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."

Comments

You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[eldavojohn]

'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?

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[Monkeedude1212]

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?

No, it was an Acer Netbook Hackintosh.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[Aranykai]

Why would they be using a cracked version when they can use the RC legally for free until Oct 2010?

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[arizwebfoot]

If I were a lawyer my nipples would explode with joy.

Really?

Can we watch - I've never seen nipples explode. Do I need to use an include tag?

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[pitchpipe]

'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.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[maxume]

Copyright is the epitome of regulation.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[pitchpipe]

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.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[MindlessAutomata]

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.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[yurtinus]

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

...amateurs

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[tepples]

Are they going to sue me because I remember a film?

That's different. Under United States law, reproduction involves making a "copy", or fixing a work into a tangible medium. The flash memory of a camera phone is deemed a tangible medium, and a brain is not.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[locallyunscene]

True story, poor example.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[MobyDisk]

It's funny how the unregulated *free* market seems to regulate us so well.

Your comment is pointless: Copyright law is a market regulation.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[bennomatic]

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.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[Zontar The Mindless]

...the Acer wifi is unsupported!

Hey, 2005 called and wants its joke back.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[tuxgeek]

Are they going to sue me because I remember a film?

They just might especially if you continue to think of any particular scene more than once after leaving the theater
To do that you must pay a royalty to the MPAA

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[pitchpipe]

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.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[daeley]

Hey, 2005 called and wants its joke back.

Hey, 1995 called and wants its rejoinder back. ;)

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[Kratisto]

Let's hope copyright law is reformed by the time electronics are integrated into our brains.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[BobMcD]

Sarcasm called and it is really pleased by your joke.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[CohibaVancouver]

I've never seen nipples explode

Your narrative has become tiresome!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprockets_(Saturday_Night_Live)

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[ImYourVirus]

Until we can share memories via some yet unmade device, what then huh?

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[Shakrai]

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.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[Svippy]

If I were a lawyer my nipples would explode with joy.

Really?

Can we watch - I've never seen nipples explode. Do I need to use an include tag?

I tried to film it, but apparently that is also some sort of 'copyright violation'.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[jameskojiro]

You saw a movie, time for your weekly ghost hack.....

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[PopeRatzo]

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 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.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[idontgno]

Why should the law be any different that it is for existing devices for sharing memories?

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[feepness]

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.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[mosb1000]

More likely he asked them to stop because they were annoying the other customers, and they were un-compliant and un-apologetic, so he called the cops.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[aristotle-dude]

If I were a lawyer my nipples would explode with joy.

Are you using a Hungarian to English translator? I have to tell you that my hovercraft is full of eels.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[Paua Fritter]

Because they're PIRATES goddammit!!! Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[easyTree]

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.

Boycott that theater - tell everyone you know to boycott it and why and get them to pass it on.

Show these people who are so willing to become agents of corporate abuse, just who has the power - you the consumer (admittedly, consumers need to stop acting like sheep before they'll be convinced.)

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[j00r0m4nc3r]

A copyrighted work [wikipedia.org]? Performed in public? If I were a lawyer my nipples would explode with joy.

Well I hope you have a spare set of nipples, because the venue owner is responsible for the licensing.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[CodeBuster]

Unregulated free markets. It's funny how the unregulated *free* market seems to regulate us so well.

How is it the "free market" when copyright law (i.e. the court) is used, backed up by the police power of the government, to enforce the restrictions? The law is under the control of the government and the courts, not the free market. Your anger has been misdirected. If you want to see what a really free market looks like then look up the history of copyright (a relatively recent invention) and how things were before government started enforcing "limited" (haha) monopolies on written (and later recorded) works.

As a side note I have always found it ironic that those on the left are so quick to support expanded government powers and involvement in the economy without realizing that it is precisely those powers and involvement, co-opted by the corporations (which is inevitable), that are ultimately used to take away their freedoms and quash their rights. Then, to add insult to injury, they have the gall to accuse libertarians and others who support limited government of being "fascists" or worse. I am not accusing the parent of doing these things specifically, but there seems to be an almost unconscious bias on the left against more limited government in spite of the fact that at the root of many "free market" problems lies...the government.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[jklovanc]

For a complete article on "Happy Birtday" go here.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[cpt kangarooski]

If I were a lawyer my nipples would explode with joy.

No they wouldn't. No one who can experience human emotions such as joy is permitted to be a lawyer.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, it's not meant literally. It's a well-known Hungarian expression.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[Opportunist]

And who owns "the man"?

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[Grishnakh]

This isn't the result of an unregulated free market, it's the result of fascism. An "unregulated" market wouldn't have any copyright protection at all; "intellectual property" is a purely governmental construct, requiring the regulating ability of the government to sustain it. If the government didn't get in the way with its laws and courts, then people would be able to copy anything they wanted willy-nilly. The only thing that stops you is laws and courts, i.e. government.

Now, I'm not arguing that an unregulated free market is the answer to everything, as it has its own problems, such as the mortgage meltdown (the result of an underregulated mortgage industry), the Great Depression, unrestrained monopolies, etc. But don't go around claiming that copyright cartels gone mad are a result of a lack of regulation; they're not. They're the result of an unholy alliance of industry with government which only serves to screw over regular citizens. That's called "fascism", which is something that no one ever confuses with lack of regulation or government involvement.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[Korin43]

Do all of the updates work on the RC?

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[Grishnakh]

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.

Owning a gun to protect the nation is as much true today as it was in the late 18th century. In Switzerland, they still believe it, and 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. When WWII came around and Hitler and Mussolini invaded almost every country in Europe, he left little Switzerland alone because of this.

They also believed that it was just peachy to own people who's skin was darker than theirs.

No, they didn't. That's another liberal lie. Many of the Founding Fathers were against slavery, and it was strongly debated during the formation of the Union. They decided to compromise and allow the South to keep slavery so that they could keep them in the Union, because if they hadn't, they wouldn't have had a Union at all and wouldn't have been able to stand up against Britain.

You do realize the "Founding Fathers" weren't of one mind about everything, don't you? Anyone who has a clue about American history knows they were divided into two main camps, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[deblau]

Last I checked, a copyright gives its owner a monopoly, which is the diametric opposite of a free market. This monopoly is enforced through government regulation. I must have missed your point, unless you were being extremely sarcastic.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[maxume]

Also, the Alps.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[zig007]

No they wouldn't. No one who can experience human emotions such as joy is permitted to be a lawyer.

Actually, joy is permitted as long as expressed in anticipation of monetary wealth. Empathy, on the other hand, is strictly forbidden and was probably what you meant. Right?

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[MPAB]

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.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[Lord Pillage]

No, you use liquid nitrogen.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[richcsst]

'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.

Actually, that isn't a "free" market principle you are trying to use to tear down the free market. Overly controlling copyright and patent protections by an interfering government further restrict the free market. So, to be clear, it is government over-regulation that is making big and bloated corporations and making them walk around with stiff "units". Patents and copyright USED to be reasonable and enough to reward the inventor and after a short time then allowed everyone to compete with it. Patents and copyrights of a mere 15 years used to be the norm, and renewing a copyright you had to have a very good reason. Once the patents or copyrights expire, it allows everyone to compete and thus helps the free market. This also encourages continuous innovation and development without having to rely on older product. The government screwed up the free market by OVER REGULATION and increasing the patent and copyright expiration periods (to ridiculously long periods!) and restrictions. You can thank greedy politicians who are in the pockets of these conglomerates (all parties too). The kind of market that was created was a "monopolistic" market, not a free market. There are far too many companies that have been allowed to become too big. Splitting apart conglomerates is good for a free market. It is what the FTC was originally set up for. Who benefits from large conglomerates with a lot of power? Government and unions. You see a free market works better with competition. Had we had a true free market, then the likes of AIG, Enron, GM, Microsoft, and the large entertainment conglomerates etc. would not exist as they are now.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[phantomfive]

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.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[Fallen Seraph]

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

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[Knuckles]

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.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[cyphercell]

But, you didn't actually make that point. The length of copyrights or patents have little to do with the irony of so called "free market" advocates lobbying to regulate their customer base. Fuck, if you really think about it and read the thread again your argument for free and sensible patents and copyrights are much more in line with true capitalism over the bullshit our current regime of circle jerking CxOs try to pass off.

"I don't think that underlying concept has changed any in 250 years. If you have no patents then you have little incentive for innovation. If you have patents that last too long then you also retard innovation. "

you're a jackass. The discussion was about pseudo capitalists raping our IP system to the point you can't use a camera without risking a prison sentence. The irony is in the unregulators calling for regulation. Perhaps I'm not following your take on the subject, but I'm inclined to assume you weren't actually following the subject at all.

From the top, I'm defending pitchpipe's brilliant observation.

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1467386&cid=30329630

What the fuck are you doing?

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[MarkvW]

"No they wouldn't. No one who can experience human emotions such as joy is permitted to be a lawyer."

Are you completely CRAZY? If lawyers couldn't experience human emotions like anger, greed, envy, jealousy, and the JOY of having lots of money, they wouldn't even be lawyers anymore. How elxe could they motivate themselves to deal with the garbage of other people's social relations?

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[phizix]

And who owns "the man"?

Chuck Norris.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[cyphercell]

you're taking this to the opposite extreme don't you think?

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[kurzweilfreak]

"Them".

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[DragonWriter]

Copyright is the epitome of regulation.

No more, and no less, than other laws which create legal property rights are. The "imaginary property" charge against IP isn't so much wrong as it is misleading in that it implies that any other legal property interest is any less a creation of government.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[sconeu]

If I were a lawyer my nipples would explode with joy.

You could then fill your hovercraft with eels.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[turbidostato]

"It's a well-known Hungarian expression."

"Exploding nipples"? I don't think so. You might refer to nipplesExp or maybe ExplodingNipples; that would be quite on the mark.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[babblefrog]

Also see the Wikipedia article, which makes a case that the copyright is invalid.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[DragonWriter]

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.

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.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[PunXX0r]

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

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[RobertM1968]

Do all of the updates work on the RC?

Why? Do they all work on the GA? I know I see a lot of them being installed...

...but interestingly, track records for Vista and XP show that with those two, those updates usually get "repaired" with later ones to fix stuff that "didnt work" in the first updates. Kinda like the half dozen .NET updates for the same issue.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[cyphercell]

You're funny.

"Which brought out the typical "grr, copyrights are bad! information wants to be free!" responses that we've all come to know and love. That's who my reply was directed at. What's the problem here? "

I must have felt this attitude was biased.

Anyways, fine, cite our founding fathers as much as you want. I think it's really really fucking cliche. Sometimes it's warranted, but really don't you think the copyright/patent changes are being made on the assumption that new technologies change shit?

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[turbidostato]

"Free markets in no way favor corporations."

Not? Corporations are in *deep* love with free market.

"Any large, profit oriented corporation would be happy to have regulations"

Yes. And under true free market, profit oriented corporations are more than able to *buy* regulations. Free market on its very essence.

"In fact, many large corporations lobby specifically for such regulation. "

They have the money, don't they? Market is free, isn'it? So they are free to use their hard earned money the way they see better fits their interests, don't they? Like buying congressmen, don't you think so?

"Free markets favor the general population"

Free markets favour the general population as much as free weight boxing competitions favour flyweight boxers.

"Regulation helps the ones who have the power to make regulation."

And on a real free market environment you are free to buy as much regulation as you can and need, aren't you?

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[roguetrick]

Copyright is the epitome of property.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[roguetrick]

In the same way that its a free market when property law is used, backed up by the police power of the government, to enforce the restrictions? Or would you rather have intellectual property law enforced by its owners through force?

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[Shakrai]

It probably is a cliche, but so what? They created a representative republic in an era when the conventional wisdom was that such governments are doomed to fail. Were they perfect? Hell no. Did they have insights and wisdom that remain valid even today? I would argue that they did.

Anyway, why do people get all uptight when someone cites the Founding Fathers but rarely comment when they cite other historical figures?

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[turbidostato]

"There's nothing wrong with the concept of copyrights and patents."

Yes, there is.

"Even the Founding Fathers realized the value of them."

That's why the Founding Fathers explicitly negated copyright for English works between 1790 and, what? 1891?

"A decent copyright/patent system promotes innovation."

Not only a "decent" one, but a constitutionally abidden one: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Any copyright law that doesn't abide to this basic premise (like if it's focus is "to promote the benefit of some corporation") is against USA constitution.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[ceoyoyo]

"No, they didn't. That's another liberal lie. Many of the Founding Fathers were against slavery, and it was strongly debated during the formation of the Union."

And the others owned slaves.

The point that the US founding fathers didn't know everything, thought things that are probably not applicable today and/or were the same flawed human beings that the rest of us are is good to keep in mind.

The difference between gun ownership in Switzerland and in the US is that the Swiss who keep automatic rifles in their closets are trained to use them.

And I completely agree with you that Jefferson's ideas on patents and the associated ideas on copyrights were pretty much bang on and just as correct today as they were then.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[commodore64_love]

>>>Can we watch - I've never seen nipples explode.

Son, you need to spend more time watching the PR0N. You are now at an advanced-enough age to have seen these things.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[CodeBuster]

Or would you rather have intellectual property law enforced by its owners through force?

I would rather that there simply NOT be "intellectual property" (actually there isn't; there is only patent and copyright but that is a whole other debate). I agree with government enforcing private property rights (i.e. real property, personal property, etc) as a proper role of a limited government. However, the present copyright laws are extremely broken and need to be fixed, at the very least, or perhaps even abolished (I haven't thought enough on this issue to form a firm opinion about which option I prefer at this time).

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[styrotech]

Owning a gun to protect the nation is as much true today as it was in the late 18th century. In Switzerland, they still believe it, and 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. When WWII came around and Hitler and Mussolini invaded almost every country in Europe, he left little Switzerland alone because of this.

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?

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[cheesybagel]

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.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[commodore64_love]

A copyright, which is really a government grant of monopoly over a particular product, is the exact-opposite of a free market.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[turbidostato]

"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.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[CodeBuster]

Copyright is a legal property right.

Technically isn't a copyright a privilege granted by government and NOT a property right (IANAL)? The rights holders often like to confuse the public on the issue for their own benefit, but the distinction is important legally speaking. If copyright made written words "intellectual property" then why was it necessary to separately describe "copyright infringement" as a separate criminal or civil offense? If it copyright is a legal property right then there are already laws governing "theft" of property. I think that they are separately described precisely because copyright is NOT a property right.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Or have you not thought deeply about where these draconian laws originate?

Yeah... I think you are having a little bit of difficulty with the word unregulated...

This is an abuse of regulation, i.e. the legal system and its laws, and thus by definition is regulated. No one says that regulation has to be for the good. In fact, misuse is pretty much the only complaint anyone ever has with regulation.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[turbidostato]

"If you have no patents then you have little incentive for innovation."

That a common rationale basically unstated. Anyone can come with obvious examples of technology fields flourishing without the need of patent protection. I.e.: software on its flourising days. Even more: it's arguably that the day patents entered the software field in the USA is the day software innovation started to stagnate.

"If you have patents that last too long then you also retard innovation."

That's obviuos: you cannot freely base your own work on protected innovations.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[binary paladin]

What? This is heresy sir! We all know these so-called "Founding Fathers" were of a single hive mind that believed in a ruling class of Calvinists and thought all blacks should be slaves and all natives should be slaughtered. Dammit, that's what makes America great!

However, I do appreciate your comment on that note. Really wrapping the people who founded this nation into one big blanket and stamping it "Founding Fathers" is one of the worst things that's ever happened. Not that it matters... From America to China and Brazil to Russia people are just fucking stupid, period. They don't read nor attempt to understand history. They latch on to some popular groupthink abomination and base their entire lives around it.

Anyone calling the out of control corporatism we have now the "free market" is as deluded as they are stupid.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[schon]

Free markets in no way favor corporations.

History would disagree with you.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[Idiomatick]

"something we seen to have forgotten of late"

No we haven't... but the laws changed anyways.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[commodore64_love]

>>>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.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Free markets in no way favor corporations.

Gotta correct that for you:

Free markets with sufficient competition in no way favor corporations.

That competition is key. Whether the state creates monopolies or the market creates them, they are no good for the general population and are of great value to the members of the monopoly.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[Idiomatick]

Parent isn't a troll... He is pointing out the 'appeal to tradition' fallacy... or possibly the appeal to authority fallacy... w/e And his point is perfectly valid. Pretty kneejerk to mod him down.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[Grishnakh]

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.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[commodore64_love]

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.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[Idiomatick]

Wow that sure is narrow and short sighted.

Corporations like SOME regulations ... 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...

Pure unrestrained unregulated free markets are only a good idea to those who haven't really thought about it.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[TapeCutter]

"We were so busy being scared of the communists (a la 1984) that we forgot to fear the other extreme"

As someone who lived through the cold war I feel obliged to thank you for that very astute observation.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[Grishnakh]

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.

Last time I checked, US troops are still dying in Iraq left and right. In fact, many more died there after the defeat of the Iraq's regular military, due to the insurgency, than before, IIRC. Apparently, a bunch of rag-tag Iraqi freedom fighters were able to take a heavier toll on America's best-trained troops than Iraq's regular army. And this makes sense too: it's a lot easier for an advanced military power to defeat another lesser power on an open battlefield with advanced weaponry, than to go door-to-door and fight people in their own homes.

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.

You sound like another liberal moron. Why would a country's government nuke itself? Just mentioning that shows what an idiot you are. How useful are nukes in Iraq? Oh wait, we haven't used them...

You can't control a populace if you kill them all. And you can't kill them all with the military unless the military agrees, and they're not going to if the populace includes their own families and countrymen. Yours is just a stupid nonsensical liberal argument against gun ownership.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[commodore64_love]

>>>And under true free market, profit oriented corporations are more than able to *buy* regulations.

Under a "true" free market, corporations wouldn't even exist because they are a creation of government, so if the government takes a handsoff approach to the economy, the Incorporation License would be a non-entity. Instead you'd have private citizens who are directly responsible for their business transactions. No corporations.

Anyway:

I'd like to know why this lady spent two nights in jail for a *civil* violation. If she did infringe upon copyright, the punishment should be doled-out by a civil court procedure, MPAA v. Citizen, not by the police.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[ceoyoyo]

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.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[Grishnakh]

However, I do appreciate your comment on that note. Really wrapping the people who founded this nation into one big blanket and stamping it "Founding Fathers" is one of the worst things that's ever happened.

IMO, America's Founding Fathers really were a great bunch of people, who worked together to build something great that hadn't been seen much in the world before that (remember, most of Europe was still living under inherited monarchy at this time). But like any group of smart people, there were lots of different opinions in there, and it's dumb to paint them all with the same brush and act like they agreed on every little detail, when history shows they disagreed on many very large issues. It's sort of like our open-source software "leaders"; there's a lot of different personalities there (some of them very controversial), and they certainly don't agree on everything, leading to all kinds of arguments on licenses, whether MS technologies should be used (Mono), and such.

Anyone calling the out of control corporatism we have now the "free market" is as deluded as they are stupid.

Agreed.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[icebraining]

Owning a gun to protect the nation is as much true today as it was in the late 18th century. In Switzerland, they still believe it, and 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. When WWII came around and Hitler and Mussolini invaded almost every country in Europe, he left little Switzerland alone because of this.

So that's why they spent more then one billion francs building a major air fleet, although with the opposition of the Socialist party?

And it's because Germany was so afraid of the Switz, that they sold them 90 state-of-the-art fight airplanes, after the start of the second world war?

http://www.woz.ch/artikel/2007/nr50/schweiz/15771.html

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[ProzacPatient]

"1984 was not supposed to be an instruction manual"

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[TapeCutter]

"Also, corporations can't participate in a free market, they are entities that exist solely at the whim of the government."

That is a great example of how people misinterpret the term "free market", the word "free" means "free to participate" which corporations are certainly doing. The word "market" refers to the set of rules that govern transactions between particpants.

IMHO the US senate is the most corrupt regulatory body in the western world, it is where corporate representives meet to redefine the market in their favour, ensuring some are more free to participate than others.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[Nethead]

Having had (because ALL my local news sources front page it) to follow the Amanda Knox trial, I really tired of the Italian legal system.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[AlamedaStone]

Oh, it's not meant literally. It's a well-known Hungarian expression.

Along with the infrequently-used "my hovercraft is full of eels".

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[BoberFett]

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.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[BoberFett]

The US would be a better place if more people understood exactly what you just said. I've tried to explain before to both Democrats and Republicans, and all I get are blank stares.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[turbidostato]

"Under a "true" free market, corporations wouldn't even exist because they are a creation of government"

Sorry, but not, they aren't. Corporations are not a creation of government, but a *recognized* by government (in hope to better control them). People have formed gangbands for as long as we have memories and corporations are only the government-blessed form for a gangband. Just take a history book (or even a fiction one) and you'll find it by the example. From Ali-Baba and the forty thieves onwards.

"I'd like to know why this lady spent two nights in jail for a *civil* violation."

Because on a free market, once you have enough money you can buy enough fear to maintain your desired 'statu quo'.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[TapeCutter]

"In Switzerland, they still believe it, and 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."

