Slashdot Mirror
Night Goggles Capture Spider-Man Movie Bootlegger
linuxwrangler writes "According to SFGate.com/AP, a teen has been arrested for attempting to bootleg the Spider-Man 2 movie, after a projectionist using night-vision goggles spotted him. The teen was escorted from the theater by security guards and turned over to police. This may be the first arrest stemming from the use of NV goggles that were previously mentioned on Slashdot."
Telesyncs are cams done in an empty theater with a direct feed from the sound system. In other words, done by an employee, or at least with their assistance, which was the point of the original poster, as opposed to a copy shot by an audience member, which is the implied meaning of "cam" by most.
Who's stupid...?
If you actually read the article you'd know that there are $500 rewards for turning in people with camcorders. Now unless someone is overlooking the $500, this would make sense. But there's a good incentive for someone making shitty wage to rat out the camcorder monkeys.
Chief Quimby over helicopter loud-speaker: "Don't mind us. Continue swimming naked. Oh, come on, continue! Aww..."
Chief Wiggum: "Do not be alarmed. Continue swimming naked...."
It would be cool if it didn't suck.
If the kid is smart, he'll already have a lawyer on his side, working for him. This is how laws get challenged. The sentiment of, "You did the crime, now do the time," is a cop-out. Would you react the same way if speeding was punishable by up to a year in prison and a $2500 fine? What would you do if you killed someone in self defense and were charged with murder? Would you roll over and take it, because you obviously killed the person? People bitch and moan about lawyers and the judicial system, but they protect your rights. (I'm speaking of criminal lawyers, not the civil lawyers that live for the next big class action.) What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt? This may look cut and dried, but how do we know there weren't extenuating circumstances? Are night vision goggles really allowable, or is it an infringement on constitutional rights? (you don't have the constitutional right to bootleg movies, but you do have a constitutionally protected privacy that this may or may not infringe upon -- the only way to know is for the case to be tried in court and see what happens.) The kid might get off on what you consider a technicality, but that's justice. If the method of collecting evidence is questionable, and disallowed, and the case can't be proven otherwise, then the guy deserves to go free because you can't prove he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether it's a bootlegging case like this, a speeding ticket where the equipment used was out of calibration, or a more serious crime where evidence was gathered illegally (say, by tapping a phoneline without a warrant, or illegally searching someone's property without a warrant), it doesn't matter. If you can't prove the case beyond a shadow of a doubt without the disallowed evidence, there is no case. Period. End of story.
Complain if you like. That's your right. However, you should at least take the time to understand why the system is the way it is, and why even the obviously guilty still have a right to representation and a fair and speedy (speedy can be waived by the defendent, but not fair) trial by a jury of their peers. I don't want to take that right away from you. Why would you want to take it away from me?
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to know all of the circumstances of this case.