|
'Twilight' cam piracy case tossed out
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 12 December, 2009
Last week we reported that a 22-year old woman was arrested in Chicago for recording three minutes of the newest "Twilight" film with a digital camera at the movie theater, and was forced to spend two days in jail awaiting a hearing.
Samantha Tumpach faced up to three years in jail after being charged for criminal use of a motion picture exhibition.
Making it worse is the fact that ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
Staff Member
4 product reviews
|
12. December 2009 @ 15:00 |
Link to this message
|
And what was the theater manager's "prize" for trying to ruin a young girl's life? $250-1000 from the MPAA.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 12. December 2009 @ 15:01
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
|
Amak
Member
|
12. December 2009 @ 15:21 |
Link to this message
|
I could see them pulling the "this will keep people out of the theater!" card, but you don't need a cam to keep people from watching a crappy movie...
Anywho, nice work MPAA! You really need to pay your PR firm more^_^
|
|
jony218
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
12. December 2009 @ 15:36 |
Link to this message
|
Thats why I don't go to the movies. Everyone is overlooking the fact that they where singing "happy birthday" while the movie was playing in the background. What about the other moviegoers who paid to watch the movie?
It was rude for them to be talking/singing/videotaping/talking on the cellphone in the middle of the movie.
Hopefully she learned a valuable lesson, keep quiet while in the movies. No doubt a fellow movie goer was the one that complained about "loud" people interrupting the movie. How can you videotape in the dark?
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
12. December 2009 @ 16:10 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by jony218:
Thats why I don't go to the movies. Everyone is overlooking the fact that they where singing "happy birthday" while the movie was playing in the background. What about the other moviegoers who paid to watch the movie?
It was rude for them to be talking/singing/videotaping/talking on the cellphone in the middle of the movie.
Hopefully she learned a valuable lesson, keep quiet while in the movies. No doubt a fellow movie goer was the one that complained about "loud" people interrupting the movie. How can you videotape in the dark?
I think they rented the whole room out, most places let you do that these days.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
12. December 2009 @ 16:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
If you ever had any doubts about whom the police 'Protect and Serve', this should clear things up.
|
|
Tristan_2
Member
|
12. December 2009 @ 18:03 |
Link to this message
|
Wow for even the director of the film thinking this was outrageous grant it I don't think the Movies are good of twilight but for everybody outraged by this even the judge along with the director You know the MPAA is really bad worse so then I thought.
|
|
Mysttic
Senior Member
|
12. December 2009 @ 18:06 |
Link to this message
|
Regardless, the charge was lame, it's done with. Let it be known think twice before singing happy b-day in the theater unless its a private theater, as you could be in jail for a day or two before you get released for a trial with a judge that would think this is a croc.
|
Member
1 product review
|
12. December 2009 @ 19:52 |
Link to this message
|
|
I'm surprised that they didn't try to collect on an unauthorised public performance of Happy Birthday. That song is not in the public domain.
|
|
bomber991
Member
|
12. December 2009 @ 21:02 |
Link to this message
|
Thanks for linking to the original story. I just wanted to quote what I said as a comment to that original article, and what one user replied with.
Originally posted by xtago:
Originally posted by bomber991:
Obviously once this case goes before a judge, she'll be found not guilty if what she said is true. They'll play the tape and it will show her filming the little kids with the screen in the background. Then the judge will say "Bring me the idiot that decided it was a good idea to ruin this little girls birthday party".
It won't get dropped it;ll be a case of getting fined or something as buying a ticket mean you agree to all the rules and they don't allow cams in so she will have broken the agreement for a start.
overall though I find it a bit odd that they are trying to video people in a dark room for a birthday party, maybe on a mobile phone which are utter crap in dark rooms for recording people.
recording over 15 or 30 seconds of anything copyright can mean you need to pay money but below is fine.
she'll get done just what the end result is who knows.