Private weapons? Excuse me while I pack my bags for Switzerland, I want one of these in my driveway.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[v1]

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.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[NeutronCowboy]

Wait - we were talking about Switzerland, not about Iraq. Did you change the subject because you figured out that the argument didn't hold water?

If you want to talk about Afghanistan, no one is interested in conquering Afghanistan. It's a pile of dirt whose only significance is that there used to be some bad guys there. It's a strict counter-terrorism operation, with the hope that at some point, the place won't turn into another failed state and haven for terrorists. No one is talking about conquering anything.

If you want to talk about Vietnam, you realize that North Vietnam had tanks, an airforce, AA guns, artillery - all kinds of heavy equipment that goes way beyond a few rifles?

If you think that your hunting rifle is what stands between Freedom Fries and a Gulag, you're delusional.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[ElectricTurtle]

My hovercraft is full of eels.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[ravenshrike]

Disney's not stupid enough to go after a normal person singing Happy Birthday, mainly because the press received from such a venture would quite possibly cause more than enough backlash to reduce copyright length.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[Grishnakh]

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.

Isn't that the same thing as "protecting the nation"? "Nation" != "government".

But yes, the primary reason for the RKBA is to protect against tyrannical government, but that government isn't necessarily your own. The Colonists weren't fighting against their own colonial government, they were fighting against the British government, which was located on another continent. Technically, it was still "their" government, since they were British colonies after all, but it's still a government from a foreign place trying to impose itself upon you. I fail to see how it's much different from any arbitrary foreign power trying to take over your country. A war for independence really isn't very different from a war against an invading power. In both cases, you're fighting against an exterior power, not your own countrymen (as in a civil war), and this exterior power has sent its troops into your towns and cities to quash you.

The law here is slowly shifting in the other direction. Good example: bulletproof vests. Who's allowed to own them? Govt and police only.

I don't believe that's true. Here's a website that sells them over the internet to US residents.
http://www.bulletproofme.com/Quick_Answers.shtml

However, they don't sell to Connecticut because civilians there can only buy vests face-to-face, not through mail order, but that's the only exception they list. They do mention that some states like NY are considering making them illegal for civilians, but what do you expect from places like NY and CT? I'm surprised IL and NJ haven't already banned them. Anyway, as it stands now, you can get yourself the same ballistic vest police wear without any trouble in 49 states according to this site.

Besides, these vests are totally useless against rifle rounds (unless they have plates), and also shotgun slugs, so if you're considering an armed insurrection, make sure you bring your AR-15, or even a bolt-action hunting rifle.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[Opportunist]

I AM NOT PARANOID!

because if you are, THEY immediately notice it!

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[feepness]

By ability I meant "ability to pursue goals", ie: opportunity. You are correct this was poor wording. I apologize for the confusion.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[B1oodAnge1]

You are making no sense.

First you say that this is happening because we have an unregulated free market system, then you explain how corporations are buying power and influence to change the laws in their favor.

THAT IS NOT A UNREGULATED MARKET. THAT IS A OVER-REGULATED MARKET.

A unregulated market does not have regulations that favor corporations over consumers.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[Grishnakh]

If you want to talk about Afghanistan, no one is interested in conquering Afghanistan. It's a pile of dirt whose only significance is that there used to be some bad guys there. It's a strict counter-terrorism operation, with the hope that at some point, the place won't turn into another failed state and haven for terrorists. No one is talking about conquering anything.

Yes, we are. You can't prevent Afghanistan from turning into a "failed state" without instituting a government. That government, which is rightfully called a "puppet government" (after all, it's being set up by an invading foreign power), is the exact same thing that Nazi Germany did to France when it invaded and conquered France. Instituting a new, friendly government in an unfriendly country after an invasion is the very definition of "conquering". The people we're fighting in Afghanistan aren't "terrorists", they're Afghans, and they're "freedom fighters". Al Quaeda left Afghanistan ages ago. We're fighting the Taliban there. The Taliban are Afghans, not foreigners, so yes, we're trying to conquer a foreign country and impose our own rule on it. Not that I think the Taliban were good rulers (in fact they were horrible), but trying to call them "terrorists" is completely dishonest.

If you want to talk about Vietnam, you realize that North Vietnam had tanks, an airforce, AA guns, artillery - all kinds of heavy equipment that goes way beyond a few rifles?

Yeah, they used those to defend their northern cities. Most of the fighting was with infantry in jungles; have you forgotten that already? Artillery isn't much use in a jungle, and tanks are even less so.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[turbidostato]

"Last time I checked, US troops are still dying in Iraq left and right. In fact, many more died there after the defeat of the Iraq's regular military, due to the insurgency"

But that's a politics fact not a military one. When was the last time an Irakian city suffered a carpet bombing ala Dresden? Heck, what are the chances of nukes to be used against Irak, even tactical ones?

USA troops are dying in Irak because USA government so does want.

"Why would a country's government nuke itself?"

Why not? I'm sure the Constitution Fathers didn't allow for an open end (civilians owning weapons for whatever they see fit) because the threats they were able to imagine but because of the threats they were *not* able to imagine. But just look at contemporary history: both what "itself" and "citizen" means for a government are opened to definitions. What if Washington DC suddenly finds (well, not suddently but because the raise of a politician with, say, a funny moustache and accent, and a like for Wagner works) that California is not really part of "ourselves" (or that Mexico and Canada are indeed part of "ourselves", for that matter)? What is it about mormons and thus, Utah? What about all those pesky niggers, or jews?

"Just mentioning that shows what an idiot you are."

Telling I'm an idiot is telling Jefferson, Franklin at al. were idiots. Please pay attention that the militia was *not* thought as a means to defend the country against foreign threats but against the abuse of their very own government against its citizens.

"How useful are nukes in Iraq? Oh wait, we haven't used them..."

Exactly. And then, why USA has not used nukes in Irak? Because military limitations or has been because politics? And then, how much strengh has the Irakian government over USA politics to be sure that this or that is out of question? Certainly zero. And the USA government supports exactly my opinion as it shows the fact that it's not quite accepting whatever Iranian government wants to say about their own nuclear program.

"You can't control a populace if you kill them all."

Certainly.
Corollary number 1: you don't need to control a populace if you kill them all.
Corollary number 2: you will have an easier time controlling a populace if you kill some of it on crudel and bestial ways to show the others.

"And you can't kill them all with the military unless the military agrees"

Not an assertion proper from a republican. You can't kill them all with the military unless you *command* the military. Where does the phrase comes from? Military is there to protect democracy, not to practice it.

"they're not going to if the populace includes their own families and countrymen. "

Uh... Are you forgetting about those little Draft Riots in New York, 1863, due to *citizens* opposing *Congress* were *Congress* under command of *Abraham Lincoln*, no less, mandated *military* the use of bayonets and heavy artillery in order to kill up to 2000 *countrymen*?

Are you forgetting about that little issue in the USA about the definition of "itself" and "citizen" between 1861 and 1865 when about 1 million of American *countrymen* were killed by the *military* (one side or the other)?

"Yours is just a stupid nonsensical liberal argument against gun ownership."

Whatever.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[The Zen Cow Says Mu]

The Jerk Store called and they're all out of you.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[log0n]

Gotta have a boogeyman..

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[poopdeville]

The fact that corporations require a charter to get certain tax status is irrelevant to this discussion. Americans have the constitutional right to assemble and organize. You don't need a charter to start a business. You don't need a charter in order to collect capital from your friends.

If you want to make something more formal, and still organized, you can form a "trust company", which names its stakeholders as beneficiaries. No need to incorporate. No special tax status (it's a "pass through" organization). But the beneficiaries' assets are protected.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[zQuo]

Excellent post. Superb description of regulatory capture, and the wikipedia entry is not as fun to read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[winwar]

"The Nazis left Switzerland alone because it was their bank [amazon.com]."

No. They left them alone because the costs of invading outweighed the benefits. If Switzerland had decided to be a little less neutral, Germany would have decided to be a little more intrusive.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[Joe Tie.]

Why do people get all uptight when someone cites the Founding Fathers but rarely comment when they cite other historical figures?

Is that true though? I roll my eyes when people cite the founding fathers. But I do so just as much when people bring up what any other person outside modern culture would make of it. It just doesn't happen that much, because most people realize how flawed such comparisons are. The founding fathers are just an odd single blindspot there for most.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[styrotech]

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.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[Fulminata]

Disturbing the peace and trespassing are both generally misdemeanors, and one or the other would have been been appropriate if such was the situation. Instead the managers insisted that the police charge the woman with a felony. Hardly a case of the punishment fitting the crime.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[deadwill69]

So, let's get this straight: Switzerland is a very large valley in the middle of the Alps. When it snows, the country is cut off from the rest of the world for 6 months or more (not so much now with air travel and rail/road tunnels). So, to mount a successful offensive, one would have 6 months to mount an invasion, bring in enough supplies and reinforcements, and then fight off every man, woman, and weapon capable bearing child for the next six months before you were reinforced, resupplied, or able to retreat. In those days, as well as today, it is considered suicide all for a piece of land that has no port or other strategic value.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[hot soldering iron]

If I were a lawyer my nipples would explode with joy.

If you were a lawyer, I wouldn't want the explosions to stop at your nipples.

I thought of going to law school, but didn't know how I would be able to look my parents in the eyes. Instead I chose the honourable path, and learned death-dealing and drug pushing.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[thunderclap]

No but the guy hidden in the very back corner with the hand scanner was. But he was laughing at her though.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[Dravik]

Not exactly. The Nazis left Switzerland alone because there was no benefit to taking it and the natural terrain is very favorable to defense. Since the Nazis planned to control everything around it, and it wasn't an immediate threat, why spend the time.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[Dravik]

You are seriously lacking in knowledge of military capability. Artillery was quite useful in the jungle and was used by both sides. The US used it more because we had the helicopters to move it around, but is was used by both sides. Your knowledge of Afghanistan is just as lacking as your Vietnam history.

The afghans only defeated the Russians because of massive aid and antiaircraft weapons provided by the US. As long as the Russians could move by air they crushed the Afghans. The only reason the US is having trouble is our aversion to civilian causalities.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[turkeyfish]

The way to prove this theory is for consumers to pick a corporation that exhibits reprehensible behavior and boycott their asses out of business.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[Dun Malg]

"More likely"? Do you have something to base this opinion on other than your own idle speculation?

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[Dun Malg]

You are incorrect. A "corporation" is a legal entity. Law comes from government. "Gangbands" can form without being a corporation. If there were no government, there would be no legal structure under which a "gangband" could be recognized as an entity with a subset of the legal rights of a person.

Dumbass.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[JohnRoss1968]

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.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[Dun Malg]

Where do people get the idea that all you need to do to conquer a country is to have air superiority*? Warfare happens on the ground. Getting infantry into Switzerland in sufficient numbers to take it over has always been more costly than the country is worth.

* mostly it comes from the US Air Force, which to this day still believes the daylight bombing campaign turned the tide of WW2. One of the major citations by the proponents of separating the Army Air Corps from the Army was that without autonomy, they'd be stuck doing close air support for the Army, when what won WW2 was the bombing of Germany's industry, primarily her ball bearing factories. Many years later, a retired Air Force general asked Albert Speer about how they dealt with the bombing of their ball bearing production. His answer (paraphrased): "You were trying to bomb the ball bearing factories? We didn't notice. None of them were ever damaged much." Basically, the fantasy that strategic bombing works is just that--- a fantasy. Men with guns standing on the ground win wars, not planes blowing up random stuff from 20,000 feet.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[Dun Malg]

Do you really need a lesson in elementary cost/benefit analysis?

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[MindlessAutomata]

Regardless of how much money is involved in politics, only the average citizen, in large numbers, can put an elected politician in office.

Yes, the corporations are corrupt, because there is a government that will allow them to be corrupt. You want to make government appear pure and benign because you want to use it as a tool for your own ends too--just like the corporations and every other interest group does.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[NeutronCowboy]

That government, which is rightfully called a "puppet government" (after all, it's being set up by an invading foreign power), is the exact same thing that Nazi Germany did to France when it invaded and conquered France.

And it's completely different from the puppet governments set up by the US in Germany and Japan, after those armies were crushed, right? Oh wait - it isn't.

I'm not even sure where else to go with your points, because pretty much every last one is wrong - including your statements that we're fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, that they're Afghan and that their methods aren't designed to terrorize the local population in Afghanistan.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[ignavus]

Problem is, it is always the government who gets to decide whether any particular provision is needed to protect the people from government.

That is why bullet-proof vests are outlawed. The government got to decide whether the people needed them.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[TheLink]

Otherwise the saying "a penny for your thoughts" will become out of date, or a sad joke.

It would cost you more than a penny. And it would legally be considered not your thoughts.

Too bad that because of crappy copyright laws we wouldn't be able to have artificial photographic memory, virtual telepathy (and telekinesis) and all that fancy stuff, without DRM and greed getting in the way.

None of the "pirates" would bother making use of her video clips. Many "pirate" shops in my country have 100% copies of the legit DVDs, with unskippable "anticopying" warning notices and all.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[dcollins]

"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."

[Citation needed]

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[soundguy]

That was less about fraud and more about stupidity & incompetence. There's a reason that Florida has it's own Fark tag

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[iphinome]

What's the difference? You're their all-time best seller.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[Criton]

Wrong Atheros is supported worst case you can replace the wifi card. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_oH49sm1ds

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[twosat]

When Mike Jittlov was filming his movie "The Wizard of Speed and Time" he did not have enough money to pay for the "Happy Birthday" song, so he made his own version "Merry Birthday to You" www.youtube.com/watch?v=52_BV2PtZZE

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[Criton]

The NV conventional forces were pretty much massacred. Their airforce was shot out of the sky and their tanks tended to be destroyed rather quickly. The North Vietnamese incurred 95% of the losses in US forces with nothing more then rifles,tunnels and booby traps. US forces won almost every battle but they lost the war. The Vietcong choose when and where a battle was to take place and choose when to leave. You could say the US was playing chess while the Vietnamese were playing go.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[ShakaUVM]

>>Corporations like SOME regulations ... ones that benefit them.

Sure. But the way they usually work out, they universally favor the big corporations over the small.

I'm saying this as a small S-corp owner - dealing with all the regulations and hoops they make you jump through while it's just you and a couple other people is a ridiculous burden for a small corp. For a big corp, they just Have People For That.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[SmlFreshwaterBuffalo]

Men with guns standing on the ground win wars, not planes blowing up random stuff from 20,000 feet.

Tell that to Japan.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[XiX36]

Copyright does not protect 'ideas'. Copyright protects a particular--read specific--expression/manifestation of an idea. . . Ideas have no legal protections whatsoever in the US, except perhaps certain areas of patent law but that is not the same as copyright law. Now I agree that this lawsuit is silly, as is the fact that 'Happy Birthday' requires someone to pay royalties for each and every public performance. . . but the fact that I don't like it doesn't change the fact that someone owns the rights to those specific expressions of ideas. . . though I think in the end this woman will given a somewhat reasonable settlement offer or, more likely, will have the charges against her dropped due to the bad publicity against whatever corporation owns the film rights. . . a story like this is more likely to get public support than someone who entered a cinema with the intention of recording the entire film in order to put it on the intertubes. . .

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[mpe]

A decent copyright/patent system promotes innovation. Either extreme (no copyrights/patents or copyrights that last too long) will retard innovation.

Whilst it's quite obvious that excessive copyright and patent terms retard innovation it's very much a matter of faith that more moderate terms would actually promote innovation. Even assuming there is an optimal term and there is some way to reliably work this out. (Which may be different for software, movies, etc.) It may well be better to err on the side of "too little" than "too much".

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[kripkenstein]

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.

Sure, they could have done that. But bombing from the air is very different from invading and holding ground, when that ground is (1) very defensible, geographically speaking, and (2) every grown man has a rifle.

It just made more sense to not invade and to not bomb, and to let Switzerland stay 'neutral', while also acting as a bank to the Nazis.

In other words, it was a combination of the two factors, not one or the other.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[mpe]

"A decent copyright/patent system promotes innovation."
Not only a "decent" one, but a constitutionally abidden one: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Any copyright law that doesn't abide to this basic premise (like if it's focus is "to promote the benefit of some corporation") is against USA constitution.

One thing to remember is that US Constitution does not require copyrights (or patents) in the first place.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[alexandre_ganso]

Let's hope copyright law is reformed by the time brains are integrated into electronics.

There, fixed for you

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[Ma8thew]

Bullshit. If that were true, Hitler could still have invaded Switzerland and kept his gold. It would have been impossible to smuggle out. Hitler planned to invade, but kept putting it off. He, and his military strategists, realised that they would quickly get bogged down trying to invade. Especially when the Swiss defence strategy shifted from guarding the borders to retreating to alpine strongholds. Hitler would have lost huge amounts of resources trying to take Switzerland, to little strategic advantage.

Admittedly, Switzerland did trade with Axis powers, but they had to if they wished to remain free. They were blockaded both by the Allied and the Axis powers. Switzerland were basically paying a protection racket. As long as they kept producing resources for Hitler, they had a lower risk of being invaded.

You seem to have a very black and white view of history. Many countries, Allied and Axis, did very regrettable things during the world wars (The USA bombed Switzerland several times during WW2). Simplistic views are much easier to hold, but they are nowhere near to the truth.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[Genda]

Actually it's the special deep down joy of watching a lawyers' nipples explode!!! In fact I'd pay good money to watch any part of a lawyer explode! :-)

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[shiftless]

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.

The answer is simple, rifles and homemade bombs are useless against the might of the US military. This of course explains why the US military was able to invade Afghanistan (one of the poorest and most backwards countries in the world) and Iraq (not much better) and crush both the Taliban and Iraqi insurgents within a week. It's not like we are to this day spending years and billions of dollars continuing to fight a bunch of cave dwellers who have limited funds and resources. And if US citizens ever decided to rebel against their government, theres no way that our nation's vast numbers of engineers, machinists, and skilled tradesmen of all varieties with their near unlimited riches, resources, and ingenuity could possibly ever challenge the US government. If a city or state decides to rebel, no problem, there are countless folks in the US Air Force who will be happy to nuke their families and friends into oblivion without giving it a second thought.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[shiftless]

If you want to talk about Afghanistan, no one is interested in conquering Afghanistan. It's a pile of dirt whose only significance is that there used to be some bad guys there.

And yet, despite the general support of the populace, we can't even defeat a rag tag band of ousted religious fundamentalists and cave dwellers. Despite billions of dollars worth of heavy equipment, armor, night vision, weaponry, gunships, vehicles, and the best trained and equipped soldiers money can buy, our guys are dying every day in this country. They're not just taking pot shots as us from behind houses, they are straight up overrunning fortified and defended positions. All it takes is a $100 worth of materials to build a car bomb that will split open an uparmored Humvee like a tin can. Happens every week here, and the people building these bombs often don't even have a primary school education. And you seriously think that if worse came to worst, the US populace (far more educated, equipped, and financed) would do worse? You seriously think our armed forces (who are literally our brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, sons, daughters, etc) could be counted on to do what it took (i.e. kill their friends and family) to quell an uprising? LOL.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[CompMD]

"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."

I think so. There are how many soldiers in the US Army? And how many civilians on continental US soil? And how many of those civilians have military training?

There are lots of weapons that the Army doesn't have that civilians do (highly reliable commie weapons) and lots weapons the Army can't have due to a lack of support infrastructure (again, mostly old commie weapons). Another interesting factor is that the Army is forbidden from using expanding rounds, while there is nothing prohibiting civilians from using them. The WW2 era Tokarev is still one of the most powerful pistols in the world, and JHP 7.62x25 rounds are extremely deadly.

If you think the government would detonate a nuclear weapon on US soil, you've watched Independence Day or zombie movies too many times.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[Fred_A]

That's different. Under United States law, reproduction involves making a "copy", or fixing a work into a tangible medium. The flash memory of a camera phone is deemed a tangible medium, and a brain is not.

This has been demonstrated by opening the craniums of several **AA execs and finding them empty, hence the intangible brain ruling.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[mark-t]

My understanding is that it is not copyright infringement for a person to be singing "Happy Birthday" to somebody else in public. Public performances of the work are questionable in this matter, but singing in public does not constitute a public performance unless it is reasonable to infer from the context of the situation that they were singing for the actual purpose of having the public actually hear the singing. So, if one is singing "Happy Birthday" to somebody that they happen to personally know, and is not doing it on a stage or some similar place that is designed for people to deliberately present to others, then it is not reasonable to assume that there was any underlying motive of attempting to engage in a public performance with that action, and thus there is no infringement.

IANAL, but I know somebody who is, and I asked them about this a few years ago when I was at a restaurant with her and a few other people, and having heard about this whole "Happy Birthday" being copyrighted thing before, I noticed a group at a nearby table was singing "Happy Birthday" to somebody that was in their group... where I then asked her if they could get in any trouble for that.

Of course, videotaping somebody while in a movie theatre is *REALLY* dumb...

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[andi75]

> When WWII came around and Hitler and Mussolini invaded almost every country in Europe, he left little Switzerland alone because of this.

