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."
Good test case (Score:5, Insightful)
This seems like a good test case. A faithful application of the law here would shock the conscience.
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].
Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Theater manager (Score:1, Insightful)
"Tumpach was arrested after theater managers insisted on pressing charges."
Wow, talk about a jerk of a manager. Someone should find out what theater this was and start a boycott.
Re: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: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.
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... :-(
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:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You? (Score:4, Insightful)
Copyright is the epitome of regulation.
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?
What, we need to avoid the theaters now, too? (Score:1, Insightful)
Jeezus, when will people learn to stop abusing their customers?!?!?
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.
This is so unreasonable it's mindless... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is a movie theater really a public place? (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:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You? (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: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:Is a movie theater really a public place? (Score:2, Insightful)
What would be wrong with giving people wearing dresses, skirts and kilts a discount?
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.
Never have a party at a movie theater (Score:1, Insightful)
Make sure you tell everybody that you know about this story and how celebrating a birthday at a cinema can get you into jail.
Note to self: (Score:4, Insightful)
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: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.
Re:Is a movie theater really a public place? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
imdb (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe they're just bitter about the 4.6 stars [imdb.com] the film got.
Civil matter (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Is a movie theater really a public place? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Theater manager (Score:2, Insightful)
Or she got stopped by the manager after three minutes.
Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You? (Score:3, Insightful)
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:If Hollywood is NOT dying.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Greed and hoarding behaviors are not relegated only to survival situations.
Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You? (Score:3, Insightful)
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:No profit - fair use. (Score:3, Insightful)
But she caught short clips, and it is obvious her intent wasn't to try to fully capture the film, from what I can see. Being curious and capturing a couple of minutes shouldn't be a criminal act regardless. Kick her out, fine, but it sounds like the theatre manager is simply enjoying being a dick to me.
Re:Note to self: (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't go to theaters.
Re:Is a movie theater really a public place? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You? (Score:3, Insightful)
And who owns "the man"?
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:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You? (Score:2, Insightful)
It may have to do with the fact that people who favor government regulation of everything because "It's the will of the people" and "You can vote them away" are the same people that claim GWB got into The Office by a fraud in Florida.
Re: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:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You? (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Is a movie theater really a public place? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You? (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/feb/03/google-trial-privacy [guardian.co.uk]
Re:WTF!? (Score:3, Insightful)
... 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.
Get this on the Nightly News (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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:She went to jail? (Score:4, Insightful)
And corporations have the power to make regulation (Score:3, Insightful)
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 :)
Re:Is a movie theater really a public place? (Score:3, Insightful)
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: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:Good test case (Score:1, Insightful)
Criminal use of a motion picture exhibition facility.
(a) Any person, where a motion picture is being exhibited, who knowingly operates an audiovisual recording function of a device without the consent of the owner or lessee of that exhibition facility and of the licensor of the motion picture being exhibited is guilty of criminal use of a motion picture exhibition facility.
Jesus H. Christ. So it doesn't even matter that she had recorded the movie on the camera. Just operating the camera without permission is illegal, you can't even record your own reactions to the film. Disgusting.
Re:Is a movie theater really a public place? (Score:3, Insightful)
People buy books that are out of copyright all the time.
Re:The "copy" in copyright (Score:1, Insightful)
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:4, Insightful)
Free markets in no way favor corporations.
History [wikipedia.org] would disagree [wikipedia.org] with you.
Re:The "copy" in copyright (Score:3, Insightful)
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: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.
Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You? (Score:3, Insightful)
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? (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.
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: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.
Re:Civil matter (Score:3, Insightful)
This should be a civil matter, no one should have to spend any nights in jail for even the worst cases of copyright infringement.
I disagree with that on two points:
1) People doing it for profit, if you sell it I have no sympathy
2) Unpublished works, not local release but before world premiere
The second because I have very little sympathy for region codes and such, but if we want global simultaneous launches then there has to be a delay between final edit and launch for production and distribution. In that period I think the copyright holder should have very strong protections.
Re: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.
Fair use (Score:3, Insightful)
"
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: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:WTF!? (Score:3, Insightful)
The spirit of the law is that you use a recording device in a movie theater you go to jail. Since that's exactly what the people who wrote it intended.
Re:Is a movie theater really a public place? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's probably the actual reason murder is even illegal in the first place - you're depriving society of the future revenue that person would have provided.
Re: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.
Who interrupts a theatre of paying customers? (Score:2, Insightful)
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:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You? (Score:2, Insightful)
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:The "copy" in copyright (Score:3, Insightful)
Good explaination, if you define "better" as more profitable [wsj.com] then law enforcement in the US can look forward to further improvements [nytimes.com].
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:She went to jail? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.