The between the RIAA and the MPAA, the recording and film industries seem to be hellbent on alienating their customers. I could see prosecuting a person for filming an entire movie, but 20 seconds? Give me a break.

That's one old looking teen.

@RandomHookup: lol

She's hot though.
[crunchgear.com]

if you want a teen, see the AT&T iphone post. video included.

I love the fact that the prosecutor basically just let her off. At least they realize how preposterous the whole matter is.

I feel so bad for this girl, the idea as a whole is so ridiculous. I know its a crime, but so is jay-walking and when is the last time someone was convicted on that? The law itself is attrocious, they can put cameras on street corners but you can't film a minute of a movie = lame.

@RandomHookup: Could be progeria.

This is absurd. Video taping a movie in a movie theater is illegal...unless you're pointing it at the audience...then it's security.

Like I said in the previous posts - no way the theater could drop the charges, no way she would actually get the maximum penalty.

Wow, the MPAA should be ashamed of themselves. Really what is ruined/violated/damaged by a 20 second clip?

And don't say "well its the law" because you officious types make me vomit.

That goodness she got of easy and if I were her I would NEVER SPEND ANOTHER DIME ON MPAA PRODUCTS.

Fool me once, damn you, fool me twice, DAME ME!

I should have said "Really what is ruined/violated/damaged by a 20 second clip THAT SHE DIDN'T EVEN ATTEMPT TO DISTRIBUTE!?!"

How is this a consumer issue? It is a legal issue...and it is pretty hard to deny filming part of a movie when you've been busted.
And, more importantly....since when does "I forgot I couldn't do it" make any sort of a valid argument to a court.
Lastly, I was reading an article several days ago...maybe on here...where there was a discussion of companies that lost various patents and other intellectual property because they failed to prevent others from copying. Imagine if a studio let a movie get copied for years--openly and then tried to take everyone to court about it...i'm not sure they would win.
This does differ from RIAA, because here, someone was actually physically caught in the act. A set of IP numbers is pretty dubious, but a kid with a camcorder isn't so much.

@axiomatic:

And don't say "well its the law" because you officious types make me vomit.

If only those officious types could make people actively participate in the legislative process instead of just vomiting...maybe it would help prevent or overturn laws purchased by industrial lobby groups. Probably not, but it would be nice if the internet grousing was backed by real action.

I will say this, kids and cellphones/cameras are getting ridiculously annoying. Texting and talking through the movies and snapping pictures that probably look like crap. Still for a huge corporation to go after one person like this is a little bit much, but I'd expect the judge to impose a small fine and let the person know they're getting off easy this time and it could be worse for anyone else next time.

Bottom line, turn of your mobile devices when going to a movie! You might as well watch what you paid to see!

@sleze69: Yeah I am sure the night vision camera facing the knees of all those film goers will never be used for anything inappropriate. Just remember ladies, always sit like a lady even if your in a lead box because you never know what perv has a camera.

This was a Canon Powershot camera, not a cellphone with a built-in camera either. I think if the theater didn't make a big deal about it, it would have slipped past the RIAA.

I agree this is a bit much. I mean, 20 seconds? What about on America's Funniest home videos where a dog is watching a dog on TV and tries to go after it? You never hear of the producer's of the TV program sue the person who taped their dog watching the program.

I see that theater closing soon if the community rallies in favor of the teen. Way to shoot themselves in the foot.

I am stunned, though not surprised, that the movie industry has successfully lobbied several states to make this a crime. Whatever happened to pursuing the already-existing civil remedy?

I am even more stunned that the prosecutor's office chose to pursue it.

@E-Bell: When the movie you spent $100 million appears on bittorrent the day after it premiers, you too would want the people who made it prosecuted as "theives"

How, exactly, does a theater chain pressure a prosecutor to do anything? What could they have actually done to him had he not gone foward with the case?

@LionelEHutz:
How can you "forget" that it was against the law... thats like some street corner dealer saying "oops I forgot that selling crack was illegal"

wake up kids

@axiomatic:

I'm of the same opinion you are but I can't help but get a chuckle out of the slight irony between your statement & your nick on these forums.

@ARPRINCE: Agreed.

@emax4: Personally, I hope that they boycott Regal Cinemas. The legal code is voluminous, and people break the law all of the time. In most cases, even if a police officer catches you, if the infraction is minor your are warned and sent on your way.

Regal decided to push the issue as far as possible. Once the DA is involved, court is inevitable. Why did Regal Theatres decide to be the biggest asshole possible? Maybe the girl or her friends were bad patrons (disruptive or whatever)? Maybe Regal Cinemas hates teens/Latinas/women? Maybe they just wanted the MPAA reward money?

