digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Teen Arrested for Recording 20 Second Movie Clip

torrentfreak.com — Jhannet Sejas, a 19 year old girl was immediately arrested by the police after she recorded a 20 second clip from the movie “Transformers” that she wanted to show to her little brother. She now faces up to a year in jail and a $2,500 fine

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • arbiterofcool, on 10/10/2007, -3/+18A more in depth article http://www.nbc4.com/news/13805967/detail.html?rss=dc&psp=news
    • DocHoliday22, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Seems to me like they're just using her as an example... Well hopefully she goes free for her 20 second clip.
      • DarKnight90, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Go free? Megatron wouldn't be pleased.
        • astrotrain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Maybe we should sick the Deceptions on the MPAA's arse!... tell them that the MPAA wants to take all the Energon, that will rally up the Decepticons.
    • reconbot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm cross posting and comment hijacking because I don't know who to call. But it's not AMC, they're saying the state is prosecuting her now. It's not up to AMC what happens to her. Anyone know who to contact at the state there?
      • actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Who to call for what? A "teen" of 19 is legally an adult and certainly acountable for his/her own actions. I love how people bitch about the anti-piracy ads at the front of movies with, "they're treating us like criminals"; then when some idiot who still doesn't get it, they bitch even more, "they're treating her like a criminal!" What part of "don't pirate" do you not understand? No MPAA anouncements says, "unless it's under 30 seconds".
  • ukdave, on 10/10/2007, -10/+87That takes the piss, some people get off with a year for GBH and dealing. Movie companies suck.
    • Lennalf, on 10/10/2007, -5/+96British-to-American translation: That's *****, some people get off with a year for assault and dealing. ***** THE MPAA!!
    • SpoonMachine, on 10/10/2007, -4/+78Esto es el mamarracho, algunas personas se bajan con un año para asalto y transacciones. ¡¡JODA EL MPAA!!
      • Kevinb1577, on 10/10/2007, -7/+23i know ill get dugg down... but

        bahahahaha!
        • jeo77, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2The interwebz works in mysterious ways.
          ..this comment still feels a bit empty - hang on...

          ***** THE MPAA!!

          ..much better =)
      • javierror, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3dugg for "mamarracho"
      • Phrostee, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0That was an awesome series of comments, if I could translate that whole sentence into Arabic I would but alas...
    • Lounger540, on 10/10/2007, -15/+4At the risk of sounding like a sketch bag, it's actually GHB, aka Gamma Hydroxybutyric Acid.
      But then a quick google search said it's referred to as GBH when used as a party drug sometimes. Does it cause euphoric-dyslexia?
      • pogfreak, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2also: diarrhea
      • javierror, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8also: grievous bodily harm
        sketch bag...yep.
      • Rooster99, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Well he is actually referring to Grievous Bodily Harm, which is essentially the same as assault in other countries. Good try though.
      • richardiscool, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2IIIIIIIDDDDIIIIOOOOOTTTT
    • misterjangles, on 10/10/2007, -8/+17Here's the problem with law - you have to draw the line somewhere. If you just say "no recording" then the line is clear. If the theater makes a bunch of exceptions for people who use ***** cameras, less than 20 seconds, etc then they would wind up eventually with a useless law that is impossible to ever prosecute actual movie pirates.

      You can say that you don't agree with the whole principle of the law and you may be right. If that's the case and you feel strongly enough about it - then you can always get yourself arrested and challenge the law in court. any volunteers..!?
      • Osjpr, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1...
      • hexydes, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2"...then they would wind up eventually with a useless law that is impossible to ever prosecute actual movie pirates."

        EXACTLY. Useless law is the key phrase here...
      • bigtomrodney, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7You're right. This obviously is overreacting by the movie company/cinema but come on there is a big warning before every film telling you in precise terms not to do this. You get the big warning saying that if you use a camera you will be removed, your camera will be confiscated and you face criminal proseciution and fines.

        so if you're dumb or arrogant enough to think the rules don't apply they you really don't deserve sympathy for this. I'm pretty dissapointed in all of the diggers there. Sure the MPAA suck. They suck balls. But if you're going to take the side of every person who willingly walks into trouble you have to start asking yourself why.
      • ICSU, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4The thing is, it should be a civil offence, not a criminal offence.
    • mhockey14221, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3То будет *****, некоторые людей получают с годом для штурма и общаться. ***** MPAA!!

      Ok, Babelfish failed me... and I also fail.
    • Akaricloud, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14Guys the law is there for a reason. Everyone knows that you CANNOT video anything at the movies. She knew this, and she did it anyway. She got caught, she has to face the penalties.

      Feel free to bury me at the bottom of the Digg ocean, but you guys need to understand that it is a law, and she knowingly broke it.
      • mike81890, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2But I like pirating movies!
      • KnightWhoSaysNi, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Laws should not be applied blindly.
        There are laws against oral sex and adultery in many states (they are also illegal in the armed forces).
        Should we arrest everyone who commits adultery or gets/gives a blowjob?

        • actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Oral sex and adultery generally occurs between two consenting parties of legal age, and is therefore given a pass by law enforcement. It's safe to say consent was not given in this situation. In fact, it's widely known that recording movies in theaters is illegal. If you tell someone to blow you and he/she says no, do you get to walk if you only force it on them for 20 seconds? No means no in both cases.
  • shifty2, on 10/10/2007, -5/+197I was at that theater (not the same showing) when this all went down, I was on my way to see The Simpson's movie. She had a compact digital camera which the cop was holding. It was lucky to hold more than 30 seconds per clip and she probably need liked like five 4GB SD cards just to film the whole movie. I and perhaps may of you would think, its a BS move by the theater's management. It was have been easier to just delete the video and confiscate the camera until after the showing where she could get it back.
    It would be different, if she brought a digital camcorder with her. Still, you're just asking for trouble by busting out a digital camera.

