|
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Chicago woman arrested for video recording in a theatre
|
|
|
Mitchell Dvoskin
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1869
From: West Milford, NJ, USA
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 12-03-2009 05:31 PM
While all of us here are in the industry and know that it is illegal to record movies off the screen, I could readily believe that this 23 year old girl had know idea she was doing something illegal.
I can't speak for the venue in question, but I know here in Northern NJ, movie theatres at best of an anti-piracy text 1-sheet lost in a maze of 1-sheets, or nothing at all indicating that recording is illegal. None of the theatres around here have any on screen announcements regarding this issue. There is no way a civilian would know this is illegal.
While I agree that the girl should have been told to stop, and possibly thrown out if the situation warranted, for talking and using the camera, unless she refused to stop, having her arrested is going to generate more anti-movie theatre press than anti-piracy press. The take-away that most people outside the industry are going to get is stay home and rent a DVD.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jonathan M. Crist
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 531
From: Hershey, PA, USA
Registered: Apr 2000
|
posted 12-03-2009 09:17 PM
Somehow I can't help but wonder what the Illinois 'Abuse of Process' statute says. If it is like most of these statutes throughout the country it allows a person wrongfully charged in a criminal proceding or wrongfully sued in a civil proceeding to file a subsequent civil suit for damages against the person or persons who initiated the wrongful procedings - which damages can include mental anguish, attorney fees incurred in having to defend the proceding, out of pocket expenses (bail etc.), loss of income, loss of job and PUNATIVE DAMAGES. In order to bring an abuse of process lawsuit, the 'wronged' person must first win the underlying case at trial on the merits (as opposed to having the charges dropped or an admininstrative dismissal which does not reach the merits of the case).
I think we all can agree here that two nights in jail for what occurred here is excessive if not altogether plain wrong. If this girl somehow manages to prevail on the merits of this case, I can see a big fat Abuse of Process civil lawsuit against Muvico. I know if this happened to my son or daughter I would be on the warpath - not because I think they are angels or deserve a pass for what they did - but because the punsishment should fit the crime.
Given the fact that for a first offense on something like this there probably isn't any serious risk of additional jail time beyond the time already served (really should we expending our limited prison resources for this at all?)if I were her attorney I would most certainly roll the dice, refuse any plea bargain or agreement to drop the charges in exchange for release of civil liability, looking for the acquittal and then a big abuse of process payday. I fully expect this to be a criminal case which will now have to be tried or at least subject to a motion to dismiss with briefing and argument to prove there was no crime committed to set up the civil case (And is this really a good use of limited court resources?).
If she is acquitted I can see her attorney's opening to the jury on the abuse of process suit already ..... they put her in jail for two days for a two minute cell phone video clip so some theatre manager can try and claim a $500 reward?
Yikes - Someone really should have used some common sense here and thought this one through .... confiscated the cell phone or given a warning but not insist that the girl be dragged off to jail.
And so what will really happen is that ONCE AGAIN lawyers are going make a lot of money .... not only her lawyer on the criminal defense side but also her lawyer on the civil abuse of process side if she wins and ALSO the insurance company lawyer for Muvico's carrier which will end up defending the abuse of process lawsuit.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jack Ondracek
Film God
Posts: 2348
From: Port Orchard, WA, USA
Registered: Oct 2002
|
posted 12-04-2009 09:37 AM
OK... all this is wonderful, but nobody has yet answered the question; if you let this gal go, then where is the line that defines criminal recording?
The MPAA law, regardless what you think of them, has no such line.
The few informal searches I've done on the subject all reference "unauthorized recording". It makes no judgment as to when you've crossed the line, as there is none. Take a recorder into an auditorium, turn it on and you're in violation.
Again... this should be a no-brainer. Everybody has been exposed to the problem, the posters and the policy snipes, if not also news of the few actual cases against pirates. It's not enough anymore to merely say "I didn't see the sign", or "it's a stupid law". Yah... this application may have been extreme. Change the law then, so there will be more gray area for the lawyers to argue over.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic