A Year In Prison For a 20-Second Film Clip?

PizzaFace writes "It's Jhannet's 19th birthday, so her boyfriend borrows a camcorder to memorialize the occasion, and they head to the mall. They goof around, recording each other in the food court, then decide to catch the Transformers matinee, which started a few minutes earlier. During a big action scene, Jhannet takes the camcorder and records a 20-second clip to show her little brother. A few minutes later, cops who were called by the manager come in with flashlights, arrest Jhannet, confiscate the camcorder, and, at the behest of Regal Cinemas, charge her with film piracy. 'I was terrified,' said Jhannet. 'I was crying. I've never been in trouble before.' If convicted, she could be sentenced to a year in prison and a $2,500 fine. The police say they lack discretion because Regal Cinemas chose to prosecute: 'They were the victim in this case, and they felt strongly enough about it.' The National Association of Theater Owners supports Regal's 'zero-tolerance' prosecution standard: 'We cannot educate theater managers to be judges and juries in what is acceptable. Theater managers cannot distinguish between good and bad stealing.'"

Comments

Devil's advocate

[daveschroeder]

If videotaping in a movie theater is illegal, and if that is what occurred in this instance - and indeed, the person in question admits just that - then why is this acceptable? Why should the theater decide between "good and bad stealing"?

Isn't that for a judge and jury to decide?

Would it be acceptable to record twenty seconds? Two minutes? Twenty minutes? The entire movie?

(Believe it or not, there actually could be an answer here..."fair use" does have specific provisions for how long clips can be, what they can be used for, and so on.)

I realize most here on slashdot probably won't agree with this, and think that "copyright", or at least its current form in the US, which is the basis for prohibiting things like recording in movie theaters, ought to be done away with completely.

But if any claim on content ownership is supportable and valid in any legal framework, mustn't there necessarily be mechanisms to enforce related laws and prohibit its violation? And when there is a violation, and an agent that is party to the violation chooses to press charges for what may be the violation of a local, state, or federal statute in various circumstances, shouldn't a judge and jury be the ones to decide the outcome?

The article says:

"We cannot educate theater managers to be judges and juries in what is acceptable," he said. "Theater managers cannot distinguish between good and bad stealing."

Macdowell said the trade association, which represents 28,000 screens nationwide, realizes there is a difference between "egregious acts of stealing our movies and more innocent ones." But he said that distinction needed to be made in court rather than by theater managers.

Not everyone agrees.

And then comes the predictable reply:

"The movie industry needs to recognize that their audience isn't the enemy," said Cindy Cohn, general counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based nonprofit group that specializes in digital rights issues. "They need to stop treating their fans like criminals. . . . What they're doing is extremely unreasonable, coming down on this poor girl who was actually trying to promote their movie."

The "your customers aren't the enemy" reply.

But you can easily argue that recording the entire movie and posting it on a torrent site also "promotes" the movie. Or that posting TV shows not available in certain markets "promote" the TV show. In fact, many make just that argument. Indeed, you can find many examples of how online "piracy" has increased or enhanced loyalty to various music, television shows, and so on.

The only problem is, that's not your decision to make. That's the content owner's decision.

The only way to allow the behavior in this particular instance is to make recording movies in theaters legal, or have ridiculous provisions like time limits on number of seconds or minutes that can "legally" be recorded, that theaters would then have to enforce.

Where do you draw the line?

Copyright may not be perfect, and trade and industry groups may vigorously try to protect content. But that is their right under the current legal framework, and absurd examples don't really serve any function in having any real change, other than being able to be used as a rallying cry for people who DO fundamentally believe that we should be able to record entire movies in movie theaters, or entire TV shows, or entire DVDs, and post them to torrent sites, with no fear of retribution.

And I don't think either extreme makes sense.

Re:Devil's advocate

[ArcadeX]

"If videotaping in a movie theater is illegal, and if that is what occurred in this instance - and indeed, the person in question admits just that - then why is this acceptable? Why should the theater decide between "good and bad stealing"? Isn't that for a judge and jury to decide?" The judge and jury do decide, all the theater gets to decide is if they want to press charges or not. Pretty much agree with everything else in the whole 'in a perfect world' sense. Course I think most people see the maximum fine and think the worst, doesn't mean the judge will give than, more often than not they don't, they may just issue a court order forbiding that person to ever bring a recording device on that theater's property again... there goes your camera phone.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Nos.]

Here's the thing, either the projectionist, or some other staff member (or possibly another movie goer) saw someone with a camcorder recording the movie. They reported it. The theatre did take the appropriate action IMHO, of calling the appropriate authorities. Now, the theatre could, if they believe her story of 20 seconds, could drop the charges. However, I don't blame them for not doing so. If her story holds up, I doubt she'll get more than a minor slap on the wrist, probably in the form of a fine.

Re:Devil's advocate

[trolltalk.com]

"The only problem is, that's not your decision to make. That's the content owner's decision. "

The theater wasn't the "content owner." And the theatre owner doesn't understand the concept of "de minimus" - the law doesn't deal in trifles. They're just being dickheads. A 20-second clip isn't a clear case of copyright infringement, since copyright allows for short exerpts to be used without the copyright owners' permission, for example, in reviews. Getting kicked out of the theatre should have been enough, but that's what you get for treating your customers like criminals (guess they've adopted the Microsoft CRM model).

Re:Devil's advocate

[91degrees]

But you can easily argue that recording the entire movie and posting it on a torrent site also "promotes" the movie
...
Where do you draw the line?

But this is where the whole fair use argument comes in. one of the test for fair use is the amount used. More importantly, another is the possible impact it will have through displacement of sales. Recording the entire movie clearly has the potential to displace a sale. The fair use doctrine is quite deliberately a little vague on where the specific boundaries are, and instead uses the "reasonable person" test. However, it would be hard to draw a reasonable boundary where 20 seconds of footage and a whole movie are both on the same side.

Re:Devil's advocate

[daveschroeder]

Actually, I just happened to see a free pass to a screening of some movie the other day.

On the pass, it specifically said:

- That customers were subject to search, and

- That any and all audio or video recording equipment, or any device with such capabilities, including phones, PDAs, etc., were strictly prohibited.

Granted, most customers in any theater at any given time probably do have camera phones. But again, this is a case where you can't really make a distinction between what is a "camcorder" versus a PDA that just happens to have enough memory to record the whole movie. If you come in with a Treo, no one is going to say anything. If you come in with your collapsible tripod asking for assistive hearing devices, or you get caught with a video camera out in the theater, you're going to get nailed.

I agree that this situation is ridiculous, and when it goes to trial, she probably (hopefully?) won't be punished. But even in this case it wasn't like the recording was incidental. The theater and others involved can't guess intent. Sure, they had the "discretion" to not do anything, but why is that in their lap? How are they to decide who's going to upload movies and who is "recording a 20 second clip to get their little brother excited"? The only alternative is to make it all legal, and that doesn't make any sense either.

Re:Devil's advocate

[clambake]

"We cannot educate theater managers to be judges and juries in what is acceptable," he said. "Theater managers cannot distinguish between good and bad stealing."

INDEED! Finally, someone is making sense here. I mean a theater manager will NEVER be given a jury summons in his or her life, the statistical likelihood that is basically nil, right. That's a given, right? So, prosecute blindly, using no judgment of any kind. And, by that token, every 15 year old girl taking nude pictures of herself SHOULD at least be TRIED for child pornography. I mean, isn't that *really* what a judge and jury is for? To make sure we never forced, as a culture and a as society, to acquire the slightest shred of a collective level of common sense?

Re:Devil's advocate

[stubear]

Reading comprehension 101. The article suggested, and rightfully so, that it is up to a judge and jury to determine whether or not this use of the video clip is fair use or not, not a theater manager.

Re:Devil's advocate

[somersault]

I don't see how they were being dickheads - this is in similar realms of stupidity of trying to get onto a plane with a gun, or smoking in a gas station..? It's moronic to expect to be allowed to record any part of a movie in the cinema, though I think if they'd watched the video and her claims held up, then they should have just been ejected from the cinema rather than anything worse happening.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

Believe it or not, there actually could be an answer here..."fair use" does have specific provisions for how long clips can be

No, it does not . That's one of the reasons that the whole "fair use" concept isn't enough to keep you out of the courts because there are no specific provisions for how long clips can be. In fact, in the so-called "Betamax decision", the US Supreme Court held that recording an entire TV show fell under "fair use". You should lose mod points for saying that when it's completely false.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, how about a warning before posting links to images like that?

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, the theater was being a dick. But I don't really blame them. They are a business. Certain laws exist. They are within their rights to use their laws to protect their business (whether or not this was a smart business move is beside the point, it is their right to run their business as they see fit).

I blame the fact that a law exists where a person can get arrested for merely taking a camcorder out of a bag in a movie theater. If the theater wants to throw a person out, that's fine (it's private property), but I blame the law for allowing this to escalate so easily to the courts and possible jail time... for such an innocent action.

Yes, I know the law in question is intended to prevent a certain class of crime. But laws which restrict the freedoms of normal citizens in their daily lives, while only marginally discouraging a class of non-violent crime, are not good laws in my opinion. Any law which a citizen, acting in good faith, can accidentally trip so easily, is not a good law.

Whenever new laws are created to stop "big bad piracy" one standard defense of the new law is to say "if you're not pirating things, this won't affect you." That simply isn't true. This is yet another example of anti-"piracy" paranoia leading to infringements of the rights and freedoms of law-abiding citizens. Even if no fine and jail-time result from this, being treated like a criminal for such actions is not something we should tolerate.

Re:Devil's advocate

[daveschroeder]

"The only problem is, that's not your decision to make. That's the content owner's decision. "

The theater wasn't the "content owner."

The theater is acting as an agent for a trade association, which is in turn acting as an agent for a movie studio, an so on.

That's why they are enforcing this; they are effectively an agent for the content owners.

And the theatre owner doesn't understand the concept of "de minimus" - the law doesn't deal in trifles. They're just being dickheads. A 20-second clip isn't a clear case of copyright infringement, since copyright allows for short exerpts to be used without the copyright owners' permission, for example, in reviews.

I already spoke to that in my post.

Let me be clear: I agree that the theater had the discretion to ignore it, simply kick the person out, etc. And they may have been being dickheads, after the person explained what she was doing, assuming she did.

But why should the theater owner be put in that position? Camcorders and recording aren't allowed in movie theaters. That's what she was doing, and she even admits that it wasn't incidental (e.g., recording of a group of friends that just happened to be in the theater); she was recording the movie itself.

Talking about fair use and so on and how long clips can be is so out of the purview of what the theater should be dealing with that it's utterly ridiculous. As I said, the only way to solve this is to:

1.) Have recording in theaters be completely legal, or

2.) Specify the length of clips allowable, and have theaters police the length of clips recorded in theaters.

Do you really think 2.) is possible, and that 1.) is fair?

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

but that's what you get for treating your customers like criminals

Yep. I am angry about this so I don't think I will be going to any Regal movie theatres any time soon. If Regal is the only chain showing what I want to see, I will just wait for netflix.

Legal or not, I don't want to pay money to people who are inclined to treat their own customers this badly for such trifles.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Brad Eleven]

Where do you draw the line?

...I don't think that either extreme makes sense.

Bingo. The current laws simply do not cover the tech, and the gap continues to grow.

If the theater managers can't be educated, surely the public cannot. Most readers here completely grok the situation, and we pride ourselves on holding and maintaining distinctions like these. They set us apart from the general public. We know not to get a video recording device anywhere near a movie theater--whereas the people being charged with piracy had little or no idea what risk they were taking.

It's a mess--and messes tend to raise awareness. Perhaps this one will cause more people to be aware of the loose definitions of media piracy--as opposed to raising that special brand of awareness we know as FUD.

The only problem is, [whether or not to share some or all of licensed content is] not your decision to make. That's the content owner's decision.

I assert that the owner's decision to distribute his/her/its content in such a way as to allow unauthorized copying voids their claim to ownership. In the same way that the suspects in this case were ignorant of the law, the owners are ignorant of the demand for their content outside of what they're willing to provide.

Re:Devil's advocate

[MontyApollo]

Fair Use might not apply since she is not being charged with infringement, she is being charged for a crime - illegaly recording a motion picture.

She's just going to get a slap on the wrist if her story is true; so much drama over nothing.

Re:Devil's advocate

[mudetroit]

You have to be careful about attacking the theatre owner here. Theatres, to my knowledge and I am open to correction here, as part of their license to show the film open themselves up to the a possible lawsuit from the content owner/distributor/etc. if they are complicit in allowing unauthorized reproductions to me made. Not to mention that the distributor could elect to no longer sell them films to show in the first place effectively destroying their business. You don't want to put the theatre owners in that position.

Re:Devil's advocate

[shogarth]

If you come in with a Treo, no one is going to say anything.

Not necessarily true. We had tickets to some random movie preview 10 months ago. As always, I had my phone with me as required for work (if the servers go down...). The goon at the door saw that my phone had camera capability and denied me entrance. After an extended, polite, kafkaesque conversation, my wife watched the movie while I drank coffee and read a book next door.

Re:Devil's advocate

[daveschroeder]

You are completely wrong.

The time shifting case allows the recording of entire TV shows, movies, etc., in a noncommercial home environment for personal use.

That is not "fair use". Fair use is an entirely different concept, and is widely understood to NOT allow the recording of entire copyrighted content wholesale. You can use small clips, and that's it. And what constitutes a "small clip" does not have a specific definition, but it is most certainly NOT the entirety of the content, e.g., in an educational context:

III. Amount

Amount is measured both quantitatively and qualitatively. No exact measures of allowable quantity exist in the law. Quantity must be evaluated relative to the length of the entire original and in light of the amount needed to serve a proper objective. One court has ruled that a journal article alone is an entire work; any copying of an entire work usually weighs heavily against fair use. Pictures generate serious controversies, because a user nearly always wants the full image, or the full "amount." On the other hand, a "thumbnail," low-resolution version of the image might be an acceptable "amount" to serve an education or research purpose. Motion pictures are also problematic, because even short clips may borrow the most extraordinary or creative elements. One may also reproduce only a small portion of any work, but still take "the heart of the work." This concept is a qualitative measure that may weigh against fair use.

There is quite a bit of information about the "short clip" provisions for fair use, which are subjective, all around various legal and other sites on the internet. But the bottom line is that it is NEVER all of the content, and is always a very small portion of the total content.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, what did you expect when the word "dickheads" is linked to a site called trolltalk.com? I don't think a warning alarm can sound louder than that.

Re:Devil's advocate

[uncoveror]

What kind of idiot takes a camcorder into a theater? Unless she spent the last 15 years or so in a cave, she should know that they go out of their way to bust people for this. 20 seconds or so for her little brother? Even if this is true, she is guilty of being stupid. The judge will give her story as much credence as "some dude just handed me the stereo, your honor. I didn't know it was hot!" She's toast.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Refusing to set a prorated policy and refusing to educate theater managers is tantamount to extremism and saying that theater managers are supposed to be dumb.

Re:Devil's advocate

[amper]

Sure, they had the "discretion" to not do anything, but why is that in their lap?

Because it is reasonable to expect that, as the theatre is acting (as you put it in a subsequent post) as an agent for the copyright owner, that a certain amount of enforcement power be granted them. Whether or not her recording, excerpt or no, falls within the bounds of the fair use doctrine is not germane to the case. It is reasonable to ban *all* recording because while the theatre, as agent, should be delegated the authority to remove a recorder and its operator from the theatre premises and destroy any resulting recording, it is *not* reasonable to delegate to that agent the power to make determinations as to what falls under fair use. The harm to the individual and to the public at large in this case is insignificant.

Re:Devil's advocate

[El Gigante de Justic]

The problem with your argument is that the theater manager or whoever reported to the manager that she was recording the movie doesn't know how much she recorded or for what purpose, and it's not his job to find that out; that's the job of the police and the courts. They give you more than enough warnings that recording devices aren't allowed, so if you use one during the movie, you should expect consequences. If she really wanted to "promote" the film to her little brother, she should have just brought him to the movie - a heck of a lot less hassle.

Re:Devil's advocate

[jedidiah]

One day at Six Flags, some jerk in front of me has a hunting knife. Six Flags just dealt with it sedately. They didn't call the cops, they just made the guy give it up before entering the park. You don't have to call out swat for jaywalking or stealing a pack of bubblegum.

The time should fit the crime.

The amount of police time wasted should fit the crime.

The amount of court time wasted should fit the crime.

Re:Devil's advocate

[snookerdoodle]

I hope that they don't settle. This would be a great chance to set a precedent.

It is *not* the content owner's decision as to what constitutes fair use and what does not. 20 seconds is laughable enough that the "content owner" should be begging to settle at this point if they want to continue having folks arrested for this.

Re:Devil's advocate

[The Great Pretender]

The theater staff were not being dickheads, they were just following the corporate policy of having zero tolerance. If they want to keep their job they need to follow corporate policy whether they may agree with it or not. Your ire probably shouldn't even be directed at the coporate policy, Regal have probably signed some agreement with the distributors to enforce this policy allowing them to show the movie, thus make money (they are afterall in the business of showing movies to the public). So you should probably call the distributors the dickheads for insisting that no one records their films. So should the distributors let 20 second clips be used, well IANAL, but if I record a movie could I not just claim it's a set of 20 second clips? I probably wouldn't be able to get away with that, but why should they even foot any legal bills arguing the case. Slap a contract clause that says no reproduction and the argument on the distributors side is very clear and without interpretation.

Re:Devil's advocate

[JrOldPhart]

I pumped gas for several years in the 60's, I was a smoker. We all smoked at work. We all survived.
Air marshals carry guns on planes.
If all citizens were allowed to carry guns on a plane 911 would not have happened.

Have you not seen the lack of quality of camera recorded movies?
That is not theft. That is not infringement. That is torture to anyone who watches the recording. If the content is interesting to you then it is advertising. The owners of the movie should be paying for the advertisement. The MPAA should enforce the payment to the people distributing those hard to watch ads.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Knara]

No, it's "moronic" to try and draw a direct comparison between (ostensibly) physical security concerns and short, substandard videotaping in a movie theater. It's people like you and your bizarre sense of comparisons in the legal system that allow this sort of insanity to continue. The theater managers *were* being dickheads, there's just no other way a rational person can think of this sort of incident.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

this is in similar realms of stupidity of trying to get onto a plane with a gun, or smoking in a gas station..

The fact that copyright infringement is similar in legal punishment to carrying a weapon onto a plane or negligently endangering the lives of everyone at a gas station tells us something about how out-of-control copyright law has become.

Be afraid, citizens! If you are not fully aware of the details of copyright law, you will go to jail! Being unaware of laws to maintain status-quo media monopolies is just like being negligent regarding the sanctity of human life.

Re:Devil's advocate

[mrpeebles]

What you can do under the law, and what you should do, are not necessarily the same thing. Certainly the movie industry has every right under the law to demand prosecution of this kid. Tabloids also have the right under the law to publish private pictures of celebrities; that doesn't mean doing so isn't soulless and wrong. Of course, the movie industry should remember that the day may be coming when a movie become like a song is now- something people pay to get not because they have to, but mostly because they think they should. Irrespective of rights, people prefer not to pay companies that send 19 year old kids to jail for 20 seconds of film footage.

Re:Devil's advocate

[GreyPoopon]

The theater wasn't the "content owner." And the theatre owner doesn't understand the concept of "de minimus" - the law doesn't deal in trifles. They're just being dickheads [trolltalk.com].

Personally, if I were the girls parents, I'd make sure everybody, and I really mean everybody, in the surrounding area knew the facts about the case and that the girl wasn't trying to pirate the movie. Regal Cinemas is in a position to know whether this act really constituted a willful violation of copyright. They are also in a perfect position to ask for the charges to be dropped. If they choose not to, they deserve to lose every customer they have. Laws can be a good thing, but when a law itself causes people to abandon human decency, it needs to be changed or repealed.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that we all need to stop calling movies, music, and other such artistic works 'content'. What comes in my cereal box is 'content'. However, I don't look at a painting and call it 'content', I call it work of art. Music and movies are a form of communication (e.g., to tell a story in some creative way). As we continue referring to refer to this stuff as though it were some sort of physical material or scarce resource, we start to take on the perspective that said "content owners" want us to have.

Re:Devil's advocate

[jedidiah]

It's always up to the "victim" whether or not they want to press an issue. Cut the nanny-state crap out already. You're not just supposed to send in the SWAT team and let the supreme court sort things out afterwards. The cops and the courts are there for when YOU ARE NOT CAPABLE of interacting with each other in a civilized manner.

Law & Order enforces civility on those that aren't capable of it. It's not supposed to be a crutch.

Re:Devil's advocate

[hjf]

If her story holds up, I doubt she'll get more than a minor slap on the wrist, probably in the form of a fine.

Let me see: why wouldn't it hold up? IF they were trying to STEAL the movie, they would've started at the beginning, and I doubt they'll record anything interesting in those 20 seconds. (And it's really easy to see if they did record 20 seconds AND which part of the movie was that)
But more importantly: WHY should she get ANY kind of punishment? "Zero-tolerance" is an american term invented to justify the lawyers actions. It's a shame that the US judiciary system allows itself to be abused that way, for so little and insignificant things.

Let me put it this way: if these things continue, soon we'll be only allowed to hear music on earphones. Because if you listen too loud in your house and SOMEONE can hear it from the street, then you're doing a public playback of your music, and you will certainly go to jail for that!

Re:Devil's advocate

[superbus1929]

Course I think most people see the maximum fine and think the worst, doesn't mean the judge will give than, more often than not they don't

Exactly. Any judge worth his salt is going to see what's going on here, know that she's not some pirate, and give her nothing. Maybe force her to speak out against piracy. Big whoop.

And if he did sentence her to jail, there would be such a major public uproar that it would bring the MPAA and Crown to their knees.

Re:Devil's advocate

[wytcld]

We cannot educate theater managers to be judges and juries in what is acceptable. Theater managers cannot distinguish between good and bad stealing.

Indeed, theater managers are recruited from the pool of "special education" students who in turn ended up there because their teachers found it too much trouble to teach them how to read. (Movies, the stories that don't require reading!) Like, do you think the theater owners association could make a movie about the differences between "bad stealing" and "fair use" under copyright law?

And if you can't video tape a brief segment of a movie in order to make fair use of it, and the movie's not out in any form but film yet, then you've just had your fair use stolen - bad stealing. At some point, the illiterate jerks who can't read the Constitution should be required to either surrender all rights under law - including the right to have laws enforced in their favor - or leave the country.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Nos.]

Look at it from the theatre's point of view. They see someone camming, they call the police. She has a story about "only recording 20 seconds for her brother". The police are holding the camera. The theatre owner has no right to view what's on the camera, and even if given permission, a defense lawyer could claim the evidence is no longer reliable. Let her show you, and there's the possibility she'll erase what's on the camera. So, let the law handle it. Keep the camera in proper chain of custody.

Re:Devil's advocate

[halcyon1234]

This is probably what did happen, but not what should have happened. They seemed to skip a couple points of escalation. The usher should have gone down, flicked a light in their face, and said "Don't do that". I'm pretty sure that would have jolted some sense back into them. Kinda like if you parked in a No Parking zone by mistake, and someone said "You know you can't park there", rather than calling to tow truck company.

If they whipped it out again (the cell phone cam, you perv!), then they've been warned. The manager should have marched down, and told them they now have to leave the theater. He'd refund their ticket, and it would be a lesson learned.

The association can go on all they want about no being able to train their managers to be judge and jury, but y'know what? If your managers can't figure out how to handle minor situations like this, hire different managers. I mean, this is Theatre Management 101 stuff here. This is a goshdamn INTERVIEW question. "You're on shift, and one of your ushers reports he saw some kids using a camera phone. What do you do?"

I don't buy the theater's "We can't train our managers", and I don't buy any "I was just following orders" from the manager. This whole situation is just a big pile of derailed common sense. If the kids had displayed it, they wouldn't have taped the movie. If the manager had displayed it, he wouldn't have called the police. And if the theater displayed it, they wouldn't have pressed charges.

Re:Devil's advocate

[cpt kangarooski]

No.

The 'time-shifting case' is Sony v. Universal. Let's see what the Court actually said there (emphasis mine):

Even unauthorized uses of a copyrighted work are not necessarily infringing. An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the copyright statute. Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S., at 154-155. Moreover, the definition of exclusive rights in 106 of the present Act is prefaced by the words "subject to sections 107 through 118." Those sections describe a variety of uses of copyrighted material that "are not infringements of copyright" "notwithstanding the provisions of section 106." The most pertinent in this case is 107, the legislative endorsement of the doctrine of "fair use." That section identifies various factors that enable a court to apply an "equitable rule of reason" analysis to particular claims of infringement. Although not conclusive, the first factor requires that "the commercial or nonprofit character of an activity" be weighed in any fair use decision. If the Betamax were used to make copies for a commercial or profit-making purpose, such use would presumptively be unfair. The contrary presumption is appropriate here, however, because the District Court's findings plainly establish that time-shifting for private home use must be characterized as a noncommercial, nonprofit activity. Moreover, when one considers the nature of a televised copyrighted audiovisual work, see 17 U. S. C. 107(2) (1982 ed.), and that time-shifting merely enables a viewer to see such a work which he had been invited to witness in its entirety free of charge, the fact that the entire work is reproduced, see 107(3), does not have its ordinary effect of militating against a finding of fair use. This is not, however, the end of the inquiry because Congress has also directed us to consider "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." 107(4). The purpose of copyright is to create incentives for creative effort. Even copying for noncommercial purposes may impair the copyright holder's ability to obtain the rewards that Congress intended him to have. But a use that has no demonstrable effect upon the potential market for, or the value of, the copyrighted work need not be prohibited in order to protect the author's incentive to create. The prohibition of such noncommercial uses would merely inhibit access to ideas without any countervailing benefit. Although every commercial use of copyrighted material is presumptively an unfair exploitation of the monopoly privilege that belongs to the owner of the copyright, noncommercial uses are a different matter. A challenge to a noncommercial use of a copyrighted work requires proof either that the particular use is harmful, or that if it should become widespread, it would adversely affect the potential market for the copyrighted work. Actual present harm need not be shown; such a requirement would leave the copyright holder with no defense against predictable damage. Nor is it necessary to show with certainty that future harm will result. What is necessary is a showing by a preponderance of the evidence that some meaningful likelihood of future harm exists. If the intended use is for commercial gain, that likelihood may be presumed. But if it is for a noncommercial purpose, the likelihood must be demonstrated.

In this case, respondents failed to carry their burden with regard to home time-shifting. The District Court described respondents' evidence as follows:

"Plaintiffs' experts admitted at several points in the trial that the time-shifting without librarying would result in 'not a great deal of harm.' Plaintiffs' greatest concern about time-shifting is with 'a point of important philosophy that transcends even commercial judgment.' They fear that with any Betamax usage, 'invisible boundaries' are passed: 'the copyright owner has lost control over his program.'" 480 F.Supp., at 467.

Later in its

Re:Devil's advocate

[Hes Nikke]

And if he did sentence her to jail, there would be such a major public uproar that it would bring the MPAA and Crown to their knees. the mainstream media is so atrified that nobody would notice that she got sentenced to jail. i'm sorry, but we already live in a faciest state. :(

Re:Devil's advocate

[somersault]

I'm just comparing it to things which people *know* are not sensible to do, but still do anyway. I'm not a smoker, tho I do indulge in the odd cigar a couple of times a year.. I once lit up in a closed petrol station without realising what I was doing. I wouldn't be able to go into a movie with a camcorder and not realise how stupid I was being though. I don't see why I shouldn't draw the comparisons - it doesn't matter what the intent was, she was being unbelievably stupid, and whether her recording was of poor quality or not, she should think next time before doing something that is obviously illegal.

I do hate it when people apply laws and don't think of the reasons for them being there, and I myself wouldn't have had a problem with her doing this, but to expect anyone related to the film industry to take this lightly after all the big deal that is made about piracy these days, is blatantly moronic. That's why I'm criticizing her, I hope she doesn't have to do any jail time though. I'm not sure if lighting a cigar near a petrol pump is illegal, but it was stupid, and I'm glad someone tooted as they went past to indicate just quite how stupid I was being.

Re:Devil's advocate

[kebes]

1.) Have recording in theaters be completely legal, or
2.) Specify the length of clips allowable, and have theaters police the length of clips recorded in theaters.
Do you really think 2.) is possible, and that 1.) is fair?

2.) is impossible, but yes, 1.) is fair. Let people record in theaters all they want. Copyright law makes it illegal to distribute content beyond the narrow margins of fair use. That is enough. Go after the bootleggers for selling their copies, bust the massive unauthorized pressing-plants... but do not hassle people with camcorders, since you can't know their intents. A business can have a policy against camcorders... that's fine. But a law that makes it illegal to activate a camcorder in a theater? You should be allowed to record things you see. That is not a violation of copyright. Redistribution is the crime, so that's what should be targeted.

Yes this makes it harder to stop other crimes, but when it's personal liberties being pitted against corporate profits, I'm going to support the protection of liberties even if it means that companies lose a bit of money due to illegal actions. (In the same way that I'd rather have a guilty man go free than put an innocent man behind bars.)

Furthermore, with increasingly ubiquitous recording technology (built into laptops, phones, etc.), a rule against "recording devices in theaters" makes less and less sense.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Nukenbar]

Isn't that for a judge and jury to decide?

Not really.

Many different people have to decide this. That is how most crimes get prosecuted. Usually, but not all of the time, someone has to complain. If the theater had not complained, the kid would certainly not have been arrested.

Second, the police have to care enough to arrest you. The police have a lot of discretion as to whom they have to arrest. Most people on slashdot think this is a bad thing, but they need this discretion to do their job. Now perhaps in this case, the policeman was ordered to make the arrest, but in many other cases he might not have to. Say, a kid stealing a candy bar from a deli, or a fight in a bar were no one really gets hurt.

Next you have to get the prosecutor to take the case. Many cases where there are lawful arrests get dropped because the case has no merit. You might be legally arrested for spitting on the sidewalk in front of a cop, but that doesn't mean the prosecutor HAS to follow though with the case.

An finally we get to the Judge. There is a reason that there are ranges of sentences. That allows a judge to fairly weigh a punishment with a crime. maybe a year would be fair for a hardcore pirate that is working in a theater. this kid would never see a day in jail.

Re:Devil's advocate

[ZeroZen]

It simply shouldn't be a crime to record something. Period!!

It would be a crime also if the person *remembered* what they saw and wrote down word for word the script in the movie, no? This is also unreasonable. People are telling you what you can and cannot do or say.

Law enforcement shouldn't be involved. Making it a criminal offence to record the events transpiring around you is wrong, don't you agree? When we're not allowed to remember what goes on, or be allowed to jot it down, video tape it, or otherwise... Well. Do I need to elaborate?

It's not a secret if you tell someone. People can tell you what they would like you to do with something you own, but should they be able to use big guns to make sure you do?

Re:Devil's advocate

[Culture20]

Why wait for netflix? Buy a 20 second clip from this lady.

Re:Devil's advocate

[DrLov3]

"We cannot educate theater managers to be judges and juries in what is acceptable," he said. "Theater managers cannot distinguish between good and bad stealing."

Unfortunatly he(Mr. Theater manager) is not to judge, his job is to look for people using a camera and call the cops.

Now if there is a state or city law prohibiting the use of a camera at the movies she shall not pass go, not collect 200$ and go straight to jail after a trial with lawers, judges and jury if she is proven guilty.

Now about the stealing concern, you people need to understand the concept of stealing : You have a really cool new computer mouse allowing you to do precise motions and therefore granting you more headshots at counter-strike. Now, I come to your house and I take your mouse without your knowledge/permission/consent and I use it for my own porpuse. You can no longuer play 3d shooters because you don't have a mouse anymore. That is the action of stealing as discribed in the ten commandments. Now if I duplicate Images/Video/Sound/etc either with a camera or the the OLD DOS "copy" command and I bring those Images/Video/Sound/etc home for my private watching or redistributing or whatever, I did not deprive you of your good/property, because you can still watch or make people pay to watch your Images/Video/Sound/etc. Hence, this is not stealing you will NOT go to hell.

Now as stated earlier there maybe a law against that in your city/state/country and if you disagree with that law, get your butt elected or get somebody elected that will change it.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

grow up. people make cam recordings of movies and sell them, directly fucking up the theatre owners livelihoods. what would you do? just stick your head in the sand?

Re:Devil's advocate

[nsayer]

If all citizens were allowed to carry guns on a plane 911 would not have happened.

Now I am as anti-gun-control as they come, but even I have to take a pause here.

Air marshals carry guns. That much is true. But their guns are loaded with "light" ammunition to make sure that the bullet doesn't go through the target and damage something important. I don't think I'd feel like I was done a favor if some Dirty Harry type shoots a bunch of holes in the plane trying to take down a hijacker. Also, airplanes have other issues that suggest that having everyone armed to the teeth would be a less than helpful idea:

1. Everyone is, more or less, confined together within a small space. There is no reasonable way to require someone to leave the premises.
2. There is no way to obtain additional law enforcement assistance in an emergency.
3. Any medical response is likely to take 25-30 minutes longer than it would under other circumstances.

Combine these points and I think you wind up with a dozen or so extra fatalities every year from incidents that get out of hand.

Of course, we could only really be talking about concealable weapons. Can you imagine trying to stow a 12 gauge under the seat in front of you?

Re:Devil's advocate

[somersault]

I said it's in similar realms of stupidity of doing something where you know it shouldn't be done, not that it would have the same effect. Bringing a gun onto a plane isn't by default endangering everyone's life anyway, it's only if you intent to use it that it's a danger to life. Even if you aren't going to use it though, it's still incredibly stupid to try to take one onto a plane, just like it's stupid taking any recording device into a cinema (I take my phone in, sure, but it doesn't have the space to record a whole movie). The fact that she used it in such an obvious manner, is what makes it so stupid.. it's like running onto a plane *waving* a gun and expecting not to face any consequences.

Re:Devil's advocate

[peacefinder]

"The only problem is, that's not your decision to make. That's the content owner's decision."

Not in the case of fair use it's not. And - on the facts presented - this looks like a clear example of fair use. (And also a clear example of violating the theater's no-camera policy, but that's not a criminal matter.)

I predict this case will be thrown out or settled in short order. It's got several serious problems. First, there's a strong fair use argument. Second, the theater owner does not hold copyright on the movie, so may have no standing to bring charges of copyright infringement. Third, the actual harm done by this person is very close to nil.

With luck, the DA will decline to prosecute on the grounds that he's got lots of better things to do.. With different luck, the accused will refuse any settlement, demand trial, and establish a fair-use precedent.

Re:Devil's advocate

[dAzED1]

Where do you draw the line?

Well, I would think that Common Sense would be well on this side of it...

and if you think a girl should have spent a night in jail, and should have to put up with a long, complicated court battle, just because it is unfair to ask a theatre manager to employ a little common sense, then you're an idiot. Sorry.

Your little drivel about the "predictable reply" is just as unreasonable. How about the theatre manager make the first step be asking the person to stop doing it? Instead of calling the police, and having her arrested? Think that maybe, just maybe, confronting her as a human instead of as an enemy might have made more sense?

Absolutely they treated her as the enemy, and not a customer. Absolutely. It was 20 seconds, she stopped before the police got there, no one even needed to ask her to stop. Regardless whether she wins or loses, she's lost. Her 19th birthday was spent in jail. She'll be fighting this for months. You, and the theatre manager, are both devoid of common sense and think this is somehow ok.

Re:Devil's advocate

[91degrees]

Why should it have to go that far? If someone walks into me, I could potentially have them charged for battery. Leave it up to a judge and jury to decide whether it was an accident, whether I suffered injury and whether the other person needs to be punished. I wouldn't let it go that far though. It'sa quite obvious that they're not going to be found guilty and insisting on charging them would be ludicrously petty.

Re:Devil's advocate

[shellacked]

She should insist on a trial by jury. Any reasonable jury would find her innocent or let her get away with a slap on the wrist. I know I would.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

I would even say that the "content owner" is the person making the recording, since they are creating a new work of their experience watching the movie. It should never be illegal to record your own experience except in cases of national security. The proper thing is for the movie theater to enter into a civil contract with people viewing the movie that they not record it, and then the theater could choose to sue the person for violating that agreement and receive damages for them doing so.

I think a fair copyright system is one where only commercial copying is a crime. Everything else can be covered by civil contracts and not copyright.

Re:Devil's advocate

[AndersOSU]

I mean, this is Theatre Management 101 stuff here. This is a goshdamn INTERVIEW question. "You're on shift, and one of your ushers reports he saw some kids using a camera phone. What do you do?"

I wouldn't be surprised if this is an interview question, and the only acceptable answer is call the police. Alternatively, it may be a training topic, where managers learn that not calling the police is a fireable offense.

Re:Devil's advocate

[somersault]

Who said I agree with the laws in these cases? I was just saying that she was dumb for doing this at all. I lit up in a petrol station without thinking about it before, as the pumps had been shut down for the night, and I was probably a little innebriated (didn't notice what I was doing until a passing car honked their horn). I also have watched illegaly recorded movies, and agree that some are crap (though some are excellent, probably from people who stole the film reel and copied directly..).

What I think of the laws in this case doesn't make it any less stupid that she took a camcorder out in a cinema and used it, when there are plenty of warnings given as to what the consequences will be. It doesn't matter your intentions. If you go through a speed trap at 70mph in a 30mph zone because you're rushing your wife to hospital or whatever, it doesn't change the fact that you were breaking the law (I also speed regularly too, I'm just saying.. what did she freakin expect?)

Re:Devil's advocate

[daveschroeder]

So I read the comments in the recent DRM article here on slashdot.

Many make the case that DRM is worthless, because only one person needs to break it and then the content can be freely distributed. Okay, I buy that.

Well, that's the same case here. The problem is that you can't target redistribution. What are we going to do, "shut down" BitTorrent? Impossible. You stop it at the source, which is recording in theaters, which is where the recordings made in theaters, well, come from.

So while I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, you and I both know it's impossible to "target" internet redistribution of the content. I understand that you are taking a fundamentally different viewpoint, and see no problem with any losses or negative impact that might be sustained by, e.g., content owners, because you believe recording anything you see is a fundamental civil or human right. I firmly disagree with that position, and believe that legal frameworks are allowable to prevent redistribution of copyrighted content, as well as what enables such redistribution.

What you're arguing implies that recording whole movies in the theater is acceptable for personal use. I can almost agree with that. The only problem is that there is no way whatsoever to know what will become of that content. Is that the person who wants to watch a camcorded version of the movie at home for private consumption (frankly, very, very unlikely)? Or is that the person who is going to upload it to BitTorrent for his little ego stroke or points with his movie piracy group (very, very likely)?

I don't believe wholesale recording in theaters is fair or should be allowed, and therefore no recording in theaters can really be allowable from a practical standpoint, and that's where our disagreement will lie.

Re:Devil's advocate

[alienw]

Yes, but they are NOT being charged with copyright infringement. This is not copyright infringement at all, since this is quite obviously fair use. They ARE being charged with videotaping in a movie theater under the new Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005. This law prohibits even ATTEMPTING to record a movie in a movie theater, and has no exceptions for actions that would otherwise be fair use.

This is clearly a case of bad laws being passed. Unfortunately, this is quite bad news to the woman being charged with this. Legally, she is completely in the wrong. Her only real option is to negotiate some kind of plea deal or settlement.

Re:Devil's advocate

[JrOldPhart]

Frangible ammo is readily available.
But, you are correct some dolt would be carrying a Desert Eagle and start firing randomly with 300 grain FMJ ammo. If a terrorist tried to take over a plane where all were armed. There is always an idiot in any crowd.

But once again, we will never find out what it would be like to have the general public armed. Those who run this country would loose too much power if we the people were truly self reliant.

Aluminum foil deflector beanie, off.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Baby Duck]

"The only problem is, that's not your decision to make. That's the content owner's decision."

We're saying we no longer want to live in a society where it is the content owner's decision anymore. And Civil Disobedience is the best course for changing law.

Re:Devil's advocate

[MoneyT]

Welcome to the world of lawsuit fearful companies. It's not that they can't train their managers to use discretion, it's that they can get into serious trouble for it. What happens when there's two people, a black man and a mexican recording. The usher comes down the aisles and since he's only one person, he can only address one person at a time without disturbing others. So he hits up the mexican first, confiscates the camera and puts it in the managers office for pickup after the film. Then he moves on to the black man. This time however, the man refuses to give up his camera, the manager is called in to eject the man from the theater. Say hello to discrimination lawsuit. It doesn't matter if the claim is baseless or not, it will go to court (or be settled out of court), and the company will spend money on it. It's much easier, cheaper and safer to just have a blanket policy of arresting and pressing charges against everyone. Until such a time as people stop using baseless lawsuits to get their way, zero tolerance policies will rule the day because they are the safest policies to enforce. That's not to say they're good policies, just the simplest and least hassle.

Re:Devil's advocate

[eiapoce]

Sorry if I look like trolling. This is a brilliant example: Two policemen were hijacked from their work (arresting criminals) to serve corporation's interests. Additional time will be wasted by a judge and money thrown into attorneys fees.

IMHO this is detriment to public security and a waste of taxpayers money. A decent society would not keep this happening.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Imazalil]

But I thought America WAS the prison for all the stupid people. =)

crap, left my flame-proof pants at home.

Re:Devil's advocate

[rednip]

Why should the theater decide between "good and bad stealing"? Isn't that for a judge and jury to decide? Only once the decision to prosecute has been made, and when the defendant is not willing to capitulate to the charges. Otherwise choices are made every step of the way, even if they default to a certain path.

If it was clear from the early questioning that it was not her intention to 'copy' the movie, but to capture some small part of her experience, she shouldn't have been arrested, thrown out, perhaps even 'banned' as she is, but not arrested. She may have violated company policy by recording even one second of film, but if due to 'fair-use' she wasn't in violation of the law, having her arrested would be false-arrest. What's next? Arresting someone for bringing in a snickers bar? No shirt, no shoes, go to jail?

Re:Devil's advocate

[Sparr0]

You are completely wrong in every way.

This has NOTHING to do with copyright or fair use. She is NOT being charged with copyright infringement. She is being charged with video taping a movie in a theater, which is itself illegal under local and state laws completely independent of federal copyright law. She would have been breaking the same law if she was recording a public domain film, or even if she was facing away from the screen and captured part of the movie's audio track.

Feel free to argue the sensibility of the actual law in question. Do not make inapplicable arguments about copyright.

18.2-187.2. Audiovisual recording of motion pictures unlawful; penalty.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to operate an audiovisual recording function of a device in a commercial theater, excluding the lobby and other common areas, to record a motion picture or any portion thereof without the consent of the owner or lessee of the theater. Any person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. ...
D. The term "audiovisual recording function" means that component of an analog or digital photographic or video camera or other device developed with the capability to record or transmit a motion picture or any part thereof.

Re:Devil's advocate

[MoneyT]

Which wastes less court time, pressing charges against every person who records in a theater and letting a judge look at the evidence or dealing with endless streams of discrimination lawsuits when your discretion leads to someone feeling (or claiming to feel) discriminated?

Re:Devil's advocate

[Himring]

Barney Fife never underestimated the seriousness of a crime....

Re:Devil's advocate

[Hijacked Public]

Quite a few people are operating under the assumption that it isn't in the theater's best interest to make a big deal out of this. From his perspective it was probably a great opportunity to do just that.

Had an usher taken what you claim to be the common sense approach, there would have been no newspapaer article and no front page Slashdot story. No one would be getting their heavy dose of "we're not kidding around about this no videotaping rule". For the few holdouts still left who think that maybe they are going to get off with a light flick in the face this is a newsflash: We are going to call the police and you will be arrested. This isn't an ethical issue for the theater, like is it for Slashdot. She could legally be arrested so she was, because that is what is best for business.

I know Slashdot conventional wisdom is that if the **AAs treat people poorly enough they'll stop giving them their money, but that does not seem to be the case with the public in general. People seem to be quite willing to put up with nearly anything in trade for pop culture.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

Just the ones dumb enough to get caught!

Re:Devil's advocate

[omeomi]

If videotaping in a movie theater is illegal, and if that is what occurred in this instance - and indeed, the person in question admits just that - then why is this acceptable? Why should the theater decide between "good and bad stealing"?

Some would suggest that a year in prison for video taping 20 seconds of a film, with no intent to distribute, would be considered cruel and unusual punishment, given the nature of the crime.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Wookietim]

This is very simple : The person that owns the copyright has the right to retain control of how the movie is shown. I don't care if you are just videotaping 20 seconds or the whole movie - you are doing it without permission. It is the same as walking into a store and stealing - whether you steal 5 pounds of steak or one stick of gum, you are still stealing. The theater is perfectly within it's rights to charge this woman and it is 100% appropriate for a judge to be the one to determine her punishment. But there should be punishment for this type of behaviour.

Re:Devil's advocate

[peacefinder]

"The theater staff were not being dickheads, they were just following the corporate policy of having zero tolerance."

Most any zero tolerance policy is, IMHO, a strong indicator of dickheadery in action.

Re:Devil's advocate

[techiemikey]

actually, last time i went to a movie, i do not remember any warning against bringing in recording devices. I will have to double check to see if there is a sign or if it's on the back of a ticket stub or anything, but "plenty of warning" should be more than something in fine print on the back of a ticket stub.

Re:Devil's advocate

[tbannist]

"And if he did sentence her to jail, there would be such a major public uproar that it would bring the MPAA and Crown to their knees."

Would that be just like the public outcry over Dmitry Sklyarov resulted in his swift and speedy release?

I know there'd be some outrage over the incident but there's just too much to be pissed off about recently. They could send her to jail for 10 years and the only response would be that theater receipts would fall a little more. To see what I mean, there are people right here arguing that it's entirely reasonable and fair to take someone to trial over a 20 second clip of a movie recorded on a cell phone.

I find it particularly disturbing that people would actually say it's not fair to the theater owner to expect him to exercise his discretion on whether to prosecute someone. Yeah, it's not like we actually want people to act as thinking beings instead of little automatons with no will of their own.

The only reason this ridiculous travesty of justice is occurring is because the copyright holder lobbies have successfully bribed, wheedled, and lied their way into making recording a criminal offense. If it was still a civil offense the theater would have taken her camera, or kicked her out of the theater and that would have been the end of it. It's because the theater and the MPAA can now force the American public to pay for their vain lawsuits that they are pursuing action on this. After all, why not, when 300 million other people are footing the bill?

Re:Devil's advocate

[daveschroeder]

I predict nothing will happen to her as well. In fact, I think that the charges will be dropped before she even gets to court, at the insistence of the local prosecuting attorney.

The point of my post wasn't to say she deserved any punishment. It was to point out that the theater can't be expected to make these determinations.

Not in the case of fair use it's not. And - on the facts presented - this looks like a clear example of fair use.

No, it's actually not clear in the least. Fair use is very subjective. I will personally agree with you that a 20 second clip from anything that is more than an hour long is more than likely going to fall under fair use.

But it isn't up to the theater to decide or police that in the least.

(And also a clear example of violating the theater's no-camera policy, but that's not a criminal matter.)

Actually, many jurisdictions make it illegal to bring recording devices into theaters. The theater isn't enforcing copyright; it's enforcing its own no tolerance no camera policy, coupled with laws that make it possible to press charges for recording in a movie theater. While such laws may exist partly or mostly because of copyright, copyright isn't what is at issue here.

I predict this case will be thrown out or settled in short order.

As do I, but...

It's got several serious problems. First, there's a strong fair use argument.

Actually, fair use is mostly targeted at education and research. Satire, parody, and review come next.

But I'd agree that a 20 second clip could be argued to fall under "fair use", even if the only purpose was to show it to her little brother. (Why not use the trailer...?)

Second, the theater owner does not hold copyright on the movie, so may have no standing to bring charges of copyright infringement.

Irrelevant. First, they are in fact the de facto agent for the copyright holder. Second, they aren't bringing copyright infringement charges. While the article doesn't specifically say, it appears to be a local ordinance prohibiting recording in movie theaters.

Third, the actual harm done by this person is very close to nil.

By this person. But that's not up to the theater to decide.

Since most of your post seemed to be dedicated to talking about how this girl won't or shouldn't be punished, I agree. But that is for the legal system to decide, not the theater. And that's exactly what is going to happen.

Re:Devil's advocate

[letxa2000]

The goon at the door saw that my phone had camera capability and denied me entrance.

Are you serious? If that's the approach they're going to take, pretty soon they'll be showing their movies to empty theaters. Most phones have video recording capabilities these days. And people aren't going to leave their phone at home (perhaps the movies isn't the only place you're going while you're out) and I for one am not going to leave an expensive phone in my car since, if that's the policy, thieves are going to know that cars outside theaters are target-rich environments for cell phones.

I've always seen the warnings that video recording devices aren't allowed and wondered WTF given the cell phones we have these days. It's a lost cause, really.

The day they don't let me in because my cell phone has a camera is the day I stop going to movies.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to get too personal but why didn't your wife join you in protest? Did she think you over-reacted?

Re:Devil's advocate

[MoneyT]

Question: How is Regal in a position to KNOW whether this act is a willful violation of copyright (for that matter, that's already been admitted). Do they have a right to see what's on her camcorder? Is that a policy you really want to set? So how do they KNOW she only get 20 seconds? And how do they KNOW that she didn't intend to record longer than that 20 seconds that she was recording before they caught her?

Re:Devil's advocate

[Retric]

"(a) Offense.--Any person who, without the authorization of the
copyright owner, 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, from a
performance of such work in a motion picture exhibition facility,"

Note: A 20 second clip may or may not be protected under title 17.

IMO this is what is over the top:

(d) Immunity for Theaters.--With reasonable cause, the owner or
lessee of a motion picture exhibition facility where a motion picture or
other audiovisual work is being exhibited, the authorized agent or
employee of such owner or lessee, the licensor of the motion picture or
other audiovisual work being exhibited, or the agent or employee of such
licensor--
                        ``(1) may detain, in a reasonable manner and for a
                reasonable time, any person suspected of a violation of this
                section with respect to that motion picture or audiovisual work
                for the purpose of questioning or summoning a law enforcement
                officer; and
                        ``(2) shall not be held liable in any civil or criminal
                action arising out of a detention under paragraph (1).

Re:Devil's advocate

[Renraku]

Fine paid: $2,500.
Year servced: One year.

Money gained for copyright holder/theater: Negative amounts.
Money gained for prison system: Negative amounts.

Total outcome: Hassle for everyone and shitload of money lost all around.

Re:Devil's advocate

[BewireNomali]

points:

a. jhannet is hot.

b. a video camera in a movie theater that is recording the screen is a violation of theater policy and could be a potetial infringement of copyright.

c. prohibiting electronics in the theater is a fool's errand.

d. she won't go to prison. she probably won't be fined the maximum. This is flamebait.

e. the copyright system isn't perfect by any means, but then again what is. Some form of system is important as it provides incentive for continued creation.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Merk]

You once lit up inside a petrol station without realising what you were doing. You know that it's a dumb move because there's a risk of fire or explosion if flammable things come in contact with petrol/gas, and therefore a risk of injury, death or at least property damage because of your smoking.

How is it similarly stupid to go into a theatre with a camcorder? "Unbelievably stupid" is the term you use.

Were lives at risk? Was property at risk? Or is the only risk that the girl might have violated copyright law? Personally, I don't think a violation of copyright law is as serious as risking serious injury, death, or property damage.

Re:Devil's advocate

[daveschroeder]

Some would suggest that a year in prison for video taping 20 seconds of a film, with no intent to distribute, would be considered cruel and unusual punishment, given the nature of the crime.

That's not the issue.

She won't be going to jail.

Nothing will likely happen to her at all.

The case will likely be thrown out.

The question is whether the theater was right to press misdemeanor charges for recording in the movie theater, which is against a local and/or state law, and whether the theater should be saddled with the discretion of determining what kinds of recording in theaters is "okay" or "innocent", when any recording at all is prohibited by law and their own policy.

Nowhere in my post was I arguing for her to go to jail for a year for doing this. In fact, I think NOTHING will (or should) happen to her. But that is for a judge and a jury to decide, not the movie theater.

Re:Devil's advocate

[MoneyT]

Right, but if you choose to let the white guy that bumps into you go, but charge the mexican who trips you and sprains your hand, you won't get slapped with a multi million dollar discrimination lawsuit. They theater will.

Re:Devil's advocate

[n2art2]

I just want to know why you think they deserve a refund for their ticket?

Re:Devil's advocate

[techiemikey]

no...he'll look at the video tape. It was either a 20 second clip, or it was much longer. If it was a 20 second clip, then yes, the statement makes sense. If it was longer, then yea, your analogy makes sense.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

The day I stopped going to the movies was pretty much when cell phones started to drown out the actual movie.
Camera-equipped or not, why do people need to take a telephone to an activity where you're supposed to be silent?

Re:Devil's advocate

[fair_n_hite_451]

realize most here on slashdot probably won't agree with this, and think that "copyright", or at least its current form in the US, which is the basis for prohibiting things like recording in movie theaters, ought to be done away with completely.
 
Actually, I don't believe that the prevailing view on /. is that copyright should be done away with. It's more that the infinite extensions to copyright should be done away with, and a return to some measure of sanity such as "10 years from date of first release" would make far more sense.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Vellmont]

Why should the theater decide between "good and bad stealing"?

Because people in any authority position do this ALL THE TIME. If people called the cops any time there's a minor infraction of the law, the court system would be even more hopelessly clogged than it is now, not to mention the harm that would occur to people who've made trivial infractions of the law.

It's clear this is a trivial matter that should have gotten this woman thrown out of the theater, not a call to the cops. All your arguments about who owns the content, what's legal, etc are just garbage. This incident never should have gotten to the legal system in the first place as it's a waste of everyones time and a huge amount of bad publicity for the theater. Instead we've got some over-zealous person in authority that calls up the cops hoping he/she has "got themselves a pirate!" Then the rest of the system takes over with prosecution, judges, etc, and of course people like you who seem to view the law as a series of rules rather than the larger picture of the actual goals of the laws. What an idiotic waste.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Jaysyn]

Section (2) is total bullshit.

Re:Devil's advocate

[FiveLights]

I'd like to mod you "unlikely" but I can't. I'll just add to the posts which say that there will be no major public uproar. I personally think the government corporations are putting something in our bottled water.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously, recording a movie demands a harsher sentance then drinking and driving.

Re:Devil's advocate

[computerman413]

One problem with the guns on the planes: if somebody puts a hole through the plane, or through some critical component, everybody could die.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Ngarrang]

Jhannet was stupid and deserves this punishment. It is no mystery, it is not secret knowledge that taking a video camera into a movie theater...and then filming the movie is illegal. The story now is "only 20 seconds", but if the police had not come, it could have been the entire movie.

Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

I doubt the judge with give the prison sentence if he believes the sob story that is going to be given.

Re:Devil's advocate

[RingDev]

The issue is the step between LEGAL limitations and PRIVATE limitations. LEGALLY, what the girl did was clearly and obviously within the scope of fair use, it was legal. However, the private entity doing the screening has the right to say what you can and can not do (to some extent at least) on their private property. They can say 'No recording devices aloud' and 'Absolutely no reproductions', and they can boot you out of their property for violating those rules. But they can not take legal actions against you (unless you signed a contract, in which case it would be contract law in a civil case).

They can call the cops and tell them that the suspect the girl of violating the law. And if the the cops come and ask the girl if she was recording the movie and she says "yes" (or even if she says "no" but they see the cam-corder) they have the right to take her into custody for questioning.

In this case, IF the company does not drop the charges, it will go to court (provided the Judge doesn't dismiss it immediately), the girl's lawyer will prove that her acts legally fall under fair use, and at the end of the day, she will walk out unpunished, copy rights will be unchanged, the theater will still have her $6.50 for the matinée and the Lawyers on both sides will pocket a fat load of cash.

-Rick

Re:Devil's advocate

[letxa2000]

I know you're an anonymous troll, but...

Recording a movie in the theater--even if that's what she was doing--is pointless.

1) Those that are going to pirate the movie are going to get a high-quality copy obtained from somewhere else, not from an in-theater video recording.

2) Those that are going to stay home and watch a piss-poor quality movie aren't the bulk of the people. I suppose I could find brand new movies online even before they're released, but I don't because going to the movies is something I do with my wife to have an enjoyable time, usually preceded or followed by dinner or some other activity. If the movie is entertaining, great. But there's no reason to pay $30-$40 for a night at the movies if what you're really concerned about is absorbing the content. That price is only justified because of the fact that it is a social event that people like to do to get out of the house. That's not going to change just because I can get some lame free copy online.

In short, the number of people that are going to stop going to the movies because they can get some shabby copy online for free is minimal.

Re:Devil's advocate

[cayenne8]

"If videotaping in a movie theater is illegal, and if that is what occurred in this instance - and indeed, the person in question admits just that - then why is this acceptable? Why should the theater decide between "good and bad stealing"?"

How about good, old fashioned common sense?

If this is a case of obviously innocent kids, doing what was described....you don't prosecute them. At worst, give them a warning as to why they were being hassled, and let them on their way.

Trouble is, common sense these days seems to be a hard to find commodity.

Re:Devil's advocate

[krgallagher]

"Copyright owners can be sufficiently protected by purely civil remedies.

That was my reaction. If you tape the wedding of a famous movie star without their permission, the police are not going to arrest you unless you are trespassing. Still, the star has the right to take you to civil court. The nice thing about civil court is that even if found guilty, the punishment can be adjusted to suit the crime. EG: "Yeah we think she was guilty and we award the defendat $1.00 and all copies of the video."

Re:Devil's advocate

[Doc Lazarus]

It's behavior like this that is pushing people right into home theaters. Sure, it's quite an investment. But you don't have to put up with all these myriad rules and regulations that are aimed at a very few at the expense of the many. Add to this the prices of tickets and concessions and interruptions during a film, and you got a surefire recipe for waiting and picking up a DVD that more than likely has an unrated cut. So why go to the theaters at all? At this point, On Demand cable has more perks than theaters do.

Re:Devil's advocate

[1729]

What kind of idiot takes a camcorder into a theater? Unless she spent the last 15 years or so in a cave, she should know that they go out of their way to bust people for this.

I don't recall seeing many stories on these crackdowns outside of geek-oriented media. At a movie recently, I explained to some friends about how some theaters detect illegal taping, and they were surprised. In fact, they didn't know that new releases are often pirated via camcorder.

Then again, I'm well over 19, so I don't claim to be in touch with a typical 19-year-old knows about piracy.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

If legislators and voters had displayed it we wouldn't have asinine laws in the first place, and the shocking news that exhibitions of derailed common sense often clump together would be moot.

I'd guess it was unintended on your part, but you're defending indefensible law.

Re:Devil's advocate

[cayenne8]

"Exactly. Any judge worth his salt is going to see what's going on here, know that she's not some pirate, and give her nothing. Maybe force her to speak out against piracy. Big whoop."

I think more to the point is...this thing was way out of hand at the point of arresting and charging these kids at all. Common sense should tell all involved that there should not even be a need for these kids to have a trial before a judge at all.

But, as I posted earlier.....common sense seems to be a hard to find commodity these days.

Re:Devil's advocate

[ArcadeX]

Course something else that didn't come to mind. Judge may decide to throw the case out, but by pressing charges and making an issue of it, the theater is waisting tax payer money for a court hearing.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Doc Lazarus]

A good and valid point, but either way in your example the theater is doomed. If they kick someone out, they get hell. If the person's ethnicity is claimed as the issue, then the theater is doomed. Anyway you look at the enforcement of this in any regard, the theater is doomed. Using this logic, wouldn't the theater be better off merely letting the issue go and letting the companies themselves deal with it via lawsuits to the distributors of the films? No offense, but your example seems to underline the absurdity of charging anybody with this 'crime.' In all case, it seems easier for all people just to fall back on their lawyers at the distribution point instead of trying to use the theater as copyright police when they're not even experienced in doing so.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

If I were the devil, I'd fire my advocate. Kangarooski is right here; Schroeder is entirely mistaken. While the amount taken is *one* of four non-exclusive factors in the fair use analysis, it is not the only one, nor is it dispositive. In some cases the entire work may be copied, as the Supreme Court permitted of an entire song in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose, 510 U.S. 569 (1994).
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZO .html

It is a sad commentary on Slashdot moderation that a so clearly mistaken, comment should be flagged as "Informative."

[And fair use doesn't distinguish between the form of media in which the work appears, so that's not a relevant distinction.]

Re:Devil's advocate

[Knara]

Recording something in a theater is not "obviously illegal" for anyone who isn't a copyright/left/DMCA wonk (even in passing), which the *vast* majority of people are not (not to mention kids). By and large, the mindset with the general populace is "if I can see it, why can't I record it." So, again, while smoking at a gas station or bringing firearms on a plan can be easily grasped by a lay-person (in a few seconds you can explain why its a real, physical danger), recording something that I can see with my eyes anyway is a danger to some rich person's profits, and as such is significantly less obvious of a crime (if it really even should be a crime).

Re:Devil's advocate

[Brianwa]

What's wrong with a hunting knife?

Re:Devil's advocate

[quanticle]

this is in similar realms of stupidity of trying to get onto a plane with a gun

What? Have you been completely brainwashed by the MPAA? Walking onto a plane with a gun is stupid because a gun is a weapon, and if it goes off, it places people's lives at risk. A camera does no such thing.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Brian Gordon]

There are higher laws that protect people.. just because some movie theater law says the manager can kill you and not be responsible if you were caught with a video camera doesn't mean the judge will uphold it.

Re:Devil's advocate

[letxa2000]

Any law which a citizen, acting in good faith, can accidentally trip so easily, is not a good law.

Actually, no law was probably broken here if the clip was indeed 20 seconds. They simply violated the rules of the theater and the theater people were dicks. Just because the theater posts a sign saying "No video recording units allowed" doesn't mean you've automatically broken the law if you enter with such a device, or even if you use it. They should have asked the girl to leave. If she didn't, then call the police.

