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."

Comments

Good Lord.

[ushering05401]

Anyone willing to watch a camcorder bootleg of a movie is not going to shell out for the product anyhow.

I hope this lady wins.

Regards.

Re:Good Lord.

[flayzernax]

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"...

Re:Good Lord.

[Anonymous Coward]

my arse....

I got a cam of the simpsons movie cos I dont plan to watch it at the cinemas
but I will buy it....like I have done to alot of cams I've initially watched

Re:Good Lord.

[waynelorentz]

which comes after the Canadian government caved to US pressure and enacted anti-camcording legislation."

Geez, it only took the Canuks what... like two seconds... to blame the 'States?

Everything that goes wrong north of the border is the fault of people south of the border. You're starting to sound like a passive aggressive version of Arizona.

Re:Good Lord.

[westlake]

Anyone willing to watch a camcorder bootleg of a movie is not going to shell out for the product anyhow.

What the camcorder audience wants is their free first-run media fix, quality be damned. What they want is to sound convincing when their friends begin talking about the new must-see Spiderman or Transformers.

Re:Good Lord.

[igb]

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?

Re:Good Lord.

[Anonymous Coward]

That might be the case in the US or other Zone 1 countries..

However, most of us in the southern hemisphere (zone 4) get to see the hype, watch the trailers etc at the same time as the US. However, the movie does not usually get released in the cinema here until well after there are DVD-rips online. It's fine to wait for a movie, but there are limits to what is reasonable.

Zoning for movies, television and games might not be the root cause of piracy, but it sure doesn't help.

Re:Good Lord.

[RuBLed]

but look on the bright side, the version of simpsons the movie you just watched contains a laugh track.

Re:Good Lord.

[the not-troll]

Exactly. They should stand up for themselves instead of claiming the USians forced them to do it. After all, the US is all nice, never ever invading a country not doing its bidding.

Re:Good Lord.

[Fizzl]

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.

Re:Good Lord.

[dave1791]

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.

Would you mind rephrasing that in English? Something about 12 (I presume) GB pounds per month for unlimited trips to the cinema, something else about phones being orange having something to do with going on Wednesdays and something else...

Re:Good Lord.

[NorQue]

First Simpsons bootleg hit the net on July, 28th/Saturday.

Re:Good Lord.

[jez9999]

But at least they don't have to sit thru all that anti-piracy bullshit.

Re:Good Lord.

[LordSnooty]

He's saying that he pays full price for the cinema tickets... he doesn't take advantage of special offers or cheap days, he pays full price, and still they bombard him with anti-piracy messages.

Re:Good Lord.

[igb]

Here outside London a trip to the cinema costs about five pounds (five quid, a fiver). You can typically buy an `as many films as you want' pass for about twelve quid a month, but tied to one cinema. Which works if you see all your films at that cinema, but is a less good deal if you sometimes go to an arthouse or whatever. It superficially pays back at the third film, but there are a variety of offers (Tuesdays are typically only three pounds, before six o'clock most days ditto, family tickets which essentially give the parents the child reduction, etc, etc) which reduce the average cost. If your mobile phone is from the operator `Orange' then they have a huge nationwide promotion, `Orange Wednesday', which offers two-for-one cinema tickets to holders of their phones.

Tonight I'm going to see a digital projection of a clean transfer of `Goldfinger'. It's priced at £2.50.

Re:Good Lord.

[Threni]

> In the UK it's highly arguable if using a camcorder in a cinema is a criminal (rather than civil) offence,

"Highly arguable"? You make it sound like copyright infringement hasn't been a criminal offence in the UK for almost 20 years.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_1988004 8_en_1.htm

Re:Good Lord.

[91degrees]

Anyone willing to watch a camcorder bootleg of a movie is not going to shell out for the product anyhow.

It sounds logical, but speaking for my circle of friends, the heaviest pirates seem to be the people who are most likely to see a film several times and buy a hell of a lot of DVDs.

Re:Good Lord.

[camperslo]

A few years ago there were reports of far more advanced methods of dealing with cam pirates.

They apparently can encode info such as theatre location into audio watermarks, photograph relevant areas/people where characteristic reflections from lenses focused towards the screen are detected, and degrade recordings through light pulses that are not (very?) noticeable to viewers.

Camera image sensors generally are sensitive to IR, but have it blocked by filtering (which likely would increase reflections in that spectrum). Some have modified webcams for IR use by removing internal filtering. Ironically exposed film apparently works as a filter to pass IR while blocking the visible spectrum pretty well. The link includes a graph indicating that the sensors in cameras, before filtering is added, are actually more sensitive to IR than the visible spectrum.

Taking a camcorder into a theatre is a bad idea. It's too bad we've got people being searched, and apparently photographed too. Seems like there's no privacy anywhere. It reminds me of that PC virus that turned on peoples webcams without them knowing it. Kinda makes one laugh and then groan.

Re:Good Lord.

[FrostyCoolSlug]

I found the 'Who shot Mr. Burns' episodes much more entertaining than the movie. Although when I watched it, there was absolutely no one laughing at any point during the movie.. So either us Londoners are humourless, or in fact, the movie really did suck :p

They came up with some crazy advertising which resulted in a massive box office hit, but how many people actually came away satisfied?

Re:Good Lord.

[nyekulturniy]

Why is anti-piracy "bs?" Movies cost money to make. People put time and money into making these products, and they have a right to be compensated for their services. People sink money into real estate, projectors, wages, insurance, and popcorn equipment, and they have the right to be compensated for their services. We aren't talking Brad Pitt and his $30 million for a picture; we're talking about the film technicians and the movie theater employees, neither of which are on the gravy train. Those are the ones piracy hurts.

If you don't like the prices a company offers for its services, you can find an alternative or do without. You don't have the right to steal the product.

Canada has had the highest number of camcorder incidents, particularly in Quebec, according to the National Association of Theater Owners. It is getting to the point where Canada might not get first released pictures unless they prevent theft of services.

Re:Good Lord.

[Curtman]

The problem is Canadian politicians are selling out to the highest bidder,

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.

Re:Good Lord.

[Darkinspiration]

Then why the heck do i have to suffer fbi warning, and unskippable commercials on a bought dvd movie? pirates don't have to suffer that. that's why it's called bullshit

Re:Good Lord.

[Anonymous Coward]

You meant to ask if he would mind rephrasing that in American. It was already in English. Here goes, try to imagine Cletus the slack-jawed yokel from the Simpsons:

"I ain't gettin me one of them there passus, heck thems more'n twenty dollers a month. We ain't gotten no vid-jo mobiles an' we don go on Wednesdays when we could get us a reeeduction. We is paying the full price."

Re:Good Lord.

[Lefty2446]

I respectfully disagree. With the motion picture industry the way it is these days with bad movies being hyped into existance this household regularly downloads cam movies to evaluate the product. If its a good movie we then purchase it on a pressed DVD.

Music OTOH we don't go and purchase the disc for mainstream music anyway. Probably because the downloadable version is of reasonable quality already. I listen to http://www.triplej.abc.net.au/ in Australia. It has a lot of noise but occasionally there is a gem that probably won't make it to the mainstream radio stations - these artists we buy.

Re:Good Lord.

[dwandy]

Maybe because your man-about-the-town Wilkin (US Ambasador to Canada) makes speaches where he states that he is going to ask for Canadians to pass laws, and the MPAA (the US group representing Hollywood) wants Canada on the watch list and the USTR puts Canada on the watch list citing specifically cam'ing as an issue. (More details are here)

So before you act all indignant-like better double-check the actions of your representatives.

I can't verify it now (damn firewall!), but I'm pretty sure this is the video explaining how to get Canadian legislation passed...

Re:Good Lord.

[Stevecrox]

Spiderpig has been a simpsons trailer for U,12,15 and 18 films I've gone to see recently so its not hard for everyone to know it. Myself and most of my freinds all went to see that horrible Harry Potter film at different times, we all saw it.

The big issue for me is the 20 - 30 minutes of trailers, if its some small rubbish film then you can count on 20 minutes of trailers which start at the cinema's listed start time, but bigger boxoffice films can have 30 minutes! Take transformers due to a bit of idiocy I bought the 20:15 showing tickets at 20:45 I walked in the cinema screen at 20:50 to find the BBFC message just starting to play thats 35 minutes of trailers and adverts after paying £5.50 for a film I can't see why I should be subjected to roughly an hours worth of adverts before I get to see the film. For anyone wondering why an hour my local cinema complex rarely has a empty theatre and its a good idea to get there 20 minutes early.

Do you know what else bothers me? Just before spiderman 3 was released I was on thepiratebay.org hoping a game patch would be torrented and came accross a movie listed as spiderman 3, if you do look on TPB you'll find a bunch of High Def movie rips. Yet a few days later in the cinema I'm sat waiting for Spiderman 3 to start watching the "its the expearence that counts" (using spiderman as its example) telling me pirated films aren't as good. I know full well I could have got a 720x576 with 5.1 sound Xvid file off the internet days earlier than the films release. Why are they telling us to goto the cinema when I'm there, I'm in the cinema because I can't get a 20ft screen with and incredible sound system at home you've won just stop lieing to me.

Re:Good Lord.

[Bud Dickman]

Why should I have to sit through an anti-piracy warning every time I want to watch a DVD that I purchased? I've paid money for the product and they continue to tell me not to steal from them and threaten me.

Yeah, unskippable warnings on legally bought DVDs are bs. Why do you think that's tolerable?

Re:Good Lord.

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not theft of services nor theft of any other kind. Nothing is being stolen.
 
Its copyright infringement at worst.

Re:Good Lord.

[igb]

For anyone wondering why an hour my local cinema complex rarely has a empty theatre and its a good idea to get there 20 minutes early.

Which points up the idiocy of the claims that `piracy' is killing cinemas: Cinema attendances are healthier than they've been since the early 1970s. There are about 35 screens within a mile of the centre of Birmingham, and a further fifty to a hundred within five miles. In the late 1970s cinemas were closing, or being converted into bingo halls and concert venues. Every cinema I went to as a child in the sixties and seventies had gone by 1985, and today's cinemas are all new build. If cinema's in such trouble, why did a new 12 screen open a couple of years ago only two hundred yards from an existing 10 screen?

I know full well I could have got a 720x576 with 5.1 sound Xvid file off the internet days earlier than the films release. Why are they telling us to goto the cinema when I'm there, I'm in the cinema because I can't get a 20ft screen with and incredible sound system at home you've won just stop lieing to me.

I shout that complaint at the screen (silently) every time I see that silly advert. Stop hassling me: I've paid. Hassle the people who haven't. Stop treating your paying customers, in my case regular paying customers, as criminals.

Re:Good Lord.

[piojo]

Then why the heck do i have to suffer fbi warning, and unskippable commercials on a bought dvd movie? pirates don't have to suffer that. that's why it's called bullshit Come on, really. Suffer through the FBI warning? The movie industry has a perfectly good reason to want you to know that copying movies is illegal, and you can bear the five seconds it takes to sit through that notice.

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.)

Re:Good Lord.

[FLEB]

If the movies were that lousy, there'd be no incentive to go or pirate them. Apparently they have some desirability-- having a place to get them with a lot less expenditure doesn't explicitly speak for or against the quality.

That said, the movies do kinda suck lately-- especially this year.

Re:Good Lord.

[FLEB]

You're missing the point-- I the PP was annoyed with the industry's commercial pleadings that are tacked onto the beginning of shows. It's another piece of irrelevant advertising, with a tone that's accusatory to the uninvolved and laughable to the pirates, and interrupts the experience for everyone.

Re:Good Lord.

[FLEB]

And, clearly, since "copyright infringement" is a multi-syllable word that takes thought to understand, it can't be wrong.

Re:Good Lord.

[maddskillz]

But there is a difference. When you download an mp3, the quality is pretty comparable to the CD
The shelby cobra replicas can be just as good as the original, but without the history.
A camcorder copy of a movie just looks bad, and has bad sound...now a dvd rip...that's a whole other story

Re:Good Lord.

[z80kid]

You're kidding, right?

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.

Re:Good Lord.

[markxz]

Visible watermarking is used on many release films (including those shown from digital cinema systems)

The distributes claim that the code is not visible, however it is (especially if you know what you are looking for). It appears for one frame in the film (1/24 of a second) often repeated a few times throughout the reel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coded_Anti-Piracy

Re:Good Lord.

[alaffin]

Right.

Because it wasn't the Liberals who tabled Bill C-60 (which in turn, wasn't defeated when the the Conservatives brought in a vote of non-confidence, admittedly on a completely different subject). It wasn't a Liberal MP who criticized the Harper administration for doing, and I quote, "zilch on this issue." [link] and who was busy this spring crafting a private members bill that would impose stiffer penalties on bootleggers. It's all the Conservative parties faults.

Christ, some of you Liberal mouthpieces make Microsoft FUD look reasonable.

Re:Good Lord.

[schon]

If you don't like the prices a company offers for its services, you can find an alternative I did - it's called bittorrent.

Re:Good Lord.

[pnewhook]

Maybe there should be a fine for being really really shallow...

Re:Good Lord.

[pnewhook]

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.

Would you mind rephrasing that in English?

That's funny - the American asking the Brit to speak English... You do realize they originated the language?

Re:Good Lord.

[z80kid]

You meant to ask if he would mind rephrasing that in American. It was already in English. Here goes, try to imagine Cletus...

Dang! Thet wuz funny!

Jeebus! Wish ahh had sum ah them mod poynts. Ahh'd a mod you up fer thet!

:)

Re:Good Lord.

[mdwh2]

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.

Re:Good Lord.

[piojo]

It's really that bad? I guess I haven't watched DVDs in a while. I always preferred rips, anyway. I think your solution is pretty good--buy it, then rip a copy. Especially because your kids can't be expected to have the technical savvy to watch it on the right software-based player.

And yes, I do think that people should watch movies with "the notorious evil DMCA-violating de-CSS software". I think everybody in the US should do it. This particular provision of the DMCA is immoral, and should be broken by as many people as possible. On a side note, good job to the movie industry--you have made it illegal to watch movies on Linux.

Re:Good Lord.

[spyrochaete]

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.

Re:Good Lord.

[mdwh2]

I loved the anti-piracy ad the last time I went to the cinema, dissuading us from watching downloaded versions people had filmed (I'm not sure why they tell us that, given that we've decided to pay for the cinema, but anyway) - it went on about how you get problems in the downloaded copy, like people getting up and blocking the view.

Oh yeah, just like you get in a real cinema.

Re:Good Lord.

[MysteriousPreacher]

You can't blame the player, it's just respecting the settings on the disc. It's the creator of the disc that is responsible. Consumers should not have to hunt around for a specific type of DVD player just so they can skip this junk.

The version of Shrek 2 that I bought contained the following.

Anti-piracy advert (About a minute)
Random clips of Unversal films (about 30 seconds)
Madagascar advert. This advert was a bloody tedious interview in which Ben Stiller told us how good the film is. It lasted around 5 minutes.

Overall, that's about 5 minutes of unskippable junk, unless my DVD player breaks the rules a little by allowing this stuff to be skipped. It doesn't matter whether or not my player can bypass this stuff, it's the fact that Universal expect its customers to sit through this anytime they want to watch a film they paid for. I returned the disc.

I think it's sensible that Universal should state that the film is protected by copyright. They should do this by printing a warning on the disc and the box. They should not be forcing customers to sit through this tedium each time they watch the film.

If they continue to try to control the user experience to this extent, they can't be surprised when piracy becomes a more attractive option. Pirated products should not be superior to the original.

if you're interested in the madagascar thing, see these links. I wasn't the only one pissed off by it. Thankfully they seem to have removed the advert from later versions. I'm still not paying for Shrek or any Universal DVDs if I can avoid them.

http://www.supercalafragalistic.com/madagascarrevi ew.htm
http://lists.evolt.org/archive/Week-of-Mon-2007040 9/189359.html
http://www.aubreyturner.org/index.php?/orglog/2006 /04/

Re:Good Lord.

[vertinox]

People put time and money into making these products, and they have a right to be compensated for their services.

Actually, the original intent of the copyright clause in the US constitution was to promote "useful arts and sciences" but not to guarantee anyone the right to make money.

No one guarantees you the right to anything other than freedom and personal property. Unfortunately, copyright laws are being used in order to have a planned economy of intellectual property and in a sense is no better than socialism in that these organizations use government to earn money rather than have to actually work to create new works which would promote culture and science.

Heck... I'm fine with limited times on copyright, recourse in civil suits for infringement, and the right for authors to take protective measures against piracy, but when those measures include the abuse of others freedoms and the exploitation of government to enforce their policies in order to simply make a profit at the expense of the innocent then I strongly disagree.

Re:Good Lord.

[Hatta]

Jesus christ, if you're going to post an informative link make sure the content isn't in flash. I was interested, but I can't view that. Don't you have a news article?

Re:Good Lord.

[vertinox]

it can't be wrong.

No, but it is the difference between "murder" and "aggravated assault".

Don't joke around with meanings of words when you deal with the legal systems. One set of words will get you a slap on the wrist, the other might get you life.

Re:Good Lord.

[BigDogCH]

"Why do you think that's tolerable?"

