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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[maxume]

Also, the Alps.

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[iphinome]

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

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?

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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!

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.

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

[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

[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?

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[bertoelcon]

If the body is still warm is it really necrophilia?

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?

[HeronBlademaster]

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

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.

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.

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!?

[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!?

[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!?

[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!?

[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.

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]

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.

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...

[carp3_noct3m]

Don;t be so smug, we're taking the rest of you with us...

"Against stupidity ...

[Tim Ward]

... the gods themselves contend in vain."

Er ... ... well, that's it, really.

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...

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...

Singing at a movie theater?

[Alex777]

What I want to know is: Why were they singing "Happy Birthday" during the film?

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?

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

[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.

Note to self:

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

Don't hold events at theaters.

Re:Note to self:

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't go to theaters.

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.

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.

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

[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).

imdb

[drougie]

Maybe they're just bitter about the 4.6 stars the film got.

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.

$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?

[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?

[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: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.

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: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

Cue the Monty Python nerds (i.e. me :D)

[jonaskoelker]

I will not buy that joke. It is old. And scratched.

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: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

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.

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!

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"

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: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:Theater manager

[tobiah]

Can anyone else here confirm that?

Operating a cellular phone?

[tobiah]

It appears to me one could violate the law with a cell phone in, say, a sports bar.

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: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: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.

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: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).

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.

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.