digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Help Fight Draconian Zero-Tolerance Piracy Laws and Boycott Regal Cinemas!

freeculturenyu.org — Free Culture @ NYU is joining the call for a chain wideboycott of Regal Cinemas over their draconian punishment of a 19 year-old girl caught taping 20 seconds of the Transformers film. We demand that Regal Cinemas drop all charges against Jhannet Sejas, and that the entertainment group issue a full apology to the teen.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • aMeta4, on 10/10/2007, -7/+24I'm sure they are intent on "making an example of her". I can't stand going to movies at Regal theaters anyway:
    If I wanted to watch a truck commercial, I'd be at home watching tv...
    • airwalkery2k, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11The President of Regal Cinema’s e-mail address is : ddelaria@regalcinemas.com and their official number is 1-877-835-5734. Call and/or e-mail to tell Regal Cinemas that they’re wrong!

      Join with me, people. Send emails.
      • grazny, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1What did she used to record? A cellphone or a videocamera?
  • GirthAgain, on 10/10/2007, -13/+30If they are going to treat customers that way they deserve what they get. People are getting sick of being bullied by groups such as these.

    Zero-Tolerance = Zero Intelligence.
    • faskill, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4If they are going to prosecute criminals, they deserve what they get?

      People don't like to get bullied. You are absolutely correct. I am pretty sure the people that work at Regal don't want to get bullied into dismissing charges or bullied to do what someone else wants them to do.

      Damn you self defeating people.
      • spaceramblings, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3yeah poor Regal is being bullied

        Who's gonna stand up for the massive helpless corporations
    • eecan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0"Zero-Tolerance = Zero Intelligence."
      So, if someone raped another person it would be retarded to have "zero tolerance" for that? They should get off with a slap on the wrist? Hell no!
  • TheMeatball, on 10/10/2007, -16/+55They should have kicked her our of the theatre and left it at that.

    It's silly to do this, there were no damages done by her recording.
    • NtHammer, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8of course not, she GOT CAUGHT! she knew what she was doing was illegal, im sure she was actually going to "show it to her 13-year-old brother, who had said he wanted to see the movie." that is 100% *****, if the kid wanted to see it she couldve brought him to see it with her. and they say that she should get off because it was only 20 seconds? well of course, she got caught and stopped recording it then. you don't bring a camera into the movies without knowing the consequences, i hate most piracy laws as much as the next person, but fighting for someone's right to bootleg a movie is retarded.
  • cnot3, on 10/10/2007, -11/+7Hopefully she can get herself a good lawyer and beat it.

    57 diggs and already its down?
    • TheSmitty, on 10/10/2007, -16/+2Hopefully her ass ends up in prison
      • TheMeatball, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10Yeah, let's pray from the countless victims of her heinous crimes. Criminals like her don't belong among society.
        • dacheetah, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Could you repeat that, I couldn't read it, it seems it was covered with a layer of sarcasm so thick it was opaque.
    • fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Where's she supposed to get a get lawyer from? Wishing her luck, raging against Regent and calling it unjust won't pay her fees.
    • dvda2, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3She broke the law. 20 seconds 20 minutes 2 hours.
      That whole 20 second story is bogus anyways ... cmon ... the first 20 seconds of a movie is going to be better than a 2 minute trailer? I call BS to her excuse ... make the example and move on
      • spaceramblings, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3yes let's hang her for a 20 second clip... and then maybe we can jail some orphans for stealing bread
  • Uranium118, on 10/10/2007, -13/+11I have boycotted them for years now, I saw a vision of the future and decided to boycott movie theaters. Arrrr.
  • Catbert107, on 10/10/2007, -24/+41uh...they got what they deserve, the punishment might be a little too severe but still, they broke the rules and are now pissed because they didn't get a slap on the wrist?
    • lilbitmoreslyk, on 10/10/2007, -5/+18its ILLOGICAL to send someone to PRISON for a 20 second video clip. COMPLETELY illogical i'd understand if they just fined her like $500 (instead of a ridiculous 2500) or banned her from their cinemas but the whole TIME IN PRISON thing gets me. This is NOT a prison worthy crime. If she had lets say a tripod or some ***** and was definitely going to film the whole movie then throw her ass in jail, but for a 20 ***** second clip? Come on. Just fine her, ban her and get it over with.
      • jsully, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Which is why when it goes to *court* (remember we do still have that for the time being here in America) they're going to give her a fine as opposed to sending her to prison.
        • s1mph0ny, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4she never should have went to jail in the first place.
          • jdibiase, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1She didn't ... read the article, which says she, "FACES UP TO a year in jail and a fine of up to $2,500 when she goes to trial this month." That's the MAXIMUM penalty. I'd be very surprised if she got more than a small fine.
      • faskill, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1People seem to ignore facts on how the judicial system works. There are maximum penalties, the maximum punishment you can receive if you are found guilty. Granted she has no criminal record, the district attorney may plead the case out or may give her a plea bargain. There is no guarantee she's to pay the full amount possible, or serve a year in prison. She may even end up with no fine and get probation for a year to three.
      • subliminalurge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"its ILLOGICAL to send someone to PRISON"

        OK, first of all, the article says she faces time in "jail" not "prison". Yes, there's a difference.

