Taping IS Theft — Page 2

OK kids, let's understand what we are talking about. And btw I too am anti-taping.

The act of taping a show is NOT a criminal violation of the copyright law (§506(a)). It is also most certainly not "theft" for several reasons (not only because, as rehearsed above, nothing is "taken" from anyone and also because theft requires the taking of personal property which is obviously not happening here).

Taping IS illegal because of a contract the audience member entered into with the venue.

An actor stopping a show is illegal in the same sense because it too violates an actor's contract.

Has anyone ever been arrested and prosecuted for illegally taping a Broadway show?

I could care less about bootleg performances

In my opinion, maybe this wouldn't even be an issue if producers had these shows filmed and released out to the public, because let's face it...a lot of people, sadly can't spend hundreds of dollars to take a trip to New York just to sit in a theater for 2 1/2 hours.

I just cannot buy into the idea that any serious theatre fan would equate viewing a bootleg with a live experience and would utilize the availability of a bootleg as grounds for not seeing a show in person when the opportunity presents itself. No recording can replace the feeling of being a part of an audience and seeing a performance unfold in front of you.

My experience with the Radio City Music Hall Xmas Spectacular proved to be an egregious example of photo/video taking. So many were taking pics and vid during the f'ing show. The ushers there were not disposed to do anything about it. Wait.....there's more. While I attended "Dames At Sea", I had a seat in the upper mezzanine. During intermission, I asked the usher close by if I could move a few rows down, as there were a few empty seats. I sat on an aisle seat before the intermission ended. I then noticed this idiot who either had a large smart phone or iPad that was still "on". I kept looking at him thru the corner of my eye (I have very good peripheral vision.) Anyway, he would try to hide his phone under his coat, thinking that no one would see him. (He would be wrong on that account.) I could see that he was setting up to either taking a picture or video of the stage (during the show). I then motioned the usher-ette a few rows away from me, using a picture taking motion and pointing out the ding-dong who had his smart phone on. The usherette sat on the aisle to watch him. He then took out his smart phone as if he was ready to take a shot. Meanwhile, the usherette a couple of rows behind him was seeing all of this. She then went to him and said something. After that, he didn't try anything. Some people will never learn.

Updated On: 12/30/15 at 10:22 PM

@morosco: Someone I know at the Performing Arts Library told me the main reason they are strict about how people watch their videos of Broadway productions is that representatives from other theaters around the country have been caught copying elements of the productions in their own. I believe there have been lawsuits.

How many companies, I wonder, have copied Jerome Robbins's choreography for Fiddler on the Roof without getting the necessary permission, paying the licensing fee, or even acknowledging Robbins in the program? I'd guess a lot. That is theft in every way.

By the way, like it or not the copyright holder has a right to withhold access even if there is no monetary aspect to the piracy.

Peter2 said: "How many companies, I wonder, have copied Jerome Robbins's choreography for Fiddler on the Roof without getting the necessary permission, paying the licensing fee, or even acknowledging Robbins in the program? I'd guess a lot. That is theft in every way."

Unless they were doing the show without obtaining the rights from MTI then none of them did the Robbins choreography illegally. That comes as part of the license from MTI and, assuming they are following the directions included in their contract in regards to billing, Robbins, as well as the rest of the original creators, all are credited.

Now, that being said, yes, there are indeed people who have gone to the Archives to get "inspiration" regarding their own production when it comes to shows that do not have the rights to the original direction and/or choreography as part of the licensing package.

Jose said: "Hogan, this isn't to create an argument I'm simply sharing some information I found. According to NYState's Penal Code unauthorized recording (audio and/or video) inside a motion picture or live theatre is (a) a violation; (b) a class A misdemeanor; (c) class E felony. The differences being the number of times the person has cited for breaking this law. As far as I know these laws can be found in Sections 275.32-34 of the Penal Code. The law also cover the manufacture, sale and advertising for sale of unauthorized recordings. The exceptions appear to cover performances by students enrolled in school, college, summer camps and the like.

The citation of this law is slightly misleading. Copyright law is under Federal jurisdiction, and all claims must go through the Federal courts, making this law inapplicable. The penal law cited simply makes the act of unauthorized recording a misdemeanor. In other words, it enables the police to stop the act. However, the primary component requires that the unauthorized recordings are purposefully made for commercial advantage or private financial gain. Something that would be very difficult to prove. There is also a limitation in the law to which it does not apply: S 275.45(1)(b): Any person who transfers such sounds or images for personal use, and without profit for such transfer.

That said, unauthorized recordings are NOT theft, they are infringement. Theft is a legal term of art, as is infringement. They both have very specific meanings. While there are criminal sanctions, most violations are civil in nature. But to be clear, purchasing/owning a bootleg is not a violation of the law.

As for this not being theft, a producer's attorneys might disagree since said producer has paid to license the work from the creators and assembled and paid all the artists and crafts necessary to make the performance happen. The fact that the end result is ethereal and of the moment might be considered immaterial. What is being stolen is the collected intellectual property of everyone involved under license to the producer.

As I've said, it in not theft. Legal terms are very specific, and theft cannot apply to copyright. Therefore ancillary terms like stealing and stolen are also not applicable to copyright. I guarantee you ina courtroom before a judge the producer's attorney will not use theft or stealing to describe the action.

Updated On: 12/31/15 at 02:04 PM

Fosse-thanks for the leg work. Much of what you say is true but alas it too is somewhat misleading.

The law provides for three "degrees" of the offense-a violation (like a traffic ticket), a misdemeanor (punishable by <a year in prison and a felony. A misdemeanor is a crime and goes on your record as such.

The difference in getting a ticket and being arrested for a misdemeanor is that the latter requires one of 3 additional things-either the commercial use you mention OR recording > 15minutes OR repeated violations.

As pertinent to folks here, that means that if you record the whole show or even much of it, you are a criminal. You could go to jail or you could be fined an amount that should give you as much pause as buying orchestra tickets to Hamilton for next week. But you are not a thief, but I am not sure why that is important to anyone except a lawyer.

Great example, no that action is not theft. Theft would be physically taking the book from the store without paying for it. Yes there is something wrong about that action, but it's not theft in my opinion.

Jose said: "I take the book and locate the copy machine in the bookshop. I begin to copy every page from the cover."

Don't you have a cell phone with a camera?

@Hogan. LOL You got me there!

Actually I own no bootleg videos. So there are none on my phone nor any photos either.

hence the need for a copier. Ever contemplated why there is/was never a copier in Barnes & Noble?

I remember a gay lit store that had to have a sign posted that said there was no standing and taking notes at the gay travel guide section. Back when they had gay lit stores. And gay places to list in gay travel guides.