Originally posted by L-Burna:

---

All I have to say is I hope her little brother was able to watch the 20 seconds of the video,because I can't even barely make out anything on a cell phone camera.

---

the headline says phone, but the article says a canon powershot.

she needs more time in jail. she could have showed her bro the trailer. what a retard. lol. i think she was trying to record the whole movie until her dumbass got caught... lol.

Lets analyze this for just a second.

from the link:

Sejas was enjoying the movie so much that she decided to film a short clip of the sci-fi adventure's climax to get her little brother hyped to go see it

Minutes later, two Arlington County police officers were pointing their flashlights at the young couple in the darkened theater and ordering them out. They confiscated the digital camera as evidence and charged Sejas, a Marymount University sophomore and Annandale resident, with a crime: illegally recording a motion picture.

"I was terrified," said Sejas, her voice breaking. "I was crying. I've never been in trouble before." She said the assistant manager of the theater saw her holding up the Canon Power Shot and reported it to the general manager, who called police


The Assistan manager reported it to the general manager who then CALLED the police...but minutes later (after she was recording presumably) the police were there.

It sounds like this owuld have taken WAY longer than a mere 20 seconds of her filming.

I know that some theaters have off duty cops working security but again the article states they called the police which implies not the security officer.

It takes more than moments for a cop to get to my door when I'm reporing the neighbor running after her husband with a knife... i doubt it was moments later, which would tend to make it seem it was more than a 20 seconds worth of filming.

But then I wasnt there and so dont know.

Actually, duckNrun, now that you start to analyze it, there is a lot of missing info. Also, who is to say it was a 20 second clip because it isn't stated whether or not she was still recording when the police arrived. Also, you make a good point about the minutes later for the police arriving. Typically, they have better things to do than go arrest a movie pirate.

---

Whew! I checked out the article. Man that girl's HOTT! I wanna find out how I can contact her so I can treat her for her 19th B-Day!! (hehe!)

Use the internet to legally download a trailer to get your brother hyped!
1. She should have been smuggling junk food into the theater rather than a camcorder.
2. She should have known that recording a movie in the theater is illegal regardles of how much she recorded.
3. Why? The movie has been on many torrent sites for weeks now.
If you can afford a camcorder, then you can afford the internet so dont waste your time and dont risk getting caught!
The time and fines are not excessive as these are clearly marked in the copyright acts.

Minutes later.....20 second clip.....hmmmm. What that says to me is that she intended to take a small clip of the movie to show her brother, otherwise, when the police came, she would still have been recording. There was no intent to pirate the movie. Who the heck is going to try to sell a 20 second clip when they can view a higher quality trailer? She probably pulled out her camera, was spotted, and by the time the police came, she had put it back in her purse and was macking with her boyfriend.

Btw, she is definitely high maintenance. Just look at her. She probably calls the web "internets." This is no criminal ring. They should throw the bimbo book at her.

QUOTE:
By bhetrick
No matter if it was Texas or Virginia, a phone or a camera, the law was broken... PERIOD. It's not like the punishment for piracy is something new.


Sorry but if the laws were just and reasonable this wouldn’t constitute piracy. If this was on cable and she recorded it would she be a pirate? I think not. They haven’t proved she was going to sell it or even post it on the NET but this is the implication. It used to be you had to break the law before getting busted now we legislate against a possible intent and assume that is the only reason possible. Now I understand the Theater not wanting people to record during the movie and for that they should have JUST kicked her out not arrest her.

Maybe she should get the death penalty for this anis crime she has committed. I must admit she wasn’t so smart holding her camera up like she did but then that might suggest she wasn’t intending to do anything wrong.


QUOTE:
By netdata
Guys are we overlooking something? Most important fact in this case, that girl is friggin hot.

Hit the nail on the head she is sweet!

She should be put away for life...to protect herself from her own massive stupidity!!!

Also, she could afford a digital video camera, but not a ticket for her little brother?

Originally posted by Mr-Movies:

---

QUOTE:
By bhetrick
No matter if it was Texas or Virginia, a phone or a camera, the law was broken... PERIOD. It's not like the punishment for piracy is something new.


Sorry but if the laws were just and reasonable this wouldn’t constitute piracy. If this was on cable and she recorded it would she be a pirate? I think not. They haven’t proved she was going to sell it or even post it on the NET but this is the implication.

---

Doesn't matter what she's going to do with it... it's illegal to operate recording devices in theaters. Right there she broke the law. Regardless of what she was going to do with it afterwards.

Quote:

---

Copying a motion picture from a theater performance is a felony under the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005, punishable by up to three years in a federal prison.

---

Wait a second, doesn't the fair use act have something about 10% of a work can be reproduced for reporting, critic, or other such purposes?

racist rantings removed

Originally posted by SC420:

---

racist rantings removed

---

Every village needs it's idiot...

Originally posted by bhetrick:

---

Every village needs it's idiot...

---

Not an idiot, just a drunk to spew an incoherent string of profanities in attempt to get their point across.

This is one of those times when the 'community' ought to act.

Far more appropriate would be the arrest and trial of all of the lawyers and those involved in bringing this case for the malicious and grossly wasteful abuse of the legal process.

