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…”
On the recordJuly 6, 2004
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Discussing the limitations of a statute regarding audiovisual recording devices.
Share
More from Dianne Feinstein
Sep 6, 2023
I'm pleased to join in the introductions of Kim Lee, who has been nominated to serve on the Northern District of California.
Sep 6, 2023
I'm pleased to join in the introductions of Kim Lee, who has been nominated to serve on the Northern District of California.
Mar 23, 2023
Secretary Fudge, thank you for your continued collaboration with the Department of Veterans Affairs on the HUD-VA Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) program, which provides permanent supportive housing to veterans experiencing homelessness.
May 3, 2023
There's been no slowdown. She did acknowledge that Republicans have blocked some nominees from moving forward.





