Girl arrested on movie-house’s say-so
p2pnet news | Movies:- Richard E. Trodden (inset) is a US prosecutor responsible for having 19-year-old Jhannet Sejas arrested for capturing a 20-second video of Transformers so she could show it to her young brother.
“Her idea was to get him to watch the movie,” said p2pnet, going on, “She’s now facing a jail term for supposed illegal camcording.”
But Trodden is now claiming he was, “pressured by Regal Entertainment Group, the world’s largest movie exhibitor,” according to Wired’s Threat Level.
A movie-house tells a public prosecutor to go after one of its patrons. And the prosecutor hops right to it.
“What they were saying, ‘Could you get her to admit that it wasn’t right.’,” Wired has him stating.
“They wanted to make sure the message gets out. This was kind of trying to address the concerns of the theater people, and the fact that it was not an outrageous crime.”
Adds Threat Level:
Sejas, who paid a $71 fine and faced a maximum year in jail and $2,500 penalty, was arrested at Arlington County Regal Cinema theater last month. She said her only intention behind her crime, committed with a Canon Powershot camera, was to show her little brother a snippet of the show.
Trodden, the county’s top prosecutor, conceded Sejas’ crime was minimal.
“The statute is clear: you’re not allowed to photograph any part,” Trodden said. “It was not an egregious case. That’s why we came to this moderate disposition.”
Stay tuned.
Also See:
p2pnet – `Movies are marshmallow fluff`, August 6, 2007
Threat Level – World’s Largest Theater Chain Pressured Prosecutor to Charge Teen for Filming 20 Seconds of Transformers, August 22, 2007
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:58 am
id like to shake that prosecutors hand. he let her off with 70 bucks in court costs, because he knew that was a stupid and ridiculous charge, but he had to prosecute it anyway.
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:00 am
I have not desire to go see movies in the theater. The experiece was long ago ruined through a combination of different things that lessen the silver screen’s reality as far as the experiece goes.
Now with the latest onslought of the idea that a short “fair use” time is now an arrestable offense will guarentee that I never set foot in one. It’s not that I want to camcord, I’ve never done it in my life. Don’t even own a camcord.
That’s not the point. The point is that in order to set through the movie there are now ads, you gotta listen to the constant speel about piracy to the one group they shouldn’t be saying anything to, and nothing that turned me off to go to the theater has gotten any better. It’s just one thing after another that’s added up to a less than pleasent experience and they expect me to pay for that?
Good going media. You’re getting as bad as the RIAA at shooting yourself in the foot. I can only assume you been going to school with the same crowd.
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:48 am
The best way to destroy the law is to pass unreasonable laws that pursue the innocents. The justice then lose it’s credibility and everything fall apart because the citizen stop obeying the law.
Citizen! You contry is in danger!
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:50 am
Tarr and feather for this idiot Richard E. Trodden and for the CEO of Regal Cinema.
Boycott Regal Cinema!
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:52 am
Taping 20 sec of a movie on a trapezoidal screen with crappy sound or probably no sound and people head in front of it! Is it not fair use?
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:53 am
One year in jail for this?
What do we get if we put the theater on fire?
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:56 pm
*id like to shake that prosecutors hand. he let her off with 70 bucks in court costs, because he knew that was a stupid and ridiculous charge, but he had to prosecute it anyway.*
Really? I thouhgt the prosecutors decide whether or not to prosecute.
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:49 pm
The cartel-controlled governments need to collapse and be replaced by just governments. There are brave people who are boycotting the governments as much as we boycott the “entertainment” cartels. http://www.makethestand.com As long as we support governments (and multinational cartels) with our money, we give them the power to persecute us. Remember the Boston Tea Party? It’s that time again.
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:00 pm
The prosecutor deserves no plaudits of any kind. It was an extreme interpertation of the law, similar to giving a ticket to a person traveling 1 mile over the speed limit. Common sense must be used when enforcing laws not ” this is the law and I am the enforcer and the law shall not be broken in any way no matter how trivial the offense”. The prosecutor shoud go collect his paycheck from the movie companies for this kind of action.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:01 pm
I think most people agree that a person with a camcorder who is trying to record the entire movie, should in fact be punished in some way…. not prison for first timers, but a heavy fine maybe.
20 seconds, even a few minutes, is fair use anyway you look at it. this is just ridiculous control over their product, even going beyond the scope of the law and what they are entitled to.
August 24th, 2007 at 7:11 am
Why should they be punished?
There are murderers, bank robbers, and rapists roaming the streets, yet all the government is concerned with is wasting resources prosecuting people taking a picture of a movie. The propriety of which is only questioned by fat cat media cartels intent on maintaining an iron grip on their monopoly.
Shame on the government, and shame on Regal Entertainment Group. Laws are enacted for the greater good of the general population. However, in reality, laws are enacted by corrupt politicians taking bribes from lobbyists representing the vested interests of monopolistic corporations. Was this the intention of our ancestors? Certainly not. But as time passes, the laws get twisted and stretched prejudicing the majority, and benefiting the minority(the rich and powerful).
I remember reading about how democracy was established in ancient greece some 2500 years ago. Instead of the corrupt and wealthy ruling, power was restored to the population. Each month (i think), a number of people were chosen at random from the public to join government, vote and promulgate their opinions freely; much like jury service. This lead to a truly open democracy, where corruption could no longer propagate and class divisions became blurred.
What we inhabit today is nothing more than a pseudo democracy. Where factions competing for government are indistinguishable from one another. All of which are corrupt knaves with corporate patrons. And laws enacted no longer apply to the majority, but only to serve the interests of the rich and powerful.
August 25th, 2007 at 4:45 am
no, its not up to a single person to prosecute or not. there are a lot of variables in the law, and in this case, he had to prosecute because the theatre pressed charges, and it was legitimate.
August 27th, 2007 at 6:08 am
destroy the customers, destroy the industry, destroy everything…