Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Chicago woman arrested for video recording in a theatre

This is topic Chicago woman arrested for video recording in a theatre in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=002291

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 12-03-2009, 12:38 PM:

Chicago Sun Times

quote: Chicago Sun Times

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

December 2, 2009
BY DAN ROZEK Staff Reporter

Taping three minutes of “Twilight: New Moon” during a visit to a Rosemont movie theater landed Samantha Tumpach in a jail cell for two nights.

Now, the 22-year-old Chicago woman faces up to three years in prison after being charged with a rarely invoked felony designed to prevent movie patrons from recording hot new movies and selling bootleg copies.

Samantha Tumpach, 22, is charged with one count of criminal use of a motion picture exhibition, a Class 4 felony, according to Rosemont police Sgt. Keith Kania.

But Tumpach insisted Wednesday that’s not what she was doing — she was actually taping parts of her sister’s surprise birthday party celebrated at the Muvico Theater in Rosemont.

While she acknowledged there are short bits of the movie on her digital camera, there are other images that have nothing to do with the new film — including she and a few other family members singing “Happy Birthday” to her 29-year-old sister at the theater.

“It was a big thing over nothing,” Tumpach said of her Saturday afternoon arrest. “We were just messing around. Everyone is so surprised it got this far.”

She was nabbed when a worker saw her shooting video during the movie, Rosemont police said.

Managers contacted police, who examined the small digital camera, which also records video segments, Cmdr. Frank Siciliano said. Officers found that Tumpach had taped “two very short segments” of the movie — no more than four minutes total, he said.

Tumpach was arrested after theater managers insisted on pressing charges, he said. She was charged with criminal use of a motion picture exhibition. She remained jailed for two nights in Rosemont’s police station until being taken to bond court on Monday, where a Cook County judge ordered her released on a personal recognizance bond that didn’t require her to post any cash.

Rosemont police, though, seemed to sympathize with her situation, she said. “They were so nice to me,” she said.

Tumpach insisted she recorded no more than three minutes while in the theater — and said not all of the video she shot was of the movie. There’s footage of she and her relatives singing to her sister, she said. “We sang ‘Happy Birthday’ to her in the theater,” Tumpach said.

She also took pictures of family members in the theater before the film began, but an usher who saw the photo session never issued them a warning, Tumpach said.

As ads and previews ran on the big screen, she fiddled with the camera — which she got in July and is still learning how to work — and was surprised to see it took clear videos of the screen.

The footage she shot also includes the pre-film commercials, as well as her talking about the camera and the movie.

“You can hear me talking the whole time,” Tumpach said.

She plans to fight in court the felony filed against her because she said she did nothing wrong — and certainly didn’t try to secretly tape the movie.

“It was never my intention to record the movie,” she said.

What the theatre staff should have done was ask her to stop, and inform her that it was illegal to record in the auditorium. What the theatre staff did seems, based on the article, to go way overboard. I bet you next time they all stay home and rent a DVD...

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 12-03-2009, 01:21 PM:

I agree with you that theatre staff could have used better judgment, but how are they honestly supposed to know she was "only" recording short bits or what her intent was for those bits. While it's a crappy situation, many of those recorded bits are destined to wind up on YouTube and MySpace. And once they learn to record short bits, what's to say they won't be back to record an entire movie.

At the very least, occasional cases like this are needed to show the general public that this is a serious thing and not a joke.

Besides, we can no longer take it for granted that the preteen with a digital camera is not the pirating threat.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 12-03-2009, 01:22 PM:

Breaking the law gets you arrested? I never knew...

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 12-03-2009, 01:29 PM:

quote:

“You can hear me talking the whole time,” Tumpach said.

Well, there's the REAL crime [Wink]

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-03-2009, 02:01 PM:

Where was the manager during this whole fiascso? Letting staff have full charge....horrors!

A head is definitely going to roll...

-Monte

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-03-2009, 02:16 PM:

The MPAA has gone WAAAAAAY too far with this one. Where are the news stories of ACTUAL pirates? That is what I want to read about, not some poor woman who got harassed to the point of being jailed.

Martin is right, the real crime was her talking.

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 12-03-2009, 02:19 PM:

Well Monte, the article said "Managers" contacted police. I have no sympathy for her. No one has any business bringing a video camera (or video recording cell phone) into a theatre (doctors and emergency personnel excepted). I think the incident sends the right message. Problem is other idiots will now try to outwit the theatre staff.

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 12-03-2009, 02:23 PM:

Hmmm, that $500 MPAA reward has theatre managers seeing $$$$$$$$.

Is there a condition of the reward that the person has to be convicted?

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 12-03-2009, 02:53 PM:

This is bullshit. The source of the flawless copies of movies that show up days before release is not from camcordering. These are from inside studios, labs etc. I see no issue with incidental non intentional images such as this.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 12-03-2009, 03:08 PM:

This is not bullshit. This is a perfect reflection of our current "no fault" society.

In a way, this is a less-extreme example of the problem schools have with their "zero tolerance" rules. You can't hardly bring a picture of a cub scout pocket knife to school without being tossed out.

In this case, as with schools, the message is absolutely clear. You can't take pictures of the film, period. The rationalization is on the part of the perpetrator... "I only took two short pictures", or "I only took pictures of the previews". Nowhere in all the warnings you see about this practice does it say "you can't video the film, except if the video is less than 5 minutes in length, or you only video our preshow, or you talk or sing 'happy birthday' in the middle of your copy".

