Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Theatre Chain Sued for Abusive Search
An anonymous reader writes "A Canadian theater chain has been sued for an abusive search for camcording equipment. A Montreal woman is seeking $60,000 in damages for the search, which comes after the Canadian government caved to US pressure and enacted anti-camcording legislation."
The problem is she won't win VS Hollywood The oil industry already did something worse then ban camcorders in alberta http://www.brightcove.com/channel.jsp?channel=5981 99&lineup=987200225&firstVideo=0
The problem is Canadian politicians are selling out to the highest bidder, "In the name of progress"...
The problem is,it's a government mandate that had the theater chain even consider doing this stuff!
But, even if it had to be done, there are better ways to do it.
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
Anarchism is a range of political thought designed to grant the maximum workable amount of freedom and individual agency. That entails working with other people, and accepting that your freedom to swing your fist ends where someone else's nose begins. Anyone who doesn't accept that rule under a functioning anarchy will quickly find his nose disregarded by his neighbors and the other guy's friends, and eventually he'll find himself under strong pressure to either correct his behavior or move somewhere else and start over.*
This is different from the modern liberal social democratic state, where your freedom to swing your fist is regulated under the Arm Motion Act, section 213.8, second clause, and noses are defined under the Nasal Code, and people in blue oufits get to swing further, while illegal immigrants, ex-cons, and anyone else the government deems undesirable are declared to have little to no noses whatsoever.
Anarchy's fucking simple to understand, by comparison.
- mantar
* In fact, the prime requisites for a functioning anarchy are twofold: First, the citizens should be willing and prepared to defend members of their community against any initiator of violence. Second, the citizens should be reminded from time to time that they will never agree with the majority 100% of the time, and therefore when they are on that side, they should remember to be generous towards the minority's voice in any community decisions, if only in the hope that the majority will do likewise when it's their turn to disagree.
Neither of these are hard things to get people to do, and their cultural presence is why the United States has less ethnic strife than other regions, despite a rather scattershot transmission of these ideas which is all too often contradicted in American cultural dialogue.
I don't know. Most movie theaters around here (I'm not in Canada) are in malls and most people go shopping in malls (even when catching a flick). I don't think it would be out of the ordinary to sea people with two or three bags from different vendors. If the movie was one of the later ones, the shops would probably have been closed like they are in my area.
I wouldn't mind the search if it was up front and I was told about it when buying my tickets. But if it was inside the theater and after I went past the part where they rip the tickets in half and by some dumbass who treats you like your a shoplifter or something, I would have a serious problem with it.
I have/had a rather large cell phone with a clip on it and after losing it several times, I turn it around to where the phone is inside my pants pocket and the clip hangs on the outside. I had some punk at a department store accuse me of shoplifting after hanging up from a call. (This was in the mid 90's). None the less, I showed him the cell phone and it should have been dropped at that but he insisted that I empty everything in my pockets then attempted to take me by force to the management's office. I turned around and started walking out of the store and an off duty cop they rented stopped me. I told him he would have to arrest me and he put me in cuffs right there in front of every one.
Ok, long story short. I never got charged with anything because it was just my phone, about $40 and some change in my pockets and an over zealous stock boy. I guess the store gave their employees $100 plus the price of whatever was stolen if they catch a shoplifter. I sued the store for the embarrassment and hassle for $500, lawyer fees (who said I would probably lose) and the largest article in the local newspapers that they could buy to advertise an apology to me. The judge increased the the $500 to $10,000 and made them place a sign at the front of the store so everyone going in would know they messed up. I hear they did the same to someone else who got about $150,000 or so a couple years later from the same judge. I was 19 or 20 and almost lost a job paying twice as much as the normal in the area for the time because someone in management saw it happen and said they needed trust worthey employees working with them.
If what happened in Canada is even close to what happened to me, the $60,000 could be some normal number that something like this usually carries. It could have been her attorney asking for it more then her. I guess the judges and juries, at least in America, can increase the amount asked for under some conditions like the store encouraging the behavior. I hope that if it was something like what happened to me, they throw a couple of 1's and 0' around the $60,000 and makes the theater really think twice about how they handle people.
Some rights aren't waived by the kind of implicit contracts that just buying a ticket entail, and in Canada, apparently, the right to a certain level of privacy is one of them. I think that's a good thing.
Problem is, DVD's are pirated. Nobody gets any money from those and it shouldn't be too much longer until P2P usage exceeds the capability of WalMart to distribute DVDs to the masses. Sure, it will take faster download speeds than most people have today, but it is certainly coming. And there is no stopping it because the materials will be stored offshore.
So why would I go to a theater and pay $10 for a ticket when I can download the movie in an evening for nothing? And probably download it even before it is out in the theater near me.
The only way they get to keep revenue for movies is to not make DVDs and return to theater-only showings. You missed it in the theater? Fine, then it will be on TV in four or five years. Or maybe re-released to the theater. But if it comes out on DVD then nobody has to go to the theater, ever.
