Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies Media

Guerrilla Drive-Ins 390

Posted by timothy
from the all-the-rage dept.
An anonymous reader submits "A NY Times story yesterday talked about a new fad sweeping the underground: guerrilla drive-ins. Essentially, someone sets up a DVD player, LCD projector, and wireless transmitter next to any blank wall (preferably on someone else's property - to make it more fun), and people come to watch movies. As you would expect, the movie studios aren't too thrilled." The idea that this is a notable fad reminds of when the residents of Doonesbury's Walden jokingly informed intrepid reporter Roland Burton Hedley, Jr. ("Rollie") about imaginary trends in the college drug scene. On the other hand, anything that knocks down the price of projectors is fine with me!
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Guerrilla Drive-Ins

Comments Filter:
  • road trips (Score:5, Funny)

    by RyanHatch (214110) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @03:21PM (#9853678) Homepage
    Drive about 30' behind a semi....now thats road trippin'
    • Re:road trips (Score:4, Interesting)

      by BitchAss (146906) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @04:43PM (#9854150) Homepage
      I live in the country near Oshawa, Ontario.

      Anyone wanna do this? I have some friends coming over t'night - we were wondering what to do. I have a projector, a Myth box, a couple of divx hundred movies, a surround sound system and too much time on our hands.

      So, who's up for this? Seriously. Send me an email: codepoets@hotmail.com and I'll give you directions.

      We were thinking of watching Signs since we saw the Village last night. We're also surrounded by corn fields.
    • by AndroidCat (229562) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @06:13PM (#9854633) Homepage
      Darn it, what's to stop someone from tailgating you and illegally video-taping it?
  • by Sheetrock (152993) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @03:21PM (#9853680) Homepage Journal
    I thought most (if not all) DVDs come with a warning about not being used for public performances.
    • by Chairboy (88841) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @03:26PM (#9853706) Homepage
      I heard a rumor that people who lose their licenses are still physically able to turn on and operate vehicles. If that's true, then I suppose it's possible that an LCD projector could project an image against the intentions of the studios.
    • I thought most (if not all) DVDs come with a warning about not being used for public performances.

      Get ready to hear some interesting justifications *for* this. Present the same argument except with a software program and violating its distribution license and notice the difference. I think it's called self-reinforcing dillusion.
      • by Colonel Cholling (715787) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @03:35PM (#9853768)
        sigh. Every time slashdot runs an article dealing, however tangentially, with questions of piracy, digital rights management, etc., we go through the same cycle. Someone defends the pirates, someone makes the same cynical retort that "you'd be against this if it was software licenses instead of music/movies/whatever," then the radical information freedom crowd has to come back by saying that no, in fact, software licenses are just as evil as DVD restrictions. Can we just take it as read, and maybe throw in a good Soviet Russia joke for good measure?
      • by jhoger (519683) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @03:42PM (#9853799) Homepage
        Copying and use are different things. You need to understand the difference.

        Your typical slashdotter is FOR copyable, changeable software, and for licenses which allow that. Your typical slashdotter ABIDES by licenses that prevent copying and changing but allow normal use, usually by avoiding the software altogether since there are usually Free alternatives.

        Apply this line of thinking to movies: this is a license that prevents copying but also attempts to prevent normal use, that is, displaying that damn movie any way you like. Not copying or in any other way making multiple instances... but just the normal action of displaying it is somehow to be controlled.

        This is what is offensive about such overly restrictive licenses. When I buy something I expect to get some fair use rights too. But restrictive licensing, encrpytion, drm, etc have the effect of preventing you getting even normal use out of the things you buy.

        • by CrowScape (659629) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @04:07PM (#9853955)

          So academic licenses are bad because they restrict normal use?

