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."
This seems like a good test case. A faithful application of the law here would shock the conscience.
I guess ars didn't think of this when they said that the movie industry won't go down like the music industry did.
It may be 7 digits, but at least it's a semiprime
From my point of view in Italy this is crazy. Are they going to sue me because I remember a film? Just as foolish as copyrighting a law.
"Tumpach was arrested after theater managers insisted on pressing charges."
Wow, talk about a jerk of a manager. Someone should find out what theater this was and start a boycott.
'We sang "Happy Birthday" to her in the theater,'
A copyrighted work? Performed in public? If I were a lawyer my nipples would explode with joy. The planets have aligned for an orgy of copyright violations! Tell me, in the video were you also photocopying the Harry Potter books with a scanner hooked up to a laptop with a cracked version of Windows 7 on it?
Welcome Citizen... to your future!
We were so busy being scared of the communists (a la 1984) that we forgot to fear the other extreme: Unregulated free markets. It's funny how the unregulated *free* market seems to regulate us so well.
Look where all this talking got us, baby.
While the public can pay to enter, the theater is really private property. Isn't it?
I still find it shocking that the penalty is so harsh for this type of thing while so many violent crimes in the US result in much more lenient sentences... :-(
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Then there is no need to fight movie piracy.
Animals fight each other when they are out of food.
New Economic Perspectives
Copyright is the epitome of regulation.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
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...
1. What manager of a movie theater would be stupid enough to push this through? Do they not realize how much VERY bad publicity this is making for his theater.
2. What manager of a movie theater would be so unreasonable to not just ask them to leave and be done with it? If it was obviously for a birthday, then kindly tell your customer (you know, the one that just paid to get a ticket for the theater) that what they are doing is not permitted and to please leave.
3. What entity is going to be stupid enough to press charges for this knowing all of the bad publicity this is going to cause?
Sure, I'd be upset if I was sitting in the row behind them and suddenly a mob came running in and started singing "Happy Birthday" during a movie I paid for, but WTF?
Jeezus, when will people learn to stop abusing their customers?!?!?
is everyone in the USA crazy or what? How silly can you get? Are there any adults left? Jeeez...
Copyright is the epitome of regulation.
It was an observation of irony. Those corporations that participate in the free market are using copyright laws - through the buying of congresscritters - to regulate us. So you are correct in this case: Copyright is the epitome of regulation, the regulation of you.
Look where all this talking got us, baby.
Uhm, unregulated free market? It's not the free market slapping her in jail or running the court proceedings. Actually, this is the application of law, and by nature this is a form of regulation. I know it's trendy to rant against "the Man" (who doesn't?) but if you're going to do it at least make sure you know what you're complaining about.
Recording where there are signs conspicuously placed warning you not to record erodes some "fair use" claims.
Assuming she has a good lawyer, she will walk on the criminal complaint. The arraignment judge said as much when he let her out without bond.
If they had sued for an injunction ordering her not to show anyone else the video except as needed to pull off the non-infringing parts, it would be an open-and-shut case in the movie theater's favor.
The only reason I can think of to have her arrested in the first place is so the camera could be seized as evidence, which it no doubt was. This makes sure the video doesn't leak before an injunction is issued. Still, it's a PR nightmare for the theater chain and this "arrest first, dismiss after the video is secured" policy, if done on a large scale, just isn't worth it for people who aren't trying to film the movie for torrenting.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Make sure you tell everybody that you know about this story and how celebrating a birthday at a cinema can get you into jail.
Don't hold events at theaters.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
Maybe they're just bitter about the 4.6 stars the film got.
Calling out bogus battery capacity claims.
This should be a civil matter, no one should have to spend any nights in jail for even the worst cases of copyright infringement.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
a cheesy vampire emo movie
Thank god I'm not the only one who thinks that...
Vampires shouldn't glitter in sunlight - THEY SHOULD EXPLODE!
"Lame" - Galaxar
Uhm, unregulated free market? It's not the free market slapping her in jail or running the court proceedings. Actually, this is the application of law, and by nature this is a form of regulation. I know it's trendy to rant against "the Man" (who doesn't?) but if you're going to do it at least make sure you know what you're complaining about.
