS theft!
Except that infringement has NEVER been theft. It's not theft. Stop trying to change the English language.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 10:08am

MT?
What is MT? Shouldn't that be RT (Re-Tweet?)

Also, how sad is it that a government agency is literally parroting their corporate masters partners?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 10:13am

Re: Good rant, but YES, copyright infringement IS theft!
*bonk*
I thought he was trying to sneak in the notion that all this fuss over an infringement case that didn't actually happen is stupid. By the way, I'm trying to sneak in the notion that you are a clueless fool for constantly stating that Mike is against copyright and for theft and is a google minion and rich people are evil and blah blah blah...

The reason why Mike reports on these things and Tim reports on cop abuses is because they are NEWS. Cop does his job/copyright is used properly = not news. It becomes news when it is out of the ordinary, something exemplary or a massive screwup. Mike posts how copyright is abused because that is out of the ordinary, something you want to hear about. Would you read "A completely boring history of when copyright was used properly" or "All the times copyright was used for something horrible like censorship"? The problem is not Mike, Techdirt, or even Google. The problem is you, and your tendency to give the writers of Techdirt whatever preferences you wish to support your views.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
weneedhelp (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 10:15am

Re: Good rant, but YES, copyright infringement IS theft!
You mean they broke into the projector room and stole the movie? If it was anything but that it is a breach of COPYRIGHT... nothing got stolen. IT GOT COPIED... you blue moron. You are the Internets equivalent of the WWF's blue meanie.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Violynne (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 10:16am

Re: Good rant, but YES, copyright infringement IS theft!
out_of_the_blue, copyright is to theft as your post is to civilized discussion.

Both are inaccurate and just ruin a good thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 10:16am

Its amazing how many MPAA sockpuppets have commented on this story here...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 10:20am

Re: Re: Good rant, but YES, copyright infringement IS theft!
+1 for making me read that in the DirectTV commercial voice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gwiz (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 10:24am

Re:
Good rant, but YES, copyright infringement IS theft!

Now you are being deliberately obtuse Blue.

Even the courts themselves are rejecting this type of language as misleading and derogatory:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131130/15263725410/surprise-mpaa-told-it-cant-use-term s-piracy-theft-stealing-during-hotfile-trial.shtml

The fact that YOU continue to use them says volumes about your character and motivations though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 10:33am

they can't defend this. They are a tax funded law enforcement agency (in the widest sense) that acts like a paid thug for less then ethical companies
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 10:34am

Re: Re:
No, depriving someone of something is merely one way of stealing.

Taking something you're not supposed to take without permission is stealing. Duh.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Christopher Best (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 10:35am

"Doing nothing wrong"
Whether or not the guy was actively doing anything wrong, the theater had the right to throw him out. And that's where this should have ended: "Sir, we don't appreciate you wearing a recording device on your face while watching our film, even if you promise not to turn it on. We're refusing you service. Have a nice day."

Getting ICE involved is just beyond the pale.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 10:36am

Re: About OOTB
Mike Masnick just hates it when copyright law is enforced.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 10:36am

What does the FBI do?
It sounds like ICE's responsibilities now significantly overlap with the FBI's. So what does the FBI do anymore?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
silverscarcat (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 10:37am

Re: Re: Re:
That still implies that you're depriving someone of something.

Try again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 10:38am

Re: Re: Re:
Taking something you're not supposed to take without permission is stealing.

But copying something you're not supposed to copy is not stealing. At least not according to the law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 10:39am

No wonder
I always wondered why government agencies take so damn long to do anything. Now I know.

To a government official, 4 hours is "brief".

The rest of us would consider 10 minutes to be brief.

I wish someone would post the conversion table between government time units and real time units.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NAProtector, 23 Jan 2014 @ 10:40am

Re: About OOTB
ootb reminds me of someone. He went by the philosiphy that there is no trying, there is doing and not doing. To prove this, he took out a chess board and put his hand on a pawn and stated, "I'm trying to move the pawn" while the pawn didn't move. I did think about it and every way I look at this demonstration makes me think he was a complete idiot, jerk, and incorrect simply because he thought he made me believe, but I don't. He 'tried' to convince me he was right, which leads me to believe that until something is done or given up on, you are trying. These ICE people and ootb are trying to convince us that they are right. They are trying to say that this means that. And they are determined as heck to change are minds, but I don't see that happening. They are not just trying to rewrite law, they are trying to rewrite the dictionary. And when people don't believe them or they get 'downvoted' or 'minimized', they blame the people that manage the medium and/or say the opposition is the very people they are trying to stop, failing to realize that they are attacking the people they are 'trying' to convience. They may even think they have 'done' it, but here is a problem with that. Stating something as truth and someone accepting it as truth are two different things. You can try stating that copying is theft, but you can't make everyone, or at least the majority, believe it. I don't and at the rate they are going, they never will convince me otherwise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
6, 23 Jan 2014 @ 10:41am

Seems to me like he should simply sue the gov agency for assault when they took his glasses off of him. Likewise harassment. Then get several thousand dollars of settlement cash.

And also he better call Saul!

And he probably should have taken his glasses back and re took his seat when they asked him to come outside as he was not under arrest and lawfully present in the theater. Only once they deemed it necessary to arrest him should he comply.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Baron von Robber, 23 Jan 2014 @ 10:46am

Re: Re: Re:
English, motherfucker! DO YOU SPEAK IT?!?

In English, infringement does NOT mean theft, stealing, etc.

Got it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
connermac725 (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 10:46am

story was good but the coments were hilarious
amazing how many people do not actually know the terminolgy they are trying to use
laughed my ass off
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 10:46am

If I were to make a copy of my neighbours car, accurate to the smallest detail to the point where it was impossible to tell my copy from his original, did I "steal" his car? While I may violate a lot of patents and copyrights, I didn't steal his car.
Copying a move isn't theft, it's infringement. Still (rightfully) illegal, but call it what is is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 10:48am

Re: Re: About OOTB
I actually do. So try slinging your bullshit in my direction. I'm actually a person who says 'out loud' (so to speak) that enforcing copyright is wrong. To my knowledge, Mike has never said so. The closest he's ever gotten is something along the lines of "I hate it when copyright is enforced...to the detriment of basic human rights that everyone is supposed to have".
If you want to call out someone for being 100% anti-copyright, target me. Rikuo is what I am called. Target me, and not Mike.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tim R (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 10:52am

Jurisdiction
Hollywood seems to like to throw around a lot of acronyms these days. Lets lay a few of their component parts all out and examine them, shall we?

HOMELAND
SECURITY
IMMIGRATION
CUSTOMS

Somebody please explain to me how domestic pursuit of what should be purely civil (as opposed to criminal) matters falls under the purview of any of these?

Somebody needs to go back over and re-read their own mission statements again.

