A Year In Jail For Filming 20 Seconds Of A Movie?
from the disconnect-with-reality dept
For some odd reason, the movie industry has been really focused on the supposed camcorder threat this year. They've been talking it up with completely unsubstantiated numbers and getting various governments to pass stricter laws, making it a crime to record movies. The thing is, it's already against the law in most places. These laws are just much stricter. However, the bigger issue is that camcording is the least of the industry's worries. After all, a large percentage of the movies that are downloadable online aren't from camcorders, but are leaked from Hollywood insiders. More importantly, every movie is available online. You're simply not going to stop movies from getting online by throwing some kids with camcorders in jail. All it takes is for one copy to get online and then it's available to everyone. Stopping 99% of the people putting movies online won't make the movie any less available because all it takes is that one person to get a copy online and it can spread like wildfire. Finally, downloadable movies do not appear to be a substitute for the social experience of going to the movies. We've seen this over and over and over again -- most recently with the Simpsons Movie.But what happens when you get into the habit of treating your customers like criminals and even get laws past to make it easier to accuse them of crimes? You get ridiculous situations like the story of a 19-year-old girl on her birthday who was having some fun with a video camera to record her trip to the local mall. She and her boyfriend went to see a movie and she decided to film about 20 seconds of it to later send to her brother to convince him to go see the movie (yes, to promote the movie, so her brother might become a paying customer). Instead, she was arrested and now faces fines and jailtime. You would think that anyone would recognize this wasn't a movie pirating situation and let it go -- but instead, the theater owner, Regal Cinemas, is pressing charges, while the MPAA is citing its discredited bogus stats as a reason that this type of action makes sense. It's difficult to see how this benefits the movie business in any way. It's scaring off people from going to the theaters, treating movie fans as criminals and discouraging them from promoting movies to their friends. Plus, on top of it all, a company like Regal Cinemas is making itself look like a bully. This helps the industry how exactly?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: camcording, movies, mpaa
Companies: mpaa, regal cinemas
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Year In Jail For Filming 20 Seconds.
I agree that the MPAA can go too far sometimes and "downloadable movies do not appear to be a substitute for the social experience of going to the movies" but the pitiful arguments (there are many) this article makes only hurt the cause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Year In Jail For Filming 20 Seconds.
Why is it that nearly every time someone says that I've made bad arguments, they don't bother to point them out so I can actually see whether or not the arguments are bad (and if they're not bad, respond). Seriously, point out the bad arguments so we can have a discussion. Otherwise, it's tough to know what to respond to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Year In Jail For Filming 20 Seconds.
What if she felt it was more personal if she could prove that she saw the movie and liked it? It wasn't about showing *the film*. It was about showing that she went to it.
And, in that spirit, why would she think it was illegal to pull out her camcorder? She KNEW she wasn't taping much of the actual movie. She KNEW there was no commercial damage being done. It's completely natural that she wouldn't think what she was doing was illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Year In Jail For Filming 20 Seconds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Year In Jail For Filming 20 Seconds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the real problem
We use to be avid movie goers, at least three or four movies per month if not more, when my son was born that all changed, but not the desire. When we get the chance we love going to the theater, price isn’t that big of deal, it never was, it’s simply a matter of opportunity. Now we have to coordinate our schedule line up a sitter, and pick a time to be back before it’s too late.
Now we just wait for DVD release, if it’s really something I want to see (300/Transformers) I’ll look for a download and guess what, they were so good we decided to actually see them on the big screen just for the effect. “300” came out Tuesday, guess what I bought.
So, some kid filming a movie is not the problem folks, mass black markets like China and Yugoslavia are your worries and half the time those are leaked Hollywood screeners. Don’t be like the RIAA, your customers are still with you; do not alienate another form of media entertainment for unfounded worries of internet downloads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the real problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: the real problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: the real problem
IDIOT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the real problem
I apologize i spoiled quality of your life, Anonymous coward, being citizen of 'Yugoslavia'. Long live Hollywood and corporations. Kill the freedom. Kill the poor.
;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Surely...
If not, there should be a co-ordinated mass protest...everyone should take cameras into their local cinema on a given day and record 20-second clips of the film (=movie ;) ) being screened! They can't arrest EVERYBODY!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Surely...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Surely...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Come on......
I agree with you that recording a movie is illegal not to mention that it takes the fun out of the movie experience.
I can also see why the cinema might have suspected illegal activities initially and maybe she should have requested their permission beforehand but seriously...jailtime??? For 20 seconds of footage???
Does the law replace common sence???
Even if she was lying...I'm sure that you could probably download a better quality version on the internet anyway, which is the point of the article I believe. The MPAA would be better served with thinking up a smarter way of serving their paying customers....this is just a bully's solution and it doesnt even solve the problem!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, it's a bit harsh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jury Nullification a right recognized by the Supre
Research Jury Nullification a right recognized by the Supreme Court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jury Nullification a right recognized by the S
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it illegal?
On the other hand, if the activity violated the theater's policy, asking them to leave could have been perfectly legitimate.
Finally, if the theater confiscated the video camera and had someone arrested for legal activities, there may be well be some liability for the theater.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Losing their grip
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't Feel Sorry for Her at All
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't Feel Sorry for Her at All
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't Feel Sorry for Her at All
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't Feel Sorry for Her at All
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't Feel Sorry for Her at All
I didn't make any cliams to be a f*ckin saint, but if I get caught breaking a law, my first response will be to own up to it and not pretend to be an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When people get less time for manslaughter and rape? Yeah.... right...