          Look, it says right on the DVD case:

          WARNING - Federal law provides severe civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized reproduction, distribution or exhibition of copyrighted motion pictures and video tapes (Title 17 United States Code Sections 501 and 506)

          Seeing as how the terms are up front before you buy the disc, I don't see the problem. Much better than the "hit you with the EULA after you've spent $50 on our game" approach of software vendors

          • Seeing as how the terms are up front before you buy the disc,

            Those aren't "terms". It's just a reminder of what the US laws happen to be, not a license you agree to by purchase.

            Even if the DVD didn't mention it, the law would still apply.
          • All fine and good, but what exactly constitutes unauthorized exhibition of a motion picture or video tape?

            Can I just watch the tape myself? With my family? What about playing it during a party where some other folks might be able to also enjoy my lawfully purchased motion picture? You know that churches and the like often have parties or events where large groups of people all gather and watch a movie together? This also happens at schools, summercamps, and other nefarious locations. Someone must put a sto
            • by JohnQPublic (158027) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @06:35PM (#9854769)

              All fine and good, but what exactly constitutes unauthorized exhibition of a motion picture or video tape?

              According to 17 USC 101 and 106:

              To perform or display a work ''publicly'' means -

              (1)

              to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or

              ...

              Subject to sections 107 through 121, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

              ...

              (4)

              in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
              So, yes, churches, summer camps etc. movies are illegal. When I was in high school, we showed films (16mm, multi-reel) every few weeks after school. The rental included a performance fee that legalized our doing so. Blockbuster doesn't pay that fee for you, and neither does NetFlix.

              "Just because we can do a thing does not mean that we must do it." The technology does not imply the right.

              • by shadowbearer (554144) * on Saturday July 31, 2004 @08:45PM (#9855310) Homepage Journal
                outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered

                So wouldn't this technically apply mean that smaller churches, where everyone knows everyone else, are exempt? Especially I would think it would apply to the Pastor & family of said church...

                IANAL but I think it'd be a valid interpretation ( I also haven't been to church for many years, but in the one I went to when young everyone knew everyone else.)

                SB
                • "social acquaintances"

                  The internet has surely changed past definitions of 'normal social aquaintances'.
                  Your social aquaintances can now be people who are interested in the same music/movies/tv/politics/whatever, who exist all over the world: society without geographic barriers.

                  What really is the difference between sharing your CD collection with members of your local chess club and members of a certain chess message board?

                  If it's geographical proximity - surely that view has passed into history, to a

          • by geminidomino (614729) * on Saturday July 31, 2004 @09:01PM (#9855363) Journal
            The anime Excel Saga has a somewhat... modified... warning...
            ILPALAZZO IS WATCHING YOU!


            The contents of this Excel Saga videogram are licensed for private home viewing only and are protected under the terms of both US Code (title 17, Sections 501 and 506) and the 1998 ACROSS treaty (AKA the Don't Toucha MY Toot-toot Pact).

            Under the express orders of Ilpalazzo, supreme leader of ACROSS, any unauthroized duplication, public-screening or use of the packaging as a coaster, musical instrument or contraceptive device is strictly prohibited, and will be dealt with in the most severe manner possible, most probably involving chicken feathers, cod liver oil, and a very, very depraved walrus.
    • Who's really going to stop you?

      Police don't really care about copyright infringement. If you aren't bothering anyone, or trespassing, or being a jerk, I couldn't see them caring about your "public performance" of copyrighted work at all.
    • by msobkow (48369) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @03:29PM (#9853722) Homepage Journal

      Define "public".

      If I watch a DVD at home in the living room alone, it's legal.

      If I watch that same DVD at home with friends, it's legal.

      If I have a private party, set up a huge freakin' projection system, and watch the DVD with my friends in the yard, it's still legal.

      Now if we all get together and drive out to a field, a parking lot, a park, or wherever else to watch that same DVD, why would it suddenly be "illegal"?

      The only think "illegal" is if you a) charge to see the movie or b) set it up for a bunch of strangers to watch instead of friends (i.e., it's just you and your projector, there never were the group of friends, so no one but you and a group of strangers are watching.)