Also, I imagine that some higher up at AMC is not happy about this knee-jerk overreaction being associated with their theatre chain. Their lives are already being made tougher by other more convenient and legal movie distribution channels like DVDs and streaming. Going to the cinema used to be a big deal. Now they have to sell $7 soda and $10 popcorn just to make up for the shortage of butts in the seats (anybody who thinks that a movie theatre makes its money from ticket sales should do a little reading).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 10:53am

Re: "Doing nothing wrong"
I would be more likely to agree with you if they had said that before he paid for the ticket and sat down. The point at which you refuse someone service is when he either bought the ticket from a counter agent (or if he bought the ticket from a kiosk machine that's bolted to a wall, like at my local cinema) or the person who checks the ticket before allowing you to enter the actual screen room (who would then have to issue a refund).
You don't take the guy's payment, allow him to sit down, then have him yanked out all because you didn't specify that Google Glass are not permitted. After all, your cinema allows people to walk in carrying their smartphones, so the rule was obviously thought to cover video cameras and video cameras only...not devices that have a myriad of functions, with recording being one of them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 10:54am

'Incredibly gullible'?
Not hardly, try 'well paid', they know who signs their paychecks and holds open nice 'retirement' offers for those than toe the line and jump when told.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 10:54am

Corporations shouldn't have federal armies of special agents. There's too much potential for abuse, such as the Google Glass victim in Columbus Ohio.

These are abusive copyright laws, in the extreme! Theft falls under common law. Copyright law is not common law, theft does not apply to copyright law.

Piracy has to do with hi-jacking ships at sea. There's nothing in copyright law about hi-jacking ships at sea.

Copying, does fall under copyright law, although I believe there should be no such laws against copying anything the public has access too. That includes physical items, software code, knowledge and literature.

Children copy and imitate their parents since birth. It's how we learn and evolve as a species.

Laws that punish the natural behavior of a species, are immoral and unjust. The MPAA would be wise to start offering services that are priced so competitively, and convenient. that nobody would even bother with the hassle of seeking out unauthorized copies of their works.

But no, we have Homeland Security being the MPAA's whipping boy, because we let the MPAA terrorize humanity under draconian copyright laws.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 10:54am

it would be awesome to see glassholes start trolling theaters by wearing them (and not recording). or even people going in with fake googlass'

you can only cry wolf so many times

could theaters even ban them due to ada?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 10:58am

Re: Jurisdiction
Oh I'm sure at least one person at the theater is happy, the one who called it in to snag the bounty, although unless that person happens to be seriously connected, I imagine once upper management find out who called this storm down on top of their heads he/she might be in for a wee bit of trouble...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 11:01am

Re: Good rant, but YES, copyright infringement IS theft!
Theft is removal of an item and it can't be replaced, not only is copying NOT theft the closet thing it could be linked to is hopping a fence to enjoy a music concert without a ticket, which would be 'trespassing'. But go on with your bullshit hyperbole.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jackn, 23 Jan 2014 @ 11:03am

This story isn't about rights infringment (or theft if you must). The story is about a private organization that thinks they can harras citizens without cause or warrent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Glen, 23 Jan 2014 @ 11:05am

I hope like crazy that the theater is taking some serious heat also.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Shadow Dragon (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 11:07am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't think he comprehend anything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 11:07am

Re: Re: Good rant, but YES, copyright infringement IS theft!
Your analogy wouldn't apply in this case, because the guy with the glasses did pay for his ticket. Basically, he was falsely accused. That's all we need to concentrate on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 11:09am

Re: Re: Re:
no, if copyright infringement was theft, they'd just call the offense theft. but they don't.

now if he actually went into the projection room and took the actual film, i'd agree to call it theft/stealing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Baron von Robber, 23 Jan 2014 @ 11:13am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
True. ootb is probably a computer program that runs something like....

If new TB article = true, then run rant subroutine, else masturbate.

Btw, did you hear Samuel Jackson in your one the first line? :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Baron von Robber, 23 Jan 2014 @ 11:14am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
....in your head...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymoose, 23 Jan 2014 @ 11:14am

As usual, efforts to stomp out unpaid enjoyment of creative works only penalize those who engage in legal paid enjoyment of creative works.

Had this person stayed at home and torrented the movie, he wouldn't have been detained and harassed by federal agents of the entertainment industry.

Not saying that's what people should do, just pointing out the obvious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 11:15am

Homeland Security Investigations doesn't understand the law, and doesn't realize that (1) infringement is not, and has never been, "theft" and (2) a dude wearing a powered-off Google Glass is not doing anything wrong.

The federal criminal property theft statute at issue is 18 USC 2319B: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2319B

Note how that's located in Chapter 113, called "Stolen Property": www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-113

I know that you're willfully blind and/or ignorant about these things, but the fact is that intangibles have been considered property for well over a century. This is so even though they are not scarce. And intangibles have been capable of being stolen, i.e., the subject of theft, for just as long. And I don't just mean the stolen as when the legal title is taken via fraud or whatnot. I mean stolen in that someone does something inconsistent with the owner's intangible rights in his intangible property.

Why do you insist that the way the law used to be centuries ago is the way the law must be now? Like it or not, and clearly you're in the not column, copyright is property and intentional infringement is theft. This is why the Copyright Act preempts state theft laws when it comes to intentional infringements.

As to your claim of him "not doing anything wrong," this guy pointed a video recording device at a movie screen. This is enough to detain and question him. Note how 2319B even gives the theater complete immunity for such detentions. I know you hate copyright and the very thought of its enforcement drives you bananas--even though you're too dishonest to ever explicitly say you feel this way--but there was reason to detain and question this guy.

Keep on whining, Mike. It's unfortunately all you seem good for.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
memphislimsan, 23 Jan 2014 @ 11:15am

Re: Re: Good rant, but YES, copyright infringement IS theft!
Wow, mental illness is an ugly, sad thing. Get some help.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 11:22am

Is this ICE thing a private group or its part of the government?
This "theft" word is starting to become something else...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 11:22am

this is what happens when the head of the MPAA, Dodd, has friends in the high place where he also once resided, Congress. add in the friendship between him, Biden and the heads of the other labels and entertainment industries, none of whom seem to understand what is happening or how to really combat a problem which is of their own making, and the problem expands. when the answer is as simple as listening to the people they have to have to keep the business going, the customers, and then acting on what those people say, is so hard for them because they cannot imagine life without being in control and without being able to literally break someone, bankrupt someone or imprison someone. get over that bit and progress could be made. until then, no go is the norm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 11:26am

Re: What does the FBI do?
Make up terrorist plots to foil so that Hollywood screenwriters have something to make a movie about that the MPAA can then call the ICE in to harass someone suspected of infringing on the copyright of the movie. See the chain of events and all the jobs it creates? It's all about putting people to work you know!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 11:31am

Re: Re: Jurisdiction
Oh I'm pretty sure the person who called didn't collect the $500 as there is likely a clause in the fine print of the offer that says that the person has to be convicted in a court of law in order for the bounty to be paid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 11:32am

How does that line go? When your salary depends on not seeing something it is hard to convince some one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 11:33am

@wwwicegov Get Hollywood's cock out of your mouth and use your brain. You're on the losing side of public opinion. #hollyswood #corruption
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Andrew Norton (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 11:37am

Here's a helpful little primer to help you understand the difference.
I am told Pearson education actually bought a license to put it in one of their copyright textbooks.

http://torrentfreak.com/copyright-infringement-and-theft-%e2%80%93-the-difference-110827/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 11:39am

Re:
If copyright is theft, then treat it the same as actual theft cases. If I'm accused of torrenting a movie, and I'm found guilty in court, then I get charged the price of the DVD.
You can't have it both ways. Either it's theft, and as such, the punishment is the same in actual bona fide theft cases, or it's not theft and you're spewing bullshit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 11:40am

Re:
'Theft' statutes are located in the 'Stolen property' chapter, you don't say? /s

Now find, and post, the section(s) where they talk about copyright infringement in there, specifically stating that it is to be legally considered, and treated as, theft, and then you might have a decent argument.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 11:42am

Re: Re: Re:
What was taken?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 11:42am

Re:
So what? Laws that have nothing to do with the bills they are attached to are passed as riders all the time. Who cares that it happens to appear under a section that relates to stolen property. That doesn't make it theft. Furthermore, SCOTUS EXPLICITLY determined in Dowling that infringement was NOT theft. If what you want to contend that the fact that this statute means Infringement is theft then fine that would then have to mean that Dowling struck down this statute altogether.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Andrew Norton (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 11:46am

Re:
That's NOTHING. You should check out 17 U.S. CODE � 501
I'll quote the very first bit to you.

