Woman Filming Parts Of Sister's Birthday Party At Theater, Charged With Felony Movie Copying

from the throw-her-in-jail dept

Over the last couple of years, the movie industry has pushed hard for stricter and stricter laws for anyone caught "filming" a movie in the theater. Of course, these days, with more and more people having portable video cameras either in their mobile phones or other devices, the likelihood of these sorts of laws being abused or misused only grows over time. Take, for example, the case of 22-year-old Samantha Tumpach, from Chicago, who took her sister out for a surprise birthday party at a movie theater recently. While there, she used her new camera to tape parts of the event, including her, along with friends and family, singing happy birthday to her sister. But, in the course of all this, she also caught two small segments of the film itself, less than four minutes, total -- hardly a representative case of "pirate" or "camcording" activity. Still, the theater pressed charges, and Samantha was arrested and spent two nights in jail -- and may now face three years in jail as a felon. Good thing Hollywood got those laws, so they can get young women celebrating their friends and families' birthdays put in jail.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    ObjectiveR (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 7:21am

    What's the theater's interest in pressing charges? Do they get some sort of bounty from a movie lobby or something?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Vic, 4 Dec 2009 @ 7:56am

    Should be pretty straightforward defense - there was no intent to pirate a movie! Especially interesting this news after that one about the DVD ripper in Denmark.

    But generally speaking it's good if this case goes to court.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Dark Helmet (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 8:21am

      Re:

      "But generally speaking it's good if this case goes to court."

      Spoken like someone who has never dealt with any authority group in or near Chicago. And Rosemont is even worse.

      Anywhere else I'd agree with you, but your talking about one of the most corrupt cities in one of the most corrupt states in the union. This could turn out very poorly for this chick...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Vic, 4 Dec 2009 @ 10:53am

        Re: Re:

        Oh, crap... I've been to Chicago only for about 5 days in my life. Is it that bad? In the President's favorite city? Well, then we're all in deep shit now!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Rebel Freek (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 11:34am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Lots just put it this way, Rosemont is a mob ran town.The fact this Theater is built Right where they were trying to build a casino that lost its licensing a few years ago because of under the table dealings should show a a bit more towards her situation...

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Hephaestus (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 8:32am

      Re:

      Actually the lawyer should argue both the intent issue and use fair use. 4 minutes of film gets you 3 years in Jail, seems alot like the unconstitutional fines RIAA get everytime they go to trial. This is the future where you get jail time for copyright infringement. Gonna be fun to watch the french president complain when he gets cuffed and perp walked.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      123, 6 Dec 2009 @ 12:13pm

      Re:

      I've been falsely arrested and prosecuted too. I smile in such cases because after being acquitted at trial, or on appeal; I get to sue for false arrest and/or malicious prosecution. No doubt her atty already told her abt it. She's going to own that theater, and perhaps a good chunk of Hollywood too.

      VRP

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Got Money?, 3 Apr 2014 @ 3:57am

      Re:

      Yeah, assuming that they can afford a paid attorney... You would be surprised how overloaded public defenders are. I was once arrested and my PD only wanted me to "cop out" for 5 years in state prison"no record prior, never even arrested". Forced to seek help from family, ended up hiring a Shark, I mean attorney, who ended up getting $14,600 in all to defend me on a charge that a jury of 12 half wits could see I was not guilty of. But my public defender said I had to plea bargain or I would get the maximum sentence.

      So basically, when you get arrested for a felony, if you can not afford a real attorney, you are screwed. Forget innocent or guilty. Innocent with a PD is essentially guilty. Sad but true.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    senshikaze (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 7:59am

    wow.
    just.
    wow.
    Remind me again where those Bill of Rights were? Im sure they were forgotten, oh, twenty years ago or so.

    What i find hilarious is the people in charge of the *AA and the movie theater and the judges were all hippies 40 years ago, or grew up in the 70's.

    Peace and Love my ass.

    I hope people boycott Rosemont
    (they won't, but i can hope the American populace grows a spine sometime in my lifetime, preferably before the events in 1984 transpire)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    lavi d (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 8:04am

    The Real Crime

    She should do some hard time for an unlicensed public performance of "Happy Birthday"

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2009 @ 8:06am

    That is what happens to you when someone tells you to stop doing something that you shouldn't be doing and you tell them to fuck off.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Headbhang, 4 Dec 2009 @ 8:13am

      Re:

      Stop trolling, you shouldn't be doing that.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Dark Helmet (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 8:24am

      Re:

      "That is what happens to you when someone tells you to stop doing something that you shouldn't be doing and you tell them to fuck off."

      Yeah, you clearly clicked through to the article, Sparky. She wasn't told not to do anything. She wasn't warned. She wasn't hiding what she was doing. THEY WERE SINGING AS SHE FILMED, drawing attention to themselves and their super felonious raporist ways.

      But hey, why let a fact or two preclude you from your trolling?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        McBeese, 4 Dec 2009 @ 9:49am

        Think in a broader context.

        @Dark Helmet - I think the poster was implying the larger issue.

        The MPAA and RIAA have both very consistently said "don't copy our content." They may be stupid and blind to new business models, but it is still within their rights to manage the content they own the rights to as they see fit.

        Too many people with the entitlement syndrome have uttered a collective 'fuck off' and copied content.

        As a result, we have a lot of stupid rules and even more stupid enforcement policies.

        I don't know who I'm more pissed off at - the parasitic labels and studios who screw their artists while alienating their customers, or the people who steal content and fuel the ridiculous actions of the MPAA/RIAA.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Dark Helmet (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 9:56am

          Re: Think in a broader context.

          "The MPAA and RIAA have both very consistently said "don't copy our content." They may be stupid and blind to new business models, but it is still within their rights to manage the content they own the rights to as they see fit."