A couple of guns don't protect your country from being invaded.

I live in Switzerland, and noone sane around here believes this. Hitler most probably left Switzerland alone because he needed the transalpine passages intact (the Swiss would have destroyed the vital bridges & tunnels before surrendering them).

The Swiss compromise offer to Germany and Italy was, that Switzerland would allow transports between Germany and Italy in sealed box cars without checking the contents - in exchange for the supply of vital raw materials and goods.

In fact, every other year a couple of women & kids get killed with those guns (mostly in domestic disputes), and probably a lot more live in perpetual fear that their husbands will shoot them some day. That's why there's a political movement (with growing support) that wants to get rid of those guns and store them in army depots instead.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[alexo]

You can argue whether or not such intangibles as expressions and ideas should "naturally" be called property, but in the United States at least, copyright *is* a legal property right.

No, it is not. It grants certain exclusive rights but in now way it is equal to property.

The Constitution states "The Congress shall have Power . . . to promote the Progress of Science . . . , by securing for limited Times to Authors . . . the exclusive Right to their respective Writings . . . ."

If I give you an exclusive right to use a parking space for 10 years, it does not magically become your property.

While I agree with the intent and wisdom in Jefferson's statements, an "exclusive Right" sounds like property to me.

Only because you are not a lawyer specializing in this sort of things.

Additionally, copying of another's idea does deprive them of things such as the opportunity to extract as much commercial value out of the idea as they might have otherwise.

So does competition or, for that matter, innovation. There is no inherent right "to extract as much commercial value out of an idea".

You might argue that the commercial value and incentives created by a system that creates a property right in ideas is outweighed by the benefits that would arise in a system of free idea exchange, but to say that it isn't property is wrong.

I say both. Unrestricted idea exchange is beneficial *and* ideas are not property.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[ethan0]

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.

Citation? I've never heard of any ban on these in the US. wikipedia seems to indicate there is no such thing except for convicted violent felons.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[PopeRatzo]

Anyway, why do people get all uptight when someone cites the Founding Fathers but rarely comment when they cite other historical figures?

Because citing the Founding Fathers is too often used to excuse the most despicable assertions. The only person whose words are more often used to excuse ugly behavior is Jesus Christ, and maybe his Dad.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[PopeRatzo]

That's another liberal lie. Many of the Founding Fathers were against slavery

Even the ones that owned slaves?

You do realize the "Founding Fathers" weren't of one mind about everything, don't you?

And yet, we are told that the "Founding Fathers" intended the US to be a "Christian" nation.

Regarding the need to own guns to "protect the nation", why should it include handguns?

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[PopeRatzo]

The difference between gun ownership in Switzerland and in the US is that the Swiss who keep automatic rifles in their closets are trained to use them.

And Americans keep handguns in their belts to shoot at street signs when they get really drunk and their wives when they get really angry.

Then they say it's because they're "defending the nation".

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[PopeRatzo]

You sound like another liberal moron.

Do you understand that when you make a statement like that everything else you say becomes meaningless?

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[PopeRatzo]

And how many of those civilians have military training?

As a percentage of the general population, fewer and fewer every decade.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[PopeRatzo]

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.

Did you know that this argument only starts to appear after about the mid-1960s?

Did you know that even staunch conservatives like Judge Robert Bork and Judge Rhenquist believed that the "right to bear arms" only applied to "well-regulated militia". Until the extremist (and quite corrupt) Atty General Meese from the Reagan administration started pushing the notion that the 2nd Amendment applied to everyone owning a handgun in the 1980s, there had never been a single Supreme Court justice in US history who held that belief.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[PopeRatzo]

But yes, the primary reason for the RKBA is to protect against tyrannical government

Can you cite a single sentence from the extensive writings of the Founding Fathers that would support that assertion?

I think this is a notion that people believe that has no foundation in reality.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[Grishnakh]

That's another liberal lie. Many of the Founding Fathers were against slavery

Even the ones that owned slaves?

Obviously not. What kind of dumb question is that? Although, some who did own slaves weren't entirely convinced that it was a good practice. I'm sure much has been written on the topic.

And yet, we are told that the "Founding Fathers" intended the US to be a "Christian" nation.

The only people who say that are twits like Sarah Palin. There's tons and tons of quotes from Jefferson and others in their letters about how dangerous organized religion is. Many were known to be Deists, despite the Religious Right's recent attempt to change history.

Regarding the need to own guns to "protect the nation", why should it include handguns?

Why shouldn't it? They had handguns in the late 1700s too, although they could only fire one shot (just like their rifles). Handguns are far more concealable than rifles, which makes them pretty important in urban guerrilla warfare.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[HungWeiLo]

When WWII came around and Hitler and Mussolini invaded almost every country in Europe, he left little Switzerland alone because of this.

It's actually probably more because that's where the top brass of the Axis Powers stashed their personal war loot.

They also believed that it was just peachy to own people who's skin was darker than theirs. No, they didn't. That's another liberal lie. Many of the Founding Fathers were against slavery, and it was strongly debated during the formation of the Union. They decided to compromise and allow the South to keep slavery so that they could keep them in the Union, because if they hadn't, they wouldn't have had a Union at all and wouldn't have been able to stand up against Britain. You do realize the "Founding Fathers" weren't of one mind about everything, don't you? Anyone who has a clue about American history knows they were divided into two main camps, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.

While the Founding Fathers may have objected to slavery, it's inconclusive whether they did it for moral or pragmatic reasons. From your explanation and ones from others, it sounds like it may be the latter considering the cultural norms at the time. The north and south agreed on the Three-Fifths Compromise to, like you said, entice the south to stay in the Union and for the north to feel better about reducing the power of the south in the House.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[MindlessAutomata]

And democracy worked very well in Afghanistan. I guess we can extrapolate something about that, too...

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[MindlessAutomata]

I remember a time when the will of the majority held that people with certain skin colors ought be held in shackles.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[MindlessAutomata]

Your arguing that the regulation is the culprit here, whereas someone else might see it as industry having too much influence over politics.

That's nearly the exact same point.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[oblivionboy]

Dear Mister Linoleum Guy,

While I thought your post was logically sound, and the conclusions followed the premisen pretty well, please tell me, using whatver magical lab you have to test out different economic hypoethesis, why this wouldn't happen in a "Free Market" where the linoleum companies hadn't been regulated. It seems to me that you're making the tired old Liberterian argument that "Government Bad" and "Free Market Good", and chosing a nice fantasy tale to tell us about how this works out. However if we actually look at your text, its kind of cute, but amaturish how you go about this:

"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."

In your first sentence you establish your credibility as a market player in a particular industry, in this case linoleum. What should follow logically is a story about your direct experience which shows your point (specifically about regulators and the "Free Market"), however, after, what you ACTUALLY do is switch to some kind of hypoethical tale in the present tense about something that might happen, leading to consequences that you believe are bad. But which is really unprovable.

Two questions arise from this it seems to me:

1) Is this a TRUE story, based on your experience, or are you just making anything up to try and convince people of your point?
2) If it IS a true story about your industry and regulation, can you prove that the samething WOULDN'T have happened if your industry had been left alone (ie: unregulated)?

It seems to me that point two is always what Liberterians nievely believe is the problem with the world: that somehow -- like a perfect vacuume -- darn gone it, there just isn't a perfect market -- BUT IF THERE WAS, then obviously market forces (whatever they are), would keep everyone happy and balanced through competition and the informed choice of the consumer.

However its impossible to prove, and whats more, your scenario of more linoleum mergers, acquisitions and concentration of power in just a few large companies is not only perfectly possible, BUT ACTUALLY HIGHLY LIKELY anyways in a perfect "Free Market", due to human nature and tendancy. By definition capitalism is about growth and expansion, and so any market sector is no doubt going to experience players trying to get bigger, consolidations and so on and so forth. And some will eventually succeed, and we will end up exactly where we would have anyways in your little story. Regulators or no regulators.

Also, just to note, in your idea of how things play out, the regulators come in and force terrible "unfree market things" on the industry, and prices go up and bad things happen. But also lets not forget that most likely employment conditions have gone up, fluffy's are no longer dying due to unscrupulous regulators, and most likely environmental nastyness has been avoided (as companies are forced to comply with local and or international treaties on the environment and hazardous waste). Sure the consumer pays a little more (but do they really? Everyone can just go and buy from China anyways, the situation is really just bad for you personally, and if you go bankrupt, well sorry for you, but that's the "market system" and you deserved to go bankrupt according to that because you couldn't compete), but overall there are huge benefits across several important dimentions.

Of course your other point that once in power, businesses use regulatory bodies to stifle competition is another issue all together, and is not the fault of regulators per say, but rather of how the bodies of regulators are implemented, or not properly isolated from this kind of capitalistic interfearance.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[garote]

Actually I believe it was first popular as Spanish slang

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[garote]

Yeah. Less neutral, like, sabotaging their finances. For example.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[commodore64_love]

>>>She was not taping an idea, she was taping part of a performance

Same difference. Her 2-3 minutes captured on tape does not deprive the actors, writers, et cetera of their income either now or 30 years from now when it's released on Holographic crystal

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[commodore64_love]

>>>Corporations are not a creation of government, but a *recognized* by government

Incorrect. In order to move your company from being a directly-owned business to a corporation, and gain the benefits such as limited liability, you have to apply to the government for a licence to "incorporate".

If the government simply refused to hand-out any licenses, then the incorporated entities would cease to exist. Companies would be privately-held by a single citizen, who would be fully-and-completely liable for his company's actions.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[commodore64_love]

>>>And under true free market, profit oriented corporations are more than able to *buy* regulations.

Under a "true" free market, corporations wouldn't even exist because they are a creation of government, so if the government takes a handsoff approach to the economy, the Incorporation License would be a non-entity. Instead you'd have private citizens who are directly responsible for their business transactions. No corporations.

Anyway:

I'd like to know why this lady spent two nights in jail for a *civil* violation. If she did infringe upon copyright, the punishment should be doled-out by a civil court procedure, MPAA v. Citizen, not by the police.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[Dexter Herbivore]

So *THAT* explains Bill Gates....

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[will_die]

Switzerland was left because Germany and Italy needed the trains and Switzerland had a system, mostly removed since the fall of Communism, for blowing up bridges and tunnels. Blowing up the bridges and tunnels creates individual valleys and make the foot movement slow and truck and train impossible. The militia army played very little in the minds of German and Italian leaders, according to memos/document from that time.
You do have Nazi propaganda posters from that time saying that the small countries would be handled after the big ones are conquered. Currently the Switz have around 120,000 people who are considered full time active military personnal. Under 10,000 are professional military people, the rest are volunteers, part-time, citizens doing thier required training and service, etc. The citizen militia are not counted in this, but the leaders of areas are.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[Acaeris]

Yes. Though I assume this only applies to those using an official key that hasn't been shared with the internet. Certainly my own 7RC is still working and I may well upgrade to 7 once I upgrade my graphics card to a DirectX11 one.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[Gilmoure]

...bulletproof vests. Who's allowed to own them? Govt and police only.

Where is "here"?

In the U.S., there's no restriction in most states on owning a bullet proof vest, other than CA banning violent felons from purchasing such equipment. I think NY and PA were looking in to banning civilians from purchasing body armor but haven't heard if that's passed.

Even Amazon.com carries bullet proof vests.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[DragonWriter]

Copyright is a legal property right.

No it isn't.

Yes, it is.

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."

First, copyright doesn't protect ideas, so Jefferson's argument (not an explanation) is at best tangential to it, and second, that's an argument that a certain category of things should not be the subject of property rights, not that they are not, and third, what is and is not a legal property right is controlled by the laws at the time, which Jefferson is, for the current situation, hardly a good source to look to.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[Gilmoure]

What was missing in the mortgage securitization crisis was lack of transparency. This extended from the initial mortgages (not explaining repayment terms properly), up to bundling and credit ratings of the bundles and finally up to the regulators, looking the other way.

A level playing field includes transparency so folks aren't blind sided by hidden info in the possession of just a few.

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[BoberFett]

And right on cue, in walks to idiot who conflates "small manageable law" to "anarchy."

Too many laws is almost as bad as anarchy, because nobody knows what the law is. You've probably broken numerous laws today that you didn't even know existed. So how does it feel to be a criminal?

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[eknagy]

Mi van? Mirl beszélsz te? Felrobbannak a mellbimbóim? Hol hallottál te ilyet?

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[RocketRabbit]

The term "well regulated" does not mean what you think it does. Regulated, is in the "regular army" and "regulated militia" means they have certain common use calibers and equipment for the purpose of simplifying the supply chain.

Please look this up - regulation in the sense of the 2nd amendment does not mean "red tape."

Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You?

[mosb1000]

no.

Good test case

[DoofusOfDeath]

This seems like a good test case. A faithful application of the law here would shock the conscience.

Re:Good test case

[RichMan]

> A faithful application of the law here would shock the conscience.

As to the movie it is going to depend on the legal definition of excerpt and context. Otherwise every photograph with a TV image would be a violation.

As to the performance of happy birthday I think they are clearly guilty. The key will be to appeal to the jury on reasonableness and the fact that the performance while public was not to the public and thus not technically a public performance.

Re:Good test case

[SlashdotOgre]

I agree, and from the article (I know...), it seems like there's already some effects. She's quoted as say, "They were so nice to me," which implies the cops were being decent (nice to hear), and the judge released her on a personal recognizance bond (so she didn't have to pay bail or a bail bondsman, assuming she shows at court). She did get two days of jail, but I definitely hope this gets some good media exposure as I believe most folks are going to side with her even if it's not the letter of the law. I'd be interested to see if anyone more familiar with this law could shed some light on its details. Best case would be if she could get off on a technicality (e.g. the amount filmed was too short to count for the felony), but even then she still has to live with being arrested.

Re:Good test case

[Tanman]

It's only a good case if it gets bench time. If charges are dropped before it goes to trial, or if she does a plea for probation to avoid possible further jail time, then nothing happens.

Personally, I would hope this turns into a situation where she goes to trial, is found not guilty, and then is able to sue for malicious prosecution or whatever else the nastiest, meanest, pit-bull-of-an-attorney she hires can drum up since it's obviously not a piracy situation. At least from the story, it sounds like law was not followed to its intent.

Re:Good test case

[electricprof]

Let me see ... I'm reading from the actual law ... offender shall be set on fire dragged by the ears naked through Death Valley until ... oh wait! That's the penalty for sneering at an RIAA lawyer.

Re:Good test case

[mysidia]

The performance of happy birthday does nothing against them unless: (A) the copyright owner is taking the action.

And (B) the court recognizes the copyright owner's claim to the work -- the Happy Birthday song has been in the public domain for over 100 years, it's unlikely that someone has any valid claim to it...

Re:Good test case

[sabs]

Michael Jackson's Estate owns Happy Birthday

No Lie

Re:Good test case

[schon]

the nastiest, meanest, pit-bull-of-an-attorney she hires can drum up

Paging Mr. NYCL. Can Mr. NYCL please come to the courtesy phone?

(Just kidding - I wouldn't consider him nasty or mean - but definitely the right man for the job.. if he was in Chicago :)

Re:Good test case

[RichMan]

> the Happy Birthday song has been in the public domain for over 100 years, it's unlikely that someone has any valid claim to it...

Uhhmm. No. The happy birthday copyright is in full force.

Ever wonder why those food places have the servers gather round and sing some really stupid non-happy birthday song to the birthday person.

The Happy Birthday copyright is vigorously defended.
http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp

I don't know how it works exactly as the song predates current copyright limits.

Re:Good test case

[tomhudson]

Otherwise every photograph with a TV image would be a violation.

Too late.

Re:Good test case

[TheRaven64]

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.

Re:Good test case

[mysidia]

Says who?

The melody was written in 1893, and the song appeared in print prior to 1912, with no claim of copyright, even then.

Someone might want to claim it, but that doesn't mean their claim has even a remote glimmer of validity.

Re:Good test case

[idontgno]

Michael Jackson's Estate owns Happy Birthday

In that case, someone needs to tell Snopes about it:

Who does own the publishing rights to "Happy Birthday to You"? They were acquired by a New York accountant named John F. Sengstack when he bought the Clayton F. Summy Company in the 1930s; Sengstack eventually relocated the company to New Jersey and renamed it Birch Tree Ltd. in the 1970s. Warner Chappell (a Warner Communications division), the largest music publisher in the world, purchased Birch Tree Ltd. in late 1998 for a reported sale price of $25 million; the company then became Summy-Birchard Music, now a part of the giant AOL Time Warner media conglomerate.

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.

If you have seen someone singing Happy Birthday in a restaurant, a park, or at a school, you should tell ASCAP so that they can arrange for a license. If you are an offender, you should apologize and offer to pay whatever is due -- a nickel, a quarter, a dollar -- whatever ASCAP demands.

There is an overwhelming amount of copyright infringement of Happy Birthday. Let's right the balance and tell ASCAP about every one of these violations!

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.

Re:Good test case

[Hatta]

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.

Re:Good test case

[greenbird]

I definitely hope this gets some good media exposure as I believe most folks are going to side with her even if it's not the letter of the law.

Who do you think owns the main stream media? The same companies that are paying our government to pass these for these ridiculous copyright laws is who. You really think they'd cover this in an unbiased way? Her only hope is those lowlife thieves and copiers in the blogging community who do nothing but steal all the hard work done by the ever sacrificing main stream reporters and use their hard work to make money that the main stream media can't seem to find a way to make money off of. The scary part is, even worse, they're pushing for even more power in controlling all forms of media and information dissemination. Just look at the leaks about the ultra secret ACTA negotiations.

She violated the law. She goes to jail. It's that simple. The laws as written leave no room for intent.

Re:Good test case

[Zaphod The 42nd]

The problem actually doesn't have anything to do with happy birthday, that was just somebody's comment. They're not guilty for singing Happy Birthday, its a ridiculous copyright. People sing it in public all the time, and only a few big-budget movies have had to pay commission. It should really be in the public domain. And would be if not for the supreme court... anyways thats an argument for another day.

What we have here is lobbyists from the RIAA and the MPAA and the like pushing to have more and more control over their works, so they can sue us all and squeeze more money. Teenagers downloading music? Sue them for billions. People recording bootlegs of movies in theatres? Book em for a felony.

A felony, for recording a movie? Really? jeeze. But even if you think thats fair, the girl in question obviously wasn't trying to bootleg the movie, its very very clear she was just having a birthday party at the theater, in accordance with the theater. Then somebody saw a camera and flipped a shit for no good reason, and a girl's in jail because of stupid laws.

Re:Good test case

[JoeBuck]

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.

Re:Good test case

[Vancorps]

That is only stupid because of stupid laws that make the action stupid. It is perfectly reasonable to want to film a birthday party and showing a snippet from the movie would be a way to establish context, just like when you're filming your friends at a concert, you'll point the camera at the stage to show the artist to establish where you were on that occasion.

Since she clearly didn't even try to film the whole thing her intent was clear and intent matters for every other crime out there except for this.

Re:Good test case

[thue]

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_To_You , the copyright registration was essentially fraudulent, as the song was written by others long before 1935. So the "in the public domain for over 100 years" is correct in a sense.

But for whatever reason nobody has taken the time to get a judge to revoke the copyright. Because it is cheaper for the individual to pay than to prosecute, I guess.

Re:Good test case

[Anonymous Coward]

We should all contact the theater and give the managers a piece of our mind.

Muvico Theaters
9701 Bryn Mawr Avenue, Rosemont, IL
(847) 447-1030

Re:Good test case

[shentino]

Fat lot of luck.

Remember that when you have a trial by jury you're trusting your fate to 12 people who were too stupid to get out of it. Not to mention that anjy geniuses that WOULD be left are going to be knocked out of the pool by the prosecutor during voir dire.

Not only are stupid people the only ones left in the jury pool, they're also the only ones that the state will LET you be tried by.

Re:Good test case

[mysidia]

Exactly...

A fraudulently obtained registration is not a valid copyright, it's just a registration of copyright.

No actual copyright is owned.

You can have a registration (but no legal, valid copyright ownership.)

You can also (nowadays) have a copyright without having registered it.

However, in the 1900s, the law was different. You couldn't claim copyright to a work that wasn't registered, and didn't have a valid copyright notice.

The earlier publications without copyright notice (in the early 1900s), mean public domain.

Also, the shorter copyright term in effect at that time, means that any copyright registered around 1900 or prior would be long expired by now. The law in effect at the time the work was published, is what matters, with respect to any exclusive rights that might have existed.

Re:Good test case

[snowgirl]

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.

Re:Good test case

[snowgirl]

... reads through it all...

It is a bad law... it also notes something that I've known for awhile... if you want to do something usual, you should probably get permission to do so. The law specifically permits the operation with consent of the establishment... well, and the company that owns the copyright of the material being shown.

But still... what kind of friends would disrupt you in a theater for a movie that you paid $8 or more for? Seriously, that's pretty inconsiderate.

Re:Good test case

[commodoresloat]

The real question here is, who the hell paid them $2million for the right to sing happy birthday?

Re:Good test case

[commodoresloat]

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.