Some adult and sane consideration would be nice in this kind of outrageous idiocy for a change; it's BS like this that has people convinced the process of law is completely screwed.

i found this bit of information that could rain on this girls party (Attempted infringement" appears in new House intellectual property bill


Back in May, the Justice Department issued some proposed legislation to tighten US intellectual property laws and to criminalize some forms of "attempted infringement." Now, legislation based on the proposals has been introduced in Congress by Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH), complete with stiffer jail terms for violators and the controversial "attempted infringement" clause.

H.R. 3155, the Intellectual Property Enhanced Criminal Enforcement Act of 2007, aims widely. Everything gets a section: unauthorized recording of films in theaters, circumventing copy protection, trafficking in counterfeit goods. The bill even directs the Attorney General to send federal prosecutors to take up permanent residence in Hong Kong and Budapest and specifies the number and makeup of FBI investigative teams.

In most cases, the bill appears to simply double existing penalties. Section 12 alone, for instance, makes a 10-year prison term into a 20-year term, three years into six, five into 10, and six into 12. Poof! More prison time!

One of the bill's controversial features is the fact that people can be charged with criminal copyright infringement even if such infringement has not actually taken place. "Any person who attempts to commit an offense under paragraph (1) shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt," says the bill.

While copyright infringement is sometimes believed to be solely a civil matter, that's not the case. US Code 17, section 506 (a) spells out the conditions for criminal infringement under which the government can actually do the prosecuting, and they are quite modest. The infringement must be willful, and the material in question must have a total retail value of over $1,000. This wouldn't be a difficult threshold for many P2P users to clear, except for the fact that this section also requires that the infringement be done "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain."

The attempted infringement clause actually falls under this criminal infringement statute, meaning that it won't apply to file-sharing unless the courts suddenly take a hugely expansive view of "commercial advantage or private financial gain," and it's unlikely the government has some new interest in such cases.

The bill is full of the sort of things that groups like the EFF aren't going to like, and in fact the EFF has already issued a statement condemning the legislation. One of their concerns is that a small change to the law could have big effects on casual file-sharers for a different reason: P2P users could face greater penalties for infringement after statutory damages are expanded.

The bill allows "a judge to dole out damages for each separate piece of a derivative work or compilation, rather than treating it as one work," wrote Derek Slater, "for example, copying an entire album could translate into damages for each individual track, even if the copyrights in those tracks aren't separately registered.")

Our Congress at it's best! NOT.

---

imagine how much money they could have made off her if she indeed was going to capture the whole movie at 20 seconds at a time. LOL


If they thought the intent was there,they should have just let her go to it.


j/k

i hope these ppl die..poor girl...i dont give a edited by ddp if she broke the law...what the hell is she going to do with 20 seconds...edited by ddp tahst about it..I hope the guys who arrested get edited by ddp...she payed for the movie..she can do whatever she wants...
but this is only my opinion..
i know some of u will disagree with what i say..
but hey..i dont give a edited by ddp..movie stars and directors make enough money already...
plus the girl could say that she was brining more business for them by getting her brother to see it...the way i see it..is that if someone downloads a movie, it means they werent gona go see it in the thatres anyways...

This is pretty ridiculous. For that kind of an offense, they should just give her a little fine and a slap on the wrist. I'm gonna laugh if they get a good judge that says this is BS and throws the case out after they pay a crapload on lawyers and getting the case going.

PetahG
See payed to watch the movie, not record it.
I'm not saying I agree with 2500.00 fine and a year in prision, that is kinda harsh, but people know the law and just go ahead and break it and then cry when they get caught. I find it very diffcult to feel sorry for people who bring trouble upon them selves.

Peace all

P.S.I hope a Moderator see's what you typed in here and gives you a two week vacation

PetahG, you have a week off to clean your mouth & mind. don't do it again or will be permanent ban. post edited

This is funny but sad for the teen and the brother. I think this is taken out of all proportions.

The law should be written to take intent into account and not just the technical definition of a crime. Too many lazy prosecutors/judges/juries fail to use common sense when they can just rely on the way a law was written...so I never feel comfortable saying "Well...the system will exonerate her because this is a rediculous use of the law."

Nowadays we are quick to call the police to deal with situations like this where, in the past, cops used more common sense and business owners used common sense and just gave a warning and let you go. Now we live in a world where people are fed to the machine for minor infractions of rediculously overreaching laws.

Where did it say she bought the camera? maybe someone else did and gave it to her, like say........a birthday present. Also, w/ the way ticket prices are these days maybe she took out a loan for them and really was going to use the 20sec clip to show her brother(as opposed to what selling it as a 20sec splice?)

actually, after just reading the article myself, this statement says it all: "Her boyfriend, Ivar Villazon, said the camera belongs to his sister; the couple borrowed it, Sejas said, to "make memories" on her birthday". Ok so........A girl who is using a camera to record a movie to presumably sell(according to the M.A.F.I.A.A.)is goin to record it on a camera that has pictures on it already to what.....end up having the movie come up short so she can sell it for less value.....come on ppl, show me intent, malacious intent to defraud the movie industry.