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.

 

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

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 09:22 AM
link   

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?




posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 


Too bad she didn't assert she was a corporation. If she had done so, all she would have likely received was a letter from legal counsel.


reply to post by Lillydale
 



Originally posted by Lillydale
When does it become a crime exactly?


Rather than smugly proclaiming a CRIME had been committed, maybe you, and the law enforcement officials who arrested this woman, should have actually read the criminal provisions of US copyright law.





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.





Do you intend to continue to bloviate how evil this woman was?







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.



I don't know where you come from, but I'd like to think some people in THIS country still deploy some modicum amount of sense when it comes to matters of governance.

I'm surprised you wouldn't have had this woman tazed.



[edit on 6-12-2009 by loam]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


I would of thought it's a criminal offence to use any recording equipment in the cinema - and just against the cinema's policy to take the equipment (in this case a mobile phone) in with you...

Because then 90% of the audience would instantly become criminals by carrying in a modern mobile phone in their pocket... Almost every new phone has some sort of image/audio capture function.

I wonder where the law is on getting copyrighted material in the background or videos and pics... Think about it, when your around town there are billboards and all sorts of copyrighted material, you holiday snaps could have all sorts in the background that might inadvertently get in there.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   
The law in the USA does NOT forbid the taping of anything. Copyright issues are for civil lawsuits and are NOT criminal matters. The lady WILL get the charges dropped and no doubt her attorney will have no problems getting this thrown out. The proof MUST show that it was intended to make money...and to take MORE than a few snippets of a movie...and there are even more caveats involved.

The UK is turning into a fascist NWO lockup; there are more draconian laws there than anywhere on earth. In the USA it is NOT a criminal matter, the theatre WILL get sued for ' insisting' that the cops arrest her...and the lady will win. These laws that are used wholesale to deny this type conduct are feeble and can be shown at trial to be totally wrong.

If I were this woman, I would be preparing the lawsuit now..



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 





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.



I'm too lazy to do exhaustive research on the UK legal system and its relevant statutes, but I presume the entry above just about covers it.



It doesn't look like she would have technically broken the law there too.


[edit on 6-12-2009 by loam]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 09:59 AM
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?


Without thinking too long about it, my answer is 0%, ticket prices are way over priced and if a film is worth watching it will make it's money back in a matter of weeks, most blockbusters do that in their opening weekend.

IMO, a lot of films not worthy of an audience still make their money back in a very short time.

If people enjoyed the movie and feel it is justified in being added to their DVD/Bluray library it will most likely be purchased legitimately, that is my philosophy, although I tend to wait for them to come down in price and seldom purchase new releases. 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.

[edit on 6-12-2009 by Koka]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   

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.


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.

[edit on 6-12-2009 by Bugman82]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Koka
The entertainment industry is nothing short of extortion, thriving on peoples willingness to consume,


What country do you live in that forces you to both pay for and see movies you do not want to see? Something must be done!



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bugman82
So, by your definition what isn't extortion?


Very little in a capitalist society.


People set the price of entertainment by their willingness to consume. It isn't like someone forces someone to buy the special extended edition.


Of course they don't, the idea is to maximise their profit margin and milk the cash cow for every last drop, tempting the ever wanting consumer with something they may have missed in the previous version, why not put several versions on one disc? It's greed fueled and these corporations are way too powerful to the point that they manipulate legislation and law to their advantage.


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.........


Gasoline, another greed fueled commodity controlled by the corporations with a manipulated price based on speculation and fallacies.


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.


Something I agree with, to a point, and given you understand from several perspectives and draw the conclusion that she would be found not guilty, do you feel her spending two days in jail was justified?

[edit on 6-12-2009 by Koka]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


pretty strong assumptions your still making that she is a pirate involved in piracy

yet you still havent produced one single piece of evidence she had intent to distrobute it for profits

if your claiming its theft then do so but leave the piracy out of it since you clearly have no idea of the terms meaning you are using.

but this arguing is pointless since it seams we both have different views on how copyright laws work vs bootleg/counterfitting laws vs fair usage of intelectual property

i still dont see how its theft if the recorded material is legaly hers to keep for private usage



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   

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.