        Other than that, I agree with you. Incarceration is an extremely harsh punishment. Extremely harsh. People love to throw around phrases like "throw the ***** in jail" so cavalierly, but anyone who's ever spent any time in a jail knows that it's not something that should be taken lightly. It can be very damaging psychologically, and in many cases I believe we're taking good people who simply made a mistake and transforming them into bitter, pessimistic people who no longer give a *****. Having nothing to look at except a white cinder-block wall all day, every day will do that to a person.

        IMHO, incarceration should be reserved only for people who are an actual danger to society. For the rest, just hit them in the wallet hard enough to make it hurt (although, this would require overhauling the way that fines are determined, making them based on income and assets, so that the judge would have the power to make the fine sting no matter how rich you are).
    • merreborn, on 10/10/2007, -9/+20Just 'cause it's illegal doesn't mean that it's morally wrong, or that the law is just.

      The law itself should be held in question here. If there's a law which makes what this kid did criminal, it needs to be amended.

      There's nothing morally wrong with a kid taking 20 seconds of video to show her little brother.

      Either way, the management involved in the decision to press charges are a bunch of dicks.
      • shadowette, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3But isn't is morally wrong to break a law? Even if it is an unjust one?
        • Tanlayen, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5No. There are still old laws about not spitting on the street in public or no opening an old coke bottle without the prescence of an engineer. Stupid old laws. Immoral? I think not.
        • jgclark123, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4It depends on who you ask. Socrates would say it is morally wrong to break an unjust law, but Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would disagree.
          Morality's a tricky thing.
        • s1mph0ny, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Nope, it's morally wrong not to break an unjust law.
        • dacheetah, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5It has been argued that it is in many cases morally wrong NOT to break an unjust law.
    • thewhiterabbit, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7someone who brings in a camcorder to record a clip of a movie is pretty retarded
      • louiedog, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5It was a digital still camera that can also record video.
        • Traiklin, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2and that right there is her problem. She knowingly brought a digital camera into the theater with her, she chose to ignore the warning signs that are conveniently hidden at the doors, ticket counter, before the movie, around the lobby and as you are going to the theater. It was her choice to ignore the rules and film part of the movie.

          I understand the prison thing being to extreme but that's not the theaters fault, it's the one's that made the law that way in the first place. I know at my theater they don't hide anything from you and even have a list of banable offenses listed now ranging from talking during the movie up to filming it, if she really wanted to do it for her brother there is a much easier way of going about it, Buy him a damn ticket, it says right there he wanted to see it, what was stopping him? his sister is 19 she could of bought him a ticket and they could of scene it together but instead she chose to record 20 seconds of it for him...why? it conveniently leaves that part of her story out.
        • h0mi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1On top of that, the trailers (which contain ~20 seconds of the movie) wasn't enough?
      • NtHammer, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2its because she wasn't recording a clip, i guarantee she WAS planning on recording the whole movie until she realized that she got busted
    • thedarkwolf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6none the less, lets not punish her for making a poor choice. The punishment must fit the crime, and prison plus 2500 fine does not equal 20seconds on a digital camera
      • jdibiase, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I'm not saying she should get the maximum penalty ... she should get far less, but to say, "lets not punish her for making a poor choice" isn't a rationale for not punishing her. If it were, that would mean we shouldn't punish anybody for breaking the law, as doing so is almost always a "poor choice."
  • LordSlashstab55, on 10/10/2007, -11/+4I'm just boycotting Hollywood...
    • TheSmitty, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Not really, still watching movies aren't you. You are being showered with ads. LOL
  • UCFmethod, on 10/10/2007, -15/+4People still go to the movies?
    • shiftyroach, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0the screeners that show up on bittorrent have to come from somewhere
  • fentanyl, on 10/10/2007, -9/+3http://www.duggmirror.com
  • Dingo1919, on 10/10/2007, -36/+77Dumbass took a camera into a movie and was caught filming. I don't see what the problem is here, she broke the law and got busted, end of story.
    • iamnos, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9The first comment with some sense. This isn't about fair use. She broke the rules of the theatre. They called her on it. That's it. Yes, the maximum punishment might be a bit extreme, but she hasn't even been found guilty of a crime yet, so speaking of harsh punishments is a bit immature. This story should not be on the front page.
      • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7ummm... she was caught in the act. There is no question of her guilt. She even admitted to doing it. All the court has to do is decide on the severity of her punishment.
        • iamnos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Yes, but until a court finds her guilty, or a plea agreement is reached, then she is presumed innocent.
          • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Only to the mindless like you. Her guilt is w/o question. But you go ahead and keep pretending she isn't guilty of this crime.
          • iamnos, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2I have never once said she is not guilty, in fact, I fairly certain she is. That's not the point.
        • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Fairly certain? Cut the crap. She's guilty. She did it. End of story. It is now up to the courts to decide how severe her punishment should be.
        • Ductapemaster, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1@norman619

