Muvico Unrepentant Over New Moon Camming Arrest
As it tries to repair the public relations disaster over the arrest of a 22 year-old woman who took photographs of her sister’s birthday party while watching New Moon, theater chain Muvico digs itself a deeper, even more embarrassing hole.
Last week the story spread around quickly. A woman who filmed her sister’s birthday party and a few minutes of the movie New Moon had been arrested.
Theater managers, who knew only too well that the lady faced three years in jail, insisted on pressing charges, apparently completely unable to tell the difference between a pro pirate and a happy snapper.
Fortunately, on Friday the prosecutors threw out the case against her, but now Muvico are trying to dig themselves out of the hole they dug for themselves by issuing a press release on the situation. Unfortunately for them, they have simply reinforced what many observers have already noticed – they have no minds of their own, are unable to demonstrate discretion, and have only the ability to follow MPAA orders in a drone-like fashion.
Muvico, in compliance with the anti-piracy guidelines issued to movie theater operators nationwide by the Motion Picture Association of America, followed standard procedure by referring the matter to police. Specifically, theater managers are instructed to alert law enforcement authorities whenever they suspect prohibited activity. Theater managers do not make the determination whether a crime has been committed, and it is up to the police and prosecutors to use their discretion whether or not to press charges.
What is wrong with these people? Who on earth is going to buy or download a 4 minute ‘cam’ of a movie taken on a handheld, no-tripod camera, interspersed with family outing footage of celebrations and the singing of ‘Happy Birthday’, coupled with a continuous commentary by the camera operator?
No one, that’s who. Risk of monetary loss to the movie or theater – 0%. Why not simply have a quiet word and inform the ‘criminal’ that the camera really isn’t allowed? Is it really necessary to have a customer locked up in jail for 2 days?
Supposedly Muvico’s actions were to prevent a ‘crime’ against the theater and the movie itself, yet these supposed experts can’t even tell if a crime has even been committed. Can’t they recognize ‘intent’ when they see it? Is it really that difficult to tell? Of course not, but blatantly following MPAA instructions is clearly their number one priority, no matter who it hurts, no matter who it offends, no matter how many customers they alienate.
And Muvico is absolutely unrepentant, stating that it will continue to enforce its zero-tolerance policy, noting that any recording of a movie, of any length, “is a federal and state offense that Muvico is compelled to report.”
An aggressive law, that everyone knows, was lobbied for by the MPAA.
While Muvico stands by its action in this instance, it is happy that the judicial process has reached an appropriate result and is pleased that the charges against Ms. Tumpach have been dismissed.
This press release is a complete joke – congratulations Muvico, you just made things even worse.
Say after me: “Yes, we can think for ourselves…” – or do you need me to get the MPAA to tell you?
Seriously thats just bull!! Two days in prison just for that
“any recording of a movie, of any length”
Of any lenght? Seriously? What kind of law is that. I believed that demoing, fair-use, etc always allowed for a certain number of seconds?
Great- charges are dropped. Now where can the poor girl get her two days back?
I know it’s been said previously but I can’t wait to see that lawsuit.
drmike: I’m still not sure why folks are so eager for the girl to sue, or what they think it will accomplish. She has no justifiable claim, period. It’s been eons since I’ve stepped into a theater or watched a movie of any kind, but I seem to recall large disclaimers, complete with the FBI seal or something, stating ANY unauthorized reproduction was a prohibited, punishable offense and blah blah blah. I can’t imagine fair use would apply here. Any jury that looks at the law in its current context, and does what it’s *supposed to do*, will not come back with a decision in her favor, and there’s a snowball’s chance in hell that she’s going to get a completely sympathetic jury. MPAA would probably bankroll the theater’s defense, or provide their lawyers to them, knowing that if they don’t show they have the theater’s back, other theaters might be less likely to take action. If she loses, she’s (probably) on the hook for THEIR legal fees, which will make two days in jail look like nothing. On the slim chance that she wins, they merely file an appeal, and likely win there.
So who actually pressed charges? The new release implies that they just pass over the citizen to the police and leave it up to them, but other reports claim is was Muvico who sought to press charges.
MPAA schlubs.
This is ludicrous. Obviously this is just an extreme example, but people need to find something better to obsess about than “piracy”. We are hoping tons of people will download our movie. THAT IS THE FUTURE OF MOVIE DISTRIBUTION, so get used to it. We are giving Self Helpless away on a torrent-only release platform. We are going to prove that wasting money, time, and people’s freedom fighting against people’s ability to share cool stuff is not only absurd, it is illogical.
There is a simple answer to their unrepented ways.
Boycott the chain! That will wipe the smirk of their face.
Well, I go to the movies pretty frequently, as do most people who download movies. Not even getting on the subject of the monstrous moronity of the movie industry attacking their best customers for downloading movies they never intended to rent or buy in the first place.
Anyway, there are plenty of competing theater chains in any major city that nobody really needs to go to a Muvico theater, ever again. Just go see the exact same movie at an AMC or Landmark, or something. They could dry up and die and nobody would miss them.
“And Muvico is absolutely unrepentant, stating that it will continue to enforce its zero-tolerance policy,”
I’m glad I haven’t paid to see a film in over a year – finances aside.
I still pay for software because it makes my life easier… but unbutu’s looking kinda good these days and companies are paying top dollar for linux people.
Paying for information seems to be endangered.