Mimi666, you obviously did not read my post carefully. I can tell because you just regurgitated much of what I ACTUALLY said in my original post. You also called me a "douche" and concluded that I am a movie "Pirate".
Let's clear a couple of things up. I do not go to movies anymore because my only option to protest the absurd policies of the MPAA and the like, is to vote with my dollar and NOT partake of their offerings. Does this mean I pirate movies, no, I either wait for them to appear on TV, netflix, hulu and failing that, I read. You know, books. Ah, you do read don't you? I am guessing you fall more into the category of non-readers based on your complete lack of comprehension after reading my post.
Numerous studies have consistently shown, that "piracy" leads to more sales AND greater profits by exposing more people to the "content". Attacking your customer base and treating them like criminals, engaging in the promotion of legislation that makes us all less free and generally being idiots plays a substantial role in your falling profits.
When an industry is perceived to act like ass-hats by the public, the public will simply stop buying their product.
Contrary to popular belief, I do not need to go to the theater or rent a dvd for my life to be complete, fortunately, many other options for aesthetic enrichment are available. So please kiss my rosy red a**! And, please understand the reason I will never see your movies, is entirely your own doing!
I think we often confuse the hype, marketing and spin, for the reality. The business of Hollywood is not creating new amazing movies, cutting edge media, art and/or beauty for the sake of art and beauty. Hollywood is all about getting people to "pay" to "consume" a given piece of content. When the stars are really shining on the Hollywood Executives, the "consumer" will see a movie in the theater, buy the DVD, by the special edition box set, and when they upgrade to blue-ray, hopefully they will buy that.
Why risk funds investing in an unproven concept, when you have vaults of successful proven ideas that with a little update, can be marketed and sold to a whole new audience. If the regurgitated concept is one where he original author can be screwed out of royalties or the like, again, even better.
While "creative works" come out of Hollywood, these things are not the work of the executives who would see kids and fans in general face criminal prosecution for things like shooting a 20 second clip of a movie to share with you sick sister who could not attend your birthday outing, or sending 4 or 5 low resolution stills from a cell phone to friends as you excitedly tell them you are at the Vampire movie you have been waiting months to see.
The people who make this stuff and do the real hands-on work, get paid at the time it is made.
The executives are just the leeches trying to figure out how to squeeze the most money out of the work of others.
It seems to me like one actually supports the rights of others by the very act of claiming their own rights as defined under the law. If we do not stand-up and claim our "rights", who will. When no does, the rights are gone for everyone.
I do understand what you are saying, being concerned with how the people around us are doing is an important part of being a community, indeed, a civilization, but, it is also important to understand the very act of demanding the rights accorded under the law protect not only ourselves, but our fellow citizens.
I may be wrong here, but I am pretty sure I am correct. I think what we are discussing are in a lot of ways are two different issues. One is a 4th amendment issue relating to one's expectations of privacy in a public place. The other is a question of Federal and State Wire Tap laws being used in a way that is completely at odds with legislative intent.
Here is what I am getting at. The idea that one has no expectation of privacy in a public place was largely decided as a 4th amendment issue by the SCOTUS in the 1967 In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). At the time, video was relatively rare and the concept of sound and image being recorded together onto the same medium was not really a possibility.
What this has led to, is, various jurisdictions trying to use the sound captured along with the image/video, as an means to launch a prosecution under available "Wire Tap Laws". The idea being that because the 2nd party did not agree to the audio being recorded, the instance in question is a violation of federal and or state wire-tap statutes.
It is important to keep in mind, that anyone can try to have a person charged with something, the question is, can the accuser make enough of a connection with the accused person actions to get a jury to believe beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused is guilty.
I don't think I have read about any actual convictions that were not cases where a likely terrified person agreed to plead guilty to a lesser charge, or that sort of situation. As I understand it, so far, every one of these cases have been thrown out before coming to trial, or, the accused has been acquitted by a jury.
Because we tend to think of things in terms of common sense and are smart enough to realize the intent of these laws was to prevent the violation of the 4th amendment by our government and or criminals, it is easy to reach the conclusion that making an image or video in public without a persons permission is what is being prosecuted. What is actually happening, is a law is being "taken out of context" and used to suppress public scrutiny of a subset of public servants. In the cases where wire tap laws do not support this approach, we see the accused charged with disorderly conduct and endangering a police officer, for example.
One of the problems with out "zero tolerance / get tough" approach to law enforcement used in politics to help build a candidates name and credentials, is we end up with so many laws and too many situations where some clever nit-wit looking to make a name for themselves decides they can twist this or that statute to prosecute something, or force an action which has nothing to do with the intent of said law.
