It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Koka
what percentage of that ticket price do you equate to countering video piracy?
Originally posted by Lillydale
When does it become a crime exactly?
Copyright Law of the United States of America: § 506. Criminal offenses.
(a) 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.
Tumpach insisted she recorded no more than three minutes while in the theater — and said not all of the video she shot was of the movie. There’s footage of she and her relatives singing to her sister, she said. “We sang ‘Happy Birthday’ to her in the theater,” Tumpach said.
She also took pictures of family members in the theater before the film began, but an usher who saw the photo session never issued them a warning, Tumpach said.
As ads and previews ran on the big screen, she fiddled with the camera — which she got in July and is still learning how to work — and was surprised to see it took clear videos of the screen.
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.
British law:
Criminal offenses
Acts that may be criminal offenses in the UK include:
* Making copies for the purpose of selling or hiring them to others[47]
* Importing infringing copies (except for personal use)[48]
* Offering for sale or hire, publicly displaying or otherwise distributing infringing copies in the course of a business[49]
* Distributing a large enough number of copies to have a noticeable effect on the business of the copyright owner[50]
* Making or possessing equipment for the purposes of making infringing copies in the course of a business[51]
* Publicly performing a work in knowledge that the performance is unauthorized[52]
* Communicating copies or infringing the right to "make available" copies to the public (either in the course of a business, or to an extent that has a noticeable effect on the business of the copyright owner)[53]
* Manufacturing commercially, importing for non-personal use, possessing in the course of a business, or distributing to an extent that has a noticeable effect on the business of the copyright holder, a device primarily designed for circumventing a technological copyright protection measure.[54]
The penalties for these copyright infringement offenses depend on the seriousness of the offenses, and may include:
* Before a magistrates' Court, the penalties for distributing unauthorized files are a maximum fine of £5,000 and/or six months imprisonment;
* On indictment (in the Crown Court) some offenses may attract an unlimited fine and up to 10 years imprisonment. [55]
Link.
Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Originally posted by Koka
what percentage of that ticket price do you equate to countering video piracy?
Now you got me interested. What percentage of that ticket price do you think is ok to have to cough up to fight piracy?
The entertainment industry is nothing short of extortion, thriving on peoples willingness to consume, if you didn't like the original theatre cut maybe you can wait and buy the director's cut or extended redux version, or 10th, 20th and 30th anniversary version or the deluxe metalled case version with additional poster, maybe buy them all, and don't forget to buy the mug and accompanying t-shirt.
Originally posted by Koka
The entertainment industry is nothing short of extortion, thriving on peoples willingness to consume,
Originally posted by Bugman82
So, by your definition what isn't extortion?
People set the price of entertainment by their willingness to consume. It isn't like someone forces someone to buy the special extended edition.
We live in consumer driven countries where consumption is literally the force driving our economy. This does not justify piracy. Piracy is still theft no matter how much you disagree with price. Theft of gasoline is still theft no matter how much you hate the high prices of gasoline.........
In this situation there are numerous laws against using an audio/video recorder in a theater. One example is this law: tiny.cc...
From the several perspectives of this story I have read I would believe that this lady would be found not guilty in the court of law. However, I understand the theater trying to crack down, and I understand her arrest. She inadvertently committed a crime, but inadvertently doing something does not always absolve you of your guilt especially if it is simply your word.
Now, the 22-year-old Chicago woman faces up to three years in prison after being charged with a rarely invoked felony designed to prevent movie patrons from recording hot new movies and selling bootleg copies.
She also took pictures of family members in the theater before the film began, but an usher who saw the photo session never issued them a warning, Tumpach said.
Originally posted by chise61
If you're not supposed to have cameras and recording devices in a theatre why didn't the usher say something to her when she was snapping pictures ?
Originally posted by K J Gunderson
What other crimes can I look forward to getting away with in the UK simply because an usher does not stop to tell me I should stop doing what I am doing?
Originally posted by Koka
Originally posted by K J Gunderson
What other crimes can I look forward to getting away with in the UK simply because an usher does not stop to tell me I should stop doing what I am doing?
I think it's a crime to use an analogy where by you compare apples with ear wax, but don't listen to me I'm not an usher.
Originally posted by K J Gunderson
You tell me when ushers got to be such priveledged individuals that they are needed to inform someone that they are breaking the law before they are aware they are breaking the law?
If you do not have an answer, you really should have left it between me and the person who said something so stupid.
Really? Someone should have told this woman who was breaking the law that she was breaking the law and needs to stop before she get s in trouble?
You tell me when ushers got to be such priveledged individuals that they are needed to inform someone that they are breaking the law before they are aware they are breaking the law?
Sorry but I am not the genius that suggested that if it were wrong to do, an usher should have simply informed her that she needed to stop.
If you do not have an answer, you really should have left it between me and the person who said something so stupid.
Originally posted by chise61
No, an employee of the establishment should have told her that she was violating their policies by having the devise on their premises, a fact that she very well may not have been aware of.
It may be against the theater's policies, but I don't believe it's against the law to have a camera in a movie theater in America, yet. However I may be wrong, by all means if I am provide me with the law.
It is not a matter of privilege, it's a matter of doing his job, and as an employee of the theater it is part of his job to inform a customer if they are violating the policies of his place of employment.
She wasn't breaking the law by taking photos of her family in the theater, she was simply violating the theater's policies by having the camera in the theater. I never said that he should inform her that she was breaking any law, (which she wasn't) which you would be aware of had you properly read, or comprehended my statement.
These two statements show way more about your lack of character than they ever will about my intelligence.
It's sad that you're action of taking another member's statement out of context simply so that you could attempt to attack their intelligence is what you consider contributing to this thread.
Originally posted by K J Gunderson
It is against the law to record copyrighted material without permission. This is really news to you?
This happend in the UK, did it not? Someone has already published that law but just for you - Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005
4 minutes of footage of the film - was her family in this movie?
You would know that what she did was break the law with recording 4 minutes of the fil had you properly read or comprehended the article.