On February 15, Xue Zhiqian posted a Weibo in support of "Flying Life 2", but with a screen camera**. What is screen photography? As the name suggests, it isTake a picture on the big screen while watching a movie。Many netizens ran to Xue Zhiqian's Weibo to leave messages and tell himScreen photography is unethical and may even break the law
Xue Zhiqian disagreed, and even wrote limerick poems to retort netizens. Xue Zhiqian's fans are not vegetarians, and they have uploaded screen shots** to support idols. 
So what's wrong with screen photography that makes netizens so angry? There are two issues involved in screen photographyOne is to influence other audiences to watch the movie
It's not just a matter of screen photography, as long as you light up your phone, talk loudly, don't keep your child quiet, eat smelly food, ......These will affect the viewing of other audiences, and they are all immoral behaviors. Do you know how much the fan community abhors these behaviors? There is a movie in the United States called "God Bless America", and the male and female protagonists directly pulled out their guns and abruptly surprised the audience who were making loud noises in the theater. 
So it's not just the screen camera, as long as you light up the phone, it's immoral. Another issue involved with screen photography is breaking the law. 
Article 31 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Promotion of the Film Industry, which came into effect in 2017, clearly states that without the permission of the rights holder, no one may make audio or video recordings of the film being screened. Where audio or video recordings are discovered, cinema staff have the right to stop them and request that they delete them; Those who refuse to obey have the right to request that they leave the scene. But there are debatable points in this law, first of all, from a literal point of view, is screen photography considered an "audio and video" act? This incident contradicts even the CCTV news. The experts invited by the CCTV news channel said that there was no infringement, and the experts invited by the CCTV movie channel said that when the "dragon mark" was lit up, the filming should be stopped. 
I am afraid that only when the lawsuit is really brought to the court and the judge makes a ruling will there be a relatively clear conclusion. But the question is, will anyone take the screen-taker to court? There are two difficulties in pursuing screen photography violations, one is that the matter is too small. One is that things are too common. To make an analogy, we all know that gambling is illegal, but if relatives and friends get together to play a dozen mahjong games with colorful heads, generally speaking, the judiciary will not care. On the one hand, this matter is too small, and it will be won or lost for 1,800 yuan in one night, which is also a bit unkind to be arrested. On the other hand, this thing is too common, this Spring Festival holiday, how many six aunts and three princesses in China stay up late at the mahjong table to fight? 
Of course, playing mahjong is a private act and does not have a strong negative externality like screen photography. In other words, playing mahjong at home generally does not infringe on the rights and interests of others. But even if laws are introduced, enforcement can be very difficult. And if a law is widespread in society and it is difficult for law enforcers to deal with it, the law is useless. Like the aforementioned Article 31: the law delegates enforcement to cinema staff. Because the judiciary is really unable to supervise. Even Japan, which is known for its strict ban on screen photography, divides screen photography into three different situations. 
In the first case, if it is just a ** movie screen, the theater staff will stop it after discovering it, and those who do not listen will be prosecuted. In the second case, if the content or picture of the film is disseminated on the Internet, you will face a fine of at least 50,000 yen (about 2,400 yuan) and other administrative penalties. In the third case, if the film is made into a CD, videotape, etc., or is profited on some forums and illegal films, resulting in serious damage to the film producer, it will be sentenced to more than 5 years and less than 10 years in prison, and the other party will also be compensated for economic losses. So the most difficult thing to deal with is really the first situation, the audience's spontaneous, slight, and common screen shooting behavior. In my opinion, this kind of behavior is always on a moral level and needs to be addressed by society itself, not by law. For the solution to this problem, I frowned and came up with three strategies. Let's talk about the next policy first, the movie theater may wish to put a few bloody big words on the big screen before the film starts".I wish the screen photographer a failure in the postgraduate entrance examination! Believe me, for many people, a curse is better than anything else. Its effect has been proven by the spell at the base of countless gates and walls. 
If you want to scare someone, you have to find something that scares them. Once they are afraid, they themselves learn to be strict with themselves. Of course, this method may not be possible. After all, we are in a civilized society, and we do not want to engage in such vicious and cursed things. And it's in public, and the relevant departments can't allow it. So although this trick is effective, it has a bad effect. But we can take a step back, and if the curse is too ugly, it can be changed to sarcasm. It's just a little less lethal.
Let's talk about the middle strategy. Since laws and regulations have authorized movie theater staff to stop screen shooting. Then you might as well use your power, for example, to set up a post called "".Civilized Movie Watcher”。Each supervisor wears a red arm band and is equipped with a laser pointer to shake whoever lights up their phone during the movie. The team of supervisors must be capable, and it is best to hire retired uncles and aunts to serve as them. They have rich experience in struggle, are determined to stand up to critical moments.
The advantage of this method is to solve the problem of screen photography anytime and anywhere, and it can also allow the elderly to do something and have fun when they are old. The disadvantage is that on the one hand, the cost of hiring a supervisor is probably not low, and on the other hand, if there is a conflict, a movie will be ruined. So it can only be the middle way. It doesn't matter, I have a good strategy on my side. We may wish to refer to the division of smoking areas and non-smoking areas to divide the number of movie screenings"Screenable Camera" and "Prohibited Screen".。For screen filming, the ticket price may as well be set more expensive. Isn't there a saying on the Internet? The movie ticket you purchased only authorizes you to watch the movie, not the screen. Now that you are authorized to screen shoot, you will naturally have to charge some more money.
As for the prohibition of screen shooting, it will be embarrassing, pay a deposit of 200 before entering the venue, and deduct money if you violate the regulations. If you are not afraid of delaying the audience's hundreds of thousands of business in a second, you should put away your mobile phone before watching the movie. You may feel that my three strategies are a bit ridiculous. In fact, what I want to express is that when it comes to immoral behavior that cannot be controlled by the law, loud appeals and moral exhortations are one thingBut it's more important to find a solution to the problem and design an effective plan for travel。To be honest, for this level of screen photography, the biggest harm is to affect other people's viewing. As for whether the screen camera infringes copyright, let's not worry about the film producer. Didn't you watch this time netizens encircled Xue Zhiqian, didn't the movie producer squeak? Because they can't wait for the majority of netizens to promote the video for them. Isn't Xue Zhiqian himself also doing Han Han a favor? Sometimes they don't even care about the screen themselves.
Only piracy and piracy can really violate the interests of the producer, and at that time, they will do it themselves without the appeal of netizens. Back to the ethics of screen photography. From a conceptual point of view, the implementation of a moral norm must inevitably go through a process in which the concept is deeply rooted in the hearts of the people. Sometimes the process can be very long. I believe that many countries and regions have also gone through a long process to establish today's movie-watching civilization.
One problem in Chinese mainland is that the economic level has completed in 40 years what others have traveled in 100 years. This rapid development has left little time for people's mindset to change. As a result, material civilization has been reached, but spiritual civilization has not kept up. As a result, there are moral problems that belong to modern civilization, such as watching movies and taking pictures, walking dogs without leashes, and forcibly merging cars while driving. What's the solution? We can call out loud or devise reasonable solutions to advance the course of civilization. But civilization still takes time.
Perhaps the progress of science and technology will suddenly solve the problem. For example, one day technological progress will make screen photography impossible. Recently, Apple launched its own VR system, Apple Vision Pro, and those who have used it have said that it is good. But those who haven't used it don't know that it's good. Because people who have used it can't shoot the effect for people who haven't used it.