For example, the DMCA was designed to help stop the unauthorized sharing of "copyrighted" material online. It is now used by companies like HP to completely shut-down third party competitors who made ink cartridges for HP's printers. The mark-up on the ink cartridges is enormous, and is actually a much more lucrative product than the actual printer the cartridge is made for. Sadly, the third party company manufacturers were making a good product and taking business away. So instead of competing honestly in the market, HP did away with the competition using a vague, poorly written law created not to allow a large company to suppress competition but to protect copyright holders and encourage more creative growth. In the end, it all comes down to how the courts interpret something.
While the creative use wiretap laws to "protect an officer from being put in danger by being filmed and or recorded by the public" might sound great when spun correctly, it is simply a text-book example of the suppression of public oversight and scrutiny of law enforcement professionals behavior.
For the record, I have many friends who are cops, they are all amazing people who I respect and love. I would hate to see any of them hurt in the line of duty. I also know they are so good at their jobs they not need the civil rights of the people curtailed to ensure they are "safe" and able to do their job.
There is no expectation of privacy in a public place, hence your suggesting he could be arrested for not having the officers consent before filming him in a public place does not really work. It is a well established precedent that one does not need permission to record, film, take pictures of any person as long as it is in a public venue. If the all party consent thing were applicable, paparazzi would be outta a job, and Maria Shriver would not be confronting them as they follow her around following the split from Arnold.
Hey there, also in VT. I think you may be mistaken about the civil contempt thing. My understanding is that until you are under arrest, you do not have to identify yourself. In this case, the guy was breaking no laws, so no arrest, so no requirement for identification.
I am at a loss here, I guess I missed the part in the video where the guy was trying to pick a fight. He was not brandishing a weapon, he had it in a holster. He was simply asserting his rights. How does this make him a jerk?
The safety of cops is important, but no less important than the rights of the citizens. The gentlemen was breaking no law. To suggest that he should have to show ID and identify himself for simply asserting his rights in a lawful fashion i.e. the open carry of his unloaded weapon, refusing to offer ID and filming the interaction with Law-enforcement seems pretty questionable. Do you feel that a cop should be able to just walk-up to you while engaged in a lawful activity and demand to see ID and be given your name is really ok?
Guns are scary. We have been by and large raised to regard them with fear and misgivings. Most people do not really have experience handling weapons and have been taught that guns are "bad" and too dangerous for "regular people" to have. Even told there is no need to be armed because we have police. The norm has become to question the mental health of the open carry person, and a cultural assumption they must be a "gun freak", "nuts" somehow "anti-social".
The reality, is cops enforce laws and investigate crime. Their job is not to "protect and serve" us, this is just good marketing. This job is also one that is very dangerous. I am all for making cops as safe as possible, but that being said, I want my community's officers to be so capable they do not to have my rights curtailed to do their job. If they are unable to meet that standard, perhaps they need to find a new line of work. Officer Lyon is at a glance, the kind of guy I would want on the beat in my community.
From what I have seen, many of the over reactions and stomping on citizen rights when filming actually occur in "low stress" situations.
The situations escalate because the cop does not like being filmed and thus potentially held accountable for their actions. Officer Lyons is the exception and obviously deals very well with the public.
Ok, I skipped ahead a bit here, so if someone else has already raised this point, apologies. :-)
The problem is not guns, it is people. We live in a world with many, many, many, many people. By and large, we humans are a pretty decent bunch. Sadly, it is inevitable when our population swells into the billions, we will see aberrations among the populace. People who for one reason or another, are just fu#$king nuts.
We seem to fear guns and as such we demonize them as being a social problem. A gun is simply a tool. It does not suddenly decide, "wow, I want to go on a shooting spree today". A human has to make a decision to pick up the tool, the gun and go out and kill other living creatures.
Perhaps the key is teaching responsible gun ownership from a very, very young age. Sadly, this particular nutjob used the very strict gun control laws in Norway and the myth that police are societies "bodyguards" to his advantage. Law enforcement exists to enforce laws and investigate crime. Hence, cops showing up after something bad has happened, or after a crime has been committed.
We really need to take responsibility for our own safety, and our decisions.
The universe, the world, is a very scary and dangerous place. This does not mean it is awful, or we should despair, it means that we need to recognize that on a beautiful summer day, there exists a .000001% chance some wack-a-doo might decide today is the day for their moment in the spotlight and to prepare accordingly.
I am a photographer, relatively widely published, and frankly, the woman who brought this suite is really "guilty" of two things here. #1 she does not appear to be a particularly skilled or talented shooter, I am saying this based on my initial impression after looking at the "evidence" above and realizing the "infringing" photos are much better photos than the "original".
#2, her work is kind of mediocre and I would guess her only chance of making a living from photography is by trying to claim a genuinely good photographer is copying her and suing them.
Her name is definitely one I will remember to mention to EVERY editor I know. The simple reality, is the less talented photographer is trying to shake-down the better photographer, instead of producing better work. After all, creating good images takes time and effort, why do all that work when you can just pick a better artist, and try to claim they are infringing because a limb is poised at an angle similar to that in one of her shots. This is one of the lamest things I have ever seen. I am just appalled!