var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
Aphex242
December 3, 2009 1:13 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

Ugh that sucks. Not exactly smart, but the theater are complete jerks for pressing charges. I hope she wins.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Persistence - Long viv revolisyon an konsomatè yo!
December 3, 2009 2:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'd be interested to know if the theater is required to press charges under contracts with the film distributors?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kazoni
December 3, 2009 7:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm the head projectionist at an independent theater. It is in our agreements with the studios that if we think there's filming going on, we're to call the police and try to interfere with the recording however possible (short of physically touching the person). So really the theater did what we're contracted to do by the studios.

Besides, I think camera's fall under the same umbrella as cell phones when we tell you to turn that junk off before the movie.

Though I also think there is a certain amount of leeway and given the circumstances, I probably would have had a few stern words and had her put it up.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Corporate_guy
December 3, 2009 3:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

My guess is that they get a bonus for catching the person and had to press charges to get the bonus. They probably sold her out for 500 bucks.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
treimel
December 3, 2009 1:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"“We sang ‘Happy Birthday’ to her in the theater,” Tumpach said.\"

I don't have the heart to tell her, but that's a public performance of a copyrighted work :)

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
RPHP
December 3, 2009 1:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I agree but she is not being charged with a copyright violation. The article states she is being charged with \"rarely invoked felony designed to prevent movie patrons from recording hot new movies and selling bootleg copies.\"

Anyway, she will likely not be convicted because there is probably a certain level of mens rea required which seems to be lacking here.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
treimel
December 3, 2009 1:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

left the old funnybone at home today, eh? Still, I have to admit: \"criminal use of a motion picture exhibition\" is a new one on me.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
absentmindedjwc
December 3, 2009 1:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

exactly what I was thinking... any decent lawyer would use this argument.

actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ARP
December 3, 2009 1:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yep, that's why big chain restaurants always come up with their own crappy song, they don't want to get hit with a suit by the copyright holder. Jessica Hill and her sisters copyrighted the work in the 30's and it won't hit public domain until 2030 (mostly because Congress decided to protect Disney by extending copyright periods significantly).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
David in Brasil
December 3, 2009 2:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

From what I've heard, there's an easy way to tell if something is still protected under copyright: If it's older than Mickey Mouse (R) (TM) (C), then it's under copyright. If it's older than the rat, then it's free from copyright protection.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Daemon Xar
December 4, 2009 1:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It's more complicated than that (some copyrights had to be reasserted/renewed), but that's a good rule of thumb.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Hi
December 3, 2009 1:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Th Nz's cmbck s bg nd strng n tdys mrc. Wlcm t th nw wrld rdr whr nghbrs nd ptrns sp n y nd cll th plc whn y dn't tp nd snd y t jl fr tpng yr sstrs brthd.

Reply
10 replies
\"user-pic\"
Chinchillazilla
December 3, 2009 4:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Nazi's? I really doubt one Nazi could do that much damage.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ARP
December 3, 2009 2:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Goodwin's law on the third post, that's got to be in the top five for Consumerist.

There are numerous discussions on this topic, but Nazi's we're right wingers who prosecuted socialists and communists, supported large corporations, felt they were in a state of perpetual war. This is the case of a large corporation 1) being a d*ck; 2) being ignorant; and 3) fearing that the copyright holders will come after them (contributory infringement?) if they don't do something. So, yes, I agree its a bit Big Brotherish, but its not even close to the Nazi's. And the source of the authoritarianism isn't based in the government, its based in the corporations. So, its more akin to corporatism (see Blade Runner).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
chiieddy
December 3, 2009 1:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Godwin invoked. Argument over. You lose.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Hi
December 3, 2009 1:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

And steal from from you and threaten to beat you up. Which is completely illegal:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oDaZ41VyQI

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ninja-meh
December 3, 2009 2:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I would like to see how this was resolved....

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bunnymare
December 3, 2009 1:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

These things you think are the same - charging someone with a felony for taping a movie and slaughtering millions of innocent people though state-sponsored genocide? They are not the same.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Hi
December 3, 2009 1:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Ys nyn wh clls th plc nd hs rrstd fr vd tpng t yr sstr b-d r nt tppng s jst lk th ppl wh wld trn n thr nghbrs n t th SS. thr RD BK R F'KN LRN SM HSTR r y r bnd t rpt t. 'm qt trd f y ndctd mrns.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Naame
December 3, 2009 3:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Speaking of learning, try learning what this old saying means and how it applies to your statements:

\"Not every duck is a goose. Sometimes a duck is just a duck.\"


Yes, what happened here is excessive and needs to be remedied but few things are as excessive as the history lesson you are presenting.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
macoan
December 3, 2009 2:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Um, the police were not called because she tapped the birthday party - it is because she record the movie, which is ILLEGAL.

Yes, she did not record the whole thing - only minutes - so in my opinion punishment should be light to none, but YES - SHE DID DESERVE TO HAVE THE POLICE CALLED ON HER.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Good Cop Baby Cop
December 3, 2009 2:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The end result of being arrested for taping a movie or not tipping is not exactly the same as the end result of being reported to the SS.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bunnymare
December 3, 2009 1:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yes, I can imagine all that unintelligible blathering and nonsensical comparisons HAS made you quite tired (naptime?). I am as opposed as anyone to our over-broad, excessively intrusive, big business-bought copyright law, but to compare it to the activities of the SS in Nazi Germany is in poor taste, inaccurate, inappropriate and intellectually immature, no matter how many bad names you call me.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
December 3, 2009 1:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Uneducated morons? Really? Coming from someone who has the tin foil hat on a little tight...you've been going on and on about the government's swine flu propaganda, and the mass vaccine conspiracy, and now this?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Naame
December 3, 2009 3:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If it were actually a hyperbole don't you think he would have replied explaining that instead of replying by providing us an example relating to turning you in to the SS, yelling at us to read history, and calling us morons?

This was not a hyperbole. He actually believes that this is an example which relates to Nazi's and the SS or at the very least he believes this is an example which could lead to such situation...kind of a like \"gateway drug\" for lack of a better comparison.

In other words, he is a radical extremist whose lack of control over his emotions has overpowered his sense of logic and ability to properly analyze the reality of this situation.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
AstroPig7
December 3, 2009 2:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Read some of this user’s other posts. Trust me, it isn’t hyperbole.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
December 3, 2009 1:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It might be hyperbole, but it's in poor taste. Godwin's law stands for a reason. To make such comparisons is to entirely dilute the significance of the historical events used for such a comparison.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bunnymare
December 3, 2009 1:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yeah, I'm still not reading it that way.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RecordStoreToughGuy_starcommandseries.com
December 3, 2009 2:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hyperbole only means it's deliberately exaggerated, not that it's funny. I'm pretty sure this was deliberately overblown.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bunnymare
December 3, 2009 2:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yeah, I'm still STILL not reading it that way, after the follow up comments.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RecordStoreToughGuy_starcommandseries.com
December 3, 2009 3:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Indeed. Since hyperbole is an intentional exaggeration, after OP's follow ups, the \"intentional\" aspect is quite in doubt. I'll have to concede the point. Unless, of course, he is taking Refuge in Audacity.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
JulesNoctambule
December 3, 2009 1:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is so ridiculous it's almost unbelievable. She's hardly a one-woman bootleg operation; why waste the time and money, or build up the bad publicity?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
axiomatic
December 3, 2009 5:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

You have this exactly correct. PR nightmare incoming to this movie theater. If there is nothing in her house that can support that she is a file sharer or movie thief then this theater needs to drop the charges, apologize, and try to pretend none of this happened.

And to the MPAA, SCREW YOU for putting theaters up to this bullshit!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
deadandy
December 3, 2009 1:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is part of a disturbing trend of businesses treating customers like they are criminals. Aside from the ridiculous receipt-checking trend, we have theaters checking ticket stubs at the individual theater doors and now this.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
Robotech_Master
December 5, 2009 1:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Don't lump receipt-checking in with this travesty. Receipt-checking is as much for the consumer's protection as the business's; a number of times at Sam's my Dad has had errors caught where the store charged him for something he didn't buy. When they stopped doing it for a while, Dad got upset and complained.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
XTC46
December 3, 2009 2:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yes, and this time they WERE breaking the law. And moving from theater to theater is a very common thing and a theft of service. The people who do it almost always come in mid movie and disturb the rest of the people as well.

I go to A LOT of movies, and see it all the time. Group of teenagers (im 24) come in halfway thorugh a moive, talk loudly looking for seats, sit for 10 minutes while making fun of the movie and walk out. I paid 10 bucks to see a movie, not some idiot jabber the whole time.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
outlulz
December 3, 2009 1:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

You mean you've never seen two or three movies at a time after only paying for one? People do that all the time, especially teenagers. It's no shock that they eventually started checking ticket stubs, though I only really see them do it on new releases.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ekzachtly
December 3, 2009 1:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hm, almost like airlines checking tickets at the individual gates instead of just at security? You're right. Ensuring the customers paid for what they're getting is treating them like criminals.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
kcvaliant
December 3, 2009 1:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If it was an honest mistake and video shows that she was not trying to film the show she will probably get off, it just sucks she will probably have to spend a couple grand to do it though..

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
qcgallus
December 3, 2009 1:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Not to mention a couple of nights in jail, and the potential of prison time. And an arrest on her record...

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Jalh
December 3, 2009 1:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

F**K THE RIAA. F**K THE MPAA!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
qcgallus
December 3, 2009 1:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

You bring value to the Consumerist's commenting base.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
PSUSkier
December 3, 2009 3:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Valuable? Probably not.
Needs to be said? Damn straight.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
qcgallus
December 4, 2009 11:20 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Unfortunately neither has anything to do with this situation.

Or fortunately, I guess. I can see a $30,000/picture or second of video lawsuit.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
dunkinbean
December 3, 2009 1:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Anyone know which movie theater it was? I wana know what chain they're part of so I can avoid going to their theaters from now on.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
zyodei
December 5, 2009 6:13 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

There's only one movie theater is Rosemont: Muvico.

The police station she was taken to was Rosemont, so i'm assuming it's that one.

http://www.google.com/search?q=rosemont+movie+theater

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Ben Clayton
December 3, 2009 1:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I think talking in a theater for 4 minutes while the movie plays should be a felony.

But seriously though, I really hope she wins this, \"New Moon\" isn't even worth pirating, let alone 4 minutes of it with her talking over it.

Did they seriously think she was trying to sell it or something?

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
Razor512
December 7, 2009 10:28 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

didn't all this happen before the movie started so in effect, she was not talking during the movie

Reply
\"user-pic\"
admiral_stabbin
December 3, 2009 6:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Agreed. Drop the felony and slap her with a misdemeanor disturbing the peace...treat it as time served, move on. :-)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ovalseven
December 3, 2009 2:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I think this was one of those deals where you rent the theater for a private party. In that case, sing and talk all you want.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
December 3, 2009 1:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yep, I'm glad I'm not the only one who got a little bit hung up on that point. The fact that she was talking and her camera was on during the previews just bugs me. I hate it when people are talking during the previews, and I hate it when people are on their cell phones. If she's sitting in her seat, fiddling with her camera with its big LCD screen, and talking, that's just annoying.

