Taping IS Theft- Page 2

[HogansHero]

Posted: 12/30/15 at 5:49pm

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.

 

[Jose]

Posted: 12/30/15 at 6:44pm

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.  

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.  

Just my two cents. 

[morosco]

Posted: 12/30/15 at 6:48pm

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

[binau]

Posted: 12/30/15 at 6:52pm

What often bothers me is that sentences like this really make it sound like this is the worst thing in the world:  What is being stolen is the collected intellectual property of everyone involved under license to the producer.  

 

At the end of the day, a lot of bootleg artefacts are being used for personal entertainment purposes, it is rather a 'victimless crime'. However, I think that if bootlegging causes ticket sales to reduce, or someone is profiting on them (both of which I'm sure happen sometimes), it sucks.

Updated On: 6/22/16 at 06:52 PM

[Showface]

Posted: 12/30/15 at 6:59pm

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.

 

[SNAFU]

Posted: 12/30/15 at 7:08pm

Yeah, it is the same as recording sporting events. Pretty much innocuous unless you are duplicating them and selling them for profit!

 

[Cupid Boy2]

Posted: 12/30/15 at 9:52pm

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. 

[BroadwayGirlie2]

Posted: 12/30/15 at 10:10pm

I think that they should inforce this in the theater but they may not. I know that the inforce this everywhere else. It disturbs the people acting on stage. I know before our show started that they said no recording of any kind. Then again I guess it depends what you are seeing and what theater you are in.

 

 

[Patti LuPone FANatic]

Posted: 12/30/15 at 10:22pm

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

[HogansHero]

Posted: 12/30/15 at 10:24pm

@Jose-did not know about that state law so thanks. It's still not "theft" but in the final analysis it doesn't matter if you can (at least theoretically) get sent to the pokey for it. All of this notwithstanding, the important things i would convey is that (a) taping=bad/wrong/a no-no and (b) that actors stopping shows is not the way to deal with this. 

[Peter2]

Posted: 12/30/15 at 11:14pm

@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. 

[helvizz]

Posted: 12/31/15 at 12:25am

I'm pretty sure what I'm saying in this text has been said more times than Les Mis has performed in London, but I figured I should give my two cents, even if they are the oldest two cents a person can give...
 

I think that, in the end, from a moral perspective (not talking about the law), it all comes down to whether or not you're bothering the people around you. According to the logic that taping is theft because someone might copy another person's coreography or the way they embody a character, then the same can be said about professional videos. Call me a thief for being able to lip sync to Bernadette Peter's Last midnight, since she has never given me permission to copy her performance of that song but I can do it (maybe not well, but I can to a certain degree). We can take this discussion further: I once watched a production of Godspell over 20 times, by the time it closed I was able to sing and maybe even perform a song or two exactly the way the actors did. Did my 22 times of watching (and paying) the show end up being an act of theft too since they gave me the ability to copy someone's work? So my point is: why is it  'stealing' if it's from a bootleg but it is okay if it is from a professional video (or some other form, like watching a show live 22 times)?
 

And I don't think taping shows can destroy or save a show's ticket sales. True, one person or two might not buy a ticket to see a show after watching a bootleg and deeming it bad (and how well you can judge a show after watching a bootleg is another matter), but this kind of people isn't the majority of ticket buyers. The majority doesn't ever care -or know- if there is a bootleg of such a show. And let's not forget the opposite can happen too: a person might decide to go watch a show after watching a bootleg. Wicked has been taped over a hundred times, while many flops never were. The flops have closed, but Wicked is enoying a solid run.
 

Here's another situation: for example, if a person is recording an audio of the show they're watching, they might just turn on their non-light-emitting recorder, put it under their seat and record the show without bothering anyone. Later, the same person and other people can listen to it and enjoy it in a very innocent way. The recording has not prejudiced anybody. As an audience member, I have no problem whatsoever with this kind of recording, since I do'nt think it prejudices anybody: it doesnt prejudice the actors and it certainly did not prejudice me as an audience member. Again, whether it is legal or not is another matter, I'm strictly talking from a moral perspective of an audience member.

Updated On: 12/31/15 at 12:25 AM

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 12/31/15 at 12:39am

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.

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 12/31/15 at 2:02pm

So my point is: why is it  'stealing' if it's from a bootleg but it is okay if it is from a professional video

It's not. That is exactly why theatrical unions generally limit all professional video footage to 3 minutes for advertising purposes. In the rare instances when a full show is recorded and released for sale or TV broadcast, there are many, many negotiations with the unions and creators to determine the fees and royalties paid. This is also why many shows are recorded for TV broadcast, but never released to DVD ("Legally Blonde," many Lincoln Center shows, etc.).

Related to AEA AGMA SM's post, until very recently, if you saw a community theater production of West Side Story or Fiddler that did NOT use Robbins' choreography, THAT was an illegal production. However, this past year I saw a nearby production of WSS that used new choreography and I was curious, so I went to MTI website. Now, it seems, Robbins' shows include the *option* to license and use the original choreography, at least for amateur licenses.

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

[Fosse76]

Posted: 12/31/15 at 2:04pm

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

[serene_embers]

Posted: 12/31/15 at 2:20pm

Cupid Boy2 said: "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. 

I agree. Have I watched bootlegs? Yes.  I'm in CA and don't have opportunity to see shows on Broadway with any regularity (in fact my first trip ever was just this November).  Do I sell bootlegs or purchase them? No.  Do I think that seeing a bootleg replaces the experiencing the show in person?  NOT AT ALL.  In fact one of the shows I saw on my trip was one that I've seen a bootleg of.  The experience was entirely different and I appreciated EVERY SINGLE moment.

 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 12/31/15 at 2:27pm

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.

[Jose]

Posted: 12/31/15 at 8:12pm

I walk into a bookstore. I pull a book from the shelf, perhaps it's recently published maybe even a best seller but perhaps not.  I only know I'm interested in the book.  I take the book and locate the copy machine in the bookshop.  I begin to copy every page from the cover.  No one stops me.  Several people see me and shake their heads. I ignore them and continue.  I finish copying the last page.  I return the book to the shelf.  I walk out of the store with my personal copy for my reading enjoyment.  The book is back on the shelf to be bought by another or copied by another if they so choose.  

Is my action theft?   Is it copyright infringement?  Did I do anything wrong?  

[binau]

Posted: 12/31/15 at 8:47pm

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. 
 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 1/1/16 at 10:40am

@jose as rehearsed previously in this thread, no, yes and yes.

[haterobics]

Posted: 1/1/16 at 10:57am

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?

[HogansHero]

Posted: 1/1/16 at 11:09am

haterobics said: "Don't you have a cell phone with a camera?"

Yes he does but he has so many bootleg videos stored on his phone that he does not have enough memory to store the book files. 

 

[Jose]

Posted: 1/1/16 at 1:29pm

@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?

[yankeefan7]

Posted: 1/2/16 at 4:58pm

"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). "

IMO that depends on if person makes "bootleg" and sells it for profit.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/2/16 at 5:03pm

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.