          That's fair, I suppose, but it makes this particular story even MORE dumb if that's the case. It's as if the RIAA or whoever is pushing for this enforcement identified their targets, lined them up against the wall, presented a compelling and fair reason as to why they should be punished, and then proceeded to shoot somebody that was just walking by in the head. If you want rules to keep something from happening, why use those rules in cases where it doesn't make any sense at all?

          "Too many people with the entitlement syndrome have uttered a collective 'fuck off' and copied content."

          I agree. There's no justification for true infringement. Boycotting is ALWAYS the better option.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2009 @ 10:01am

          Re: Think in a broader context.

          What exactly was 'stolen' in this case? Nothing. Just someone's fun captured on video. There is no distribution aspect, she was arrested on the spot. Even if she made it home how many people could have possibly seen the 4 minutes of movie she recorded? I suspect just the folks at the party that paid to see the movie anyway. This whole thing is ridiculous. Welcome to the new police state.

          "Too many people with the entitlement syndrome have uttered a collective 'fuck off' and copied content."

          Only after the music and movie industries said 'fuck off' first when cusomters wanted something slightly different that what was available. Mob rule is not the problem here.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            McBeese, 4 Dec 2009 @ 10:07am

            Re: Re: Think in a broader context.

            Nothing was stolen in this case and whole thing is incredibly stupid. The point being made was that the stupid rules and stupid enforcement policies that we live with and that ended up making a victim out of this (stupid) girl are a result of people pirating and stealing content on a large scale.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Dark Helmet (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 10:12am

              Re: Re: Re: Think in a broader context.

              "The point being made was that the stupid rules and stupid enforcement policies that we live with and that ended up making a victim out of this (stupid) girl are a result of people pirating and stealing content on a large scale."

              Okay, I know what you mean, but no. That's like saying that the only reason we all had to put up with the Patriot Act debacle was because the terrorists attacked us, ergo the blame for the warrantless wiretaps should be laid at the feet of Islamic terrorists. That's stupid. The laws and rules pushed by the RIAA/MPAA et al are stupid of their own merit. They'd be stupid with or without piracy, and the blame for them lies squarely on the industry's shoulders, not on the pirates.

              People and groups with a propensity for fascism don't need excuses for their acts, but they hide behind them. Rest assured these anti-freedom laws would be about regardless of whether or not there were pirates. It's about control, not law....

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                McBeese, 4 Dec 2009 @ 10:24am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Think in a broader context.

                Yes, I hear what you're saying and I agree that the laws/rules aren't necessarily just a result of the actions.

                However, do you really think that the MPAA/RIAA would get away with (or pursue) so many idiotic enforcement policies if pirating/stealing wasn't commonly understood to be rampant? Similarly, do you think the people behind warrant-less wiretaps would have been able to push the bounds so far without the 9/11 event? I don't think so.

                Hornets are born with stingers and sometimes people get stung for no real fault of their own. However, if you disturb a hornets nest, you're more at risk of getting stung AND you're at risk of causing the same for some innocent bystander who knows better than to poke a hornet's nest.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Trevor, 4 Dec 2009 @ 10:40am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Think in a broader context.

                  'However, do you really think that the MPAA/RIAA would get away with (or pursue) so many idiotic enforcement policies if pirating/stealing wasn't commonly understood to be rampant? Similarly, do you think the people behind warrant-less wiretaps would have been able to push the bounds so far without the 9/11 event? I don't think so.'

                  The problem with this logic is that if you excuse each case of ratcheting up the restrictions with absurd laws, then you'll soon wake up and wonder where did all your rights go and why you're living in a police state.

                  How many terrorists were apprehended because of the warrantless wiretaps? I don't remember reading anything about any of them being caught and I'm absolutely convinced that the govt wouldn't miss any opportunity of parading some terrorists in front of the cameras and boasting about how the dragnet helped them catch said terrorists.

                  The same applies to 'piracy', more commonly known by it's correct name of 'copyright infringement'. How many of these measured did anything to curb copyright infringement? None! And that is because copyright infringement is not the cause but the symptom of the problems of the content industries. When copying content is as easy as clicking a button it means that they should adapt to the times because fighting against technological development might work in the short term, but they're signing their own death sentence in the long term.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Gordon, 4 Dec 2009 @ 6:51pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Think in a broader context.

                @ Dark Helmet
                "The laws and rules pushed by the RIAA/MPAA et al are stupid of their own merit. They'd be stupid with or without piracy, and the blame for them lies squarely on the industry's shoulders, not on the pirates."

                I agree with you more often than not my good man but not in this statement.
                It doesn't fall entirely in the lap of these groups. The Senators and Congressmen/women of the govt. should be listening to these groups give their requests for legislation, then telling them that it's unconstitutional and asking them to leave their office.

                They don't, then they accept $$ from these groups and we end up in a police state. Welcome to the Socialist States of America.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Jon Bane (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 10:17am

              Re: Re: Re: Think in a broader context.

              >are a result of people pirating and stealing content on a large scale.

              I disagree. They are a result of greed and ignorance on the part of the RIAA/MPAA/etc.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                McBeese, 4 Dec 2009 @ 10:36am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Think in a broader context.

                ">are a result of people pirating and stealing content on a large scale.

                I disagree. They are a result of greed and ignorance on the part of the RIAA/MPAA/etc."


                ...says a member of the entitlement society. The RIAA/MPAA are certainly both greedy and ignorant. I'll add naive and sometimes just plain old stupid. However, none of those characteristics are illegal or uncommon. If people would stop pirating and stealing content, the MPAA/RIAA would throttle back on their efforts that end up in unreasonable cases like this one being discussed. How do I know that? Because the the MPAA and RIAA are greedy and the enforcement efforts cost money. The people who pirate and steal content are the people who justify the business case for the MPAA/RIAA enforcement efforts.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Jon Bane (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 11:01am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Think in a broader context.