Now that sounds like a really profitable business model!

Re:Good test case

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Jesus H. Christ. So it doesn't even matter that she had recorded the movie on the camera. Just operating the camera without permission is illegal, you can't even record your own reactions to the film. Disgusting.

Re:Good test case

[Phroggy]

The melody, with one slight adjustment, is in the public domain. The words are still under copyright.

If you replace "happy birthday to you" with the words "good morning to all" sung to the same tune, you'll notice that "good" is one note, while "happy" is two. The melody, with one longer note at the beginning of each line (for "good") instead of two shorter notes (for "happy"), is in the public domain. However, the same melody with two shorter notes (for "happy") is under copyright. I'd call this a legal gray area.

The lyrics are definitely copyrighted, though, so unless you're doing an instrumental-only performance, you're infringing if you don't have a license.

Re:Good test case

[MozeeToby]

Best case would be if she could get off on a technicality

What!? No. The best case would be that the judge should throw the case out as frivolous (perhaps on the condition that the video is deleted or edited to remove the copyrighted material) and the lawmakers should finally get their heads out of their asses and revise the laws to make sense (filming 5 minutes of anything shouldn't ruin your life more thuroughly armed robbery).

Re:Good test case

[multipartmixed]

It was probably two separate million-dollar settlements, one from an 8-year-old girl and from a dead grandmother.

These ARE the same people involved in the Napster suits, after all.

Re:Good test case

[Karem Lore]

It's worse than that...Read section (g) again:

by means of any technology now known or later developed

So any future bionic would preclude me from the theatre. Any future technology at anytime in the future...Think about it...And it's

Not only that, but if you take the definition of (g) in the context of (a), you become a criminal even if you use a camera through the viewfinder without even having a tape to record in the machine!

Crazy wording, and I bet it wasn't written by a politician!

Re:Good test case

[agnosticnixie]

That it's vigorously defended doesn't change that it should have been legally public domain for close to a century.

Re:Good test case

[ctmurray]

Dang. Since I can't sing in tune I thought I could get around the copyright. Obviously when I sing I am not following the notes, but you say the tune is public domain. But I do sing the words correctly, so now I will have to mess those up as badly as I mess up the notes, to get around the copyright.

Re:Good test case

[Keith_Beef]

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

...

(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.

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.

I read section (c) as protecting, from civil suit, that particular employee who called the cops. I did not read that as protecting the owner of the cinema, who has instructed the employees to take those measures.

I am not a lawyer, and not a US citizen... I'm English, and in English law we have a thing known as "vicarious liability" which, unless I'm mistaken (and I may well be) means that an employee following a company policy is not held personally liable for the errors in that policy.
Rather, the law would hold responsible the employer who requires the employee to enforce unreasonable policies including, but not limited to, calling the cops if anybody sings "Happy Birthday" or so much as takes a photograph which may include a small portion of a copyrighted work.

K.

Re:Good test case

[WATist]

They are only immune for detaining them for the authorities and only if they believe and only within reason. Her arrest happened after at their insistence so...

Re:Good test case

[TheRaven64]

Not quite. The older song began 'good' rather than 'happy' so it only had one beat there. If you hum it but still start with two beats then you are humming the copyrighted version. One of the problems with the public domain (as opposed to something like the MIT license) is that you can copyright things that are small changes from something in the public domain.

Re:Good test case

[greenbird]

One must often have intent to perform an action before they can be found guilty of a crime.

I think you're looking at this wrong. The law she broke states nothing anywhere about violating copyright. The law she broke is for operating a recording device in a theater. She certainly had intent to operate the recording device. She didn't accidentally and/or unintentionally activate the device. So her transgression has nothing in any way to do with copyright or fair use or whether or not she even filmed the movie actually.

Re:Good test case

[DrVxD]

the Happy Birthday song has been in the public domain for over 100 years, it's unlikely that someone has any valid claim to it...

Wikipedeia disagrees with you. Amongst other things, it says "The song is currently set to pass in to the public domain in 2030"

Re:Good test case

[mysidia]

Then Wikipedia is obviously wrong and POV, in representing someone's fraudulent copyright claim to be valid.

Re:Good test case

[snowgirl]

One must often have intent to perform an action before they can be found guilty of a crime.

I think you're looking at this wrong. The law she broke states nothing anywhere about violating copyright. The law she broke is for operating a recording device in a theater. She certainly had intent to operate the recording device. She didn't accidentally and/or unintentionally activate the device. So her transgression has nothing in any way to do with copyright or fair use or whether or not she even filmed the movie actually.

Yes, bad law for sure... however the question is if a judge would find that the intent of the law was to prevent copyright violations...

This is still a Common Law system that we have in the USA... just because the law is silent about an issue doesn't mean that a judge cannot rule to clarify it.

The main reason why law is so difficult is because of all the case law involved with issues.

Re:Good test case

[Demonspawn]

However, the Copyright Act of 1976 extended the term of copyright protection to 75 years from date of publication, and the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 added another 20 years, so under current law the copyright protection of "Happy Birthday" will remain intact until at least 2030.

Thank Steamboat Willie and Sonny Bono.

I know that it's not ExPostFacto, but it's a similar legal meme.

The copyright laws that existed at the time of initial publication are the ones which apply. You cannot retroactively change the terms of the agreement for the contract between the creator and the public.

Re:Good test case

[Demonspawn]

She violated the law. She goes to jail. It's that simple. The laws as written leave no room for intent.

Hopefully someone on the Jury will understand the meaning and intent of Jury Nullification. Then she won't go to jail.

It's official. Hollywood is dying .

[Stratoukos]

I guess ars didn't think of this when they said that the movie industry won't go down like the music industry did.

Singing Happy Birthday in public?

[davidwr]

Surprised she didn't get sued or charged over that one as well.

If anyone wants to have a little fun, go to the Muvico theater in Rosemont and hand out "I only work here, I actually DO have common sense" buttons to employees.

If Illinois has public-protest-permitted-on-private-property laws, you could have some fun and send a message and not get into hot water. Check local laws before doing this though.

To be fair, the theater manager was probably acting under orders. It will probably take a note from corporate to drop the criminal charges.

I hope she posts a clip of this - sans the movie clips and "Happy Birthday" - to the web.

Re:Singing Happy Birthday in public?

[TheRaven64]

Surprised she didn't get sued or charged over that one as well

Time Warner, the current owners of the copyright on Happy Birthday, grant permission for singing the song if you are not profiting from it. They made $2m last year from commercial licenses for it, so I guess they can afford to be so generous...

Re:Singing Happy Birthday in public?

[MickyTheIdiot]

According to Wikipedia, "Happy Birthday to You" first appeared in print in 1912. It shouldn't belong to anyone but the world now. The fact that anyone can make 2mil a year off of it shows how wrong the system is. So does this story.

This is the best copy of New Moon on Pirate Bay

[Anonymous Coward]

Check in the top 100 movies section.

This should be best release until the R5 which only contains 2 minutes of the movie along with footage of some guy named Dmitri's colonoscopy.

There is a near screener quality copy of the movie available, but unfortunately it contains the entire run length of the movie and is best avoided.

Punishment almost fits the crime

[sartalon]

Two days in jail seems fitting, for the crime of annoying the hell out of every other moviegoer in the theater who paid $$ to watch a cheesy vampire emo movie.

Re:Punishment almost fits the crime

[Tanman]

Cry some more!

Re:Punishment almost fits the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Two days in jail seems fitting, for the crime of annoying the hell out of every other moviegoer in the theater who paid $$ to watch a cheesy vampire emo movie.

My impression from the summary, not the article, is that they bought the place out for a party. Could be wrong though.

Re:Punishment almost fits the crime

[Crudely_Indecent]

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!

Re:Punishment almost fits the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Two days in jail seems fitting, for the crime of annoying the hell out of every other moviegoer in the theater who paid $$ to watch a cheesy vampire emo movie.

My guess it was a reserved screening. Theaters sometimes have a party room. But yeah you sound like an ass so who cares.

Re:Punishment almost fits the crime

[bennomatic]

I was thinking that going to see the movie was punishment enough.

Re:Punishment almost fits the crime

[Scrameustache]

Two days in jail seems fitting, for _ every _ moviegoer in the theater who paid $$ to watch a cheesy vampire emo movie.

FTFY ;-)

Re:Punishment almost fits the crime

[Rene S. Hollan]

True dat. My daughter dragged me to see it.

'Course I dragged her to see 2012 (WHICH I WANTED TO SEE BECAUSE OF THE SPOOFED TRAILER), so I suppose we are even.

Yay, spaceships?

Yay, Spaceships! (except they weren't)

Re:Punishment almost fits the crime

[carp3_noct3m]

"Cry some more baby!" "Next time, pick on someone your own tiny-baby size!" "Is not fair to use gun on such a tiny man." "The burning you feel? It is shame." " !" (There, fixed that for you)

Re:Punishment almost fits the crime

[iamhassi]

"Two days in jail seems fitting, for the crime of annoying the hell out of every other moviegoer in the theater who paid $$ to watch a cheesy vampire emo movie."

THANK YOU!!!

"...a few other family members singing “Happy Birthday” to her 29-year-old sister at the theater."

29? seeing a cheesy emo whoa-is-me teenage vampire movie? ...is she slow? Maybe that's why they were taping it, might be the last time her sister will see a movie since the large brain tumor is seriously impacting her judgement ability.

sister: hey everybody let's go see twilight movie!!!!
family: no, we really can't, it's a very poor movie
sister: awww but i wanna i wanna i wanna
family: well.... ok, we love you and want to make the last few months of your life as happy as possible
sister: YAAAAAAAA!! I SEE SPARKLE VAMPIRES!

Re:Punishment almost fits the crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Some vampires think they can outsmart me. Maybe. *sniff* Maybe. I've yet to see one that can outsmart stake.

Re:Punishment almost fits the crime

[ae1294]

Anyone who actually admits to liking a movie about a gang of butthurt emo sparkle faggot vampires and furfags on steroids deserves some jail time...

This is why women don't like you AC... next time you get slapped in the face remember.. you could have mentioned twilight and maybe, just maybe started a conversation...

Re:Punishment almost fits the crime

[Just Some Guy]

To my wife after the movie: If I were a vampire, I'd kick Edward's ass for making us all look like effeminate pansies. And why do sparkly vampires get to watch teenage girls sleep, but I get in trouble for looking too closely at professional cheerleaders on TV?

Re:Punishment almost fits the crime

[macshit]

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!

I'd watch that movie!

Kristen Stewart: oooh, Edward you're sooooo sexy, it almost makes my miserable life worthwhile!
Robert Pattinson: I will make sweet lov *** KERBLOOM ***
[Kristen is drenched in sparkly blood and steaming wriggly bits]
Kristen Stewart: oooooooooh, Edward!!! [starts licking off the blood in an orgasmic frenzy]

Re:Punishment almost fits the crime

[WDot]

I've taken my girlfriend to see both Twilight movies so far. It was a really rowdy crowd, with everybody cracking jokes and MST3King the movie and throwing popcorn at the screen. I'm not a huge fan of the Twilight series, but both times I saw the movie it was a lot of fun. I don't know who would sit silently through these films when there's so much to make fun of.

Re:Punishment almost fits the crime

[RobertM1968]

To my wife after the movie...

...And why do sparkly vampires get to watch teenage girls sleep, but I get in trouble for looking too closely at professional cheerleaders on TV?

To the first part (sparkly vampires/teenage girls/sleep), that's just disturbing and wrong...

To the second part (pro cheerleaders), because you are married... ;-)

Re:Punishment almost fits the crime

[RobertM1968]

I dunno whether to applaud this idea or cringe from it...

Re:Punishment almost fits the crime

[mqduck]

To my wife after the movie: If I were a vampire, I'd kick Edward's ass for making us all look like effeminate pansies.

Beating up effeminate pansies: The REAL nerd pastime?

And why do sparkly vampires get to watch teenage girls sleep, but I get in trouble for looking too closely at professional cheerleaders on TV?

Probably because you're married.

Re:Punishment almost fits the crime

[ae1294]

"Started a conversation"? With who - a 14 year old girl? Chris Hansen would like you to have a seat over there...

Once again, AC's are ignorant. My wife won't stop asking me to go see it and she's 28!

Re:Punishment almost fits the crime

[ignavus]

To my wife after the movie: If I were a vampire, I'd kick Edward's ass for making us all look like effeminate pansies. And why do sparkly vampires get to watch teenage girls sleep, but I get in trouble for looking too closely at professional cheerleaders on TV?

Clearly, the solution is to switch over to watching amateur cheerleaders on TV.

Theater manager

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:Theater manager

[jackspenn]

Here is my guess of what happened. She took video fo B-day party, she then realized "Holy Crap, I can record movie as well". Followed by recording of said movie. Followed by manager demanding of video deletion. Which naturally was undesirable, because said video also included family party. If movie was playing in background while events of party were focus of recording I would be 100% behind her, but my suspicion is that party footage was taken, then filming of movie was taken.

Re:Theater manager

[chill]

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...

Re:Theater manager

[H0p313ss]

Tumpach insisted she recorded no more than three minutes while in the theater

So... she's lying in your opinion?

Re:Theater manager

[BobMcD]

my suspicion is that party footage was taken, then filming of movie was taken.

And unless something unusual happened, I would guess you're absolutely correct. If, for no other reason, it would have been too dark for good birthday video once the film started playing. Further, it would have been pretty boring to watch a dimly-lit version of the birthday girl's face watching the movie.

Re:Theater manager

[Unknown Relic]

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.

Re:Theater manager

[pwfffff]

Or she got stopped by the manager after three minutes.

Re:Theater manager

[CannonballHead]

Comment? Can't we just call it trolling?

Sounds like it was a fairly nice place, based on the before-December-4th-troll reviews. :)

Re:Theater manager

[easyTree]

Wow, talk about a jerk of a manager. Someone should find out what theater this was and start a boycott.

Lucky for you I have access to information unavailable (*) to the rest of you:

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.

(*) Buried deeply within the third paragraph of TFA

Re:Theater manager

[RobertM1968]

Comment? Can't we just call it trolling?

Sounds like it was a fairly nice place, based on the before-December-4th-troll reviews. :)

Why? Do we do that here?

Re:Theater manager

[tobiah]

Can anyone else here confirm that?

Re:Theater manager

[CannonballHead]

Sometimes. hehe.

Re:Theater manager

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats not the only thing the comments say about the manager...

I would always make the longer trip out to Rosemont in order to attend this particular theater. This changed, however, after a very big incident. I had brought my seven and thirteen year-old daughters to see twilight, having been fed up with their constant nagging. As we entered, I caught a glimpse of one of the male managers staring at the youngest of my daughters. I didn't think much of it, but when he starting emitting a moan that reminded me of a moose during the rut while rubbing his genitals with a photograph of Miley Cyrus I quickly grabbed my daughters and left. I would NEVER go back to that pedophile haven again.

Re:Theater manager

[jackspenn]

It's extremely logical to assume she is lying:

• She has a strong motive to lie.
• It seems unlikely party related events were going on during the movie.
• Think people were talking?
• That lighting was good?
• For her to get screen, the people she was filming had to be in front of her; so either their backs were to her or movie itself for 3-4 minutes?
• She mentions being impressed with how good the screen looks on her camera during previews.
• Her mugshot has that "I'm better than you, I'm always right" tint, which goes hand and hand with the kind of people who protest and fight even when clearly in the wrong.
• The article published only carries her side, yet concedes she committed a felony, using "I didn't mean to do a bad thing on purpose, plus it wasn't that bad" as her sole defense.
• It is logical to assume with other party's side, her criminal actions will become more clear. As experience tells us the truth generally lies in the middle.

So yes, I am saying she is liar and a thief (be it a bad one in both cases).

Re:Theater manager

[InsertWittyNameHere]

Yes, some very insightful comments there. Too bad I'm all out of Google mod points:

I used to work here. One of the employees got caught after he put a camera in the woman's washroom. There was a bunch of kiddie porn on his computer. But he was a relative of the owner so he got to keep his job as long as he did some BS counseling. As far as I know he still works there.

And:

I don't know what other people are writing about; I went to this theater and they were able to unify the Middle East, cure world hunger, turn lead into gold, and even got rid of my friend's horrible case of lip herpes. Everyone should see movies here because all the reviews are true. Even this one.

And also:

The management staff here tried to sell me meth and then threatened my life when I refused.

Re:Theater manager

[Spatial]

It was a camera capable of recording short clips. Not a video camera.

Re:Theater manager

[Criton]

Anyone who takes that blood money should burn in hell with the MPAA scum bags.

Re:Theater manager

[for(;;);]

Yelp is great for this too:

http://www.yelp.com/biz/muvico-rosemont-18-rosemont#hrid:4wqtTSnvXPwoIYPAZv_qhg/query:muvico

I've actually been there, as I live in Chicago. It's overpriced.

Re:Theater manager

[chill]

Can you point me to a first run theater in the western 'burbs that ISN'T overpriced? I'm in DuPage County and haven't found one, yet.

Re:Theater manager

[BLKMGK]

You got that from what the 3-4 reviews prior to the 90+ posted after this?

Apparently there's a $500 bonus paid to the theater for catching people filming and the manager was dumb enough to let that greed override common sense. I don't care if the place is gilded in gold I wouldn't go! It's going to take them a good long time to recover from this I predict...

Re:Theater manager

[GravityStar]

I can hear Muvico's web marketing manager crying himself to sleep already. *giggle*

Is a movie theater really a public place?

[Richard Steiner]

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... :-(

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[Weaselmancer]

That's because nobody cares if you die - they only care if they don't get paid.

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[MozeeToby]

No, it's a privately owned public place. That's why a mall owner can't have a No Pants Day at the mall (show up with no pants and get 10% off!). It's also why a mall owner can't (legally) restrict you from taking photographs inside the mall; just because it's privately owned doesn't make it private.

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[mysidia]

Yeah, they can have a no-cameras, no flash-photography policy in a privately-owned publicly-accessible place. If they catch you taking pictures, a big guard comes up to you and orders you to leave the premises: then if you stay there, you've committed the crime of trespassing.

They can't exact physical violence against you to prevent you from taking pictures though, and taking your camera, or destroying film, is illegal for them to do (and may result in you suing).

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[maxume]

What would be wrong with giving people wearing dresses, skirts and kilts a discount?

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[Itninja]

Are you sure that's right? I think a private property owner could do either of those things if they chose. Granted the former would be corporate suicide (for a shopping mall at least) and the latter would be practically unenforceable, but I think they could still do it. The mall in my area has all kinds of crazy rules (including a rule aimed the up-skirt crowd that prevent people taking pictures 'secretly') and regularly kick people out if they break them.

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[tomhudson]

No, it's a privately owned public place. That's why a mall owner can't have a No Pants Day at the mall (show up with no pants and get 10% off!).

That's discrimination against the Scots (kilts) and women (skirts, dresses)!

Also, in several jurisdictions, topless is legal for both sexes.

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[Foobar of Borg]

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... :-(

I know! To hell with copyright infringement so we can watch movies! My friends and I are going to go out on a gang rape spree! That way, if we get caught, at least we won't have to worry as much about the penalties.

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[Shakrai]

t's also why a mall owner can't (legally) restrict you from taking photographs inside the mall;

Yes they can. They can ask you to leave. If you refuse to do so then it's trespassing and the guys with the handcuffs, tasers and firearms get involved. They can't take your property (camera) from you or (legally) require that you delete any pictures you've taken but they can insist that you leave.

I learned this in my concealed carry classes. My state has no legal provision for a property owner to post "no guns allowed" signs. They can post them but they have no force of law. All they can do is ask you to leave if they discover that you are armed -- you haven't actually broken any laws unless they ask you to leave and you decline to do so.

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[TooMuchToDo]

True. A dead person can't be in perpetual debt, in effect, and indentured servant.

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[vxice]

It is more of a question of risk. It is much easier to catch a criminal who has killed someone, also much more incentive, but it is much harder to catch someone who has illegally copied something. In this case they know that if the punishment is harsh enough many people will hear about it and know what the penalty is. Now before you go complaining about making examples of people you must remember that reward=risk*gain if succesful. So something with low gain AND high risk of loosing the investment will not have a good reward because you will be more likely to loose your investment. On the flip side something with very small benefit i.e. watching the latest harry potter movie for free saving $20 for the dvd and a small risk of being caught combined with small punishment will be profitable for you to watch it illegally. So if you don't want your potential customers to steal your product instead of paying for it you have to either lower the benefit by lowering the price, up the risk of being caught or up the cost of being caught. By lowering the price below what most people are already willing to pay(by evidence that hollywood is making money) you loose some income that you could have made if you charged more, upping the risk requires effort to catch the people making illegal copies while increasing the cost of being caught is simple as hiring a few lawyers and telling them to get anything they can in the few cases people are caught.

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[tthomas48]

What are you talking about? What violent crimes have a more lenient sentence? I'm not aware of any violent crimes that have a maximum sentences of less than 3 years.

People have been spouting that line to the point that we lock people up for life for being in the car when a violent crime occurs. That's a bit more than 3 years for not actually actively doing anything violent.

