Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Ohio Prison Shows Pirated Movies To Inmates

samzenpus posted about 6 months ago | from the do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do dept.

Crime 186

An anonymous reader writes "Richard Humphrey was sentenced to 29 months in prison for selling pirated copies of movies through the subscription-based USAWAREZ.com. He was later sent to the Lorain County prison in February for a parole violation and while he was a prisoner, he says guards showed inmates Ride Along and The Wolf of Wall Street before they were released on DVD. A spokesperson for Lorain County Correctional Institution Warden Kimberly Clipper said prison officials are aware that pirated movies are being shown to prisoners and the issue is being investigated. But she said she couldn't comment further because the investigation is ongoing."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Hahahahahahaha (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47039225)

busted.

"can't comment"? well, we can... (0)

swschrad (312009) | about 6 months ago | (#47039645)

warden, meet Bubba. you get the bottom bunk.

Odd Selection (4, Funny)

Stormy Dragon (800799) | about 6 months ago | (#47039239)

Is The Wolf of Wall Street the kind of movie you should be showing prisoners anyways?

Re:Odd Selection (5, Funny)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 6 months ago | (#47039321)

If you want violent felons to have any hope of being rehabilitated, you need to show them what true criminals look like.

Re:Odd Selection (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47040265)

If you want violent felons to have any hope of being rehabilitated, you need to show them what true criminals look like.

So, they should be watching C-SPAN all day?

Re:Odd Selection (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47039375)

Is The Wolf of Wall Street the kind of movie you should be showing prisoners anyways?

Well, probably better Tango and Cash, Demolition Man, or Escape from Alcatraz.

Re:Odd Selection (2)

Kenja (541830) | about 6 months ago | (#47039545)

"We know most of you will be back in here after you get out, but here's an example of how to be a better criminal so you can get upgraded to rich people jail"

Re:Odd Selection (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47039809)

Only matters if yo believe that watching movies causes people to become criminals.
Typically the inability to control impulses are a greater concern.
Recent studies shows that voluntary Ritalin usage works better at preventing repeat offenses when it comes to violent criminals.
I don't know if any studies have been made on non-violent criminals but I suspect that the ideal choice of rehabilitation method varies a lot depending on type of crime.
You can't expect that the same thing that works for drug addicts is efficient for white collar criminals.

Re:Odd Selection (2)

Stormy Dragon (800799) | about 6 months ago | (#47040095)

I don't think movies make people become criminals, but these people don't need to become criminals; they're alredy there. I do worry about movies undermining attempts at rehabilitation by glamorizing the criminal lifestyle.

Re:Odd Selection (3, Insightful)

GTRacer (234395) | about 6 months ago | (#47040153)

Are you thinking what I'm thinking, that TWoWS is cruel and unusual punishment?

Difference (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47039243)

Don't try to sell them and you're mostly in the clear.

Re:Difference (4, Interesting)

mi (197448) | about 6 months ago | (#47039459)

Don't try to sell them and you're mostly in the clear.

Generally, you are right — the particular prisoner's case is different. However — content-owners have tried to make "non-profit" infringers (people making copyrighted material available for free to others) into examples by suing them for large sums of money (though no jail-time).

And second, the prison officials aren't just watching the material themselves — they are showing it to a large number of people (entire prison population). This is something, which you can not legally do even with a DVD you purchased in a store — they are only licensed for private viewing.

They should be busted and, ideally, someone ought to end up in the cell next to the protagonist — even if for a shorter sentence.

Re:Difference (2)

geekoid (135745) | about 6 months ago | (#47039605)

The code clearly states that distributions by unauthorized person is a crime. charging is irrelevant.

If I where to print my own copy of Game of thrones, and then give the copies I printed away, I would be in violation
However, the people buying the books would not have violated any current laws.

Re:Difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47039641)

Selling them for profit, would most likely lead to sting operation...

Re:Difference (5, Informative)

mi (197448) | about 6 months ago | (#47039717)

The code clearly states that distributions by unauthorized person is a crime. charging is irrelevant.