                  >says a member of the entitlement society.

                  Do I know you? Cause you sure has hell proclaim to know me.

                  Do you honestly believe that the MPAA/RIAA wouldn't be pushing for stronger copyright laws and enforcement if there was no theft? If so, you haven't paid attention to their past. Many if not most copyright extensions have been at the bequest of those two parties. They have lobbied for increasing the scope and penalties of copyright since the record player.

                  I suspect the only way they will ever come close to be satisfied is if every performance of a song/movie/whatever was paid for each time, at a rate that meets their profit needs, and without having to pay the artists involved in its creation.

                  I suspect at this point, they will never let up off suing people due to the huge amount of profit they make from the settlement letters. Lawyers for companies of that size are on retainer and litigation essentially becomes a fixed cost.

                  While I can appreciate, to an extent, the technicality of her maybe having brken a law, that in no way justifies the law, the prosecution, the MPAA/RIAA's behavior, or the destruction of this girls life.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Drew (profile), 5 Dec 2009 @ 12:04am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Think in a broader context.

                  Now who is naive and sometimes just plain old stupid.

                  Show me one example of any protectionist group that has throttled back after they get what they want? Show me any group that rolls these pointless, unconstitutional and overly broad restrictions and laws back?

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Poster, 4 Dec 2009 @ 8:07am

    Hey, MPAA. You think this is right? You think this is fair?

    I wanna hear your side of this story, MPAA! Do you think she should spend three years in jail for this?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Poster, 4 Dec 2009 @ 9:36am

      Re: 3 years in jail

      Hell - I can't believe she spent two nights in jail - I hope she can sue.
      Pretty damn unfair and disgusting.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Bruce, 6 Dec 2009 @ 9:35pm

        Re: Re: 3 years in jail

        I agree that it is a pity she spent time in jail, and I agree that it's all a travesty, but there are two things. First, the statute says that she can't sue, and second, the statute is against operating the camera, which she did. It doesn't matter what was playing or which way it was pointed or whose party it was.

        My problem with it is that when the legislation was first proposed, the proponents said again and again that it would only be used when someone clearly intends to pirate a movie. As so often happens, it seems as if exactly the kind of silly enforcement we're told not to worry about is exactly what happens.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2009 @ 2:35pm

      Re:

      They won't respond and here is why.

      They do think it's right so long as it's not them doing the piracy.

      However, they don't want to admit to it because they know it'll create huge public backlashes. After all, if they had to spend time in jail for something like that they would be upset too so they know that the public would also be upset, but since it's happening to someone else it's fine with the MPAA. Their only morality is, "it's ethical only if it makes us profits."

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2009 @ 8:16am

    It's time!

    I already boycott RIAA for this same reason. Looks like it's time to do the same for MPAA crap as well.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2009 @ 8:19am

    Basically, it's one of those things: Don't bring a video camera into a movie theater and turn it on. Simple rules.

    The rest is the rest - she is an idiot for doing it, she is an idiot for apparently making the video available, and yes, she is likely guilty of being an idiot - which isn't a defence.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Seriously?, 4 Dec 2009 @ 8:34am

      Re:

      Being an idiot is also not a jailable offense. If it were, many, many people who post ignorant and poorly thought out comments on the internet would be incarcerated.

      The punishment here does not begin to fit the crime.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Phillip (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 9:02am

      Re:

      There was no making available.
      She was arrested while still in the theater watching the movie.
      Plus being an idiot still is not a crime

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2009 @ 9:10am

      Re:

      You're right that she's probably an idiot. But fortunately, that is not criminal yet.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Erinn, 4 Dec 2009 @ 4:00pm

      Re: Anonymous Coward's idiot comment

      However - it has not become illegal to be an idiot. Which is a real pity because you are a major offender.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Richard (profile), 5 Dec 2009 @ 8:32am

      Re:

      "Don't bring a video camera into a movie theater and turn it on. Simple rules."

      If you're black stay at the back of the bus.

      Simple rules.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Nate (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 8:21am

    This probably won't be a popular point of view, but out of all the things someone could have chosen to video tape, she chose a birthday event at a movie theater? Do people know it's generally not a good idea to bring a camera to a movie theater? I agree that the punishment given so far is unreasonable and the theater overreacted, but this wasn't the best idea in the world either...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Ryan, 4 Dec 2009 @ 8:35am

      Re:

      I was unaware that it was bad to bring a simple camera to the theater; guess I'll be leaving my cell phone at home from now on when I'm going out for dinner and a movie.

      I wonder, would you say the same thing to a parent that got charged with child pornography because they filmed their child taking a bath? I mean goshdarnit, don't people know by now that a camera should never be within a 5-mile radius of anyone under the age of 18 in any state of undress?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        llfar, 4 Dec 2009 @ 8:59am

        Re: Re:

        In every theatre I've been to in New Zealand, they have signs stating you are not allowed recording devices inside. They also ask you to turn cellphones off while the movie is playing.

        At swimming pools, they now have signs stating you cannot bring a camera or cellphone into the pool area.

        I want to know why they're singing and recording DURING the movie... Was there anyone else in the theatre, because I can guarantee that if a group started singing Happy Birthday in the middle of a movie, I'd be complaining to management and asking for a refund.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          DCX2, 4 Dec 2009 @ 9:31am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Was there anyone else in the theatre, because I can guarantee that if a group started singing Happy Birthday in the middle of a movie, I'd be complaining to management and asking for a refund.