I get this garbage all the time, when confronting people who we catch sneaking in to our place. "It's only one ticket", or "we come here all the time, you should let this pass", or "I wasn't planning to watch the film, I was going to go to sleep in the back with my girlfriend". See? The creative rationalizations to your rules are all made up by those who break them. Why are you sympathetic to these people?

If you're going to allow a gray area to exist, who gets to decide what that area is? The owner of the content? The theatre management? Or, as in this case, the person who just got caught?

I agree that the larger problem is with the flawless transfers that are floating around. Clearly, they couldn't have been made by casual patrons. But, it you're going to justify the actions of these "lower level" problems, it needs to be universal, and sanctioned by the studios, not by the "catch-ees".

"Yah... I just got caught shooting up the place. Let me go... I'm insane".

/rant

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 12-03-2009, 03:47 PM:

A smart person should have asked to speak to a manager and inquired about the legality of recording in a movie theatre, whether or not it is you intention on recording anything on screen.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-03-2009, 04:01 PM:

This also happened at one of our local cinemas: staff member saw a kid with his celphone capturing "T2:LOTF" while that member was doing house checks and got the manager who then called the police.

Don't know what the outcome on that one insident was, but the mother was furious about her son being arrested until the manager showed her the poster that is in the lobby about piracy and what would be the results..

(Sorry on the misunderstanding, but the way the story was being told as if the staff members themselves were in charge of that entire affair..)

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 12-03-2009, 04:24 PM:

Zero tolerance policies don’t work. In the end, young people (who are the only ones we can really influence with these policies) get a clear message: Authority figures are non-thinking idiots. In schools, every kid knows that the real drug dealers are getting away with it while the good kid who took an aspirin to class got severely punished. And, in the case of this theatre in Illinois, everyone knows that this person isn’t the one who’s going to distribute a pristine, digital copy of Twlight: New Moon.

The theatre manager should have just kicked the girl out of the theatre. Getting the girl arrested was over the top.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 12-03-2009, 04:47 PM:

quote:
criminal use of a motion picture exhibition,

I'd like to see the actual wording of this ordinance, and how rarely it is invoked. It sounds like there has to be some criminal act to go along with it. Copyright violation may be the underlying crime (is it criminal, or just civil?), but a good lawyer will rip that to pieces. If both sides get bull headed about it, I think the MPAA could end up with a fair use definition they really don't want.

It really would have been much more sensical to just kick them out.

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 12-03-2009, 04:48 PM:

If the girl concerned only recorded portions of the feature and the preshow ads, then isn't it likely she would have noticed the "no cell phones, no talking" snipes?

Sorry, but she blew it on at least 3 accounts.

1. Cell phones ANNOY patrons, hence the no cell phone rules.

2. She was talking. Again, that annoys other patrons.

3. She must be deaf, dumb and stupid not have seen the anti-piracy campaigns. Shooting any video of the screen in an auditorium constitutes unauthorised copying.

My take? She's shitty she got busted. It's all about EVERY patron's enjoyment, not just hers.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-03-2009, 04:52 PM:

It's because the MPAA has next to no power to stop piracy that they need to make a big deal out of this. They'll take all the table scraps they can get.

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 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.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-03-2009, 07:04 PM:

I'm in the "throw the stupid girl out" camp. Arresting her was stupid. Anyone who looked at what was happening should have known she was NOT recording the movie for distribution. But she deserves ejection for disrupting the show for other patrons and disobeying posted rules.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-03-2009, 07:42 PM:

Yea, and that theater has 4K projectors too. The bootleg woulda probably looked pretty good.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 12-03-2009, 07:53 PM:

OK, bust the ticket seller for issuing her a ticket, then arrest the manager for allowing it to happen, then cuff the ticket taker for not detecting the camera, of course the usher who should have been patrolling the auditorium and prevented it from happening, fire the entire projection staff for starting the movie, how far down the chain do you want to go? All these people are guilty--lock 'em up. Let the executions begin.

Oh and lets not forget the theatre chain's promotional staff for encouraging birthday celebrations in theatres in the first place.
Muvico's birthday package includes movie admission.
She should sue the ass off Muvico.,

Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 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.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 12-03-2009, 10:02 PM:

Don't discount the possiblity that there's more to this story than what has been "reported". Something doesn't add up.

Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 12-03-2009, 10:18 PM:

I am not sure how much more to the story there can be.

As for why she spent the two days in jail..... why that happens all the time if the arrest is on a weekend and there is no magistrate available for arraignment until Monday morning. The cops in my area often like to jail people for minor offenses on weekends - especially if the person has mouthed off to the cops - just so the person gets to spend a couple of days in jail until Monday morning maagistrate arraignment court.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-03-2009, 11:05 PM:

The lady who was arrested should have known better. I don't know what sort of footage she expected to get of the other people at the birthday party by taping in a darkened movie theater. The movie screen is the only thing that will show up clearly.

There's perhaps a 50/50 shot she'll beat the rap. Even if she's convicted I doubt she would do any jail time over the deal. Prisons are filled to capacity with serious criminals and drug offenders. Still, just having a felony on your record can do a serious job of screwing up your life. Lots of opportunities vanish if you're a convicted felon.

As to the MPAA on this topic, I have zero respect for them. The blind doofuses running that organization only try in vain to lead us to believe all movie piracy occurs at commercial movie theaters by way of camcorders. When the hell has the hammer come down hard on a Hollywood studio employee who leaked a DVD screener on the Internet well before the movie arrived in theaters? Did anything even come from that work print of Wolverine being leaked way back in March? I never heard about the culprit being led away in chains.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-03-2009, 11:18 PM:

Bobby, if the camera has an infrared mode, the audience will show up clearly, at least those close to her.