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[Shakrai]

That way, if we get caught, at least we won't have to worry as much about the penalties.

Unless your intended rape victim is armed and declines to quietly submit to your attack. The MPAA doesn't have the legal authority to shoot you dead for pirating their product, although I'm sure their lobbyists are working on closing this loophole ;)

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[ae1294]

My friends and I are going to go out on a gang rape spree!

Mmmm... Arson, Rape, Murder, and Rape! Those where the good old days....

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[attemptedgoalie]

You said rape twice!

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[Arthur Grumbine]

Yet a dead person can hold a copyright - which can be wielded to put the living into perpetual debt.
...
Oh.
My.
God.
The zombies have already won - and they haven't even risen yet!

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[TooMuchToDo]

Not so. The copyright is owned by the estate of the person, and the estate can pass into ownership of the heirs. Not that I agree with that. No matter what, copyright and patents should *never* continue past death. Not that they should last that long anyway (I think 10-15 years is reasonable for most things, although a bit long for others). You need to balance self-interest with scientific progress.

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[Vancorps]

You are instantly many hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt for getting caught filming in theater. That amounts for most of us, far more than three years of punishment and indeed for most far more than even 15 years which covers the majority of violent crimes out there.

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[taustin]

It's a hell of a lot more likely to be true than the random dribblings of some Slashtard.

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[John Whitley]

I'm reminded of this quote from the Max Headroom series:

Credit fraud? My God, that's worse than murder!

Reference

Note: if copyright durations weren't so ridiculously long, the above reference link would probably be directly to streaming video of that scene.

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[Zaphod The 42nd]

"while so many violent crimes in the US result in much more lenient sentences..."
.... Are you crazy?

"the theater is really private property."
This has nothing to do with private property. This is a question of Copyright. They had permission to be on the property.

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[future assassin]

And you can split the rape charge amongst you all and get less time.

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[Red Flayer]

"Civil disobedience" does not only mean breaking a law to protest the government. It works well against hostile corporations, too.

To nitpick, "civil" implies that it's to protest the law. Whether the target is the government or the corporations backing/being backed by the government doesn't really matter.

That said, effective civil disobedience requires more than just breaking the law. It requires bringing attention to your flouting of the law, and taking whatever punishment the system gives you, to demonstrate the injustice.

When you view your pirated copy, will you notify the authorities and ask them to arrest you? Will you *really* participate in civil disobedience, or will you just "stick it to the man" by breaking the law to benefit yourself?

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[HeronBlademaster]

No matter what, copyright and patents should *never* continue past death.

There have to be some exceptions - I shouldn't be able to have someone assassinated and then be able to legally sell my own copies of his recently copyrighted stuff.

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[scot4875]

I like how you've managed to work a 2nd amendment reference in to a half dozen unrelated posts on a discussion about copyright infringement. I guess we all have our pet issues.

--Jeremy

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[joocemann]

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... :-(

I don't see how the theater management (and lawyers if necessary) can't come to a simple arrangement where they delete the stuff that had the film in it and call it a day.

Whats with all the criminal charges and bad looks? Can't we act like civil human beings and offer common respect first!?

I don't see why the law has to come into play here at all. The best solution was so much more simple and nobody would have their feelings hurt.

Somehow our culture has drawn us away from each other; we're so afraid to even speak to people we don't know that we use our establishments like mommy/daddy parents to span gaps that are easily jumped with a little less fear of each other.

WTF

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[babblefrog]

I'm pretty sure the assassination part is already illegal, but you may want to check with a lawyer first.

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[Shakrai]

I guess we all have our pet issues.

I guess yours is whining about the pet issues of others? ;)

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[nmos]

I learned this in my concealed carry classes.

So it must be true!

Well, it IS true in my state at least although I don't know where Shakrai lives. Given the stakes involved it really shouldn't be surprising that ccw holders tend to want to know about the laws that apply to them.

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[shentino]

Perverse incentive, if you want someone's copyright to go PD just kill them.

Copyrights and patents have one rightful purpose only: To permit the inventor/artisan to recoup capital expenditures in production that the free market would otherwise rob them of. Letting them simply sit on their duffs and let the money roll in without earning it is NOT the meaning of "promote the arts and sciences". And, btw, neither is letting them hunker down with a legal bazooka and shoot down the competition. Corporations with patent portfolios behave really no better than nations with nukes during a cold war.

Accordingly, any meaningful patent or copyright reform needs to take this into account.

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[grim4593]

That would be pointless as no one would buy something from you that they can get for free with the lack of copyright.

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[Xtravar]

The people who pay for/organize assassinations rarely go to jail for them.

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[morari]

Most people are already thousands of dollars in debt. They don't even have to pirate a film to achieve that little bit of stupidity!

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[bertoelcon]

If the body is still warm is it really necrophilia?

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[Shakrai]

Ummm... they really can't force you to delete any pictures

Isn't that what I said?

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[TooMuchToDo]

We don't come up with special laws because you could murder your great aunt to get at her large fortune. Laws against murder cover that. Same here. We don't need to come up with special laws just to deal with the edge case that someone, somewhere might want to kill someone to open their copyright up.

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[TooMuchToDo]

I learned this in my concealed carry classes. My state has no legal provision for a property owner to post "no guns allowed" signs. They can post them but they have no force of law. All they can do is ask you to leave if they discover that you are armed -- you haven't actually broken any laws unless they ask you to leave and you decline to do so.

But those signs work well as a deterrent. I own land where we're building datacenter space on, and while I think the 15 foot fence with barbed wire will do the job, I've put signs up. They say "The use of lethal force is authorized at this installation" every 15 feet. Totally false of course. But it scare off most of the people who would want to cause trouble.

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[RiffRafff]

Indeed, that is correct.

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[Artifakt]

He said 'Arson' first, too! Come on Visigoths, get with the program - it's Rape, then Pillage! THEN Burn!

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[Shakrai]

I would take those signs down at once. What you've done there is to create the image that you are trigger-happy. This image will bite you in the ass if you ever have an employee (you got security guards I assume?) involved in a self-defense shooting. All you need is a DA with an axe to grind and a jury with a few anti-gun types on it.

Much better to stick within the bounds of the law.

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[HeronBlademaster]

Except that there are inheritance laws which explicitly state that if you murder someone you stand to inherit from, you don't get the inheritance.

That is, you don't just go to jail for murdering your great aunt, you lose the inheritance as well, and those are separate laws.

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[HeronBlademaster]

People buy books that are out of copyright all the time.

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[TooMuchToDo]

I've already spoken to the local law enforcement regarding this, as well as the county attorney. We're in the clear, and we contract our security out (during construction). This ain't my first rodeo chief ;)

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[HeronBlademaster]

Right, but just like inheritance, there would need to be laws dealing with the situation. (If you murder your parents, you don't legally inherit their fortune, and that's quite separate from getting put in jail for the murder.)

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[skine]

I like rape.

(Have a nice day!)

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[TooMuchToDo]

I agree. But you wouldn't say "Someone killed X, and now we're going to let their copyright live in perpetuity". You would simply make sure that person didn't benefit from it.

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[HeronBlademaster]

Well, it's still a bad idea to end the copyright just because the creator was murdered. Other people (who are apparently uninvolved with the assassination) could the take advantage of it.

It gets trickier if you want to prohibit *companies* from holding copyrights, so that only individuals can hold copyrights... you start getting into situations where a company has invested money into advertising some copyrighted work, but the copyright holder is killed (perhaps accidentally), and suddenly all their competitors can sell the same work (cheaper, because they just freeride on the original company's advertising). I'm sure you can see how that would be troublesome.

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[skine]

Hundreds of thousands though?

At age 22?

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[easyTree]

Somehow our culture has drawn us away from each other;

It's the people with the largest piles of money - their best strategy to divert attacks on those piles is to have all potential attackers fighting amongst themselves.

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[PopeRatzo]

That said, effective civil disobedience requires more than just breaking the law. It requires bringing attention to your flouting of the law

I thought that was what I was doing in my original comment.

And believe me, downloading Twilight 2 would not benefit me in any way. I've got less than no interest in seeing it.

I do agree with those who would take transgressive action against corporate evil, that we are fighting an asymmetrical war against companies that are openly hostile to consumers. These kinds of wars have been fought for some years now. Whether you realize it or not, you are almost certainly a beneficiary of such actions.

And don't be apologetic about nitpicking if that's all your able to contribute to the conversation. At least you're trying.

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[BlueStrat]

Most people are already thousands of dollars in debt. They don't even have to pirate a film to achieve that little bit of stupidity!

It's far, far worse than that. A newborn baby is born already owing in excess of $184,000 USD. Much more by some estimates. The government is currently working hard to dwarf this number. I should invest in a wheelbarrow manufacturing company, as demand will skyrocket...a wheelbarrow will soon be needed to transport enough paper money to buy a loaf of bread at the rate that money is being printed and thus devalued. It didn't work out so well for the Vimar Republic.

Strat

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[Idiomatick]

That is one way to do it but it isn't necessary...

"Civil disobedience is the refusal by ordinary people in a country to obey laws or pay taxes, usually as a protest." - Google (When did they stop using answers.com?
"Civil disobedience is the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands and commands of a government, or of an occupying power." - Wikipedia

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[godrik]

The shorter the more discount. I like this idea!

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[commodore64_love]

>>>I like how you've managed to work a 2nd amendment reference in

STRAWMAN argument. What he actually said was, "Unless your intended rape victim is armed and declines to quietly submit to your attack." He never said anything about the second amendment, or the constitution, or even gun rights. All he said was that an attempted rape might be dangerous to the criminal.

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[commodore64_love]

If there's no orgasm response from the lady, I'd say "yes" that's necrophilia

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[drsmithy]

There have to be some exceptions - I shouldn't be able to have someone assassinated and then be able to legally sell my own copies of his recently copyrighted stuff.

You can't. Firstly because premeditated murder is (very) illegal and secondly because all his copyrighted stuff would be in the public domain and freely available to everyone.

Why does this ludicrous argument always pop up ? It doesn't stand up to even a cursory examination.

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[Weaselmancer]

That's probably the actual reason murder is even illegal in the first place - you're depriving society of the future revenue that person would have provided.

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[HeronBlademaster]

secondly because all his copyrighted stuff would be in the public domain and freely available to everyone.

Well that's sort of my point. It shouldn't go into the public domain just because the copyright holder was killed. Sure, murder is illegal and gets punished separately, but it's not just the guy who murdered the copyright holder that stands to benefit - it's any other potential competitor that stands to benefit as well.

Say I copyright some creative work, and intend to sell it. I spend tens of thousands of dollars advertising its imminent sale. I'm killed, either by murder or accident - it really doesn't matter which.

My wife should be able to continue to hold the copyright, and proceed with selling the work herself - nobody else should be able to make copies of my creative work and start selling it (taking advantage of my advertising!) just because I died. It's unfair to my wife - she'll suddenly have competition that didn't exist prior to my death, and on top of that, the competition won't have to make up all the money I spent on advertising.

Do you see the problem? It's not ludicrous at all.

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[aztektum]

You should goto prison. Doesn't mean their copyright should still exist.

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[HeronBlademaster]

Read this reply, where I show a situation where you're wrong.

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[joocemann]

Somehow our culture has drawn us away from each other;

It's the people with the largest piles of money - their best strategy to divert attacks on those piles is to have all potential attackers fighting amongst themselves.

That makes too much sense. :)

I like you.

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[tthomas48]

That's just because we don't tax properly. You're going to go into debt if you don't take in enough money. Reinstate the capital gains and something more sensible on the super-rich, like 60-70% and we'll be back down to a managable number in no time.

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[BlueStrat]

That's just because we don't tax properly. You're going to go into debt if you don't take in enough money. Reinstate the capital gains and something more sensible on the super-rich, like 60-70% and we'll be back down to a managable number in no time.

Even if we taxed everyone that made over $250,000/yr at 60-70% it would take something on the order of 120-145 years to pay down the debt, and that doesn't count interest on the debt. Meanwhile, you've taken away all incentive for investment of capital in businesses, especially small businesses, so there go all the jobs. Particularly if you reinstate the capital gains tax. Anyone or any corporation that was able would also flee the country to avoid the confiscatory taxes. Our currently second-highest corporate taxes have also greatly helped spur the outsourcing of jobs, investment, and wealth-creation to other countries.

The answer isn't to hike taxes, it's to reduce the size and cost of government and halt any further deficit spending. Currently, the area of greatest job growth is in government jobs. Those are paid for by taxes. What happens when there isn't enough private sector wealth left to tax because there simply aren't enough privately-employed people & private corporations with enough money left to tax sufficiently to pay for them?

Government growth doesn't create wealth or jobs.

It destroys them.

The last 5-10 years or more (yes, W is also at fault...BHO is simply shifting it into high gear) has been a giant experiment in Keynsian economics coupled with the practices of the Vimar Republic in printing money with no additional wealth to back it. The Fed is printing and loaning money to itself. There's no way this can end well. The dollar has lost 16% of it's value just since March of this year. The government has effectively taken 16% of everyone's money by reducing it's value by printing money with no backing.

If current trends and practices continue, the US will be in default and the dollar along with the economy will collapse in the next 5-10 years. Read up on what's occurring in Dubai.

It's either massive stupidity and greed, or the Cloward-Piven Strategy. Take your pick.

Either way, it's time we "throw the bums out" from both parties and elect some representatives and leaders with some sanity & integrity. For a change.

Strat

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[sFurbo]

We don't? I would think you could not inherit after a person you had killed, which would be a special law to counter that. Isn't there such a law?

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[tthomas48]

People keep saying that. And yet when we taxed the super rich at 60-70% we had investment. And the economy worked fine. During this experiment in trickle down we've seen massive exportation of jobs and hording of money instead of investment. You're taking it on faith that if we raise taxes it will make things worse. There isn't any proof to back that up.

In any case. The one thing we agree on is that we need responsible leaders, and we're going to have to raise taxes across the board to pay for what we spend. Either that or just completely get rid of the military to service the debt.

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[BlueStrat]

And yet when we taxed the super rich at 60-70% we had investment.

That was during JFK's term, and we had a problem with too little investment. That's why JFK lowered it. JFK would be considered a neocon by today's standards.

You're taking it on faith that if we raise taxes it will make things worse.

No, just the opposite. Every single time taxes have been lowered investment, actual revenue to the treasury, and jobs increased. Every Single. Time. If you want less of something, tax it.

In any case. The one thing we agree on is that we need responsible leaders,

Agreed, though we probably have completely different ideas on what constitutes "responsible leaders".

and we're going to have to raise taxes across the board to pay for what we spend. Either that or just completely get rid of the military to service the debt.

Why not lower tax rates so there is more actual revenue to the treasury instead of raising them and killing jobs and business? In every case that I know of, when we've lowered tax rates actual revenues have increased.

As to cutting the military, it only constitutes roughly 16% of the budget. Entitlements are the lion's share of spending and where spending must be reined in. Even eliminating the military completely wouldn't solve our budget problems, as entitlement spending continues to grow as more people start collecting Social Security, meanwhile COLA's and similar mandated rate increases grow that entitlement percentage. We need to grow and expand wealth to maintain our lifestyles and provide jobs, and higher taxes and larger government is anathema to this.

Strat

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[HeronBlademaster]

There is precedent for what I'm saying, though - inheritance laws. Even though you'll go to jail for killing your parents, and that's already established by laws against murders, there are separate laws ensuring that you can't inherit from someone you murdered. Copyright should be no different in that regard.

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[tthomas48]

Why not lower tax rates so there is more actual revenue to the treasury instead of raising them and killing jobs and business?
Because that's all we've been doing. We've had major tax decreases for years. If you were correct, the economy would be roaring right now. It's a great short-term trick to jump start the economy, but at some point you have to take in what you need to function. Republicans have been "removing inefficiency" and cutting taxes for decades now. At what point do we say - "Fantastic, we've probably got 95% of what we're going to get in cuts, and it's time to just make column A match column B?" We can't cut entitlement programs, because Americans won't save. And we don't want them to, because if Americans saved enough to cover their entitlements privately it would take so much money out of the economy that it would crash, requiring the recreation of entitlement programs.

As to cutting the military, it only constitutes roughly 16% of the budget.
That's because the majority of the military's budget comes outside the budget so people don't balk at the cost. A nice accounting trick. But overall military spending is far more than 16% of the budget. If you look at the budget there are only 3 things we really spend money on Health and Human Services, Treasury Dept, and Department of Defense. All 3 of those are pretty close to the same as each other and dwarf everything else. For FY09 I'm seeing about $700B for DoD and Treasury and $800B for HHS.

Perhaps what we really need are targeted tax hikes. If you make over $200k per year, you get a 50% tax rate. You can lower that by actually investing in business. You can lower that by proving you're using it to actually hire people. You can lower if by buying 10 economy cars rather than 1 ferrari. If you're just squireling it away, we'll go ahead and take it. That way we could actual prove that trickle-down was working rather than just taking it as an article of faith.

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[BlueStrat]

Because that's all we've been doing. We've had major tax decreases for years.

All we've been doing!?!? For *years*!?!? Apparently you're living in a different country than I am. There have been a few piddling and mostly temporary tax cuts but nothing I'd call major.

We can't cut entitlement programs, because Americans won't save.

They will if they know that they can't live off of someone else' money taken by force and given to those that didn't earn it. If they still refuse to save, then the results are their own fault. Why should I pay for your irresponsibility? Dependence on government is the reason the economy sucks and the means by which the government gains ever more power over ever more details of people's lives. I don't want or need a nanny, thanks.

"Progressiveism", which is a PC name for Liberalism, which in itself is nearly synonymous with socialism, has failed everywhere and every time it's been tried. Look at Detroit where the "Progressives" have been in charge for decades. It's a shanty town now and about to declare bankruptcy. Same with California. Yet people like you can't wait to turn the entire country into California writ large.

That's because the majority of the military's budget comes outside the budget so people don't balk at the cost.

[citation needed]

There is some of that going on, but not nearly to the breadth and scale of the rest of the national budget. Especially when it comes to the healthcare bills currently in Congress.

Perhaps what we really need are targeted tax hikes. If you make over $200k per year, you get a 50% tax rate. You can lower that by actually investing in business. You can lower that by proving you're using it to actually hire people. You can lower if by buying 10 economy cars rather than 1 ferrari. If you're just squireling it away, we'll go ahead and take it. That way we could actual prove that trickle-down was working rather than just taking it as an article of faith.

Why don't we just cut to the chase and just have the government decide how much we make and how we spend every dollar we earn? From each according to their ability, to each according to their need as decided by some politician or bureaucrat in Washington. Spread the wealth around, right?

This has been tried repeatedly and has utterly failed every time. Government isn't the solution, it's the problem. It's a necessary evil to maintain order, a civil society, and protect the country. The less government and government power, the better off and more free people are. With freedom, however, comes responsibility and that's what scares many like yourself who are too frightened to risk taking responsibility for your own life and welfare.

Politicians have been feeding this fear and using it to make people ever more dependent on the government and therefor becoming ever-more controlled in every facet of their lives for decades. They remove ever more people from the tax rolls and even encourage illegal immigration to use them to demand ever more entitlements as they don't have to pay for them.

It's always those "evil rich" that pay. Until there aren't any more jobs being created by, or sufficient taxes paid by, these "evil rich" to pay for the entitlements. Not even taking 100% of the entire Fortune 500's income can pay for the current entitlements and the interest on the debt, let alone reduce the debt's principal.

This is their goal. Total control of the people. They are currently employing the Cloward-Piven Strategy in an attempt to collapse the system and rebuild it with them in absolute control. To "fundamentally transform America" as Obama put it. He was telling the truth but nobody understood just how much of a transformation he and his masters had in mind. If anything resembling the current healthcare bills along with cap & tax and proposed tax hikes pass, this countries' economy will collapse in short order.

Hopefully the Tea Party movement is signaling an awakening of the people, and th

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[drsmithy]

My wife should be able to continue to hold the copyright, and proceed with selling the work herself - nobody else should be able to make copies of my creative work and start selling it (taking advantage of my advertising!) just because I died. It's unfair to my wife - she'll suddenly have competition that didn't exist prior to my death, and on top of that, the competition won't have to make up all the money I spent on advertising.

If I work a regular salaried job, and die, it's "unfair to my wife" not to continue receiving that benefit as well, but I wouldn't try to argue that my old employer should just keep paying her my salary for the next 80 years.

Do you see the problem? It's not ludicrous at all.

It is ludicrous. Exactly the same way that forcing employers to continue paying wages after an employee's death would be ludicrous.

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[HeronBlademaster]

If I work a regular salaried job, and die, it's "unfair to my wife" not to continue receiving that benefit as well

No, because that's an entirely different situation.

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[drsmithy]

No, because that's an entirely different situation.

Why ?

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[HeronBlademaster]

If I'm financing my own advertising for a product I have copyrighted (rather than having a company do it) then chances are my wife is putting as much work into it as I am; she would therefore expect to be able to benefit from the copyright, regardless of whether I'm killed the day before we start selling the copyrighted work.

