Teen Faces Charges For Recording 20 Seconds of "Transformers"

Don’t use your digital camera in a theater to record 20 seconds of the movie Transformers (even if it’s just to show your little brother) or you could face 1 year in jail and a $2,500 fine.

From the AP:

Sejas said the theater’s assistant manager saw her holding up the digital camera and reported it to the general manager, who called police.

The Marymount University sophomore was charged with a misdemeanor and was banned for life from the Regal Cinemas Ballston Common movie theaters.

“I was terrified,” Sejas said. “I was crying. I’ve never been in trouble before.”

Arlington County police spokesman John Lisle said the theater wanted to prosecute the case, which is a first for the police department.

“They were the victim in this case, and they felt strongly enough about it,” Lisle said.

Well, that seems fair. According to the article “copying a movie from a theater is a felony under the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005,” though the teen has only been charged with a misdemeanor.

Teen Faces Charges For Recording 20-Second Movie Clip [NBC4] (Thanks, Ian!)
(Photo:Wikipedia)

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. Jaysyn was banned for: http://consumerist.com/5032912/the-subprime-meltdown-will-be-nothing-compared-to-the-prime-meltdown#c7042646 says:

    This actually needs to happen more often & to people of all walks of life. Maybe then people will wake up & see how awful our IP laws are here in the USA.

  2. What, did she think what she was doing was legal?

  3. Ickypoopy says:

    This is a travesty and injustice. He has been caught filming a movie in the theater! He should put be put away for life and be ordered to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for copyright infringement!

  4. dwarf74 says:

    Yeah, you gotta watch out. The studios don’t want any competition in their “Random 20 second snippets of movies” sales.

  5. davebg5 says:

    Just last night I went to a advance screening of the upcoming movie “Superbad”. While waiting in line one of the movie theater workers/movie studio reps announced that they’d be collecting everyone’s cell phones/smart phones/PDAs that had cameras…presumably because the streets of NYC are littered with bootleggers who used a Moto RAZR to record a feature length film.

    Our society has made numerous medical advances over the years, but they still haven’t found a cure for stoopid.

    On a side note, they ended up not collecting all of those phones, likely because they realized what a logistical nightmare it would be to have to return a movie theater’s worth of patrons’ phones all at once as the movie let out.

  6. TimSPC says:

    I don’t think we’re getting the whole story from that article. It just doesn’t feel right. When I read it, I can’t help but think that there’s more than meets the eye.

  7. Cowboys_fan says:

    This is total BS IMO. I download movies all the time including transformers, and except when they are on DVD, it is usually a cam version. So these guys get nothing, yet this kid gets charged for filming a miniscule portion? Exactly how is this fair, in any way, shape, or form? If that were me, I don’t know what I’d do but I’m sure this little charge in the end would be the least of my worries. Like JASYN says, these IP laws are completely idiotic.

  8. jrdnjstn78 says:

    I can’t imagine she was planning on filming the whole thing with her camera phone. Camera phones take such crappy pics and video anyways. Hang her. What she did was soooooo wrong, how dare she.

  9. @TimSPC: BOOOOOOOOO! :)

  10. gibsonic says:

    i am taking my son to see transformers this weekend…maybe i’ll bring a fake video camera and pretend i’m recording it and see if anyone notices…

    on second thought, i wouldn’t want to ruin a perfectly good dad/son day and not get to sit back and relax while enjoying the movie i’m paying $8 for.

  11. fredmertz says:

    It is all about setting a precedent. If you let people record the movie with a crappy cellphone camera now, it becomes harder to prevent them from doing it with an awesome quality cell phone camera tomorrow. Not that I am agreeing — just explaining why the “it’s just a crappy camera phone” argument isnt valid.

  12. Pelagius says:

    If it weren’t 100 degrees and choked with smog here in DC I might just consider holding a protest at this theater.

    Instead, I’ll go home to my air conditioned box, put whatever movie I feel like watching on my DVD player, pause it whenever I feel like going to get a refreshing beverage (not a $5 cup of Coke) from my fridge or to use the john.

    In the meantime, I’m sure the sort of tactics this theater is employing are sure to draw more people to the cinema.

  13. LowerHouseMember says:

    Filming the entire movie is one thing, but just a little clip? Way to be dicks Regal.

  14. jaredgood1 says:

    Screw her. I could care less about the IP laws, but I’m sick and tired of seeing a random blue glow coming from the inconsiderate reprobate sitting in front of me at the theatre. You can turn the phone off for two hours.

