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

reply to post by K J Gunderson


Ok I'm going to attempt to explain this to you one more time. My statement about the usher was in reference to her snapping pictures of her family in the theater (breaking the theater's policy of no cameras or recording devices in the theater) not in reference to her breaking the law by recording any part of a motion picture.

It is against the law to record copyrighted material without permission. This is really news to you?

Ok you are replying to this statement that I made......

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.

I have bolded the key point to help you out here, please point out where I said anything at all about the law regarding recording copyrighted material in that statement.

This happend in the UK, did it not?

No it did not, it happened in Rosemont, Illinois, USA.

Now, the 22-year-old Chicago woman......

..........at the Muvico Theater in Rosemont.

.......where a Cook County judge

www.suntimes.com...

Out of context? Really? Please feel free to explain to me what the context was .....

Once again this was the context.....

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 ?

Now I was very clearly referring to her breaking the theater's policy of no cameras allowed in their theater, and nothing else. If you can't see how you took that out of context and twisted it around to say that I implied that someone should have told her she was breaking a law (which she wasn't by taking pictures) then I don't know what to tell you.

Perhaps it is you that needs to properly read and comprehend things before you comment on them.

They're making an example of this woman. 4 minutes, 2 minutes, 4 seconds or whatever. It doesn't matter. The intent to pirate the movie is there - THE LENGTH OF TIME RECORDED DOES NOT MATTER.

The woman is a damn thief and deserves time in jail.

If you're in doubt, read it all here, straight from MPAA.

www.mpaa.org...

reply to post by sos37


the word piracy is wrong in this case since there is no proof of profit making nor distrobution in her epic 4 min copy of a viewing she was licensed to see.

so please stop using the word piracy.

edit

by most peoples definition on this thread the word piracy could be used to describe everyone who uses a tivo or hhd recorder to copy things of tv,

Hands up how many here know or partake in tv piracy ?

[edit on 7-12-2009 by zerbot565]

Save yourself even more time and don't bother watching it lol

Unless of course your a female under the age of 16 and trying to come to terms with your teen sexuality

Absolute drivel and not worth your hard earned cash..... Go watch Blade instead lol

here s an example of piracy
original source

reply to post by chise61


You did not read this story. She was not arrested for taking pictures of her family. She was arrested because she had 4 minutes of the movie recorded. Was here family the entire cast and crew of the film or are you missing something?

Please, condescend and explain to me all over again why you think she did not break the law because part of what she was doing was taking pictures of her family.

...and if it turns out that all she had were pictures of her family, that is what court is for. It is not the job of theater employees or police to decide exactly how much of what law was broken.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


OMG you've got to be trolling. I never said that she was arressted for taking pictures of her family, and I never said that she did not break the law. What I said was that she should not have been charged with the felony that she was charged with which is intended for people who sell bootleg copies of movies (piracy) of which she obviously had no intention of doing. Instead she should have been charged with a lighter charge and definately not held in jail for two nights.

You seem to have a problem with the usher comment, which has already been explained to you by myself and also another poster that seemed to have no problem comprehending what I was talking about. You either can not, or choose not to comprehend it so I'm done trying.

Here's a link to my first post which is the one you replied to, which led me to believe that you actually read it. Perhaps you can read it again and better understand what I said.............

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now as far as you feeling like I'm condescending to you, I just thought that i'd return the favor and afford you the same respect that you gave to me with your smarky comments and jabs at my intelligence.

You refuse to accept what I actually say and choose rather to stubbornly harp on what you think I said, so I am done talking with you as it is a waste of time.

Here's an interesting update on this case. The movie's director, Chris Weitz, is defending Ms. Tumpach and says that he will help her however he can.

"There is, needless to say, a difference between trying to protect the copyright of a film and making an unfair example of someone who clearly seems not to have any intentions towards video piracy...I am not sure what effect I would have on the case...the film is, after all, not my property.”

chicagoist.com...

Even the film's director has the common sense to see that this woman has been wrongly charged.