As for the possibility she was a threat to their business model, very few people that go to the movies and pay $30-$40 to spend some time their with friends or their significant other are going to not go because some awful copy of the video is available free online. That they are willing to destroy the life of a young girl and generate this much badwill among their target audience to try to eliminate piracy in an audience that probably isn't going to give them money anyway just shows how misguided their understanding of reality is.

They'd rather alienate and piss off hundreds of thousands or millions (depending on how ridiculous this kind of thing gets) of people in their demographic to make sure a few thousand or hundred thousand people that aren't in their demographic don't get free stuff. Yeah, good idea.

Re:Devil's advocate

[compro01]

why do people need to take a telephone to an activity where you're supposed to be silent?

some are sysadmins, on-call doctors, etc. who need to be contactable.

most are just stupid jerks who need a good smack upside the head.

Re:Devil's advocate

[jahudabudy]

Maybe I don't speak legalese fluently enough, but I don't understand the point of section 2) there. If the detention is unreasonable, the agent is NOT authorized under section 1), and thus not protected under section 2). If the detention IS reasonable, and the agent is authorized, then what liability would they have even without section 2)? What does section 2) actually add to this?

Re:Devil's advocate

[sjf]

"Crown" - did I miss something ? Did Canada move on Washington DC again ?

Re:Devil's advocate

[dnormant]

Because my livelihood depends on it - I'm always on call. But I do agree with you, put the damn thing on vibrate and answer it in the lobby!

Re:Devil's advocate

[El Gigante de Justic]

If all citizens were allowed to carry guns on a plane 911 would not have happened. While this is off-topic, I believe the sentence you were looking for was: "If all cockpit doors were required to be locked during flight, 9/11 would not have happened" Prior to 9/11, cockpit doors were not required to be locked during flight, which made forcing your way into the cockpit relatively simple. If guns had been allowed, then the hijackers definitely would have had them, while it's doubtful that more than a handful of passengers would have had them. Considering they just had box-cutters, the passengers and crew should have just taken the risk of fighting back immediately instead of assuming they were just going to make the plane land somewhere else. I've never really understood the "if everyone had guns" argument. Mutually Assured Destruction works for nukes because the destruction is pretty much assured, which is not true for handguns. Instead we'll just end up with people pulling guns for every minor slight against them or we'll have a lot of innocent bystanders being shot by vigilantes trying to take down a lone criminal.

Re:Devil's advocate

[daem0n1x]

The laws are not created to be strictly followed and in most cases things are left to common sense. It would be impossible to live in a world where laws are followed by the book all the time. There's a Latin name for that but I can't recall it.

If they were taping the film with intent to pirate, all this would be fine, but for a 20 secs clip one would expect the theater manager to have some common sense, give the girl a warning and leave the courts for something more important. That guy is a copyright nazi.

Re:Devil's advocate

[freedomlinux]

The line between mobile telephones and 'video recording devices' is blurring.
Is my mobile designed with the intention of recording video in a theater? Not really. Can it? Sure, and with decent quality too. However, I find it likely that movie theaters would have a difficult, if not impossible time attempting to remove all mobile devices from the theater.

The only place where I do not carry my mobile is in the county courthouse, as it is explicitly prohibited and every person is subject to search my metal detector, visual, and property search.

Re:Devil's advocate

[kebes]

You make a cogent and persuasive point. As you say, a large part of our disagreement comes from balancing "personal rights" against "laws that preserve a greater good." And that balance is always difficult (and frequently nebulous).

I admit it is a "hard line" stance to say that the right to record anything I see is more important than economic concerns. I further admit that the only reason I take this stance is because of my inherent misgivings about copyright law itself. I don't see it as a law that protects the greater good very efficiently, and so I don't see transgressions against it as being all that bad. In particular, I think that when it comes to personal actions (recording what I see, modifying hardware I own, etc.), these should take priority over laws intended to protect the current economics of creative works (e.g. DMCA). So I question the laws themselves.

I don't like being treated like a criminal when I play a DVD in Linux (even though I guess I'm breaking the DMCA), and I wouldn't like being treated like a criminal for recording something I see happening.

Besides, the ethics, of course, is the pragmatic question of how useful such enforcement actually is. As with the DRM example, only one theater has to miss a camcorder (or accept a bribe), and the entire enforcement effort was wasted. The proliferation of bootlegs suggests that current enforcement is not effective (yet it still gets in the way of the lives of normal people). I don't think ever-stricter laws are an efficient way to deal with the perceived problem of widespread copyright infringement.

Re:Devil's advocate

[letxa2000]

I go to at least one movie a week with my wife. In the last year, I can't recall a single time where a cell phone in the theater has rung. Maybe people here are just more polite.

Camera-equipped or not, why do people need to take a telephone to an activity where you're supposed to be silent?

Perhaps you missed the part of my message where I said that people might have other places to go before or after they go to the movie, and perhaps they don't want to leave a valuable in their car. I don't have the phone with me in the theater to use, I have it with me because it's always with me.

Re:Devil's advocate

[IceCreamGuy]

I don't know about all that, I mean, this is a movie theater, they hate people who pirate movies, and they will do everything in their power to try and minimize it. She was videotaping a new movie in a theater, what the hell did she think was going to happen? Who cares if she didn't mean anything by it? just don't do it, it's not that hard. She just needed to accept that she would have to simply tell her brother using words instead of video that he should go see the movie. That sucks if he needs a clip of it in addition to the longer-than-twenty-second trailer in order to be convinced to see the movie, but this is why they have trailers and why they release singles before the album. Do you steal food from a bakery just to show someone how good it tastes? It's not a perfect analogy since something physical is actually being taken from the owner, but it's still the same concept. Forget the laws and their ambiguities, what she did was really, really stupid; she got caught and now she has to suffer the consequences. I personally pirate media much more discreetly and in the privacy of my own home.

Re:Devil's advocate

[NeutronCowboy]

But why should the theater owner be put in that position?

One thing that pisses me off to no end is the pervasive attitude that no one is really responsible for anything anymore. Everything is about covering your ass. I see it at work (this spec hasn't been blessed by God and the Pope, therefore we can't move forward), I see it in private (it's not my job to talk to a parent abusing their kid) - everywhere. The theater owner is doing the same thing.

Yes, technically, you're right. None of the things I've listed are wrong. As a matter of fact, they are encouraged through abusive lawsuits and the willingness of people to blame others for their problems. However, this approach results directly in massive damage to someone's life, with the only benefit being that someone else is less exposed to potential trouble. Remember the 17 year old who got a blowjob from a 15 year old, and the act was captured on camera? He's still in prison and is a registered sex offender. This is a very similar issue. Something that is completely harmless on its own was turned into a life-destroying matter by someone trying to cover their ass. The owner of the theater completely and utterly overreacted and should be bitch-slapped until the end of days for failing to exert common sense when dealing with a problematic situation.

In short, the theater owner/managers/ushers might have acted according to the letter of the law. However, the day that the letter of the law becomes more important than its intent is the day that we can situations like this one - where somebody is getting a potentially lifelong reaming for something that had no negative impact on anyone.

To answer your last question, the answer is no, and no. But that doesn't matter, because your question is based on an artificially narrow set of solutions. Managers, ushers, cops, lawyers and share holders aren't abstract ideas, cogs in a faceless corporate or legal entity. They are people. As such, they have responsibilities to other people to not royally fuck them over just so that they can cover their ass.

Re:Devil's advocate

[neonfrog]

(I'm a little off your thread, I apologize for that, but I was reading your stuff when the thought occurred so it relates)

You seem to be using strict legal extremes to dodge the points about common civility. Do you have ANY advice for the theatre owners other than call the cops? Are you advocating an extreme legal state where every action has to be heavily considered due to potentially absurd consequences?

Remember the crime that is trying to be stopped here. Illegal recording. There are MANY ways to stop illegal recording that do not require law enforcement. In this specific example, the girl was caught within 20 seconds. That time includes walking down to her, figuring out it was her doing the recording, and going into the whole "You need to leave, give up your phone, etc" speech. In that same amount of time, they could have stopped the film. That's right. Just turned it off. The illegal recording would have stopped instantly - and there may even be some argument for the theatre being REQUIRED to take this step to protect the content that they control ad hoc. Do that enough times and you'll have the audience policing itself with no added drain on the legal system or loss from the copyright holder.

There are advocates of "teach a lesson" that would let an 8-year old pocket a candy bar and THEN have security shake them down. They are within their legal rights. But everyone knows the real lessons taught here: "Fear the MAN." That same person could have made other choices about the candy bar like calling the kid out themselves. Entirely different lessons learned. It is this gray area of "lessons" where the human element, not legally mandated, is important. I can't tell from what you're saying where you fall on the human side of this issue. The legal side is quite clear.

Re:Devil's advocate

[StarvingSE]

I think what needs to happen is that the law, and punishment, need to focus on the actual damages done to the content owner, and not just a blanket law for all "copyright infringers."

Are the movie studios going to lose one dime because of this girls recording? Nope. It can be argued that they wouldn't lose anything if she recorded the entire movie. The quality will be crap, and who would really want to sit through watching a shaky camera-recorded copy anyway?

This is a slippery slope... what if I am at a friend's house videotaping, and they happen to have a dvd movie playing and 20 seconds of it is shown in the scene (like in the background or something). Will I go to jail for a year?

Re:Devil's advocate

[Merk]

If videotaping in a movie theater is illegal, and if that is what occurred in this instance - and indeed, the person in question admits just that - then why is this acceptable? Why should the theater decide between "good and bad stealing"?

First of all, no theft occurred, so you shouldn't muddy the waters by pretending it did. Second of all, there's something called discretion. Do you dial 911 whenever you see someone jaywalking? It is illegal, you know. Is it your responsibility to call the police, ensure that the jaywalkers get arrested, and let a judge and jury decide their guilt? You probably would call 911 if someone broke into your house while you were there, and started stealing things. Catching someone aiming a camera at a screen in your movie theatre is somewhere between those extremes. You could choose to ignore it, to give them a verbal warning, to kick them out of the theatre, or you could call the police.

As for why the theatre should be able to use this kind of discretion, because they're human beings, and they're running a business. A business shouldn't alienate its customers, so before taking extreme measures they should really decide they're justified. And, as humans, they should have some empathy for someone who may be breaking the law, but not in a malicious, calculated, willful way, and not cause them undue hardship.

(Believe it or not, there actually could be an answer here..."fair use" does have specific provisions for how long clips can be, what they can be used for, and so on.)

Does it really? What is the acceptable length of a clip?

The only way to allow the behavior in this particular instance is to make recording movies in theaters legal, or have ridiculous provisions like time limits on number of seconds or minutes that can "legally" be recorded, that theaters would then have to enforce.

Didn't you just say that "fair use" does specify how long a clip is allowed to be?

Re:Devil's advocate

[sootman]

And if he did sentence her to jail, there would be such a major public uproar that it would bring the MPAA and Crown to their knees.

You must be new here. And by "here" I mean America. Or Earth.

(Just kidding. No disrespect intended. I wish what you say would actually happen. But it won't.)

Re:Devil's advocate

[GreyPoopon]

Question: How is Regal in a position to KNOW whether this act is a willful violation of copyright (for that matter, that's already been admitted). Do they have a right to see what's on her camcorder? Is that a policy you really want to set? So how do they KNOW she only get 20 seconds? And how do they KNOW that she didn't intend to record longer than that 20 seconds that she was recording before they caught her?

Dude, don't be so tough. The article states that the clip was 20 seconds. Given that it took the police "minutes" to show up, it's fairly certain she wasn't still recording when they arrived, so it's reasonable to assume she didn't intend to record the whole thing. The camcorder has been confiscated. You can bet that the police have examined every bit of footage on it, and that since Regal Cinemas is pressing charges there has been communication between them and the police. I am sure at this point that the police have confirmed to them that it is only a 20 second clip. The fact that the girl admitted what she did and her general reaction and lack of any prior record ought to be more than enough to tell Regal Cinemas that this isn't the fish they want to fry. It's just stupid to press on with the case, and it's just another excuse to drive customers into setting up home theaters.

Re:Devil's advocate

[superbus1929]

Honestly, I think the media would jump all over it, especially if you get someone that can dress it up as the abortion of justice that it really is. If the media can turn 4chan kids into this major hacker group called "Anonymous", then they can surely use this to try to sell some papers/air time. The difference between this and the RIAA lawsuits is that there's JAIL time involved potentially.

Re:Devil's advocate

[1729]

It simply shouldn't be a crime to record something. Period!!

Out of curiosity, do you think it should be legal to record any conversation that you can hear, regardless of whether the other participants know or consent to the recording?

It would be a crime also if the person *remembered* what they saw and wrote down word for word the script in the movie, no? This is also unreasonable. People are telling you what you can and cannot do or say.

That's really not the same. You can't reconstruct the complete audio-visual experience of a movie from memory and put it up on a BitTorrent site.

Re:Devil's advocate

[mini me]

IF they were trying to STEAL the movie, they would've started at the beginning

Stealing the movie would require removing the reel from the projector, so theoretically you can do it at any point in the film.

Re:Devil's advocate

[letxa2000]

Only because it's something to do outside the house with your significant other. Prices here are at $9.75 per ticket here now, though. When it gets to $10, I seriously suspect we're not going to be going as often. It's just a psychological barrier. Or maybe just go to the movies to see those movies that really benefit from a massive screen. Those are the exception. For most movies, our 46" LCD with 5.1 surround sound is more than enough.

Heck, if we stopped going to see movies in the theater, we'd actually have the opportunity to use our home theater investment more. Most of the time, the 46 incher is just used by my wife to watch the Food Channel. That's pretty much overkill.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

"But why should the theater owner be put in that position? "

Because they deal with the public, and cameras and camcorders exist everywhere. They're being idiots, and the pimply faced 19 year old manager is being an asshole.

Defending it worse. It's like trying to justify the beatdown of a kids (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFUpa0OwlyU) because skateboarding illegal. Please. It's nonsense, it's the law justifying itself. It's the theater chain being an ass, and it's a case of the movie studios being greedy bastards and the legislature that approves this morons.

And even with that, it still does not justify sending a kid to prison for taking a few minutes of a movie. You really come across as holier than thou for even trying to defend this kind of action. It's not good for you, or me, or anyone. But yet you defend it. How logical is that, really?

Re:Devil's advocate

[RSquaredW]

Except that by your own admission, you know what "break once, distribute everywhere" means. Even if recording in theatres is illegal, the thieves only have to get away with it ONCE. In other words, it becomes a highly ineffective, highly intrusive law, which to me is a bad law.

If the law makes no difference on whether wholesale recordings of theatre productions are distributed in violation of copyright, then the negative effects outweigh the positive ones.

Re:Devil's advocate

[PitaBred]

I take a phone in case I need to be contacted. But I keep it on vibrate, so no one else hears it, and I make a hasty, silent exit before I answer it. Now if only everyone did that, the theater would be a much better place...

Re:Devil's advocate

[Mix Master Nixon]

Regal (now encompassing UA and Edwards theater chains as well) is an exceptionally poorly run company, even by today's dismal corporate standards. I have friends who work or worked there. Customer-unfriendly policies are the order of the day. They really, truly don't care about whether or not the moviegoer has an enjoyable moviegoing experience or not... or else they'd do everything very differently. Mostly, the ticket buyer is not the customer, they're the product, delivered to the advertisers who blanket every available surface in the building with their crap. Lots of you are probably too young to remember the excitement of going to the movies, waiting anxiously for the curtains to open and the background music to fade, or when one of the cool things about going to the movies was the lack of commercials. Getting bombarded non-stop with nerve-wracking advertising until the very second the trailers begin (I make an exception for trailers - the only advertising I actually WANT to be subjected to at the movies) just kills the mood. The lack of respect customers show for the moviegoing experience seems to roughly correlate to the lack of respect the movie theatres show their ticket-buyers. I don't say customers, because NBC/Universal and Coca-Cola or Pepsi, M&M/Mars, Frito-Lay, etc are the customers. The moviegoers are the product, and are treated as such. In short, fuck Regal. Offtopic? Sort of, I guess. But if you look at this as a case of bad product (customer with video camera = Mad Cow Disease-infected livestock) being removed from the production line, it might just apply somehow.

Re:Devil's advocate

[MarsDefenseMinister]

You could turn this into a good joke. A black guy and a Mexican are taping a movie. Which one do you eject first?

A. The black guy

or if your audience is mostly black, the answer is The Mexican.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Achromatic1978]

My thoughts too. They were sold a seat. Other potential patrons may have been denied a seat as a result of this. I see no possible plausible reason why they'd be entitled to such.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing wrong with having a knife. You're an idiot sheep person for complaining in the first place. It's a god damned tool. Not a piece of metal possessed by satan.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

You put it perfectly Vellmont, I worked Loss Prevention for Best Buy and if I had called the cops for every little thing, and without execising some common sense, I wouldn't have had time for much else, especialy during the summer when the kiddies were out of school. They call it "common sense" for a reason.

Besides, as any Criminal Justice Major can tell you, there is "administration" of the law and there is "ministration" of the law.
The concept of "administration" is that you cannot practically prosecute EVERY infraction of the law, you have to apply COMMON SENSE, this is why police officers, prosecutors, and judges have discretion. Otherwise the traffic courts would have lines every morning that wrapped around the building. You would prosecute 5 year olds for stealing a pack of gum. It's moronic.

Managers are supposed to be the ones who bring good sense to the daily operations of their business, not engage in knee-jerk reactions. They are supposed to possess experience and a little bit of wisdom. The manager at that theatre had neither.

Re:Devil's advocate

[LuSiDe]

Why should the theater decide between "good and bad stealing"?

We don't. We do look at circumstances though. For example: stealing one apple (with minor a) is something different than stealing a Porsche. The penalty for the offense should show that. The profit margins of stealing a Porsche are, for the offended, far higher than the profit margins of stealing an apple (heh if there even are profit margins for second hand apples?!). I rather have a homeless person stealing an apple and eating it, than a Porsche. If I were a salesmen on a market or grocery store I'd give my foods to 'em at the end of the day. I'd 'steal' them right before they'd land in trashbin (cause they cannot be sold anymore). Now, stealing is also something different than copyright infringement, but you've been told that so often I suspect you're simply trollin'.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Vancorps]

Theater attendance over the years would probably beg to differ with your assertion that people don't change their behavior when treated bad enough. I for one wouldn't go to that theater after hearing about that kind of treatment.

20 seconds of film is perfectly legal so she clearly did nothing wrong and should sue the theater to recover the costs of her legal defense. The whole thing could have been avoided if the manager had looked at the recording and seen it was only 20 seconds worth of video. The manager had everything needed to determine intent. The Police did too but apparently it's out of their hands because the theater wanted to press charges.

Others have said it best, it took a lack of common sense on a lot of people's part to make this happen as it did. It is a sad day we live in.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Skapare]

3.) Shut the theatre down as an example to all the people who try to rip off theatres by showing them that if they do this they don't get to see movies in the theatre anymore and have to download ...

... oh wait

Seriously, the real problem is, how can whoever it is that has to deal with a case of seeing someone with a camcorder really know whether they are good or bad even if we make a clear cut definition for them to work from? It's dark in there. They can see someone has something like a camcorder. They have to go get them right then, or wait until after the movie and hope they can see who it is.

Theatre owners are just as much dickheads, by definition, as so much of the movie industry is. But it also sucks to be them because they are caught in the middle. If they don't enforce, they can lose the right to get movies to show. Of course if people went and picketted at the public street entrance to the theatre, maybe there might be enough bad press and loss of business that their life will be even worse and they have to start deciding between good and bad.

Re:Devil's advocate

[servognome]

I did not deprive you of your good/property, because you can still watch or make people pay to watch your Images/Video/Sound/etc

But you did devalue the images/video/sound resulting a loss to my personal wealth

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL but it comes down to proving intent to distribute and/or direct monetary damages caused by the recording itself.

I'd side with the theatre on this initially yep call the police - being stupid isn't an excuse - but once more evidence was in i'd be inclined to drop the charges - the 'copying is a deadly sin' PR work is done anyway.

Re:Devil's advocate

[jahudabudy]

What exactly is the guy planning to hunt in Six Flags?

Re:Devil's advocate

[Mr. Slippery]

Common sense should tell all involved that there should not even be a need for these kids to have a trial before a judge at all.

Like common sense should tell all involved that growing certain plants should not cause criminal proceedings?

Welcome to the War on Copying. I've been predicting it for years now, and I expect it will be every bit as successful as the War on Drugs

Re:Devil's advocate

[Obfuscant]

And we are going to lock a girl in a cage for making the wrong call on a FAIR USE OF COPYRIGHT question?

Nope. She's charged with theft. While fair use says she can use clips for certain purposes, fair use does not say she can do anything she wants to to get that clip. It should be obvious, but she is certainly not allowed to break into the theater after closing to make the copy for "fair use". She cannot steal a copy of the DVD from Blockbuster even though her use might be called "fair use" under copyright. Thus we know there are limits on the claim of "fair use" in obtaining the material.

The theater does not have the legal right to give people copies of the movie to use for "fair use". The contract the theater has with the distributor certainly doesn't allow them to give away copies. She took what they could not give her. The theater almost certainly DOES have available to them trailers that can be used to advertise the movie (I'm guessing; maybe they don't) that they could have given her, had she asked.

Perhaps it was overboard to call the cops on first contact, but it is arguable that it was appropriate. Someone who is actually trying to steal the movie for profit may not be polite and courteous when asked to leave. The manager could not know that the stolen clip was just twenty seconds without first reviewing the entire tape in the camera and then searching her and her companions to determine there was not another tape with more of the movie. I certainly don't want theater managers authorized to do such searches.

As for civil remedies, well, how is the theater manager supposed to know who to have sued without obtaining identification information, and do we want theater managers empowered to do THAT to the level they'd need to ensure they had correct information? That's something the cops do.

So, no, she's not being charged based on a "fair use" question, and yes, maybe it was the right thing to do to call the cops. Should she be taken all the way to court? Maybe not, but that's Regal's call. They may be using this incident to get publicity that they have a zero tolerance policy and yes, zero means zero, and they'll drop it after the Morally Outraged move on to other news. Should they lose all their customers if they continue to press charges? I don't think so.

And she was probably crunching popcorn loudly and didn't have her cellphone set to vibrate, so she deserves it anyway.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Kingrames]

You ain't from Texas, so you wouldn't get it.

Picture this story:
Hijacker tries to hijack plane. 60 people get up and shoot at him, miss, and the plane explodes.

Considering that the hijacker in question was a significant member of a very tiny minority, and the passengers were a very insignificant group of a vast majority, then (statistically and economically speaking) the terrorists lose more than the rest of us. Suddenly they realize that hijacking planes is not as reliable, and they stop. Many lives would be saved by denying the terrorists the money they would have gotten from the ransom.

But then it's a lot easier to focus on the "OMG" aspect of such a hypothetical situation.

Re:Devil's advocate

[dm0527]

Quite a few people are operating under the assumption that it isn't in the theater's best interest to make a big deal out of this. From his perspective it was probably a great opportunity to do just that.

Then his perspective is incorrect. Look at the statements being issued here for proof: "the day they stop allowing me to take my [device with video recording capabilities] is the day I stop seeing movies there" and the like. I would argue that this type of story on the front page of a newspaper and on /. may have some of the expected impression on people, to stop taking video cameras, phones, etc. into that theater, but is more likely to stir up the emotional reaction against the theater for railroading some poor girl for grabbing a twenty second clip to show her little brother.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh. You wish! Even with Harper, it would be a huge improvement.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

She's charged with theft.

What? Why would she be charged with theft? Did she take anyone's material goods? She did nothing even remotely similar to theft.

If you'd read the article, you'd know she was not charged with theft. She was charged with illegally recording a motion picture.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Borland]

"And, by that token, every 15 year old girl taking nude pictures of herself SHOULD at least be TRIED for child pornography."

I get your point sparky, but in this case she would only be in trouble if she tried to post the pictures to myspace or sent them to CVS to be developed. And really, as the victim and the perpetrator, she'd probably be let off at any rate.

A victim has the right to redress. And a defendant has the right to contest that charge. Yes, if she goes to jail with no prior history for a minor crime...then justice is not served. But thus far the justice system has functioned properly.

Re:Devil's advocate

[fwarren]

I agree that this situation is ridiculous, and when it goes to trial, she probably (hopefully?) won't be punished. But even in this case it wasn't like the recording was incidental. The theater and others involved can't guess intent. Sure, they had the "discretion" to not do anything, but why is that in their lap?

Well, we can start with they pressed charges. From the looks of things if they were willing to drop the charges, the police and the District Attorney's office would do so. So yes it is in their lap. Also, they have to consider goodwill in their community.

If Jhannet recorded the whole movie, they may decide a court is better able to deal with deciding intent. Most people in the community would understand that recording the whole movie is stealing. Even if they considered the amount of punishment dolled out by the court to be excessive.

However, if Jhannet really only recorded 20 seconds or so of the movie. It should be a no brainer on how to handle it. Most people would consider the theater is making to big of deal of it. That the manager was being a jerk. If Jhannet has to go to court, or worse yet loses in court. Well, there could be quite a backlash. All you have to do, is drive to a different theater. The drop in revenue there would encourage the theater chain to help the manager to "do the right thing".

We all have to use judgment and common sense. If I was 10 years old and my 8 year old sister took a candy bar from me. My parents could call the police. If it was someone else in a class at school, the police could be called. If I took it from the grocery store. The police could be called.

Amazingly enough, we all use judgment in situation like that. A store will distinguish between how the handle a first time offender. Depending on whether they are two, or five, or fifteen. The manager of the theater has the same ability. Even if he choses not to exercise reason.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Obfuscant]

Are you serious? If that's the approach they're going to take, pretty soon they'll be showing their movies to empty theaters.

You missed the part about it being a preview. The value of taping a movie in the theater goes down the longer it is in the theater, because early birds in piracy really do get the worm.

If you tape a preview, you can get it out into distribution even before the movie is available to everyone else, maybe, or at least in the first few days. That's worth more than a movie that's been out for three weeks and everyone who's hot to see it has already.

By the time it's in open distribution, the policy against video devices isn't going to be as strictly enforced.

Re:Devil's advocate

[rpillala]

Disclaimer: my best source of knowledge on inner workings of law enforcement is The Wire.

Something's been bugging me about this story and I think you've hit it. Since I wasn't there, I don't know how much latitude the police had in this case. I think it depends on whom the theater manager called. If they're sufficiently high up, the actual arresting officer may not have much choice at all. Again this may not have happened in this case, but it's easy to imagine (suppose someone has a relative in the police department and just calls them when they have concerns.)

The problem seems to be how much time, money, and effort you still have to expend to get to see someone who has the bureaucratic freedom to recognize this case is meritless. Regardless of the eventual outcome in favor of this person.

Re:Devil's advocate

[PantsWearer]

Hijacker tries to hijack plane. 60 people get up and shoot at him, miss, and the plane explodes.

Well, that whole "plane explodes" bit might actually encourage the hijackers. If the whole goal was "plane explodes" then they'd say to themselves, "Heck, we don't even really have to be able to fly the plane or anything, we can just piss off the passengers and they'll blow up the plane for us. Much less work on our part."

The parent actually mentioned 911, who's whole point was to kill people, not steal an airplane. Having the passengers blow themselves up is really much, much easier than having to take over the cockpit, make sure the passengers are well controlled, etc. In the case of 911, they probably would've been able to hijack many more planes with far less manpower. One guy stands up saying he's taking over the airplane, plane explodes.

Re:Devil's advocate

[nsayer]

Hijacker tries to hijack plane. 60 people get up and shoot at him, miss, and the plane explodes.

And if the hijacker was a 9/11 style terrorist, that scenario still gets chalked up in the "win" column.

Re:Devil's advocate

[khendron]

They must be more polite where you live. I've been to only one movie in the last year, and during the movie not only did the cell phone of the woman sitting 2 seats to my right ring, she also answered it without leaving her seat.

Re:Devil's advocate

[JVert]

1). http://thepiratebay.org/search/cam/0/0/200

Re:Devil's advocate

[Borland]

One day at Six Flags, some jerk in front of me has a hunting knife. Six Flags just dealt with it sedately. They didn't call the cops, they just made the guy give it up before entering the park.

Did he actually brandish the knife or make use of it in any way? I'll wager that if this lady had a camcorder straped to her side, they would have just held it until the end of the movie.

Sadly, it was their right to call the cops rather than toss her out of the theater. I'll wager they took the step because they didn't know if she did this sort of thing often.

Re:Devil's advocate

[db32]

Stealing (in the traditional sense, not the moronic IP theft sense) is also illegal. However, if if my child were to steal something from the store (think how little children tend to wander off with things they want in a store without meaning to steal), the store does not have to charge my child with any crime, and if they DO charge my child with stealing for wandering out with a toy or candy they didn't pay for you can bet your ass I will higher a good lawyer and make a damned media circus out of it and cost them thousands for their stupid arrogance. The idea that this should go in front of a judge and jury is moronic to say the least and this idiot manager should be fined a serious ammount for putting even more of a burden on our already straining judicial system. I hope to god they get a judge with an ounce of common sense and they toss this shit out and fine the theater.

Court is supposed to be a last resort, not a first resort. This is how America has gotten so totally fucked and the lawyers so damned rich.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Paracelcus]

Don't go to movies!

You have to wait in line, you have to put up with somebody's talking, somebody's screaming rugrat. people climbing over you, etc.

Wait till it comes out on DVD, watch it at home.

Re:Devil's advocate

[MarkAyen]

Safe harbor provisions are fairly standard in this type of legislation and are eminently reasonable; otherwise, the threat of a vexatious lawsuit would render the entire piece of legislation without teeth. The important thing to remember is that the safe harbor provision only applies if the theater owner only detains the suspicious person "in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time." The worst-case scenarios often entertained on /. would not pass any test of reasonableness and thus would not fall under safe harbor.

Re:Devil's advocate

[NeutronCowboy]

Absolutely. It curdles my blood every time I see someone argue that it should be up to the courts to sort this crap out. Even if we assume that the courts are capable of dealing with every neighbor dispute, every contract dispute, every disappointment that McDonald's doesn't have The Best Friest EVAR (tm), it's a very costly way of resolving these things. Mind you, costly is a relative term. Costly for me is spending 10k on a lawyer to get a stupid case dismissed. That same 10k is a blip for even small businesses, and that's assuming that they don't have a lawyer on retainer. The cost here lies dis-proportionally with individuals acting as individuals. Individuals acting on behalf of a corporation or agency bear no personal cost in these situations.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Doctor Faustus]

And it's really easy to see if they did record 20 seconds AND which part of the movie was that
The article said it was a Canon Powershot, which is a camera, not a camcorder. They may have improved since, but my 2002 model was only capable of recording 20 seconds of video at a time.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Scareduck]

pretty soon they'll be showing their movies to empty theaters

Been there, done that, yeah?

Re:Devil's advocate

[Antho]

I agree, but IMO this is being done to make an example out of her. She definitely won't spend any time in jail, and her fine will be minimal if she gets a fine at all, but the theater is trying to make a statement to any pirates out there that "hey, we're willing to get the book thrown at this innocent girl, don't think we won't do the same to you." It's the same thing for some of the outrageous drug possession laws in certain states where a person can in theory server more time for having an illegal substance on them than someone convicted of man slaughter. It's not that "the time fits the crime" it how hard politicians and lobbying groups are pushing to have specific acts stopped.

Re:Devil's advocate

[PresidentEnder]

Hey everyone, let's extrapolate from a single data point!

Re:Devil's advocate

[kimvette]

The issue is the step between LEGAL limitations and PRIVATE limitations. LEGALLY, what the girl did was clearly and obviously within the scope of fair use, it was legal. However, the private entity doing the screening has the right to say what you can and can not do (to some extent at least) on their private property. They can say 'No recording devices aloud' and 'Absolutely no reproductions', and they can boot you out of their property for violating those rules. But they can not take legal actions against you (unless you signed a contract, in which case it would be contract law in a civil case).

The worst they can do is punt her and issue a refund, and on top of that maybe press charges for tresspassing. Oh, they could sue for breach of contract (do you ever read the back of the ticket AFTER having purchased it?) but that would be thrown out.

A 20-second clip obviously falls within fair use, even if the user were to throw it up on an annoying myspace page.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Hijacked Public]

And as I noted above, you for one probably don't represent the average moviegoer. (Or the median, or mode, you as a Slashdotter are probably a ways out on the curve)

Her 20 seconds of video may not have violated anyone's copyrights but the theater owner has the authority to set the terms of her use of his facility. One of those terms prohibits recording devices regardless of intent.

I don't disagree that this whole thing violates common sense, but common sense doesn't get to decide. Business sense does.

Re:Devil's advocate

[networkBoy]

Last time I went to a movie it was $8.50. I went and saw transformers the other day and nearly shit myself when I heard the price. Movies are *not* worth that much for me to see (to get out with my spouse on a date night with someone watching the kids, sure, but as value for a movie? no.)

On a side note last time we went to the movies my father in-law went with us. He has to carry a phone and when the door man gave him grief about leaving it on and it's internal camera, he soon learned about trying to tell a cop "you can't do that" as a fruitless exercise. Phone has to be on at all times, camera is integrated to allow for immediate (if low-res) shots of a crime scene or victim even before the official photographer can get there.

-nB

Re:Devil's advocate

[Mr. Slippery]

if somebody puts a hole through the plane, or through some critical component, everybody could die.

Explosive decompression is a myth. A bullethole in the airplane fuselage is no big deal - yes you get a slow air leak, but just stick something over it.

Critical components need to be hardened and redundant.

Re:Devil's advocate

[kimvette]

Any Regal Cinema execs here?

I was going to see The Simpsons movie at the Regal Cinema in Independence Mall, but now I will go to the Showcase in Randolph instead. That's going to be at least three or possibly four ticket sales lost from just one person reading this thread, because I'm going to insist on avoiding Regal when I and some friends go see the movie.

Is it worth it to press charges for what is obviously within the scope of fair use? The police may not have discretion but Regal certainly has the opportunity to use common sense, drop the charges, and to have the decency to apologise as publicly as they have persecuted that girl.

F*** you, Regal.

Re:Devil's advocate

[compro01]

But, you are correct some dolt would be carrying a Desert Eagle and start firing randomly with 300 grain FMJ ammo. If a terrorist tried to take over a plane where all were armed. There is always an idiot in any crowd.

I'd think a reasonable compromise is only allow the "safe" weapons to be carried. require the gun and ammo be inspected and have standards that must be met (bullet size X or smaller, must be Frangible, etc.) and stow guns that don't meet the standards (have a special storage area to put the guns, then give them back at the destination.

Re:Devil's advocate

[OWJones]

But why should the theater owner be put in that position?

Yes, God forbid that the manager of a business whose goal it is to get the public into their building and watch movies on their screen actually know how to deal with the public in a reasoned and civilized manner. What's next?

"Well, officer, the next thing I knew those kids were talking really loud during the movie. My assistant manager suggested that I simply kick them out of the theater, but why should I be put in the position of acting as judge and jury? Then, on top of that, as they walked across the street they crossed against the signal. I knew right then and there I had to call the cops and press charges. My hands were tied. Creating a public nuisance and jaywalking. Book'em, Danno."

It's called common sense and judgment. It wouldn't kill the manager to use some.

Re:Devil's advocate

[MillionthMonkey]

'We cannot educate theater managers to be judges and juries in what is acceptable. Theater managers cannot distinguish between good and bad stealing.'

This is basically correct. Theater managers cannot sentence people to prison, so of course we have to run to the legal system as the first resort in any dispute. We can't let everyday common sense judgments get in the way of legal judgments from being made or there is no respect for law-n-owrdah. For example when I was shortchanged on butter in my popcorn last week, my lawyer got me a refund from the theater in full accordance with the law. Everyone is entitled to equal protection.

Re:Devil's advocate

[45mm]

Money gained for lawyers: massively positive amounts. Our system exists to give lawyers a pool in the backyard of their 30k sq. ft. mansion.

Re:Devil's advocate

[d0rp]

But you can easily argue that recording the entire movie and posting it on a torrent site also "promotes" the movie. Or that posting TV shows not available in certain markets "promote" the TV show. In fact, many make just that argument. Indeed, you can find many examples of how online "piracy" has increased or enhanced loyalty to various music, television shows, and so on.

While I agree with you on the bit about the movies, I have to take issue with the bit about TV shows. If a TV show is unavailable in a given location, getting it off the internet really can promote the series. If its good and people like it, then they might buy the related merchandise, or the DVDs when they come out.

And for shows that pretty much require you to watch every episode to know what it going on, distribution on the internet is going to do nothing but help them. If John Doe misses an episode (or a few episode) and becomes completely lost, he may end up not watching the show at all, but if he can get the episode(s) that he missed on the internet and get caught up, how is that a bad thing?

The only real issue I can see with TV shows is that the commercials are stripped out, after all (for non-cable shows) they broadcast it for free over the air, so how does it make sense that they also charge you for it (like on iTunes). If the networks were to offer their shows in HD as bittorrents with the commercials still intact, I'd be more willing to grab those than the ones created by third parties, and then everyone wins.

Some networks allow you to watch episodes of their shows on their website (typically in crappy flash-based players), which I suppose is a step in the right direction, but the quality is lacking, they don't release it the same day as the broadcast (it's usually a few days later), and you have to watch it in your web browser on your computer (i.e. you can't transfer it to your PVR and watch it on your TV)

Re:Devil's advocate

[fredklein]

60 people get up and shoot at him, miss, and the plane explodes

You see, I don't think this would happen. One of the basic rules of gun shooting is to know your backdrop. In other words 'If I miss my target, what might the bullet hit instead?'

Will there be idiots who blaze away regardless? Probabaly. But they'll learn their lesson when the plane crashes, or when the cooler-headed survivers tell the press what idiots they were after the plane safely lands.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Mr. Slippery]

Instead we'll just end up with people pulling guns for every minor slight against them

Pardon me, but your ignorance is showing.

39 of the 50 states have "shall issue" CCW laws, essentially requiring the state to issue a conceal weapon permit to any adult with a clean record. Vermont and Alaska allow people to carry without a permit.

This does not result in people pulling guns for every minor slight against them. In fact, the opposite correlation is seen: states with more permissive gun laws have less violent crime.

Re:Devil's advocate

[PeterBrett]

Only because it's something to do outside the house with your significant other. Prices here are at $9.75 per ticket here now, though. When it gets to $10, I seriously suspect we're not going to be going as often.

A cheap cinema ticket on my side of the pond is £5. That's $10.13 at the moment. OMG, $9.75 is ridiculously expensive.

Do you have 25 minutes of adverts and trailers to sit through before the movie too?

Re:Devil's advocate

[Nevyn]

Until such a time as people stop using baseless lawsuits to get their way, zero tolerance policies will rule the day

I'd say the probability of that is roughly 0, but there's another way ... allow significant lawsuits for people screwed over by baseless zero tolerance policies.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

"The day they don't let me in because my cell phone has a camera is the day I stop going to movies."

The day they start charging me $10 to watch a movie sober, next to a sweaty fat guy,
when I can download the camcorder version from limewire and watch it on my couch with a doobie and 40oz...
that'll be the day I stop going to movies.

oh wait...

Re:Devil's advocate

[bugnuts]

Not to mention devastating the reputation of the movie theater, and giving the couple a devastating criminal arrest record. The theater will lose business from the very demographic that will go to see transformers.

It's bad for everyone all around. The theater manager is an asshat. Anyone who hides behind a zero tolerance policy is an asshat. And you see this happen all the time in public schools, where children are charged with criminal weapon offenses for nail files, or drug pushing for antihistamines.

Re:Devil's advocate

[PeeAitchPee]

The day they don't let me in because my cell phone has a camera is the day I stop going to movies.

Good! STAY HOME. The main reason I avoid theaters like the plague now is cell phones. People talk on them no matter how many times they're politely asked not to. The phones ring without fail in the middle of quiet parts of the movie. People constantly text and play with them during the films, and their ultra-bright screens light up everything in a 10-seat radius. And God forbid you ask the person sitting next to you to please stop texting or talking on their cell -- they'll either curse you or look at you like you're from another planet. Because, you know, they paid for the ticket, so they can do any damn thing they want.

When theaters ban ALL cell phones from theaters, maybe I'll consider going back. Maybe.

Re:Devil's advocate

[superbus1929]

My bad, meant to say "Regal", the cinema company.

Re:Devil's advocate

[mhall119]

If videotaping in a movie theater is illegal Videotaping in a movie theater is _not_ illegal, so everything else in your post is not relevant.

Re:Devil's advocate

[letxa2000]

That doesn't refute my point.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Jekler]

You make a good point and I agree with that. For the most part, I'm pro-consumer. In a lot of ways I think the law gives companies too much leeway and unfairly penalizes consumers by allowing companies to accept all the reward without any responsibility. Like with software producers being able to to say they're not responsible for what their software does. They want all the praise if their software does something unique, groundbreaking, or cutting-edge, but then if it erases you're hard drive they say "We're not responsible for that...". Or they want applause for their program because it sorts lists faster than any algorithm in history but if you point out a bug they're quick as Billy the Kid when they sling "It's just a beta version" at you.

Anyway, I've digressed quite a bit. Point was, I'm pro-consumer. But in this instance, the behavior is clearly a violation of theater rules, and like you said, the usher or theater manager has no responsibility to determine, on the spot, exactly how much was recorded, why, and when and why the camera was being used. They have no way of knowing the camera was just turned on. For all they know, it was cleverly hidden under a coat or something and she was just moving it out halfway through the movie to get a better angle or something. The legal system can sort out the specifics of the incident and determine if something criminal occurred.

Re:Devil's advocate

[bobcat7677]

For a while I stopped watching movies in the theater completely. But then I realized that not all theaters treat their patrons as poorly as Regal (Regal owns almost all the theaters in my area). I found a nice old place in a sleepy little town about 25 miles away that is privately owned and treats their patrons with respect (not to mention having reasonable ticket and concession prices). I also will travel even farther to visit one of the remaining drive-in theaters in the country who also value their customers enough to treat them with respect.

Re:Devil's advocate

[halcyon1234]

They deserve a refund because that, too, is company policy. Read the back of any ticket (or their terms and conditions if posted elsewhere), and you'll find a phrase along the lines of

Management reserves the right to refuse entrance or eject patrons for any reason by refunding the full price of their ticket.

This is mainly if someone is asked to leave, they can't counter with "I paid for the movie, I'm staying". By refunding the ticket, there's no chance at all that there's an "implied contract" or anything allowing the patron to stay after they've been asked to leave private property. It's mostly a "cover your ass" move-- think about how it would look if they booted some disruptive patrons 10 minutes into the movie, and refused to refund their ticket.

So yes, I do believe these people should get a refund on their ticket. At the very least.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Chris Mattern]

Nope. She's charged with theft.

No, she's charged with copyright infringement. She didn't remove one single item from the possession of someone else, therefore it can't be theft.

It should be obvious, but she is certainly not allowed to break into the theater after closing to make the copy for "fair use".

Good thing she didn't do that, then.

She cannot steal a copy of the DVD from Blockbuster even though her use might be called "fair use" under copyright.

Good thing she didn't do that either, then.

Thus we know there are limits on the claim of "fair use" in obtaining the material.

Yes, you can't commit a felony, such as breaking and entering, or theft (*real*, *actual* theft) in the course of obtaining material for fair use. So what crime, other than the alleged copyright infringement (which the defense of fair use *does* cover), did she commit?

Chris Mattern

Re:Devil's advocate

[Isotopian]

Granted, yes, it was only 20 seconds of footage - something that would possibly even fall under the fair use doctrine.

But on the other hand, if you steal only $20, that's not too bad. But it's still illegal.

Regardless of what she intended to do with the film, regardless of only recording a little bit, it is still illegal. While many of us on /. are ardent pirates, you'd be hard pressed to defend the view that it's ok to record movies in theatres.

Plus, there's no way in hell she'll get any jail time for this, just a slap on the wrist. That's a Judges job, to differentiate between serious cases and minor infractions.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Artifakt]

well IANAL, but if I record a movie could I not just claim it's a set of 20 second clips? I probably wouldn't be able to get away with that,

This is actually well established case law. Over two dozen multiple US decisions in the 1930's, and several cases brought by Bollywood industry agents right after the Berne convention was signed, have all created a remarkably impregnable body of case law, and tlat law says:
NO, you can not claim a whole movie is just a collection of 20 second clips.
NO, you can't leave just a few 20 second clips out and claim you weren't infringing.
and
YES, any clip shorter than a single reel of a multi-real feature, or less than 25% of a single reel feature, definitely falls under fair use. (Longer ones also may, if the court determines there was educational, artistic, critical or social purpose in using more of the film, but shorter than that definitely does. An example of fair use comprising more than a single reel's worth of a multi reel film is a documentary on the violence in the film Bonnie and Clyde, that showed ever bit of footage with actual blood visible).

why should they even foot any legal bills arguing the case.

Uhm, how about your 'they' are trying to overturn those two dozen precedents and a body of international law the US has ratified? Also, the very laws that let the movie theatres claim selling you a ticket equals entering into an implied contract stem from some of those very same decisions. If the distributers are now ignoring them, then they can go back to getting the customer's signature on an actual written contract with each sale and keeping those copies for legal record. Oh, but they don't want to do that part!

Re:Devil's advocate

[mhall119]

Honestly, I think the media would jump all over it The same "media" who's parent companies are RIAA/MPAA members?

Re:Devil's advocate

[DrVomact]

You ain't from Texas, so you wouldn't get it. Picture this story: Hijacker tries to hijack plane. 60 people get up and shoot at him, miss, and the plane explodes.

I'm in Texas, and I don't get it. I think we'd get at least 30 hits in the "kill" zone. Also, things only blow up that easily in Hollywood. Planes have redundant system; even in the unlikely event that irate passengers would actually fire so many errant rounds, chances are pretty good that nothing critical would be taken out. (And no, people will not explode due to rapid de-pressurization of the plane. The pilot would probably want to lose some altitude quickly, though.)

I dearly wish the airlines recognized my carry permit; I'd feel much better if I could pack my 9mm aboard planes. And I do agree with your major point: even the destruction of the plane would be preferable to allowing the plane to be used as a weapon as happened on 9/11, so why not arm the passengers? I suppose the airlines would probably insist on issuing me frangible ammo before I board...but I suppose I could live with that.

As an added bonus, just think how much more polite everyone would be. Air travel might even become pleasant again.

Re:Devil's advocate

[bwcbwc]

I find it particularly disturbing that people would actually say it's not fair to the theater owner to expect him to exercise his discretion on whether to prosecute someone. Yeah, it's not like we actually want people to act as thinking beings instead of little automatons with no will of their own.

Well, if the license agreement between the distributor and the theater obligates the theater to prosecute all instances of infringement, then it isn't being an automaton, it's complying with a contractual obligation. And this type of clause is pretty damn likely given the current climate. Otherwise the theater owners would have the discretion to not prosecute their own employees that image the film in the projection room.

Re:Devil's advocate

[dino2gnt]

And, by that token, every 15 year old girl taking nude pictures of herself SHOULD at least be TRIED for child pornography.

I'd have to see the pictures before I could really decide whether or not that's fair.

Re:Devil's advocate

[b0s0z0ku]

Wait till it comes out on DVD, watch it at home.

Nah, don't wait that long. Wait until it comes out as a Torrent :) If you have any moral scruples, send the production company an anonymous money order for the price of the show.

-b.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Politburo]

You are not relevant.

Copying a motion picture from a theater performance is a felony under the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005, punishable by up to three years in a federal prison.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Stewie241]

Here in our country when a foreigner decides to become a citizen, there is a swearing in ceremony. For some reason, people are prohibited from filming while the oath is being taken. I don't know why, it isn't important here.

While witnessing said ceremony, there was somebody next to me that made the decision to film during this part of the ceremony. Immediately following, one of the attendants (I don't know what the proper title would be) came, asked the person who had filmed to delete the footage, and watched to verify that this was being done.

This, at least to me, seems to be a much more reasonable course of action. This gets the message across that recording is not allowed, but does not make too much of a likely harmless situation. Taking something like this to court is a waste of everybody's time.

Even speeders get off with warnings sometimes.

Re:Devil's advocate

[mrchaotica]

Why should the theater decide between "good and bad stealing"?

You know what? My problem is not with letting a judge/jury decide; my problem is with the fact that the National Association of Theater Owners libeled the poor girl by implying that she was accused of "stealing" instead of copyright infringement!

Re:Devil's advocate

[mrchaotica]

Because my livelihood depends on it - I'm always on call.

Obviously, people like you aren't allowed to go to theaters anymore. Or, at least, that's what the idiots apparently think...

Re:Devil's advocate

[b0s0z0ku]

And people aren't going to leave their phone at home (perhaps the movies isn't the only place you're going while you're out) and I for one am not going to leave an expensive phone in my car since, if that's the policy, thieves are going to know that cars outside theaters are target-rich environments for cell phones.

Also, not everyone even OWNS a car or uses it while going out. Maybe they do in the suburbs or out in the country, but in larger cities people tend to walk a lot more. Picture this: you have a cell phone for work. You decide to go with a friend for a movie after work and don't have time to stop off at home.

Maybe the solution is lockers in movie theatres, but then people will scream about the risk of terrorism. Oye, you can't win ^_^

-b.

Re:Devil's advocate

[zxnos]

take the low-tech bitorrent approach to movie piracy. everyone records a different 60 seconds of the film. distribute and assemble all the clips and viola, full length movie. all you have to do is claim 'recording for kid brother, only 60 seconds, middle of film' when you get arrested.

anyway, a good judge/jury will look at intent and hand out the correct punishment.

oh yeah, i havent checked, but i bet there is a trailer for the movie online someplace she could have pointed her bro to.

Re:Devil's advocate

[faloi]

I find it particularly disturbing that people would actually say it's not fair to the theater owner to expect him to exercise his discretion on whether to prosecute someone. Yeah, it's not like we actually want people to act as thinking beings instead of little automatons with no will of their own.

But the theater owner can't exercise his discretion. As a grunt in a big theater chain, it's for the chain to decide. Otherwise you open yourself up to liability of a different sort. "They only prosecuted me because I'm..."

As a chain, you either prosecute people for filming or a don't. The individual manager/owner has little say. And the upper management for the chain has two choices... Sit around and contemplate every possible infraction to set out a result, or declare zero tolerance. Given that zero tolerance has been accepted in the US school system for 13 or so years now, it's no surprise theaters would go for it.

If we've started a trend where even the educators don't have to think, why should we believe anyone else should?

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

Well you never know when one of those mascot things has rabies and is about to snap and start coming right at you. It's sad when that happens, but if it's either a rabid foaming-at-the-mouth mascot, or my family (think of the children!) then I'd wouldn't hesitate to slice, dice, and chop the mascot.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Isotopian]

Cell phone jammers are illegal, or all theatres would have them - but right now my theatre is VERY interested in a new type of paneling material they're making that acts like a fourier cage. Put it on four walls and the ceiling and presto - no cell phone signals!

Re:Devil's advocate

[Johnny5000]

Any judge worth his salt is going to see what's going on here,

Maybe so, but I wouldn't want to count on getting one of those.

Re:Devil's advocate

[mhall119]

Her 20 seconds of video may not have violated anyone's copyrights but the theater owner has the authority to set the terms of her use of his facility. One of those terms prohibits recording devices regardless of intent. True, but violating theater policy is not a crime, you can't be arrested for it. The theater owner's only recourse is to ask the violator to leave. If they don't leave, then they are trespassing, which they can be arrested for.

The theater manager decided that an actual crime was probably being committed (distribution should be a crime, not copying, but alas, it is), and called the police to report that crime, which she was then charged with. Since the theater is pressing charges, it is up to the courts now to determine if a) the action the defended is charged with is actually a crime, and b) if the defended committed the action they are charged with. My guess is that this gets thrown out at 'a' because 20 seconds of poor video to show a little brother clearly falls under fair use, and so is not a violation of copyright law.

Re:Devil's advocate

[technococcus]

If the hijackers of 9/11 hadn't changed the paradigm for airplane hijackings so radically, 9/11 would never have happened.

Nowadays when someone starts some shit on a plane (have you not noticed this in the new lately?), everyone around them gets up and starts wailing on them with whatever happens to be near to hand! Pre-9/11, the usual order of things was "sit tight, land 'er, appease the criminals, get you guys off the plane, then send SWAT in to pop the 'jackers in the forehead." Now, the paradigm is, "Beat that fucker to a pulp, by God, this is America!"

I personally would be satisfied with just being allowed to carry my does-not-count-as-a-weapon-in-any-state-I-know-of 3.5" bladed sidelock pocketknife.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

"Most any zero tolerance policy is, IMHO, a strong indicator of dickheadery in action."

So, you support the choice of a Commercial Airplane Pilot to snort coke right before taxing down the runway, with you as a passenger on board?

If not (and I certainly HOPE NOT), then your use of the leading term "Most" is insufficient to define your case.

Re:Devil's advocate

[mrchaotica]

Most people in the community would understand that recording the whole movie is stealing.

And most people would be wrong, because it's actually "copyright infringement" instead.

Let's reverse the situation: imagine you were the one accused of copyright infringement, and I went around writing about how you were "stealing" stuff. Would you be upset? You should be, because that would be considered libel.

Conversely, your writing is libelous too, because you're implying that the subject of the story was accused of theft rather than copyright infringement. Cut it out, please.

Re:Devil's advocate

[erpbridge]

The price where I am (Connecticut, USA, www.filmsinfo.com) is $8.75/person for a evening or night showing.

Yes... 25 minutes of ads, or more. Thats 25 minutes of ads after the film starts rolling... but theres more ads you don't take into account (and I don't just mean the ones that are inserted into the movie.... or in the case of Transformers, the ones that the movies plot is built around.)

From the time the film actually starts rolling (the advertised start time of the movie) to the time the actual opening credits begin, there are usually about 5 or 6 trailers, each about 3-4 minutes long. There are also a couple advertisements for commercial brands (soda, jeans, vehicles, etc), and an advertisement soliciting donations for a charity organization. The movie actually starts about 20-30 minutes after the advertised start time.

If you think of it, the movie theater is being paid by the national brands of the movies or the commercial products a figure for x-number of people shown advertisement impressions, so they're making an additional money off that above and beyond the pricing of the ticket they sold.

However, thats not to mention the local advertising that is also shwon on the screen BEFORE the film starts rolling. My local theater is also showing several 30-second clips from about 10-20 local restaurants/pet stores/automotive shops. So, even more money in their pocket.

By the way, have you also noticed all the advertising you are exposed to before you even set foot into the screening area? Plenty of posters lining the outside of the theater, and many decorations inside (and in some theaters, LCD-TV's showing trailers non stop, or in my theater, a LCD projector projecting them onto a empty section of wall above the concession booth.) They are definitely also getting paid to advertise those in prominent positions too.

I wonder, if a movie theater was not permitted to show advertisements prior to the movie, what the price per ticket would be... 20-25 percent more? Probably even more if they also allowed us to bring in reasonable size beverages instead of the over priced concession stand.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

I know there'd be some outrage over the incident but there's just too much to be pissed off about recently. you are underestimating how incredibly shallow the American public is.

Unless it is a BIG new s case, I.E. CNN,FOX,CBS,NBC has continual coverage, Rev. jessy jackson takes up the case and screams for public outcry. Americans on the whole will not give a flying fart.

Thius girl can be sentenced to jail for 30 years and her life ruined and mostamericans do not give a rats ass as long as we get new shiney to look at and distract us.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Bluesman]

"it's complying with a contractual obligation."

Or what? What would happen if the manager said, "Ok, please don't do that, enjoy the rest of the movie?"

Would anyone *ever* find out about it? If someone did, would there be a huge lawsuit? Would he lose his job? No!

And if the answer is yes, then that's exactly what we're complaining about here.

That's being an automaton. Being a slave to some words on a piece of paper to the point that you put yourself in ridiculous situations that are clearly not the intention of the contract.

This country is going to hell in a handbasket because nobody can distinguish between rules and morality, and it's simply due to intellectual laziness.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps, if everyone carried gun on a plane, 9-11 would not have happened. But I'm sure we'd then have a 9-01, 9-02, 9-03, 9-04, etc to be taking about the loss of life. In case you are not aware, mob mentality is always stupid, regardless of the sum of its parts. Have 100 or so frantic people in a crowded area all armed? That is a recipe for disaster that I'm sure the terrorists can only dream of.

Re:Devil's advocate

[asleep79]

If they can charge you for taping 20 seconds of a film you paid to go see then maybe they should look into expanding this extra area of profit for themselves. Maybe they should charge people to talk about the movie ... afterall ... it is their movie and you watched it in their theatre or maybe they should charge people to remember the movie ... those are memories you'll carry for life and there should probably be some sort of fee based on how long after the movie it's projected you'll live and remember the scenes.

I for one have never participated in the taping of movies and probably wouldn't do it but I already dislike the movie theatres for their ridiculous prices, not to mention the price of concessions. The world would be better off without Hollywood and especially without Regal Cinemas. I'll never go to one of their theatres again ... greedy bastards.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Merk]

She stole something too? I thought she just recorded part of the movie.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

Books are also protected by copyright, yet photocopiers are not illegal, not even at libraries. Every school child of my generation photocopied pages from books for reports. The owners of the copy machines, mostly libraries and schools, didn't police them for the book publishers. Photocopying pages from books was part of our library training, and often part of our assignments.

We didn't photocopy the whole book, but if we really wanted to, we could have. If a publisher or copyright owner found someone violating their copyright, then that person could be pursued in court. In the same way, theaters shouldn't police their customers, but instead let the distributors, copyright holders, and law enforcement pursue the violators in court.

The "new" media should not need additional protection. Please, oh please, don't make laws that totally remove the possibility of non-infringing use (read: don't make laws that might make it illegal to tape in a theater regardless of whether the taping is a copyright violation).

Re:Devil's advocate

[Vancorps]

If their response to a camera in the crowd is to simply call the police then they should have to pay for the wasted police resources in addition to the defense of the girl in a criminal case and possibly he legal bills for a civil suit she, if she is sane, will certainly file. You can't have it both ways, if you're going to call the police over every little thing then sooner or later you're going to have to pay them. It happens with fire departments. If the fire alarm goes off at a business and trucks get dispatched you have to pay them if there is no fire.

For that matter if you call the police too many times for your business and it was completely unnecessary then you will have to pay them as well. That is at least how it is hear in AZ.

I'm aware of this sooner than everyone else, but as soon as it hits the newspaper a lot of common moviegoers will indeed see it and be disgusted. I usually go once a week, with a girl no less! Everyone I know doesn't particularly enjoy the movie theater experience anymore. They just want to see the movie and the harder the theaters make that the less and less people will go. The theater I go to treats people fairly and not surprisingly it's quite popular. I have seen other theaters in the area practice draconian policies and have found themselves out of business.

Re:Devil's advocate

[HexaByte]

Wow! I guess you've never had a security job in a Govt. IT project, have you? I specifically got a cell phone w/o a camera because I do a lot of that, and I want to be able to take my cell phone with me. Some of the agencies I've worked for will not allow a cell phone with recording ability in it to get past the door. Try to sneak it in, you'll leave in handcuffs!

Some companies are just as serious about protecting their assets. Even a construction site I was on recently allowed no cameras because of their "secret" way of doing things.

If I want to protect my property, I have that right. That's not an endorsement of DRM or to say that 20 years is appropriate for this case, but failure to protect IP means loss of that IP.

Re:Devil's advocate

[nsayer]

I dearly wish the airlines recognized my carry permit; I'd feel much better if I could pack my 9mm aboard planes.

That's an even worse idea. Are you prepared to maintain perfect vigilance over your weapon for an entire, say, 8 hour transcontinental flight? If someone who doesn't have a permit knows or finds out that you do have one, then don't you wind up being an excellent way to get a weapon on board the plane if only someone could separate you from it?

If you're wondering how this doesn't apply to Air Marshals, well, since they're on the clock they are supposed to maintain that perfect vigilance for the entire flight. Not so any random passenger.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Mendy]

...the tape? :)

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it tells a lot that they feel they can't train their managers stuff like this. It speaks volumes to the quality and ability of the people the are hiring/promoting/putting into these postions.

Yes, it would be assumed that a reasonable person would be able to properly escalate (warning, dismissal, etc) but that's not what we have here. Many people that they hire for these positions seem to need to be told EXACTLY what to do otherwise they can't think their way out of it. They aren't out to hire the brightest (not to say that there aren't bright ones in these positions) but the ones who can "do the job they need to".

I rented a movie and the change was $0.79. I mentioned that I had a penny, thinking I'll get $0.80 back and not have more pennies in my pocket. The clerk, who was late teens or early twenties looked at me with fear in his eyes and a complete inability to think. His quote was "I've already rang it up". Apparently because the register stated that I was to get $0.79 back in change giving him another penny was a crisis of unbelievable porportions.

Yes, it is reasonable to assume that the managers should be able to properly handle escalations like this. In my experience many of the people in these positions are becoming less and less capable of even the simplest processes of thinking on their own.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

Cell phone jammers are illegal, or all theatres would have them - but right now my theatre is VERY interested in a new type of paneling material they're making that acts like a fourier cage. Put it on four walls and the ceiling and presto - no cell phone signals! And then somebody has a heart attack in the theater. Presto! Instant lawsuit because somebody couldn't call 911 and had to run to the lobby, increasing the response time.

But, you know what? I'd support that lawsuit and support shutting that theater down. Technological solutions are not always a cure for human problems. People using the cell phone during the movie? Have an usher in the theater who'll notice and throw them the hell out. Problem solved.

