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

Originally posted by zerbot565
reply to post by Lillydale

 

so now your saying its their gamble and loss, which way are you gonna have it ?

just because they make a "bad movie" that dont profit is no excuse to shout piracy is behind the loss of their failur to produce profit.

its just bad economics or frankly put a bad investment far away from terms like theft.

Are you playing with me? It is early in the morning but I am having trouble believing you are for real.

What do you mean that now I am saying? That is how movie studios work. Most business operate at a loss more often than not. The reason they gamble is that usually in the long run, they win. Do you know why movie studios shut down? It is because they lose money.

NONE OF THAT IS A REASON TO EXCUSE STEALING.

How can you even try to defend it based on your poor understanding of business?

It is theft. Explain to me when you decide it is theft. How many minutes does she need to record in order for you to consider it theft?

reply to post by Lillydale


so now your saying her few minute recording is the basis for a multi billion loss in imagenery profits ?

Originally posted by zerbot565
reply to post by Lillydale

 

so now your saying her few minute recording is the basis for a multi billion loss in imagenery profits ?

Imaginary? Where are you getting this from? Do you believe she is the only person who has and would try to pirate a movie? Why are you ducking the question? How much would make it a crime?

reply to post by Lillydale


by piracy do you mean make profit ?

Originally posted by zerbot565
reply to post by Lillydale

 

by piracy do you mean make profit ?

How about you answer some of my questions before you go on and on demanding answers from me. I have an answer for you but I am done playing your game. I have asked. If you feel like having a two way discussion, cool. If you want to ignore what I ask and interrogate me, bye.

reply to post by Lillydale


technicly here where i live all she would have had to do was to inform that she had intent record it to the licence owner and payed the licens fee for owning a private copy . here the tape in the cam corder would have had a copyright tax inbeded in the price of the purchased tape so the material on the tape would have been legal, the way of getting it might not have been.

yet its not piracy

piracy is a term associated with making profits from bootleg or counterfit items, so unless she had an intent to make profits from the product its not piracy in any way

now internet piracy is a term based on imaginary profits from imaginary customers which is based on imaginary loss of profit.

The United States is a land of laws. There are many specific laws that protect people's property. Many laws are also in place to ensure that people can protect their intillectual property. This ensures that those who work hard to write books, create movies, write poetry, write plays, create music etc. will be able to profit from their work.

It is theft to record any part of a movie in a theatre plain and simple. That theatre has bought the rights to show the movie exclusively so that they too can earn a profit. What this lady did was illegal no matter her excuse, and it will be up to judge and/or jury to decide if she will see further punishment. Inadvertently breaking the law is still breaking the law.

Originally posted by Lillydale
This was not a response to your initial post but a question that I felt needed to be asked all over again because the discussion belied the point. Sorry if I asked for some clarification but thank you for failing to provide it.

Feel free to read my initial post then (Edit: actually it was my third post on this thread), I make reference to two particular clauses (3 & 4) which show there is room for interpretation with regards to what is deemed an infringement or what impact or lose is caused by a particular act of recording copyright material.

I do not honestly have an answer. I guess that means it is 0% then?

Why would it mean 0%?

Your initial argument was regarding the impact video piracy has on ticket prices, surely you have something to back that up?

Really? You need links to see if the movie industry loses tons of money every year?

No, not tons, billions, as you stated.

You are not serious are you? I will see what I can dig up. Until then, feel free to call me wrong or lying about it.

No one is saying you are wrong at this point or calling you a liar, you just need to back up your claims.

So you go out of your way to pay more money to go to a theater that should have less chance of someone ruining your movie experience? You are willing to pay more to put yourself out because it should be ok for people to whip out there phones and digital cameras during the movie? I am confused as to your point here.

No, I work in Central London, so it isn't out of my way as I normally go after work, it just costs a lot more than cinemas local to where I actually live which are normally teeming with adolescents bent on disruption, depending on what movie is showing that is. The alternative is to either put up with the little tikes or kick seven bells out of them, as the latter will end up with me doing time and the former is not something I would accept, I choose the alternative.

On a side note, it is very seldom I go to the cinema as there are very few films in mainstream cinema that interest me.

LOL. Uh yeah. There are also laws about recording copyrighted material without permission. They are both theft and both against the law. What are you talking about?