The theater totally overreacted to the video, though.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Shoelace
December 3, 2009 1:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

There's a theatre for people to avoid. It's unclear to me why they pressed charges (unless there's more to the story) when there was a party going on, there was less than 4 minutes taped, and the footage was in separate segments. Who would this woman be able to sell it to, even if she wanted to?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
stlbud
December 3, 2009 6:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The theater is required to press charges according to terms in their contract with the movie companies. Exhibitors are the first line of offense (or defense - depends on your point of view) in stopping what the MPAA and RIAA perceive as piracy. Since most illegal copies of DVDs and CDs come out of China, I can only believe these organizations are out to terrorize legitimate consumers.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
morganlh85
December 3, 2009 1:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wait a minute, does the THEATER have the right to enforce a copyright violation when they are NOT the copyright holder?

Reply
11 replies
\"user-pic\"
pot_roast
December 4, 2009 12:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

60 Minutes recently did a patheticly pro-MPAA fluff piece about this recently. They're going to throw the book at this girl for what used to be a civil infraction. Now it's a ^%$#@ FELONY charge.

Hollywood has clearly paid off the right people, it seems.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
windycity
December 3, 2009 2:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

They charged them with this little used law:

Criminal use of a motion picture exhibition facility.

(a) Any person, where a motion picture is being exhibited, who knowingly operates an audiovisual recording function of a device without the consent of the owner or lessee of that exhibition facility and of the licensor of the motion picture being exhibited is guilty of criminal use of a motion picture exhibition facility.

(b) Sentence. Criminal use of a motion picture exhibition facility is a Class 4 felony.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TCama
December 3, 2009 2:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Sounds like the product of some good old fashioned lobbying.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RPHP
December 3, 2009 1:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If you read the article it says it is not a copyright violation she is being charged with but rather a \"rarely invoked felony designed to prevent movie patrons from recording hot new movies and selling bootleg copies.\"

Anyway, she will likely not be convicted because there is probably a certain level of mens rea required which seems to be lacking here.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Username
December 3, 2009 1:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It may be in the agreement between the film industry and the theaters to protect against unlawful pirating. Something would have to be in there to protect the industry from someone offering free screenings or recording it themselves. My guess is that the theater is an extention of Hollywood at the time of the showing.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RecordStoreToughGuy_starcommandseries.com
December 3, 2009 1:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

They can enforce trespass laws, I suppose. They may be acting as an agent of the copyright holder, too, but that is purely wild speculation on my part.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
December 3, 2009 1:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

That's what I was wondering. Isn't this a civil matter? How is it that they get to do any more than ban her from the property?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
treimel
December 3, 2009 1:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The crime is \"criminal use of a motion picture exhibition\" so no, not civil. Moreover, willful copyright violations CAN be criminal matters (though, agaion, this is not a copyright case.)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bunnymare
December 3, 2009 1:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The theater seems to have alerted police to a crime they witnessed. Similarly, if I were looking out my window and saw someone break my neighbors window with a rock and climb in, I could call the police on suspicion there was a theft. Of course, it might turn out that it was my neighbor who locked himself out....but that gets sorted out later.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Blueskylaw
December 4, 2009 10:50 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Is that you who called the police on Henry Louis Gates Jr. breaking into his own house?
Nowadays, even neighbors don't know who their neighbors are, they just pull the trigger.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
December 3, 2009 2:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

But if it's a civil matter, it's not a crime.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
treimel
December 3, 2009 2:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Why do you keep saying civil matter? The crime is \"criminal use of a motion picture exhibition,\" a felony in Illinois. The thatre reported a crime. The police arrested the suspect. That's pretty much how it always works.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Zanorfes
December 3, 2009 1:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Damn these over zealous theater managers. If they had a little more common sense they would realize now law was not broken, nor was there an intent to break it. Maybe it would even make for other people who'd want to celebrate their birthdays there. Instead, they make themselves look like idiots and get a lot of bad and deserved press over a birthday celebration.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
kujospam
December 6, 2009 1:44 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

If you don't like how the law is... Change it. Very simple. In the US there are thousands of stupid laws. Instead of just ignoring them, how about getting them off the books or changing them to make sense.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
fantomesq
December 3, 2009 4:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Don't you mean these overzealous cops? The theatre didn't charge her with the felony - it reported it. The cops charged her with the felony.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
treimel
December 4, 2009 8:54 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm with him--the cops may have a lot less discretion than the theatre.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
dolemite
December 3, 2009 1:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Here comes the merging of corporations and government. Seriously...a felony for taping a few minutes of film? Next up, 10 years in prison for having backups of music on your computer. Corporations have way too much pull with government.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Nogard13
December 3, 2009 1:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Her family and friends should start a viral campaign using Twitter, Facebook, Myspace (are they still relevant???), and other social networking sites, as well as using signs to protest near the theater and calling the local medium (newspapers, tv news, radio shows, etc...) to get this known around town. They can ask people to boycott them until they drop the charges for what is a ridiculous charge to begin with.

I know I would never go watch a movie there if I heard something like this happened at my local movie theater.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Hooray4Zoidberg
December 3, 2009 1:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

A fine example of bureaucracy in place of common sense. While we're at it, let's check her hard drive for downloaded music then after that we can hold her under water to make sure she's not a witch.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
RecordStoreToughGuy_starcommandseries.com
December 3, 2009 1:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Your viewpoint intrigues me, vis-a-vis witchery. Do you perhaps have a newsletter to which I could subscribe?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
MonkeyMonk
December 3, 2009 1:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I've actually been to the Muvico Theater in Rosemont a bunch of times. Nice theater but apparently the management must be a bunch of dicks. I'll do my part to help this poor lady and go to a different theater from now on.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Joedragon
December 3, 2009 3:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It's the only all digital theater in the area and they have free parking as well.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Kerov
December 3, 2009 1:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Government by the corporate interests, for the corporate interests.

This is what happens when your Congress is bought and paid for with \"campaign contributions\".

And if this travesty of justice goes to trial, the jury will probably think they have \"no choice\" but to convict her.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Shadowman615
December 3, 2009 1:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The real tragedy here is that the MPAA managed to convince the Illinois State legislature to make videotaping a movie a felony. Not a tort, or even a misdemeanor, but a felony. Something stinks there.