Regardless, emax4 is 100% right. Somebody is going to protest. Just another nail in the movie theatre coffin.

Oh good, they gave her a reasonable sentence for a first offense. But let's not keep blah-blahing about how "they were hard on her" or "not really a crime" or some such like that. Companies have a right to protect their property from being stolen, and they were right to prosecute (that said, the maximum year in jail set by that locale is just stupid and the judge gave her a quite reasonable sentence).

CRNK said, "How is this a consumer issue?
One of the reasons I read this site is to know which companies I want to patronize and which ones I want to avoid, badmouth or boycott.

Spineless people like this kid who claim "guilt" for something that is a fair use allowance are why the government tromps all over common sense.

Good going, kid. Thanks to what you've done, in the future the government is not going to feel hesitant about putting people who take pictures of something someone doesn't like photos of in jail -- those overcrowded jails from which violent criminals get released because there's no space left. Criminals who harm and kill people.

@JosephFinn: Uh ... nothing was stolen. Next time you decide to accuse someone of something, make sure you accuse them of the right thing.

I have a Canon Powershot and, while I like the camera, there is no way it can produce a reasonable quality of movie or clip that would financially threaten the makers of this movie.

That said, what she did was a violation. If I were say, a musician, and someone filmed me performing and sold copies of the performance, I'd have a reasonable expectation that the law would protect what is essentially my property. Just because this involves a big awful corporation, they should reasonably expect the same protection. I think it's fair to stop her and exact some punishment.

But everyone needs to step back and take a deep breath here. The kid isn't selling state secrets. She paid a $71 fine. That sounds about right.

Next up, getting her to discontinue the brutal spelling of her name, Jhannet.

@sleze69:
I agree - If I spend $100 million making a movie, I WOULD be pissed if it leaked onto bittorrent.
But what does THAT have to do with THIS?
The girl used a still camera that is capable of 20 second, low quality video capture.
She isn't the person (or the type of person) who put it on bittorrent.
This is a silly case that I'm quite sure the prosecuters (and apparently the judge) thought was silly and a waste of time.
Our justice system is crowded and court time is at a premium and this movie house wants to prosecute stupidity like this?
What possible damages could come from this for the movie house if she WAS to post 20 seconds from a bad camera? None. If anything, it would SPARK INTEREST.
The problem here isn't pirating, it is Executives with advanced degrees that were conferred before technology like the internet and digital camera's/video camera's were available.
So these genius' who don't understand the digital age don't know how to use the internet to their advantage and business slumps.
Only now are they just starting to understand the power and speed of the internet. It's too bad they don't understand how they can use it to their advantage.
I fully expect the music and movie industry to suffer until the old fogeys with their antiquated business practices step aside and allow a younger generation that actually understands the technology to take over and bring the industries back up to par.
The sad thing is that too many people are too quick to point at a 19 year old girl and her crappy digital camera and say "She is responsible for copyright infringement and the bittorrent of the movie. PIRATE!"
Bull squeeze.
I don't buy it.
Worst case scenario, she shows it to a few friends who say "Meh. Looks crappy. I won't see the movie." Best case scenario? It generates some buzz and people who may not have gone to see it change their mind and go.
But the absolute worst thing that can happen?
Guys like me hear about this malicious prosecution and choose NOT to see the movie until it shows up on cable and makes the conscious decision not to frequent Regal cinemas.
I have gone in the past to regal, but they won't get another dollar out of me until and unless they apologize to this girl for making a mountain out of a molehill.
And by the way, why is the movie theater prosecuting this 'crime' while the movie maker (universal) not? It seems to me that Regal isn't likely to lose any business off of some kid and her camera.
But then again, they just did.

Theatres need bouncers. Not cameras. Not some nicely worded suggestion at the beginning of the movie. Bouncers. Big ones with tattoos and 2x4s. Saves on court fees and also discourages dumbasses like her (yes, she is a dumbass).

@Cowboys_fan: Try jaywalking in Seattle. A cop will pull you aside and lecture you.

Someday they will invent electronic, digital prosthetic eyes which will offer sight to the blind.

And those poor bastards probably won't be able to go to a movie theater.

Or the poor bastards will have to wear some sort of DRM in their head for the rest of their lives.

i wouldn't be surprised if Regal Entertainment Group paid/pressured the involved parties to just allow this example to easily be made... to make sure the "message gets out" that she admitted that "it wasn't right."

@sleze69: There was no proof that the kid was going to take that 20 sec clip and put it on the web.

My problem is with this law that makes it automatic that *any* recording in a theater is illegal, no matter the circumstances. That's a serious attack on fair use.

