Man wants to to tape daughters recital.

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
If any of you people had any sense you would see the issue is when having an event with 100 kids there are going to be 100 parents wanting to videotape the event.

Look what a pain in the ass ONE individual was, now imagine two of them wanting the same spot to film from.

And yet in 17 years of attending (and recording) such events, I haven't seen problems like that even once. YMMV of course, but I can tell you it's not an inevitable problem as you suggest.

IMHO it would only be a matter of time before it happened and the school district got sued over it. Isn't there a suit in this case over the medical bills? I don't particuarly care for being forced into buying a DVD but that seems to be the best way to handle all aspects of the problem.

sued over what? dude parents have been taping/filming kids school stuff for like 50 years.

Really? All the way back to 1959? Hmm I don't think most people even had television sets in 1959? And they weren't even color.

ever hear of 8mm film and movie projectors? my in-laws have a box full of 8mm film and a small projector to play the movies they shot and yes in color. i bet your grand parents have a few as well or used to. oh and many people in the 1950's had TV's.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
If any of you people had any sense you would see the issue is when having an event with 100 kids there are going to be 100 parents wanting to videotape the event.

Look what a pain in the ass ONE individual was, now imagine two of them wanting the same spot to film from.

Who do you represent the DVD Company or the school?

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
If any of you people had any sense you would see the issue is when having an event with 100 kids there are going to be 100 parents wanting to videotape the event.

Look what a pain in the ass ONE individual was, now imagine two of them wanting the same spot to film from.

And yet in 17 years of attending (and recording) such events, I haven't seen problems like that even once. YMMV of course, but I can tell you it's not an inevitable problem as you suggest.

IMHO it would only be a matter of time before it happened and the school district got sued over it. Isn't there a suit in this case over the medical bills? I don't particuarly care for being forced into buying a DVD but that seems to be the best way to handle all aspects of the problem.

sued over what? dude parents have been taping/filming kids school stuff for like 50 years.

Really? All the way back to 1959? Hmm I don't think most people even had television sets in 1959? And they weren't even color.

ever hear of 8mm film and movie projectors? my in-laws have a box full of 8mm film and a small projector to play the movies they shot and yes in color. i bet your grand parents have a few as well or used to. oh and many people in the 1950's had TV's.

Very few people had 8mm and they were expensive and SHORT, What were they, 4 minutes long? Not suitable to record any kind of group preformance that had any length at all to it. Especiaslly not suited for indoor shooting without extra lighting. You're just talking out of your ass when you said 50 years.

And I never said people didn't have TV's I said I don't think MOST (as in the majority) had them.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
If any of you people had any sense you would see the issue is when having an event with 100 kids there are going to be 100 parents wanting to videotape the event.

Look what a pain in the ass ONE individual was, now imagine two of them wanting the same spot to film from.

Who do you represent the DVD Company or the school?

I represent the person who paid his $8 to see the show UNDISTURBED by every ninny too cheap to buy the DVD. I have rights too.

 

[TheNoblePlatypus]

Larsen said he paid a chiropractor more than $700 treating a neck injury caused by Barrientes' headlock.

Here's the big "I'm a douchebag." flag. Not really anything to this story, just chest puffed retards that don't know how to be decent humans. Really had very little to do with the video camera, and all to do with bloated egos.


He was within his rights to be a prick, the cop is also within his rights to be a jackass and get sued by "disabled" veterans that need to be wrestled to the ground. At least the children have some great role models.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
If any of you people had any sense you would see the issue is when having an event with 100 kids there are going to be 100 parents wanting to videotape the event.

Look what a pain in the ass ONE individual was, now imagine two of them wanting the same spot to film from.

And yet in 17 years of attending (and recording) such events, I haven't seen problems like that even once. YMMV of course, but I can tell you it's not an inevitable problem as you suggest.

IMHO it would only be a matter of time before it happened and the school district got sued over it. Isn't there a suit in this case over the medical bills? I don't particuarly care for being forced into buying a DVD but that seems to be the best way to handle all aspects of the problem.

sued over what? dude parents have been taping/filming kids school stuff for like 50 years.

Really? All the way back to 1959? Hmm I don't think most people even had television sets in 1959? And they weren't even color.

ever hear of 8mm film and movie projectors? my in-laws have a box full of 8mm film and a small projector to play the movies they shot and yes in color. i bet your grand parents have a few as well or used to. oh and many people in the 1950's had TV's.