UHM, yeah, unregulated free market. Or have you not thought deeply about where these draconian laws originate? With the average citizen? No, it comes from *Corporations* (oh noes)! I'm not ranting against "THE MAN." I'm just pointing out that the end result of corporations with lots of money can buy power and influence. Guess what they can do with that power and influence? Change our laws! Surprise Surprise. It's not a rant. It's an observation.
If you don't believe that what I just said was true please point out the flaw in my thinking.
Look where all this talking got us, baby.
Those corporations that participate in the free market are using copyright laws - through the buying of congresscritters - to regulate us.
There's nothing wrong with the concept of copyrights and patents. Even the Founding Fathers realized the value of them. They also realized the value of keeping them short in duration -- something we seen to have forgotten of late.
A decent copyright/patent system promotes innovation. Either extreme (no copyrights/patents or copyrights that last too long) will retard innovation.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
They also "realized the value" of a sturdy plow horse and well-made buggy-whip.
They also believed we shouldn't have a standing army.
They also believed that it was just peachy to own people who's skin was darker than theirs.
They also believed that every citizen needed to own a gun in order to protect the nation.
In other words, they believed things that were true in the late 18th century.
Today? Not so much.
You are welcome on my lawn.
But she caught short clips, and it is obvious her intent wasn't to try to fully capture the film, from what I can see. Being curious and capturing a couple of minutes shouldn't be a criminal act regardless. Kick her out, fine, but it sounds like the theatre manager is simply enjoying being a dick to me.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
And who owns "the man"?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It may have to do with the fact that people who favor government regulation of everything because "It's the will of the people" and "You can vote them away" are the same people that claim GWB got into The Office by a fraud in Florida.
Actually... Are we so sure about that?
From the NFL: "This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience. Any other use of this telecast or of any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent, is prohibited." So, if we publicly think about a movie, and we have the technology to pick it up, is that a public account? I understand we don't have that, but we all know that laws don't really take any future state into account (like they could anyway). I think it's an interesting idea anyway.
I think this is a pretty simple matter... There's clearly no intent to pirate the movie. I'm surprised that they locked someone up for two days, and are making them face up to three years. I think the defendant in this case should be looking to sue the MPAA over this... Maybe even a violation of due process? Sadly, IANAL...
Free markets in no way favor corporations. Any large, profit oriented corporation would be happy to have regulations that give them a competitive advantage. In fact, many large corporations lobby specifically for such regulation.
Free markets favor the general population, and help the creation of new goods and services. Regulation helps the ones who have the power to make regulation.
Qxe4
Well from my point of view as an American, the Italian legal system isn't that much better...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/feb/03/google-trial-privacy
Get this on the network news ASAP. It's a sympathetic human interest story. Real people were involved that they can interview. They should LOVE this stuff. Get her on Oprah. Make people hate the copyright regime tonight.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
The cops are required to enforce all laws, no matter how stupid, that they are called upon to enforce; they cannot ignore a call because they think the theater owner is a moron or the law is stupid. I don't blame the police officers, they are just doing their jobs.
Because the regulations over the last few decades very rarely favor the regular citizen and quite often favor the wealthy corporation.
It all comes down to the deplorable idea of corporate personhood which allows these organizations to buy laws. Of course when the PEOPLE get together in groups to take back their government...they're radicals :)
Blar.
No, even that understates it. Most regulations that affect industry are developed by the regulated industry, and serve as barriers to entry that protect the incumbents in the industry. When businesses (and their advocates) oppose "regulation" as a general ill, they are mostly doing it to fight regulations originating outside the industry from outside to serve an interest other than that of the industry.
And how do the corporations originally acquire the power to regulate themselves into monopolies?
I'll concede that much of it has to do with being profitable enough to afford great lawyers and lobbyists to effect change in Washington. But the reason that they get into that game in the first place is because of regulation of their own business sector, and once in that position, they use their regulatory power for the express end of reducing competition, which is the only thing that businesses truly fear.