          I completely agree with you on this. The movie theater was just following company policy and not the mention THE LAW. Should the movie theatre be punished for following policy? Absolutely not. Should they be subject to a boycott because they did what the law tells them to? Absolutely not.

          However, I do not completely agree with the law here. The law (from what I know of it) applies the same punishment to all severities of this crime, which is why she is being punished the way she is. The law shouldn't be changed so that it allows for short recordings without punishment, but so that the severity of the punishment depends on the severity of the crime committed.

          This is what needs to change and not the fact that the movie theater did what it was supposed to do.

          And if you don't agree with me...well, I'm not forcing you to agree with me am I?
          • jdibiase, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2The penalties mentioned in the article are the maximum penalties. The penalty given to her could be anything UP TO the maximum (including, no penalty at all).
        • dacheetah, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Being "guilty" (having broken a law) doesn't mean she has done anything wrong. There are plenty of stupid laws. Hell here's a list of stupid laws for New York (where this "crime" was committed):
          http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/new-york/
          (Does it seem odd that girls cannot wear body hugging clothes, but as long as it's not for buisness can walk around topless in public?)
          • subliminalurge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2From that page:
            "It is against the law to throw a ball at someone's head for fun."

            So it's OK as long as I'm doing it for another reason, like revenge?
    • lilbitmoreslyk, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5@Dingo yea thats true she deserves punishment but seriously dude, Sending her to prison? isn't that a bit over the top since she had no motive to pirate or reproduce the video for her personal gain? it was just a 20 second clip. I understand the fines and perhaps maybe they should ban her or something but seriously time in prison is a bit too much.
      • iamnos, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Where does it say she is going to prison. Everyone keeps making the maximum punishment seem like it has been handed out to this girl. At this point she's had no punishment handed out. Suggesting that she'll get the max is just ludicrous.
      • thejwac, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1How do we know what her intentions were? How could someone be stupid enough not realize that using a camcorder in a movie theatre is illegal. If she really is that stupid and had no intention of pirating the film, then I feel for her, but she broke the law. End of story.
        • wasmith91932, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0It would be alot easier to put people in jail if what they needed is to show intent! I would say a car stopping by a girl dressed as a hooker shows intent. But you actually need to break the law, IE copy a larger potion of the movie, or solicit a hooker to break the law.

          In part I disagree with needed to carry out a crime, when it comes to murder I don't think the police should wait until there is an attempt. But like you said "How do we know what her intentions were?"
    • djgraff, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4I agree whole heartedly ... WTF you get busted for /filming/ a movie in a theater and then you have the audacity to claim fair use rights? Come on ... get a brain here.
    • wasmith91932, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4What law? Its the rule of the theater, like no shoes no service! Copyright allows for fair use and company must prove it was harmed by the copy. Maybe copyright law show be tougher but that is another topic.
    • merreborn, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9The punishment doesn't fit the crime. If this act is criminal, the law needs to be changed.
    • beowulflee, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2The problem is that she's going to JAIL FOR A YEAR for taping 20 seconds of Transformers.
      • Tourney3p0, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Do you know something we don't? Nowhere in the article did it say she's going to jail for a year.
  • RMantaRay, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6Damn, the only remotely tolerable theater here is the Regal one. But then again, I rarely ever go to an actual movie theater, so I may be unintentionally joining this boycott.
    • Slungsolow, on 10/10/2007, -7/+15I ain't boycotting *****. The exact theater that this bitch pulled her dumb ass stunt in is right across the street from my apartment. The apartment I picked because of it's proximity to things like movie theaters.

      Dumb bitch obviously breaks the law and I'm supposed to go to the ***** AMC down the street.

      OH HELL NO.
  • pmw159, on 10/10/2007, -5/+22"We wish Jhannet the best of luck in defending herself against Regal Cinemas and hope that the chain will soon realize how inappropriate and sadistic its actions were."