          How is it management's fault that a couple twenty-somethings don't have manners?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            pixelpusher220 (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 10:37am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            it isn't Mgmt's 'fault', but it is there responsibility to provide an adequate viewing environment. If people are being disruptive to other's enjoyment of the movie, the theater would do well to listen to complaints lest they lose even more customers.

            That's just basic customer management skills.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous1, 4 Dec 2009 @ 1:58pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            How is it management's fault that a couple twenty-somethings don't have manners?



            Typical dense reply from you I see, as expected. It isn't "their fault" as you READ INTO the previous posters statement idiot.It is however their RESPONSIBILITY to remove unruely, disruptive people from the theater, per complaint, as needed.The charge is absurd but your lack of reading comprehension is just as bad.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Nate (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 10:40am

          Re: Re: Re:

          The article said that the birthday activities did not occur in the screen room, so I assume it was in the theater lobby. The majority of what was caught on camera was the woman talking about her camera and the movie with friends while the pre-movie advertisements in the background.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Rebel Freek (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 1:01pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            They have a party room right to the side of the lobby and a restaurant upstairs from the lobby(full bar in there that you can take drinks into the upstairs theaters).

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        btr1701 (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 10:39am

        Re: Re: Phone

        > guess I'll be leaving my cell phone at home from
        > now on when I'm going out for dinner and a
        > movie.

        If only.

        Nothing like having a nice dinner or a movie ruined by all the idiots who feel the need to bring those things with them (and use them constantly) wherever they go.

        The last time I saw a movie in a theater, there was a nonstop sea of glowing little screens bouncing and moving in my eyeline throughout the entire film as people incessantly texted their friends and checked e-mails for two straight hours.

        If this sort of draconian enforcement starts making people leery of even bringing their phones into a theater, then at least one good thing has come from the MPAA's scorched earth campaign.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          nasch (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 11:53am

          Re: Re: Re: Phone

          The last time I saw a movie in a theater, there was a nonstop sea of glowing little screens bouncing and moving in my eyeline throughout the entire film as people incessantly texted their friends and checked e-mails for two straight hours.

          Why do they pay to sit in the dark and use their cell phones? You can do that at home for free. I don't get it.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            btr1701 (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 10:22pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Phone

            > Why do they pay to sit in the dark and use their cell phones?

            You got me. It's like they're addicted to crack or something. They can't leave the damn things alone for even an hour or so.

            I had one girl sitting right next to me in a crowded showing of 2012 who opened up her cell phone literally every 2-3 minutes. God knows what she was doing-- checking e-mail or texts or Facebook or somesuch nonsense-- and when I asked if she could please stop doing that because the glow from the screen was ridiculously distracting from the film, her response was to slide out of her seat and crouch down in the aisle, shielding the glow with her body. Her complete attention was on the damn cell phone for the entire duration of the movie. I have no idea why she even bothered to come to the theater. Seems to me she could have just stayed at home and spent the whole night staring at her little gizmo like some kind of mindless zombie.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            btr1701 (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 10:24pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Phone

            > Why do they pay to sit in the dark and use their cell phones?

            You got me. It's like they're addicted to crack or something. They can't leave the damn things alone for even an hour or so.

            I had one girl sitting right next to me in a crowded showing of 2012 who opened up her cell phone literally every 2-3 minutes. God knows what she was doing-- checking e-mail or texts or Facebook or somesuch nonsense-- and when I asked if she could please stop doing that because the glow from the screen was ridiculously distracting from the film, her response was to slide out of her seat and crouch down in the aisle, shielding the glow with her body. Her complete attention was on the damn cell phone for the entire duration of the movie. I have no idea why she even bothered to come to the theater. Seems to me she could have just stayed at home and spent the whole night staring at her little gizmo like some kind of mindless zombie.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2009 @ 9:29am

      Re:

      Yes, but WHY is does the theater seem so rediculous to you? Because it's common sense, or because the MPAA has gotten out of hand?

      Did you know you aren't supposed to take photos in a Mall? If you snap a pic of your friend shopping, you can be booted out. Rediculousness of that aside, because it's private property the worst they can do is kick you out. Yet, somehow the theater is different, and she is now facing felony charges?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Nate (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 10:37am

        Re: Re:

        Taking a picture at a mall and recording a movie are two separate ordeals. I don't know the exact rules for malls, if they exist (I hadn't heard of it), but I can see where people would be upset about their privacy. If that's the case then it's a matter of privacy violation versus copyright infringement.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Nate (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 11:08am

          Re: Re: Re:

          To clarify more, if the woman took video of just her friends and stuff WITHOUT ANY CLIPS OF THE MOVIE and if the theater had a problem with that then they could get kicked out or something along the lines you described. The fact that the woman got clips of the movie (whether on purpose or accidentally) just adds another layer of crap that makes it different from a mall picture. That's when it becomes copyright infringement. Whether or not you agree with the law as written now (I don't agree with it), that's just how it is. Yeah it sucks, but the point I made earlier was that I thought people in general knew about the risks of taking a camera into a theater and would not attempt it because situations like this can occur.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2009 @ 4:18pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Yes. It's against the law. Since when was common sense removed from administering the law? When did we as a country start catering to this kind of idiocy? Four minutes. Really? For a ninety minute film that is what, 4.44% of the film? Assuming that she actually caught anything of the film and not just a fringe shot of the screen with her friend's head dominating the shot.

            Common sense says she was not filming the movie, and at most she should have been asked to leave for bringing in a camera. People on here are complaining of entitlement society. Laws like these, and responses such as this woman received, are indicative of such an entitlement society, but who is so entitled? The MPAA, in this case. Why? Simple. They and their lobbyists have pushed through laws so draconian as to put people in mind of the fascism of Germany ca 1942. An industry can now remove YOUR RIGHTS just for the dire mistake of catching the smallest bit of their piece of bloated crap on film (digital media, whatever).