Re:Devil's advocate

[cleatsupkeep]

See, the slashdot mods are being very sneaky here. This is actually a slashvertisement for the iPhone, because it does not have video capabilities. All in all, just another reason to buy the iPhone, because you can be reached when in a premiere. Anyone think this will be Apples next commercial? People trying to get in with Treos and Crackberries but can't because they have video cameras and they just let the guy straight through. "It's not a feature omission, it's a feature"

Re:Devil's advocate

[DrLov3]

And if I show your images/video/sound to a third and he goes to tell a fourth and fifth party that your images/video/sound are worth the money and they go on pay you to watch them(your images/video/sound) do I get a cut of your profit? ..... NO. Why, because we are assuming your product will gain or lose value but thats all assumption, we can't prove anything unless we have a time machine. So if your product ain't crap people will buy it. Like when they wanted to ban txt messaging devices in the theaters because people were txt msg'ing thier friends about the movie being no good ... and then what next, sue every1 who gives a bad comment, see it from the freedom of expression angle, wheter I tell you a movie is bad in person, by txt msg or by showing it to you it's all protected speech. Otherwise next it will be illegal for me to tell you the story and discribe you the movie in person because I am putting images into your head which are copyrighted.

Re:Devil's advocate

[tshak]

Isn't that for a judge and jury to decide?


We're in a sad state when we feel the need for a judge and jury for matters which require simple discretion.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anpheus]

The theatre probably pursued them because the employee that caught them wins a $500 reward from the MPAA. Seriously.

Re:Devil's advocate

[HexaByte]

Let me put it this way: if these things continue, soon we'll be only allowed to hear music on earphones. Because if you listen too loud in your house and SOMEONE can hear it from the street, then you're doing a public playback of your music, and you will certainly go to jail for that!

Actually, when I hear the 'thumpedy-thump" of the ghetto-blasters going down my street, that makes good sense! Now instead of calling the Police, who do nothing, I'll call the MPAA and report a public performance! ;->

Re:Devil's advocate

[Obfuscant]

No, she's charged with copyright infringement.

No, she's charged with "illegally recording a motion picture". According to the original article, it is a felony crime.

The two examples I gave regarding breaking into the theater or stealing a DVD were not claims that she did either of those. They were a simple thought experiment to demonstrate that "fair use" under copyright law does not grant unlimited access to the material. Claiming that "fair use" means she is not guilty of breaking a law is incorrect because we know there are limits on how the "fair use" material is obtained. You cannot break the law to obtain material and then claim "fair use" allows it. It is explicitely against the law to record in a theater without the copyright owner's permission (and the THEATER is not the copyright owner and thus cannot give that permission.)

Just as you cannot claim legal protection from theft for stealing a book from a library to copy it because your copies meet the "fair use" provisions of copyright law (even if you later return the book, which mitigates but does not erase the crime), you cannot record a movie being shown in a theater without the copyright owner's permission and then claim "fair use". You CAN borrow the book (or get the copyright owner's permission), and then the only issue is if your use really is "fair use", because how you obtained the material is no longer, itself, the crime.

I'll also point out that the CFR refers to "theft", so calling it "theft" is hardly unreasonable. Whether you or the other respondent consider it theft is an opinion.

Re:Devil's advocate

[pla]

They give you more than enough warnings that recording devices aren't allowed, so if you use one during the movie, you should expect consequences.

We live in a world where everywhere has admonitions against the use of cameras or recording devices. And 99% of them have no teeth whatsoever (as Starbucks learned).

In this specific case, the MPAA managed to buy a very specific law to give their otherwise-meaningless warnings some actual basis in law. You and I, as geeks reading and posting in a /. YRO thread, understand that; almost no non-geeks have ever even heard of FECA, much less fully understand the implications to performing a simple common action such as whipping out a camera phone and capturing a few seconds of video.

Re:Devil's advocate

[MoneyT]

Right, it took minutes for the police to show up. Are you suggesting that they let her film until the police arrived without approaching her? The most rellevant question to ask is did she stop filming before they approached her?

Re:Devil's advocate

[MoneyT]

You're assuming all actions have an equal consequence. Here's what happens though:

1) Prosecute everyone. Consequence: Some people get pissed, everyone else calls the idiots filming dumbasses, their seats get filled by smarter consumers with more money to spend.

2) Prosecute only some people. Consequence: Get slapped with a discrimination lawsuit which will be fought soley by the theater (after all says the movie studio, it isn't our policy to only kick out the chinese), theater suffers major financial loss, potential to shut down theater.

3) Let everyone record, prosecute noone. Consequence: Studios stop selling you films to show, without Harry Potter and the Amazing Nerd Orgasm, theater can't compete with other theaters, loses money, shuts down.

Remember, theaters are just as evil money grubbing souless companies as every other corporation we like to hate here on slashdot (the almighty Google and Apple excluded of course). If their current course of action was more expensive than another course, they wouldn't do it.

Re:Devil's advocate

[hjf]

HA! I hate not having mod points for this article. +5 Funny!

Re:Devil's advocate

[theun4gven]

I think you mean Faraday cage, but I agree. I don't see anything wrong with passive interference.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

On a side note last time we went to the movies my father in-law went with us. He has to carry a phone and when the door man gave him grief about leaving it on and it's internal camera, he soon learned about trying to tell a cop "you can't do that" as a fruitless exercise. Phone has to be on at all times, camera is integrated to allow for immediate (if low-res) shots of a crime scene or victim even before the official photographer can get there.

They should man up and kick his ass out. Just because someone is a cop doesn't mean they are allowed to do anything they want and go anywhere they want. Barring probable cause a cop can't go anywhere a civilian can't. If his job requires that he has be reachable by cellphone at all times, then he has to accept that there are some places were he won't be welcome and it doesn't matter if he thinks he is special because he is a cop.

Re:Devil's advocate

[ktappe]

The theater and others involved can't guess intent.

They most certainly can if, as in this case, the camera came out 3/4 through the film and was turned off in 20 seconds. That is self-sufficient proof that there was no intent whatsoever to pirate the entire film or even a substantial portion of it.

Re:Devil's advocate

[dpaton.net]

I think you mean a Faraday cage. Joseph Fourier was a French mathematician and physicist who (more or less) originated the idea that discontinuous functions (like squarewaves) can be represented by a sum of discrete functions (like an infinite sum of odd harmonics for the aforementioned squarewave). He also postulated that gasses in the atmosphere help to trap heat and keep the earth warm. He had effectively nothing to do with RF theory or practice when he was alive, in the time of Napoleon (around the beginning of the 19th century).

Re:Devil's advocate

[powerlord]

Except that in the case of 911 the passenger's deaths were incidental. The real goal was to take over the plane and use it as a "poor man's cruise missile".

Re:Devil's advocate

[GreyPoopon]

Are you suggesting that they let her film until the police arrived without approaching her?

Yes. Read the article. Her first confrontation was with the police.
 

The most rellevant question to ask is did she stop filming before they approached her?

Again, if the article is correct, yes. The article says the clip was only 20 seconds. The police arrived several minutes later, and the way it is worded leaves no room for an initial confrontation with staff at the theater. Could the article have its facts wrong? Sure. But if not, then she had to have stopped filming prior to being confronted.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, we could only really be talking about concealable weapons. Can you imagine trying to stow a 12 gauge under the seat in front of you?

Better yet, can you imagine getting the 12 gauge out from under the seat in front of you to use in the event that you needed it. I can see it now, "wait, everyone just stop. I need to get my gun!!!" A mad scramble occurs while he tries to free the shotgun from under the seat where it's become wedged....

Re:Devil's advocate

[LurkerXXX]

You forgot #4. Due to the shape of an aircraft cabin (long and narrow) if your normal bullet goes through the bad guy (or a good guy next to him if you missed) it's probably going to go through yet another person, and another, etc, till it's been slowed sufficiently by bodies. 'light' ammo will stop in the 1st persons body and contain the damage and leave all the innocents behind the target intact.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Lurker2288]

Don't be ridiculous. Why should the theater owner be responsible for policing patrons who are clearly violating the law? Is it his job to seize the camera and examine the recording to make sure it complies with copyright laws? Should they have to do this for everyone in a 200 person auditorium who decides to whip out a cell phone with a camera and snap shots of the screen?

And no, it's not a travesty of justice. It WOULD be, if she was thrown in prison for a year over it, but that hasn't happened yet and isn't likely to. She was caught in the act of doing something illegal, the police arrested her, and the trial will expose the facts of the situation for judgment, and she'll be sentenced (or not) accordingly. Which is exactly what's supposed to happen.

The problem with articles like this is that the usually emphasize the maximum allowable punishment, rather than the likely punishment. Makes for a much more exciting story, but at the expense of inflaming folks unnecessarily.

Re:Devil's advocate

[mhall119]

Holy crap you're right:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/us c_sec_17_00000107----000-.html

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/us c_sec_18_00002319---B000-.html

(a) Offense.-- Any person who, without the authorization of the copyright owner, 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, from a performance of such work in a motion picture exhibition facility, So even though you are explicitly given the right to copy for fair use under copyright law, it is actually illegal to exercise that right without the authorization of the copyright owner under criminal law, just because you're in a movie theater. So the defended here isn't even being charged with copyright violation at all, she's being charged with making a legal copy in a movie theater, which is a criminal offense. That just blows my mind.

Though to be fair to me, I said it wasn't illegal to videotape in a theater, which is true. It's the taping of the copyrighted work that is illegal. Still, the point I was trying to make wasn't relevant, as I now know.

Re:Devil's advocate

[SanityInAnarchy]

How are they to decide who's going to upload movies and who is "recording a 20 second clip to get their little brother excited"?

Simple, really: Because this person really only did record a 20 second clip. I supposed she could upload that clip, but really, I think that even falls under fair use. If she'd wanted to record the entire movie, don't you think she'd start at the beginning, and keep recording until she was caught?

Here's a really simple thing the theater could have done differently -- confiscate the recording medium, or the whole camera if that's not easily determined. If it's not disposable, simply erase the offending material and give it back. While erasing, it should be possible to check intent -- if they really were recording the entire movie, then yeah, press charges. But 20 seconds, there's no need to get the court involved.

Re:Devil's advocate

[neutralstone]

Sorry; minor nit:

The only problem is, that's not your decision to make. That's the content owner's decision. :s/content owner/copyright holder/

One cannot *own* content. Rather, one may *hold*, for a *limited time*, an exclusive right to copy, *subject to some limitations* (such as Fair Use).

Apologies if it seems like a trifling point, but I think it's important to keep this distinction in mind, and worth repeating until the vocabulary of this debate reflects history and reality:

Copyrightable works were never intended to be *property*. They were intended to be given *freely* to society after their creators were each given a chance to be fairly compensated for the act of *creation*.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Jinjuku]

Zero tolerance happens because there used to be a tolerant policy that assholes abuse. I can understand zero tolerance policies. Especially in the U.S. where we all think we are owed something.

Re:Devil's advocate

[ShiNoKaze]

If I ran the place, I'd pause the movie and tell the crowd it's the horrible pirates' fault, tell the crowd the movie will start back up when all of them are following the rules, and then wait for the crowd to take care of the problem. After everyone's gone, you can tape the movie and everyone will think it was the horrible pirates that put it on your favorite file sharing network. Instant scapegoat! :)

Re:Devil's advocate

[El Gigante de Justic]

I think that most non-geeks probably know that recording a film is not allowed. Film and music piracy have both been in the news for the last few years, it's at the beginning of every home video (VHS and DVD) that you can't make copies, and the MPAA ran an ad campaign for a fairly long time both on television and in theaters (along with the previews).

In any case, ignorance of a law doesn't exonerate you of the crime.

Re:Devil's advocate

[mhall119]

My guess is that this gets thrown out at 'a' because 20 seconds of poor video to show a little brother clearly falls under fair use, and so is not a violation of copyright law. I have to take this back already, it turns out that even if the copying did fall under "fair use" and was not a violation of copyright, it would still be a crime just because it was done in a movie theater. Go figure, making a legal copy can still be illegal.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Hijacked Public]

Everyone I know doesn't particularly enjoy the movie theater experience anymore. That doesn't constitute much of a sample but it is instructive that none of you particularly enjoy it yet you still go. A comment like that only strengthens my assertion that people want pop culture so badly they are willing to put up with whatever, for them, trivial inconveniences they have to. I think it could be harder to get into a movie theater than a commercial airplane and enough people would continue to go to make it a successful business.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

Ladies and gentlemen, a better example of a Hobbesist you won't find: its right because the law says so.

Re:Devil's advocate

[The One and Only]

Not really. If the plane just blows up, they don't get to hijack it and fly it into the World Trade Center.

Re:Devil's advocate

[omeomi]

Nowhere in my post was I arguing for her to go to jail for a year for doing this. In fact, I think NOTHING will (or should) happen to her. But that is for a judge and a jury to decide, not the movie theater.

Well, technically speaking, it was up to the movie theater to press charges. I'm not going to argue over whether it *should* be up to them, but it is already their choice.

Re:Devil's advocate

[forand]

This is insane. Since when is it okay for me to detain someone who MIGHT have committed a non-violent crime? I cannot stop people from driving just because they run a stop sign. This is crazy to give authorization to a non-governmental group to detain people for what they feel is an infraction.

Re:Devil's advocate

[C0rinthian]

Generally none of the box office profits go to the theatre. It all goes to the Studio. (In fact, it usually costs the theatre money to run a movie, regardless of ticket sales) So the only source of profits for the actual theatre is concessions/advertising. That being the case, are you surprised at the situation inside a theatre?

Re:Devil's advocate

[jbf]

The 20 second clip may not be covered under Title 17, but the work is, and therefore the 20 second part thereof is covered under (a).

Re:Devil's advocate

[BytePusher]

Why not just stop going to movies? In America especially, they are just serving up the same handful of plots and characters in as many different configurations as possible. Going to the movies is like going to taco bell. You can have Nachos with Cheese and ground beef, sour cream, tomatoes and chives, or you can have a taco(A big nacho!) with ground beef, sour cream, tomatoes and chives. Sometimes to really mix things up they throw in a wheat tortilla shell instead of the nachos. Oh did I mention the beans, they really make my burritos exciting. Same thing with the movies. Why do we pay good money for this?

Re:Devil's advocate

[Vancorps]

Of course that ignores the fact that I stopped going to the movies until I met said girl who had also stopped going because the experience just wasn't enjoyable anymore. Of course when we go together it is enjoyable so the theater we specifically choose gets our patronage. If they do anything to inconvenience people at a theater more than they already have people will go less and less, they won't stop all-together because some movies you simply want to see and you don't want to wait for. Movies like the Simpsons brings out a lot of people that ordinarily wouldn't go for instance.

As I said, theaters that don't treat their customers well will go out of business. The new theater in town here prides itself on introducing a movie and being friendly with the customers. Is there a wonder it is already the most successful theater in the area?

I'll grant sample size is small and that my experiences are not the same as others but I don't think me or the people I associate with are particularly out of step with the world at large.

Re:Devil's advocate

[geoffspear]

Somehow I think a jury in your hypothetical libel case wouldn't be retarded enough to think that the word "stealing" doesn't really mean what every single person in the English speaking world except Slashdotters think it means.

Re:Devil's advocate

[justkarl]

The day they don't let me in because my cell phone has a camera is the day I stop going to movies.



What a jackass. As with previous posters, I agree: If you're going to stop coming to movies because they won't let you in with your cellphone, then you're doing me a big favor. Not sure I agree with you that leaving a $200 phone in your car is bait for theft, either(I'm making a rough estimate here - if you carry around something in your pocket worth more than that, then I really think you're a jackass).
 
In another thread, a poster made the point that it's not up to you to decide how the copyright gets used - that's the right of the owner of the copyright. So quit making excuses for "txting ur frnds in t3h theatrez" because I really don't agree that you(or anybody) needs to bring your phone to a place of public performance. If you're expecting something that urgent(and I do think that having it in case of emergency constitutes expecting) then don't come to the movie theaters.

Re:Devil's advocate

[cduffy]

It's possible to buy a new phone without camera support. Tricky (and ended me up with a big, bulky Blackberry), but possible.

Re:Devil's advocate

[PMBjornerud]

Heck. If this happened in any theater close to me, I'd print out the article and stand by the doors for a few hours. Handing out flyers to everyone entering, letting them know what that theater just did. This case is so obvious that random people learning about it would be shocked and upset. If two people by the door can hand out flyers and make customers turn away from the theatre in disgust, that would be an accomplishment.

Are there no slashdotters living close too there? Organize!

This is a great opportunity to convince the average joes that copyright is getting out of hand.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Artaxs]

"Course I think most people see the maximum fine and think the worst, doesn't mean the judge will give than, more often than not they don't," This is exactly why mandatory minimum sentencing laws are a bad idea; they remove the ability of the Judge to apply common sense to sentencing in cases such as this one. It also seems to me to be a bad idea to make camcording movies a felony as it's hardly in the same class of crime as auto theft and murder.

And who watches cams anyway? You can almost always find a high-quality screener on the torrent sites. The "90% of piracy" figure in TFA is asinine.

Re:Devil's advocate

[caseydk]

Mod this one up.

And here's the other thing... the GPL and every other license is *built* on this principle. They - like Regal Cinemas - has the right to revoke your license if you break the terms. This girl broke the terms (just like LinkSys did years ago) and in order to protect their property, they have to enforce the claim. End of story.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Kingrames]

"I'm in Texas, and I don't get it. I think we'd get at least 30 hits in the "kill" zone."

Ahh, but there's the kicker. Would you rather hear the story of a plane that crashed because its passengers fought back, or the story of a plane that got hijacked, even if everyone survives in the end. You could read up on Entebbe or watch "The Last King of Scotland" (warning: not for children or anyone who scares easily - it's a damn scary movie, and not a cheap Horror flick) for an example of the hijacking that went "well."

"Also, things only blow up that easily in Hollywood."

I beg to disagree friend. Just yesterday, I shot a squirrel with a rubber band and ended up spending the rest of the day picking squirrel shrapnel off the roof.

It is physically impossible for me to exaggerate the truth, doing so would cause the universe to implode.

(on a more serious note, I was assuming "worst case scenario" and we were, of course, talking about a hypothetical situation of 60 legally blind elderly folk picking up rocket launchers and firing them at said terrorist who was smoking ten cigarettes and a cigar and standing in a pile of TNT and spare warheads)

Re:Devil's advocate

[JM78]

You hit it right on the money. Other than the occasional IMAX feature (Seattle's Boeing theater I can't compete with in my basement) my home theater trumps any AMC or Regal I've ever been to.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey everyone, let's assume the only incident he observed was the one he mentioned!

Re:Devil's advocate

[microbee]

"The judge and jury do decide, all the theater gets to decide is if they want to press charges or not."

I agree completely. Litigations are intimating and expensive. No matter whether the person will be convicted (most likely not), the whole experience will be a nightmare and stressful. Show some sympathy and common sense and drop the charges.

Re:Devil's advocate

[TacNuke]

Well, since I am a prosecutor here is what I would do. Assuming the state where I work has a similar law, I would not just simply drop the case because I think that shouldn't be the law. If there is a statute or ordinance that prohibits the activity I will review the police/witness reports first to see if there is enough evidence and if the facts fit the law. Next I would check the defendant's criminal history to see if she routinely engages in this type of activity. Then I would charge it out if I find there was a violation of the law. Just because you are arrested for a crime doesn't mean you will be prosecuted for that crime or any other.

Once charged I would probably look into diverting her assuming she has no criminal history. The 1 year in jail and 2500 fine bit is the definition of a high level misdemeanor. (Which I find surprising b/c that means a person can careen down the highway drunk and it is a lower level misdemeanor than filming a movie in the theater. Odd, but thats legislation for ya).

Now, if any defense attorney started yammering on about fair use and all that bull, I would laugh them out of my office and tell them I would see them at jury trial. Why? Because it has absolutely no bearing on whether she violated the statute as written. If defense counsel wanted to take the time and energy and money to file some kind of motion to declare the statute unconstitutional, I say go for it. I don't write the laws I only prosecute violators of the law.

Re:Devil's advocate

[peacefinder]

"Most" is insufficient to define your case.

I never tried to fully define it."Most any", "strong indicator" and even "dickheadery" are purposefully vague terms. (In case you hadn't noticed, natural languages are often inexact.)

Re:Devil's advocate

[bob_herrick]

Many of the posts here argue that the following statement is a reasonable one under some concept of 'zero tolerance.' I disagree.

'We cannot educate theater managers to be judges and juries in what is acceptable. Theater managers cannot distinguish between good and bad stealing."
I read this as the equivalent of threatening global thermonulear war for a minor border infractions. It is a scare tactic intended to make the threat as credible as possible. The less local discretion, the more credible the threat.

The fact is that theater managers are, for the most part and to a greater or lesser extent, more or less adult, and they can, in fact, distinguish between good and bad stealing. Since they can, this attempt to remove their discretion is just a ploy to relieve them of the responsibility to run a fair business so that the treat of the law becomes more real.

Sort of 'kill them all and let the lawyers sort it out.'

Re:Devil's advocate

[SanityInAnarchy]

Why should the theater decide between "good and bad stealing"?

I guess I could poke holes in the rest of your argument, but I just can't get around that catchphrase, "good and bad stealing". It'd be entirely too easy to use to advocate DRM, for instance -- "We can't allow any fair use whatsoever, possibly including playing the movie back at all, because how can we trust software to decide between good and bad stealing?"

First, start calling it what it is. Piracy is armed robbery -- on the high seas, no less. Stealing is taking an item from someone, with the inevitable side effect of depriving that someone of their item.

This is neither -- it's unauthorized copying. It may even be copyright infringement, but it's not stealing, and there's no way it's piracy.

Now that we've established that, you see the fallacy of it. There is good and bad unauthorized copying, because a lot of unauthorized copying falls under fair use. There is not good and bad copyright infringement, which is, I hope, what they meant by "stealing". (Although I would argue that there is such a thing as good DMCA violations, because watching DVDs on Linux should not be a crime.)

By using the phrase "good and bad stealing", they are attempting to gain the power to decide what's fair use and what's not -- which they already have, mostly, thanks to the DMCA and DRM. But what that phrase is doing here is implying that you can only have fair use by the grace of the copyright owner, which is not true at all (were it not for the DMCA, which I reject).

I'm not saying we should have no copyright. But I do think copyright is entirely too extreme right now, two specific examples being the DMCA and the RIAA.

As for the rest of your argument, I don't think it should be OK to record even 20 seconds of video in a movie theater, because it would be hard to enforce 20 seconds vs 2 hours. If you can get away with it, fine, otherwise, your fault for doing something stupid like bringing a video camera to a movie. But I don't think the court has to be involved, either -- just shine a flashlight into their face and ask them to stop recording. If they do it again, confiscate their camera, erase their recording, and give it back at the end of the movie.

Re:Devil's advocate

[couchslug]

I haven't been to a theater in 20+ years and could care less. The effort, cost, parking, and the hassle of sharing space with annoying theater patrons make it not worth it. Home theaters and home entertainment are for more convenient.

Re:Devil's advocate

[SanityInAnarchy]

Perhaps this one will cause more people to be aware of the loose definitions of media piracy

Perhaps we should raise awareness of the language used here. It's not piracy -- piracy is armed robbery on the high seas. It's also not theft -- it's copyright infringement.

That doesn't make copyright infringement OK, but a huge political tool is the ability to control language, and I suggest we don't give them that control. For example, if you're a pro-choice advocate, or even if you're neutral, you say "abortion doctor", not "baby murderer". And if you're pro-life, you probably don't use the word "choice" at all, because you don't want to be seen as against choice.

Re:Devil's advocate

[james_orr]

9/11 happened because the "thing to do" when an airplane was hijacked in the past was to sit tight and let the negotiators do their job.

This worked three times for them, but on the fourth plane the passengers heard of what was happening and stopped it.

That's why this tactic will never work again. Regardless of whether the other passengers have guns or not, they will stop the terrorists, because if they don't they will die anyway and take a lot more people with them.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

I stopped believing you at 'wife'. XD

Re:Devil's advocate

[()l0r!N]

it was only a matter of time before someone said that she was hot...

Re:Devil's advocate

[gcatullus]

That's why everyone should just be required to carry knives, baseball bats, chains, nun-chuks, brass knuckles, lead pipes, and monkey wrenches.

Re:Devil's advocate

[MikePlacid]

The theater and others involved can't guess intent. Sure, they had the "discretion" to not do anything, but why is that in their lap? How are they to decide who's going to upload movies and who is "recording a 20 second clip to get their little brother excited"? The only alternative is to make it all legal, and that doesn't make any sense either.

Question is - why I should care? 20 second clip to show to a little brother is (or "was"? should be, anyway) perfectly legal "fair use". You do not want to have a discretion? Good. But if you've pulled me out in the middle of the show because you are lazy to make a discretion - I want my ticket fee back and I want a compensation of the time I've spent watching your show according to my hourly rate. They want to be lazy - fine with me. Just let *them* pay for consequences.

Re:Devil's advocate

[aldango]

It's relatively expensive in the US, yes. Sure, £5 goes a long way over here, but relative to other goods in Britain, maybe the story's different.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Sloppy]

Bingo. The only relationship between this law and copyright law, is that it uses copyright law to determine what sorts of works are covered. It doesn't reference copyright law in any way, to determine what sort of activities are covered, or what defenses or exemptions apply. 20 seconds or 20 hours, it doesn't matter. For a friend or for a million people on the internet, it doesn't matter. Fair use is not part of this law.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahah sysadmins needing to be contactable. "Good glory, we can't reboot this machine! We must call in our server monkey to click things according to the checklist!"

What a bunch of self-important wankers.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Do you have 25 minutes of adverts and trailers to sit through before the movie too?

Yes!!!

About an hour before showtime, they start a DVD full of ads for everything from junk food (conveniently available in the lobby for confiscatory prices) to teen-pop music and TV shows... at least the trailers are usually matched to the movie (i.e, action trailers for an action movie, kids trailers for a kids movie)...

Re:Devil's advocate

[Teun]

If all citizens were allowed to carry guns on a plane 911 would have happened much earlier.
It's OK, I corrected it for you.
Damn one-man militias.

Re:Devil's advocate

[PeterBrett]

About an hour before showtime

I actually meant after "showtime" (the published start time) and before the opening credits of the film.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, I don't know, a talk about some other people who did dickhead things?

Look at the guy's other posts -- 90% of them, he links to the same image.

Re:Devil's advocate

[ceoyoyo]

Or one guy stands up, grabs one of the toddlers who like to run down the aisles, puts his gun to the kid's head and dares the dirty harry types to shoot. Plane hijacked.

Re:Devil's advocate

[innocent_white_lamb]

He'd refund their ticket, and it would be a lesson learned.
 
Why would he refund their ticket?
 
I own a theatre. I have never caught anyone in my theatre recording a film (so far) but if I catch someone in my theatre with liquor, I tell them to leave immediately. No way do they get a refund. Get out. That's the end of the story.

Re:Devil's advocate

[SanityInAnarchy]

Wow, you can barely go a full sentence without two or three bullshit misconceptions.

The person that owns the copyright has the right to retain control of how the movie is shown.

No, they don't. They have the right to retain some measure of control, as provided by copyright. But there's also this little thing called "fair use", which means that you are allowed to copy small portions of a work in order to cite it -- for example, my quoting you here is fair use. You're also allowed to make backup copies for your own use, etc etc.

I don't care if you are just videotaping 20 seconds or the whole movie - you are doing it without permission.

Fair use specifically covers copying without permission.

It is the same as walking into a store and stealing

Except that if you steal, you are depriving someone else of what you are stealing.

Repeat after me until it sinks in: Copying is not the same as stealing. Copying is not the same as stealing. Copying is never the same as stealing, no matter how much you wish it was.

whether you steal 5 pounds of steak or one stick of gum, you are still stealing.

The difference is, if you steal one stick of gum, a reasonable store that catches you will simply ask you to put it back, make sure you haven't taken anything else, and then ask you to leave the store.

Whereas if you steal 5 pounds of steak, or if you empty the cash register, you better bet they'll call the police.

If you are videotaping a whole movie, then maybe -- maybe -- you demand to have the police and the courts involved. If you are videotaping 20 seconds, the theater could save everyone a lot of hassle by simply shining a flashlight in your face and asking for your camcorder -- then giving it back after the movie is over.

The theater is perfectly within it's rights to charge this woman

And I'm perfectly within my rights to call your mother and tell her you're a moronic dipshit shill for the MAFIAA. I'd still be an asshole for doing it, though.

Just because you have the right to do something doesn't make it OK. The theater was perfectly within its rights (no apostrophe with possessive 'its') to press charges. The manager was still an asshole to do so, and if I lived in the area, I would boycott his theater for it.

it is 100% appropriate for a judge to be the one to determine her punishment.

Let's go back to your "stealing from a store" analogy. Do you really think it's appropriate for a judge to be the one to determine the punishment of a ten-year-old boy stealing a pack of gum? Do you really think it would be appropriate to lock him up for a year -- to even have that sentence brought up as a possibility?

Considering she wasn't even "stealing" those 20 seconds of film (which are worth much less than a pack of gum), I'd say no, the judge shouldn't even have to hear about this.

Also, what if the judge decided to dismiss the case, meaning no punishment? Too late, the girl already spent her 19th birthday in jail.

But there should be punishment for this type of behaviour.

I agree -- she should have her camera confiscated for the rest of the movie (and there wasn't much left), and she should be slapped upside the head for stupidity. Worst case, confiscate her film (or memory card or whatever), and kick her out of the theater.

But she should absolutely not be charged with anything, unless we make stupidity a crime -- in which case, you'd be a lifer.

Re:Devil's advocate

[ceoyoyo]

From the article it sounds like the cops said "hey, this seems kind of silly, how about we just forget it?" and the manager or the theatre company insisted on prosecuting. So in that case the police did determine that charges should not be brought. Hopefully the court will go one better and establish a precedent.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

If she was taking nude pictures in a movie theater, then yes, absolutely. Indecent exposure AND child pornography. Public spaces aren't your home. They're not private places. People would do well to remember the context in which their rights apply.

Re:Devil's advocate

[innocent_white_lamb]

think about how it would look if they booted some disruptive patrons 10 minutes into the movie, and refused to refund their ticket.
 
I own a theatre, and I have done just exactly what you state here on various occasions.
 
The reaction from my other customers supports my actions, every time.
 
Bring in booze, you get thrown out as soon as I catch you. Act like a jackass and I'll tell you once to settle down. I'll throw you out the second time.
 
No refund.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Khaotix]

The counterpoint of course would be - They are breaking a law. The job of the police is to enforce the law.

That said the law in and of itself is ... meh. The MPAA + Movie Theaters are a whole sack of lame.

Re:Devil's advocate

[SanityInAnarchy]

And they may have been being dickheads, after the person explained what she was doing, assuming she did.

She didn't have a chance to. They didn't pull her out of the theater and ask her what she thought she was doing. They called the cops.

As TFA states, she was too busy crying as she was dragged away by THE COPS, not the theater manager, to explain anything -- and by the it was too late anyway.

Camcorders and recording aren't allowed in movie theaters.

I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is calling the cops over it. Just kick her out of the theater and be done with it.

Oh, here's a #3: As soon as you catch someone recording (or even using a cell phone, etc), kick them out of the theater. You still have "zero tolerance", and no one has to even bring fair use into the equation, because if you're paying attention, they won't be physically able to record more than a small clip that would be covered under fair use.

Now, if you catch the projectionist after hours with a very high-quality camera, aligned perfectly to the screen, plugged into the audio system and perfectly synced to the framerate of the movie, then by all means, call the cops, he's a big-deal pirate, he should serve some time.

But a girl with a cell phone?

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh - if that theater were near me, I'd go to it even more.

I hate tards who can't follow the rules. The shit is printed on the back of every fucking ticket. They have the little clip with pictures saying "no phones, no cameras, etc" after the previews in a lot of them now....

Sorry - ignorance of the rules doesn't stand up, when they are presented to you before you even sit down.

People get pulled over for speeding. "Sorry officer, I didn't realize I was doing 65 in a 60", but yet, you broke the law, you knew the law, "not realizing it" just means you are a fucking retard.

I don't think the kid should go to jail - it's obvious that she wasn't capturing the whole movie to distribute on the net...

But the kid should go to court...deal with the consequences of the actions SHE CHOSE to do, and go about her life. Probation/deferred sentece would be perfect.

I'm sorry, but people claiming ignorance is what causes so many problems in today's world. They need to be fucking slapped in the face from time to time to show them reality.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Wolfkin]

Protest? He couldn't go in because his agreement with his employer requires that he have the phone on at all times. Not quite sure where protest comes into it.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

not only we'll be only allowed to hear music on earphones, we'll also have to swallow an oblivion-pill to prevent the music from being stored in our memory. imagine, humming along to a song that is stuck in your mind and not paying royalties for puplic performance. plus, if something like 'intellectual property' really exists, remembering something would count as taking something into intellectual posession, wouldn't it?

Re:Devil's advocate

[darkmeridian]

The defendant is a nineteen year old immigrant who took 20 seconds of footage near the end of the movie with a Canon PowerShot CAMERA that happens to have limited video capability.

She was not pirating movies.

Re:Devil's advocate

[nsayer]

So it's an RBI instead of a bases-clearing home run. Still a score.

Re:Devil's advocate

[quintesse]

YOU might feel more secure carrying but I sure as hell wouldn't want to sit next to some gun-crazy Texan on a plane! ;-)

Sorry, but there's just way too many unstable people in this world, I want to make it as difficult as possible for them to hurt anyone.

Re:Devil's advocate

[evilninjax]

So now a good reason for the iPhone to not have video recording!

Re:Devil's advocate

[Vellmont]

How are they to decide who's going to upload movies and who is "recording a 20 second clip to get their little brother excited"?

I dunno, maybe actually observe the person and see if they're recording the whole movie, or a 20 second clip?


The only alternative is to make it all legal, and that doesn't make any sense either.

No, the alternative is to act like a sane person and only enforce the law selectively. (Just like every other law outside of rape and murder). Your mistake is thinking law enforcement is black and white, that the law is a series of rules to be obeyed. The law actually has a goal in mind. Keeping that goal in mind is what separates the sane people in the world from the rule followers who ignore the larger picture.

Re:Devil's advocate

[xeoron]

If she only intended a few second clip to be recorded and only had that much, then would she not be pretected under the fairuse clause of copyright?

Re:Devil's advocate

[sfgoth]

But why should the theater owner be put in that position?

Because they're humans, and should be capable of deciding whether or not they should be dickheads.

All this zero-tolerance crap is going to end with most of us replaced by robots who will show us where zero-tolerance really gets us.

-pmb

Re:Devil's advocate

[sfjoe]

Exactly. Any judge worth his salt is going to see what's going on here, know that she's not some pirate, and give her nothing.

That's a nice theory and in a civilized society it would be true. However, the radical right-wing is very vocal about judges coming to sensible rulings and so the judiciary is very cautious about appearing to be "soft on crime". All those diatribes you keep hearing about "activist judges" are influencing justice and not in a good way.

Re:Devil's advocate

[noidentity]

"That any and all audio or video recording equipment, or any device with such capabilities, including phones, PDAs, etc., were strictly prohibited."

At least there's some good coming out of this (no fucking cellphones interrupting the movie).

Re:Devil's advocate

[gsfprez]

>Fine paid: $2,500.
>Year servced: One year.
>
>Money gained for copyright holder/theater: Negative amounts.
>Money gained for prison system: Negative amounts.
>
>Total outcome: Hassle for everyone and shitload of money lost all around.

Money gained/will be gained by lawyers: shitloads.

in 20 years, there will only be 2 jobs.... laywers and their IT guys. Which are you going to be?

Re:Devil's advocate

[tsm_sf]

The only problem is, that's not your decision to make. That's the content owner's decision.

Playing devil's advocate here, I'd assume that the response would be "Fuck them, fuck you and fuck the horse y'all rode in on."

This is a legitimate point of view, but one I rarely if ever see championed anymore. Money can buy morality, after all.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Livius]

"Where do you draw the line?"

I think all of us, including Regal Cinemas and the National Association of Theater Owners, can figure out where a *20 second video clip* for someone's "little brother" fits relative to that line. Zero-tolerance rules are always about excusing bad judgement. It's not even enough footage for a trailer.

It may have been illegal, but anything beyond a stern warning and they deserve whatever boycotts or negative publicity they get thrown at them.

Re:Devil's advocate

[kriss]

Jackass?

Can I use the phone to annoy people no end? Sure.
Can I use my voice to do the same thing? Oh yes.

Solution? Ban the phone and require a mandatory gag ball..? They make about as much sense to me.

Re:Devil's advocate

[blueskies]

As an added bonus, just think how much more polite everyone would be. Air travel might even become pleasant again.

Having people be polite because they are afraid that you might shoot them is similar to getting rid of all airplanes and saying you solved the hijacking problem.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Libertarian001]

I'm sure we could find tens of thousands of families that would rather have seen three airlines explode in mid-air rather than impact the WTC and Pentagon.

How about getting rid of the non-sense checks at the airport. Then allow the hand guns and ask, "Are you carrying one?" If yes (and seriously, you're still going through the metal detector, they're not going to uninstall it), check to make sure they're using light ammo.

I *read* that Brazil (?) started allowing passengers to carry loaded guns aboard aircraft and even went so far as to amend the passenger pre-flight bried to discuss appropriate safety and where to shoot, should it become necessary. This was shortly after 9/11. In truth, I didn't bother to check to see if it was legit. It was pretty amusing, though.

Re:Devil's advocate

[somersault]

Meh, it's not quite the same, it's probably more fun - I wish I could try it with a few people at work.

Re:Devil's advocate

[yar]

The fair use doctrine does not have specific provisions about how long clips can be. The fair use doctrine is intentionally vague. Depending on the circumstances, the use an entire work might be a fair use, or the use of a small clip might not be.

I believe you are misjudging your audience if you think people here believe copyright should be done away with completely. I find that most people here are more in favor of significant copyright reform, but that's entirely different.

Additionally, it is not the content owner's decision whether or not a given use is fair, or whether or not a given use promotes their work- and never has been. Copyright has historically been a balance between copyright owners and the public. Ostensibly, copyright is supposed to promote creativity. While the "promotion" angle is certainly incredibly unpopular with content owners, it most certainly should be taken into account when judging a fair use- since one of the four factors is the effect on the market. It has also been the rationale for existing polices- like why terrestrial radio pays songwriters rather than performers. Of course, content owners are looking at changing that as well.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Chris Burke]

Well first the plane probably wouldn't explode, it'd probably just depressurize which could certainly kill the passengers, but probably not all of them.

Second, 911 wasn't about killing the passengers, it was about killing a lot more people by using the plane as a weapon. 9/11 would have been considered a failure had they only managed to blow up the airplanes. Look at how we see Flight 93 -- heroes who stuck it to the bad guys by foiling their plans, simply because of what could have happened instead.

Which is why I think it would be foolish to allow guns on a plane. Realistically, how many people on a plane would be carrying a gun? I wouldn't. Everyone without a gun is now an easy target for the armed terrorists. The passengers with guns would end up in a firefight with the terrorists, and that could end up either way. But terrorists armed at best with pocket knives or box cutters wouldn't be able to fend off a hundred angry passengers. So I say keep the guns off the planes.

Re:Devil's advocate

[LihTox]

Actually, when I hear the 'thumpedy-thump" of the ghetto-blasters going down my street, that makes good sense! Now instead of calling the Police, who do nothing, I'll call the MPAA and report a public performance! ;->

You beat me to it! I am now considering writing a letter to the RIAA about this. Problem is, I can't actually identify the music involved. "It sounds like 'BOOM-BOOM-BOOM-BOOM-BOOM'."

Re:Devil's advocate

[Original Replica]

The day they don't let me in because my cell phone has a camera is the day I stop going to movies.

The day bootleggers start selling a movie that was recorded with a cameraphone, is the death of bootleg video. Any decent bootleg is recorded straight from a digital source, a movie recorded from the back of a theatre, even with a tripod, isn't worth the $5 the street hawker would charge.

Re:Devil's advocate

[It'sYerMam]

At our old fashioned cinema it's £3.50 downstairs and £4 upstairs. You can turn up 5 minutes before the film starts, too!

Re:Devil's advocate

[The One and Only]

Maybe. Probably better to call it a field goal instead of a touchdown.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

I can understand zero tolerance policies. You may want to consider checking yourself into an asylum, then.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Grishnakh]

Where the heck do you live?

I live in Phoenix, Arizona (actually Chandler, basically a suburb). This metropolis of 4+ million people is full of rude assholes on the roads. This is not a friendly city by any means. The Arizona natives (people who have always lived here, who are very rare) claim this place was much more laid-back 25+ years ago, but it definitely is not now (a lot of it probably thanks to all the California refugees that moved in during the realty boom).

I don't go to the movies that often, but I do go maybe every other month, maybe a little more. I can't remember the last time someone's cellphone rang while the movie was playing, and I don't remember anyone ever talking on their phone during the movie.

If you have problems like that regularly in the theaters in your town, I shudder to think what the people there are like everywhere else in public.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

>A 20-second clip isn't a clear case of copyright infringement

Would 20 seconds of penetration not be a clear case of rape?

Re:Devil's advocate

[trolltalk.com]

"You have to be careful about attacking the theatre owner here. Theatres, to my knowledge and I am open to correction here, as part of their license to show the film open themselves up to the a possible lawsuit from the content owner/distributor/etc. if they are complicit in allowing unauthorized reproductions to me made"

So confiscating the clip and ejecting the person should be enough, since that is definitely not being complicit, but rather being proactive. Regal made a mistake with this one. The excuse "we can't educate theatre owners on what to do" is just CYA BS.

Re:Devil's advocate

[gethoht]

Yeah... they might have the right to detain you, but you have the right to run away. You can't be charged with any kind of "evasion" or "fleeing the scene" crimes unless you're directly running from a police officer, not some manager of a movie theatre or his pimply faced goons.

If you get busted doing something like this, just run away as quick as you can. By the time the police show up chances are you'll have escaped. If the police show up and start chasing you, well then you have to legally cooperate.

Re:Devil's advocate

[trolltalk.com]

"The problem with your argument is that the theater manager or whoever reported to the manager that she was recording the movie doesn't know how much she recorded or for what purpose, and it's not his job to find that out"

Actually, you're wrong. Try calling the police the next time you hear someone playing cards and jokingly saying "I'm really gonna kill you this round!" Or try reporting a murder you see on Law and Order.

"But officer, its not my job to find out if they were serious or not, or if it was real or not ..." - yeah, riiiight. This ranks right up there with charging a 5-year-old with sexual assault because they touched someone of the opposite sex while playing dodge-ball.

Re:Devil's advocate

[fishbowl]

"Last time I went to a movie it was $8.50. I went and saw transformers the other day and nearly shit myself when I heard the price."

I got tired of hearing people my grandparents' age complain about how movies used to be $0.25 (when they were $3.xx), and now you don't realize you're that same person to some kid today.

Re:Devil's advocate

[trolltalk.com]

"This law prohibits even ATTEMPTING to record a movie in a movie theater, and has no exceptions for actions that would otherwise be fair use. "

So if I'm a movie producer, I can't film any scenes that have a setting in a movie theatre?"

Alternatively, I can't explicitly allow people to film my film, say, if I'm looking to generate some buzz, and don't mind crappy reproductions floating around, since I'm making my money from product placement, etc.?

It seems that both these violate the Constitution's freedom of speech provision. Producers are no longer allowed to film certain settings, and they're also not allowed to use distribution and revenue models outside industry norms, restricting how far their products can be distributed.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Grishnakh]

Wrong.

If you're using hollow-point ammo like you're supposed to, the bullet will stop inside the first person. This is why police use hollow-point ammo, to prevent overpenetration.

There's no reason to use frangible ammo to prevent overpenetration, as hollow-point already does this. Frangible ammo's only use is that it doesn't cause as much damage to "hard targets" (vehicles, buildings, etc.).

Re:Devil's advocate

[trolltalk.com]

A 20-second clip isn't a clear case of copyright infringement

Would 20 seconds of penetration not be a clear case of rape?

Nope. Consenting adults do it all the time. It's the sexual equivalent of "fair use", I guess ... Just shows that absolute prohibitions don't work in real life.

Also, many sexual assaults don't even involve penetration ... that's the reason the crime ws changed from rape to sexual assault - because the impact on the victim can be just as bad in both cases.

Re:Devil's advocate

[fishbowl]

>In America especially...

Are you aware of the enormous appetite the Europeans have for American cinema?

Europeans preferred Hollywood films in the 1950s, just as they do now.

On the other hand, if you are lucky enough to live in a US town that has a theatre that screens European films, not only will people pay top dollar to see the films, but they will patronize a snack bar that has fine food and fine wines instead of sodas and popcorn, won't talk or even take a cell phone into the auditorium, etc.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a good point, but I think the original poster wasn't quite being realistic with the comment about the plane exploding. Shooting a hole (or a bunch of holes) in a plane at high altitude probably wouldn't bring it down. I've seen documentaries that demonstrate a plane's ability to stay under control even with a giant chunk of the fuselage blown away, and the cabin largely exposed. A few bullet holes is barely a concern by comparison.

However, I couldn't disagree more with the assertion that allowing guns on board would solve more problems than it creates. There would be shoot-outs that simply couldn't be resolved until far too many people had died. I whole-heartedly believe that more people would die each year by accidental (or intentional) gunfire in the cabin than by terrorist hijackings (which have only happened a small handful of times, in reality).

Re:Devil's advocate

[JrOldPhart]

An armed society is a polite society. - Robert A. Heinlein

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

"But there's also this little thing called "fair use", which means that you are allowed to copy small portions of a work in order to cite it -- for example, my quoting you here is fair use. You're also allowed to make backup copies for your own use, etc etc."

Neither of those examples applies here. How does "Fair use apply to a case where a person copies something specifically to allow another person to see it for free?

"If you are videotaping 20 seconds, the theater could save everyone a lot of hassle by simply shining a flashlight in your face and asking for your camcorder -- then giving it back after the movie is over."

That assumes two things : 1. The Theater KNEW that she was only taping 20 seconds. 2. That she was smart enough to learn her lesson and not use that same camera to tape another movie the next time. Neither of those things were shown in this. After all - she might have intended to tape the entire movie and just said she was only taping 20 seconds...

"Let's go back to your "stealing from a store" analogy. Do you really think it's appropriate for a judge to be the one to determine the punishment of a ten-year-old boy stealing a pack of gum? Do you really think it would be appropriate to lock him up for a year -- to even have that sentence brought up as a possibility?"

Of course not. But it is perfectly for parents to spank the child. It is not appropriate for the child to be asked nicely to please return the stick of gum and then be allowed to leave with no repercussions.

"And I'm perfectly within my rights to call your mother and tell her you're a moronic dipshit shill for the MAFIAA."
"But she should absolutely not be charged with anything, unless we make stupidity a crime -- in which case, you'd be a lifer."

I always know I'm right when the other side resorts to child like name calling.

Re:Devil's advocate

[El Gigante de Justic]

There's a big difference between filming a movie (blatantly illegal) and a joking threat. I agree with you that 5 year olds charged with sexual assault, and I suspect that this woman will get a fairly small penalty, or will likely get a plea for a lesser offense, but that doesn't preclude the managers from calling police about her committing a crime in their theater. The manager doesn't have the authority to detain her, investigate the quantity of movie she has recorded, etc; the police do have that authority.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Vellmont]

If I want to protect my property, I have that right.

I think you've really missed the point here. The OP isn't saying people don't have rights to "protect my property", he's saying that barring people from carrying in "recording equipment" is becoming increasingly impractical. You'll also note that the poster was referring to a freaking movie theater, not the damn CIA.

If movie theaters are really going to stop people from carring in a cell phone for fear the studios will lose money because someone is going to watch the movie on a crappy cell-phone shot video, they deserve to go out of business. Theaters have the right to do incredibly stupid things. That doesn't mean they should actually DO those incredibly stupid things.

As far as the larger picture, it's just plain ridiculous. If you really think someone can walk in somewhere other than the CIA/NSA/etc and cary away some big secret on their phone, you've gone insane. Companies that have these restrictions are just full of themselves and think everything they do is some big secret.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess what, f0cking Regal treats their EMPLOYEES like shit, too. i'm surprised they're still in business at ALL.
 
// -former- Regal employee
/// damn STRAIGHT i'm bitter
// posting anon for obvious rsns

Re:Devil's advocate

[JrOldPhart]

Using the Dirty Harry theme, 5 passengers put bullets around the kid, into the terrorist.
10 miss the kid because they are bad shots and were looking at the kid. Terrorist still hit.
40 miss entirely and plane loses pressure, But the pilot knows what to do, he descends and makes an emergency landing. Possible hydraulic leaks.

Still bottom line armed passengers no terrorist. Same as the unarmed passengers but a little more chance they would survive.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

>I haven't been to a theater in 20+ years and could care less.

Really? How much do you care then? If you could care less, you do care some.

If you haven't been to a theater in 20+ years, you really don't know what modern-day theatres are like.

Granted, the effort, cost, parking, and sharing space issues still exist, but if you have those, you're a really misanthropic type that people wouldn't want to hang with, anyway.

So do us all a favor and stay home. We won't miss you a bit.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

OK! You're crazy! How's that for a start?

Re:Devil's advocate

[CodeBuster]

They're just being dickheads. A 20-second clip isn't a clear case of copyright infringement, since copyright allows for short exerpts to be used without the copyright owners' permission, for example, in reviews.

This is true, but think about it from the standpoint of Regal Cinemas, they have no way of knowing, at the time that the recording is being made, how much has already been recorded (she could have started at the beginning of the film and then only been caught half-way through...if the theater said nothing then would she have recorded the rest? maybe, probably, who knows) and what it will ultimately be used for. If word gets out that a certain licensee, Regal Cinemas in this case, is lax on camcorders in their theaters then they might loose the ability to show films from the major studios (i.e. the studios cancel their contract because they are lax on recording devices) or worse the studios might go after Regal Cinemas for vicarious copyright infringement (i.e. inducing people to come and record movies by letting it slide or being generally known for not checking too carefully). There is basically no chance that a first time offender, like this girl, is going to get jail time. In fact, Regal may be gracious enough to drop the charges or recommend leniency (i.e. community service or something like that...I am not a lawyer so I don't know the exact legal procedures) since the publicity alone is enough to show their masters (i.e the MAFIAA) that they are 'tough' on camcorders and can be allowed to continue to show first run movies made by the major studios without taking the whole thing too far in the media.

The theater is a business with investors and they do not want to jeopardize their ability to continue earning income after spending many millions of dollars on theaters, equipment, concessions, etc. They aren't going to stick their necks out for just one customer in the face of a potential loss of the ability to operate as a business when the major studios jerk their license or cancel their contract to show their films, there is simply too much money at stake for that.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

That law is actually facially unconstitutional. The requirement for detention (seizure) is not suspicious. The requirement for detention is probable cause (4th Amendment). A legislature cannot pass a law that allows someone to violate the Constitution. The immunity provide there is meaningless, unless probable cause exists. In that case, common law "citizen's" arrest is already applicable and this additional law is not necessary.

Re:Devil's advocate

[CodeBuster]

That is a good point and it brings up a larger issue in our legal system of failure to reserve the criminal part of the system for acts which are truly criminal and not simply petty matters involving small (relative to say Enron, what included fraud on a massive scale and gross breach of trust / duty that elevated the whole thing to a criminal matter) amounts of money. The vast majority of copyright cases in recent years have not reached the level of criminality that we should require for a criminal proceeding and thus should be relegated to civil court where there is no jail time and only fines in proportion to damages actually caused. The only reason that copyright stands out as criminal is because MAFIAA lobbyists pushed hard for the strongest protections that they could wrangle out of congress for their industry, without regard to true justice and indeed out of a sense of malice and a desire for revenge against those whom they saw as costing them even one penny of potential revenue (real or imagined).

Re:Devil's advocate

[mikerubin]

samsung i730

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

What a bunch of fucking crap. You are trying to use a false example drawn after reading a real example of a corporation using the law to screw over a regular person. And now you want to argue we should give up our only defense against corporations using the law to screw us over? No, thanks. I will buy bullshit somewhere else. You can take your "no lawsuits for the little people" swill and drink it somewhere else. You might want to stop hanging out with Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Draek]

Not necessarily true. We had tickets to some random movie preview 10 months ago. As always, I had my phone with me as required for work (if the servers go down...). The goon at the door saw that my phone had camera capability and denied me entrance. After an extended, polite, kafkaesque conversation, my wife watched the movie while I drank coffee and read a book next door.

kinda puts things in perspective, doesn't it? I mean, you *can* umm, "steal" a book using a cellphone too, and using OCR the results will be far closer to "the real deal" than some crappy recording of this month's blockbuster off a theater, yet libraries and bookstores don't deny entrance to anyone that carries one...

Re:Devil's advocate

[shellbeach]

Let me put it this way: if these things continue, soon we'll be only allowed to hear music on earphones. Because if you listen too loud in your house and SOMEONE can hear it from the street, then you're doing a public playback of your music, and you will certainly go to jail for that! Finally, some evidence that the RIAA is a force for good!

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

Repost comment from further down in this thread by tbannist ...

"I find it particularly disturbing that people would actually say it's not fair to the theater owner to expect him to exercise his discretion on whether to prosecute someone. Yeah, it's not like we actually want people to act as thinking beings instead of little automatons with no will of their own."

The theatre, the cops, the theatre association should all get some common sense.

Re:Devil's advocate

[SanityInAnarchy]

Neither of those examples applies here. How does "Fair use apply to a case where a person copies something specifically to allow another person to see it for free?

I thought I covered that. Citation. A sufficiently small portion of a work.

When did I say I was defending copying entire movies? Whereas you are the one saying that a teenager should be punished for videotaping twenty seconds of a movie, which is entirely legal, though it may be against theater policy. But "against theater policy" really means that the most punishment she should get is banishment from that particular theater.

That assumes two things : 1. The Theater KNEW that she was only taping 20 seconds.

They know this, because they are watching. The flashlight would be in her face within twenty seconds of her starting to tape.

And if they do that on someone who really was intending to tape the whole movie, so what? I prefer to live in a society where we are not punished for intentions.

2. That she was smart enough to learn her lesson and not use that same camera to tape another movie the next time.

And so what if she does? That would be a problem to deal with then.

Of course not. But it is perfectly for parents to spank the child. It is not appropriate for the child to be asked nicely to please return the stick of gum and then be allowed to leave with no repercussions.

That is a matter for the parents to decide. It's not up to the store owner to spank the child for them.

Besides, I'd think banishment from that particular store would be a severe enough repercussion, if it comes to that. Again, with no need for police or courts.

I always know I'm right when the other side resorts to child like name calling.

With one of those quotes, you missed the point entirely. I wasn't intending to call you a name, I was using name-calling as an example of something that we all have the right to do, but shouldn't do anyway.

With the other one, you missed an entirely valid point I was making about her, and not you -- that she was being stupid, but she should not be jailed for it.

Regardless, it's a fallacy to say that just because someone's argument is flawed, that you are right. For example: "2+2=4 because Mommy said so." Well, the reasoning is entirely flawed, because Mommy could be wrong, but two plus two does, in fact, equal four.

Or we could go back to name-calling, since you seem to enjoy it -- "child-like"? You're the one posting anonymously, yet you think you have all the answers, that life is so simple and black and white, that everyone can be separated into good people and filthy pirates which must be tried in a court of law. All of which shows the emotional and intellectual maturity of a three-year-old.

Re:Devil's advocate

[shellbeach]

If all citizens were allowed to carry guns on a plane 911 would not have happened. That's true. Nothing terrorists could do could make for a worse society than the one you're envisioning ...

Re:Devil's advocate

[servognome]

And if I show your images/video/sound to a third and he goes to tell a fourth and fifth party that your images/video/sound are worth the money and they go on pay you to watch them(your images/video/sound) do I get a cut of your profit?

Who decided you should be responsible for promotion? Maybe health care companies should widely distribute your medical records so that more doctors can access them and possibly help you

Why, because we are assuming your product will gain or lose value but thats all assumption, we can't prove anything unless we have a time machine. So if your product ain't crap people will buy it.

If it is readily available to be consumed for no cost, then nobody pays. That is the problem, if you allow distribution by anybody the supply becomes infinate and the value approaches 0.

Re:Devil's advocate

[ceoyoyo]

Sure they would.

Just supposing you had someone crazy enough to decide to shoot through the kid (because realistically that's what you're going to do), that would be a pretty good demonstration of how corrupt the decadent western empire is. They shoot their own children!

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

After an extended, polite, kafkaesque conversation, my wife watched the movie while I drank coffee and read a book next door.

The day my wife lets me do that while she stays for the movie is the day she walks home.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

Only a dick would believe that this should be a criminal matter. Only a dick would immediately shoot to defcon 3 and call the cops. The theaters managers are being dicks here.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

or sent them to CVS to be developed

Actually, that's why I use SVN

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

"Zero-tolerance" is an american term invented to justify the lawyers actions.

Clearly you're not familiar with the language. Is English your second, third or next language?

The correct translation is as follows: "Zero tolerance" is american corporate/governmental slang for "My dick is so big I have to keep it slung over my shoulder as I walk down the street. I have no intention of doing anything meaningful about this situation. But I want to make it appear that my dick could become even bigger if I am challenged on this nonsense I have proposed."

My best wishes to you as you progress in your knowledge of and facility with the English language.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

Judges don't hand out sentences in Arlington County. The jury does.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Cessen]

And then comes the predictable reply

      It is worth pointing out that the predictability of a response is not grounds for dismissing it. For example, if the question, "What is 1 + 1?" were posed to a person, the obvious predictability of their response (hopefully "2") would in fact be a sign of sound reasoning. Of course, incorrect responses are often equally predictable, so it is not grounds for claiming correctness either. My point is simply that you cannot rightfully dismiss or discredit something on that basis.

Having said that, I (mostly) agree with the rest of your post. Copyright law is a useful tool for making certain industries viable. Ideally it would be good to move toward business models that don't depend on copyright. But even assuming that happens, doing so will have to be a slow process, and thus in the meantime copyright law is still necessary and should be respected within reason.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

Somehow middle america's has come to believe that sneering minority criminals (complete with bad guy sound track) are suing god fearing white people in some kind of "crazy reverse racism run amok in a world gone mad!". Zero Tolerance is nothing more than popular hysteria.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Dark_Gravity]

Not necessarily true. We had tickets to some random movie preview 10 months ago. As always, I had my phone with me as required for work (if the servers go down...). The goon at the door saw that my phone had camera capability and denied me entrance. After an extended, polite, kafkaesque conversation, my wife watched the movie while I drank coffee and read a book next door.

You need a wife that will back you up when you are confronted by assholes.A unified stance against misuse of power is more effective.

You probably should have caused a scene, and commented loudly about the rat turds in your popcorn as you meandered the lobby on your way out.

Fuck the MAFIAA!

Re:Devil's advocate

[10101001 10101001]

Many make the case that DRM is worthless, because only one person needs to break it and then the content can be freely distributed. Okay, I buy that.

Well, that's the same case here. The problem is that you can't target redistribution. What are we going to do, "shut down" BitTorrent? Impossible. You stop it at the source, which is recording in theaters, which is where the recordings made in theaters, well, come from.

I've got bad news for you. While there's certainly the small handful of people who actively seek out "cams", most people who are in the piracy scene are more interested in "screeners". And as a general rule, those are created by an inside person (ie, a projectionist, usher, etc). For those people who are willing to wait, and that's still a lot of people, DVDs become the source material. So, if your plan to stop movie piracy is to "stop it at the source", you're going to have get rid of theaters and DVDs.

Of course, I'm being facetious. The real *source* is the editors, camera operators, and everyone else who has physical access to the movie, in whole or sufficient parts to reconstruct the whole. Since there's so many people involved, even without theaters and DVDs (and God knows how multi-million productions would be produced in significant numbers without theaters and DVDs...), it's conceivable that one of those people could leak the movie as well; there's no real means to "recapture" the movie once it is on bittorent, as you point out. So, the only sure fire solution is to not make the movie in the first place. It's funny how your answer basically collapses into "copyright doesn't work de facto in a digital world, so we'll just never make copyrighted works". But if that's the case, there's no reason to have copyright; why have a law that's unenforceable?

Re:Devil's advocate

[glitch23]

It's behavior like this that is pushing people right into home theaters. Sure, it's quite an investment. But you don't have to put up with all these myriad rules and regulations that are aimed at a very few at the expense of the many. Add to this the prices of tickets and concessions and interruptions during a film, and you got a surefire recipe for waiting and picking up a DVD that more than likely has an unrated cut. So why go to the theaters at all? At this point, On Demand cable has more perks than theaters do.

I go to the theater now to watch TV commercials. But seriously, I am boycotting Carmike and Hollywood Theaters (the 2 chains around here in WV) because of their policy of having 15 min of movie previews (not so bad but 15 min is a bit much) and now 15 min of commercials. I emailed both of them to let them know I'm boycotting them until their policy changes and received responses back from the VP of marketing of Hollywood and Director of Advertising of Carmike. The woman from Carmike said this in response to my email:

I handle the movie previews and I agree, they can be a bit too long. Im in the middle of a campaign to make Hollywood produce shorter previews. Some of them are while others are not. We are required to show a certain amount of previews before the features since we play their movies, but Carmike has limits. We try and only show no more than 6 previews per film. Depending on the runtimes of each preview, it usually runs in the neighborhood of 10-12 minutes. I'm hoping everyone in Hollywood agrees with me and the customers and start creating shorter previews.

The woman from Hollywood Theaters basically avoided everything I said about the length of previews and ticket cost and only commented on the commercials by stating:

Thank you very much for your message. We appreciate customers taking the time to give us feedback and appreciate your comments.

We are currently looking into a different style of pre-feature advertisement that is more entertaining, interactive and less "commercial" like. I do hope that you will give our theater company another chance when this change occurs.

I'm just glad I got responses from them. I can't wait til I get a house and have a home theater setup (3-6 months away).

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

-- "Most" is insufficient to define your case. --

I never tried to fully define it."Most any", "strong indicator" and even "dickheadery" are purposefully vague terms. (In case you hadn't noticed, natural languages are often inexact.)