      • by TheGavster (774657) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @03:41PM (#9853795) Homepage
        Lets carry this further. Suppose that I have a giant television facing a window, and an ear-shattering sound system that can be heard a mile away. If a group of people were to congregate on my lawn, they could see the image and hear the sound, but are they actually spectators? What about someone stuck in traffic outside the house? The line between a public and private performance seems rather fuzzy, and fuzziness is rarely the catalyst for sane legislation ... (what next, televisions with IR cameras and computer vision software that demand a DVD be inserted by each person in the room before playing?)
      • by Anonymous Coward
        So by your b) definition, all these electronics store (or stores that has an electronics department) would be illegally showing movies.

        I've actually seen it... they're sometimes showing full version of Ice Age, RotK, Shrek 2, etc. Now whether they've already paid the royalty to do it, I don't know, but they are showing it to a bunch of "strangers".
        • by iroll (717924)
          Are you kidding me? And all the people who respond to this saying "yah, I'm sure they've got some kind of licensing agreement..." REALITY CHECK!

          The law says UNAUTHORIZED. If somebody called Sony's lawyers, and said "OMG! BestBuy is showing your movies in their store!!!1" what do you think they'd hear? *click*

          Why on earth would a studio ask a store to pay for a license, when they sell the product and make them money? They wouldn't! They wouldn't give a flying crap! There probably exists no means
      • Actually, I've seen at least one DVD that warned it was only meant for viewing with "close family members" or somesuch. I lended it to everyone I could think of, of course.
      • If you broadcast it on privately owned property, that's okay. If your broadcast it on public property, such as the sidewalk or other publicly owned property, that's against the agreement.
      • by sql*kitten (1359) * on Saturday July 31, 2004 @03:56PM (#9853882)
        why would it suddenly be "illegal"?

        From the article:
        Michael Bergman, a Los Angeles-based entertainment lawyer, said the fact that Mr. Modes does not charge admission does not diminish his basic violation of copyright law. "The copyright proprietor for the film has the exclusive right to publicly perform the work," he said in a telephone interview. "Projecting a rented DVD onto the side of a building, where anybody who wants to can come and watch it, is certainly a violation of the copyright act."
        • by msobkow (48369) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @04:06PM (#9853949) Homepage Journal

          Err, no. That is only his opinion.

          It is illegal to drink beer on public streets in most jurisdictions. But it is perfectly legal to drink it at home, in your yard, etc.

          If you happen to be in an apartment complex with a communal yard, the law recognizes the communal yard as your own.

          At no point has anyone here mentioned a truly "public" venue. Obviously to watch a DVD you're going to be in a relatively quiet, dark area -- not a main street or a mall.

          Bergman's key point seems to be "...where anybody who wants to can come and watch..."

          Anybody who wants to is welcome to press their nose against my living room window to watch along with me. I'll probably freak out and have them arrested as potential burglers casing the joint, but I can't stop them.

          I'm not actually kidding on that point -- legal responsibility is for the things you can control or reasonably prevent. The actions of complete strangers is not your responsibility.

          • Anybody who wants to is welcome to press their nose against my living room window to watch along with me.

            Dude, If I knew where you lived I would come over at late tonight and leave about a thousand nose prints and wait for you to open the curtains in the morning, man that would be a priceless picture. :D

        • by Tsiangkun (746511)
          a rented DVD

          Corporate mispeak, or is the problem the guy rented the dvd, instead if owning it ?

      • by markxz (669696) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @03:56PM (#9853889)
        If I have a private party, set up a huge freakin' projection system, and watch the DVD with my friends in the yard, it's still legal.

        DVDs are usually licenced for Home use, a private party would not count as home use (even if it takes place in your home).

        I have heard of a figure of 12 to 15 people being the limit of home use, although if the DVD is being shown in a public place or for commercial gain (including extra bar sales) then this would definately not be counted as home use.
        • by msobkow (48369) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @04:16PM (#9854009) Homepage Journal

          It is my home.

