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.
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: birthday party, copyright, felony, filming, twilight
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Theater's interest
Would it be any surprise to anyone to find out the MAFIAA has come in and said "press charges every time or no movies for you"? It certainly wouldn't to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Theater's interest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Theater's interest
1. You always have a choice.
2. Does not matter how large you are, being a dick is being a dick.
"Would it be any surprise to anyone to find out the MAFIAA has come in and said "press charges every time or no movies for you"? It certainly wouldn't to me."
And as a theater owner, I would say... 'No, you press charges, I'll keep making my customers happy at your expense.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Theater's interest
And the Movie Nazis at the MPAA say 'NO Movies for you'.
Now if the theater were to somehow mess up how it pressed charges so the case got thrown out every time they might be in the clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://maps.google.com/maps/place?cid=16195052917625124963&q=%22Muvico%2BTheate%20r%20%2 2%2Brosemont&hl=en&gl=us
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But generally speaking it's good if this case goes to court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
VRP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Real Crime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Real Crime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Real Crime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Real Crime
1 Lincoln Center Plaza
New York, NY 10023-7097
(212) 621-6000
Any takers???
.... Big Ole GRIN
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Real Crime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Real Crime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Think in a broader context.
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Think in a broader context.
"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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Think in a broader context.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Think in a broader context.
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....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Think in a broader context.
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Think in a broader context.
"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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Think in a broader context.
I disagree. They are a result of greed and ignorance on the part of the RIAA/MPAA/etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Think in a broader context.
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Think in a broader context.
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Think in a broader context.
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wanna hear your side of this story, MPAA! Do you think she should spend three years in jail for this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 3 years in jail
Pretty damn unfair and disgusting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 3 years in jail
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's time!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The punishment here does not begin to fit the crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
She was arrested while still in the theater watching the movie.
Plus being an idiot still is not a crime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anonymous Coward's idiot comment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you're black stay at the back of the bus.
Simple rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How is it management's fault that a couple twenty-somethings don't have manners?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's just basic customer management skills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
doh! their
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
From Dictionary.com:
Fault
2. responsibility for failure or a wrongful act: It is my fault that we have not finished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Phone
> 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Phone
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Phone
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Phone
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've said it before, copyright enforcement is the new war on drugs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I know you're not an idiot, but seeing the world in black and white is a terrible way to look at things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When is it enough?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When is it enough?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: When is it enough?
So who speaks for the PEOPLE? You?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When is it enough?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad press...who cares?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FYI
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FYI
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FYI
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".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FYI
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FYI
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Land of the Free? My arse!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Awesome!
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Awesome!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lessee... Rosemont... Small Movie Chain...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The loss in revenue for this . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The lesson the MPAA is teaching
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The lesson the MPAA is teaching
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20091203/1531507185#c457
I recommend a treeware letter. I'm pretty sure that, since just *anybody* can dash off an email, the time and effort of actually putting a stamp on a letter probably generates more traction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Throw the book at her!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Valubale lesson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Valubale lesson
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Valubale lesson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Valubale lesson
> 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Valubale lesson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Valubale lesson
> 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Valubale lesson
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Valubale lesson
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Valubale lesson
Kudos Trails
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Valubale lesson
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Valubale lesson (Intent)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Valubale lesson (Intent)
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Valubale lesson (Intent)
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Valubale lesson (Intent)
http://www.watersidepress.co.uk/acatalog/info_9781872870717.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Valubale lesson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Valubale lesson
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've been to this theater
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The paper is in it?
"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...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
She's already guilty
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ilU1xIhCUP3SaMZCW22nsbQO9JDQD9CCLQVO1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now it's on Wikipedia
Current revision: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muvico_Theaters#Recent_activity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Read it? Now read it backwards and tell me what it spells....
And now hank your head in punk'd shame...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I HAVE BEEN PUNKED!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Valuable Lessons
Hoped to get sheeple thinking and hopefully doing, not just complaining on a forum.
Mr. Sudni thanks you and hopes we can help this girl somehow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is why I rarely go to the cinema anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Idiots
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uh...any idea what law she is alleged to have violated? Seems to me to be an important predicate question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Woman filming parts of sister's bday at theater.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]