I mean ol' Scooter Libby got a pardon for perjury and obstruction of justice - let's not forget what Paris Hilton got for repeated drunk driving, nor let us forget what Sandy Berger got for stealing government archives
And she gets a year for this?
YES, I AGREE!!! SHE GOT WHAT SHE DESERVED!!!
We can clearly see where the justice system's priorities are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, I agree - or tailgate, speed, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
keep it real
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't Feel Sorry for Her at All
If I run a red light I'll automatically get a ticket if a camera is installed at that intersection. If a police officer is three I'll possibly get my license suspended and points on my record. But if I was stupid enough to do it then I deserve what I get. But the honest truth is that I don't run red lights because I don't want to be responsible for ruining the life of another person for my own selfish desires and I certainly don't want to be stuck having the pay the VA any excessive fees associated with wreckless driving.
What you fail to realize is that our actions have consequences. Stupidity is no escuse for violating a law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't Feel Sorry for Her at All
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't Feel Sorry for Her at All
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(She is facing a year in jail for being stupid.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You just made my day with that one!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Regal
Maybe regal can spend some of their time escorting out the 20 black youth that feel like they need to talk on their cell phone or exchange long coversations while the movie is playing.
Yes, it's racist. Yes, it's stereotyping. It's also accurate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Regal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does she deserve some sort of punishment? Yes
Can it be argued that a full year in jail is too harsh? Yes
For 20 seconds of film, she needs to remain in jail for a full year. You can say she got what she deserved, but think about this, she is told she will remain in jail for a year simply because she filmed 20 seconds of a video. I am not argueing that what she is did was right, nor am I saying she should get off the hook, however I do believe this is an excessive punishment for her crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uhhh....
IT WASN'T Illegal! She was taping the clip for Personal Review Purposes! It's fair use and not infringement.
Although I suppose it also depends on where in the film she started taping, because if she started taping at the beginning of the movie her intent COULD have been to film the whole thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Piracy NOT the issue, Proportional Response IS
Taking the camcorder from her until the movie's over. Fine.
Kicking her and camcorder out of the theater. Fine.
Banning her from the theater. Marginal.
1 year in jail. Bullying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Piracy NOT the issue, Proportional Response IS
If 20 seconds = 1 year
and the typical movie is 120 minutes -- 7200 seconds-- long
then
taping a whole movie should land you in jail for 360 years
(7200 divided by 20)
That makes sense, yessir!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
now if they would incarcerate the other filth at the movies maybe it would be a more pleasant experience and people would start to go back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Year in Jail for Filming 20 Seconds
So if all of the current movies now in the theater are on the Internet we all know what to do to slap the MPAA silly. Don't go to the movies, don't buy the DVD - Down load it off of the Internet!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The second thing to point out is whether what she did (record 20secs) is actually illegal, just because the MPAA says it is doesn't make it so nor is it any more true when you trolls say it is.
Third, even if it is illegal to record a film the maximum punishment should be a ban from the cinema and maybe a small fine something like £100.
Fourth, do you morons actually want to pay for this woman to go to prison? Why would you want your taxes to go up and up having to pay for bullshit jail terms?
You morons are so brainwashed by corporate america you actually believe the shit they come out with. Why not just give them all your money you idtiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Proportion, please
So, kick her out, no refunds. If she makes a BIG fuss, invoke contract law and civil penalties, cost her a couple hundred dollars.
Jail time for that is idiotic -- if it is legal , then it is a bad law. Reserve the jail time for people that are found to be distributing pirated material for profit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
just wow
Record 20 seconds and be jailed for 1 years!I smoke some marijuana in the face of a cops and don't get arrested.But if i record or download a movie be ready for years of jail.Welcome to this shitty world.If you defend them , than you're probably one of these fat guy with small penis siting all the day long in the office and setting their own little shitty rules,grabbing your hard making money laughing and drooling like pork.Legal does not always mean good.
It's hurt the cinema economy?When a actor is paid 10,000,000 a years i think they are looking at the wrong direction of who's a thief.If the MPAA want to stop file sharing.Than cut the internet plug or sue the reel publisher of pirated content.The true coupable it's not the guy sharing a file he just download.But the one making it's easy to access these files by just typing - The transformers
That why caribean pirates it's a great movie.Because pirates rules
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
20 sec = 1 yr.
Imagine getting sentenced to being shot in the groin with one of those weird beanbag guns, you know, the police things? 300 times, at random intervals throughout the year, just for arbitrarily abusing a questionable artwork-protection measure.
Surely a code of humanitarian conduct is being contravened by the the party pressing charges. But even if they are just trying to cozy up to some industry player would it really seem just to fire hundreds of supersonic 1/4-pound bags at their crotch for an entire year? Imagine them at a meeting or at home at the dinner table:
"OK are we ready? Good. Earlier this month Stan Jenkins and I met to discuss the Q3 production sched-BLAM-THOK! Ahhhhhhhh! Ohhhhhhhhh. Ohhh god... not again... Ohooohoohohoo nooo... Aaaa..haaaah. Why can't they just kill me? Awwww god..."
Or:
"Janie? Davie? Don't you have something to tell mommy? Your teacher told me you got a badge at school today for helping an elderly lady with her groc-BLAM-PWACK! Boh! Hoooh-hawggg..."
"Daddy? Are you sick? Where does it hurt?"
"Leamme-alone! Awwww god nooooh... I need to throw up..."
It just seems like it wouldn't be a fair punishment. Sure it'd be fun to watch, but I doubt we'd get to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Laws like this reveal the real crime: Greed
God actors make MILLIONS of dollars, people download MILLIONS of movies... EVERYBODY WINS...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]