Woman Filming Sister's Birthday Party Gets Charged With Felony Movie Piracy 705
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."
You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You? (Score:5, Funny)
'We sang "Happy Birthday" to her in the theater,'
A copyrighted work [wikipedia.org]? 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? (Score:5, Funny)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You? (Score:5, Funny)
...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? (Score:5, Funny)
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? (Score:5, Funny)
Sarcasm called and it is really pleased by your joke.
Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You? (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
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? (Score:5, Funny)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, it's not meant literally. It's a well-known Hungarian expression.
Along with the infrequently-used "my hovercraft is full of eels".
Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You? (Score:4, Insightful)
'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? (Score:4, Insightful)
Copyright is the epitome of regulation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You? (Score:4, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Funny)
Also, the Alps.
Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You? (Score:5, Informative)
When WWII came around and Hitler and Mussolini invaded almost every country in Europe, he left little Switzerland alone because of this.
The Nazis left Switzerland alone because it was their bank [amazon.com].
Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Informative)
"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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
Free markets in no way favor corporations.
History [wikipedia.org] would disagree [wikipedia.org] with you.
Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You? (Score:4, Insightful)
Corporations like SOME regulations
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Big Wife is watching you (Score:5, Funny)
"The wife"
Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You? (Score:5, Informative)
Unregulated free markets. It's funny how the unregulated *free* market seems to regulate us so well.
She was charged with a felony. By the government. And arrested.
Unregulated markets are not good either. But this is not a case of that. This is a case of poor regulation.
Furthermore, a free market is a theoretical thought experiment implying equal ability and knowledge among participants and no force or fraud. It is a thought experiment alone and an unregulated market would immediately devolve away from it. They are, in fact, entirely mutually exclusive.
In short, learn more.
Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You? (Score:5, Insightful)
>>>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.
Is a movie theater really a public place? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is a movie theater really a public place? (Score:5, Funny)
Oh.
My.
God.
The zombies have already won - and they haven't even risen yet!
Re:Is a movie theater really a public place? (Score:4, Interesting)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
That's discrimination against the Scots (kilts) and women (skirts, dresses)!
Also, in several jurisdictions, topless is legal for both sexes [wikipedia.org].
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is a movie theater really a public place? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Irrelevant (Score:3, Informative)
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 [copyright.gov]
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:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You? (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Contact Muvico & let them know how you feel! (Score:5, Informative)
We should contact the people at Muvico and let them know that the managers of the theater in Rosemont, IL were being total bastards about this. Here's the contact information I was able to dig up in about 5 minutes:
We know who decided to press charges because of TFA [suntimes.com]:
(emphasis added)
Muvico is a chain of 9 luxury theaters, as you can read on their about page [muvico.com]:
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.
It depends on the use (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The "copy" in copyright (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually... Are we so sure about that?
From the NFL: "This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience. Any other use of this telecast or of any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent, is prohibited." So, if we publicly think about a movie, and we have the technology to pick it up, is that a public account? I understand we don't have that, but we all know that laws don't really take any future state into account (like they could anyway). I think it's an interesting idea anyway.
I think this is a pretty simple matter... There's clearly no intent to pirate the movie. I'm surprised that they locked someone up for two days, and are making them face up to three years. I think the defendant in this case should be looking to sue the MPAA over this... Maybe even a violation of due process? Sadly, IANAL...
Re:The "copy" in copyright (Score:4, Interesting)
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 [wikipedia.org]. The movie studios own the news media, and any candidate that doesn't toe the MAFIAA party line gets buried in the press. It's not even just movie studios: a lot of U.S. prisoners are in on nonviolent drug possession charges, and that's because synthetic chemical companies can't take one bit of competition from the hemp plant.
Re:The "copy" in copyright (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately for your argument, that part of the sixth amendment does not seem to have been incorporated [wikipedia.org] 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 [wikipedia.org] 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:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You? (Score:5, Funny)
Because they're PIRATES goddammit!!! Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Good test case (Score:5, Insightful)
This seems like a good test case. A faithful application of the law here would shock the conscience.
Re:Good test case (Score:5, Insightful)
> 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 (Score:5, Interesting)
> 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 (Score:5, Informative)
the Happy Birthday song has been in the public domain for over 100 years
Not sure why you'd think that. It was copyrighted in 1935 (under 100 years ago) and the copyright is currently owned by Time Warner. Under current copyright law in the US, it will not become public domain until 2030, just in time for the end of the UNIX epoch. Given that the song is basically a plagarised version of an earlier song with one note changed, however, there is a good chance that they copyright could be challenged in court, by someone with the funds and standing to do so. Time Warner collected $2m in royalties for the song last year, but does not require royalties if you don't sing it for profit.
