Woman Arrested For Filming Snippets Of 'New Moon' May Sue Theater
from the but-probably-won't-win dept
The latest in the saga of the young woman, Samantha Tumpach, who was arrested and jailed for two nights because her attempt to film some of her sister's birthday party at the movies happened to catch a few snippets of the film New Moon, is that Tumpach is now considering suing the theater, even though the charges against her have been dropped. Unfortunately, thanks to the draconian anti-camera laws pushed by the MPAA to punish people for these sorts of things, she might not get very far with such a lawsuit. As Copycense points out, the Illinois law in question basically lets the theater do exactly what it did, even if the circumstances are ridiculous. So, any lawsuit is unlikely to last, though it should lead us to questioning why legislators around the globe have passed similar laws at the behest of the movie industry. There are already perfectly good copyright laws to be used against anyone actually filming a movie for "piracy" purposes. These anti-camcorder laws go above and beyond that, and lead to ridiculous scenarios like this one.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: copyright, felony, movies, new moon, piracy, samantha tumpach
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @Bob V
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"she was contemplating legal action against the theater."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "she was contemplating legal action against the theater."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "she was contemplating legal action against the theater."
You try going to jail for two nights for an innocent mistake, and we'll see how you feel?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well
If you cannot pay for it, then you need government bail-out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why? Thanks to a lifelong education at the hands of NBC's Law & Order, can't the police hold you for 48 hrs, no questions asked? Was the two nights correlation w/48 hours a coincidence in this case? Or is there some rules differing between "holding" and thrown into gen-pop at county corrections facility?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If she e.g. had to take two days off from work, or missed some exclusive sale or other event, is that just bad luck? Or can she demand (financial) compensation for her missed time? Or should she first demand that a judge declares her innocent before she can demand compensation? (Which would be difficult in this case because it has been dropped.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder
Could he have his career destroyed?
You see corporations don't need to prove anything anymore they just have to alleged something now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How to evaluate a law
Imagine the law is in effect and your worst enemy with a personal vendetta against you is the government official that can utilize it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't forget to rate the theater!
http://maps.google.com/maps/place?cid=16195052917625124963&q=%22Muvico%2BTheate%20r%20%22 %2Brosemont&hl=en&gl=us
The management there need to know there is a consequence for brainlessness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't forget to rate the theater!
http://twitter.com/MuvicoTheaters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"perfectly good copyright laws"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is the Law: Changing It would be More Effective
Yes, it was ridiculous. No it shouldn't have happened. But it did and it could just as easily have gone the other way. Because the MPAA supported laws do not make distinctions between Commercial Bootlegging and Personal Use Copying, both of which are lumped together under the term "piracy". If you are making a video while you walk down the street and pass a TV store that is running a film and you record one frame of it you will have broken this law.
The laws need to be changed. A.C.T.A. will make things much much worse.
( A.C.T.A. is still BAD )
Speak out!
Tell your elected representatives what you think. Currently they believe everything the MPAA tells them. If enough voters complain they will hear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can't take any article using that word seriously :-
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So yes, she should sue the hell out of anyone involved in this case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How Tony Soprano of you.
"Yo, dis bitch should jus' leave well 'nuff alone, capiche?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I would say she is better off at even, zero - there is little up and a whole bunch of down here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe she can get the same lawyer that did Tenenbaum's stuff. He's really shrewd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That would give a Friday night DUI arrest a possible Wednesday morning/afternoon release from jail, and it happens all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wow
The owner or lessee of a facility where a motion picture is being exhibited, the authorized agent or employee of that owner or lessee, or the licensor of the motion picture being exhibited or his or her agent or employee, who alerts law enforcement authorities of an alleged violation of this Section is not liable in any civil action arising out of measures taken by that owner, lessee, licensor, agent, or employee in the course of subsequently detaining a person that the owner, lessee, licensor, agent, or employee, in good faith believed to have violated this Section while awaiting the arrival of law enforcement authorities ...
at what point do we just hand the keys to the jail over to hollywood? I mean really at what point do we start billing David Geffen for the cops' salaries spent on this instead of legitimate crime? Maybe if he took us ALL on a cruise...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The court of public opinion is more reliable here. People actively avoiding Muvico will be more effective in the long run.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Criminal??
OK, if the theater wants to ban cameras from its property, fine--let it kick out its customers. I don't really care.
And if the copyright holder wants to bring civil action against someone for infringement,fine. Let them bring their case in front of a judge and jury to assess the situation and render an appropriate judgement.
But to make the act *criminal*? That's just insane, folks. On what grounds are you contending that possessing a recording device on private property is causing enough individual or societal harm that it warrants criminal punishment--even jail time? Even if this woman intended upon using her recording for commercial gain--which it certainly seems like she was not--how can you justify elevating this to the level of criminal behavior?
I'm sorry, I'm just not buying this snake oil. And my legislators know it. How the hell have we managed to let an industry subvert our justice system for their own economic benefit just boggles the mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]