Here is an example of how it works. I am a linoleum floor manufacturer in the midwest, whose business scope is the entire US. There are about 4 other manufacturers that make linoleum with whom I compete. One day, one of my competitors makes a product using too much of a particular chemical and his floors poison house-pets; someone figures out that it is the floors, and "pop!", a new regulatory body comes into existence to regulate my industry. The first generation of regulators is made up entirely of goody-two-shoes bureaucrats whose mission in life is to stop the big bad corporations from poisoning fluffy, and so they put a few regulations in place to ensure that the manufacturing process is clean and healthy. While they are at it, they also put some specific regulations in place about supply chain, materials, and labor, driving up the cost of making linoleum, and therefore making it more expensive. Fast forward ten years. The first generation of regulators has been mostly replaced by new faces, and now that the poison scare is off the front page, and fluffy is once again safe, the primary interested party in linoleum manufacture regulation is, well, me and my industry. Because of this, we have put many of the second-gen regulators on the payroll, and or, put our own employees into the regulatory body, if possible. By the third generation of regulators, the industry magnates can put any regulations that they want in place, and use this power to stifle competition, artificially keeping linoleum prices high, and ensuring that any linoleum-making startup will have to have enormous capital, just to pay its attorneys to spelunk through the now fifteen books of regulations for its manufacture.
This is what most modern Socialists call unregulated free market capitalism. But it isn't. The fact that we have a political/social climate so willing to regulate industry is, ironically, the reason why industry is so notably ungoverned. The best, in fact, the ONLY way to regulate business is with demand. It isn't pretty, and it isn't proactive, but it is the only thing that works.
READ ROTHBARD
The detainees at Guantanamo Bay. There is your reference. Although you are correct in that the abuses don't occur here (US soil). It is all outsourced nowadays.
Let me get this straight... Hitler and Mussolini didn't invade Switzerland because of a few rifles? But they were willing to take on (with the exception of Japan) practically every other major military force in the world?
Was it rifles that saved Sweden too?
Free markets in no way favor corporations.
History would disagree with you.
"This will be decided by a jury in a court of law"
That's cold comfort while your sitting in remand fattening the wallets of private prison operators. As for common law, what risk did she pose? Why did the supposed risk only last for two days?
I'm not from the US so perhaps someone could explain to me why the "land of the free" has the largest prison population on the planet? Is the slogan some sort of Orwellian joke or can people simply not handle freedom?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
>>>Copyright is a legal property right.
No it isn't. As Thomas Jefferson wisely explained, "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself. But the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.
"Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine...
"That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."
Therefore:
While I can claim ownership of this computer, and label you a "thief" if you steal it (because I have been deprived of use of the computer), I have NO natural right to claim ownership of an idea. Your copying of my idea deprives me of nothing. I still possess the idea.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
The Soviet Union was unable to conquer Afghanistan because of "a few rifles" (plus homemade explosives), and today, the USA is also unable to conquer Afghanistan for the same reasons. The USA was unable to conquer Vietnam because of "a few rifles" in the hands of people very familiar with their jungle home, and lost over 50,000 troops before giving up and going home with their tail between their legs, and Afghanistan isn't going to be much different. People with "a few rifles" (plus homemade explosives) have kept the USA from gaining success in Iraq too, killing thousands of American troops.
No "major military force" is a match for a fully-armed populace fighting from their own homes.
A Japanese General was quoted as saying invading America (back in the 40s, before we turned into a bunch of gun-fearing pussies) would be a terrible idea because "there is a rifle behind every blade of grass".
And what "major military forces" are you talking about anyway? The brilliantly-commanded French, who piled up all their defenses on the Maginot Line, almost completely ignoring the path through Belgium through which the Germans invaded? After they got into the country, taking the place over was trivial, since the French people had no guns to mount an insurrection like the Iraqis do.
Piracy involves the stealing of property, but the copy PRIVILEGE is not property. As Thomas Jefferson wisely explained: "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself. But the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.
"Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine...
"That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."
