Slashdot Mirror
Austin's Alamo Drafthouse Theater Gives Texters the Boot
Hugh Pickens writes "Ever been annoyed during that nail-biting darkened hallway scene by someone turning on their phone to send a text? Well, don't mess with Texas or you may end up on the screen in a public service announcement. Alamo Drafthouse, a local chain of dine-and-screen movie theaters in Austin, Texas, has long waged a war against impolite moviegoers booting out customers who talk or text during performances. Phoebe Connelly writes that according to Tim League, the Drafthouse's founder, a woman was recently warned twice about texting during a screening, and then, in accordance with company policy, was escorted out without a refund. 'I don't think people realize that it is distracting,' says League. 'It seems like nothing, but if you spend as much time as I do at the movies, you realize the entire theater sees it and it pulls you out of the movie experience. It's every bit as intrusive as talking.' The irate customer called up the Alamo Drafthouse and left a profanity-laced (and perhaps slightly inebriated) message decrying the theater's policies, but the theater got the last laugh as they took the audio of the woman's voicemail, transcribed it, and turned it into an in-house preview [tl: Note, YouTube video contains some profanity] that warns theatergoers against cell phone use during movies. 'Part of what we're trying to do is have a comedic message about what to us is a very serious issue,' says League, declining to give any more details about the woman at the center of the recent PSA."
no texting during the latest superhero movie.
I went to Alamo Drafthouse with some friends a couple of weeks ago when I was in town, and there is NO way this woman could have been ignorant of the policy. Before the trailers there are multiple announcements (some quite amusing) that spell out very clearly that texting, talking, or using your bright-as-twenty-suns cellphone in any capacity are NOT tolerated. They also clearly state that you get one and ONLY one warning. After that, you're ass is outta there. But she apparently chose to ignore the multiple warnings, and now she's pissy that they enforced a clearly defined policy? Sucks for her. Maybe next time she'll put the damned phone away.
I knew this policy quite well and I've only ever visited the chain ONCE. Plus I don't even live in the area. This woman has no excuse.
"So after all this, you make my case for me. To end this stalemate, you must die..."
Wish more places handled disruptive customers that way.
Travelling is annoying enough - no need for an arrogant loudmouth keeping one awake.
DB Cooper the bastards - without money and without parachute.
Untill the next movie I see there. I'm a repeat customer.
Thank you sweet Jesus for the Alamo Drafthouse.
Score one for the good guys.
Subject says everything. It "went viral" last week, so does Slashdot have a good antivirus, or why does it like being late? Not to mention the rambling summary is written by Hugh Pickens, who seems to fancy himself to be a journalist, but whose website contain a lot of poorly written articles...
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
yes, because a brilliantly white screen in a black theatre is not distracting.
If you need to check email during a movie, then you don't need to be at that movie. I don't pay $10 to see your screen flashing on and off in front of me distracting me from the film.
Bravo. Warned twice already? I wish that anti-social behavior were outed like this more often.
--Udo.
No you don't. A cinema isn't exactly a proper place to work.
Ceci n'est pas une
I hate when people do this - its so inconsiderate! The movies are so expensive now that something like this is a big deal. If I spend $50 to take my family to a movie and some jerk in the rows in front of me decides to text - its like someone spitting in my food at a restaurant. Ruins the experience and leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
is here.
It is both sides of this story that keep me from going to theaters. At home I suffer none of this, and the pause button rox!!
Sig?! Sig?! We don't need no stinking sig!!
That, or get a job where you can sit in a movie for two hours without distracting other patrons.
They are always A+ on service, food is decent, and they are very upfront about no texting/no talking policy. You can't possibly miss all the warnings, unless you are too busy texting.
$10 is $10, and when it's my wife and I it's $20.
Thirty feet? Are you kidding?
I often see kids play with their phones in the rows right in front of me. Stadium seating means there's very little to obscure the screen from sight.
I've only been to the Alamo Drafthouse once, but I think it was the best experience I've ever had at a normal (i.e. 35mm) movie theater. Comfortable seats, good projection/sound, friendly staff, and the food was delicious and was served unobtrusively. The prices were quite reasonable as well.