    Sadism is the sexual pleasure or gratification in the infliction of pain and suffering upon another person
    • TheMeatball, on 10/10/2007, -8/+8It's common knowledge that sadism is also just a synonym for cruelty. Don't be a grammar-nazi.
    • Rikkochet, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4You don't think these middle management scum and lawyers aren't getting off on this?
  • popsiclestick, on 10/10/2007, -16/+21And what should she have received as a punishment for theft? A slap on the wrist? I can't believe this got on the first page. After year of reading digg, this is my first bury..
    • TheMeatball, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5What exactly did she steal? Was her 20 second, low-res recording of Transformers worth $2,500? She must be rolling in the dough with a profit margin like that!
      • moogaman, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1while the 20 seconds isnt worth anything, its still stealing.
        • louiedog, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3And what about the countless youtube clips taken from tv shows and movies? Would you like every single one of those people prosecuted as well?
    • beowulflee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Intellectual property is not the same thing as property. Taping 20 seconds of Transformers is not the same thing as stealing an apple.
      • jdibiase, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"Intellectual property is not the same thing as property." And an apple isn't the same kind of property as cash, but the owners of all 3 have rights.
  • HappyScrappy, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12Technically, they can't drop the charges. In criminal proceedings, the state is the plantiff. I think you need to talk to your representatives and get these stupid laws repealed.
    • louiedog, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The movie theater chose to hand her over to the cops. They could have just ejected her from the theater. People can boycott until they issue a statement apologizing for the way the situation was handled. I'm not saying they should, but if proceeding can't be halted that seems like it would appease everyone.
    • s1mph0ny, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3They were trying to set an example by pressing charges, we can do the same by cutting their profits.
    • wasmith91932, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The DA does not have to do anything. and has the authority to do nothing. IE say to the court "No action at this time your honor" then she will walk.
  • Bustin, on 10/10/2007, -5/+17I used to work at Regal Cinemas and 3 other employees and myself got fired for taking caffeine pills on the job, CAFFEINE PILLS.
    • Marmista, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Bustin: With a work ethic and attitude like that... I look forward to hearing you ask, "Uh, do you want frys with that" when you are 40 years old.

      • Mehster, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I don't see what ingesting extra caffeine has to do with work ethic. Around the office where I work people are gulping down coffee all day long. How is that any different?
    • TrevorBelmont, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Marmista: Work ethic? Huh? Aside from that nonsense, that line about "Uh, do you want fries with that?" Precious! So clever and original! With a wit like that YOU will clearly climb to the top of the ladder! I wouldn't be surprised if we heard that "fries with that" line popping up everywhere. I mean, working at McDonald's! I bet you're handsome too...
    • Marmista, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Nonsense, Trevor. However, I have fired employees for chewing gum.
  • geekee, on 10/10/2007, -6/+20I think a 20 sec clip counts as fair use, although IANAL. This case is ridiculous.
  • TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -11/+26Like her brother needed a 20 second clip to be interested in the movie? BS.
    • altcountryman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Yeah, couldn't they find a trailer online, probably longer than 30sec, bigger screen and better speakers than a camera's...

      Recording a bit of the flick is lame, but the possible sentence seems pretty harsh to me.
      • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3The whole point of such a punishment is to discourage people from breaking the law. The law is only effective if they enforce it. I hope she now understands she will have to deal with the consequances of her stupid actions. It's not the end of the world for her. Many peopel here make it sound like she's up for the death penalty.
    • socokoolaid, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1she probably won't even get probation, court supervision or some other suspended sentence. She deserves to help fund the already financially failing movie theater's new found requirement for expensive high tech anti piracy equipment (ie night vision). But, alas, the court will take all the money and fines.
    • ShinRaTDR, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2My brother did the same thing with his cellphone, at the transformers move to show a clip to me. I fail to see why everyone cares so much about why she recorded 20 seconds of the movie, on a ***** cellphone. Im sure the scenes are ***** themselves right now. "Oh no they found out we use cellphones and 20 mini sd cards. what will we do now!?" The only use of an example it to deter other people. who the ***** is this gonna deter besides other people recording clips to show people. Plus movie studios make trailers to attract attention to the movie, how is a 20 second clip any different? you think the little brother will be satisfied with that? no, he'll go to see it and studios make more money. I can't believe people are even trying to defend the movie theater.
  • TheSmitty, on 10/10/2007, -12/+9Yes, now I just need to find a Regal near me. There are several movies I want to see. They should throw the book at her.
  • helfire, on 10/10/2007, -12/+24Where would you have them draw the line? If you get caught robing a store and get $5 before the police come in the store and arrest you is that any better than getting $500 in the bag before they arrest you? What reason does anyone have to bring a taping device into a movie theater?
    • loup, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11well, they do have lines drawn between larceny and grand larceny
      • GirthAgain, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Last time I checked there wasn't fair use law for Snickers bars.
        • redcard, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6There isn't fair use for movie copying, either.