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
Emperor Norton I
December 3, 2009 3:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The MPAA didn't have to convince anyone of anything. It's Illinois which means the MPAA bribed the General Assembly with good old US dollars!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RPHP
December 3, 2009 1:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Why does something stink? Is it right for someone to be able to go into a movie theater, tape a movie, and then distribute it without permission? That seems to be a case of stealing and a harsh penalty seems to be warranted.

As for the instant case, I am not familiar with the particular law they are charging this woman with breaking, but likely there is a level of mens rea which they can not show in this case. The mens rea requirement stops this sort of ridiculous prosecuting for people who make a mistake. Just because the theater owner wants charges pressed does not mean the DA has to do so. Likely, when an ADA looks at the case they will realize that they can not show mens rea and drop the criminal charges, assuming of course the woman's side of the story checks out.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Shadowman615
December 3, 2009 3:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Copyright infringement is not theft.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Michael Belisle
December 3, 2009 3:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The law stinks because it's not recording a film in a movie theater that's illegal: the 2004 Illinois law that makes operating any device's \"audiovisual recording function\" in an \"exhibition facility\" a felony.

It doesn't matter if she recorded any part of the film. All she has to do is operate a recording device. Recording your friends at New Moon? Felony. She's operated a recording device and is therefore guilty as charged.

Who'd have thought that the simple operation of a device to do anything (not necessarily recording the movie) would be a felony? I hope someone with deep pockets takes her on and gets the law overturned.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Red_Flag
December 3, 2009 3:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I hope you do realize that, despite your personal feelings that it \"seems to be a case of stealing\", as far as the law is concerned, \"copyright infringement\" and \"theft\" are two completely different things.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
treimel
December 3, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yes they are different--and they're both crimes. I don't know why people have such difficulty with the fact tah copyright infringmemnt has both a civil and criminal dimension, but the USC is clear--it's both.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
treimel
December 3, 2009 4:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Also--copyright infringment is completely irrelevant to the crime charged here, of course ....

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Red_Flag
December 3, 2009 8:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I don't recall saying that copyright infringement was not a crime. And you are exactly right, copyright infringement is completely irrelevant to the charges filed against this young woman. Which is why I corrected Mr. RPHP's erroneous conflation of these two legally separate issues.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
coren
December 3, 2009 2:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It stinks because most felony level crimes are things like assault, murder, kidnapping, armed robbery. This is very much of a very different level than those.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
chocobo
December 3, 2009 3:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I disagree. A clear recording of the movie distributed over the internet can do millions of dollars of damage and destroy the film's ability to make a profit.

If you do millions of dollars of damage to someone else's property, you absolutely SHOULD be charged with a felony and get a long jail sentence.

That being said, this woman was not doing that.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pot_roast
December 4, 2009 12:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Oh yes, because clearly it's been destroying \"New Moon's\" profits.
\"Claiming the record for the biggest one-day gross, The Twilight Saga: New Moon raked in an estimated $72.7 million...\"

Most cam rips (and dvd rips/screeners, actually) don't come from the United States anyway. They're originating overseas.

I challenge you to show proof that even ONE theatrical release that has actually experienced 'millions of dollars' of losses due to piracy.

For this to be a felony charge is just ridiculous.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
JohnDeere
December 3, 2009 1:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

ya, two minutes at a time. lol.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
shalegac
December 3, 2009 1:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The real crime is going to see these tween movies. (Just a joke so don't get to upset)

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
dolemite
December 3, 2009 1:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I was forced to see New Moon with the wife (I didn't expect it to be good, but ugh, didn't expect it to be *this* bad). I honestly spent about 10% of the film analyzing the railing beside me, wondering why it was so smooth, and wondering what type of metal it was forged from, and how thick that metal was, and asked such questions as to why part of the railing was higher than other parts, and where that red glow on the metal was coming from, and....

Reply
\"user-pic\"
anduin
December 3, 2009 8:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

tween movies? Couldve fooled me...I know women in their 20s and 30s who are going apeshit over this series. I watched about 30 minutes of the first movie at a sister in law's house and had to leave after that because I couldn't understand why they were brooding and acting so foolishly.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ichiban1081
December 8, 2009 1:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

My wife is 30, is an attorney and acts like a 13 year old when she is discussing about Twilight or watching it.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Megleris
December 3, 2009 1:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Really guys? She was filming in a movie theater. She should have known better. You want to play with your brand new camera and see what it can do? Try your house. A park. A local restaurant. The usher SHOULD have told them to put it away / give us the camcorder and you can have it back at the end of the show, but because they didn't no laws were broken? Puh-leeze.

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
Major Annoyance
December 3, 2009 4:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wow! Just wow! I knew someone would come out for the theater but I thought they would have at least read the article first. Who mentioned a camcorder?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
d0x360
December 3, 2009 3:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I dont think anyone is saying what she did was ok. We all know we arent suppose to film in a theatre, or at least most of us dont. What we are saying is she wasnt going to be watching the movie at home later or selling it. She was messing around and there is no reason to ruin her life over something so stupid.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ovalseven
December 3, 2009 2:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This wasn't a camcorder. It was one of those digital still-cameras that have the ability to record a few minutes video depending on the size of your memory stick.

This is much like leaving somebody a voicemail message while you're at a concert, then getting arrested for recording the show.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jesusofcool
December 3, 2009 3:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Just wanted to point out that you made a great comparison there. I too was skeptical of this woman's case, but it is very much like recording a vm message at a concert. I never attempt to videotape or record concerts unless it's a band I know is personally in favor of bootlegging, but I often call a friend, leave a shouted message and a minute to 30 seconds of the band. I would not say I am infringing on their copyright or stealing. This woman isn't either.
Great point.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
qcgallus
December 3, 2009 1:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

And you legitamtely believe that she can either profit off of this or deprive anyone of a profit because of this?