(a) Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 or of the author as provided in section 106A (a), or who imports copies or phonorecords into the United States in violation of section 602, is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be.

You'll notice that it SPECIFICALLY refers to violating copyright, and defines details.
It does not reference 18USC at all, for a very good reason, 18USC is inapplicable.

Of course, I'm all for striking 17USC501 and replacing it with 18usc.

BTW, that 2319 came from a lovely little lobby law produced under Bush, the ProIP act. So you can hardly say it's 'been deemed that for a century'.

Also, the SCOTUS doesn't consider it theft (see Dowling, Golan)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 11:47am

Re:
Detention and questioning is one thing. Seizing his property and searching it is another altogether. The latter requires consent or a warrant.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 11:51am

Re:
By the by, while you're looking for where it mentions copyright infringement in the statutes dealing with theft(I jest of course, you'll just run off on some random tangent or throw out more ad homs and insults like always), might want to do a little research, in particular on the case Dowling v. United States, which focused on the 'theft vs infringement' claim, and came down pretty solidly against copyright infringement being treated as theft.

The relevant quote, in case you don't want to put the effort into looking:

'Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 11:52am

Re: Re:
Umm, this is going to be unpopular, but piracy is in part a moral issue. Generally speaking, when you can't afford something, the moral thing to do is to go without it, not seek out illicit means of obtaining it. Naturally there are a lot of gray areas, particularly when you get into things required for life like food and medicine, but purely optional things like movies don't have much gray area.

Or to put it another way, pirating a movie because you think the price is too high is just as wrong as sneaking into a movie theater because you think the ticket price is too high.

Now, most people understandably place these low on the list of people's sins; easily lower than stuff like running stop signs. That does not however make it right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 11:54am

So what? Laws that have nothing to do with the bills they are attached to are passed as riders all the time. Who cares that it happens to appear under a section that relates to stolen property. That doesn't make it theft.

So Congress put it in the section on "stolen property," but your argument is that this does not indicate that Congress thinks it concerns stolen property? That's a terrible argument.

How do you spin Section 3931 of the Penn. criminal code: "Theft of unpublished dramas and musical compositions. A person is guilty of theft if he publicly presents for profit, without the consent of the author thereof, any unpublished dramatic play or musical composition."

Source: www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.039.031.000..HTM

The Penn. legislature explicitly refers to an act of infringement as theft. I can find others, but I suspect you'd just deny them all.

Furthermore, SCOTUS EXPLICITLY determined in Dowling that infringement was NOT theft. If what you want to contend that the fact that this statute means Infringement is theft then fine that would then have to mean that Dowling struck down this statute altogether.

The Court in Dowling merely said that the National Stolen Property Act only applies to stolen tangibles. That doesn't mean that infringement is not theft. It only means that the NSPA doesn't reach infringement. It wouldn't reach identity theft either, but identity theft is still theft.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 11:56am

Re: Re: Re:
Yes, but here's the thing.

Morals are subjective. Your morals are not the same as my morals, or the guy who lives two houses down from you. My own set of morals say it's all right to download the movie. You do not want to bring morality into law. That way lies oppression, where one person's morals trump everybody else's.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 12:00pm

Re:
Your quote from the Penn legislature means fuck all because 1) this story happened in Ohio,
2) Copyright is dealt with at the federal level
Penn can pass all the laws they want saying copyright infringement = theft, it wouldn't affect what happened to Google Glasses man because he's in a different state.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Glen, 23 Jan 2014 @ 12:01pm

Re: Re: Re:
So is it moral for ICE to sit on this guy for several hours?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 12:06pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
And if piracy is a moral issue, copyright is a moral issue as well. Before we examine the morality of piracy, we need to examine the morality of copyright terms that extend the life of the creator + 70 years, copyright terms that cover every single thing ever created regardless of their commercial value, copyright terms that have retroactively kept works from the public domain, and copyright terms that leave orphaned works in limbo where nobody can get permission to use them because the copyright owners can't be found.

Let's talk about reforming copyright, then maybe we can talk about piracy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Baron von Robber, 23 Jan 2014 @ 12:07pm

Re:
Please quote the law where infringement = theft.

Otherwise you are lying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 12:09pm

Re: Re:
It also wouldn't be in the jurisdiction ICE as they are federal agents not state ones either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 12:16pm

Re: Re:
And the argument could easily be made in a state court that since this movie is a recently made movie only federal statutes concerning copyright infringement apply as the Copyright Act of 1976 clearly placed matters of copyright under the sole control of the federal government. State laws do not apply.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Andrew Norton (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 12:18pm

Re:
is that code dating from before the mis-70s? if so, then it's been superceeded by federal ones. Sorry, try again.

You forgot to mention Golan also established it's not property
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 12:20pm

So what's keeping the MPAA, anyway? When are they going to get ISDS going in the US?
I want to see Hollywood claim the government isn't doing enough to fight piracy, and then sue the United States for all those trillions they claim to lose each year.
Would they give in, or fight back? Could we see the US army fighting ICE troops? Maybe they could siege Disney World!
It'd be hilarious! (For fans of dark comedy, at least.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DogBreath, 23 Jan 2014 @ 12:22pm

Re: Re: Good rant, but YES, copyright infringement IS theft!
Man, for a second there I thought "OCP" was referring to Omni Consumer Products, and it was going to end with RoboCop bashing through your house wall saying, "Infringement is Theft! Dead or Alive, you are coming with me!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 12:23pm

Re: Re: Re:
this is going to be unpopular

Why would you think that? You don't actually believe this is a pro-piracy site, do you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Baron von Robber, 23 Jan 2014 @ 12:24pm

Re:
"How do you spin Section 3931 of the Penn. criminal code: "Theft of unpublished dramas and musical compositions. A person is guilty of theft if he publicly presents for profit, without the consent of the author thereof, any unpublished dramatic play or musical composition.""

Hey dipshit, can't you read? It says "..UNPUBLISHED..."!!! Don't you know what that means? Are you saying all the infringed material is unpublished? The movie he saw was unpublished?

Damn you are intensely stupid. That law was written to prevent people from presenting works of others' for monitary gain without the creator's permission as if it was their own. That would be theft of copywrite, not simplying copying.

Idiot
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Baron von Robber, 23 Jan 2014 @ 12:25pm

Re: Re:
Correction: copyright
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Andrew Norton (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 12:26pm

Re:
Are you a lawyer, licensed in Ga?
I'm just asking because you clearly know how to do legal research, and AF Holdings is now looking for a lawyer in the Patel case, since Nazaire has been forced to withdraw under 10USC.
Might wanna give them a call.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JWW (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 12:32pm

Re: Re: Re:
What exactly was immoral about this guy wearing his prescription glasses in order to watch a movie?

What they did here would be similar to them interrogating every other moviegoer about their intent to record the movie because their cellphone was in their pocket.