False. Though all unauthorized distribution is illegal, not all of it constitutes a criminal offense. To make the perpetrator a felon, according to paragraphs; 506 federal Title 17 of the United States Code [copyright.gov] , the distribution must be committed:

  1. for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
  2. by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or
  3. by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.

Our protagonist qualifies for the first item above. And so do his current jailers. Small-time non-profit distributors — such as torrent-users, who keep the stuff they just downloaded available, but not for long enough to qualify for the second case — do not.

Re:Difference (2)

AvitarX (172628) | about 6 months ago | (#47040097)

As I read case 2, you would need 50 people to download from you within 180 days, if you keep your ratios 1:1, that's one download every 3 days, that seems pretty likely for casual use of torrent.

Re:Difference (1)

mi (197448) | about 6 months ago | (#47040149)

that's one download every 3 days, that seems pretty likely for casual use of torrent.

Yep, sounds about right. Do not do it.

Re:Difference (5, Insightful)

nabsltd (1313397) | about 6 months ago | (#47039727)

This is something, which you can not legally do even with a DVD you purchased in a store — they are only licensed for private viewing.

Although there is wording on DVDs to the effect that they are "licensed", this is not true. If you purchase a copy, you own that copy and retain all first-sale rights.

The actual phrasing in 17 USC concerns "public performance". If these DVDs had been legally purchased (instead of definitely pirated), it's possible the prison performance would not be considered "public". After all, can you just walk in and watch movies with the prisoners? Remember that size of audience is unimportant for determining "private" or "public". A wedding with 500 guests where only people with invitations are allowed in is "private", while a bar with seating for 3 people is "public".

Re:Difference (2)

mi (197448) | about 6 months ago | (#47039785)

Although there is wording on DVDs to the effect that they are "licensed", this is not true. If you purchase a copy, you own that copy and retain all first-sale rights.

This is interesting... Could you offer a link, where this legal quirk is convincingly explained? Because right now it sounds like one of those "you don't have to pay your income tax" proclamations...

The actual phrasing in 17 USC concerns "public performance".

If, indeed, I can do anything I want with the purchased DVD, as you claimed at the beginning, then this part becomes irrelevant, no?

it's possible the prison performance would not be considered "public"

It is possible...

Re:Difference (3, Informative)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 6 months ago | (#47040053)

Although there is wording on DVDs to the effect that they are "licensed", this is not true. If you purchase a copy, you own that copy and retain all first-sale rights.

The actual phrasing in 17 USC concerns "public performance".

If, indeed, I can do anything I want with the purchased DVD, as you claimed at the beginning, then this part becomes irrelevant, no?

The fact that the DVDs are sold, not licensed, means that the copyright holder does not have the legal authority to impose extra conditions upon the buyer.

The "public performance" provision, however, is imposed not by the copyright holder but rather by the law itself. That's where the difference lies.

Re:Difference (1)

mi (197448) | about 6 months ago | (#47040127)

The "public performance" provision, however, is imposed not by the copyright holder but rather by the law itself. That's where the difference lies.

Ok, I see the distinction, but I don't see a difference. One way or another even a legally purchased DVD can only be used privately. (Whether showing it to inmates is still private, is another question.)

Re:Difference (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 6 months ago | (#47040137)

The fact that the DVDs are sold, not licensed, means that the copyright holder does not have the legal authority to impose extra conditions upon the buyer.

If that's true, why is DVD ripping illegal in some countries?

Re:Difference (2)

SydShamino (547793) | about 6 months ago | (#47040195)

Because the laws are different in other countries, and citing examples from other countries does not refute claims made by someone citing U.S. Code.

Re:Difference (2)

just_another_sean (919159) | about 6 months ago | (#47040131)

Maybe I shouldn't be mixing broadcasts vs. DVD but aren't there examples of churches, private parties, etc. being told they are infringing when offering to host Super Bowl parties or World Series showings?

The example I am thinking of is here [washingtonpost.com] . Is the difference that technically anyone could walk in off the street into a church and watch? Would they have been in the clear if the showed it in a private room in the church and limited invitations to the current congregation only?