  15. ShadeWalker says:

    THIS IS MADNESS!!

  16. Peeved Guy says:

    Did the theater overreact? Sure.

    But really, folks, it’s not like the MPAA just decided to start cracking down on movie piracy last week. If I recall, there has be one or, at least, two stories concerning movie piracy in the last few years. She really should have known better than to record a film, or at least not be shocked at the reaction to her recording it.

  17. yellojkt says:

    While this is a symptom of our rampant “no tolerance” mentality, I have a hard time working up sympathy for our budding pirate. A cell phone snippet of a movie climax could easily wind up on YouTube even if the quality is crappy.

  18. keith4298 says:

    I went to a movie last summer (on a day off) in the middle of the day. An usher came up to me and demanded to see under my shirt because why else would someone go to a movie alone in the middle of the day unless they wanted to videotape it. Apparently the comments I made about the 4th amendment didn’t sit very well, because they kicked me out for not showing them. By the way….I had no camera.

  19. ancientsociety says:

    While I’m very much against the current IP laws, this kid was just stupid.

    They play that “oh scary” FBI warning before the show starts. He was recording the trailer to show his little brother? Ah, the Transformers trailer has been free, easy, and legal to view on several websites of MONTHS now. If he owns a cameraphone, I’m sure him and his lil bro have access to the intertubes @ home.

  20. Buran says:

    @davebg5: Wow, what theater chain was that, so I can never patronize them? That’s just inexcusable.

  21. Buran says:

    Fair? See “fair use law”.

  22. Synaptic Reload says:

    This isn’t really a good version of the story. Here’s a more detailed version at the washington post (even though there’s a lot of extra fluff in there).

    [www.washingtonpost.com]

    btw, not a camera phone people.

  23. Buran says:

    @Rectilinear Propagation: Under fair use law, it IS legal to copy short clips of copyrighted works.

  24. btw, not a camera phone people.

    @Snapjak: Not even the other article said it was. It only said “digital camera”. How was the movie theater supposed to know it was only going to be 20 seconds of film?


  25. I thought it was funny how the theater saw itself as the victim. How are they being hurt? The little brother sees the 20 second clip on the phone and chooses not to see the actual film? So I suppose the theater would be out $8 for a ticket, plus potentially $10 more for popcorn and a soda?


    Sure, I can see the production company as a victim as they created the work, but c’mon. It’s missing the forest for the trees. Sticking it to a 19 year old for use of a camera phone isn’t going to make a dent in bootlegging. It just irritates a lot of people. They’d be better off going after the guys who stand in the subway selling DVD’s.

  26. So now it wasn’t a phone… not sure where that entered the conversation, but that does change it some. Having an actual camera implies some sort of intent, but if it was really only 20 seconds…

  27. Buran says:

    @Rectilinear Propagation: It’s called “it’s okay to ask people questions if you don’t know them”.

  28. bambino says:

    @Cowboys_fan: Way to support those who sit in theatres with camcorders.

  29. sleze69 says:

    If I saw someone pull out a camera and start filming, I would immediately tell the manager of the movie theater. Come on, this isn’t fair use of the dvd he purchased.

  30. agent2600 says:

    I can’t belive you people are sticking up for this person!

    You get caught breaking the law you get in trouble


    Oh officer i was only beating him for 20seconds…oh officer i was only shooting at them for 20 seconds!

    a crime is a crime, and if you break the law you deserve to get punished

  31. Trowble (XBL/PSN) says:

    The general manager was right, seeing as how the girls clear intentions were to bootleg and distribute the 20 second short to the public at a nominal fee right after she showed her little brother bragging rights about the movie first.

  32. j-o-h-n says:

    It seems to me that 20 seconds worth of a 90 minute-ish film could easily all within the fair use doctrine of copyright law (at least until Disney buys more congresscritters).

  33. alicetheowl says:

    @Pelagius: Whereas, the next time I feel like going to a first-run movie, I’ll go to their air-conditioned box, order a pizza and a vanilla shake, have it served to me surreptitiously by nearly-invisible and incredibly attentive servers, maybe have a glass of wine, and bask in the silence of banned cellphones and a distinct lack of small, squirmy children.

    Ah, Cinebarre. Can I ever brag about you enough? I think not.

  34. Lordstrom says:

    I have no problem with a theater having a policy of no cameras. As a private business, that is completely their right.

    I DO have a problem with it being illegal. That is overreaching. It’s not the government’s place to decide who can record what for private use.