Very few people had 8mm and they were expensive and SHORT, What were they, 4 minutes long? Not suitable to record any kind of group preformance that had any length at all to it. Especiaslly not suited for indoor shooting without extra lighting. You're just talking out of your ass when you said 50 years.

And I never said people didn't have TV's I said I don't think MOST (as in the majority) had them.

whatever dude, many people had their rolls of film spliced together when it was developed.
3" reels are 50' and equal approx 3 minutes of video
4" = 100' 6 minutes of video
5" = 200' 12 minutes of video
6" = 300' 18 minutes of video
7" = 400' 24 minutes of video

Also here is a little history for you since you are ignorant and must be educated.

By the 1950's, 8 mm home movie cameras were a common sight at family parties, special events and on vacations.

http://motion.kodak.com/US/en/...mm_Success/history.htm

also in the 1950's there was one TV in 9 out of 10 homes. so yea the majority of people did have TV.

here is one source, there are many just look for yourself.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts...maraTamazashvili.shtml

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
If any of you people had any sense you would see the issue is when having an event with 100 kids there are going to be 100 parents wanting to videotape the event.

Look what a pain in the ass ONE individual was, now imagine two of them wanting the same spot to film from.

And yet in 17 years of attending (and recording) such events, I haven't seen problems like that even once. YMMV of course, but I can tell you it's not an inevitable problem as you suggest.

IMHO it would only be a matter of time before it happened and the school district got sued over it. Isn't there a suit in this case over the medical bills? I don't particuarly care for being forced into buying a DVD but that seems to be the best way to handle all aspects of the problem.

sued over what? dude parents have been taping/filming kids school stuff for like 50 years.

Really? All the way back to 1959? Hmm I don't think most people even had television sets in 1959? And they weren't even color.

ever hear of 8mm film and movie projectors? my in-laws have a box full of 8mm film and a small projector to play the movies they shot and yes in color. i bet your grand parents have a few as well or used to. oh and many people in the 1950's had TV's.

Very few people had 8mm and they were expensive and SHORT, What were they, 4 minutes long? Not suitable to record any kind of group preformance that had any length at all to it. Especiaslly not suited for indoor shooting without extra lighting. You're just talking out of your ass when you said 50 years.

And I never said people didn't have TV's I said I don't think MOST (as in the majority) had them.

whatever dude, many people had their rolls of film spliced together when it was developed.
3" reels are 50' and equal approx 3 minutes of video
4" = 100' 6 minutes of video
5" = 200' 12 minutes of video
6" = 300' 18 minutes of video
7" = 400' 24 minutes of video

Also here is a little history for you since you are ignorant and must be educated.

By the 1950's, 8 mm home movie cameras were a common sight at family parties, special events and on vacations.

http://motion.kodak.com/US/en/...mm_Success/history.htm

also in the 1950's there was one TV in 9 out of 10 homes. so yea the majority of people did have TV.

here is one source, there are many just look for yourself.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts...maraTamazashvili.shtml

My God are you ever an anal bastard. I don't know for sure how many people had or didn't have TV's for sure, I was guessing on that one but since nobody had the technology to watch their home movies on their TV's back then it's a moot point anyway.

Now since you want to be so anal about it please show/link me to a home movie camera from that era that could hold enough film to tape a whole 30 minute dance recital. Excuse me if I don't hold my breath while waiting for your reply.

On top of that I know from having owned and used a super 8 movie camera that there is no way you could get any good footage ndoors without tons and tons of lighting. Indoors filming was confined to a small, close area.

I really don't know why this matters in this thread

 

[TheVrolok]

This thread was an interesting read. Giving exclusive rights to a video taping company to record a bunch of minors preform. Lawlz.

 

[OutHouse]

My God are you ever an anal bastard. I don't know for sure how many people had or didn't have TV's for sure, I was guessing on that one but since nobody had the technology to watch their home movies on their TV's back then it's a moot point anyway. Now since you want to be so anal about it please show/link me to a home movie camera from that era that could hold enough film to tape a whole 30 minute dance recital. Excuse me if I don't hold my breath while waiting for your reply. On top of that I know from having owned and used a super 8 movie camera that there is no way you could get any good footage ndoors without tons and tons of lighting. Indoors filming was confined to a small, close area. I really don't know why this matters in this thread

im anal? lol lol lol i gave you the facts and posted links to them. as the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water.....

as far as the 30 min recording time, i guess you missed the part where i said people would have their reels of film spliced together when they got it developed. AND i listed how many minutes of filming time you could get out of different sized reels. was there a break in the footage being shot? yes but that was the technology then and people dealt with it.

the point i was trying to make before you stuck your foot in your mouth is that families have been recording yes recording even with FILM special events for 50+ years. i don't care if it wasn't with VHS, DVD or High8, it doesn't matter. They had the medium to film and watch what they recorded in their homes. can you at least agree to that??