    That theater has been known to be huge dicks about more simple stuff. some guy got pulled out of a showing for taking out his cell phone and snaping a picture of an action scene in 300. totally lame!
    • Archos, on 10/10/2007, -21/+11Who was more lame, the guy or the management...?
      • scbysnx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13the management. the guy was lame, its rude to those around you to use any lighted device while in a movie but the management was definatelymore lame
    • thetechkid, on 10/10/2007, -3/+99You never know, he might have been going around taking pictures and 1 second audio clips and combining them to form the whole movie, which he would later distribute illegally and help fund terrorist activity.
      • mike81890, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2and he would be anonymous.... a domestic terrorist!
    • NitrousFlare, on 10/10/2007, -54/+1STFU you made that ***** up. You probably didn't even read the ***** article you ***** queer ass hoe.
      • nontitle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11that's awfully detailed to be made up. even if it is, i believe it, so shut the hell up you "***** queer ass hoe".
      • scbysnx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5I'm positive (and I home I'm right) that you were just flaming.. but shut up.. its not funny
    • nerd1701, on 10/10/2007, -8/+17Anybody who pull out a cell phone in a dark theater to take a picture should be thrown out. Just for annoying people around and behind them.

      It's one of the reasons we don't goto the theater anymore. I'll wait 3 months for the DVD
      • Tiak, on 10/10/2007, -11/+5A cell phone is usually about 3 inches tall, slips easily out of a pocket, is mostly silent, and doesn't really provide any significant amount of light. If you are annoyed enough to want someone kicked out for it, you are a douchebag.
        • McTendo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5No, actually you are the douchebag, Tiak. Blocked.
        • polywaffle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Your kidding right? Mostly silent?!
        • nerd1701, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I've been in a theater where someone pulled out a cell phone to check their e-mail. They were 10 rows in front of me. Since the theater is dark, the light could be seen that far back and was brighter than the picture (it was a dark scene at the time).
          It costs me nearly $75 to go see a movie after paying a babysitter and such. If you aren't there to watch the movie, GET OUT!
        • NapkinCat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3That's *****. Whenever someone pulls out a cellphone you can see it from rows away. Just because the screen is small doesn't mean it doesn't give off light.
        • actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2 Tiak, please submit a photo of yourself so when you pull out your cellphone in a movie I'm seeing, I can fully kick your ignorant ass instead of simply being overly annoyed with you.
      • mike81890, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Misanthrope
      • spacebar14, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'll just download it from BT. Let some other ***** get in trouble for filming it.
    • Handcannons, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4

      What are you basing that on? Many digital cameras will take video until the card is full, mine will record about 20 min at 640x480 on a 2 gig card. A single 8gb card will just about record a full movie. She was stupid to pull the camera out to record it, period. Her brother could watch the trailers on Apple if he really needed to see it.
      • skoobisnaxs, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4What digital camera that will accept an 8gb SD card will record 2 hours in a single clip? I highly doubt a 19 yr old girl would have one.
        • Jimbob0i0, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3But the terrorists could have given her the nicer cam to record the movie that way and fund their activities.....
    • DrawingTheSun, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6It was a HD camcorder that was disguised as a cheap still camera with built in movie recording.
      Also the recorded data was wirelessly sent to the terrorists and now they are going to take over the world.
    • ICSU, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4She deserved it for being ***** stupid.
      Why did she need a 30 sec clip? Has she ever heard the words "the Internet" and "trailer"?
    • mpineiro, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3As someone who works at a movie theatre during the school year, I feel like I can provide some input on this. I hate the MPAA and RIAA as much as anybody. I've done way more than my fair share of "sharing" movies. What you need to realize though is that there are signs posted in every corner of every movie theatre and on the film itself telling you what you risk by filming a movie. The theatre I work at has very lax management and staff, and while we usually don't call the cops unless you're being a rebellious moron, we will remove you from the film and ask that you never come back to our theatre. There is also a $500 bounty to the employee(s) who catch a person doing this. That's alot of incentive for somebody making minimum wage, especially if this is their only dead-end way of making a living.

      Yes, it's unfair that she is facing punishment harsher than a lot of real criminals, but she knew the risk she took.
      • ZombieKiss, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0are you getting a kick out of these replies?
    • theneubie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Where is this theater, so that we will know not to patronize it anymore?
    • astrotrain, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"That theater has been known to be huge dicks"... the answer is right there... smuggle your camera in your trousers. Unzip film, and zip up once done. The management better have solid evidence if they want to search your pants for pirated movies.
  • murphygr, on 10/10/2007, -7/+232the camera transformed into a cop robot that arrested her
  • RVDsb, on 10/10/2007, -2/+80Couldn't they have just made her delete the clip? And then she could have went back home and got the clip from YouTube...
    • eric0213, on 10/10/2007, -29/+8Taking away someone's toy is what you do in elementary school, not when someone's 19. What she did was wrong. Hopefully she'll realize that and get off with agreeing to do ten hours of volunteer work.
      • Killwize, on 10/10/2007, -17/+4Your a dumb ass!
        • dcbrown07, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Oh the irony...*you're*

          I couldn't resist
        • Atomic1fire, on 10/10/2007, -8/+6she walks into a movie theator
          records part of the movie and yet everyone is defending her
          what she did could be considered fair use
          but that is not in dispute right now
          what is in dispute is that she was using a recording device in a theater without permission

          • Tiak, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1what is in dispute is that she was using a recording device in a theater without permission

            Which of course merits her getting thrown in prison for a year...
        • eric0213, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Arguing fair use would at least be an approach at justifying her actions. Should she get a $2500 fine? No. Should she get jail time or even probation? No. But you can't just pick which laws you want to follow without being willing to pay the consequences. If you disagree with the law, fight for it to be changed. It's dumbass to go around breaking the law and then claiming it shouldn't matter because it's a dumb law in the first place. That's proactive.
          • QuidnuncQuixot, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I agree with you in this case, but to say "It's dumbass to go around breaking the law and then claiming it shouldn't matter because it's a dumb law in the first place," can be foolish. Look at the civil rights movement.
          • Sumudu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Dugg up for truth. And I don't think you can compare this to the civil rights movement -- it's not like this was some kind of statement.
      • scbysnx, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3NEVER should copyright infringement be a criminal act EVER. She was in the wrong but not for taking a 20 second clip! She was wrong for holding out her light camera for 20 seconds and annoying those around her. I honestly wouldn't mind if the movie company held her responsible for the 20 seconds she taped either 2500 over the length of the movie (2500 is the max right?) she taped 20 seconds thats about 7 dollars and if they wanted to they could settle out of court for some public service for good PR "putting their copyrights to good use" but ***** criminal action over copyrights its ***** rediculous
        • daize, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2Wow, what the hell did I just read? Try a period every now and then. You might have something good to say, but people will just skip over you when you do that.
        • eric0213, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So if I write a book (if I do, I wouldn't recommend reading it, I can't imagine it'd be very good), you should be able to make copies of it and sell it without my permission? That just seems silly.
          • scbysnx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I didn't say that.. at all I said it shouldn't be criminal it should be civil which I clearly said.. "I wouldn't mind if the movie company held her responsible" so yes you can absolutely sue people who copy it and sell it.. silly
      • xst4t1kx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1What she did was wrong? Give me a ***** break. This is a non-issue, a complete ***** waste of everyones time.
    • ICSU, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That's like saying that a thief should return what he stole and everything would be OK and forgotten.

      This shouldn't be a criminal offence though.
  • crombenevolant, on 10/10/2007, -49/+17Let's be fair here. She broke the law, apparently in a theater where they are known to be hardcore about piracy. Should the cops have let her go when she said she only wanted to pirate part of the movie in order to show it to her brother? Every decision has a consequence. She knew when she pulled out her camera, that she could get caught and get in trouble. She took the risk and now she has to pay the consequence.
    • h4mx0r, on 10/10/2007, -11/+5Well theoretically it's possible she didn't expect such harsh consequences. Consequences expected indeed, but one year and a $2,500 fine? For 20 seconds!?
    • CrazyChair, on 07/21/2008, -2/+6The punishment should fit the crime. It will most likely be thrown out of court.
    • TheShad0w, on 10/10/2007, -8/+18The problem isn't that she broke the law. Yes of course she did we are all aware of that. Whats wrong is that the punishment for recording a 20 second sample of a movie is the same (And in some states) worse than being caught DRUNK DRIVING!. I think you completely and utterly missed the point here. The punishment doesn't fit the crime and we need to stop letting Big Business run our country.
    • lfernandez91, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Go to hell, we all know there a difference here from really pirating.
    • Osjpr, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Sometimes laws aren't fit for the citizen to abide. Like alcohol prohibition, this is one of those laws that shouldn't exist. It is a citizens duty to break these types of laws.
      • accelleron, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4*cough* marijuana laws *cough*
        • Tiak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2That would've been funny if the coughing weren't an involuntary reaction to clear your lungs
    • nerd1701, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Yes, and accept the consequences. Civil disobedience means taking the punishment to show that you are willing to stand-up for what you believe in. Civil rights protesters in the 60s went to jail repeatedly for their actions.
    • nontitle, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8look, recording a 20 second clip is not piracy. It is something the MPAA want's to abolish, called FAIR USE. A movie is a copyrighted material, just like any other material. The MPAA are not allowed to restrict extra rights just because it had a large budget, or because it was a long movie. Copyright law is copyright law, and there are no excuses against fair use. These cops should be arrested for libel.
      • Tiak, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Fair use, at least in its current form applies to the distribution of content you already own, It isn't relevant to this particular case...

