The teenager who was arrested for filming 20 seconds of Transformers on her Canon Powershot camera (a still camera that takes short movies) has plead guilty to the charges, says Wired’s Threat Level blog.
They also report that the prosecutor in the case was pressured by the theater chain to set an example with the 19-year-old.
From Threat Level:
“What they were saying, ‘Could you get her to admit that it wasn’t right.’ They wanted to make sure the message gets out,” Trodden [prosecutor] said in a telephone interview Wednesday. “This was kind of trying to address the concerns of the theater people, and the fact that it was not an outrageous crime.”
…
Jhannet Sejas, 19, pleaded guilty last week in Arlington County General District Court to one misdemeanor count of filming a motion picture in a movie house owned by Regal Cinemas. The statute, like the 37 others nationwide sponsored by the motion picture industry, deems filmgoers guilty for filming a “portion” or a “portion thereof” of a movie.“I totally forgot that I was not allowed to do that,” Sejas said Wednesday. “I did it without thinking clearly.
We are not ashamed to admit that we had literally no clue that one could face a year in jail and a fine of $2,500 for filming a small clip of a movie with a still camera or a cellphone camera. No idea.
Sejas agreed to pay $71 in court costs and will have the conviction removed if she “keeps her nose clean,” says the prosecutor.
World’s Largest Theater Chain Pressured Prosecutor to Charge Teen for Filming 20 Seconds of Transformers [Threat Level] (Thanks, Jeff!)
PREVIOUSLY: Regal Cinemas Facing Boycott After Pressing Charges Again Teen “Pirate”
Teen Faces Charges For Recording 20 Seconds of “Transformers”
More From Consumerist
-
Lawyer Insists He’s Innocent Of Death Profiteering And Identity Theft, Wants New Trial
-
Report: BP Will Be Hit With Record Fine In The Billions Over Deepwater Horizon Spill
-
Sorry You Had A Heart Attack That Caused A Car Accident — Now Pay This $133 Ticket
-
GlaxoSmithKline Pleads Guilty & Will Pay U.S. $3 Billion To Resolve Fraud Allegations
-
Walmart To Pay $81 Million For Dumping Hazardous Waste In California
@Troy F.: @crnk: Maybe true but in this case Federal law trumps any law some redneck state makes.
Any one of those reasons the girl could have given as the reason why she recorded the little bit and it would have been legal to do so. In particular 3 and 4 are most important, since it deals with the “amount” (IE the length of time that was recorded) and the nature (the fact that the amount recorded had no significant bearing on the work, IE she wasnt recording a plot point or the exposition, just a fight scene)
VA can make all the laws they want, but federally she was protected by law in doing what she did, as long as she was not recording the whole movie to put it up on a website.
To make it even more clear to you MPAA lackys. Most court cases pertaining to what happened here end with the judge not even ruling on the case and just throwing it out. Sandoval v. New Line Cinema Corp., 147 F.3d 215 (2d Cir. 1998)
So, the MPAA gets to send a tough message to the kids.
I just wanted to say that the Regal employees and cinema owner, along with the Virgina prosecutor, not to mention the lawmakers who passed this law, are all a bunch of tools.
@Falconfire: I still think there is a very good argument that VA law is preempted by Federal Copyright law.
$71 and a slap on the wrist? Any lawyer would have recommended taking that deal, no questions asked. The MPAA and the Commonwealth of Virgina were dying to get rid of this case. Why do you think that is? Perhaps because their law might be invalid?
@adamondi:
Make sure you burn multiple copies of the movies to hand out to your friends & co-workers. The MPAA *loves* that!
What’s sad about this story is that MPAA has only succeeded in stopping teenagers with point&click cams or cameraphones from recording 5fps clips of movies. When was the last time you heard of a REAL pirateer getting charged for filming @ a theater? And yet there’s more torrents than ever. Do they really think that they’re now shaking in their boots? That’s like cadillac thinking they’re snubbing auto thieves by charging a kid who stole a hood ornament. Look the girl did wrong, but at the end of the day, nothing but a waste of tax money was accomplished.
And someone please commit some serious crimes in VA so the DA has something to do.
I can only imagine the degredation in quality… I feel bad for that SD card.
I love how everyone here acts like real pirates use shoulder mounted high definition cameras with gyroscopic image stabilization.
please. these laws are in place to stop people from doing one thing – making illegal copies of movies. the girl was dumb, she admits as much. she didn’t have to do a year in prison, she didn’t get a million dollar fine. she was sent on her merry way. does this mean that regal cinema is gonna think twice about stopping some idiot with a cybershot from ruining the theater going experience for others? nope.
I can only hope they nail the next bastard who throws up a bright LCD screen in the middle of the rahter comfortable stadium seating.
@ CRNK
All your explanations in regards to the company’s rights and assumptions as to who is painted as the bad guy, doesn’t make this any less of a consumer issue for people like me. I read this site to find out about how companies treat consumers. Just because you feel they’re justified, doesn’t mean I don’t find them petty. Neither one of us is going to convince the other in regards to this.