So yeah, it got dropped just like I said it would :)
|
Member
1 product review
|
13. December 2009 @ 02:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
I don't blame her, if she's doing it for her child's birthday and was not actually filming the film it's ok. Also throwing a birthday party at a theatre with her sister's favorite film totaly not worth the fines she is getting regardless of what happened in the theatre. There are no signs of her filming the whole video on purpose.
|
Senior Member
|
13. December 2009 @ 07:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
if i was her i'd be looking at sueing for false imprisonment and sueing for ruining her reputation.her names all over the forums and shes will be known to some as a criminal even though she did nothing wrong.i bet she could get a really big payout with the right lawyer.
custom built gaming pc from early 2010,ps2 with 15 games all original,ps3 500gbs with 5 games all original,yamaha amp and 5.1channel surround sound speakers,46inch sony lcd smart tv.
|
|
EricCarr
Member
|
13. December 2009 @ 16:02 |
Link to this message
|
|
Sounds like a crappy birthday. Twilight? Come on, it's horrible.
|
|
scorpNZ
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
13. December 2009 @ 19:09 |
Link to this message
|
Explain to me what the MPAA has to do with it,i see nothing apart from the theatre manager calling the police & no doubt filing the charges,so the manager is the moron who should've checked exactly what was taped,anyone with even a fraction of common sense would realise it wasn't a taping of the movie,what'd be the point if you kept swinging the cam away from the screen for minutes at a time..sheesh
|
Junior Member
|
13. December 2009 @ 20:20 |
Link to this message
|
SUE THE PANTS off that movie theater! This is a multi-million dollar case in the making. They totally, TOTALLY trampled on her constitutional rights.
The RIAA...must pay dearly for this. They must be destroyed.
|
Staff Member
4 product reviews
|
14. December 2009 @ 00:20 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by scorpNZ:
Explain to me what the MPAA has to do with it,i see nothing apart from the theatre manager calling the police & no doubt filing the charges,so the manager is the moron who should've checked exactly what was taped,anyone with even a fraction of common sense would realise it wasn't a taping of the movie,what'd be the point if you kept swinging the cam away from the screen for minutes at a time..sheesh
The MPAA pays $250-1000 to managers and chains who report people camming.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
14. December 2009 @ 01:31 |
Link to this message
|
|
"She?s traumatized by this," added her lawyer Dominick Dolci. ?This is the worst event of her life and she wants to put it behind her.?
Wow, I felt bad for her before I saw this...if this the the worst even of her life, then she is doing better than me...all charges dropped and an opportunity to own a movie theater when she sues them for this crap. If I could get a movie theater just be spending a few days in a holding cell, I would do it in a heartbeat.
|
Senior Member
|
16. December 2009 @ 23:29 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by EricCarr:
Sounds like a crappy birthday. Twilight? Come on, it's horrible.
Ha.
This was pretty stupid though. I would definitely sue just because this is ridiculous.
|
|
bluetacky
Newbie
|
17. December 2009 @ 08:17 |
Link to this message
|
|
Re- Unfocussed
I'm surprised that they didn't try to collect on an unauthorised public performance of Happy Birthday. That song is not in the public domain.
Sorry if I'm a little off topic here.
Actually as I understand it -- HAPPY BIRTHDAY should be in the Public Domain as no-one copyrighted the tune and there is insufficient evidence to prove who first wrote the lyrics. It was a case of the music companies claiming copyright because of no reason apart from the fact that they could get away with it!!! In effect, they have claimed someone elses work as there OWN!!
And they call US THE CRIMINALS!!!
|
|
Necrosaro
Junior Member
|
17. December 2009 @ 11:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
I agree that the case should have been thrown out, but "traumatized" by this? For what? Spending 2 days in a city jail?
|
Senior Member
|
17. December 2009 @ 14:44 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Necrosaro:
I agree that the case should have been thrown out, but "traumatized" by this? For what? Spending 2 days in a city jail?
Traumatized? No. Needing 'trauma' argument for lawsuit? Yes. Lawsuits are getting ridiculous nowadays but this would be fine. Two days in jail for THIS is outrageous. Firstly because of what it was for, and because of problems that could come from work, reputation, etc.
|
|
Serialluv
Junior Member
|
17. December 2009 @ 15:19 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Necrosaro:
I agree that the case should have been thrown out, but "traumatized" by this? For what? Spending 2 days in a city jail?