        That said, I would support donating to get her an EFF lawyer.
  • ggofthejungle, on 10/10/2007, -5/+176now i remember why i don't go to theaters to watch movies anymore
    • sgtbutterscotch, on 10/10/2007, -13/+6so you won't get busted for bringing in a camera?
      • accelleron, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15no, because doing this directly puts money into the MPAA's coffers to lobby for these kinds of laws.
    • Jvskill, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2maybe cause you can't get a date? just maybe....
    • BobOki, on 10/28/2007, -0/+6What, you don't like to PAY to have COMMERCIALS thrown down your throat? Yeah, instead of previews, now they show commercials. priceline, fanta, discovery channel..... etcetc
      • astrotrain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Nothing like spending $10 for a movie to begin with, and then sitting through 10 mins of commercials and lame tv shows. The theater should pay us for having to sit there, or knock the movie price down. After all they are being paid to run them.
    • mike81890, on 10/28/2007, -1/+2Misanthrope
    • mpineiro, on 10/28/2007, -0/+3Somehow, I bet you go all the time but wanted to be popular with all the super-cool desk-chair rebels on digg
    • volonix, on 10/28/2007, -0/+2Because you're too poor and afraid to leave the house?
  • Anamarobo, on 10/10/2007, -6/+83Is there any way we can help this girl? Actually inform the court of how obscure this arrest is? 30 seconds? That's all? The Judge has to be an idiot to allow her to go to Prison! As a filmmaker, I feel immensely obligated to help this woman!
    • shodanx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15if you want to help
      just never sign with any of the big studios
    • UtopiaInTheSky, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13Stephen Spielberg?
    • Nutmegan, on 10/10/2007, -4/+37Uploading to YouTube does not make you a filmmaker.
    • rpgmaker, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2And die starving...
    • nerd1701, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Then make a film about it. Of course if you do, you won't want anyone stealing it...
    • misterjangles, on 10/10/2007, -9/+5Yes, you can help! First invent a time machine. Then go back in time and tell her to leave the camera at home. Problem evaded!
    • rderveloy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15I'm no lawyer, but fair use says that you can copy up to 10 percent or 3 minutes (whichever comes first) for motion media:

      http://www.umuc.edu/library/copy.shtml#student

      I have no idea if it would work, but she might have be able to plead fair use for educational purposes (pop culture).
      • astrotrain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1we should print this out... hand it to the girl, and call a proctologist for laughs... because she's gonna kick that peice of paper so far up the MPAAs butt it will just be too funny to miss, even for a proctologist.

        Proctologist: "Today class, you think we've seen everything inserted into the rectum... check this out..."

    • RedX117, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2If there's a way to help please let me know cuz this is seriously ***** up. I swear the law always busts the wrong people!!!
    • Genma, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9don't worry it's not going to trial. in fact I'll bet anything the theater drops the charges right after they get their free publicity. and if they're really stupid enough to waste money on prosecution the case will get thrown out after about 5 minutes of arbitration anyways, but not before wasting a bunch of money from taxpayers and the defendant's family.

      meanwhile the full telesyncs are out and dvds on the street since before opening day, made by people who would never be stupid enough to whip out a camera in plain view to copy a movie. retards like these are just wasting resources chasing the wrong people while the real pirates profit.
      • Tiak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1But of course, everything depends on the luck on getting a judge that isn't an *****... Some judges (the reasonable ones) would demand her legal fees paid, others would actually give her some jail time. You just have to hope she doesn't get unlucky.
  • indyGuy, on 10/10/2007, -5/+23Arrrrrrrrrrrrr... She be a pirate! (f**cking police)
  • Nicholicious, on 10/10/2007, -5/+44It's rather irresponsible of the article to say that she faces "up to a year and jail and a $2,500 fine" without mentioning that that is the maximum penalty for ANY misdemeanor. I'm not saying that the cops/theater managers aren't douche bags for arresting the girl, but come on....we all know she won't go to jail for a year.
    • p0tent1al, on 10/10/2007, -12/+7people have served life sentences for less. Welcome to the real world, enjoy your stay.
      • mike17032, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Examples, please. I would love to see someone that is on a life sentence for their first misdemeanor. Me thinks you are just full of *****.
        • Tiak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3What about that story that got dugg several times about the two underage kids, one of them black, who had consensual sex, which lead to a rape charge with a 20 year sentence?...
        • Tiak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Also, I seem to remember SEVERAL cases in which people have received life sentences for defending themselves against home invaders that happen to be unannounced SWAT officers (sometimes in the wrong homes).
        • Jimbob0i0, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0The teacher who got 40 years for 'showing porn to children' perhaps?

          Longer than life (in the UK a life sentence is 25yrs) and it was hardly an intentional move on her part.
        • ICSU, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1They eventually dropped that, Jimbob0i0.
      • p0tent1al, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Really now? There was article on digg recently about this. A black male went to the store and stole something. This guy was caught by the cops, and he had smoked marijuana in the past couple of days, and they tested his system, and the Judge slapped him with a life sentence. But that is the world we live in, I never said I liked it.

        Furthermore, I think YOUR full of *****. Open your ***** eyes. Do you not think there is corruption in the judicial system? FFS, look at what is going on in our government and in Iraq, and ask yourself if you can put it past them to give a life sentence to someone for nuthin.

        Also, don't forget the story on digg where (and I don't remember quote for quote) a white girl pushed her teacher, and skated, but the same judge was presented with a black girl pushing her teacher, and they gave her a good couple of years of prision (20, if not life). Maybe before you call ***** on someone, do the research your ***** self.
      • p0tent1al, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1And with that..... I'm done (double post, compliments of Digg's fault)
      • nerd1701, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Did a little research on this one. The guy was sentenced in 1990. He was set free this year after the public protested and the judge himself even said that the sentence was extreme.
    • misterjangles, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5I don't really feel particularly bad for this girl. I'm sure she walked past at least one sign that said "No Cameras" Some movies even show that during the previews. Who the hell takes a camera in and starts shooting at a theater? Come on guys, that is dumb.