I'm not disagreeing with you, I don't know enough to do so, but it seems to me based on the "dick-move" stories I've read over the years that if they* decide they* want to go after you than the legal means to do so is there...

*they - for various definitions of "they" but generally speaking content rights holders...

Re:Difference (1)

SydShamino (547793) | about 6 months ago | (#47040217)

I suspect anyone who walked off the street or read about the event would be able to watch at the church, effectively making it a public event. If it were a private event, you never would have heard about it, and neither would have the NFL.

Re:Difference (4, Informative)

John.Banister (1291556) | about 6 months ago | (#47039683)

Ask the owner of any bar about people wanting money for "public performance" of copyrighted entertainment.

Re:Difference (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 6 months ago | (#47040199)

taking money for entertaining(and guarding) a group of people and then showing them copied stuff kind of counts as selling.

To be fair... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47039249)

Wolf of Wall Street counts as continuing education rather than entertainment in white-collar prison.

Re:To be fair... (1)

tquasar (1405457) | about 6 months ago | (#47039447)

Where is Chris Hanson when we need him?

Perfect! (1)

mspohr (589790) | about 6 months ago | (#47039255)

Well, these are criminals, after all (some of them may be actual pirates).
Arrrgh... Of course they should be shown pirated movies.

Re:Perfect! (4, Funny)

Scutter (18425) | about 6 months ago | (#47039345)

They should show them pirated pirate movies.

Re:Perfect! (5, Funny)

sconeu (64226) | about 6 months ago | (#47039455)

I'm guessing those are rated Arrr?

Re:Perfect! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47039721)

"Arrr" is not a MPAA rating. You are dumb.

Re:Perfect! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47039931)

oh darn. I guess it was not funny then. *stops laughing*

Re:Perfect! (4, Interesting)

Blue Stone (582566) | about 6 months ago | (#47039377)

Can you imagine if you were in jail on copyright infringement charges and the prison you were in was showing pirated movies?

Re:NN Now (2)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 6 months ago | (#47039463)

This can be blamed on the throttling of Netflix.

Re:Perfect! (1)

TsuruchiBrian (2731979) | about 6 months ago | (#47039749)

This is like going to jail for burglary and then finding out that the warden in the prison you are in takes people's lunches from the fridge.

Re:Perfect! (1)

lexman098 (1983842) | about 6 months ago | (#47040289)

I think it's more like having 10000 spoons when all you need is a knife.

Re:Perfect! (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 6 months ago | (#47040041)

That would be ironic, but considering prisons are in many cases taxpayer-supported higher education for turning minor drug offenders into hardened criminals, that's a relatively minor irony.

Re:Perfect! (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 6 months ago | (#47040105)

No, that would be like being incarcerated for violent crimes and then getting assaulted in the prison. Inconceivable!

Re:Perfect! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47039883)

Arrrr.

Re:Perfect! (3, Funny)

tie_guy_matt (176397) | about 6 months ago | (#47040001)

Just don't show them the pirate movie "cutthroat island" ( http://business.time.com/2012/... [time.com] .) After all, cruel and unusual punishment is unconstitutional!

Not neccessarily pirated (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47039261)

It is possible that the Ohio prison in question got itself listed as a budget theater and was able to get legal copies of those movies between the main theatrical release and the DVD release.

I find that highly unlikely, but it is possible.

Re:Not neccessarily pirated (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 6 months ago | (#47039495)

I don't find it unlikely at all. It's amazing what can be pulled off in the name of a "good cause".

Somewhere in the chain, a distributor says to give the movies to somewhere good, intending charities or schools. Someone further down the chain considers a rehabilitation program to be a good charity, and somebody then considers the prison to be just as good as a rehab program. I'm not going to opine on whether these equivalencies are correct, but when you have a supply chain as long as that of a prison (or any other large program) no individual really has to stretch reason too far.

Re:Not neccessarily pirated (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 6 months ago | (#47040135)

I thought prisons were supposed to be rehab programs? At least for those people who are eventually going to be released? Definitely a good cause.

Re:Not neccessarily pirated (2)

c4320n (2551122) | about 6 months ago | (#47039547)

Except the article says the movies were clearly cam rips.