To save time, this is part of what I posted in my third post:

Although the doctrine of fair use was originally created by the judiciary, it is now set forth in the Copyright Act. Under the Act, four factors are to be considered in order to determine whether a specific action is to be considered a "fair use." These factors are as follows:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Fair Use in Copyright

[edit on 6-12-2009 by Koka]

Originally posted by zerbot565
reply to post by Lillydale

 

technicly here where i live all she would have had to do was to inform that she had intent record it to the licence owner and payed the licens fee for owning a private copy . here the tape in the cam corder would have had a copyright tax inbeded in the price of the purchased tape so the material on the tape would have been legal, the way of getting it might not have been.

yet its not piracy

But she did NOT DO THAT so yes, it is piracy.

piracy is a term associated with making profits from bootleg or counterfit items, so unless she had an intent to make profits from the product its not piracy in any way

now internet piracy is a term based on imaginary profits from imaginary customers which is based on imaginary loss of profit.

You are stuck on the word imaginary for some reason. That is your issue. She broke the law. The reason you refuse to answer my questions is because you know she broke the law and you really cannot defend it. Look at your excuse here. You claim she did not do anything wrong because of what she could have done to do it right. Yep, but she didn't, did she? So, how many minutes of the movie do you consider stealing?

Please do not make me ask a 6th time.

[edit on 12/6/09 by Lillydale]

Originally posted by Koka
Feel free to read my initial post then (Edit: actually it was my third post on this thread), I make reference to two particular clauses (3 & 4) which show there is room for interpretation with regards to what is deemed an infringement or what impact or lose is caused by a particular act of recording copyright material.

There are clauses and caveats in all kinds of law. That is not the issue. She recorded a copyrighted movie without permission. End of story.

Why would it mean 0%?

Your initial argument was regarding the impact video piracy has on ticket prices, surely you have something to back that up?

That would be my point. No, I cannot tell you exactly how much of my ticket price has to do with piracy. What is your point? Are you trying to claim it is none? I do not care if it is 0.00000000000001%. I still should not have to pay it just so other people can break the law. Please explain.

No, not tons, billions, as you stated.

I get the game you want to play. Fine. Let's say that they lose 1 dollar a decade. Does that make it ok to steal from them?

No one is saying you are wrong at this point or calling you a liar, you just need to back up your claims.

I need to back up my claim as to how much exactly is lost to theft in order to make the point that this woman who was stealing is a thief for, you know, stealing? See above then.

No, I work in Central London, so it isn't out of my way as I normally go after work, it just costs a lot more than cinemas local to where I actually live which are normally teeming with adolescents bent on disruption, depending on what movie is showing that is. The alternative is to either put up with the little tikes or kick seven bells out of them, as the latter will end up with me doing time and the former is not something I would accept, I choose the alternative.

That is your issue then. I just refuse to stand for it. I will not let my theater be over run by hoodlums who cannot behave outdoors. I damn sure will not pay extra to be free from them either. You enjoy being a coward and paying your dues so that criminals get to continue being criminals. Bravo good sir.

On a side note, it is very seldom I go to the cinema as I there are very few films in mainstream cinema that interest me.

What does that have to do with anything really?

To save time, this is part of what I posted in my third thread:

Although the doctrine of fair use was originally created by the judiciary, it is now set forth in the Copyright Act. Under the Act, four factors are to be considered in order to determine whether a specific action is to be considered a "fair use." These factors are as follows:

To save time, I will just cut you off here. As you already admitted, this is all open to interpretation, correct? How was it interpreted?


[edit on 12/6/09 by Lillydale]

I would usually have sympathy for the little guy/gal.
But recording in a cinema... for whatever reason is just stupid.

Why not find a pirate copy online and cut the segments she wanted.


While i admit at £8 per film... it's expensive to go to the cinema... it's not an excuse.

And i know that's not why this woman did it, she wanted two clips for someone's birthday... but where do your draw the line?
"Oh i only wanted the main fight scene for my mate" "I just needed the car chase scene for an art project/work"


It's silly and while 2 days in jail is a lot.... she probably wouldn't have got it had she not broken the law.