I admit it, I check email during a movie because I need to.
You're using email to receive important and time sensitive messages?
OooooooooKaaaaaaayyyyy.
The way it's usually done is with text messages or voice which vibrate when you receive them - if you actually have the device on vibrate. In other words, when you're on call, you can go about your business without having to constantly check.
I really hate the people who check/text on their phone once. It takes you out of the movie, you cant go get the manager to do anything because , "I have to witness it." Then once one person gets away with it everyone else feels that they can't wait either. I'd love to know what it is about movie theaters that cause people to stop being themselves and turn into total pricks, has there been any studies on the subject?
Except that if the movie is that bad people would walk out of the movie and then could tweet/text/whatever, or should have the common decency to wait until after the movie is over. After all I don't piss all over the seat back when I need to use the facilities, I wait until I am in an appropiate time and place for it.
Perry's sandwich shop in Downtown Chicago has a similar policy - if you're in the store and pull out the cellphone, they turn on a fire alarm siren until you put the phone away.
They have an electronic display that scrolls, and one of the messages is "If you're using a cellphone, you're too important to be here".
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
It's absolutely forbidden to speak during a movie and everyone is jumping down this lady's throat for using her phone. Yet, you can always go back and see a movie, it's going to be on DVD and Netflix in a few months, then next year it'll be playing on a loop on a cable channel.
When I go to a concert that will only happen once, probably isn't recorded, won't be released, and will never happen again, everyone is screaming at each other so they can talk over the music.
Or.... you could not be an asshole, and wait an hour until the movie is over, and then text your friends that it was bad instead of annoying everyone else in the theater behind you.
I hate even going to conventional theaters anymore since I moved to Austin. Reasonably priced actual meals served with the movie. What a ground breaking concept! No commercials before the movie, just little loops they specifically for the movie your watching that somehow related to it. All kinds of special events, like a secret premiere of the new Star Trek movie hidden as a showing of Wrath of Khan, or John Carpenter and Shepard Fairey showing up for a screening of They Live, it's just a cool place. I'm so glad they're building one down the street from me on Slaughter, so I don't have to shelp all the way to Lamar, except for the special events. When I'm in Dallas, I'll usually go to The Movie Tavern which functions as a fair replacement.
All you automatic Texas haters can go fuck off, because Austin is a nice little liberal enclave that somehow managed to create itself down here.
Even at home, I turn off the phones when watching a movie. Why even pause, when it's just some salesperson.
For example, a friend of mine once worked as an emergency responder for the Red Cross. Part of that was to carry the emergency contact phone wherever she went while she was on call. If she was going to be somewhere that respectful quiet was expected, like a church, or the theatre, or a classroom, she made damned certain that the thing was set to vibrate. She also made sure to arrive at the venue early, so that she could get an aisle seat and, if she felt the phone vibrate, she could slip out to the lobby without shoving her ass in a row-full of faces. As far as anyone who wasn't in her group was concerned, she would just be politely nipping out to the bathroom. No ringtones, no sudden glare, no conversations, not difficult.
I think there will be no one here who will "take the other side" until, that is, it is their side.
We have discussed mobile phone behaviors on occasion here and elsewhere. Invariably we say things like "no excuse" or "under no circumstances" and of course "rude" and "thoughtless." Really?
When driving, for example, it is next to impossible to resist answering the phone when it rings. And you know that last-second thought you just had? You've got to call someone right now because it might leave your head in the time it takes to at least get to a stop light or to pull over. And of course in a bus or train or in a movie theater, the phone is always a pain in the ass unless it's your phone.
I actually like the PSAs that often play before the movie starts. I usually forget to turn my phone to silent before it starts and the PSAs are a convenient reminder because I don't intend for my phone to ring at the wrong time. And these days, the phones invariably have a bright color display on them. In a dark room where the only light is being reflected on a big screen, other sources of light are a huge distraction.