  35. Buran says:

    @Peeved Guy: True for the whole thing. Not true for a fair-use permitted use.

  36. sinclair__ says:

    @agent2600: The girl was not caught breaking the law. She was charged with an act which may or may not fall within the fair use provision of the copyright laws.

    I hope she fights this one and wins, because as much as the MPAA and RIAA want to hide the fact, the fair use provision still exists, even if it’s getting eroded as fast as possible by big scary corporations. (And their marketing team)

  37. cde says:

    @Juice Box Hero: Yes, cause people never just happen to have a camera on them… /sarcasm

  38. overbysara says:

    what jackass underpaid employee tattled? that’s what I want to know.

  39. Hawk07 says:

    I’m really not that libertarian when it comes to people breaking the law. Technically, this girl did break the law, but why did the assistant manager who makes maybe $40,000 a year at the most feel the need to narc out a patron to protect the studios and their multi-millionaire executives and actors?

    At most, he should have asked her to delete it and leave.

  40. Pelagius says:

    @alicetheowl: Snark aside, that’s a great example of a theater owner adapting to changes in the market.
    The best place to catch a movie in the NoVa area is the Arlington Cinema and Drafthouse. Second-run and cult films, with beer, and wine smoking optional, comfy chairs, feedback from the crowd. It becomes a community event that you can’t get in your living room.
    However, in this instance we have a cruddy little box theater serving overpriced popcorn and soda playing the latest dreck from Hollywood. These places are being pushed out of business – good. Adapt, improvise, and overcome, or be left behind. Punishing your customers isn’t a way to advance your business.

  41. Grrrrrrr, now with two buns made of bacon. says:

    I think it’s important to realize that there’s no way the theater to know initially whether she’s recording 20 seconds of it or the whole 90 minutes, or whether the camera is a crappy cellphone camera or a Sony HD professional model. It’s a theater, it’s dark..you can’t tell what model camera somebody is using.

    I don’t have any issues with the theater telling her to stop, or asking her to leave, but after they found out it was only a 20 second low-resolution clip (and most likely her first and only offense)..they should have just erased it, booted her out and asked her not to come back.

    Instead, they’re holding her up as an example and going through with the legal prosecution…a bit much for a first offense.

    My guess was that the clip was probably bound for YouTube so she could brag to all of her friends.

  42. Buran says:

    @dwayne_dibbly: It was for her brother. It’s right there in the summary.

  43. Shizlak says:

    This little thief needs to get the chair! Showing her little brother 20 seconds of transformers would’ve caused irreparable damage to the movie company’s bottom line.

    Thank God the authorities stepped in before she did any real damage…
    (that was sarcasm)

    That movie theater owner is insane and the establishment should be boycotted.

  44. Mr. Gunn says:

    yellojkt: WhatTHE FUCK is wrong with some of you?

    I can’t believe all the comments here in support of that little bitch. She stole real, valuable, tangible property from a business! I could understand sympathy if she grabbed some private citizen’s wallet, but this is a business!

    I think the studio should have snipers with night-vision scopes posted in the projection room. They used to hang horse-thieves, you know, so there’s a precedent. That’ll teach the little shits.

  45. superbmtsub says:

    Kinda harsh. The most they shouldve done was kick her out of the theater.

  46. Grrrrrrr, now with two buns made of bacon. says:

    @Buran: So we should automatically take her word for it? What else is she going to tell everyone? I was recording it for YouTube and got caught, and now I look like a moron and I’m being charged with a misdemeanor? I don’t believe her.

    Have you ever met a teenager that when confronted with something they did wrong, told everyone the exact truth? (I would have told them the same thing if I thought I could get out of it).

    I’m all for fair use, and I agree that she shouldn’t be raked over the coals for this, but she did what she did. But the theater rule are that here’s no recording inside the theater, period..it doesn’t matter if it’s for your aunt, your brother, your next-door neighbor..that has nothing to do with it. So if she were caught shoplifting, would it be okay because she was stealing for her brother and not for herself?

    I agree with you that they’re making way too big of a deal out of it and I think pressing charges is way over the top, but no matter what camera she was doing it with, or for how long, or for whom, or in what resolution, she still broke the theater rules.

    Delete the clip, tell her to leave, and leave it at that. I’m pretty sure the embarassment is enough punishment.

    And the whole “banned for life” thing..what..are they going to pass out wanted posters and hang them in the theater lobby?