Actually yes. Prison cells are notoriously uncomfortable, and having to go to prison and face a judge with the destruction of her reputation, I would call it pretty traumatic.
Look at this way, you go out hire a private screening and enjoy yourselves, next thing you know, you're hauled into jail, made to sleep on horrible beds, with crappy food and the after two days of degredation, you are hauled in front of a judge and all because you did nothing wrong. You seriously telling everyone you wouldn't feel slightly traumatised by the whole ordeal, or even if you didn't are you seriously telling me you wouldn't claim you were and sue the arse's off everyone involved? I sure as hell would, as I imagine would most people!
|
|
Daniel_1
Suspended permanently
|
17. December 2009 @ 15:43 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Necrosaro:
I agree that the case should have been thrown out, but "traumatized" by this? For what? Spending 2 days in a city jail?
Traumatized? No. Needing 'trauma' argument for lawsuit? Yes. Lawsuits are getting ridiculous nowadays but this would be fine. Two days in jail for THIS is outrageous. Firstly because of what it was for, and because of problems that could come from work, reputation, etc.
Are you two that stupid or are you trying really hard? Trauma, you DAMN WELL BET she had trauma and still could I mean my god this could have caused her to be fired from her job, or if she had a security clearance then it could have been revoked causing her major financial and mental harm. Not to be confused that some people will just assume that she is guilty even if they find her innocent as well as this is going to be in her record for the rest of her life unless the judge ordered it cleaned and cleared of this. When you apply for a loan they check your financial records and some actually check your police records before giving you this, and as such this could stop her from getting a loan. If she is a Vet and receiving any sort of assistance from the VA in the way of schooling or anything else, this could have stopped it right now as a felony on your records does not allow you to receive any form of VA benefits. Not to mention that she could have lost her right to vote or hold public office (Title 18 USC)
And this is just a small amount of damage that could have been done for this BS so DONT YOU DARE sit there all safe and sound and try and claim this woman was not traumatized by this or that no damages were done to her. Better yet, place yourself in her position and then try and tell us that you were not harmed by this illegal action!
Morons!!
|
Senior Member
|
17. December 2009 @ 19:10 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by Necrosaro:
I agree that the case should have been thrown out, but "traumatized" by this? For what? Spending 2 days in a city jail?
Traumatized? No. Needing 'trauma' argument for lawsuit? Yes. Lawsuits are getting ridiculous nowadays but this would be fine. Two days in jail for THIS is outrageous. Firstly because of what it was for, and because of problems that could come from work, reputation, etc.
Are you two that stupid or are you trying really hard? Trauma, you DAMN WELL BET she had trauma and still could I mean my god this could have caused her to be fired from her job, or if she had a security clearance then it could have been revoked causing her major financial and mental harm. Not to be confused that some people will just assume that she is guilty even if they find her innocent as well as this is going to be in her record for the rest of her life unless the judge ordered it cleaned and cleared of this. When you apply for a loan they check your financial records and some actually check your police records before giving you this, and as such this could stop her from getting a loan. If she is a Vet and receiving any sort of assistance from the VA in the way of schooling or anything else, this could have stopped it right now as a felony on your records does not allow you to receive any form of VA benefits. Not to mention that she could have lost her right to vote or hold public office (Title 18 USC)
And this is just a small amount of damage that could have been done for this BS so DONT YOU DARE sit there all safe and sound and try and claim this woman was not traumatized by this or that no damages were done to her. Better yet, place yourself in her position and then try and tell us that you were not harmed by this illegal action!
Morons!!