Re:Not neccessarily pirated (4, Informative)

sjames (1099) | about 6 months ago | (#47039553)

From TFA:

In some cases, Humphrey said the movies appeared to have been illegally recorded by theater-goers. "You could see people walking in front of the camera," he said.

That's a pretty good sign it's not legit.

Re:Not neccessarily pirated (4, Insightful)

Calydor (739835) | about 6 months ago | (#47039765)

Showing CAM rips?

That's gotta count as cruel and unusual punishment.

Re:Not neccessarily pirated (4, Interesting)

TemporalBeing (803363) | about 6 months ago | (#47040269)

It is possible that the Ohio prison in question got itself listed as a budget theater and was able to get legal copies of those movies between the main theatrical release and the DVD release.

I find that highly unlikely, but it is possible.

Don't have to get listed; just have to give enough money to the distribution companies. If you have your own copy then you can also get a discount - e.g they charge extra to send you a copy to use that you then have to return. How much you pay depends on how well you can haggle the price; can easily be $350 (with DVD) or $700 PER film. Funny thing is, if you try to reach out and cannot get any traction then you've also done your "due diligence" and can just go ahead and show it - been there with Disney licensed Anime films. (We had a budget, wanted to pay them, but couldn't get anyone to stand up and take the money.)

So even if they did do a cam rip (probably bit torrent copy from somewhere), they very well may have had a license to show it.

And, at least in the Anime world, many of the distribution companies will even let you do it for free (e.g Pioneer, RightStuf) if you show all the ads they have on the DVDs and have asked them for permission to do so.

Summary picture (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47039275)

Who is this chachi in the article's summary icon?

Apples and Oranges (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47039277)

piracy for profit and piracy for personal use aren't comparable.

Re:Apples and Oranges (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47039343)

Well if the prison guards are actually showing pirated movies, it isn't piracy for profit, but it isn't exactly piracy for personal use either.

Re:Apples and Oranges (4, Interesting)

jeffmeden (135043) | about 6 months ago | (#47039409)

Well if the prison guards are actually showing pirated movies, it isn't piracy for profit, but it isn't exactly piracy for personal use either.

Given that the prisons in Ohio are privatized, yes anything provided to the inmates would be legally and practically "for profit". Still not sure why they would bother offering them anything but super old DVDs and VHS movies that have been scrapped at the local library, but one thing that comes to mind is a guard curtailed a favor from an inmate in exchange for something recent to watch. It will be interesting to see if the investigation turns anything up.

Re:Apples and Oranges (2)

Moof123 (1292134) | about 6 months ago | (#47039805)

" It will be interesting to see if the investigation turns anything up."

Don't hold your breath. If anyone remotely powerful is involved the standard tactic is to delay, I mean "investigate", until everyone's attention span has given way.

Re:Apples and Oranges (1)

JRV31 (2962911) | about 6 months ago | (#47039987)

Governments just make the laws. It's us peasants who have to follow them.

Re:Apples and Oranges (2)

Yebyen (59663) | about 6 months ago | (#47039823)

I think you mean curried... you curry favor, you curtail bad behavior.

Re:Apples and Oranges (1)

Ogive17 (691899) | about 6 months ago | (#47039897)

Only the higher security prisons are private, I believe. The county jail where I am (somewhat rural Ohio) is still staffed by county employees.

Re:Apples and Oranges (1)

ThatsDrDangerToYou (3480047) | about 6 months ago | (#47040049)

Only the higher security prisons are private, I believe. The county jail where I am (somewhat rural Ohio) is still staffed by county employees.

So? What'd ya get? They let you surf /. in county?

Re:Apples and Oranges (1)

fldsofglry (2754803) | about 6 months ago | (#47039983)

Having been born, raised, and currently living in Ohio, I wanted to double check your "prisons in Ohio are privatized", as I had never heard of all of Ohio's prisons being privatized.
According to wikipedia, only two are privatized: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O... [wikipedia.org]
This particular prison mentioned in the article is not privatized: http://www.drc.ohio.gov/public... [ohio.gov]
Here is an example of a page according to the ohio gov site that shows one that is privatized (it says privately operated near the address): http://www.drc.ohio.gov/public... [ohio.gov]

Re:Apples and Oranges (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47040085)

In short, because TV/ movies are a good babysitter and an entertained prison population is a complacent one. Take away cable and TV, and an uptick in violence, theft, staff assault, etc. will (likely) occur.