It was insane.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JWW (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 12:33pm

Re: Re: Good rant, but YES, copyright infringement IS theft!
Methinks you just scored a comment of the week.

Well done.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 12:36pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because a large number of people here do indeed seem to see nothing wrong with piracy. Case in point, Rikuo above declares in his response that he sees nothing wrong with downloading a movie. As such one can expect that suggesting to such people that yes it is wrong, they are listening to their shoulder devil when they do so, will not be favorably received.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 12:39pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
I said nothing about this case, so kindly do not pretend I did. I merely responded to silverscarcat claiming there is no moral issue to piracy with a contrary opinion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 12:43pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You do realize that I'm not the only user on this site? As far as I remember, only a bare handful of regulars have done the same as me and said they're anti-copyright, in practically all its forms.
Most other regular users are pro-copyright, in that they say they believe that it does serve some useful function but that the way it is today is that it's simply too destructive civil liberties wise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 12:44pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
To the contrary, morality underpins most laws. The only question is which set of morals is being used.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PopeyeLePoteaux (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 12:45pm

Re: Re: Re:
I steal you car, you no longer have your car = theft.

I copy a movie, the original is still there = infringement =/= theft.

Do I need to explain that to you with sticks, colored beans and confetti?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 12:46pm

Re: Re:
Huh, I had completely forgotten about AF Holdings (and Prenda) in general. What's the latest with them? Has that mysterious wandering lawyer (can't remember his name), the one's been ordered to appear at court but who can never be found but we're oh so sure he'll turn up tomorrow, has his body been found yet?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 12:47pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, of course I realize that you aren't the only user on the site. The fact remains that there are several regular users that are anti-copyright, and the rest tend to be copyright minimalists that would be prone to disagreeing for a variety of reasons.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tim R (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 12:48pm

Re: Re: Re: Jurisdiction
Oh, I'm sure there's some Hollywood accounting in there as well. By the end, they'll owe the MPAA money...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 12:49pm

Re: MT?
What is MT? Shouldn't that be RT (Re-Tweet?)

MT is used for "modified re-tweet." It's become the standard way that you do a RT where you've slightly changed the original (often to make it fit)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PopeyeLePoteaux (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 12:50pm

Re: Re: Re:
Morality regarding copyright infringement, is a red herring at best, it's irrelevant, its only used by maximalists to derail the conversation to a purely emotional level, and also it begs the question of what's moral or not and according to who.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PopeyeLePoteaux (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 12:54pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I know this is off-topic within the context of the article, but I think its relevant to the statement alone.

Does morality is relevant when talking about laws regarding same sex marriage?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
silverscarcat (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 12:55pm

Re: Re: Re:
I can see your position on this one.

The thing is, when saying that piracy is theft, it becomes a moral issue, as everyone knows that stealing is wrong and people who steal should be punished. However, when you change "theft" to "Copyright Infringement" it takes the morality away from the issue at hand.

Yes, you should pay to see stuff, people do work hard to make stuff happen. I will never say "consume everything for free" (except in the case of Public Domain works or stuff that's available for free of course) because that's not right.

What I want, though, is for the narrative of piracy to go from "theft" to "copyright infringement". Once that happens, there's less knee-jerk reaction from people and they can focus on the why something happens rather than the what of something that happened.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 12:56pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Certainly it would be reasonable to address those as partially moral issues as well. Particularly when you get into some of the abuses the copyright system allows.

Though I don't think we can say "Let's talk about reforming copyright, then maybe we can talk about piracy." The two issues are heavily intertwined, with defects in handling of copyright being a prime cause of piracy and copyright trolls. To fix copyright to address those things, you'd need to look at them at the same time to see where the problems are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MadAsASnake (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 12:57pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Although it would still only be a theft of a copy of the movie - it still would not deprive the owner of the movie of anything. The theatre, yes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
silverscarcat (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 1:00pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I, personally, am Anti-Copyright-in-its-current-form.

That is, I can see that Copyright can be useful, but as it stands NOW, no way.

If there can't be a balance reached to put Copyright back into synch with how it should be, that is, not eternal like it is now, then I think it should be eliminated.

I hope that doesn't need to happen, but it might.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MadAsASnake (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 1:03pm

Re: Re: Re:
The purpose of copyright is to maximise the prooduction and distribution of artistic works... There are massive abuses of copyright where it is being used for precisely the opposite, not least the corruption that goes into the legislative process to do all sorts of nasty things like stealing from the public domain. When the copyright industry make themselves worthy of respect, they will get some. In the meantime, I spend quite enough on entertainment and won't be told what I can do with my stuff.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 1:10pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fair enough, though I think saying Copyright Infringement instead of theft doesn't remove the moral issue, just changes the degree of severity.

Regardless of that, I do agree that the narrative of piracy should go from "theft" to "copyright infringement". The whole reason the **AA pushes for theft in the first place is that it's seen as more severe and allows them to get a more severe response than is warranted.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MadAsASnake (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 1:12pm

Re:
And the really silly thing is - most cams taken in the crowd are unwatchable (any idiot can see instantly that Google Glass would make for a pointless experience - but then ICE aren't staffed by any idiots, they seem to have especially stupid ones bred for them) - most cams are taken from the project booth.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 1:14pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't think it's a "large number" at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 1:16pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Might I also ask what is wrong with being anti-copyright in the first place? It's simply a position on a law. I live in a country where abortion is illegal for example, but my position is it should be legal. Am I not allowed say it should be, am I not allowed talk about it or campaign to change the law?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 1:23pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Some of us, however, do see something wrong with ripping the glasses off someone's face, detaining a man for hours ("voluntarily" - whatever the fuck that means), and then, after they found nothing, let him go with some free movie tickets.

If you're going to bring up piracy and copyright, that's fine.

But don't lose sight of the fact that THIS MAN DID NOTHING AND LOST HOURS OF HIS LIFE to these assholes.

And perhaps YOU don't care that ICE is now the private Gestapo of the MPAA, catching all those "piracy-terrorists," but some of us would like our tax dollars spent on something more worthwhile.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Samuel L Jackson's Lawyer, 23 Jan 2014 @ 1:24pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Although it would still only be a theft of a copy of the movie - it still would not deprive the owner of the movie of anything. The theatre, yes.

Absolutely agree with what you're saying, but you are conflating the statement as well.

The theater either owns the copy of the movie, or they are renting it from the studio (more than likely.) In which case, stealing the physical medium used to display the movie would mean that the theater or the studio was a victim of theft. The "owner of the movie" doesn't really exist. The owner of the copyright on the movie exists, the producer exists, the studio exists, the theater exists, but the owner of the movie only exists if "movie" refers to the physical media the movie resides on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ltlw0lf (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 1:25pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Weird...not sure how that name appeared on the top of that comment...and logged out too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PopeyeLePoteaux (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 1:28pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except that copyright is not and has never been a moral issue. Copyright is utilitarian by design and necesity, its not about morality, it never has been, its about practical utility. It exists because it has practical utility, its function as MadAsASnake stated below, is to maximise the production and distribution of artistic works.

