I hope You Tube and the like turn this silly law on its head.
Do news programs have to get consent on everyone videotaped?
Why can't private citizens in a democracy do the same?
Bull****. Stuff like this just make my blood boil. It's blatantly
absurd! I don't know what's worse, that **** like this are actually on
the books, or that we have lawyers, judges, and other fine citizens
promoting this crap.
Mike Rieves wrote:
>
>
> > I understand the law, but it was my (perhaps mistaken) impression that
> > the purpose was to prevent surreptitious recording of conversations.
If
> > the law forbids even accidental recordings of conversations, that
means
> > I can't videotape my niece playing in the back yard for fear of
> > accidentally recording the conversation of my next door neighbor.
>
> I'm not a lawyer, but I think incidental recordings, where there was
no
> intent to record a conversation aren't criminal, unless you attempt to
use
> that "accidental" recording against your neighbor or make it a public
> broadcast, as Mr Garrett did. If you were to make the videotape of your
> neice public, you'd need to get a release from your neighbors, or make
sure
> their conversation was intelligible. Reality shows have to make sure
that
> they get releases from everybody in those home videos they show, and
some
> don't make it to air because they can't get the necessary releases.
> This is way out of my field, and I only commented because I knew of a
> specific situation that was similar to Mr Garrett's. With the success of
You
> Tube and other internet sites, this is probably going to become a very
> sticky issue.
|