          All of you talking about fair use act like you're talking about a real law or something. It's not a law. It's not. It's a concept. And twenty seconds, or two minutes, or five hours.. none of these are "fair use." There is NO FAIR USE available here. Not when there are trailers out there that accomplish the stated intention.

          So please. please, research fair use . It doesn't mean what many people here seem to think it means.

          You do not have a right to copy your CD to MP3.

          You do not have a right to copy your CD for your friends.

          You do not have a right to tape 20 seconds of a movie.

          You do not have a right to fair use. It's a doctrine, and it's determined on a case by case basis.
          • TheMeatball, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I'm glad we have people like you to point out how wonder our copyright laws are. You must be a real trooper.

            The bottom line is all of these laws are archaic and aren't protecting *****.
      • IADTatami, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Speaking of larceny and grand larceny, copyright infringement is neither. In fact, it's copyright infringement.
    • jasonatepaint, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3It was a 20 second clip and NOTHING more. The manager called the General Manager. The GM called the local police....

      Do you think that all occurred in under a minute? If her intention was to record the entire film, she would have gotten more than 20 seconds...

      Have you ever called the police and had a response time under a minute?
      • thedarkwolf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Very good point. She must have stopped recording very soon after the manager spotted her. She clearly had no intention of recording any more. The fact that regal wants to press criminal charges is ridiculous.

        By all means, kick her out. She broke the rules, but that kind of punishment is unwarranted and extreme.
    • lilbitmoreslyk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"If you get caught robing a store and get $5 before the police come in the store and arrest you is that any better than getting $500 in the bag before they arrest you?"

      The difference between your scenario and this one is she isn't going to make money or profit in any way from this 20 second clip. Fair use or not, she deserves the fine she broke the rules but potentially going to prison? COME ON. just fine her and ban her from the Chain.
    • ghost116, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2it was a ***** digital CAMERA! what girl do u know that DOESNT have one of those? taking the clip was wrong and she shouldve been fined and had her camera confiscated, but not $2500 and a year in JAIL? Tell me thats a reasonable punishment, and you are officially on my list of ***** potheads.
    • ShinRaTDR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Material objects and digital information are NOT THE SAME THING. no matter how much you want them to be or how well it works with your analogies, they are different things. With your same argument you could argue that taking a couple extra mints as your leaving a restraunt counts as stealing from them, even though they don't care, and have lost maybe a fraction of a cent. Life is all about drawing lines, there isn't some magical rule we are just waiting to find that will solve all our "line drawing" problems, the only thing you can do is use good judgement, to see if this person is actually intending you to lose money or will cause you to lose money, since neither of those things apply, the theater is at fault. maybe not legally, but logically.
      • jdibiase, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You're right that material objects and digital information are not the same thing. But, digital information subject to copyright is, and should be, protectable. Digital information takes money and labor to create, and taking it unlawfully should be subject to the application of a penalty. That's not to say this girl should receive the maximum penalty, or any penalty at all, but I get the sense you believe that the stealing of digital information should never be subject to penalty, since the owner still has his property.
      • ShinRaTDR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I would agree with you, if the digital content industry wasn't run like the mob, so, untill its not, i guess its "stealing" for me.
        • jdibiase, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1ra·tion·al·ize
          1. to ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes.

          http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rationalize
        • ShinRaTDR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You can call it whatever you want, its my only way of fighting back.
  • miseducation, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6Yeah, Regal is being an ***** company by doing this. However, this was a stupid, stupid thing to do on her behalf. Not saying she deserves this but she definitely deserves being kicked out.
  • Absolut1966, on 10/10/2007, -11/+11Makes sense to me. Think I'll start going to Regal more often.
  • dudefather, on 10/10/2007, -8/+10this reminds me of a filler article I saw in a paper once of a teenage girl who was complaining that she got a £20 fine for littering from the council because she left a wrapper on a wall, and it was an outrage because it was 'only a small wrapper' (including photo of her looking unamused, holding the wrapper)

    granted UP TO a year in jail and a fine of UP TO $2,500 is a bit steep, she shouldn't have done it in the first place
  • TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -12/+7So, If I go to the grocery store and steal 20 cookies out of a bag to try and interest my brother in cookies I shouldn't be punished? Duh.
    • TheMeatball, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4The difference is that Regal Cinemas still has that 20 second clip of film. They didn't lose anything.