A question we could probably agree on is why are irrelevant comments like this allowed on this site:“i’d like to point out that she has a really jacked up name…especially for an asian chick.” “That’s one old looking teen.” “Could be progeria.” “She’s hot though.”
hey now they are protecting their copy wrights Just think about it another 359 20 second clips and a recording of audio a few hours of editing you could have the entire movie leaked on the internet!!!!!!!!
This is the exact thing the keeps pushing people away from spending their money on products and finding alternative means. It’s no fun to spend hard earned dollars and be looked and at the same time be looked at a potential criminal.
@zouxou:
someone needs to bring some levity to all this self-righteous BS.
@Troy F.: I am not going to deign to partake in a straw-man fingerpoint.
And yes, I will blame those who further the degradation of our society when it is deserved.
@Buran: This word “straw man”…I do not think it means what you think it means.
I’m not refuting anything you said, I’m pointing out that if you’re going to call someone else “spineless” for taking the opportunity to get off easy, you should be willing to step up to the plate yourself.
@Falconfire: Federal law only trumps state law when there is a conflict. Whether a law that simply bans operation of a recording device inside a theater without permission conflicts with any federal law is something that only real lawyers and judges can sort out in court.
More importantly, though, go re-read what you posted. Does it say ANYTHING about recordings less than 30 seconds automatically being OK? Everyone needs to read and understand that text because people constantly throw around “fair use” having no idea what it really means. There is no fixed time limit.
BTW, she did declare her intent and it did not really fit with any of the fair use criteria.
At least the prosecutor has read the Bill of rights recently. The Punishment was more than appropriate to the severity of the offense. $71 for the court costs and no permanent record isn’t a bad deal IMO.
@zouxou:
Yes, I will agree with you about irrevelant comments and off the wall stuff that gets posted sometimes.
So, one of the first things I ask when I see anything being said about a company is….”how valid is the complaint?” And, in some cases (iphone huge bills), while the company is charging a whole lot of money–they are justified in doing so under the contract, the person is just upset because they didn’t care enough to look into the expenses, and ATT has been kind enough to give favorable billing adjustments.
@Troy F.:
Bravo…thanks for pointing out to everyone that fair use is no the same as “i wanted to show my friends/i’m just watching it at home” excuse that people think it means.
@Falconfire:
It either is or isn’t fair use….and in this case it clearly wasn’t.
You state that “In particular 3 and 4 are most important, since it deals with the “amount” and the nature”
I will disagree with you fully on this. I think the purpose of use is by far the most important consideration in looking at a copyright case. Think of a teacher who copied chapters or entire short stories, but did so because it was educational and from a difficult to purchase book.
Then consider someone who copied half of the material in a book, but did so for a commercial purpose.
A court would have a much harder time trying to nab someone with an educational or nonprofit intent than someone who “only copied some”
If only she had shot 10 more seconds. Then they could have charged her with marketing. I understand protecting your property, but 20 seconds is a fraction of a trailer which they don’t even distribute freely, but they PAY for the distribution.
Granted this is a contiguous, 20-second clip as opposed to 5 4-second clips and while the letter of the law says that what was done was right, I’m sorry but in practice, this just seems absurd.
And as for what can be revealed in a 20 second clip, it’s Transformers, itself a Michael Bay movie. Things blow up, full stop. 20 seconds shows the whole plot right there.
@TROY F.: We aren’t talking about me, though. That’s a tactic used by people who don’t want the discussion to stay where it is. We are talking about how we’ve got to stop letting corporate interests step all over our rights and how we need to let some damn common sense into things. And until things change, I will not change my view of those who don’t have the guts to stand up and say “No more”. This person didn’t. I do not respect her.
@Buran: “Fair Use” Buran would you PLEASE stop using that phrase when you have no clue what it means?
@Falconfire: As was pointed out by Falconfire the law states:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include –
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
Now both of you have to read the law because neither of you got fair use correct. Look at the first paragraph. There are factors to look at before you can even get to 1-4. Was the work for “criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research?” Ummm..NO.
Please stop arm-chair lawyering. It is clear from the posts that either you are really bad lawyers or don’t know how to read a law or both.
Allow me to explain: Fair Use was included as a way to allow public critique, discussion, etc. of a copyrighted work while including a piece of the work to be used as an example. The other policy consideration was to allow copyrighted work to be used for educational purposes. Where on earth does this girl fall into this? Please, enlighten us.
For the sake of people reading this great site, stop speaking in legal terms when you do not seem to have a clue as to what they mean. Buran, this is the 3rd time you have misused Fair Use. Stop it. Falcon, I applaud you for actually looking at the law but when reading a statute, you must start at the top and work your way down. In this case, she does not even clear the hurdles of the first paragraph. Also, she should not “just say x, y, or z” to fall within any exception. It seems you are advocating that she lie in order to get out of the trouble she created for herself.