And you know what? I too have texted during a movie... well, no it was before a movie actually started -- I tend to forget the whole world when I am actually watching a movie. (When I was younger, my brothers used to kick me and hit me while I was engrossed in TV -- they thought it was funny because I wouldn't respond most of the time... I'm still kinda like that) But when my focus is one place, I don't need it taken off by some stray light source from below or beside me.
I guess what I am getting at is we all agree with the PSAs where other people's behavior is concerned. We fail to see that very same behavior in ourselves or somehow feel we are the exception.
While I am thinking about it, I think I will visit the Team Whiskey IRC chat to see if they can add extra "do not answer the phone" buttons to say "not now, I am in a theater!" I have something like that on the phone already, but I have to hit a smaller button, then select one of several messages. Not convenient enough.
Here is what is playig at the theater. Brides mainds, kung fu panda. x-men, etc. Not a high end theater like landmark or Dundance where the films require a little more attention.
That's right. Only people who are watching appropriately high-class, cultured, artistic works of cinema should expect to be able to watch a film without unnecessary distractions. Folks who are going to watch mass-market movies just to have a pleasant night out aren't interested in paying attention; of course they shouldn't expect to be able to see or hear what they're watching. Their low-brow entertainment preferences don't deserve any better.
Seriously? For someone who's bemoaning Austin (Austin? Texas? Really?) as a city of pseudo-chic poseurs, you're awfully stuck up. Sure, this could just be a publicity stunt--but I hold out some faint hope that there might actually exist theaters which care about the audience's experience, and expect a better level of conduct than we seem to settle for in most venues.
~Idarubicin
When people have a light on in the theater I'm in, I ask them politely (and quietly) to turn it off. If they persist, I ask them again, a little less politely, and warn them that the next time I won't be polite at all. If I need to intervene a third time, I tell them I'll throw them out if they don't stop. Then I get the usher, unless it's obvious the first time or two that I'll have to get the usher.
Sometimes they get violent with me when I'm asking them - pushing me, getting in my face with "what you gonna do about it?", things like that. I am all too willing to stay in their face when that happens - pushing back, telling them I'm going to retaliate, even kill them if they get tough with me.
I get into it with viciously obnoxious people in movie theaters on average a few times a year. It's been getting worse for about 20 years now. And for the past 5 years I've had to stop people from waving their lit-up phones backwards in my face at concerts that are mostly dark, even during quiet parts with no light show that is also very disruptive. What's most shocking is finding out while interacting with these morons that they cannot realize that they're bothering other people, since it's not bothering them.
Maybe I'm nuts to care about protecting my entertainment time, or more importantly demanding minimum respect or defending myself from animals whose response to polite requests is threats of violence. But I do. And if someone wants their day ruined by testing whether I'm nuts, they're going to get vastly more trouble than an annoying light in a dark movie theater.
--
make install -not war
You sound like someone with pretension of being "down to earth". How awfully Texan of you.
--
make install -not war
Hmm.... Well, let's address this bit by bit:
1. Austin pseudo-chic -- Same thing applies at the Houston Drafthouses, and for that matter at the other similar themed theatres I have been to in Houston and St. Paul. The Drafthouse folks are nicer about it than others and they give much more warning than is usual.
2. Distracted by the popcorn, the cokes, the patrons trying to get refils -- That's a given at this sort of place and part of the reason they are so agressive on enforcement.
3. Distracted by people talking on the phone -- That is covered by the same policy, raise a flag and the management of the theatre will take care of them, same as they address texting.
4. Won't work in other urban parts of Texas... Let's look at where there are drafthouses or drafthouses opening outside of Austin (Looks like something is working):
a) Houston, TX
b) San Antonio, TX
c) Lubbock, TX
Oddly enough they have been pushing this for the past decade, it's only that recently it's recieved more attention due to internet coverage (I recall seeing warnings over the years from Chuck Norris (Who will kick you if you talk during the movie), Will Ferrell (Who will gently put you to sleep with his cattle prod), and others ). The Alamo Drafthouse chain serves decent food, is generally low-disturbance, shows first run movies and on a regular has events involving 'classic' movies and other shows of interest.
