BOOTLEG MOVIES: LIABILITY S.B. 1386 (S-2) & 1387 (S-2):
FLOOR ANALYSIS
Senate Bill 1386 (Substitute S-2 as reported)
Senate Bill 1387 (Substitute S-2 as reported)
Sponsor: Senator Alan Sanborn
Committee: Judiciary
CONTENT
Senate Bill 1386 (S-2) would amend the Revised Judicature Act to provide civil immunity to certain people who detained an individual believed to have committed a motion picture recording violation (proposed by House Bill 5347). Specifically, if the owner or lessee of a theatrical facility in which a motion picture was being shown, or the owner's or lessee's authorized agent or employee, alerted a law enforcement agency of an alleged motion picture recording violation and took measures, while awaiting the arrival of law enforcement authorities, to detain an individual whom he or she had probable cause to believe committed the violation, the owner, lessee, agent, or employee would not be liable in a civil action arising out of the measures taken. This immunity would not apply, however, if the plaintiff showed that the measures taken were unreasonable and/or the period of detention was unreasonably long.
Senate Bill 1387 (S-2) would amend the Revised Judicature Act to specify that a person who committed a motion picture recording violation would be liable to a person injured by the violation for one or more of the following:
-- Actual damages.
-- Exemplary damages of not more than $1,000
-- Exemplary damages of not more than $50,000, if violator were acting for direct or indirect commercial advantage or financial gain.
-- Reasonable attorney fees and costs.
If the violator were an unemancipated minor who lived with his or her parent or parents, the parent or parents also would be liable to a person injured by the violation.
A person could recover damages only if a formal incident report containing factual allegations that the defendant committed a violation, were filed with a local law enforcement agency with jurisdiction over the location where the violation took place. Recovery of damages, however, would not depend on the outcome of a criminal prosecution.
A person injured by a motion picture recording violation could bring an action to enjoin someone from the unauthorized recording, receipt, or transmission of a recording or transmission of a motion picture or part of a motion picture obtained or made by a violation, or from committing a violation. A person could bring an action regardless of whether the person had suffered or would suffer actual damages. An action under the bill would be in addition to any other criminal or civil penalties or remedies provided by law.
Under Senate Bill 1387, "motion picture recording violation" would mean a violation of Section 465a of the Michigan Penal Code (proposed by House Bill 5347). "Person injured by a motion picture recording violation" would include, but not be limited to, the owner or lessee of the theatrical facility in which the motion picture was being shown.
The bills are tie-barred to House Bill 5347 and would take effect 90 days after their enactment.
Proposed MCL 600.2917a (S.B. 1386) Legislative Analyst: Patrick Affholter
Proposed MCL 600.2953a (S.B. 1387)
FISCAL IMPACT
To the extent that Senate Bills 1386 (S-2) and 1387 (S-2) would limit and expand, respectively, the circumstances under which someone can pursue civil litigation, they would have an indeterminate fiscal impact on the judiciary.
Date Completed: 9-23-04 Fiscal Analyst: Bethany Wicksall
Analysis was prepared by nonpartisan Senate staff for use by the Senate in its deliberations and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent. sb1386&1387/0304