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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[Culture20]

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

Yeah right.

[Teddy Beartuzzi]

It was probably the first 20 seconds, then they got caught. :)

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...

[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.

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

[spun]

And just for good measure, sing a few bars of Alice's Restaurant, so they know it's a movement!

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.

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)

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...

[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...

[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...

[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.

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...

[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.

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.

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

[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

[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.

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.

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

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.

Once again...

[Cleon]

It just goes to show that "Zero Tolerance" might as well be a synonym for "Zero Intelligence."

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

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: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.

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.

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: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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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: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.

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: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.

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.

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.

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

[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.

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?

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

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[pAnkRat]

yeah,

but I get the impression that these articles are lying.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

[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.

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.

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.