This question answers itself. The bozo whose sentence contains the phrase "is insufficient" is most clearly himself resorting to substantial amounts of dickheadery.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

I own a theatre.

Sure you do.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Draek]

"innocent until proven guilty" is a good policy outside of the courts too, you know.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

This can be decided in court, since Americans love to use the legal system to bankrupt their citizens due to the endless payroll of corporate America.

What she did is wrong, yeah. It was stupid to do it. So, give her a fine... whatever. Charging her with a felony is pretty lame. It bet this came from the same people who want to lock someone up for stealing three chocolate bars on three occassions because it's a trend. OooOoooOoooo

Thumbs up America - you take a simple issue of someone being an idiot and smash them into the ground with your overbearing legal system. Awwwweeeesoooommmee!

Have a great one!

Re:Devil's advocate

[Piazzola]

Except for the inability to receive/send vital phone calls (911, firefighter or doctor's cell, etc)?

Re:Devil's advocate

[kumanopuusan]

$8.75/person? I just went to the theater the other day and it was about that... since the price was nearly half off for a special they run on the first day of the month. It normally costs 1800 yen ($15.25) at the theater I went to. For premier movies, it costs 3000 yen ($25) per ticket. I wasn't expecting the discount and my date paid for herself, so it was really cheap.

I must be insane to ask on slashdot, but is it the kiss of death when your date insists on splitting the bill? Maybe it's more the friendly handshake of death than the kiss of death. :-(

Re:Devil's advocate

[Walkingshark]

What I suspect they might start doing is having a "checkin" system for phones, just like they do for coats at some places in the north. For a premium, they might even offer a service where if your phone rings, they'll beep one of those flashy vibrating coasters they give you at resturaunts when you're waiting so you can come check and see who it is. This has the added benefit of getting people off the fucking phone while they're watching the movie.

With the new RF blocking paint I've been reading about (sorry for no link, too lazy, use google or something), they could even turn the theaters into a big farraday cage and make it so you simply CAN'T talk on the phone while in the movie. I'd love to see something like that.

Re:Devil's advocate

[CCFreak2K]

I actually went to see the Transformers movie (I dislike most movies that show in theaters; I was dragged along by someone else), and I managed to get in, complete with my cell phone in the holster on my left, digital camera in my right holster, and a black backpack on my back with a laptop. None of the employees said anything about any of those. It wasn't exactly a big city theater, though, although it wasn't a small town theater either (I've been to both types).

I guess, as they say, your mileage may vary.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Walkingshark]

I find that most teenyboppers (the ones usually doing this) respond promptly to a quick, "How about you shut the fuck up?" I usually try, "Please stop talking, I'm trying to watch the movie," first, but when it comes down to it I just want them to stop making noise.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Walkingshark]

Thing is, the jury would have instructions from the judge to determine guilt based on the facts and the law as written. Ignorance is not a defense to prosecution. Even when the ignorance is widespread.

Re:Devil's advocate

[n00854180t]

Frankly, I think the penalties aren't harsh *enough*. Recording a 20 second clip of a movie should be punishable by the death penalty and seizure of all of the offender's relatives' assets. Hell, why not give them the death penalty too!? I mean, they had the bad sense to be *related* to a terrorist movie stealer!

Re:Devil's advocate

[wazza]

Although, as it happens, anyone who deals with RF physics will generally know Fourier's work (or at least it's practical application) intimately... still, you're right, close - but no cigar. :>

Re:Devil's Advocate

[tftp]

You could also ask why women talk to each other seemingly endlessly, pointlessly and about nothing.

Re:Devil's advocate

[photomonkey]

Yeah, I hear ya.

Where I'm at in Arizona, we pay right around nine bucks per ticket for a movie. For my wife and I to go see a flick, the cheapest we can do it is $18 (not including gas). Snacks, etc. can easily double that price.

For that 18 bucks, we too get 15-30 minutes of ads, not to mention whatever products are whored in the movie itself.

For those same 18 bucks, we also get to hear cellphones ringing, kids making jokes, children to young for the theater crying, inane comments and questions from the poor bastards guarding the door of the theater and so on and so forth.

At this point, I do not go to the theater anymore, and my wife might go 2-3 times a year with one of her friends.

For $18 I can BUY the movie on DVD, watch it on my big nice TV, in my big quiet living room, and on that environment, pants are optional. If the movie turns out to be shite, I can take it to one of the many videogame or used bookstores in town and unload it for about half of what I paid. If it's a good flick, then I'll watch it again or loan it out to friends or whatever. No commercials, no crying kids, no ridiculous mark-ups, no drive to the theater, no nothing.

So remind me again: What is so great about the movies these days that people are willing to shell out a very high fee for essentially a single-viewing license? Where I'm at, the theaters themselves are enough to keep me away, but beyond that I am consistently disappointed with the Mad Libs that become movies today.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when is it okay for me to detain someone who MIGHT have committed a non-violent crime?

I don't kow about where you live, but essentially the same crap is posted on a large plaque as you enter the San Bruno, CA public library entrance. "Detained by a librarian", fer chrissakes. Wanna guess how much fermented cat piss would end up randomly sprayed over their collection during the following year?

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

the theater would have taken her camera

The day some theater jerkoff tries to take possession of my camera, the final footage will be of his colon, about two feet inboard of his asshole.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Simulant]

1.) Have recording in theaters be completely legal, or I'd take this over the current alternative. It seems to me that the majority of people who would be satisfied with a cam version of a movie would be unlikely to pay to see the movie in the first place. Or, if they're die hard fans who just want the first convenient peak, they'd be highly likely to pay and see a HQ version of the movie again, when they have the opportunity. With the exception of some cartoons, most cam versions are pretty unwatchable, IMO.

In any case, large theaters are rapidly turning into a niche market as home theater setups increase in size, quality, and ubiquity. At some point, movies will need be simultaneously released in all formats and the chips will fall where they may.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Killjoy_NL]

Heh many years ago 2 friends and I ducked school to see Wayne's World 2 in the theatre, we were the only three ppl there. during the intermission, I was the only one to get a snack and when I came back the guy followed me to ask if it was ok to cut the intermission short.

That was cool :)

Re:Devil's advocate

[memprime]

So it's ok for police to carry camera phones to take pictures of crime scenes, but if a bystander does the same thing it is a punishable offense (beat up by police, arrested and charged with felony, etc.)?

Re:Devil's advocate

[Ihlosi]

Total outcome: Hassle for everyone and shitload of money lost all around.

You forgot the lawyers.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Anonymous Coward]

That any and all audio or video recording equipment, or any device with such capabilities, including phones, PDAs, etc., were strictly prohibited.

Check your guns at the city limits.
What difference is there?

Except that the saloon owner doesn't get to decide to put ya in jail.
They call the sheriff and he decides whether to collect your guns or ride your ass into the crossbar hotel. It is up to law enforcement to decide whether a crime has been committed not corporations/saloon owners.

If you or I were to enter into an agreement as you could "borrow" a tool of mine and use it as long as you needed it. Then could I turnaround and charge you for theft of my property if I thought you had abused that tool and kept it for longer than I had anticipated?

Zero tolerance is going to be the fall of us all. We create rules with no wiggle room, i.e. common sense and fair play are excluded from our rules so we wonder why "crime" is skyrocketing.

Re:Devil's advocate

[shilly]

But the same cannot be said for nation-states. The US, after all, is ahead of most other countries in terms of gun deaths and has more liberal gun laws than most. The Swiss are an exception to this.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Cathbard]

Searching your customers? wtf? When did that become acceptable? This is a movie theater ffs. It's bad enough when police demand to search your person, let alone a private citizen. Where are we heading? What's next - cavity searches by restaurant waiters to make sure you haven't concealed a bottle of wine in your ass?

Re:Devil's advocate

[somersault]

It is very obviously illegal, at least in the UK, considering all the "Federation Against Copyright Theft" notices they show before the movies..

Re:Devil's advocate

[somersault]

It was stupid in that it was something that she *knew* shouldn't be in there. I'm not saying it posed the same danger, but it posed the same kind of risk of being caught and fined for it. In our cinemas they clearly state that you are not allowed to use any kind of recording equipment and you may face an "unlimited fine".

Re:Devil's advocate

[Isotopian]

Yes, Faraday cage was what I was thinking of. Teach me to not look up my references.

/shrug

Re:Devil's advocate

[luther349]

dont knoe who that goon was. but it says cell phones must be turned off when entering a movie. it doesent say there not allowed at least the one hear. most phones these days not only have recording abiltys but have enough memery to record a entire flick.

Re:Devil's advocate

[mpe]

The nice thing about civil court is that even if found guilty, the punishment can be adjusted to suit the crime. EG: "Yeah we think she was guilty and we award the defendat $1.00 and all copies of the video."

The same can happen in a criminal court. With someone being sentenced to "time served".

Re:Devil's advocate

[mpe]

What? Why would she be charged with theft? Did she take anyone's material goods? She did nothing even remotely similar to theft.

If anything she has more claim to be the victim of theft. Unless her ticket was refunded and the camcorder returned.

Re:Devil's advocate

[mpe]

The only reason that copyright stands out as criminal is because MAFIAA lobbyists pushed hard for the strongest protections that they could wrangle out of congress for their industry, without regard to true justice and indeed out of a sense of malice and a desire for revenge against those whom they saw as costing them even one penny of potential revenue (real or imagined).

It's also cheaper for their members to have copyright be criminal. Another factor is that criminal law tends to be of little use where the perpetrator is a corporation. It's not like you can call the cops and have them haul away Sony Records, the MPAA or even SCO.

Re:Devil's advocate

[mpe]

Would that be just like the public outcry over Dmitry Sklyarov resulted in his swift and speedy release?

He wasn't American and female...

Re:Devil's advocate

[the not-troll]

What you want to say is that you endorse zero tolerance policies. That's something different than understanding it - because you don't understand it, for if you did you'd know why they're bad. It's pretty much the same as with e.g. DRM: There are some people copying "IP", so we get a "zero tolerance policy" by getting it all DRM'd - with the result that it is easier to abuse than to use correctly: you can download cracked versions via P2P, but can't get the legally purchased version to play on your systems. All zero tolerance policies err on the side of making as much errors as possible, letting those through who should be stopped and stopping those who should be let through.

When you say "especially in the US where we all think we are owed something" what you mean is that you want others to stop asking for what they need so you can get what you lust for. At least is that the attitude I see in USians: crying for less social security because you don't want anyone have the right to live unless they took it from others (in form of money) - not seeing that if you are upper middle class or less, you're making yourself vulnerable to the random tides of life, without anyone to help you should you need it, because you demanded that nobody should be helped, because you wanted to keep "your" money.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Wizdumb]

The truth is that many people set rules to keep from making decisions. -- Mike Krzyzewski

I think this applies wonderfully, and more often than not.

Re:Devil's advocate

[jedi_gras]

The goon at the door saw that my phone had camera capability and denied me entrance. Are you serious? If that's the approach they're going to take, pretty soon they'll be showing their movies to empty theaters. Most phones have video recording capabilities these days. And people aren't going to leave their phone at home (perhaps the movies isn't the only place you're going while you're out) and I for one am not going to leave an expensive phone in my car since, if that's the policy, thieves are going to know that cars outside theaters are target-rich environments for cell phones.

I've always seen the warnings that video recording devices aren't allowed and wondered WTF given the cell phones we have these days. It's a lost cause, really.

The day they don't let me in because my cell phone has a camera is the day I stop going to movies.

Nah, they can always show the movies to those few hundred thousand folks who bought the iPhone since it doesn't record video! *oh snap* lol

Re:Devil's advocate

[geoffspear]

No, they wouldn't. The word "steal" simply doesn't mean in English what the OP and many people on Slashdot think it means. Calling someone's copyright infringement "stealing" would not be libel because it's true.

Re:Devil's advocate

[compro01]

I've actually seen that kind of thing happen in a company that shall remain nameless. due to a twisted bureaucracy, the other guys weren't allowed to reboot the damn machine and they had to get the sysadmin out of bed to come in and hit the damn button.

Re:Devil's advocate

[makomk]

If TFA is correct, it wasn't actually a video camera - it was a ordinary digital camera that probably couldn't record for more than 20 seconds or so at a time anyway. Also, she didn't start recording anywhere near the beginning of the movie.

Re:Devil's advocate

[aug24]

Absolutely. In fact, it's just like going to the flicks in my house, because we put the DVD on, then wander around talking and getting drinks and snacks ready till the fucking annoying adverts and shorts telling me not to 'steal a movie' have finished.

After that, of course, we get to watch the flick without some git talking six rows behind me.

Justin.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Sobrique]

I'd much prefer if I _wasn't_ on call, believe me. Despite the extra pay for being on call, I would _MUCH_ rather not be doing it.

However, the sad fact remains - it's a requirement of my continued employment. Now, I could always go look for another job (and I have considered it) but sadly unless I go quite a distance from my area of expertise and professional focus, I end up with somewhere else that _also_ does 'on call'.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Sobrique]

You have cheap films. I think I paid £7.5 last time I went to see a film. Which is (at the current exchange rate) about $15.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Sobrique]

After that, of course, we get to watch the flick without some git talking six rows behind me.

Or at least if they do, you don't get thrown out for throwing your drink over them :)

Re:Devil's advocate

[Sobrique]

Hmm, the thought occurs though, that this could be an interesting tack to take. Pirated film 'honesty box' where you donate a 'fair price' when you've watched a pirated film.

Don't necessarily see why anonimity is necessary either (although, I guess it does set you up as a target - watched pirate film, even if paid for, means must be an evil pirating scum)

Re:Devil's advocate

[Sobrique]

I loved being a projectionist at student cinema for exactly these reasons. We had the films, in cans, in the projector room. So, 'private ish' screening happened for other people in the know. It really was lovely to have a whole auditorium to yourself on a saturday afternoon, drinkin' beer and watching that film you wanted to. And 'pausing' it if you need to go get a replacement.

. Well, 'pause' isn't really an option, but you can stop the projector and miss a 'little bit', or if you're doing it the hard way and changing reels every 20 minutes, you just stop there...

And our projection standards were better than most commercial cinemas. Ugh, the number of times I've seen sloppy job of projection work, and I _know_ I can do it better than that. (seriously, is it really that hard to get the damn things in focus? Wait, no it's not, you just have to bother to do it).

Only student society that actually turned a profit too. Showing 'good but not brand new' films on 7 shows a week (weekday evenings, sometimes double shows, sometimes not) at 'student' pricing did quite well. At least, well enough that our toys were good enough to make the cinema junkies in the group drool.

Ah bliss. Home Cinema? Pah. Nothing beats the 40ft screen, and 'auditorium filling' sound system, when you get to control playback, films and volume yourself.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Sobrique]

I'm pretty sure that mobiles contain some kind of documentation in the manual that more or less says 'don't rely on these in an emergency'. The reason being? Well, the phones themselves, have potential reception problems. They rely on batteries. The base stations are also going to lose power in a powercut, where a telephone line is powered from the exchange (which I believe has certain rules on being able to carry emergency calls in an emergency, so has everything on backed up power).

Re:Devil's advocate

[Knara]

FFIW, I show up late to movies just to miss the stuff they play before them (assuming I go to movies at all), and many people talk through the "pre-movie" stuff, go to the can, get food, etc.

And you comment doesn't really address whether it should be illegal or not, just the fact that movie theaters believe it should be illegal (and this particular chain feels it should be harshly enforced).

Re:Devil's advocate

[HexaByte]

Well, you're wrong on several points. One, it's not just the CIA/NSA/DIA that restrict camera phones. It's a LOT of govt IT shops, and even some non IT areas. Of course not public areas. They try to keep the secrets out of the public areas!

Two, "Companies that have these restrictions are just full of themselves and think everything they do is some big secret." It's obvious that you don't have any respect for the R&D efforts of various companies. Companies spend billions to create new methods to produce better, faster and cheaper results, and need to protect themselves from the competition.

Third, There is legal precedence that if you selectively enforce a rule, you lose the power to enforce it at all. I they allow people to record on "a crappy cell phone", then try to enforce a no recording on camcorders rule (which WAS what was used here, after all) the courts may say that you can't discriminate, and you lose the right to protect your property.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Killjoy_NL]

Sounds like fun :D

Re:Devil's advocate

[somersault]

At our local cinemas, they run the FACT advert *right* before the certification screen.

Not that the movie theatre thinks it should be illegal.. over here it *is* illegal, and it obviously is in the US too or they wouldn't have called the cops. I think it's reasonable that you shouldn't be allowed to record a movie, as it is obviously breaking copyright.. if you don't agree with copyright then that's a whole different matter though.

Re:Devil's advocate

[fwarren]

And most people would be wrong, because it's actually "copyright infringement" instead.

Do you think most people think it is "copyright infringement", or stealing. I wish we would move toward a world where people did see it that way. It is much more likely that this type of behavior will be legalized, and thus not be "stealing".

Re:Devil's advocate

[Knara]

Whether or not it's illegal doesn't necessarily imply that a given party in question thinks it should be legal, which is the point I was trying to get at, there.

In the US, at least in my area, they put the "you wouldn't steal " stuff in the middle of the 1/2 hour of commercials at the beginning. Last I went to a movie, that is.

Well, this girl, as far as we all know at this point, wasn't copying the whole movie. As Lessig found out, you don't even need to copy something with market value, you just have to copy something that gets a knee-jerk reaction going (in the case of Lessig, it was copying the bit that says not to copy!).

I'm firmly of the belief that the theater owner was being a hardass because he/she could be, and I'm also betting that the officers who showed up really had something better to do than deal with a kid who made a short clip of a movie.

And yes, I do think the current DMCA-slathered copyright setup is braindead. Why do you ask?

Re:Devil's advocate

[mscir]

To me her 20 sec clip sounds like an advertisement... if her brother liked the clip he may have gone to see the movie. I wonder how her brother feels about frequenting movie theaters now?

Re:Devil's advocate

[somersault]

I don't know about the Lessig case (though the name sounds familiar). I have been tempted to take a photo of that particular screen before :D We get the FACT one, and another crappy advert during the earlier adverts like you say (strangely, the sound quality on these ads is always pretty poor, and they include stupid arguments like "on poor quality downloads, you can see people getting up to go to the toilet", when you get that in the real cinema too).

Again, the issue isn't whether anyone agrees with the copyright, it's the fact that this was obviously illegal, she did it, and she's facing repercussions. They should basically just be a slap on the wrist for a 20 second clip, but you can't go somewhere, do something you know is illegal, and expect everything to be okay. Hmm, wikipedia says that DMCA is US only, I guess we just use common sense over here. I don't see why having a recording on digital media should be any different to having it on analog media, other than it is easier to distribute digital copies..

Re:Devil's advocate

[trolltalk.com]

"he manager doesn't have the authority to detain her, investigate the quantity of movie she has recorded, etc;"

Any reasonable human being would have just asked, heard the explanation, explained the law, and asked her if she would cooperate by deleting the clip. If so, then let her back in the movie ... and she'd then go and tell all her friends that, while they could have been assholes, they ewren't so bad about it.

Instead, they come off as total jerks who are more interested in playing gestapo film nazis than in resolving the issue in a way that serves everyone's best interest (including the MPAA, btw).

They're still dickheads (NSA - Not Safe Anywhere) .

Re:Devil's advocate

[trolltalk.com]

"think about it from the standpoint of Regal Cinemas, they have no way of knowing, at the time that the recording is being made, how much has already been recorded"

All they had to do was explain the law, then ask the owner if they could kindly cooperate and delete the stuff ... not make a federal case out of it! This would have met the needs of the copyright holders, as well as gotten out the message that (1) its a no-no, and (2) not everyone who wants to see copyright enforced in a particular way is a total asshole. They're ID-10-Ts.

Its the same as showing those stupid "you wouldn't steal a car" clips they show - "HEY ASSHOLES, IF I'M IN YOUR THEATRE WATCHING THE MOVIE, DON'T ACCUSE ME OF BEING A CROOK!!!" Insulting your customers ethics and intelligence will just drive them away.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Vellmont]

Well, you're wrong on several points. One, it's not just the CIA/NSA/DIA that restrict camera phones. It's a LOT of govt IT shops, and even some non IT areas.

You misunderstand. I'm simply saying that anyone outside of the intelligence community is simply being paranoid.

  It's obvious that you don't have any respect for the R&D efforts of various companies. Companies spend billions to create new methods to produce better, faster and cheaper results, and need to protect themselves from the competition.

No, I just don't buy the argument that you can walk away with some huge secret that you can get with a cell phone camera, or even if you could that this policy is going to stop that. If the information is that sensitive, why the hell are you allowing access to the place where it's kept anyway? Do you really think someone who's really doing corporate espionage isn't going to just get a device with a camera in it that doesn't look like it has a camera in it?

Policies like this are really more about a CYA approach to the problem, rather than actual security.

Third, There is legal precedence that if you selectively enforce a rule, you lose the power to enforce it at all

Right. That's why speeding, drug possession, shoplifting and just about every law are un-enforceable because they're enforced selectively. This is demonstratively false given anyones day-to-day experience.

Re:Devil's advocate

[CodeBuster]

All they had to do was explain the law, then ask the owner if they could kindly cooperate and delete the stuff ... not make a federal case out of it

If the movie studios who lease the movies that theater shows agrees then I am sure that the theater would be amenable to that policy. The theater is as much a pawn in the whole game as the patron with the camcorder. The movie studio is the hand that feeds the theater and the theater will do almost anything to make the studios happy because if they don't and the studio refuses to lease them movies in the future then the theater is out of business.

Its the same as showing those stupid "you wouldn't steal a car" clips they show - "HEY ASSHOLES, IF I'M IN YOUR THEATRE WATCHING THE MOVIE, DON'T ACCUSE ME OF BEING A CROOK!!!" Insulting your customers ethics and intelligence will just drive them away.

Again, the theater has no choice they have to show the lame anti-piracy clip before all of their films because the studios or their distributers, agents, etc require that they show it in the contract signed by the theater. Does it piss of some theater goers? Probably. Is it better than having your contract to show movies canceled and being forced out of business? Definitely.

The theater business is highly competitive and margins are low so they cannot afford to risk alienating the studios. They have no pricing power, very little bargaining power, and no recourse against the studios. The truth be known they probably dislike the studios as much as their patrons (i.e. the studios having been knocking them dead for years by taking 98%+ of all of the box office receipts...that is why popcorn and soda cost $10 at the theater since they have to make up most of their revenue from the concessions).

Re:Devil's advocate

[trolltalk.com]

Its a 2-2ay street - the big chains have a lot of leverage. Without the theatres, what are the studios going to do - release verything direct-to-dvd?

And yes, the theatres DO have an option - contracts that contain clauses that are contrary to public policy or unconscionable are open to all sorts of remedies. As you point out, the studios are exerting enormous power, and forcing theatres into deals that no peopel bargaining from a position of equality would ever agree to.

All it takes is for one of the big chains to say "showing these anti-piracy clips is insulting to our clients, and we're not going to do it any more. That clause in unconscionable, and we're prepared to go to court and get an injunction prohibiting you from stopping distribution of your films to our chain while the courts settle the matter .... and we're also suing you for damaged good-will with our customers".

The studios understand lawsuits.

Re:Devil's advocate

[CodeBuster]

Litigation is expensive and always risky. You might not go to theater anymore because of the treatment you get, but most of their customers don't complain or care enough to stop going to the theater over annoyances like this (i.e. the grumble and complain to their friends, but that doesn't stop them from buying admission and over priced snacks in spite of it all). The theater is a business...it will not take a risk that it does not have to. The goal of a business is to maximize profit and any considerations like "good customer service", "corporate consciousness", "mission statements", and yes litigation are all subordinate to that goal. If the risk of litigation and the potential loss are not outweighed by the potential award and the side benefit of maybe getting a few customers back who chose not to buy tickets because of the anti-piracy clips then the theaters will simply continue showing the anti-piracy clips because that is what earns them the best return with the least amount of risk. Simply put, the few of us out there who choose not to go to the theater on principle are statistically insignificant to the theater...just a rounding error on their balance sheets.

Re:Devil's advocate

[trolltalk.com]

Well, considering that the theatre is not the police, she should have exercised her legal rights and walked out - and when they illegally try to detain her, record it; the minute they lay a finger on her, she has the right to scream assault. A few lawsuits like that, and they'll change their policy.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Scudsucker]

You can get more with a kind word and a gun than with a kind word alone. Al Capone.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Scudsucker]

Pardon me, but your ignorance is showing.

So is your bias. Police officers have extensive training in the use of firearms and in responding to violent situations, and yet make deadly mistakes: Diallo in New York and Menezes in the UK, to name some of the more egregious cases. Civilians don't have that training or experience and will make far more mistakes that end up costing far more innocent lives. After the Virginia Tech shooting, there was hand wringing about gun control on one side, and on the other were hardcore gun advocates blaming the number of deaths on the fact that students weren't allowed to carry guns on campus. Lets say there were hundreds of gun carrying students and faculty on the day Mr. Cho went on his rampage, and word got out that the shooter was an asian kid with a backpack. How many asian kids with backpacks are there at a school of 27,000? How many of those would have gotten shot at? What if some of those asian kids with backpacks also carried guns and started shooting back?

Or how about that xenophobe that had some Muslims thrown off a plane because he thought their praying was a sign of a terrorist attack. Instead of being reported, they could gotten shot instead.

This does not result in people pulling guns for every minor slight against them. In fact, the opposite correlation is seen: states with more permissive gun laws have less violent crime.

And draconian drug laws were supposed to stop the use and sale of drugs, and yet we send hundreds of thousands to people to jail every year. Crime rates have far more to do with the economy and the war on drugs than with the number of people carrying firearms.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Scudsucker]

Wrong.

If you're using hollow-point ammo like you're supposed to, the bullet will stop inside the first person.

And if they aren't using hollow points? The parent is not wrong. You, however, definitely are a dick.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Grishnakh]

No, you're a moron.

If you're using non-hollow-point ammo, you're an idiot who has no business with a gun. That's not being a dick, that's a simple fact that relates to basic competence.

FMJ ammo is just for range practice, and military use.

Re:Devil's advocate

[CodeBuster]

Of course they would let her walk out, you are right, they are not the police. But remember that they did not approach her until the police officer was already accompanying the theater employees into the theater (i.e. she didn't know that she had even been spotted until they all approached her seat together). She may not have been recording anymore at that point, but the police officer is the one who does all of the policing. You don't really think that theater employees would do anything physical do you? However, neither would they do anything that might tip off the target prior to the arrival of the police, otherwise the target would simply leave as soon as they realized that they had been spotted. The theater probably has a policy or procedure regarding this sort of thing. Maybe it is their policy to confront the target and ask them to leave first (thereby allowing them an opportunity to do so). All that matters to the theaters, so long as the patron has a ticket and is not being disruptive, is that the studios are satisfied with the policy and that they (the theater chain) has covered their butts legally (nobody wants to be left without a chair when the music stops).

Another reason could be payoffs offered by the MAFIAA to theater employees. Another poster in this discussion mentioned that when he worked for a theater chain (not Regal) there was a poster in the break room advertising $1000 for a sworn statement that leads to a conviction following the arrest of patrons recording the movies. I don't know if that is true, but I wouldn't put it past the MAFIAA. It is not the theaters that you should be angry at, its the MAFIAA and the studios who are ultimately dictating the policies and the laws who are to blame.

Re:Devil's advocate

[trolltalk.com]

I agree with you about the MDFIAA.

"Another poster in this discussion mentioned that when he worked for a theater chain (not Regal) there was a poster in the break room advertising $1000 for a sworn statement that leads to a conviction following the arrest of patrons recording the movies."

If this is true, it can be used to impeach the credibility of any witness, as they certainly have a motivation to "exaggerate" or outright lie. They're already not partial, being employees of the theatre ... so people in that situation should

1. erase the clip, then start recording everything going on around them - the cops, etc. They are under no obligation to present a defense, and with witnesses with a clear bias, and no hard evidence, no conviction.
2. (something with pants ???)
3. Counter-sue. PROFIT!!!

Re:Devil's advocate

[CodeBuster]

If this is true, it can be used to impeach the credibility of any witness

Perhaps, but if there is any corroborating evidence then it really doesn't matter much whether the motives of the witness were questionable or not (that is why the Feds use informants who are obviously getting something out of testifying...because it doesn't matter in the face of corroborating evidence). Also, remember that the law that is being invoked here by the studios is a new one that makes it a crime to bring a recording device into the theater regardless of whether or not you used it to record anything or even intended to. This is another DMCA style law which has no safe harbors and makes (or tries to) the act which it is punishing unlawful no matter what the extenuating circumstances are or were. It might be possible to argue that the law is unconstitutional because it has no relation to whether copyright was actually infringed (meaning that they can only ask you to leave the theater or have the police remove you for breaking "the rules" on their private property, but not the law). However, who has the money and the time to fight that one out in court?

Re:Devil's advocate

[MoneyT]

I agree that zero tolerance is a load of crap, but it's the safest route from a business perspective. And this isn't some irrational fear. As a coincidental example, today, myself and my employees were all charged with racial discrimination because we enforced and stuck to our policy on identification acceptance. A policy which has been standing the same for 5 years, and a policy which the accuser admited to running into before. Despite the fact that the policy is enforced equally, all the time, every time, we were accused of being racist simply because we were of one race, and accuser was of another and she wasn't getting her way. And unfortunately, this happens with far more frequency than you would think. I don't speak from nameless irrational fear, I speak from direct experience of being accused on a basis that is too frequent for comfort.

Re:Devil's advocate

[ozphx]

For $18 I can BUY the movie on DVD, watch it on my big nice TV, in my big quiet living room, and on that environment, pants are optional.

You mean you can put it in and be forced to watch 5 mins of anti-piracy propoganda, and for some kids movies, trailers for other fucking DVDs?

The bit-torrent edition is better again - it is the ONLY place where you can get the movie and watch it with no BS. Well, unless its lesbian porn instead of Transformers, which is still a win in my book. Pants optional.

Course it might be TRANSformers... which may count as a loss. YMMV.

(In all seriousness I rent from the Blockbuster around the corner. $2.50 overnight DVDs. The dont-copy shit pisses me off, but I can live with it.)

Re:Devil's advocate

[PresidentEnder]

He did mention that he'd only been to one movie that year.

Re:Devil's advocate

[Brad Eleven]

Well put. I hadn't thought of this at all; I fell right into the language trap.

I notice a fair amount of this coming out of the US Feds lately, e.g., Commander-in-Chief as someone in charge of all citizens, or using the military term "General" to refer to the Attorney General.

Yeah. Thanks, really. What a wakeup call--only, I don't like what I've woken up to. Still, it's far, far better to be awake than asleep and dreaming.

Re:Devil's advocate

[digitaldirector]

As someone who makes a living with creative content I can appreciate enforcing Anti-Piracy laws. But this goes too far. The focus of AP laws used to be to catch those who *distribute copyrighted product for profit*. As the theater patron said, she was going to share that 20 second clip with her family member. This may or may not be true but we can't start locking people up for *possible intent to distribute* copyrighted material.

In case of Anti-Piracy I feel there should be no punishment until an actual crime has been committed. Punishing POTENTIAL INTENT is not justice.

Re:Devil's advocate

[trolltalk.com]

"a crime to bring a recording device into the theater regardless of whether or not you used it to record anything or even intended to"

They're going to have a hard time with this, since almost all cell phones sold nowadays are also "recording devices." Come to think of it, so are my eyeballs and brain.

And ipods, mp3 players, etc. Heck, even a PENCIL is a "recording device".

(sigh) what a mess ...

Re:Devil's advocate

[amper]

The point of Section 2 is that should some harm to the detainee occur as a result of the detention (I'm not talking physical harm here, but things like financial harm from missing an appointment/plane/etc, or some such), then the detainor cannot be held liable.

Re:Devil's advocate

[alienw]

The copyright owner can permit filming -- the law prohibits unauthorized filming. However, it does not takes into account fair use considerations, only the permission of the copyright owner.

Here's an excerpt from the text itself:

``(a) Offense.--Any person who, without the authorization of the
copyright owner, 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, from a
performance of such work in a motion picture exhibition facility,
shall--
                        ``(1) be imprisoned for not more than 3 years, fined under
                this title, or both; or
                        ``(2) if the offense is a second or subsequent offense, be
                imprisoned for no more than 6 years, fined under this title, or
                both.

The possession by a person of an audiovisual recording device in a
motion picture exhibition facility may be considered as evidence in any
proceeding to determine whether that person committed an offense under
this subsection, but shall not, by itself, be sufficient to support a
conviction of that person for such offense.

Yeah right.

[Teddy Beartuzzi]

It was probably the first 20 seconds, then they got caught. :)

Re:Yeah right.

[mdrisser]

Considering the response time of police departments, I seriously doubt 'It was probably the first 20 seconds, then they got caught' Even if the response was immediate, it would probably have taken them at least 5 minutes to get there, travel time, making their way through the theater, finding the people, etc.

I don't understand the thinking...

[Raineer]

Why aren't these looked at on a case by case basis... I guarantee this prosecution will result in Regal Cinemas losing much more than the $2,500 if they win. Again, just another example where blindless due to greed creates the desire to sue your customers.

Re:I don't understand the thinking...

[plague3106]

My problem with what they did though is that if they wanted to show him a piece of the movie, why not grab the movie trailer off the internet? There is no reason to record a movie while you're watching it in a theater.

How does the theater know they were only planning to record a bit of the film? How do they know they weren't trying to film the whole movie?

If they win, nothing will happen. Most people see how stupid someone is for using a camcorder in a movie theater.

Re:I don't understand the thinking...

[MontyApollo]

She still gets her day in court, and a judge and/or jury will determine the punishment. She will probably get a slap on the wrist.

Re:I don't understand the thinking...

[brunascle]

My problem with what they did though is that if they wanted to show him a piece of the movie, why not grab the movie trailer off the internet?

because that wouldnt involve the fun camcorder. it sounds like the girl was recording the movie more to show off the camcorder to her little brother than the movie.

Re:I don't understand the thinking...

[norminator]

There is no reason to record a movie while you're watching it in a theater.
That's true, but this still could have been handled with much more discretion. The theater manager could have juse pulled the girl into his office and talked to her before deciding whether or not to call the police. He could have asked to see exactly what she taped, then deleted the offending scene from the tape, kick her out of the theater for the day, or for life, whatever. Even threaten to call the cops if it happens a second time. She would have learned her lesson, and told her friends, and now they would all know how serious it could have been. But getting the cops involved over something so small? Would a grocery store manager call the cops because a 10 year-old helps himself to a sample from the bulk food bin?

The GPP is right, this is just going to cost the theater more money than they would ever win in court, and cost the girl and her family money that will just go to lawyers and court costs.

Re:I don't understand the thinking...

[Knara]

While I agree with what you said, also realize that chances are high that the theater manager has an IQ of around 40 and regards the theater as his/her realm of power (likely the only place in his life where they have any power at all), so blindly enforcing the rules not only feels good to them, but since they have no real job skills to begin with, it keeps them from getting fired and having to start over at McDonalds flipping burgers and not understanding the Spanish being spoken by their coworkers.

Re:I don't understand the thinking...

[Penguinisto]

She still gets her day in court, and a judge and/or jury will determine the punishment. She will probably get a slap on the wrist.

...and a record that will hamper her future career potential. And if it's a felony, she'll likely lose the right to vote, as does every other convicted felon.

Not exactly easy to just walk away unharmed anymore, is it?

All because some semi-anonymous jackass with petty authority and a sense of hyper self-importance had lost all sense of proportion and decided to call the cops.

Fsck that. I haven't been inside a movie theater in well over three years, and now I have one more reason to not want to go. Nope - I don't pirate; it's easier to rent/buy a movie and kick back on the couch w/ friends, than to bother w/ the BS that most movie theaters make you put up with.

/P

Re:I don't understand the thinking...

[Wannabe Code Monkey]

My problem with what they did though is that if they wanted to show him a piece of the movie, why not grab the movie trailer off the internet?

The only reason she needs is that she wants to. But in this case she probably thought the current scene being shown was pretty cool and wasn't necessarily in the trailer, she also just wanted to play with her new camcorder

There is no reason to record a movie while you're watching it in a theater.

That's just the thing, you don't have to have a reason to do something legal. If I were to spin around in my chair right now for no reason, should I be put in jail?

How does the theater know they were only planning to record a bit of the film? How do they know they weren't trying to film the whole movie?

Oh, I don't know, he could have asked them what they were up to. If a kid is walking around a store putting stuff in his pockets how do they know he wasn't trying to steal all of it? They law is pretty clear about this, you can't stop the kid until he's past the point of no return, ie. walking passed the register without paying. And even if they were planning on taping the whole movie, they probably would have lied and said it was just for a moment, but now they know they're being watched and wouldn't dare try and record any more, potential crime averted. And if the theater manager wanted to be tough about it, he can ask them to leave. It's the theater's property and they don't have to allow them to stay if they break the rules, but since there's also nothing illegal about what they did either he shouldn't be able to take their footage or delete the clip.

Re:I don't understand the thinking...

[Stamen]

You're leaving off a whole bunch of stuff, before that "slap on the wrist" happens:

* Police officer's time was wasted on a trivial technical offense; in the real world of limited resources, their time was taken from crimes everyone would agree are more important.
* The prosecutor's time will be wasted, another person who has very limited time, which isn't cheap
* If the police and prosecutor are forced, by this company to actually prosecute, then a Judge, court staff, 14 citizen's (12 jurors, and 2 alternates), a bailiff, and tons of support personnel's time will be wasted. This will cost the local taxpayers a ton of money.

The end result, will mostly likely be a dropped case, or a slap on the wrist. What a complete waste of precious resources. Any company with a "zero-tolerance" rule on anything to do with a crime, should be fined by the judge, handsomely, for theft of government services.

There is a reason that people, not computers, decide wether something is worth prosecuting.

Re:I don't understand the thinking...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no reason to record a movie while you're watching it in a theater.

There is no use to record a comedian's rant. You aren't allowed to do that either (by rights - assuming a standard sign *somewhere* in the club about photographs/recordings). Nonetheless, it was found very useful to record Michael Richard's rant (note: I don't think it was a big deal but I'm not black either). I can imagine a similar situation involving The Passion of the Jew^h^h^hChrist or perhaps an overlealous documentarian from the other side of the spectrum. There are A LOT of reasons to record something in a movie theatre.

BEST EXAMPLE
Movie theatre mismanagement: Asshats talking, children crying, and people yacking on cell phones while the theatre management does nothing. That I would like to see posted on U-Tube.

Also, what if a fight breaks out and you need to record evidence?

BTW, my guess on this case is that the DA drops it.

Re:I don't understand the thinking...

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing here is they were kids. The girl with the camcorder was teenager for goodness sake. Kids sometimes make stupid decisions. It was her birthday and she was excited. She obviously didn't think through that she shouldn't even really record a second.

As for "how does the theater know"? It's actually rather obvious. For one, she was not recording moments later. They should have gone down to talk to her-- tell her that according to policy they need to temporarily confiscate the camcorder and review the recent recording. When she told them about the 20 seconds and the fact that it wasn't recording the should have offered (1) to let her continue watching while they take the camera in and review the last few moments or (2) come with them to review with them the last few moments recorded.

Upon seeing that she was telling the truth and that nothing was stolen, they should have held onto the camera until she was done watching. Then they should have either (1) let her keep the 20 seconds or (2) erased the 20 seconds with her there. Then they should have informed her that their policy does not allow recording devices in the theater and that if she was seen doing this again, she would risk being removed and possibly banned. That should have been sufficient. She would have been a little shaken, but a little wiser, and probably even grateful.

The problem here is, the way the article reads, she seems to be innocent and to have committed no crime and Regal seems to be behaving in a very inappropriate way (quite the reversal of the way Regal wants it to be). The girl made a technical violation of policy and, due to their zero-tolerance action, they are now (in my opinion) just as vile as those who they wish to prosecute, the thieves.

Opposite extremes tend to be very similar and for this reason, fighting one extreme with its opposite solves nothing. It just shifts the problem or adds to it. They want it to be black-and-white, hence the zero-action, but, I'm sorry, life rarely conforms to that ideal. Regal needs to make a reasonable and moderate policy. Yeah they'll be borderline cases, but that's simply how it is everywhere. Adjust it as the policy needs tweaking.

I doubt they will prosecute her because of obviously wrong they were. Not to mention, this is getting them a lot of bad press. It remains to be seen though whether they will appologize or try to get her to settle on a small fine that they will want her to pay. I hope it's the former.

<rant> On a similar side note. My wife told me recently that our 4 year old stole some stuff from a store as she was paying and didn't notice until they got home. Now our daughter is bright and knew it was wrong, but she's not yet fully aware of consequences (to her and to others). She's young. My wife, a few days later, took our daughter back to that store to hand return the and appologize. And you know what, they understood! While they could have said "well, she robbed us and we want to prosecute", they didn't. They realized that there was no malicious intent, it was just a kid making a stupid mistake. (Of course, that a lot more obvious when the kid's _that_ young, but that's not the point. Anyway, I doubt my daughter will try that again. </rant>

My two cents.
--Dave Romig, Jr.

Re:I don't understand the thinking...

[dosius]

My guess is the judge will make an example of her and throw the book at her head.

The law may be unfair, but it takes a few people getting hammered by an unfair law before anyone will care to do anything about it.

-uso.

Re:I don't understand the thinking...

[plague3106]

The only reason she needs is that she wants to. But in this case she probably thought the current scene being shown was pretty cool and wasn't necessarily in the trailer, she also just wanted to play with her new camcorder

Filming movies in a theater is illegal, nevermind inconsiderate to others in the theater. If the scene she wanted to show wasn't in the trailer, tough shit. Wait for it to come out on DVD and rent it. There are plenty of places to play with the camcorder; in a theater is not one of them.

That's just the thing, you don't have to have a reason to do something legal. If I were to spin around in my chair right now for no reason, should I be put in jail?

Filming a movie in a theater is illegal, so whats you're point? We're not talking about doing something legal, we're talking about breaking a law.

Oh, I don't know, he could have asked them what they were up to. If a kid is walking around a store putting stuff in his pockets how do they know he wasn't trying to steal all of it?

First, its not the managers discresion to ask. His boss told him this is the policy and its to be enforced 100% of the time. Second there's no ligitmate reason to put anything in your pockets in a store.

They law is pretty clear about this, you can't stop the kid until he's past the point of no return, ie. walking passed the register without paying. And even if they were planning on taping the whole movie, they probably would have lied and said it was just for a moment, but now they know they're being watched and wouldn't dare try and record any more, potential crime averted.

The law is clear here as well; you CANNOT record a movie in a theater. Not even one frame. The act of filming ANY of the movie is illegal, so the crime has not been averted its already been committed.

And if the theater manager wanted to be tough about it, he can ask them to leave. It's the theater's property and they don't have to allow them to stay if they break the rules, but since there's also nothing illegal about what they did either he shouldn't be able to take their footage or delete the clip.

Its not the manager's call as I've said. He has a boss that he reports to and is given no discretion in the matter. What they did IS illegal.

Here's the law: http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/pl109-9.html

Re:I don't understand the thinking...

[pthor1231]

You meant camera, not camcorder, right?

Re:I don't understand the thinking...

[pthor1231]

Second there's no ligitmate reason to put anything in your pockets in a store.

Maybe you only need a few things and don't want to grab a hand cart that has nasty germs on it? Heaven forbid some people are actually honest and pay for what they use.

Re:I don't understand the thinking...

[dapsychous]

OH GOD, NO!!! SOMEONE USED A CAMCORDER IN A MOVIE THEATER. THIS IS TRULY THE DAY THE MUSIC DIED!

They don't know, but that doesn't justify pressing charges on a matter that doesn't warrant judicial intervention. The manager should have walked down and confronted them. Likely, the girl would have apologized, and the matter would have been closed, but due to the asinine zero-tolerance policies that don't take into account the situation, this girl is going to suffer in one way or another for being an teenager and having fun.

Troll me if you want, but this manager needs to be punched in the face repeatedly until he is unconscious.

Re:I don't understand the thinking...

[plague3106]

If you only need a few things you should be able to carry them yourself. People are honest; its the dishonest ones that seem to shove things in thier pockets. I don't think I've ever seen anyone do that who wasn't trying to steal.

Re:I don't understand the thinking...

[linuxrocks123]

> The law is clear here as well; you CANNOT record a movie in a theater. Not even one frame. The act of filming ANY of the movie is illegal, so the crime has not been averted its already been committed.

I don't believe you. I think recording a 20 second clip is fair use. Prove me wrong.

Re:I don't understand the thinking...

[linuxrocks123]

> The law is clear here as well; you CANNOT record a movie in a theater. Not even one frame. The act of filming ANY of the movie is illegal, so the crime has not been averted its already been committed.

n/m you're correct.

She's being charged under an unjust DMCAlike law. So, the law should be changed.

Re:I don't understand the thinking...

[c_jonescc]

it's idiotic to passionately defend actions simply because of how civil laws define things.

law is open to interpretation (job of a lawyer) and by case analysis (job of a judge).

and it's a certainty that if I followed you around at every moment for a long enough time, I would see you too in violation of some particular law. And there's a good chance it would be a criminal act, not a civil one. if you claim to know and understand every single law in your region, you are a delusional nutcase.

so, yeah, she broke the law, and you don't deserve any lenience.

Re:I don't understand the thinking...

[plague3106]

I don't believe you. I think recording a 20 second clip is fair use. Prove me wrong.

The the law; it doesn't make any fair use provisions, and the law has not yet been tested in court as to whether this situation is fair use. In other words, it doesn't matter what you think, that's the state of things now.

Re:I don't understand the thinking...

[plague3106]

That's fine and a valid point to argue; you can also try to argue if this is fair use or not. I'm not sure copying something to show someone else is fair use though. Usually fair use would include you do something other than just showing the clip, such as commenting on the scene (ala an editorial or review), using it for some sort of artistic expression, etc.

But copying for the sake of just showing someone else, I don't think that qualifies, and it would be interesting to see if a judge thinks so or not.

Re:I don't understand the thinking...

[plague3106]

Lets be clear here, she violated a federal law which happens to be a felony.

I'm not saying its just, or right, or that she doesn't get any leniency. I think she did something very stupid and there really ISN'T any legitmate reason to record a movie in a theater with a camcorder though. But to blame the theater manager or to say she didn't break the law is simply not true. Its also not true that she's totally innocent. As I said, there really doesn't seem to be any good reason to bring a camcorder into a theater.

Re:I don't understand the thinking...

[Anonymous Coward]

How does the theater know they were only planning to record a bit of the film? How do they know they weren't trying to film the whole movie?

Simple, you shithead -- the capture device in question, a Canon PowerShot ((tm), I presume) DOESN'T HAVE THE FUCKING CAPACITY to record more than a couple of minutes of a film.

Too bad this is Slashdot, where there is no mechanism to force the most stupid among us to RTFA.

first

[Anonymous Coward]

first infringing post?

Regal Cinema

[Stanistani]

Go up to their ticket office. Ask to see the manager. Cite this case. Tell them you're going to take your business elsewhere. Write a letter to the corporate headquarters as well.

By itself, no result.

100,000 times repeated, different story.

Re:Regal Cinema

[rob1980]

Is this before or after you check all the other theaters in town operated by different companies and verify that they wouldn't do the exact same thing?

Re:Regal Cinema

[Nos.]

Why? Because they called the police on someone that was seen recording the movie? As I said above, someone saw someone breaking the law and reported it. The theatre called the police and is going to let the justice system handle it. How is the theatre supposed to know how long she was recording the movie? Why should they believe her? Better to let it be handled in court.

Re:Regal Cinema

[Anonymous Coward]

"Go up to their ticket office. Ask to see the manager. Cite this case. Tell them you're going to take your business elsewhere. Write a letter to the corporate headquarters as well.

By itself, no result.

100,000 times repeated, different story."

Why? Because they were stupid and/or ignorant and tried to pull this off?

Now here's the slick part if she has a good lawyer. If they missed the disclaimer at the begining of the movie about recording devices then perhaps there would be an argument (abeit very slight argument). But then again, IGNORANCE OF THE LAW is no excuse according to the law. Besides, who would want to sit through a movie with a warning posted at the bottom of the screen the whole time.

Re:Regal Cinema

[spun]

And just for good measure, sing a few bars of Alice's Restaurant, so they know it's a movement!

Re:Regal Cinema

[Volante3192]

I'll take my business elsewhere... Netflix. So I won't see it RIGHT THEN. Chances are (currently) in my favor I'll live to see the video release.

Re:Regal Cinema

[Stanistani]

Before.

It wasn't a camcorder. It was a digital camera which at most could shoot a minute or so of video. Ask her to stop. Kick her out. Fair. Reasonable.
Prosecute her? Unreasonable.
Shove it down their throats.

Re:Regal Cinema

[Mattintosh]

Better yet, organize a mob of people with camcorders. Go to their ticket office. Everyone buy a ticket. When the movie starts, everyone begin recording the movie. 20 seconds later, everyone stop recording the movie. Wait for the cops, or better, everyone just walk out of their crappy movie theater and flip management the bird on the way out.

Re:Regal Cinema

[chris_mahan]

I haven't been to an actual movie theater since 2000. Before that, I used to go about once per month. I even got a stack of free passes from a regional manager, but still didn't go (I gave a few away, the rest expired).

That's how you hurt them: don't go to the movie theater at all. If you can't help yourself, you have no self-control, and they will keep taking your money and treating you like a sheep and you will like it.

Re:Regal Cinema

[Stanistani]

Right on, bro!

Power to The People!

Where did I put those bell-bottom pants again?

Re:Regal Cinema

[Samus]

There's no need to check. You know that in all likelihood they would. However it is much harder to pressure a group than it is to pressure and individual. So get one to cave in and move on to the next.

Re:Regal Cinema

[lysse]

Better still, everyone who thinks capturing a 20-second excerpt of a film to share with their friends should be regarded as fair use could simply stop going to cinemas, period. When movies are still judged primarily on their first weekend's take, the impact of such a boycott would be significant.

Re:Regal Cinema

[Teddy Beartuzzi]

It wasn't a camcorder. It was a digital camera which at most could shoot a minute or so of video.

Exactly. Been waiting for this to be pointed out. It was physically impossible to "steal the movie".

Re:Regal Cinema

[Matt Perry]

I would but I already stopped going years ago when the theaters started showing advertisements before the previews and the movie itself.

Re:Regal Cinema

[Anonymous Coward]

But then again, IGNORANCE OF THE LAW is no excuse according to the law.

It's no excuse but that doesn't mean I have to support the law itself nor does it mean I should support people who help enforce unjust laws.

Re:Regal Cinema

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, their stupidity/ignorance CAN get them off in this case. Legally, actus non facit reum nisi mens rea which roughly translates to "your intent determines your guilt."

E.g. see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_(criminal)

Re:Regal Cinema

[Fox_1]

perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of removable flash memory cards. I can record multiple hours on my little digital camera, just be swapping in a new card as I go - for transformers I should be able to fit the whole film on one 2gig sd card, but certainly I'd bring a spare.

Re:Regal Cinema

[Anonymous Coward]

Even better, get everyone to sneak in camcorders with no tape. Have everyone just watch the movie through the camera and insist that it is so you can zoom in on the good parts. I wonder what the legal ramifications of that would be. It's no different than bringing high-tech binoculars to an opera, right?

Re:Regal Cinema

[vthokie69]

I may do just that. As an Arlington County resident, I'm pretty angry that they are wasting my tax dollars by using county police department and the court system here. What a waste of tax dollars. The theater could have used more discretion over this.

Re:Regal Cinema

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm in the same camp, but I'm even more radical. Do you rent/buy DVDs for home use? You're still supporting them. Stop buying crappy entertainment! Go hiking! Read a book! Pet your dog! Find something else to do than to shovel billions of dollars into the pockets of people who have clearly lost their moral compass.

Just my $0.02.

Re:Regal Cinema

[vux984]

"Why should they believe her?"

Well she could show them. She only has a *20 second* clip of near the end, that doesn't even go all the way to the end, after all.

Seriously, unless you think someone is going to argue its a grand conspiracy to get 1000 kids to each record a different 20 second clip minute, and then splice it all together into a completed movie for torrent release, this is a ridiculous case.

Re:Regal Cinema

[Nos.]

I've mentioned it before, but I wouldn't let her touch that camera until this is over. She might "accidentally" delete whatever is recorded on there. As the theatre manager, I wouldn't touch it either. A good defense lawyer might claim I tampered with evidence.

Re:Regal Cinema

[techiemikey]

actually, i do love that idea...now just to find a whole bunch of people willing to go through the hassle

Re:Regal Cinema

[JrOldPhart]

> 100,000 times repeated, different story.

Regal Cinemas has a comment page Regal Cinema Comments Go tell them what you think.

They require an email address use mailinator.com

Re:Regal Cinema

[rgbscan]

877-TELLREGAL or 1-877-835-5734

Re:Regal Cinema

[marshmeli]

Regal Cinemas (I believe all cinemas) have this or a similar policy. When she bought the ticket she agreed to their terms. She was very stupid and should not have recorded the movie.

She was arrested and was humiliated but it was her fault. I would say she will not get such a serious sentence, if even convicted, probably just some community service or something like that...

Regardless what happens to her, the cinema had every right to do this to her, so why boycott them? Try the same thing at another theater chain (maybe AMC or Cinemark) and assuming you get caught (most of the biggies have good ways of detection) the same thing will happen. Instead do not do stupid things that are not allowed (and you agree to by buying a ticket) and can be viewed as illegal (I am not sure what the fair use issues of this type of case if).

Re:Regal Cinema

[ajlitt]

Your possession of copies the twenty-seven eight-by-ten color glossy pictures with the circles and arrows and paragraphs on the back of each one is in violation of the DMCA.

Re:Regal Cinema

[Anonymous Coward]

> Even better, get everyone to sneak in camcorders with no tape.

Funnier still, just bring a bunch of infrared LED throwies... (The autodetection systems that alert theater owners usually rely on the IR that camcorders/digicams use for autofocus.)

Re:Regal Cinema

[pthor1231]

So have the policeman look at it? I mean, they are there for a reason, right?

Re:Regal Cinema

[Hoi Polloi]

Better yet, get your hands on some butyric acid and spill some on the floor in the theater before you leave. It gives a room that special smell that makes you want to sit there for 2 hours. In some theaters though you may not be able to tell the difference.

Re:Regal Cinema

[Anonymous Coward]

On one battery too, with no interruption. Faggot.

Re:Regal Cinema

[Stanistani]

None of that there now.

You have to work above their level, not below it.

Re:Regal Cinema

[couchslug]

"100,000 times repeated, different story."

It will not be repeated 100K times, because there is not much overlap between people who care about this and the herd that fills movie theaters.
That herd will require a lot more abuse before they act.

Re:Regal Cinema

[vux984]

After all somebody has to establish a crime was actually committed! Simply having a camcorder in the movie theatre isn't illegal, although it might be against theatre policy, but that is a separate issue and not police business.

Re:Regal Cinema

[Anonymous Coward]

perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of removable batteries. I can record multiple hours on my little digital camera, just be swapping in a new battery as I go - for transformers I should be able to fit the whole film on several batteries, but certainly I'd bring spares.

Re:Regal Cinema

[tftp]

You are amazingly fast if you can swap batteries and SD cards between frames of the movie, and without losing even a millisecond of sound!

Re:Regal Cinema

[Fox_1]

Why care about a loss of sound or a few seconds of the movie, for this theoretical exercise of making a crappy video of a movie with a handheld camera. If I wanted to make a perfect copy I'd copy it direct from a source DVD, not video it in a theatre. It still doesn't change the fact that a personal digital camera (for example the Exlim from Casio) can record 2 hours of film without much hassle, especially when plugged in to my backpack generator with my kleig lights and extended boom microphone.

"Stealing"

[Anonymous Coward]

They will get let off. Nothing was stolen.

Re:"Stealing"

[Jerry Rivers]

They will not "get let off". It will cost them at least lost wages and lawyer fees. To save themselves the expense of a trial they will probably have to plead guilty and pay a fine.

Re:"Stealing"

[Anonymous Coward]

no way, man. as soon as they started filming, the movie disappeared and no one else could watch it anymore.

Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

"there can be no justice so long as laws are absolute"

Jean-Luc Picard

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_(TNG_episode)

Re:Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize that "Jean-Luc Picard" is make-believe, right?

Re:Justice

[Stormwatch]

*groans* Then credit Worley Thorne and Ralph Wills, that episode's writers.

Re:Justice

[athloi]

"Justice","no", "be" and "law" are absolutes.

Re:Justice

[SonicRED]

I seriously just looked for +1 Geek in the moderation drop-down. Well done!

Sincerely,
Closet Star Trek Fan

Re:Justice

[R2.0]

"There can be no wisdom so long as people quote TV shows."

R2.0

Re:Justice

[servognome]

"there can be no justice so long as laws are absolute"
Jean-Luc Picard

By saving the life of Wesley Crusher, was justice really served?

Re:Justice

[milatchi]

If I don't credit them will I be prosecuted?

Re:Justice

[the not-troll]

Laws need to be absolute to be realized as unfair.

Saving Wesley is just the same as when some rich or powerful guy's child is caught in some offense and doesn't have to serve what some guy of the street would have had to serve.

If no senator or congressman ever experiences the law as unjust, they will not be willing to change it, because they don't see what is wrong with it if they are exempted from it - of course, this doesn't directly apply to that TNG episode as Picard didn't make the law, but still it doesn't mean that laws shouldn't be absolute.

The moral one should take home instead is that laws, while absolute, need to be proportional: murder is worse than accidentially stepping into the flowers or infringing on copyright, thus murder should carry a heavier penalty than the others.

Provided, of course, one buys into the idea of punishment instead of prevention: If one wanted the crime not to take in the first place, you cannot be fixated on revenge, which only causes a cycle of fear and violence, but instead on understanding the causes to uproot them. For the US, for instance, this would be repealing all copyright law except for expressly commercial infringement of significant size and instead introducing social security so that starving artists don't starve.

From this it also follows, by the way, that one shouldn't use the death penalty - except maybe for government officials - as a punishment, as it only continues the cycle of violence.

Stupid...

[Antony-Kyre]

Sorry for what I'm about to say...

Stupid people will do stupid things. She shouldn't have done that. If this is going to be a criminal case, then hopefully she will be let off easy with community service or something. Hopefully there is no mandatory minimum sentence.

Re:Stupid...

[TheLink]

Yeah, she shouldn't have gone to the cinema and paid to see the show in the first place.

I mean what was she thinking? That she'll have a good time there?

Re:Stupid...

[Antony-Kyre]

She shouldn't have video taped any part of the movie. It was just something stupid she had done.

How does a theatre know if you're video taping all of the movie or just part of it? How do they know which person in a theatre is using the video camera for "fair use" or for "piracy"? I think they need to take a stand, but that doesn't mean she deserves a harsh punishment.

I would think a 19 year old would have more common sense, but maybe common sense is relative. Having a camcorder in a movie theatre just seems like a real bad idea to me.

Re:Stupid...

[techiemikey]

when was the last time you interacted with an average 19 year old? They are all idiots, with a few exceptions.

Re:Stupid...

[TheLink]

Well apparently she taped the _ending_ only. That should be easily confirmed without going to court etc.

There were many possible "endings" to the story the theatre could have picked, many legal too. e.g. theatre gives them option 1) Cops or 2) "Give us camera, stay while we check to see if you're telling the truth". If lying - cops, if true, tell them "DO NOT EVER DO THIS AGAIN". Theatre could even "forget and accidently" leave the 20 sec clip there instead of deleting it.

I think the theatre picked a crap ending to that, even for themselves.

Even if they had every legal right to be dickheads (and ruin an allegedly stupid someone's birthday) that does not make them any less dickheads for doing so.

Dickhead and stupid are both legal human states. But dickhead is far worse IMO. And definitely a lot worse than the "stupid for assuming it's fine to make a 20 sec clip of the ending".

Sure by not being dickheads the theatre could make themselves vulnerable to other dickheads (the lawyers could tell them leave it all to the cops to handle it - and thus not risk being accused of tampering with evidence etc). But really some things just increase amount of dickheadism in the world, and I feel this is one of them.

I'd rather live in a world where I can _safely_ assume that people won't be dickheads. e.g. even when they are, I'm still fairly safe.

Why should having a camcorder in a theatre be automatically a bad idea? What next? Ban phones with cameras?

Next ban humans with "memory augmenting" implants AND "virtual telepathy" add-ons? Or require such humans to pay USD0.01 for each recall? A penny for your thoughts? Maybe the *AA will think that's too cheap?

I don't think I'd like that ending. The future could be so much better, but I guess it won't.

Lastly: yeah, common sense is relative. Most people are really stupid and they can't see the long term consequences of their actions. Most can't even see the short term consequences.

But "making a stupid choice" is still better than "making a dickhead choice".

Re:Stupid...

[NeutronCowboy]

Agreed. It was stupid. Does every stupid act now warrant a 1 year jail sentence? Will doing a keg stand land me in the slammer? Will racing shopping carts in a supermarket lot land me in the slammer? How about roller blading in it?

You might say that the judge or jury will be able to see that this is a stupid way to go about things, and just recommend some community service. But if the judge and jury will be able to see that, why couldn't the theater manager? The supermarket manager? The local campus police?

The fact that some people are small, vindictive and assholes should not mean that they can offload the responsibility to be sensible to others.

Re:Stupid...

[whopub]

Well, the fact that she watched part of that movie should be punishment enough...

Re:Stupid...

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupid people will also say stupid things, as proven by your post.

Re:Stupid...

[Physics Dude]

How does a theatre know if you're video taping all of the movie or just part of it?

Well, for starters they could have ASKED to see her camera which would have showed only 20 seconds near the END of the movie.

I would think an experienced theatre manager would have more common sense, but maybe common sense is relative. Blowing this out of proportion like he did seems like real bad PR to me.

Re:Stupid...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why pays for this? What other "real crimes" are being delayed as a result of the effort on this prosecution? The case is simple ... if there was noticeably less blank tape left on the camcorder than there was film duration, then they're barking up the wrong tree. If on the other hand she went there with a few spare tapes - then that is a lot more suspicious.