If I'm merely working as an employee of some company, then my wife hasn't contributed to that company, and thus it's not unfair at all for the company to stop depositing my paycheck - because I no longer work there.

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[JackieBrown]

Wow. I never would have thought someone would post something like this on slashdot other than Archer.

Congrats to both you and Thomas for not switching to the name calling that usually surfaces. The whole exchange was very refreshing.

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[BlueStrat]

Wow. I never would have thought someone would post something like this on slashdot other than Archer.

Congrats to both you and Thomas for not switching to the name calling that usually surfaces. The whole exchange was very refreshing.

Thanks, Jackie.

People can disagree without being disagreeable. Resorting to crass insults and name-calling simply indicates one hasn't the ability to use logic & reason to back up their viewpoint. I don't personally hate progressives, I simply think most that aren't cynically using liberalism as a means to gain political power and wealth are misguided. You don't convince anyone of anything with attacks and insults.

If someone wishes to engage in a respectful, reasoned, and reasonable debate...great! Others I won't waste my time with and/or stoop to their level. It's a waste of time and makes me no better than the name-callers.

I respect Thomas, as he is simply debating on the facts & merits as he sees them and not engaging in crass insults and ad hominem attacks. Those in Washington and the various political groups on both sides would do well to emulate this atmosphere of reasonableness.

Strat

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[tthomas48]

I really can't speak to the tea party rhetoric. I think it's the outcome of a Republican party that for years has focused on social issues without bothering to talk about financial ones.

There have been a few piddling and mostly temporary tax cuts but nothing I'd call major.
Nixon started with a top marginal rate of 77%. Obama started with a top marginal rate of 35%. I find that major.

Unfortunately, I don't think we'll be seeing a new party unless it's simply the Republican party organized under some other title. I'd personally prefer something Pro-business and pro-social programs (which actually can be the same thing, the number of companies that would become more competitive if they didn't have their health obligations is huge), plus responsible enough to raise taxes to take in the income we need.

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[BlueStrat]

I really can't speak to the tea party rhetoric. I think it's the outcome of a Republican party that for years has focused on social issues without bothering to talk about financial ones.

Those joining the Tea Party movement are both Democrat and Republican. It's not just about taxes or Obama as many have tried to portray them and their motives. Listen to what they're saying.

They're tired of the corruption in both parties, and they're disgusted with how government and the power it wields has grown far outside of, and has made a mockery of, the Constitution. Things like using the Commerce Clause as an excuse to stick their greedy little paws into things that the Federal government has no business taxing, regulating, or passing laws regarding. They're angry with the gutting of many of our Constitutional rights.

Nixon started with a top marginal rate of 77%. Obama started with a top marginal rate of 35%. I find that major.

Dropping the progressive taxation system completely and abandoning using it as a social engineering tool in favor of a simple flat tax with a reasonable exclusion for income under a certain amount and the elimination of the IRS as we know it I would call major.

I'd personally prefer something Pro-business and pro-social programs (which actually can be the same thing, the number of companies that would become more competitive if they didn't have their health obligations is huge), plus responsible enough to raise taxes to take in the income we need.

No, it would kill businesses, especially small businesses, and jobs. You seem to think somehow they wouldn't pay for the "healthcare" plans now in Congress. The costs will be gigantic across the entire economy. The money will have to come from somewhere to pay for it, as the Chinese and Japanese are pretty much done loaning us money.

We already have the best health care in the world. Tort reform and allowing people to buy health insurance across state lines would greatly reduce costs of the care itself and would also insure healthy competition among insurance companies which is sorely lacking. Doing these two reforms alone would fix about 90% of the current health care problems without saddling the country in even more debt.

However, I'm convinced the current iterations of bills dealing with health care in Congress are about expanding the size of government and it's control over the people, and little to do with actually achieving their stated goals.

The whole thing is a con job, as they won't even be honest on the costs. Saying it costs 'X' over 10 years by counting the taxes to pay for it starting immediately, but the program's expenditures don't start for 5-6 years is totally dishonest and an insult to the intelligence of every American.

Never mind that current iterations will actually cause premiums to go up and quality and availability, especially to the poor and the aged, to go down. It will also kill jobs and necessarily cause taxes to be raised across the board as the rich simply don't have enough money to pay for it, even at a 100% tax rate. Particularly when this and other things being proposed are doing their best to reduce the number of "rich" and drive jobs and investment overseas.

The term "reset" has become popular political jargon lately, and I believe that's what needs to happen to the entire government. It has far exceeded the powers granted in the Constitution and regards the people with contempt. It's far past time for the people to stand up, take back control, and force the government to adhere to the Constitution and live within our ability to pay for it without debt or confiscatory taxation rates.

Strat

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[tthomas48]

I live in Texas. So we've already tried pretty much all of this:

Dropping the progressive taxation system completely and abandoning using it as a social engineering tool in favor of a simple flat tax with a reasonable exclusion for income under a certain amount and the elimination of the IRS as we know it I would call major.
Texas gets all revenue through sales and property taxes (no state income tax). Property taxes essentially become the "reasonable exclusion" since obviously people below a certain income level don't own property. It has extreme problems during recessions when government revenue is needed most (since even though people might be earning money they tend not to spend it), and property values go down during a recession. This is extremely hard on state governments. They compensate with a rainy day fund, but it's certainly imperfect. It would not be a panacea. And it certainly would not bring in the revenue we need without extreme increases in the tax rate. Just to keep the Texas government going (which provides almost no services) requires a 6% base tax rate. And that's just to keep a state consistently in the bottom 3 in rankings of any given metric.

No, it would kill businesses, especially small businesses, and jobs. You seem to think somehow they wouldn't pay for the "healthcare" plans now in Congress.
I hear people say this, but I don't really understand how it's true. Companies like Microsoft and Dell pay no federal taxes at all, but they pay large sums in health care premiums. It seems like business would benefit immensely. How exactly do you see companies paying for the health plans in Congress? I see a government health plan (which we're not getting) helping startups immensely since they'll be able to pull great employees away from big corporations without having to offer great (and expensive) health benefits. It's the main reason I and many people I know don't start startups. My company currently pays 100% of my health benefit and 50% of my dependants. I can't compete with that.

Tort reform and allowing people to buy health insurance across state lines would greatly reduce costs of the care itself
We have tort reform in Texas. And some of the most expensive insurance premiums. That's a red herring. I agree with you on buying health insurance across state lines. And that's why I support a government health plan that competes with private insurers. I feel that larger insured groups and more competition is definitely the second best solution. If we're going to let the free market solve this, we've got to make it as free as possible. Alternatively trust busting and a decrease in insurance regulation might be another good free market solution. There are two few insurers in each market and the barrier to entry is to high.

Let me give you an example of why I don't think a "reset" will work. In Texas the one thing that pretty much every Republican likes are roads. But currently the state can't figure out how to pay for their roads anymore because they're at a deadlock. Politicians are tarred and feathered if they even suggest raising taxes (even raising the gas tax to match inflation is political dynamite). The problem is a lack of reality. Their constituents have been sold on the idea that you can keep lowering taxes, you can perhaps even eliminate taxes entirely, and somehow get all the things you want. That there's some magical amount of money that if it were just freed to go to the right places it could fix the system. But Texas puts pretty much no money into social programs that doesn't come from the federal government. The state is run by a tea party supporter, and up until recently was completely controlled by a political machine that subscribed to this libertarian small government, no new spending, belief. It's just led to underfunded schools, a department of transportation that is horribly behind on funding the projects that it has promised, and a government that is so idealogical it prevents cities from raising and spending money even if th

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[Vancorps]

While I respect your opinion, modern history isn't on your side. Bush cut taxes and jobs still went overseas by the millions and we ended up here. I'll grant that Reagan set it all in motion though and that Bush Sr, Clinton, and Bush Jr only extended the poor policy decisions.

Trickle down economics works on small scales where employers and employees actually know each other. I see this problem only getting worse as so far nothing is being done to radically change how we behave. The only solution to the crisis is less spending, not more! This of course has it problems as it will indeed depress the economy but it is the only way to get back on track fiscally.

Re:Is a movie theater really a public place?

[BlueStrat]

Bush cut taxes and jobs still went overseas by the millions and we ended up here. I'll grant that Reagan set it all in motion though and that Bush Sr, Clinton, and Bush Jr only extended the poor policy decisions.

Cutting one or two areas of taxes by nominal amounts while not being able/willing to control/cut spending, hugely increasing it as a matter of fact, and stifling regulation is why tax cuts in the relatively-recent past haven't had tremendous effects. If you give with one hand and turn right around and take with the other you haven't gained anything. Reagan was the only recent President that was able to secure both significant tax cuts and spending reductions, although he wasn't able to get Congress to rein in taxes and particularly spending on entitlements nearly as much as he wished.

Trickle down economics works on small scales where employers and employees actually know each other. I see this problem only getting worse as so far nothing is being done to radically change how we behave. The only solution to the crisis is less spending, not more! This of course has it problems as it will indeed depress the economy but it is the only way to get back on track fiscally.

Trickle-down does work, however you can't keep tossing in additional government spending as Congress loves to do, then claim it hasn't worked. If you give business tax breaks then increase their costs for labor, regulatory compliance, etc, etc then one shouldn't be shocked that the business sector and jobs sector doesn't grow as predicted by those who proposed the tax cuts.

Cutting government spending is always a good thing with the huge federal government we've saddled ourselves with. Government can not and does not create wealth. It can only spend wealth. That wealth doesn't magically appear, it comes from the nations' economy and causes myriad problems like sucking capital & credit for investment out of the private sector, causing inflationary pressure, and adding to the tax burden and debt. All of which are economic growth killers. Google for Japan's "Lost Decade" where they tried many of the things that have already been attempted and are being currently proposed here.

The idea that government can create jobs I consider a sick joke. Only the private sector, especially the small business sector, can create significant increases in employment, and bigger government is anathema to small business. The current administration is intent on massively growing government so it's no surprise they don't invite small business to their "Job Summits", as they know that small business will say they need less government and lower taxes to grow and create more jobs.

With all the "stimulus" bill and other federal jobs and economic growth programs, the only area of significant job growth has been in government jobs. I, for one, do *not* welcome our single-healthcare-payer, single-employer overlords regardless of party. If more jobs and economic growth is the goal, then get government taxes & regulation/restriction out of the way of small and medium sized businesses. Revenues to the treasury will increase. It has every time it's been tried.

Strat

I don't see the problem.

[eclectro]

unfortunately two "very shot segments" was enough to make theater managers want to press charges.

Shooting at anybody is grounds for assault with a deadly weapon. I didn't know they put guns in camcorders now. Fortunately that she will be out on parole sooner than if this was actually a copyright violation.

Re:I don't see the problem.

[Shadow Wrought]

Think of how much damage a 9mm does and then realize it was probably a 35mm camera! It must be like 3 times as powerful!

Re:I don't see the problem.

[idontgno]

No kidding! Even the A-10 Thunderbolt II's main antitank cannon is only 30mm!

It's amazing what people smuggle into movie theaters nowadays.

Re:I don't see the problem.

[Shakrai]

Think of how much damage a 9mm does

I have. That's why I bought a .45 ;)

If Hollywood is NOT dying....

[ub3r n3u7r4l1st]

Then there is no need to fight movie piracy.

Animals fight each other when they are out of food.

Re:If Hollywood is NOT dying....

[princessproton]

Greed and hoarding behaviors are not relegated only to survival situations.

WTF!?

[cyberjock1980]

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?

Re:WTF!?

[dwiget001]

I wouldn't be surprised if the mangler -- er manager -- was out of a job shortly, due to the fucking stupid ass thinking on his part.

Also, I wonder if the MPAA is going to help the theatre get all lawyered up for the ensuing court room slug-fest they are surely going to receive.

Re:WTF!?

[greenbird]

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.

Re:WTF!?

[dunezone]

What entity is going to be stupid enough to press charges for this knowing all of the bad publicity this is going to cause?

One that is thinking about this weekends ticket sales, and not one that thinks, will I be in business 1,3,5 years down the road?

As stated earlier in this thread, employees of movie theaters get rewards for reporting this. Although, I bet the fine print says the individual has to be convicted, so if a plea goes through or charges are dropped, they get nothing.

This is an obvious case of someone who didn't realize what they were doing at the time and there was no intent to pirate the movie. And unfortunately will face the heat for such a minor issue.

Re:WTF!?

[dunezone]

That law is terrible, it just assumes you are pirating a film, I understand if you have intent to pirate a film you can be charged with a felony, but when there is no intent (which is clear in this situation) you still get charged and with a felony? At least drop it down to a misdemeanor or a fine when no intent is found.

That is ridiculous. I guarantee no one read this law at all.

Re:WTF!?

[cyberjock1980]

... And that's part of the problem with society today. If they had actual bad intentions of taping the movie, they should be punished. If they were trying to have a little fun and it got a little out of hand, then let it be.

Why do we have to follow the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law?

Why not just ask them kindly not to do that again?

Why did it have to explode and get so out of control that people all over the world will read the story of the birthday celebration in a movie theatre and someone was such a dickwad they had to arrest them for it.

Now, there may be more to this story than what is on the news. I hope for the sake of humanity that we aren't so low that the story on the news is completely factual. I'd like to have higher hopes for the future.

Re:WTF!?

[easyTree]

Why leave it at that? Boycott the whole chain: www.muvico.com

Re:WTF!?

[slashqwerty]

Fair use came about from a ruling on constitutional grounds. It was the court's way of saying the first amendment didn't completely eliminate copyright, yet copyright is not an end run around the first amendment. Instead, you may make fair use of copyrighted works. Other sections of the copyright act have since included references to fair use to clarify the intent. Regardless, of what the statute says fair use still exists. However, fair use may be more narrowly constrained without a specific reference to it in the statute.

Re:WTF!?

[Stanislav_J]

Why do we have to follow the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law?

Because we're more and more living in a "zero tolerance" society now. Everything must be black-and-white, either/or, no grey areas, no need to use reason or common sense to look at things like context, intent, actual impact/damage, etc. Easier that way: you don't have to think (nasty habit, that) or take responsibility for making decisions.

Re:WTF!?

[phantomfive]

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.

Oh yeah, it may have been a bad idea from a publicity standpoint, but sometimes there are more important things than good publicity. Think about it: however the case turns out now, no one will ever try to stand up and film singing happy birthday in the middle of a movie at that theater again. People are going to be very careful about filming anything at all, and if we are lucky maybe they will turn their phones off as well.

If getting people to be quiet is the manager's goal, this was probably an effective way to do it.

Re:WTF!?

[nedlohs]

The spirit of the law is that you use a recording device in a movie theater you go to jail. Since that's exactly what the people who wrote it intended.

Re:WTF!?

[barzok]

You use a recording device in a theater you go to jail.

I'd wager that over 50% of the people inside the theater were in possession of a "recording device". Why weren't they arrested & charged too?

Re:WTF!?

[greenbird]

Why weren't they arrested & charged too?

Well if you had actually read the relevant law that Hatta was kind enough to look up and post you would have seen:

who knowingly operates an audiovisual recording function of a device

And thus would have the answer to your question.

Re:WTF!?

[BLKMGK]

I'll bite... a manager working in an industry who pays a $500 bonus to those who help prosecute people who film on premises? THAT is why this was carried so far, he wanted his cash! I'm betting HIS management isn't quite so pleased though and if the MPAA pays him I'll be quite surprised. They've stepped in deep doody and haven't realized it yet. I'll be remembering Muvico for a good long time to come that's for sure.

No profit - fair use.

[pigeon768]

IANAL, but the performers are not profiting off of the performance. The performance is permissible under fair use.

If the employees of the theater sang the song, they (the movie theater) would get sued.

Re:No profit - fair use.

[Pharmboy]

Fair use only applies if she was exhibiting the short clips for the purpose of a review, to parody (but not to satire) or to educate. Since she didn't own a legal copy to be exempted as an "archive copy", these are about her only outs. I hope they continue to prosecute, as this is the only way to show how genuinely borked our current legal system is, by allowing this silliness to get to a real court.

This demonstrates why "copyright infringement" should only be a civil issue and not criminal issue. Of course, the people who are actually copying the movie to sell them are running around free, while the incidental filming is prosecuted. Same legal genius thinking that gets us to prosecute little old ladies for stealing mp3's, even if they don't even know what an mp3 is.

Re:No profit - fair use.

[BobMcD]

As another poster put above, the chances this really was incidental are kind of low. It isn't as if the party would have been going on during the movie. There should not have been a stretch of time containing both film and birthday content. And no birthday content would have meant some other motive was required to film the movie. Again, it isn't as if the camera was sitting on her lap and accidentally caught some askew portion of the screen. It seems she willfully pointed it at the screen.

I hope she gets off, but it seems she probably did what they say she did, and I'm not buying any accidental angle.

Re:No profit - fair use.

[Pharmboy]

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.

Re:No profit - fair use.

[BobMcD]

Being curious and capturing a couple of minutes shouldn't be a criminal act regardless.

That's going to depend on the wording of the law. Maybe it covers it, maybe it doesn't and needs to be changed. In either case there's still almost no chance of this being accidental.

Re:No profit - fair use.

[Pharmboy]

Its more of a case of precedent, not the actual law. This is why the judge released her with no $ bond. It appears that he gets it. Even the police were sympathetic somewhat. It was only the manager who was being the dick, it seems.

Re:No profit - fair use.

[scot4875]

Or maybe there was an exciting part of the movie and she wanted to catch the birthday party's reaction to it. Or maybe she just wanted to film part of the movie watching experience and caught the movie as the backdrop.

But we don't know exactly what was recorded, so it's all just speculation. However, the idea that someone should have criminal charges leveled against them because they caught a few minutes of a movie on tape is absurd, regardless of the nature of what was recorded.

--Jeremy

Re:No profit - fair use.

[easyTree]

Being curious and capturing a couple of minutes shouldn't be a criminal act regardless. Kick her out, fine, but...

It shows how fucked the system is when this kind of response seems almost reasonable.

What, we need to avoid the theaters now, too?

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeezus, when will people learn to stop abusing their customers?!?!?

Re:What, we need to avoid the theaters now, too?

[scotts13]

Since we no longer manufacture much of anything here in the States, and advertising has grown to the point where it all essentially cancels itself out, all we have left is suing each other to generate income. This kind of malicious "copyright enforcement" is just an industry smart enough to have the government do it's suing for it.

This is so unreasonable it's mindless...

[mruizcamauer]

is everyone in the USA crazy or what? How silly can you get? Are there any adults left? Jeeez...

Re:This is so unreasonable it's mindless...

[JobyOne]

Nope, since I dumped your mom we're all just a bunch of children over here.

Re:This is so unreasonable it's mindless...

[Bender Unit 22]

No it is just a small percentage of the population, Frank.

Re:This is so unreasonable it's mindless...

[bennomatic]

LOL. I think this is the first "I had sex with your mother"-implication joke I've ever seen on /. Well played, sir. Well played.

Re:This is so unreasonable it's mindless...

[carp3_noct3m]

Don;t be so smug, we're taking the rest of you with us...

Re:This is so unreasonable it's mindless...

[CannonballHead]

One stupid incident.

I don't think slashdot would likely be reporting on valid copyright/piracy cases now would they? Unless they were very high profile.

Re:This is so unreasonable it's mindless...

[Shakrai]

I think this is the first "I had sex with your mother"-implication joke I've ever seen on /.

You must be new here.

Re:This is so unreasonable it's mindless...

[Grishnakh]

No, America's crazy laws are not just a "joke" to the rest of the world, they take them quite seriously. Look how many other countries' governments have been happily bending over for the US government and enacting laws to please our government, such as DMCA clones.

Heck, all the stupid anti-marijuana laws other countries have are the direct result of bending over for the US government.

Re:This is so unreasonable it's mindless...

[CodeBuster]

Are there any adults left?

They're not sitting with a bunch of teenagers watching a Twilight film, that's for sure.

Re:This is so unreasonable it's mindless...

[Stanislav_J]

Is everyone in the USA crazy or what?

"Yes." Next question?

Re:This is so unreasonable it's mindless...

[mruizcamauer]

Argentina, where our laws are probably even sillier than in the USA, but that's beside the point. I don't think in most places someone would be accused of piracy and face years in jail for casually filming a screen for two minutes in the background of a birthday celebration. That is such a lapse of common sense that it's scary. For an adult to have reached that level of idiocy, the medium in which he moves (society) must also be pretty dumb... That is the tragedy, for if a great country like the USA with all its resources can generate these people, then the world is lost...

"Against stupidity ...

[Tim Ward]

... the gods themselves contend in vain."

Er ... ... well, that's it, really.

Organized boycott of the theater?

[Ang31us]

I know that if I lived in Chicago, I would never go to that movie theater again.

Re:Organized boycott of the theater?

[some_guy_88]

I reckon people should get organized and boycott the whole movie when they do stupid shit like this.

Fuck it, boycott the whole MPAA. Make sure they never get a cent of your money. Go and do something useful rather than watching movies (or just watch independent movies)

what's worse?

[nilbog]

I'm not sure which is worse:

1. Video taping a movie in a theater
2. Singing happy birthday in the middle of a movie theater in the middle of a movie
3. Seeing New Moon

Re:what's worse?

[nschubach]

I was thinking the same thing... I hope they rented out the whole theater because if I was in a theater and someone started singing when I was trying to watch a movie, I'd be pissed!

Re:what's worse?

[murrayjm]

GF making you wear a "Team Jacob" shirt to the theater...

Re:what's worse?

[ceoyoyo]

It's not #1.

After that I'm afraid I can't help.

Re:what's worse?

[Rick17JJ]

My guess would be, that employees were probably already probably trying to decide what to do about the loud group of people, before they suddenly spotted the camera. If I understand correctly, a very loud distracting group of people was singing Happy Birthday while a movie was playing in a theater, while other customers were most likely trying to watch the movie. The employee probably suddenly spotted the camera, and thought to himself, "hey, that's illegal."

Already quite angry at the loud disruptive group, the manager was probably in no mood to let the girl off with a warning. So he pressed charges.

The article gives us the impression that they were singing "Happy Birthday" during the movie, but the writer does not seem to think that detail is significant enough to explain more clearly. Did they have the theater rented out to themselves as they were singing during the movie? Were they just singing during the previews, instead of the movie? If so, then there must have still been something distracting which they were doing, that was worth filming, as the movie started.

I also wondered if perhaps this was one of those movies, which was played so loudly, that a small group of people singing "Happy Birthday," could hardly be heard. I am referring the fairly common practice of playing the movie so unbearably loud, that I find myself wishing I had brought earplugs.

Re:what's worse?

[thunderclap]

It probably made the movie better.

Re:what's worse?

[Xenographic]

> I hope they rented out the whole theater

They very well might have. If you check out their web page, you'll find that they're a luxury theater that does a lot of events like that. The bad thing is that the wretched site is made out of Flash, so it's almost unviewable.

Frankly, I wish I could install Flashblock & NoScript on every marketing executive & webdesigner's PC. Then maybe they'd understand just how bad ugly sites like that look.

Singing at a movie theater?

[Alex777]

What I want to know is: Why were they singing "Happy Birthday" during the film?

Re:Singing at a movie theater?

[Arthur Grumbine]

What I want to know is: Why were they singing "Happy Birthday" during the film?

Probably better than just sitting through it. Have you seen A Clockwork Orange? Multiply that brainwashing scene by a factor of retarded-vamp.

Re:Singing at a movie theater?

[Xtravar]

THIS is probably why they were arrested. They were being noisy and probably annoying the other patrons and wouldn't shut the fuck up.

Yeah, on the surface this looks like a terrible OMG thing, but really, would you have wanted this party in a theater next to you when you paid > $20 (partner, food, children, etc) for the luxury to be there?

3 minutes = 3 years

[nick_davison]

If she's facing three years in jail for filming three minutes of Twilight, what is the movie's director of photography facing? Surely all ninety minutes of it, plus being the original creator of that, merits far more?

Re:3 minutes = 3 years

[KingAlanI]

He's facing charges of crimes against humanity ... at least the "man" part, not to mention the libel lawsuit from the Transylvanian Badass Vampires Association.

{Insert Rod Serling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stephanie Meyer Twilight joke here.}

Next time ...

[Korbeau]

Next time Micheal Moore comes annoying some poor multinational CEO with his video camera, just repeal him with an iPhone playing some blockbuster flicks and call the cops!

It depends on the use

[davidwr]

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.

Re:It depends on the use

[jklovanc]

Pigeon was not commenting on the movie being filmed; he was commenting on "Happy Birthday" being sung. Every time you hear "Happy Birthday" sung in a restaurant they have to pay a royalty as it is an employee singing it. That is why most places have their own song they sing for birthdays. Private citizens do not pay that fee as they do not profit from singing it.

Re:It depends on the use

[gamanimatron]

Recording where there are signs conspicuously placed warning you not to record erodes some "fair use" claims.

Citation needed.

The context of a recording usually has nothing to do with the validity of copyright infringement claims brought by a copyright owner against the person making the recording. Moreover, the issue at hand has nothing to do with copyright at all - the girl is being charged with criminal use of a motion picture exhibition, a felony that is entirely independent of copyright law.

Re:It depends on the use

[LanMan04]

Recording where there are signs conspicuously placed warning you not to record erodes some "fair use" claims.

I disagree. A sign doesn't change your rights under the law. It's like saying "well, the sign here says no black people allowed, so that erodes some of black people's claim that it's OK to be present".

A right is a right, no matter what irrelevant signs are posted.

Never have a party at a movie theater

[Anonymous Coward]

Make sure you tell everybody that you know about this story and how celebrating a birthday at a cinema can get you into jail.

Note to self:

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

Don't hold events at theaters.

Re:Note to self:

[BobMcD]

Don't hold events at theaters.

Which kind of makes sense, right? Since theaters are for, you know, watching movies?

Re:Note to self:

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't go to theaters.

Re:Note to self:

[Kenoli]

PS.
Don't go to theaters ever.

Happy Birthday

[davidwr]

I don't think there is a criminal complaint based on the Happy Birthday. It will be up to the owners of that copyright to enforce that in civil court, which I very much doubt they will do unless she uploads that part of the video to teh interwebs.

Taping a few minutes of some crap movie

[Perp Atuitie]

is not a crime. Singing during said crap movie should be. Let's get our priorities straight.

Re:Taping a few minutes of some crap movie

[Gerafix]

is not a crime. Paying to see said crap movie should be. Let's get our priorities straight.

Fixed that for you.

Which movie theater was this?

[101010_or_0x2A]

She should publicly identify the actual movie theater and the managers involved in the prosecution, and that would be a sure way to make them pay through the negative publicity. This is getting totally out of hand, the ridiculous "crackdown" on movie piracy.

Re:Which movie theater was this?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Which movie theater was this?

[gnasher719]

I'd suggest that "incorporating small parts of a motion picture in the video recording of a birthday party" is not the same as "unauthorized video recording of a motion picture". Note that it says "a motion picture", not "small parts of a motion picture". And recording a party while a motion picture is visible in the background is not a "video recording of a motion picture".

Re:Which movie theater was this?

[BLKMGK]

Excellent! The company is standing by this, I hope this goes to court and that MANY eyes are opened by it. Zero tolerance? Really? Asshats! It's up to the prosecutors is it? The police apparently weren't really even interested in ARRESTING her, I am thinking no prosecutor in their right mind is going to want this hot potato.

Nice of them to provide an e-mail address for this representative though. Perhaps this will allow more people to see just what the monies of these companies have managed to purchase in the way of legislation? How about we have an independent study done of these losses next time while we're at it 'mmkay? The mind boggles....

I can sympathize

[Locke2005]

Look, the theater probably has a contract with the movie distributor that states "no one is to be allowed to record any part of this film", which justifies barring anyone from carrying a video camera into the theater, and they should have signage up that clearly states this restriction. Problem is, many cell phones are now also video cameras (with extremely limited storage). The manager is within his rights to 1) bar people from bringing recording equipment in, 2) kick people out with no refund for attempting to record, and 3) ask people who are recording to delete the recording. Criminal charges seems a bit harsh, but if you very politely ask someone you catch in the act of recording the movie to delete the recording and explain that your contract with the distributor requires you to do, and they refuse to comply -- well then, what choice do you have but to use the threat of arrest to force them to comply? I'm not party to exactly what went down here, but like most situations, I'm pretty sure it could have been resolved satisfactorily to all participants long before the cops got there, if both sides weren't being asshats about it.

Re:I can sympathize

[Travelsonic]

...and 3) ask people who are recording to delete the recording. C

They can ASK, as they can ASK somebody to do anything, but that's it. They have no legal authority to make somebody delete their photos/video for any reason.

Re:I can sympathize

[Rene S. Hollan]

Clearly, the theater can request deletion of the parts of the movie that were recorded, but nothing else. Sounds like some frame by frame masking is in order.

I remember very clearly a tale of similar woe involving an amount of flesh to be cut, but no blood to be spilt.

Re:I can sympathize

[Svartalf]

Unfortunately, they don't have the right to ask to delete the recording- the only rights the theater really, really have is to preclude you from bringing in recording equipment and turning around and ejecting you if they catch you. It's highly debatable to say that it's an arrestable felony in this case and I'm surprised that one's on the books if it is- it's not something that should be in the criminal code in the first place.

Re:I can sympathize

[JesseMcDonald]

3) ask people who are recording to delete the recording

That's going a bit too far. You can bar them from the facilities, but you have no legal basis to confiscate their recording equipment or to demand that they delete the recording. (You can ask, but they don't have to comply.) If the recording really was copyright infringement, which is highly unlikely, then the copyright owner—not the theater manager—can sue after the fact to recover any "damages" (unfortunately).

Re:I can sympathize

[Tacvek]

They can ask anything they want. First amendment and all, but it is true they can't compel the deletion. They might even be able to get away with refusing all further admittance to the party (banning them) if they don't delete the footage, but that is about it.

The charge here is probably commercial copyright infringement, which is a law on the books, and is the way they stop the bootleg cam copies of movies that used to be popular before the internet made them obsolete. If that is the charge, she may be in luck, since AIUI what she did would not qualify.

Re:I can sympathize

[Barny]

Yes, they can (and would likely have) ask to remove to their satisfaction the offending material.

The next recourse to someone refusing to follow the somewhat simple request is to call the police and have them arrested for a felony.

Re:I can sympathize

[JesseMcDonald]

[Citation needed]

Certainly they can ask, and nothing prevents the theater owners from calling the police and requesting that they arrest someone with or without just cause, but only some hypothetical jurisdiction with the most messed-up and immoral laws imaginable would allow someone to actually be arrested, or have their property confiscated, over a matter of possible copyright infringement without so much as a court order.

P.S. That a request is "simple" is no reason for it to have the force of law.

Re:I can sympathize

[Barny]

Its no more a matter of possible copyright infringement, its a federal offense to operate a recording device in a cinema, that's what they are guilty of.

I am not sure what its like in the states, but here in Australia we have big warning signs at the cinema saying "do not bring in cameras, turn off your mobile phone".

All said and done though, ignorance of a law is no defense against it.

Yes, there are 2 adults left in America

[davidwr]

They were both at home watching a torrent of the movie on their home theaters.

Re:Yes, there are 2 adults left in America

[Eli Gottlieb]

Since when do adults willingly subject themselves to "Twilight" films?

Re:Oh my!

[D Ninja]

All of this in a theater. And it doesn't say if they rented it out exclusively, meaning there were other paying patrons trying to watch the movie

No. If it doesn't say they rented it out exclusively, it means that you don't know if there were other paying patrons. There may have been, there may not have been. If there were, I agree that this would have been annoying. But, your conclusion does not follow your first statement.

imdb

[drougie]

Maybe they're just bitter about the 4.6 stars the film got.

Re:imdb

[KingAlanI]

Thank Darwin that's out of 10, not 5. Was worried for a second.

Civil matter

[Darkness404]

This should be a civil matter, no one should have to spend any nights in jail for even the worst cases of copyright infringement.

Re:Civil matter

[Kjella]

This should be a civil matter, no one should have to spend any nights in jail for even the worst cases of copyright infringement.

I disagree with that on two points:
1) People doing it for profit, if you sell it I have no sympathy
2) Unpublished works, not local release but before world premiere

The second because I have very little sympathy for region codes and such, but if we want global simultaneous launches then there has to be a delay between final edit and launch for production and distribution. In that period I think the copyright holder should have very strong protections.

Re:Civil matter

[Darkness404]

1) People doing it for profit, if you sell it I have no sympathy

They are doing it for financial means though, they aren't causing harm to anyone. The point of prison should not be used as a deterrent but simply as a way to keep violent offenders off the street. Why? Because for one prison is expensive for the average taxpayer. A fine of say, $500 -creates- income for the state, not takes it away as in the case of prison. According to http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060129/NEWS01/601290307/1001/ARCHIVE#STS=g2tu38i3.j6q , it costs the state $35,000 per year per prisoner. California spent $272,194,994 in bridge construction in 2008 (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/estimates/) , California also had 170,000 prisoners (34,164 are there for life), at the average cost of $35,000 per prisoner per year, and assuming that the 170,000 prisoners are there for a year, that costs California $5,950,000,000 -per year- for the care of prisoners. All the bridge construction in California could have been done over 20 times with that amount of money!

Furthermore, that is assuming a healthy, young prisoner, an elderly or sickly prisoner may cost as much as $70,000 per year! Prisons in the US are becoming overcrowded adding construction fees to the mix, plus more staffing fees, etc.

Aside from the price of prison there is also the moral consideration. First, we have an effectively eternal copyright system in the US, we also have stupid laws like the DMCA that criminalize using your hardware as you see fit, these are both very unpopular laws with the general citizen (just look at the data -by the RIAA- on piracy, assuming most Americans are by nature law abiding, you see they don't care much for these laws). Secondly if a movie isn't on a torrent site who does that benefit? It doesn't benefit me, it doesn't benefit you, it benefits a very small number of people, we should not use large amount of public funds to help a few people. I'm not saying we should have no copyright, but using public funds and putting people in prison for violating copyright is honestly, very stupid and is evidence of a corrupt government.

Re:Civil matter

[thegrassyknowl]

This should be a civil matter, no one should have to spend any nights in jail for even the worst cases of copyright infringement.

I agree entirely. It seems fair to argue that since they were singing and not set up to record a decent quality copy of the movie there is clearly no intent make an infringing copy of the movie, let-alone make financial gain.

The only place this should see the light of day is the copyright holders litigating. For the 2-3 minutes of the movie recorded, and considering the (assumed) low quality of that recording they'd likely see less in compensation than the cost of 3/90 of a ticket, yet would still have incurred massive costs. This is why these assholes decided to force criminal laws on us for these things; so it doesn't cost them a dollar to enforce.

$500 Reward for Catching People Filming in Theater

[JumperCable]

This sounds to me like the downside providing cash incentives to employees for catching those who record movies.

http://www.fightfilmtheft.org/en/todo.asp

Some employee thinks they are in line for a $500 bonus.

She went to jail?

[dangitman]

What the fuck kind of crooked cop would put somebody in a cell for this?

Re:She went to jail?

[carp3_noct3m]

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. The issue with Hanlon's razor is that I find stupidity IS malicious...

Re:She went to jail?

[greenbird]

What the fuck kind of crooked cop would put somebody in a cell for this?

Strangely for the cops not to be crooked they have to enforce the law as put forth by our elected government. If they didn't they would be crooked.

Re:She went to jail?

[CodeBuster]

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.

Re:She went to jail?

[Criton]

Actually it should no jail time at all as no one but some Satan suckler's money was threatened.

Re:She went to jail?

[tyroneking]

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.

Re:Oh my!

[zill]

She should get the death penalty or, if I'm feeling really really pissed, have her listen to my mother complain why I don't call enough.

The infliction of cruel and unusual punishment is in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

If you don't live in Chicago

[davidwr]

If you don't live in Chicago you can still join the boycott!!!

Re:If you don't live in Chicago

[BLKMGK]

I agree, I mean it's pretty obvious that the bounty the movie industry offers is directly responsible for them pushing this as far as they have. I don't goto the theaters very often, this simply adds very good reasons to go even less. This isn't just this manager, it's an industry adding incentive to prosecute customers. They have apparently not learned anything from having watched the RIAA antics.

Is Theater paying royalties for Happy Birthday?

[JumperCable]

Wouldn't the theater be potentially liable since it took place on their property? If they didn't have the appropriate license then they are potentially screwed. Heck, their employees were even there long enough to catch her filming so obviously they saw the people singing happy birthday yet did nothing to stop it. And they host birthday parties there all the time? Sounds like they are wantonly encouraging these violations on a consistent basis if they do not have the permits.

Re:Is Theater paying royalties for Happy Birthday?

[jklovanc]

Royalties come in when someone gets paid for singing a song. If an employee sings a song he is being paid to sing the song. If a private citizen sings a song there is no payment and no royalty. (Yes, buskers would have to pay royalties under the law)

Re:Oh my!

[TheRaven64]

It says in the theatre, not while the film was playing. I've not been to a cinema for a few years, but I seem to remember that they let you in a bit before they start showing the moving pictures (then the first 15 minutes are ads and the next 15 minutes are trailers, which is why I don't bother going anymore: I don't pay to watch adverts). If they'd sung it before the film started while people were getting to their seats I don't see many people complaining. The cinema near my mother also has an intermission in the middle of long movies (not sure if this one qualifies) when they sell icecream and give people a chance to go to the toilet. Again, everyone's talking at this point, so no one would mind a few people singing happy birthday (unless it's really badly out of tune).

Re:Oh my!

[Darkness404]

Its new moon though.... That might be the best 3 minutes of the movie.

Irrelevant

[pavon]

The term "public performance" in the context of Copyright law isn't just about whether the property is public. It has to do with whether the audience is "the public". If you invite enough people (greater than a judge considers fair use) over to your house to watch a DVD, then you are infringing on the exclusive rights granted to the copyright holder.

From 17 USC 101

To perform or display a work “publicly” means —

(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or

We broke both of those rules frequently in college - yay projector night!.

Re:Oh my!

[NoYob]

She should get the death penalty or, if I'm feeling really really pissed, have her listen to my mother complain why I don't call enough.

The infliction of cruel and unusual punishment is in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

You're right. Having her listen to my mother is a bit over-reacting.

Re:Oh my!

[darthwader]

It also doesn't say if, when arrested, she had drugs on her, which clearly means she had 1 kg of coke on her, which she was distributing in the theater.
It doesn't say which birthday it was, so clearly the sister was a minor.
It doesn't say if they were wearing clothing or not, so clearly the "family birthday party" was child pornography.
It doesn't say if she killed any of the police officers who arrested her, so we can assume she did.

This drug-dealing, cop-killing, copyright violating child pornographer got away with only 2 days in jail. What the hell is wrong with this country? She should have been sentenced to die by lethal injection, then given the antidote and killed again for good measure. These bleeding-heart liberal judges have no sense of holy retribution.

Re:Oh my!

[BobMcD]

All of this in a theater. And it doesn't say if they rented it out exclusively, meaning there were other paying patrons trying to watch the movie

No. If it doesn't say they rented it out exclusively, it means that you don't know if there were other paying patrons. There may have been, there may not have been. If there were, I agree that this would have been annoying. But, your conclusion does not follow your first statement.

I'd also add that if the family had the money to rent out the entire theater for a first run film showing then they likely would have had enough money to make this indiscretion disappear. It would have run into the thousands of dollars accounting for the lost ticket and concession proceeds. Few families I know budget those kinds of dollars for a 26th birthday.

Re:Oh my!

[Rene S. Hollan]

Yes, but electrical stunning and subsequent shooting of a bolt through the head is not "cruel" or "unusual". That's how we "humanely" slaughter cattle.

So, I think there's a lot of "wiggle room".

Re:Oh my!

[Rene S. Hollan]

Why yes, anything to distract from that film would have made that part the best three minutes of the movie.

My daughter owes me big time for seeing it with her.

Re:Oh my!

[idontgno]

Well, according to the US Humane Society, more than 22,000 cattle were slaughtered in 2009. Presumably, almost all in the manner you describe. So that pretty much negates "unusual".

Go back read what I wrote.

[ImYourVirus]

That's not what I said now was it. Try again.

The "copy" in copyright

[tepples]

Because it's copy-right. The devices for sharing memories that you mentioned are copies. The brain still isn't.

Re:The "copy" in copyright

[lorenlal]

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...

Re:The "copy" in copyright

[bertoelcon]

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...

I know in Texas at least you can be held for something like 3 days without even being told a charge. They have to have something to put on the paperwork but you don't have to know what it is.

Re:The "copy" in copyright

[tepples]

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."

These notices state what the league wishes were true.

So, if we publicly think about a movie, and we have the technology to pick it up, is that a public account?

This will be decided by a jury in a court of law once such technology is devised.

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).

That's why we have the common law and jury trials in the first place.

Re:The "copy" in copyright

[matt_hs]

I'm curious where the fair use doctrine fits in here. Four minutes of a movie ain't much if, for example, it's a two-hour movie.

Since the intent wasn't even to film the movie, but to video the birthday celebration, I think they'd be hard-pressed to prove intent to distribute or any other principle on which one would gain from having these four minutes in a personal video.

Re:The "copy" in copyright

[realityimpaired]

I know in Texas at least you can be held for something like 3 days without even being told a charge. They have to have something to put on the paperwork but you don't have to know what it is.

I'm going to have to ask for a reference here... this one reeks of being unconstitutional....

In fact, a quick Google search tells me that the 6th Ammendment to your constitution includes the provision that you have a right, on your arrest, to be informed of the reasons thereof.

The specific text:

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.

But seriously, I'm going to have to ask you to provide a reference, because in my cursory search I found references to a couple of cases that went before the US Supreme Court where the decision was that the right to Due Process, as mentionned in the first paragraph of the 14th Ammendment, included the right to be informed of the charges upon your detention, and without delay.