      Your cookie analogy simply doesn't apply, sorry.
      • TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2are you retarded? if you steal something and they catch you, you don't get to keep what you attempted to steal, regardless of what it is and in this case cookies. *****, I hope you don't vote.
    • arbulus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4That's not a valid comparison. A movie isn't a consumable good that will be gone when you're done with it. She didn't walk in to a store and take a bite out of a candy bar and then leave. She recorded 20 seconds of a film that would have played whether she were there or not. Plus, she planned on showing it to her brother who would probably then come see the movie, so in essence, she would have made the theatre money by doing what she did.
      • TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2another ***** idiot. learn how to read and comprehend. Did I say I'd eat the ***** cookies before I left the store or did I say STEAL them and try to "interest" my brother? JC I hope you are not American and if you are I hope you don't vote.
    • ShinRaTDR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3DIGITAL INFORMATION AND MATERIAL OBJECTS ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
      • jdibiase, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1But can both be stolen.
      • ShinRaTDR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2there are shades of gray on most issues, this is one of them.
  • DebbilsAdvocate, on 10/10/2007, -6/+8Too late, I haven't gone to a movie theater in several years. ***** Hollywood and their inflated prices.
  • meldroc, on 10/10/2007, -18/+24All those saying "She broke the law, she's getting what she deserves": I suppose you'd have a five year prison sentence for speeding? A life sentence for jaywalking? The death penalty for spitting on the sidewalk?

    It's nazi ***** like you that are turning this country into a police state. ***** you.
    • TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -8/+12If you think she will spend one day in jail for this you are a retard.
      • TheMeatball, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3The problem is, if Regal Cinema had their way, she would get the harshest sentencing. That's why people are saying we shouldn't support a company that treats paying customers this way.

        Please try to keep up.
        • TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5ok, it's confirmed you are a retard. My way would be for idiots like you to be banned from voting in elections because you obviously are a dumb *****. Can I make that happen? Obviously no. Regal wants to press charges. How do you even know what Regal Cinema wants her punishment to be? YOU DON'T BECAUSE YOU ARE A ***** TOOL THAT USES HIS ASSUMPTION AS FACT. Her punishment will be up to the judicial system and if you think they are going to give her any jail time, again makes you legally retarded.
        • Tourney3p0, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2How do you know what Regal's way is? How do you know she would get the harshest sentencing? Nothing in the article even suggests that. The article only says that an employee came across someone breaking the law, so they called the police.
    • Catbert107, on 10/10/2007, -7/+16She is likely to get a fine, nothing else. It's stupid ass ***** like you that are lowering the intelligence of this country
    • iamnos, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11I wasn't aware she'd been handed down a sentence yet, heck, I wasn't even aware she'd been found guilty. Maybe talking about excessive punishment is a little premature when she hasn't been punished yet.
    • redcard, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13Thanks, Godwin.

      Anyway, it's UP TO. UP TO.

      The law has to have minimums and maximums because there are things that mitigate or aggravate the circumstances. She's not going to jail for a year, and she's not going to get a $2500 fine. So get over it.

      Now, as for your other stupid statements:

      5 years for speeding?

      If it's your fifth offense and you're drunk, yes.

      If it's your first, no. See.. that's how the law is designed. It's designed to take into account the facts of the case.
    • ubergroover, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Dummy spit FTW!!

      Suck it up, Meldroc. We all know the conditions of attending a cinema. No cameras, no sound recording devices.
      Pretty fkkn simple.
      If they let one dopey tight-assed chick do it, when do you think they should draw the line? At phone camera number 20? Number 40?
      The cinema has a right to set conditions, by purchasing the ticket you enter into a contract, she broke that contract - tough ***** for her. The price she has to pay is VERY high but it'll work as a deterrent to other cheap ***** who would rather pirate art rather than spend money on it.
  • MacNyce, on 10/10/2007, -12/+13it was her choice to take out a video camera in a movie theater, it's a free country but if you break the law, you have to deal with the consequences
  • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -10/+26Hmmm.... FTA "Sejas said she had no intention of selling the 20-second film clip. She just wanted to show it to her 13-year-old brother, who had said he wanted to see the movie. She was shocked when the officers showed up."

    So she's never heard of a movie trailer? They tend to have more than 20 seconds worth of footage to watch and at better quality. I smell ***** on her part. Next they will be asking us to boycot Walmart for going after shoplifters. She had to know what she was doing was wrong. She is getting what she deserves. I am not for the rewarding of stupidity.
    • wasmith91932, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1If that was her intent, to copy the whole movie, they messed up the bust because you must actually commit the crime to be charged with it. 20 sec is not enough to be able to do harm to the company.

      Do you have any information suggesting the camera could indeed hold around 2 hours worth of video?
  • Zybergod, on 10/10/2007, -13/+12She broke the law. You are not allowed to record any part of the movie in a theater, if you do you will be arrested and fined. If it's 20 seconds or 20 minutes you are still breaking the law. This isn't zero tolerance, it's enforcing their rules and the law. I would argue that Regal isn't making a big deal or "example" of this person, this article is the one blowing up the story.