          While I may be a typical technoweenie with a small group of friends, I also know people whose "small" parties are only 30-40 friends getting together.

          Sorry, but the MPAA does not get to dictate how many friends I have, how large my home is, or what is legally, morally, or socially considered "home".

          That could be a communal or shared accomodations, it could be a private mansion, it could be a shack on the shore of a lake. It is home because it's where I live.

          Quite frankly, the whole "home use" label is probably illegal, because there is no legal definition of "home" that anyone would consider acceptable for all situations.

          Lets take it to a (hopefully) ridiculous variant -- what of a bunch of homeless people who get together in their alley to watch a movie? It is, after all, their home.

          Bottom line is the MPAA and the RIAA can kiss my ass when it comes to their perpetual greed. They call their shipments "product", it has a "purchase price", therefore it is mine after payment, and I'll damned well watch or listen to it with as many friends as I want wherever the hell I choose to call "home" at the time.

          • Sorry, but the MPAA does not get to dictate how many friends I have, how large my home is, or what is legally, morally, or socially considered "home".

            The GP mentioned a limit of 12-15 people watching a movie at home. I don't know if such a rule actually exists, but I can imagine how one would come about.

            At first, you have a general principle, which works as long as everyone respects the boundaries. For instance, you can show your DVD at home, to your friends, but you can't make copies for others or se

          • by swillden (191260) * <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Saturday July 31, 2004 @08:42PM (#9855301) Homepage Journal

            Quite frankly, the whole "home use" label is probably illegal, because there is no legal definition of "home" that anyone would consider acceptable for all situations.

            Actually the law doesn't mention "home use", it talks about public performance or display, which it defines thusly (Title 17 USC, section 101):

            To perform or display a work "publicly" means --
            (1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or [...]

            So if you can convince a judge that the people watching the show are your "normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances", and that the place you're showing it isn't "open to the public", then you're fine. If you can't convince a judge of those facts then you're breaking the law. I think it's pretty clear where the activity described in the article falls.

        • by Alsee (515537) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @05:02PM (#9854244) Homepage
          DVDs are usually licenced for Home use

          False. DVD's are not licenced at all. You no more need a licence to watch a DVD you own than you need a licence to read a book you own.

          The only time you ever get a licence is when you are licenced the rights to create new copies, to distribute those copies, and to public performance (and there are all sorts of exception where you can do those things without a licence). Nothing available on the ordinary consumer market ever comes with a licence to do any of those things, therefore they are all completely licence free.

          Ordinary unlicened products come with no licence at all, so they come with no licence for public performance. US copyright law defines:

          To perform or display a work ''publicly'' means - to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered

          So what they are doing probably qualifies as copyright infringment, but IMO it would be a borderline case if they made an effort to ensure no outsiders were present.

          I have heard of a figure of 12 to 15 people being the limit of home use

          Read the definition in law above, there is no limit on the number. You could show a movie at a wedding with hundreds of people if there is no "substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances". Groom's family and social acquaintances, Bride's familty and social acquaintances, and a non-substantial number of servers and other employees.

          -
    • by stefanlasiewski (63134) * <.slashdot. .at. .stefanco.com.> on Saturday July 31, 2004 @03:35PM (#9853771) Homepage Journal
      I'm sure when the police find a bunch of people tresspassing on someone elses property, teens drinking, people smoking pot and watching DVDs, they'll be real upset at the copyright violations.

      I think the whole thrill for the participants is that most of the activity is illegal...
      • I'm sure when the police find a bunch of people tresspassing on someone elses property, teens drinking, people smoking pot and watching DVDs, they'll be real upset at the copyright violations.

        Yeah, but those are all misdemeanors, meaning a fine or night in jail at the worst (which is pretty bad, of course.) I wouldn't put it past some cops to nail you for DMCA violation if they really wanted to be assholes. Or if they've busted the same group of people throwing these parties over and over and really wan
    • Yes.