Given that neither can occur, and there is no \"victim,\" this is a victimless non-crime.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RGoolsby
December 3, 2009 1:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

yeah.... but where is the common sense?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Julia789
December 3, 2009 1:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

How can we contact the theatre to tell them that we disagree with their decision to press charges?

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
BustedFlush
December 3, 2009 7:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

For General Questions please contact us at:
Questions@muvico.com

Reply
\"user-pic\"
milhouse24
December 3, 2009 2:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

(I'm still \"auditioning\"...hopefully this comment will be displayed)

Here's the contact info:
Muvico Theaters
9701 Bryn Mawr Avenue
Rosemont, IL 60018-5210
(847) 447-1040

Reply
\"user-pic\"
treimel
December 3, 2009 4:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

woah, that's strange, there's a Bryn Mawr ave in a Rosemeont, PA right by my house. I didn't think Bryn MAwr was a common American place name.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Julia789
December 3, 2009 4:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Thanks. I'm sending a letter.

It was up to the movie theatre manager if he wanted to press charges or let her go - and he was a real dick to press charges. Those little digital cameras only record a couple minutes of video - how chould she possibly be pirating a movie to sell?

Doesn't taking a clip of a movie, so tiny, fall under \"fair use\" guidelines?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
amuro98
December 4, 2009 2:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Actually this brings up a good point. What exactly is the crime here? If it's breaking copyright (making illegal copy of copyright material) then shouldn't it be up to the copyright holder to press charges and not the theater? So the studio would have to press charges here, right?

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
H3ion
December 3, 2009 1:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

There's a special place in hell being prepared for the MPAA and RIAA beings. Sure I understand that a copyrighted work is protected and that the holder has to protect his/her rights, but this is pitiful. It's not as if she was even taping the entire movie for her own use, let alone to market the video. The pro bono groups who fight this sort of junk should jump on the bandwagon and give her some protection.

BTW, if she tapes 4 minutes of a (bad) movie, even accidentally, she's a felon. If she makes a sex tape, she's a millionaire. Go figure.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
sourgirl
December 3, 2009 1:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Was it an AMC theater, because they're making it real enjoyable to go to the movies these days...
http://kansascity.bizjournals.com/kansascity/stories/2009/11/30/daily1.html

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
torgonius
December 3, 2009 1:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Can't we charge the writers and creators of the film with a felony?

Seriously.

Glittery Emo Vampires and those who brought them to light deserve the chair!

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
December 3, 2009 1:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm not sure I see what the big fuss is. Regardless of her motives, she was taping a movie in a theater, which is apparently a felony in IL. Someone witnessed it and the police felt they had probable cause for an arrest (seems pretty clear they did, it's not the cop's job to sort out motive). She went to jail and was probably arraigned and released. Now she gets to have a judge or a jury (her decision) decide whether all of the requisite elements of the crime exist beyond a reasonable doubt. If she truly wasn't in violation of the law, she'll get to go home. If she was, well, then she goes to jail. That's how it's supposed to work. If you don't like the law, call your legislator.

Reply
10 replies
\"user-pic\"
JiminyChristmas
December 4, 2009 5:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The poor gal has already spent some time in jail. She was arrested on a Saturday afternoon. The courts are closed on the weekend, so that means no bail hearing until Monday morning. Ergo, she spent Saturday and Sunday night in jail.

Lesson 1: Don't record video in a movie theater
Lesson 2: Don't get arrested on Saturday (or on Friday night)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Red_Flag
December 3, 2009 2:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Spoken like a true goosestepper. Bravo!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
treimel
December 3, 2009 2:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

You've heard of prosecutorial discretion, right? ditto for the thatre manager and the cops; seriously sometimes you've got to use some sense. I'm glad there's a catch-all de minimus statute in crim law in PA--this would be a good time to give that a shot if she were here.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TheHat
December 3, 2009 2:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Actually in that part of Illinois they have whats called Felony Review. When the Police arrest someone they have to contact the states Attorneys office for approval to charge the Offender with a felony. If they States Attorney declines then the Police can charge with a Misdemeanor , city ordinance violation or release without charges. Since she is charged with a felony then it has gone through the States Attorneys Office. There must be more to the story because there is no way a ASA would charge based 4 minutes of film.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TheHat
December 3, 2009 2:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Actually in that part of Illinois they have whats called Felony Review. When the Police arrest someone they have to contact the states Attorneys office for approval to charge the Offender with a felony. If they States Attorney declines then the Police can charge with a Misdemeanor , city ordinance violation or release without charges. Since she is charged with a felony then it has gone through the States Attorneys Office. There must be more to the story because there is no way a ASA would charge based 4 minutes of film.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Moosenogger
December 3, 2009 4:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

A lot of ASAs are morons. I remember hearing about a California (?) ASA trying to charge that Girls Gone Wild guy with all sorts of indecency charges. They didn't agree with what he was doing and were looking for any reason to charge him.

Who knows? Maybe the ASA just heard, \"She was recording the movie when we caught her. She has film on her camera.\" and decided to prosecute. Maybe once they realize it's only 4 minutes of film and part of it includes the pre-movie commercials/stills, they'll realize their error and leave her alone.

