Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Theatre Chain Sued for Abusive Search
An anonymous reader writes "A Canadian theater chain has been sued for an abusive search for camcording equipment. A Montreal woman is seeking $60,000 in damages for the search, which comes after the Canadian government caved to US pressure and enacted anti-camcording legislation."
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.
Is that a camcorder in your pocket or are you just happy to see the movie?
"Kittens give Morbo gas!"
Wasn't this search voluntary?
Shame that the sociopaths that run the place have decided that human decency is voluntary.
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?
Trolling is a art,
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
Indeed. Take it from "Adult film producer" -- there is usually a contract involved with inserting any bodily part into a woman's vagina.
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...
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.
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?
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.
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?
The problem is that the government isn't doing anything about this stuff, so the lawsuit is the independent citizen version of a fine.
Good luck my Canadian friends. May you have more success then we have.
It's only paranoia if your wrong...
Copyrights are an incentive that societies use to promote creative work, not an inalienable human right.
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.
The problem is,it's a government mandate that had the theater chain even consider doing this stuff!
But, even if it had to be done, there are better ways to do it.
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
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.
why? forty-two.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"You know why you do not see me styling wit my homies? Because I have no homies!!" -Mojo Jojo
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."
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.
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.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Problem is, DVD's are pirated. Nobody gets any money from those and it shouldn't be too much longer until P2P usage exceeds the capability of WalMart to distribute DVDs to the masses. Sure, it will take faster download speeds than most people have today, but it is certainly coming. And there is no stopping it because the materials will be stored offshore.
So why would I go to a theater and pay $10 for a ticket when I can download the movie in an evening for nothing? And probably download it even before it is out in the theater near me.
The only way they get to keep revenue for movies is to not make DVDs and return to theater-only showings. You missed it in the theater? Fine, then it will be on TV in four or five years. Or maybe re-released to the theater. But if it comes out on DVD then nobody has to go to the theater, ever.
It is same thing with musicians losing revenue from recorded music and only getting paid for performances. The theater is the performance venue for movies.
I 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.
I have never once witnessed a bag being searched going to a movie, and maybe the reason it is starting to happen in Canada is because of the number of camcorder pirates. Honestly, these guys irk me. I know plenty of people who stopped going to theaters because of how easy it is to download movies the week they open, free of charge on your computer. I think The Hulk was the first film they made a big deal about this, but there have been several cases where a film was either leaked during opening weekend, or before, and then the film makes considerably less money that weekend than was initially expected. When a company loses potentially tens of millions of dollars in a weekend because of a leak, people are going to get pissed, and at the moment it is hard to suggest that the whole thing is harmless.
People suggest the only people who would pirate are those who wouldn't buy it in the first place, and I know that just isn't true. For many people, pirating often comes down to how easy or difficult it is. Once a process is simpler, more people do it.
I have a hefty DVD collection, but I still enjoy the theater experience on the whole. It isn't the screen or audio (I like my TV and sound system) but rather being surrounded by an excited group who have been geeking out in anticipation of a movie. As fewer people are going to the movies, prices are going up to compensate. So while others are downloading movies, I get to pay for it.
Look, go catch a matinée, or wait until there is a cheap release of the DVD. My video store down the street usually has a 3 for 25$ deal going and I load up on those. I'm not advocating searches or harassment, and I hope theaters don't actually continue such tactics. But if people weren't bringing camcorders in the first place, no one would be pushing for searches.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
...Am I allowed to film them searching me? some people like that sort of thing....
www.purevolume.com/martyd
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.
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.
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.
It's poetry with a beat behind it! And guns! They're like beatniks with automatic weapons.
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.
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
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.
In Soviet Russia, government controls corporations.
In Capitalist America, corporations control government.
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.
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.
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.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I wonder what they are gonna do when cell phones and similar devices are able to take hi quality video?
PLEASE LEAVE YOUR BAG AT THE DOOR. (It will cost extra of course)
I 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).
I already rarely go to the cinema due to the obscene prices, offensive FACT adverts, and excessive number of other ads, but if they started doing this kind of thing in the UK, rarely would turn into never. Then, the movie industry would blame falling cinema attendance on piracy. In a way, they'd be right, but only in that it was caused by their responses to perceived piracy.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.
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.
I'm also VERY interested in finding out a good digital recording set up, with high end mikes...for recording concerts live. Not for money making, but, for personal collections...share with friends..etc. It needs to be small, high end...and have long recording times...2+ hours at high fidelity.
Any suggestions?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Well as far as i know unless from a official law officer, a security guard or theater employe has no right to search you. Even for a police officer a resonable cause is needed in order to search or even ask for your identification. Just refuse the search plain and simple or make them call the police. In canada police doesnt even bother coming to theaters for a cam issue. The will tell you sorry we have real crimes to care about.
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.
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.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.