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."
Re:Good test case (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. I'd be interested to see if anyone more familiar with this law could shed some light on its details. Best case would be if she could get off on a technicality (e.g. the amount filmed was too short to count for the felony), but even then she still has to live with being arrested.
Re:Good test case (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.
No profit - fair use. (Score:2, Interesting)
IANAL, but the performers are not profiting off of the performance. The performance is permissible under fair use.
If the employees of the theater sang the song, they (the movie theater) would get sued.
Re:Theater manager (Score:2, Interesting)
"Against stupidity ... (Score:3, Interesting)
... the gods themselves contend in vain."
Er ... ... well, that's it, really.
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: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.
I can sympathize (Score:3, Interesting)
$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.
Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:what's worse? (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!
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:3, Interesting)
Unregulated free markets. It's funny how the unregulated *free* market seems to regulate us so well.
How is it the "free market" when copyright law (i.e. the court) is used, backed up by the police power of the government, to enforce the restrictions? The law is under the control of the government and the courts, not the free market. Your anger has been misdirected. If you want to see what a really free market looks like then look up the history of copyright (a relatively recent invention) and how things were before government started enforcing "limited" (haha) monopolies on written (and later recorded) works.
As a side note I have always found it ironic that those on the left are so quick to support expanded government powers and involvement in the economy without realizing that it is precisely those powers and involvement, co-opted by the corporations (which is inevitable), that are ultimately used to take away their freedoms and quash their rights. Then, to add insult to injury, they have the gall to accuse libertarians and others who support limited government of being "fascists" or worse. I am not accusing the parent of doing these things specifically, but there seems to be an almost unconscious bias on the left against more limited government in spite of the fact that at the root of many "free market" problems lies...the government.
Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You? (Score:3, Interesting)
This isn't the result of an unregulated free market, it's the result of fascism. An "unregulated" market wouldn't have any copyright protection at all; "intellectual property" is a purely governmental construct, requiring the regulating ability of the government to sustain it. If the government didn't get in the way with its laws and courts, then people would be able to copy anything they wanted willy-nilly. The only thing that stops you is laws and courts, i.e. government.
Now, I'm not arguing that an unregulated free market is the answer to everything, as it has its own problems, such as the mortgage meltdown (the result of an underregulated mortgage industry), the Great Depression, unrestrained monopolies, etc. But don't go around claiming that copyright cartels gone mad are a result of a lack of regulation; they're not. They're the result of an unholy alliance of industry with government which only serves to screw over regular citizens. That's called "fascism", which is something that no one ever confuses with lack of regulation or government involvement.
Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You? (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: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.
not charged with copyright infringement (Score:3, Interesting)
From earlier in this thread, she's being charged with "Criminal use of a motion picture exhibition facility" because she operated a camera in a movie theater without permission of the copyright owner of the film being shown.
Re:Good test case (Score:2, Interesting)
Exactly...
A fraudulently obtained registration is not a valid copyright, it's just a registration of copyright.
No actual copyright is owned.
You can have a registration (but no legal, valid copyright ownership.)
You can also (nowadays) have a copyright without having registered it.
However, in the 1900s, the law was different. You couldn't claim copyright to a work that wasn't registered, and didn't have a valid copyright notice.
The earlier publications without copyright notice (in the early 1900s), mean public domain.
Also, the shorter copyright term in effect at that time, means that any copyright registered around 1900 or prior would be long expired by now. The law in effect at the time the work was published, is what matters, with respect to any exclusive rights that might have existed.
Re:The "copy" in copyright (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm going to have to ask for a reference here... this one reeks of being unconstitutional....
In fact, a quick Google search tells me that the 6th Ammendment to your constitution includes the provision that you have a right, on your arrest, to be informed of the reasons thereof.
The specific text:
If you're held without being informed of the charge, it's a violation of due process, regardless of whether or not charges have been filed, or whether or not you ultimately get released without charges formally being filed. If they were to try that kind of crap with me, they'd find themselves on the receiving end of a lawsuit. If for no other reason, then because you have a right to legal representation, and your lawyer can't properly prepare a case without knowing the charges.
But seriously, I'm going to have to ask you to provide a reference, because in my cursory search I found references to a couple of cases that went before the US Supreme Court where the decision was that the right to Due Process, as mentionned in the first paragraph of the 14th Ammendment, included the right to be informed of the charges upon your detention, and without delay.
Of course, such crap simply wouldn't happen up here... admittedly, our own constitution act was written in 1980-1981 with the benefit of seeing all of the ammendments and other stuff that'd been passed in the US since then, but our own constitution act/charter of rights and freedoms has the following wording:
Re:You Just Don't Know When to Shut Up, Do You? (Score:3, Interesting)
"There's nothing wrong with the concept of copyrights and patents."
Yes, there is.
"Even the Founding Fathers realized the value of them."
That's why the Founding Fathers explicitly negated copyright for English works between 1790 and, what? 1891?
"A decent copyright/patent system promotes innovation."
Not only a "decent" one, but a constitutionally abidden one: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Any copyright law that doesn't abide to this basic premise (like if it's focus is "to promote the benefit of some corporation") is against USA constitution.
Re:Theater manager (Score:3, Interesting)
Operating a cellular phone? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Theater manager (Score:2, Interesting)
Thats not the only thing the comments say about the manager...
I would always make the longer trip out to Rosemont in order to attend this particular theater. This changed, however, after a very big incident. I had brought my seven and thirteen year-old daughters to see twilight, having been fed up with their constant nagging. As we entered, I caught a glimpse of one of the male managers staring at the youngest of my daughters. I didn't think much of it, but when he starting emitting a moan that reminded me of a moose during the rut while rubbing his genitals with a photograph of Miley Cyrus I quickly grabbed my daughters and left. I would NEVER go back to that pedophile haven again.
Re:The "copy" in copyright (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: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:Theater manager (Score:3, Interesting)
So yes, I am saying she is liar and a thief (be it a bad one in both cases).