      Yes, it's illegal, and the article states that it's illegal.
    • Who cares? Tell me, is this really a problem? I a bunch of people want to get in a field and watch a old movie projected on the side of a wall, more power to them.

    • Not if you don't charge.
  • Nothing new (Score:5, Funny)

    by Walt Dismal (534799) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @03:22PM (#9853687)
    Hurmph. When I was a kid, we watched shadows on cave walls and we LIKED it.
  • by spacerodent (790183) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @03:23PM (#9853691)
    this was really common with me and my friends while i was at Texas A&m university. One of my friends who went to a Naval Academy said they even did it there. (they even put porn on the side of a building and only got in mild trouble for it) I guess if it's so well known it means my friends and I aren't as nerdy as we thought. Yay?
  • by DarthVeda (569302) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @03:24PM (#9853694)
    It's done best with the Yatta video
  • I feel like a member of the trendy youth of tomorrow. This is how I saw the Matrix for the first time...wall of a dorm at MIT, couple of years ago.
  • Che would be proud of all us guerilla drive-in commandos.
  • Well. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Renraku (518261) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @03:25PM (#9853703) Homepage
    According to the RIAA, if you rent or buy a movie, its for you only. Not your family, or your friends, but yours. If you let someone borrow it, or someone else watches it with you, its illegal. Of course they're pissed off. I think this is a great idea though. I'd do it if I were rich and had the $$ to bribe the police to sit down and shut up, because they'd bust the gathering thinking it was some kind of bizarre ritual.
    • ccording to the RIAA, if you rent or buy a movie, its for you only.
      What does the RIAA have to say about that? Thought they only cared about music.
  • Oh please (Score:4, Insightful)

    by geek (5680) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @03:27PM (#9853712) Homepage
    What next, playing your stereo at a party at a friends house will be illegal? What the hell is the world coming to?
    • Re:Oh please (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Jeff DeMaagd (2015)
      People breaking the law and thinking that it wasn't illegal. What the hell is the world coming to?

      I doubt that. The "world" was like this long before P2P and all this other file sharing crap.

      I think this is pretty easy if they are setting up public invitations for anyone to go, and on public property or property not owned by anyone attending. That is NOT a private screening by any stretch of the imagination. I'm pretty sure that one hundred strangers attending is hardly a private screening.
  • by Myrmi (730278) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @03:28PM (#9853715)
    I have difficulty seeing my projector sometimes on my cream, flat, wall. Are there that many buildings kicking around that have surfaces suitable for a projector to throw a visible picture on?
  • Can you imagine (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 31, 2004 @03:29PM (#9853725)
    how difficult it must be to be an MPAA executive?

    Just imagine how difficult it must be, laying awake at night, haunted by the thought that someone, somewhere out there, might be enjoying themselves.
  • Jump-Ins (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Exiler (589908) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @03:30PM (#9853726)
    Sounds similar to what I do when I throw a party. Set up a large screen in my backyard, directly behind an old trampoline, and watch it whilst hanging out and bouncing around with friends. Trampolines are only mildly less fun with over a dozen people.
  • currently doing it in houston?
  • the consuming public doesn't pay the big bad Corporations for the "privilege".
  • by toetagger1 (795806) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @03:31PM (#9853730)

    We used to draw things on slides, and then project them with a slide projector out of our windows, when I was a kid.

    We would draw swirfly ligns and project them onto the road at night to confuse cars driving by.

    We would also draw funny faces and project it on our neighbours house. He would always open his window and yell at us. We drew the pictures such that him opening the window would be the "animated" part of our picture. I'll leave the themes we chose up to your immagination.

  • I assume that this is pretty rare. Even if you do set up this think on the side of a house, etc, how many people do you expect to show up? A drive in? How many cars can most people get in thier yard anyway?

