Screaming Justin Bieber Fans Using Camera Phones To Capture Snippets Of Movie Premiere Berated For Piracy

from the cultural-divide dept

We've pointed out many times that the laws, especially around things like copyright, simply don't match up with the basic cultural norms of what it means to be a kid today. Remember, for example, the woman who was arrested and spent two nights in jail because she used a camera to capture a few very short segments of the movie Twilight, because she was trying to capture her sister's birthday party (with the movie showing being a part of the event). Now, TorrentFreak points us to an unintentionally hilarious article written by a woman who appears to make her living as a Marilyn Monroe/Anna Nicole Smith impersonator, complaining about how a bunch of Justin Bieber fans were thieves because they dared to film snippets of his new movie (wait, Justin Bieber has a movie?!?) at a special VIP Premiere ($30 a ticket!) with their camera phones.

Bieber fans watched the film and screamed with glee at the sight of him on the big screen, but many were also committing a crime. The crime was committed when they began taping the film for their own use. Since most of the audience consisted of teenage girls with their parents, I am left to wonder what parent lets their child commit a crime? Even scarier ,what kind of parent lets them do it in public?

Also I wonder how can Justin's fans call themselves true fans by stealing from the star?

Just what they "stole" from Bieber is not made clear, of course. Of course, there seems to be a bit of a cultural divide here. The Bieber fans aren't stealing anything. What they're doing is sharing with their friends. They're not sharing the movie, of course. I'm sure the screaming crew of Bieber fans are all begging their parents to take them to the theater (probably multiple times). What they're sharing is the experience of going to see the film. Filming a snippet and sending it to friends is a way of letting their friends know "hey, look, I got to go to the Premiere!" or something along those lines.

Of course, thanks to rampant lobbying by the MPAA, such filming is a crime. But this sort of situation just serves to underline why it's stupid to consider just any filming of a movie to be a criminal act. The screaming teen girls at the Bieber movie were not "pirating" the movie in any sense. They were trying to share a cultural experience. It seems pretty bizarre that doing so actually does put them at risk of being sent to jail for a few years.

Filed Under: cameraphones, justin bieber, movie, sharing

A Look Back: Remember When Camera Phones Were A Dumb Idea?

from the oh-look... dept

Earlier this year, I bought both a point-and-shoot camera and a new smartphone. The point-and-shoot is decent, though I had lots of trouble with the manufacturer, who originally sold me a busted camera, and then charged me to fix it (yay). However, I've noticed lately that I'm perfectly happy just taking photos with my smartphone instead. The camera quality isn't quite as good, yet it's pretty good. The shutter speed isn't quite as fast, but it's not bad. But, most importantly, the phone is always on me and it's always connected -- which is actually pretty useful, since the first thing I often want to do with photos I take is share them with others. On top of that, I'm finding all sorts of interesting apps that actually make use of the phone in interesting ways. Google Goggles, which takes a photo of something and then provides information about the product has come in handy a few times. I have another program that scans food barcodes and analyzes what you're eating. It's pretty neat.

The more that I've used it, the more that I've been remembering the stories we covered seven or eight years ago, where various tech "pundits" mocked the idea that anyone would ever want a camera phone. They were derided as some of the dumbest ideas ever, so I'd been meaning to put together a post looking back at some of those early predictions (and, um, modestly note that we correctly called what was going to happen). Just as I was searching for those old posts, someone passed along MG Siegler's perfectly timed (seriously, thanks man) post about how the point-and-shoot market is stagnating and beginning to die, as more people just use their smartphones instead. Siegler is rightly complaining that the camera companies haven't bothered to recognize the value of connectivity in their cameras, but like other products (standalone GPS? standalone mp3 player?) it seems increasingly likely that these will all be subsumed within the phone.

So, let's take a trip back and see. I pretty quickly found three such articles in our archives, talking about claims by two tech pundits, about how camera phones were a dumb idea and had no future. Two such articles were by David Coursey at ZDNet and the other by Andy Ihnatko at the Chicago Sun Times. Not surprisingly, all three original articles are gone from their original URLs, but the internet never forgets. Thanks to the Internet Archive, we have Coursey's first article where he states:

I'm not exactly calling camera phones a fad, but I'm not exactly not calling them a fad, either. My bet is there will be a relatively small number of people who shoot lots of camphone pics--in the U.S., we have a special term for these people: "12- to 24-year-olds." A much larger group will have a camphone but never click the shutter; we call those people "adults."