And as I said before, morality is a red herring when talking about copyright, its used to bring down the conversation to a purely emotional level, its irrelevant at best. and again it begs the question about what's moral or not and according to who.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 1:46pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is SEEN as more severe because it IS more severe. One deprives the original owner of something that they rightfully own and then other does not. What they are they are doing is a willful conflation to misrepresent the severity of the act to the benefit of their own personal agenda.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 1:56pm

Re:
ICE is the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. So yes they are part of the federal government. They are the one's that investigate ship yards and seize illegal cargo they find trying to enter the country. Their mandate is supposed to be to check for contraband at borders, airports and shipping ports. Columbus, OH isn't a shipping port, isn't really near any borders, and isn't really that big so I can't imagine that there are too many airports there, so I guess the ICE agents there are really bored and have nothing better to do than to go on MPAA's wild goose chases.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PopeyeLePoteaux (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 1:57pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
*sigh*

Again...

I steal your car, you no longer have it, I have deprived you of your car, that's theft.

I copy a movie, the original is still there, I haven't deprived anybody of a non-material good, that's infringement, not theft.

Only what is legally and MATERIALLY owned can be stolen, because the legal owner is actually deprived of that material object. How hard is that to understand?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kenneth Michaels, 23 Jan 2014 @ 2:02pm

Re: Re: MT? - Mike, have you found the RT/MT
I could not find the original tweet that was supposedly modified. I don't think it is a modified RT, I think @wwwicegov is taking it from somewhere else. Bad form.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 2:04pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I agree. Doing something about piracy also involves doing something about copyright law. After all, it's the law that makes the piracy what it is. Expanding copyright law just expands piracy. If piracy is beyond control, then reigning in copyright law is the easiest, cheapest, and best way to reduce piracy to a manageable (or tolerable) level.

Another moral argument is that the copyright holdings of these multi-national corporations have grown so vast - nearly 100 years of content - that they're utterly incapable of managing everything that they own. We get the few things that can unquestionably turn a profit while the rest languishes unseen and unavailable to the public. If we ever do start seeing things enter the public domain again, it will be a real treasure trove of material, if it still exists.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 2:05pm

Re: No wonder
> I always wondered why government agencies take so damn long to do anything. Now I know.

At least government agents are no longer spending all day watching pr0n anymore. Aren't you glad they corrected that problem?

Aren't you glad your tax dollars are going to good use?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PopeyeLePoteaux (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 2:07pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Correction:

I'm deeply sorry, I misread your comment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
krolork (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 2:07pm

We need a revolution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 2:09pm

Re: Good rant, but YES, copyright infringement IS theft!
If someone engages in Movie Theft at the theater how will all the other people who purchased tickets be able to see the movie?

Please explain to me the advanced technology that Google Glass uses to suck the movie right off the screen and onto the Intarwebs where nobody else can see it.

You also neglected to how everything is all Google's fault.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 2:11pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I was agreeing with you. I was saying that theft is SEEN as more severe than infringement because it IS more severe than infringement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 2:12pm

Re:
Turn around then.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PopeyeLePoteaux (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 2:15pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, I'm sorry, I already corrected myself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zonker, 23 Jan 2014 @ 2:17pm

Re: What does the FBI do?
Exactly, I was just thinking that they need to change all of those FBI warnings at the beginning of every commercial DVD/video over to ICE/HSI warnings if the ICE/HSI is going to take over that role. Between the NYPD and the ICE/HSI/MPAA takeovers of FBI roles it doesn't look like there's much left for the FBI to do but create terror plots to foil.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DogBreath, 23 Jan 2014 @ 2:26pm

Re: Re:
Columbus, OH is in the Constitution Free Zone. So, of course ICE would be there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 2:43pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's ok. I've done the same thing many times myself. :P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 2:48pm

Re: Good rant, but YES, copyright infringement IS theft!
"Copyright infringement IS illegal. Had this guy even accidentally recorded the movie, he'd be in a fix right now."

Yeah, because the purpose of copyright is to punish people regardless of intent.

I wouldn't have anything to do with any positive benefit to the public, it's just another tool that government and large corporations wield to destroy normal citizens.

Hooray for big corporations! Hooray for ICE and other government agencies that can punish people! Hooray for cops that beat, for cops that kill! Hooray! Hooray!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 3:02pm

Re: Re: Re:
That map is incomplete, too. International airports are considered national borders, too, so everything within 100 miles of one is also a "Constitution-free zone".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 3:24pm

Re: Re: Good rant, but YES, copyright infringement IS theft!
> The reason why Mike reports on these things
> and Tim reports on cop abuses is because
> they are NEWS.

Yes, they are news, but I don't understand why the cop stuff is relevant to the stated purpose of this blog. I can see how some of the "cops being video recorded" stories have a tech angle to them and that's fine, but there seems to be an increasing tendency to cover *any* story of police abuse/misconduct here. The Kelly Thomas case? Yes, those cops were out of line and yes it was a big story, but what does it have to do with technology? It was a pretty low-tech incident-- cops beating up a guy with their hands and batons. How is that relevant to the subject-matter of this blog?

In the end, it's Mike's (et al) blog and he can publish whatever he likes, but it seems like more and more that he should rename it to Tech/Cop Misconduct Dirt to provide a better indication of what it's all about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 3:55pm

Re: Re: Re:
Umm, this is going to be unpopular, but piracy is in part a moral issue. Generally speaking, when you can't afford something, the moral thing to do is to go without it, not seek out illicit means of obtaining it.

This is absolutely not true with cultural works. Generally speaking, when the public can't afford works, the moral thing to do is to create free access to those works.

It is why public libraries are an ethical good. It is why copyright exceptions for public schools are an ethical good. It is why it is an ethical good to create public performance exceptions for churches and non-profits.

It is such an ethical good, in fact, that early copyright laws explicitly stated that publishers had to produce editions that would be affordable by the general public. If they didn't do this, they lost their copyrights.

The question you should ask yourself is not whether it is unethical for the pubic to "take" cultural works. The question you should ask is why it is in any way ethical to stop them.

And it is not ethical. It may be a necessary evil, but it is an evil nonetheless.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 4:01pm

could have been far, far worse
If it had been contact lenses, they might have slurped out his eyeballs
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 4:12pm

Re: Good rant, but YES, copyright infringement IS theft!
copyright infringement IS theft!

You can scream this as loud as you want, but it doesn't make it true.

Legally, it is not theft. Infringement is not stealing, and infringing copies are not stolen goods. This was decided, unequivocally, in Dowling v. United States.

And in the Hotfile case (where the court found that Hotfile was infringing), the court said that the MPAA could not use terms like "theft" or "stealing," as they were purely "pejorative terms."

It is not "theft" in any other term, either, because creating a copy is not "taking" anything. It is not "theft" in the economic sense, because nobody's bank account goes down with infringement, and no stock is lost; there is absolutely no economic difference between infringement and simply not buying a copy. It is not "theft" in the colloquial sense, either, as it does not deprive the copyright holder of the original works, or of any right to exploit the works economically.

So, go ahead and scream all you want. You'll only make yourself angry. You still won't be right, and you won't convince anyone else that you are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 4:19pm

Re: Re: Good rant, but YES, copyright infringement IS theft!
Infringment is theft the same way that detaining the guy was kidnapping
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 4:28pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
NO. And Rosie should have stayed at the back of the bus,
Prohibition should still be in effect and the rest of the stupid laws that have been repealed over the years should be re-instated.