      But, it does piss me off that a crime like this receives a punishment, yet tons of scumbags are on the street doing far worse things over and over and they never seem to get any real punishment. *That* does annoy me.
      • jordan90, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1I have never seen a sign saying "No Cameras" in any theater that I've ever been in. Plus what are they going to do, ban cell phones?
        • koreth, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0No, banning cellphones would make it too easy to sit through an entire movie without hearing half of some random teenager's conversation two rows behind you. They'll never do that.
    • shifty2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3the key words here are "UP TO..." which implies "maximum"
  • c0baltfish, on 10/10/2007, -22/+3What, she never heard of Apple Trailers? Youtube? Television commercials? Please, what did you expect bringing a recording device to a movie theater?
    • bardamuclichy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11I bring my video capable cell phone with its 2gb mem card all the time. Ringer off, phone on. who the hell cares? this is lame and so are you.
  • Vodka23, on 10/10/2007, -7/+114Good to see law enforcement has their priorities straight.
    • Rikkochet, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13It makes sense.. If they answered another call they might get shot or have to deal with someone who can stand up for themselves...
    • mike17032, on 10/10/2007, -10/+5Gotta love the anti-cop diggtards.

      They were called there by the theater. Should they have refused to go? Or refused to arrest her for the crime?
      • accelleron, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12Gotta love self-righteous diggtards.

        The law should never have been on the books, and even though it was, the cops in question had some discretionary authority in the matter (kind of like how cops that catch someone smoking a joint will sometimes let them go.) The manager was a douche, the cops were douches, the law sucks, and the judge, if he's not a moron and/or in the MPAA's pocket, will throw this out and have the prosecutor disbarred if he tries to push 1 year/$2500 through.
        • Dakart, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1What law... You mean laws against theft of intellectual property. Wait till you spend millions of dollars on something, only to have it stolen and resold for next to nothing...

          Dig me down, but remember me when someone steals the fruit of your hard work!
          • Travelsonic, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Tell me, where is "theft of intellectual property"?

            You mean copyright infringement?


            STOP INVENTING LAWS!


            "theft of IP" is only a catchphrase, nowhere is it actually a crime as opposed to copyright infringement.

            Just because intellectual property is recognized is no excuse to make laws up as if they were real.
      • PA42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0@accelleron
        Why do you think it's your decision whether or not someone protects there intellectual property. I imagine I'll get dugg down because most diggards believe that IP rights are BS, but they ignore how IP rights promote people to create by giving them a financial incentive. I know many in the open source community would do this for free, but the majority will not.
  • redrighthand, on 10/10/2007, -5/+13jeezus i did this the other day with the simpsons and never even woulda thought it would get me tossed in the slammer.
  • Vicujozobenaxod, on 10/10/2007, -22/+4Oh here we go get out the violin for the girl who probably knew damn well what she was doing and is playing the harmless victim. The law can't make exceptions left and right for people or they aren't worth the paper they are printed on. Laws should not examine gender and "good intentions", and here is an example of that.

    She did something wrong, get over it. It seems they will make an example out of her, sucks to be that girl.
  • Sherazard, on 10/10/2007, -5/+179Meanwhile, Nicole Richie gets slapped on the wrist and pays a small fine for multiple DUI and nearly killing people. Justice system at work.
    • Atomic1fire, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2no thats just the star struck apologists at work
      this is a matter of violating theater rules
      you know you dont walk into a theator and record a part of a movie
      just tell the kid or let him watch it himself
    • mavere, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4Unless, Nicole Richie wasn't arrested and was allowed to get back into her car after DUI, that story has no relation to this. You break a law, you get arrested. That's a pretty aggreeable course of events, no?
      • Osjpr, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Would you be agreeable if the law said your wife should suck my dick in front of you? Just because a law exists doesn't mean it's a moral law.
        • PA42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What part of the law is immoral?
        • actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1And just because a law exists doesn't make it immoral. Outlawing one entity from copying bits of another entity's property ≠ cutting off someone from food, water or medical care. This isn't philosophy class. Party 1 owns a legally protected property, Party 2 violates those legal boundaries, Party 2 suffers consequences. Pretty simple stuff, really.
      • artisresistance, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1no.
  • ridium, on 10/10/2007, -2/+47Think about which theater you go to next time. Make sure it's not a Regal.

    • scrubadub, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5make sure it's not any, the laws are on the books thanks to the mpaa. It's still a semi-capitalistic society, just stop supporting them and wait for the TS or R5 to come out
      • potterboy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2How is a TS any different from this?
        • 0ldmankdude, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Because it was 20 seconds... not the whole damn movie.
      • actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1scrubadub, are you suggesting that film companies should make movies for ***** and giggles? Let me clue you in: They make a movie, they make money off that movie, they take that money and make another movie. Without laws to protect such properties, idiots like you would share their movies willy-nilly, cutting into profits and decrease their abilities to keep making movies.

        I'm pretty sure that even in communist countries you had/have to buy a frickin' ticket to see most films.
  • expert01, on 10/10/2007, -2/+33hmmm... no intention to sell the 600 millisecond clip... recorded a 20 second clip... 1ms=1/1000 of a second... how does 0.6 seconds equal 20 seconds?
    • FluffyArmada, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11I think the obvious answer here is, magic.
    • DefaultGen, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I believe everyone involved in this just didn't take the time to think... for any period of time.
  • chris9902, on 10/10/2007, -2/+93took her into custody on the charges of “being a pirate”.

    how ***** cool is that. "you're coming with me miss because you're a... DUN DUN DUN... Pirate"
    • rjam710, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Almost as cool as being arrested for being a ninja.
    • XZanatos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think its extremely cool because they arrested her on FALSE CHARGES. 'Piracy' and 'copyright infringement' are 2 totally different things and if they said PIRACY then she may get to use that technicality to get out of this mess.
    • digitalmanx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I suppose she should be happy they did not call her a TERRORIST!
  • acidity, on 10/10/2007, -5/+11Seriously....WTF?????
  • acbeck58, on 10/10/2007, -8/+18That's just ridiculous. Makes me want to go to the movie theater and play games on my Sidekick the whole time. Then the management will become suspicious, call the cops, come arrest me, only to find out that Sidekicks don't have recording capabilities, thus feel stupid for going through all that trouble. Bastards.
    • actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Nah, the people around you would be the living ***** out of you first.
  • redrighthand, on 10/10/2007, -4/+32I'd say an organized protest where everyone in the theater takes out their cell phone and holds it towards the screen without recording any footage.
  • eQUIV, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3To quote Nelson... "HAW HAW!"
  • acidity, on 10/10/2007, -1/+50http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080102398.html

    She is hot though :)
    • mrswirl, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13And she works at Victorias Secret.