  47. jacques says:

    So even if she was going to put it up on youtube, does that really make a lot of a difference? If the goal is to make sure people come to the theatre instead of watching it at home, will 90 seconds deter someone? (Well, maybe for this pile of crap). At worst, it goes up on youtube for a few days until they get the takedown notice. But nobody’s going to watch the clip and feel their appetite for the movie satiated.

  48. lestat730 says:

    @davebg5: You can record 2 hours of video/sound with a Moto RAZR? Damn, I need a new phone, all the ones I’ve seen around here can only do 30 seconds to 2 minutes of video.

  49. Grrrrrrr, now with two buns made of bacon. says:

    @jacques: The comment about YouTube was in response to “But she’s recording it for her brother” which A: I highly doubt, and B: Makes absolutely no difference in whether or not she’s guilty of breaking theater rules.

    I agree, 90 seconds on YouTube isn’t going to do any harm to the movie unless it’s a real stinker.

  50. shades_of_blue says:

    OMGZ it’s less that the average commercial in time length. The GM should have asked to see what she recorded and upon realizing that it was a measly 20 seconds, dropped the matter altogether. I can understand kicking her out of the theater, but threatening legal action over a 20 second clip is BS. She’s a kid, kids do stupid things and as an adult he should know that by now. What a ****, it’s a digital camera, switched to video mode. Most don’t even capture audio in video mode.

  51. Asvetic says:

    @Mr. Gunn: True, she did steal, but she stole the equivalent of a candy bar from a superstore. It’s a slap on the wrist offense.

    She’s a first time offender, odds are she’ll get a stern, “don’t do it again” and that’ll be the end of that.

  52. dkbeard says:

    Doesn’t the excuse of ‘I recorded it for my brother’ hold about as much water as saying to a cop ‘I swear officer, it’s not my weed’ when he pulls you over?

  53. Charles Duffy says:

    @Peeved Guy: If she were a geek, sure, she should know that this is something the movie industry has been taking very seriously. Your average individual on the street doesn’t necessarily follow these goings-on with quite as much interest.

    My impression is that she’s a recent immigrant, not in a tech field, working her way up. I wouldn’t expect her (or any other random non-geeky person who borrowed a camcorder for their birthday) to be current on the status of the MPAA-vs-the-world battle.

    The judge will be doing a grave injustice to all involved if she gets anything other than a slap on the wrist.

  54. Buran says:

    @dwayne_dibbly: it’s called “play the clip back” … you seriously didn’t think of that simple solution?

  55. ndavies says:

    Here in Madison, WI you can’t even take a bag into the theater. The movie industry and the airlines are in a race to see who can recreate an Amistad experience first.

  56. erica.blog says:

    Who thinks, “Gosh this is a great part of the movie, let me take my attention away from it to find my camera and capture some of it” ? How do you know those 20 seconds are going to be any good?

  57. markwm says:

    @Buran:
    So she says. However, that’d be my response too, if caught pirating a movie. “Oh, I was just filming a small snippet for my brother.” Sure, they could play the clip back, but she could have stopped recording as soon as she thought she was being watched. Even if she truly was “just recording 20 seconds”, if they accept that without ejecting her, that gives every pirate out there an out. Maybe I’ll just start going to Wal-Mart and stuffing stuff in my pockets. If I get caught, I can just say, “Oh, I didn’t have a basket and my arms were full. I was going to pay for it when I got to the checkout.” Or maybe next time I get pulled over for speeding I can say, “But officer, I was only speeding for the 20 seconds you saw me. I was driving for over an hour before that without ever even touching the speed limit.”
    Did the theater overreact by pressing charges, etc? Possibly, but I just really can’t feel too much sympathy for someone a) breaking rules and b) being inconsiderate of fellow patrons by introducing a bright light source into the darkened-for-movie-enjoyment room.

  58. ARPRINCE says:

    @Snapjak: She’s looks HOT!!!

    And yeah, it looks like a digital camera and not a camera phone. The BF said they “borrowed the camera from his sister”. If it was a camera phone, I doubt his sister (who I am assuming loves to yack on the phone) would have lend it to him.

  59. ARPRINCE says:

    @markwm: “being inconsiderate of fellow patrons by introducing a bright light source into the darkened-for-movie-enjoyment room.”

    I would suggest you read back the post and figure out how moronic your comments are. She’s not even using a camcorder. Hello???

  60. Youthier says:

    @erica.blog: That’s my issue with the whole thing, too. How did she know that this was the 20 seconds that would sell her brother on the movie? It’s just weird.