Re:Apples and Oranges (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47040207)

You are assuming the decision of what to watch is made a anything approaching a high level. It is far more likely what every guard is in charge of the weekly movie night decided he wanted to watch recent movies instead old movies. Furthermore considering they likely have $0 per month purchase movies they were going to pirate them anyways. Finally when you realize a prison guard in charge of the weekly movie night is unlikely to be aware (or care to become aware) of the intricacies of copyright law this makes total sense.

Re:Apples and Oranges (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47039925)

The MPAA has doesn't care if its for profit or not, it still costs them revenue.

Re:Apples and Oranges (5, Informative)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 6 months ago | (#47039359)

If it is a for profit prison, this actually would be showing pirated movies for profit.

So let them sue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47039283)

The copyright holders could sue, but sovereign immunity would make it difficult.

Re:So let them sue (1)

plover (150551) | about 6 months ago | (#47039947)

Sovereign immunity doesn't apply to private corporations, and apparently Ohio's prisons have all been privatized.

So that makes two suits. The first would be the MPAA against the prisons for multiple instances of showing pirated movies for profit. This demonstrates a pattern of violations, not just a single incident. If it took place repeatedly, and at multiple prisons owned by the same firm, then it's a pattern of corruption that management has either failed to halt or possibly actively encouraged.

Then some taxpayer organization could file suit against the state for contracting with a corrupt corporation to manage their prisons - that's where the immunity would probably kick in making a suit unrealistic, but it also would become something that would go to the state's legislature. Or maybe it's not a suit, but maybe an investigation into the contract processes followed by the state.

As long as the stupid laws are on the books, and continue to be interpreted as they have been, the MPAA has clearly been wronged here, and they should file suit. I hope they do.

Screw these Republicans... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47039297)

that always refuse to answer to the public. They have no respect for the people that they work for. Instead, they always circle the wagons and refuse to talk about their crimes. She should be arrested on conspiracy charges for trying to protect her criminal Republican (yes, that is redundant) friends. Cops should go to prison for refusing to talk about the crimes they are supposed to be preventing.

Re: Screw these Republicans... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47039331)

Agreed.

Screw these Republicans... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47039357)

da fuq?

Off yore meds, mate?

Re:Screw these Republicans... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47039389)

It really is precious that you still believe that there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Re:Screw these Republicans... (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 6 months ago | (#47039509)

Sure there is. They prefer different ways to screw over different groups of people.

Prisons are Sanctioned Crime (2, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | about 6 months ago | (#47039341)

Prisons break laws constantly, they are expected to violate rights, violate laws, etc... they are there only for punishing poor people.

Show me millionaires that are in prison that go to general population prison.

Prisons Breaking Rights (2)

Etherwalk (681268) | about 6 months ago | (#47039631)

Prisons break laws constantly, they are expected to violate rights, violate laws, etc... they are there only for punishing poor people.

Show me millionaires that are in prison that go to general population prison.

Um... not quite. Rich people are less likely to go to jail period (because they can afford better lawyers, are targeted less, and less frequently have incentive to commit crimes like bank robbery and burglary that get people caught). You really have to look at rich people who are convicted of burglary and poor people who are convicted of burglary before saying that the jails really just exist to punish the poor.

As for rights, yes, prisons frequently violate rights, but consider the *flipside* of that. In the United States, we make it relatively easy for criminals to *sue* for violation of their rights. So pretty much *every* prison guard, no matter how good or honest, gets sued by prisoners. It's not like prisons are trying to violate rights--they're generally trying to not get sued.

Re:Prisons Breaking Rights (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | about 6 months ago | (#47039827)

It's not like prisons are trying to violate rights--they're generally trying to [fill in the blank]

Of course not. What it IS like, is prisons are trying to turn a profit (lots of them are, anyway) and in doing so reduce the costs to the point where they (guards, admins, etc) have no choice but to abuse the prisoners just to keep them all in line.