Mitchell, Regal theaters here have a poster-sized thing about how they don't allow cameras inside the auditoriums. They aren't very prominently placed and I am sure that they go unnoticed by 95% of customers. The only way to be sure that most people see the rules is if they posted a snipe between the trailers and the beginning of the movie, but Regal did away with policy trailers that used to be "popular" in chains like United Artists and Mann Theatres, etc.

But good luck doing this. With most digital cameras and cell phones able to record better and better quality video, there is no way that the chains will ever be able to keep video devices out of the auditorium. I don't think any chain wants to try and confiscate cell phones and devices during the movie and give them back after. People would immediately stop visiting the chain. Nobody wants to be treated like a criminal.

Posted by Jake Spell (Member # 5294) on 12-03-2009, 11:52 PM:

One of the benefits of having a 3-D movie, with a lot of 3-D. Camera wont get anything but a blurry mess.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 12-04-2009, 01:27 AM:

quote: Jake Spell
One of the benefits of having a 3-D movie, with a lot of 3-D. Camera wont get anything but a blurry mess.

Unless the camera is fitted with a polarizing filter, which, mind you, real pirates would use.

Well, real pirates would use a 2D version of the film or use two cameras to record a 3D version in all its glory, but that's a different matter.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-04-2009, 05:45 AM:

I'd bet a huge amount that if she had been, for example, smoking in the theatre, rather than videotaping the movie, she would have merely been asked to leave. Never mind that smoking in a theatre creates a demonstrable risk to public safety and that taping a few minutes of the movie while talking is merely rude.

In any case, I have no doubt that the theatre's management and staff have done far more damage to the industry than the girl ever would have. (How is taping off the screen a felony, anyway?)

Joe--I would immediately _start_ visiting any theatre that confiscated cell phones before allowing anyone into the auditorium. I'm really, really sick of people who use them in a rude manner. (I am not a cell phone owner, so perhaps I am biased on this.)

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 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.

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 12-04-2009, 10:02 AM:

quote: Scott Norwood
How is taping off the screen a felony, anyway?

I know that New York and a few other states have state laws that criminalize video recording in theatres. These laws are separate and aside from any Federal copyright laws.

The issue here is, was common sense used, by the theatre, by the police? in choosing to strictly interpret the law in this case. My feeling is that it wasn't. She was clearly just recording the ambiance of the birthday events. Her arrest just gives ammunition to those who want to repeal all such laws, removing a useful tool to stop real bootlegging.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-04-2009, 10:37 AM:

quote: Scott Norwood
Joe--I would immediately _start_ visiting any theatre that confiscated cell phones before allowing anyone into the auditorium. I'm really, really sick of people who use them in a rude manner. (I am not a cell phone owner, so perhaps I am biased on this.)

I own a cell phone, but despite that I really have a strong hatred toward cell phone use in a movie theater.

Warren Theaters has a zero tolerance policy on cell phone use. They have posters in the lobby declaring this policy and repeat the warnings in their pre-show program on screen. They won't confiscate an offender's phone, but they will eject him from the theater. I wish every movie theater was operated in that manner.

quote: Julio Roberto
Unless the camera is fitted with a polarizing filter, which, mind you, real pirates would use.

Real pirates use DVD screener discs and often get the movie duped en masse or uploaded to the Internet before the movie arrives in commercial theaters.

How many video cameras out there can be fit with a linear polarizer or circular polarizer filter anyway? I'm guessing not many.

quote: Julio Roberto
Well, real pirates would use a 2D version of the film or use two cameras to record a 3D version in all its glory, but that's a different matter.

A bootlegger might be able to get a somewhat unghostly looking image if he taped the screen using one camera aimed at the proper angle and a CP filter dialed in just right. I strongly doubt he would get any sort of useful 3D image by using two cameras in the auditorium. The digital 3D setups are more complicated in how they project 3D than something more straight forward like a dual 15/70 IMAX 3D show.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 12-04-2009, 11:54 AM:

Twilight New Moon opened Nov. 20, all the pirate recording was done on the first day or second day after opening. This event took place 10 days after opening, according to what I've read her recording would not be salable to counterfeiters as they already have it.

Sure the law allows her to be prosecuted, but the law is an ass as is the court.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 12-04-2009, 12:28 PM:

quote: Martin McCaffery
but a good lawyer will rip that to pieces.

First you say that you haven't seen the text at all, so you have no clue how well (or poorly) written it is then you conclude that lawyers will tear it to shreds? So, I must assume that your conclusion is based on both your lack of knowledge as to what is in the statute and your lack of experience/education in law.

quote: Bill Enos
All these people are guilty--lock 'em up. Let the executions begin.

Except only one of them (the woman who did the recording) broke the law. You can't be guilty when no law was broken.

quote: Joe Redifer
It's because the MPAA has next to no power to stop piracy that they need to make a big deal out of this. They'll take all the table scraps they can get.

To be fair, the MPAA probably had no idea about this particular case until it was reported in the news and had nothing directly to do with this. The police representative said that the managers requested that charges be brought.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-04-2009, 12:33 PM:

But the manager no doubt acted like he/she did due to the brainwashing of Valenti and company, and as such turned off their brain to deal with the situation.

I do not support piracy at all and have personally reported a few legitimate instances to the MPAA over the years, but as has been outlined over the last few pages here, there were plenty of other suitable ways to deal with this.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-04-2009, 01:23 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
They won't confiscate an offender's phone, but they will eject him from the theater.