      Double Schwing!
    • HunterTV, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9"Her boyfriend, Ivar Villazon, said the camera belongs to his sister; the couple borrowed it, Sejas said, to 'make memories' on her birthday."

      "Make memories"... is that what you crazy kids are calling it these days?
    • my8bird, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Hot damn I think I need some ice in my pants.
  • whiterajah, on 10/10/2007, -0/+55Just goes to show that you're better off staying home and watching films from BitTorrent.
    • diggdowner, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Gorgeous... wow
      • Atomic1fire, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4note to pirates
        the internets do not make you invisable to law enforcements
        • Osjpr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I hope your family and friends are doing exactly what you apparently detest. When they get thrown in prison you can pat yourself on the back. Btw, how many illegally copied pictures are stored on your computer?
        • DrawingTheSun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Atomicfire man, depends what country your in as well, not everyone lives in America, Land of the Free.
  • dropoutfilms, on 10/10/2007, -21/+12I know you guys are fans of stealing movies, but this woman broke out a digital camera to record a movie. If you're too stupid to know that it's illegal, than you probably deserve to go to jail for a bit.
    • bardamuclichy, on 10/10/2007, -6/+15wow... you think people deserve to go to jail for recording a projected image on a screen?

      I bet you also think using a VCR to record a TV show should be punishable by jail + rape too?

      asshat.
    • Taedirk, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11If you're too stupid to see the huge miscarriage of justice that is the potential of a 1 year jail sentence and $2500 fine for an infraction of this size, perhaps you're the one with a problem.
    • my8bird, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1If she goes to jail then I would say it was unjust at this point nothing outrageous has happened to her. She broke a law, knowingly, and will now need to go to trial. Sure it has the potential for a year in jail but we all know that is not going to happen. How about we let the situation unfold before we start beating each other up for being sensible.
    • theeEqualizer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0The law you're referring to that makes this "illegal" is an "anti-piracy law". It was intended to prevent people from recording entire movies and making mass copies and selling them. Not showing a 30 second clip to your brother. Are you willing to pay even one buck for a 30 second snippet from the middle of a movie made with a Canon Powershot? If you're THAT stupid then maybe you deserve to be insulted. Much like I am insulting you right now. I know you obviously love to punish, but save it for your own kids there, Captain.
  • jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20OK people. If you live in the DC, alexandria, arlington area, do NOT go to Ballston Mall's movie theater as a form of protest. The theater sucks anyways so you aren't missing out on much. And you have to pay for parking if you go during the day. It's best to avoid all together.
    • itspuddingtime, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0lawlz at someone naming their theatre/mall "Ballston"
    • shieldss, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I used to live right around the corner from that theater but would drive to Alexandria to go to the movies because that one sucks so much. The pic in the Washington Post article doesn't do that chick justice. She's way hotter in video.
  • nevesis, on 10/10/2007, -5/+51This is despicable. The RIAA/MPAA don't care whose lives they destroy.


    Call the theater and tell them what you think of their overzealous reaction to her camera:

    Regal Cinemas Ballston Common: 703-527-9730

    Contact Regal corporate and let them know you will NOT tolerate these ineffective policies:

    Cust Service: 1-877-835-5734

    Corporate Office: 865-922-1123

    Mailing Address: 7132 Regal Lane -- Knoxville, Tennessee 37918
    • cozb, on 10/10/2007, -8/+6actually, I will not tolerate people making a disturbance , be it talking or whipping out a camera to record a few seconds. People need to sit down and watch the movie and not ruin the experience for others.
      • diggboy101, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4oh, ok.
        guys, lets stop complaining and voicing our opinions because this one man won't tolerate disturbances.
    • splashx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5sign the Regal comment page: http://www.regalcinemas.com/corporate/comments.html
    • my8bird, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3The chick broke the law and disrupted everyone else's viewing of the movie. She deserves the slap on the wrist she is going to get.
    • actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"Contact Regal corporate and let them know you will NOT tolerate these ineffective policies"

      Ineffective? I dunno, I'm pretty sure she'll never do it again.

  • Uranium118, on 10/10/2007, -12/+1Why not download the whole thing? If you're dumb enough to get caught, I guess you deserve it.
  • AndrewDS, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15There are these free things called trailers. One can watch them for free. They are usually more than 20 seconds long and usually involve what the movie is about. Who woud've thought.
    • Osjpr, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Then why should they care about a 20 second clip?
      • Atomic1fire, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3because the movie industry makes trailers to bring viewers
        it doesnt want people recording parts of its movie for any purpose without permission
        so they do it themselves
        • Osjpr, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Well tell your masters that it is bs like this that made me never see a movie in a theatre again.
  • eltomate, on 10/10/2007, -8/+26OK, many of you guys fall way too easily to the media spin of things. First of all, the movie theater only would have seen her taping/recording the movie. The cops get a call telling them that someone is videotaping the movie. You all assume that the cops and the theater people know that all she was recording was only 30 seconds of the movie for her little brother. And you can't assume cops are tech savvy enough to realize that only clips would be able to be shot with the camera. She was arrested for videotaping, that's it. The details will be worked out in court. IF they send her to prison for any prolonged period of time AFTER trail, then you can complain. But instead of assuming everyone knew everything at the point of the arrest, grow up and do some thinking instead of letting the media do it for you!
    • nevesis, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9I'm sure she showed both the police and the cinema manager her footage.

