Of course not. The statute covers only a person who ``knowingly uses or attempts to use an audiovisual recording device to transmit or make a copy of a motion picture or other audiovisual work protected under Title 17, or any part thereof. . . .'' In other words, the defendant would have to be making, or attempting to make, a copy that is itself an audiovisual work, or make, or attempt to make, a transmission embodying an audiovisual work, as that term is defined in Section 101 of Title 17. As such, the Act would not reach the conduct of a person who uses a hearing aid, a still camera, or a picture phone to capture an image or mere sound from the movie.
Dianne Feinstein: “Of course not. The statute covers only a person who ``knowingly uses or attempts to use an audiovisual recording device…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the limitations of a statute regarding audiovisual recording devices.
Share
More from Dianne Feinstein
I rise today to introduce the Fighting Homelessness Through Services and Housing Act, which would establish a new Federal grant program to increase capacity for comprehensive supportive services paired with housing as a way to address our…
I rise today to address a continuing concern: the online sale of firearms using deceptive and misleading means. It simply continues to be too easy for individuals to evade existing restrictions and buy firearms through online platforms…
I rise to speak in support of the Canal Conveyance Capacity Restoration Act, which I introduced today. Representative Jim Costa has introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives. The bill authorizes one-third cost-share…
Unfortunately, that prediction was all too accurate; although the 2021 Caldor Fire destroyed more homes than nine other disaster in 2021 combined.