            Once more, we see punishments that do not fit the crime. Will WWIII be everyone bombing America for their totalitarian ways? Seems far-fetched, but laws such as this are only the beginning.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Smite, 4 Dec 2009 @ 4:37pm

      Re:

      No, I agree with you. Movie theaters generally have signs around that say no recorded devices allowed. I mean, the best that could've happened if she didn't get charged would've been them asking her to put the camera away.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2009 @ 8:21am

    I would have to say too, WTG Mike, nice "moral outrage" piece to let molder over the weekend.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2009 @ 8:31am

    Well, at the very least, spreading even 4 minutes of Twilight in any manner is a crime against humanity.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ima Fish (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 8:34am

    If she has shoplifted either the DVD or Blu-ray the most she would have faced would have been a misdemeanor and she never would have spent any time in jail.

    I've said it before, copyright enforcement is the new war on drugs.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2009 @ 8:39am

    Ryan, why yes, parents charged with child porn for pics of their babies in the tub has happened.

    Did you know that if a 17 year old sends a naked pic of themselves to you they can charge you with child porn? You can bang them in most states and that is fine, but if you have a naked pic of them, its child porn.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Ryan, 4 Dec 2009 @ 8:46am

      Re:

      Yes, I'm aware of this situation, which is exactly what prompted my point. Would the OP say the same thing to those people that got fucked over? "Well, it's not a good idea to film your kids, didn't you know?"

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Nate (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 10:48am

        Re: Re:

        Just so you know, I wouldn't say "it's not a good idea" if images were kept privately by the family, for the family. If the family was distributing it then there's a big problem with that. Rules for recording devices in theaters are there because of assumed intent. There's nothing particularly fantastic about your run of the mill movie theater and most people act with a purpose. You're fine to have your cell phone because the assumed intent of you having it is NOT to record movies but to communicate with other people.

        I know you're not an idiot, but seeing the world in black and white is a terrible way to look at things.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Jason, 4 Dec 2009 @ 11:29am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Although "assumed intent" may apply in movie theaters, it doesn't apply in a felony criminal case. They are going to have to prove actual intent, which in this case is going to be a real BS-fest.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Nate (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 11:41am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Yeah. I wish I could see the video. It will be awful for the woman if she actually pointed the camera directly at the screen, even for a split second. I think best case for her is if the camera never got a full shot of the screen. Regardless, we all know she shouldn't be a felon given the circumstances.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Catharina, 4 Dec 2009 @ 8:40am

    When is it enough?

    I hope this story is a hoax but if it is not, then when will the people stand up to these companies that abuse the laws? When will we the people stand up to these governments who make these laws? When will we ask our governments: " hey what you'r up to there? Aren't you to supposed to be working for us?"

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Andy (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 8:48am

      Re: When is it enough?

      People shouldn't be asking these things of government, they should be demanding them! Government IS supposed to follow the will of the PEOPLE not of particular interest groups.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Ryan, 4 Dec 2009 @ 8:53am

        Re: Re: When is it enough?

        Government IS supposed to follow the will of the PEOPLE not of particular interest groups.

        So who speaks for the PEOPLE? You?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Ryan, 4 Dec 2009 @ 8:52am

      Re: When is it enough?

      They are working for us; they're working for the special interests that can deliver them the most money and influence. It strikes me as naive that any activist and interventionary government will not favor certain groups within its populace over others; we will stand up to them when we stop electing our current politicians because they are not Republican or not Democrat, because they actually have some knowledge of the subject instead of telling us what we want to hear, and because they have a track record of setting fair rules and then staying the hell out of the way.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Andy (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 8:46am

    Bad press...who cares?

    If this happened in almost any other scenario, the business concerned would realise the bad press something like this would generate and would no doubt back off. It seems the "entertainment" industry have gone so far off-track with good public relations in their pursuit of their "entitlement" with whining and litigation, they simply don't see the disturbing reality of just how unhappy they are making their customers.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2009 @ 8:48am

    Where's the paid shill? I want his take on how this is fair. Hell, where's angrydude?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    sehlat (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 8:49am

    FYI

    The President of this theater chain is:

    Hal Cleveland
    Muvico Entertainment, L.L.C.
    3101 N. Federal Highway, Sixth Floor
    Fort Lauderdale, FL 33306

    I intend to write him a very polite letter congratulating his chain's customer service policies.

    I mean, it's not everybody who gets a gift at their sister's birthday party. What gift, you ask? Why, a criminal record! A gift that keeps on giving. I'm sure Ms. Tumpach will remember this birthday every time she fills out a job application and gets to the "Have you ever been arrested or charged with a crime?" question.

    THIS, people, is the kind of customer service that got me into theaters all of four times in the past year, and my wife only had to drag me for three of them.

    America has a long tradition of replacing old, worn-out industries and methods with new and efficient ones. Cars replaced horse-and-buggy transport. The telephone replaced the telegraph which replaced messengers.

    So join me in applauding Muvico's efforts to push another decaying industry into its twlight, so a new moon may arise.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      senshikaze (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 9:19am

      Re: FYI

      seconded.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 9:36am

      Re: FYI

      "Tumpach will remember this birthday every time she fills out a job application and gets to the 'Have you ever been arrested or charged with a crime?'"

      Oh, it's better then that. Most jobs don't care about the little things, the most common question is "Have you ever been charged with a felony?" Now she gets to say "Yes". I wonder how may employers take the time to pay attention to that section labeled "details".