Re:Stupid...

[Antony-Kyre]

Likely it will end up hurting their business.

Re:Stupid...

[Antony-Kyre]

I disagree.

Re:Stupid...

[Antony-Kyre]

I would think that would be the point of fines, at least for big crimes.

Re:Stupid...

[tftp]

No, it will not. Many, if not most people who go to movies are incapable of remembering such fine details; they'd be lucky to remember the movie itself for a day or two. Besides, why would they care if some pirate was arrested? It's easy to jump to conclusions here, since someone was seen with a shiny photo/video gizmo. Nobody except the victim and her lawyers will know the truth.

Re:Stupid...

[Antony-Kyre]

Then let us hope the judicial system does the right thing.

This is what juries are for

[00_NOP]

No jury will convict in such a case, assuming we've been given the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Re:This is what juries are for

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

And also assuming that the jury is given the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

The judge might decide to not allow the jury to know how long the clip was.

Re:This is what juries are for

[jbf]

Last time I was called for jury duty (less than a month ago) the judge asked "will you be able to apply the law as I give it to you, whether or not you agree with it?" I answered "if it is grossly unjust, I will not." I was dismissed "for cause." No one else of the 12 people up for voir dire answered that way. Most jurors will blindly follow their oath and convict. Also see the Rosenthal medical marijuana case.

As to the other reply, the duration of the tape is likely to be admissible, because it is evidence regarding mens rea.

Re:This is what juries are for

[Anonymous Coward]

Last time I was called for jury duty (less than a month ago) the judge asked "will you be able to apply the law as I give it to you, whether or not you agree with it?"

The correct answer to that question is "yes". You will be able to. Whether you are willing to do so or not is a different question.

Re:This is what juries are for

[Anonymous Coward]

No jury will convict in such a case, assuming we've been given the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Fat motherfucking chance -- when the pissant of a lawyer says, "No further questions", your right/responsibility to tell "the whole truth" goes straight down the toilet.

Some day. I'd just love to have someone in a major case, with press and cameras in the courtroom, get cut off that way, then stand up and scream, "Goddamn it, I swore an oath before my God, who some day will judge my eternal soul, to tell THE WHOLE TRUTH and, by Christ, I'm going to do exactly that."

There is little in the entire legal system that could compare with that for true righteousness.

I'm choosing AMC this weekend

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me say, F* you, REGAL... I guess I know which theater I'm going to see The Simpsons in this weekend...I wish others would follow suit. And I won't even have a camcorder!

I'm sorry for the couple, but...

[Spy der Mann]

he should've known what he was getting into. Yes, he MIGHT be just copying a 20-sec clip... but he could have copied the whole movie and uploaded it to the internet where thousands of people could have downloaded it.

The most ironic part of this tragedy is that it was their naiveness (i.e. innocence) that resulted into the guy being treated as an evil criminal, while an expert pirate would've been much more careful.

A sad but true statement: Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Re:I'm sorry for the couple, but...

[JoshHeitzman]

"A sad but true statement: Ignorance of the law is no excuse." Considering that there are know more laws on the books then the average person could ever comprehend and remember at all times, ignorance of the law should be an excuse. When the law is no longer just, should we still follow it? Should the theater employees be excused for not knowing the copyright laws well enough to know that they include provisions for fair use and that seeing someone one with a camcorder in a theater isn't automatically copyright infringement and doesn't become so until enough of the movie has been filmed that it no longer constitutes fair use?

Re:I'm sorry for the couple, but...

[moderatorrater]

You're right, she could have copied the whole movie and uploaded it to the internet, but she didn't, so she shouldn't get prosecuted.

Re:I'm sorry for the couple, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Should you be told to STFU because this isn't about copyright at all and about a criminal act?

Should you be told to STFU because you're too stupid to recognize that fact, and probably too stupid to know the difference?

Should you be told to STFU because you're an imbecile?

Yes, yes you should.

Re:I'm sorry for the couple, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

"but he could have copied the whole movie and uploaded it to the internet where thousands of people could have downloaded it."

Ah, yes, I forgot ... we now live in a country that you can be hauled off and imprisoned for what you *might* do....

All they (the theater management) had to do was look at the content of the tape and see what was really going on... and if there wasn't additional blanks (allowing for the entire movie to be copied and uploaded in the 1st place), common sense should have dictated that they erase the 20s of offensive material and kick them out of the building... The theater manager is an incompetent tit-wit and should be sued into oblivion for false imprisonment.

Re:I'm sorry for the couple, but...

[JoshHeitzman]

Do you work for the RIAA or is it the MPAA?

Re:I'm sorry for the couple, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be right either way.

And I thought I told you to STFU? I guess you're even too stupid to know what that means.

Re:I'm sorry for the couple, but...

[JoshHeitzman]

As you didn't deny working for either, I'll go ahead and assume you are a RIAA and/or MPAA shill trying to silence opposition to your employer's agenda.

Re:I'm sorry for the couple, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

"As you didn't deny working for either, I'll go ahead and assume you are a RIAA and/or MPAA shill trying to silence opposition to your employer's agenda."

As you didn't deny I was right, I'll go ahead and assume you know I am.

Re:I'm sorry for the couple, but...

[NeutronCowboy]

Debating the copyright law at the root of the criminal indictment is relevant to the discussion. I understand you would like to prevent any discussion of this, as it would demonstrate the idiocy of your position. Understanding your position, however, does not mean that I think any more of you.

Now please go back to your RIAA subsidized hole and stop wasting everybody else's air.

The time length is irrelevent.

[Orig_Club_Soda]

Sounds like she stopped her while recording. Thats why the lenght is so short. EVERYONE knows not to record movies. The law doesnt stipulate a lenth of time. It says none at all. I been caught doing something briefly too. It sucks, but thats life. We all do stupid things for fun and regret it real bad when we get in trouble.

Re:The time length is irrelevent.

[Anonymous Coward]

I been caught doing something briefly too. It sucks, but thats life.

That should teach you to lock the door the next time you take a Playboy into the bathroom.

So there I was...

[Xest]

Just minding my own business, driving round in this car that wasn't mine and these cops came and pulled me over and arrested me, I was like "WTF? I was only joyrid.. I mean driving round in it for 20 seconds!".

Don't get me wrong I hate the RIAA as much as the next Slashdotter and I don't really agree with heavy handed tactics but at the same time the law is the law and I don't think it's the brightest thing to do. Frankly when I go into a cinema I feel a bit uneasy about even having a camera phone because I know how bitchy they can be so I keep it in my pocket at all times. There's also not really any way we can verify the truth of her story, for all we know this could just be her excuse and she could just as well have been sat for half an hour recording like that before they decided to call the police in.

As has been mentioned here already, at the end of the day it's for the courts to decide whether she just made a silly mistake or if she was a fully fledged movie pirate. Arrrrr.

Re:So there I was...

[Volante3192]

Repeat after me:

A car is tangible. A car is tangible. A car is tangible.

If you take a car, you are depriving someone of the car.

If you record 20 seconds of a movie in a theater, those 480 frames of film don't magically disappear from the projector thereby removing the ability for anyone in the theater to view the scene.

Re:So there I was...

[Anonymous Coward]

So stealing a car to joyride is just as bad as recording a movie with a camcorder?

Come on, give me a break. Once again, copyright violations are not stealing. Its a completly different animal, so learn that and learn it well.

Re:So there I was...

[moderatorrater]

Actually, there's a very easy way to verify the truth of the story. Check the damn recording. It's a 20 second clip, I guarantee that it took more than 20 seconds for the police to walk into the theater from the parking lot. If she only recorded 20 seconds when the opportunity to record more was there, that's pretty verifiable.

Re:So there I was...

[Aladrin]

Oh come on. That's no proof of intent at all. You haven't proved that they never intended to tape more than 20 seconds. You've only proved that they only DID tape more than 20 seconds. I guarantee you that the employee set to watch the crowd for video cameras CAN get to her in 20 seconds.

1) See red light.
2) Rush to seat.
3) Stop camera.

Yeah, even from the other side of the theatre, this is possible.

And that's assuming they didn't stop as soon as they knew they were being watched.

No, all -we- know is that they weren't allowed to tape, they KNOW they weren't allowed to tape, and they taped. Then we have a bunch of people's words on what happened and why. We aren't nearly close enough to the incident to have any fscking clue what actually happened.

It occurs to me, though, that if are taping 20 seconds of a film to show a sibling (torture a sibling? 'I saw it and you didn't!') then doing it in the MIDDLE of a day's fun at the mall seems rather odd. They surely aren't going to want to watch the rest of your nauseating tape of you playing with your boyfriend in the mall.

Re:So there I was...

[Anonymous Coward]

judging by the tone of his post which hints at sarcasm it seems it's you that completely and utterly missed the point

he didn't even mention any kind of comparison of the seriousness of the crimes, he just pointed out that if something's illegal, then, well, it's illegal so if you break the law you break the law and face the consequences

it's outright idiotic to break the law and then "cry" because you get in trouble for getting caught

"Regal" info...

[Anonymous Coward]

Regal Entertainment Group corporate offices are located at 7132 Regal Lane, Knoxville, Tennessee, 37918.

Our phone number is 1-865-922-1123 and our fax number is 1-865-922-3188.

Our customer relations number is 877-TELLREGAL or 1-877-835-5734.

Our investor hotline is 1-866-REGALEG or 1-866-734-2534.

Michael L. Campbell > Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer
Officer Since: 03/2002
Age: 53

Gregory W. Dunn > President, Chief Operating Officer
Officer Since: 03/2002
Age: 47

Amy E. Miles > Chief Financial Officer, Executive Vice President, Treasurer
Officer Since: 03/2002
Age: 40

Peter B. Brandow > Executive Vice President, General Counsel, Secretary
Age: 46

Peter B. Brandow is Regal Entertainment Group Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary and has served as such since March 2002. Mr. Brandow has served as the Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of Regal Cinemas, Inc. since July 2001, and prior to that time he served as Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of Regal Cinemas, Inc. since February 2000. Prior thereto, Mr. Brandow served as Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary from February 1999 when he joined Regal Cinemas, Inc. From September 1989 to January 1999, Mr. Brandow was an associate with the law firm Simpson Thatcher & Bartlett.

Brandow has exercised at least >$4M in stock options over the past 2 years according to yahoo finance.

Re:"Regal" info...

[Anonymous Coward]

I spend over $100/mo at Regal with my family. I just emailed them at the following addresses to let them know I'm voting with my pocket book.

        ddelaria@regalcinemas.com, dgurin@regalcinemas.com,
        mcampbell@regalcinemas.com, amiles@regalcinemas.com,
        gdunn@regalcinemas.com, pbrandow@regalcinemas.com,
        barry.brown@regalcinemas.com, rwinograd@regalcinemedia.com,
        robbya@regalcinemas.com, kevink@regalcinemas.com

You have the right to remain silent.

[Kiaser Zohsay]

You have the right to have an attorney present. I recommend finding a good one. Twenty seconds is dangerously close to fair use, and any decent attorney ought to be able to get this thrown out.

Re:You have the right to remain silent.

[MontyApollo]

20 seconds might have been all she was able to record before they stopped her. Anyways, she will probably just get a slap on the wrist if her story is true.

Re:You have the right to remain silent.

[JoshHeitzman]

How on earth could the cops have gotten there twenty seconds after she started filming?

Re:You have the right to remain silent.

[MontyApollo]

Maybe an employee stopped her before the cops got there. It seems like a reasonable thing to do if they saw someone engaging in unauthorized activity.

Anyways, she was not arrested for infringement, which would be a civil matter anyways, she was arrested for the criminal act of illegally recording a motion picture. I doubt fair use comes into play because she is not being charged with "using" it, fair or otherwise.

Re:You have the right to remain silent.

[JoshHeitzman]

From the federal law "uses or attempts to use an audiovisual recording device to transmit or make a copy of a motion picture". She didn't make a copy of the "a motion picture", she made a copy of 20 seconds of a motion picture, which is less then 1% of it. Making a copy of a part of something is not the same thing as copying it in its entirety. I also noticed this in the federal law: the licensor of the motion picture or other audiovisual work being exhibited, or the agent or employee of such licensor-- ``(1) may detain, in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time, any person suspected of a violation of this section with respect to that motion picture or audiovisual work for the purpose of questioning or summoning a law enforcement officer; and ``(2) shall not be held liable in any civil or criminal action arising out of a detention under paragraph (1). So now if theater employees can forcibly detain you, injure you in the process, and be immune from both civil and criminal liability if they merely claim they suspected you of violating this section. I'm not setting foot in a movie theater again so long as this law is on the books.

It isn't much

[Anonymous Coward]

I know it isn't much, but I'm now boycotting the Regal theater in my area. I have a zero-tolerance policy for companies that have a zero-tolerance policy. They have terrible popcorn anyway.

Re:It isn't much

[RMorris419]

I've been boycotting movie theaters for years now. Ever since the home theater, there's no need for movies to not be released on DVD and pay per view at the same time as the theater release except to prop up an archaic business model.

Much like the internet has negated the need for a 'recording industry' since bands can get their music directly to their listeners.

IMHO, my $0.02, etc, etc...

Re:It isn't much

[HexaByte]

I boycott them because they have no Milk-Duds. Can't watch a movie w/o Milk-Duds!

Re:It isn't much

[NearlyHeadless]

You can find the list of Regal cinemas in your state here

With 'zero-tolerance' why do we need Judges

[deweycheetham]

Guess they need to make an example of someone, so the kids are done for, American Justice at its finest. *Brand me as Flamebait and ding my Karma down again.

stupid

[Gogo0]

It is an excessive punishment, but they were being stupid to begin with.
And whats with the cute little story? Do you really think people need to be manipulated into thinking the punishment was too harsh?

Re:stupid

[be951]

No one has been punished yet. RTFA, or at least the summary.

If convicted, she could be sentenced to a year in prison and a $2,500 fine.

More likely if the facts in the story are accurate, she will get a small fine with no jail time if the case even proceeds.

Re:stupid

[TheLink]

Stupid?

You mean they were stupid to go to a cinema to _pay_ to watch a movie, when they could have just downloaded it for free from the internet AND be much safer from such incidents?

Yeah, I suppose that's criminally stupid eh?

IMO filming a short clip of the _ending_ shows they're definitely not copying the movie.

Whether it's true that it's to get "little brother" hyped about it, I dunno. After all that kind of gives away the ending doesn't it? But does it have a surprise ending? (I haven't watched it yet - even in the safety of my home ;) ).

the test of civilization

[circletimessquare]

is that the punishment is less severe than the crime

otherwise, it's just revenge

that's why sharia law, for example, is wrong: chopping someone's hand off for stealing, or chopping someone's head off for prostitution, is not civilization

in a society where the punishments are worse than the crimes, injustice is perpetrated by the government, not the criminals

and in turn, the society breeds greater and greater atrocities

justice must always exist, and people must always be punished for crime, and the punishment must not be a simple slap on the wrist, the punishment must be severe for severe crimes

but the punishment must ALWAYS be less severe than the crime itself, or instability rather than stability is bred that society. because you are not teaching people to respect a valid concept (justice), you are teaching them (unsuccessfully) to respect an invalid concept (violence)

Re:the test of civilization

[PadRacerExtreme]

but the punishment must ALWAYS be less severe than the crime itself
Hmmm... So if I steal $100,000 from a bank, the punishment should be to return the $100,000? After all, that is the crime itself.
Punishment is supposed to be a deterrent. Therefore, the punishment should be worse than the crime.

Re:the test of civilization

[EveryNickIsTaken]

but the punishment must ALWAYS be less severe than the crime itself I disagree. Pedo-rapists should be executed, IMHO.

Re:the test of civilization

[Anonymous Coward]

chopping someone's head off for prostitution, is not civilization

Their head, that's not even logical?

Re:the test of civilization

[Anonymous Coward]

is that the punishment is less severe than the crime So what would you suggest as a fine for stealing $100?

$90?

Re:the test of civilization

[Anonymous Coward]

"but the punishment must ALWAYS be less severe than the crime itself,"

That is just silly. If I get fined 50$ for stealing $100, what is my incentive to stop? Game theory says go for it! Punishment should be proportional to the crime, but making it less will only encourage.

Re:the test of civilization

[Belacgod]

Punishment must be less than the crime. Punishment+restitution can be more than the crime.

So the punishment for stealing $100,000 should be returning the $100,000 plus some other penalties valued, on average, at less than $100,000.

I'm not sure I agree with the GP, but your argument is really silly.

Re:the test of civilization

[Anonymous Coward]

I call BS. I don't know of a single system of "civilized" justice that adheres to this universally. For example, if you steal $100 from me, you aren't told to repay the money, you're sent to jail for at least a month. Personally, I don't think a month in jail is less severe than being being forced to pay back $100. And that isn't even bringing up drug possession and use crimes, for which the severity of the crime (in a personal use case) is effectively zero.

Re:the test of civilization

[Jarjarthejedi]

No, you're just being foolish and unnecessarily nitpicky. The punishment for stealing $100 dollars could easily be returning the $100 dollars and doing community service for a while, that's less than the crime committed. The crime was depriving another person of $100, the punishment is doing, say, 24 hours community service. The $100 is returned to it's owner as taking it from the thief is not depriving them of it as it was never theirs to begin with.

Re:the test of civilization

[daveschroeder]

So, what happens when nothing happens to this girl, then?

Will you be back here pontificating about the "test of civilization" and making thinly-veiled comparisons of the US to despotic and backwards systems of "justice"?

No, because the resolution of this, which is likely to be that little or nothing happens to her after a judge and jury review the situation - you know, what happens here in this backward place - will never be posted here, and we'll just continue to feel righteously indignant about such a grave injustice.

Re:the test of civilization

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but that logic is just as backwards as cruel and unusual punishment. We need to design the law from the standpoint of human nature.

When the punishment is more severe than the crime (i.e. locking a person in a cage for anything short of than physical force), there is no justice. I agree with you there.

However, when the punishment is less severe than the crime, there is also no justice. Why? Becuase the victim is short-changed, no matter how you spin it. Not the government or the lawmakers -- their opinions are quite irrlevant, as they are not the victims -- but the actual individual who is harmed by the aggressor.

The answer is simple: restitution. The is only one moral and just system of law, and unfortunately it has never truly existed in this world: every crime should be punished with complete and total resitution for the actual victim (not the state). Only crimes of physical force warrent locking human beings in the cage, because they pose an actual threat to other human beings; all other crimes should be dealt with according to the loss of the victim (including compensatory damages).

Of course, all of this requires that every crime have an actual, real-life victim, which rules out 99% of what passes as "crime" in the US today. Most "crimes" are not real crimes against real people -- they are crimes against the state, the power elite who control the government and decide the law.

Re:the test of civilization

[dylan_-]

but the punishment must ALWAYS be less severe than the crime itself

I disagree. Pedo-rapists should be executed, IMHO.

So you think pedo-rape is a less severe crime than killing an adult?

Re:the test of civilization

[alexgieg]

that's why sharia law, for example, is wrong: chopping someone's hand off for stealing, or chopping someone's head off for prostitution, is not civilization

It depends. Actually, Islam has many jurisprudence schools, and in most of those you'll find that the "hand chopping" norm, as well as all the other Koran norms, are understood as something applicable "as written" only in situations identical to those of when they were written, i.e., when prisons, and even a fixed place where to live, were luxuries you didn't have, less harsh conditions implying in the rules being accordingly and proportionately toned down. Notice, by the way, that this is something similar to what the Jews do: you usually won't find a modern day Jew stoning a children for not obeying his parents, even though this is what the Bible mandates.

The problem with Sharia is actually on the "Islamic protestant" movements that began developing from the XVIII century onwards. These guys disregarded (and still disregard) the more reasonable versions of the Sharia developed in centuries past by the orthodox Muslim scholars, and apply the Koranic laws literally. Nowadays they would remain a very minor sect inside Islam weren't for the fact that Western empires (in the XIX and XX centuries) saw their radicalism as an useful tool in destabilizing Islamic regimes in places they were interested in, thus financing and protecting them. So much that even today USA is still giving tons of money to Saudi Arabia, which in turn uses this money to fund the spreading of literalist Islam.

Stop funding Islamic literalists with one hand while promoting anti-Western hatred in Middle East with the other, and in some decades, luckily years, the non-literal, non-absurd, non-terrorism-promoting, non-evil, orthodox Sharia will become mainstream again over there.

Re:the test of civilization

[edwdig]

but the punishment must ALWAYS be less severe than the crime itself, or instability rather than stability is bred that society.

If the punishment is less severe than the crime, those who break the law will always come out ahead of those who follow it. Following the law becomes a severe disadvantage.

Re:the test of civilization

[inquisitive_cherub]

At least the parent post wasn't modded insightful.

Punishment serves at least two purposes: Deterrence and Fair Restitution. How would either of those be served, and how could the concept of justice survive, if punishment is consistently less than the crime? Without this parity, justice would be a joke.

The problem with sharia law is that the punishments are completely out of line with the crime. Moreover, all members of society under sharia law are not treated equally. Although in the US we fail this particular test from time-to-time, there is at least the notion of equality under the law.

Instability in society is attributable to the fact that it's members are, for the most part, self-centered beings consumed with their own pleasure. Punishment, if meted out correctly, can serve as a counterbalance.

Re:the test of civilization

[Anonymous Coward]

I take it you've never had to deal with the legal system in backwoods Virgina before. I have known people who were arrested for having out of state plates and when they informed the cops they had just moved to the state, they were then released. Having spent some time in the Bristol area I can tell you, some parts of the United States hardly count as "civilization". She will be pressured in to taking a deal long before it gets to jury and be threatend all the way with the 1 year in prison if she loses the jury trial. The state will most likely set her up on pre-trial intervention which will cost here several hundred dollars to get the "conviction" expunged from her record. The legal system is a scam and the worst perps are not the defense lawyers, its the judges, cops and DAs.

Re:the test of civilization

[moshennik]

The punishment is not only a punishment, but also a deterrent for the future violators. They are clearly trying to make an example of this girl. They only get to catch a small percentage. Hence they have to make the punishment far more severe than the crime.

Re:the test of civilization

[Tom]

Whatever you are smoking, can I get some?

If the punishment is less than the crime, than by any rational decision, you should become a criminal.

Let A be the profit of your crime.
Let B be the chance to get caught.
Let C be the punishment.

If A - (B*C) > 0 for all values, then committing the crime is always profitable. If A > C and B=[0...1] then A-(B*C) >0 for all values of A, B and C within these limits.

The punishment must be higher than the profit of the crime. Not vastly, but enough to make being honest a choice that is rational in the game-theory sense.

Re:the test of civilization

[techiemikey]

kind of off topic, but they are at very least equal. Both scar the people for the remainder of their life. Just in one case, the life is longer. I have seen what's happened to people this has happened to. They really are just as bad.

Re:the test of civilization

[Anonymous Coward]

In punishments less severe than the crime, there is absolutlely NO deterrent effect. If the consequence for taking 100$ is to repay 90$, every criminal would be stealing all the money they could get their hands on. I think you mean that the punishment should be proportional to the crime.

That is to say, the punishment must be sufficient to act as a deterrent, but not so severe that any single violator is unfairly burdened with a punishment meant solely to act as a deterrent to others. Thus, making every embezzler pay in restitution ten times what they stole would make sense, even though the damage done would not amount to 10 times the stolen amount. Laws function as deterrents precisely because they tip the cost/benefit ratio back in favor of the law-abiding.

Re:the test of civilization

[Anonymous Coward]

...chopping someone's hand off for stealing, or chopping someone's head off for prostitution, is not civilization...

but the punishment must ALWAYS be less severe than the crime itself, or instability rather than stability is bred that society. because you are not teaching people to respect a valid concept (justice), you are teaching them (unsuccessfully) to respect an invalid concept (violence)

I other words, the justice system should itself play a civilizing role.

Re:the test of civilization

[techiemikey]

except you are forgetting one key thing, for all values of A when the person get's caught, A becomes zero. The punishment to breaking into a bank and stealing 1,000,000$ is not return 999,999. That is not a punishment. It would be, for example, returning the money, paying for anything they broke, and having to help the bank run security for a little while (or be a teller or something like that). It turns a $1 million dollar theft into helping the company(or bank, or whatever) they just robbed. That actually feels like true justice.

Re:the test of civilization

[lixee]

that's why sharia law, for example, is wrong: chopping someone's hand off for stealing, or chopping someone's head off for prostitution, is not civilization

Please don't amalgamate what the most extremist whackos do with what Shari'a law is in essence. It's been awfully misinterpreted. I agree with your point though. I'm just not comfortable with you calling it Shari'a (the linguistic root of which is "legitimacy") when it's nothing more than a way dictators control the masses.

Re:the test of civilization

[Anonymous Coward]

Emotions can't be reduced to an equation. Not only that but the same punishment has vastly different meanings to different people. Spending even a few days in jail might be devestating to someone who has never been there and feels their reputation has been destroyed but it would mean very little to a career criminal. Now we have wildly excessive punishments for things like, for example, pot; something that is basically a victimless crime (crime related to it stems from the laws banning it in the first place).

Re:the test of civilization

[Cervantes]

Actually, as much as I have a problem with Sharia law when it comes to women and prostitutes and a variety of other things, I don't have a huge problem with chopping someones hand off for stealing. Why? It's a nonfatal but severe punishment that would severely discourage theft. I also support chopping the wangs off of men who violently rape women (but actual, grab-them rape, not 17 year olds getting a blowjob from a 16 year old).
Both serve a good purpose. You do activity X, you suffer a severe penalty. I would predict a huge reduction in those two crimes if we'd implement those.
(note, I'm not American, and I suspect if this was implemented in the US it would immediately be abused)

Re:the test of civilization

[Tom]

Even if grandparent meant to speak about the punishment above and beyond reparation, it's still a dangerous proposition.

if C A. However, if C A than the chance of capturing a criminal has to be very high in order for the small punishment to serve as a deterent.

Re:the test of civilization

[FragHARD]

-<>-
Actually you should return 95,000-- since the punishment should be less ;=)

Btw..I love your sig :=)

Re:the test of civilization

[Grishnakh]

is that the punishment is less severe than the crime

otherwise, it's just revenge

that's why sharia law, for example, is wrong: chopping someone's hand off for stealing, or chopping someone's head off for prostitution, is not civilization

Correct; that's why the Hammurabi code ("an eye for an eye") was such a great idea, and one we should return to. A year in jail is a ridiculous punishment for recording 20 seconds of video, which can easily be argued as fair use.

The justice system we have now, where people have huge fines or jail terms for relatively minor crimes, is not at all unlike Sharia Law. However, it's even worse because truly violent offenders get relatively minor sentences in order to make room in the prisons for the non-violent offenders (especially for drugs).

Re:the test of civilization

[Anonymous Coward]

It depends. Actually, Islam has many jurisprudence schools, and in most of those you'll find that the "hand chopping" norm, as well as all the other Koran norms, are understood as something applicable "as written" only in situations identical to those of when they were written, i.e., when prisons, and even a fixed place where to live, were luxuries you didn't have, less harsh conditions implying in the rules being accordingly and proportionately toned down. Notice, by the way, that this is something similar to what the Jews do: you usually won't find a modern day Jew stoning a children for not obeying his parents, even though this is what the Bible mandates.

you didn't spell "mandated" correctly. it ends in an "ed," not an "s." the civil and ceremonial laws where designed for god to work directly with a carnal nation where god looked directly after them and worked directly with them

that time has long since passed and those laws don't apply anymore - to anyone.

Re:the test of civilization

[Qrlx]

that's why sharia law, for example, is wrong: chopping someone's hand off for stealing, or chopping someone's head off for prostitution, is not civilization

Oh, "civilization."

Here's an experiment:
Put on your nice gold chain and walk around Riyadh alone at night.
Put on your nice gold chain and walk around Washington, D.C. alone at night.

Let me know which capital city was more "civilized."

Re:the test of civilization

[tftp]

I don't have a huge problem with chopping someones hand off for stealing

Then don't squeal when your two enemies both claim that you stole something from them.

Re:the test of civilization

[tftp]

You are confusing "civilized" and "wealthy". Try another experiment:

• Take a bottle of alcohol and walk around Riyadh, drinking slowly and cursing Allah.
• Take a bottle of alcohol and walk around Washington, D.C., drinking slowly and cursing Allah.

Let me know which capital city treated you better.

Re:the test of civilization

[Anonymous Coward]

> that's why sharia law...

Slashdot could really do without racist pricks like you. It's amazing the number of bible-thumping white-trash morons that are here.

Re:the test of civilization

[toddestan]

The arrest rate for bank robbery is about 60 percent*(!) That means about 40% of the time, you can get away with it. So if you manage to steal $100,000 each time, you can expect, on average, to keep $40,000 per robbery in the long run. As such, it seems capping the punishment at a number less than 100% of the amount stolen won't be too harsh of a deterrent. If the punishment is set to less than 40%, robbing banks would even be profitable even with the punishment factored in.

*http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3432084&pag e=1

Re:the test of civilization

[Cervantes]

I don't have a huge problem with chopping someones hand off for stealing

Then don't squeal when your two enemies both claim that you stole something from them.

Claim, and proof, are different.
I agree the current implementation of Sharia makes this possible. But that's a fault of the system, not the rules.

Re:the test of civilization

[tftp]

I was careful to mention two (2) witnesses because they are all the proof that the law requires:

In accordance with the Qur'an and several hadith, theft is punished by imprisonment or amputation of hands or feet, depending on the number of times it was committed and depending on the item of theft. However, before the punishment is executed two eyewitnesses under oath must say that they saw the person stealing.

Quoted from http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

To say it again, if your two enemies choose to be false witnesses to your theft you will need an artificial hand soon. Those guys would not be risking much because even if one guy confesses later in false accusation, it's one man's word against another, it won't go anywhere, but your hand is gone already.

Re:the test of civilization

[Belacgod]

Ah, but how do you value jail time? If I had $40,000, I'd gladly pay it to expunge my criminal record and not spend a few years in prison. Therefore, the certain threat of amassing a criminal record and spending time in jail > $100,000, and a 40% chance of amassing a criminal record and spending time in jail > $40,000.

I'm not sure how much money I'd spend to avoid jail, but I think it's safe to say that the penalties for bank robbery are of greater value than $40,000.

Re:the test of civilization

[Qrlx]

I'm not seeing the correlation. Wait, which one you consider to be wealthy, Riyadh or DC?

Plus, where you gonna get a bottle of alcohol in Riyadh? :)

Clearly though that's not a fair test since Saudi is a dry country.

How about this one:
Be a black person and drive a car with a broken tail light around the USA.
Be a black person and drive a car with a broken tail light around Saudi Arabia.

Just makes it easy

[kalpol]

It just makes it easier for me not to go to theaters - I mean, think about it. What do you gain by going to a theater? A big, big screen and instant gratification of seeing the movie the instant it's released. That's it. The surround sound, comfy chair, and junk food you can get anywhere. Is it really worth the trouble? I don't think so. I am patient. Even with my beat-up 36" Toshiba CRT and having to wait a bit to Netflix the movie, it's still worth it to me to not have to deal with the ads, previews, searches, mess, prices, and hordes of near-animals that have turned theaters into very unpleasant experiences. I used to enjoy a reasonably-priced movie and even paid a bit more for drinks - not any more.

Re:Just makes it easy

[King_TJ]

Well, if they would have just let her FINISH, I wouldn't have to go to the theater to see Transformers, at least! Sheesh.... :P

But seriously, I pretty much agree. On a *rare* occasion, a movie is released that I want to see badly enough, I'll pay their premium to see it right away, vs. waiting for a DVD release. But I have a nice little setup at home now with a DLP projector and 110" pull-down screen. I can pause the movie any time I like, adjust the volume to my liking, and get whatever I want to snack on without paying insane prices for it. And yeah, avoids all the stupid commercials (half the time just B.S. trying to scare me into not pirating movies).

Theaters need to upgrade the whole experience. IMax is a good start. Why didn't they film "300" in IMax? That would be cool.... being immersed in the middle of those battle scenes and all!

Re:Just makes it easy

[GospelHead821]

I get to make out with my date in public. That's worth the price of admission.

Re:Just makes it easy

[Spy der Mann]

I stopped going to the movie theaters when they minimized their size. When I was a kid, the theaters were huge, large as halls, and pretty wide (that's why they were called THEATERS). The actual screen had a field of view of around 30 to 40 degrees.

Current theaters are much smaller, and the screens' FOV are around 120 degrees or more, specially if the only seats available are the front ones - this makes me VERY dizzy and at the end of the movie i usually end up with a strong headache due to motion sickness (similar to the one i get when playing 3D games for more than 2 hours).

I enjoy DVD movies much more - I don't get headaches from watching them.

Re:Just makes it easy

[boyko.at.netqos]

Indeed; I only go to the Alamo Drafthouse now - and never to watch hollywood blockbusters. Only to watch their "combined film and live theatre" shows like "3, 2, 1, Kill!" (a full-length feature film is improvised right on the streets of Austin and the tapes are run to the booth every 10 minutes,) "Master Pancake Theatre," (Like MST3K, but live,) and my favorite, "Foleyvision" (a foreign film is redubbed, with music, dialogue and sound-effects reproduced faithfully inside the theatre.)

Seriously. $500 gets you a projector. $100 gets you a screen. $200 gets you a computer capable of playing the same. If you get five of your friends together, microwave some popcorn, and the thing pays for itself by the 10th movie.

Re:Just makes it easy

[kalpol]

Ahhh...the Drafthouse has it right. I work three blocks away from the original one. It's great. And when I say great, I mean it's fun to go! thats how it should be.

Re:Just makes it easy

[sheph]

Exactly. I have no use for theaters anymore. I just got an HDTV projector with a 119" screen. I am my own theater. Number one, it's very rare that a movie comes out that I actually want to see. Number two, in the rare event that a movie did come out that I wanted to see I would wait for it to come out on DVD and rent it. Number three, why would I go sit in a theater with all of the distractions of rude kids, cell phones, $8 bags of pop corn, etc when I can enjoy it much more in the privacy of my own home? And now it seems theater owners are just chomping at the bit for someone to make an example of. No thanks, not interested.

Re:Just makes it easy

[Anonymous Coward]

I go to theaters for those sorts of movies I want to see more of. That money I'm spending on over-priced tickets isn't so much for the "experience" of seeing a movie, but is an incentive for the studio to make more movies that I'd like to see. It doesn't always work, as too many of you lazy slackers didn't go see Serenity, but at least I made the attempt.

Re:Just makes it easy

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel the same way! First they overcharge us to see their crappy movies and now they treat us like criminals. Why should I bother going? I have much better things to spend my money on. I haven't been to a movie in 10 years. DVDs are better! ;)

Re:Just makes it easy

[Anonymous Coward]

You are missing a very valid reason for going to the movies -- getting out of the house. I know the movie execs don't see this either. When the cost of going to the movies outweighs my desire to get out of the house, I don't go. There was a summer where I went to every movie because it was something to do. Of course, movies cost $4.25. Crappy movies were ok when it would cost me around 10 bucks to see a movie with a friend. When it started to cost more, I went to fewer movies. Now that it is over $10.00 each ticket, hell, I'll wait. It better be a damn good movie at that price -- and so few are. I don't know why they don't drop the price of each ticket to get people to come back to the theaters. Especially with kids -- can you imagine how good a movie is going to have to be for me to spend $50 or more to take my family? For $20 I can take them to the pool.

Re:Just makes it easy

[CrazyTalk]

I may be the only one here to say this, but - I like going to the movies. Popcorn tastes better, there is a bigger screen and better sound than I get in my house (even if I bought a home theatre system), and there is the "shared experience" of being in big room full of both friends and strangers that you just dont get at home. Comedies in particular are more enjoyable. I saw Borat in the theatre, and everyone had a great time, myself included, laughing througout the show. Seeing it in the solitude of my house on DVD was just not the same. Plus, it's nice to get out of the house once in awhile!

Re:Just makes it easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Zero tolerance + employee reward + video capable camera phone = Feels like I'm carrying a loaded gun when I walk into a movie theater.

Did you know that at some movies, particular early screenings or soon after release they record the audience in infrared to detect cameras?

Re:Just makes it easy

[Headw1nd]

The amusing thing about this for me is that I'm a Northern Virginia resident, and I was just trying to decide whether to watch a friend's bootleg of transformers or pay to watch it at - you guessed it - the nearby Regal Cinema.

Guess which way I'm leaning now.

Stealing what?

[Heftklammerdosierer!]

Photons?

The length is VERY important

[ebcdic]

The length of the slip is one of the key points in deciding whether it's fair use or not.

Re:The length is VERY important

[Tmack]

The length of the slip is one of the key points in deciding whether it's fair use or not.

Must...resist... crude..joke...about.. her...slip.....and .. fair..use....

Tm

Re:The length is VERY important

[Anonymous Coward]

The length of the slip[sic] is one of the key points in deciding whether it's fair use or not.

And if she were being charged under copyright law you would be correct. She is not. As an earlier poster pointed out:

She's accused of using an audiovisual recording device in a theater, which is a different law

As such, she has no defence of "fair use" against this law.

Fair Use

[N8F8]

If it really was only 20 seconds then this will get tossed out. Two year old acts don't supersede Constitutional> rights.

Re:Fair Use

[CrackedButter]

How long have you been a US citizen, how quickly have you forgotten the Patriot Act.

MOD PARENT UP

[conspirator57]

It'll suck for the person accused of this, but maybe this could be the case that leads to a *serious* review of the weapons our representatives have given copyright holders. Then at least some good might come of it.

Bah

[starX]

1) If it was only a 20 second clip, they're covered by fair use provisions.
2) No judge is going to give her a year in prison, even if it was just the first 20 seconds before she got caught
3) Teenagers do dumb things, none of us are any different, and learning to deal with the consequences is part of growing up. Next time, I'm sure she'll be much more sneaky and effective in her attempts at piracy, and I'm sure other teenagers will learn from this example and so will be too.
4) That's ONE teenager with a video camera down, and several hundred thousand, plus the legions of others in less corporately controlled countries to go. Good job, MPAA, you'll have this thing nipped in the bud in no time.

Re:Bah

[Anonymous Coward]

What fair use provisions? Show me where the fair use says you can record this many seconds of a movie? Please cite law and case law if you have it.

(Hint. It doesn't. I'm an expert in copyright law. Fair use is something that you kids scream about, but you hardly ever read up on. It's not what you think it is)

Re:Bah

[starX]

First of all, I call bullshit. You're an Anonymous Coward, and that means you're nothing. If you want to be an expert in copyright law, please provide your full name, as well as the law school from which you graduated, your graduation year, the law firm for which you currently work, and a phone number where we can verify all this with your employer or a senior partner in your firm. You department chair will do if you're a professor in a law school.

Second if all. I cite: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107, point 4 "(the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." Since the claimed effect was to present said clip to her younger brother, it would in all likely hood have a positive economic impact on the film by encouraging him to see it. Therefore, fair use.

But lets take them all...

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; Fair use, see above.

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;, fair use. The theoretical random 20 second clip could be intended for discussion/illustration purposes. Since it is a film if a specific portion of the film is necessary for such discussion, it would be classified as fair use.

(3) the amount and substantially of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; Since she took a 20 second clip of a movie that is roughly 7200 second long, that equates to roughly .03% of the film. That is an insignificant portion of the overall work, and therefore I or any sane person would call it fair use.

If you're going to bother responding, please cite specific legislation and/or case law that contradicts the above.

Re:Bah

[Sloppy]

If it was only a 20 second clip, they're covered by fair use provisions.

No she's not covered, just as someone who distributes DVD playback software isn't covered by fair use. She isn't being accused of copyright violation; this is something else. More here.

Re:Bah

[deblau]

1) If it was only a 20 second clip, they're covered by fair use provisions.

I wish people would stop propagating this myth. It is wrong, wrong, and unequivocally wrong. Read the fair use law, 17 USC 107:

the fair use of a copyrighted work . . . for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

It's only a fair use if the court decides it is after looking at all four of the above factors (and perhaps others) and balancing them.

In sum, the '30 second rule' is pure fiction.

Re:Bah

[n00854180t]

Yes, but such protections don't apply to TERRORIST PIRATES! OH NOES! (AC supposed "copyright expert" = pwned)

Once again...

[Cleon]

It just goes to show that "Zero Tolerance" might as well be a synonym for "Zero Intelligence."

Re:Once again...

[Fyz]

Exactly. I've never seen a zero tolerance reaction that was anything but a panicked reaction to a problem gone out of control due to a complete inability to see the bigger picture.

Re:Once again...

[Anonymous Coward]

Following the logic in this case, a year prison for a 20 second clip should mean that someone who pirates a whole movie should get multiple life sentences! Is such crime really more serious than murder or running someone down in a car whilst drunk ?
Certainly seems like zero intelligence sentencing....

errata

[Spy der Mann]

Oops. It was the GIRL who was videotaping. Double ouch.

Morals

[Anonymous Coward]

'We cannot educate theater managers to be judges and juries in what is acceptable. Theater managers cannot distinguish between good and bad stealing.'

Any company that has no moral capability should not be allowed to exist. By making
the "non-decision" of allowing a judge and jury to decide if these people are guilty
of stealing a movie, the company automatically cost them several thousand dollars,
days of their time, and if they are unlucky a felony conviction. Does anyone believe
that these people deserved this? Anyone?

Personally I would never do business with a company that I knew acted with such a lack
of respect for morality.

Re:Morals

[Nos.]

They saw her filming the movie, the called the cops. How are they supposed to know what her intent was? Why should they believe her? I certainly wouldn't put the camera back in her hands to prove it. Imagine if she was actually trying to cam the entire movie. Someone sees her, police get called. She tells this sob story of showing her little brother a clip of the action movie. She takes the digital to show you she only recorded 20 seconds and "accidentally" deletes the recording. Send it to court, keep the camera in proper chain of custody.

it was entrapment

[mozkill]

If they can prove that the theatre actually let them walk into the theatre without warning them that the camera was illegal, then they might be able to prove that the theatre actually assisted them in filming the 20-second clip.

Also, if the theatre saw the camera, and then decided to follow them and check to see if they were using it in the theatre, you could almost say that they were trapped. If that was the case, they still saw the camera, let them pass the entryway and they still assisted in the filming.

Re:it was entrapment

[Anonymous Coward]

No, for the millionth time, this isn't entrapment. Entrapment, by definition, requires a police officer to do the coercing.

Usual invented loss figure

[gilesjuk]

They claim they lost $18.2 billion last year through taping in cinemas?

How do they come up with such stupid figures? are cinemas closing, are films not being made anymore?

Of course not. I would estimate the losses are in the low millions at most. You can't just seize thousands of dodgy DVD and put a loss figure on them. You can't prove if that person did or did not see the film.

It's all lies lies and statistics.

"They were the victim in this case, and they felt

[unity100]

... strongly enough about it"

Did they now ? I feel very strongly about them too, and i would like to explain my feelings in a very much Turkish way, however civility for the sake of slashdot bars me.

"Victim" - those morons do not know the real meaning of being a "victim".

1776

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to comment on this and what the American people should do to take back their government from the big corporations, their lobbyists, and their campaign funding, to put an end to this sort of idiocy, but if I did, Homeland Security would probably take an interest in me.

Uhh... they are managers?

[Razed By TV]

The National Association of Theater Owners supports Regal's 'zero-tolerance' prosecution standard: 'We cannot educate theater managers to be judges and juries in what is acceptable. Theater managers cannot distinguish between good and bad stealing." If the managers cannot think for themselves, make decisions for themselves, and evaluate situations for themselves, why are they managers? Zero tolerance policy or not, it is disturbing that the National Association of Theater Owners is suggesting that the managers cannot think for themselves and that an organization could do a better job, doing their thinking for them.

Re:Uhh... they are managers?

[MoneyT]

It's not that they can't. It's that doing so will result in multi million dollar lawsuits. It's cheaper for them to press charges against everyone than not.

Not very bright

[clang_jangle]

Taking a camcorder to a movie theater is just not very bright, is it? Time for "jhannet" and the submitter to wake up and smell the fascism -- this ain't your Dad's United States of America, after all. I mean what are you going to do next, joke about having a bomb in a government office and then submit a /. sob sory about going to prison?

I'm sorry, but IMO if this person gets punished it's just Darwinism in action.

Re:Not very bright

[Bloodoflethe]

Great analogy. Brilliant. We all know that Jhannet posted this on /. to get sympathy from us. What was done was not a crime, according to fair use. The bomb threat is. And Darwinism has nothing to do with any of this, as no one is getting killed.

Re:Not very bright

[clang_jangle]

What was done was not a crime, according to fair use.

Forgive me if I am not swayed by your interpretation of the law. AFAIK it is if not illegal, certainly against the rules of the theater to use a camcorder inside.

Darwinism has nothing to do with any of this, as no one is getting killed.

Darwinism isn't solely about the life/death binary, it is about natural selection of genes, which is a very long-term thing to study. Perhaps you should read more about it.

Re:Not very bright

[Bloodoflethe]

I quite understand the concept of natural selection, but this person most likely is going to continue to propogate the species, as she has physical characteristics that will no doubt ensure such.

Re:Not very bright

[clang_jangle]

You do not understand the social implications of Darwinism. It isn't just about breeding either, it's very much about the nature of social class as well. People who get arrested tend to inhabit lower social classes, and while they do breed disproportionately they are not the people who get to wield power or have much authority.

Re:Not very bright

[Bloodoflethe]

I understand the implications of Social Darwinism (darwinism and social darwinism are two separate subjects). However, what you said is "but IMO if this person gets punished it's just Darwinism in action" which, to me suggests you following Spencer's version of social Darwinism, something from which Darwin himself tried to distance himself (eugenics, specifically).

zero tolerance

[Anonymous Cowpat]

The National Association of Theater Owners supports Regal's 'zero-tolerance' prosecution standard: 'We cannot educate theater managers to be judges and juries in what is acceptable. Theater managers cannot distinguish between good and bad stealing.'"

If they can't tell the difference between good copying and bad copying then they should have a 'complete-tolerance' policy. 'Better to let 10 guilty men walk free than punish 1 innocent one' and all that.

Re:zero tolerance

[gr3kgr33n]

The MPAA memo got corrupted in transit. I must have read:

It is better to prosecute ten innocent men than let one guilty man walk free

Zero-Tolerance

[Xybre]

Hrm, I can't think of a situation where Zero-Tolerance Policies haven't caused problems.

Okay, lets make one up.
Murder. Lets make killing someone a zero-tolerance offense, you kill someone, you get the chair.
I can hear you saying "Uh, but xybre sir, it's murder.. ya know.. it's not like it's legal to kill people."
True enough. But take this instance, someone breaks into your house, they have a weapon and intent to kill, you have a weapon and kill them first. There's something called "self-defense" that comes into play. Zero-Tolerance means you either choose to let the guy kill you and your family, or you kill him and get the chair. What joy, you can't protect yourself with deadly force anymore, better buy a tranq gun.

Real life examples of Zero-Tolerance not working?
Stories from the Hellmouth anyone?
Mandatory sentences?

For 20 seconds of a clip??
Really?
How is this helping you MPAA?
You're going to go all RIAA and start suing people who were never even at the theatre, who've never seen the movie? Amish parents? A dog who wandered in?

Re:Zero-Tolerance

[Stringer Bell]

You're going to go all RIAA and start suing people who were never even at the theatre, who've never seen the movie? Amish parents? A dog who wandered in?

Now that's a slippery slope!

Re:Zero-Tolerance

[Cro Magnon]

You're going to go all RIAA and start suing people who were never even at the theatre, who've never seen the movie? Amish parents? A dog who wandered in?

But, anyone who doesn't go to the theater is depriving them of their money, and should be sued! Ditto for Amish & dogs, neither of whom buy tickets.

Content "owner"?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US there is no Constitutional basis for "content ownership". The Constitution grants Congress the right to give a limited time monopoly on the sale of creative works, NOT ownership.

I own my house; it does not go into the public domain after 175 years. I do not own the works I have registered copyrights for. Unless Congress gives Disney another extension my great great great great grandchildren will be SOL regarding my copyrights, but the house, should it not be sold, will still be theirs.

Someone should tell Disney and Congress this, however...

-mcgrew

This must be stopped.

[Anonymous Coward]

If people are allowed 20 second recordings, then imagine the wide-scale distributed piracy that be accomplished. Let's assume everyone records 20 seconds, with 2.5 seconds overflow on their 15 second section to allow splicing together. That's 4 people a minute. If the movie is two hours, you'd only need 240 people to capture an hour.

Re:This must be stopped.

[delvsional]

great. with all different perspectives, lighting differences, sizes, defferent peoples heads. I think I'll just wait for netflix.

Talk about your "frivolous lawsuits".

[amper]

This is an egregious abuse of our legal system and public safety officials. The proper way to handle the situation would have been to temporarily confiscate the offending equipment pending destruction of the copied material, and remove the offending party from the theatre. Problem solved.

Regardless of what anyone thinks about copyright in general, ignorance of the law is no excuse; however, the fact that a law exists is no excuse to abuse a violator, alleged or convicted, with prejudice and with cruel and usual punishment.

I hope the poor girl countersues the plaintiff.

Was it really just 20 seconds?

[Alphi1]

I suspect it will hinge on two things: 1) Whether the "20 seconds" of footage really was just 20 seconds, or if it was longer (like a minute or two), and "seemed" like only 20 seconds to them. 2) At what point they stopped recording - in other words, if they stopped recording when the manager/cops showed up, they'll have a hard time convincing anyone that they planned to stop recording prior to getting caught.

Re:Was it really just 20 seconds?

[tftp]

The TFA mentions that the "camcorder" is actually a Canon PowerShot camera, incapable of continuous recording for more than half a minute in any case, limited by Flash and battery. I have one, and it is hardly even a child's toy when it comes to taking a movie.

Another KDawson special

[mi]

Look at the story-twisting here. The title is "A Year In Prison For a 20-Second Film Clip?" The text, however, reads: "If convicted, she could be sentenced to a year in prison and a $2,500 fine."

Emphasys mine, of course. The law provides for up to a year here, it seems, and she is rather unlikely to get any of that, if the write-up tells the truth...

KDawson's attempts to spread the DailyKos fearmongering to /. really ought to end. I can almost see a line running through his screen: "BushNazi alert: ELEVATED".

Re:Another KDawson special

[ianpm]

You do know what a question mark means, don't you?

Re:Another KDawson special

[Xybre]

I didn't interpret that quite the same way, since it was a question (indicated by the question mark at the end), it seemed to be asking if that eventuality was fair or not.

As an aside.. I've noticed people bitch about /. a lot, hell, I've bitched at/about /., however, here's the thing, if they post an inflammatory story, they get more comments, maybe even more pageviews, what does that translate into? Ad revenue! If we *really* have a problem with it, we can do two huge things.

One, submit better stories.. or
Two, go read Digg .. yeah I didn't think so.

Re:Another KDawson special

[mi]

I didn't interpret that quite the same way, since it was a question (indicated by the question mark at the end)

There an ancient joke on the subject. A local congregation is choosing a new rabbi. They are just about to agree on the candidate, when one of them rises up and asks: "Jews! Can a man, whose daughter is a prostitute be a good rabbin?" The candidate is rejected...

Afterwards the rejected man asks the one, who posed the question: "What did you mean? I don't even have a daughter..." To which the answer, of course, is: "Oh, I was just asking a question".

if they post an inflammatory story, they get more comments, maybe even more pageviews, what does that translate into? Ad revenue!

Yes, some blame the radicalization of media on this phenomenon. However, eventually people get tired of the site and the revenue drops... One hopes...

One, submit better stories.. or

The story-submissions are abudnant and diverse — just look at the firehose. What an editor picks for posting is based on his convictions...

Two, go read Digg .. yeah I didn't think so.

Or install Adblock. Or would that be "stealing"?..

Re:Another KDawson special

[Xybre]

Hrm, you may be right about the story title, I just didn't see it that way after reading the article itself. Then again, who RTFA anyway..

I do blame the yellow press for this phenomenon, it makes them money, money is success.. right? right? No? Well damn.
People seem to be dreadfully short sighted.

Interesting, I wasn't aware it was solely up to the editor's discretion.

Adblock doesn't stop stupid stories, only stupid advertising.

Re:Another KDawson special

[OutSourcingIsTreason]

KDawson's attempts to spread the DailyKos fearmongering to /. really ought to end.

Oh silly me, I thought fearmongering was doing something like raising an elevated terrorism warning with no credible threat. Live and learn.

20 Sec Clip for her brother

[Fox_1]

With everything going on in the copyright world too
1. bring a camcorder into a movie theatre ,
2. actually use the camcorder to record any part of the movie
Strikes me as the height of stupidity, she could have just sent her brother a link to the Trailer. She's 20 years old, she should know better, I really wish I could be on her side, but I can't, this is just pure stupidity on her part and if she gets a year in jail it's no diff then a 20 year old shoplifter. I'm willing to bet that she looked around for people watching her before she pulled the camera out, because she knew it was wrong.
Though on another note - it's also the height of obviousness to everybody but the public facing film industry that people videotaping movies for profit is a myth from a Seinfeld episode , the reality is that the illegal/unlicensed Movie Copies are coming from industry members copying screener discs and distributing them from profit.

Re:20 Sec Clip for her brother

[clang_jangle]

it's also the height of obviousness to everybody but the public facing film industry that people videotaping movies for profit is a myth from a Seinfeld episode , the reality is that the illegal/unlicensed Movie Copies are coming from industry members copying screener discs and distributing them from profit.

Not true -- in my neighborhood in San Francisco there are indeed street vendors with DVDs for $5 that have legit looking packaging, but if you open one it has a DVD with no label or a minimal low-budget label. Now of course I would never buy such a product, but one of my neighbors did and he showed me the movie. It was a blatant (and very amateurish) camcorder copy made in a theater.

Re:20 Sec Clip for her brother

[Anonymous Coward]

camcorder

Quit swinging your huge dick around, fuckwad. I'm sure you posted your shit immediately after reading half the summary. Otherwise you'd have tried to appear less like a slobbering imbecile.

She used a fucking Canon Powershot camera, which has nearly no video capacity at all.

OK, continue showing us that you can kiss your own ass.

Nonsense

[Vengance Daemon]

When they say: "Theater managers cannot distinguish between good and bad stealing." They are obviously correct, I mean, they haven't been able to distinguish between good and bad movies for years.

Back in '39 when I was in the Marines, shop owners and schools and others had leeway and a little bit of good sense. If a kid swiped something in a store, the store owner could call the police, call the kid's parents, or give the kid a bit of a bad time to work off paying for the item or whatever seemed appropriate for the situation. Schools could show some good sense as well; but now-a-days, schools go stark staring berserk when a kid brings in a paring knife in to eat an orange, or the school cops use Tasers on 12-year olds having a tantrum.

The days of having a sense of proportion in the United States are over. "Zero tolerance" is a bad tool, and takes away any shred of individual judgment or good sense. It makes it easy to ruin someone or make them miserable with the excuse of "I was just following orders."

I stopped buying music because I dislike the policies and prices of members of the RIAA. I really don't like the movie theater experience any longer: Dirty theaters, insane prices for bad popcorn, and 22 minutes of commercials before the movie begins. My local library is a GREAT place to check out DVD movies and CD music.

If you do not like an entity's policies or prices, don't give them your money.

Re:Nonsense

[lightversusdark]

Back in '39 when I was in the Marines,

How old are you?

The fact

[Arthur B.]

that I can imagine them very well doing so *noisily* in the theater makes me feel no pity at all. Let them go to the special jail.

Good, maybe she'll learn something.

[Anonymous Coward]

Like courtesy. Even if what she did was benign, it was rude to the other people around her. Yanking out a video camera while other people are trying to enjoy the movie they payed 10 bucks to see is rude and thoughtless. I don't care if it was the dumb broad's birthday, maybe just showing a little common courtesy to other people around her would have kept her out of this situation.

Honestly, if someone in front of you opened up a camera and started recording even a short bit of the movie wouldn't that piss you off? It's just something you should have the common sense to not do, moreso because of the people around you than it's piracy.

Re:Good, maybe she'll learn something.

[NeutronCowboy]

So violating common courtesy is worth a year in jail now? Spending thousands on a lawyer? Really..... I expect 300 million lawsuits popping up overnight of the "Dey r on my lawnz, stealin my gnomez" variety.

Re:Good, maybe she'll learn something.

[blueskies]

Honestly, if someone in front of you opened up a camera and started recording even a short bit of the movie wouldn't that piss you off?

Like OMG! That would like totally piss me off. How can i enjoy the movie if that woman is going to use that noisy device to record the movie?? It is like so distracting. You'd think they would make video cameras that didn't make noise when they record so they wouldn't annoy people.

copyright violations should not equal a felony

[matt_king]

Why do we treat copyright violations like they are the end of the free world? There is no reason that these civil issues between two parties need to get the federal government involved at the felony level. F hollywood and the legislators who are sitting in their pocket. Completely out of whack. And people think the patent system is bad! Not trying to flame here, but this whole thing really irks me to no end.

Re:copyright violations should not equal a felony

[Tacvek]

The criminal copyright related charges are intended to be used in mahor cases, like a film release ring. I don't really have a problem with it in that case. Nor in the case of selling bootleg software CDs. (Especially when making the customers believe they were buying a legitimate copy.)

I'm guessing this particular law was intended more as a plea bargain charge in the case they catch one of the groups members. (In exchange for revealing the identities of the other members, the person caught could plead guilty to this rather than facing full Criminal Copyright infringement costs.) The MPAA would likely be willing to go along with that, as hitting all but one member with full criminal copyright infringement charges is much better that hitting only one member with it.

NSFW!! NSFW!!

[xtracto]

Hey guy, give me back my innocence!...

And my job

Re:NSFW!! NSFW!!

[peacefinder]

Ah, but did he have permission to use the image?

Eh?

[itsdapead]

If convicted, she could be sentenced to a year in prison and a $2,500 fine. The police say they lack discretion because Regal Cinemas chose to prosecute

Please educate me - in the land of the free, does the "victim" really get the final say as to whether to actually prosecute a criminal charge against an individual (as opposed to the discretion to press charges or not, and/or bring a civil case)?

Re:Eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

I honestly do not know the legal basis of when or when not this can be applied, but it seems in most misdemeanor offenses, yes the victim can not choose not to press charges.

This is a good thing. A 15 year old shoplifting from a store is often sufficiently spooked by the police showing up or even getting caught that a trip through the legal system is neither warranted nor beneficial to either party. This may just be due to the fact that if the victim does not want to cooperate, the police will have no evidence, and would look rather foolish when the case got to court and they had no evidence.

It is not clear to me what you are trying to imply by invoking "land of the free." This is a good thing. Could you imagine if every time family members came to blows and the cops got called they got nailed for assault charges? "Hey dad, where is uncle bob?" "Well son, remember that argument on Thanksgiving? Uncle Bob is going to be away for the next 1-3 years..."

I could understand where you are coming from if the assailant was given this leeway, but why the fuss over the victim?

Re:Eh?

[itsdapead]

yes the victim can not choose not to press charges.

"Press charges" is not the same thing as actually prosecuting the case.

AFAIK (IANAL and other DETLAs) here in the UK if (e.g.) you punched me in the face I could be magnanimous and withdraw the charges in which case the police would probably (but not necessarily) drop the case. However, I wanted you to rot in jail for it, and pressed the issue it would still be up to (in the UK, the Crown Prosecution Service) to decide if it was appropriate to proceed with the criminal case. If they decide to drop the charges due to (e.g.) lack of evidence then I'm SOL (I could always bring a civil suit, but unless you give the judge the bird you won't go to jail for that).

Well, OB-viously

[peacefinder]

'We cannot educate theater managers to be judges and juries in what is acceptable. Theater managers cannot distinguish between good and bad stealing.'

"[...] because for some reason the only people we can hire as theater managers are sub-human morons."

What a load of bull. Have a little faith in your employees, guys. If I were a theater manager, I'd be really insulted. Especially since the training isn't that hard. Here, try this:

WHEN A CAMCORDER IS FOUND OPERATING IN YOUR THEATER
1) Pull the customer with the camcorder from the theater.
2) Rewind the clip to see how long it is.
      a) Over two minutes? Yep, that's a problem. Seize camera, call the cops, end.
      b) Under two minutes? Likely not a problem. Check the previous clips on the camera.
            b.1) Previous clips are also of this movie? Seize camera, call the cops, end.
            b.2) Previous clips are of something else entirely? Not a problem.
      c) Customer refuses to rewind and display camera contets? Seize camera, call the cops, end.
3) Warn customer that cameras are not allowed in the theater at all.
4) Return camera to customer.
5) Boot customer from premises with no refund.

There. It's even small enough to put on a little card your managers can carry around just in case they're forgetful.

Re:Well, OB-viously

[15Bit]

> WHEN A CAMCORDER IS FOUND OPERATING IN YOUR THEATER

> 1) Pull the customer with the camcorder from the theater.
> ......
> ......
> 5) Boot customer from premises with no refund.

6) Await litigation for conducting an illegal search, infringement of privacy and god alone knows what else.

Sadly this is a two edged sword, and the abuses are rampant on both sides. Its nice to think that an old fashioned clip-round-the-ear is the solution, but while there is a climate where people litigate if you so much as cough in their direction, there will be zero tolerance laws and the need to call in heavily armed police for everything more serious than a crying baby. Better get used to it, or move to a country where common sense still prevails.

Re:Well, OB-viously

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets be honest here, what percentage of people do you really thing bring a camcorder into a theater and whip it out to "film a clip for their brother?"

I think it is totally within the right of a theater manager to tell his employees to equate camcorders in the theaters with someone trying to create a bootleg copy of the movie. Besides the fact that I would not expect my employees to sit there and know how to operate every camcorder and to sit there and watch through the entirety of their tapes on hand. I feel it is entirely reasonable to call the cops and let them figure it out.