Re:Prisons Breaking Rights (1)

Moof123 (1292134) | about 6 months ago | (#47040163)

"less frequently have incentive to commit crimes like bank robbery"

Why rob a bank when you can pay off a politician to make it legal for you to sell them rigged products and yank money out of the banks legally?

Re:Prisons are Sanctioned Crime (1)

TsuruchiBrian (2731979) | about 6 months ago | (#47039797)

Bernie Madoff is in prison. He *used* to be a millionaire.

Re:Prisons are Sanctioned Crime (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 6 months ago | (#47040251)

Madoff got off easy. One year per $400M?! Try stealing a car.

oh yeah... (4, Informative)

Connie_Lingus (317691) | about 6 months ago | (#47039355)

as some of you know, i've spent time in the florida prison system...this stuff is SOP...prisons are basically just the streets with much higher prices.

imo, its great that inmates get to watch illegal movies, brought in the guards, while smoking their illegal weed, often brought in by the guards (and of course through other less...sanitary? ways), while talking on their illegal cell phones, often brought in by...well, you already know.

it's all mostly a big game...now i'm not saying people don't belong in prison, lord knows i've met plenty who do, but a dude running a pirate movie site?

not really, imho at least.

Re:oh yeah... (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 6 months ago | (#47039559)

Is there anyone living in Florida that hasn't been to prison? It's illegal to blink there... lol

Re:oh yeah... (1)

Connie_Lingus (317691) | about 6 months ago | (#47039625)

:)

Re:oh yeah... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47039975)

1) :)
2) ;)
3) ???
4) Free movies!

Prison == New Free Cinema? (1)

Dan Askme (2895283) | about 6 months ago | (#47039365)

Commit a crime, go prison, watch movies. Good times!

The issue here is:
- should these guys actually be watching movies or entertainment of any type?
- After all, they are in prison to reflect on their crimes and suffer for it.

At the end of the day, a pirated movie shouldn't be the topic here. But yet again, we ignore what needs the true attention with simplicity.

Re:Prison == New Free Cinema? (4, Informative)

deadweight (681827) | about 6 months ago | (#47039441)

Prison is not suppoed to be torture. Why not let them kick back and watch a movie? If you give them nothing to do, they will think up their own entertainment and it might not be good.

Re:Prison == New Free Cinema? (3, Interesting)

rogoshen1 (2922505) | about 6 months ago | (#47039517)

I've wondered why we don't allow prisoners to play some kind of FPS (or ideally MMO) type games in prisons, and let them sort out their turf wars and aggression using that.

-- quite a few MMO players live very similar to convicts, in that they stay isolated in their cell for 20 hours a day.
-- shanking someone in a game would be far better than in real life.

Putting people in a confined space with no outlet and nothing to do for 20 hours a day -- and those who didn't already have violent or criminal tendencies will have them in short order. And the recreation they do find will not be something we want them to be doing.

China is ahead of us on that. (1)

Kaenneth (82978) | about 6 months ago | (#47039713)

There was a thing a few years ago where Chinese prison guards were forcing prisoners to farm WoW gold for them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

Re:Prison == New Free Cinema? (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 6 months ago | (#47039647)

A) yes. You have angry people, conservative the balk at actual rehabilitation, so you need to distract them.
Also, just being in prison is pretty harsh punishment, even with TV.

B) That is not what a prison is for. At least not if you want one that's good for society., It's for rehabilitation. They idea of punishment for the sake of punishment is an idea of small minded people who have learned nothing form history.

Yes, the topic should be a corrupt guard system and how privatization of prisons has lead to them becomes warehouse, increases recidivism, and how the prison guard union have pushed to make more things punishable by prison, and 3 strikes laws.

Re:Prison == New Free Cinema? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47039881)

I am an idiot and have no idea what I'm talking about.

Once upon a time, this line didn't sum up 99.8% of your Slashdot posts. Then you contrived some imaginary universe around yourself where you're always right and everyone that disagrees with you is the problem. This makes you a fucking tool.