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Ron Rezendes (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 10:35am

      Re: FYI

      hal.cleveland@muvico.com should be the email address based on other email addresses for the company. Email sent - join me in letting these people know how you feel!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Ron Rezendes (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 10:48am

        Re: Re: FYI

        Here's the content I sent - credit to CST for making such a salient point!

        Dear Mr. Cleveland,

        I'm sure this isn't the first email nor the last you will receive regarding the case of Samantha Tumpach who was jailed for two nights and faces felony charges and possibly three years in prison.

        It's not everybody who gets a gift at their sister's birthday party. What gift, you ask? Why, a criminal record! A gift that keeps on giving!

        I'm sure Ms. Tumpach will remember this birthday every time she fills out a job application and gets to the "Have you ever been arrested or charged with a crime?" question.

        You can be assured that none of my friends or family will ever spend a single dime in one of your establishments during our lifetimes. Congratulations!

        Sincerely disheartened,
        ~Ron Rezendes

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Mike Caprio, 4 Dec 2009 @ 8:51am

    Are they going to get busted for singing and recording a performance of the copyrighted song "Happy Birthday" as well? You must pay Edgar Bronfman, Jr. royalties if you want to sing that song, you know. He really ought to press charges against those wicked people.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2009 @ 8:52am

    Ha ha ha. Gotta love the US.

    Land of the Free? My arse!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Trails, 4 Dec 2009 @ 8:55am

    Awesome!

    This is brilliant! This is exactly what the world needs. We should be putting more productive young members of society in cages alongside career felons in order to enforce anachronistic and draconian laws enacted by bribed politicians made to prop up a dieing business model.

    This is also brilliant because this is exactly what the courts and jails are for. I, as a taxpayer am thrilled that this is how my tax dollars are being spent and I will vote, several times in a single election if I can figure out how, for any politician who supports these actions.

    To be clear, in my honest opinion, there is absolutely nothing more important for law enforcement and corrections resources to be spent on than making an example of this woman. How excellent! I am inspired by this, and what it says about the law, the legislative process, and a society that permits this to occur.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    mjb5406 (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 8:56am

    Lessee... Rosemont... Small Movie Chain...

    Must be Movico! That's about the only small theater chain I'm aware of with a location in Rosemont, where the son of the late Donald Stephens (former mayor) runs the city with an iron fist, esconcing fairness to all (NOT). Although never proven, Stephens (the dead one) supposedly was "connected". I've dealt with Rosemont Police; the only thing they seem to do is abuse people and direct traffic at Allstate Arena. I'm sure the politics in Rosemont have a lot to do with the arrest.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Trails, 4 Dec 2009 @ 8:58am

    Actually

    On a serious note, does she have a legal defense fund setup? I'd donate.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Carl (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 8:58am

    The loss in revenue for this . . .

    comes not out of the millions of dollars that the studios will surely lose if those 4 minutes of Twilight are distributed, but that people are going to be too scared of being thrown in jail to go to the theatre for events like birthday parties or anything where someone might want to film their friends and family. I'm certainly not going to be going to the theatres for a while.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    fogbugzd (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 8:59am

    The lesson the MPAA is teaching

    So, what did we learn from this?

    "If your friend is having a birthday, don't take them to a movie."

    Is that the lesson the MPAA wants to teach people?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      jacksombra, 4 Dec 2009 @ 10:33am

      Re: The lesson the MPAA is teaching

      ""If your friend is having a birthday, don't take them to a movie."

      Is that the lesson the MPAA wants to teach people?"
      MPAA who know's?
      Other cinema goers? Most certainly

      Cinema is not a party location, where ene sings, dances and shouts, it's a place to watch movies, hopefully with minimal disruption from other people there

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Jason, 4 Dec 2009 @ 11:27am

        Re: Re: The lesson the MPAA is teaching

        Somebody forgot to tell the theater people, because they constantly advertise it as such in their little pre-film commercials.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2009 @ 9:08am

    I plan to boycott the movie Twilight over this.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2009 @ 9:09am

    ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law mike... you're not entitled to birthday parties... you aren't entitled to film them... and you aren't entitled to freedom... wait let me check that last one...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2009 @ 9:17am

    Well, since there were others at the movie in that party and they obviously knew what was going on, shouldn't they be charged as co-conspirators? If they actually planned this party, wouldn't that warrent conspiracy charges?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Jesse, 4 Dec 2009 @ 9:18am

    What's the name of the theater chain. Send them an e-mail shaming them, and see the response.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2009 @ 9:57am

    What if she'd been arrested in a larger city? A young girl like this, with no apparent criminal history, is someone easily victimized by male guards and other inmates, and she spent two days locked up before she had a bail hearing.

    A potential of three years in prison is not in any way justified by the level of her 'crime.' Tell me why I would want to take my own children to the movies so they can witness someone being handcuffed and arrested for copying four minutes of a movie onto their video camera. It's not worth the price of admission. Hello, Netflix.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    McBeese, 4 Dec 2009 @ 10:01am

    Throw the book at her!

    I just read the story. Nowhere does it say that this was a private showing of the film, yet it goes on and on about how she was talking the whole time she was filming. I say throw in her jail for as long as possible. Not for filming a few minutes of a bad movie, but for being one of those stupid cows who won't shut up whenever I go to a movie. Send her to the prison wing where they put the people who don't signal in traffic because their hand is full holding a cell phone to their ear.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Llihsyrt Sudni, 4 Dec 2009 @ 10:08am

    Valubale lesson

    Why does everyone leap to outrage on issues like this? Rules are rules and common sense is common sense. You don't take beer into Saudi, talk religion in Beijing, take photos of kids playing in Green Park in London or even drive 28 in a 25 mile zone. Ignorance of the law is not a excuse, cases like this that get the public's attention serve to educate the masses to our rules and laws. She should be charged to the fullest extent of the law and we all will be better off with the lesson it brings. How many of you will now bring your camcorder into a theater?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Trevor, 4 Dec 2009 @ 10:18am

      Re: Valubale lesson

      I see that you're one of those people who think that laws are there just for the sake of them being there and that people should follow them with blind obedience.