Because people keep buying them.

Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if we start to see advertising in between DVD tracks soon.

Re:Good Lord.

[cayenne8]

"Exactly. They should stand up for themselves instead of claiming the Americans forced them to do it. "

There...fixed that for you.

Re:Good Lord.

[markov_chain]

I can't get over how you guys pay in pounds. Do you bring a little sack of gold dinars or something? :)

Re:Good Lord.

[metarox]

We have the "blamecanada" tag, maybe we need the "blameusa" tag now =]

Re:Good Lord.

[FLEB]

Yeah, but I'm not dealing with legal systems, nor am I concerned with the degrees of legal retribution.

I'm just annoyed that the people who always chime in with "It's not theft, it's copyright infringement.", are playing the flip-side of the same card. Although "theft" may be untrue to the discussion, by oversimplification and calling upon a basic known "evil", using nothing more than the argument "But it's not theft, it's infringement" does the opposite disservice, by obscuring the argument and framing it wholly within the legal construct. Also, to simply drop in with this quip (unless the first argument consists of nothing more than "It's THEFT, dammit!") appears to strive to construct a false link of "Theft=Wrong, Not theft=Not wrong, Infringement=Not theft, so Infringement=Not wrong".

Re:Good Lord.

[vertinox]

Yeah, but I'm not dealing with legal systems, nor am I concerned with the degrees of legal retribution.

Huh? Then what would be the ramifications of the US congress either abolishing copyrights tomorrow or enacting the death penalty for it?

The reasons the copyright argument exists is because there is a legal definition for it.

If you hit a pedestrian with a car would you rather be charged with murder or manslaughter? Either way... You killed him intentionally or not, but your punishment is going to be determined on which one of those definitions a jury of your peers apply to you.

Certainly you would hope to get a jury with an understanding with the difference. This is why people need to understand the difference between copyright infringement and theft.

By law they are two completely different violations of the law and the trying to say theft and infringement are one and the same is like saying murder and manslaughter are exactly the same.

And it matters because public opinion does affect the legal system one way or another.

Re:Good Lord.

[Bud Dickman]

"Because people keep buying them."

My point was that I don't believe it is wrong to complain about certain anti-piracy campaigns the MPAA has undertaken. Regardless of whether people are willing to sit through them, that kind of nonsense is not tolerable to me and therefore I am perfectly justified in my complaints.

Re:Good Lord.

[Zaatxe]

Anyone willing to watch a camcorder bootleg of a movie is not going to shell out for the product anyhow.

Anyone willing to watch a camcorder bootleg of a movie deserves a psychiatric treatment.
There, I correct if for you.

Re:Good Lord.

[miskatonic alumnus]

Yeah, but I'm not dealing with legal systems, nor am I concerned with the degrees of legal retribution.

And apparently, you're not concerned with using the correct word/phrase in a discussion. Why not replace "copyright infringement" with jaywalking or murder?

Also, to simply drop in with this quip (unless the first argument consists of nothing more than "It's THEFT, dammit!") appears to strive to construct a false link of "Theft=Wrong, Not theft=Not wrong, Infringement=Not theft, so Infringement=Not wrong".

To call "copyright infringement" theft is to make it seem that the victim has lost property (or the use of it) as in "They stole my car" or "They stole my diamond ring". Talk about obfuscation.

Re:Good Lord.

[pnewhook]

Actually American english is the way it is because the majority of people settling there were uneducated, and couldn't speak, write, read or spell properly. So why dont you STFU. And people with english as a second language are often much better qualified to criticize Americans use of their english since they were actually taught proper english. Redneck is not a dialect.

Re:Good Lord.

[jotok]

I don't own any pirated movies. I do have a rather massive collection of DVDs that I ripped to my media server. When I travel, I can stream them to my hotel room, I can play them on every single item I own with a screen, etc. According to the rules established by the people who created the content, I should not be able to do this.

So at this point, we have me in the "wrong," and them being a bunch of assholes. I'm perfectly content to continue being "wrong" until they stop being assholes, and while they can escalate the assholish behavior all they want, I know those of us in the "wrong" are still going to eventually win, at which point the content creators will discover some method of making money that doesn't involve fucking over its customer base.

Re:Good Lord.

[dargon]

Nobody is forcing you to, I use that time to make popcorn :)

Re:Good Lord.

[FLEB]

There's a big difference between going in front of a judge and saying "this person has been incorrectly charged with the wrong crime", and going in front of Slashdot and saying "When you said 'stealing music', you really meant 'copyright infringement'."

Huh? Then what would be the ramifications of the US congress either abolishing copyrights tomorrow or enacting the death penalty for it?

How is that relevant to the discussion? Punishment or criminal definition was never brought up in this discussion, simply an offhand use of not having the "right to steal".

The reasons the copyright argument exists is because there is a legal definition for it.

There are also moral and ethical questions around that argument. People in the discussion know what the law is. That's a given point. The question often debated is whether the law should exist, and to what extent. Saying "your metaphor to stealing is wrong because it's not exactly stealing", especially when failing to cite how that changes the given argument, is just rehashing a tired line and trying to short-circuit the debate back to a completely legal one-- which it often isn't.

Re:Good Lord.

[ahoehn]

Quite true. Sometimes Netflix is just too much effort (I mean, they expect me to put the DVD back in the sleeve, put that sleeve back into the container, and then walk all the way out to my mailbox before they'll send me another movie? What do they think I am, some kind of masochist?) and downloading a ripped DVD is so much easier. But, I went all out and bought a "Special Box Set" of the first two Bourne movies for my wife. Last night we sat down to watch the first one. Halfway through, in the middle of a driving scene, Windows Media Player pops up with a little message that says something like, "This movie is unable to continue due to Copy Protection on the disc".

Seriously, this is how you repay me for buying a movie? I had to run AnyDVD just to watch the 2nd half of the movie. Never had that problem with movies I stole off of BitTorrent.

It's been said before on Slashdot (probably several times already today) but they key to successfully getting people to buy media isn't better copy protection, it's better products and more realistic pricing.

Netflix seems to be getting it right with their rental subscriptions and "Watch It Now". I even subscribe to Napster because, while I could bittorrent music easily, typing in an artist in Napster's search box is so much easier, and their subscription plan is reasonable. I just hope that the RIAA and MPAA will get a clue and let great services like these expand in the ways they need to.

Re:Good Lord.

[Kalidor]

Well looking at the Liberals involved ... wait isn't one on the Conservative cabinet now...

But to be less of a naysayer, and add some facts.

While C-60 was not a bill I supported, it would only have codified what is already current practice wrt to copyright circumvention and copyright infringement notices. Relatively a toothless law as any activity it covered can already be taken as a crime, in most cases. The only possible exception being that photographers get to keep copyright on photos they were commissioned for.

For more info, happily refer to Dr. Michael Geist's lecture in the U of T Lecture Series dealing with copyright, the internet, and creative commons.

I would imagine the camcorder law is also relatively toothless as the last study I saw on the issue pointed out that some 80%+ of pirated movies were screeners. These snuck out of some studio by underpaid employees; or out of a theater's preview stack by some underpaid usher.

As with most of this stuff, it really just hurts the innocent consumers. This does jack squat for defeating piracy, but politican's are hoping to stem public outrage with empty gestures.

Re:Good Lord.

[dubbreak]

What they want is to sound convincing when their friends begin talking about the new must-see Spiderman or Transformers.

Or maybe they are just bored and there is nothing good on tv?

Entertainment is entertainment.. that's the primary reason anyone would watch a movie. I doubt your avg person's main reason to go to a movie is to critique it or talk about it.

I don't go to the new restaurant so I can talk about it, I go to eat and try something different. It is the same thing with a movie. People want to see new media, something different they haven't already seen and some aren't worth risking going to the theatre for.

Re:Good Lord.

[flayzernax]

Unfortunately, there is not a non-flash player version as near as I can tell. This link has enough comments to explain it all. http://vice.typepad.com/vbs/2007/06/vbs_producer_m e.html http://www.vbs.tv/shows/index.php?show=Toxic%20Alb erta Is the source of the vids. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_Oil_Sands Is an article about what the vids cover but it doesn't say anything at all about how bad it is, and the long term (40 year) shortsightedness of it. Unfortunately the wiki article does nothing more then say that "Its controversial". The vids really demonstrate how bad it is... "690k 3 bedroom houses and so on..." Its insane economic growth, at a major cost to the environment and the people of Alberta Canada. And its backed by only people wanting to make a quick buck, and the oil companies handing out the paychecks.

Re:Good Lord.

[FLEB]

To call "copyright infringement" theft is to make it seem that the victim has lost property (or the use of it) as in "They stole my car" or "They stole my diamond ring". Talk about obfuscation.

I agree that it's imperfect as a metaphor and incorrect as a statement, but to frame a response to someone's argument completely based upon that one poor choice of words just waylays the argument and invites poor assumptions. I wouldn't use the "Infringement = theft" line myself (although I can create a case that it's akin to nonpayment for services) but it's a disservice to the discourse to wail and stomp all over that one statement when it's not the issue.

Re:Good Lord.

[LWATCDR]

Actually the gentleman was speaking British not English. I doubt that anybody from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, or the US would have caught all the cultural references in the original post. That twelve quid for all the movies you can watch would have a great deal when I was a teen. I knew what was meant buy a tweleve quid movie pass but the Orange phones where a complete mystery to me.

Re:Good Lord.

[pnewhook]

I guess its hard to type with your head up your ass, given that your post made no sense whatsoever.

Re:Good Lord.

[Cardcaptor_RLH85]

Don't forget, a select few DVD's actually don't let you skip the previews either. It's only happened to me once though, and that one time was a few years back. Maybe none of the studios do that anymore (I hope).

Re:Good Lord.

[the not-troll]

Fixed what? Did I overlook something, or do you have a problem with addressing the US properly as the US instead as the whole of America? The Canadians neither claimed that the Canadians forced them, nor did they claim the Mexicans, Cubans, Brasilians, ... did.

Re:Good Lord.

[the not-troll]

Well, I'm no Canadian, so tough luck with that.

Also, the US isn't that stupid (at least it was until the current administration); it knew that it was better to dominate a country economically than militarily. Less backlash that way.

Re:Good Lord.

[Curtman]

I didn't hear anybody else pushing for binding arbitration during the U.S./Canada free trade agreement all those years ago. It was a hell of a good idea too, and would have saved us billions of dollars in the softwood lumber issue alone. Mulroney told us we should trust the American court system to straighten those things out.

Re:Good Lord.

[dave1791]

Wow! The majority of native speakers of a language are wrong?

Oh, I forgot, Americans are always wrong. Shame on me.

Re:Good Lord.

[dave1791]

Oh pardon me. I guess the Quebecois should also start speaking Parisian French as well. The interesting thing is that the southern dialect (not the 'standard' American English however) of American English is closer to Elizabethan than what is currently spoken in Britain, much like what is spoken in Quebec city is closed to 18th century French than modern French. Think of it as a code fork. American and British English forked in the 17th century. Claiming that one fork is "proper" is the same kind of nonsense as saying that a particular fork of Linux is pure, especially when that fork has a minority of users (60 native speakers as opposed to 300 million).

But it is always great fun provoking a Brit into a tirade about language superiority.

Re:Good Lord.

[dave1791]

Thanks ;-)

Re:Good Lord.

[pnewhook]

The majority is not always right. Case in point - a majority in the US believed the Bush lies about Iraq which they now know not to be true (most non-Americans always believed it to be complete fabrication).

Re:Good Lord.

[pnewhook]

You're missing the point entirely - you asked him to speak English and he was. Your attitude showed that you assumed that American English WAS English and that he should learn to speak it properly. Typical American arrogance. I was not saying that American English is not legitimate (or for that matter Quebec French), but that it was quite ironic that you were telling a Brit that his versin of English was not correct (and again here since you argue that a majority of English speakers are in the US and therefore by default it is now the standard).

And I'm not a Brit moron.

Re:Good Lord.

[dave1791]

Irrelevant argument. We are talking about language here, not politics and the majority trumps the snobbish majority. Language evolution is always bottom up and driven by people who simply can't be bothered to speak "properly". A good thing too, or we would still be stuck with the Thee/Thou silliness and the social awkardness that goes with it.

Re:Good Lord.

[dave1791]

It was about his use of dialect that is not intelligible to anyone outside of his region, fucktard.

Re:Good Lord.

[pnewhook]

So I assume you agree with those that want to teach 'ghetto english' in schools as proper because thats how the majority of kids speak and talk? So something like 'I go wit da bitch cuz she ma ho' is both gramattically correct and spelled correctly?

Re:Good Lord.

[pnewhook]

It was about his use of dialect that is not intelligible to anyone outside of his region, fucktard.

Well if you're too stupid to understand what he's talking about, don't respond! Do you stroll into the Italian or French chat areas and start whining that they should be speaking American English? Arrogant ass - assuming averything is about you.

Re:Good Lord.

[dave1791]

It may not be pretty, but that is how language evolves. English got its start when Danes and Saxons had different grammar in their "similar, but not quite the same" germanic languages. They solved the problem by simplification. One of the strengths of English is that the language evolves. The English of the early 21 century is very different to that of the 17th century and even that of the 19th sounds ponderous to modern ears. Read Gibbons' Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire to see just how much English has changed since his time.

Re:Good Lord.

[dave1791]

It appears the hidden meaning in my last statement was missed. Read it again...

uhh....wait....what?

[blhack]

Wasn't this search voluntary? As in: I want to go to this movie badly enough that I will subject myself to this search. They weren't threatening her with anything absurd, she could have just said no, maybe written an angry letter to the theater chain or sent them an envelope full of glitter?

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[arth1]

The $60,000 claim seems to me to be a mite excessive too. If she was inconvenienced by it, I think a proper compensation would be in the order of a movie ticket.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't this search voluntary?

Shame that the sociopaths that run the place have decided that human decency is voluntary.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[grub]

Not excessive. In Canada privacy is taken very seriously, to the point of having a Privacy Commissioner in government. What if the woman had some meds in her bag for herpes or other potentially embarrassing problem? What if it were you? Would you want some pimply faced kid going through your personal stuff?

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[arth1]

RTFA. Decency doesn't come into it. This wasn't a body search; they searched her bags.
Claiming $60,000 for this smells. If you bring more than one bag into a movie theatre, you must realise that it can raise suspicion. Especially so when the theatre has a posted policy of reserving the right to search bags. It wouldn't surprise me if she did this on purpose with a lawsuit in mind, hoping that the bags would be searched.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[stinerman]

Indeed. Take it from "Adult film producer" -- there is usually a contract involved with inserting any bodily part into a woman's vagina.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[FreeKill]

I agree, I don't think it's excessive, the number is there to make a point. The point is, the theater chains are going WAY overboard for an issue that is only an issue by propagandizing anyway. I think we are witnessing the death of the theater. As some said over at the Michael Geist site, who wants to go to a theater and be subjected to huge lines, searches, unsanitary conditions, and unassigned seating (aka huge waits while being beat in the head with ads) to see a movie they can purchase for life for $20.00 in 4 months? As the release to DVD gap begins to close, so too will the doors of the theater chains...

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[arth1]

I wouldn't bring several bags with me to a movie theatre, and definitely not put anything in the bags that I wouldn't want people to see.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[Anonymous Coward]

The $60,000 claim seems to me to be a mite excessive too. If she was inconvenienced by it, I think a proper compensation would be in the order of a movie ticket.

So your basic freedom, privacy is worth about a movie ticket? I know movie tickets are quite pricey nowadays, but I'd ask a bit more for basically blaming that I'm going to commit "a crime" and for unjustified personal search. But hey, you name your price. I'm happy there still exists people who do understand long term coincidences of not objecting against privacy infringement.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[arth1]

If the point is to punish the theatre, wouldn't a fine work just as well? What has this woman done to deserve $60,000?

It's an important principle in Ius Commune that nobody should benefit from a crime. Once you start rewarding being a victim instead of compensating real losses, you make it desirable to become a victim. That's not in society's best interest.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[Safiire Arrowny]

Why wouldn't you carry whatever you wanted in your bag, and then tell someone who wanted to look in it to piss off and leave the premises?

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[1u3hr]

I wouldn't bring several bags with me to a movie theatre, and definitely not put anything in the bags that I wouldn't want people to see.

Her two daughters' bags were also searched. And many people go to the cinema after a day of shopping or doing other things, they don't expect to have all their private possessions (women often have extremely personal items in their purses) and purchases spread out on a table for everyone to see.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[FreeKill]

The problem is that the government isn't doing anything about this stuff, so the lawsuit is the independent citizen version of a fine.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[arth1]

Right. She had the freedom to leave instead of submitting to a search, and chose not to.
When I go to a rock concert, I submit to not only having external bags searched, but being frisked too. That's my choice -- I could always exercise my freedom to not be searched, and take my money elsewhere. That I choose to allow the inconvenience of a search doesn't entitle me to $60,000.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[Propaganda13]

I find it funny because the law is really trying to stop a couple of people around the world from camming a movie. They're going to mostly bust kids with cell phones and irritate normal customers.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

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.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[GoodbyeBlueSky1]

Okay, it's one thing when I get frisked going to a ballgame. I accept it on the slim chance it could prevent a violent person doing something stupid in a place with lots of people. I still don't like it, but I sort of understand it. But a movie theater? And a search for something as violently dangerous as a video camera? That is beyond absurd.