You jump to calling us stupid and morons but you throw that out? Yes, it's a load of BS, but hardly traumatizing. You're spewing out the worst case of what could be. This sure would piss off a lot of people and even maybe cause a small amount of trauma, but not long lasting. It's pretty soon to be jumping to 'trauma.' I can honestly say if this happened to me, it might be slightly traumatizing at first, but I would be over pretty quickly and on the phone with some lawyers. This very well could have been traumatizing to her, but it's more likely the type of trauma experienced by all the stupid lawsuits clogging the courts today; just for the record. That's not to say this would be a frivolous lawsuit, but the statement "she's traumatized by this" from her lawyer just sounds like the typical precursor to a coming claim in the lawsuit, if one happens. I see your point but I doubt trauma until a little time passes and this still affects her. You're trowing out the hypothetical which you get over quickly. When it actually becomes reality it has a lasting effect.
|
|
Daniel_1
Suspended permanently
|
17. December 2009 @ 21:58 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by Necrosaro:
I agree that the case should have been thrown out, but "traumatized" by this? For what? Spending 2 days in a city jail?
Traumatized? No. Needing 'trauma' argument for lawsuit? Yes. Lawsuits are getting ridiculous nowadays but this would be fine. Two days in jail for THIS is outrageous. Firstly because of what it was for, and because of problems that could come from work, reputation, etc.
Are you two that stupid or are you trying really hard? Trauma, you DAMN WELL BET she had trauma and still could I mean my god this could have caused her to be fired from her job, or if she had a security clearance then it could have been revoked causing her major financial and mental harm. Not to be confused that some people will just assume that she is guilty even if they find her innocent as well as this is going to be in her record for the rest of her life unless the judge ordered it cleaned and cleared of this. When you apply for a loan they check your financial records and some actually check your police records before giving you this, and as such this could stop her from getting a loan. If she is a Vet and receiving any sort of assistance from the VA in the way of schooling or anything else, this could have stopped it right now as a felony on your records does not allow you to receive any form of VA benefits. Not to mention that she could have lost her right to vote or hold public office (Title 18 USC)
And this is just a small amount of damage that could have been done for this BS so DONT YOU DARE sit there all safe and sound and try and claim this woman was not traumatized by this or that no damages were done to her. Better yet, place yourself in her position and then try and tell us that you were not harmed by this illegal action!
Morons!!
You jump to calling us stupid and morons but you throw that out? Yes, it's a load of BS, but hardly traumatizing. You're spewing out the worst case of what could be. This sure would piss off a lot of people and even maybe cause a small amount of trauma, but not long lasting. It's pretty soon to be jumping to 'trauma.' I can honestly say if this happened to me, it might be slightly traumatizing at first, but I would be over pretty quickly and on the phone with some lawyers. This very well could have been traumatizing to her, but it's more likely the type of trauma experienced by all the stupid lawsuits clogging the courts today; just for the record. That's not to say this would be a frivolous lawsuit, but the statement "she's traumatized by this" from her lawyer just sounds like the typical precursor to a coming claim in the lawsuit, if one happens. I see your point but I doubt trauma until a little time passes and this still affects her. You're trowing out the hypothetical which you get over quickly. When it actually becomes reality it has a lasting effect.
Oh PUH-LEASE, nice try with the smoke and mirrors but that does not wash. This is not the worst case, this is the REAL case if she would have been charged or convicted of this crap. You obviously have no basis in the real world jr as I was a JAG Aide in the military and I have seen MUCH worse happen to people then this.
So before you try and dismiss what I state so easily, go talk to the Grandmother in Idaho who these scroats went after and caused her to be tossed out of her housing project because they said they were going to charge her and then didnt. Tell the UCLA Student that was made to leave UCLA because she was charged with his and then found innocent, but the damage was done as her grant was terminated because she was charged. Tell that to the father of three in Albany NY that not only lost his job but lost his house because of the financial stress of trying to prove that he was innocent. The Judge (a federal Judge) ruled in his favor but by then the damage was done and he has STILL not collected any damages from the MPAA as they keep postponing it every time it comes up.
Again DONT YOU DARE sit there and try and candy coat this as if anything like this happened to you, you would be screaming bloody murder at any press that would listen and yo damn well know it is fact.
So until you have dealt with people that have been in this mess or have been in it yourself, then you have no damn idea WHAT kind of crap these people go through now do you?
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
17. December 2009 @ 23:10 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by Necrosaro:
I agree that the case should have been thrown out, but "traumatized" by this? For what? Spending 2 days in a city jail?
Traumatized? No. Needing 'trauma' argument for lawsuit? Yes. Lawsuits are getting ridiculous nowadays but this would be fine. Two days in jail for THIS is outrageous. Firstly because of what it was for, and because of problems that could come from work, reputation, etc.
Are you two that stupid or are you trying really hard? Trauma, you DAMN WELL BET she had trauma and still could I mean my god this could have caused her to be fired from her job, or if she had a security clearance then it could have been revoked causing her major financial and mental harm. Not to be confused that some people will just assume that she is guilty even if they find her innocent as well as this is going to be in her record for the rest of her life unless the judge ordered it cleaned and cleared of this. When you apply for a loan they check your financial records and some actually check your police records before giving you this, and as such this could stop her from getting a loan. If she is a Vet and receiving any sort of assistance from the VA in the way of schooling or anything else, this could have stopped it right now as a felony on your records does not allow you to receive any form of VA benefits. Not to mention that she could have lost her right to vote or hold public office (Title 18 USC)
And this is just a small amount of damage that could have been done for this BS so DONT YOU DARE sit there all safe and sound and try and claim this woman was not traumatized by this or that no damages were done to her. Better yet, place yourself in her position and then try and tell us that you were not harmed by this illegal action!
Morons!!
You jump to calling us stupid and morons but you throw that out? Yes, it's a load of BS, but hardly traumatizing. You're spewing out the worst case of what could be. This sure would piss off a lot of people and even maybe cause a small amount of trauma, but not long lasting. It's pretty soon to be jumping to 'trauma.' I can honestly say if this happened to me, it might be slightly traumatizing at first, but I would be over pretty quickly and on the phone with some lawyers. This very well could have been traumatizing to her, but it's more likely the type of trauma experienced by all the stupid lawsuits clogging the courts today; just for the record. That's not to say this would be a frivolous lawsuit, but the statement "she's traumatized by this" from her lawyer just sounds like the typical precursor to a coming claim in the lawsuit, if one happens. I see your point but I doubt trauma until a little time passes and this still affects her. You're trowing out the hypothetical which you get over quickly. When it actually becomes reality it has a lasting effect.
Oh PUH-LEASE, nice try with the smoke and mirrors but that does not wash. This is not the worst case, this is the REAL case if she would have been charged or convicted of this crap. You obviously have no basis in the real world jr as I was a JAG Aide in the military and I have seen MUCH worse happen to people then this.
So before you try and dismiss what I state so easily, go talk to the Grandmother in Idaho who these scroats went after and caused her to be tossed out of her housing project because they said they were going to charge her and then didnt. Tell the UCLA Student that was made to leave UCLA because she was charged with his and then found innocent, but the damage was done as her grant was terminated because she was charged. Tell that to the father of three in Albany NY that not only lost his job but lost his house because of the financial stress of trying to prove that he was innocent. The Judge (a federal Judge) ruled in his favor but by then the damage was done and he has STILL not collected any damages from the MPAA as they keep postponing it every time it comes up.
Again DONT YOU DARE sit there and try and candy coat this as if anything like this happened to you, you would be screaming bloody murder at any press that would listen and yo damn well know it is fact.
So until you have dealt with people that have been in this mess or have been in it yourself, then you have no damn idea WHAT kind of crap these people go through now do you?
Ok, so 'worst case' was an exaggeration. You're still giving a hypothetical and we don't know what actually did happen to her in particular. The ramifications you are presenting are things the average person probably has no idea about and as such wouldn't be present to cause the 'trauma.' All I'm saying is that this woman is probably without the perspective of the severity of what could happen and probably only knows that she got thrown in jail for 2 days for some bogus crap. Regardless, I see this is going absolutely nowhere except a very hostile place so I'm done here. I would normally listen to the other side of the argument but I cut out when personally attacked. It's almost never productive at that point...
|
