Slashdot Mirror
Woman Filming Sister's Birthday Party Gets Charged With Felony Movie Piracy
A 22-year-old woman from Chicago recently spent two nights in jail and could face up to three years in prison for taping four minutes of the new movie Twilight: New Moon. Samantha Tumpach and family threw her sister a surprise birthday party at the theater and captured much of it on video. Unfortunately, two "very short segments" were enough to make theater managers want to press charges. "Tumpach insisted she recorded no more than three minutes while in the theater — and said not all of the video she shot was of the movie. There's footage of [Tumpach] and her relatives singing to her sister, she said. 'We sang "Happy Birthday" to her in the theater,' Tumpach said. She also took pictures of family members in the theater before the film began, but an usher who saw the photo session never issued them a warning, Tumpach said."
Everybody knows you use the Dell netbook hackintosh because the Acer wifi is unsupported!
...amateurs
+1 Disagree
Muvico in Rosemont, IL.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=rosemont,+il+theater&sll=42.016142,-87.871399&sspn=0.037241,0.110378&gl=us&g=Rosemont,+IL&ie=UTF8&hq=theater&hnear=Rosemont,+IL&ll=41.996434,-87.867451&spn=0.018626,0.055189&z=14&iwloc=B&cid=16195052917625124963
People are already starting to comment in the reviews on Google Maps...
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
I think the point was that whenever regulations on corps are proposed, the corps cry "Fascism!" and decry all regulation. The irony is that they are more than happy to use--and in some cases, abuse--whatever regulations are in place to further their own profits.
Obviously, we don't know the full story, but this sounds like pure silliness. My guess is that the theater manager figures he'll lose his job if he doesn't press charges.
The CB App. What's your 20?
the Happy Birthday song has been in the public domain for over 100 years
Not sure why you'd think that. It was copyrighted in 1935 (under 100 years ago) and the copyright is currently owned by Time Warner. Under current copyright law in the US, it will not become public domain until 2030, just in time for the end of the UNIX epoch. Given that the song is basically a plagarised version of an earlier song with one note changed, however, there is a good chance that they copyright could be challenged in court, by someone with the funds and standing to do so. Time Warner collected $2m in royalties for the song last year, but does not require royalties if you don't sing it for profit.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The MPAA gives a $500 reward to theater employees who assist in the arrest/charging of someone who is caught recording a film. So yes, a jerk, but because he wanted his blood money. It's the same situation as that girl who recorded a few seconds of Transformers a couple years back.
Michael Jackson's Estate owns Happy Birthday
In that case, someone needs to tell Snopes about it:
A bit of Google-fu turned up an apparent grassroots protest website on the subject. A bit on the strident side, it seems to me, but they have an interesting idea: turn in every violation.
I guess the idea is to overwhelm ASCAP and the Time Warner, and to highlight inconsistent enforcement as a reason to drop the whole stupid copyright fight over this song.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Unregulated free markets. It's funny how the unregulated *free* market seems to regulate us so well.
She was charged with a felony. By the government. And arrested.
Unregulated markets are not good either. But this is not a case of that. This is a case of poor regulation.
Furthermore, a free market is a theoretical thought experiment implying equal ability and knowledge among participants and no force or fraud. It is a thought experiment alone and an unregulated market would immediately devolve away from it. They are, in fact, entirely mutually exclusive.
In short, learn more.
If anyone's interested, here's the text of the law she's charged under:
Not only does the law appear applicable to this case, but the theater management is immune from any resulting civil action. That's a really bad law.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The police apparently only arrested her after the managers (who would be in line for a $500 bounty from the MPAA) insisted on pressing charges. Also it sounds like this isn't a digitial video camera but a photo camera with the ability to record short video clips. Not something suitable for pirating a movie. Also what she recorded was in short segments according to the police. So apparently she wasn't even recording continuously.
We should contact the people at Muvico and let them know that the managers of the theater in Rosemont, IL were being total bastards about this. Here's the contact information I was able to dig up in about 5 minutes:
We know who decided to press charges because of TFA:
(emphasis added)
Muvico is a chain of 9 luxury theaters, as you can read on their about page:
The damn site is full of flash & images, but here are the corporate officers who should hear about what the managers of the Rosemont, IL theater's actions:
President & CEO - Hal Cleveland
General Counsel & CAO - Neil F Bretan
VP of Finance - Alan Rainbeau
VP of Operations - James E. Herd, Jr.
Ok, so regardless of the whole argument over whether any short portion of the video would be "Fair Use" and all of the other reasons we'd argue that this was completely legal...
See the actually law here. And please mod it up. Fair use doesn't enter into it. You use a recording device in a theater you go to jail. That's the law. It's that simple. She has no defense.
Who is John Galt?
The music is public domain (because it's from an older song). The lyrics are copyrighted. So you can legally hum it in public for commercial gain.
MUVICO'S OFFICIAL RESPONSE TO CAMCORDING
INCIDENT AT MUVICO ROSEMONT 18
The unauthorized video recording of a motion picture while it is
being exhibited in a movie theater is illegal under federal law and
under the laws of more than forty states, including the State of
Illinois. According to a study commissioned by the Motion Picture
Association of America, illegal film piracy costs the movie industry
billions of dollars each year, and illegal camcording in movie theaters
is the source of over 90% of all illegally copied movies in their
initial release form.