If people like her *don't* win cases like this, I shudder to think of how we'll all be treated in 20 years when trying to enjoy *any* kind of entertainment.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[vux984]

What has this woman done to deserve $60,000?

Probably an advance on the several several hundred to thousands of hours of what would otherwise be 'volunteer' time to spend fighting this case over the next several months to years.

It's an important principle in Ius Commune that nobody should benefit from a crime. Once you start rewarding being a victim instead of compensating real losses, you make it desirable to become a victim. That's not in society's best interest.

Its also a simple fact that you can't really sue someone to donate a nontrivial sum to charity (WITHOUT any tax benefits) and make a proper public apology. The system just isn't set up for that.

That said, I suspect if the movie theatre offered to settle, to donate 60k to charity in her name, and issue a public apology she'd probably consider it a win and take it.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[sumdumass]

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.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[vux984]

Wasn't this search voluntary? As in: I want to go to this movie badly enough that I will subject myself to this search.

Won't that be great? When every where we go we can expect to be searched by ever more invasive techniques? Until one day in order to buy a pack of gum at the Quik-E-Mart you have to provide 3 pieces of ID, authorize a credit evalutation, and get padded down by Brutus -- And you can't complain... you don't have to shop there, its totally voluntary.

And besides it beats the cavity search and drug screening they do across the street at WalMart for the same pack.

And we won't even get into the samples you have to provide the DMV to renew your drivers license... but hey you do it voluntarily, as in "you want to drive a car instead of take transit or hire cabs or walk or ride a bike badly enough that you will subject yourself to this search."

No, I can't see any holes in that logic.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[westlake]

As some said over at the Michael Geist site, who wants to go to a theater and be subjected to huge lines, searches, unsanitary conditions, and unassigned seating (aka huge waits while being beat in the head with ads) to see a movie they can purchase for life for $20.00 in 4 months?

From IMDb:

USA Gross Through July 22

Transformers $262,978,000
Harry Potter and The Order of the Phoenix $207,866,865
Ratatouille $165,519,955
Live Free or Die Hard $116,267,860

Which translates crudely to about 20 million admissions for a summer box office hit.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[Lemmy Caution]

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.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"The $60,000 claim seems to me to be a mite excessive too. If she was inconvenienced by it, I think a proper compensation would be in the order of a movie ticket."

Heck, I'd think it was fair if she were compensated for an hour or two of her time. $50'ish maybe. Then again, if the point is to make the chain stop doing it, they have to be hit hard in the wallet.

Mmm if it were up to me, I'd suggest in cases like these that the 'winnings' go back to the community. Punitive damages would go towards the local homeless shelter or for fixing potholes or whatever. That way, people wanting to make the case to truely right a wrong would lose the greed motivation for filing. Oh well.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[xero314]

Won't that be great? When every where we go we can expect to be searched by ever more invasive techniques? Won't the market eventually handle this issue. This was a private establishment, which, in the US at least, does have the right to require a search before entering. If you don't like the requirements of the establishment then go somewhere else. If this was a government mandate or government office then I might see the reason for argument against such activity, but it's not. The fact that there is more flack about this than there is about government mandated drinking ages should show you how foolish this whole case is.

Having work a short time in music promotions I know a number of venues that require searches upon entry and personally never felt there was a problem with it. If you don't like to policies of a place, like a private club that doesn't all women or something like that, don't sue the place, just don't go there, or open your own venue that meets your interests. Besides, only an idiot takes an audio recorder to a concert and only an even bigger idiot takes a video recorder to a movie.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[davester666]

Transformers $262,978,000

Harry Potter and The Order of the Phoenix $207,866,865

Ratatouille $165,519,955

Live Free or Die Hard $116,267,860

That amount barely covers cab fare in LA. Don't you want the artists to get paid?

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[cdrguru]

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.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[BrowserCapsGuy]

If the point is to punish the theatre, wouldn't a fine work just as well? I like the idea of mandating the money be donated to charity.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[arth1]

The right wasn't waived by buying a ticket, but by allowing them to perform the search.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[timmarhy]

You can't make the choice to give up privacy. no matter what contract you have entered into implied or not, your private things are private.

just like no one has the right to ask you to break the law, no one has the right to invade you privacy.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[jadin]

I think we are witnessing the death of the theater. As some said over at the Michael Geist site, who wants to go to a theater and be subjected to huge lines, searches, unsanitary conditions, and unassigned seating (aka huge waits while being beat in the head with ads) to see a movie they can purchase for life for $20.00 in 4 months? Death of the theater? Doubtful.

I find the audio high-quality and louder than I'm allowed to turn up my home stereo with neighbors.
I find the screen far larger than any I could afford, or even have room for.
I enjoy the stadium seating, it's no lazy-boy but it's quite nice for public seating.
It allows me to do something I would do at home, but feel like I'm actually _doing_ something. I'm actively leaving the house and getting cleaned up to do so.
It's great for dates.
Some movies are designed for the big-screen. I'll watch a comedy or drama at home, no problem, but a good action flick, I want it larger than life.

Until I can afford to build my own personal theater to invite my friends over to, I'll still be paying the $8 for a ticket to enjoy the experience the theater provides and more importantly a 'night out on the town'.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[rainman_bc]

So why would I go to a theater and pay $10 for a ticket when I can download the movie

Because the theater offers value-add. They provide a huge screen with awesome sound, vivid clarity, and a good experience. A cam of the movie - well just doesn't IMO cut it. Even watching it at home - while I like my 51" TV, it still doesn't compare to the big screen.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[El-Wrongo]

So what you are saying is that searching people, which is a invasion of their privacy, is ok. All she wanted to do was watch a movie. If I take another example (an take it to the extreme too). Lets say that every grocery store in Canada had a policy that allowed them to get your bank account details, so they could verify that you were there to shop and not steal something, would you give them that information? You would always have the option of growing vegetables, raising and slaughtering livestock yourself, even if you anyway would have to give the book store your personal information to learn how.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[Isotopian]

As a manager of a large movie theatre, I participate in the annual NATO (National Association of Theatre Owners) meetings, and I can tell you legitimately that the industry heads are not particularly worried about downloaders. What they ARE worried about, are the sophisticated rings of people who record a movie with state of the art miniaturized cameras, upload it to DVD fab plants in Malasia, and press literally millions of bootleg DVDs in a matter of a night or two, and have them shipped back out and on street corners by the end of the film's opening weekend. Downloaders are a different demographic and situation entirely from bootleggers. In general, a sold bootleg DVD is a loss of sale for a theatre, while a downloaded movie is kind of breaking even - either the person will like the movie and go see it, like it but be too cheap to go see it, or not like it and not go see it. You don't hear much about the MPAA suing everyone they can get their hands on - mostly because they learn from their impetuous brother the RIAA, and realized that you won't improve your business via suing, you actually have to accept some losses, fight the ones you can, and do your damndest to make movie going an enjoyable experience.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[Adambomb]

Weird thing is, i'm pretty sure that here in canada the plaintiff does not sue for a dollar amount. The amount is determined by the courts, if i remember correctly.

its why we dont have million dollar lawsuits for burglars who slip on a loose board in someones house they're robbing.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[florescent_beige]

Many businesses are built around catering to social activities. That is, people just naturally like doing certain things. The way a big light shining on a dark wall can fake us into thinking it's a portal into another world is one example. People like to gather together and admire this phenomenon. People like to dissect how the artist achieves the illusion. People like to see it with their friends and share it. People like to make out in the back.

Movie chains did not invent this social activity, they merely use it. Movie chains do not determine how we like to socialize, they merely take advantage of the fact that we do.

Movies are a cultural activity. Why then only apply economic theory to movie theaters? Instead of just saying, private enterprise has the right to do what it wants, why not say, people in general have the right to do what they want?

The standard answer would be, economic theory, capitalism specifically, has been shown to provide efficient solutions to economic problems. Which is a non-sequitur, because that wasn't the question. The question was, why shouldn't people be allowed to socialize as they want, unfettered? If movie chains want to cater to that fine, but by what social thinking are movie chains allowed to dictate how we socialize? Being subject to a non-safety search probably affects the social aspect of the experience.

Realistically, this is the way things are right now, there's not much we can do. But I disagree that the application of market theory to cultural activities makes any sense. Saying that customers can vote with their feet misses the point, people don't want to go do something else. It's just that, there's no way to quantify how that aggravation compares to the theaters' profits.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[Calinous]

(In Romania, not in USA)
      If you go to the movie in one of the days after the weekend opening (like Wednesday), in one of the big cinema (the biggest in the city), you'll see the movie in the same week as the launch in Paris. You will also NOT have air conditioning, cramped seats, your reserved seat will go to someone else too, have plenty of promo (whether you want it or not), not so awesome sound, and clarity and fuzziness (not all the projectors are always perfectly in focus). Also, an extra would be a missing sequence (maybe several seconds long, but plenty to make you think "!@#$%^&&** them"
      I went a couple weeks ago at the launch of "Harry Potter and the order of Phoenix", and the experience was not good

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[Calinous]

And the victim of a rape should be compensated according to the duration of the rape? Maybe overtime and double the wage if the rape took place at night?
      An hour of the time, double for overtime and again double for night shift? For $200 a rape, there would be plenty of takers.

      There should be some sort of "punitive damages" which will make the guilty think again before doing the same again

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[sodul]

What if the woman had some meds in her bag for herpes or other potentially embarrassing problem?

Herpes is embarrassing? After seeing all these ads on TV I assumed that people with herpes where young couples that are very happy, go hiking and have a lot of fun activities

Well when I lived in europe herpes was a shameful thing to have and I guess not enough people have it to make it a subject of TV ads (unlike the US where 1 in 5 adult has genital herpes)

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[fastest fascist]

Well... She had functional legs, right? the old 180-walk should work, although maybe insisting on a refund for the ticket first would be a good idea.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[codeButcher]

So who gets the fine, when it is paid? The government? Does the "nobody" that should not profit from crime also include the government?

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[fastest fascist]

The stats I've seen indicate that 50-80% of adults in western countries have some form of herpes, be it genital, oral, or some kind of more unfortunate eye herpes or what have you. But then people seem to find a good deal of entirely normal bodily functions very embarrassing as well, so why not a virus that the majority of adults have?

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[omfgnosis]

Wait, that's not right. Not at all.

She would have been denied entry (which she'd paid for) by not "consenting". She didn't "allow" the search, she exercised her right to enter and was subjected to an invasion of privacy.

Jesus christ. Buying a ticket to a show does not entitle someone to root through my bags. Ever.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[xero314]

The question was, why shouldn't people be allowed to socialize as they want, unfettered? People are allowed to socialize as they want, excepting violation of laws, as long as they do it on and with their own property. The only way to achieve unfettered social freedom would be to abolish private property, but that does not appear to be your argument here. Ultimately the systems in place today would allow for the kind of social interaction that you are talking about but it would require that the actors involved also set up the environment, say through a collective.

but by what social thinking are movie chains allowed to dictate how we socialize? It may be better to ask "by what social thinking are civilians allowed to dictate how a private business operates?" No movie theater is telling anyone how to socialize, only how to act when visiting their establishment. It's no different that requiring black tie for a formal event, or a shirt and shoes in a restaurant, or no smoking wherever. These are not matters of safety, they are matters of business owners preferences, and sometimes the driving reason behind them starting their own business.

Saying that customers can vote with their feet misses the point, people don't want to go do something else. It's sad that I am arguing this since I am in no way a supporter of free market economics, but in this case the market could solve this issue, and to vote with your feet or money is that solution. Your argument basically says that the people get to tell privately owned businesses how to operate, which would be like your neighborhood telling you what you can and can not do within your own home. The reason a few people are against this solution is that most of us are not at all bothered by the rules. Those that don't carry large bags of stuff with us to movies do not have a problem with this (which is the obvious majority). Heck I think it should go further and they should do a pat down to make sure that no one even brought a cell phone with them (but then again I think cell phone or pager use in a movie theater by anyone other than an emergency service providers should be grounds for capital punishment).

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[xero314]

Buying a ticket to a show does not entitle someone to root through my bags And wanting to see a movie does not entitle someone to enter a private establishment. As I have said before this is no different than a policy that required "proper attire." Had the lady shown up to see a show not wearing a shirt, or shoes and was asked to leave we wouldn't even be seeing this news. In this case the "victim" consented to a search and then decided it was inappropriate, where as the right thing to do would have been to refuse the search and request a refund, and if no refund was given (which I am fairly certain it would have been) then they could have gone to small claims court for the cost of the ticket and possibly court costs, nothing more.

I would also suggest that you do not attempt to board a plane, or view a concert or any other such event since these require purchasing of tickets that do not guarantee entry and were you are most likely subject to a search far more invasive than looking through your purse. An if you refuse the search you will be rejected entry, as it should be, and most likely not receive any form of refund.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[iamacat]

He is talking about vibrators.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[TapeCutter]

Hmmmm, seems when that sort of shit happens to me they have already got my money and I no longer have a "choice" of not paying. In other words, lots of luck with a refund when you refuse the search at the gate.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[omfgnosis]

wanting to see a movie does not entitle someone to enter a private establishment.

Yeah, that's what the ticket's for.

As I have said before this is no different than a policy that required "proper attire." Had the lady shown up to see a show not wearing a shirt, or shoes and was asked to leave we wouldn't even be seeing this news.

For the record, I consider that social expectation bullshit as well. Just so we're clear.

In this case the "victim" consented to a search

Apparently not.

and then decided it was inappropriate, where as the right thing to do would have been to refuse the search and request a refund, and if no refund was given (which I am fairly certain it would have been) then they could have gone to small claims court for the cost of the ticket and possibly court costs, nothing more.

Perhaps it's more prudent to make it a privacy case rather than about the cost of a ticket, which it quite obviously is or we wouldn't be discussing it.

I personally find it astonishing that people's resentment of personal freedom goes so far as to resent people actually trying to increase it rather than accept further curtailments of it. I don't really think this case is where I'd focus my energy, but frankly anything helps. The idea that buying a ticket to enter a place entitles the people at the door to view the contents of my bag is fucking absurd, regardless of what you construe as "consent" (and I'm sure we could talk about other issues of "consent" where it'd be clear that manipulated consent isn't genuine consent).

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[Havenwar]

Huh, lucky you. Around here when I go to the theatre they offer a huge screen, slightly off focus for about a minute or two total spread out over the film's more critical scenes, sound that is so loud several of my friends have taken to bringing earplugs to the theatre just like to heavy metal concerts. It takes the pain away. Also you run the about one in five risk that there will be highly annoying people somewhere around you fiddling with cellphones or talking or just having a really annoying laugh.

I used to go to see a film about once or twice a month, but these days I just download a cam and if they are good I'll buy the dvd when they get out. It isn't worth the ticket money, petrol money and random annoyances just to see a film on a bigger screen.

Cinema is dead as far as I am concerned. I am quite convinced I am not the only one that believes so.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[CmdrGravy]

Why not, a lot of cinemas are in towns and it's not uncommon for people to go and do some shopping and then go to the cinema, this may well mean you have a lot of bags with you.

I might be carrying things in my bag which I don't want people to see because I need to have them in my bag and I don't want anyone to go poking around and see them !

I can understand being searched on the way into nightclubs or concerts since this stops people bringing knives or guns in which would ruin my enjoyment of the evening were they to use them. I can't see any benefit at all in searching peoples bags on the way into the cinema, I wouldn't be happy to have my bags searched and I think I ought to have the right to go to the cinema without being forced to undergo pointless, invasive searchs.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[CmdrGravy]

Not too much added value in my opinion.

First of all you have get to the cinema, nowadays they're mostly in horrible out of town locations in little parks with McDonalds, Pizza Huts and a few truly dreadful pubs which you can't have a drink in anyway since you've had to drive to get there.

Next you'll probably have to queue up for a while to get a ticket.

If you want anything to drink or eat you'll find all the prices in the Cinema and the little park are hugely inflated so it'll cost you.

To get a decent seat you need to get into the theatre as soon as possible which means a good 30mins of annoying adverts and warnings about piracy, this all really pisses me off.

OK they have a big screen and loud sound but for me good films are good films regardless of how big they are or how loud they sound.

You have to put up with everyone around you talking, giggling or wandering around in front of the screen on their way to the toilet or where ever. The seats are usually not that comfortable to sit in for anything over an hour and there's never enough leg room.

You can't smoke in cinemas and you can't pause the film to go to the loo or get something to eat.

All in all I think they're a waste of money and would much rather see the film on TV or DVD.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[rikkards]

Maybe we should protest by getting a large amount of people getting tickets and then refusing to conduct a search and then waste the ticket takers time refunding your money. Mind you it wastes the time of the protesters but then again isn't that the whole point?