It is same thing with musicians losing revenue from recorded music and only getting paid for performances. The theater is the performance venue for movies.
I have never once witnessed a bag being searched going to a movie, and maybe the reason it is starting to happen in Canada is because of the number of camcorder pirates. Honestly, these guys irk me. I know plenty of people who stopped going to theaters because of how easy it is to download movies the week they open, free of charge on your computer. I think The Hulk was the first film they made a big deal about this, but there have been several cases where a film was either leaked during opening weekend, or before, and then the film makes considerably less money that weekend than was initially expected. When a company loses potentially tens of millions of dollars in a weekend because of a leak, people are going to get pissed, and at the moment it is hard to suggest that the whole thing is harmless.
People suggest the only people who would pirate are those who wouldn't buy it in the first place, and I know that just isn't true. For many people, pirating often comes down to how easy or difficult it is. Once a process is simpler, more people do it.
I have a hefty DVD collection, but I still enjoy the theater experience on the whole. It isn't the screen or audio (I like my TV and sound system) but rather being surrounded by an excited group who have been geeking out in anticipation of a movie. As fewer people are going to the movies, prices are going up to compensate. So while others are downloading movies, I get to pay for it.
Look, go catch a matinée, or wait until there is a cheap release of the DVD. My video store down the street usually has a 3 for 25$ deal going and I load up on those. I'm not advocating searches or harassment, and I hope theaters don't actually continue such tactics. But if people weren't bringing camcorders in the first place, no one would be pushing for searches.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
It's getting insane in the UK too. I don't like watching films at home, and attend a cinema most weeks. My regular companion goes several times a week (our combined ages total 97: we are not the standard demographic). Between us we probably rack up ~150 attendances a year. For a variety of not very good reasons we haven't purchased an unlimited films for twelve quid a month pass, we don't have Orange phones and we don't go on Wednesdays: we we're paying rack rate.
The screens are rarely full. We've paid our way. And yet we're subjected, week in and week out, to endless tedious trails about the evils of piracy, the low quality of bootleg DVDs, the illegality of filming, etc, etc. We've paid out money: pretty much by definition, we're not your prime enemy for the copy trade. In the UK it's highly arguable if using a camcorder in a cinema is a criminal (rather than civil) offence, and the chances of going to gaol are approximately zero. So why hassle your audience, and piss them off?
And anyway, no-one pirates minority films. The main trade is in big blockbusters, which have merchandise associated. The bootleg gets children buying that just as well as the cinema.
An anecdote. I was at a folk festival, Thursday--Sunday. Most people arrived late Thursday afternoon. At a workshop on Friday, someone was able to use that `Spiderpig' thing from the Simpsons Movie as an exercise, and every child knew it. TSM opened on Thursday. Had everyone (a) as I did, attended one of the handful of cinemas that previewed it on Wednesday (b) walked in the rain into central Cambridge the previous evening or (c) seen a bootleg? Given the hideous middle-classery of the event, and the assumption the answer is (c), what does this say about the hearts and minds issue?
Same here. I have last been into movies -92.
Why in the hell I would like to watch a movie with hundreds of assholes I don't even know?
Possible SPOILERS follow.
Actually. I didn't like The Simpsons movie all that much. I would have preferred more "moviesque" script. It seemed like a stretched out episode. Or perhaps episode segments from three shows mashed up together. I'm not sure if it was wholly intentional, but it seemed like rehash of 3F24 (The Mysterious Voyage of Homer). The short nods at previous episodes were quite fun mostly, but at one point in the movie I already thought "Simpsons did it!".
Whoops, sorry about going off-topic.
Bot Assisted Blogging
First off is that Anarchy DOES mean a state of lawlessness due to the absence of government.
Anarchy: An = without, Archos = rulers. We have plenty of words for chaos, but this one has a rather nasty bias in that it implies that rulers are absolutely required for order. We've always tried to discourage this usage, since it serves to tie up two ideas in people's minds and makes it difficult to discuss them separately. (Much like the concepts of "morality" and "religion," but even more strongly bound up.)
However the larger problem is that you are talking about a system that is unworkable because it relies on ideal people, not real people.
Seriously wrong here. Anarchism is a non-utopian political ideology. It starts from the premise that people are flawed and can't be trusted - all other political ideologies hold that you can trust at least some people, and should permit them to be in charge of you. They often muddle this by telling you that you'll also be in charge of them, but that's not really how it works out. (Try telling your governor to get out of the capitol building, and see who's in charge of who when security arrives. Heh!)
Anarchism says that since we know power corrupts, (see stanford guard experiments if you doubt it) it should be a no-brainer to refuse to grant anyone more power than is absolutely necessary, and to jealously guard our freedom from others who seek power over us.
Communism is a similar system.