Awesome. Hats off to Warren Theaters. If you wear a hat, anyway. Hats are so 40's.

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 12-04-2009, 01:24 PM:

As they say, "Any publicity is good publicity".

Whether or not anyone believes what this woman did was right or wrong, the incident achieves what the MPAA set out to do, that is to get the message out that if you even think of recording in a cinema auditorium, you have a very good chance of getting busted...and this bird got busted....and now it's in the news. Job done.

As an aside, if pirates get hold of screeners and do direct digi-dubs of these, wont there be flags or metadata id's that would identify the source? Sort of a built in CAPcode?

Ian

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 12-04-2009, 01:27 PM:

In response to Chris comment that only the woman was guilty, not so, a person who knowingly allows a felony to take place can be charged also, and these people should be if she is convicted of anything.
If she doesn't sue Muvico over this she is stupid.

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 12-04-2009, 01:34 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
How many video cameras out there can be fit with a linear polarizer or circular polarizer filter anyway? I'm guessing not many.

You'd be surprised. Most companies produce a glare filter which is just a glorified linear polarizer.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-04-2009, 02:07 PM:

The prevailing opinion here seems to be that not much piracy happens via camcording in theatres. Not true -- there really is quite a bit of it. We get a fairly long list from NATO every couple of weeks of where camcording was observed and stopped. I'm not saying screeners and in-house people aren't guilty, but they're not the whole problem.

Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 12-04-2009, 02:26 PM:

She didn't intend to break the law, but she did. Should she be charged with a felony for being a rude idiot? Probably not, but neither is she innocent of wrongdoing. I've encountered people who appeared to have camera phones pointed at screens, and I told them it was illegal and if they continued, the police would be involved. Being ignorant in 2009 of these sorts of issues should itself be a crime.

And, Bill, your argument that the establishment is responsible is ludicrous and a red herring. The theater would have been responsible if they had caught someone camming the screen and not done something about it. Selling a ticket to someone who does something illegal in the auditorium does not transfer responsibility to the seller, and if you think it does, you are plain wrong.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 12-04-2009, 03:11 PM:

If all pirated DVDs disappeared tonight, would the industry see a measurable sales increase? I'll bet not.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 12-04-2009, 03:20 PM:

I thought the most disturbing fact in the whole article was that the birthday "girl" was 29 years old and having a kiddie party at a Twilight screening. Maybe Chuck E. Cheese was all booked up!

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 12-04-2009, 04:10 PM:

The other thing that's being left unsaid here is you're putting it on the theatre manager to determine intent. MPAA guidelines are to let the person continue and contact the police, then let the police sort out intent.

I had a similar situation with a couple pre-teen girls who were recording Alvin and the Chipmunks on their phone. I contacted my home office for info on how to proceed and was told to contact the police. My boss contacted the MPAA and their investigator was ready to lock the kids up. When the parents got involved, it was all about how I was a jerk, without any thought to the fact the kids were doing something wrong. What happened to the day when parents would march their kid into face the store manager when they were caught stealing?

The flip side is that if I knew these girls were recording and didn't follow procedure, then my job is on the line if those captures show up on YouTube or MySpace. If not my job, then do I wind up liable for a civil suit based on the MPAA's perceived damages?

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 12-04-2009, 04:58 PM:

Well said, Justin.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 12-04-2009, 06:17 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
How many video cameras out there can be fit with a linear polarizer or circular polarizer filter anyway? I'm guessing not many.

Video cameras that can be fitted with a polarizing filter? Most of them, of course. All of mine (about 7) have them. Most of the ones I know as well. Just order a polarizing filter (circular or linear, as needed) of the diameter of the filter thread (say 57mm) and have it delivered next day. Done. As cheap as $20 (more, if you want more quality, of course).

Not to mention you can just pop a filter from the 3D glasses and "tape it" in front of the camera. Vóila.

quote: Bobby Henderson
A bootlegger might be able to get a somewhat unghostly looking image if he taped the screen using one camera aimed at the proper angle and a CP filter dialed in just right.

Just to be sure, let me tell you that I speak of ACTUAL PROVEN EXPERIENCE besides theory. You can get a NO GHOST whatsoever (or similar to the ghosting level you get when you watch the film properly) by using a filter. You can even use the filter that comes in the 3D glasses, of course. As you said, the linear filter has to be rotated to the proper angle from the plate-retarder until the ghosting dissapears, but all circular filters for cameras allow for this. If you used the filter off a pair of 3D glasses, they are already pre-aligned.

quote: Bobby Henderson
I strongly doubt he would get any sort of useful 3D image by using two cameras in the auditorium. The digital 3D setups are more complicated in how they project 3D than something more straight forward like a dual 15/70 IMAX 3D show

About using 2 videocameras, each fitted with one filter from the 3D glasses i.e., it works, of course, equally as well. Again, I've tried and I can confirm. What makes you think that it's more "complex"? The fact that they flash 3 times per eye? It would be just the same as taping a 2D film (per camera) with a 3 blade shutter. No big deal, as long as the camera and film were both 24p/48i/72p.

Needless to say I did this under the current laws in my country, with no copyright infringement, and to atest with certainty that it's BS when the industry claims that 3D can not be "pirated" or "projected/used at home".