Of course, such crap simply wouldn't happen up here... admittedly, our own constitution act was written in 1980-1981 with the benefit of seeing all of the ammendments and other stuff that'd been passed in the US since then, but our own constitution act/charter of rights and freedoms has the following wording:

10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention

(a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;

(b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and

(c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.

Re:The "copy" in copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:The "copy" in copyright

[TapeCutter]

"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?

Re:The "copy" in copyright

[tepples]

perhaps someone could explain to me why the "land of the free" has the largest prison population on the planet?

Because the Congress has been captured. The movie studios own the news media, and any candidate that doesn't toe the MAFIAA party line gets buried in the press. It's not even just movie studios: a lot of U.S. prisoners are in on nonviolent drug possession charges, and that's because synthetic chemical companies can't take one bit of competition from the hemp plant.

Re:The "copy" in copyright

[bertoelcon]

It doesn't state how soon they have to tell you, and typically it is only used for suspects highly likely to leave town.

Re:The "copy" in copyright

[AlamedaStone]

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...

I know in Texas at least you can be held for something like 3 days without even being told a charge. They have to have something to put on the paperwork but you don't have to know what it is.

When I hear things like this, I sometimes wonder if texans are really living in some latter-day eden, a cultural mecca, and they just don't want anyone else to know so they spread horrifying rumors about the state.

Then I remember that I know too many texans that just aren't that great at cooperating, and go back to being sad.

Re:The "copy" in copyright

[geminidomino]

descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent, is prohibited."

And that's the kind of shit that makes me sick. My brothers' (boring) thanksgiving conversation about the recent Giants' game would fall under that (since they covered the goddamn thing exhaustively... all damn night. I wanted to smother them in their mashed potatoes...

Re:The "copy" in copyright

[bertoelcon]

We cooperate just fine.

Cooperate does mean tell people to go way while holding some sort of weapon doesn't it.

Re:The "copy" in copyright

[pete6677]

"Texas has executed so many people that have later been proven innocent by DNA evidence "

Do you care to list any names? If there are SO many, I'd think you could come up with at least a few examples.

Re:The "copy" in copyright

[rossifer]

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.

Re:The "copy" in copyright

[TapeCutter]

"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.

Re:The "copy" in copyright

[stwrtpj]

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.

From the Wikipedia article you linked to:

Right to notice of accusations

* This right has been incorporated against the states. See In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (1948).

Perhaps you're the one that needs to read more carefully.

Re:The "copy" in copyright

[rossifer]

Interesting. I breezed through the sixth amendment section and didn't immediately see it. Thanks for following up.

Re:The "copy" in copyright

[Tuoqui]

Technically theres this thing called 'Fair Use' which the NFL cant take away from you even though they try to make you think that they can. It's also what enables news media to report on the game without having their consent. You can use like 30 second clips and stuff as you please to make your own highlight reels.

And you know I'd get a bunch of people organized and protest infront of the theater that did it and start driving business away from them. See how they like that.

Re:The "copy" in copyright

[Naturalis Philosopho]

any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game

I wonder if this means that I can use copyright law to make a couple of my office mates STFU and stop telling me about every football game they saw this weekend.

Re:The "copy" in copyright

[Golddess]

Unfortunately for your argument, that part of the sixth amendment does not seem to have been incorporated against the states

Um... from your own link...

Right to notice of accusations
* This right has been incorporated against the states. See In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (1948).

Re:The "copy" in copyright

[Golddess]

Oh, and sorry to double post, but thanks for informing me about the whole "incorporating the bill of rights to the states" thing.

Re:The "copy" in copyright

[rochberg]

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.

Hmm, I must be confused, because that link you pointed to states that the right to notice of accusation and the right to assistance of counsel have been incorporated against the states as a result of In re Oliver (1948) and Gideon v. Wainwright (1963). Furthermore, if you are being detained by any government entity within the country, any federal court can issue a writ of habeas corpus to release you from custody. Or am I missing something in your argument?

Re:The "copy" in copyright

[Gilmoure]

From the sounds of it, you can't even talk about the game the next day at work. I think that would fall under giving an account of it.

Re:Oh my!

[idontgno]

Correction: I got fooled by the "Year to date (August)" number. In 2008, the last year they have complete stats, it was nearly 35,000. So, even less unusual.

In fact, it's not unusual at all.

Wait, didn't Tom Jones have a song about that?

Re:Wouldn't it be annoying

[KarmaMB84]

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.

Contact Muvico & let them know how you feel!

[Xenographic]

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

Might not be copyright infringement

[Sloppy]

In the last few years, some jurisdictions have either passed or proposed (I haven't kept up) specific laws against having|using(?) cameras in theaters. I'm talking about laws separate from copyright.

If that's what she's charged with, then arguments related to Fair Use, like excerpt length etc will be irrelevant. Sort of like DMCA; breaking DRM so that you're able to watch a movie isn't copyright infringement, but it's a DMCA violation.

Repeal these goofy laws.

Re:Oh my!

[Rockoon]

Are you kidding me? This movie isnt selling theaters out.

I suspect that getting the theater for yourself for this movie involves the simple phrase "I'll take 1 ticket for that crappy assed movie.. you know the one"

I gotta say...

[JustNiz]

What kind of moron holds a party during a movie?
If someone held a party during a movie I'd paid money to see, then I'd want them dragged away too.
That said, this copyright thing is absolute bollocks and getting worse by the day.
What theater chain was it? I'd like to send the company an email explaining why I'm never going to give any of their theaters my money again.

Cue the Monty Python nerds (i.e. me :D)

[jonaskoelker]

I will not buy that joke. It is old. And scratched.

Re:Oh my!

[timmarhy]

err, the electrical shock stunns them so they don't feel anything. that's as humane as it gets.

Muvico's useless PR response...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Where are my mod points?

[PRMan]

Parent is funny stuff...

What a good little citizen

[JoeBuck]

She spent two days in jail over this nonsense, and she talks about how nice they were? What a good little citizen. Perhaps she'll turn in a few friends to get in better with the authorities.

not charged with copyright infringement

[Chirs]

From earlier in this thread, she's being charged with "Criminal use of a motion picture exhibition facility" because she operated a camera in a movie theater without permission of the copyright owner of the film being shown.

Relevant info..

[ehrichweiss]

You can reach the theatre at: Questions@muvico.com for all your questions and/or complaints.

Not a good test case

[nurb432]

If the media should actually lose ( and they should, i call 'fair use' here ), you can guarantee the verdict will be buried on page 1000. When you control the content, you control the news.

Get this on the Nightly News

[dcollins]

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.

wat?

[R0SS1]

They weren't just talking during the movie, they were singing during the movie (or there'd be no case)? Throw 'em all in jail I says!

Re:wat?

[SomeJoel]

Ah, but their singing was actually *better* than the crappy Twilight movie that was playing. They should have charged an appearance fee.

Maybe one thinking of this customers?

[Roger W Moore]

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.

Perhaps a manager who thinks that holding a surprise party in the middle of a cinema and singing happy birthday while everyone else is trying to watch the movie might just annoy his other customers? It just goes to show that even stupid laws can sometimes be used to good effect.

Today, I'm actually impressed.

[Robert Bowles]

...and I'm not easily impressed.

Our hearts must surely go out to the manager of the movie theatre.
In order to press felony charges over so trivial a violation, in order to reach this level of petty self-righteousness, something awful must've happened to him or her.

And corporations have the power to make regulation

[FatSean]

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 :)

Big Wife is watching you

[TiggertheMad]

And who owns "the man"?

"The wife"

Clairification?

[TiggertheMad]

I learned this in my concealed carry classes. My state has no legal provision for a property owner to post "no guns allowed" signs. They can post them but they have no force of law. All they can do is ask you to leave if they discover that you are armed -- you haven't actually broken any laws unless they ask you to leave and you decline to do so.

interesting. Could an owner post a 'no guns allowed - violators are unwelcome and considered trespassers" sign, and have anyone spotted with firearms summarily arrested, or does there have to be a specific request to leave?

Re:Clairification?

[Shakrai]

IANAL, but it seems to me that the precedent is that such signs do not have force of law. It's not just on the concealed carry issue either -- our local bowling alley has a "family friendly" policy and requests that people not use vulgar language. When people do the only thing they can do is ask them to leave, even though it's posted in plain sight when you enter the place.

The police generally aren't in the business of enforcing private rules. Even if they were, how would they have you "summarily arrested"? The property owners can't detain you there -- you could simply walk out at anytime and they'd be powerless to stop you.

Re:Contact Muvico & let them know how you feel

[Voyager529]

Manual Mod +1 Informative; people with points PLEASE mod this person up. Also, I wouldn't recommend every slashdotter clogging his inbox. E-mails from places within the regional demographic are going to carry much more weight than some angry slashdotter who is, based on region, unlikely to ever be a potential customer. Given that I live in New York, my e-mail would mean nothing, so people nearby PLEASE take a stand!

The Man owns Himself

[FatSean]

The Man being the tiny fraction of a percentage of American citizens who control 50% of the country's wealth.

Orwell's 1984 USA-Style

[Tablizer]

We laugh and joke about the "civil liberties" of other nations, but we have similar problems, but corporate-centric instead of political-centric. Same thing, different cause. Thus, think twice before you cast the first stone...

Just want to know which theatre chain?

[Maxo-Texas]

I'd prefer to not spend my money at another chain until I read that they chain came to it's senses and apologized to the lady.

Re:Just want to know which theatre chain?

[Maxo-Texas]

From here:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091203/1531507185.shtml

The President of this theater chain is:

Hal Cleveland
Muvico Entertainment, L.L.C.
3101 N. Federal Highway, Sixth Floor
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33306

and...

Must be Movico! That's about the only small theater chain I'm aware of with a location in Rosemont, where the son of the late Donald Stephens (former mayor) runs the city with an iron fist, esconcing fairness to all (NOT)

Re:Just want to know which theatre chain?

[Jager Dave]

Actually Muvico is rather large in the south Florida (Miami-Dade/Broward/Palm Beach) area... I've still never been to a Muvico - and thanks to this post - never will. 'nuff said.

Leave her in jail and toss the key

[Radical Moderate]

From TFA:
The footage she shot also includes the pre-film commercials, as well as her talking about the camera and the movie. “You can hear me talking the whole time,” Tumpach said.

She admits she was talking during the movie! Normally that would be a hangin' offense, but for a Twilight movie I say life behind bars is sufficient.

Buffy vs. Twilight

[commodoresloat]

This is what really should have happened in the movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZwM3GvaTRM

Moon

[Weezul]

Please please please, skip this lame crap series "written" by an sad sad Anne Rice wanna-be.

Instead I recommend taking your girl to see the much better independent movie Moon :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_(film)

One more reason

[bbroerman]

One more reason I do not go to the theater any more...

mod parent up

[tobiah]

mod parent up

Operating a cellular phone?

[tobiah]

It appears to me one could violate the law with a cell phone in, say, a sports bar.

Amount and substantiality

[tepples]

Four minutes of a movie ain't much if, for example, it's a two-hour movie.

The third fair use factor actually depends on the substantiality of the copied portion, and substantiality isn't exactly proportional to percent of running time. If these four minutes of the movie spoil the big plot twist (e.g. it was his sled, Snape kills Dumbledore, Tyler don exits, or it's an Amish-like community in the modern day), the third factor counts against the alleged infringer.

Murder and Inheritance

[KingAlanI]

In some areas, there are general laws against inheriting from someone who you were involved in the death of. This would presumably include the victim's copyright assets.
I know that the Daily Mail ain't the world's highest-quality news source, but it proves an extant example of the concept in British law (as well as a corollary; should relatives of the incriminated relative be allowed to inherit from the victim?)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-423512/Judge-attacks-law-makes-murder-likely.html

Stupid birthday songs...

[KingAlanI]

My summer camp at least had a sarcastic version of the Birthday song; it sounds like those places would just go for something cheesy.

"Happy Birthday" from Weird Al's debut album is an example of an alternate birthday song with at least some sarcasm/creativity (well, obviously, it's still under copyright too, but it shows the point)

Piracy is WRONG!

[amiga3D]

Everyone knows it. But this is not piracy and it's also the kind of thing pirates use to justify piracy. Who could possibly feel guilty for stealing from absolute greedy bastards. These people are so easy to hate that it assuages any guilt one might feel about stealing from them.

Re:Three years in prison?

[amiga3D]

You value human life above money? You sick puppy!

Pronouns

[KingAlanI]

http://xkcd.com/436/

Sometimes, technically correct pronoun usage can be unclear, as Mr. Munroe indicates above.
A solution to that problem would be to bend the rules, as the writer of TFS did

Re:Contact Muvico & let them know how you feel

[Nethead]

How do they know where your email came from? Just google-map up a reasonable address in Chicagoland and go with it.

Fair use

[KingAlanI]

"
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.

Re:Fair use

[EmagGeek]

That may apply to the movie, but any public performance of the song, "Happy Birthday," where a substantial number of persons outside the normal family circle are present, and without obtaining a proper license from ASCAP, is strictly punishable as an act of Copyright Infringement by fines and/or imprisonment.

Maybe she shouldn't get jail time for fiming a snippet of the movie, but they all deserve to go to jail for singing Happy Birthday in a public place without a license. The Law is the Law, and that's all there is to it.

(btw, even though what I said here is true, please don't fail to detect the sarcasm)

Loki's Wager

[KingAlanI]

Sounds kind of like Loki's Wager:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki's_Wager

Define: "free market"

[TapeCutter]

Free = Anyone can participate.
Market = A set of rules governing transactions between partcipants.

Conclusion: "Unregulated free market" is an oxymoron.

Interesting spin on the story

[bjverzal]

I live in a community nearby the incident. Our local newspaper ran the headline on the story as if she was there to film the movie. Wow.

Re:You Just Don't Know Our "Free" Markets

[gink1]

Our markets are not truly free. Regulations favor some players and hinder other players.

And regulations are made by Congress and Congress is for sale to the highest bidder.

Don't forget Congressmen can be your Companies best investment!

cheer

[teknosapien]

another unsatisfied customer put through the wringer 300,000+ and counting

Brilliant!!!!

[Joce640k]

We now have the ultimate anti-paparazzi weapon. Just walk around with some copyrighted images and jail them if they take photos.

Time to Bite Back

[turkeyfish]

Hey folks. Its time to bite these greedy corporations back. Lets find out who is pressing the charges and boycott every last frigging movie these folks ever make or show again until they agree to drop the charges. This is simply ridiculuous. When will it stop? Its time to tech these corporations a lesson that they will not soon forget!

Re:And corporations have the power to make regulat

[turkeyfish]

Maybe so, but they don't have the power to force you to buy their products. An extremely well organized boycott of the products of offending corporations will quickly put consumers back in a better position.

Copyright as it stands makes no sense.

[syousef]

There's nothing wrong with the concept of copyrights and patents. Even the Founding Fathers realized the value of them.

Your founding fathers lived in a particular time and place under particular circumstances. They had no Internet or any form of instant communication. They had no device that could copy a book in under a second. They also were not infallible - some of them condoned slavery and owned slaves.

By the way copyright didn't make sense even 2000 years ago. Around then the great library at Alexandria existed. Merchant ships were searched and books confiscated, duplicated and returned to their owners. THat resulted in the greatest library ever known. There's a VERY high price to allowing copyright.

So why is copyright flawed? It gives CONTROL over the publicly released work to the author. It's giving the author their cake and letting him eat it too. I have no issue with an artist or author being compensated fairly for their work for some period of time. I have a huge problem with them or their publishers controlling the work and deciding the price arbitrarily. I have a huge problem with people hoarding knowledge. How much of the world's publications are only available to the rich? (Can you justify spending $3000 on a 7 volume reference you may only rarely use - I have only just faced that question - look up HAZNAB. I have a family to feed, and it's jsut not worth that much money). As for publishers, they provide nothing anymore. Except protectionist laws that threaten people with jail time over ridciulously minor infringements. (Even sending children off to the colonies if they stole bread was less cruel since food when scarce is a matter of life or death). Publishers need to fade away.

Re:Contact Muvico & let them know how you feel

[turkeyfish]

Boycott them out of existence. Tell your friends, tell your parents, tell everyone. Never, ever do business with them again, ever until they BEG for forgiveness.

If you learn they do business with other businesses, let them know that you will boycott them too until they stop doing business with Muvico.

  Its time to say ENOUGH!

Who interrupts a theatre of paying customers?

[jaymz666]

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.

Not really

[TheLink]

Murder is illegal for many reasons.

An important one is because Governments that want to stay in power must maintain a tight monopoly and control over violence. This is part of maintaining stability and maintaining power.

If you're the Ruler, and you let random people go around killing others, people would band together to protect themselves from other groups.

Eventually a group may form that's big and powerful enough to threaten you and your group of thugs/cops/military.

This is true whether you're a Democratic Government or an Evil Dictatorship.

Saddam stayed in power for so long because the only people who could go around killing random people were him and his thugs. There was some sort of law and order. People knew that if they followed "the rules", there is a very high chance that they and their families would still be alive the next day etc. They have something to lose if they broke the rules. People will put up with a lot just for stability in their lives. Say what you want about "give up liberty for safety" etc but people are not going to change.

Whereas in one of those "civil war" African countries, that's not the case and that's why they change governments every now and then.

Eventually Governments may "emerge" in those countries that maintain a tight monopoly on violence and then those governments will have a better chance of staying in power. If you maintain law and order in a village, that village becomes a better resource for your government.

The other "organism Governments" would just have poorer survival fitness. Same for governments that don't collect an official tax (remember most people want stability - so a predictable tax is better than a random confiscation of your livestock etc).

In short, I suggest that an "emergent" effect of persistent Governments is that murder is necessarily declared illegal.

I was going to add....

[Jager Dave]

Sure looks like "1984"... but I digress.... it's MUCH worse....

A brief excerpt from The Hitchhiker’s Guide, Lawyers are, ‘a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes’

This should not even be a crime.

[Criton]

This is complete bull she should not even have to go to jail for this the very worst they should be able to do should be throw her out of the theater. Not only is this morally wrong it's pissing away tax payer money at the tune of $36,900 for every year she is wrongfully in prison. It just shows US laws on this are broken as can be and the US media industry needs to go bankrupt. I have not been to a movie theater in years because I think Hollywood is nothing but a bunch of Satan sucklers anymore.

I'll be boycotting them.

[Criton]

Thanks I now know who to boycott and get frainds and family to boycott.

It should be possible to challenge this law.

[Criton]

Perhaps this can be a water shed event to take down this terrible law. If the patriot act can be challenged then so can this pile of steaming dog flop. Really any law born of a special interest lobbyist group is unjust and should not exist.

That's it....

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm gonna copyright, patent, trademark, and register the idea of coming up with an idea, and lobby the shit out of it. This way when you all come up with an idea, I'm gonna throw all you thieves in jail.

Idea ©®TM
All rights reserved.

And a drunk driver gets time-served and a fine

[LostMyBeaver]

enough said.

Copyrighted "works" now banned from my life.

[Xanavi]

This is like the day I banned anyone under 21 from my apartment. Your liabilities, assorted legal conditions, and risks involved can gtfo of my life. I wonder if I can rob a bank by throwing in a "twilight grenade", some freakish multifaceted ball that projects the movie into the camera fields, thereby making taping illegal and inadmissible in court.

Allrighty then...

[haeger]

I wasn't going to watch twilight, but now I think I will download and watch it out of spite, just to make sure they lost money on it.
That's how they count, isn't it. Every downloaded file is lost money.
Perhaps if I download it enough times I can force them into bankrupcy?

Not sure if it's worth the pain of having to watch vampire-teen-angst though.

What must the cops be thinking about this?

[vtavares]

I can't imagine police officers being too impressed with the theater forcing them to arrest a giddy girl at an event theater (that is what they do) who filmed her group watching Twilight on her birthday and caught a few minutes of the film.

It's finally come to this - corporate police.

Not much better than being a mall cop, if you ask me.

Felony?

[Akira Kogami]

Why the hell is any sort of piracy (bar the arrrr kind) even a felony?

Why is it another "liberal" lie?

[IBitOBear]

I'm fairly liberal, and I support the second amendment.

While I agree with you about most of the factual content of your post, nearly half of the signatories of the constitution did in fact think slavery was "just peachy". The well known authors, each "liberal" to the core, were against it, but there were more signers than authors.

Heck, slavery, in the classical sense, was a "conservative" value of the day and the southern bible belt (etc) is where racism is still the strongest. (Not that I see its utter absence anywhere.)

The failing here is the cherry-picking of facts and then using that slapping political talking-point words and labels on the argument as if it makes the argument more valid instead of less so.

Calling something "another liberal lie" just makes you sound like you don't think about your words.

Re:Why is it another "liberal" lie?

[Grishnakh]

While I agree with you about most of the factual content of your post, nearly half of the signatories of the constitution did in fact think slavery was "just peachy".

It's a lie because the OP was trying to insinuate that ALL the Founding Fathers supported slavery, and because they were wrong about that, by extension, anything else they believed in is also wrong (such as the 2A).

And, of course, what's considered "conservative" and "liberal" changes over the years.

Re:And corporations have the power to make regulat

[Gilmoure]

Ah, the golden rule.