However, Sejas’s sole purpose in making the recording was to show a portion of a movie that was only available in theaters to someone who had hadn’t paid for it.

While the first factor of the four-pronged Fair Use Test is often referred to as its “soul”, it is by no means the sole (har, har) determinant. Here, you are confusing the issue by limiting your discussion of purpose to use and utility, without allowing for intent to give the situation context.

First, let us recognize the inherent limitations of the medium Sejas chose for duplication. Cell phones have an extremely limited amount of video recording time — certainly not 143 minutes — and unbelievably poor video recording quality. No one with enough intelligence to use the video recording features of a cell phone would make the assumption that they could record a full movie on such a device.

Second, conjecture and supposition are not adequate grounds for charging someone with a crime. If Sejas had actually recorded 15 minutes of the film, instead of 20 seconds, it would be illogical to assume she was trying to record only a small clip.

Third, even if we ignore intent, any work that cuts out over 99% of its inspiration must be at least considered transformative and not merely derivative.

We may reasonably infer, from those three reasons, that Sejas’ intent was not to duplicate the film, but instead to record a clip of it. And what are clips used for? Sampling, criticism, editorializing (among other things.) All of these are historically protected purposes. It does not matter if her audience was one (her brother) or a readership of dozens; the intent is important.

To consider the other criteria for fair use, such a small portion of the copyrighted work (0.2231%, to be precise) is negligible and cannot possibly have an effect on the market for the copyrighted work. One written paragraph full of spoilers in a newspaper or blog would likely do more to dissuade viewers than twenty seconds of action — or more likely in this case, pathetic dialogue.

Of course, I could be completely wrong and she could’ve been recording the very first 20 seconds of the movie. This leaves open the distinct possibility that she was stopped before she could record further, and her intent was indeed to record significant parts of the film so that her brother could watch it without paying. But from the tone of the article, that seems unlikely.

How is this not the definition of piracy?

Piracy is robbery or illegal violence at sea. This is alleged copyright infringement, to which fair use would be an affirmative defense. Yes, I know I’m being pedantic.

To answer the question, though, your original statement fits that definition but that sentence is not appropriate in this situation. For all you mention the other “prongs” of the Fair Use Test, you have ignored them in favor of making your point.

Plus, I disagree with your point. :P

Are the torrent sites justified? Yes; this case should not be about copyright infringement, but rather on the merits of ban on recording in theaters. That is an open-and-shut case. But by proclaiming the girl guilty of copyright infringement, it’s pretty obvious they were looking to make an example of her and, probably, use her case to support their personal agenda. So the torrent sites’ protests are pretty damn valid, hypocrisy notwithstanding.