Even if this kind of stupid law were to be removed, copyright law already has provisions for people who want to record an entire movie and post a torrent for it. The problem with is that without this moronic law, the burden of proof would be on the media companies. What this idiotic law does is that it relieves media companies from the necessary research to mount a real copyright case.

Basically, the only reason that kind of law is on the books is because of politicians pandering to the media companies.

@Buran:

Spineless people like this kid who claim "guilt" for something that is a fair use allowance are why the government tromps all over common sense.
Good going, kid. Thanks to what you've done, in the future the government is not going to feel hesitant about putting people who take pictures of something someone doesn't like photos of in jail -- those overcrowded jails from which violent criminals get released because there's no space left. Criminals who harm and kill people

Tough talk from someone who is not facing $1000 fine, 1 year in jail and the cost of legal fees. Are you volunteering to be the John Scopes of fair use?

MULTIPLYFUNCTION - Regal probably hammered the prosecutor to go after this kid, to get the prosecutor to do the dirty work and deal with the headlines.

Someone earlier asked about Regal going the civil route.

Imagine the headlines...

"Theater chain sues teen over 20 second video clip..." instead of "Teen charged by prosecutor with whatevertheheck crime..."

Regal can claim they didn't go after the teen; it was the prosecutor enforcing a law on the books.

Folks need to vent their anger at both Regal and the MPAA...

$71 in court costs and the conviction removed!

that's just awesome. sorry MPAA, it IS a crime BUT apparently it's about the equivalent of forgetting to pay for your skittles at the concession stand.

You people are missing the point. If they allowed people to do this, then all someone would have to do is get together 10,000 friends and all shoot a 20 second clip, spend seven or eight hours pasting the clips together, and then they'd have an entire movie that they could post on the internet tubes for FREE.

Throw the book at her, I say.

i'd like to point out that she has a really jacked up name...especially for an asian chick.

i think it's pretty lame that she recorded even 20 seconds. She had to take the camera out of her bag/pocket, turn it on, aim it at the screen and hit the record button.

why can't she wait 2 weeks to get it on bit torrent like the rest of us?

(btw, i saw txformers in the theatre, and it was awesome!)

@ARPRINCE: so right.

@JAYSYN

My "Axiomatic" forum name is actually a hold over from an MMORPG I used to play and the characters name was "Axiomatic Liar".

So in effect "The whole world knows its 100% fact that I'm lying."
;-)

Back on point, thanks for the support, this is an embarrassment for the MPAA. They lose "street cred" on this one.

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.

You cant thats the joke. If its under 30 seconds then there is no law violation. They are pulling a fast one on the poor girl to set a example, legally she was ok in doing it and the chain broke the law.

@zouxou:
eh, to some extent you may be right, but a company pulling a lawsuit out to protect its investment is usually only seen as bad if it is the RIAA, MPAA, or an airline.
In this case, the MPAA is considered awful because they are trying to prevent piracy by starting at the smallest infractions.
Imagine if an airline sued a passenger for forcing an emergency landing due to a drunken stupor. You'd get more mixed emotions as to if the airline is due the costs incurred .
Imagine if a mom and pop shop sued someone for vandalism and destruction of property. Everyone would be on the store's side to recover the losses.

So the only difference between the MPAA and the other examples are that the intention of the crime wasn't as clear. When they're stopping someone filming in a theater, they can't tell if it is for personal or commercial use.

I'd still argue that we're talking about a criminal and not a consumer issue. Just because a company uses the power it was given doesn't mean it is inherently evil/bad.

@JON PARKER

Are you serious? I sincerely hope not. I find it hard to believe that you would ruin a young kids future work career (by having a conviction on their record) for a 20 second poor quality clip on a consumer electronic camera that at best can only record 30 seconds at a time. And if you ARE the kind of guy that would do this, please stay away from my kids with your overinflated sense of justice.

@Falconfire: Uhhh...no. She was not legally OK. Not even remotely.

Steel_Pelican posted the link to the VA law in the previous update. Here it is again.

If you are thinking of fair use, there is no magic 30-second rule either.

@Falconfire:
How is 30 seconds not a legal violation? What is the time point at which there is a legal violation?
I'd really like to know....
plus, there is little to no information that she was intending to stop or had already stopped.

ps, tell a police officer with a ticket that you were "only speeding for 30 seconds" and see what response you get.

@Troy F.: The Scopes trial was a sham and a setup and was very deliberate. And yes, I stand by what I said. If people whose "no" counts do nothing, we are all in trouble.

@Cowboys_fan: Just to play devil's advocate, jaywalking probably isn't a crime. It might be an offense for which you can be cited, but usually the term 'crime' is reserved for offenses for which jail time is a possible punishment.