Re:Good test case (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Good test case (Score:4, Informative)
Michael Jackson's Estate owns Happy Birthday
In that case, someone needs to tell Snopes [snopes.com] about it:
A bit of Google-fu turned up an apparent grassroots protest website [unhappybirthday.com] on the subject. A bit on the strident side, it seems to me, but they have an interesting idea: turn in every violation.
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Good test case (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
If anyone's interested, here's the text of the law [onecle.com] she's charged under:
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 . (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess ars didn't think of this when they said that the movie industry won't go down like the music industry did [arstechnica.com].
If Hollywood is NOT dying.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Then there is no need to fight movie piracy.
Animals fight each other when they are out of food.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Greed and hoarding behaviors are not relegated only to survival situations.
This is the best copy of New Moon on Pirate Bay (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Punishment almost fits the crime (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
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. (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I don't see the problem. (Score:4, Funny)
No kidding! Even the A-10 Thunderbolt II's [wikipedia.org] main antitank cannon [wikipedia.org] is only 30mm!
It's amazing what people smuggle into movie theaters nowadays.
WTF!? (Score:5, Insightful)
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!? (Score:5, Informative)
Ok, so regardless of the whole argument over whether any short portion of the video would be "Fair Use" and all of the other reasons we'd argue that this was completely legal...
See the actually law here [slashdot.org]. 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!? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
This is so unreasonable it's mindless... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is so unreasonable it's mindless... (Score:5, Funny)
"Against stupidity ... (Score:3, Interesting)
... the gods themselves contend in vain."
Er ... ... well, that's it, really.
what's worse? (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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!
3 minutes = 3 years (Score:5, Funny)
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?
Note to self: (Score:4, Insightful)
Taping a few minutes of some crap movie (Score:3, Funny)
I can sympathize (Score:3, Interesting)
Civil matter (Score:5, Insightful)
$500 Reward for Catching People Filming in Theater (Score:4, Interesting)
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 [fightfilmtheft.org]
Some employee thinks they are in line for a $500 bonus.
She went to jail? (Score:3)
Re:She went to jail? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Theater manager (Score:5, Informative)
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 [google.com]
People are already starting to comment in the reviews on Google Maps...
Re:Theater manager (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Theater manager (Score:4, Insightful)
my suspicion is that party footage was taken, then filming of movie was taken.
And unless something unusual happened, I would guess you're absolutely correct. If, for no other reason, it would have been too dark for good birthday video once the film started playing. Further, it would have been pretty boring to watch a dimly-lit version of the birthday girl's face watching the movie.
Re:Wouldn't it be annoying (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Which movie theater was this? (Score:4, Informative)
MUVICO'S OFFICIAL RESPONSE TO CAMCORDING
INCIDENT AT MUVICO ROSEMONT 18
The unauthorized video recording of a motion picture while it is
being exhibited in a movie theater is illegal under federal law and
under the laws of more than forty states, including the State of
Illinois. According to a study commissioned by the Motion Picture
Association of America, illegal film piracy costs the movie industry
billions of dollars each year, and illegal camcording in movie theaters
is the source of over 90% of all illegally copied movies in their
initial release form.
In order to combat the increasing theft of copyrighted films,
the motion picture industry has encouraged theater owners to adopt a
"zero-tolerance" policy prohibiting the video or audio recording of any
portion of a movie. Specifically, theater managers are instructed to
alert law enforcement authorities whenever they suspect illegal
activity. Theater managers have neither the expertise nor the authority
to decide whether a crime has been committed. Law enforcement
professionals determine what laws may have been broken and what
enforcement action should be taken. It is then up to prosecutorial
discretion to determine the seriousness of any charges that might be
leveled.
In our continuing effort to educate our guests about the
illegality of film piracy, Muvico prominently places a number of posters
and signs within its theaters alerting moviegoers of its
"zero-tolerance" policy with respect to the camcording of films in its
auditoriums.
Beatriz E. Gerdts
Administrative Assistant
Muvico Entertainment LLC
3101 N. Federal Highway, 6th Floor
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33306
Phone: (954) 564-6550 ext. 0
beatriz.gerdts@muvico.com
www.muvico.com