      All your examples are examples of clueless following of the letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law. I'm sorry to tell you, but the law should serve society, not the other way around. The current copyright laws are so bent out of shape that the letter of the law has nothing in common with serving society.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Trails, 4 Dec 2009 @ 10:38am

        Re: Re: Valubale lesson

        You have been succesfully trolled by "Llihsyrt Sudni" (inverted "Industry Shill"). Congrats, did you hear the whoosh?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        btr1701 (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 10:45am

        Re: Re: Valubale lesson

        > All your examples are examples of clueless
        > following of the letter of the law instead of
        > the spirit

        Well, except for that bit about not bringing alcohol into Saudi Arabia. That's perfectly in line with the spirit of the law-- they don't want anyone importing or using alcohol in their country, period. It's not just a technicality.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Trevor, 4 Dec 2009 @ 10:48am

          Re: Re: Re: Valubale lesson

          Well, that's another topic for another day and, most likely, another forum.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          interval, 4 Dec 2009 @ 10:57am

          Re: Re: Re: Valubale lesson

          > All your examples are examples of clueless
          > following of the letter of the law instead of
          > the spirit

          "Your notions though many are not worth a penny."

          All your base are belong to us.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2009 @ 10:19am

      Re: Valubale lesson

      Are you smoking crack? I don't live in Saudi Arabia, thanks be to God or Allah, because I'd hate to be stoned to death for being a rape victim. Or hung in the public square for the crime of drinking a beer. England and China, both countries you cite, have their own laws unique to their countries and the needs of their cultures.

      I expect - and we all should demand - that American law reflect American values. We don't (at least not yet) stone people to death for bringing a camcorder into a movie theater, and driving 28 mph in a 25 mph zone should not get you arrested anywhere in America. Neither should recording four minutes of the movie Twilight on your video camera.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Jon Bane (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 10:22am

      Re: Valubale lesson

      Ending a persons life with intent = 5-6 years.
      Filming 3-4 minutes of a movie without intent = up to 3 years.

      The only lesson she is going to learn is how to live on the streets and what discrimination is. 3-4 minutes of video for a life of bullshit. Dificulty getting a job (even worse in a recession), restrictions on her freedoms, limitations to her rights as a citizen, etc., etc.

      How the fuck do you justify that? What harm did she do to ANYONE to deserve her life to be a tossed on for the next decade or more?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Llihsyrt Sudni, 4 Dec 2009 @ 11:39am

      Re: Valubale lesson

      The law is the law of the land ... and of the people. If you don't like it then supposedly you in "America" have the right to change it. So instead of being outraged and writing on this forum why don't you write your political leaders and and apply pressure legally. We should respect and follow the laws ... to the letter. Even if it be beer in Suadi, Jesus in Beijing or Photos in London.

      Kudos Trails

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Jason, 4 Dec 2009 @ 11:40am

      Re: Valubale lesson

      There is no LAW against a camera in the theater. It's not that she was ignorant of the law, she just wasn't breaking it.

      This is a classic case of lack of criminal intent - not, as you so ignorantly suggest, a case of ignorance - she was not intending to make a copy of the film, she was fiddling with her camera.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Llihsyrt Sudni, 4 Dec 2009 @ 11:55am

        Re: Re: Valubale lesson (Intent)

        Intent? Her actions caused her to violate a law. If you were doing 28 in a 25 zone and didn't intend to speed you are still violating the law. (A better example would be not seeing a 45 zone sign and doing 55) You are still violating the law even if it was in the middle of the desert and no one around .. except for that police officer that caught you. She violated the law and that should not be done. If you don't like it ... go out and get the law changed. At least you have the right to do that in the USA. Exercise it or loose it to the the real industry shills.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Mario, 4 Dec 2009 @ 12:14pm

          Re: Re: Re: Valubale lesson (Intent)

          You seem to have lost your common sense to the real industry shills already. Unless you've been in cryo sleep for the last decades, I would think you'd noticed the fact that the majority of the politicians are as crooked as they come and they're on the take from the copyright industries (look at Biden... and he's just the top of the iceberg). Unfortunately 'America' is not really a democracy anymore.

          The tragedy here isn't necessarily that the politicians are crooked though. The tragedy is that some of the people think like you do, and believe that they owe complete obedience to their government, which suggests a woeful lack of independent thought.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Richard (profile), 5 Dec 2009 @ 8:49am

          Re: Re: Re: Valubale lesson (Intent)

          It reminds me of a programme I once saw about a British police chief.
          He addressed a meeting of recruits and asked the question. "Will anyone here who has never broken the law please raise their hands? "

          No hands went up.

          He continued by explaining how proper policing should always use common sense and not enforce the law blindly.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Kyle Patrick, 4 Dec 2009 @ 9:25pm

      Re: Valubale lesson

      Policy is not law.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Cipher-0, 5 Dec 2009 @ 7:07pm

      Re: Valubale lesson

      Why does everyone leap to outrage on issues like this? Rules are rules and common sense is common sense.
      Two reasons.

      One, it's idiotic as four minutes of shaky home video of a movie has zero value as far as piracy is concerned.

      Two, you do realize that should this be illegal this also makes home videos people do in their own home with a movie playing in the background are equally illegal, right?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Tim the Reporter, 4 Dec 2009 @ 10:19am

    I had once gone to a Don Henley concert at an outdoor amphitheater in Milwaukee. I was with friends on grass seating, way in the back, on a rainy day. To document the night with my old friends, knowing that it would rain, I grabbed an old Nikon 110 underwater camera (it has about a 2ft to 10ft range for fairly good images). Not even pointing at the stage, I took a couple pictures of my friends and was immediately surrounded by security and asked to: "come with us."

