A Year In Prison For a 20-Second Film Clip? 1169
PizzaFace writes "It's Jhannet's 19th birthday, so her boyfriend borrows a camcorder to memorialize the occasion, and they head to the mall. They goof around, recording each other in the food court, then decide to catch the Transformers matinee, which started a few minutes earlier. During a big action scene, Jhannet takes the camcorder and records a 20-second clip to show her little brother. A few minutes later, cops who were called by the manager come in with flashlights, arrest Jhannet, confiscate the camcorder, and, at the behest of Regal Cinemas, charge her with film piracy. 'I was terrified,' said Jhannet. 'I was crying. I've never been in trouble before.' If convicted, she could be sentenced to a year in prison and a $2,500 fine. The police say they lack discretion because Regal Cinemas chose to prosecute: 'They were the victim in this case, and they felt strongly enough about it.' The National Association of Theater Owners supports Regal's 'zero-tolerance' prosecution standard: 'We cannot educate theater managers to be judges and juries in what is acceptable. Theater managers cannot distinguish between good and bad stealing.'"
Justice (Score:5, Interesting)
Jean-Luc Picard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_(TNG_episode
Re:Devil's advocate (Score:2, Interesting)
It isn't much (Score:3, Interesting)
the test of civilization (Score:5, Interesting)
otherwise, it's just revenge
that's why sharia law, for example, is wrong: chopping someone's hand off for stealing, or chopping someone's head off for prostitution, is not civilization
in a society where the punishments are worse than the crimes, injustice is perpetrated by the government, not the criminals
and in turn, the society breeds greater and greater atrocities
justice must always exist, and people must always be punished for crime, and the punishment must not be a simple slap on the wrist, the punishment must be severe for severe crimes
but the punishment must ALWAYS be less severe than the crime itself, or instability rather than stability is bred that society. because you are not teaching people to respect a valid concept (justice), you are teaching them (unsuccessfully) to respect an invalid concept (violence)
Just makes it easy (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Devil's advocate (Score:5, Interesting)
The time should fit the crime.
The amount of police time wasted should fit the crime.
The amount of court time wasted should fit the crime.
Re:Devil's advocate (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly. Any judge worth his salt is going to see what's going on here, know that she's not some pirate, and give her nothing. Maybe force her to speak out against piracy. Big whoop.
And if he did sentence her to jail, there would be such a major public uproar that it would bring the MPAA and Crown to their knees.
Re:Devil's advocate (Score:3, Interesting)
Sell someone out, make some cash (Score:5, Interesting)
"What do you want me to do with this guy?"
The poor dude was mortified anyway, homeless, and ultimately probably wasn't going to post a torrent of his recording or make a bunch of copies and sell the dupes on the street. In the end we just confiscated the tape, escorted him out of the theatre and told him not to show up again, and that was the end of that.
However, here's the big secret that no one is talking about: in the employee room at my theatre, there was a sign saying that any employee who witnessed and reported someone recording a movie, and then gave a sworn statement about it to the police, would get $1000 from the MPAA.
I mean, that has to be what's going on HERE, right? Some employee saw someone with a camcorder and wanted to make some fast cash and was willing to condemn a young woman to get theirs. Heck, that's what I was thinking of when I saw the guy recording Star Wars, that's why we called the police in the first place. Luckily, I realized that I was being a dick before anyone was arrested and charged.
you're wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
and what if i'm penniless? slavery? work off the punishment? wha tif the going rate is $23 million? my great grandkids must remain slaves to pay off my debt?
of course, this doesn't mean that financial restitution is never part of the equation. but it does mean that restitution can't ever be the ONLY form of punishment
there is a spectrum of crimes in this world, tangible and intangible
so there should also be a spectrum of punishments available to society
simple as that
for example: pedophilia
what is the going rate for the stealing of a child's sexual innocence?
you are completely wrong to propose financial restitution as a cure all as you do
Re:Devil's advocate (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you serious? If that's the approach they're going to take, pretty soon they'll be showing their movies to empty theaters. Most phones have video recording capabilities these days. And people aren't going to leave their phone at home (perhaps the movies isn't the only place you're going while you're out) and I for one am not going to leave an expensive phone in my car since, if that's the policy, thieves are going to know that cars outside theaters are target-rich environments for cell phones.
I've always seen the warnings that video recording devices aren't allowed and wondered WTF given the cell phones we have these days. It's a lost cause, really.
The day they don't let me in because my cell phone has a camera is the day I stop going to movies.
Re:Devil's advocate (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Devil's advocate (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Stupid... (Score:3, Interesting)
There were many possible "endings" to the story the theatre could have picked, many legal too. e.g. theatre gives them option 1) Cops or 2) "Give us camera, stay while we check to see if you're telling the truth". If lying - cops, if true, tell them "DO NOT EVER DO THIS AGAIN". Theatre could even "forget and accidently" leave the 20 sec clip there instead of deleting it.