    I bet it's pretty hard to set this up for a large scale operation.

    --
    3 Gmail invitations availiable [retailretreat.com]
  • Mmm... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by iamdrscience (541136) <michaelmtripp@gm ... om minus painter> on Saturday July 31, 2004 @03:32PM (#9853742) Homepage
    I'm not sure I understand why the movie studios would have a problem with this. Since it's kind of roving movie theater, almost all the people that are going to be there are going to be invited. This means that you're probably not going to have any more people watching the movie than you might invite to your house to watch a movie some night.

    Of course, if you remember your history you might know that when the idea of home video was first proposed it was rejected by most studios (despite the fact that it only allowed you to watch a movie once) because they wouldn't be able to control how many people would watch it.
  • by lurwas (518856) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @03:33PM (#9853749) Homepage
    I've always wondered what a drive by shooting is.
    I guess it's the opposite to a drive by screening like this one?

  • I'm going to one of these shows tonight. To make it even more gorilla it's a film festival of old WWII anti-german and anti-japanese propaganda cartoons and the movie Outfoxed.
  • Licensing terms (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mbstone (457308) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @03:34PM (#9853760)
    My DVDs are licensed for "noncommercial home use only." If you are projecting on the side of a home, and you don't charge admission, seems to me you are in total compliance with the license terms as written by the studios' high-priced lawyers. (Yes, it is a public performance, but the license trumps copyright law.) If the studios don't like it, how about tearing down some Wal-Marts and resurrecting the drive-ins that were torn down to build the Wal-Marts? Or how about building drive-ins atop the roofs of the Wal-Marts?
  • by GoPlayGo (541427) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @03:42PM (#9853798) Homepage
    When film was very new (1900's, 1910's, even into 1920's), projectionists would travel from town to town and show films this way, outdoors.

    There is a semi-regularly scheduled monthly movie showing like this in the San Francisco Bay area these days.
  • by Jacco de Leeuw (4646) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @03:44PM (#9853815) Homepage
    Greenpeace projected the movie "The Day After Tomorrow [imdb.com]" on the wall of a power plant [greenpeace.nl] running on coal here in Amsterdam.

    The Dutch equivalent of the MPAA didn't like it, but I don't think the makers of the film would have objected much. Looks like great publicity for the movie.

    • Let me see if I understand this:

      Greenpeace: an environmentalist group that is, to say the least, worried about global warming as a physical reality.

      The Day After Tomorrow: a B-movie that is not just lousy, but scientifically so utterly absurd that it makes global warming look as credible as "Godzilla research".
      Which may be why scientists behind global warming theories were quick to denounce its lack of scientific rigor.

      It makes perfect sense that Greenpeace would project this movie as a political message
  • forgive me for reading not reading the article as I don't want to bother with registration, but whats the wireless transmitter for? Audio?
  • An opportunity... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by raytracer (51035) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @03:52PM (#9853861)
    Here's a kooky idea: why not use such a setup to promote knowledge of copyrights and the public domain? Show films that are in the public domain [archive.org], and include a short bit to explain why such showings are legal, while showing other films is not. Besides showing good classic movies, or providing an opportunity for impromptu MST3K participation, you could actually educate people and make them more aware of how intellectual property issues affect them. Just an idea.
  • Not illegal? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Elithris (789957)
    If it's not illegal now, you can bet that the RIAA will fix that very quickly. I imagine that the easiest way to do that would be to limit the number of people who can legally watch one DVD to 1. Then blockbuster will have an excuse to bump of their prices. So when you go to the cash register they'll ask you "how many people will be viewing this movie today" and charge you accordingly. I'm so used to being screwed by the RIAA that I can see it coming.
    • If you want to rant ("used to being screwed by the _______"), it is best to get your bogeyman right.

      It's not the RIAA, it's the MPA or the MPAA that would be involved with DVDs which show moving images, not simply recorded audio.

