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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

Yeah right.

[Teddy Beartuzzi]

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

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!

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: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.

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.

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.

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."

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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.

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.

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: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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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]

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.

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.