I think the theatre picked a crap ending to that, even for themselves.
Even if they had every legal right to be dickheads (and ruin an allegedly stupid someone's birthday) that does not make them any less dickheads for doing so.
Dickhead and stupid are both legal human states. But dickhead is far worse IMO. And definitely a lot worse than the "stupid for assuming it's fine to make a 20 sec clip of the ending".
Sure by not being dickheads the theatre could make themselves vulnerable to other dickheads (the lawyers could tell them leave it all to the cops to handle it - and thus not risk being accused of tampering with evidence etc). But really some things just increase amount of dickheadism in the world, and I feel this is one of them.
I'd rather live in a world where I can _safely_ assume that people won't be dickheads. e.g. even when they are, I'm still fairly safe.
Why should having a camcorder in a theatre be automatically a bad idea? What next? Ban phones with cameras?
Next ban humans with "memory augmenting" implants AND "virtual telepathy" add-ons? Or require such humans to pay USD0.01 for each recall? A penny for your thoughts? Maybe the *AA will think that's too cheap?
I don't think I'd like that ending. The future could be so much better, but I guess it won't.
Lastly: yeah, common sense is relative. Most people are really stupid and they can't see the long term consequences of their actions. Most can't even see the short term consequences.
But "making a stupid choice" is still better than "making a dickhead choice".
Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Devil's advocate (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes... 25 minutes of ads, or more. Thats 25 minutes of ads after the film starts rolling... but theres more ads you don't take into account (and I don't just mean the ones that are inserted into the movie.... or in the case of Transformers, the ones that the movies plot is built around.)
From the time the film actually starts rolling (the advertised start time of the movie) to the time the actual opening credits begin, there are usually about 5 or 6 trailers, each about 3-4 minutes long. There are also a couple advertisements for commercial brands (soda, jeans, vehicles, etc), and an advertisement soliciting donations for a charity organization. The movie actually starts about 20-30 minutes after the advertised start time.
If you think of it, the movie theater is being paid by the national brands of the movies or the commercial products a figure for x-number of people shown advertisement impressions, so they're making an additional money off that above and beyond the pricing of the ticket they sold.
However, thats not to mention the local advertising that is also shwon on the screen BEFORE the film starts rolling. My local theater is also showing several 30-second clips from about 10-20 local restaurants/pet stores/automotive shops. So, even more money in their pocket.
By the way, have you also noticed all the advertising you are exposed to before you even set foot into the screening area? Plenty of posters lining the outside of the theater, and many decorations inside (and in some theaters, LCD-TV's showing trailers non stop, or in my theater, a LCD projector projecting them onto a empty section of wall above the concession booth.) They are definitely also getting paid to advertise those in prominent positions too.
I wonder, if a movie theater was not permitted to show advertisements prior to the movie, what the price per ticket would be... 20-25 percent more? Probably even more if they also allowed us to bring in reasonable size beverages instead of the over priced concession stand.
Re:Devil's advocate (Score:3, Interesting)
Some companies are just as serious about protecting their assets. Even a construction site I was on recently allowed no cameras because of their "secret" way of doing things.
If I want to protect my property, I have that right. That's not an endorsement of DRM or to say that 20 years is appropriate for this case, but failure to protect IP means loss of that IP.
Re:What's really interesting about this situation. (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, if she's found guilty, that law directs the judge to order the destruction of the A/V equipment. So, if she used her cell-phone, her cell-phone will be destroyed.
On the other hand, if what she did is okay under state law, then her actions aren't covered by this law.
Re:Why not tell them you put it in your car? (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe you should accept what is. The reality of human interaction is that not only do people not need perfect honesty from others, they don't want it. To a certain degree, we want the imperfections of our existence covered up, only intruding when they must. Do you truly believe that when your wife, girlfriend or significant other asks you "does this dress make me look fat?" that she wants an honest answer? If you do, you're an idiot, because you'll hurt her feelings for really no good reason, and I hope you have a comfortable sofa. In any event, a simple lie is not only the best answer in that case, but is fully expected. Indeed, a liberal application of social grease.
Frequently, such minor dissembling helps us avoid more serious situations that would do neither side any good. A true "little white lie" is generally told in order to avoid a conflict, to avoid hurting someone unnecessarily, not to acquire something undeserved. So yes, a certain amount of lying is essential, because people aren't perfect and neither is any social order we've yet invented. No-one with even basic observational skills should require a scientific study to figure this out. Ever lied to your boss because you know that he'll react inappropriately? More social grease, and it happens all the time. Honesty is not always the best policy.
And science most certainly does "prove" things