I wouldn't doubt if the theatre bans her for life, though.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
December 3, 2009 2:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Police don't file charges. They make arrests and Prosectors, DAs, or States Attorneys file charges.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
December 3, 2009 2:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Certainly. However, think of it this way - they don't catch too many \"bootleggers,\" and it may be necessary to make an example out of people who may not be the precise target of the law in order to further the ultimate goals of the law. The theater manager, in calling the police, may have been thinking the same thing. There is nothing wrong with a zero-tolerance policy of reporting things like this. Now EVERYONE will think twice about recording in a theater.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
BustedFlush
December 3, 2009 7:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet? Another reason why \"zero tolerance\" is a bad idea.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
trujunglist
December 3, 2009 4:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

no, the way to do that is to go after the people that actually do it, aka the people releasing the movies on the internet, or how about just walking near Clark and Division on the windy city and purchasing a $10 bootleg? Those people are gaining a lot more than she did by filming 2 minute segments on a terrible recording device with her talking over it. you don't make an extreme example of a largely innocent person to show bootleggers what will happen: they already fucking know what will happen! you stop wasting resources and time arresting and prosecuting innocents and redirect that energy towards, you know, actually making a difference. LMAO if you think that the arrest and potential charging of this woman will somehow make real bootleggers think twice about doing it, especially considering that she is innocent. I mean really LMAO, use some sense.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
treimel
December 3, 2009 2:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Well, call me a \"precise target\" guy, then--I really think prosecuting in terrorem is a terrible precedent.
Quick prediction: charges will eventually be dismissed in their entirety with no penalty to this young woman.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
December 3, 2009 2:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I don't necessarily dispute your prediction. If nothing else, they will plead it out to something far short of a felony rather than take it to trial.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
treimel
December 3, 2009 2:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Agreed, if this was accurately reported--given what another commenter said above about Illinois ssyem Of \"felony review,\" I'm beginning to wonder what the news story may have left out.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RPHP
December 3, 2009 1:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I agree. And what everyone is missing is that if what the woman says is correct she likely lacks the mens rea (I don't know what the mens rea is for this particular crime but I am assuming she lacks it because at most it seems like she was negligent and given this is a felony the mens rea was probably more than negligence). Anyway, as you said - it seemed like she was committing a crime so she was arrested. If in fact she does not have the proper mens rea or some other element of the crime can not be proven she will not be convicted. That is how the law works.

If people are upset about the law that is their own issue. It certainly should not be legal to go into a movie theater and record the movie you are watching in an effort to sell bootlegged copies (the crime as described by the article is a \"felony designed to prevent movie patrons from recording hot new movies and selling bootleg copies\").

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TheMonkeyKing
December 3, 2009 4:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
morlo
December 3, 2009 1:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"If you don't like the law, call your legislator.\" Legislators make laws, they don't rescind them. And they sure as hell don't answer their telephones.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
treimel
December 3, 2009 1:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Umm, yeah, legislators rescind laws all the time.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
LatherRinseRepeat
December 3, 2009 1:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Ridiculous. If I was the theater manager, I would have asked her to delete the videos. Why bring the cops in for such a petty \"crime\"? I mean really, if she was a bootlegger, I'm sure she would brought in a bigger and better camera.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
XTC46
December 3, 2009 2:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Becasue they have an obligation to the releasing studio to make sure this kind of stuff doesnt happen. If they get caught not prosecuting this, they can lose their contract with the studio.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
RGoolsby
December 3, 2009 1:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"never issued them a warning\"

aw...come on... the bank never issued me a warning not to steal from them...but i'm pretty sure common sense should prevail. I understand that it wasn't her intention to copy the whole movie but she should have known to put the camera down....

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
tedyc03
December 3, 2009 1:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If she brought this to trial it's unlikely that she'd be convicted. However, the police don't adjudicate matters, they simply collect evidence and make arrests. As inconvenient as being arrested was, she should have an opportunity to fully air her side at trial. And depending on the evidence, she'll be exonerated.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Pender
December 3, 2009 1:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I wonder if the theater managers will get beaten up over this.. I sure hope so. *Hint Hint*

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
December 3, 2009 1:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

*Hint Hint* to whom? Are there Consumerist posters who are also part-time mafia asassins?

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
macoan
December 3, 2009 2:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Did she do something wrong - YES - DUH - Of course it's illegal to record the movie that the theater. It's not illegal to take picture of your relatives before the movie, so why would they warn her?

That is like someone saying that \"Well I was firing the gun at the shooting range, and no one warned me to not shot it at the local mall during black friday.\"

DUH!!!!

Now did it require 2 nightes in jail. Probable not. I would say small fine is all she should have to pay. (Like under $100) - if anything at all.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Silversmok3
December 3, 2009 2:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

As an Illinois resident, the local theaters here do have signs , corny graphics and all, that warn of jail time if youre caught videotaping ANY part of the performance.

Depending on the theater, thery may also show the ban in that handy 10 minute preview right before the flick that tells you to silence your cell,conessions are available, and NO VIDEORECORDING of the movie.

It may be 4 minutes. It may be 30 seconds. She is still in legal violation of the law, and is subject to the due process thereof.I don't see the problem here-just because a law may be heinously stupid ( and there are a lot of em in Chicago and this state) doesn't mean we can ignore it at will.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Moosenogger
December 3, 2009 4:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I wish we could see the footage (with the movie portion censored or something), because I'd like to see what angle she was filming at. If the camera is held in random directions and doesn't face the screen the entire time, then it's highly doubtful it was meant to be a bootleg. I'm willing to bet it was an accident until I get a better idea of what went on.

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
travisw
December 3, 2009 2:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Why is this a felony? Unless she is going to sell this it sounds like a civil matter to me. Papers please!

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
exconsumer
December 3, 2009 2:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I understand those of you that say 'the law is the law and she broke it.' Sure.

But the real problem is this:

Recording a film in a theater = FELONY

Stealing an original script and passing it off as your own = TORT

So, when you steal from Paramount, the state will do all the work and prosecute you on behalf of Paramount. But if they were to steal your script, you would have to fund your own very difficult legal battle to get your due. I am an enormous fan of copyright laws. But these lopsided DMCAesque measures serve only to give large media companies access to state resources. If I could call the police every time someone used a song of mine (I'm a musician) I'd feel very different about it.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
theSuperman
December 3, 2009 2:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Its a shame the article doesnt mention the exact movie theater.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
jayk
December 3, 2009 2:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

From the post:
“We sang ‘Happy Birthday’ to her in the theater,” Tumpach said.
“You can hear me talking the whole time,” Tumpach said.

