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?

[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?

[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?

[BobMcD]

Sarcasm called and it is really pleased by your joke.

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?

[Paua Fritter]

Because they're PIRATES goddammit!!! Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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.

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?

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.

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: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.

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...

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: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).

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?

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.

Note to self:

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

Don't hold events at theaters.

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.

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: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: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: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!

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

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

Big Wife is watching you

[TiggertheMad]

And who owns "the man"?

"The wife"

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.