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[TheRaven64]

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.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[mapkinase]

The quality of cinema experience is still unmatched by the quality of home theaters (and home theaters are still expensive). As in any entertainment people get used to the crowd, the agitation, the popcorn, the lines. Would it be the same to get to a new Star Wars episode without any lines to a half empty theater? Many people go to the cinema because of that. Would Broadway shows be more attractive to people if there were less lines? Same with theaters.

Major chains do not have unsanitary conditions, I have never heard of searches in US and very few people complain about unassigned seating. The ads are abomination but in most chains the sound level is lower than typical movie or preview sound level.

Now give me a sec, I need to collect a check from AMC.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[oliderid]

Well personnally I don't understand how these craps can be so worried for the industry.

I have tried them.
Screener/bootlegged copy have a very poor/mediocre sound quality. There are large parts of the movie which is blurred, litteraly unwatchable. It gives you headaches. Nobody truly interested by the movie will ever download such a crap.

Ripped DVDs is on the other hand is usually an acceptable quality (comparable to VHS). This by far a biggest threat. and in my case, I usually find Ripped DVDs on a torrent before the European release.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[vadim_t]

What bullshit.

These "miniature cameras" you talk about don't produce an image worth downloading, let alone paying even $1 for. I've seen a bit of a bootleg once and it was PAINFUL to watch. I couldn't watch a whole movie like that unless you paid me for it.

No, the professionals don't do that sort of crap, as it'd be unprofitable. Professionals do one of these:

Option A: They copy your original DVD, remove crap from it (CSS, skip restrictions, etc), stamp it, and sell for a fraction of the original price, providing a better product overall. Not only it's cheaper, but it's less annoying to play as well as it won't be region locked and play on anything.

They're friendly too. I saw this in Russia years ago (I think it's not as balant now). They had a HUGE market where you could get lost easily. The seller will gladly tell you their opinion on the movie, will change your disc if it doesn't play (warranty!), and will even find something for you if you ask. They provide good service, unlike what you get when buying legally.

Option B: They get somebody with the access to the film and with a projection booth, and do a professional setup, filming the movie without an audience in the way, and with an exact copy of the audio.

How to solve this problem? My suggestions:
1. Drop the anti-piracy crap. No CSS, no region locking, no unskippable sections
2. I bought/paid to see the damn movie, I don't want to hear a word about anti-piracy moralizing.
3. I don't want to see any ads in the cinema, nor on the DVD. Only possible exception is optional trailers that you must specifically play, related to what the disk contains (eg, trailers of Miyazaki's anime, on the Nausicaa DVD)
4. Sell it cheaper, especially the music. Why can the soundtrack have the same price as the movie? It makes no sense.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[Bender Unit 22]

I will also have to disagree, perhaps it's because we have too many lousy theaters in Copenhagen. But I paid 15$ to see Transformers on opening week, only to see it on one of the smaller screens in that theater with grainy sound, terrible air quality (both hot and humid). Then you add the price of the soda and popcorn which costs the same as the movie.
Then there is the ticket to the cab/public transportation/parking or whatever. so I end up usiing 30-40$ to see a movie and it is not really worth it. I'd rather see it on a dvd my 'small' 37" LCD TV without surround sound.
THX certifications etc. seems to be worthless, since they seemed to have it but I figure it must have been a joke.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[yabos]

F*ck, I can't believe you're defending getting searched just to see a movie. I guess the plan of getting people used to being watched and searched is working on some of you.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[plaincorgi]

Actually, in most theaters at least in Ontario, we have 30 minutes after the start of the movie to get a refund if we choose. So i presume getting one back before even entering the theater wouldn't be an issue.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[Bastard of Subhumani]

And pikey brats talking on their cellphones all the way through. Am I right?

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[Bastard of Subhumani]

its why we dont have million dollar lawsuits for burglars who slip on a loose board in someones house they're robbing.

There shouldn't be lawsuits for any amount in that situation. If you're knowingly committing a crime then the consequences should be on your head, period. Don't like it, then don't do it.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[TapeCutter]

Come to think of it a refund would probably be reasonably easy to obtain at the movies. I was just reacting to the mention of a rock concert. Maybe if the "abusive" part meant being strip searched at gunpoint the I could see the need for some intesive counseling on a pacific island paradise, but that's not what happened - $60K really is over the top.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[Stevecrox]

They did enact some anti-camcorder policy in a Vue complex in plymouth I used to travel there on my motorcycle alot and carry my lid into the cinema screen, they stopped me taking it in and issued an ultimatum either they looked after it or I didn't get to see the movie I paid for. The reason for not allowing me to take it in was because there might be a video recorder in it.

For any motorcyclists out there facing the same issue they aren't allowed to do this as a lid is a piece of safety equipment and you need speacial insurrance to look after safety equipment, the policy has since been revoked but it still gets me.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[spyrochaete]

Are you suggesting that people who have a medical condition they are ashamed of should not go to the movies? Why are your personal belongings anyone else's business?

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[Hatta]

I think we are witnessing the death of the theater.

Funny I had the best theater experience of my life last week. I went to the opening of a new non-profit theater here in Omaha and caught Kurosawa's Seven Samurai. The place was so full they were running out of sodas, and still not a peep was heard during the movie. No cell phones, no whiny kids, no FBI warnings, just pure cinema.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[Hatta]

If the point is to punish the theatre, wouldn't a fine work just as well? What has this woman done to deserve $60,000?

In the case of fines, what has the government done to deserve $60,000? I'd rather that money go to individuals than getting the government accustomed to an easy revenue stream like that. Maybe the best thing would just be to destroy the money, and we all get a little back in deflation.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[Angelyne]

I have to call bullshit on this as well. This must be some sort of industry boogeyman. There is no way filming from inside a theater can produce any kind of a watchable product. If anyone purchases a bootleg version or download one, they weren't serious about watching the movie anyway, and would have never purchased a ticket. Considering all the drawback of the theater; the crowds, the price, the inflated prices at the snack bar and now the harassment, why would anyone choose to see a film in this way instead of in the comfort of their own home? Because a movie is an entirely different specie when seen on a large screen. If you are interested enough to pay the ticket price to watch a movie, you aren't going to settle for a crappy bootleg version. And I heartily agree with some of the posters here. Stop harassing your PAYING customers. They paid their tickets, they have done exactly what the industry want. What's the point of going on about piracy after they are sitting in the theater. It's like yelling at your good kid when he comes home on time, because your troublemaker kid is still out.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[BVis]

I was looking for the right comment to reply to on this, because I have a solution to the problem.

Ahem.

Mr. Theater Manager, MAKE GOING TO THE THEATER A LESS FUCKING MISERABLE EXPERIENCE.

I wouldn't have a problem paying $7.50 for a ticket if the following problems were corrected:

1) Throw people out who refuse to sit quietly in the theater. I can't tell you how many times I've sat in front of or right behind someone carrying on a conversation with the people next to them like they're the only ones within earshot. This also includes children and their families. If the child isn't old enough to sit quietly for the running time of the movie, then they need to not be there out of respect for the other paying customers. One rambunctious child shouldn't ruin the experience for 200+ other paying customers. Politely explain the "shut the fuck up" rule, and refund their money.

2) I will pay a premium to NOT be subjected to advertising. The slide show before the trailers start is one thing (at the very least it gives me something to look at while I'm waiting, and I don't mind that so much). But paying for the privilege of seeing advertising has never been acceptable, and I'm amazed that you've been able to get away with it for so long. HBO doesn't carry advertising; coincidence?

3) Clean the fucking theater. I'm sure one of your minimum wage PFYs can be taught to run a mop.

4) Invest in a better presentation for the film. This includes monitoring prints for damage, maintaining sound equipment, fixing damaged screens, and fixing HVAC issues (too hot/cold/dank etc.) Less painful (I was going to say "more comfortable" but "less painful" seems more appropriate) seating would help as well; stadium seating is A Good Thing.

5) Check IDs at the ticket window for R rated films. (I frequent a premium cinema near my home that is 21+ for all shows.)

The aforementioned premium cinema costs significantly more ($12.50 - $15 a ticket depending on time) but it is worth the extra expense. For that, you get leather seating, two of your OWN armrests, a tray table in front of you, UNLIMITED popcorn, and a full cash bar in the lobby, which serves drinks you can bring into the theater with you. It's also 21+, has THX specification projection and sound, and generally only carries movies that can benefit from the improved experience (movies like Cheaper By The Dozen 2 won't make it in there.) That's pretty much the only place I'll go at this point, after being subjected to most of the problems I described above when I went to see Superman Returns.

The way to improve your bottom line is to improve your product, not try to demonize an extremely small percentage of your customers and piss off the rest by treating them like criminals. EVERYONE KNOWS that it's copyright infringement when they download a movie they haven't paid for. STOP INSULTING YOUR PAYING CUSTOMERS.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[porcupine8]

Videotaping films is just as illegal in the US - and supposedly the Canadian law was passed due to "US pressure" - and yet, I've never been roughly searched while entering a theater. The most I've ever had to do was open my bag and let the usher glance into it, and I think they're more on the lookout for food than videocameras, honestly, so you don't cut into their popcorn sales. And many theaters don't even do that.

The legislation, as far as I can tell, only outlines punishment for the pirates. It doesn't seem to make it the theater's responsibility to catch them or punish the theater if piracy takes place there. You can't blame the law for this theater's overzealous approach.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[xero314]

I personally find it astonishing that people's resentment of personal freedom goes so far as to resent people actually trying to increase it rather than accept further curtailments of it. But this is not about personal freedom, this is abut one private citizen attempting to tell another private citizen how to manage their privately owned property. In this case it is the movie patron that is trying to force the movie theater to operate business in a specific way. The Theater was only setting policy that states how one can use it's property, and that policy included a search, which was very easy to avoid simply by not entering the establishment. You come into my house I have the right to demand the exact same thing, or have you arrested for trespass. For some reason people forget that businesses are private establishments, much like a persons home.

regardless of what you construe as "consent" Consent by definition is what it is and there is no way to construe it otherwise. Just as No means No, Yes means Yes. Handing someone your personal possession after they have requested to search it is most certainly consent. Hand the theater employee pull the property from the patrons hands then that would not have been consent.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[arth1]

I don't think you get it. If you're against being searched (like, in most cases, I am), you don't submit to the search, but instead spend your money somewhere else. That leads to (a) you not being searched, and (b) those doing searches losing revenue, which puts pressure on them to change their policy. So, what's wrong with that?

I defend the right of companies to do stupid things or things I don't like, as long as they are not abusing a monopoly situation or discriminating against individuals based on race, gender, age, disability or other things beyond the customer's control[1]. If a store only wants to admit naked people, that should be their choice, just as you can choose freely which stores you go to. I'm all for freedom -- both ways.

[1]: Note that I'm not listing religion, cause that's a choice.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[GrievousMistake]

No dude, you got it all wrong! See, it's more like there's this guy. With an ice cream van, see? And this guy, he spends tons of money making ice cream receipts. It's insane, and it doesn't help that his vendors are all spoiled primadonnas, either. The guy pays like a million dollars just for nuts, and I don't know why he keeps buying from them, because the nuts taste like shit. But anyway, he makes ice cream, and a lot of the flavours suck, but some of them are really great, though sometimes it's hard to tell, so you just have to buy one and see. But that was fine, ya know? I used to buy one from time to time. But see, then some people started making their own ice cream. Hey, nothing wrong with that, don't get me wrong, it's cheap, and you can eat it at home. But thing is, they were using his recipes. Now me, I don't support that. I mean, guy used a lot of money researching those recipes, only fair that he gets something in return, no? But see, this guy now, the one with the ice cream van, he just goes nuts. Bat-shit crazy. Now every time I come to buy some ice cream he yells at me and calls me an ice-thief. Then he smears ice cream in my face and laughs at me. You still get ice cream, it's not that, but I don't know man... Sometimes I feel it's just not worth the bother anymore.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

I agree. Invasive searching is unnecessary and wrong.
The last time I went to a movie theater, I went through a metal detector. That's all that's needed to catch the camcorders.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[devilspgd]

Actually this might work if you had enough people to buy out the theatre completely, then all request refunds after the show has started -- This not only wastes the theatre's time, but prevents them from reselling those tickets.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[fishbowl]

"The last time I went to a movie theater, I went through a metal detector. That's all that's needed to catch the camcorders."

What, seriously?

Where I live, people could simply pull out their (legal) concealed handgun, say "sorry, guess that set off your detector", and go on into the theatre.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[omfgnosis]

But this is not about personal freedom, this is abut one private citizen attempting to tell another private citizen how to manage their privately owned property.

It's actually about whether or not another person is entitled to root through your belongings in order for you to gain entry into their place of business. In other words, where your privacy ends. It's a personal freedom issue. If private power (eg corporations) have rights to invade your privacy that public powers (eg the state) don't, something is wrong. This applies to both.

In this case it is the movie patron that is trying to force the movie theater to operate business in a specific way. The Theater was only setting policy that states how one can use it's property, and that policy included a search, which was very easy to avoid simply by not entering the establishment.

And like the debate about whether a business may or may not require its employees have an RFID chip implanted (an issue of personal freedom), this is a case which seeks to determine whether businesses may require an invasion of privacy to permit entry. Clearly you think the business may, and I don't, which is why it's an issue of personal freedom, not an issue of an exercise of property rights.

News flash: property rights don't entitle you to break the law with your own property.

You come into my house I have the right to demand the exact same thing, or have you arrested for trespass. For some reason people forget that businesses are private establishments, much like a persons home.

First of all, that remains to be seen. Second of all, your house and a business are two different matters, and two totally different kinds of property. And if you don't believe me, you should consider the extremely different legal status they experience.

Consent by definition is what it is and there is no way to construe it otherwise. Just as No means No, Yes means Yes.

Apparently I do need to go into other matters of consent.

Okay. So if a man has sex with a woman, and she says neither no nor yes, is it consent? Apparently by not issuing a clear, barking "no!", a woman is permitting a man to do whatever he wishes with his property.

Handing someone your personal possession after they have requested to search it is most certainly consent. Hand the theater employee pull the property from the patrons hands then that would not have been consent.

It sounds to me like the latter is what took place.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[Laserwulf]

Bootlegging DVDs may not be as frequent in Russia, but at least in Iraq & Afghanistan it's booming on/near military bases. In 2004 I saw copies of "Shaun of the Dead" at an Afghani bazaar, and when I went home on leave around September, there were previews of it in the theaters. I was able to watch "300" on Iraqi DVD while it was still in theaters, and "Transformers" ten days after it premiered in the U.S. (the discs may have arrived earlier, but not all bases have DVD merchants. The quality varies wildly, but "300" was DVD-quality, and "Transformers" looked like it was done with a tripod (even though a couple people walked in front of the camera at times).

Whoever supplies the local merchants pays attention to demand, also. In early 2005, the Afghani bazaars started offering PS2 and Xbox games (required mod-chips, though), and anime started trickling in.

It may be copyright infringement, but deployed soldiers won't ever have the option of seeing most of those movies in a theater. I may be the minority, but I've seen some movies on bootleg DVDs, and ended up buying an authentic copy when it came to the PX.


DISCLAIMER: I can neither confirm nor deny purchasing bootleg DVDs, even if they only cost $4-5, less if you buy a bunch.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[Pig Hogger]

STOP INSULTING YOUR PAYING CUSTOMERS.

Can't do that. Ever since Business has been taken over by MBAs, customers have to be insulted, because since they are stupid enough to buy from that company, they deserve no respect because they are obviously not MBAs, hence the mantra of the New Economy: insult thy customer.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"And the victim of a rape should be compensated according to the duration of the rape?"

Umm.. yeah, I didn't read past that. Sorry.

Of all the things the lameness filter doesn't pick up....

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[xero314]

If private power (eg corporations) have rights to invade your privacy that public powers (eg the state) don't, something is wrong. I don't understand your concept of privacy and rights. You seem to think that certain individuals, such as the theater patron, have rights to control themselves and their property, but that other individuals, such as business owners do not. The business owner must consent to allowing the patron into their property, so I don't understand how this is different than the patron allowing consent into their property. The rules should be applied equally to both parties. You continue to say that it is a personal freedom issue while disregarding the personal freedoms of the business owner. It's like say that having your doors unlocked gives strangers the right to enter your home, and this just is not the case. The patron in this case had no personal freedom taken away. They chose to allow access and viewing of their personal property in exchange for access and viewing of another persons property, which just seems like a pretty fair trade, regardless of the fact that it should be completely legal.

News flash: property rights don't entitle you to break the law with your own property. You are correct, and asking someone to consent to a search or else leave the property is not against the law, at least in the US, but I would bet this is also true in Canada.

Second of all, your house and a business are two different matters, and two totally different kinds of property. I don't know where you get this idea from. Privately owned and controlled property falls into one single category. License to do business or zoning have no effect over what rights you have on the property apart from the right to conduct business on the property. Business zoning does not mean the property has to be open or available to the public, as can be seen by looking at any warehouse. The fact that you do not believe that businesses are private property does not change the fact that they are.