That's probably why someone had the police alerted, as they were angry at the probably very audible disturbance, even if it was only during the pre-film commercials.

Still, that does not excuse the theater managers' behavior for actually pressing charges, but at least it had a positive side effect, of making the movie experience more silent for other viewers.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
GMFish
December 3, 2009 2:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Shoplifting the DVD or Blu-ray from a store would have only been a misdemeanor.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
richtergasse
December 3, 2009 2:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

While it's clear she wasn't intending to be a professional bootlegger in recording the movie:

1. She may very well be allowed to take pictures of her friends in the theater before the show starts. Hence, an usher would not have told her to put her camera away.
2. She wasn't trying to take pictures of her friends and family when she was filming the screen. She admits to being surprised at the quality of the picture when she recorded the screen. At some point, it should occur to one that you just saw signs and warnings telling you *not* to do that.
3. What should the theater should have done? I imagine it was someone in the projection booth who saw someone filming the screen. Do you wait til they bootleg 1/2 the movie and run to avoid getting caught, or do you alert authorities to a potential bootlegger immediately? At what point would we be slamming the theater for being vigilantes if they had tried to take it up with her directly? If she was a member of a bootlegging ring, do you want your 15-year-old usher trying to talk to her or do you want to make sure the situation is handled correctly?
4. On the theater pressing charges - I wonder if failing to press charges would have lost the theater manager their job, or the theater (or theater chain) the right to show movies from certain studios or associations?

I doubt she'll go to prison and face a hefty fine. I do think, however, that going through official channels earlier rather than later is a better way to deal with a crime-in-progress rather than having some kids try to run down a fleeing bootlegger 45 minutes into a movie.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
frodolives35
December 3, 2009 11:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

All great examples of why zero tolerance sucks all the way up the chain. Sorry mam just doin my job. I shudder to think of all the times that line has been used.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
David in Brasil
December 3, 2009 2:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What should the theater have done? How about \"excuse me, ma'am, you can't operate a camera during the screening. Please put it away\".

And that would have been the end of that.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
richtergasse
December 3, 2009 3:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Okay, so you spot someone who looks to be recording. They record 20-30 seconds, so you go grab your manager. Come back 2 minutes later, and they're still recording.

Had the theater manager asked to her to merely put the camera away, she'd still leave the theater having committed a crime and having possession of bootlegged clips. You suggest that someone be allowed to commit a crime and keep the fruits of it? If the manager had asked to watch her delete the clips, people really would have gone nuts over it. I would bet that the camera is right now in police custody as evidence, and even if the case against her never goes to trial, she won't be getting those video clips of the content of the movie back.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
David in Brasil
December 3, 2009 2:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Ahh, just in case you want to know:
Muvico Theater
9701 Bryn Mawr Avenue
Rosemont, IL 60018-5210
(847) 447-1040

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
travisw
December 3, 2009 2:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Be careful in Illinois... Here is the text of the law

Any person, where a motion picture is being exhibited, who knowingly operates an audiovisual recording function of a device without the consent of the owner or lessee of that exhibition facility and of the licensor of the motion picture being exhibited is guilty of criminal use of a motion picture exhibition facility.

I wouldn't even take my phone into a theater in Illinois.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
rdclark
December 3, 2009 2:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So she was talking the entire time? During the movie? Maybe not a felony, but good that they threw her out. (Yet another reason I don't go to movie theaters; people simply don't know how to behave in public.)

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
XTC46
December 3, 2009 2:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Good. I hate people who take pictures/use cell phones/ etc durring movies. There is nothing more distracting durring a movie then some idot opening a super bright LCD in a dark room. I went to see the movie with my girlfriend and flashes kept going off durring the movie etc, it was rediculous.

I mean the movie wasnt great, but that made it much worse.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
baristabrawl
December 3, 2009 2:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I hope she fights and wins. Seriously? Of course I'd probably never take a camera into a theater...

And while I'm at it, I'll just go ahead and not go to movies that are showing in that theater.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
haoshufu
December 3, 2009 2:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The manager calling the cops is a jerk. The cops who arrested the woman should have talked the manager out of this. Since they did not, they are just a-holes. If the DA decides to press charges, then he will become an idiot.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
XTC46
December 3, 2009 2:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I would happily go to this theater, becasue I know they take idiots with cameras in the theater seriously. It one of the most annoying things that happens all the time. I encourage all theaters to promptly remove anyone using a cellphone/camera/device with bright LCD immediately.

My theater doesnt do this well enough, and as a person who not only pays to see the movie, but also pays for a VIP style membership to the theater (allows me to reserve seats, actual seats not just tickets, to any movie I want and makes it so I dont ever have to wait in line, including for giant releases), and pays for concessions every time I am there (I know this is how they make their money and I want them in business), I find this kind of behaviour rude.

Durring big premiers (like new moon) there were over 200 people with the same membership I had, all were in reserved seats so its easy to tell who they are, and none act like the idiots who decide mid movie is right for answering a phone call to say, or to be constantly texting, or to take flash photos of friends DURRING THE MOVIE.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Overheal
December 3, 2009 3:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Actually Im glad this is going to the Courts. Im sorry it has to be this mother, but she's brought up just another instance where the MPAA may just have a little too much unchecked power, but we'll see.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Loias calls you out if you can't RTFA
December 3, 2009 3:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It's a little callous for the theater to press charges, but understandable. But based on the evidence given to us, I'd say it's not right to charge her for the felony when a rational person (in theory that would be the arresting officers) could see the taping of the video was clearly not for illegal purposes such as resale.