A) You don't know anything about the current prison system. I doubt you've ever even had a friend a year plus in a state pen.
B) You don't know anything about psychology, but that sure-as-fuck isn't going to stop you from being an armchair expert on the subject.
C) You have a warped sense of right and wrong. You've accepted both as "gray" for so long that you've ended up confusing black and white. You cannot have law without punishment. If there is no punishment for violating a law, then the law isn't a law. It's a suggestion. Suggestions don't guard society, and society must protect the innocent from the guilty or it may as well not exist. You speak of people that have "learned nothing from history" but you completely disregard history's first lesson and everything based upon it.

You speak of rehabilitation, but you can provide no incentives that wouldn't immediately be exploited by the kinds of horrible people you don't imagine meeting in your worst nightmares. You're completely dead in the water, intellectually on the subject, because you've spent so much time psychologically jerking off to your own fantasies that you've completely forsaken reality.

Prisons are a broken system, but they are not backward.

Re:Prison == New Free Cinema? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47039977)

How about you do some time in prison and find out?

All prison guards, police, prosecutors, judges and lawmakers should be required to spend at least a 90 days in jail, followed by 1 year in prison so that they know exactly what they're imposing on people when they put them through the process.

Re:Prison == New Free Cinema? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 6 months ago | (#47040177)

- should these guys actually be watching movies or entertainment of any type?

And what do you suggest should be done for prisoners for hours and hours of the day? Are you also surprised that prisoners get exercise time and books as well if they exhibit good behavior? Also how do you think guards and prison officials feel about showing them movies; I would bet you they are in favor as it keeps the population calmer.

After all, they are in prison to reflect on their crimes and suffer for it.

I'm sensing that you don't have a sense of what prison life is like. Watch any documentary on current prisons. Hell, watch any movie about prison life like the Shawshank Redemption. It's not a glamorous life. Showing them a movie now and then is not the same as letting them snort cocaine off a hooker.

Fair Use (0)

globaljustin (574257) | about 6 months ago | (#47039399)

This is the same as a preschool showing the kids a Disney movie if their carnival gets rained out.

it's fair use...

Re:Fair Use (5, Informative)

Torp (199297) | about 6 months ago | (#47039425)

I don't think that's considered fair use :) It's pretty much illegal. Even if they bought a legal DVD, they're not licensed for public performances.

Re:Fair Use (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about 6 months ago | (#47039665)

Wan't there some standard exception for oil rigs, prisons, schools etc in the normal licensing?

Re:Fair Use (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47039715)

IIRC, the exception was that a private showing in such places was explicitly not allowed by the license.

Re:Fair Use (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47040089)

:> :>

Re:Fair Use (1)

kryliss (72493) | about 6 months ago | (#47039671)

I see what you did there....

Ride Along? (4, Funny)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about 6 months ago | (#47039405)

Wow; that *is* cruel and unusual punishment.

Prison guards may have broken the law?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47039415)

I am shocked [youtube.com] - SHOCKED- that law enforcement are accused of besmirching the good and decent laws of this country!

It's been happening a long time (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47039437)

I've never been to a correctional facility where they don't show pirated movies. There's always a guard with the hookups on bad CAM vids and he always brings them in for everyone to see. Maybe that's because I'm also from Ohio. I pretty much thought everyone knew about this and just never said anything.

Other ways to get movies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47039471)

Could it be that the prison just got the film legitimately? I mean, theaters have to get movies somehow -- why not distribute to other institutions? I know my college has a club that gets film (literal film reels) of movies in between their run in theaters an release to home video.

Re:Other ways to get movies (3, Informative)

sjames (1099) | about 6 months ago | (#47039621)

They were cammed. According to TFA, you could see members of the audience occasionally blocking the movie.

They always protect their own (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47039513)

She knows there was a crime committed, but she refuses to talk about it. These "no comment" cops that protect the bad ones are just as bad as the 90% that commit crimes on a daily basis. Some people defend the 10% cops that are honest, but when they refuse to comment and/or take action against the bad ones, they are just as responsible.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?