The Shotgun Blog
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Speaking of Overcriminalization
I think this is called "sending a message." What kind of message is something else:
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.
Posted by Richard Anderson on December 10, 2009 | Permalink
It's amazing to me that something like this carried so much weight when obvious pirating of live concerts, etc, can be openly posted on YouTube with no repercussions.
Posted by: Carole | 2009-12-11 7:33:08 PM
property rights are the foundation of libertarian values. copyrighted material is property.
Posted by: shel | 2009-12-11 10:17:34 PM
Did this woman somehow plan to make a profit off of under 4 minutes of a movie? No. That would be a ridiculous waste of time. If she wasn't caught soliciting the pirated material, why is it considered a violation of copyright? She paid her ticket to view the film, did she not? What if she was filming a family event and the movie happened to be playing in the background?
When you buy a DVD or a videogame, you are entitled to make as many copies as you like, as long as you are not selling them or showing them to people. This way you can "back up" the digital property you now own. What's so different about filming a concert or movie? Sometimes when you purchase data online, you don't get a DVD or a CD, all you get is a data file. If the data file is corrupted or erased, you can go back to the site you purchased the rights from, and download it again. So why would they care how many copies you have burned? In my opinion, forcing people to pay for something that they can get for free is the same as forcing people to use the library instead of the internet. It stands in the way of progress.
And how do we enforce these copyrights on the internet? There's only one way; censorship. Censoring the internet is something I am strongly against. If production companies wanted to protect their property rights they should have adapted and made their content available for a small fee online (like Itunes). I have read articles that independant artists incomes are going up, while record company profits are going down. This is because the internet has provided a substitute for the required capital owned by record companies. It has removed their monopoly. Of course they are upset. Do we really want our government to protect the monopoly of rich record labels that have been exploiting people? Do we understand what we are required to give up by such a government action? Not to mention the victimization, evidenced by this particular case. The punishment did not fit the crime. Two days in jail before she was put before a judge for something so harmless.
Posted by: EndtheFed | 2009-12-12 8:48:21 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.