THE LAW IS THE LAW.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
OldGeezer (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 4:47pm

Why would anyone even want a shitty cammed movie?
I am not big on downloading but a friend showed me a cammed movie he downloaded. When I commented how really bad the video and audio was he said that this was one of the better ones he had seen. I guess some people just HAVE to have the latest films while they are still in the theaters but if they just wait they can get it in BLU-ray either legally or not within a matter of weeks after the theater run.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 4:49pm

average_joe and out_of_the_blue just loathe it when due process is enforced.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vince, 23 Jan 2014 @ 5:10pm

Re: Good rant, but YES, copyright infringement IS theft!
The only way taking a movie would be theft is if you went to a physical store and took a dvd or went to the producers and took the movie reel. Otherwise it is piracy/copying. Two totally different things. Please stop saying they are the same
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 5:53pm

Re: Re:
And if they want to pretend that it is real property, then they can start to pay property tax on it. The value should depreciate by 35% the moment it is released, and continue to depreciate till it completely worthless in 10 years, same as all the rest of the real property. Once it hits 35 years and becomes a classic, then it may start to gain value again, if there are collectors who want it

Oh, they want to have their cake and eat it too.

If it is property, then when I BUY it, it is mine. it is not a licence, it is a sale and I can do what ever I like with it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zonker, 23 Jan 2014 @ 5:58pm

Re: What does the FBI do?
Why stop at just replacing the FBI with ICE? Let's expand the scope of other government agencies while we're at it:

Dept. of Defense (DOD) collects the taxes instead of the IRS.
Social Security Administration (SSA) regulates the stock exchange instead of the SEC.
NASA handles federal transportation projects instead of the Dept. of Transportation (DOT).

I'm sure we can come up with more clever ideas than these, though maybe if the last example were real we'd have the flying cars we've been promised by now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 23 Jan 2014 @ 6:21pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't think you can make a blanket statement like that and not be in danger of not knowing what you're talking about. You can't know if morality was actually the underpinning of a law when it was proposed and passed or if it just looks like it might have been based on your perspective after the fact or even if it was purported by its proponents of having moral underpinnings.

Slavery as a set of laws wasn't arguably moral by our modern perspective, but I'm damn sure based on the personal accounts and statements of pro-slavery politicians from the 19th century that I've read that they actually believed that it was moral and just for the white man to enslave the black man.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 6:32pm

Re: Re: Re:
When ever someone says something is a moral issue, I like to ask myself "What would Jesus do?"

Do you think that Jesus would be on the side of sharing or on the side that worships gold and false idols?

Did not Jesus share amongst the people the fishes and the loaves of bread?

Did you hear the bread vendor wanted to sue Jesus for "Theft". No? Me either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Another AC, 23 Jan 2014 @ 6:43pm

Did anyone else notice a major problem Mike never touched on?
One of the tweets explicitly stated that when illegal recording is suspected the proper thing to do is to call the MPAA - a private industry trade group - and not to call ICE or local law enforcement.

WTF?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 7:17pm

Re:
The federal criminal property theft statute at issue is 18 USC 2319B:

Actually, the federal criminal theft statutes are in 18 USC 31, "Embezzlement and Theft."

So, obviously, copyright infringement can't be theft, because it's not defined in that section of the statutes.

...This makes exactly as much sense as what you're saying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Andrew Norton (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 7:34pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nope, I know they'd LIKE that theory, but they have at least bowed to the realities.

Namely, while a land border is continuous and exterior, an air-border (ie, airport) is closed and interior. They already have and and all exits out of said area under control (because it's so small) and because to arrive in it, you'd need to do so in an easily recognizable aircraft.

A land border, however, is large, and has free and open access, and so anyone can arrive there at any time and at any point (in theory) without observation and direct control. Hence the Zone.

Now, I certainly don't agree with it, but it at least makes a 'kinda' sense - or at least as much as those Committee for State Security ever make.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Andrew Norton (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 7:37pm

Re: Re: Re:
Lutz isn't a lawyer, he's the officer of AF Holdings. They lost one case this week in Illinois. The Patel (that's the 'ignore California because Gay Marriage' and 'seal the case because the internet is mean') case has a hearing on Tuesday. Judge has said 'no affidavit's, unless they're here to be cross'd as well' and will be talking sanctions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DogBreath, 23 Jan 2014 @ 8:00pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
but they have at least bowed to the realities.

Pilots Want To Know Why The DHS/CBP Are Searching Their Planes Without Warrants

If this is them bowing to reality, I'd sure hate to see what their fantasy turns out to be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2014 @ 8:42pm

I'm wondering, does this include the employees of movie theaters seeing a movie for free, letting their friends in to the movie for free, or handing out passes like in this case? Those all seem to be ways for people to also not pay for movies. Can we report this if we see it? Who do we call? I'd like to report the theft of 4 yet to be determined movies in this case by the manager that handed out 4 passes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
LAB (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 8:43pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Laws are not subjective. You obey them or you break them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 9:00pm

Re: Re: Re: Good rant, but YES, copyright infringement IS theft!
Most of the cop stories are because cops are being recorded by videocameras, and the story is about the cop trying to prevent being recorded, which makes it a tech issue.

But TechDirt has certainly expanded beyond technology to other political issues as a natural growth from covering technology. There are topics I ignore simply because I don't interest me, but I wouldn't complain about them being covered.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
LAB (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 9:21pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"But don't lose sight of the fact that THIS MAN DID NOTHING AND LOST HOURS OF HIS LIFE to these assholes."

I barely understand the outrage. It is illegal to record in a movie theater. This is pretty well known by much of the adult population of the United States. A shame he is from the Balkans and might not have realized it but.....a movie theater is private property. They were well within their rights to call the authorities if they suspect someone breaking the law in their establishment.

"Just like photos, you can use a voice action to start video recording by saying "ok glass, record a video."

from google glass help

I am more concerned with the potential to abuse privacy rights by these devices then a potential stunt to get people to talk about $3,000 glasses and where people should and shouldn't wear them.

"And perhaps YOU don't care that ICE is now the private Gestapo of the MPAA, catching all those "piracy-terrorists," but some of us would like our tax dollars spent on something more worthwhile."

If you are potentially breaking federal statutes, federal authorities will often be involved. Ice was rolled into homeland security some years ago.
I suggest a trip to ICE's website to see what they have been doing since 2008. It is quite a bit more than being MPAA goons.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 11:04pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
'It is illegal to record in a movie theater.'

Which. He. Wasn't. Doing.

How many times does this need to be repeated, he was not recording anything, and if they really had a problem with him wearing the device(which are built into his regular glasses) into the theater they should have told him so before ever selling him a ticket, not sold him the tickets, let him enter and sit down to watch the movie and then call the copyright cops to drag him from the theater mid-film.

At most they thought he might have been making a recording(a crappy one, that no-one would ever want to watch. Seriously, it would be essentially an entire movie composed of shaky cam shots, you'd have to be a complete masochist to want to watch something like that), and if so they should have politely explained their concerns, and asked him to leave.

'They were well within their rights to call the authorities if they suspect someone breaking the law in their establishment.'

Which would be one thing, except that's not what happened. The ones the movie theater contacted were the MPAA, and they then contacted their buddies/employees at ICE to go 'pirate hunting'.

To try and put this in perspective, and take the copyright angle and any related bagged from it out of the picture, imagine the following scenario:

You're one of those people that likes to wind down with a drink or two once the weekend hits. Come friday, you go to the supermarket to pick up some drinks, they sell you your items, and you leave. Unknown to you however, due to a 'bounty' that's been placed by a private organization, offered to those that spot and point out drunk drivers, someone at the store calls in said organization and tells them about your purchase, on the assumption that because you just purchased alcohol, and you're driving a vehicle, of course that means you're going to be downing a few drinks while driving.

