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.

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

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

@TimSPC: BOOOOOOOOO! :)

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

THIS IS MADNESS!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Fair? See "fair use law".

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.

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

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?

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.

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...

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

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

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.

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

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.

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).

@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.

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.

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

@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)

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

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

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.

@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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

@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?

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.

@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.

@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.