Originally posted by blupblup
And i know that's not why this woman did it, she wanted two clips for someone's birthday... but where do your draw the line?
"Oh i only wanted the main fight scene for my mate" "I just needed the car chase scene for an art project/work"

That is really all I was getting at to begin with. Where is the line and who draws it? I am honestly asking her defenders what they think the answer should be. I am not condemning this one woman alone for this one act. I just wonder what excuses make it ok. I want some ocycontin for my birthday and they have tons at my pharmacy.

wether or not there are any statutes prohibiting it is a standard clause in the terms and conditions of ticket sales for UK cinemas that [ paraphrasing the T&C from multiple UK operators ] ` all use of audio visual recording equipment in the auditoruim is prohibited `

i checked this with a mate who services cinema projection equipment

further , any one claiming in 2009 that they ` didnt know it was wrong ` is either an idiot or unfit to be left unsupervised

again here in the UK - all cinemas have signs and broadcase warnings

and on that note :

The footage she shot also includes the pre-film commercials, as well as her talking about the camera and the movie.

“You can hear me talking the whole time,” Tumpach said.

she was talking during the screening ?????????? WTF - i guess that answers my querry

reply to post by Lillydale


I see the intellect I am dealing with now, as once again you goad me with child like insults and refuse to back up your claims, you think in black and white and it is clear you are not worthy of and incapable of debate.

No need to respond as I will not be affording you anymore attention.

Originally posted by Koka
reply to post by Lillydale

 

I see the intellect I am dealing with now, as once again you goad me with child like insults and refuse to back up your claims, you think in black and white and it is clear you are not worthy of and incapable of debate.

No need to respond as I will not be affording you anymore attention.

I did not refuse to back up my claims. I decided to play your game. If you want to claim that there is a number that makes it ok, I want to hear it. Why do you need proof of my numbers? Anything higher than 0 is an issue. Why won't any of you simply explain to me where you draw that line? When does it become theft to you?

You claim you will not give me any more attention because you are kind of stuck in your little corner now. I take away the numbers and boil it down to right or wrong and...you run away. What if I think in black and white. Where is the gray area and who decides? I have been asking that for two pages now.

How about we do it this way...

You caught me. I cannot back up my numbers. I am busted. So stealing is ok now right?

[edit on 12/6/09 by Lillydale]

She brought a video camera into a theater, and was caught recording. Period. She made a dumb mistake, dumb mistakes all of us have made in the past at some point. Does this warrant jail time? No, and I am sure a judge will -probably- see it the same way. However, the theater has every right to try this woman, because of the simple fact that she was caught with a video camera in a theater. Did you know that theaters can be held liable if their film gets pirated? Movies are now marked with symbols denoting which theater they were sent to. So pirated versions of movies end up with this symbol, and can be tracked back to the theater they were "printed" for. If I owned a theater, and someone was recording movies in my theater, you damn well better know that I am going to protect my business by trying anyone caught recording in my theater to the fullest I can.

She is an idiot, and she has/will learn her lesson.

Originally posted by blupblup
It's silly and while 2 days in jail is a lot.... she probably wouldn't have got it had she not broken the law.

And that is the subject of this thread, two days in jail for a incredibly minor offense, when she could have simply been removed and banned.

People want to interpret to the letter of the law without exception and it is not as black and white as that.

IMO, I'm sure she was an annoying and precocious little brat who believed she could get away with what ever she wanted and cared little for the patrons around her, but the reaction was well over the top and they invoked a technicality to try and make an example of her, it's quite clear she wasn't trying to pirate the movie.

She is obviously not the brightest bulb on the tree, but there are technicalities in law that could have the majority of us behind bars or paying fines, to place her in jail is a waste of both time and money.

reply to post by Koka


She was not sentenced to two nights in jail. OH, my bad. She spent two nights in jail because the law takes time. I guess if she had not committed a crime, she would not have had to worry about that.

[edit on 12/6/09 by Lillydale]

First of all this movie was frickin horrible and the producers should feel lucky that some one pirated it and sent it viral.
Second She took a chance by knowingly breaking the law and she got caught. Tough luck! I'm sorry but this does not warrant anything remotely close to a revolt. IMHO she got what she deserved.

reply to post by Koka



Oh totally.... i think jail time for this is absolutely disproportionate to the crime.
No arguments there.


But as i said, she would not have received any penalty whatsoever were she not caught breaking the law.



I mean in the UK, they wouldn't even call the police... the police wouldn't really do anything.
I remember seeing something about this on a documentary or program over here and it said that the police wont get involved as it's a dispute between the cinema and a customer... the cinema could prosecute you, but they wont usually... just kick you out and ban you


Things are done differently in the States than they are in the UK and that's fair enough.


Jail time is extremely harsh... but hey, if the cinema want her prosecuted and what she did was a criminal offence, then i guess that's what happens.



[edit on 6/12/09 by blupblup]