The whole scenario described is really rather fishy, and combined with the story headline mentioning only the maximum possible sentence (not the typical sentence a first time offender would receive) just reeks of an agenda or sensationalist journalism.

Re:Well, OB-viously

[peacefinder]

Fair enough. It's Regal's response that really fries me, though: claiming that their theater managers are untrainable? That's just ridiculous. They should just honestly say "We assume any customer with a camcorder is a crook", not pretend that their employees are idiots just to milk some PR damage control.

Makes me want to go give that article to every Regal manager in my town and ask them "Did you know that corproate thinks you're an idiot?"

But I guess that wouldn't be fair use; they'd probably sue me.

Re:Well, OB-viously

[MoneyT]

Do you really want to give theaters the power to view what's on your recording device?

Re:Well, OB-viously

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop being an ass. What illegal search? Asking to see the camera? Asking to see the camera and them giving it to you is not an illegal search. Fine though, for assbags like you we'll just add that if at any point the customer does not cooperate, call the cops.

Re:Well, OB-viously

[neonfrog]

Why not even simpler? The managers job is to stop the illegal recording, right? They have the single most effective tool - TURN OFF THE MOVIE. Now it is impossible for the would-be copyright infringer to get the whole thing. So the steps should be:

1) Notice taping.
2) Stop movie
3) Turn on lights
4) Take picture of offender
5) Say loudly that the picture will be turned over to the police unless the offender can hand over the tape/delete the recording immediately. Oh yeah, and you have to leave now.
6) Restart the movie.

I'm sure the first response is, "But why punish everyone?" Well, you're not punishing everyone. They will get to see the rest of the movie. Sure it will be annoying the first 2 or 3 times it happens and you'll get some complaints, but within a very short period you can be assured that the other movie-goers will make CERTAIN their seat neighbors don't whip out a camera. For those old enough to remember arcades, this happened with drinks on pool tables and pinball machines. Shut down 1 game, or close a room to violators, and that behavior stops rather quickly.

Re:Well, OB-viously

[toddestan]

6) Await litigation for conducting an illegal search, infringement of privacy and god alone knows what else.

Looks like you missed part 2c:

"c) Customer refuses to rewind and display camera contets? Seize camera, call the cops, end." In other words, the customer can refuse the search, but then you just call the cops and let them sort it out.

Who can argue

[GodCandy]

The are clearly guilty. If you film any part of a movie for any reason you are guilty. I may not agree with this policy however it is the law and we must obey. I think that they aught to get something just for being that stupid in the first place. As stated prior to this most good "pirates" would have been more careful not to be seen. I could go on but whats the point.

Re:Who can argue

[Dunbal]

Guilt or not, I don't face the same penalty if I punch you in the face or if I shoot you in the head. There are degrees of guilt.

The magic 8-ball says...

[Sta7ic]

...okay, so she's guilty of recording 20s of the movie. If she's convicted, money says the judge/jury looks at the scope of the "theft", observes that your typical movie advertisement carries more than 20 seconds of scenes from the movie, and tells her not to do it again.

A system of laws is as rules-based as our computers are, but that doesn't mean that the sentencing is equally binary. The human element's going to show up in this case and either reduce the sentence to something insignificant, or throw the case out as "not worth the court's time".

All is not lost....

[mark-t]

Although this woman did indeed commit a crime and should go before a judge, do not forget that judges are people too, and are fully allowed to show compassion on a person who has committed no previous crime and every indication is that they are repentant. A reasonable judge would probably look at the situation as a whole and give her a conditional discharge (ie,if she commits another crime then she would face full penalties for both this and the other, otherwise this occurrence is considered to be forgiven), and probably with a few months probation on top just for good measure.

As for being banned for life from the theatre.... again, as long as she didn't do anything else, she would probably be able to go back there within about 2 or 3 years.

Re:All is not lost....

[The Raven]

Actually, I'm not completely certain she committed a crime. How short must a clip be to fall within fair use? A law which prohibits fair use could potentially be overturned on those grounds. Not that it's LIKELY to be overturned.

Perhaps the judge could rule that she is responsible for damages relative to the fraction of the movie she recorded. 20 seconds works out to just over 1/400th of the movie. Fine her 1/400th of $2500, and 1/400th of a year. So, one day, and $6 dollars and change. She's probably already been in jail for a day, and she could pay the fine out of the change in her couch.

That would send an appropriate message to the theatre owners.

Re:All is not lost....

[Dunbal]

Oh no. The MPAA will want her to pay 1/400th of the production cost of the movie, so 1/400th of $150 M is $375,000. Cash please.

Re:All is not lost....

[NeutronCowboy]

Why should the theater owner be able to offload the work of being responsible to a judge?

Re:All is not lost....

[mark-t]

The theatre isn't financially hurt by someone recording a half minute of the movie to show to a family member so they will come to see it later... neither is anyone else, for that matter, so there's no basis for renumeration for the theatre. The only thing that's left are criminal charges, the punishment for which is entirely up to the judge to decide. Justice without compassion or mercy is not justice at all, it is tyranny.

Re:All is not lost....

[NeutronCowboy]

Why not start the compassion at the theater manager level? I.e., why press charges at all? Why not just toss her out of the movie?

Re:All is not lost....

[mark-t]

Because the theatre has no legal authority to let someone go that broke the law. A judge does.

Re:All is not lost....

[NeutronCowboy]

They also have no legal authority to detain someone who broke the law. That's the cops' job. They do, however, have the authority to file a claim against someone, at which point the legal system starts to grind. Alternatively, they have the authority to not file a claim - i.e., just let the perpetrator go.

There's plenty of authority to go around - people just choose to ignore it, and pass the buck instead.

Re:All is not lost....

[mark-t]

They also have no legal authority to detain someone who broke the law

Actually, they do... the exact same legal authority that anyone legally has to detain somebody that they caught breaking the law. Of course, they have to be damn sure that a specific law has actually been broken, or else they can be sued into oblivion. But did you think that, for example, store owners are somehow special in being able to detain shoplifters?

This 20 second clip, and this one, and this one...

[TBone]

...and soon enough, you have the whole movie. Have you ever seen a camcordered and compressed movie? They're awful...the peopel that watch them aren't going to complain that much about a bit of content overlap a couple of times a minute. The fact of the matter is, it's illegal to take a camcorder into a movie theater, and record what's on the screen. If what TFA states is the actual truth, then when the case goes to court, the circumstances should temper the verdict and sentence, and maybe she'll get off with a slap on the wrist. But as the article quotes, it's not up to the managers of the places which show the movies to decide if it's "good stealing" or "bad stealing". Just like in some places, "He needed killing" might be a valid claim, but that's up to the court to decide. She recorded a movie on her camcorder. At the very least, she's guilty of being stupid on her birthday. She needs to deal with that.

This zero-tolerance policy is working

[badfish99]

It's a bit hard on the person in this story, but at least the zero-tolerance policy towards camcorders in cinemas is having the desired effect. I just had a look on my favourite torrent site, and there were only nine camcorder copies of the Transformers movie available for download. A few years ago, before the law got so tough, there would have been at least ten or eleven by now [/sarcasm]

Use analogies that make sense, please

[stwrtpj]

Just minding my own business, driving round in this car that wasn't mine and these cops came and pulled me over and arrested me, I was like "WTF? I was only joyrid.. I mean driving round in it for 20 seconds!".

This is a pet peeve of mine: analogies that are useless because they compare apples and oranges.

If you're taking a car for a joyride, it is assumed you broke into it in the first place, or otherwise did something to steal it. That in itself is a blatantly illegal act. It's a no-brainer.

Someone deciding to take a short clip of a movie to, in effect, promote it to someone they know is interested in it is not in the same league. The majority of people (read: non-Slashdot readers) would not consider this an illegal act. The person in question, from what we know of the case now, does not appear to have had any intentions of performing an illegal act. She had no intention of filming the entire picture and posting it on the internet.

This is where your analogy collapses. I'm not stating whether she was right or wrong in what she did, I am simply pointing out that analogies like this don't work.

Re:Use analogies that make sense, please

[flez]

wow - did you actually say "The majority of people (read: non-Slashdot readers) would not consider this an illegal act." You need to get out more.
I guarantee if you ask 100 people on the street if you are allowed to use a camcorder in a theater - 100 would say no.
Probably due to the "no recording equipment" signs posted around theaters..

Re:Use analogies that make sense, please

[techiemikey]

you realize that your talking about the same group of people who think the Sun revolves around the earth, that Rhode Island is part of New York, and New Mexico is in a different country, right?

Re:Use analogies that make sense, please

[jahudabudy]

Well, I can understand people thinking New Mexico is a different country. I mean, it's so easy to forget about it, way up there in the corner like that.

Re:Use analogies that make sense, please

[Volante3192]

Probably because most people would assume that you're talking about recording the whole film.

It's incredibly easy to sway a poll if you're looking for an answer. Let's see...these sample questionnaires might suck somewhat, I know the language, I just occassionally have difficulties making it say what I mean.

Con:

Do you believe people involved in creating a film deserve compensation?
Do you believe unauthorized copying of a film hurts profits?
Do you believe unauthorized copying should be stopped?
Do you believe any means necessary should be used to prevent unauthorized copying?
Do you believe copying even a short clip is allowed?

And the pro:

Do you believe people have a right to critizise art and media?
Do you believe people should be allowed to use short clips or photos to exhibit their critique?
Do you believe the creators of the work being criticized should provide adequate examples of their work?
Do you believe, properly cited, people can use their own supplied examples of a work?
Do you believe it's wrong to suppress the display of examples in a critique?

There you are. The perfectly balanced sample.

(I'm sure someone with a stronger grasp of vocabulary and structure could pick up on what I'm doing and make the questions even MORE perfectly balanced, but I guess for a start I'm good...)

maybe she could counter-sue

[JustNiz]

if they didn't have notices warning people that filming in the cinema is criminal.
Although to be honest she must have been living under a rock if she didn't know that already.

Re:maybe she could counter-sue

[PFI_Optix]

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

I don't have a notice warning people that breaking into my house is criminal, either.

Our workers are robots, not people.

[Ralph Spoilsport]

'We cannot educate theater managers to be judges and juries in what is acceptable. Theater managers cannot distinguish between good and bad stealing.'"

In other words, "We don't TRUST our employees, even our local MANAGEMENT to make any kind of qualitative decisions."

And the local drones get to say "Hey - sorry, but it's company policy - I have nothing to say about it."

Everyone washes their hands of responsibility for and to each other, and THAT is "civilisation".

RISE UP PEOPLE!!!

RS

Re:Our workers are robots, not people.

[PFI_Optix]

A theater manager shouldn't be expected to make legal decisions like that. Most wouldn't even want to; a "wrong" decision could cost them.

This girl was caught with a camcorder in a theater. She offered up a very plausible story, but then pirates could come prepared with such stories. You're asking the theater manager to make a snap decision whether to believe her or not. What if he let her go and she was caught a week later in the same theater recording a full movie? Do you think his bosses are going to want him around after turning a pirate loose?

I think the manager made the only decision he could make once it was reported: call the cops and let corporate/the law sort it out. Get people who make the law their profession to decide what to do next.

"generation theif" again

[Anonymous Coward]

Intersting story on Dateline last night about people stealing unattended ipods. Half of the stupid people registered them to download music and get coupons and they were caught. most of the theives were teenagers. Apple does little to help people find stolen ipods - claims huge numbers and hard to verify.

How to help raise awareness

[Vardamir]

One method would be to go to a local Regal Cinema and print off a couple hundred pieces of paper explaining what Regal did, then putting them on the windshield. I know most of us aren't fans of such things, but it's hard to raise awareness since most people don't look for legitimate news these days.

Law is wrong

[HeadOffice]

Movie theaters are private businesses (like the whole of the music and film industry). If a private business sells something, the conditions of the sale should be (negotiated and) agreed upon between seller and buyer beforehand, e.g. by the seller handing out his (general) conditions on paper before he sells.

I think it's reasonable if there's laws protecting businesses and consumers in cases where conditions were lacking or outrages.

A law that would allow consumers to end up in jail for filming in a theater, even without proof that the filmed material has been spread, is, let me say 'heavily biased favoring the movie and music industry' instead of straight out 'unreasonably unfair and ridiculous'.

In America...

[adolf]

In America, I thought it was the government's responsibility to choose who and when to prosecute, not private citizens or corporations.

Can anyone please tell me why this does not seem to be the way that it works in this case?

Re:In America...

[east coast]

Can anyone please tell me why this does not seem to be the way that it works in this case?

What makes you think that it isn't working this way?

As a citizen I can request that charges be filed against a criminal. The police are merely there to enforce the law and the magistrate (or whomever) have to decide if there is enough evidence to prosecute.

It's like saying that if I were a store owner and I caught someone shop lifting... the police do not have to witness the act for the thief to face prosecution. Mind you, I still have to provide evidence. This is the reason for closed circuit cameras in most establishments.

This is no different. The theater owners still have to provide some level of evidence. Without this the magistrate will never let this see a courtroom.

Re:In America...

[Xybre]

IANAL, but..
Not usually. There's crimes against a person and then there's crimes against the state.
If it's against a person (theft, rape, assault), it's usually up the the person whether or not to press charges.
A corporation falls under the category of person. If it was a crime against the state, then I think it's up to the prosecuting attorney.

Re:In America...

[sizzzzlerz]

In America, I thought it was the government's responsibility to choose who and when to prosecute, not private citizens or corporations.

Its the district attorney who usually decides whether a case is worth taking to court. The police simply respond to a complaint. They don't have the leeway to call BS when a complaint is made. They can sometimes talk to the complaintent about how their case isn't going anywhere but if they insist upon continuing with it, then the police carry out their duties.

Any private citizen or a company can make a complaint if they feel they've been wronged. That, of course, doesn't mean it's justified. That's for the DA/courts to decide.

Re:In America...

[TenBrothers]

Because you are confusing "arrest" with "prosecute."

Regal said "we want them arrested." The police then arrested them. That's how things work. When two people fight and nobody wants to press charges, the police often don't make any arrests because nobody wants to press charges (and therefore bring any facts to a possible court case)

It's up to the DA to prosecute once the arrest has been made. She's merely going to court regarding the arrest itself, not any prosecution or trial over what transpired.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Inform your patrons of the policy

[scharkalvin]

In most theaters they usually show a short bit about turning off cell phones
and not talking during the movie so as not to disturb others who are actually
WATCHING THE MOVIE. They should also put up a notice that cameras are NOT allowed
in the theater and that if you get caught with one you will be ejected from the
theater and possibly arrested. Actually, the notice should be a big sign
pasted up by the box office and also printed on the tickets.

Re:Inform your patrons of the policy

[Anonymous Coward]

Great, one more leagal disclaimer. Here is a few more: Caution, that cup of coffee is hot... Your soda contains a substance called ice, prolonged exposure to your skin may cause frost bite... Please don't drink gasoline while watching our movie, the oder may irratate other patrons, and cause heartburn... Warning, it is illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater when no fire exists... Get real!

High numbers

[jshriverWVU]

Movie pirating cost the industry $18.2 billion worldwide in 2005

That sounds really high. I wonder how they even came up with those numbers. It's like counting how many Linux desktops there are. You can't count what people "might" have seen.

Re:High numbers

[Vrallis]

(IANAL, but my response below is based on how I've had this debate explained to me on more than one occasion by people far better informed than I was before.)

Movie pirating cost the industry $18.2 billion worldwide in 2005

That sounds really high. I wonder how they even came up with those numbers. It's like counting how many Linux desktops there are. You can't count what people "might" have seen.

That's why, until the DMCA, people copying or downloading movies weren't charged with anything. The $18.2 billion number is only valid if it is based on real numbers of illegal copies of the movie being sold--AKA piracy. Copying your movie for a friend or downloading it off the internet is NOT piracy. In order to be piracy you have to prove monetary loss. It is not possible to prove, in any way, shape or form, that a person would have paid to see a movie if they had not been able to copy or download it.

Before the DMCA gave the MPAA and RIAA essentially police powers they wouldn't touch a case in court that would reference the Sony Decision (also referred to elsewhere in this thread as the Betamax Decision). That decision is just a court opinion right now. If a case went to court based on non-piracy copying it would have solidified the court decision and given far more power to people file sharing.

Now we have the DMCA, and if you take a Polaroid of your little brother with a movie poster in the background the MPAA can have you charged with piracy, claiming someone might have seen the poster and decided not to watch the movie causing them to lose $8 in movie ticket royalties, $12 for a future DVD sale, $20 in future T-shirt sales, and $2000 in collateral damages for people he tells that he didn't like the poster and causes them not to watch the movie or buy bobble-head dolls and logo-covered hot pants.

A chance to go before a court..

[LordZardoz]

This really does suck for the woman who was arrested. However, I think that this is a good chance to have some of these laws tested before a court / judge / jury.

Hopefully someone displays some common sense here. At best, the woman should probably face a fine of $100.

END COMMUNICATION

1 Year is a very reasonable sentence

[Quick Sick Nick]

Think of all the people the brother will show the 20 second clip to!

They won't go see the movie, so the studio will lose somewhere in the BILLIONS of dollars!

The damage here is immense and irreversible.

Re:1 Year is a very reasonable sentence

[Dunbal]

so the studio will lose somewhere in the BILLIONS of dollars!

      Don't forget, THOUSANDS of people were put out of work by this thoughtless 20 second act.

In the Future....

[Anonymous Coward]

In the future, everyone will spend a year in prison. It will just be the 'in' thing to do. And you can bank it up for when you run into things like this...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Help out

[Anonymous Coward]

Regal Entertainment Group may be reached at 1-865-922-1123. The CEO is Michael L. Campbell. Ask the operator to connect you to his office. Call and complain. If lots of people do, it will have an effect.

See my total lack of sympathy for this brat

[cptnapalm]

So she held up a digital camera during a movie and thought nothing of it.

This girl is a thoughtless brat.

Every digital camera I am aware of has a viewscreen. So during a movie which she was not the only one in attendance, she does something which demonstrates that she gives little consideration to where she is or how it will most likely annoy the hell out of those behind her. This is not even considering the utter stupidity which she demonstrated in thinking of recording a bit of a movie in the first place.

Mindless twit of a girl.

Re:See my total lack of sympathy for this brat

[Choad Namath]

I know it's fashionable on Slashdot to rail on copyright claims and whatnot, but what an effing moron! It's obviously not worth a year in jail, but how stupid do you have to be to bring a camcorder into a theater at all, let alone pull it out and use it?

Re:See my total lack of sympathy for this brat

[vidarh]

Every digital camera I've owned have had a button to turn the display off. So unless you know for a fact that she didn't, you have no basis for claiming she was annoying the hell out of those behind her.

Re:See my total lack of sympathy for this brat

[tftp]

It was a tiny digital photo camera (Canon PowerShot) and she probably carries it with her everywhere, just like a cell phone. I personally don't make a decision every morning on whether I take my cell phone with me today or leave it at home. It's automatic.

From Slashdot's Unofficial Legal Reporting Staff

[Anonymous Coward]

A correction: Regal is not prosecuting, they are encouraging prosecution. In a criminal case, the state or officials of the jurisdiction prosecute. In many states, victims have a right to give input on that process -- Regal may even have the right to insist that they prosecute and enjoin the prosecutor's office from reducing the charges -- but there are no states that I know of where a prosecutor can be stopped from giving a sentence recommendation, for example, of "no jail." The statute granting victim rights regarding proseuction in the state of Virginia (where this crime took place) can be found at Virginia Statutes s 19.2-11.01(4), available at http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+co d+19.2-11.01

Also, I don't think that prison is a possibility. I know of NO states that waste the expenses of a state prison on sentences unless the sentence is over one year. In fact, the article says "Sejas faces up to a year in jail."

PLEASE, Slashdot editors and submitters, get your facts straight when you're talking about the law. This young lady is charged with a misdemeanor that she will probably do no jail time on. Saying there's a threat of prison is not just false, but extraordinarily and emphatically false. There is an ocean of difference between paying a fine for a misdemeanor and spending a year in prison for a felony.

This whole story is flamebait.

Quick response...

[Floritard]

How the hell does the theatre have people watching the crowd in a movie so closely that they can spot someone using a camcorder for 20 seconds. I mean I saw her pic in the article and yea, I'd hit that, but come on here. Are there really movie gestapo vigilently scanning the audience for possible copyright violators and if so, how much does that cost? Is that why popcorn is so criminally expensive and I have to sit through 15 minutes of straight up non-movie advertising at the start of each film? I thought theatres were losing money, so how are they hiring dipshits for pirate watch?

Re:Quick response...

[netik]

You don't need people to detect camcorders. Technologies like PirateEye detect camera lenses and find people who are recording in theaters.

Wired had a full article on this months ago:
http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/news/2004 /11/65683

RTFA

[altek]

it says they filmed 20 seconds of the CLIMAX of the movie, the action scene at the end, to show to the girl's little brother to get him hyped about seeing it, since he'd already expressed interest.

Re:RTFA

[slashname3]

20 seconds here, 20 seconds there, pretty soon you have the whole movie taped. Just have to put all the pieces together after that.

Re:RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Won't SOMEONE please think of the film makers!

Re:RTFA

[GizmoToy]

It's possible, because some PowerShots do have limited movie modes, but others allow video recordings of length limited only by the size of the flash card.

Re:RTFA

[binkzz]

If it's a 1.5 hour film, that's 270 segments of 20 seconds each.

They'd have to buy 270 tickets and watch the film 270 times in the same seat of the same screen at the same cinema in order to keep the lighting right, assuming one cinema will show the same film 270 times.

I'm thinking it's not a very viable solution to pirate films.

Stop going to the movies

[jsimon12]

It is pretty damned cut and dry. Vote with your dollar, don't watch movies, don't rent movies don't go to the theater. I have been doing this for years in protest of the MPAA. Sometimes it sucks because I don't get to the see latest movies but then again I am not giving a dime to those retards running the MPAA.

re: ridiculous provisions??

[King_TJ]

I follow your logic, up to the point where you completely blow off the idea that the law could actually include provisions on how long a person could film in a theater legally.

Why is this "ridiculous" to you, when it probably already exists (as you freely admit) in the "fair use" portion of copyright law!?

While it is the job of a judge and jury to make final decisions on legality, it's ALSO the job of police not to just arrest every Tom, Dick and Jane they're asked by someone to arrest.

I'm not a lawyer, and I haven't looked over the details of the "fair use" provisions to see what they say about this sort of thing. But as I recall, they don't allow very much filming to take place. We're probably talking about filming measured in seconds as opposed to multiple minutes at a time. Given this, it shouldn't really be hard at all for theater management to differentiate between someone trying to illegally tape a movie to redistribute illegally, and someone casually recording a small segment for personal fair use.

Can't teach theater managers?

[Tecknowolf]

"'We cannot educate theater managers to be judges and juries in what is acceptable. Theater managers cannot distinguish between good and bad stealing.'" I find this totally silly, they can't teach the managers to know what is acceptable? Yet they are taught to follow business guidelines, corporate guidelines, and what is and isn't allowed by the law. True, everything has shades of gray, he could have looked at the camcorder, seen it only had 20 seconds, and let them go with a warning or a small fine.

i believe in marijuana legalization

[circletimessquare]

also the legalization of lsd, shrooms, etc.

but drugs like meth or cocaine or heroin?

no, the use of these drugs is worthy of what you would consider severe punishment, because the crime of using these drugs is that society must now support a basketcase addict. in other words, if a drug is very addictive AND inebriating (not nicotine: nicotine isn't inebriating enough) such that the addict can't hold a job or a relationship, then punishing someone severely for those drugs is not MORE severe than the punishment society must suffer than having to take care of people that are now effectively zombies

you can't make a coherent legal argument about drugs that considers all drugs the same. each and every drug- alcohol, marijuana, lsd, nicotine, methampethamine, etc., must be evaluated in a separate legal framework, such that some can be completely tolerated, while others must be "severely" punished

Re:i believe in marijuana legalization

[Fweeky]

severe punishment, because the crime of using these drugs is that society must now support a basketcase addict Except that's not always the case. Alcohol can be rather addictive and turns endless people into "basketcase addicts", but the vast majority cope fine.

The people who cope generally don't end up on TV or "Faces of Meth" or whatever, so people's emotional responses to these drugs are probably rather skewed; something the media and various government agencies have a long history of encouraging.

Either way, I don't see why the first thing you'd jump on is "punishment"; surely a better approach is regulation, accurate, verifiable information, clean supplies without the 100x black market markup and criminal gangs which are the cause of the vast majority of drug related crime, and more effective support for users to try to stop people getting that bad in the first place? Being moderately permissive and caring is probably massively cheaper than trying to band-aid the black market and throwing everyone in jail, not to mention a whole lot better for individuals and society as a whole.

I guess that's overly naive. Surely, throwing addicts in PMITA prison is the One True Way. After all, these criminals need to be punished!

Wouldn't it be funny...

[RightSaidFred99]

I think we should all start going to this theater and using fake video cameras to "record" the movies. It would have to be a device completely incapable of recording. One of those director's lenses or a fake toy camera. Let them call the cops. Nothing they could do, and it would really, really end up being a burden to them. What now, bitches?

good and bad stealing?

[nurb432]

Ummm no * theft * occurred. Try to not to mislead people here and perpetuate the misconception, OK?

Assuming the story is true..

[pjr.cc]

Then realistically I cant see her being nailed to the wall for it - I mean IANAL as always, but as stupid as the US legal system supposedly is I really cant see a jury going "hmm, we have 20 seconds of movie and 50minutes of kids running around being idiots, they are soooo guilty".

Who knows, but before you crucify either side, best hope you know the truth. Wouldn't be the first time /. (or many other news sites for that matter) were used to protest someones innocence in this type of case. Especially when every one here is sick to death of the mpaa and riaa and (like me) hate them with a passion/pray hell exists so they get thrown there.

Ugh

[Dunbal]

IANAL but didn't copyright law allow the reproduction of "small portions" of any work, "for the purposes of review"?

Unless she lives in one of those silly places that have criminalized using cameras in cinemas she should get herself a good lawyer and help get some of our rights back.

The larger crime in this....

[mtmra70]

And even though they paid $15 for two matinee tickets, they missed the end.

$7.50 for a matinee???? YIKES! I dont like paying $5 for the matinee movies in our local digital movie theater.

stupid.

[voraistos]

What did she take her camcorder out for ?

Why ?

Whether it is legal or not is not the problem, the problem obviously is in her head: knowing all that crap that's going on, i wouldnt even try to get in a cinema with a camcorder, in fact, i would rather not go to the cinema:stay at home, nobody pisses you off, you can drink, smoke weed, take your camcorder out without the cops arresting you, ........ all those good things that prevent you from murdering someone at the end of the day.

Good to see Pirates getting what they deserve..

[Anonymous Coward]

This is America!

Land of the Free Corporation and home of the Brave President!

The only reason we haven't killed off all you little people already is that we need you for cannon fodder in the next set of wars we have planned.

Once we have conquered the world and killed all the foreigners, then our glorious leader will have no need for you, and you will all be graciously slaughtered.

until then, Live in Pain..........HA ha ha haaa!

you didn't factor all of the costs

[circletimessquare]

finding you, recovering the money, processing your fine, etc.

in the larger context of all of the costs involved, fining you $200 for stealing $50 is less severe

and some are hard to pin down to a monetary value, as they are intangible. but that doesn't mean they are real costs. but people but monetary value on intagible concepts every day. life isn't a math equation, it's fuzzy

so if you were fined $100,000 for stealing $50, that's obviously stupid

but fininig you $200 doesn't sound so bad

where's the exact monetary cut off point?

$456.23?

$325.90?

it doesn't matter, life is fuzzy, not exact. some people just need to get used to that. as long as the difference is fuzzy, rather than obviously grossly imbalanced, everything is ok with the legal system

Canon PowerShot?

[Anonymous Coward]

they should check out how much recording time is left on the camcorder. if its less than the running time of the movie then obviously they can't record the whole movie and were just doing a clip. also check the quality of the video (resolution,fps, etc). if its poor quality why would anyone want to watch it anyways. a real pirate would've used high quality video. that my 2cents.

Ur.

[Jethro]

Well that was pretty stupid of them.

You are sick

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans are sick. as a society. and the world follows them.

I am not anti-american, however the last ten years are turning me into one. The arrogance and stupidity of some are contaminating everyone else.

When they give what people want, people will pay for it. Is that simple.

relax, 1 year is not her sentence...

[Anonymous Coward]

it hasn't gone to court yet!

Re:From Slashdot's Unofficial Legal Reporting Staf

[Dunbal]

Also, I don't think that prison is a possibility. I know of NO states that waste the expenses of a state prison on sentences unless the sentence is over one year.

      Funny, I seem to remember a certain female "celebrity" going to jail for 40 days, which is certainly less than a year. So California is one state you forgot. There must be more.

The sheeple have taken over the asylum.

[Coyote65]

This is ridiculous because damn near anyone should be able to make a judgment call on a twenty second clip recorded in the theater. The asshat manager was using his small position to assert what authority he has in the largest way possible. When people lose their grip on common sense, as is the case here with the THEATER MANAGER, these kinds of things happen. I hope the girl counter-sues the crap out of the theater chain. We need to send a message to 'those in charge' that idiotic behavior on their part will only cost them customers. 'Treating their fans like criminals' - Indeed. And yes, there is a line to be drawn, that line is called COMMON SENSE. So lacking in these modern times.

Re: ridiculous provisions??

[daveschroeder]

Because:

1.) It's not the theater's responsibility to do that, and

2.) Fair use doesn't actually have specific time limits, and it's very subjective. (See here.)

Even if we did decide on some length of time, which is extremely unlikely, I can't believe you think it would be reasonable for it to be the job of theaters to verify the length of recorded content on recording devices.

just going through the trial

[circletimessquare]

is a severe enough punishment for her "crime"

Re:This 20 second clip, and this one, and this one

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, if a movie is 2hours long, enough 20 second clips will give you the entire movie. Why do people watch these? Because they don't want to waste 8 dollars a ticket to watch some of the garbage that is out there.

Most people who like movies go to see it for the superior sound and screen, not because they have to see it. I could care less about seeing a romantic comedy on the big screen because frankly they turn out just as well on video.

If hollywood was more concerned about buisness the fair way, they would actually put out better products. Who cares if people want to watch garbage versions of the movie online? And once again copyright infractions and stealing are two vastly different things.

theater managers can go suck my balls

[justdrew]

boycott!

Absolutely?

[geoffrobinson]

Is this statement absolutely true in all circumstances or not? Just curious.

uneducable

[BarneyRubble]

If a was a regal theater manager i'd be offended.

pedophilia is a hard one

[circletimessquare]

what is punishment for stealing someone's innocence?

some would say execution, and i can understand where they are coming from

personally, i'm all for permanent exile. mainly because once a pedophile, always a pedophile. there is no cure. recidivism is guaranteed. society has a duty to protect future children from future victimhood by a confirmed pedophile

but not to some beautiful tropical paradise. perhaps canada should donate some arctic island for the exile of all world pedophiles, and the canadian government reimbursed for the burden of keeping them on that island

Re:pedophilia is a hard one

[Anonymous Coward]

perhaps canada should donate some arctic island for the exile of all world pedophiles

We could call it Australia!

Re:pedophilia is a hard one

[happyemoticon]

personally, i'm all for permanent exile. mainly because once a pedophile, always a pedophile. there is no cure. recidivism is guaranteed. society has a duty to protect future children from future victimhood by a confirmed pedophile

In my observation, recidivism rates for other types of crime are equally high. Drug addicts often have a biological compulsion to get their fix so strong they hurt their closest friends, lovers and family members. Many career criminals recruited at an early age do not know how to get by, down to not knowing how to write a letter, a check, a thank-you card, do their taxes or fill out a job application, and so they simply go out and commit more crimes. White collar criminals are probably worst of all, because many of them have been cheating since primary school.

If we are to execute or banish pedophiles, surely we must banish or execute the above listed persons as well, all of whom can ruin or end life just as surely as a pedophile. And I'm not saying that ironically. However, a legal system should aim to be at least somewhat consistent with respect to punishment, and hysteria should never be passed off as ersatz reason. That's called a witch hunt. It's great rhetoric to say we should lock all those perverts up, but it's an emotional appeal, and rests on faulty logic.

Re:pedophilia is a hard one

[happyemoticon]

Edit: White collar criminals are probably worst of all, because many of them have been cheating since primary school, the damage they do can be staggering as the money they make, and they almost never receive any form of punishment, certainly nothing which chips into their so-called earnings.

Windfall for Miss Jhannet

[Anonymous Coward]

She gets busted, goes to court, (probably) gets only a fine.

Then she hires a lawyer to go after the cell phone manufacturer for putting the camera in the phone (enabling her to break the law) ...

The she goes after the cell phone service provider for making it really hard to get a phone without a camera ...

Instant cash!

1. Go to movie
2. Record Clip
3. GET ARRESTED
4. Profit!

I hate people with "original" names

[BlackCobra43]

"Jhanet? I bet the h is silent. Stuff like that just makes you look pretentious in your attempt to convince the world that you are indeed a beautiful and unique snowflake.

Oh and clips of under 3 0seconds fall under Fair use, blah blah blah copyright

Re:I hate people with "original" names

[Anonymous Coward]

No doubt your ridiculous hatred of people for something their parents did (you do know where names come from, right?) makes you incredibly popular with the girls at all the parties.

She is soooo... vary lucky ...?

[OldHawk777]

In China, Iran, Arabia, North Korea, Russia ... she could be murdered or sexually mutilated in a quite government prison cell as directed by the supreme leader's assistant. In the USA the prison warden/guards and self-appointed criminals would be able to initiate such activities at a far more local level of government policy.

As a US Citizen she still has the right to a trial with purchased sentencing, or if she does not have the money to stay out of jail, then she can save tax dollars for US, commit suicide, and avoid prison all together. In the USA this could still be considered justice for many folks.

!HAVEFUN!

In NC the DA can charge U w/ a felony for 1 joint

[gelfling]

The argument that you only took one hit is irrelevant.

Slap on the Wrist

[Zekasu]

At most, all this person deserved was a slap on the wrist.

The person, "Jhannet", didn't want to tape the whole movie. Just a clip to show her brother.

In the olden days, the days where mom and pop stores still existed, if you were caught shoplifting, they'd call your parents and your parents would discipline (beat) you so you wouldn't do it again.

Shoplift at Wal-mart, and it's a $10,000 fine and several years of prison.

I personally think the theater manager was just being a jerk, in order to go through the length and trouble needed to report them. (But that's just me.)

Happy Birthday!

[Gregb05]

Considering that they may have known they were spotted, it's not a very large stretch of imagination that they tried to put the camcorder away quickly when they saw the manager stare right at them then rush out of the theater.

This story brings up some interesting points of content ownership and fair use, but considering that what the teens did was explicitly against the law, against the theater's policy and they admit guilt, I can't have a whole lot of sympathy.

This story would be more interesting if it were a showing of the 5th remaking of Star Wars IV V and VI, or if her brother was physically unable to make it to the movie theater. As it stands, though, the case seems to be falling on the same category as people pleading guilty to smuggling Marijuana into the country. It doesn't really matter if it should be illegal, it IS illegal, Don't do it, nitwit.

few minutes 20 seconds

[sholden]

Since there's at least a few minutes before the cops arrived, if there's only 20 seconds of the movie on the tape it's going to be a very simple case to get dropped, or at least have the judge laugh it out of court when it gets there.

The "good and bad stealing" statement is great spin. Of course it means "not stealing and stealing" or even "not copyright infringement or copyright infringement"...

Am I the only one OK with this?

[Jalwin]

I have absolutely no sympathy for the girl who used her camcorder to record a movie. Everyone knows it is wrong. And it's not some small little crime like shoplifting a candy bar. You have to have a camcorder and have to willingly take it out and start recording, knowing all the time that it is wrong. Criminal actions beget punishment. Now is the maximum punishment too severe (1 year in jail, $2500 fine)? Perhaps... I'd say just slap her with a few hundred dollar fine.

Re:Am I the only one OK with this?

[jonfr]

The law of the MPAA did make it wrong (MPAA "lobby" (buy) the U.S congress for corporation laws). However, your attitude is just wrong, wrong. 20 seconds if some film isn't going to make a world of difference. Specially since 20 seconds aren't a whole movie. This case should be dismissed and thrown out of court.

well

[circletimessquare]

taking into account the cost of finding you, processing you, and getting you to return what you stole and factoring in the deprivation you caused the person whose money you stole, i can see how a price like $500 can be arrived at for you stealing their $100, and that $00 still being less than the actual damage you caused

in short, there are intangible factors you aren't considering

In the year 3000...

[LingNoi]

...they will have devices like in the movie "men in black" where they erase your memory after viewing the movie.

After all your brain is holding valuable IP and you only paid to experience that IP once. Through your memories you could illegally exchange that IP with others or play back parts of it in your mind.

If i have noticed anything its "if we have the technology to restrict it we will".

Re:In the year 3000...

[Shaterri]

Can we get this sooner, please? God knows I've been to enough movies I wish I could forget the moment after leaving the theatre...

Re:In the year 3000...

[lenester]

I'm sure they'd stick around in "trial mode," where you get constant pop-up trailer clips until you pay the registration fee.

Meanwhile, this explains why I can only remember half the plot of Radio Star Weasels.

Re: ridiculous provisions??

[King_TJ]

Is it even the theater's responsibility to have customers arrested for taping, in the first place? As others pointed out, the theater is NOT the content owner. The only valid reason I can see them enforcing rules against videotaping would be an argument that it disturbs others trying to watch the movie. (Who wants to sit behind someone who keeps holding a camcorder up, blocking part of your view, for example?) Kicking them out of the movie should suffice, in any case.

That being said, yes - I think it's *quite* reasonable for ushers to determine if someone is sitting there trying to videotape a large piece of the movie or not! Basically, you give the benefit of the doubt until you see some idiot sitting there, more interested in taping the movie than in watching it, and they don't put the camcorder away after you've come back down the aisle several times. Having someone arrested after the first 20 SECONDS they're seen with the camcorder out?? That's harassment!

Digtal Camera, not camcorder

[ironring2006]

FTFA, it is said that the recording device in question is a Canon Power Shot Digital Camera. Although it has movie recording features, it isn't exactly what you would choose if you really wanted to record the whole movie, especially if you had intentions of distributing it.

Here's how I see the scenario: The camera was borrowed, they were "playing around" with all the features. It's more like when they were watching, it was like, "oh hey, this does video clips too! Wouldn't it be cool if I could record a bit for my brother". If it was during one of the action scenes, it was probably closer to the end of the movie, which means they had no intention of recording the whole thing from the start. Although by the letter of the law, what they did was wrong, it's obvious that their intentions were innocent.

of course it's not logical

[circletimessquare]

it's also what actually happened in afghanistan under the taliban for the crime of prostitution, and what still goes on in saudi arabia and iran, tribal areas of pakistan, etc.

Re:of course it's not logical

[Anonymous Coward]

Monsters.

Re:This 20 second clip, and this one, and this one

[TBone]

And once again copyright infractions and stealing are two vastly different things.

Yes, they are two different things...but the first often leads to the second, and in this particular case, the first more often than not leads to the second.

Is it possible to record a 20 second clip, and not use that to lead to theft? Absolutely. However, obtaining the 20 second clip through the use of a camcorder in a theater is still illegal.

Should she go to jail, as the statute permits? Certainly not. But it's still illegal.

Better yet...

[gillbates]

Make it 20 years.

Seriously, how long will it take before people realize that crimes such as murder and rape are much less severe than threatening the profits of a corporation?

Look, we're a capitalist country here. Money is everything. Nobody cares about your so-called rights unless there's a dollar to be made from it. If you don't like it, I'm sure there's some socialist country up north that you could move to. After you serve your year in jail.

Re:Better yet...

[ScentCone]

less severe than threatening the profits of a corporation

Right. Because, there are no actual people involved in making the movies people want to see. No grips, no stagehands, no electrical workers, no medics, no writers, no makeup artists, no editors, no continuity people, no voice coaches, no transportation people, no IT people, no CGI pros, no actors, no camera and lighting techs, no cinematographers, no directors, nobody who spends months or years getting someone else to gamble millions of dollars up front on the quality of your work... nope! Just big ol' Evil Corporations. Why, if it weren't for corporations, we'd have much better films made by mom-and-pop shops working in Ye Olde Village Filmakery, using 8mm film produced from wood cellulose by Ye Olde Philmsmythe down the road, who takes goat milk as payment. And not only that, they'd be happy when their work was ripped off, because, as long as that makes the village happy, why, they're happy. Give it a rest. "The Man" is you, me, and everyone else who forms a group bigger than one to do something. Don't like it? Then put down the keyboard and step away from the technology that wouldn't exist without profit-seeking groups of people acting in concert to reward themselves and the people that risked money and time to give them a chance to do it. Put down the refridgerated beer, and please go back to the grave you'd probably be in, if you'd even have been conceieved, without anit-biotics, etc.

By the way, what information do you have that the girl video taping the movie to "promote" it for her younger brother who's too cheap to buy a ticket for his entertainment, actually WILL do any time whatsoever, let alone a year? None? Right. You do make a compelling case, though, for even longer sentences for murderers and rapists.

Re:Better yet...

[gillbates]

Yes, but the actual people involved in making a film - the writers, actors, grips, stagehands, etc... would probably not call for the arrest of someone making a 20 second film clip. They'd probably look at the situation, see that no harm was done, and just dismiss it.

It is when corporations get involved that you see the extremes. A corporation fiduciarily responsible to its shareholders cannot let the little things slip that ordinary people would just ignore.

It's not the pursuit of profit that is wrong; it is the pursuit of profit above all else. Things like tolerance, forgiveness, and human rights get lost when money becomes the sole reason for the existence of a corporation.

Re:Better yet...

[nexuspal]

Hey there!!
You forgot the ;-)
 
;-)...

Re:Better yet...

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I saw, Transformers was making a killing at the box office - I dont think this 20 second clip, or the rather high-quality full-length cam recording going around the internet is stopping anyone involved from putting food onto their tables.

Re:Better yet...

[ScentCone]

Last I saw, Transformers was making a killing at the box office - I dont think this 20 second clip, or the rather high-quality full-length cam recording going around the internet is stopping anyone involved from putting food onto their tables.

So, the owners of businesses that can only survive if people actually pay for tickets (the theaters) should just opt to trust each camcorder-carrying audience member's analysis of how successful a newly-debuted movie is or will be? Which standard would you apply, as to whether or not ripping it off is OK? Would you trust the people carrying the cameras into the theaters on the night the movie opens to only rip the movie when the people who invested in and made the movie have crossed your personal threshold of how many dollars they should be allowed to earn for their risk and effort? Speaking of which, how much should the group of people that gather to make a movie be allowed to earn before you recommend that people start ripping it off in the theaters? Some hard numbers would be helpful, wouldn't they? You start.

Re:Better yet...

[cdrguru]

I believe the correct view today is that it should all be free. Maybe supported by a few unobtrusive text ads.

Re:Better yet...

[Scudsucker]

And how many writers and actors would end up on the streets because of a crappy 19 second clip? Get a grip man.

Re:Better yet...

[ScentCone]

And how many writers and actors would end up on the streets because of a crappy 19 second clip? Get a grip man.

Way to not get the point. The question is, how many theaters and how many creative people would feel it if, as mentioned earlier in the thread, it was considered inoffensive for people to rip off and distribute movies? Who CARES by what means.

Re:Better yet...

[Anonymous Coward]

... that can be easily filtered out with a GPLed (v3, of course) plugin.

Cop Math!

[rueger]

They claim they lost $18.2 billion last year through taping in cinemas?

Easy - Cop Math! Yep, them there six marihuana plants has a street value of forty gazillion dollars!

Thank you slashdot

[rbarreira]

Thank you slashdot, for keeping my "I'm scared of going to USA" feeling active. It seems I really need it.

Re:From Slashdot's Unofficial Legal Reporting Staf

[Xybre]

Country jail is not the same thing as Prison. With a capital P. "Federal pound me in the ass prison."
Terms of less than 365 days are in county jails.

Sell someone out, make some cash

[robohunk]

About three years ago I worked as an assistant manager for Regal in a sort of small town that had lots of street people, punk kids and wackos constantly trying to sneak in or otherwise undermine the system of paying for a ticket to a movie, watching a movie, and then leaving. One time, a harmless street guy snuck into the theatre through the front exit and went into Star Wars Episode 3, carrying a guitar case on his back and a backpack over his shoulder. When I did my theatre checks in the middle of the set, I noticed a red light coming from the back of the theatre, and I recognized the guy from earlier because of the bag. I told the manager, a harmless old guy who has more in common with the street folk than the Company, and we debated for about five minutes about what to do. Eventually we called the police, who came over and escorted the guy into the lobby. The cop asked him some questions about where he was staying (turns out he was at a local homeless shelter), where he got the camcorder, and eventually pulled me and my boss aside and asked the big question:

"What do you want me to do with this guy?"

The poor dude was mortified anyway, homeless, and ultimately probably wasn't going to post a torrent of his recording or make a bunch of copies and sell the dupes on the street. In the end we just confiscated the tape, escorted him out of the theatre and told him not to show up again, and that was the end of that.

However, here's the big secret that no one is talking about: in the employee room at my theatre, there was a sign saying that any employee who witnessed and reported someone recording a movie, and then gave a sworn statement about it to the police, would get $1000 from the MPAA.

I mean, that has to be what's going on HERE, right? Some employee saw someone with a camcorder and wanted to make some fast cash and was willing to condemn a young woman to get theirs. Heck, that's what I was thinking of when I saw the guy recording Star Wars, that's why we called the police in the first place. Luckily, I realized that I was being a dick before anyone was arrested and charged.

Re:Sell someone out, make some cash

[CowboyCapo]

Well shit, someone getting some money out of this makes it so much better.

After all, blood money always is. Well, proves how much of a batch of bastiches the MPAA is. As if we needed more evidence.

Re:Sell someone out, make some cash

[Anonymous Coward]

If you would have prosecuted the guy he'd have a nice jail cell instead of living in the streets, you heartless bastard.

Re:Sell someone out, make some cash

[CodeBuster]

in the employee room at my theatre, there was a sign saying that any employee who witnessed and reported someone recording a movie, and then gave a sworn statement about it to the police, would get $1000 from the MPAA.

That alone should give anyone reason for pause. If a person making a sworn statement accepts money from a third party as a "reward" for making the statement then it should make the validity of said statement null and void or at the very least *highly* suspect. It is nice to note that in your case you didn't give into the "Dark Side" by selling out the homeless man. Very commendable.

Puppet at congress

[jonfr]

The problem lies in the MPAA making the law the fits there own agenda and passing them trough congress pay paying some asshole congress man to do that. This is the problem, this is a sample of laws that shouldn't exist. They are making criminals by making more stupid laws.

"Copying a motion picture from a theater performance is a felony under the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005, punishable by up to three years in a federal prison. Several states, including Virginia, also have anti-piracy laws."

Re: ridiculous provisions??

[daveschroeder]

Is it even the theater's responsibility to have customers arrested for taping, in the first place? As others pointed out, the theater is NOT the content owner. The only valid reason I can see them enforcing rules against videotaping would be an argument that it disturbs others trying to watch the movie. (Who wants to sit behind someone who keeps holding a camcorder up, blocking part of your view, for example?) Kicking them out of the movie should suffice, in any case.

The theater is acting as an agent for the content owners, which is why they enforce this. There are also many laws, local and otherwise, against recording in theaters, and many theater companies have policies that require customers be kicked out (and the applicable contents of their camcorder erased), and/or the police to be called when a patron is recording in the theater.

That being said, yes - I think it's *quite* reasonable for ushers to determine if someone is sitting there trying to videotape a large piece of the movie or not! Basically, you give the benefit of the doubt until you see some idiot sitting there, more interested in taping the movie than in watching it, and they don't put the camcorder away after you've come back down the aisle several times. Having someone arrested after the first 20 SECONDS they're seen with the camcorder out?? That's harassment!

It shouldn't have to be up to the theater to have to decide or determine that at all (aside from the fact that I don't think there is any reason to bring a *camcorder* into a movie theater). Sure, the theater could display some discretion and just say, "Hey, put that away," or say that's not allowed, or kick the person out. But they don't have to do that, and shouldn't be expected to. That's what the police and the legal system will decide.

The new "No Popcorn" List

[querist]

The MPAA, in association with the TSA, have developed the "No Popcorn" list. This will be combined with the requirement that individuals will be required to present personal identification (drivers licence, etc) in the same manner used at airports today. Any individuals who are considered to be a threat to national security, the MPAA, RIAA, or Jiffy Pop(tm) will have their name placed on the "No Popcorn" list and will be denied entry to the nation's movie theaters.

The MPAA's "ushers and ticket takers union" will be absorbed into the Department of Homeland Security and become the new PSA = Popcorn Safety Administration. Initial screening stations will be set up by December 1, 2007, in theaters in major cities, with the full roll-out expected to be completed by December 31, 2009.

The MPAA commented that this move was "necessary due to [the likelihood of] terrorists stealing American intellectual property and then using the profits to fund acts of terror."

With regard to the potential for persons being incorrectly banned from theaters, the MPAA responded "They can wait for the DVD. We can't take chances with National Security(tm)".

(Yes, this is only a joke)

-Q

Woah!

[taskiss]

"Her boyfriend, Ivar Villazon, said the camera belongs to his sister; the couple borrowed it, Sejas said, to "make memories" on her birthday."

You gotta admit, this'll be a memory she'll never forget.

I wonder what she'll do for her 21st? Go big and rob a bank or learn her lesson and stop breaking laws?

"...more than meets the eye" indeed!

Repeal the Law

[Anonymous Coward]

The prosicution is under the "family entertainment and copyright act of 2005", and this law indeed appears to say one can suffer this prosecution for copying a movie or any part of a movie. So write to your representative in congress and your senators and ask that this law be repealed. Say, surely even if hollywood needs protections againgst piracy, this law has gone too far, when a person loses a year in jail for making a 20 second clip for her younger brother.
      Even though the movie industry has way more money, slashdot can drive way more letters to congress and the laws will start to balance the rights of those attending movies with the movie industries rights.

Lie

[Anonymous Coward]

The police say they lack discretion because Regal Cinemas chose to prosecute

It's the STATE that prosecutes criminal cases, not the victim. If the police are involved, then it's a criminal case. The victim prosecutes civil cases.

The police, and the DA, are the ones with the discretion about whether or not to prosecute. The police, if properly quoted, are lying. Of course, this is Slashdot, and it's possible that there's a department policy, or a local statute, but that's not implied by the summary.

Stealing?

[Anonymous Coward]

'Theater managers cannot distinguish between good and bad stealing.'

So they're actually saying there is a "good" version of stealing?

Re:From Slashdot's Unofficial Legal Reporting Staf

[Xybre]

FTFA, "Copying a motion picture from a theater performance is a felony under the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005, punishable by up to three years in a federal prison."

Misdemeanor?

Thousands words is a picture!!!

[Cheesbo]

Ok.... recording video is illegal but telling the story to your friends is not... (according to what I am aware of)...

So you go to the cinema watch the movie... and go out and describe the end to the people waiting to buy tickets...
or upload a detailed description of the final scene on imdb..

Think about saying to people that the guy in 6th sense is dead from the beginning (sorry for the people haven't watched it ;-) )

Let them call the police and say that you discuss about the movie outside the cinema!

Movie pirating cost the industry $18.2 billion

[dunstan]

From TFA "Movie pirating cost the industry $18.2 billion worldwide in 2005, the last year for which figures were available, according to the Motion Picture Association of America."

Can any of us make up figures like this and get them reported in the Washington Post?

Re:Movie pirating cost the industry $18.2 billion

[n0dna]

Clearly you have never the Washington Post.

The answer is "yes." :)

Re:Movie pirating cost the industry $18.2 billion

[n0dna]

Clearly I have not READ my comment before submitting it.

*sigh*

of course not!

[AlgorithMan]

Theater managers cannot distinguish between good and bad stealing

which is because the whole multimedia industry can't distinguish between good and bad at all...

you're wrong

[circletimessquare]

the problem with your scheme of restitution for everything is that the rich can get away with injustice. if i'm a billionaire, why can't i just kill a woman i dislike if i know the going rate is $23 million and it's worth $23 million dollars to me because i hate her and $23 million isn't a lot of money to me?

and what if i'm penniless? slavery? work off the punishment? wha tif the going rate is $23 million? my great grandkids must remain slaves to pay off my debt?

of course, this doesn't mean that financial restitution is never part of the equation. but it does mean that restitution can't ever be the ONLY form of punishment

there is a spectrum of crimes in this world, tangible and intangible

so there should also be a spectrum of punishments available to society

simple as that

for example: pedophilia

what is the going rate for the stealing of a child's sexual innocence?

you are completely wrong to propose financial restitution as a cure all as you do

Re:you're wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

He's not suggesting restitution for all crimes.

"Only crimes of physical force warrent locking human beings in the cage, because they pose an actual threat to other human beings; all other crimes should be dealt with according to the loss of the victim (including compensatory damages [wikipedia.org])."

Threats to society deserve to be locked up. Give me a break.

Re:you're wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

if i'm a billionaire, why can't i just kill a woman i dislike

Whoops, you missed the part where I said that crimes of physical force (including murder, obviously) are the ones that warrant sending the aggressor in prison.

and what if i'm penniless? slavery?

If you stole $1 million from the bank, and refused to return it, then you would owe the bank $1 million plus compensatory damages. And yes, you may very well spend the rest of your life working to pay it off. But this wouldn't be "slavery". The payment agenda would have to work more like a loan, obviously -- the aggressor still needs to eat, pay rent, etc -- but for the rest of his life, he pays a monthly sum which represents part of that $1 million plus compensatory damages.

pedophilia

This should be interpreted as physical force, since it is universally acknowledged that children do not yet have the mental capacity of adults and therefore cannot make the same decisions that adults do. Yes, the aggressor in this case should be locked up, because he poses a real physical threat to other individuals.

Straw man arguement

[HangingChad]

I realize most here on slashdot probably won't agree with this, and think that "copyright", or at least its current form in the US, which is the basis for prohibiting things like recording in movie theaters, ought to be done away with completely.

You create a straw man with no basis in reality. There are probably a few who would do away with copyright protections but I'd be willing to bet they're a minority...on the level with the minority who think they're a grapefruit.

absurd examples don't really serve any function in having any real change

Oh, but I think they do. Examples like this point out how absurd laws do little besides involve otherwise law abiding citizen in the criminal justice system. That person has an arrest record that will follow them for life, impact their ability to get a job, a security clearance, a mortgage. It's not just a bad law, it's f'ing insane.

other than being able to be used as a rallying cry for people who DO fundamentally believe that we should be able to record entire movies in movie theaters, or entire TV shows, or entire DVDs, and post them to torrent sites, with no fear of retribution.

Now you're mixing different activities. Recording and distributing. They don't necessarily follow. But you assume they do.

Flawed logic and flawed arguments used to support a flawed law and the ruination of an innocent person's life.

Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[maillemaker]

Why not walk out to your car, put the phone in your pocket or wife's purse, and then walk back, telling the doorman that you left it in your car? What are they going to do, search you? If the answer at that point was "yes", then by all means I'd leave and not watch their movie. But otherwise, tell a harmless lie.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[YourMotherCalled]

The world would be a better place if people told less "harmless" lies. Don't be an advocate for poor human behavior.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[Surt]

That's been scientifically proven untrue. The world needs a certain amount of harmless lying to grease the social wheels. It makes our society function better.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[edmicman]

poor human behavior.

You're obviously speaking of the doorman blocking entrance because of a cell phone, right?

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[dm0527]

I attended one of these previews a couple weeks ago, and yes. They do check the contents of purses and bags at the door.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[daem0n1x]

If he was demanded to do so, it's not poor human behavior, it's called "doing your job".

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

and then the servers go down, but you don't get the page...

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[Oktober Sunset]

You sound like a stupid, stuck up prick, the exact kind of moralising wanker who most people hate. I would certainly laugh if I was informed of your death.

How's that for honesty? If everyone was 100% honest all the time, you would probably hear it a lot.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[Oktober Sunset]

Flamebait??? But I was just being honest, he said it would make the world a better place!

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[AngryUndead]

+1 Godwin's Law.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[YourMotherCalled]

[citation needed]

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[YourMotherCalled]

If you, as a consumer, don't like the practices of a company, don't purchase that company's products and/or services. If you, as an employee, don't like the practices of a company, don't work there.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[Stewie241]

oh come on... denying somebody entrance to a private establishment is EXACTLY equivalent to ushering somebody to their death!

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[Oktober Sunset]

no, it's called being a jobsworth.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[Surt]

Here's a few. There are lots of studies on this, it's very well established science.

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1047-7039(199308) 4%3A3%3C478%3ALDASAM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M
http://www.springerlink.com/content/r3n42410657816 43/
http://www.thomsoncustom.com/cj/cases/MOD018.pdf
http://www.leaonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327825 mcs0701_7?cookieSet=1&journalCode=mcs

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[YourMotherCalled]

Are you seriously and with all honesty equating what you did to what I suggested? How old are you? 5? You realize of course that there's a difference between not lying and letting every bit of drivel that your mind can imagine come out of your mouth right?

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[Johnny5000]

If he was demanded to do so, it's not poor human behavior, it's called "doing your job".

"Doing your job" doesn't absolve you from all ethical concerns.

How well does the "I was just following orders" defense work?

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[Stanistani]

I was going to foe you, so I wouldn't have to see any more of your posts, but I gave you due process, and examined past posts.

Results: You're mildly amusing, even if you have problems with grammar and spelling.

So, you're good for now.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[b0s0z0ku]

The world would be a better place if people told less "harmless" lies. Don't be an advocate for poor human behavior.

The US would be a better place if there were fewer employees/security guards/cops who followed laws mindlessly. Stupid goosesteppers are best circumvented or ignored if possible. Actually, outside the US, especially in developing countries and Eastern Europe, they DO show a lot more discretion and don't sweat the minor things.

Makes me glad that I'm a Polish citizen as well as an American one, and if some "law-and-order" asswipe gets elected Prez in 08, I'm moving :)

-b.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[Hijacked Public]

Leo Strauss

Well, depending on which side of the lie you are on.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[mdm-adph]

Godwinned, you damn nazi!

...I just Godwinned myself. I will now leave the internet.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[YourMotherCalled]

The US would be a better place if there were fewer employees/security guards/cops who followed laws mindlessly. Depends on the situation but I'd be inclined to agree.

Stupid goosesteppers are best circumvented or ignored if possible. No, you're absolutely wrong. That's why these problems are perpetuated. If people STOPPED ignoring and/or circumventing them and INSTEAD stood up to them, "stupid goosesteppers" would get the negative attention they deserve and things might start to change for the better. Get a clue.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[Oktober Sunset]

Well, what if you ask someone a question like "how are you?" would you want to hear them reply, "kind of nauseous from your hideous face" or if they ask you a question, like when the man who looks like a 7 foot tall shaved gorilla with 2 satelite dishes on each size of his head, says "you staring at me? you fink I look funny or sumink?" are you saying it's better for you to say, "yea, actually, I was just thinking you look like king kong crossed with prince charles" than, "umm no"

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[Peet42]

Or, indeed, an advocate for people bringing 'phones into theatres "on the offchance their work needs to reach them".

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[mfrank]

Obviously you've never been asked "Does this dress makes me look fat?" or "What are you thinking about?". No surprise, this is slashdot.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[Oktober Sunset]

I blame all bad spelling on firefox's spell check, it told me to do it!

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[SIIHP]

When it comes to working at a movie theater and taking away a cell phone, it works great.

If you're talking about something more serious, well, THERE ARE RULES ALLOWING YOU TO DISREGARD ILLEGAL ORDERS.

Kill yourself now.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[b0s0z0ku]

If people STOPPED ignoring and/or circumventing them and INSTEAD stood up to them, "stupid goosesteppers" would get the negative attention they deserve and things might start to change for the better. Get a clue.

You can't stand up to every moron every time, though. If you do, you'll spend all your time arguing and none of it living. Maybe stand up to the more egregious idiots say 5% of the time, and other people will stand up to the other 95% at various times. The bad PR will still get around... I do agree that people should be more proactive.

-b.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's called being a six dollar an hour slave with delusions of grandeur.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[pla]

If he was demanded to do so, it's not poor human behavior, it's called "doing your job".

How'd that work in the Nuremberg trials?


/autoGodwinning the thread. Nothing to see here, move along...

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[Lurker2288]

Yeah, the dude totally should have picked a fight with security over his phone. I mean, he'd probably have been thrown out, and the guard certainly wouldn't have challenged his employer's policy over it, but nonetheless, it's the goal of everyone with "a clue" to choose the path of most resistance at all times, so as to generate the necessary "negative attention" for social change. That makes so much more sense than just lying.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, what's been proven is that the world needs less "harmless" anti-social behaviors that need "harmless" lies to hide.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[Lurker2288]

I recognize your point that some "harmless" lies really aren't, but in this case, the spirit of the rule is to prevent people from bootlegging the movie, not to keep Treos out of the theater--keeping the Treo out is simply a means to the desired end. So, insofar as the poster doesn't intend to film, but merely has to keep it handy for work, does lying about whether he has it really violate the spirit of the rule in such a way as to cause harm?

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[Johnny5000]

When it comes to working at a movie theater and taking away a cell phone, it works great.

No, it's still acting like a total douchenozzle who has gone mad with his moderate amount of power.

Kill yourself now.

Right after you go fuck yourself.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[SIIHP]

Well one of us made a veiled attempt to equate taking cellphones with war crimes (that would be you) and one of us called that comparison into question (that would be me).

If you're genuinely thick enough to think the comparison is valid, then you're not worth talking to.

"Right after you go fuck yourself."