      The cinema pressed charges against her anyway.

      That says something,
      • my8bird, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1You assume.
      • actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"That says something."

        Yes it does. It says don't walk into a theater toting a frickin' video camera. If they let her walk, you can count on hundreds of idiots whipping out their cams during films from then on out. I think they should prosecute her not only for the MPAA infringement case, but also for the future peace and quiet of movie-goers everywhere.
    • flangepiece, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Yeah, there are hungry lawyers out there who could starve if important cases like this never made it to trial.
    • bardamuclichy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5yeah, cause like... the justice system is always just and its not like anybody needs to know about who gets arrested for what or anything.

      I trust the cops and our justice system to be fair.

      lol
    • Tobark, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6***** you. Do you have any idea how much in lawyers fees it will cost her family? So they will have to spend at LEAST 5k. For what? Im sorry but if the police are going to enforce this ***** they DAM WELL BETTER be educated about what they are enforcing. Possibly ruining someones future because the pigs dont have a ***** clue is a cop out. Literally. You have no clue how 'the system' works do you?
      • my8bird, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Did you miss your roid's today?
      • ICSU, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The Police didn't pass the laws. They have to follow them though.
      • actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No one *made* her break the law. *If* her life is ruined, it's by her own doing.
    • rokinroj, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Hopefully someday Ill be all grown up and mature like you.
    • cnidog, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5That's bullsh1t! Cops are not robots who always prosecute to the fullest extent of the law and let the courts decide on guilt. Cops have tons of discretion in the way they apply the law. Ever been caught for speeding and instead of getting a ticket you were told to slow down a bit? If cops are prosecuting this kind of crap, it's because they are implementing a zero-tolerance policy on recording. The problem with these Hitleresque policies is that people with relatively benign intent, like this woman, get stuck with a record that can cause all kind of future problems, personally and career-wise, that are disproportionate to the severity of the crime.
  • cozb, on 10/10/2007, -5/+14Why can't people just sit in the freaking seat and *watch* the movie? We have the talkers and now people fussing about, taking out a camera to catch a few seconds...sit down relax, watch the film, don't annoy others.
    • bardamuclichy, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1yeah, cause that never ever happened in theaters when we were kids or even before that. Same with like... real actor theater. The audience just sat there and spaced out!

      Yep... everybody. it's a new phenomenon. People TALK and do other things in theaters besides watch! Wow!

      If only that Abraham lincoln guy would've gone to a theater like a few hundred years ago instead of these awful modern days... he'd still be alive!
      • actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm 40 and outside of the occassional whisper ("What happened while I was peeing?"), it did not occur in theaters during my childhood. I saw it get bad during the early 90s and progressively worse thereafter. You must be part of a recent generation.
    • itspuddingtime, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1yeah I really hate when people in front of me are text messaging through the entire movie. Very distracting and kinda defeats the purpose of actually going to a theatre
  • dropoutfilms, on 10/10/2007, -14/+2Come on guys, an Asian woman would never pirate movies! She's clearly a helpless young woman who just didn't know any better.
  • ptsd, on 10/10/2007, -6/+8i stoped going to the theater when i realized i could buy the dvd for less than the cost of going to see the movie. i hope she sues the theater and the cops.
    • my8bird, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1She has no grounds for suing anyone. She broke the law.
    • Travelsonic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's called punishment fitting the crime.
      • actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's called "up to" one year in jail and/or "up to" a $2500 fine. She has not been punished yet -- so how can you judge that her punishement doesn't fit?
  • Deputydon, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Thats some *****.
  • secretivecoward, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1Don't worry, Bush will pardon her, like he does everyone else whose sentence he thinks is excessive.
  • rejoined, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1Ok about TorrentFreak article pages: Check these two pages out...

    1) This is the one submitted with this story: http://torrentfreak.com/teen-arrested-for-recording-20-second-movie-clip/

    2) This one was submitted some time earlier today or yesterday with the different story: http://torrentfreak.com/worlds-first-conviction-for-removing-information-from-dvd

    Ok on the second link, I can't see a damn thing on the page, unless I go *Edit->Select All* and highlight all. The text is of the same color as the background of the page.
    But on the other hand, the article written by *Ernesto* of the first link..the text is all clear.

    Now is there something wrong with my computer, that the 2nd link is showing like that and the 1st link isn't? Or is it just happening to me? Ok, one thing I maybe doing wrong is using IE to open up the TorrentFreak pages, and they strongly recommend Firefox. Well, this is my laptop which I use for work purposes, and company rules prohibit installing Firefox. I'm not going to go to any discussions why they do that, but it's actually a company owned laptop, so as long I need to keep my job I have to follow the stupid rules. On the other hand, the desktop in my home has Firefox installed. Well, I don't know why TorrentFreak serves up some pages so dark and some pages all readable, and if I'm the only one having problem with some of their pages...but if they are doing it intentionally to IE users (which I maybe totally wrong here)..then I'd say that they are taking this Web 2.0 snob way to the extremes.
  • Medus, on 10/10/2007, -3/+18If I we're to spend 200 million dollars on a movie that stands to make a billions of dollars once it has run it's course on DVD and HBO and merchandising and sequels, and some little chick got a grainy, wobbly, out of focus 20 second clip of my company's product to show someone and make them want to see my movie just that much more, I'd be all about some great homemade teaser trailer. Word of mouth is the best advertising.
    Look at the "cloverleaf" trailer, grainy, wobbly 2 minute clip. All I know is there is something big wrecking stuff and I'm dying to see it.