The private organization then calls their buddies at the local precinct and you soon find yourself 'unofficially' pulled over, taken somewhere, and interrogated for several hours, where they constantly press you to 'fess up' about how much you'd been drinking. While you're told that you're not officially under arrest, and are free to leave at any time, it is strongly implied that things will go very poorly for you if you decide to leave.

To you of course this is completely insane, you hadn't cracked open a single one of those drinks at this point, and so you object strongly, asking, almost pleading with them to allow you to show them the case of drinks, to show that it hadn't even been opened yet, and to give you a breathalyzer test to show that you hadn't touched a drop of the stuff, and yet for whatever reason they refuse, and continue interrogating you for several hours.

Finally, at some point, one of them gets the bright idea to check the packages themselves, and lo and behold the containers/boxes are still closed up, not a single drink out of place. Then they give you the breathalyzer test you'd been asking for during the whole mess and it comes up completely clean as well.

Finally, as though to add insult to injury, a representative from that 'Private organization', the one who put out the bounty offer, shows up and explains that it's all been a terrible misunderstanding, but since the problem they're trying to deal with is so serious*, obviously you must agree that a 'little mistake' like this is a small price to pay, right?

Then, to 'make it up to you', rather than actually apologizing for anything that happened, the rep offers you a $5 gift card for the store you made the purchase at, upping it to a $10 gift card when you refuse such a cheap 'repayment' for all that they've put you through.

That even begin to sound like a rational or even sane response to what was nothing more than a suspicion that someone might be breaking the law?

'I am more concerned with the potential to abuse privacy rights by these devices then a potential stunt to get people to talk about $3,000 glasses and where people should and shouldn't wear them.'

Please tell me you're not buying into Blue's insane idea that this entire thing was a publicity stunt orchestrated by google to promote an upcoming product? I'd expect such idiotic PR from MS, sure(see: the entire XBone PR campaign), but 'Wear our Glasses, and you too can get dragged from a theater and threatened by the hollywood copyright cops!' is anything but good PR.

Now, that said, while I highly doubt this was a PR stunt on Google's behalf, I can totally see it as being an attempted one, and one that backfired badly, on behalf of the *AA's, to 'make an example' out of a movie pirate, and show just what happens to those recording movies. The fact that the one they snagged wasn't actually recording a thing though, kinda makes that 'example' dead opposite of what they wanted, making them look all kinds of bad and prone to extreme over-reactions.

*Here I should point out that while drunk driving is a serious problem, and deserves extremely harsh punishments to dissuade people from doing so, copyright infringement doesn't even come close to as damaging as the *AA's would like to have people believe, and the fact that they have to constantly lie to 'convince' people shows that even they know this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 11:06pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You mean that's not who you are? Aww, you got all our hopes up for nothing...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 24 Jan 2014 @ 12:21am

Re:
How do you spin Section 3931 of the Penn. criminal code:

That section of the criminal code was explicitly dealing with unpublished works.

Laws regarding unpublished works are entirely different than laws dealing with restricting use on works which have already been published.

For example, even Wheaton vs. Peters, the first copyright court case, unequivocally decided that post-publication monopoly rights were not based in common law rights,, but that the right of "first publication" is a common-law right. Nobody here has argued against them, and we all argue that infringement upon those rights is "stealing," because it's infringement upon personal property rights. There is no controversy.

The Pennsylvania statute was restricted to "first publication" rights, which are "first publication" rights. They do not have anything to do with post-publication rights, which is what anyone here discusses when debating copyright rights. Infringing upon "first publication" rights might or might not be theft; but even if it was, it doesn't mean infringing upon a post-publication right is theft. In fact, the two questions are completely distinct.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2014 @ 12:22am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
LAB is one of the more reasoned, controlled copyright advocates, but the attempts and lengths he goes to defend the existing, over-the-top practices are a sign of his irreparably blind dedication.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2014 @ 1:09am

Re: Re: Re: About OOTB
You want a cookie for being more honest about it than Mike Masnick?

Most people are more honest than Mike Masnick.

So yeah, go bake your own.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Within Reason, 24 Jan 2014 @ 2:21am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
LAB is a content creator who appears to be skeptical of his ability to make a living from his work without a maximalist copyright regime. I'd recommend exploring alternatives to making a living out of selling copies of the works in an environment where copying and distribution has never been easier.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 24 Jan 2014 @ 2:47am

Re:
The story is about a private organization that **thinks** they can harras citizens without cause or warrent.

Emphasis added with *

The correct would be "The story is about a private organization that can harras citizens without cause or warrent." The current laws seem to allow it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Robert Sund (profile), 24 Jan 2014 @ 3:57am

Slaves and serfs
A slave that ran away actually deprived the owner of his property. Someone that steals him/her-self is a thief, and theft is immoral. Free slaves is worse than pirates.

Poor owners. Squeezing serfs for centuries to carve out a livelihood.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Robert Sund (profile), 24 Jan 2014 @ 4:32am

Would you copy a fish
If he bought one fish, were the copies theft?
Jesus did massive copying and sharing, no wonder the establishment hanged him.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
me@me.net, 24 Jan 2014 @ 4:48am

Coupla Things
First of all: FUCK THE MPAA!

Secondly: Even if the guy was recording the movie WHICH HE WASNT, how is it a matter of Homeland Security and why the fuck are my tax dollars paying for this shit? ICE, you are fired!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
LAB (profile), 24 Jan 2014 @ 6:33am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Which. He. Wasn't. Doing."

How do you tell? How are they supposed to know? If you think someone is shoplifting from your store don't you check the bag they brought in?

I appreciate your analogy and am slightly more sympathetic. I think the analogy would be better served in a shoplifting situation. Incredibly inconvenient for the patron. My point more is that when dealing with private entities you get crazy reactions. Regardless how you feel about the laws I would not wear a potential recording device on my face in a theater and be surprised if anything happened.

"Now, that said, while I highly doubt this was a PR stunt on Google's behalf, I can totally see it as being an attempted one, and one that backfired badly, on behalf of the *AA's, to 'make an example' out of a movie pirate."

This is what I think.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
LAB (profile), 24 Jan 2014 @ 7:03am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"LAB is one of the more reasoned, controlled copyright advocates."

Thanks

"but the attempts and lengths he goes to defend the existing, over-the-top practices are a sign of his irreparably blind dedication."

Hardly, I just fail to see things and stories strictly in black and white, good vs. evil constructs. I feel you do yourself a disservice if you can't view it from the other side. Why would the MPAA be concerned with someone potentially using new technology to record in a movie theater? Why would federal authorities be involved? Why would they question him about higher ups and what organization he worked for?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2014 @ 7:31am

Re: Re: Re: Re: About OOTB
average_joe just hates it when due process is enforced.

Sue any dead grandmothers lately, fucktard?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 24 Jan 2014 @ 7:40am

Re: Would you copy a fish
Indeed, why that filthy pirate, going around copying those fish and bread to feed his filthy pirate friends, it's no wonder the Roman Empire failed, his 'simple' crime caused billions of dollars(or the roman equivalent) of damage to the economy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2014 @ 8:03am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you barely understand it, it's likely because YOU weren't detained for 3 hours for DOING NOTHING WRONG!

How many times does it need to be stated to you copyright hard heads that THIS GUY WASN'T RECORDING ANYTHING! You keep spouting off that "recording in a theater is illegal" - perhaps you can tell me about the RECORDING that ICE DIDN'T find.

"If you are potentially breaking federal statutes, federal authorities will often be involved. Ice was rolled into homeland security some years ago."