So if a man has sex with a woman, and she says neither no nor yes, is it consent? Consent or denial of consent does not need to be verbal. That being said, allowing someone to invade your property without signifying a lack of consent is consent. Using you example of sexual contact, there are many cases where asking for an explicit yes or no would be detrimental to the mood, and it is the responsibility of the parties involved to signify their displeasure before or during the act, not to accept it and cry foul after the act. This would be like opening your front door and stepping aside while someone enters your home while taking no action to signify that you do not want them in you home and then raising charges that they entered your home illegally. This is, of course, assuming the parties are capable of signifying a lack of consent, so that drugged or unconscious victims are obviously unable to give consent, implied or otherwise.

It sounds to me like the [theater employee pull the property from the patrons hands] I have looked through multiple references on the incidents at the theater and now seem to even imply that a patron had property removed without receiving the option of having their property searched or to leave the establishment. What I did see is a number of people whining because they couldn't force a business to operate the way they want.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[LunaticTippy]

I've seen these many times, usually Asian produced. Many of them are so good I wonder how they did it. It almost seems like they had a high-quality scanner and access to the print. Some were obviously recorded from a projected image (vignetting, pincushioning) Some were awful hand-held crowded theatre bullshit.

The most impressive thing about them is the timing, often beating the theatrical release by a few days or weeks.

The obvious way to beat the bootleggers, who definitely exist and are prolific, is to release DVDs sooner, say when the film is released. Release worldwide at the same time to prevent region bootleggers.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Especially so when the theatre has a posted policy of reserving the right to search bags.

You're presupposing that their policy carries legal weight. It may not.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Won't the market eventually handle this issue.

Screw the market. There are ground rules, and some things are just not allowed. Randomly searching people for daring to come into your theatre should be one of them.

Having work a short time in music promotions I know a number of venues that require searches upon entry and personally never felt there was a problem with it.

Gee, some people like to bring knives into the club. That isn't common in a movie theatre, and they weren't searching for those things anyway.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[Isotopian]

My theatre does all of the above, except, sadly for number 2. As much as I, and my GM hate the ads, corporate offices just eat that up. Throw enough money around and they'll do just about anything.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[yabos]

What if all the theatres start doing it? Then there's nothing you can do except submit to a search if you want to watch the movie. That's not acceptable. I liken it to DRM. Searching people doesn't really stop any of the people who are really determined to somehow record the movie, it just inconveniences everyone else, and in this case violates your privacy.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[minsyntax]

yabos is correct. Citizens of free countries don't need to put up with searches.

There are ways for people to nab me doing something illegal. For instance, if I'm caught red-handed recording a movie, then fine me (or arrest me or whatever). If it's such a serious crime, and cops have enough evidence that I've probably camcorded a movie to convince a judge to secure a warrant for my arrest, excellent. But random searches by authorities are not acceptable.

Though xero314 said, "I would also suggest that you do not attempt to board a plane, or view a concert or any other such event since these require purchasing of tickets that do not guarantee entry and were you are most likely subject to a search far more invasive than looking through your purse..." the analogy is not correct.

Since 9/11, airport authorities can at least use the pretext that you'd rather be searched than blown up by terrorists. Even sporting events with their emotional highs and lows, team rivalries, potential hooliganism, booze, and us-vs-them groupthink can allow for a certain amount of searching. None of this applies when you're out watching a movie. Why am I going to be searched next? Because I want to visit a corner store?

So I encourage those who want to enforce this law to do it the standard way: catch the bad guys in the act. If it's not worth enforcing, it's not worth passing into law in the first place.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[BVis]

You really throw people out for being disruptive? I'm kind of surprised. Do you give them refunds?

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[Angelyne]

Well, I've never seen these bootleg DVDs, but I cannot conceive of any way that the better quality ones are produced from hand held cameras, operated by member of the audience, state of the art or not. But the awful hand-held bootlegs seems to be the focus of their efforts, searching bags, repeating the anti-piracy message ad nauseum, even threatening foreign countries into enacting laws to protect their commercial interests. It just seems so hysterical and overblown. I'm sure they do loose sales due to piracy. But it's nowhere near what they claim they do. The significant losses are no doubt due to organized networks who have access to better source material than a hand-held camera in the back of a theater. So focus on those and stop treating everyone in your cinema like a potential criminal. They are forgetting one huge glaring fact. They need us. We don't need them. If I never go into another theater again, my life will go on just as it has. Will theirs?

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[LunaticTippy]

I am in full agreement. I think the MPAA has declared war on their customers much like the RIAA has. They have crossed many lines over the years, too. It makes me sad because I like film, but I cannot ignore being treated like the enemy. Between forbidden user actions and warnings against paying customers and searching patrons I don't have any pity and cheer the bootleggers on.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[phorm]

I was just recently on holidays in the other side of the country. Since I spent a lot of my time wandering around downtown, I had a sling-bag - as well as at times a backpack - that I took with me everywhere and had my camera and various other items inside. It's really quite interesting to find how much I counted on having my car or house nearby for dropping stuff off. I suppose if my camera had a 4GB card it could have taken enough crap-quality video to record the movie, but it's primarily a digital camera not a video-camera.

I was a bit worried about being searched or bothered, but had no problems, but I suppose I could have ended up in a similar situation. I didn't have anything else that I would worry about in my bag during a search, but if they hassled me about the camera I suppose I would have left.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[Isotopian]

We'll give em refunds if:

1. It's the first 20 minutes of the movie, and:
2. They cooperate and come quietly.

Otherwise, we kick em right out, call the box office and tell them not to give a refund. My theatre was bought out by a new, smaller chain that is placing emphasis on customer service and the movie going experience. As all us managers work there because we love movies, we hate irritating people just as much as you. I've even given some people 1 year bans from our theatre.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[BVis]

I really wish you were the rule rather than the exception. How have your customers reacted? (both the ones getting tossed and the others)? Do you toss out families with unruly children?

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[Isotopian]

Generally we get applause and cheers from the rest of the auditorium. Parents with stupid children are given a warning - something along the lines of, "If I have to come back in here again, I'm throwing every single one of you out."
It's pretty simple - behave yourself, or leave.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[xero314]

How is it that people can stand up for the rights of one party to maintain control of their private property and not another. In the case in question we have to entities that want to control how their private property is accessed, viewed and used. In this case their is support for the patron to maintain full control of their private property and to be able to dictate the control of the business establishments property. If you support the business then they both have equal control of their own private property as the patron can leave without being searched and business can chose to not allow entry without a search. By trying to enforce business to run a certain way you end up forcing them to become even more private, to the point of requiring a membership to gain entry.

And also why can't anyone understand the idea that if you don't like the rules an a business that you might not be alone and opening a competing business without those rules may just be profitable.

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[minsyntax]

I support the rights of the business to protect their films from being camcorded: they should be able to sieze the recording instrument and recordings and call the cops on anyone recording their films, by all means, within limits, not search your bag if you go into the theatre without committing a single 'crime.'

Re:uhh....wait....what?

[xero314]

I support the rights of the business to protect their films from being camcorded: they should be able to sieze the recording instrument and recordings and call the cops on anyone recording their films, by all means, within limits, not search your bag if you go into the theatre without committing a single 'crime.' It doesn't matter that it was a business. It doesn't mater that it was a search specifically for recording equipment. What maters is a person right to control what activities take place on their privately owned property. I'm fairly certain that everyone who is arguing in favor the patron in this case would argue in favor of the property owner if it was a private residence and the search was for weapons. The point is a private owner should have the right to restrict others from brining certain items onto their property for any reason they see fit.

It's nice to see

[bky1701]

...That America still believes in exporting freedom, even if it hurts them.

[/Sarcasm]

Re:It's nice to see

[Brian Gordon]

Why do I get the feeling that you think you've just had a brilliant, novel idea? The balance between freedom and law is basically the whole of political discussion. On one end of the scale lies the hacker ethic, on the other vicious governments that highly restrict their citizens freedoms (even America restricts a baffling number of freedoms, though it's relatively good about it on a world scale)

Re:It's nice to see

[Brian Gordon]

hacker ethic applied to government = anarchy by the way... everyone's favorite form of government until they realize that nobody else has to obey any stupid rules either and suddenly it's back to living in castles and giving up a couple freedoms for safety, and etc etc you get the picture

Re:It's nice to see

[saltydog56]

In this case freedom exported by the movie industry that while based in America, is largly owned by forign investors. Quit trying to dry-hump Lady Liberty with your half-assed shots at America

Re:It's nice to see

[tkw954]

I don't quite follow how failing to criminalize copyright infringement is going to force us into castles.

Copyrights are an incentive that societies use to promote creative work, not an inalienable human right.

Re:It's nice to see

[Anonymous Coward]

hacker ethic applied to government = anarchy by the way... everyone's favorite form of government until they realize that nobody else has to obey any stupid rules either and suddenly it's back to living in castles and giving up a couple freedoms for safety, and etc etc you get the picture That's chaos, not anarchy. Anarchy is about getting rid of rulers, not rules. I understand it's difficult to grasp 150 years of political philosophy that covers a broad spectrum of opinions, but at least try to get the basic underpinnings straight, or try not to spread your ignorance until you can.

  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.

Re:It's nice to see

[cdrguru]

Starting with the the assumption that it is OK to take stuff without paying for it from "evil corporations", it isn't that far from saying it is OK to take your stuff without paying for it as well. If I can get away with it as easily as I can take music and movies.

If you aren't using strong encryption and locked-down systems, it is your own fault anyway. And if you are managing everything like that you are getting probed 100 times a day. Sort of like living in a castle, huh?

Face it, to use the Internet intelligently you have to have a "fortress mentality."

Re:It's nice to see

[tkw954]

If you aren't using strong encryption and locked-down systems, it is your own fault anyway. And if you are managing everything like that you are getting probed 100 times a day. Sort of like living in a castle, huh?

Face it, to use the Internet intelligently you have to have a "fortress mentality."

As far as the average user goes, I'd say an analogy for intelligent internet is closer to "don't let strangers into the house, don't give out the house key to everyone you meet, and don't send sensitive documents by postcard". You may call this a "fortress mentality", but I wouldn't.

Re:It's nice to see

[Sycraft-fu]

Sorry, but you've got a couple problems there. First off is that Anarchy DOES mean a state of lawlessness due to the absence of government. Like many words, it can have more than one meaning so people are not using it incorrectly just because you don't like the context.

However the larger problem is that you are talking about a system that is unworkable because it relies on ideal people, not real people. Communism is a similar system. It sounds so brilliant when summed up simply as "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs." Great, but that doesn't work in the real world. Real people are lazy, and they are greedy. Any system that is going to work has to take that in to account.

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. You can bitch about it, but I'm afraid that is the truth of it. 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.

It's another case of nice theory, but fails to discount the real world. There are just plenty of people out there that want to take what's yours and tell you what to do. In the absence of a government to stop them, they will do so with force, unless you can likewise defend yourself with force.

If you disagree, ok then just go and show me one example of it working in the real world, on a large scale. I understand it can work fine on a small scale (for example roommates often live under an Anarchy in a house, nobody is in charge) but let's see it on the level of a nation. This means no government, yet people living in peace and prosperity. Every example I know of an Anarchy is also accompanied by chaos, violence, and the strong imposing their will on the weak.

Re:It's nice to see

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:It's nice to see

[Brian Gordon]

That wasn't my point- you dont lose any freedoms for safety as long as you have all the passwords to your encryption. You do lose freedoms for safety when to escape from murderers on the street you offer your life in serfdom to a local lord so you can take refuge in his castle.. I meant it in a literal way. And I didn't mean all that would happen just from copyright infringement being legal, it was just a general comment about anarchy

Re:It's nice to see

[Sycraft-fu]

Sorry, I don't have the time to read and respond to a long ranty statement, however I don't need to get far in to see that I needn't really bother: You say "It's important to note that the weak outnumber the strong, and when they stop feeling helpless and afraid," which again brings us to the whole ideal vs real people situation. If your system relies on people doing something ideal (like the weak standing up to the strong) it isn't a workable system. You need to deal with real people, real world. Most people are followers, if you don't have leaders they aren't going to self organize and stand up for themselves. This is just how it is, along with things like people being greedy and lazy. You either take the cynical view of humanity in to account and design a system that deals with that, or you have a system that doesn't work. Saying "Well it'd work great so long as people change and do X, Y and Z," is in every way as saying "My idea for limitless energy will work great so long as we can just change the laws of thermodynamics."

Less long rants, less ideal theories, more taking in to account the real world.

Re:It's nice to see

[bky1701]

Starting with the the assumption that it is OK to take stuff without paying for it from "evil corporations", it isn't that far from saying it is OK to take your stuff without paying for it as well. If I can get away with it as easily as I can take music and movies.

You seem to be confusing a few things.

"Taking" something requires you remove that item from someone else. If I walk into best buy and steal a CD, I am illegally taking (stealing) that CD. However, violating copyright is very different.

When I download the contents off the internet, they are not removed from anyone. The closest that can be argued is that the uploader has possibly deprived the copyright holder of a possible sale. Sane legal systems and laws generally are not built around speculation and fake senses of entitlement.

It cannot be reasonably said that this is stealing, even if you don't agree with it. I don't like bank robbery, but I don't call it murder just because I dislike it. To call it stealing is ether proof you don't understand what stealing is, or are so bias to the control of information that you really see someone reproducing bits as stealing them from you. Also, saying that copyright violation is stealing only stands to trivialize real stealing.

Face it, to use the Internet intelligently you have to have a "fortress mentality."

Actually it's a whole lot more simple: understand what you are using. Many times I have had people with no technical sense ask me if links I sent them on IM programs, to jpgs or gifs (clearly so in the link) were "viruses". At worst, if you are not using crap to look at the internet, they could have been the last measure... and that's easily handled if you have enough technical knowledge. Most problems people encounter on the internet aren't because they are too open, but because they do things not technically advisable; use IE, run exes that randomly start downloading, install known spyware, etc.

The same people with the fortress mentality have messaged me once or twice (after I encountered their paranoia) asking me how to remove viruses or spyware. Just proof paranoia != security, and security != paranoia.

Search me?

[gooman]

Is that a camcorder in your pocket or are you just happy to see the movie?

Re:Search me?

[edwardpickman]

The movie was "I Know Who Killed Me". It was definitely a camcorder.

Re:Search me?

[alienmole]

Why do you say that? Crappy Hollywood movies don't get you hot and bothered? Ohhh, Lindsey! Yes! Yes! YESSSSS!!!

Re:Search me?

[elrous0]

I generally base my moviegoing decisions on who is generating the most attention from the paparazzi on any given week. Of course, it's a huge bonus if there has been an arrest, a sex tape that "accidentally" got out, or a club fight over someone's old boyfriend. This has led me to see every movie Shannon Doherty, Paris Hilton, Tara Reid, and Lindsey Lohan have ever appeared in.

My music tastes are similar. If you want me to buy your album, you're going to have to endanger your baby, flash your tits, or both.

Zero-sum game

[Anonymous Coward]

It must be that there's only so much freedom to go around. Once the US has exported Freedom (TM) to all the world, there's none left domestically for the Americans to enjoy.

Pity - I admired the notions that created all that freedom in the first place.

(Oddly, the captcha is 'failure')

I'm sorry...

[kn0tw0rk]

I didn't mean to trip you with my tripod :)

Definition of Invasive

[Belacgod]

I'd have liked to see a definition of invasive. Did they strip-search her? Poke around in her bags? How invasive was this anyway?

Re:Definition of Invasive

[spyrochaete]

What right does some teenage usher have to examine your personal belongings? Even a cop isn't allowed to search you without probable cause. Why should a movie usher have higher authority than the police?

Re:Definition of Invasive

[compro01]

Because the usher represents the owner of the property you are on. If you don't like it you're usually free to leave.

after paying for tickets + food + drinks + etc. and not being able to get a refund if you refuse the search.

A new definition of "Upskirt Camera"

[Klathiano]

Recording equipment is so easy to conceal now that unless they want to stop people from bringing cellphones into the theater (not a bad idea), they arent going to stop people. In the meantime, they can keep checking women's blouses for equipment.

But

[Safiire Arrowny]

But castles are awesome. Let's do it!

Re:But

[Tatisimo]

But in order for beautiful castles to exist, there has to be slave-labor and famine among the peasants, to that the royalty may thrive. (That's the most freaking poetical thing I've said in a long time!!!)

Re:But

[Max Littlemore]

But in order for beautiful castles to exist, there has to be slave-labor and famine among the peasants, to that the royalty may thrive. (That's the most freaking poetical thing I've said in a long time!!!)

So was that poetical (sic) license or a typo?

Re:But

[nyekulturniy]

Never heard of cannon, have you? Or shaped-charge explosives? Or even 21-cm howitzers?

Re:But

[Tatisimo]

An intentional typo meant for the reader to stop and think about what is written.

Stupid solution to the problem

[Urusai]

They just need to buy some cheap Soviet surplus night vision goggles and check out the theater once or twice during the show. I guess that would make too much sense. American stupidity is invading Canada, apparently.

Re:Stupid solution to the problem

[qzulla]

And this would help them with the search how?

qz

Re:Stupid solution to the problem

[mrchaotica]

Think, stupid! They're searching for cameras in an attempt to prevent people from filming the movie, right? Well, in order to actually accomplish the filming, the people would have to have their camera out during the entire movie! It would be in plain sight to anyone wearing night-vision goggles. Get it now?