    Having missed much of the concert I eventually convinced them that even if I took a picture of the stage, Don Henley would have been a blurry speck about the size of a pinhead. And it was explained to me that there are no exceptions to the policy and examples needed to me made...I was the "lucky one."

    Whats the moral? Once you start picking and choosing who the laws or rules apply to - and making exceptions - you break precedent making it much harder to enforce your rules and laws.

    Does it suck? Yes - big time. Years later I'm still ticked over the concert situation. I understand even though I don't want to.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      btr1701 (profile), 4 Dec 2009 @ 10:50am

      Re:

      > Whats the moral? Once you start picking and
      > choosing who the laws or rules apply to - and
      > making exceptions - you break precedent making
      > it much harder to enforce your rules and laws.

      Baloney.

      Declining to prosecute this woman would in no way limit or hinder or "break precedent" (your use of that phrase is nonsensical in this context) or in any way hamper prosecuting other people who really are trying to pirate a movie by filming it in a theater.

      There's a reason criminal law requires intent and this is a prime example of that.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2009 @ 10:23am

    Oh, then the movie execs are going to really love this:

    http://hackedgadgets.com/2009/12/04/mobile-movie-theater-robot/

    It's a Mobile Movie Theater Robot someone built. I guess he's going to jail on suspicion of illegal performance.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Peter M., 4 Dec 2009 @ 10:39am

    I've been to this theater

    I've been to this theater- It is not a "normal" movie theater- they offer a dinner & movie package deal with a huge dining area just beyond the theater doors. The family would have been here singing & partying, not in the actual theater. Most people bring camera/cell phones to birthday parties in public eateries, it hardly makes her an idiot.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Vic, 4 Dec 2009 @ 11:06am

    The paper is in it?

    How do you like the headline of SunTimes? Did you notice?

    "Woman arrested for trying to record 'Twilight' on digital camera"

    Now, when papers or radio or TV report on crimes they usually put there what? Something like "person suspected of ..." or "the suspects". Here, in this case looks like the newspaper has already tried her and decided that she definitely was recording the movie! Makes you wonder if they are in the same bed with MPAA...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2009 @ 11:39am

    She's already guilty

    Face it. This is the MPAA/RIAA she's dealing with here. She's already been tried, convicted, and sentenced the moment she was arrested. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. She won't get the right of an adequate defense... not anymore. Maybe 20 years ago, sure.

    All that's left is for her to go before a judge and find out how many millions of dollars she now has to pay. No matter what defense attorney she gets (even with the Chewbacca defense), she's already guilty. Might as well save some money and represent herself.

    She's done. That's it. She's over. The way things are going, no judge is going to find her innocent. The MPAA/RIAA have already won.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2009 @ 11:48am

    Hope she enjoys the big fat settlement check that she'll sue for.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2009 @ 11:58am

    Meanwhile you can smash your girlfriend in the face with a glass, drag her bloody body through a apt lobby and get only probation.
    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ilU1xIhCUP3SaMZCW22nsbQO9JDQD9CCLQVO1

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous1, 4 Dec 2009 @ 2:07pm

    Re: Valubale lesson
    by Llihsyrt Sudni
    The law is the law of the land ... and of the people. If you don't like it then supposedly you in "America" have the right to change it.


    Are you truely the biggest fool ever to walk the planet?
    You're definately in the running in my opinion. Then again, you're probably just a nasty-pathetic troller, but just in case you're not:

    Criminal actions in "America" require intent, in most cases.
    You don't know our laws, nor the details of it, so please go directly to the nearest lake, and jump in it, you arrogant twit.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous1, 4 Dec 2009 @ 2:14pm

    @Llihsyrt Sudni: Here's a little education twit:

    Criminal Infringement.—
    (1) In general.— Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed—
    (A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
    (B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180–day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or
    (C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.
    (2) Evidence.— For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, BY ITSELF, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement of a copyright.

    You were ranting?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Jason, 4 Dec 2009 @ 2:34pm

    She should have been ejected for being an asshole anyway. Other people paid to watch the movie and she and her crowd were talking and taking photos and carrying on?

    This is why I rarely go to the cinema anymore.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous1, 4 Dec 2009 @ 3:04pm

    @Dark Helmet: Well at least I got punked creatively.
    Either way, I feel I've cleared the room of any potentially true industry shills. I read it forward to detect nonsense, didn't try backward-Capital DOH! for me.
    I will also hank my head now. LOL.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2009 @ 4:48pm

    I sent an email since I can't be bothered to write a real letter. It is as follows:

    Dear Shitheads:

    You should destroy this woman's life. That'll show her. When you're done, let's go rape some babies with pine cones.

    Thanks,

    Douchebag Larry

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    James Carroll, 4 Dec 2009 @ 5:41pm

    Idiots

    Maybe they were idiots...or maybe just young and foolish. But if we decide to jail idiots...there goes most of the Senate and House of Representatives.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2009 @ 10:21pm

    Good thing Hollywood got those laws...

    Uh...any idea what law she is alleged to have violated? Seems to me to be an important predicate question.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2009 @ 2:32pm

    and where is the mainstream media to report on this stuff?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    lc, 8 Dec 2009 @ 6:52pm

    Woman filming parts of sister's bday at theater.

    That is absolutely ridiculous! NOw, this young woman's future is down the drain because of this abuse of power, or was it just taking the law out of context. Whatever the reason, even if this case falls through, she will have a hard time getting a job.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.