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: OutHouse

My God are you ever an anal bastard. I don't know for sure how many people had or didn't have TV's for sure, I was guessing on that one but since nobody had the technology to watch their home movies on their TV's back then it's a moot point anyway. Now since you want to be so anal about it please show/link me to a home movie camera from that era that could hold enough film to tape a whole 30 minute dance recital. Excuse me if I don't hold my breath while waiting for your reply. On top of that I know from having owned and used a super 8 movie camera that there is no way you could get any good footage ndoors without tons and tons of lighting. Indoors filming was confined to a small, close area. I really don't know why this matters in this thread

im anal? lol lol lol i gave you the facts and posted links to them. as the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water.....

as far as the 30 min recording time, i guess you missed the part where i said people would have their reels of film spliced together when they got it developed. AND i listed how many minutes of filming time you could get out of different sized reels. was there a break in the footage being shot? yes but that was the technology then and people dealt with it.

the point i was trying to make before you stuck your foot in your mouth is that families have been recording yes recording even with FILM special events for 50+ years. i don't care if it wasn't with VHS, DVD or High8, it doesn't matter. They had the medium to film and watch what they recorded in their homes. can you at least agree to that??

Fail.

I never said they couldn't film, I said they could only do 4 minutes without stopping to reload their cameras. Now where is that link to a camera that could record an event such as this, I'm still waiting.

Edit: I also said that filiming indoors required lights. Lights, camera, action!!!

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
Fail.

I never said they couldn't film, I said they could only do 4 minutes without stopping to reload their cameras. Now where is that link to a camera that could record an event such as this, I'm still waiting.

Edit: I also said that filiming indoors required lights. Lights, camera, action!!!

Oh get real. You have no place to be calling others anal when this whole pointless diversion started when you anally nitpicked just exactly how many years people have been recording their children's performances. Whether it's been 50 years or 30 years is completely irrelevant. (And for the record, so is your vapid straw man that people didn't record 50 years ago because it was inconvenient to record a whole show. So? You didn't have to record the whole show, you recorded as much as you could and lived with the limitations of the technology. At least modern video cameras are silent, and usually smaller.)

In any case, the real point remains that YOU have chosen to reject decades of actual, real-world experience to insist that your fears of it becoming an uncontrollable problem are inevitable. Could your fears come true? Perhaps, though it's highly arrogant of you to insist they are inevitable. I've yet to see such problems once, here in the real world, and I see them as no more likely or problematic than people fighting over seats because they want a better view, sans cameras. In the real world, when such problems occur, they can and are dealt with on an individual basis. There's no justification for denying recording to everyone because maybe, someday, some person may create a fuss.


Edit: By the way, it doesn't matter how dark the auditorium is. What matters to film (and video) is the lighting on the stage. Stage lighting is usually brighter than home lighting. If the stage isn't lit adequately, there's no way a parent could bring in enough portable lighting to change that. Your claim about lights is another non-starter.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
Fail.

I never said they couldn't film, I said they could only do 4 minutes without stopping to reload their cameras. Now where is that link to a camera that could record an event such as this, I'm still waiting.

Edit: I also said that filiming indoors required lights. Lights, camera, action!!!

Oh get real. You have no place to be calling others anal when this whole pointless diversion started when you anally nitpicked just exactly how many years people have been recording their children's performances. Whether it's been 50 years or 30 years is completely irrelevant. (And for the record, so is your vapid straw man that people didn't record 50 years ago because it was inconvenient to record a whole show. So? You didn't have to record the whole show, you recorded as much as you could and lived with the limitations of the technology. At least modern video cameras are silent, and usually smaller.)

In any case, the real point remains that YOU have chosen to reject decades of actual, real-world experience to insist that your fears of it becoming an uncontrollable problem are inevitable. Could your fears come true? Perhaps, though it's highly arrogant of you to insist they are inevitable. I've yet to see such problems once, here in the real world, and I see them as no more likely or problematic than people fighting over seats because they want a better view, sans cameras. In the real world, when such problems occur, they can and are dealt with on an individual basis. There's no justification for denying recording to everyone because maybe, someday, some person may create a fuss.