Ok kids, put your pencils down. Class dismissed.
@Falconfire: If its under 30 seconds then there is no violation???
Where on earth did you come up with this amount of time? For what case did you pull forth black letter law that says it is ok to film 30 seconds of a movie?
Seriously, tell me. I want to know the case. It sounds fascinating.
@Buran: Nothing was stolen? Seriously, do you even understand the concept of intellectual PROPERTY. It creates property out of the intangible. It allows people to bring forth their visions and ideas without fear of someone co-opting them as their own.
So, you think there is no theft in downloading a song for which you did not pay? I mean, you didn’t physically steal anything, right?
You see, when you make your living creating intellectual property, be it video games, music, literary works, paintings, what have you, if someone takes it or takes a piece of it, it is stealing from you.
It seems from you understanding of ‘stealing’ there must be some sort of physical change of dominion. That is a concept that went out a long, long time ago. Also, if you have a head ache, I would not ‘have a good bleeding’ for in the 21st century, we have acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin if you are at a druggest) to cure that.
Seriously, stop using legal terms and pretending you know the law when you don’t. If you advocate changing the law…great! Go along that path but STOP posting your incorrect interpretations of pretty basic law.
Meanwhile, huge factory ships are sitting out in international waters churning out a million copies…
MPAA and Regal Theaters just lost thousands of paying customers.
I was fairly pissed at all the cellphone texting during movies, anyway. Got full refunds every time. So, turn them off, idiots!
Can grab the movies off of Pirate Bay, using Torrent. I buy the better movies when they hit the DVD market, preferring Used DVDs, at $2.49 or less.
DRM sucks. MPAA sucks, RIAA sucks. But, in this instance, they did a favor to the paying movie buffs.
Anyone who turns on a light source in a crowded theater needs to be arrested! I will betcha that is really what happened here. I am the person sitting behind you, who will get Management to grab your phone or cam, and they will use any law to evict you for life!
The MPAA and RIAA are the new SS.
@Javert: You’re wrong.
Let’s analyze 17 USC 107:
The only thing the first paragraph says is “Fair use is not an infringement.” It lists a bunch of things that might be considered fair use, like criticism, comment, etc., but that list is not all-inclusive. Fair use could be things that are not listed in the first paragraph.
Then it goes through a series of 4 factors to consider when determining fair use. I’m pretty sure she wins on 3 of the 4 (the nature of the copyrighted work definitely falls in Dreamworks’s favor).
Her purpose was not commercial; she recorded only 20 crap-quality seconds; and this had probably zero effect on the market for the movie Transformers.
And what was her purpose in recording it? I think she said she wanted to show the 20 second clip to her little brother to get him hyped up on the movie. Her purpose, then, was to “comment” or “criticize” the movie.
I think those guys slinging around the term “fair use” have it right.
@BrockBrockman: People fail to understand the purpose of fair use. It is for public discourse. She was definately not doing this for public discourse, she was filming for her brother only, as she stated. Look at the cases, anytime fair use is upheld, it is for a public benefit, i.e. discourse. All this did was show her brother a part of the movie. I am curious as to what cases to which you refer which expand upon these areas…if you tell me them, I will glady admit my mistake and back off. I do not know what they are.
If you want to look at the factors…ok, it was not for commercial use but it also was not for education purposes; nature of the copyrighted work…a film which is given an extreme amount of protection; amount – admitedly short but if memory serves, it was substantial in that it was the climatic fight between the two main adversaries. As to the effect of the use it might have cost them one ticket buyer.
But I still contend until you can show me cases which state otherwise that she would never get to the 4 item analysis becuase she did not record this for any public benefit. Your brother is not public. If that was the case then the whole video rental market would exist in chaos because at the beginning of every film you are informed that it is for home use, not public viewing. By that understanding, showing your bro is a home private use, ergo non public and hence, she does not even meet one of the exceptions.
Again, if you know of a case where she either meets one of the criteria by use of good analogy or the criteria stated in the first paragraph are expanded please post something here. I will always be the first to admit my wrong if it is shown to me.
I stick by my earlier analysis of the earlier posters…first there is no bright line where less than 30 seconds is OK and second, w/r/t Buran, he has a habit of always stating things are Fair Use, which is a legal term of art, but never explaining exactly how it falls into fair use. He could do this by either analyzing the statute or, if it is not clear in the statute, the case law that supports the contention.
Unless his goal was to say she should have argued fair use, then I would have not objections as one can argue anything they want but to keep stating that this is Fair Use without any analysis is just not a reasonable way to make a persuasive argument especially in a case such as this where the burden is totally on her to show that she did not violate the law (due to the nature of the facts of this case).
Now please, if you know of the cases or citations that support their positions, this is the time to post them. If you are correct, it would be of great service to myself and all the readers of this post.