I think that says it all, she was brought up on the wrong charges, it's obvious she had no intent to sell any copy of what she recorded, really what market is there for four minutes of a movie


Sure she was wrong to record any part of the movie at all, but the law under which she was charged pertains specifically to bootleggers and piracy, of which she is clearly not guilty. She should not have been charged with a felony, which the police could have prevented by charging her with a misdimeanor, and let her out the same night on an I bond, (which is basically what the judge let her out on anyway) instead of making her sit in jail for the weekend. If the prosecuter really wants to proceed with a felony charge he could have always added that charge later.

But just to put it in perspective for those that aren't from around this area Rosemont is pretty anal about certain things. They have a beautiful manmade waterfall out there at the intersection of two main streets right next to the river. If you want to take pictures by that waterfall (which many do for graduations, weddings, etc) you must pay for a permit to do so. They have gone so far as to post a police officer there on weekends to do nothing but sit there and make sure no one takes pictures without a permit.



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.


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 ?

Maybe she should sue for liable & false arrest as she obviously had no intent to pirate the movie.

They should have just kicked her out, I can even understand hitting her with a fine, but to have her charged with a felony that's just ridiculus and going way overboard.

www.suntimes.com...



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   

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 ?



EXACTLY!

I was robbing an old couple the other night after murdering their children so that I could go out and by enough meth to sell it on the street to make a profit. There is no reason that I should ever get arrested and charged by police because no one took the time to walk by and remind me what the laws were so that I could stop breaking them before I got into real trouble.

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?

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?



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   

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.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   

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.


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. 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.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   

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?


Probably at their induction to the job, but I can neither confirm or deny, but would consider them far more aware of what is permitted behaviour within their place of work than someone who is only there for a couple of hours.


If you do not have an answer, you really should have left it between me and the person who said something so stupid.


Well, I've given you the common sense answer as to why I believe the poster made the remark regarding the usher, and to that note the reason the girl tried to lay some blame on the usher, now how about you cease using the word stupid else someone might return such rhetoric in reply to your posts.

Also bare in mind this is an open forum and as such anyone can respond to any post, additionally, if you should feel compelled, you may want to add some value to the debate by giving your opinion on the real subject being debated in this thread, your post prior to this one would make your statement about me staying out of your conversation, appear to be a little hypocritical.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 




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?


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.



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?



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.



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.


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.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Wow. The woman PAID for her ticket to watch this rubbish too.
I really relate this too concert goers who are warned NOT to take pictures and video and yet concert footage and photos end up all over the net.
If this woman is arrested for this then why aren't cheeky concert goers arrested as well. The point being that something is either illegal or it's not.
It's quite obvious that womans INTENT was personal and NOT commercial.
So I think the managers were really being petty with this woman while the true professional boot leggers were out the door and long gone.

[edit on 7-12-2009 by Flighty]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 06:47 AM
link   

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.


No. Wrong. Buzzzzzzz.

She was breaking the law. Why should she be afforded the opportunity to be told she was breaking a well known law and that she should stop before she got in trouble?

If I break into your home and decide to steal or do harm, someone should come and tell me it is against the law and allow me the chance to stop right?


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 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



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.


Huh? So when I go to the pharmacy to steal drugs (just a few) the pharmacist's responsibility is to inform me that I am breaking the law?


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.


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.


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.



Out of context? Really? Please feel free to explain to me what the context was and how I manipilated it. I would hate to think I needed to be deceptive so if I was, I would be more than happy to both appologize and make it right. Please explain, or appologize, or pretend you never read this because you are wrong, whichever you like.

[edit on 7-12-2009 by K J Gunderson]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   

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



KJ You are behaving like a dog with a bone regarding the usher, there is no dispute regarding laws being in place against recording copyrighted material, it's the interpretation of the law and whether it is justified to place this girl in jail for 2 days, you had the usher thing explained and yet you go on.

And, no, this did not happen in the UK, why after 4 pages do you believe this occurred in the UK?

chise61 seems to know the area, as stated in their initial post, they also provided a link to the article, as was provided by the OP of the thread.


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.


Yes, her family was apparently in some of the footage, this was stated in the article, so suffice to say, your statement above regarding reading and comprehending the article, once again, gives the appearance that you are a hypocrite.




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join