This had better be dismissed in court.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
LostTurntable
December 3, 2009 3:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So...she's a loudmouth who talked during the movie while using her camera that no doubt had an extremely bright and distracting LCD screen. A felony charge is a bit much for that but someone should explain to her proper theater etiquette.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
bushi
December 3, 2009 4:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Seems to me the actual felony should have been for never shutting the hell up. I hate people that talk through the previews and movie :(.
Nice how the theater just turned a whole family party into people will probable only download movies now.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
comeongob
December 3, 2009 4:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I hate to play devil's advocate, but how were the theater workers to know what kind of camera she had or how much memory was in it? Yes, they handled it horribly and should not have called the police without asking her to stop, but for goodness sakes, don't hold up your video camera up during a movie like \"New Moon\" (which I'm sure the studio sends warning letters to theaters about anti-piracy) and expect that people won't stop you.

Also, talking through the first four minutes of the movie + the previews is rude.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Julia789
December 3, 2009 4:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Doesn't taking a clip of a movie, so tiny, fall under \"fair use\" guidelines?

The same way someone can quote a paragraph or two of an article as long as they don't quote the entire article?

News shows often show clips of movies, a couple of minutes long, then discuss the movie.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
fantomesq
December 3, 2009 4:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Fair use is not a defense to criminal use of a movie theater. This is a criminal, not copyright infringement, case.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
admiral_stabbin
December 3, 2009 6:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

She makes a valid point with, \"You can hear me talking the whole time,\". The type of bootlegging she's accused of performing typically does not include the bootleggers commentary. Even people that steal movies have some kind of standards, for goodness sake!
Most pirates would already have the R5 Line version of it if they really wanted it.

What is this world coming to? Further, did her memory card even have the capacity to record the full length of the film? I realize these don't have direct bearing on the legality of the issue, but they from the standpoint of the sensibility of pursuing charges...

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
B1663R
December 3, 2009 8:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

they should lock up that pirate and throw away the key... I mean seriously New Moon is not THAT good.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
narq
December 4, 2009 12:08 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

With a jury, it would be almost impossible for the defendant to lose. I mean, 4 minutes. That's a great way to lose customers. Press charges against people who have their birthday at your theater. Sure it was stupid for her to record at the theater but it certainly wasn't worth more than a warning or even booting them from the theater. Only a huge huge douche/idiot would call the cops. Ban them from the theater at worst.

Honestly, this is like charging someone for robbing a bank because they had a weapon in their car parked across the street from the bank. Or like charging someone for assault because they are swinging near someone with a baseball bat without hitting them.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Rhyss
December 4, 2009 12:33 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I know this is completely off topic - but I am very sensitive to this right now. Two days in jail, and felony charges? Leave the woman alone!!!! I just had 4 police officers killed in my area (Lakewood, WA). 3 of the 4 I had worked with before as a social worker. This caused by a horrible person who had a nasty history and made easy bail. If accidental (or even purposeful) movie recordings are the hardest part of your day movie theatre people- you're doing fine and stop bitching . Again sorry, but I am a bit reactive right now.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
watchout5
December 4, 2009 7:49 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I dunno what you guys are talking about, if that 4 minutes of video were to ever hit the youtubes twilight would no longer be able to make any money, and neither would that theater. I can see kicking her out, clearly she broke the rules, but a felony would imply malice. I don't think she meant to cause any harm, she just didn't understand what was going on.

However much praise should be given, with one less pirate running the streets Twilight will probably take years to hit the internet......

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
TerpBE
December 4, 2009 11:37 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.


...That seems like reason enough to lock her up.

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
nefastus
December 6, 2009 12:49 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

If any locals are reading this, I urge you to choose an alternative to going to the theater. Whether it be another local theater, or waiting until the movie comes out on DVD and renting it.

Remember, if you go to that theater, you could be arrested for some minor technicality that really shouldn't matter. They've shown that they will press charges over ridiculous matters, and that going to their theater is a liability.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
chalkwalk
December 6, 2009 10:06 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

created an account just to report the theatres listed within a few miles of the zip code where she was arrested for boycotting purposes.

http://www.imdb.com/showtimes/location/60018

Enjoy

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Extractor
December 8, 2009 12:55 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Demand a Trial by Jury. And defend yourself avoiding the legal fees shakedown. Worst that will happen is a hung jury. Will a prosecutor actually allow a court to waste its time on something like this? No prosecutor has allowed any of my traffic tickets to proceed to trial since I began fighting every one since 1986. Waive the informal hearing and ask for formal hearing. You'll see the prosecutor just prior and at worst plead to blockading or impeding, $150 and nothing goes to state or your insurance. In my area 80% of the funds collected on these pleas go to the city whereas 80% from the original charge goes to the state. Can you guess where the city's prosecutor wants the funds to go? And does the prosecutor want to delay 5 murderers court appearance for a lousy traffic ticket as was the case in one of my tickets. A formal hearing occurs in the same courtroom criminals are tried in. Nobody in their right mind can justify wasting that courts time with a stupid traffic ticket. Try it, you'll like it. I help all my friends and coworkers fight their tickets. Those that listen, win. The judge knows youre not a lawyer and you get tremendous leaway in questioning. Might want to watch a TV series in the 80's, Paper Chase. Based a lemon arbitration on one of those episodes and won a buy-back from GM in 84; they even appealed that and the arbitrator used my rebuttal in its exact wording to deny their appeal. 82 4 cylinder Firebird with 47,000 miles, brakes shot, tires shot and I was awarded all but $500 for using that POS for almost 3 years. Used the arbitration papers as Down Payment on a Z-28.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
humphrmi
December 11, 2009 2:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The charges against the woman have been dropped.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jgForeEUV01TQaMstgNT_-7jzJyAD9CH7LE83

Even better, the film's director came to the woman's defense, saying \"there's a difference between trying to protect a copyright and prosecuting someone who didn't mean to commit video piracy.\"

Reply
");