Theaters removing people who insist on turning lights on during the movie keep you from going to theaters? Thank you for staying away.
--
make install -not war
I'm glad that Ms Inebriated got the boot from the theater. It's not really the fact that she was using her phone at all in a public place, it's the fact that she had free time, paid to go have an evening of dining and visual entertainment at a theater and somehow that's not occupying enough. WTF happened to people, their short attention spans and adult ADHD tendencies? Seriously, if you have to have every second of your life occupied by some sort of attention, then every Friday night, stay at home with a bag of microwave popcorn and a shitty FX movie rerun and your phone.
I, myself, agree totally with how Alamo Drafthouse handled this and I hope that every other dine and/or theater place starts stepping up to the plate on this, too.
A theater that actually respects cinema.
lost. away. phased out. non-existing.
Put your phone on vibrate and step outside if you get a message you need to check.
... bwahahah
One can only hope they do the same for the people that bring their screaming new born to the theater as well.
I was going to write a long response at how pretentious your post was, then I got to the end where you complain that their advertisement "is merely a cheap publicity stunt" and realized it would involve defining a lot of words for you.
I agree, both sides are asshats. The customer for disturbing the movie, and the management for not putting their money where their mouth is and giving her a refund along with a written notice that she's barred from attending again.
If, as someone else said, the theater doesn't WANT this particular business, they should stop hiding behind 'policy' and just reverse the transaction - she's no longer allowed to watch the movie, so they no longer keep her money. It's not the 'escorting out' which is obnoxious, it's the 'without refund' bit.
FGD 135
Say what you will about Anderson Cooper, but he rips this drunk chick a new one in this video:
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2011/06/07/exp.ac.ridiculist.talk.text.movie.cnn.html
I don't live in Austin, but if I visit, I'll make a point to go to this theater.
Management did put their money where their mouth is. The policy is *explicitly* "no refunds", stated several times before the movie and in the lobby.
Although, actually, they didn't completely follow the policy. It's stated as one warning.
Alamo Drafthouse is an awesome place to go. Not only do you get to watch a film, you get decent food (at no more than restruant prices), an extensive beer list, waiters that are pleasant and experienced, and a crew that are interested in making sure that little interrupts the show.
About 1/3 of the pre-film snippets discuss cell phone use, noisy children, ruining the show for others, etc. The main difference between Alamo and everyone else is that they enforce their policy. They always have, and they warn you three or four times before any show that they will eject you. While you might have opinions about the state of Texas, you have your choice of going to a film house that doesn't enforce such policies (which is ever other film house in Texas), or you can go to Aamo for the reasons I do, to watch a film without catching a show at the same time.
Oh and by the way, if you ever get a chance to visit Texas, please don't.
No you don't. A cinema isn't exactly a proper place to work.
yes, there are times when it is necessary to check any messages you may receive. For example, about six months after my wife and I had our first child, we finally got a break to go see a movie. Every time our phone vibrated, we had to check it to make sure our kid wasn't in the hospital or something.
Yes, we were paranoid.
Yes, we didn't HAVE to go to the movie. Then again, you didn't HAVE to go either.
After six months of no sleep, changing diapers and not leaving the house with the kid because we know kids are annoying, we EARNED a night out, just the two of us. However, the first time you leave you child with a sitter, you keep your phone close. It's part of being a parent. We chose Alamo Draft House, enjoyed a burger and a few beers, sat on the very back row, kept our phones on silent mode and in my wife's purse so we could check by looking into the purse without actually taking the phones out. If we had received a message that needed our attention, we would have left the theater and gone to the lobby to answer it. So we were courteous and received no flack at all from the staff who were standing right behind us looking over the crowd for empties.
Don't say that no one ever needs to check for messages during a movie. Some people truly need to for things other than work. However, it is possible to do without anyone even knowing you are doing it.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Who cares if she got a refund? She cost them money by making the experience worse for other patrons. It's the same thing if some jackass has to be thrown out of a ballgame. They don't give you refunds when they have to throw you out. Just show some common courtesy and follow the rules.