I can guarantee, beyond any reasonable doubts, that you can do both today w/o too much trouble. The worst problem is the low light levels from DLP projectors in 3D (after the polarizing filters) and that non-24p cameras, specially CMOS, flicker a bit (actual flicker, not ghosting, which you get "none") with the 72hz (per camera/eye) refresh due to the rolling shutter of the CMOS and total blanking interval of the DLP during the switch. This shouldn't happen on 24p CCD cameras, but I didn't have any 24p CCD camera to test, but did have a pair of 50i CCD and 24p CMOS.

So I hope this is the end of the debate about "with 3-D, you can't pirate off the screen or have 3D at home". That's not true. Even the cameras that I've used for years for home 3D recording, a pair of small PAL JVC GR-DVP7, would allow for "fine 3D pirating" inside a movie theater.

At best, you can say it is slightly more inconvenient for a pirate/home viewer to pirate this way in 3D. That's all. And as easy as popping out a filter from the 3D glasses and taping it in front of the pirate's camera lense if you are ok with a 2D version.

But the easiest method to pirate movies continues to be ... to download them from the internet. No need for cameras and theaters ... [uhoh]

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 12-04-2009, 06:29 PM:

quote: Chris Slycord
First you say that you haven't seen the text at all, so you have no clue how well (or poorly) written it is then you conclude that lawyers will tear it to shreds? So, I must assume that your conclusion is based on both your lack of knowledge as to what is in the statute and your lack of experience/education in law.

No, I postulated that copyright law was the underlying crime, and said that a lawyer would tear it to pieces--copyright violation, not the law they were referencing. As the woman, as far as the story notes, was recording the film, she was recording her friends and the movie happened to be there, it is going to be hard to prove any intent to copy in such a way to violate the rights of the holder of the copyright.

On the other hand, the law may not have an underlying copyright violation, in which case, no need for the lawyer to rip the copyright claim to shreds. [Wink]

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 12-04-2009, 07:15 PM:

quote: Bill Enos
In response to Chris comment that only the woman was guilty, not so, a person who knowingly allows a felony to take place can be charged also, and these people should be if she is convicted of anything.

But none of the people you named knowingly allowed it to occur. That is, unless you don't understand the word "knowingly."

Hint: You can't knowingly allow something that you don't know about. Like if a guy came to your shop and asked to speak to your coworker, then blows her brains out when she comes to the front, no one can say "Bill knowingly allowed the crime."

quote: Brad Miller
But the manager no doubt acted like he/she did due to the brainwashing of Valenti and company, and as such turned off their brain to deal with the situation.

To an extent, I agree.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-04-2009, 09:27 PM:

Just for info and entertainment purposes:

We just got the latest camcord report from NATO. Here is part of it. (I took the actual theater names out because that info is not supposed to be shared on a public site.)

I just share this to help debunk the notion that camcord movie theft is a rarity. It's not, and it could be happening in your theatre.

quote: The NATO weekly camcord report

· Full camcord of “The Twilight Saga: New Moon” was found online and traced back to the xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx theater. This is the second camcord from this theater identified in the last few weeks.
· Full camcord of “Ninja Assassin” was identified on a pirate website. Forensics identified the xxxxxxxxxx in xxxxxxx, Florida as the source of this copy.
· Full camcord of “The Blind Side” was acquired in New York. This copy was traced back to a new-hit theater – the xxxxxxx 8 in xxxxxxxxx, Maryland.

Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 12-05-2009, 06:38 PM:

Looks like CNN has now picked this story up and the young lady will have her 15 minutes of fame.

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 12-05-2009, 07:04 PM:

.......and this is just what the MPAA wants.

Job done.

Posted by Todd McCracken (Member # 4718) on 12-09-2009, 05:50 PM:

quote:

I just share this to help debunk the notion that camcord movie theft is a rarity. It's not, and it could be happening in your theatre.

quote: The NATO weekly camcord report
· Full camcord of “The Twilight Saga: New Moon” was found online and traced back to the xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx theater. This is the second camcord from this theater identified in the last few weeks.
· Full camcord of “Ninja Assassin” was identified on a pirate website. Forensics identified the xxxxxxxxxx in xxxxxxx, Florida as the source of this copy.
· Full camcord of “The Blind Side” was acquired in New York. This copy was traced back to a new-hit theater – the xxxxxxx 8 in xxxxxxxxx, Maryland.

Im surprised they share that much info with you. We do some watermarking and if I even mentioned what continent it happened on I could be terminated quite quickly. But I reckon if the studios give the OK to release said info it could well inform the ignorant that yes we can indeed tell what house what hour and darn near what seat a film was recorded from.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 12-14-2009, 08:51 AM:

Charges dropped, film's director spoke in her defense... link to story

quote:
Charges dropped in 'New Moon' incident
22-year-old woman accused of pirating 'Twilight' movie
Associated Press

Dec 11, 2009, 12:33 PM ET

CHICAGO -- Charges have been dropped against a 22-year-old Chicago woman accused of videotaping part of "The Twilight Saga: New Moon" at a movie theater.

Cook County prosecutors on Friday announced in court that they won't pursue charges against Samantha Tumpach.

Tumpach was arrested Nov. 28 in the Chicago suburb of Rosemont and faced a felony charge of illegally copying the film.

She had about three minutes of "New Moon" on her digital camera. Tumpach has said she was taping her sister's birthday party and wasn't trying to record the movie.

The film's director, Chris Weitz, came to Tumpach's defense. He told the Chicago Sun-Times there's a difference between trying to protect a copyright and prosecuting someone who didn't mean to commit video piracy.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-14-2009, 10:43 AM:

Wow, common sense prevails.