Poor noobish women.

She could have had the whole movie in under an hour with minimal internet searching and no one would have been any the wiser.

Originally posted by chise61
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

OMG you've got to be trolling. I never said that she was arressted for taking pictures of her family, and I never said that she did not break the law. What I said was that she should not have been charged with the felony that she was charged with which is intended for people who sell bootleg copies of movies (piracy) of which she obviously had no intention of doing. Instead she should have been charged with a lighter charge and definately not held in jail for two nights.

What she was doing was breaking the law.

S.167
Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005 (Introduced in Senate)

SEC. 102. CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR UNAUTHORIZED RECORDING OF MOTION PICTURES IN A MOTION PICTURE EXHIBITION FACILITY.

(a) In General- Chapter 113 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 2319A the following new section:

`Sec. 2319B. Unauthorized recording of Motion pictures in a Motion picture exhibition facility

`(a) Offense- Any person who, without the authorization of the copyright owner, knowingly uses or attempts to use an audiovisual recording device to transmit or make a copy of a motion picture or other audiovisual work protected under title 17, or any part thereof, from a performance of such work in a motion picture exhibition facility, shall--

`(1) be imprisoned for not more than 3 years, fined under this title, or both; or

`(2) if the offense is a second or subsequent offense, be imprisoned for no more than 6 years, fined under this title, or both.

You wanted someone to suggest she stop. What part did I get wrong?

She should have been charged for whatever it is the police at the time felt she needed to be charged with. If the crime turns out to not fit then she will have a very nice settlement. It is not the arresting officer's job to determine exactly which laws were broken and to what degree. This is why we have courts. She broke the law, she was arrested. She will be sentenced and it will probably be next to nothing if not dismissed.



[edit on 9-12-2009 by K J Gunderson]

reply to post by chise61

Nice find chise61

It's good to see the director willing to put his name forward for the sake of common sense and reason.

Even if the production company proceeds, I can't see this resulting in anything more than a slapped wrist, making an example of her under such trumped up charges is only going to lead to bad publicity and the mountain being made out of this mole hill, will be to their detriment not hers.

Although I'm sure it won't stop the villagers pursuing Frankenstein with their burning torches.

reply to post by Koka


See, I completely agree with you here. I do not think that any real punishment would do any good for anyone especially seeing as how little she filmed. The point is though - in 2009 USA, if you whip out a camera in a movie theater, you deserve to get hauled out of there and busted. You deserve to have to sit in lock up and deal with the expense of going to court to prove you were not pirating a movie. Technically what she was doing was a crime either way. She was caught comitting that crime. I do not feel she deserves any more than a good scare and I think she got that but I see no reason anyone should have warned her or just let it go either.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Firstly, I'm not "dude."

Secondly, did you have something substantive to add to the discussion?

[edit on 2009/12/4 by GradyPhilpott]

I'm going to play the a-hole here for a second....

"Firstly", you are dude if that's what he or I want to call you. If you don't like the way we talk then you must be racist.

"Secondly", I think people who use the terms such as "firstly" and "secondly" are very annoying and arrogant. So I must be racist too, deal with it.

This topic altogether lacks substance. Who cares? It's common knowledge that it's illegal to create unauthorized copies of copyrighted material. The person broke the law and was prosecuted. So there was some jail time.... oops, so sorry about your bad luck.

Carry on.

reply to post by Koka


Yes it is a good thing that he is doing, thankfully there are still people out there that are willing to stand up against an injustice. He also said that he is going to contact the film's distributers. Hopefully if enough people conected with the movie and the movie industry speak out on behalf of this woman the prosecuter will take notice and drop the charges.

Unfortunately some villagers don't know what to do with themselves if they don't have a monster to pursue.

[edit on 12/9/2009 by chise61]

reply to post by slimpickens93


She hasn't been prosecuted yet, she's just been to a bond hearing. The jail time wasn't part of a sentence, she was arrested on thanksgiving weekend and had to sit in jail over the weekend to appear in bond court on the following Monday.

reply to post by chise61


Do you not understand the distinction between the words "prosecute" and "convict"?

She is being prosecuted.

www.merriam-webster.com...

Main Entry: pros·e·cute Pronunciation: \ˈprä-si-ˌkyüt\ Function: verb Inflected Form(s): pros·e·cut·ed; pros·e·cut·ing Etymology: Middle English, from Latin prosecutus, past participle of prosequi to pursue — more at pursue Date: 15th century transitive verb 1 : to follow to the end : pursue until finished 2 : to engage in : perform 3 a : to bring legal action against for redress or punishment of a crime or violation of law b : to institute legal proceedings with reference to intransitive verb : to institute and carry on a legal suit or prosecution — pros·e·cut·able \ˌprä-sə-ˈkyü-tə-bəl\ adjective

changed my mind...not posting here any more. Logging off, signing of...thanks, but no thanks.



[edit on 9-12-2009 by herbivore]

reply to post by slimpickens93



Yes I do, however you did not use the word prosecute, you used the word prosecuted, which is a past participle of the word procescution.

The person broke the law and was prosecuted.

: a participle that typically expresses completed action, that is traditionally one of the principal parts of the verb, and that is traditionally used in English in the formation of perfect tenses in the active voice and of all tenses in the passive voice

www.merriam-webster.com...

Gram. a participle used a) with auxiliaries to express, typically, completed action or a time or state gone by (Ex.: spoken in “he has spoken”) b) with auxiliaries to form the passive voice (Ex.: eaten in “the snails were all eaten in a moment”) c) as an adjective (Ex.: polished in “polished brass”)

www.yourdictionary.com...

I know that you understand the difference since you corrected it by saying " She is being prosecuted." in the post that I am answering.





Edit for spelling error

[edit on 12/9/2009 by chise61]

reply to post by K J Gunderson


Well, there's the law in black and white:

"Any person who, without the authorization of the copyright owner, knowingly uses or attempts to use an audiovisual recording device to transmit or make a copy of a motion picture or other audiovisual work protected under title 17, or any part thereof..."

Was she using an audio-visual recording device in the theater? Yes.

Did rshe record "any part thereof" the movie, meaning it doesn't matter if she recorded 30 seconds or the entire movie)? Yes

Was her intent to transmit what she recorded? Who knows what she was going to do with it. YouTube? Facebook?

So are the copyright holders within their right to prosecute her? Yes. According to the law, they are.

I have mixed feelings about whether they should or not. There are thousands more people out there who have been arrested and prosecuted for the same. What makes this woman's case so special? Because she's in the public eye?

I mean this woman knew that what she was doing was wrong. You also have to remember that this is ONE case 4 minute movie piracy. What about all of the others out there whom have not been caught? What about those who have been caught but you have not heard about? Should you let one woman who caught 4 minutes on tape slide just because she's in the public eye when hundreds or thousands more have not been caught yet?

And what happens if we let them all go with their recordings intact? Let's say they all post their bits to YouTube. You may be able to put all of the recorded pieces together and have a whole movie. How many people now can watch it for free and would rather not pay to go see it in a theater or rent it? Could that ultimately hurt those whose jobs it is to produce movies in the long run? You bet it could! Especially if revenues fall off significantly.

I find it RIDICULOUS that many of you bemoan the double digit unemployment number from the Dept. of Labor and yet you condone letting this woman, and people like her, go free. 4 Minutes or 40 minutes of piracy doesn't matter - I think it has the potential to do major harm to the economy if left unchecked. And what are you going to do, if you love movies, and you find fewer and fewer movies are being made in the future because no one is paid fairly for their work?

reply to post by chise61


I stand by what I said, both times.

She was prosecuted. She is being prosecuted.

At any time after the act of prosecution has been initiated it is accurate to say "she was prosecuted", as it has happened.... she was prosecuted.

No, Colonel Sanders, you're wrong.

[edit on 9-12-2009 by slimpickens93]