Why should she get a refund?
It's not hiding behind a policy, it is protecting the other customers.
You text during movies, huh?
So you admit that you didn't have to go see a movie, but you did anyway and don't see anything wrong with bothering anyone around you while you are paranoid about your kid. Ya know .. my phone vibrates differently for a text message and email than it does a phone call. One would think that if your kid got hurt, someone would CALL you. In fact, if I get a phone call and don't answer it, it vibrates for several seconds. Then, when a voice mail is left, it vibrates again. So I know if someone that just called me left a voice mail.
....
So NO ONE needs to check email or text messages during a movie. Tell someone if they really need to get hold of you to CALL YOU and leave a voice mail. NOW you know it's important and you can slip out, check your voice mail.
Your petty, self-centered excuses (along with others on this board) only show how inconsiderate, self centered, or technologically ignorant you are.
At least if you are technologically ignorant about your phone, you can learn
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
If refunds were given to people who disturb others, then people would start being obnoxious to get their money back when they don't like the movie. Then you'd really have to ban them, but that's much more work for keeping track and it doesn't give people a chance to learn the lesson.
Neither the theater operators nor the patrons have any style. Best avoid the whole state.
You shouldn't speak of things you know nothing about.
Alamo has its own style. I haven't been since we've had kids, so it's been a while. You don't take kids to Alamo! The place is not like a normal theater. They serve real food and beer at reasonable prices. Not stale popcorn at what calculates out to $150/lb.
But, I don't remember seeing previews there. Before the movie, they show clips from old, terrible 70's B-movies. Usually the type that Quentin Tarantino tries to emulate, but worse. Or, maybe they'll show a comedian. I guess it really depends on the type of movie you are going to see. I remember seeing boobs during the "previews" when going to see American Pie at Alamo. This theater marches to the beat of its own drummer. It is different than anything I have ever experienced at a movie and can't wait to go back. Alamo certainly has a style that is all its own. Ask anyone who has ever been there.
Just because you can't understand the "style", doesn't mean that it's not there. It's probably just too far above you for you to see. By insulting that which you don't understand not makes you an idiot, but an asshole as well.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
What good guys? Isn't posting her rant on Youtube a copyright infringement?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
And I feel you. I want to watch all films without unnecessary distractions. Yet I have to deal with people who still have no finished the popcorn half way through the movie, people getting up and crossing half an aisle because they are not organized or considerate enough to get an aisle seat, even screaming kids in movies that they don't long. It is called being in a public space and having to deal with changing norms. The difference is in a high brow theater, those norms still exist and I don't have deal with people eating and children screaming. If one goes and sees x-men, there is no expectation that such distractions will not exist.
This is not a normal movie theater where they bring the house lights down to total darkness. They have drinks and food while you watch the movie. Seriously? Someone texting is a big problem, when you've got people eating, drinking, transacting business with a waitress, etc?
She cost them money by making the experience worse for other patrons
That's called a cost of doing business. If they want to end the disruption sooner than the end of the movie, they can stump up to refund what she paid them to be allowed to be there. Legally, maybe the 'rules' get incorporated into the contract with the patron, but it's still pathetic and still wrong. The fundamental agreement is that the customer pays their money, and watches the movie - any attempt to include a clause which allows one party to declare unreasonable conduct on the part of the other and then, not just cancel the contract, but get themselves out of performing their obligations under it whilst requiring the other party still to perform theirs is just plain wrong.
Imagine if you paid on your way out of the theater, rather than on the way in - and on management escorting someone out they expected them to stop at the cash-desk and pay for the movie they were being escorted out of. It would be both insane and unenforceable. This is exactly the same principle, it's just that people have paid up-front.
Why is the fact that ballpark operators are equally unreasonable an argument against what I said, or remotely relevant?
FGD 135
Do we really need the wiki link for "Don't mess with Texas".
That's nice and all, you may have earned a night out, but you didn't earn the right to possible annoy someone else who may have an actual reason to check their messages but steps out of the theatre to see what's what.