Re:Stupid solution to the problem

[MisterOblivious]

Actually, it makes so much sense to use night vision equipment that some movie theaters have been doing it for years.
Watching the crowd during an advanced screening using night vision has been pretty standard for some time now. The use of such technology is spreading to more widespread releases as well. Military-style night-sights have been sent to every outlet in the country showing the new Harry Potter film, The Prisoner of Azkaban.

All I can say is....

[AlphaLop]

Good luck my Canadian friends. May you have more success then we have.

Re:If you let them search you,you LET them search

[qzulla]

You're really not even supposed to submit to police searches without warrant or good cause, so whey the hell would you let someone with far far far less authority.

They have been doing this for eons for concerts. A lady friend asked me how get her camera into a concert. I told her to put it in her bra. She was gifted by nature to pull it off.

Another friend used to sneak recording devices in concerts under his GFs short skirt taped to her legs. There are some places that are not to be touched by a man or a woman doing the search.

If you are determined a camera will get in.

People need to stop thinking everyone has authority over them, seriously you can just leave the premisis.

Then in my example you just lost $150 bux.

I realize my example is not the best but management needs to know why you want your money back. Just walking out with a refund is not enough. Management does not see that. The manager needs to know why you are not spending money in their business.

qz

Lots of anti-photographer stuff lately

[MeditationSensation]

I seem to recall seeing stories on Washington D.C. and New York City photographers getting hassled for taking pictures. This is kind along the same lines. Does anyone really watch the cam pirated movies anyway? The few I've seen have been terrible quality. Maybe it was just for personal consumption.

Re:Lots of anti-photographer stuff lately

[mjwx]

The few I've seen have been terrible quality

That may not be the fault of the camcorder. Most of the movies I have seen in recent years have been of terrible quality.

Calm Yourselves

[Anonymous Coward]

This search has nothing to do with the Canadian government but theatre owners. The infamous Bill C-59 (http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publicat ion.aspx?DocId=2993072&Language=e&Mode=1&File=24) is not law yet and gives no additional rights for anyone to search anyone for anything.

Even if C-59 was passed, which is not likely, no one would ever see jail time over it. Good luck proving an intent to distribute the recording and no judge in Canada would ever put anyone away for even a day for a non-violent offense with a maximum sentence of only 2 years.

Once again, this is simply theatre owners reacting to intense industry pressure. This is not a story about the oppressive Canadian government.

Re:Calm Yourselves

[linuxhack]

Just to state for the record, C-59 was given Royal Assent on June 22, 2007. In other words, it is already law.

It spent 12 days in Parliament, 8 days in the Senate and then received Royal Assent on the same day the Senate passed it. Government is certainly a well oiled machine - you just need to know how to grease the wheels properly.

(hopefully my link works better then yours does)
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HouseBills/BillsGovernment. aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1#C59

Use technology to not inconvenience her

[Ang31us]

If she's hot enough, I would use infrared camera to search her bag and see through her clothes (to make sure she's not hiding a camera, of course).

I'm a big fan of a greyscale night-vision mode with an infrared filter on a sunny day at the beach myself.

If she's not so hot, someone else can search her while I record the movie on my fancy camera.

Re:Use technology to not inconvenience her

[PhrostyMcByte]

Anyone wondering what he's talking about should check out these examples.

Re:Use technology to not inconvenience her

[msimm]

Lol. Dig their clown porn. Anyway, these sort of things worry me. I like my porn to be mutually consensual but I worry more about people who haven't managed to find ways to live comfortably or maybe even openly with their sexuality.

Granted, I'd have killed for one when I was a kid. (:

And to think...

[DwarfGoanna]

I saw a guy walking out with a camera bag when I was leaving The Simpsons last weekend. Clearly, we have an Invasive Search Gap with our neighbor to the north.

Re:And to think...

[DataBroker]

If he's walking out, it's too late. The most they can do at that point (assuming he refuses a search) is escort him out. I presume that that point of law matches that of our northernmost state--err, neighbors to the north.

Depends

[Sycraft-fu]

Perhaps they didn't do a good job making it clear that it was voluntary. I've seen places that really skirt the edges of the law when it comes to private security and such. They do as much to make them look like cops as possible and try to give the impression that when they tell you something, you've no right to refuse. Thus if the theatre did that I could see how they'd be in trouble. As far as I'm concerned they should have to state something like "We want to search you and/or your belongings prior to this movie. This is a voluntary search. If you don't agree to be searched, we won't let you in the theatre, but will refund the money for your ticket. Is it ok if we search you?" That I'm fine with, especially since maybe then people will stand up and say "fuck you" and leave. If enough people do that, they'll stop the damn searches (or go out of business). However I could easily see it being more along the lines of "Give me your bag, we are going to search it before you enter. No, you don't have a choice."

Re:Depends

[Aladrin]

So imposing additional restrictions after you've paid for you ticket is okay by you? I don't call that voluntary if it means losing a couple hours of my life and ruining my plans for fun for the day.

At that point, if I -really- had to see the movie, I'd submit to it. (I'm having a hard time naming any movie that fits this category.)

If I didn't, I'd be yelling up a storm, letting everyone in hearing range know exactly what I thought about their bullshit searches. I might even demand that they call the police and get this settled once and for all. If they wouldn't, I would. "Hello, Police? Yes, I'm being forced to submit to an illegal search." That should get some attention.

I don't know if I'd go so far as to sue, as I really don't like the court system, but I'd sure let everyone I talked to for the next few years know about it.

And lastly, it'd be a long damned time before I set foot in that theatre ever again.

The theatre I go to here (in central Florida) used to bad all food and drink, then went ot just banning food, then non-candy food. They used to ask to look inside your shopping bag -IF- they could see something through it that they didn't allow. They don't bother with that at all, and only twice in the last year did they say anything at all, and that was only 'It's just candy right? We can't allow other food in.' They didn't ask to see it.

Ticket prices are low, the food is always good, and the theatres and bathrooms are almost always very clean. (At least to the eye.) And they promptly refund your money if you walk out of a movie and ask for it. That's how to run a theatre, not this 'everyone is a criminal' attitude.

Re:Depends

[Kenshin]

"Hello, Police? Yes, I'm being forced to submit to an illegal search."

No one's "forcing" you to submit to a search. I've never seen a squad of pimply-faced teens restrain someone so their bag can be searched. If you don't want it, turn around and get a refund. Don't be a drama queen.

The theatre I go to here (in central Florida) used to ban all food and drink...

I worked in a movie theatre long ago. Yes, food prices suck, and I do indeed smuggle in food of my own, but that's where all the theatre's profits come from. Ticket sales JUST cover the cost of renting the film reel from the distributor. If people don't buy popcorn (5000% profit), the lights go dark.

Re:Depends

[Aladrin]

They're forcing me to submit to it if I wish to enjoy my plans for the day. It's like saying you aren't forced to submit to a search at an airport, as you can choose the alternate: Time in jail. It's force.

And oddly enough, since they've been less crazy with the 'no outside food!' policy, I've bought -more- of their food, not less.

Re:Depends

[Kenshin]

They're forcing me to submit to it if I wish to enjoy my plans for the day.

If your plans involve a private establishment, you have to make room for their rules. Just like if someone comes over to your house, they have to come in under your rules.

There's no constitutional right for you to "enjoy your day". If that were the case, you could go bust into a private house and when the cops come to arrest you you could complain that they're preventing you from "enjoying your day".

Re:Depends

[fishbowl]

>If people don't buy popcorn (5000% profit), the lights go dark.

Distribution prices would come down before the producers gave up their venue...

Anyway, I expect the cam films to be mostly inside jobs. Projectionist, once a skilled trade with a labor union and a living wage, has long been a minimum wage job. The training on the platter system takes about an hour. The setup of a new film requires it to be screened once. This is done late at night, by the minimum wage high school kid. The manager of the theatre can't be bothered.

I know this, because it's what I did in High School. When I had the keys to the theatre, setup nights and the nights where we did deep cleaning were parties. If we'd had cameras and cared to deal with it, somebody would have made films. Usually the movies were boring though, so what we did instead was play music through the theatre sound system, drink fountain sodas and poke smot.

I don't know what theatre employees do these days, but I expect it's still a shit job, the kind of job that you go in every day hoping to get fired from, whose only perk is free movies and free fountain drinks. And maybe if you read in your girlfriend's diary that she had a fantasy about doing it in an empty movie theatre you can deliver. That and no-benefits minimum-wage pay for insanely long hours in a maddening environment.

Re:Depends

[Kenshin]

Distribution prices would come down before the producers gave up their venue...

You'd be surprised. The theatre I worked at closed-down about a year after I quit, despite being in a busy, easily-accessible plaza in an affluent town. Now the only option we have is one of those suburban megaplexes on the edge of town that you can realistically only get to by car.

Anyway, I expect the cam films to be mostly inside jobs.

I totally agree. That's the only way you'd be able to properly setup a tripod. We were slackers, but we'd notice stuff like that during regular shows.

I don't know what theatre employees do these days, but I expect it's still a shit job, the kind of job that you go in every day hoping to get fired from, whose only perk is free movies and free fountain drinks.

Basically. I quit before I let them fire me, though. (I knew it was coming.) Our manager was a complete pain in the ass, and our employee turnover rate was astronomical.

I did have a few good times, though. Wish I'd bonded with my coworkers a bit better so I could have kept contact... (I was going through a bit of a rough spot in my life.)

But, it took forever to get the artificial butter smell out of my work pants.

Re:Depends

[innocent_white_lamb]

The setup of a new film requires it to be screened once. This is done late at night, by the minimum wage high school kid. The manager of the theatre can't be bothered.
 
How so?
 
Do a proper job of cutting and splicing the reels, double-check all of your splices over your lightbox and count the sprocket holes, and spin 'er onto the platter.
 
The only time you should need to "preview" a film is if you have a second-run print that someone buggered up, or if you have a questionable reel from the warehouse that doesn't look right. (Yes, you can tell.) And you need to be able to count to 4, of course.
 
I'm a projectionist, and I own a theatre. Really.

Re:Depends

[fishbowl]

>>The setup of a new film requires it to be screened once. This is done late at night, by the minimum wage high school
>>kid. The manager of the theatre can't be bothered.

>How so?

Which? In our case, the theatre manager was literally too fat to go up the stairs. The assistant manager could physically do it, but never did.

We were supposed to screen the films. We wanted to know if there were sprocket problems, audio issues, reels labeled wrong, etc.

>I'm a projectionist, and I own a theatre. Really.

I believe you, and I'm sure it's nice. When I worked in a theatre, the employees were abused, and abused right back. It really was horrible for $3.35 an hour. And one day, when I and another employee were injured in a car accident on the way to work, called in to let them know, and were told that we needed to come in no matter what... well, my mom got wind of that, and made me quit, and saw to it that the place closed down. It never re-opened. Almost 30 years later, it's still a vacant building.

Public humiliation is the core of the suit.

[twitter]

Either she wanted to see whatever movie so badly that she subjected herself to it, or she just wanted a reason to sue someone for $60k.

This is about humiliation. The first part was being tricked - there was no posting outside, you just got the choice to be searched or lose your tickets. Second, options are humiliating. Searches are usually reserved for people caught red handed committing a crime. "Show us the Maxi Pads or leave, lady." How nice. The attendant might have been rude.

$60,000 is little more than a slap on the wrist to a business and nothing compared to their damaged reputation. I hope she gets it and the movie theaters turn around and sue the dumb assed MAFIAA rep who forced them to do such a stupid thing. The word is out, go to Guzzo and be treated like a criminal. Ticket sales are going to the bottom and they will wish they had never heard of camcorder searches.

Re:If you let them search you,you LET them search

[sumdumass]

It isn't always as easy as that. There are all sorts of possibilities including using the "if you don't like it leave" program to exclude certain types of people from the establishment.

It is like a country club having a dress code that specifically excludes the garments minorities commonly wear and then claiming to be open to the public. Maybe the theater knows that people with herpes medication in their pack or sex toys purchased at a local shop in the same mall or whatever else, will not come inside and that is their way of keeping their establishment clean.

Anyways, there seems to be some charter in Canada that limits a persons ability to search people without an accusation of a crime already happening. So from the looks of it, everyone who is searched is suspected of a crime that never took place without regard to their ability to go somewhere else or not go in.

Sounds like an adhesion contract to me

[GoatRavisher]

I am not sure about in Canada, but in the US adhesion contracts (contracts that do not allow equal, two-way negotiation between two parties) are a good way for a company to get sued. Did she get competent legal advice as to what the "search" could entail? Did she understand her rights? Did she have an opportunity to propose an alternative arrangement that was satisfactory to both parties?

beat them

[Anonymous Coward]

I was ejected from a movie theatre after manhandling one of the 14 year old movie drones. he actually reached out and felt a bulge in my vest pocket! (Manitoba btw). I was shocked, first reaction was to shove him into the wall rather hard. Manager came over, got my money back, and was asked to leave.

Fuck them. start randomly patting down people WITHOUT EVEN ASKING is going to get you hurt.

Re:beat them

[pev]

So... You were assaulted by a member of the staff and then meekly left when asked to leave? You could have stood your ground, asked for a refund of the fee and then watched the film with some free popcorn in return for not pressing charges. That would have been fair and a reasonable application of the law to stop over-zealous idiots...

~Pev

Re:beat them

[davecb]

In Canada, you would be the victim of an assault and
arguably therefor an attempted illegal search, and
would be free to arrest the culprit, using the minmum
force you reasonably found necessary to immoblize him
while waiting for the police.

Opening Weekends

[Enderandrew]

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.

Re:Opening Weekends

[witte]

Maybe if going to a movie theater wasn't so expensive, people would be less inclined to download dog-shit quality camcorder captures of movies.
If the movie industry wants to give people an incentive to not record movies in the theatre or download them without anybody making a buck off of it, they'd better come up with a less insulting way to do it.
You can't go policing an entertainment venue like it's a state prison.</hyperbole>

And your numbers are a bit on the exaggerated side. Tens of millions of dollars in a weekend because of a lousy camcorder screener ? That would be funny if I wasn't tired of hearing the same sort of nonsense from the **AA over and over again.

Lowering prices to a reasonable level would help a lot.
Also, since the industry keeps repeating that there is a market for inferior quality movies, why don't they cater to it with even lower prices & digital distribution instead of trying to repress and criminalize an entire market segment through lobbying, and extortion thru frivolous lawsuits ?

Re:Opening Weekends

[Enderandrew]

Industry experts were predicting a huge opening weekend for The Hulk, and it was far from a success. And after the leak, the movie dropped 70% between week 1 and 2, which is pretty big for Hollywood. In fact, a 70% drop is staggering. The movie had a 137 million dollar budget, and many experts thought the movie would pull in 250 million that summer. It brought in a total of 132 million, meaning the film actually lost money.

It is a Catch-22 when people say they pirate because ticket prices are high, but that only drives ticket prices higher for those of us who actually pay to see the movie. Yet despite people complaining about high prices, the big AMC cineplex here still offers their $4 early shows. Lately, that is how I've been seeing all the big movies on opening day. I go early, beat the crowd, and save money at the same time.

Re:Opening Weekends

[LocalH]

To be fair, the GP didn't advocate that the GGP commit suicide, merely that they cut their dick off.

Re:Opening Weekends

[Enderandrew]

"C) You should consider education or suicide."

He suggested as well that I cut my dick off.

And off-topic, but are you a member of the band Local H, or just a fan?

Re:Opening Weekends

[Malekin]

You're still basing your argument on the presumptions that "experts" are always correct and that lower-than-expected earnings were caused by leaked films. A single movie launch does not a universal law make. Further, correlation is not causation.

Re:Opening Weekends

[Enderandrew]

As someone who has played the HSX for years, there are always surprises, but with huge blockbusters, they aren't off huge amounts on predictions for opening weekend. Check boxofficemojo.com and you can see predictions each week, and the actual results. They are very accurate, and HSX.com is even more accurate.

When there is a discrepancies of 118 million dollars when a film leaks, those two events are not coincidences. There have been numerous examples, but The Hulk was the first one I remember reading about where there was a huge financial impact immediately apparent, to the point that the FBI made a bunch of arrests a week later. Again, if you cost someone tens of millions of dollars, expect to ruffle some feathers.

Re:Opening Weekends

[thetoastman]

I'll see if I can't be a little more polite than some of the other comments.

In summary, you are wrong.

In detail then . . .

As has already been pointed out, the only reviewed study of music and movie pirating via P2P has shown that there is no impact to the music or movie industries. Scroll up for the academic reference.

There are two reasons (from my experience) that theater gross receipts may be off,

1. Poor product
2. Poor movie going experience

The product is just plain bad. Couple a poor product with many online forums discussing the poor product, and second week receipts will be down. Some of my personal observations concerning recent movies follows.