  61. sinclair__ says:


    Regardless of her motivations, she didn’t steal anything. What she is accused of is copyright infringement.

    MPAA marketing aside, this is an important distinction. Theft (basically) is the taking of an item from it’s lawful owner, depriving that owner of the item. This girl did not deprive the movie theatre anything. She made a copy, which is different, and dealt with in an entirely different section of the law.

    (And no, potential profits don’t count – it is not stealing if I deprive wal-mart money by shopping at Target).

    According to Copyright law, which is very different from criminal law, some forms of copying are perfectly OK. This may or may not be such an OK case – that is for the courts to decide. It is certainly not as black or white as some posters seem to think.

  62. Kezzerxir says:

    When I saw the police walk in I would of deleted the video off my phone and just told them I was checking my miss calls or something.

  63. cde says:

    @markwm: Not all states have a shoplifting if conceled stature. Meaning you have to still cross the point of sale without paying, but you can use your pockets to hold stuff until you do pay.

  64. Cowboys_fan says:

    I’m not even convinced this story is true, it sounds more like fear mongering to me. But it was on tv, so it MUST be true. Now anyone who films movies for profit are either at the drive in or work at the theatre and do it from behind the glass, otherwise you get heads in the way, laughing patrons, etc. If she’s not doing it for profit, then too bad for them. If you don’t like the lights, ask her to turn it off. It won’t me of much use if the film includes your voice every few seconds saying “turn it off”. And so what if a 20 second clip ends up on you tube. Are people really going to watch a series of 5 min videos in order, to watch the whole movie? Doubtful. If she didn’t like the movie can she get a refund? Absolutely not. So why can’t she film a clip, more like an ad, for her brother, who can then decide he likes it and goes and sees it, or choose not to? When I download movies free, if I really like them, I will go see them. Before I downloaded, I just didn’t go and waited for a friend to rent it and watch with them. I’m not paying for a movie I don’t like.

  65. axiomatic says:

    Typical “crime does not warrant the proposed penalty” situation here.

    FACT: Kids do stupid stuff. There is no reason to ruin this kids life over something stupid like this. This girl was not re-marketing or re-distributing anything.

    Oh and MR.GUNN, you need to relax man. The world is not as “black and white” as you paint it out to be. I hope someone is there to narc on you the next time you do something stupid so you can have a taste of the “crime does not warrant the proposed penalty.”

  66. andrewsmash says:

    Does any company actually gain respect by prosecuting teenagers for misdemeanor crimes? I know that Regal thinks they HAVE to protect themselves from being taken advantage of, but geez, how much good press could they have gotten by handling this…ummm…ANY other way? Schmucks.

  67. Fountain says:

    This is a great quote from the washingtonpost.com article:

    Her boyfriend, Ivar Villazon, said the camera belongs to his sister; the couple borrowed it, Sejas said, to “make memories” on her birthday.

    I don’t think the girl should be considered a felon but I also don’t support people waving around electronic devices with bright LCD screens during the movie. That includes checking you text messages.

  68. markwm says:

    @ARPRINCE: Are your reading skills that limited? She was using a digital camera to record the snippet. Digital cameras have LEDs on them to let you know they are on, and some models have an LED to let you know they are recording in video mode. They also all have nice-sized LCD viewfinders, which in a darkened movie theater would be very bright. I would suggest you go back and read the article to realize how moronic your rebuttal makes you look. Goodbye.

  69. cde says:

    @markwm: Digital cameras also come with defused power LEDs so they arn’t bright, and the viewing angle on a LED is normally 25 degrees from dead center, so unless your looking straight down, it wouldn’t bother you. Second, most cameras (unlike camcorders) do not have a recording light. Third, almost all cameras have an option to turn of the lcd. I would suggest you go back and read the article to realize how moronic your rebuttal makes you look. Goodbye.

  70. vanilla-fro says:

    @ SnapJak: I’m glad somebody saw that.
    On a side note, the post must be getting some ad money coming in from their in depth articles.

    Now, if this was on a camera phone, it would still be illegal but I would like to see her not get charged. maybe a big fat warning.

    Since it was on a real camera, which people do often carry around, it does show a little intent. I personally have never brought a camera into a movie theater for any reason. If you know you are going to a movie why would you need to carry a camera?
    At the end of the day if it really is only 20 seconds, so what? leave her alone.
    if it is more, especially if it is much more, fine her. I don’t think jail is even close to the proper punishment for this kind of thing (unless its a lot of movies for some crime ring, if those exist anymore)

    P.S. does anyone else think she may be hot?