You're kind of an idiot. Text messages and email are not a reliable point-to-point communications medium for time sensitive messages. If it's that important, it should be using a real time channel (voice) and you should be going out into the hall to answer it.
Your urgency does not entitle you to disrupt other people's enjoyment of their paid-for evening. The Alamo's policy is in place because of self-important jackasses like you,
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
The Alamo's policy is complaint-driven. If you are truly not bothering anybody, you will not be asked to leave. I betcha this drunk chick was not being subtle.
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
http://twitpic.com/22sgdu
Saw this at the Subway inside of the Syracuse, NY bus/train station - a sign at least warning people not to use their phones while they're in the front of the lien and are thus supposed to be ordering. Reminds me of the behavior of an inconsiderate Starbucks patron cited in Weird Al's song "Craigslist"
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
I believe I proposed that she ought to be given a ban.
Every now and again, someone might act up to get their money back when they're in a crappy movie, but that's going to be a negligible number if doing that also causes them to be barred from the theater. As for the difficulty in enforcing such bans - that's a problem that every other type of business owner has to deal with.
I don't believe that private business owners have any role in 'teaching someone a lesson'.
FGD 135
Text messages are nearly real-time. More importantly, they are asynchronous, and will eventually get through with even the poorest signal.
You're kidding, right? What expectation of privacy do you think is in force in the transaction of her leaving the message on the company's answering machine? What about her openly recorded rant is copyrighted?
If she pays for the movie, then part of her ticket price goes the the labor required to remove her from said movie. My ticket price could be higher, if she was allowed a refund. I'd like to take it a step further, perhaps she should have been fined for her obnoxious behavior... and that money could be given back to the polite patrons as a form of "we're sorry about the sociopath with the cellphone, here's a 10% off coupon on your next movie".
At the risk of sounding like a sociopath myself, I'd even be in favor of flogging or chopping off her thumb... "alas such sweet justice shall never be the bust on my mantle."
The fundamental agreement is that the customer pays their money, and watches the movie - any attempt to include a clause which allows one party to declare unreasonable conduct on the part of the other and then, not just cancel the contract, but get themselves out of performing their obligations under it whilst requiring the other party still to perform theirs is just plain wrong.
If she wanted to turn her little ass around when she was notified that she couldn't use her phone and get a refund then, she could have had one. Just like how if you get the software home, and want a refund... er, wait.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I don't understand either - I purposely don't do drugs at a concert, specifically so I can clearly remember the event I bothered to go to. Sometimes quite a lot of bother ($ and maybe travel time) is involved in getting to said event. :)
It reminds me of stories of people who saw some classic acts in their prime but were too stoned to remember it.
sometimes I ingest caffeine if I'm tired by showtime or during the show - caffeinated gum is useful there, since I don't want to leave my spot and shell out for a caffeinated beverage. But that's a different story.
Though I can somewhat understand if someone just wants to get a bit buzzed on whatever it is.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
So you admit that you didn't have to go see a movie, but you did anyway and don't see anything wrong with bothering anyone around you while you are paranoid about your kid. Ya know .. my phone vibrates differently for a text message and email than it does a phone call. One would think that if your kid got hurt, someone would CALL you. In fact, if I get a phone call and don't answer it, it vibrates for several seconds. Then, when a voice mail is left, it vibrates again. So I know if someone that just called me left a voice mail.
So NO ONE needs to check email or text messages during a movie. Tell someone if they really need to get hold of you to CALL YOU and leave a voice mail. NOW you know it's important and you can slip out, check your voice mail.
Your petty, self-centered excuses (along with others on this board) only show how inconsiderate, self centered, or technologically ignorant you are.
At least if you are technologically ignorant about your phone, you can learn ....
Did you even READ his comment before replying to it? "sat in the very back row, kept our phones on silent mode and in my wife's purse so we could check by looking into the purse without actually taking the phones out........it is possible to do without anyone even knowing you are doing it." If they were bothering anybody, somebody could have complained to the waitstaff. Nobody did. The waitstaff who were standing right behind them didn't say anything about it. I hate people who text in movies when I know they're doing it. People obviously didn't know they were doing it so who cares?