Posted by Jake Spell (Member # 5294) on 12-14-2009, 11:29 AM:

Glad to see there's still some of it around.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-14-2009, 12:58 PM:

No kidding.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-14-2009, 01:11 PM:

So, is the MPAA or the theatre owner planning to compensate the taxpayers of Chicago for the public resources (police, court, etc.) wasted as part of this charade? Will the girl be compensated for her time spent in jail? She did do something stupid, but the response by the theatre was way out of line, as this thread indicates.

Will the theatre manager still get his "up to $500" reward?

Posted by Ed Alvarado (Member # 2760) on 12-15-2009, 11:22 AM:

that BS she should go to prison just like the MPAA ads say it doesnt matter if it was for personal or just 3 minutes of video footage she broke the rules and it clearly states NO RECORDING rules are rules and now they are gonna let her get away with it?

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 12-15-2009, 11:57 AM:

quote:
The film's director, Chris Weitz, came to Tumpach's defense. He told the Chicago Sun-Times there's a difference between trying to protect a copyright and prosecuting someone who didn't mean to commit video piracy.

I still think it's unfair to try and put the burden on theatre staff to try and determine a person's intent. While it may be clear cut if someone has the intent of capturing the whole movie for distribution, how are we supposed to know whether someone is capturing clips to put up on MySpace or YouTube.

I would rather follow procedure and let the police or the prosecutors sort out intent.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 07-07-2010, 01:47 PM:

The woman is now suing the theater, saying that her arrest was "pushed" by the theater's employees to collect the $500 reward the MPAA offers. She claims this was the incentive for having her cuffed and escorted from the theater to a waiting squad car. Despite police officers recommending to just ban her from the theater and destroy the data, the theater's employees demanded she be arrested and charged.

Once Ms. Tumpach arrived at the local station, police officers called the MPAA for advice. They explained that she had been in the theater for an hour and seven minutes and had recorded a little over three minutes of the movie. The MPAA recommended the police department destroy the 195 seconds of footage, write up an incident report and release Samantha. However, the theater manager again insisted that a felony had been committed and demanded that the woman be charged.

After spending a couple of days in prison, the charges were dismissed months later by the court.

She is now seeking damages for $50,000+ for malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence and defamation.

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2010/07/moviesuit.pdf

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-07-2010, 04:05 PM:

I hope she wins. I really hope she wins.

3 minutes of a movie is not going to do anything but possibly INCREASE attendance, even if she put it up on youtube.

Had she been actively trying to copy the entire thing I would feel differently.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-07-2010, 04:10 PM:

quote: Ed Alvarado
that BS she should go to prison just like the MPAA ads say it doesnt matter if it was for personal or just 3 minutes of video footage she broke the rules and it clearly states NO RECORDING rules are rules and now they are gonna let her get away with it?

You're joking, right? She was recording a birthday party and got 3 minutes of Twilight in the background...and for that you want her to go to prison?

Come on.

(I hope she wins too.)

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 07-07-2010, 10:15 PM:

Quite a bit of the complaint is dubious. It states that they acted without probably cause... which if true would mean she'd never have been arrested to begin with. You can't be arrested if it was absolutely clear that there was no cause for you to be arrested.

And the claim that the actions taken by the managers were malicious specifically due to being motivated to obtain a $500 reward is dubious because the existence of a reward doesn't mean he was only motivated by it. Lets assume for a moment the guy has a huge stick up his ass for following every stupid rule he's been given to the letter. That would (or at least could) result in him taking the same exact actions without them being necessarily malicious.

And really, the "intentional infliction of emotional distress" claim is predicated on buying the notion that the people were being inherently malicious.

The negligence claim is arguable. It seems fair to ask that they have warned her.

The defamation claim is the most dubious of them all. The manager released a statement retelling the events; that she was arrested under suspicion of committing a crime. She is claiming that by retelling the events as they occurred he is implying that she really committed the crime. Also, the claim is made that the manager was lying by saying that he was required to report the incident to law enforcement, since the state law makes no such requirement, which ignores that his statement was also referring to federal law (though it could very well be that the federal law also doesn't require him to do so and he was mistaken). And the claim that she was falsely-accused is likely premised on saying that because her charges were dropped it must be a false accusation, when in reality charges are dropped for lots of reasons.

So in short: They'll probably have an easy time showing that the staff were negligent and likely a much harder time on everything else. Though I admit that I am no expert in any way on law. So take what I say with a whole bowl of salt (unless you have hypertension [Wink]

)

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 07-08-2010, 12:12 AM:

Her suit is a joke, which most civil suits are. She (and her lawyer) is clearly hoping for a settlement to get a pay day.

The theatre didn't arrest her. The manager or the employees didn't arrest her. They don't have that power. They were offered the opportunity to press charges as a victim, which they did. Ultimately it's up to law enforcement whether or not to arrest someone. The executive branch enforces the laws and is thus responsible to know the laws. So too must citizens, which this lady did not. They obviously saw grounds to make an arrest. Just because someone tells a police officer to arrest someone, it doesn't mean they get arrested. So her complaint will have to show that her "mental anguish, humiliation, etc." came from how the theatre treated her, not from the arrest. The law doesn't state warnings or "friendly reminders" need to be issued, although it seems pretty clear that in this case they should have been.

This woman was mightily embarrassed and inconvenienced and shouldn't have been, but her counter suit is just another greedy person seeking a pay day. It will almost certainly be settled out of court and a she'll go shopping at Nordstrom. The theatre chain will pass the cost of the court case on to their customers like they do all other costs, so the only people who really lose are the other customers. Poor judgment used by management, but nothing that warrants getting sued over.

Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 07-08-2010, 12:22 AM:

Chris, how many times can you say "dubious"?

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 07-08-2010, 09:39 AM:

[thumbsup]

Richard!

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 07-08-2010, 11:35 AM:

Touché

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 07-09-2010, 11:25 AM:

quote: Julio Roberto
The MPAA recommended the police department destroy the 195 seconds of footage, write up an incident report and release Samantha. However, the theater manager again insisted that a felony had been committed and demanded that the woman be charged.

Whether or not you agree with someone being hit that hard over 3 minutes of Twilight, this part seems the most suspicious to me.

Around here, the police have nothing to do with actual charges being brought... A theatre employee, even less so.

Unless a someone was personally harmed and filed a civil suit, charges would have to come from a county (or city) prosecutor. The police would just respond to the immediate call from the manager, document and neutralize the situation and send the paperwork off to the prosecutor's office, where that department would consider what charges (if any) to bring.

In cases where we've called for help, a defendant's lawyer has occasionally asked us to sign a letter stating we no longer wished to bring charges. While that wouldn't automatically cancel a cause against someone, it would indicate to the prosecutor that the people responsible for the charges being brought no longer want to participate.

A theatre employee would have no influence over the nature (or level) of charges, and possibly less over whether those charges were actually pushed forward.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 07-09-2010, 03:56 PM:

Jack, you are right!

Further, since the cinema could not show where they were damaged (lost money,) they are not entitled to a civil suit. A civil suit, by definition, must be filed by the party who was hurt. So, if anyone was hurt, (film company???) they would have to file the suit, no one else. Louis

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-09-2010, 04:06 PM:

The civil suit is being filed by the girl who was put in jail for this.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-09-2010, 06:20 PM:

If I was the person who got arrested and thrown in jail over this, I think I would be fine with walking into the lobby on a crowded Saturday night and having the manager arrested in the middle of all of their customers and then throwing him/her in the same jail for the same amount of time.

That would be suitable. [Big Grin]

Posted by Eric Robinson (Member # 2966) on 07-14-2010, 11:20 AM:

Maybe they could just offer her a free truckers hat...

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 07-16-2010, 09:06 PM:

[rofl]

I honestly spit up a little of my LO-CARB Monster when I saw that. Thank you, Eric.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 07-19-2010, 01:21 PM:

My question is, what the hell was this woman doing recording any footage from inside the theatre while the movie was on? Maybe she shouldn't have been arrested, but she should have been thrown out for being rude and inconsiderate to the other patrons in the theatre.

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 07-19-2010, 02:20 PM:

Edward, did you read the start of this thread? [Roll Eyes]

She was recording a birthday party that was held in the theatre. I think the party itself would be more disruptive and rude that her taping. But since they paid for the party screening, it's none of anyone's business.

The MPAA Anti-Piracy policy is a bad joke and totally ineffective.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 07-20-2010, 11:28 PM:

Yes, Tony, I've read the entire thread. I just find it amazing, in this day and age, that personal responsibility does not seem to factor in to the equation. That some people seem to think it's okay to disturb other people because they are having a "party," while others in this very thread seem to condone this activity, because they think the MPAA's policy requests go too far.

I've had several instances where I have come across people recording movies. Not just snippets, but the entire actual movie. I know how I have reacted each time, and I know how the parties in question have reacted. Yes, there are better ways to handle the situation than the way this Muvico did, but if the lady had just followed common sense and had some personal responsibility in the matter, she never would have found herself in that situation in the first place.

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 07-21-2010, 11:30 PM:

You know, Edward, you make a good point. One that I completely missed. There is nothing I saw that indicates the party was a private rental. The report ran December 2 and since the movie was released November 20, it is very unlikely they would have rented out the entire auditorium. Had this woman not thought she could do as she pleased with other paying customers around because she organized a surprise party, it would never have been an issue. She even is quoted as saying, "You can hear me talking the whole time." Its likely some other customers came out and complained about the nuisance this woman and her party were being into the start of the movie and that's why they responded and noticed the camera in the first place. Had she had any respect for the other guests and kept her mouth shut, or at the very least shut up when the feature started, she would have been just fine. It was her own lack of respect for others that got her in trouble. I probably would have had a smile seeing this woman led out by police after she ruined the start of a movie I paid for. That part of the story is what needs to be emphasized to deliver the importance of good behavior.

Good call, Edward.

Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 07-22-2010, 12:19 AM:

It is obvious to me that neither Chad or Edward bothered to read the court complaint which was filed and which was linked in Julio's July 7th post above.

In the court complaint it says that Muvico advertised for birthday parties and that the VIP tickets that the family purchased for the showing were a group birthday party purchase of a special showing in a special section or auditorium (the complaint is not clear on that point)and that the ushers were present when they began taking party video before the house lights went out and the feature began.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 07-22-2010, 08:35 AM:

quote: Jonathan M. Crist
In the court complaint it says that Muvico advertised for birthday parties and that the VIP tickets that the family purchased for the showing were a group birthday party purchase of a special showing in a special section or auditorium (the complaint is not clear on that point)and that the ushers were present when they began taking party video before the house lights went out and the feature began.

I thought it could've been that they just bought out a number of seats at a group rate inside a regular showing. But I admittedly know nothing about Muvico or how they handle bday parties.

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 07-22-2010, 11:54 AM:

quote: Jonathan M. Crist
It is obvious to me that neither Chad or Edward bothered to read the court complaint which was filed and which was linked in Julio's July 7th post above.