  71. Javert says:

    @Buran said : “Under fair use law, it IS legal to copy short clips of copyrighted works.” That is not entirely accurate. Fair use is dependent upon the USE of the material. The law is quite clear in that it must be for “…purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research…” (17 USC 107) Even then, there are further criteria which must be met as stated in the law. With this case, we don’t have to do that analysis b/c this case does not even get by the first hurdle.

    This section is intended to be of public benefit for fair use of copyrighted works. That is why it exists. It is not there to show a clip to your brother/friend/etc.

    It gets annoying when people blurt our fair use anytime someone breaks the copyright laws of this country. Either you skipped the day of law school when they went over Federal Law or you are a lay person who has heard of the phrase ‘fair use’ without the concept of its purpose.

    It also makes me ill all of the people defending her. There is no chance that she did not know her actions were wrong. If she can operate a cell phone, she should know you cannot go to the movies and make short clips. You cannot even take stills of the screen. Why does everyone seem to condone digital crime? Because there is no physical theft? Thank you and have a nice day.

  72. markwm says:

    @cde:

    In a darkened room, such as a theater, even a teeny-tiny diffused LED can be distracting. Granted it won’t be bright, but relative to the ambient light in the theater, it will be noticeable to those nearby. I didn’t say every camera has a record indicator. I said some do. I said this because that is exactly the case: some do.
    As far as the LCD, yes the LCD can be turned off on most cameras. However, that is an option, and not the default. Given her logic faculties in deciding to attempt this stunt in the first place, I’m putting the odds on her not using that option, which means the screen was probably on.
    I don’t see a thing in your post that contradicts what I said.

  73. ARPRINCE says:

    @markwm: I’ve got to hand it to you Mark. Nice spin! ;)

  74. JayXJ says:

    This is another case of a manager not thinking ‘larger picture’. The adverse publicity from this will far outweigh making an example of someone violating copy right law. It is amazing that they didn’t pursue a common sense approach to a kid filming in thier theater.

  75. Grrrrrrr, now with two buns made of bacon. says:

    @Buran: It doesn’t matter how long the clip was; she was caught red-handed by the assistant manager breaking the theater rules. No recording in the theater. Period. I don’t know how to put that in any simpler terms.

  76. alicetheowl says:

    @Pelagius: I agree, and I’ve been going out of my way to patronize Cinebarre. It’s based off the same business model as the Alamo Drafthouses (for which the Cinebarre owner has signed a non-compete agreement), so we should be seeing more of these. The Cinebarre owner has said in interviews he wants to see at least 10 of these theaters in the next three years, and he’ll be retrofitting existing theaters whenever possible.

    That doesn’t mean they’ll use the same crappy, cramped seating; it’s stadium seating. Very comfy, high backs, PLENTY of leg room. I couldn’t stretch my legs far enough to TOUCH the seats in front of me.

    It’s quite a pleasant experience, really. Keep an eye out for them.

  77. a_m_m_b says:

    @Buran: regis.

    waaaay overkill.

    why is it the US can hammer some fool kid & ignore or discount the tons of professional pirates?

    pathetic.

  78. Jesse in Japan says:

    Luckily, most digital cameras these days have a delete feature. “Where’s your evidence, bitch!”

  79. n/a says:

    give the girl a break, she was trying to catch on camera that moment in history when optimus prime said ,”One shall stand, one shall fall” oh wait i thought it was 1986 again, but seriously those movie theaters are sure taking a world war 3 stance on this less than a minute clip of a movie that wasnt even well liked by those who grew up on the original stuff and even saw how horrible michael bay was to the stuff.

  80. O-Z says:

    Wow.

    I’ve been to that theatre.

    Regal just lost 8 frequent customers since I always go with a group and coordinate tickets and the restaurant we eat at before the movie myself.

  81. RokMartian says:

    I was on the “give-the-kid-a-break” bandwagon, until I read it wasn’t a camera phone. I am not sure why I thought that in the first place.

    Movies have an embedded anti-piracy code into the film that supposedly allows investigators to track down which theatre it came from. (you can see it in a few frames by some white dots that appear on screen for a few frames – In Transformers, you can see it near the end of the movie with the fight in the street)

    So, lets say it was “only” a 20 second clip and it ends up on youtube. The MPAA investigates and finds out which theatre wasn’t doing its job. So, I can understand why the theatre acted the way it did.