      MPA is the Motion Picture Association. MPAA is the Motion Picture Association of America. See MPA [mpaa.org].

      RIAA is the Recording Institute (for audio recordings).
  • by Esion Modnar (632431) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @04:04PM (#9853938)
    They should have a "guerrilla drive-in" on the side of the RIAA world headquarters one late evening. Then send pictures, with incriminating faces and license plates blurred of course. Just to really twist their panties into a bind.

    Of course, they'd likely be arrested, so... maybe not such a good idea.

    (And did anybody else have an image of gorillas in cars when you read the title?)

  • wireless transmitters
    LCD projectors
    DVD players

    gotta stop those pirates
    gotta stop that pirate technology
  • by PetoskeyGuy (648788) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @04:26PM (#9854067)
    I would never know about all this stuff if the news didn't keep giving me such detailed instructions on whats new and hip in the we-don't-want-people-doing-this category. Let's hope they show the cheapest place to get projectors.

    BTW, Here is an earlier story [santacruzsentinel.com]
  • by CodeBuster (516420) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @05:17PM (#9854324)
    In the early days of the film industry the movie studios selected Hollywood for a couple of reasons: the climate was mild, there was a wide variety of terrain and locales, and the poor roads and isolated conditions ment that they could dodge Thomas Edisdon and his movie projector patents. Early studios like "Flying 'A' Studios" weren't called flying for nothing. They would pick up their operations and move around to stay one step ahead of the patent police. Isn't it ironic that an industry which decries the infringement of intellectual property was founded on that very infringement?
  • by HermanAB (661181) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @06:06PM (#9854591)
    This must be in Canada eh? Anywhere else the equipment will get stolen in the blink of an eye eh?
  • by Rico Thunder (801922) on Saturday July 31, 2004 @06:08PM (#9854609) Homepage
    In answer to almost all the "Is it possible to..." and "How hard is to..." questions. The answers is: yes and not hard at all.

    Check out the Santa Cruz Guerilla Drive-In DIY page: www.thespoon.com/drivein/start-your-own.html

    In the NYT photo you can see how hi-tech our arrangement is: a VCR, a DVD Player, an Amplifier, and a video switch racked in a milk crate. All of it donated or scrounged. Except for the LCD projector of course, which costs around a thousand bucks for a high luminosity. low wattage one now.

    As for being hipsters and slackers the trendsetting youth of the future: don't know nutin about that. We're just poor schmucks who wanted to watch movies with our friends without spending ten bucks a pop.

    Other links:

    NY Times article minus ads and login: http://www.thespoon.com/drivein/press/nytimes-0407 30/

    Local press: http://www.thespoon.com/drivein/press/sentinel-040 720/

    Rico Thunder
    Guerilla Drive-In Collective
    Santa Cruz
  • In a way.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by EvilStein (414640) <spam@pbp . n et> on Saturday July 31, 2004 @09:12PM (#9855409) Homepage
    You have to think about it. We always hear young people saying "There's nothing to do in our town. We're bored." because in a lot of places (here, especially) everything closes up at 9 or 10pm. Geez, I don't even get home from WORK until 6:30 or 7pm!
    There's Borders, and a couple other coffee shops, or the movie theatres, or bars.

    This would be a welcome addition to many neighborhoods. What's better? Kids sitting in a field watching movies, or parking in an alley shooting up?

    At least it gives bored people something to do in a unique social settings.

    Fuck you, MPAA. It's not like they're going to make money off of "The Bad News Bears visit Japan" anymore. Come on.
    I'd love to see the financials for that movie. Bet they haven't made any money off of it in years.. copyright be damned.
  • by JabberWokky (19442) <slashdot.com@timewarp.org> on Sunday August 01, 2004 @02:11PM (#9858550) Homepage Journal
    Been there, done that, performed in front of said movie.

    --
    Evan "It's just a jump to the left... damn dumpster"

"No problem is so formidable that you can't walk away from it." -- C. Schulz

Working...