    What's next? "A 15 year old was caught shop lifting a $1.25 can of soda and was arrested. The _____ Police Department is going too far and making an example of out this kid". If you get caught, you get in trouble. End of story.
    • TheMeatball, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3So you think she was actually going to sell her 20 second, low resolution bootleg of Transformers? I'd buy that...

      The soda analogy doesn't work. The movie company didn't lose that 20 seconds of film. There are no damages in this case.
      • jdibiase, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Damages are necessary in a civil suit, but not in a criminal action. If the law says you cannot record a movie in a movie theater, and she did so, then she broke the law. IF and WHEN she's found guilty, then the court will apply a penalty UP TO the maximum, though it's likely she'll get far less than the max.
      • dstyhalo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1And how much BS is it that she wanted to show her brother. It is the law, it isn't zero tolerance.
  • AndrewDS, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3And again I say...Stay out of trouble by just watching the freaking trailer.
  • barkingmonkeye, on 10/10/2007, -10/+8piracy for the win. screw theaters, screw hollywood, screw insecure actresses, screw riaa
    • TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3The ideology of the "open source" crowd. If it's made, it's "ours" not the person who made it. You wouldn't be saying the same thing if it was your intellectual property that was being copied and redistributed without your consent.
    • ShinRaTDR, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I would, and do. Don't speak for me, thanks.
      • jdibiase, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2But the makers of the Transformers movies probably doesn't share your thoughts on this subject. And certainly the Regal theater doesn't.
    • laxidasical, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1What if you had invested over $100M in your product. How would you feel then?
      • martinz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0well said, its always lame ass thieving ciouch potatoes who think they are entitled to the hard work of other, more creative and capable people.
  • damon5334, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6Wow... yeah, that's pretty stupid to take a camera into a theater and start taping, but I don't understand how there is actually a group that is trying to organize some sort of protest because they somehow think the theater is the one in the wrong.
    • TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1lol, ever heard of the ACLU's representation of NAMBLA? http://www.nambla.org/boys.htm
    • TheMeatball, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0It was a cellphone, she didn't bring a camara to record 20 seconds of film.
      • jdibiase, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3The article says it was a Canon Powershot ... could have been a still camera or video camera, but it wasn't a cell phone.
  • reed311, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7My girlfriend forced me to see the last Harry Potter movie. While I was there some kid to the left of me was taping it with a device that he had. The device had an extremely bright light and it was distracting to the movie. I think the girl, in this case, should just get a small fine. The charges shouldn't be dropped, as she did break the law. However, it's clear she isn't a flagrant offender.
  • Dynamosa, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5I'm sorry, but as an NYU graduate myself, I can safely say that this girl is too god damned stupid to go to school there. Of course she doesn't deserve to go to prison - but seriously - what kind of a moron records part of a movie while in a theater? She should have told her little brother to watch the friggin' trailer. Seriously. Stupid. Chick.
  • maeon3, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10It really depends on what kind of camera was used. She used the Canon Powershot and it's is not a camera that is able to film the full length movie. If it was an expensive camcorder capable of getting the entire movie and done in covert, then maybe they could justify the charges.

    I'm sure all the bootleggers are terrified by this example.
  • BurntToast, on 10/10/2007, -11/+5Girl got EXACTLY what she deserved.
  • Gabberwok, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6I would be happy to boycott them, but there aren't really any mainstream alternatives in NYC (besides Loews, which I'm already boycotting...)
  • b1m2x3, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5wait.. is the girl hot or something?
    • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4WHo knows but from the sound of it plenty of desperate Diggers feel she must be since they are so willing to give her a pass for breaking the law....
  • wasmith91932, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Seems impossible to convict so they will be forced to drop the charges ... fair use allows taking a small portion for the purpose of talking about it, like the critics do on TV. To convict on copyright the company must show they have had a financial lose -- I don't think they can show that.

    She broke a rule that the theater has about bringing cameras into the theater, but the rule is not criminal a law, could be cause for a civial case but so could wrongful prosecution.
  • filmaddict, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4So, by this logic, she should be let off the hook because she only broke the law for a little while?
    I hate draconian laws as much as the next person, but the movie industry has made it VERY clear that they do not want people taping their products in the theater. It's against the law. They have it posted everywhere.
    She should not have whipped out her Power-shot camera and taped part of the movie.
    I don't necessarily agree with the law, but that does not justify my breaking it.
    • wasmith91932, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0Maybe they need to lobby congress http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Special:Search?search=movie+theater&go=Go the law in the library at the copy machine is the same as in the movie theater. She broke the rule the theater has so she broke her contract with the theater to watch the movie. She was unable to break the copyright laws to the extent of being prosecuted because the amount of time she has could not damage the movie value. If her intent was to copy the whole movie they stopped her before she could break the law, that would assume that the police entered 20 sec after the movie started and the copy was not interrupted and the camera was able to hold a sizeable amount of the movie.

