The cam ban laws are remarkably similar to anti-bootlegging laws, that many believe are actually unconstitutional in that they're protecting work that isn't fixed.
Since live musicians are not performing sound recordings (with the exception of acts like Mili-Vanilli ... :) they don't actually have a copyright claim over their work performed. While the underlying composition is protected by by copyright through ASCAP, and reproduction of that composition in the form of a sound recording is probably in violation of it, the original copyright statute doesn't actually prohibit recording sounds made somewhere that happen to come from a musician. "Cam ban" laws and anti-bootlegging laws are further complicated when the underlying work isn't actually protected, e.g., is in the public domain, or freely licensed. I have been working on trying to organize an action in NYC where we go to a theater showing a Free film and encourage people to record it. While we'd have the right to record the film, as it's unprotectable, the cam ban law in NY would essentially prohibit it. It'd be a bit of civil disobedience to demonstrate the absurdity of these para-copyright laws. Unfortunately the only instance that I could find was when the NYPL was playing "Feline Follies" at the MoMA, which is a silent 8 minute pre-1923 PD short. It didn't really seem like they were a good target considering both are valuable, non-profit cultural institutions. F On 9/9/07, Gavin Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Parker wrote: > > "While many have commented on the fair use aspect, which pertains to > > federal copyright laws, it has no relationship to the Virginia state > > law at issue." > > > > Does this make any sense? Somehow I was under the impression that > > federal law trumped state law. > > The Virginia law is not a copyright law. The state law, separate from > any copyright concern, says: You can't use a video camera in a movie > theater. Even if would be fair use, you still run afoul of the state law. > > Consider if a TV broadcaster used a NSFW snippet of hardcore pornography > in their nightly news broadcast. Fair use would entitle them to do so; > broadcast regulations would not. Different laws. > > The difference here is, the "cam ban" is clearly directly related to > copyright. There is no other concern with camcording besides the loss of > rent extracted from the film's copyright. Any other possible concerns > (e.g. a video camera might be a nuisance to other patrons) are addressed > under other laws (e.g. trespass, contract) -- if they don't want you > there because you're disruptive, they can force you to leave. Since the > "cam ban" laws are only about copyright, they're a backdoor extension of > copyright -- without exceptions and limitations built into copyright, > such as fair use. > > IANAL, but it seems like although such laws are not technically > copyright legislation, they do change the traditional contours of > copyright protection, which would make them subject to strict First > Amendment scrutiny -- if, that is, someone is willing to take it to court. > - -- > Gavin Baker > http://freeculture.org/ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [snip] > > Both the federal government and most states, including Virginia, > have > > passed legislation making such conduct illegal. Virginia Code Ann. > > Section 59.1-41.2 states: > > > > A.It shall be unlawful for any person to operate an audiovisual > > recording function of a device in a commercial theater, excluding > the > > lobby and other common areas, to record a motion picture or any > > portion thereof without the consent of the owner or lessee of the > > theater. Any person who violates the provisions of this section is > > guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. > > > > B. The owner or lessee of a commercial theater where a motion > picture > > is being exhibited, or his authorized agent or employee, who has > > probable cause to believe that a person has made a recording in > > violation of subsection A on the premises of the owner or lessee, > may > > detain such person for a period not to exceed one hour pending > arrival > > of a law-enforcement officer. . . . . > > > > > * * > > * * > > > > D. The term "audiovisual recording function" means that component of > > an analog or digital photographic or video camera or other device > > developed with the capability to record or transmit a motion picture > > or any part thereof. > > > > While many have commented on the fair use aspect, which pertains to > > federal copyright laws, it has no relationship to the Virginia state > > law at issue. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFG5FR3tLXQdLhFpekRAvu1AJ9uuIEQcDjAIZWZXpfn475LNNSligCfXFZv > /3VhVgq7Gt9zBFFokCAqvGE= > =iDCn > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