You're kidding, right? Do you really not understand the difference between privacy and copyright? As to what is copyrighted -- every part of the rant is copyrighted. That's the default today, unless you can show that it wasn't creative (and the standard for creative is very low).
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
What good guys? Isn't posting her rant on Youtube a copyright infringement?
Is posting a voicemail from a telemarketer on YouTube copyright infringement? Is playing a voicemail from a bad business on some news program's help-the-consumer-with-their-problems segment copyright infringement? No. It's not an artistic work, and when you record something directly to my machine you essentially hand over whatever rights may exist to me.
I agree, both sides are asshats. The customer for disturbing the movie, and the management for not putting their money where their mouth is and giving her a refund along with a written notice that she's barred from attending again.
If, as someone else said, the theater doesn't WANT this particular business, they should stop hiding behind 'policy' and just reverse the transaction - she's no longer allowed to watch the movie, so they no longer keep her money. It's not the 'escorting out' which is obnoxious, it's the 'without refund' bit.
Why - you know before hand what the policy is (you need to be illiterate of deliberately obtuse not to see the policy when buying the tickets) - it's a fucking dinner restaurant - if you start spitting at other guests in a restaurant do you think you're entitled to a refund? Sounds like you're an arseclown.
A friend of mine used to be an Assistant Manager for a company. Let's call it "Madio Shack". His District Manager insisted that he listen in on a teleconference involving the DM and server local managers - maybe the DM was trying to groom him to be a Manager? (This, by the way, was something he clearly did not want.)
The major problem about this teleconference was that it was taking place at around 21:00 on a Friday night. During a Dragonforce concert. I popped outside every five minutes or so and checked up on him, and he basically had this look on his face of "They're still going!". After about 20 minutes of this shit, I tapped him on the shoulder and he muted the phone.
"How's your battery doing?" I said.
"Fine," he replied.
"No it's not, it's dead."
"No, I have plent-"
That's where he got a smile on his face and disconnected the battery from the back of his phone. "Oops".
Friends help friends have a social life.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
That's called a cost of doing business.
That phrase is reserved for costs you just can't avoid. A single person acting like a jackass, breaking the rules and ruining the experience for everybody else, has no right ethically or legally for a refund. She got what she deserved, a booting with no refund.
Imagine if you paid on your way out of the theater, rather than on the way in - and on management escorting someone out they expected them to stop at the cash-desk and pay for the movie they were being escorted out of. It would be both insane and unenforceable. This is exactly the same principle, it's just that people have paid up-front.
As a matter of practicality, it would be difficult to get the money from such a patron and not worth their time. I wouldn't say it would be unenforceable, though, if they really wanted to force the issue.
I think we all know which people we're talking about... the ones who are incredibly selfish and rude in cinemas...
Dude, it's the internet. Extra points for copyright infringement.
That said, this must surely be analogous to having someone send you random shit in the mail that you never ordered. Now you own it--throw the bill in the trash.
He can't do that - it would inconvenience *him* - only OTHERS should be inconvenienced by his lifestyle choices.
Humor from a Genetically Molested Mind
I sit on the isle and try to be subtle about checking.
I'm sorry that my job requires me to be available 24/7.
I guess that means no movies for me because some hypersensitive person might be offended.
I cannot believe this is even ambiguous to some people. If your job requires you to be on call, YES THAT MEANS YOU CAN'T GO TO A MOVIE THEATER! Holy shit, how could you possibly think otherwise?
You want to watch a movie while on call? Get a good home theater system, some comfortable chairs, and watch it at home. You think it's not reasonable to give up going to a theater? Don't take a job that requires you to be on call, or at least negotiate for somebody else to cover for you during the time you will be unavailable to do work. You cannot have both. This also applies to plays, concerts, and just about anywhere else where you are the member of an audience.
Her rant is copyrightable only if she files for one. Unfortunately for her, copyright is conditional upon ownership of rant. Publication of the rant by recording undermines her ability to seek copyright as there is a reasonable debate of whether she transferred ownership. Many companies have warnings that anything you record on their voice mail systems like Alamo becomes their property, etc.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Perhaps if the movies didn't suck ass, you would be totally absorbed by it and forget that you're in a theater.
