Student Arrested For Live Streaming A Movie On Facebook

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
If your car is stolen, you have to go to the police station, fill out a report and cross your fingers. If you are the victim of an assault, you have to call the police and hope they catch the person. If you are live streaming a movie on Facebook, the police in another country will contact the police in your area and an arrest will be made before the movie is even over. :eek:

A student has been arrested in Chicago for filming at a movie premiere and live streaming it on the Internet. The individual reportedly used a camera phone to live stream on Facebook but the infringement was monitored by an anti-piracy outfit 8,200 miles away in India who alerted police in the United States.
 
What an F'ing idiot, I mean why would this person even think this would be a good idea?

EDIT:

Update: Contrary to Bluesky’s report, Commander Gregory Nazuka of the Rosemont police department informed Fortune that no arrest was made. According to him the theater owner merely filed a police report online.
 
EchoWars said:
...because we all know that in Chicago, the cops have nothing better to do, what with all the peace and civility everywhere.
Click to expand...

They are doing what they should, letting them all kill each other.
 
So basically the movie distributor blatantly lied to make a salacious news headline in order to deter other would be pirates?

I wonder if the theater owner just found and kicked the offender out, or didn't even care other than file the police report to show they did their due diligence.
 
EchoWars said:
...because we all know that in Chicago, the cops have nothing better to do, what with all the peace and civility everywhere.
Click to expand...

Ugh. Fuck this city. Call about an assault happening, they'll show up maybe 45 minutes later and give you a hard time about making them have to do paperwork...

One of their buddies get sneezed on? Paddy wagon for you will show up in 20 seconds.
 
There is some interesting information left out from this article.

How did the anti-piracy watch dog know that THIS person was filming and relaying the video?

How did they get HIS location?

It seems like either this guy was incredibly open about his intentions well ahead of time, or there are some people that have incredible access to Facebook. Or something in between those two extremes.
 
DrLobotomy said:
I didn't know that made a difference. All souls are clear.
Click to expand...

You're right, I watched the blond haired, blue eyed caucasian female bartender getting beaten up by one of Chicagos finest. Chi-Towns LEO's got some issues.
 
westrock2000 said:
There is some interesting information left out from this article.

How did the anti-piracy watch dog know that THIS person was filming and relaying the video?

How did they get HIS location?

It seems like either this guy was incredibly open about his intentions well ahead of time, or there are some people that have incredible access to Facebook. Or something in between those two extremes.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but most movies have watermarks that identify where they're being shown. When I saw Capt. America, they had a smudge that moved around the screen.
 
Steve said:
If your car is stolen, you have to go to the police station, fill out a report and cross your fingers. If you are the victim of an assault, you have to call the police and hope they catch the person. If you are live streaming a movie on Facebook, the police in another country will contact the police in your area and an arrest will be made before the movie is even over. :eek:
Click to expand...

Some crimes are easier to solve than others. This one was easy to solve. No big deal.
 
It's about priorities:

People < Corporations

And it's a criminal offence, when clearly it should be a civil. So this person now faces three years in jail. Their life could be completely ruined by this.
 
NeoNemesis said:
It's about priorities:

People < Corporations

And it's a criminal offence, when clearly it should be a civil. So this person now faces three years in jail. Their life could be completely ruined by this.
Click to expand...

Piracy is still considered theft under Federal Law in 1992 and the Copyright Act in 1993. While I agree that the definition of piracy needs to be revisited given the exponential digital shift in modern society, it's hard to feel bad for these people. I feel bad because he might face jail time (probably not), but it's hardly new information. He knew that recording the video was illegal; he did it anyway. Regardless of the philosophical debate between piracy and theft, he is an idiot for engaging in an act that he very well knew could land him in legal trouble.
 
A) The company informed the Theater.

B) The Theater manager called the cops

C) The cops didn't arrest the guy

Right there are 3 levels of sanity checks. I think the bigger issue are "news" sites misreporting events.
 
Krixon said:
Piracy is still considered theft under Federal Law in 1992 and the Copyright Act in 1993. While I agree that the definition of piracy needs to be revisited given the exponential digital shift in modern society, it's hard to feel bad for these people. I feel bad because he might face jail time (probably not), but it's hardly new information. He knew that recording the video was illegal; he did it anyway. Regardless of the philosophical debate between piracy and theft, he is an idiot for engaging in an act that he very well knew could land him in legal trouble.
Click to expand...

why does digital matter? What you really mean is that it needs to be revisited because people are self entitled and think they shouldn't have to pay for anything.
 
westrock2000 said:
How did the anti-piracy watch dog know that THIS person was filming and relaying the video?

How did they get HIS location?
Click to expand...
Even though the story is fabricated... he streamed on Facebook so they know who, and did you see the name of the movie? "A Aa" some foreign made chick flick could not have been playing at more than a single theater at the time, hint premier
 
Phew! Now that we got this guy they can work on the small time stuff like murderers and child molesters.
 
umeng2002 said:
A) The company informed the Theater.

B) The Theater manager called the cops

C) The cops didn't arrest the guy

Right there are 3 levels of sanity checks. I think the bigger issue are "news" sites misreporting events.
Click to expand...

It didn't happen in this case, but it's scary that we have laws on the books that would make it possible for someone to go to jail for something like this.
 
nilepez said:
Maybe, but most movies have watermarks that identify where they're being shown. When I saw Capt. America, they had a smudge that moved around the screen.
Click to expand...

You could actually see an artifact? WTF kind of user experience is that?
 
Exavior said:
why does digital matter? What you really mean is that it needs to be revisited because people are self entitled and think they shouldn't have to pay for anything.
Click to expand...

That's not at all what I said, but kudos for finding it anyway. And I would suggest refraining from reducing the argument via a straw man logical fallacy; it only serves to weaken your position.

Piracy needs to be revisited in a legal sense because it simply does not have the same outcome as classical theft. Theft has two outcomes: (1) An individual (corporations included) is deprived of an asset; (2) An individual (corporations included) illicitly acquires an asset.

Piracy only fulfills the second of those criteria as the original owner is not deprived of ownership. Now, it can easily be argued that the original owner is deprived of the net profit that would have resulted from a sale, but this is an ambiguous argument and one that courts the world over have struggled to define in a legal sense. What if the person pirating the data would never have paid for it in the first place? What if the person pirating could not have purchased the data to begin with? (regional restrictions in software/entertainment releases for example). These are the kinds of legal questions that have kept piracy from being redefined outside the scope of the 1992 and 1993 decisions.

Piracy is a crime, and should remain a crime; however, it is a crime that bears only passing resemblance to outright theft and, as such, must be revisited by the courts - just as the punitive ramifications of robbery are different from theft, or grand larceny is different from petty theft.
 
While I may or may not agree with your arguments...no matter how you consider a law being bad or needing revisiting does not in any way change the facts of how the law is now. Under how the law is applied now, piracy is treated as theft. Nobody should be surprised in this day & age how they'll can be charged if they get caught.
 
Miah said:
While I may or may not agree with your arguments...no matter how you consider a law being bad or needing revisiting does not in any way change the facts of how the law is now. Under how the law is applied now, piracy is treated as theft. Nobody should be surprised in this day & age how they'll can be charged if they get caught.
Click to expand...

The was my original point in my initial post. The kid was an idiot for streaming the movie knowing full well that he could get in trouble.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top