Well, not really. Properly speaking, Anarchism is not a system. It does not define what the world will look like, or how everyone's lives will be ordered. Communism is a system, but is orthogonal to anarchism. Communism can be totalitarian (Soviet Union) or anarchist (Amish communities), and anarchism could describe a communist, socialist, mutualist, or agorian system. (from left-to-right on the political spectrum)
Anarcho-communism is a system, anarcho-socialism is a system, but anarchism is not a system, any more than totalitarianism is a system. It's a way of defining the characteristics of social organization, without detailing the actual organization itself.
You find that in areas that lack a government to enforce the rules, the kind of Anarchy you get is chaos, and the strong ruling the weak.
It's important to note that the weak outnumber the strong, and when they stop feeling helpless and afraid, they can overwhelm the strong quite handily, and this has happened many times in history. Much of the art of government is persuading people to feel helpless and alone, so they can be ruled more easily.
You and a group of friends can get together and decide that you are all going to be helpful and work together, but if I come along with better weapons and more people, you are going to do what I say or I am going to kill you. You can say that's against the rules, but that will do little to stop the bullets.
You should really do some reading on the subject before you go tossing out assertions like that.
Yeah, I can get together with others and decide to work together, and you can come over with better weapons and more people, but historically oppressors tend to be a minority, even without any solidarity among the non-oppressors. (Consider whether you'd prefer stealing $10 each from every billionaire, or stealing $1 each from every poor person. The former might get you a nice TV set, the latter will buy you a mansion.) Me and my friends will be armed, and some of your guys are bound to die. What's more, if my neighbors are enlightened, they'll pick up their guns and start coming at your back, and you'll be cut off and surrounded. (Solidarity in action.)
I think it should be pretty damn obvious from the twentieth century that having better weapons and more guys does NOT get you a victory anymore. Guerrilla warfare can pin down and cripple the biggest and most expensive militaries in the world.
I wonder what they are gonna do when cell phones and similar devices are able to take hi quality video?
PLEASE LEAVE YOUR BAG AT THE DOOR. (It will cost extra of course)
I already rarely go to the cinema due to the obscene prices, offensive FACT adverts, and excessive number of other ads, but if they started doing this kind of thing in the UK, rarely would turn into never. Then, the movie industry would blame falling cinema attendance on piracy. In a way, they'd be right, but only in that it was caused by their responses to perceived piracy.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The Conservative party has a long history of selling out to the Americans. It shouldn't surprise anybody anymore. Just expect it when you cast your ballot for them.
I live in Montreal, and I've been to Guzzo theaters many times. It sucks. The people who run the projectors are idiots, and there's always a problem with the film. The seats are comfortable, but what's the point spending $10 for comfortable seats when you can just go to Famous Players, and get comfortable seats + a decent sized screen & sound loud enough that you don't hear the projector?
Guzzo, from every theater I've been to, is strictly cash based. You can't buy tickets using an Interac or credit card or anything. Odd how they can't invest in a machine to make it a little more convenient for their clients. Then again, this has sparked the rumor that their entire operation is a money-laundering operation for the Mafia.
Five seconds? It's 10 to 15 seconds - in English. Then another 10 to 15 - in French. Occasionally there's another 10 to 15 in Spanish. Then a 5 second animated logo. Followed by an 8 second animated logo. Then the previews come up and you're finally allowed to skip out to the main menu. This can be a long time if you're a parent :)
And the parent post makes a very valid point. You only have to put up with this penalty if you paid for the movie. Some incentive.
And your solution is to watch it on the computer with a player that uses the notorious evil DMCA-violating de-CSS software?
For the stuff my kids and I watch often, there are 2 copies in the case. The original that I bought and a rip containing only the movie.
Besides, you know it's your DVD player that ultimately enforces whether or not you can skip through commercials and the FBI notice. If you're that upset about it, why don't you use electronics that don't tell you what you can or can't do? (There are plenty of software DVD players that will not enforce this meaningless restriction.)
Which would also presumably be illegal anyway.
Anti-piracy is BS because pirates are not troubled by it and the legitimately paying moviegoing public suffers twice. First they pay for a ticket, then they sit through commercials, then movie previews, and then anti-piracy messages. Pirated editions simply show the movie and nothing more. If you pay to watch a movie in a theatre you are guaranteed an inferior experience to piracy.
I'm also VERY interested in finding out a good digital recording set up, with high end mikes...for recording concerts live. Not for money making, but, for personal collections...share with friends..etc. It needs to be small, high end...and have long recording times...2+ hours at high fidelity.
Any suggestions?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Well as far as i know unless from a official law officer, a security guard or theater employe has no right to search you. Even for a police officer a resonable cause is needed in order to search or even ask for your identification. Just refuse the search plain and simple or make them call the police. In canada police doesnt even bother coming to theaters for a cam issue. The will tell you sorry we have real crimes to care about.