    But she probably was gonna sell that 20 second clip to some black market bootleggers and make millions right.
    • gunsandammo, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0Because.. well, the hype generated from this won't create more revenue than a grainy 20 second clip a girl shows to 2-3 people?
    • my8bird, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Because a line has to be drawn and zero-tolerance is what they went with.
    • Dakart, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1If I was the head of a studio, I wouldn't want to devote millions of dollars a year to a staff of people that decide who to bend the rules for.

      This girl knew what she was doing was illegal, but did it anyway. She should be punished.
    • actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The "teaser trailer" you refer to is the climax of the movie. Do you consider ejaculation a tease as well?

      See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080102398.html
  • zfishies, on 10/10/2007, -13/+5should've just waited for the dvd for her brother. No recording means no recording(20 seconds is still stealing). if you steal a loaf of bread to
    feed the poor you are still stealing ! do the crime do the time
    • Archstroke, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2This, however would be akin to being fined for smelling the loaf of bread.
    • my8bird, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1More accurately it would be like stealing a slice from the loaf of bread.
    • lovecups, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1 Who are you anyway...Marie Antoinette....I'm afraid that she didn't fare well during the French revolution.....bu-bump
  • Killwize, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16Just an other reason to download movies... I'd like to see the evil industry crumble!
    • Dakart, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5You know that there will be no more movies for you to steal if the film industry "crumbles," right?
  • jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -4/+20aren't there "fair use" laws that should protect her? Couldn't she claim she was going to parody it or something?
    • Rikkochet, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6Possibly, but that doesn't excuse the fact that she used an illegal method to get source material with which to parody it.
      Nah, she walked right into this one. The law may be stupid, but her lawyer isn't going to be able to argue that it's not being interpreted correctly. Sigh.
    • Dakart, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2She could use it under "fair use" laws, but theft is still theft...
      • Travelsonic, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1What a non-sequitur Dakart,

        What does theft being theft have to do with fair use and copyright?
        • Dakart, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1My point is that she can use footage for a parody, but cannot steal it directly from a theater. For example, she couldn't run into a Blockbuster and steal 4 DVDs because she wanted to use them for a parody.
      • Travelsonic, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1[digg double-posting glitch]
  • Tobark, on 10/10/2007, -9/+8Ill pirate with more voracity then ever. Fuxk the douche bags.
  • p0tent1al, on 10/10/2007, -5/+16***** like this only encourages pirating. You think they would learn by now.
  • V1ncent, on 10/10/2007, -9/+5Anyone taping a movie should be fined. Everyone knows it's illegal to do what she did. She should be fined a little money and sent on her way. Lesson learned.
  • liv3fr33ordi3, on 10/10/2007, -10/+7I will download one movie every day until the baseless and ridiculous charges against this girl are dropped. Suck it MPAA!
    • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4YEAH! That will show them! Oh wait...you were going to do this anyway. Way to FIGHT THE MAN! Meaningless drivel followed by a pointless protest that no one will know about unless you tell them. So brave you are!
    • Dakart, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1*cough* IP address *cough*
  • aggieandrew, on 10/10/2007, -9/+13Arrested for doing something illegal?!
    • MacParrot, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Amazing isn't it?
    • Grayfox777, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Arrested for doing something that harmed no one and had no potential to harm anyone! If anything, that clip was going to convince her little brother to go see the movie something!
      • hbpencil, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1What are you talking about? She is clearly a terrorist and was going to use that 20sec video clip to fund her terrorist group.
      • actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Really, Gray? It was the ***** climax of the film. Lessee, you put that on the internet and you've got the ultimate spoiler. How many people want to go see a movie they've already seen the ending too, especially it they were on the fence about it anyway? As much as I can prove a finacial loss, you can no more disprove it. But I'm sure you can agree that the potential for loss is greater when the end of the film is floating around.
    • Mjeacoma, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Kind of like Jay walking in a ghost town.....
    • kurtwinter, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Hey, shouldn't you be getting ***** by the RIAA? Stop trolling *****.
  • saltmiser, on 10/10/2007, -11/+4a protest I say, lets have another 09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0 revolution why don't we!!!
    • eric0213, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Because we're not all twelve.
    • GuyHitByTruck, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2It was immature enough the first time!
  • DarthDubbya, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLsJyfN0ICU

    Arrrrrrrr!
  • Jagged68, on 10/10/2007, -6/+8This is just pathetic. It encourages piracy and staying at your home theater. This company should get TONS of hate mail for this behavior.
    • WaterDragon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Forget hate mail.
      ...vote with your browser and torrent client!
      • hbpencil, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You got that one right mister, now www.pirateba...
    • actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1And she should get tons of hate mail for pulling out a vid cam in a theater. I don't go to movies to be distracted from my experience by self-centered movie-goers.
  • zanent, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3she broke the law and deserves to be punished. Plain and Simple!
  • superRoot, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Hey, here's an idea. Stop going to see movies. Stop listening to the radio. Intellectual property rights have their place, but this is just getting ridiculous.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 143 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.