• Spirderman 3 was horrendous. Even the leads have publicly refused to be in another one of that series unless there is significant character development for Spiderman and Mary Jane.
• Fantastic 4 - The Rise of the Silver Surfer was terrible. How can you film Jessica Alba and make her look unattractive?. The Silver Surfer voice characterization was miserable. This is a movie I almost walked out of.
• Ocean's 13 had so many glaring plot inconsistencies that the entire plot was unbelievable. An obsessive-compulsive owner of the biggest casino who has access to the FBI crime database doesn't check everyone who applies for a position?
• No Reservations is the first movie I've seen where Catherine Zeta-Jones was poorly used. She normally plays a strong woman with an unexpected compassionate side. In this movie, she was just a miserable human being. This movie is also a remake of Mostly Martha, a German film that apparently is much better.

The movie going experience is also unpleasant. The theaters are usually a mess, the staff is unpleasant to rude, and I don't even bother buying concessions. I no longer go to Regal Theaters after I was denied entry (after purchasing a ticket). I had purchased an umbrella on a sunny day. Since I was on my bike at the time, I couldn't leave the purchase in the car. The manager claimed that the umbrella could be used as a weapon and would not allow me to enter the theater with a paid ticket. They no longer get my business.

I never pay full price for movies. I attend matinee shows. Even then, many movies are not worth the $6.

I don't use P2P systems, except for updating games and getting the new version of Fedora. While I have a reasonable Internet connection, I will not waste my time, disk space, or a DVD on most commercial movies. Those few that I like, I will purchase, with the exception of Sony Pictures. I never know if a Sony product will play on my computers due to their use of DRM. Hence, they don't get my business.

Camcorder bootlegs are not something that people buy or download. I have friends in Malaysia, and they all scoff at camcorder copies. People discussing ripped movies on Usenet complain about highly compressed movies, color banding, and color bleed-over. No one is going to waste any time, disk space, or recordable media on camcorder bootlegs.

So based on my personal experience, the experience of many people in countries where US copyrights are largely ignored, discussions on Usenet, and refereed articles you are misinformed.

Re:Opening Weekends

[Enderandrew]

Actually, if you believe piracy has no effect on their respective industries, I would contend you are very much wrong. I can't even begin to count the number of PC game development houses that either folded, or switched to console development solely and most cited piracy for the reason.

And we're not just talking theoretical. In real world situations, from everyone I know, piracy is not tied to quality. In fact people pirate they things they want. When the means to pirate material is easy, people do it more. When it is not worth the hassle, people do it less. People have always been able to swap software and such, or copy CDs, but the advent of P2P technology made it vastly easier to pirate, and it has become more widespread.

Yes the summer blockbusters were disappointing, but I'm not talking about total industry numbers being down, because while they are down, there are a variety of variables. However, in the specific instances when a movie has been leaked on opening weekend, there is a direct connection to the opening grosses that weekend. And in most cases, the first weekend is the highest a film will ever gross. It only goes down from there.

Movie piracy is also a different beast from music or software. If I download an album, and I like it, I am likely to buy the album, because I will listen to that music for years to come repeatedly. I can't even begin to count the number of times I've listened to my favorite albums over the years. Software programs? I could download a program to evaluate it, and purchase it later, because I will reuse the software continuously. But a movie?

Some movies you rewatch, but most movies I watch once. If I download the movie and watch it once, I'm done. I'm not going to buy the movie afterwards if I have no intention to see it again. Thusly there is a financial impact there. Sadly I know more people who download movies illegally than go to the theater with any regularity.

And while I railed against low-quality camcorder bootlegs, because I like seeing a high quality picture, I have recently seen some really impressive rips. A friend of mine just downloaded like 15 movies last week alone, with file sizes averaging around 700 megs for a full-length movie, and the quality was damn near DVD quality. Honestly, I'm not sure I would have known it was a download unless someone said something.

It defies all logic to say that piracy has NO EFFECT on the economics of each industry. The question is how big or small of an effect there is.

Re:Opening Weekends

[witte]

Since you seem to prefer extrapolating from a single example, allow me to do the same:
"The Hulk" bombed becaused it was utter drivel. It sucked. So why pay ?

Word of mouth probably did a lot more for low revenue than so-called "piracy".
People don't like shoveling out cash for something that has a lousy reputation.

Also, this particular movie mostly catered to old-school hulk fans, and 10-14 yo kids; maybe that's too slim a demographic if they expected to rake in $250M.

>Industry experts were predicting
Predictions are by definition no guarantees. Anything can happen.

Re:Opening Weekends

[Aladrin]

While there are those that would watch a pirate version of the movie instead of pay the theatre, there are also those that wouldn't see it in the theatre at any price, and only getting it free is worth it. You can't even draw a line between them, since each movie is of different value to each person.

Yes, rampant piracy would increase prices, but there's no proof of that happening. Someone above cited a verified study that says that isn't happening, and it's the only legit one, according to them. (I haven't bothered looking into it.)

But wait! You then tell people to not pay for the theatre, but wait until it's on DVD and buy it then instead of pirating. That would STILL raise your theatre prices that you were complaining about.

Let's talk about these people with cameras, though. How many do you think there are? Do you think each theatre sees 1 per movie? Maybe every 10 or 100 theatres? I would be willing to bet that only 1 in 1000 theatres has someone with a camera for any given movie, if that many. Since each theatre has hundreds or thousands of customers per movie, they are inconveniencing customers for a 1 in a million shot at catching someone, and IF they catch that person, there's probably someone in a another theatre that doesn't get caught.

All they are doing is pissing off legit customers. Just like DRM, this is pointless and only serves to piss off legit customers.

Re:Opening Weekends

[Enderandrew]

Please go back and read my posts.

There is a direct traceable correlation between movies that get leaked on opening weekend and box office losses. Generally, if you don't see a movie in the first few weeks it is out, you have to watch for cable or DVD, so the people who leak and/or pirate movies later down the road aren't impacting box office results that much. But when you can see the big summer blockbuster for free the same weekend it is released in the theater, that does influence box office revenue to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.

Re:Opening Weekends

[Aladrin]

You haven't actually shown any statistics, and there are a few obvious reasons why 'losses' don't necessarily have anything to do with 'leaks'. Losses has a lot to do with having too big a budget for how good a movie actually is, for one.

It also occurs that your definition of 'losses' is probably 'money they would have made' and we have -no- idea what that number is. Until you can provide concrete proof of what they would have grossed the first weekend had it not been leaked, you haven't got much to stand on there. You're dangerously close to parroting the MPAA and RIAA, actually, and their numbers have been proven to be horribly skewed.

Re:Opening Weekends

[spyrochaete]

So while others are downloading movies, I get to pay for it.

This is the real problem in my mind. Theatres punish legitimate ticketholders by bombarding them with ads, previews, and anti-piracy rhetoric. They literally hold the movie hostage for up to 30 minutes to milk their captive audience. Now they're searching people's personal belongings! All this in addition to the price of the ticket. DVD owners (not renters but OWNERS!!) can look forward to unskippable copyright messages, corporate logos, and even advertisements.

The problem is negative reciprocity and the movie industry is crying because they're reaping what they've sown. Why should I pay money for a broken product or sullied experience when it is the movie pirates who simply deliver what the consumer bought? Because of this negative reciprocity the movie industry encourages people to find a less painful means of obtaining the same product.

I used to go to the theatre at least once per month. Now it's once per year. Movie theatres have done everything in their power to repel me and they've succeeded. Last year I let 2 free tickets expire because there are a million things I'd rather do than go to the movies.

The solution to this is POSITIVE reciprocity. Free small popcorn with ticket purchase. No ads, no warnings, no threats, no more than 5 minutes of pre-movie "entertainment" before the feature. Free DVD of the first movie when you see the sequel in the theatre. Halve ticket prices. Outside food welcomed. Give the ticketholder something a pirated copy can't. Welcome me to your theatre and I'll see a movie every week.

Re:Opening Weekends

[Kokuyo]

So is this seriously our level here on Slashdot? That we have to rate someone interesting who thinks that a) calling someone gay is a derogatory term and b) calling someone names proves your point?

Well, if that's the way you guys work, then:

AC, you fucking red necked dickhead! Have you got nothing better to do than insult people who don't share your moronic opinion, you little asshat?! Do you think anyone on here believes that your dick is larger than the 0.3 inches it is because of it?

Listen you little shit-eating son of a bitch, take your goddamn shit elswhere. We're just too intelligent for you lowlife piece of scum!

Now there. Did I do well, Slashdot? Do I get good karma now?

Yes, I'm pissed, thanks for noticing.

Re:Opening Weekends

[Kimos]

2. Poor movie going experience

That's the reason that I pirate films. Every once in a while I give the theaters another chance, but so far have always happily returned to my boycott...

When I download a film, I get to watch... the film! When I go to a theater, I get to sit and wait while they play full audio/video commercials for half an hour before show time. When showtime starts, I am shown adds for the theater and warnings about how how movie piracy is a crime and kills children. Then I am shown fifteen or twenty minutes of previews for films. I don't understand why people pay so much money to be shown all these advertisements.

Even buying or renting a DVD is a lousy experience. unskippable FBI warnings, ads, and trailers. I paid for the film, just let me watch it!

Re:Opening Weekends

[thetoastman]

Please don't bait and switch

The point under discussion is camcorder bootlegs of movies.

A refereed paper posits no damage to the industries covered (music, movies) by downloads.

Earlier, you stated you have an impressive DVD collection. If you do not watch movies more than once, why do you have such an impressive collection?

The impressive rips your friend downloaded are rips from DVDs (either commercial or screening DVDs). I haven't seen a camcorder bootleg on Usenet in a while, but I haven't looked. I haven't looked for camcorder bootlegs on Pirate Bay either, although they may be there.

As far as music goes, there are a lot of low to medium quality copies of songs available via P2P, Internet radio, and Usenet. Again, I stress the quality. As an experiment, I burned an audio CD from an Internet radio recorded stream and played it on a CD player. The sound was intolerable. Where possible, I purchase CDs of the artists I hear on Internet radio and create better quality tracks for my iPod from the CD.

You are correct, however in that P2P and other forms of distribution have an impact on the entertainment industry. Unfortunately, it's not having the impact that it should. Declining sales and lower profit margins indicate that the product and business processes need to be improved. Instead, we have corporations using questionable legal tactics to maintain artificially (from a market perspective) high prices and profits for the "good ol' boy" people in the entertainment industries.

We've had this same issue before with cassettes and radio, and then with VHS and TV. Tivo and other DVR systems coupled with digital cable have upped the ante a bit.

There are many solutions to the problem. Some of the core ideas for these solutions include the following.

• Be less risk-adverse. This of course means engaging a brain when picking new products.
• Mine new materials. There are a lot of amazing books that would make great movies. However, that would require producers to read and writers to write. When a comedy about the Geico cavemen is green-lit, I'm not too confident of either.
• Reduce the pay scale of people outside of the creative loop. A profit reduction doesn't impact the 'C' level people, but causes more layoffs in the rank and file.
• Quit paying A-level performers their outrageous salaries. This is a huge part of the budget for movies in general.
• For music, focus on live performances and merchandise rather than recorded media.

As for a real cause and effect, I would enjoy doing a factors analysis of the entertainment industry market. The Balkanization of the market by consumers versus the attempt at market control by the entertainment industry would be another interesting study.

Games have a different dynamic than the more passive entertainment forms. Not being a hard-core gamer, I would have to do a bit of research to determine what consumers feel to be the real challenges with games. As a casual game player, I find lack of performance (sloppy programming), inconsistency, and lack of complexity/richness to be the major barriers to my game play. For serious gamers, the issues could be very different.

As such, I don't download games for the same reason I don't download movies. The end result is not worth the time, resources, or effort I expend to obtain the product.

Make a more compelling product using a better business plan and the marketplace will reward you. Make poor products with a poor business plan while skimming 8-figure salaries off the top, and the marketplace will (hopefully) punish you.

Re:Opening Weekends

[thetoastman]

Replying to my own comments . . . .

The following contains industry executive comments concerning the Simpson's Movie and CAM downloads.

Yet, even though "The Simpsons Movie" was leaked and downloaded tens of thousands of times at the very least, Mavens copy alone has averaged about 9,000 leechers on the Pirate Bay, it still raked in big bucks at the box office over the weekend pulling in some $71.9 million in ticket sales.
"We are ecstatic," said Chris Aronson, senior vice president for distribution at 20th Century Fox. "It far exceeded even the most optimistic of expectations."

To bring this comment back on subject . . . The Canadian theater has no business or legal reason to search their patrons, let alone search them in an abusive manner.

Re:Opening Weekends

[LocalH]

A fan.

Interesting, how only one side...

[mark-t]

... of these sorts of things ever seems to make the headlines.

There are far more theatres where these sorts of privacy invasions are not occurring than those where they actually are. I don't abide by what this theatre chain has decided to do, but what's happened here is the exception and not the rule what is happening in Canadian theatres. The anti-camcording law brings stiff penalties to people who record in the theatres but _DOES NOT_ authorize the theatres to search patrons. The new bill does give theatre owners a little more leverage in getting criminal charges filed against people they catch recording, however, effectively making a stronger deterrent against repeat offenders. Where previously many theatres simply had a policy of simply kicking the patron who was caught recording the movie out of the theatre, and nothing more was ever done, theatre owners and managers in Canada now at least have the ability to legally detain a person who has done this until the cops they've called arrive.

Re:Interesting, how only one side...

[arth1]

Why would a theatre need authorization for a patron to voluntarily submit to a search in order to see a movie? As long as customers are not being discriminated against, be it for race, gender or disability, I would think the movie theatre and customer would be allowed to reach any kind of agreement they want, whether it's subjecting to searches, agreeing to not perform sexual acts in the theatre and to turn off cell phones. You don't have to like the terms, but if you agree to them, it's your choice.
Again, this isn't something that you're forced to submit to. You can exercise your freedom to take your money elsewhere.

Re:Interesting, how only one side...

[the not-troll]

There are far more theatres where these sorts of privacy invasions are not occurring than those where they actually are.

Of course you can try and take your money elsewhere - now. But in time, every theatre will be invading your privacy due to pressure from the entertainment industry. Not paying them money is just going to encourage them. After all, it can't possibly be that they have less customers because they're invading their privacy, but it has to be those pirates.

And that isn't even considering that you only have a selection of a handful theatres in a reasonable driving distance. Once you visited the last theatre, it just becomes like an election: you can chose one who invades your privacy or one who invades your privacy, no other options available.

What people seem to be unable to learn is that you need to stand up when the inconvenience begins, not when it is all-encompassing. If you fight back early, you can stop it. If you keep running from it, it will get you someday.

Re:Interesting, how only one side...

[mark-t]

Uh.... A handful of theatres within driving distance? You realize this incident happened in Montreal, right? You also realize that the theatre chain that this happened with is not even a particularly significant theatre chain in Canada, right? All the biggest ones have always just tried to keep a watch out for people recording while actually _in_ the theatre. And there's absolutely no indication that is not what they will continue to do. As I said, Bill C-59 just gives the theatres some legal backbone to actually detain people who will be under arrest instead of just giving them a slap on the wrist and letting them go. That's not just how it's intended to be used, that's how it's BEING used... by an overwhelming majority of Canadian theatres. But of course, all is well doesn't make for very good headline news, does it?

Ayways, this theatre is not invading privacy due to pressure from the entertainment industry, they are invading privacy because they are clueless about how to actually implement enforcement of what is a new bill. I would dare say that this particular chain was probably one of the ones that didn't do anything to deter in-theatre recordings prior to creation of Bill C-59, but that is just personal speculation. They don't need x-ray machines or search procedures... they just need to monitor the theatres during the movie, and then be willing to call the cops and detain someone they catch actually breaking the law. And of course, if this theatre never had a policy of kicking out people who were recording movies before this, it makes some sense that this sort of solution wouldn't occur to them.

Re:Interesting, how only one side...

[Detritus]

Public policy, as determined by the courts and legislature. "Freedom of contract" is not the carte blanche it once was for businesses to abuse employees and customers.

Re:Interesting, how only one side...

[the not-troll]

I can't hold a whole theatre in my hand, so I represented it by pebbles, and I guess I can hold enough pebbles in my hand for a handful being all the theatres in Montreal. The important point is that they're a finite number, not how many exactly. If that behaviour were to spread, you'd be out of theatres someday, it's that simple.

My point is, you can't just say "oh, it's just that one, that doesn't matter". Otherwise, others might think it prudent to follow - if the government manages to get everybody strip searched at the airport, don't you think that the entertainment industry has the will and, by virtue of their monopoly on their "content", the means to force the theatres to do the same?

It may not be x-ray machines yet, but it's just a question of time until the cameras are built so that they can't be detected easily (camera in the lenses, anyone?), requiring more sophisticated means of detection.

Also, news, per definition, are about the unusual.

Re:Interesting, how only one side...

[mark-t]

I didn't say it doesn't matter... I said that this story paints a one-sided picture that could convey a very incomplete picture of how this bill is being handled. I think it's absolutely terrible what this theatre chain is doing.

... - if the government manages to get everybody strip searched at the airport, don't you think that the entertainment industry has the will and, by virtue of their monopoly on their "content", the means to force the theatres to do the same?

In a word, no. Seriously. Think it through. Theatres are usually just casual entertainment. People generally travel by plane because either they have to, or else because they have been planning on travelling for long enough that to suddenly change their travel plans would be a significant inconvenience.

