Woman arrested for trying to record 'Twilight' on digital camera (http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1916606,twilight-taping-arrest-movie-120209.article)
QuoteTaping three minutes of "Twilight: New Moon" during a visit to a Rosemont movie theater landed Samantha Tumpach in a jail cell for two nights.
Now, the 22-year-old Chicago woman faces up to three years in prison after being charged with a rarely invoked felony designed to prevent movie patrons from recording hot new movies and selling bootleg copies.
But Tumpach insisted Wednesday that's not what she was doing — she was actually taping parts of her sister's surprise birthday party celebrated at the Muvico Theater in Rosemont.
While she acknowledged there are short bits of the movie on her digital camera, there are other images that have nothing to do with the new film — including she and a few other family members singing "Happy Birthday" to her 29-year-old sister at the theater.
"It was a big thing over nothing," Tumpach said of her Saturday afternoon arrest. "We were just messing around. Everyone is so surprised it got this far."
She was nabbed when a worker saw her shooting video during the movie, Rosemont police said.
Managers contacted police, who examined the small digital camera, which also records video segments, Cmdr. Frank Siciliano said. Officers found that Tumpach had taped "two very short segments" of the movie — no more than four minutes total, he said.
Tumpach was arrested after theater managers insisted on pressing charges, he said. She was charged with criminal use of a motion picture exhibition. She remained jailed for two nights in Rosemont's police station until being taken to bond court on Monday, where a Cook County judge ordered her released on a personal recognizance bond that didn't require her to post any cash.
Rosemont police, though, seemed to sympathize with her situation, she said. "They were so nice to me," she said.
Tumpach insisted she recorded no more than three minutes while in the theater — and said not all of the video she shot was of the movie. There's footage of she and her relatives singing to her sister, she said. "We sang 'Happy Birthday' to her in the theater," Tumpach said.
She also took pictures of family members in the theater before the film began, but an usher who saw the photo session never issued them a warning, Tumpach said.
As ads and previews ran on the big screen, she fiddled with the camera — which she got in July and is still learning how to work — and was surprised to see it took clear videos of the screen.
The footage she shot also includes the pre-film commercials, as well as her talking about the camera and the movie.
"You can hear me talking the whole time," Tumpach said.
She plans to fight in court the felony filed against her because she said she did nothing wrong — and certainly didn't try to secretly tape the movie.
"It was never my intention to record the movie," she said.
I hope the thread title is hyperbolic enough for the AmeriKKKa haters out there. :P
My opinion:
1. The chick is stupid. Most theaters make a point that you shouldn't film on their premises.
2. The theater owner's knee jerk reaction (probably fearing to appear weak on copyright violations and possibly getting "blacklisted" or whatever) is just as stupid.
Lol, this will teach people not to mess with the movie industry!!
Heh, maybe she was taping the movie, and would edit the film to remove the birthday party stuff later. However, I tend to believe her story, at least at first.
She should be shot.
Quote
The footage she shot also includes the pre-film commercials, as well as her talking about the camera and the movie.
"You can hear me talking the whole time," Tumpach said.
Bitch.
Quote from: PDH on December 04, 2009, 09:04:40 AM
She should be shot.
Hanged, nothing worse that having downloaded a copy from the internet, only to have a birthday party ruin half the movie. Almost as bad as having people in the background loudly discuss the movie in chinese...
My money's on dismissal without prejudice and the theater management's "taking a stand" is going to blow up in their faces in the form of extremely bad and humiliating press.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 04, 2009, 09:26:16 AM
My money's on dismissal without prejudice and the theater management's "taking a stand" is going to blow up in their faces in the form of extremely bad and humiliating press.
But they'll probably get a medal from the MPAA, an organization that doesn't care in the slightest about bad press.
Quote from: Neil on December 04, 2009, 09:30:58 AM
But they'll probably get a medal from the MPAA, an organization that doesn't care in the slightest about bad press.
Clients that pay good money to lawyers, but suck ass overall. :contract:
Quote from: Syt on December 04, 2009, 08:35:06 AM
Most theaters make a point that you shouldn't film on their premises.
Not sure "most" do. I haven't seen one do so.
I agree with those who think the theater just fucked up big time. In these days when theaters are already hard-pressed to stay afloat because they don't offer unique services anymore, the last thing they need is to give people another reason to stay home.
"Honey, do you want to go to the theater and risk being jailed for the weekend, or just wait until this comes out on DVD?"
Quote from: Neil on December 04, 2009, 09:30:58 AM
But they'll probably get a medal from the MPAA, an organization that doesn't care in the slightest about bad press.
Medals don't pay wages or rent.
Quote from: grumbler on December 04, 2009, 10:06:48 AM
Not sure "most" do. I haven't seen one do so.
Well, the multiplexes here often point out during the commercials and trailers that filming and use of portable filming devices is prohibited.
Quote from: Syt on December 04, 2009, 10:08:45 AM
Well, the multiplexes here often point out during the commercials and trailers that filming and use of portable filming devices is prohibited.
The ones here haven't gotten to that point yet. Not to say that they won't. I will consider it a race to see which happens first: they go out of business, or get around to the anti-camera announcements.
Quote from: grumbler on December 04, 2009, 10:06:48 AM
Quote from: Syt on December 04, 2009, 08:35:06 AM
Most theaters make a point that you shouldn't film on their premises.
Not sure "most" do. I haven't seen one do so.
I agree with those who think the theater just fucked up big time. In these days when theaters are already hard-pressed to stay afloat because they don't offer unique services anymore, the last thing they need is to give people another reason to stay home.
"Honey, do you want to go to the theater and risk being jailed for the weekend, or just wait until this comes out on DVD?"
I don't see it emphasized much either. These people must be nuts.
grumbler, I think you're somewhat off here - movie theatres are, on average, doing pretty good. Revenues are at worst stagnant, which is pretty good in a recession that tends to depress spending on going out. IIRC 2008 was a record year for movie theatres.
I wouldn't sit around waiting for cinemas to go broke - though local conditions may differ somewhat.
The biggest threat is clearly the erosion of release-windows, but so far earnings on movies heavily pirated have held up in cinemas, but sufferred badly in DVD-sales. That indicates that going to a movie gives you more than an early peak - and that home cinema is still far off producing the same experience - even if you take the social aspect and cultural tradition out of it.
Quote from: grumbler on December 04, 2009, 10:06:48 AM
Not sure "most" do. I haven't seen one do so.
I agree with those who think the theater just fucked up big time. In these days when theaters are already hard-pressed to stay afloat because they don't offer unique or economical services anymore, the last thing they need is to give people another reason to stay home.
"Honey, do you want to go to the theater and risk being jailed for the weekend, or just wait until this comes out on DVD?"
FYPFY. Have you seen the price of snacks, candy, and drinks at a movie theater lately? The Regal-14 down the street from me has been getting slaughtered since the Delsea Drive-In reopened a couple years ago with cheaper food that gets made at the theater itself. Then again, they've shown the markup to be so bad that it's pretty embarrassing.
At the drive-in, it's $8 a person for two, sometimes three movies. Nachos, pretzels, popcorn, and drinks are all under $2, and since they're outfitted to make their own food, you can also go a little early and get dinner. At the "typical" theater up the street, it's $9.75 a head for one person. Snacks and drinks
start around the $2 mark, and they wonder why they've been losing business. :rolleyes:
This woman's problems are just beginning. In addition to the film recording, she also directed a public performance of "Happy Birthday" and then additionally made an unlawful rccording of that performance, all without the payment of royalties or a license from the copyright holder.
Then she deserves whatever comes to her then :mad:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 04, 2009, 11:42:28 AM
This woman's problems are just beginning. In addition to the film recording, she also directed a public performance of "Happy Birthday" and then additionally made an unlawful rccording of that performance, all without the payment of royalties or a license from the copyright holder.
:lol:
That happy birthday copyright is the most ridiculous thing ever. If any song should be public domain that one should.
Quote from: Valmy on December 04, 2009, 12:50:23 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 04, 2009, 11:42:28 AM
This woman's problems are just beginning. In addition to the film recording, she also directed a public performance of "Happy Birthday" and then additionally made an unlawful rccording of that performance, all without the payment of royalties or a license from the copyright holder.
:lol:
That happy birthday copyright is the most ridiculous thing ever. If any song should be public domain that one should.
I and my family still sing Happy Birthday.... :shifty: But now we do so in secrecy. Don't want to be busted by the Birthday police! <_<
I feel like such a scofflaw, a real threat to society, and a threat to Birthday celebrations all over the country!! :(
Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 04, 2009, 11:05:23 AM
Quote from: grumbler on December 04, 2009, 10:06:48 AM
Not sure "most" do. I haven't seen one do so.
I agree with those who think the theater just fucked up big time. In these days when theaters are already hard-pressed to stay afloat because they don't offer unique or economical services anymore, the last thing they need is to give people another reason to stay home.
"Honey, do you want to go to the theater and risk being jailed for the weekend, or just wait until this comes out on DVD?"
FYPFY. Have you seen the price of snacks, candy, and drinks at a movie theater lately? The Regal-14 down the street from me has been getting slaughtered since the Delsea Drive-In reopened a couple years ago with cheaper food that gets made at the theater itself. Then again, they've shown the markup to be so bad that it's pretty embarrassing.
At the drive-in, it's $8 a person for two, sometimes three movies. Nachos, pretzels, popcorn, and drinks are all under $2, and since they're outfitted to make their own food, you can also go a little early and get dinner. At the "typical" theater up the street, it's $9.75 a head for one person. Snacks and drinks start around the $2 mark, and they wonder why they've been losing business. :rolleyes:
Yeah, but that's an example of one theater getting pwned by a competing theater; it doesn't do anything to suggest (much less prove) that the whole industry is in trouble.
Quote from: dps on December 04, 2009, 01:30:45 PM
Yeah, but that's an example of one theater getting pwned by a competing theater; it doesn't do anything to suggest (much less prove) that the whole industry is in trouble.
Which it really, really isn't.
Quote from: bogh on December 04, 2009, 01:37:44 PM
Quote from: dps on December 04, 2009, 01:30:45 PM
Yeah, but that's an example of one theater getting pwned by a competing theater; it doesn't do anything to suggest (much less prove) that the whole industry is in trouble.
Which it really, really isn't.
It may not be in trouble where you are (despite the decline in attendance worldwide) but it certainly is in the US. Recent numbers have been slightly up, but the long-term trend is definitely down. AMC Theatres, the second-largest US chain, was acquired cheaply by Private holders in 2004 to avoid bankruptcy, and five years of attempts to re-launch it as a public corporation have failed. Admissions in the US are now at about 75% of their peak, and the average number of visits per year is down to around 4.5. The attempts to boost attendance by increasing screens has failed, just adding to the overhead.
BTW, the snack prices are so high these days in US theaters because the distribution companies now have to demand 100% of ticket prices to afford to distribute, so snacks are the theater's only source of income.
and the private xxx shows in back.
I'd go to more theaters if they didn't admit anyone under 21, and Jim Crow was back.
If I want to listen to darkies talking in their cellphones with teenboppers shits running around kicking my seat, I'd ride the fucking bus. Or go to Red Lobster.
If Jim Crow came back, your wigger ass would be locked out anyways.
I'd pay extra to eliminate teenyboppers from the theater.
These days I just go to Chunky's so I pay 6 bucks for a ticket and can drink to eliminate the misery of the sucktastic films nowadays.
Don't think I've seen a movie in the theater since August.
I go to the theater at least 20 times year. The industry must love me. :lol:
I never buy any snacks or drinks though. :ph34r:
I go about four or five times a year. Usually on mondays or fridays (cause it's cheaper).
I'd go to the movies every week if there were actually more movies that didn't suck.
Quote from: grumbler on December 04, 2009, 02:41:39 PM
It may not be in trouble where you are (despite the decline in attendance worldwide) but it certainly is in the US. Recent numbers have been slightly up, but the long-term trend is definitely down. AMC Theatres, the second-largest US chain, was acquired cheaply by Private holders in 2004 to avoid bankruptcy, and five years of attempts to re-launch it as a public corporation have failed. Admissions in the US are now at about 75% of their peak, and the average number of visits per year is down to around 4.5. The attempts to boost attendance by increasing screens has failed, just adding to the overhead.
Here is the yearly US gross box office;
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/?view2=domestic&view=releasedate&p=.htm
Saying that the long term trend is down is a bit of simplification IMO - as revenues have been increasing every year except 4 for the last 20 years, with 2008 and 1990 seeing a small decline and 2005 and 1991 a big decline. 2009 looks like a strong year (see the YTD chart)
Number of visits is a bit more volatile and is certainly down from it's peak, but will probably increase this year - in a market hammered by financial crisis. This years thanksgiving weekend was the all time best.
Whether AMC was bought up cheap is hardly something I can speculate on (and I suspect, neither can you). I suspect JP got a good price. They certainly weren't buying it to rescue it from bankruptcy, but to make money, presumably by pushing through effiency gains and boosting growth. That hasn't been a great sucess (though an IPO in recent years has been a bad idea for most companies), but it seems to have picked up now - at least they've announced that they are securing financing to mass upgrade to 3D equipment across the board. But at any rate, one company being badly run isn't does not signify an entire business in crisis.
The movie theatres face plenty of challenges, but so does everyone involved in media distribution these days. It isn't all rosy by any stretch, but your rumours of their imminent death are way overdone.
Let me just give you the headlines from Screen Digest (I won't pirate their reports) so just the headlines for Q3 2009;
- Global box office hits new record
- Record US box office owed to 3D
Quote from: grumbler on December 04, 2009, 02:41:39 PM
BTW, the snack prices are so high these days in US theaters because the distribution companies now have to demand 100% of ticket prices to afford to distribute, so snacks are the theater's only source of income.
And the 20 minutes of commercials before the show.
That more than anything else has lowered my desire to go to the theatre. I rarely buy snacks anyway.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 04, 2009, 05:54:50 PM
I'd go to more theaters if they didn't admit anyone under 21, and Jim Crow was back.
If I want to listen to darkies talking in their cellphones with teenboppers shits running around kicking my seat, I'd ride the fucking bus. Or go to Red Lobster.
Don't they tell people to shut the fucking phones off for the showing? In Poland there is a warning played before every movie telling them to do so, or else.
It's kind of a shame they had to start doing this in theatres as well - few years ago people going to a theatre would be cultured enough to turn they cells off without being prompted to. Fucking youth these days. :rolleyes:
Also, I think everyone who refers to a cinema as "a theater" should be shot, IMHO.
Bogh, I guess we will just agree to disagree. Long-term trends are down (since the end of the 2001 recession, inflation-adjusted box-office gross has declined, and ditto if we look at the last 20 years), and I disagree with you that the 2009 bump represents a long-term change in profitability. Recessions seem to always help movie ticket sales.
But gross ticket sales doesn't reflect theater profitability. The largest US chain reported its first profitable quarter in two years in 2009, but still lost $1.2 million for the first half of 2009 on sales of $255 million (http://www.allbusiness.com/media-telecommunications/movies-sound-recording/12610313-1.html). The firm lost $6.6 million in the first six months of 2008. That doesn't sound to me like a business that can afford to alienate customers.
Again, I would emphasize that this is in the US. In your country, it may well be different.
Quote from: Maximus on December 05, 2009, 09:17:54 AM
And the 20 minutes of commercials before the show.
You are correct. Ironically, this has resulted in a tug-of-war between theaters and distributors, since movie trailers are free advertising and cost the theaters time they could spend on paid advertising.
Quote from: Martinus on December 05, 2009, 09:26:50 AM
Also, I think everyone who refers to a cinema as "a theater" should be shot, IMHO.
Also, I think any Polacks who try to tell native English-speakers what words they should use in their own common expressions shot be shot, gutted, and his head impaled over a shithouse door, IMO.
Quote from: Martinus on December 05, 2009, 09:26:50 AM
Also, I think everyone who refers to a cinema as "a theater" should be shot, IMHO.
What's wrong with "(movie) theater"? It's not easily confused with stage plays.
Quote from: Syt on December 05, 2009, 09:43:30 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 05, 2009, 09:26:50 AM
Also, I think everyone who refers to a cinema as "a theater" should be shot, IMHO.
What's wrong with "(movie) theater"? It's not easily confused with stage plays.
Movie theater is fine. But people talking about "going to a theater" when they in fact mean a movie theater/cinema are evil and should be destroyed.
Quote from: Syt on December 05, 2009, 09:43:30 AM
What's wrong with "(movie) theater"? It's not easily confused with stage plays.
Because that's what god intended when he made the English language: One word, one usage. :)
Quote from: grumbler on December 05, 2009, 09:38:03 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 05, 2009, 09:26:50 AM
Also, I think everyone who refers to a cinema as "a theater" should be shot, IMHO.
Also, I think any Polacks who try to tell native English-speakers what words they should use in their own common expressions shot be shot, gutted, and his head impaled over a shithouse door, IMO.
It's never used that way in the UK. So it's not about "native English-speakers" but more about "uneducated colonial hicks".
First movie showing in the U.S.: April 1896
First movie theater in the Poland: 1899
Also, the Empire of America has built: Hollywood and thus gets to call the venues whatever they feel like. :P
Mart has fallen into Josq territory. That saddens me.
Quote from: Martinus on December 05, 2009, 09:47:08 AM
Quote from: grumbler on December 05, 2009, 09:38:03 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 05, 2009, 09:26:50 AM
Also, I think everyone who refers to a cinema as "a theater" should be shot, IMHO.
Also, I think any Polacks who try to tell native English-speakers what words they should use in their own common expressions shot be shot, gutted, and his head impaled over a shithouse door, IMO.
It's never used that way in the UK. So it's not about "native English-speakers" but more about "uneducated colonial hicks".
How would you know?
Besides, as a Slav, you're not fit to judge us.
Quote from: Martinus on December 05, 2009, 09:47:08 AM
It's never used that way in the UK. So it's not about "native English-speakers" but more about "uneducated colonial hicks".
Sure you wanna stick with that "
never used that way in the UK," Polack-speaker?
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 05, 2009, 09:56:45 AM
Mart has fallen into Josq territory. That saddens me.
:unsure:
How is that 'Josq territory'?
Quote from: Tyr on December 06, 2009, 10:36:11 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 05, 2009, 09:56:45 AM
Mart has fallen into Josq territory. That saddens me.
:unsure:
How is that 'Josq territory'?
Acting like you know stuff that you know nothing about.
Quote from: Neil on December 06, 2009, 10:45:53 AM
Acting like you know stuff that you know nothing about.
By that definition, Marty fell in a long time ago.
Quote from: Martinus on December 05, 2009, 09:47:08 AM
Quote from: grumbler on December 05, 2009, 09:38:03 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 05, 2009, 09:26:50 AM
Also, I think everyone who refers to a cinema as "a theater" should be shot, IMHO.
Also, I think any Polacks who try to tell native English-speakers what words they should use in their own common expressions shot be shot, gutted, and his head impaled over a shithouse door, IMO.
It's never used that way in the UK. So it's not about "native English-speakers" but more about "uneducated colonial hicks".
If you knew what you were talking about, then people in the UK wouldn't laugh at you trying to defend them by fucking up "theatre".
Since becoming a parent, I've discovered that the theatre is a great place for adult nap-time. I've enjoyed an afternoon doze through the best that disney and lucas can throw at me. At $50 for tickets and overpriced junk food for the kids where else can I sleep for two and a half hours while the kids are entertained, out of trouble, and fed?
Quote from: grumbler on December 04, 2009, 02:41:39 PM
BTW, the snack prices are so high these days in US theaters because the distribution companies now have to demand 100% of ticket prices to afford to distribute, so snacks are the theater's only source of income.
Wait, here's the pwnage: that's the math the
cheaper theater is using: tickets go to film leasing, snacks pay the theater's bills.
Quote from: Neil on December 06, 2009, 10:45:53 AM
Acting like you know stuff that you know nothing about.
Hey there, I'm one of the millions of people who post on the internet, pleased to meet you.
Though I really do this less than most, I'm pretty self-concious about always asking about things I don't know about .
Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 06, 2009, 08:52:41 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 04, 2009, 02:41:39 PM
BTW, the snack prices are so high these days in US theaters because the distribution companies now have to demand 100% of ticket prices to afford to distribute, so snacks are the theater's only source of income.
Wait, here's the pwnage: that's the math the cheaper theater is using: tickets go to film leasing, snacks pay the theater's bills.
I am not sure what you mean, though I'd like to update my statement based on an explanation I got over the weekend; the distributors get a lessor percentage of the ticket income as time goes on (they will get top dollar for a week, and then the theater's share kicks in and increases over time). This makes longer-running movies more profitable for the theaters, which is why, recently, theater chains have shown some profits.
Quote from: grumbler on December 07, 2009, 08:04:11 AM
I am not sure what you mean, though I'd like to update my statement based on an explanation I got over the weekend; the distributors get a lessor percentage of the ticket income as time goes on (they will get top dollar for a week, and then the theater's share kicks in and increases over time). This makes longer-running movies more profitable for the theaters, which is why, recently, theater chains have shown some profits.
Yes, but the thing is the drive-in cycles movies to where it's showing 4-5 completely different movies each week. There were a couple that stayed for a few weeks: Star Trek, Transformers, Harry Potter, etc., but the staff have been completely open (as part of their "intermission" reel, there's a brief thing about the economics of operating a drive-in) that the ticket prices are just to pay for leasing the reels, and that the snackbar is indeed their only source of revenue.