Then we've got the second article where he complains about how bad the quality of these things are, and states:

I just think that, if God wanted telephones to be cameras, he wouldn't have given us separate eyes and ears.... I've found that the fun of the camera phone wears off quickly. The first few times one of these gizmos arrived at my house for review, I dutifully ran out and shot a bunch of pictures and sent them to friends. But the process was cumbersome, and the results not much better than the fuzzy pics my friend sent me. It wasn't too long before I stopped thinking of these phones as cameras.... the fact is that I just find them boring.

And then we've got Andy Ihnatko's, where he predicts that the phones will never be cool. Well, technically, he notes:

Barring one of those reality-warping incidents in which Superman gets exposed to the wrong kind of Kryptonite and then there's this huge flash of light and all of a sudden, there's a big statue of Don Ho where the Lincoln Memorial should be, camera phones never will be cool.

That was seven years ago. And yet, in the last couple of years, camera phones have become quite cool... and without a reality-warping incident. Andy works up a nice head of steam, before concluding with the following:

So: They take bad pictures, they're expensive to operate, they drain your batteries and in a worst-case scenario they'll cause your name to land on some sort of watch list. And yet more and more of them are manufactured every day. I'm baffled.

Look, somewhere here in the office I have a normal-looking digital wristwatch that also dispenses PEZ candy. After you've checked the time and determined that the Tokyo durable-goods market closes in just 20 minutes and thus it's time to start dumping some options from your company's pension fund, you push a little lever and a chalky cherry lozenge springs into your hand. It's stylish and fun.

I've never devoted a column to that one, either, because the PEZ watch had exactly the right sort of impact on the Industry. It's cool in a chocolate-and-peanut-butter sort of way, but it's certainly not the sort of thing that causes columnists and analysts to spend an hour leaning back in their chairs and speculating about where this technology will wind up in three years.

Which is a bloody shame, because on the whole, the PEZ watch is a much sounder investment than a camera phone. It's about as useful, for starters, plus it's a one-time $7.95 investment.

However, as we noted in our response to Ihnatko at the time, the real innovation wasn't just putting a bad camera in a phone, but that people always had their phones with them, and that those phones were connected to the network -- and we noted that both things opened up all sorts of new possibilities, which we're now seeing in common usage every day. We also pointed out that complaints about quality were likely to go away, as quality would increase pretty quickly.

Technology advances. It's easy to condemn technology early on, but you need to be watching the trends and what makes new combinations valuable, rather than just comparing them to what else is on the market today. As we're seeing with the camera phone market today, compared to the point-and-shoot market, over time, the technology gets better and the new things that new technology allows start to become more and more important.

Filed Under: cameraphones, cameras, predictions

Latest Pointless Law: Requiring Cameraphones To Click When Taking Photos

from the this-again? dept

History is littered with examples of new technologies causing people to freak out. When automobiles were introduced, laws were passed forcing people to walk in front of the cars, waving red flags. Years ago, I read a great article about how when regular film cameras were first introduced, there were regulations against them, due to fears about privacy violations (I could have sworn I wrote about it on Techdirt, but now I can't find it...). It seems that a similar concept may be showing up with cameraphones, as John writes in to let us know of new legislation in Congress that would require all cameraphones to "click" when taking a photo. The idea, of course, is to "protect the children" so that predators can't secretly take photos. The law is similar to one found in South Korea, so it's hardly a new idea -- though it still doesn't make much sense. Someone looking to do something illegal with their cameraphone will easily figure out a way to take silent photos. All this law will actually do is annoy those who have perfectly legitimate reasons for wanting to take photos quietly. Hell, you could just as easily come up with some silly scenario how this law would be damaging to children... such as if someone wanted to photograph a predator stalking children without the guy knowing... Anyway, vote on what you think of the law below:

Filed Under: cameraphones, noise

Connecticut Gives Up Banning Cameraphones In Court Rooms

from the still-can't-use-them,-though dept

It's been somewhat amusing watching as various folks overreacted to the rise of cameraphones over the past few years, with some companies banning them entirely, and a few clueless industry analysts insisting that they were just a fad that should be banned from any workplace. However, as cameraphones have become much more common, it seems that this mass hysteria is, thankfully, dying down. Over in Connecticut, they've even backed down on a rule that banned cameraphones in the court room. You're still not allowed to use them, but the courts realized now that nearly every mobile phone is a cameraphone, that it was becoming ridiculously time consuming to stop everyone from entering the courthouse, and make them tag and bag every mobile phone for storage and later pickup. Apparently, the lines to get into the courthouse were getting rather long.

Filed Under: cameraphones, connecticut, courts