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."

13 of 705 comments (clear)

  1. Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You? by yurtinus · · Score: 5, Informative

    Everybody knows you use the Dell netbook hackintosh because the Acer wifi is unsupported!

    ...amateurs

    --
    +1 Disagree
  2. Re:Theater manager by chill · · Score: 5, Informative
    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  3. Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You? by bennomatic · · Score: 5, Informative

    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?
  4. Re:Good test case by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  5. Re:Theater manager by Unknown+Relic · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  6. Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You? by feepness · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  7. Re:Good test case by Hatta · · Score: 5, Informative

    If anyone's interested, here's the text of the law she's charged under:

    Criminal use of a motion picture exhibition facility.

    (a) Any person, where a motion picture is being exhibited, who knowingly operates an audiovisual recording function of a device without the consent of the owner or lessee of that exhibition facility and of the licensor of the motion picture being exhibited is guilty of criminal use of a motion picture exhibition facility.

    (b) Sentence. Criminal use of a motion picture exhibition facility is a Class 4 felony.

    (c) The owner or lessee of a facility where a motion picture is being exhibited, the authorized agent or employee of that owner or lessee, or the licensor of the motion picture being exhibited or his or her agent or employee, who alerts law enforcement authorities of an alleged violation of this Section is not liable in any civil action arising out of measures taken by that owner, lessee, licensor, agent, or employee in the course of subsequently detaining a person that the owner, lessee, licensor, agent, or employee, in good faith believed to have violated this Section while awaiting the arrival of law enforcement authorities, unless the plaintiff in such an action shows by clear and convincing evidence that such measures were manifestly unreasonable or the period of detention was unreasonably long.

    (d) This Section does not prevent any lawfully authorized investigative, law enforcement, protective, or intelligence gathering employee or agent of the State or federal government from operating any audiovisual recording device in any facility where a motion picture is being exhibited as part of lawfully authorized investigative, protective, law enforcement, or intelligence gathering activities.

    (e) This Section does not apply to a person who operates an audiovisual recording function of a device in a retail establishment solely to demonstrate the use of that device for sales and display purposes.

    (f) Nothing in this Section prevents the prosecution for conduct that constitutes a violation of this Section under any other provision of law providing for a greater penalty.

    (g) In this Section, "audiovisual recording function" means the capability of a device to record or transmit a motion picture or any part of a motion picture by means of any technology now known or later developed and "facility" does not include a personal residence.

    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!
  8. Contact Muvico & let them know how you feel! by Xenographic · · Score: 5, Informative

    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:

    But Tumpach insisted Wednesday that’s not what she was doing — she was actually taping parts of her sister’s surprise birthday party celebrated at the Muvico Theater in Rosemont.
    [...]
    Managers contacted police, who examined the small digital camera, which also records video segments, Cmdr. Frank Siciliano said. Officers found that Tumpach had taped “two very short segments” of the movie — no more than four minutes total, he said.

    Tumpach was arrested after theater managers insisted on pressing charges, he said.

    (emphasis added)

    Muvico is a chain of 9 luxury theaters, as you can read on their about page:

    Muvico Entertainment, L.L.C. (“Muvico” or “the Company”) is a growing chain of premium, megaplex motion picture theaters in the United States. The Company currently operates 154 screens in 9 locations located in Florida, California, and Illinois. The Company’s theaters have developed a reputation as true entertainment destinations — attracting patrons from as far as 25 miles away.

    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.

    CONTACT US

    MUVICO THEATERS
    3101 N. Federal Hwy. 6th Floor
    Fort Lauderdale, FL 33306-1042

    For General Questions please contact us at:
    E-mail: Questions@muvico.com

  9. Re:WTF!? by greenbird · · Score: 4, Informative

    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?
  10. Re:Which movie theater was this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    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

  11. Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You? by Knuckles · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  12. Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You? by AlamedaStone · · Score: 4, Informative

    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."
  13. Re:The "copy" in copyright by rossifer · · Score: 4, Informative

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

    If you're held without being informed of the charge, it's a violation of due process, regardless of whether or not charges have been filed, or whether or not you ultimately get released without charges formally being filed. If they were to try that kind of crap with me, they'd find themselves on the receiving end of a lawsuit. If for no other reason, then because you have a right to legal representation, and your lawyer can't properly prepare a case without knowing the charges.

    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.