In order to combat the increasing theft of copyrighted films,
the motion picture industry has encouraged theater owners to adopt a
"zero-tolerance" policy prohibiting the video or audio recording of any
portion of a movie. Specifically, theater managers are instructed to
alert law enforcement authorities whenever they suspect illegal
activity. Theater managers have neither the expertise nor the authority
to decide whether a crime has been committed. Law enforcement
professionals determine what laws may have been broken and what
enforcement action should be taken. It is then up to prosecutorial
discretion to determine the seriousness of any charges that might be
leveled.
In our continuing effort to educate our guests about the
illegality of film piracy, Muvico prominently places a number of posters
and signs within its theaters alerting moviegoers of its
"zero-tolerance" policy with respect to the camcording of films in its
auditoriums.
Beatriz E. Gerdts
Administrative Assistant
Muvico Entertainment LLC
3101 N. Federal Highway, 6th Floor
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33306
Phone: (954) 564-6550 ext. 0
beatriz.gerdts@muvico.com
www.muvico.com
When WWII came around and Hitler and Mussolini invaded almost every country in Europe, he left little Switzerland alone because of this.
The Nazis left Switzerland alone because it was their bank.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
At least from the story, it sounds like law was not followed to its intent.
Intent? That has nothing to do with it. The law states if you're filming the moving in a theater you go to jail. There's nothing in the law about intent. She should do 3 years.
The courts regularly deal with what the intent of a law was, and why the legislature passed it.
As well, one of the primary factors in prosecution almost always is something called "mens rea" or in the non-latin version that some US states have adopted, "guilty mind". One must often have intent to perform an action before they can be found guilty of a crime. The other alternative is negligence.
This person had absolutely no intent to film any amount of the movie that could be considered in any way anything other than fair-use. I fully expect that this case would never get in front of a jury.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
The rifle argument gets pretty stale when you realize the Nazis could just use their air force to bomb Switzerland to kingdom come had they so desired. Nazi close air support aircraft would make mincemeat of resistance by soft targets.
"Owning a gun to protect the nation is as much true today as it was in the late 18th century."
Well, Irak was of the same opinion. It seemed to stand not so very well against a properly standing army, not against the USA one at least.
On that mood, do you think the privately owned weapons by USA civilians would be of much use against the USA army power, nukes and all included? I don't think so.
"In Switzerland, they still believe it"
Not. In Switzerland they believe on civilians custoding part of their military means as a way to push forward their national spirit. What History demonstrates is exactly the opposite: Switzerland doesn't beleive on military means *at all* as a way to protect their national identity against external threats.
"to this day they don't waste any money on a standing army. Instead, every militia member (which is every male 18-45) has a fully-automatic rifle in his house, ready to defend his nation if necessary."
Bullshit:
a) Being a tiny country, the militia members *are* the standing army (they can allow for that: the town major just cries out of his bedroom's windows and in five minutes everybody can be by his door).
b) The "fully-automatic rifle in his house" of the militia is payed with the country's money as it is the yearly train camps and the on-duty on public buildings and such. *Of course* it takes money from the public arks.
c) For major threats they believe much more on their historic stanza as "sacred, untouchable money" deposit than of any kind of army. They know they couldn't stand against the army of any of the sorrounding countries but they know no one of the principals of those countries would have any intention to go for Switzerland since it protects their retirement's money.
"When WWII came around and Hitler and Mussolini invaded almost every country in Europe, he left little Switzerland alone because of this."
Ha, Ha and HA!!! Switzerland was not occupied because:
a) It was not an immediate military target
b) Because of its History
c) Mainly because a) and b) Switzerland was the insurance policy for the Nazi tycoons which put their money on Switzerland's banks.
Oh, it's not meant literally. It's a well-known Hungarian expression.
Along with the infrequently-used "my hovercraft is full of eels".
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
Unfortunately for your argument, that part of the sixth amendment does not seem to have been incorporated against the states, so Texas could theoretically never tell you why you were being held, even if a federal prosecutor would have to tell you under the sixth amendment.
Please take a moment to read the whole article about incorporation. Seriously. It's a huge issue that very few people understand, but it's critical to understanding state vs. federal crimes, powers, and rights.
[cue Monty Python intermission music]
Okay, so you understand what incorporation is, and that the whole Bill of Rights is not currently incorporated against the states. Indignant yet?
If you're upset about the fact that the fourteenth amendment did not accomplish incorporation (which you probably are, since you previously thought that the whole sixth Amendment should apply to Texas), then you should be extremely interested in the outcome of McDonald v. Chicago which at first glance appears to be a gun case, but is in reality a case about full incorporation of the first eight Amendments to the US Constitution. Personally, I don't care about the fact that there are guns involved, the larger issues are way, WAAY too important.
McDonald v. Chicago is a history making case, not because it will apply the 2nd Amendment to the states, but because it should apply the Bill of Rights to the states. And it's about time.