Sorry, you are still being a pretentious ass, bashing other peoples bad behavior, and excusing the bad behavior that YOU want to do as a 'changing norm'.
you didnt have to have a kid...
This place sounds GREAT. Alamo Drafthouse is now on my to do list next time I'm in Austin Texas. I hope this lady is really good looking. Sounds like she doesn't have brains or personality going for her.
You are a moron. That must suck for you. Sorry.
So.... your little plan is to *ban* her, eh? Exactly how is that supposed to work... Hmmmmm?
You want to put barcodes on the arms of each patron? Hmmmm?
Check each customer's picture ID as they come in against a database of people like you / assholes? Hmmmm?
Their policy could not be more fair - it does not discriminate against any particular person. Only behavior that is anti-social.
That lady is more than welcome to return and enjoy a movie any time. All she has to do is not be a complete and total asshole; so pretty much the opposite of what you do.
Humor from a Genetically Molested Mind
Don't say that no one ever needs to check for messages during a movie.
And anyone who does needs to watch the movie at home. You "EARNED" a night out? From whom? When you earn something, somebody has to pay you. You work for your employer, you EARNED a paycheck from them. You can't say that you spent a week doing overtime and try to charge a random stranger who happens to want to watch the same movie as you. In this case, it seems like your kids are the ones who need to pay you back, and it's not my fault that you have to settle for an I.O.U. until they're old enough to deliver.
'nuff said...
The purchase of the movie ticket comes with certain obligations on the purchaser. In this cinema chain, one of those is no talking or texting.
An identical principal applies when I buy a train ticket. On Sydney's trains, you are not allowed to smoke or drink and by purchasing a ticket you agree to those obligations. Get caught and you get thrown off without a refund. In fact, you usually get fined as well.
There is no reason you should get a refund for not following the obligations attached to the ticket.
Quite possibly, but it depends on the circumstances.
No, but not because it isn't artistic, rather that probably falls under a fair use exception.
Ha, ha! Good luck with that argument if you ever have to use it. I expect you think that posting stuff on the Internet also means that you give the rights to everyone who downloads it to make copies, reproduce and use as they wish?
Perhaps I should change the outgoing message on my answering machine to "by leaving a message for me, you grant me unlimited rights to use your message and any intellectual property rights contained within."
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Imagine if you paid on your way out of the theater, rather than on the way in
Imagine getting anyone who went and saw a crappy movie to pay on the way out.
They reserve the right to serve who they want and refuse service to who they want. Imagine the ticket price is what allows you into see that movie, as long as you behave like a human being...
Here is what is playig at the theater. Brides mainds, kung fu panda. x-men, etc. Not a high end theater like landmark or Dundance where the films require a little more attention.
What theater are you looking at? Here's what I see playing
That's just the next 3 days. Yes they play mainstream films, but they play other things as well.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
If there is such a message, then perhaps they can use that as a license to use her rant. Just about everything else you stated is completely wrong. Copyright exists without registration (you just can't sue until you register it and, unless you register it within some limited time, you can only sue for actual damages, not statutory damages.) You also seem to be saying that, since Alamo published it, they may own it and should benefit from infringing on her copyright. Yeah, why don't you suggest that one of the RIAA defendants try that argument -- "the publisher doesn't own the copyright any more because they sold me a CD and I published it"
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Why are stories like this showing up on CNN before showing up here? What's taking so long for you folks to find and post news?
For dinner. My policy is to kill and eat anyone who does anything I don't like. No really, it's posted, you were warned.
Throw it in the trash -- fine. Make copies: bad.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Ha, ha! Good luck with that argument if you ever have to use it. I expect you think that posting stuff on the Internet also means that you give the rights to everyone who downloads it to make copies, reproduce and use as they wish?
No, but by posting stuff to Facebook's servers you give the rights to Facebook, Inc. to make copies, reproduce, and use the content as they wish. