You Can’t Stop File Sharing, But You Can Kill Your Brand By Trying

Author: Jim Kukral Category: Copyright Infringement, Online Marketing

Sunday
Aug 26, 2007

Regal Cinemas prosecuted a 20-year-old women for recording 20-second of the movie Transformers on her cell phone to show to her brother.

Jhannet Sejas, the girl who was arrested last month for recording a 20 second clip of â€œTransformersâ€ in a local cinema pleaded guilty and agreed to pay a $71 fine. Regal Cinemas pressured the Arlington County prosecutor to charge Sejas, they wanted to make an example of her.

Let’s leave the law out of this. It’s irrelevant because what she did was illegal. There’s no way around that. Instead, let’s talk about what this really means… and that is…

Entertainment companies are scared shitless about their long-time business models collapsing into dust.

I was talking with someone the other day who was telling me about this site he subscribes to for $6.95/month that he gets pretty much any song, or movie to download on at will. Sometimes even before they are in theaters. I have also been working with a lot of younger people (than me) in their 20’s lately, and they ALL torrent and they ALL get any songs they want, whenever they want, however they want in multiple ways.

To them it’s not stealing. It’s “just the way it works and has always been”.

The “example” they made of this young girl certainly won’t be the last, but it won’t work. “Theft” is happening now, every second of the day, and they can’t stop it.

All this is going to do for Regal Cinemas is hurt their brand. Makes no sense.

Reminds of me of the Napster situation with all the Metallica whining. Great videos by the way, watch.

Share:

Comments

Yehuda Berlinger

August 27th, 2007 at 12:22 am

Itâ€™s irrelevant because what she did was illegal. Thereâ€™s no way around that.

Uh, not really. It could easily be argued that 20 seconds of copying of a film in order to criticize, demonstrate, or review it is fair use. Just because the film industry doesn’t permit you to do it doesn’t make it illegal.

She may simply have been violating the policies of the movie theater, which, as a private enterprise, can make whatever rules they want about their premises.

Yehuda

Tinu

August 27th, 2007 at 11:25 am

The film industry needs to be smarter about the entire dialogue, and be at the forefront to change the laws to yield some control over their product for one reason - a better approach could lead to an Increase in profit. I’m going to write about this over at Lockergnome. :) You just made my day productive.

Jonathan Bailey

August 28th, 2007 at 7:47 am

Yehuda: Actually the legal issue with what she did was not necessarily copyright itself, otherwise the fair use argument you mentioned might have merit, but that recording a movie from inside a movie theater is, in and of itself, illegal. That’s actually what this case is about, at least in the legal sense.

Yehuda Berlinger

August 28th, 2007 at 9:11 am

Jonathan,

In that case, it was no more “illegal” than bringing in outside food to the movie theater. It simply violated the rules of the establishment, for which their only recourse is to ask you to leave.

Yehuda

Jonathan Bailey

August 29th, 2007 at 10:22 am

Actually, that’s where you’re wrong. Recording a film in a theater was made illegal by the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005. It is actually classified as a felony. This wasn’t a mere case of a movie theater policy, there is a Federal law here that prohibits this, rightly or wrongly. See this article for more info:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080102398.html

Yehuda Berlinger

August 29th, 2007 at 1:52 pm

Jonathan,

Thanks for the info. I took a look at the FEaCA and it does look pretty stringent, but I can still see Fair Use as a reasonable argument. In order for there to be a conviction under this act, you have to attempt to or make a copy of a motion picture or portion thereof. The same language is used in other sections of the copyright code.

Notwithstanding this, the fair use clauses say that small portions may nevertheless be copies for fair use purposes. I am not a lawyer, but I could certainly see it argued that copying with a DVD, with a video camera in a theater, or any other means, is still simply copying, and therefore fair use would apply.

Note that they have to actually find evidence of infringement on your camera device, or prove that you were attempting to infringe. Copying for fair use is not infringement.

Anyway, as I said, I’m not a lawyer. I’m only saying that Jim’s original assertion that what the person did is definitively illegal is not so clear to me.

Yehuda

Jonathan Bailey

August 30th, 2007 at 12:47 pm

The problem with the FEaCA is that it, like the anti-circumvention protocols in the DMCA, do not have exemptions carved out for fair use. It’s frustrating and unfair. But it is the law. A fair use defense might protect the copy of the work, but it doesn’t protect the method of copying if it is done via camming or via circumventing DRM. It’s a it like saying that you are free to use someone’s car, but you can’t hotwire it and you can’t have the keys.

I don’t agree with what they did to this girl at all, I want to make that clear. If I had been the theater owner I would have handled it much differently. But it seems to follow the letter of the law, if not the intent.

Ben

May 10th, 2008 at 4:54 am

File sharing will continue forever, how do I know this? Its simple, they’ll come up with new ways to share music/movies/etc. Basically to be perfectly blunt, you can’t kill file sharing without completely killing the internet. Its just that simple.