Done! Your turn, I have full faith you'll follow through with our agreement.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[Oktober Sunset]

well, if the guy had demanded to speak to the manager and then made a huge deal about it, with loads of hootblah and threats of contacting consumer associations and demanding refunds, claiming their conditions are illegal, claiming that cos they let everyone else with a camera phone in they are discriminating against him, and generally cause trouble, they probably wouldn't have been so tight arsed in future so as to avoid the hassle.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Makes me glad that I'm a Polish citizen as well as an American one, and if some "law-and-order" asswipe gets elected Prez in 08, I'm moving :)"

then leave, no one has asked you to stay or put up with a government you don't agree with. This country would probably be better off without you.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, pull the other one now. "OMG, he brought his cellphone in, he's clearly a criminal" is not a more appropriate response than simply lying and telling the usher, who isn't paid well-enough to actually give a shit, that the device is outside. This kind of crap is making it nearly impossible for me to even work up the desire to see any of the typical 'summar blockbuster' crap.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[b0s0z0ku]

then leave, no one has asked you to stay or put up with a government you don't agree with. This country would probably be better off without you.

It's not the government, it's the whole nanny-state tone of things. ID checks. Random searches. Recordings admonishing people to do this or not do that. Zero-tolerance policies. Laws in the former Eastern Bloc are probably *more* strict, if anything, but people know what it was like to live under a dictatorship, and don't want to go back to those conditions. The USA has never been a dictatorship, and you can't fear what you're not aware of.

I have to admit that it was nice being abroad in eastern Europe and just being able to jump on an intercity train with no ID check or surly recordings telling people not to eat/smoke/drink/live...

And, BTW, _western_ Europe and the UK aren't better than the USA as far as civil rights.

-b.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[Johnny5000]

Well one of us made a veiled attempt to equate taking cellphones with war crimes (that would be you) and one of us called that comparison into question (that would be me).

Maybe the "just following orders" defense was too strongly worded, or too evocative of war crimes.

How about the "he told me to do it" defense? That didn't work on the playground in elementary school *or* the Nuremberg trials.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

If he's not, I am. Given that I am not a criminal, when people and organizations treat me like one, they lose the right to expect my honesty.
Likewise when someone (you) is a moralizing prickwad, and equates the telling of a little white lie to permit both ticket-taker and patron to both do their jobs (by telling camera-toters to take a hike, and keep phone on person, respectively) with bad moral action, the lose the privilege of my politeness and instead get my honest appraisal of their attitudes.
Its very simple. Piss someone off *and* admonish them not to lie, and you'll get a very explicit and visceral response.
Are you... surprised? or did you just want another opportunity to post up and call people immature?
I'm gonna go ahead and guess the latter.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[russotto]

If he was demanded to do so, it's not poor human behavior, it's called "doing your job".

I was "just following orders" is as inadequate an excuse for minor bad behavior as it is for major bad behavior, though the consequences are of course far less in the minor case.

Allowing "just following orders" lets the decisionmakers leave nobody to answer for the trouble their decisions cause -- they are insulated by their underlings, and their underlings are protected because they didn't make the decision, so those subject to the decision must suffer in silence.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[russotto]

well, if the guy had demanded to speak to the manager and then made a huge deal about it

Then he would have gotten the runaround. No one would admit to making the policy, no one would admit to being able to change it. That's the way it nearly always is with unpopular policies. If you try to follow the chain of responsibility, it either loops (someone lied) or trails off (e.g. "for insurance reasons", but you can't find anyone at the insurance company who will discuss it).

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[Surt]

That could be true. I don't know of any research about it. I just know the research on lying pretty well, which says that no lying and a lot of lying are bad, and the best point is (as usual) somewhere in the middle, and not at the extreme.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[inca34]

Wow, I really didn't expect that. Props to you, Surt.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[linuxrocks123]

Click the links and you won't be so impressed.

The articles are indeed psychological research on lying, and some psychological research does just make the cut as science (I haven't looked at those articles in particular enough to tell whether it does), but the articles he links to don't support his claim that some lying is good.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[linuxrocks123]

> That's been scientifically proven untrue. The world needs a certain amount of harmless lying to grease the social wheels. It makes our society function better.

Science doesn't prove things. And psychology/sociology is so flaky that it's constantly crossing the line back and forth between science and BS. Maybe you should engage in a little more critical thought before becoming so convinced in the future.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, cause 6 year olds typically have highly nuanced understandings of right and wrong and the intricacies of authority.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you, as a consumer, don't like the practices of a company, don't purchase that company's products and/or services. If you, as an employee, don't like the practices of a company, don't work there.

Well, aren't you the fucking pompous prick. I guess you have at your disposal any number of shopping/entertainment opportunities, so you can be so selective. And no doubt you have your pick of numerous satisfying, very remunerative jobs from among which you can pick and choose.

Well guess what, you supercilious asshole, the rest of us don't all have such options. But we all have an absolute human right to a job which allows us to put food on our family's table and a nearly equal right to other amenities without arbitrary constraints being laid on us by rapacious corporations who think that any right we have can be contracted away by some fine print written in light grey, two-point type on the back of a ticket made of poor quality paper so that the conditions can only be read by the people in a document certification lab.

Example -- the Concord Pavilion in Concord, CA, operated by the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper, has tiny print on the back stating that the price of the ticket includes a parking fee. When you arrive at the site, the parking appears to be free, though they let people circulate offering "VIP parking" for an additional $10.

What this means is that, even if you walk in from a nearby neighborhood, which many do, you've still paid for parking -- per person. If you drive in with five other people in your car and park, you've paid for six parking spaces.

The only reasonable response to this bastardly situation is for each attendee to bring their own individual car, in order to get the full value for which they've paid.

Fuck that shit -- such egregious money-grabbing practices invite, nay demand, retaliation in any way feasible.

In addition, they also closely inspect any bottles of water you bring in to verify they are factory sealed -- no alcohol around these kiddies. Fucking intrusive shits -- if I want a rectal exam, I want it from an MD, not some minimum wage punk at a concert gate.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[Surt]

I've read enough of the science to be satisfied with it. I'm reasonably familiar with the standards of psych research, and it's certainly not all set in stone, but the preponderance of evidence right now is on the side of my claim, and at least there isn't any real evidence behind the grandparent's claim.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be such a whiny cunt.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[aeschenkarnos]

Your job is what you do for money. Being given money to do a thing does not give that thing additional morality.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then he would have gotten the runaround. No one would admit to making the policy, no one would admit to being able to change it. That's the way it nearly always is with unpopular policies. If you try to follow the chain of responsibility, it either loops (someone lied) or trails off (e.g. "for insurance reasons", but you can't find anyone at the insurance company who will discuss it).

Yep. Just like the recent news article where a Starfuck's barista knocked a scalding cup of coffee off the counter, burning an elderly man's crotch and foot where the coffee fell. Did she offer ice water and an escort to the bathroom? No, she whipped out an "accident report" questionnaire and started asking all sorts of intrusive questions. When another patron, a male nurse who knew the possible medical consequences tried to intervene, she insisted that the man answer "just a few more questions". Fucking slut -- she should have been arrested in her tracks for insisting on putting corporate interests ahead of the scalded customer's. Then the decision makers should have had been stood in front of the establishment wearing nothing but an inflatable cock ring that could be tightened by customers squeezing a conveniently placed rubber bulb.

BTW, the corporate spokesbitch insisted that all policies regarding treatment of injured customers were "proprietary internal documents" which could not be divulged to the press or to the public.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[inca34]

Lying is essential when a rational being is forced to interact within an irrational structure. In other words, most people don't really want to know anything. They just want you to say something. I'm not saying people can't handle the truth and then further saying they don't have a right to it, but when someone time and again shows their inability to handle reality I simply stop giving them the reality... I can't force anyone to leave their foundation of understanding in order to understand what I say or see, so why bother them and everyone else with that?

So, intuitively, I agree with the premise that lying provides the glue of our social framework. Otherwise, if nobody lied it'd be a pretty boring world.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[Anonymous Coward]

This country is litigation happy.

If you don't apply the rules without discretion your business will be accused of (and sued for) [race|sex|age]ism or maybe homophobia depending on who was allowed/denied.

You just can't win.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[ScrewMaster]

Maybe you should engage in a little more critical thought before becoming so convinced in the future.

Maybe you should accept what is. The reality of human interaction is that not only do people not need perfect honesty from others, they don't want it. To a certain degree, we want the imperfections of our existence covered up, only intruding when they must. Do you truly believe that when your wife, girlfriend or significant other asks you "does this dress make me look fat?" that she wants an honest answer? If you do, you're an idiot, because you'll hurt her feelings for really no good reason, and I hope you have a comfortable sofa. In any event, a simple lie is not only the best answer in that case, but is fully expected. Indeed, a liberal application of social grease.

Frequently, such minor dissembling helps us avoid more serious situations that would do neither side any good. A true "little white lie" is generally told in order to avoid a conflict, to avoid hurting someone unnecessarily, not to acquire something undeserved. So yes, a certain amount of lying is essential, because people aren't perfect and neither is any social order we've yet invented. No-one with even basic observational skills should require a scientific study to figure this out. Ever lied to your boss because you know that he'll react inappropriately? More social grease, and it happens all the time. Honesty is not always the best policy.

And science most certainly does "prove" things ... but only to a particular degree of accuracy. That's probably what confuses a lot of people about science, that a scientific proof is by definition not absolute, although the difference is sometimes moot. However, I agree that the softer sciences have a long way to go.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[macdaddy357]

There is just no right answer to "Does this dress make me look fat?" If you say yes, you are being mean. She is mad, and you are in the doghouse. If you say no, you are lying to her. She is mad, and you are in the doghouse. You might as well go for the real zinger and tell her "It's not the dress."

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's been scientifically proven untrue. The world needs a certain amount of harmless lying to grease the social wheels. It makes our society function better. Oh, that's such a lie!

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[shellbeach]

There is just no right answer to "Does this dress make me look fat?" If you say yes, you are being mean. She is mad, and you are in the doghouse. If you say no, you are lying to her. She is mad, and you are in the doghouse. You might as well go for the real zinger and tell her "It's not the dress." No, the right answer is to go out with a thin girl ...

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[Surt]

Best answer I've seen in quite a while. :-)
Much better than the moderation war that started up on what I thought was a fairly innocuous comment.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[spikedvodka]

and if some "law-and-order" asswipe gets elected Prez in 08, I'm moving :)/quote?

Vote Cthulhu in '08! Why pick the lessor of 2 evils?

okay, I'm done being off-topic

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[Ansoni-San]

There is just no right answer to "Does this dress make me look fat?" If you say yes, you are being mean. She is mad, and you are in the doghouse. If you say no, you are lying to her. She is mad, and you are in the doghouse. You might as well go for the real zinger and tell her "It's not the dress."

This is one of the situations where you don't have to lie and you're just being a lazy ass. Be articulate. Instead of being all negative try to also be positive. "Hmm, it would look better with a different belt", try to identify what you don't like about it. Be honest, get your honest opinion across, but try to spend more than 2 seconds forming an opinion or you'll be "in the doghouse". Delicacy in this case is not lying. Delicacy in this case is showing awareness of another person's feelings whilst getting the/your truth across. There are cases where delicacy means lying, but this isn't one of them by a long shot.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[Charles W Griswold]

No, what's been proven is that the world needs less "harmless" anti-social behaviors that need "harmless" lies to hide. I'm puzzled. Are you saying that having a cell phone is an anti-social behavior?

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[LS]

Hmm, you could lie about these things and perpetuate the obsessive-compulsive nature women have about their looks, or you can be honest and either get dumped or find that your woman gets used to the honesty. It may be harder to find a woman while acting as honest individual, but you will find the right women. It's possible, they exist.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[Johnny5000]

Yeah, cause 6 year olds typically have highly nuanced understandings of right and wrong and the intricacies of authority.

Apparently, plenty of adults run into difficulty with such things as well.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[himi]

I /hate/ this sort of argument. What the hell is wrong with making a philosophical comparison between the "just following orders" 'defense' and the concept of doing what your boss tells you even if it's stupid? It's a valid comparison, and it doesn't imply anything at all about trying to equate trivial stupidities with war crimes. It's just suggesting that they're related concepts, and arguing that they're /not/ is just plain stupid.

Making a comparison is /not/ the same as saying to concepts are equivalent!

himi

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not walk out to your car, put the phone in your pocket or wife's purse, and then walk back, telling the doorman that you left it in your car?

Who says he drove anywhere? Have you ever lived in a large city with a real transit system?

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[Killjoy_NL]

In the case of some movies, it would equate to giving them entrance instead of denying it :P

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[pAnkRat]

yeah,

but I get the impression that these articles are lying.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[daem0n1x]

People that have security jobs are usually not very competitive on the job market. Refusing to take an order is a reason for getting immediately fired even here in Europe. I don't think the security guy would like to lose his job. It's not like they are forcing him to slay people, is it? And he probably doesn't even have the knowledge to realise his actions are illegal.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[maillemaker]

>and then the servers go down, but you don't get the page...

No, perhaps you missed what I was saying. I was saying you TELL them you left the phone in your car, but instead you leave it in your pocket, or your wife's purse (on silent of course, like you would have done anyway).

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[Sobrique]

The Nuremberg trials served to prove that 'just doing your job' wasn't sufficient justification.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[SIIHP]

"and it doesn't imply anything at all about trying to equate trivial stupidities with war crimes."

Then why say "just following orders" which was the justification for war crimes, when "just doing my job" is both more accurate and less evocative?

Or right, because it DOES imply something about war crimes, which OP acknowledged, and you're not honest enough to admit. You're completely wrong.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[SIIHP]

"Apparently, plenty of adults run into difficulty with such things as well."

Don't be so hard on yourself.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[Zombywuf]

Or just following orders...

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[Dephex Twin]

The only winning move ... is not to play.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Or just don't tell them anything. As you know, then rules are absurd in the extreme.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[himi]

Then why say "just following orders" which was the justification for war crimes, when "just doing my job" is both more accurate and less evocative?

Or right, because it DOES imply something about war crimes, which OP acknowledged, and you're not honest enough to admit. You're completely wrong.

. . . . pardon? The reason for bringing up the Nuremberg defense in a discussion like this is to draw an analogy between it and the "just doing my job" argument - it's implying that the reasoning behind both of them (abdicating responsibility for your actions, and attempting to pass that responsibility on to your superiors) is the same. Can you argue with /that/?

The fact that the Nuremberg defense isn't considered acceptable, on the grounds that people should be held responsible for their actions if they're in a position where they can make a choice about them, suggests that by the same standard the "just doing my job" defense shouldn't be considered acceptable either. There's no reason to think that comparison isn't valid, or that it suggests that handing a teenager over to the police because of corporate policies is somehow equivalent to herding people into the gas chambers. /All/ that comparison suggests is that using consistent standards, neither defense should be considered morally acceptable.

So, would you like to explain how I'm completely wrong?

himi

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[SIIHP]

"The reason for bringing up the Nuremberg defense in a discussion like this is to draw an analogy between it and the "just doing my job" argument"

WHich is moronic, because one is a case of horrendous war crimes and the other is refusing to allow a phone in a private usiness. One case has the individuals dragged screaming to their incineration, and one has people voluntarily choosing to enter a private establishment.

"Can you argue with /that/?"

If by argue, you mean completely destroy, then yeah, I completely destroyed that.

"There's no reason to think that comparison isn't valid,"

That's funny, I just gave you one. Seems you're wrong.

"So, would you like to explain how I'm completely wrong?"

I did, but does it really matter? You won't admit it, no matte how many ways I show you your point is absurd. Your kind never does.
r

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[linuxrocks123]

> I've read enough of the science to be satisfied with it. I'm reasonably familiar with the standards of psych research, and it's certainly not all set in stone, but the preponderance of evidence right now is on the side of my claim, and at least there isn't any real evidence behind the grandparent's claim.

You still haven't provided any evidence. You just linked to seemingly random academic psychological articles on lying, none of which support your view.

Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car?

[himi]

Dear /god/ you're stupid.

"The reason for bringing up the Nuremberg defense in a discussion like this is to draw an analogy between it and the "just doing my job" argument"

WHich is moronic, because one is a case of horrendous war crimes and the other is refusing to allow a phone in a private usiness. One case has the individuals dragged screaming to their incineration, and one has people voluntarily choosing to enter a private establishment.

The analogy is /not/ between the actions, it's between the /reasoning behind them/. If you can't recognise that, then you really should have your Internet license revoked.

There's apparently no point continuing.

himi

worse

[circletimessquare]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19696636/

Cyborgs?

[jameskojiro]

What happens when we have Cyborgs via "Ghost in the Shell" and they want to see the movie????

Do they have to have a DRM chip installed????

This is not shocking coming from regal

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to work for those fucking assholes.

The whole company is a clusterfuck. constant conflicting orders, immature assholes get power, employee abuse, health code violations, working minors unpaid overtime, etc, treating employees like criminals, never firing, but
"suspending" employees for an indefinite amount of time, and during this time you're not allowed to call the theatre, they call you. which they dont. they mail you your final check and that's it. they fire you for not showing up so they dont have to pay for unemployment, they also overcharge for subpar service. They hire armed security guards, who, at the theatre I worked at were fully authorized to use their weapons against anyone sneaking in.

Is it any shock that they do something this overkill to their customers? Knowing the legal power they have, they'll more than likely win and get this girl imprisoned.

RTFA

[nigelo]

It was a Canon PowerShot - it's probably limited to 20-sec clips...

Well of course she should pay...

[3seas]

... and so should Regal Cinema.

So put her in jail and make a big story out of it, 60 minutes, 20/20, etc....

I'm sure Regal will lose more than the amount of her fine and her lost wages...

If she is so innocent than how did she miss the posted signs all of the place telling her not to record?

Unless there were no signs.

The real point

[Anonymous Coward]

If they recorded a short clip in the middle of the movie slap their wrists to make a point and post obvious signs forbidding video cameras. If the recorded the movie from the beginning then it wasn't just a casual thing. Recording devices aren't permitted at concerts or theaters and most everyone knows it. Sounds like they just did something stupid but the tape should prove that out. If it's fifteen minutes of horsing around before the movie and a 20 second clip then it shouldn't be a major infraction.

here's what I have a problem with...

[DMaster0]

Movie pirating cost the industry $18.2 billion worldwide in 2005, the last year for which figures were available, according to the Motion Picture Association of America. Moviegoers are increasingly carrying cellphones, digital cameras and other devices capable of recording.

Total bullshit. Pirating didn't cost the movie industry anywhere near 18.2 billion dollars, and anyone who believes those absurd numbers is a fool or a congressman.

In reality, it's coming from a much thinner slice of everyone's entertainment dollar, extrapolated over some imaginary numbers to get a huge number that makes people scared. Follow up with a few million dollars thrown around to the right congressmen (shockingly less than $300k per lawmaker that gets a bribe, er campaign contribution), and you suddenly have legitimacy for a very fake number.

Movie receipts are up. Theaters are doing better than ever these days, primarily thanks to something we never saw at a theater before... 10+ minutes worth of real commercials before the show. Remember when you went to a movie and the screen was blank for 20 minutes, then the trailers happened and then the movie? Hah! Now, you get some form of 20 minutes of semi-entertainment features ("the 20" or "screenvision" or whatever your brand has) which is saturated with advertisements. Then the commercials before the trailers, which at worst used to be an advertisement for the concession stand, now it's a cellphone ad, a mountain dew ad, a car ad and who knows what else, the same as you'd see on television. Pure profit for the theater owners with a captive audience that they can measure almost exactly.

Did the price of a movie ticket go down? Absolutely not, I'm sure it's been steadily climbing in very tiny increments (.25 here, .50 there) and so do the concession prices. We all know that your average carbonated beverage costs at most $.25 per liter, yet in the magical boundaries of a movie theater a large beverage (free refills!) will run you $4+. Popcorn? $4 for even a small bag of popcorn that won't even last through the previews.

So, the price of entertainment keeps going up. We don't devote all of our free resources to the same source of entertainment, especially when the quality of the product isn't necessarily consistent.

If a guy has $100/mo he can devote to entertainment 5 years ago, lets assume that he gets a %5 raise every year, and can still devote the same portion of money to entertainment today. Guy has a whole $25 extra per month to spend on things. (this is assuming that at some point Guy didn't decide to buy a house, a new car, start a family, move across the country or discover a new hobby of course and we're assuming that Guy is still quite boring and does the same things today as he did 5 years ago). 5 Years ago, a movie might have cost $6-7, now it's $10-11. A CD was $12-15, now it's $16-17. DVD movies, $15 before, now $20. Even video games that were previously $40-50, are now $50-60. All of the things you spend your entertainment dollar on, are increasing their prices much higher and faster than the rate of advancement for most people's income. So what happens? People stop buying as much of some things. Less video games, less movies, less music, etc.

Unfortunately, the reaction to their own price increases and lowered value is to blame piracy.

"Ninety percent of recently released films that are pirated are done by camcording in movie theaters," said Kori Bernards, a spokeswoman for the Motion Picture Association of America. "It's happening all over.

Okay, so it's happening. We've got it. We saw it on Seinfeld 10 years ago, and it was clever then, now it's not. But is it doing anything? Are the kind of people who download a crap looking handheld camera recording of a movie really the kind of person who's actually going to pay $10 to see the movie at the theater? I've never met the person who's said that they'd rather sit at home and watch a grain

Re:here's what I have a problem with...

[sherriw]

Amen!

It seems like my local theaters - Cineplex Odeon and Famous Players are more interested in cramming as much over-priced food and annoying commercials/ads down my throat than they are in giving me a positive theater experience. My local cinemas are getting up there in years and the seats are starting to smell. A few screens have little tears that you can't stop noticing, and the floors are always sticky. They've even consolidated the 2 ticket rippers that were at the 2 "wings" of theaters into one ticket ripper with a big rope across the main room so everyone has to go by this one ticket ripper guy. Ooo.. you saved $6.85 per hour by using one guy instead of two! Sheesh.

If they worked on user experience, then they wouldn't have to compete with the grainy crappy videotaped copies. In fact, I'm going to email some suggestions to them just for the heck of it.

the deterence argument fails it

[circletimessquare]

murder has been wrong in all societies that ever existed and is immediately apparent to even a small child that depriving another person of life is wrong

and yet it still exists, and always will

so why do you punish murder? because it is wrong. that's the beginning of the reason for punishing it, and the end. that is the only valid reason to punish it. you don't punish murderers to deter future murderers. because it doesn't deter them. you hew to principles that you value, and every other reason for meting out punishment, like deterence, is bullshit

Re:the deterence argument fails it

[inquisitive_cherub]

You're thinking and explanations are extremely muddled. I think you're basically saying that deterrence never works and are using murder as an example to prove it. Your first mistake is using murder as a standin for ALL crimes. Do you think tax evasion would increase or decrease if there were no penalties for it? Take looting as another example. Looting accompanies natural disasters and periods of societal collapse. Why? Because law enforcement is not there to catch and punish the perpetrators. Many other deterrence examples exist, inlcuding an increase in punishment for the use of certain firearms during the commision of a robbery. Some criminals take this into account and may not use lethal weapons for this very reason.

Of course deterrence is not effective in crimes of passion. Any human caught up in the heat of the moment will not think through the consequences of their actions. More to the point, do you for one moment believe that if the the penalty for murder were significantly lessened that the rate premeditated murder would not rise? Or murders that occurred during kidnapping? Don't you think that kidnappers think twice about their crime given that, if their victim dies, they may be charged with a capital offense?

One other point... murder has NOT been wrong in all societies that ever existed. Even a casual review of history would show this. A quick refresher: Aztec human sacrifices, Killing slaves, Russian pogroms, Killing Native Americans, Khmer Rouge, etc. (I left out the most famous example to keep from invoking Godwin's Law). In these societies, murder was OK because there were neither the human rights values nor the comcommitnt punishment associated with the killing of certain groups. These two things go hand in hand. Why is it that as soon as a society comes to the realization that a group of people have been disenfranchised, laws are passed that acknowledge this fact and enforce compliance. Just because a society undergoes a value change does not ensure behavior modification follows. Enforcement is necessary. Kids understand this principle... what's so difficult about it?

This is a good thing...

[Jaysyn]

... we need heavy handed tactics like this that affect people from all walks of life to show how absurd our current IP situation is.

This Title No Verb

[RealErmine]

Legal experts agree that the film clip could spend as little as four months in prison after appeals and good behavior.

To theater or not to theater

[strider2k]

Pros and cons of theater:

  + watching it the day it comes out
  + watching it uncut (examples: Batman Begins dvd has Scarecrow CGI scenes reduced and Lion King dvd has Scar vs Simba fight edited into only 3 hits while original was a full blown 5 minute battle)
  + nice surround sound

  - expensive ($10 per ticket and lots for food)
  - strangers shouting and babies crying
  - pimple-faced ushers/managers waving flashlights around

So is it worth it to go to the theaters and put up with the crap? I think it all depends on the individual's set up at home. If you have a nice set up, then staying at home is the better alternative. If you have a 20 year old tv, then go to the theaters. One thing I didn't factor is the movie-hopping experience which WILL mitigate the price issue if you watch at least 3 movies with one ticket.

The Problem With Zero Tolerence

[SQL Error]

The National Association of Theater Owners supports Regal's 'zero-tolerance' prosecution standard: 'We cannot educate theater managers to be judges and juries in what is acceptable. Theater managers cannot distinguish between good and bad stealing.'

Then you should fire them and hire competent staff.

Zero tolerance is simply an abdication of responsibility and common sense.

A friend of mine runs ZeroIntelligence.net, which documents this sort of thing.

Re:The Problem With Zero Tolerence

[Vitriol Angst]

What if their corporate policy was to club people like fur seals?

A "corporate policy" means nothing -- but THIS is stuff that controls the courts?

Fascist much?

Slap her with a nuisance fine for her not asking permission ($9 for the cost of admission) and let her go. It was clearly not the intent to capture the video... the pirates probably had that for Transformers as soon as it came out with high quality. They can't get the pirates, so they beat this poor woman in proxy. Is this going to deter the REAL pirates? No.

The just reward for stupidity

[DaveV1.0]

If she goes to jail, she will get what she deserves for being that stupid. I just wish more camcorder toting assholes would get busted.

Bad managment strikes again

[boyfaceddog]

This is not a legal issue, is it? I mean videotaping a movie in a theater is against the law, fair use or not. Isn't the problem here the management's decision to call the police rather than approaching to woman and speaking to her. I think Regal missed a great opportunity here. Imagine this headline:

"Regal Theater manager confiscates videotape from video pirate."

Perfectly within his rights AND he gets to give the patron time to explain. Maybe even (gasp) give her a free pass in exchange for taking her video tape. The best part is he can still prosecute her later if someone thinks it is appropriate.

Bad, bad managment.

Totalitarianism ftw!

[Darth Liberus]

You're right... we must never allow complex like "what if she was just innocently taping a little clip to show her brother?" stand in the way of ENFORCING THE RULES.

that's a brain fart

[circletimessquare]

think about it again. if you commit a crime you can't come out ahead of someone who didn't commit a crime, because a caught criminal is deprived of all of the benefits of their crime, and then some more

you are thinking that the proceeds of a crime are the sum total of what must be punished (or that the crime always results in a financial benefit). society must spend resources catching, prosecuting, and punishing the criminal, and the victim's intangible losses must be addressed

so if someone stole a million dollars, they would have to pay back more than a million dollars, and it would still be less of a punishment than their crime, because you're not taking into account all of the costs involved in righting the wrong and reversing the crime

Re:that's a brain fart

[edwdig]

think about it again. if you commit a crime you can't come out ahead of someone who didn't commit a crime, because a caught criminal is deprived of all of the benefits of their crime, and then some more

That would be what most people mean by the punishment being worse than the crime.

Re:that's a brain fart

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's make stealing an example, since it's the easiest to apply this logic to.
Let the thief's gain from theft be 1 unit and the victim's damage also be 1 unit. When caught, the thief loses the gain they got from the theft, which is returned back to the victim.
The punishment part is causing damage to the thief in addition to that. The size of the punishment should be less than 1 unit in order for the system to be just.

Re:that's a brain fart

[tftp]

so if someone stole a million dollars, they would have to pay back more than a million dollars

You do not take into account the statistical properties of such theft. For example, if for stealing $1M one has to return the loot and pay $1M extra, then the thief can be caught at every other job and be even, or do better than that (fail every third job) and have a positive balance. If no jail time is involved the thief has every reason to rob banks as often as every day.

Bet the brother won't bother seeing Transformers

[bahwi]

Not after this, but that's a good thing, he won't miss anything but the worst cliche ridden movie made since Rocky Horror, and Rocky Horror was trying to be terrible. Transformers just excelled at it without trying.

Young couples and video cams...

[rholland356]

Let this be a lesson to all young couples--there are much better things to film with your video cam, and lots of places on the internet to share your footage.

I should hope you edit your footage before placing it on the internet, though. All young people should learn to work video editing software. Heck, video editing software should be part of every cell phone--probably will be in a couple years.

In the meantime, young ppl can use free online video editing services, like Eyespot, Jumpcut or MotionBox.

deterence never works

[circletimessquare]

deterence is a threat of violence without any understanding of the principles involved. threats of violence do not further justice

if i punish you for a crime, i am underlining that there are consequences for breaking the values that society holds as important. in other words, i am asking that you to understand and respect what society values, and that alone. i punish you, for doing wrong. punishing you for any other reaosn above and beyond that is ineffectual

if i punish you for deterence reasons, i am asking that you respect me simply because i am telling other people that i will use violence against you if you do something i don't like

never mind the princples involved. deterence is empty violence, not understanding of values

no. you punish for the sake of jsutice alone, and no more. punishment for the sake of deterence or anything other than simple justice is merely asking that people respect violence alone. and that never works

What kind of name is Jhannet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupid niggers!

No black & white law of ownership

[Geof]

that's not your decision to make. That's the content owner's decision.

If you see the law as an absolute code differentiating objective right from wrong, you will end up with grotesque outcomes like this. The law is a mechanism for negotiating interests that cannot be resolved in other ways, and it's a standard or guideline to prevent conflicts from reaching that stage. The law tries to express rules in rational and objective terms (because that's an effective way to achieve consensus among the thousands of strangers in a large scale society), but it cannot possibly account for the complexity of human interaction, intention, and so on. The law has a spirit as well as a letter, and both are contestable. That's why the law must be interpreted and (in the common law tradition) changed through precedent.

The "ownership" of content isn't really ownership of content: it's the ownership of the copyright, which is something different. And that is not an absolute rule, but an expression of a social consensus plus the ability to apply for a remedy.

The best analogy for copyright infringement that I have seen is not theft, but trespassing. If those kids had poked their heads in the wrong cinema, or traipsed through the lobby after closing, or retrieved a ball kicked onto your lawn, do you think the law would care? Are these things serious enough? "That's not their decision to make; that's the property owner's decision", you might say - but in most cases, you would be wrong.

By the way, although I disagree with you I want to thank you for a thorough post that resulted in many interesting replies. Also, this is just my reasoning. Your remark just rings so false I want t ofigure out why. I have no background in the theory of law. If someone does (and I suspect most lawyers are the wrong folks to ask, as they are too close and dependent on the practice of law to be able to stand back and see its purpose), I would be most interested to hear from them.

That's easy

[benhocking]

The latter, because it's very unlikely to happen. Sure, it might happen on a very rare occasion, but I strongly suspect it'll be far less common than people bringing in camera phones and recording a little clip.

Re:That's easy

[MoneyT]

Right, but arresting and prosecuting even a thousand people a year in civil court is still cheaper than one drawn out discrimination lawsuit. Look at it this way. If doing this to everyone taking shots with their camera phone was more expensive than dealing with discrimination lawsuits and the like thta arise from using discretion, they wouldn't do it. They're a business after all.

Lesson Learned

[Alexpkeaton1010]

It is safer to pirate the movie and watch it at home than to pay money to see it. That is what I learned today.

it's harder than that

[circletimessquare]

the world runs on oil. nevermind the promotion of fundamentalist islam, even on environmental concerns, the world needs to get off oil. so even if everyone univerally denounced saudi arabia, they would still buy their oil, and so wahabbi islamic madrassas would still get funded. of course the us administration supporting the suadis, who support the religious assholes who kill americans, is utterly retarded, but even without that, the problem will still exist of oil money funding religious extremism

it will be a long and painful road off of the world's dependence on oil. it is a cheap source of energy, physically speaking: just dig up buried concentrated sunshine and strike a match. but environmental blowback (hurricane katrina) and the funding of religious extremism (9/11) at least make it obvious to the world and the usa that there other more intangible costs associated with using oil, and those costs are much more expensive than the just the price you pay at the gas pump, and getting increasingly more expensive

the world will slowly and painfully come to the realization that the cost in blood and climate of gasoline is too high

haha

[someone1234]

I guess it was only 20 seconds because they were caught.
People cannot pretend to be this dumb and expect to get away with it.

Though one year for this is disgusting, it just shows that the USA is in the pockets of the film industry.
But you can punish the suckers, send them a mail that you won't go to the next movie because of this case.
AND DON'T GO!

The only priacy I see...

[SighKoPath]

is this:

They got to the movie a few minutes after it started. And even though they paid $15 for two matinee tickets, they missed the end.

$7.50 per ticket for a MATINEE? Maybe if they didn't charge so much for admission, they wouldn't have as many problems with cams.

Under Sharia law

[crovira]

she should not even have been in the theater.

In fact, the theater should have been blown up as a tool of the Great Satan and of the godless west.

Mullah Omar would have had her shot in the head with a Kalashnikov in an ex-school-playground. (There are no secular schools allowed in the Califate, only Madrassa.)

Different strokes for different folks is all I'm saying here.

But the RIAA and MPAA would be up a fucking creek, wouldn't they.

Summum jus, summa injuria

[obender]

Extreme justice is extreme injustice. [Lat., Summum jus, summa injuria.]
Author: Cicero (Marcus Tullius Cicero)
Source: De Officiis (I, 10) In this text it was translated as: More law, less justice.

So then it's OK to...

[thanksforthecrabs]

...take a gun into a bank if you don't pull it out?

Re:So then it's OK to...

[greywire]

> ...take a gun into a bank if you don't pull it out?

If you have a permit to carry a concealed weapon, it is.

Far as I know you dont have to have a permit to carry a camcorder (or a phone or a pda with a camera on it), concealed or otherwise...

This whole thing is rediculous. If there was even a crime committed here (I think fair use covers this as legal) its about on the level of shop lifting a candy bar, if that (there was pretty clearly no intent to steal here). A year in prison? $2500 fine? You have got to be kidding. If she gets anything less than a refund on her ticket price for missing the movie, there needs to be riots in front of that theater. Or at least a boycott and demonstration.

Re:So then it's OK to...

[cdrguru]

Carrying a gun (permit or not) into a public building in against the law. I believe it is a felony. AZ is a concealed carry state and there is one of these notices outside every public building or office.

Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Seeing movies in theaters is far too legally dangerous. I'm going to play it safe and get all my movies from torrents from now on.

Director of Community Affairs mailing address

[Inhibit]

I'm guessing that sending a hand written note expressing your intent to no longer use their services to the Community Affairs department might be a good first step if you're irritated by this.

Director of Community Affairs
Regal Entertainment Group

Debbie Robertson
7132 Regal Lane
Knoxville, TN 37918

Re: ridiculous provisions??

[Anonymous Coward]

The theater is acting as an agent for the content owners, which is why they enforce this.

No, they're acting as a customer of the content owners. That's like saying that the grocery store is the "agent" of Gillette because they sell razors. Nonsense.

Additionally, maybe you skipped out on that bit of history in the 1950's when the movie studios were charged with anti-trust violations for the vertical integration of movie houses with the movie studios. In the 1930's and 40's, you would be absolutely correct to say that movie theaters were "agents" of the studios because each studio owned the whole chain of distribution. Now, however, the movie theaters are independent of the major companies.

The theaters have a financial interest in protecting film copyrights because if the studios determine that movies are being recorded in some theater, they will be unwilling to license the films to the studio. However, that's a purely financial motive and as such should be dealt with civilly by the movie studios, and NOT the theater.

At most, they should have charged this girl with trespassing for violating the theater's rules.

you can't show caring

[circletimessquare]

to someone who won't care for themselves

any goodness you show to someone who abuses themselves just results in more of their self-abuse

call it tough love, but some people need cold turkey jail time. you may consider that a horrible affront on their freedom. except that their addiction is more of an affront on their freedom than jail time is

government is not the only thing in the world that can rob you of your freedom. heroin/ cocaine/ methamphetamine addiction represents bars in your mind that are a greater prison than the most fascist government torture chamber the most sadistic bastard could ever dream up. in fact, if you want a completely totalitarian evil freedom-hating government, you would have free compulsory heroin for everyone paid for by the government: everyone a zombie, everyone slave. the whole world a prison, including your own mind

choosing highly addicting and inebriating drugs, or respecting someone who chooses that, continually, is not embracing greater freedom or greater caring. it is embracing less freedom and less caring

you just have to understand that drug abuse is a greater killer of freedom than any government ever could be

Re:you can't show caring

[Fweeky]

Well, your appeal to emotion and inability to use capital letters surely has me convinced. And don't think I've not noticed you voting up some of the absolute *shit* that's on k5 these days :P

Yes, some people probably need to have their freedom curtailed to protect them from themselves. That's not punishment, though, any more so than sectioning someone having a major psychotic episode is, and I don't see why jail would be the right place to do that, or why you'd automatically jump to that for anyone. We don't lock up alcoholics, is that not inebriating enough? Are they not addicted enough?

It's all clear now

[Anonymous Coward]

The National Association of Theater Owners supports Regal's 'zero-tolerance' prosecution standard NATO's true face revealed.

Good and Bad Stealing?

[morari]

Ha! Clearly the women and her brother are the victims here for actually paying to see Transformers.

you fail at simple logic

[circletimessquare]

there is no A

A was never yours in the first place. you don't steal something, and now it's yours, and now if it is taken back from you, it is something you are being deprived of. you can't be deprived of that which was never yours in the first place. therefore, taking A back from you is not a punishment, and is therefore not part of the equation

get it?

now, recompute

Re:you fail at simple logic

[Tom]

Of course there is an A. Since B is never 1, there is always an A, and in the long run you have a net profit of A*(1-B)-C.

In simple terms:
If I have a 50% chance of being caught stealing $100 bills, and the punishment is $50 (plus returning the loot), then in 10 attempts I will successfully steal $500 and pay $250 in penalties => $250 profit. There's your A.

Time to reconnect with reality

[procrastitron]

Theater managers cannot distinguish between good and bad stealing. Apparently, they can't distinguish between stealing and copyright infringement either. Considering that the movie theater doesn't even hold the rights to the film in the first place, they are being rather conceited.

I agree

[tkrotchko]

"...and soon enough, you have the whole movie. "

That's why they have to ban individual musical notes. You record 1 note here, and 1 note there, you can string them together to form *any song ever written or recorded*. Just owning a piano might be proof that you intend to illegally reproduce copyrighted music.

no, you don't get it

[circletimessquare]

all you are proposing is a society where the rich can get away with crime and the poor must become slaves for the tiniest infraction

you way overrepresent the value of restitution. it is a useful tool, but you can't do every job in the house with a hammer. it is merely one tool in a repertoire of punishemtns available to us, and its philosphically valid application is a far smaller subset of crimes than you imagine

Re:no, you don't get it

[loucura!]

all you are proposing is a society where the rich can get away with crime and the poor must become slaves for the tiniest infraction

Thereby discouraging the poor from committing crimes! Brilliant!

Re:no, you don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

I've debated with you before, and for the most part you simply ignore my logic and repeatedly try to hammer your own conclusion into my brain. You just can't do that with someone who thinks for himself and expect to get results. I won't accept a conculsion until I accept the logic behind it.

all you are proposing is a society where the rich can get away with crime and the poor must become slaves for the tiniest infraction

Where's the beef? Don't simply tell me what you think the outcome of my proposal is -- tell my how and why you think that outcome will arise. I'm not going to simply repeat myself and call it a debate. What's the point in that? I responded to your concrete examples with logical evaluations -- now you do the same.

(Incidentally, restitution doesn't always have to take the form of cold hard cash. Take defamation for example -- a logical part of the resitution would be publicly admitting one's false accusations, thereby helping to restore the victims's reputation.)

Give me an actual example of the rich getting away with crime, or the poor becoming slaves, and I'll be happy to respond. Good luck!

Re:no, you don't get it

[Reservoir Penguin]

While the idle rich are roaming around breaking your stuff at will because several thousand dollars means nothing to them. Do you want to encourage more Paris Hilton type behavior? Break the law, pay the restutution fine, forget about it immediately, do it again.

Re:no, you don't get it

[loucura!]

There are far fewer rich people than poor people. Since 1% of the population own a bit more than 38% of the wealth, that means that there's only three million people available to commit crimes wantonly. If your goal is to limit the number of crimes committed, encouraging the rich to commit crimes while discouraging the poor from committing crimes fits that bill. Even so, the rich can't afford to commit egregious crimes in this hypothetical state, because even with three million of them - there aren't enough of them to completely destroy everything.

Simple.

[C10H14N2]

It should properly be a civil matter. The offended party should have to present its case of immediate damages suffered and demand reasonable recourse given all of the circumstances of each individual case, not simply be granted uniform criminal penalties with little regard to intent and prior to any actual damages being suffered, much less be given the latitude a la Canada to effectively mandate tax collection on the arbitrary assumption of future losses.

Land of the free

[Anonymous Coward]

How's that "land of the free" thing working out for ya?

You certainly have to be brave to live there so the second bit fits.

Re: ridiculous provisions??

[dosius]

If I were to set a bar, it would be "10% of the whole"

-uso.

Where's the Crime?

[filesiteguy]

I'm sorry, I don't see any crime here. I don't even know why the police would get involved.

If someone wants to videotape something - regardless of copyright - is there a crime involved? I understand that there may be a tort or potential losses if the copyrighted material is distributed by someone not authorized. But is the simple act of taping a clip of a copyrighted item a crime?

I would hope not.

okay

[circletimessquare]

what about the rich getting away with gross crimes and the poor getting slavery for tiny infractions?

restitution is a valid tool for punishment, but for a far smaller subset of crimes than the wide application of which the parent poster is alluding to

all the parent poster would get with wider use of restitution is french society as it existed before the french revolution. classism and aristocracy is not a just society, and that's what restitution only punishment results in

Time in Advance (1956 short story by Philip Klass)

[Savage650]

One of my favourite SF stories: Time in Advance. First published in Galaxy Science Fiction, August 1956.

Two guys return to earth after voluntarily serving seven years in various (deadly) offworld penal colonies as advance payment for a murder they intend to commit (pre-crime is 50% off the sentence, but most applicants die or drop out of the program).

Jhannet Sejas is not a northern european name.

[Snowtide]

I wonder if she would have gotten in as much trouble if she had been white? A quick look at her picture in the article shows her to be well dressed but perhaps a little darker than the average kid in the theater.

The more laws you have often the more selectively they are enforced.

Having worked crappy, low end, and not crappy, higher end, security it has on occasion been educational and entertaining to watch my employers' biases in action in what we are told to look for or pursue. These jobs were in large metropolitan areas as well, not small out of the way places, with dress codes ranging from 100% polyester to nice suits.

I may be biased to see human stupidity though. Several years ago I had to explain to an assistant dean of our college that the young black woman she had so rudely rushed out of the college's new building the night before was one of the computer techs getting the building ready to open in two weeks. :) To be fair the assistant dean was in general an idiot and clueless about technology, but still.

All laws, especially bad or poorly written, can become weapons in the hands of human bias and stupidity.

zero tolerance inappropriate here

[wherrera]

Zero tolerance where it applies to victims of violence or threats there-of perhaps makes sense, but not here. A community teenage boycott of the theater, with picketers, ought to be effective.

You misrepresent zero tolerance

[AHumbleOpinion]

"Zero-tolerance" is an american term invented to justify the lawyers actions. It's a shame that the US judiciary system allows itself to be abused that way, for so little and insignificant things.

You are confused. "Zero tolerance" was with respect to the theater, they alway file charges in other words. There is no "zero tolerance" with respect to sentencing in this regard, a judge has the discretion to take the context of the offense into consideration and just give her a slap on the wrist.

You also misrepresent "zero tolerance", under some circumstances it is reasonable. For example in some states if someone reports being assaulted in a domestic abuse situation the police must arrest the person who committed the assault.

Re:You misrepresent zero tolerance

[hjf]

You are confused. "Zero tolerance" was with respect to the theater, they alway file charges in other words. There is no "zero tolerance" with respect to sentencing in this regard, a judge has the discretion to take the context of the offense into consideration and just give her a slap on the wrist.

Err, no. The teather can do whatever they want, the judiciary system is, in the first instance, a judge, who can just throw away the case, dismiss it, call it whatever you want. I was refering to the fact that the original poster mentioned something about "paying a fine" or whatever. Tiny crimes such as this ought to be handled by the police, as it usually happens (a police officer scaring a some kid, or something). It doesn't have to escalate to this.

You also misrepresent "zero tolerance", under some circumstances it is reasonable. For example in some states if someone reports being assaulted in a domestic abuse situation the police must arrest the person who committed the assault.

That's a different story. The police will take both parties into "custody", take their statements, and according to the law either detain or release the suspect (or the accused).

There is no "zero tolerance" in life. Schools with "zero tolerance" policies claim better "results" or whatever. "Anything that can be used as a weapon IS a weapon". Yeah, whatever. You can take an utility kife, a nail file, even some "non-safety" scissors from a kid. But I can still stab you with a pencil, or a pen. I can strangle you with the laces of my shoe. I can break your neck with a chair.... you see my point? Ask a prison guard what he thinks about that kind of "zero tolerance" at schools and he will laugh at you. In short, anything can be a weapon. That's why I think "zero tolerance" is, in most (if not all) cases, ridiculous and useless.

Re:You misrepresent zero tolerance

[Anonymous Coward]

"You also misrepresent "zero tolerance", under some circumstances it is reasonable. For example in some states if someone reports being assaulted in a domestic abuse situation the police must arrest the person who committed the assault."

They'll make the arrest even if there is absolutely NO evidence of an assault. You call that reasonable?? False rape claims are bad enough, this just lowers the bar. Zero tolerance is a lame cop-out created so that nobody has to do any real work investigating anything, while at the same time appeasing an idiotic populace that something's been done to resolve the problem. So what if a bunch of innocent people get raked over the coals, eh?

Re:You misrepresent zero tolerance

[Anonymous Coward]

You also misrepresent "zero tolerance", under some circumstances it is reasonable. For example in some states if someone reports being assaulted in a domestic abuse situation the police must arrest the person who committed the assault.

Tell that to my (now ex) girlfriend who, while we were together, took a nap and had a bad nightmare. I gently tried to wake her up, she woke up with a scream and I wound up with a small scratch before she was really aware of her surroundings. Cops come 'cause some asshole neighbor called and reported someone screaming for all of a half a second... and she wound up in jail because of "zero tolerance".

There is no "zero tolerance" with respect to sentencing in this regard, a judge has the discretion to take the context of the offense into consideration and just give her a slap on the wrist.

Is it reasonable for someone to have an arrest record for a violent crime due to the above incident? That's almost always enough for a resume to be ignored, failed background or security clearance checks, etc.

Get a clue and some intelligence - "zero tolerance" laws almost always have innocent people caught in the crossfire. Things like this should be immediately recognizable to any halfwit.

Re:You misrepresent zero tolerance

[AHumbleOpinion]

"You also misrepresent "zero tolerance", under some circumstances it is reasonable. For example in some states if someone reports being assaulted in a domestic abuse situation the police must arrest the person who committed the assault.

Tell that to my (now ex) girlfriend who, while we were together, took a nap and had a bad nightmare. I gently tried to wake her up, she woke up with a scream and I wound up with a small scratch before she was really aware of her surroundings. Cops come 'cause some asshole neighbor called and reported someone screaming for all of a half a second... and she wound up in jail because of "zero tolerance".

Note "someone reports being assaulted in a domestic abuse situation". In my state your incident would be considered an accident according to the training given every peace officer. A required element of a crime is intent, obviously there was none.

Boycott Regal Cinema?

[nbauman]

On the comments link to the Washington Post article, the comments are about 5 or 10 to 1 in favor of Sejas, and people have organized a boycott of Regal Cinema. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2007/08/01/AR2007080102398_Comments.html

Re:Boycott Regal Cinema?

[nobodyknowsimageek]

This is the rational response; wield the only power the consumer has, which is to withhold our dollars from the company until they see reason and promise to act responsibly.

These days I don't

[Sycraft-fu]

Basically because home cinema has gotten too good. Turns out if you've got a couple grand to burn, you can get an experience in your home that is, in my opinion, better than the theatre. Sound is actually real easy to exceed theatre quality. About $1500 or so in speakers and a receiver and you have a setup that sounds better than 99% of what is out there (it is amazing how poorly calibrated most theatre systems are these days).

Video is more of a tossup. While DVD certainly doesn't have the resolution of film, a good upconverting DVD player on a good HDTV screen actually looks surprisingly good. The lower resolution is offset by the fact that it is all clear, no jittering from projector movement, no dust, and so on. Also the contra-positives most theaters get aren't as high rez as one would expect for 35mm since they aren't first gen. What happens is the master negative is made in to several prints, and then those prints are copied and sent off (or sometimes even copies of those copies). They do it so that copying can be done cheaper and faster (it would take a long time to print a few thousand platters off of just once source) but you lose resolution at each stage. A good 35mm negative may have a resolution in excess of 4000 lines, the same is not true of a copy of a copy of a 35mm contra-positive made of that negative.

So you've got a video experience that's maybe a little worse, and audio that's better. Then of course there's the fact that there's none of the other annoyances you've described. No screaming kids, no wanna be gangster teenyboppers, no ads, etc. Also there's the food to consider, not even the price but what you can have. Want to have dinner and some wine with your movie? No problem, your house you do as you please.

All in all I find the audio visual experience to be near enough to theatre standards that the whole experience is better so I just don't really go to movies anymore. I used to go for movies that I wanted the experience of, things like The Matrix and so on. It's not like this stuff is in the "So cheap anyone can afford it!" category. However with ticket prices what they are in compared to rentals, I can see it being not that big an expense for someone who sees a lot of movies if you look at it over a 2-3 year period.

deterrence has no value at all

[circletimessquare]

if i punish you for a crime, then i am underlining my belief in justice

if i punish you for deterrence, then i am underlining my belief that a gross display of violence will make people respect a law, regardless of it being just or injust

no: deterence is never a valid concept to consider. because deterence never works

if i tell you gum chewing is wrong, and punish people for that "crime", do people respect the law?

no, and they continue gum chewing, covertly

so all you get is people continuing to chew gum, and an overall less respect for society and its instutions of justice in general

meanwhile, if i tell you murder is wrong, but you can't stop it with deterence, so what's the point of throwing people in jail, do people respect the law?

no, of course not. the ONLY thing people respec tis if punishment is meted out for actual human crimes which are apparently criminal accoridng to a universal human understanding of right and wrong

the issue is respecting society and its instutitions, and that alone. and so those instutitons must have parity with what society respects. and that means a society whose laws have intrinsic human value. simply making an arbitray law, and enforcing harsh penalties for it, does not make people respect society or the law. in other words, the simple idea of deterrence is horseshit. but enacting laws whose degree of punishment is in line with things anyone can appreciate: murder, pedophilia, rape, etc., then you have a society people respect

That's what we tell you.

[HornWumpus]

We don't want any more euro-trash coming over. If you haven't gotten the hint by now you are too stupid to be admitted.

A year in prison for ____.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fill in the blank.

I'd go with "being so stupid that thinking nobody would mind using your camcorder on ANY length of a movie."

The Logic of Their Position Demands It.

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense.

If camera was seen before entry ...

[AHumbleOpinion]

One day at Six Flags, some jerk in front of me has a hunting knife. Six Flags just dealt with it sedately. They didn't call the cops, they just made the guy give it up before entering the park.

That is a poor analogy. The guy with the knife was outside. If the girl's camera was seen before she entered the theater she would have been told to give it up as well.

I don't think she has too much to worry about

[perlmangle]

First of all, she's totally hot. And the WaPo ran her picture with the story. She also works at Victoria's Secret. So, what we have here is a pretty girl, between the ages of 19 and 19 and a half, making exciting underwear. And she's being repressed.

There's no way Regal Cinemas will whether the maelstrom of bad press that this will generate.

The charges will be dropped by this time next week. Maybe sooner.

You scoff...

[benhocking]

But the other day I went to a concert and they wouldn't let me bring my piano in!

oh come on

[starbuckr0x]

She can easily prove she didn't intend to distribute. The only thing she has to cry about is the time a case like this is going to take out of her schedule and paycheck.

Isn't that exactly what managers *are* for?

[adrianbaugh]

Aren't managers *supposed* to be able to use judgement to make decisions? In fact, isn't that pretty much their entire reason for being? (That, and doing admin...) If they aren't capable of exercising leadership and judgement then why pay them any more than the popcorn machine operator?

It isn't stealing

[Anonymous Coward]

Stealing is a property crime. Copyright violation is a copyright violation, and is not a property crime, is not covered under property crime codes, etc. If they're calling it "stealing" they might as well also use other emotionally-loaded and inappropriate terms like "rape" or "genocide" or whatever.

And what he did falls under fair use. A low-quality 20-second capture of a movie has no commercial value, will not hurt sales of the movie, and would almost certainly be fair use.

I don't think it was ire...

[benhocking]

Your ire probably shouldn't even be directed at the coporate policy

I don't think it was ire, so much as it was an excuse to try out his new link. Go ahead, click on it. You know you're curious. Do it.

and the day I stopped going to movies

[commodoresloat]

was when Battlefield Earth came out.

25-seconds

[Nom du Keyboard]

Doesn't 25 seconds qualify as fair use for commentary? This was only 20 seconds.

And just what was the theater's stake in this? Someone taping the whole movie likely doesn't hurt them directly at all. You're either going to see the movie in the theater, or your not, and having it on BT seldom changes that decision (unless it's really bad, and you don't go waste your money as a result). Seems like a huge downside in publicity for the theater, given how quickly comments have bloomed here on this topic. And I doubt the theater gets any significant reward for this arrest.

The real question to my mind here is: who is bearing the cost of this prosecution? I doubt the theater is paying for it itself.

She was an adult, not a minor ...

[AHumbleOpinion]

Teenagers do dumb things, none of us are any different, and learning to deal with the consequences is part of growing up.

"Teenager" somewhat misrepresents things. While accurate in a grammatical sense she was an adult, 19 years old. At 18 you are legally an adult and the "grace period" for learning to growing up is over.

Re:She was an adult, not a minor ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I take it you and your friends didn't get in any trouble in your late teens. Sure, an 18 year old gets tougher penalties, and potentially the maximum sentence for murder.

But for more minor things, the grace period in lighter sentencing generally lasts until around 21. After that, you don't get any breaks for your immaturity. If convicted, she'll probably get community service and maybe a small fine. Unless somebody decides to make a scapegoat out of her because of the case's publicity. Then all bets are off.

Re:She was an adult, not a minor ...

[bjorniac]

Yeah really. I see ads regularly scaring parents that 1 in 5 teenagers have been approached for sex on the internet. Given that about 1/4 of teenagers are 18 or 19, this made me laugh. The ads even have little notes stating that teenager is 13-19, the sample was of internet users etc etc...

What if...

[iceperson]

they found him INSIDE the park using the knife?

Is your ax getting dull?

[benhocking]

'Cause it really seems like you have an ax to grind there...

Re:Is your ax getting dull?

[MoneyT]

Not at all, just pointing out fact. The reason why little old ladies get stoped at the airport is the same reason why colleges have quotas, schools have zero tollerance policies, chistmas carols are banned at school and the wearing of a veil to school is prohibited. It's the same reason why this girl is prosecuted and why the theft of a 50 candy bar and a $5000 TV are considered the same to wal-mart.

Discretion is discrimination.

The problem is, just like every other zero tollerance policy, the public at large, and more specifically the courts do not distinguish between "good" discrimination and "bad" discrimination. As a result, no one else will distinguish "good" bad acts vs "bad" bad acts. Hence zero tollerance is born.

Common sense?

[iceperson]

Hmm... perhaps if the idiot taking the video camera into a theater used a little she wouldn't be in this predicament?

Fair use?

[PipingSnail]

Two points to make.

#1
The Berne convention says you can use small snippets of larger works without penalty. Its called "fair use".
A 20 second clip out of a 90 minute move (5400 seconds)is definitely fair use (its 1/3rd of 1 percent of the movie). The intent was also fair use - to show it to her little brother as an example of what they had seen.

#2
Did you know that makers of TV programmes, documentaries, films, movies etc, if they use a snippet of your music that you recorded (and possibly have for sale with EMI, Sony, whoever), they can use an snippet they want, with no fee, as background music in their film/documentary/etc so long as the snippet is less than 30 seconds in length?

How do I know this? A friend recorded a CD of music. He played Uilleann pipes. One night down the pub we'd been playing tunes and he asked if I'd seen such and such a TV programme the night before. I had. Did I like the music for the bit where they flew over the mountains in Scotland? Yes. I wrote that. Cool. Er, not really they didn't pay me and then he told me why. This was for the UK and its the way the PRS or MCPS (the latter I think) work. They'd cut his music on the 29 second mark to avoid paying him. No idea if the same concept applies in the USA.

So its OK to use copyrighted music snippets in other people's copyrighted TV works without fee, but not OK to video tape a poor quality scene in a movie theater for 20 seconds when there is no profit or theft motive? Hmmm, I might think somebody was having their cake and eating it.

Nevermind the clueless programme producer using the bagpipes of Ireland for a flyover scene for Scotland. Doh! Happens all the time - Oh its celtic just shove some Irish music in there, no one will know...

They should get the 1 year

[_LORAX_]

If convicted, she could be sentenced to a year in prison and a $2,500 fine. The police say they lack discretion because Regal Cinemas chose to prosecute: 'They were the victim in this case, and they felt strongly enough about it.'

Boo-f-ing-whoo

They should get 1 year for the aggravation that the rest of the theater had to endure! They intentionally interrupted others viewing of the move that was not only annoying, but criminal.

sexual compulsion

[circletimessquare]

is a much larger motivator than all of the other crimes you have cited

additionally, pedophilia results in a crime much larger and of a much more permanent nature

as such, pedophilia deserves special consideration when contemplating modes of punishment

Re:sexual compulsion

[happyemoticon]

Why is sexual desire so much stronger? Are there not people who deny their own sexual impulses? I mean, I'm just wild for brunettes, but my fiancee is blonde. She knows I've got that little fetish, too. I sometimes jokingly bug her to dye her hair, but I'm not going to cheat on her because of it. People throughout history have repressed urges much stronger than that. Is pedophilia fundamentally different from other "fetishes," or from sexual orientation? If so, why? Do you have any evidence to support your claims, or even an unsourced but well-thought-out argument?

That's what I'm talking about with witch hunts. People just come out with wild assertions as if they're the truth without batting an eyelash to reason, let alone supporting evidence. Here's why I think what I do:

Drug addicts, specifically people who are addicted to heroin, feel no pleasure when they do not have their fix. Heroin withdrawal has been described to me like this: "Imagine the worst flu you've ever had. That's what not having heroin feels like every single day." Surely constant physical anguish is a compelling driver of behavior. Career criminals do not have the tools to survive without committing crimes. For them, the choices that lie before them are degradation, starvation, or crime.

You want large crimes? Talk to anybody who lost their savings six or seven years ago. And more permanent, you say? Surely nothing is as permanent as death. An abuse victim at least as a chance of leading a happy life. Murder victims have no such option, and, well, murder an undesirable but often inevitable part of life of a career thug.

Re:sexual compulsion

[radl33t]

You state too many opinions as facts.

Homeless used to record movies ...

[AHumbleOpinion]

The poor dude was mortified anyway, homeless, and ultimately probably wasn't going to post a torrent of his recording or make a bunch of copies and sell the dupes on the street. In the end we just confiscated the tape, escorted him out of the theatre and told him not to show up again, and that was the end of that.

While I have no problem with how you handled it, I think it is naive to assume that the recording would not go onto a torrent or bootleg tapes. A pirate may simply be taking advantage of the homeless guy, offering him a few dollars to make the recording. Low risk, low cost, high reward.

As a former theater manager...

[benhocking]

Indeed, theater managers are recruited from the pool of "special education" students who in turn ended up there because their teachers found it too much trouble to teach them how to read.

As a former theater manager, I'm going to have to take exception to that. For a lot of us, it was either a way to pay for our college or as a temporary job after graduating from college before getting a "real" job. Granted, there were a few "lifers" (there was only one in our Atlanta district), but most do not view it as part of their career plan. (No real offense taken, though. Especially when I consider that you might have been just "channeling" the person who was making the original statement.)

(Disclaimer: I actually was in special education, but that was just for a speech impediment, you insensitive clod!)

i don't know why you have a problem with me

[circletimessquare]

you don't disagree with me on the fundamentals of what i am saying

you say alcoholics maybe should be locked up, or that jail time is maybe not the most appropriate punishment

i don't take the alcoholic bait (every drug is different), and i don't disagree with you that other modes of punishment may be appropriate than just jail

in short, you don't disagree with me, but you dislike me

i don't care if you like me or not, and since we agree on ideology, i have no reason to argue with you

My Letter to Cineplex Odeon

[sherriw]

Dear Cineplex Odeon,

I am a 20-something movie fan and I try to see at least one movie at the theater per week. I visit both Silver City and Famous Players. But I visit the Silver City one more often. I have noticed a decline in the customer experience at these theaters in the last year or two, and in light of the movie industry trying to compete with home viewing of DVDs and pirated movies, I would think that you would be interested in improving the user experience... instead it is declining.

Currently a regular movie pass costs me $10. I consider this cost to be barely reasonable considering what I get. Let's assume the movie is good. I'd like to suggest some improvements for the theater experience itself.

The cleanliness of my local cinemas is declining. The seats- particularly at SilverCity are starting to smell. The floor is always sticky (I know that many guests are slobs- but you should have cleaning staff sufficient to handle this). The washrooms are sometimes dirty and the motion sensing taps often don't work well.