Therefore:
While I can claim ownership of this computer, and label you a "thief" if you steal it (because I have been deprived of use of the computer), I have NO natural right to claim ownership of an idea. Your copying of my idea deprives me of nothing. I still possess the idea.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Wow that sure is narrow and short sighted.
... ones that benefit them. But were there no regulations the largest company would eat all the other companies and run an assassins guild to keep other companies form competing. Whoever was CEO would be like Emperor of the planet...
Corporations like SOME regulations
Pure unrestrained unregulated free markets are only a good idea to those who haven't really thought about it.
Truly free markets very much favour the biggest organization possible. Corporations are the only way of getting organizations that big under a free market.
The industrial revolution, which was the only time we really had massive, very free markets, was also when corporations really took off. It's no coincidence that even the freest markets in the world at least have antitrust regulations that attempt to control the biggest corporations.
Damn fine post. Wish I had mod points. "Regulation" in the modern age where our "representatives" pass thousand page bills without batting an eye are not so much regulation as they are about competitive advantage.
The common cry of "There oughta be a law!" is the problem, not the solution.
"
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
"
Fits under 1 and 3 if I ever saw it, and probably 4 too.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Owning a gun to protect the nation is as much true today as it was in the late 18th century.
The "right to bear arms" has nothing to do with protecting the nation. The sole reason for that amendment was to guarantee the citizens the right to bear arms, so that a citizen's rebellion against an out-of-hand government would be a guaranteed option. Back then, a lot of governments prevented their citizens from bearing arms to prevent uprisings, so they could be oppressed. Even today there are a lot of oppressive governments that prevent their citizens from obtaining arms so they can send a truckfull of soldiers into a town and lay down the law of the day without much opposition.
The law here is slowly shifting in the other direction. Good example: bulletproof vests. Who's allowed to own them? Govt and police only. The founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves if they heard that. If it had been up to them it'd be the other way around. Make the government's "soldiers" resistant to citizen gunfire and not vice-versa? Defeats the purpose of the amendment to a degree.
You have to remember that back then, big government was almost an enemy on par with the neighbor that wants to invade. This was in the day of monarchies and dictatorships everywhere. Government was understood to be a "necessary evil" and they were doing everything they could to make sure it could never get out of hand, and if it did, that it could be fixed by the people. Because so many places at that time and in the past had experienced the problem of an out of hand government turning against the people to serve a few in power.
It's a very tricky balance to design your government to be able to defend your nation, while at the same time be totally and irreversibly within the control of the people it's protecting. That's what a Democracy is attempting to achieve. Right to Bear Arms is a huge part of that, and not for the reason you were assuming.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
So why didn't Hitler invade Sweden then?
Hitler just didn't need to invade Switzerland. Like Sweden it was neutral and no threat to Germany. Switzerland was culturally similar to Germany, it was surrounded by the Germans, Germany controlled all trade in and out, and it was useful to them (eg banking).
The other western European countries were either threats or were important strategic buffers against the French and British forces.
Switzerland would've been very tough to invade sure, but that had just as much to do with other factors like the terrain, the extensive well developed and stocked fortifications, the publicised plans to destroy all vital transport links, the decentralised government etc than your Red Dawn fantasies would like to imply.
Hitler wasn't afraid to take on anyone - if he felt Switzerland needed invading he would've tried it even if it was doomed to ultimately fail. That was his downfall - he certainly wasn't afraid of anyone or of biting off more than he could chew.
There was far more involved than lots of rifles.
Who interrupts a theatre of paying customers for a birthday party? Hell, I'd be pissed if someone was doing this and I was trying to watch a movie.
Being an American and dealing with my fellow countrymen on a daily basis , I can understand why in America that a brain is not considered a Tangible data medium.
"Maybe we have better law enforcement?"
Good explaination, if you define "better" as more profitable then law enforcement in the US can look forward to further improvements.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Men with guns standing on the ground win wars, not planes blowing up random stuff from 20,000 feet.
Tell that to Japan.
Wrong wrong wrong.
'Just following orders' is no defence.
That's why police personnel (at least in the UK) undergo exhaustive training and are often called upon to exercise their own judgement.