But...

[martin_henry]

...Am I allowed to film them searching me? some people like that sort of thing....

Spiderpig

[jamesh]

If anyone has seen the trailer they'll know all about spiderpig. There are several clips on youtube too which are just doctored trailer footage.

Well, except you are completely wrong

[Sycraft-fu]

DVD sales have long ago surpassed theatre sales for where the money is made. Many movies lose at the box office but make it into the back after going out to DVD. Some never get a chance in the theatre but become successful on video all the same (Boondock Saints). Thus far the numbers do NOT bear out that P2P is hurting legit sales. In fact the one and only proper, scientific, peer reviewed study shows no impact (http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_Marc h2004.pdf). This seems to be supported by the fact that despite their crying about rampant piracy, media companies are not only not going out of business, they are posting healthy profits.

I know that the media industry likes to claim that the evil pirates are killing their business, but thus far the real numbers just don't bare that out.

Re:OT, but given you call this a theatre

[digital bath]

Around here (Seattle area), we usually call it a movie theater.

Too bad they didn't ruin her $7.4 million pants

[spineboy]

I mean come on- the level of lawsuit sophistication in Canada isss pitiful. Here in the USA we can sue for over Seven million dollars if someone ruins our pants,let alone physicallly searching you. We could get up to 60 million dollars for that.

Re:If you let them search you,you LET them search

[Lesrahpem]

Ok, seeing as a movie theatre has no right to search you, you have the option of just leaving. If she didn't just leave to go to a less ridiculous theatre then it's her own fault she submitted to being searched.

I hate it when people say this sort of thing. This crap has happened to me before at a theatre and they refused to refund my ticket when I refused the search.

Re:If you let them search you,you LET them search

[Safiire Arrowny]

I think they should have definitely refunded your ticket, but I still believe that the right thing to do is leave and not let them search you. Whatever option you pick I don't think submitting to their search should be the choice. I'm just saying that it is your fault they search you if you say 'Ok you can search me'.

Re:If you let them search you,you LET them search

[c6gunner]

Anyways, there seems to be some charter in Canada that limits a persons ability to search people without an accusation of a crime already happening.

Nonsense. For forced searches, sure - just like in the US and the rest of the civilized world you can't be forced to undergo a search unless you're accused of a crime first. But there's no protection against voluntary searches. Otherwise sex might be illegal :) It's the same rule everywhere, from nightclubs to movie theatres, ghetto highschools to airports: you consent to being searched or you don't get service. It's your decision - nobody is forcing you to do anything.

Re:If you let them search you,you LET them search

[sumdumass]

I was just going from what I read from links inside the article linked to.

I like the way you clarified it with the sex.

Cameras in cell phones

[XavidX]

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)

Re:Cameras in cell phones

[Shadow-isoHunt]

Probably white out the CCD with IR.

I hate Guzzo

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I hate Guzzo

[Pig Hogger]

Guzzo theaters are, indeed, a mafia-front. It is strange though that they would harass customers; however, in the past, Guzzo had to go to court to have movie distributors release "fresh" titles to them, so it may be some effort from Guzzo to woo movie distributors (which does not make it right any more).

Re:OT, but given you call this a theatre

[RasputinAXP]

Contextually, 90% of the time. A theatre is a theatre is a theatre.

When necessary, we'd call it a movie theatre. Shortened, "we're going to the movies/see a movie." Cinema is kind of an archaic term; I only hear it in relation to "cinema studies' majors and things of that nature. A stage theatre is usually just a theatre.

We also tend not to say things like "I'm going out to the theatre tonight," even if we're going to see a show or a play. Here in New Jersey, depending on where you're going, it's either "I'm going to see a Broadway show," or stating the specific name of the venue or show. Also, in the southern part of the state you're closer to Philadelphia, in which people almost without fail refer to the name of the venue.

Spot on

[z80kid]

I was a late adopter of the DVD player. I had it hooked up through my VCR (yeah, bad move). When I rented Star Wars Episode II, the macrovision made it unplayable.

So I called my neighbor - a trekkie who is more up-to-date on entertainment stuff. He explained the macrovision flag, and told me what to use to make a copy with the flag removed. It was the only way we could watch it.

All I can say is that it's too bad they don't make compostable DVDs. That copy is shamefully occupying space in a landfill somewhere.

Re:Spot on

[FLEB]

That may be circumvention, but that's just to be able to use something you legally acquired. That's not what I'm talking about. Granted, if you kept and re-watched the copy after turning the original back in, I would find fault with that.

I've often wondered if there's a way to recycle disc media-- given my lousy track record with CDRWs (they tend to get scratched beyond reusability after the first time anyway), I just use and discard one-write discs even for ephemeral things.

Re:Spot on

[z80kid]

Perhaps I should clarify. I meant the poster was right about stuff these days not being worth "stealing", "misappropriating", whatever. I had to make a copy just to watch it and it still wasn't worth keeping.

One more reason not to go to the theater.

[zerofoo]

These idiots are targeting 18-35 year olds - are they (theater owners) really that stupid?

Hey idiots - those are the only people paying to get into your theater! I haven't seen a movie in a theater (or bought an $8.00 box of popcorn) in over 10 years thanks to my home theater system.

Anyway - good riddance. Every theater in America could go out of business tomorrow and I wouldn't miss them.

-ted

Down the slippery slope

[e-scetic]

As unreasonable search and seizure becomes grudgingly accepted by the public, it will gradually become more unreasonable, more random, and prevalent.

This sort of thing must be stopped now.

Also, I strongly suspect this theatre group didn't do their legal homework.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_and_seizure):

In Canada, Section Eight of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects all individuals from unreasonable search and seizure. For a search to be "reasonable" it must be authorized by law, the law itself must be reasonable, and the manner in which the search was carried out must be reasonable (R. v. S.A.B., 2003 SCC 60). This means that the officer must be acting within the power of a valid statute, and it must be performed on the basis of there being "reasonable and probable grounds" that a crime has been committed.

This is one of those cases where people have just jumped in and applied an American legal framework, which allows invasion of privacy, to that of another country, not realizing the laws are very different and there IS a legal expectation of privacy.

On a bit of a tangent

[cayenne8]

A bit off topic..but, I was wondering what kind of equipment you'd use in a movie theater to capture a movie? What is a good camcorder to get a high quality picture and sound?

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?

Re:On a bit of a tangent

[Hatta]

I dunno about video, but try the etree forums or the Live Music Archive. There are lots of experienced concert tapers there, and they love talking gear.

If you do tape any shows, be sure to seed them on bt.etree.org. Thanks!

Re:On a bit of a tangent

[Chris Pimlott]

I don't know myself, but I'd ask the folks over at The Traders Den.

Right to search

[coren2000]

Civilians have no right to search other civilians unless they have been granted special dispensation by the government (eg border patrol guards).

Inside vs. outside jobs

[dazedNconfuzed]

What they ARE worried about, are the sophisticated rings of people who record a movie with state of the art miniaturized cameras

...when they SHOULD be worried about theater insiders who make a distributed print disappear for 2 hours and make an HD copy via a TeleCine machine (if they can burn & distribute that many DVDs, they can afford a TeleCine) before the first showing.
...or, worse, when they SHOULD be worried about studio insiders who copy the pre-film-master digital original file onto a USB hard drive and walk out the door with it in his pants before the prints are made.

It's not the gray-hat outsiders in the theater with a cheap camcorder that's the problem.
It's the black-hat insiders with keys to the crown-jewel vault that's the problem.

Illegal search

[koutkeu]

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.

Re:Illegal search

[SuiteSisterMary]

On the other hand, they can make the search a condition of entry. Private property and all that.

Trade one violation for another?

[FatSean]

I believe possessing equipment which violates the DMCA is a crime now.

So I guess, which is the worst penalty?

Fair Warning

[Kenshin]

Theatres around here have a big sign where the ticket checker stands stating that your bags are subject to search if you choose to enter the theatre.

Simple enough.

In the past it wasn't about piracy, but about keeping outside food and drinks out. (Ticket sales barely cover the cost of the film reel. The theatre's actual money comes from popcorn and drinks.)

But anyway, this is standard practice in many places. Go to any sort of club, and the bouncer will check your bag for alcohol. (MAJOR, MASSIVE liability reasons.) Don't like it? Don't go in.

Re:Fair Warning

[sumdumass]

I take that to mean subject when I enter. But more importantly, Just because they place a sign up doesn't mean you have to agree to it. I cannot put a sign up saying by entering you have to have gay sex within the next week and expect people to be bound by it because they entered my building. In most area's you cannot give up rights without signing a contract. And things that violate your rights cannot be imposed on you over the simple act of participating in society. If the theater or whatever was a private club or something I could agree, But it is a place open to the public operating under a license by the government. The government sanctions the theater's actions when it licenses it to operate a business.

I often work at places that have these signs. They are public places and open to the public. There is nothing in the law that allows them to exclude portions of the public because they hold a right dear to them. I haven't been searched at any of these places but it isn't to say that it couldn't happen. When they attempt to do so, I will deny them that ability and file suit if they do so by force or attempt to hold me against my will. I will force them to actually make an unsupported accusation and defame my good name. And when they attempt to punish me by denying entry to a place open to the public because I happen to believe we have certain inalienable rights, I will do everything possible to make sure it isn't open to the public afterwards.

So while it seems simple enough, It isn't. I applaud this girl. I'm not about to let some corperation treat me like a criminal just because I patronized their establishment just like every other citizen can do.

Re:Fair Warning

[Kenshin]

I cannot put a sign up saying by entering you have to have gay sex within the next week and expect people to be bound by it because they entered my building.

Yes, but you CAN put up a sign saying, for instance, that unless a person's dog is a seeing eye dog, they can't bring it in. No matter how much they wuv widdle preshuss.

There is nothing in the law that allows them to exclude portions of the public because they hold a right dear to them.

Would you defend a bar's right to refuse entry to someone who looks underage and refuses to show ID? Or theatre barring a group of non-accompanied obviously young teens who refuse to show ID from seeing the latest blood-soaked slasher flick?

Re:Fair Warning

[sumdumass]

Yes, but you CAN put up a sign saying, for instance, that unless a person's dog is a seeing eye dog, they can't bring it in. No matter how much they wuv widdle preshuss.

This is a little like apple and oranges isn't it? We aren't talking about a privilege by a right here. And in most cases, if food is being sold, no dogs allowed is the law. Of course No dogs allow doesn't allow them to search me to see if I have a dog hidden.

Would you defend a bar's right to refuse entry to someone who looks underage and refuses to show ID? Or theatre barring a group of non-accompanied obviously young teens who refuse to show ID from seeing the latest blood-soaked slasher flick?

Well, lets look at this separately. In the bar's case, yes because it is the law. At least in every state I have been in. There has always been a law making it a requirement for the bar to take action in verifying the age and legality of their patrons when concerning the drinking laws.

Now, as for the Under 17 or whatever it is trying to see a R rated movie. I do believe there are laws in place in most states where they can honor the intent of the rating. Of course this is something that is likely to differ from state ot state. But where the law forbids showing rated movies to people under the declared age, then Yes I would support it.

This is however not to say I would support everything that is backed by a law. But when it is supported by a law, I would generally support it. However, this has nothing to do with posting a sign (stating their intention to violate my rights to be secure in my papers and possessions from search and seizure without probable cause) in an area accessible to the public while operating under a business license granted by the government of the community. There are certain things that organizations who operate under the guise of sanction from the state or city cannot do. Violating one of my constitutionally protected rights is one of them.

Now, this doesn't mean they don't have the right to ban things like cam corders, laser pointers, cellphones and so on. But if they want to search me they will have to accuse me of something and go the legal route. If they want to deny me entry, they will have to go the legal route in doing that too. I'm not guilty until proven innocent and won't stand for being treated as such. If this is private property not open to the public, then it is a different story. But it doesn't seem to be that way.

parent is Astroturfing FUD

[Scrameustache]

Those are the ones piracy hurts.
If you don't like the prices a company offers for its services, you can find an alternative or do without. You don't have the right to steal the product.
Canada has had the highest number of camcorder incidents, particularly in Quebec, according to the National Association of Theater Owners. It is getting to the point where Canada might not get first released pictures unless they prevent theft of services. Tell me, how many normal DVD burners are those camcorder incidents numbers equal too? 128? A gazillion?
That industry who's hurting? It's been MAKING MORE PROFIT EVERY YEAR THEY'VE BEEN MAKING DOOM AND GLOOM PREDICTIONS ABOUT PIRACY.

Re:parent is Astroturfing FUD

[Anpheus]

Actually, no. The theatre industry hasn't.

Re:parent is Astroturfing FUD

[Scrameustache]

Actually, no. The theatre industry hasn't. You mean that upping the price and making the experience more unpleasant than ever isn't helping them draw people away from DVDs? That's unpossible!

Do you have something to hide?

[sicapo27]

What's the fuss about the movie theater taking a look inside your bag? Do you have something to hide? First, why are you going to see a movie with a backpack? Are you going camping? Unless we're talking about a "full body search", I don't think that having a peek in a bag is "invasive"...

Your logic is right, but your conclusion backwards

[Geof]

I know plenty of people who stopped going to theaters because of how easy it is to download movies

Anecdotes are not data, but I'll answer yours with one of my own: I pretty much stopped going to theaters. One significant reason is the bad taste I have in my mouth knowing I'm giving money to the culture pirates in Hollywood.

For many people, pirating often comes down to how easy or difficult it is. Once a process is simpler, more people do it.

You're right on the money. Except harassing cinema patrons makes going to the movies more difficult, while it does very little to increase the difficulty of watching a pirated copy.

I have a hefty DVD collection, but I still enjoy the theater experience on the whole. It isn't the screen or audio . . . but rather being surrounded by an excited group who have been geeking out in anticipation of a movie.

So you'll always keep going. But casual filmgoers are theirs to lose (like me - I don't care for sticky floors, lineups, or obnoxiously loud sound; when I used to frequent the cinema, it was as a social experience with friends). Your geeks are one of our better hopes. The value of many films is created by its audience and fans. If geeks build their enthusiasm around alternatives, then perhaps we can replace the culture of control of the MPAA and their ilk with a culture of freedom.

Snacks

[purplepolecat]

They are not interested in finding camcorders in your bags.

This is just a pretext to SEARCH YOU FOR ILLICIT SNACKS.

Theaters make very little money from ticket sales, and a huge chunk of their revenue comes from overpriced concessions. The cost-conscious movie fan knows to bring a bottle of water (or beer!) and some skittles, and this pretty much halves the cost of your evening. The theatre loses money, but there's really not much they can do about it.

Until now.

This is not a police search, so there is no legal problem with searching for one thing and finding another. They search your bag for cameras, find the skittles, publicly embarass you for being a cheapskate, and turn you away.

Meanwhile, the smart people who buy or download the DVD can eat and drink whatever the hell they want. Maybe along with the anti-piracy ads there should be a warning to only use MPAA-approved snacks for the duration of the movie.

This time there's reason.

[HiThere]

I'm not sure how often it's unreasonable to "blame the 'States". This time it's reasonable. We even heard about on-going attempts by first the film industry and then later by the US govt. to get this kind of law passed. There was even a PR campaign launched and pressed by the US govt. to get US citizens to think of Canada as a "nation of media pirates".

Were I a Canadian I would not think very charitably of the US govt., and I would definitely blame it for the passage of this law...and for any and all unpleasant results.

When they bring out the disposable gloves,...

[chazard]

Having a pimple faced kid groping your wife or daughter in order to be sure she isn't going to take a crappy video copy of a movie is a joke.

There is a difference between pat downs for public safety (like for an airplane) and for potentially getting a bad copy of a movie you just paid for.

or maybe they'd seen the trailer, asshat

[SuperBanana]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XQ_GWKvDE0

Multizone players

[EmbeddedJanitor]

What are these zones you speak of?

Most, if not all, players can be made into multi-zone players by entering a special code etc.

Re:My question is...

[Thomas Shaddack]

You can't blame the player, it's just respecting the settings on the disc.

The thing to blame is the combination of both. Solve either, and the problem is gone. From the end user point of view, it is easier to blame a single player (and use a potentially illegal one that is not fully BS-compliant) than to worry about every single offending disc.

If every player disrespects the UOP flags, there is no reason to use them. Similarly, if no DVD uses UOP flags, there is no reason to ignore them player-side. However, as there are more manufacturers of player devices than of each individual DVD titles, the player choice is the easier way for the end user.

Re:Good Lord-My special tree getting in way of for

[Thomas Shaddack]

Ummm... how can your "criminals" be blamed for the movie previews and ads? The antipiracy crap is merely the smaller part of the overall problem.

Re:My question is...

[MysteriousPreacher]

The big problem is with the attitude of the content producers and to a lesser extent, the player manufacturers. The content producers look for the best DRM and the player manufacturers race to see who can provide the necessary protection that will impress the content producers, therefore making sure that their platform will have lots of content available for it.

It's fortunate that DVD isn't quite as secure as they would like it to be - we still have the analogue hole if all else fails. With the move to HDMI and similar secure systems, the choice to buy a device that will ignore these restrictions may no longer exist.