He wasn't breaking ANY statute.

Try again, though. I love how you assholes justify breaking everyone's balls because of "copyright" - I can only hope that someday it happens to you, so that maybe MAYBE you can understand how fucked up this is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 24 Jan 2014 @ 8:12am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Funny thing about the shoplifting version of the analogy, had this been a case of someone suspected of shoplifting a CD/DVD, this insane overreaction wouldn't have occured. Police(the regular ones) would have been called, they would have asked the person to open their bags right off the bat, seen that the individual didn't have what the store had claimed he'd stolen, and then let him leave.

(Minor tangent)
For all that some people constantly claim that 'infringement = theft', the law certainly treats them completely and utterly different in severity and punishment, though the fact that the one that literally(due to removing a physical copy that could have been purchased) involves taking away the opportunity for a business to profit from its sale is treated less severely than creating a copy of the original, just shows how insanely out of whack the laws have gotten.
(/Minor tangent)

Regardless how you feel about the laws I would not wear a potential recording device on my face in a theater and be surprised if anything happened.

Except for the fact that the theater's own actions would have strongly suggested to the guy that he didn't have anything to worry about. If wearing the gadget was a problem, he should have been denied entry in the first place, and told that as long as he was wearing it he would be barred from watching a movie at that establishment.

That did not happen.

If they were such a huge threat that it warranted calling a private organization, who then called a federal agency to come in and drag the guy out of the theater, it should have been pointed out to him when he was picking up his drinks and snacks(assuming he's one of those crazy people willing to pay $20 for munchies), or when he was at the ticket check.

That did not happen either.

The entire time up to the point where he was dragged out of the theater, apparently not one of the theater employees gave him any indication that his wearing that gadget on his head was considered such a huge problem, or told him to leave, so how exactly was he to know it would be treated in such an insanely over the top manner?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 24 Jan 2014 @ 8:15am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How do you tell? How are they supposed to know?

By the light that turns on when you're recording.

The other point about this particular incident is that he was wearing the glasses when he bought his ticket and when he gave his ticket to the ticket-tearer.

The theater had plenty of opportunity to tell him to either take them off or leave the theater before he even sat down. They didn't do that. They just called the cops.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2014 @ 8:24am

Re: Re: Re: Good rant, but YES, copyright infringement IS theft!
Fail.

Theft deprives somebody of something they once had.
Infringement is copying a work but that original work still exists in possession of the owner.

English, learn it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2014 @ 8:33am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They get a "bounty" for reporting these issues, so they have no incentive to stop the man from entering the theater with a potential recording device, but they have a financial incentive to call the authorities and have a potential copyright infringer captured and hauled out of their theater....

It's all about the benjamins, and when theaters are looking for any revenue source they can find, these bounties on copyright infringers (aka movie thieves...lol) create a perverse situation.

to quote a famous poster sight, "Government: You think our problems are bad, wait until you see our solutions..."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 24 Jan 2014 @ 8:44am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
True, but laws can change, which I think is the whole point of TechDirt - to advocate changes in the law and give examples of why that change is needed. Thousands of examples.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 24 Jan 2014 @ 9:30am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In the old days, I'd agree with you. Nowadays, what with "secret interpretations" and all that, I don't have that much confidence in the objectivity of laws. I'm not even confident that I can always know if I'm breaking them or not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
LAB (profile), 24 Jan 2014 @ 10:48am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"THIS GUY WASN'T RECORDING ANYTHING!"

I believe that is why he was questioned as opposed to being arrested.

"If you are potentially breaking federal statutes, federal authorities will often be involved. Ice was rolled into homeland security some years ago."

He wasn't breaking ANY statute.

Family Entertainment and Copyright Act 2005

18 U.S.C.A. � 2319B

(a) Offense.--Any person who, without the authorization of the copyright owner, knowingly uses or attempts to use an audiovisual recording device to transmit or make a copy of a motion picture or other audiovisual work protected under title 17, or any part thereof, from a performance of such work in a motion picture exhibition facility, shall--

(1) be imprisoned for not more than 3 years, fined under this title, or both; or
(2) if the offense is a second or subsequent offense, be imprisoned for no more than 6 years, fined under this title, or both.
The possession by a person of an audiovisual recording device in a motion picture exhibition facility may be considered as evidence in any proceeding to determine whether that person committed an offense under this subsection, but shall not, by itself, be sufficient to support a conviction of that person for such offense

"I love how you assholes justify breaking everyone's balls because of "copyright"

I am sorry you feel there is something wrong in enforcing this law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
LAB (profile), 24 Jan 2014 @ 11:18am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"By the light that turns on when you're recording."

Are you implying there is no way a red light can be disabled to record secretly?

"The other point about this particular incident is that he was wearing the glasses when he bought his ticket and when he gave his ticket to the ticket-tearer."

Perhaps this was meant to catch him in the act. The more I think about it, I don't think it was a pr stunt. They were operating under the assumption he was recording.

Yes, this whole situation was unfortunate.
It's a story because he wasn't doing what they thought he was. Yes they made a mistake. If he was recording the same thing would have happened except he would have been arrested.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
LAB (profile), 24 Jan 2014 @ 11:27am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"For all that some people constantly claim that 'infringement = theft', the law certainly treats them completely and utterly different in severity and punishment."

Absolutely. The theft of a cd/dvd is the theft of a physical thing that retails under $20. Infringement is the taking of the underlying content that could have cost millions to produce. In addition, this appropriation of content then could allow someone else to reproduce it and sell it (bootlegs) (someone else making money instead of the producer) or interfering with the producers ability to commercial exploit their product (offering it for free on the internet).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 24 Jan 2014 @ 5:43pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The interpretation and the enforcement of the law is most definitely subjective.

If a law is written by a flawed human being (as all laws are), there will be loopholes, incongruencies with other laws, lack of clarity, inapplicability, etc.

Even the writers of particular laws have spoken out about how the laws they wrote have been misinterpreted.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btrussell (profile), 24 Jan 2014 @ 10:17pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"How do you tell? How are they supposed to know? If you think someone is shoplifting from your store don't you check the bag they brought in?"

No. You have the person check the bag at the door and they can pick it up again when they leave.

What they did was sell a ticket to some striped shirt guy and then told him he wasn't allowed in because he was wearing a striped shirt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 25 Jan 2014 @ 2:59am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: About OOTB
"average_joe just hates it when due process is enforced."

nah, we actually encouraged it. SOPA was due process down to the letter.

But you pirates/Google stooges couldn't roll with that, now could you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jan 2014 @ 7:17am

My hope is that he sues them all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Clownius, 26 Jan 2014 @ 3:32am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That would be a hell of a lot easier to do if they stole the actual disk. Much better quality too. which would make it more of a threat not less.

Yet the punishment is opposite.

Logical?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jan 2014 @ 11:43pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: About OOTB
"Shut down a website on our say-so." You keep using that word, and you obviously have no idea what it means.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeremy Lyman (profile), 28 Jan 2014 @ 5:14am

Re: Re: Re:
So if a police officer legally orders you to remain still, and you take a step you should be charged with theft.

Hooray for misapplication of semantics and logic!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2014 @ 8:27pm

Re:
Read your own references. Even the sections you reference do not call it theft, but 'criminal copyright infringement,' and references everything back to Title 17. Copyright law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2014 @ 8:30pm

Re: Re:
It's doubly hilarious because the section he references refers back to 17USC501, and just repeats what is there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]