Actually, Jonathan, I think it is you who needs to read the complaint. It says, "sitting in the special VIP section of the theatre" not "sitting in the feel free to act like a jackass section of the theatre." There were still other people in there. It states they were moving seats, which would be a huge distraction. It states they were taking pictures, another huge distraction. It says the usher told them to quit moving seats since other customers might come late and want to sit there, indicating it was all around other people. It also states she "excitedly began to video the opening scene of the movie hoping to capture the title and beginning" which was the ground for the whole arrest in the first place. It doesn't say a bit of the movie was caught in the background, it says she straight up filmed it! This woman's lawyer filed a civil suit that freely admits she and her group acted like a selfish assholes and she broke the law!

Jonathan - read it again and please quote the part that indicates she was out of view of other customers, either by a private rental or in a special section of auditorium that is out of sight/sound of other customers. I have never seen such an auditorium. So what if they advertise for parties? Every theatre does, or should. Having a party does not mean you get to have your way regardless of other paying guests.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 07-22-2010, 12:04 PM:

quote: Jonathan M. Crist
In the court complaint it says that Muvico advertised for birthday parties and that the VIP tickets that the family purchased for the showing were a group birthday party purchase of a special showing in a special section or auditorium (the complaint is not clear on that point)and that the ushers were present when they began taking party video before the house lights went out and the feature began.

I doubt the woman bought out the entire theatre (minimum 100 seats at $10 per ticket) for this party. But even if she did, that does not give her the okay to break the law. That ushers may have been witness to her recording before the house lights went out and the feature began does not mean they were aware of her intentions once the house lights went out and the feature began, nor does it give her the okay to break the law.

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 07-23-2010, 11:39 AM:

Ok, after reading the follow-ups here since my last post, I can concede that the party was NOT a fully private affair and if indeed the lady was being disruptive to other paying patrons then there was more than meets the eye happening.

As for the taping of the beginning of the movie, if it was indeed intentional then yeah I can see confiscating the tape or at least demanding that the portion showing the screen content be erased on the spot. The theatre staff overreacted in this case for sure though.

And as for the distinction of breaking the law (which in this case I feel was not true) and committing an infraction which is what she did, the punishment did not fit the crime.

In other words, to quote Edward's response to my post: (Bold commentary added by me:)

quote: Edward Havens
<snip> I've had several instances where I have come across people recording movies. Not just snippets,(I call that an infraction); but the entire actual movie. (that's a clear case of breaking the law.)

It's the difference in how speeding tickets are handled IMHO. If you're caught doing 5 miles over, it's an infraction with mild penalties. Do say 25-30 over and it is now felony reckless.

I do agree with Edward 100% on this:

quote: Edward Havens
<snip> Yes, there are better ways to handle the situation than the way this Muvico did, but if the lady had just followed common sense and had some personal responsibility in the matter, she never would have found herself in that situation in the first place.

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 07-23-2010, 04:38 PM:

quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
It's the difference in how speeding tickets are handled IMHO. If you're caught doing 5 miles over, it's an infraction with mild penalties. Do say 25-30 over and it is now felony reckless.

And those differences come from how the laws are written. Traffic violation laws are separated into severity of the violation. If the law is not based on how much of a movie is recorded, distinguishing between levels of misdemeanor or felony, comparable to only going 7 mph over the limit instead of 25, then the police cannot just make up a punishment on the spot. They are only the executive branch. The charges were dropped anyway and there was no punishment, so you can't really say the punishment didn't fit the crime. Being arrested is not a punishment. It is simply part of the fact finding process that is necessary in due process. If anything, being arrested, inconvenienced and humiliated was something many of us managers have secretly wished for many times when bad auditorium behavior has happened.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 07-26-2010, 05:13 AM:

I can't believe this thread is still going!
(I can't believe I'm posting in it.)

Patrons are not theatre staff, and they don't think like theatre staff. If you advertise birthday party tickets, the public is going to treat it like any other birthday party, within reason. People shoot video at birthday parties. This is no surprise. Why should they do any differently in a movie theatre? Why would it even occur to them that they should do differently?

Yes, they should change their behavior to avoid being disrespectful to other patrons. In the absence of any evidence, we really should not assume they didn't. But certainly a theatre has some responsibility to tell patrons what can and cannot happen at a birthday party that the theatre encourages.

Tony said, "As for the taping of the beginning of the movie, if it was indeed intentional then yeah I can see confiscating the tape or at least demanding that the portion showing the screen content be erased on the spot."

Sorry, but you can't do that! That's not the way our laws work. You can't make people erase something they record, nor can you legally confiscate it. Now, the police can (and should) take the tape away in the process of arresting the person holding it. But then it becomes evidence and has to be handled with according to the nitpicky boring and detailed rules that implies. Ultimately the person has to get it back, unless the something special happens like the studio claims it is their property, and then there's probably a civil suit to determine that, etc.

Of course, this does require the person to know their rights. If they agree to surrender or erase a portion of the tape, well, they can do that. But anything else? Nope. You hear about police officers asking people to erase photos all the time, but guess what? -- they're not allowed to do that! in the United States. (Now, YMMV and there's probably some jurisdiction in some out of the way place there there actually is a law that lets them do that, but it's gotta be someplace so small that no first amendment lawyer has heard of it or they would be on top of it in a New York Minute.)

--jhawk

Posted by Ed Alvarado (Member # 2760) on 07-28-2010, 05:07 AM:

yeah that was all crap she should of paid her dues for bringing a recording device in a movie theater even though it clearly states not to record.