Edit: By the way, it doesn't matter how dark the auditorium is. What matters to film (and video) is the lighting on the stage. Stage lighting is usually brighter than home lighting. If the stage isn't lit adequately, there's no way a parent could bring in enough portable lighting to change that. Your claim about lights is another non-starter.

On the contrary parents trying to film their kids performances has been a problem for years and was most equitably solved by having a professional who could do a better job anyway, do the filming so the audience can relax and enjoy the performance. This is why you see no filming regulations in private auditoriums imitated by schools. There are a host of problems allowing anybody and everybody to tape.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
On the contrary parents trying to film their kids performances has been a problem for years and was most equitably solved by having a professional who could do a better job anyway, do the filming so the audience can relax and enjoy the performance. This is why you see no filming regulations in private auditoriums imitated by schools. There are a host of problems allowing anybody and everybody to tape.

Perhaps in your neck of the woods, but I've not seen problems in mine. I disagree with your take on why these "no recording" rules exist. In commercial auditoriums they exist because outside recording hurts revenue and because businesses in general are very controlling about intellectual property. Public schools that have copied these rules MAY have experienced problems as you suggest, though I have yet to see a single example offered supporting this. It is equally likely they impose such rules for the same reasons as commercial ventures: money. If parents cannot record, they are more likely to buy recordings from the school.

It's obviously a sore point for you. I'm sorry to hear it if you've actually experienced cases where parents recording became a significant disruption. People can be inconsiderate assholes, to be sure. All I can tell you is it's not so inevitable as some insist, since I've not seen it become a problem here. YMMV.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
On the contrary parents trying to film their kids performances has been a problem for years and was most equitably solved by having a professional who could do a better job anyway, do the filming so the audience can relax and enjoy the performance. This is why you see no filming regulations in private auditoriums imitated by schools. There are a host of problems allowing anybody and everybody to tape.

Perhaps in your neck of the woods, but I've not seen problems in mine. I disagree with your take on why these "no recording" rules exist. In commercial auditoriums they exist because outside recording hurts revenue and because businesses in general are very controlling about intellectual property. Public schools that have copied these rules MAY have experienced problems as you suggest, though I have yet to see a single example offered supporting this. It is equally likely they impose such rules for the same reasons as commercial ventures: money. If parents cannot record, they are more likely to buy recordings from the school.

It's obviously a sore point for you. I'm sorry to hear it if you've actually experienced cases where parents recording became a significant disruption. People can be inconsiderate assholes, to be sure. All I can tell you is it's not so inevitable as some insist, since I've not seen it become a problem here. YMMV.

You have my perspective on this all wrong. Poor Moonbeam used to be the relative with a video camera and it was me that was the asshole that disturbed others. I blessed the day when they made it impossible for me to film by bringing in a professional. You become an asshole, because, while you don't want to disturb others, you also want to do the best job you can for your family and friends. I'd want any cop dead who got in my way, hehe. I'm a perfectionist. My videos have to be world class. Fuck the audience. I won't see them again but the family will have my nuts if I don't deliver. The little Moonbeams in my family are so so precious.

Of course my problem could be that the moonbeams draw huge crowds and if there were a fire they would find hundreds of us as ashes amidst twisted tripods.

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
Very few people had 8mm and they were expensive and SHORT, What were they, 4 minutes long? Not suitable to record any kind of group preformance that had any length at all to it. Especiaslly not suited for indoor shooting without extra lighting. You're just talking out of your ass when you said 50 years.

And I never said people didn't have TV's I said I don't think MOST (as in the majority) had them.

Wrong. My parents had one in the early 70's and it was old technology by then. They were even recording sound.... wow. I converted all those movies to vcr tape. That reminds me I should cut dvd's out of it now!

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
If any of you people had any sense you would see the issue is when having an event with 100 kids there are going to be 100 parents wanting to videotape the event.

Look what a pain in the ass ONE individual was, now imagine two of them wanting the same spot to film from.

Who do you represent the DVD Company or the school?

I represent the person who paid his $8 to see the show UNDISTURBED by every ninny too cheap to buy the DVD. I have rights too.

Yes you have the right to get the fuck out of here.

Fuck You, don't like it, get the fuck out of my country.

 

[NesuD]

He wonders how Northrop?s choir department could have signed a contract allowing Huntington Media Services Inc. exclusive rights to videotape his daughter for profit without his permission,

I wonder about this as well. This is where his challenge should have been. He should have made his objections and then shut up. Later take it up with the school board and then legal action if necessary. I have serious doubts about the legality of what they are doing without the parents consent. The guy is an idiot. There are much more intelligent ways of making your point than what he did.