Some of the movie screens have rips or holes in them which draw the eye during the movie. Some cup holders have no bottoms so your drink falls through. Did I mention that the theaters are developing a smell?

For my $10, the slide show while I'm waiting for the movie contains more advertisements then it used to- what happened to the trivia? The trivia while you wait is an excellent idea- but there should be enough that I don't see it repeat- and much fewer advertisement slides. Then, before the movie starts I'm forced to watch several commercials. When this was first introduced I felt it was ok if it helped keep ticket prices down, and if the commercials were highly entertaining (example the Toyota Matrix commercial). But now the commercials are often extremely annoying (example- the Scene Card commercials- come on, a pair of shoes talking to a sweater?). If there are many commercials or if they are of poor quality, my tolerance of them drops drastically.

The price of food continues to increase and there are no less-expensive options. People who just want a water and small popcorn should be able to do so for under $5. At the current prices I usually just skip buying snacks. For those guests who do buy snacks- I usually hear them grumbling about the rising prices- this is generating ill-will for you at a time when you should be wooing customers.

I've noticed that at my local cinema, you often downgrade from 2 ticket-rippers (one for each wing of theaters) to only one ripper with a rope across the whole room. My first impression of this is that you're cheaping out so you can get away with one less employee. The lines at concessions are also very long because there are not enough cashiers. More ill-will.

I've noticed that you have several large screens in the main concession lobby. These should be showing upcoming movies during the evening show times- but these screens are usually dark when I look up at them.

I remember in the past, a cinema employee would come in before a packed movie to introduce the film, and tell us some facts about it like the cast, or the budget, or where it was filmed. They would crack some jokes, get people pumped for the movie and thank us for coming. Now, it seems like the only time an employee comes in to introduce the movie is to tell everyone to turn off cellphones, shift to the middle seats, or to crab at the audience about not putting feet on the seats, not recording the movie, etc. Where's my welcome? Where is the thanks for coming?

My movie experience is often interrupted by audience members who are rude, loud, throwing food, or kicking seats. I would appreciate better policing of these obnoxious guests- they spoil my experience. On a similar note, the volume of movies seems to continue increasing- much louder and I won't be able to handle it.

I remember that during one movie (maybe it was the last Lord of the Rings?) the theater allowed members of the local Medieval Re-enactment Society to come

Re:My Letter to Cineplex Odeon

[tftp]

Here is the reply crafted by a Devil's Advocate:

The cinema experience is starting to become shabby, over-commercialized, and expensive.

Good on all counts. Shabby it is because we don't spend any money on repairs; over-commercialization brings us additional revenue, and expensive is what we live for, to take your money and make it ours.

If cinemas want to compete with increasingly large televisions and cheaper DVDs, then you need to look at the whole experience.

No, we don't want to compete with TV and DVD and home theaters. Those customers are lost to us long ago; they are demanding the best, and throwing so much cash at their hardware that we could never hope to match that. They are the topmost layer of viewers, and we'd have to demolish what we have and rebuild every single theater from scratch if we were to try to meet their expectations. Tickets would cost far more, of course - there is no free lunch - so we'd lose our primary audience. We don't see any way to satisfy those clients.

Yes, showing 4 commercials before the movie may bring in revenue in the short term,

That's all that counts. Bring the cash in, and book it.

but in the long term it is turning people off.

In the long term we are all dead. Besides, you overestimate needs and expectations of our usual movie-going crowd. We for many years cultivated the idea that the movie theater is not a shrine, like an Opera house might be, but a lowly pub where you eat, drink, watch a movie and spit on the floor as desired. Some people despise those barnyard habits - see the "elite" section above. They are not our customers. Other people love the style, and they don't mind some ads here and there. Many probably can't tell the difference between the ads and the movie anyhow.

I can say that if I had satellite TV, I would not be bothered to come to the theater as often as I do now.

If my grandmother had b@lls she would be my grandfather. [This is a real Russian expression, btw :-]

I hope that my local cinemas get a face-lift and a customer-service improvement soon.

Keep dreaming, sucker. If you choose to come to us you will pay, and that's all that matters. If not, we won't cry - a fool is born every minute, and we are ready for him.

Devil's Advocate

[avatar4d]

I am just playing devil's advocate here, but why would she have to record a clip to show her brother when they already have trailers on the web and on TV that do just that? Did her lawyer possibly tell them to do this?

Jury nullification

[b0s0z0ku]

Hopefully the jury will show some sanity and refuse to convict. Juries are there to judge the law, not just the accused. -b.

"good and bad stealing"

[sexybomber]

It may have been said before in this thread, and it's certainly been said before elsewhere on this site, but I'll say it again, because the same damn mistake has been made in word choice again:

COPYRIGHT. INFRINGEMENT. IS. NOT. STEALING.

No one has been permanently deprived of anything. There was no intent to permanently deprive the theater of anything. Therefore, no theft, no larceny, and no stealing has occurred.

SO QUIT FRAKING CALLING IT THAT!

Christ Almighty, I've had it with this Newspeak shite.

Leave it in the car ...

[Anonymous Coward]

To all those advocating leaving cameras, phones, etc. in the car at the theatre. Not bloody likely. I have had my car broken ino twice at the theatre. Once in plain clear unobstructed view of the outside ticket counter. Did they call police? No. So not likely I'll leave anything in the car. And as to a 20 second clip? Likely it falls under fair use for editorial purposes, since that is exactly what the use was to be. Get Serious MPAA go after China or Eastern Europe where you can buy high quality DVDs dubbed into the native language within weeks of theatrical release.

I definitely read these two posts too quickly

[Krishnoid]

15 year old girl ... nude pictures of herself ... lock[ed] in a cage ... child pornography

Stupid internet-age text-skimming mental optimizations.

Re:Angel's advocate

[CowboyCapo]

And here again, as is my quota for any article dealing with litigious bastards, the Law of Saint Augustine:

"An unjust law is no law at all."

Should I make that my sig, or Charles Dickens' comment on the same subject, "The law is an ass"?

And what if...

[flayzernax]

And what if, instead of crying and feeling victimized, she said "F**** the police and your totalitarian regime" and, felt oppressed and rebelled! A clear instance of were our society is messed up. We are a bunch of crybabies and pushovers, and we let our police, government, National Theater Association, and some punk ass theater manager own our lives.

Quote:
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

Go to the cinema? That is old hat

[dinther]

I really don't want to go to the cinema anymore. Me and my family ended up looking in the foyer of a movie theater to see what movies were going only to find notices everywhere that you can be prosecuted if you'd take a recording device into the theater! Well my mobile can record so what do you do? Anyway this arcane threatening combined with being exposed to stern warning about piracy and then a whole load of adverts put me off. We decided against seeing a movie and instead had a fun family dinner somewhere.

Movie theaters are history. Why would anyone would pay the price equal to a good DVD for the privilege to risk being prosecuted in a sticky theater with farting and sweaty people shoulder to shoulder.

Re:Go to the cinema? That is old hat

[danomac]

Movie theaters are history. Why would anyone would pay the price equal to a good DVD for the privilege to risk being prosecuted in a sticky theater with farting and sweaty people shoulder to shoulder.

You forgot the asshats who talk on their stupid phones during a movie.

i am not the one making that appropriation

[circletimessquare]

the extremists within islam appropriate the entirety of the religion for their causes

they wouldn't be so effective if moderate islam shouted them down

the problem with a westerner's conception of islam is not that the westerner sees too much of the extremist's viewpoint and not enough of the moderate's, it is that the moderate muslims themselves don't do good enough of a job of controlling, attenuating, and exterminating the extremists in their world

the west wouldn't see so much of the ugliness of the extremists if there weren't so many extremists running amok in the first place

don't attribute as a failure of western perception that which is actually a failure of islamic moderates to begin with

we in the west see of extremist islam only that which moderate islam has not stopped in the first place

there is plenty the west can and should do differently in their approach to the islamic world

but, frankly, moderate islam is weak. a lot of the problems in this world can be solved if moderate muslims would speak up more and be more muscular in reigning in the extremists in their world

unless you think the west should control the islamic world. i don't believe it should

but if you don't believe that the moderates should do more, then you are accepting the west's continued involvement in the islamic world, because SOMEBODY somewhere has to do something to fight the extremists. the extremists cannot go unopposed

of course anything the west does in the islamic world will be clumsy and ultimately backfire and make things worse

again, yet more reason for the moderates to step up to the plate

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

That's what you get

[Anonymous Coward]

I stopped reading in the part which says something about some girl and her boyfriend. Whatever happened suits them for having a social life. Maybe if each one of them were at their place coding or learning how to code...

Suppose you were a fool...

[DragonHawk]

anyone who believes those absurd numbers is a fool or a congressman.

Isn't that last bit there redundant?

(With credit to Mark Twain.)

Seriously....

[HeavyDevelopment]

Yes there needs to be copyright laws. But arresting and prosecuting someone for taping any length of time for their first offense is EXTREME. It's pretty simple to diffuse the situation, the management should have just asked them to leave, and told them if you get caught again then they will call the cops or even that they can't step foot in their theaters again. Maybe give a benefit of a doubt? I mean they were their patrons for crying out loud! There are so many electronic recording devices now-a-days and few people know the laws, so there is bound to be situations just like these going into the future. I for one, would be weary of patronizing a company that is so willing to arrest and prosecute one of their customers in such a caviler fashion. As a matter of fact, I'll be avoiding Regal Cinemas going into the future.

Article Conclusion

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one who laughed about the fact that the article felt it necessary to note that they did not get to watch the entire movie, nor did they get their $15 back for their tickets?

She did not deny that she did something explicitly forbidden, and thus gave the theater the right to throw her out as a minimum, but it was still worth noting that they didn't each get their $7.50 worth of entertainment?

Some people really have no perspective.

Better Linkage

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Parent,

Thanks for the link to Regal's "Thanks for your comment" page.

Try this one if you'd like to actually make your own comment to Regal Cinemas. You'll receive your own personal thanks after, fer sure.

The English Invented Language AND Manners

[EgoWumpus]

I think you mean "fewer harmless lies".

Business behavior is human behavior. Businesses acting badly, lying to their customers and attempting to keep unholy control on something that isn't really theirs is a far greater crime than claiming something that for your true intent and purpose is not in your possession. If you claim your cell is in your car, and you have no intent or use in pulling it out - well, then that serves everyone's purposes; and is only a lie in terms of the details, not the spirit.

piracy involves DISTRIBUTION

[Anonymous Coward]

technically this is not piracy, piracy requires distribution

otherwise, arrest everyone with a photographic memory

Re:This 20 second clip, and this one, and this one

[Mr. Slippery]

Yes, they are two different things...but the first often leads to the second

Um, no. Copyright infrigement in no way, shape, or form leads to theft.

Is it possible to record a 20 second clip, and not use that to lead to theft?

It is in fact impossible to record a 20 second clip, and use that to lead to theft. It is impossible to record an entire work, and use that to lead to theft. Copying is not theft.

murder is worse than pedophilia

[circletimessquare]

pedophilia is worse than drug addiction

sexual compulsion is more than a sexual fetish

there's no witch hunt. there's no overreaction. instead, you seem to be underreacting. you seem to want to minimize the crime of pedophilia. why, i don't know, but i think you are just deluded about the nature of the crime and how it victimizes

Re:murder is worse than pedophilia

[happyemoticon]

Just explain your reasoning, that's all I'm asking. Or, alternately, just say that either are incapable of backing up your reasoning or can't be bothered to. My main point is that people seem reluctant to have any kind of rational discussion on the subject of pedophilia that is not laden with emotional appeals and baseless rhetoric, which, hereto, is all you have provided.

This is how witch hunts start. People start making emotional appeals and succumbing to rhetoric, then one someone says, "Hey, let's be reasonable about this and have an objective discussion," people cry, "Why are you trying to defend them? You must be a witch too!" Furthermore, I am not trying to minimize the crime. As you can see a few posts up, I implied that shipping violent criminals and drug addicts off to an island in the North Atlantic would be acceptable.

People's advocate

[sjames]

IF going on a criminal trial wasn't in itself punishing and IF this wouldn't waste thousands of taxpayer's dollars for nothing, THEN I might agree.

If they had recorded the whole movie, or even a substantial part of it, this might be more reasonable.

On a more philosophical note, the one and only thing that makes a human being better than a computer is the flexibility to bend, break or invent rules when the existing ones clearly don't fit the situation. Zero tolerance removes that one and only real advantage. A central theme in much dystopian fiction is a society where the rules are absolute.

In this case, human flexibility and judgement SHOULD inform us that spending thousands of public dollars and threatening a teenager with prison is NOT the least bit beneficial to society, the theater, or the copyright holder. It should be clear that the law (rule) in question is meant to apply to people attempting to distribute a movie to the public when they have no right to do so. 20 seconds isn't likely even enough to be a violation even in a commercial production, much less a home movie.

Where's th

[Media Withdrawal]

i'm all for permanent exile. mainly because once a pedophile, always a pedophile. there is no cure. recidivism is guaranteed.

Nice sound bite. Too bad the science doesn't back you up: U.S. Bureau of Justice statistics found that only 3.3% of child molesters re-offended in 3 years (vs. 5.3% for all sexual offenses including crimes against adults and children, and a whopping 67.5% for all crime categories combined). In other words, your average criminal is 20 times more likely to re-offend than a child molester.

Also, by proposing an arctic gulag, you have completely undermined your prior argument against overwhelming punishments. Despair not, though: if anything, the success of sex offender treatment programs suggests that restorative, educational and therapeutic justice does a much better job of reducing crime than does punitive justice. So your original argument against cruel punishments was good and you should have stuck to it, M. Politician!

arguing with someone

[circletimessquare]

does not imply doing their thinking for them

that's some sort of weird intellectual charity you are asking for, that i am not effectively convincing you of anything unless i describe my logic in minutia. no, you must bring something to the table yourself: an effort to understand how i think, even if you think i am wrong. for example, i think we both disagree with osama bin laden's rationale, but it is useful to consider how and why he thinks what he does to arrive at a more effective argument against him. you just want to sit there like an intellectually inert rock and have me drive all of your brain cells

"Give me an actual example of the rich getting away with crime, or the poor becoming slaves, and I'll be happy to respond"

no, you think up your own examples, it really isn't that hard or difficult to come up with a whole list of either things from throughout history and the present in all world cultures

and then, if you still disagree with me, your little intellectual inquiry into my thinking will allow you to argue against me more effectively. but just sitting there and saying "try harder to convince me" is pure bullshit

Re:arguing with someone

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a feeling you couldn't do it. ;)

Re:arguing with someone

[Reservoir Penguin]

Amazing intellectual dishonesty on you part here. Lots of vague words trying to explain the fact that you can't provide even a basic outline of you argument or just an example.

No need for a District Attorney now, apparently!

[doggod]

>> The police say they lack discretion because Regal Cinemas chose to prosecute ... So Regal Cinemas has now overtaken the job of Prosecuting Attorney in that jurisdiction? Where I live, it's only the Prosecuting Attorney that has the authority to decide which criminal cases may be taken to trial. You can be victimized up one side and down the other, but if the PA doesn't think there's a winnable case against the alleged perp, it won't go to trial. Same applies regarding the budget allocation. If money is tight and your case is less politically urgent than some others, your case gets dropped so the others can move forward. Which leads to what is probably the real story here: Regal Cinemas has political clout.

Get the manager to give you a refund?

[billstewart]

I certainly hope you asked to speak to the manager to get a refund.
There are a couple of reasons for doing so - one is to get your ~$10 back, or possibly to get the manager to tell the goon to let you in, but more important is to keep the management aware that what they're doing is stupid and annoying and will lose them customers.

*Everybody* has phones, and almost all phones these days have cameras whether they need them or not, and it's none of the theater's business to mess with you about them, even though you *could* use them to take grainy out-of-focus clips of the movie. Hassling people who bring in professional-quality shoulder-mounted cameras is a different matter (:-), but even professional-quality stuff keeps getting smaller.

well....

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of suing kids
why don't you step up
and release a couple movies
that don't completely suck

it makes me hard anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

get it?

hmmmm ever heard of a TRAILER? (spoiler)

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called "SHOW YOUR BROTHER THE MOVIE TRAILER!!" They already show the action parts in the trailer. That girl was just fricken stupid for trying to film it. I'm glad she cried, went to jail, and will possibly do time. Hope she doesn't whine and try to get out of it and return home for medical reasons as did Paris Hilton.

Two words

[dmpyron]

Two words. Jury nullification. It's possibly unethical, but it happens. http://www.caught.net/juror.htm for starters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification for definition Google (or whatever) "jury nullification" If the law is wrong and a one sided judiciary won't overturn it, it's up to the jurors.

Manager = whore

[drix]

What I really love about this is it wasn't "Regal Cinemas" zero-tolerance policy that nabbed this person, but rather that of some moron "assistant theater manager" making $35k who drank the corporate kool-aid and acted like taping was some sort of grave personal affront. Dontcha just love people like that? The company man act is so 1950s. Is this idiot getting some sort of performance bonus? (No.) WTF was it to him? It's not like her taping was going to make him late for his nightly WoW/porn session. Dweeb.

This is not how it used to be...

[WoollyMittens]

Has society degraded so far that this stuff need to escalate so far? Do people really nedd to go to prison? Wouldn't kicking them out of the cinema have been enough? Does it make anyone feel better that a career or study will be ruined over this? I don't want to live in a society where victimizing your fellow humans is acceptable. This is definetly "Lawful Evil". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_(Dungeons_& _Dragons)#Lawful_Evil

This is ridiculous

[Tomothy09]

There are people out there actually recording whole movies in theatres...what she was doing was harmless. I can't believe they are prosecuting....here is the movie theatre information...call and tell them what is right! Regal Ballston Common 12 671 N. Glebe Road Arlington, VA 22203 (703) 527-9730

there is no such thing

[circletimessquare]

as an emotionless argument about pedophilia

parents have to protect their children, and have a darwinian compulsion to do so

pedophiles are the ultimate transgressors and predators in this respect, as they steal the innocence of children

therefore, pedophilia is a permanent hot button issue

in this respect, the witch hunt about pedophilia always existed, and always will exist on the subject matter, throught all time, in all world cultures

until you remove the compulsion of parents to protect their children

which i don't think you'll be doing on homo sapiens, or any species of animal on this planet

in such a way: you can't convince the world to argue emotionlessly about the issue. so instead, you must find a way in your mind to accept that the emotionality of pedophilia is permanent aspect of the subject and how it is pounished

you can't turn people in to robots

That will happen anyway.

[SanityInAnarchy]

Ok, with your way, they call the police and first mention the mexican, then the black man... And miss the white male next to them who they can't quite see. Instant lawsuit.

There is no way to have any rules at all and not put yourself at risk of this kind of bullshit. I mean, what if it's an NC-17 movie, and you card the mexican kid (who's only 16), but not the black kid (who looks older)? What if someone answers their cell phone, or talks very loudly, or something like that, which is not actually illegal, but against the rules of the theater -- meaning your only recourse is to either let them do it (driving people away from your theater) or go enforce it yourself?

Or does "blanket policy of arresting and pressing charges against everyone" mean everyone in the theater? In that case, the "without disturbing others" is moot -- now everyone is disturbed, and there's no way they come back to your theater anytime soon.

I'd say, when given a choice between putting yourself at the risk of maybe sometimes getting hit with a bullshit lawsuit, or actually encouraging a bullshit lawsuit against someone else, I know which one I'd do.

Re:That will happen anyway.

[MoneyT]

It doesn't matter if they miss the white man, as long as they really miss him, and arrest him as soon as he's pointed out. See you're forgetting that the protection from lawsuit that zero tollerance provides is not a matter of the results, but a matter of the intent and effect of the policy. Whether the zero tollerance policy actually makes it so that everyone is equally arrested is irellevent, just so long as the policy applies equally to everyone and is applied when it's directly questioned.

As for the other bullshits you point out, ever wonder why the policy for NC-17 is to card everyone that looks younger than 40?

Re:That will happen anyway.

[SanityInAnarchy]

It doesn't matter if they miss the white man, as long as they really miss him, and arrest him as soon as he's pointed out.

And why doesn't this solution apply to simply asking them to stop taping, confiscating the camcorder, or asking them to leave?

Re:That will happen anyway.

[MoneyT]

It could apply easily that way. Until the one time they change the policy or apply it differently for a different set of circumstances. Again, the point is that all events are treated 100% equally in the interests of appearing fair and non discriminatory. The safest route is to use the most severe punishment you can in all circumstances, so that you are never in the position of needing to use a severe punishment but are unable to due to potential problems.

Re:That will happen anyway.

[SanityInAnarchy]

Until the one time they change the policy or apply it differently for a different set of circumstances.

And you really think the "most severe punishment" would never change?

Re:That will happen anyway.

[MoneyT]

I'm sure it would, but again, the effects and protection these policies provide have only slightly to do with their actual results and almost completely to do with their appearances. As long as they can maintain a policy of using the most severe punishment availible, they will remain free from hassle in regards to questioning their equal application of the policy.

Limits, please.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it illegal to record 20 seconds of a movie into a video-tape and not illegal to memorize a piece of music? How long until they start banning what we might or might not learn and "remember"?

Overpriced

[slapout]

The film will be available for the public to puchase in about three months. It will be around $30. Why not just fine her $100 (the price of three copies) and be done with it.

Prediction

[LittleGuy]

She'll get a probation plea of about five to ten years, which will include never stepping into a Regal Theatre again, no contact with the little brother, no ownership of any recording devices, and, for good measure, standing in public with a placard saying what a hobble person she is.

Any violation means a trip to jail for a year.

To assume people act in rational self-interest...

[benhocking]

To assume people (or businesses) act in their own rational self-interest is to ignore a lot of history. Sure, they tend to, and they almost always think they are, but ignorance and stupidity are mighty powerful forces.

What? What country are you living in?

[Beardo the Bearded]

NO!

WRONG!

The only person who can search you - EVER - is a police officer* with a warrant. Nobody else gets to search you.

Not even a police officer just for the hell of it. S/he has to have a warrant (or probable cause) or they can't search you without your permission.

You CAN NOT get searched by some fucking minimum wage fuckwad at a movie theater. You're going to watch Transformers, not fly to Afghanistan. If they start searching, then stay home. IT IS NOT A CRIMINAL ACT TO GO TO A THEATER.

Besides, most theft is internal. You don't get DVD-quality rips off a some guy who smuggled in a cellular with a 640 px camera and a omni-directional mike.

*or other government official, like customs officers, military members, etc.

Re:What? What country are you living in?

[Teun]

Sure you are right.
But so are they.
The reason being they police their own property, when you don't (want to) comply they have every right to disallow you entry.

Re:What? What country are you living in?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well except for the fact that anyone can search you if you give them your permission. And if you refuse to give permission, they can refuse to let you into there establishment.

So basically, anyone can legally require you to be searched to enter there establishment because you have the right to choose to not enter.

Re:What? What country are you living in?

[stanmann]

Its private property, and the contract on the back of your ticket allows them to search you.

Re:What? What country are you living in?

[Taevin]

You are correct, as are the other 2 posters who said the same thing. However, neither you nor the other posters apparently read what he said. I'll reiterate, with added emphasis:

If they start searching, then stay home.

Sure, they can make demands as a condition for entering their private property but you are not required to oblige them. That is, you have the other option which is to leave and make it known to those in charge why you are leaving. You should really consider if it is worth sacrificing your dignity to anyone who demands it, especially if the only thing you stand to gain is the 'privilege' of seeing another Hollywood gem in the theater. Chances are, it would be better for you and society to just wait for the DVD.

Re:What? What country are you living in?

[tylernt]

Its private property, and the contract on the back of your ticket allows them to search you.

No. You can still refuse to be searched, but you must leave the property if asked, or be charged with trespassing.

Re:What? What country are you living in?

[Lemmy Caution]

There are also limitations on what they can contractually demand from you, or the reasons they can throw you off your property. If they walk up to you halfway through the film, and say, "I'm sorry, we just noticed that you're black, and we don't want black people to watch this film," the fact that there may be fine print on the back of the ticket allowing them to do this won't matter a bit in the US: they would be sued to the stone age, and possibly even face prosecution. The same for, say, demands for sexual favors.

If there is determined to be a constitutional right to a certain level of privacy, then there are certain limitations that might come into play as far as waiving those rights are concerned. The contract itself could be illegal.

Re:What? What country are you living in?

[Walkingshark]

Actually, there is a legalistic way to hit back at someone who gives you a contingent order to leave their property, as in "Let me search you or I'm going to consider you tresspassing and call the police." By giving you a contingent order, they're threating you with criminal prosecution if you don't follow their instructions, which is often covered under extortion statutes. If you have a lawful recording of their order, a written copy, or enough witnesses willing to testify, you can then hammer THEM with a criminal prosecution.

Just make sure you read your local statutes first if you decide to give this a go. Essentially, though, the way it works is, they can tell you to leave and you have to, but once they put conditions on it and threatening you with prosecution if you don't comply, you can get a little leverage to hit back at them.

I'd suggest consulting a lawyer before you tried to do something like that though. :)

Re:What? What country are you living in?

[Anonymous Coward]

Its private property, and the contract on the back of your ticket allows them to search you. That's not a contract. The offer is one movie ticket for $X. If you pay the money and the cashier issues you a ticket, then that's acceptance. If the ticket then has additional restrictions which you hadn't seen or agreed to at the time the offer was made, then it's not binding.

Re:What? What country are you living in?

[Killjoy_NL]

You mean you can't fly the theater into the Chrysler building? ;)

Re:What? What country are you living in?

[belmolis]

It is not extortion to threaten someone with prosecution if he commits a crime. In this case, failure to leave the premises when ordered to do so by the owner is trespassing. As the property owner, they have the right to demand that you obey their rules, in this case, submitting to a search, if you wish to be permitted to remain on their premises. If you remain on the premises without permission, you are trespassing, which is a crime, and they are entirely within their rights to point this out to you.

You are confusing this entirely lawful behavior with a different situation, one in which the threat of criminal prosecution is used to obtain some unrelated benefit. If, for example, I videotape you committing a crime and then demand that you pay me or I will give the videotape to the police, that is extortion.

Re:What? What country are you living in?

[bobcote]

You may be searched by a police officer if there is reasonable cause to believe that you are involved in criminal activity. The search is looking for evidence of that crime or a weapon you may have to resist arrest. And yes if they find weed or X you can be charged with that.

As far as only a police officer / govt official may search with a warrant, any duly appointed government official or a designee of the court issuing the warrant may conduct the search. Rare, but it happens. The US military cannot search and arrest civilians in the US or it's territories. National Guard and Coast Guard can.

You should refuse to be searched by a minimum wage usher. Ask that they call a police officer, believe it or not that cop can protect your rights and your property. There ae times that the issue can be worked out then and there with the help of an experienced officer.

Re:What? What country are you living in?

[Bakasama]

If you consent, they can search you.

Theaters are private property. The theater may have a mandate that persons entering and viewing the movie are subject to search. They cannot force a search, but they can force you to leave if you refuse. At that point it your choice; submit to the search, or leave the premises.

I stopped going to theaters not long after they started charging $10/person while playing antipiracy PSAs. The McDonald's and Coke advertising didn't help at all.

Re:What? What country are you living in?

[Zombywuf]

And you have every right to a full refund, in the UK anyway.

The solution is simple

[wikinerd]

The copyright lobby that controls mass entertainment has become too unreasonable and aggressive in the last decade. I have chosen not to be their customer anymore. I do not buy movies, music, or other entertainment material which is associated with the big players in the mass entertainment industry. If I want to listen to some music, I get it from an independent music group, often licensed under a free licence. Music produced by the 'big names' in mass entertainment is not inherently better than the music your neighbour musician can produce. For movies, you will be surprised to see how good an amateur production can be. If you know about the practices of the mass entertainment industry and you agree they are unethical, while you continue being their customer, then you are also doing something unethical. By giving them your money, you effectively support them and give them the green light to put more people in prison for copyright-related offences. There are two things you ought to do in order to fight their unethical practices: Refuse to be their customer anymore, and collaborate with other like-minded people in producing amateur music and movies, preferably freely licensed. It is the age of collaboration, and we do not need any large corporations anymore to feed us mass entertainment. We can produce our own entertainment without them, just like we do with educational resources (Wikipedia) and software (GNU).

Should have just downloaded a Telesync...

[uolamer]

Transformers (2007) *TS* nfo file should have just downloaded this like the rest of the world.

I share your disdain for zero-tolerance

[benhocking]

That said, I'm not willing to throw in the towel yet. The pendulum is still swinging.

people should be banned as well.

[murderaliberal]

I'm sorry, you are not allowed to attend the movie because your brain is a recording device. Our policy is no recording devices.

Re:people should be banned as well.

[quag7]

This directive would probably not affect or be applicable to someone who would pay money to see a Michael Bay film.

$54 million dollar pair of pants

[snowwrestler]

Dave you're making points that are legally sound, logically consistent, but, unfortunately, irrelevant. The important point is not whether the theater has good justification for their aggressive action. The important point is whether this action passes the laugh test. If it doesn't (and I don't think it does, personally), it becomes yet another totem in the communications war over how we consume our entertainment.

You've probably heard of the $54 million pants lawsuit here in Washington, DC. The plaintiff in that case is an administrative law judge, and believe it or not, there is legislative justification for the sum of $54 million. Does that make it a smart decision by the plaintiff to sue, and now to appeal? Regardless of how his case turns out, it has become an unbelievable PR asset for legal reform.

The 30,000 foot view is that legal correctness is not important to a business, revenues are. Standing on principle is fine for theory, but in practice if your potential customers hate you, you will hurt your business. Walking the line requires judgment and grace, not hardline rules and rationalizations.

See the recent article in Fortune about Microsoft in China to see a big company coming to this realization.

Apparently...

[cybersquid]

"Theater managers cannot distinguish between good and bad stealing." Apparently, Regal also cannot distinguish between good and bad PR.

Americans are crazy.

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be fair use to take a sample to your kid brother. Americans are crazy.

What's really interesting about this situation..

[Sloppy]

..is that she isn't being accused of criminal copyright infringement. That law depends on the definition of copyright infringement, which in turn lists various exemptions, such as Fair Use. It's something most peopel are familiar with, and has centuries of history behind it.

Fair Use is not a factor in this case. It's not a valid defense, even though on the surface and to most laymen, this sounds like a story about copyright infringement. It's not. Anyone who says, "Oh, it won't be so bad, because clearly this is Fair Use," does not understand what is happening here.

She's accused of using an audiovisual recording device in a theater, which is a different law and which contains no references to copyright infringement, and has no exemptions. It's like the anti-circumvention prohibition in DMCA, where it simply outlaws a possibly non-infringing activity, without regard for why you're doing it, without exempting activities that most people assume are perfectly fair, since those activities do not harm a copyright holder's market in any way. (Though it might harm their other markets, e.g. selling playback devices.)

These are radical new laws. Common sense and centuries of tradition and common law, do not apply! The layman doesn't even know this crap exists, or he thinks it's merely a refinement or update to copyright law.

It's ironic when some Slashdotters say things like, "the media companies need to update their business models and get with the times." Don't you see? They have. They've purchased new restrictions that go far beyond any normal person's expectations or knowledge. It's happening right under your nose, and the scum who are voting for and signing these laws, go unpunished in elections.

Why would they be punished? Only nerds and pedants care about the details of law, and the principles that it rests upon.

Theater is not Victim

[Efialtis]

Sorry to burst their bubble, but what happened in this case is that this gal supposedly "stole" something while "at" the theater, but according to the MPAA, it is the producers and copyright holders that were stolen from...
The Theater isn't the owner of the content stolen by the video camera.
So how can they file the complaint and force prosecution?
This would be like me claiming to be the victim if someone breaks into my rental home/investment property and steals stuff from the current renters. It isn't my stuff, so how could I file a theft claim?

Re:Theater is not Victim

[tftp]

IANAL, but: The theater indeed does not have the ownership rights, but it unavoidably has certain obligations with respect to the movie materials that it rents from the studios. For example, you as a theater owner may rent the Transformers media, and show the movie in your theater - but you are not permitted to show it in your friend's theater, and you are not permitted to make a copy for yourself, and you are not permitted to allow others to copy the movie. With regard to the latter, probably your contract with the studio is very explicit on what you are expected and required to do to stay in compliance. Otherwise you can keep your theater, but nobody will rent you any movies.

Manager's intention?

[Anonymous Coward]

The MPAA gives a $1000 reward to theater employees whose actions result in prosecution of someone found recording inside of a theater.

Zero tolerance -> $1k in their pocket.

I don't buy it

[kuriharu]

Take a camcorder to show a 20 sec clip to one's brother? Are you kidding me? You can show him the clips from Internet previews? Doesn't add up to me.

Stay The Course, the lobbyist course

[Tablizer]

Here's how you catch Osama: send him a camcorder with a Harry Potter clip, and the IP goons show up in no-time.

eyesight

[eli9jahr]

It is obtuse to tell people that they cannot record what is in front of their eyes.

Bets on the plea bargin?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know it's going to happen: she'll be made an offer (delivered in a style like it was from Vito Corleone himself) of a guilty plea which gains her a permanent criminal record or fight the charges and feel the love of the "great meat grinder of the US justice system" where the innocent and guilty are equally ground together to nothing.

Either way she's fucked over a stupid 20 second video clip. Guess that makes us all fucked too.

ummm ... boycott

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't like the way a business or industry behaves, stop supporting them, or go one step further and stop supporting any business vaguely related to them (eg: other tenants in the mall). If you really feel strongly print t-shirts or set up a suck site (check legality where you live), or picket. Think of this as starting a "zero tolerance" campaign of your own :)

Sure, this probably won't make any difference, the few dollars you with-hold won't break the bank, but at least you will be standing up for what you believe in (if indeed you believe the above).

Thanks to the market, voting with your wallet or your feet is probably more effective than putting your "X" on a ballot every half decade or so.

Regal is CLUELESS!!

[Newer Guy]

Regal and MPAA have just created a public relations NIGHTMARE for themselves! They might win in a court of law, but they'll be CRUCIFIED in the court of public opinion! I suggest we all get together and contribute a dollar each to buy Regal Cinemas a CLUE!

Don't these people GET IT? I for one am BOYCOTTING the RIAA, MPAA and their members! I'm voting with my feet! I've got the feeling that about fifty million others like me are as well. THAT'S the reason their sales are donw. WE'RE NOT BUYING their CRAP!

She was a fool

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't do that in a theatre. I don't care how harmless her intentions were, having a camcorder in a theater was bad judgement.

If my sister got attacked like this...

[MikePlacid]

I am not so much interested in the letter of the law in this case (sure MPAA has bought enough congresspeople to have all the laws they like). What I am interested in: how can they *dare* to use it in a case like discussed, against their own paying customers?

If my sister was attacked like this, law or no law, I would never visit this theater myself again and would never take my kids to see those Transformers. No DVDs either. And if each of us remembered that we are all children of the same Father, these guys would have seen empty show rooms starting immediately. How long would it have taken them to find a means distinguish between pirates with camcoders and customers with camcoders in that case? A day?

Re:If my sister got attacked like this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people don't give a rat's ass about their fellow human "brothers and sisters"; as far as I'm concerned, every other person in human existence can rot in Guantanamo so long as that doesn't specifically inconvenience me. "Think of the future!" Bleh, I'm not having kids, nor are many people nowadays, so what do I care what the world's like in 70 years? It might as well be hell in 70 years so long as between now and then I'm living a good life.

Re:If my sister got attacked like this...

[tehcyder]

if each of us remembered that we are all children of the same Father

Maybe in your town...

Theater Owners supports henchmen

[Teun]

The National Association of Theater Owners supports Regal's 'zero-tolerance' prosecution standard: 'We cannot educate theater managers to be judges and juries in what is acceptable. Theater managers cannot distinguish between good and bad stealing.'" But they seem to have no problem turning their Theater managers into henchmen or a kangaroo court.

Re:Regal is CLUELESS!!

[quag7]

No one will care! People will continue to go to movies! They'll blog angrily about it one day and go see some crappy Michael Bay film the next! If a consumer could save a thousand lives by driving an extra mile to buy their soap, they wouldn't! Inconvenience is SLAVERY!

Consume consume consume gobble gobble gobble buy buy buy consume consume consume charge charge charge!

Express your outrage over moral transgressions by writing about it on the internet with lots of exclamation points!

(I share your disgust, Newer Guy, I'm not picking on you.)

"Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is important that you do it...compulsively." - A sign I propose the US government puts up at all terminals with incoming international flights.

justify your magic numbers

[gr8dude]

"two minutes"? Why two? Why not three? What if it also depends on *which* X minutes were recorded?

Either we'll need to back that up with arguments, or simply take another approach.

Re:justify your magic numbers

[peacefinder]

Gotta take a stab somewhere. [shrug] To me, 120 continuous seconds of recording seems well more than necessary for reasonable fair use, and well less than necessary for profiting from infringement.

why should me, paying customer, care?

[MikePlacid]

Why should the theater owner be responsible for policing patrons who are clearly violating the law? Is it his job to seize the camera and examine the recording to make sure it complies with copyright laws? Should they have to do this for everyone in a 2100 person auditorium who decides to whip out a cell phone with a camera and snap shots of the screen?

What you are actually saying - they want to take my money and do not want to do any extra brain or leg work for it. Good. Pretty reasonable. They even managed to get the laws passed that are most convinient to *them*. I feel really happy for my brothers.

But what I do not undestand still is - why should I give them my money on *these* conditions? My sister got attacked like this - I'm not getting my kids to those Transformers. Or this "not responsible for anything" theater. They have no obligation to treat patrons like a human beings? Good. Now explain me why I should be a patron. If they see empty showrooms starting immediately - how long would it take them to find a means to distinguish between pirates and fair use? A day?

Re:why should me, paying customer, care?

[Lurker2288]

When you pay for a movie ticket, you're not buying "extra brain or leg work"--you're buying entrance to a show. One of the conditions of that entrance at any modern theater is that you don't bring in a camera. She did. She got busted. The theater, no doubt following a policy handed down from corporate HQ to deter piracy by prosecuting offenders, called the cops. If the prosecuting attorney thinks he's got a case, it will go to trial, otherwise likely nothing will happen.

Think about it. If you go to a store an 'accidentally' put something in your pocket and walk out, is it the store owner's responsibility to do "extra brain or leg work" to figure out if you're REALLY a shoplifter or if you just made a mistake? Of course not. And while they might be willing to let one person slide, if it was a major problem, they'd start getting tough. Ever been in a 7-11? Notice how most of them have signs saying "all shoplifters will be prosecuted?" Think there might be a connection?

Go ahead, boycott the theater. I'm sure the $10 per week/month/whatever they lose will really show them who's boss.

20 Seconds = Fair Use

[mr_java66]

Isn't there a 'fair use' clause in the copyright laws? I think 20 seconds of shaky video is probably within the concept of 'fair use'. good luck

Smuggling into movies?

[Anonymous Coward]

When I as her age, we had to stuff discount bags of gummy bears in our asses just to sneak them into a movie theatre...

I wonder how she got the video camera in.

Boycott

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole town should boycott the theater until they drop the charges or the kid gets out of jail!!!

20 seconds?

[mathfeel]

Here's a curious question: if they add like a 2 minutes comment on top of the 20 second, does that constitute fair use?

I for one ...

[gubachwa]

... welcome our non-thinking, non-discerning theater manager overlords.

Re:I for one ...

[generic]

I Rarely go to the movies anymore, my wife and I would rather rent a movie, eat snacks without taking out a small car loan first and then listen to a group of obnoxious high school kids fondle each other in the back row. Which would be fine with us, if they kept quiet about it. I have just really lost interest in paying $10.00 a person plus $20.00 for two drinks and some M&M's only to be annoyed throughout the movie. I'd rather wait and pay 3.99 to watch it at home.

Re:What's really interesting about this situation.

[bar-agent]

She's accused of using an audiovisual recording device in a theater, which is a different law and which contains no references to copyright infringement, and has no exemptions.

Also, if she's found guilty, that law directs the judge to order the destruction of the A/V equipment. So, if she used her cell-phone, her cell-phone will be destroyed.

On the other hand, if what she did is okay under state law, then her actions aren't covered by this law.

Re:From Slashdot's Unofficial Legal Reporting Staf

[Anonymous Coward]

That's obviously not what she was charged with, otherwise she could face up to (gasp) three years. Since her maximum sentence is one year then she must not have been charged with that crime.

F -> (M = 3); ~(M = 3); => ~F

Quote in context, idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

Copying a motion picture from a theater performance is a felony under the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005, punishable by up to three years in a federal prison. Several states, including Virginia, also have anti-piracy laws.

Jason Schultz, senior staff lawyer at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said he is aware of only one case prosecuted under the federal statute. In September 2005, a Missouri theater employee pleaded guilty to two counts of using a camcorder to copy two movies.

Only ONE person has ever been charged under the three-year felony. That one person is not this girl. With regards to this girl, YES, misdemeanor.

</READINGCOMPREHENSIONPWN3D>

Look at the camera!

[Ken_g6]

The camera in question was a Canon PowerShot. I looked them up online, and they only record movies in Motion JPEG format, which creates really huge files; something like 10MB per second. They also record only onto memory cards.

Even with the largest memory card I could find online, a 32GB card, no more than an hour of video could be recorded at that rate. And this teenager certainly didn't have a card that big; they cost more than the camera!

Basically, this is a digital camera that can take short movies; not a "camcorder".

I see the flight attendants now ...

[cheesecake23]

"... and please note that the use of firearms is not permitted during takeoff and landing."

Don't pay 'em a cent

[beej]

Buy those movies used. It's legal, and you're supporting a local business rather than the MPAA and its cohorts, which, quite frankly, we'd be better off without. (Bring on the 14-year copyright term, I say!)

You might as well exploit the used DVD "loophole" while it still exists.

Leave up to the Judge? Should it get that far?

[ayeco]

A few posts have said that a Judge will see this for what it is and let the kid off with warning - they weren't planning on distributing a pirate copy of the movie. BUT it shouldn't get that far. Regal's legal dept should see this for what it is and drop the charges, plain and simple.

"Ignorance is not an excuse". Maybe in this case it is. If I follow this story and see that it is what I think it is and Regal continues then I have no choice but to not go to Regal again, ever. Actually, I go to other theaters in town now anyway.

Re:What's really interesting about this situation.

[Anonymous Coward]

That Title, 18, depends on Title 17, for terms and one is what is constitutes a copyrighted work and the rights thereto accorded. Section 107 is for criminal cases.

These criteria are relevant in determining whether the basic doctrine of fair use, as stated in the first sentence of section 107, applies in a particular case: Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display. html?terms=fair%20use&url=/uscode/html/uscode17/us c_sec_17_00000107----000-notes.html

A 20 second clip with the comment "you shoulda been here" is a fair use straight from the above. Given that, Title 18 is inapplicable as there are no rights for the holder in that 20 second clip used in a comment.

You can't take one section out of context with all of the others.

This is a code and must use the relevant laws as a basis and to a Senator or Representative, legislators won't remove fair use considerations in any law in this area. They even stated during debate that the DCMA, for example, shouldn't affect any fair use right. If they didn't, people would either vote them out, recall them, impeach them or simply hang em from the tallest tree in the region.

In fact there is a lawsuit against various copyright holding groups for not including fair use exemptions in their advertising of their "rights" as false and misleading advertising. In other words, FRAUD!

If these copyright holder want to remove fair use, then to balance that we should remove any copyrights. Any work older than 17 years should have been released to the public domain long ago. And the term should start not when it is shown, but when it was started being worked on. And the holder must keep a pristine copies in multiple places as far as technically possible (yes this requirement can't be kept for one off works like a sculpture) in order to keep the copyright. This is due to the reason for copyright in the first place to be eventually placed in the ublic domain. If the copy deteriorates, that removes the possibility of it being available to the public as created.

Nice description...

[Jeian]

"It's Jhannet's 19th birthday, so her boyfriend borrows a camcorder to memorialize the occasion..."

I thought this was going to be an article about a different type of movie. >.>

Media != **AA

[Nonesuch]

The same "media" who's parent companies are RIAA/MPAA members?

Not all "media" companies, nor all news outlets, have parent firms in RIAA/MPAA.

Some are privately held, some are public firms without any connection to the recording and motion picture industries, and some just have strong editorial and ethics policies giving reporters and editors leeway to follow stories even if they are not in the best interests of the parent firm.

The MPAA in particular represents "just" the six major producers and distributors of motion picture and television programs in the United States -- Fox (News Corp), Disney (Buena Vista), Viacom (Paramount), Sony, NBC (Universal), and Time-Warner (Warner Bros). While the big six control much of TV news (ABC,Fox, CNN, NBC, etc), they don't control it all... yet.

A-M-A-Z-I-N-G

[Anonymous Coward]

What a bunch of fuckers those guys.

Show me...

[lordsid]

Show me what is missing that defendent stole and I'll admit it's stealing. Since nothing is missing, nothing is stolen.

Re:Devil's advocate "this sounds like a job for...

[Anonymous Coward]

...Jury Nullification"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
http://www.fija.org/

Sign of the times...

[bmh129]

When you live in a so called "Gilded Age," civil torts become criminalized. That's because in a Gilded Age, the upper class have a disproportionate amount of power. It's undemocratic. It's harks back to debtor's prisons.

The US is a very scary place

[Anonymous Coward]

I swear life in the US is becoming scarier every day. Next thing you will be going to jail for farting in the street.

more time than paris???

[Anonymous Coward]

you mean... she will do more time than paris...... thats screwed!!!

Economics.

[crhylove]

If every person this person knows refuses to ever go to that theater again, and this happens 3 or 4 more times, do you think that theater will stay in business? These maniacal demons need to go straight to hell. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

rhY

I don't know what they're worried about..

[56ksucks]

.. It's already been recorded with a camcorder and is available on the internet.

Juries are the equalizer

[Cassini2]

In the common law system, Juries are the equalizer against stupid laws. Sure she broke the law. Try to get a Jury to convict, when they work out the trial is about recording 20 seconds of video.

After a few juries acquit, precedents slowly get set, and the law is quietly abandoned.

Re:Juries are the equalizer

[Sloppy]

Nice idea, but does it really happen often?

I was going to make a comment about sheeplike juries who just do what the judge tells them to do (i.e. "apply the law as written, and if you even suggest that you might nullify, we're kicking you off the jury") but then it occurred to me: I haven't heard anything about juries at all!

I wonder what's going on. Does any of this xxAA stuff ever make it criminal courts? Or has everything been civil up to now, with threats, settlements, and jury-less judgements?

This might be a really interesting case to keep tabs on. I'd love to see what you suggest, actually happen, but I can't say I really have that kind of faith.

Re:Juries are the equalizer

[Cassini2]

The xxAA stuff has yet to make it to trial in a civil case. For the people that fight, most of the cases have been thrown out in the disclosure stage. The RIAA must show the defendant might have done something before the case can go to trial. This is proving difficult for them.

Most prosecutors would automatically bounce stupid charges like this. It wastes their time. My guess is that this case never makes it to trial. Even the judge will have a hard time handing out a 1 year jail sentence for 20 seconds of video taping. I'm not entirely sure of U.S. law, but I don't think you would get that kind of jail time for vandalism or petty theft. You would have to do something significant to get 1 year in jail. The punishment doesn't fit the crime.

Boycott

[Anonymous Coward]

When they drop the charges we can go back to that theater :).

Easy for me to say, we only have Douglass here (which I think is sort of local).

Militant

[jaseparlo]

It's not surprising that The National Association of Theater Owners would get a bit militant, since they share an acronym with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation...

She should have known better.

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, what idiot thinks that _this is an okay thing to do_?

Zero sympathy.

Re:To assume people act in rational self-interest.

[MoneyT]

But it's obvious that it costs less. Just think about it. When the theater presses charges, they have not only the backing of the studio, but control over the case, which means after the news cameras go away, they can settle quickly and quietly. And the bad press they rack up lasts until the next X-Man XXVII: Wolverine Gets Dentures movie. By comparison, a long drawn out multi month multi million dollar discrimination suit leaves them on their own ("Universal pictures has a zero tollerance policy, we don't condone the cinima's dicriminatory actions") and they have no control, the lawsuit goes away when they either pay the extortion money or fight it through the courts. If I were a business, I know which policy I would prefer.

Uhmm... YEAH! That's the ticket.

[skeptictank]

Yohoho and a bottle of rum!

Let Regal know!

[Dark_Gravity]

Let Regal know what you think!

FUCK DA JEW

[Anonymous Coward]

The jews cause it! Period!

cry me a river

[argStyopa]

I understand that "standing up for the little guy" is worth +1 on /., and worthless hand-wringing is worth probably +2 (as long as it's against 'the man'), and opposing the evil mafiAA is worth like +10, but get off your high horses and think a second.

1) It's a law that you can't tape in theaters. Every one I've been to makes that VERY, ABUNDANTLY clear.
2) she did it willingly, knowingly, and admitted to it.
3) Regal Cinema *probably* didn't have a choice - as an agent for the MPAA distribution network, they can probably be sued if they DON'T prosecute every infringement.
4) ultimately, the MPAA will pay for it in reduced business, just not *instantly* like you all seem to hope.

I hate the domineering MPAA as much as anyone, but fer chrissakes, she broke the LAW, admitted to it, and you're all screaming that punishing her is unjust and stupid? How about recognizing that what she did was clearly idiotic and she will be firmly slapped on the wrist for it? Judges are (contrary to TV) usually pretty good at that, in fact. Get a grip.

You're probably the same people that believe there are certain things that aren't 'really' crimes, like speeding, rolling through stop signs, etc. Man up, understand that when you break the rules you get punished and live with the consequences. Quit whinging about how UNFAIR this all is, or work to change it instead of rhetorically circle-jerking in here. /disgusted.

That behavior is required just for previews

[Via_Patrino]

That screening behavior is required just for previews. It's on MPAA public documents.

phew.

[binarybum]

I for one would feel much safer as a citizen if this creep were behind bars. The only thing that would be more comforting would be knowing that this whole ordeal sucked up a sizable chunk of tax-dollars.

Logical Fallacy

[BobSutan]

"Theater managers cannot distinguish between good and bad stealing."

I see someone doesn't know what a false dichotomy is.

Better Question

[alcmaeon]

Assuming Regal Cinemas is not the copyright holder (as reasonable assumption) then why is Regal Cinemas the "victim" and why do the cops have no discretion not to prosecute? There is something wrong with this story. Maybe the reporter is just ignorant (another reasonable assumption), but the witness to a crime doesn't have the authority to prosecute or order the prosecution of the crime; the witness only reports it.

jeez.

[VariableGHz]

If that's the case, why can't one of the higher-ups from the Regal Cinema just check the camera, and if indeed there is only a 20 second clip, then just let it go?

What ever happened to common sense? Must everything be litigated? They have no damages for crying out loud. No damages.

Funniest part of Pirates of the Caribbean...

[refactored]

Was walking out and seeing the fat "Anti-Piracy Enforcement" sign on the door.

It's s--- like this...

[John Pfeiffer]

This is total BS. And the fact that I can almost see the theater/MPPA's point of view, makes want to vomit, frankly. But no matter how you try to justify it, there is no excuse for such a ridiculous abuse of a policy. (I am a firm believer in Zero Tolerance policies being a bane of modern society, like mandatory minimums. Reality is not black and white.) If they're going to do away with judges, juries, and common sense, why don't they just snipe people from the projection booth? Assholes. No one recording 'twenty seconds of video' in the middle of a movie is trying to STEAL THE MOVIE, you morons.

I would give ANYTHING if the reason she recorded the clip for her brother was because he's bedridden or something and can't see the movie. Oh my GOD. Can you say flaming shitstorm? Tearful clip of the girl on the 11 o'clock news, and the MPAA would be FUCKED. After the case is thrown out, the theater would be sued for emotionally scarring her, AND she'd never see a movie in a theater ever again. Every time something like this happens, x * 1000 otherwise law-biding Americans become 'movie pirates', because the MPAA, and the movie industry as a whole, are assholes. If they keep going out of their way to treat everyone like theives, people start acting on it. A criminalized society is an angry one. (With more money in their wallets.)

People see movies in the theater for 'the theater experience', and as a social activity with their friends... That's what they pay a third of the price of the eventual home video release for. DLP projectors are getting cheaper and better, and once the same experience is available in the average livingroom, with better popcorn, fewer chatty morons, and better seats... Theater-going will drop off sharply. I know, because I'm already there. Last two movies I saw in a commercial theater? Spiderman (The first one) and Episode II. And the theater is NEXT DOOR. Let's just say that doesn't mean I go without.

MPAA: Look, the people you are after are the people you depend on. We cook your meals, we haul your trash, we connect your calls, we drive your ambulances. We guard you while you sleep. Do not... fuck with us. (We're also the people who pay to watch and own the movies in the first place, assholes.)

What? No internet?

[gevantry]

Jhannet has no TV at home? They aren't showing trailers for Transformers on TV? She has not internet? If she does, they don't know you can access trailers?

Her story sounds a little fishy to me.

Good and Bad

[Kryptic Knight]

Theater managers cannot distinguish between good and bad stealing. Oh so now there's something called "good stealing" ?

Gosh well I'd better go out and steal something and then say "you can't prosecute me for taking this (waving merchandise in the face of the arresting officer) its good-stealing"

Yeah .. right.

Fair use

[ta bu shi da yu]

Couldn't she claim fair use?

Under 17 U.S.C. 107, fair use is defined as:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

---

So, reviewing what she did:

1. The purpose and character of the use: non-profit, to show her little brother who would go to see the film. She's basically being a film reviewer. NBC, CBS and ABC show small clips of films - about this length. They can claim fair use - why can't she?
2. Nature of the work: grainy, poor quality film footage from a Camcorder.
3. Amount: Only 20 seconds worth! Hardly enough to sell the video. Who would want to buy 20 seconds worth of poor quality film?
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: her brother will probably go see it now. She basically helped the company.

wrong analogy

[MikePlacid]

20 seconds recording is fair use. That means "this thing" belongs to the girl, not to the theater. Even 7/11 probably does not say "All items that you carry inside our shop we consider ours, we are just too lazy to distinguish between yours and ours items. Anything found in your pocket - you will be prosecuted. Do not worry though: no case - no trial. Most probably.". How long will it take 7/11 to go out of business with such a policy?

Re:wrong analogy

[Lurker2288]

Again, why should the theater be put in the position of investigating whether someone falls within fair use or not? What distinguishes somebody recording 'fairly' from someone recording 'unfairly' who just happened to be caught quickly? Why should that burden fall to the theater that's already told you to keep the cameras out?

Maybe you don't like the process in this country, but generally speaking, if somebody thinks you're doing something illegal, and the cops who come think you're doing something illegal, then you get arrested (or cited) and if the evidence exists, it goes to trial. So, to go back to the perfectly valid analogy, if 7-11 thinks you stole from them, they're within their right to call the cops, and if the cops agree, you're busted. Which is why most folks generally try not to give the appearance of criminal behavior, because, ya know, you can get arrested for it.

Re:What's really interesting about this situation.

[PizzaFace]

Thanks, Slopppy, for getting it. I'm surprised and discouraged by all the comments that say, "She broke the law so that's that." What's the point of democracy if people don't think critically about the laws, even laws with such absurdly unfair outcomes?

One point: it's not clear from the article whether the girl is being charged under the federal law or a similar state law. The lobbyists are active at both levels.

...where's the BIAA? the IIAA? The AIAA?

[Anonymous Coward]

First music, then moving images (video/tv/movies)... so, what's next in the world?
BIAA = Book Industry Association of America
Will Librarians need "proper arrest/restrainment training"?

I/P IAA = Image/Photo Industry Association of America

AIAA = Architectural Industry Association of America
"I'm sorry... you can't build that... it looks too much like the one I did"

Can we form our own association (perhaps the CIAA (Consumer Industry Association of America) and arrest artists for stealing other artists works? We could go after people such as John Mayer (for stealing Dave Matthews style) or the crew of the new movie "The Invasion" for stealing the idea of "The Invasion Of The Body Snatchers"

Where does it end?

Crazy

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely an inspection of what was recorded and the context of it all would show not even the remotest connection between what an actual video pirate would do for the distribution of a film and what someone who has no intention to 'rip off' the film would do.

The lack of distinction is disturbing. Those arguing for it and arguing the pedantics of the specific wording are anihilating any form of justice / just cause when prosecution happens like this. Just another example of crazy litigious yanks if you ask me...

Boycott Regal Cinemas

[Secrity]

Perhaps a boycott of Regal Cinemas would be in order.

The punishment is appropriate

[Anonymous Coward]

What, are we all supposed to go "AWWWWWWWWWW" because it's some girl's 19th birthday and it was only 20 seconds? Does the law state that you can record up to 20 seconds? Nope, it says any recording at all is illegal. Fuck emotional appeals. There should not be any special treatment.

Double Standard?

[Sierpinski]

And charging $5.00 for a $1.00 bottle of water, or $6.75 for 50 cents worth of popcorn isn't stealing? Yes I know people have the option of buying nothing to eat in a theater, but they also aren't allowed to bring anything else in with them. If the "The National Association of Theater Owners" are able to rob anyone who enjoys eating popcorn or Twizzlers in a theater, why should they get so bent out of shape when someone offers free advertising on a 20 second clip?

I didn't plan on seeing the original Matrix movie in the theater either, until a friend showed me a clip that he had downloaded (of the scene where he wakes up in the "real world" goo-pod) on his computer.

Pascal's wager

[benhocking]

What you're describing is similar to, but not exactly the same as, Pascal's wager. Sure, the cost would be significantly higher, but the odds are significantly lower (approaching zero). Psychology has well documented our inability to calculate the "expected cost" in such situations when we rely on common sense or "obviousness".

Re:Pascal's wager

[MoneyT]

Think of it less as Pascal's wager and more of a form of insurance. A policy is in effect which has the good potential in the longrun to cost more than it will ever prevent (like your car insurance for example) but has the bennefit of preventing the hassal and major loss resulting from a single large incident. Over your lifetime, you will presumeably pay more into insurances than you will ever get out of them, and ideally that's how it would work, no one wants to use their insurance, but sometimes you have to. By paying for that insurance, you reduce or eliminate the costs associated with a larger problem. By paying for lost business from customers inconvenienced by zero tollerance policies, the company has a massive and effective defense against larger discrimination charges or similar disasters.

one more citation

[Walter Carver]

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=259367&cid =20089153 :-P

Re:What's really interesting about this situation.

[Secrity]

IF it get to the judge, most judges do not see zero tolerance, they see many other factors. IANAL, but from what I understand, judges hate being asked to hear trivialities; and I suspect that most judges would see a 20 second clip out of an hour and a half movie as being a triviality. As this is a criminal thing, it is not up to the theater whether to prosecute, it is up to the district attorney. I am not sure, but the case may also have to go before a grand jury before it goes before a judge. Lots of "if's".

Why Didn't She...

[Gallenod]

...just take her little brother to see the movie?

two words for ya...

[GentlemanRogue]

jury nullification...

A suggestion

[justthinkit]

The movie house should schedule the appearance every 10 minutes in every theater of a full marching band. That way anyone trying to record the show will have their recording ruined. Totally ruined.

Huhu.

[stonecypher]

We cannot educate theater managers to be judges and juries in what is acceptable. Theater managers cannot distinguish between good and bad stealing.

Then you'd better start hiring people that already know the difference. Ignorance is not an acceptable reason to treat a person in that fashion, and a 20 second clip is well covered under fair use. Granted, it was a bit stupid of her to bring a camcorder into a theater; nonetheless, once the theater manager saw a 20 second clip that was terminated long before the employees entered, s/he should have apologized and sent them on their way.

Let's be clear: if they can't be educated in what is acceptable, they cannot enforce what is acceptable.

Our customer relations number is 877-TELLREGAL or 1-877-835-5734. Our investor hotline is 1-866-REGALEG or 1-866-734-2534.

Tell them what you think. Be polite, be firm, and remind them that their behavior costs them business.

In protest 100,000 people teach filesharing

[Simonetta]

What da 'law' says and what it means are two completely different things. The law was passed to prevent people from copying the entire movie and selling these copies without paying royalities to the film studio that made the movie. What this person did was a make an ad-hoc (look it up) private promotional clip of the movie for someone who would be definitely pay to see the movie after viewing the clip.

    Anyone who says that this person deserves to be punished so severely is either an idiot, a narrow-minded bigot who doesn't understand what the law means (many Slashdot responders who say 'the law is law' are in this category), or someone who has a financial interest in the USA private prison network who wants to throw everyone in jail because they make money from it.

    If this person is severely punished for this minor mishap, then 100000 people from Slashdot should undertake to train another 100000 people on how to download movies and music from the web. Perversion of justice deserves an appropriate and determined response. I don't recommend that you tell the MPAA that you are doing this in protest to this individual case, just do it and let them figure it out.

Re:What's really interesting about this situation.

[Sloppy]

legislators won't remove fair use considerations in any law in this area. They even stated during debate that the DCMA, for example, shouldn't affect any fair use right. If they didn't, people would either vote them out, recall them, impeach them or simply hang em from the tallest tree in the region.

I can't believe anyone would say something so naive in 2007. Ten years ago, sure, I can understand why someone would fall for that. But now?

Dude, it happened. 2600 lost their DMCA case, to the tune of "fuck fair use." Regardless of whatever legislators may have debated before passing DMCA, they passed it without protecting fair use, the president signed it, and judge Kaplan upheld it the way it's worded. When 2600's lawyer tried to mention common sense, Kaplan even said things like, "but that's what congress wrote."

Fair use applies in cases of copyright infringement. It doesn't apply to DMCA anticircumvention violations, camera bans, or any new laws coming down the pipes. Fair use is going away. This is a brilliantly executed attack, and if you underestimate the enemy, you're going to end up being his bitch.

Excellent analogy

[benhocking]

IMO, however, it's overpriced insurance. I.e., the cost is much higher in the long run and not just slightly higher like you'd expect from decent insurance. Still, kudos for an excellent analogy. They're rare in /. :)