      Your logic would be if somebody slowed down next to somebody who looked like a hooker, they are alittle guilty of solicitaion,

      PS I have a made a sign for my home. It is against the law for stupid people to talk. And I want it to be very clear I don't want stupid people talking.
    • ShinRaTDR, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1nvm i made a stupid point digg me down
  • shellnet, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I'd boycott Regal, but my employer keeps giving us Regal Gift Cards. It's actually the only way I can afford to watch movies. Maybe my boss is in cahoots with the MPAA?
  • DredMonday, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Although, the punishment for this could be severe, I don't think I'll join this protest. 19 year old adults should know better that to try a stunt like this.
    • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Her age has nothing at all to do with it. I guess if she were say 35 it woudl be Ok to throw the bbook at her but at 19 it's not? She knowingly and willfully broke the law. She got caught. Now she has to STFU and accept the consequences of her actions.
      • vigilantsauce, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Nowhere in the original comment does it say that she shouldn't be punished (or that her *potential* punishment should be lessened) because of her age.
  • hassanchop13, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6max punishment =/= the punishment she will get, she will likely get something far less, which she deserves for being an idiot
  • jordanlund, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6She may have broken the law, but Regal is not in a position to prosecute. They aren't the copyright holder for the Transformers movie. Whoever that is would have to do that and they'd have to decide if a 20 second clip is worth prosecuting.

    For future reference though she should be forced to have "http://trailers.apple.com" tattooed somewhere on her body.
    • jdibiase, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1She wasn't arrested for violating copyright laws, but for violating a new New York City anti-piracy law.
  • nublet, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4bittorrent ftw.
  • MiDri, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5I think it is more the fact that is is a HUGE crime to do this, does it hurt any one? Does it distress any one? Why is this not a civil matter?!
    • martinz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0yes. movie piracy hurts jobs in the movie industry, the tens of thousands of people who work their butts off to actually make this stuff, rather than the brainless thick bicth who tries to tape it.
  • meepus, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7I'm all for copyright reform, but honestly, this girl was an idiot. They may be using a draconian punishment, but idiots get eaten by dragons -all the time-
    • wasmith91932, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0I'm fairly ok with what the copyright law says. But the girl is an idiot, a little bit of thinking would of told her pulling out a camera in the theater may cause the theater to freak ... Evolution in process.
  • Wonderama, on 10/10/2007, -6/+10For those pinheads among you who think this "crime" deserves a year in jail and $2500 fine, consider the time and resources you're stealing from your employer right now perusing Digg. Technically, that's a crime and your employer could prosecute you both civilly and criminally for theft, most likely for much more than this poor girl got. America is becoming a nation of laws and not justice (or common sense!) Now get back to work.
    • Ming0, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5well said -- this is the best comment of the bunch...

      I'm going to turn myself in now.
    • thedarkwolf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2crap... you wont tell will you?

      Soo many posts have been using really bad analogies to try to explain the law. You are the first to actually post an analogy that is relevant.
    • Tourney3p0, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1What pinheads? I just went back through all the comments, and I don't see anyone saying she deserves a year in jail and a $2500 fine. I am however seeing plenty of people saying she should be punished, but none of them are saying she should get the maximum sentencing.
    • ubergroover, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Blow me, Wonderrama.
      I surf from home not work.
      Hint: I like a lot of spit....
    • eecan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0The difference is that we didn't get caught :P
    • Syric, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0America's always been a "nation of laws". The intention being that people don't get special treatment.
  • demon0, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8For those wondering if she's hot or not: http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2007/08/01/PH2007080102403.jpg

    Your decision
    • bleutuna, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Yes. She's very cute. Still doesn't make me want to fight for her cause :p
    • mandarin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1That's a 19 year old??? I dont seem to recall seeing any 15 year with that much jewelry
    • AceLy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's not relevant. Yet people here care...
    • dbixler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I'd hit it.
  • gemmakicn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I think its a bit draconian, but it was a bit daft going to cinema and using a camera...
  • popstop785, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Well it does not take capt. obvious to tell you that recording in a movie is illegal. I agree with the fine. But a year of jail time? people get less for DUIs and DWIs. I do not agree with the jail time.
    Also, she brought a full camera into a movie? and she is 19? She knew that it was wrong but tried to justify it.

    So, I agree with the fine for being stupid enough to bring in full size camera ( think camera phone numb nuts)
    But I do not agree with jail time as DUI repeated offenders do not even get that much jail time.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 97 of 97 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.