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

[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]

"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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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)

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)

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

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?

[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?

[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.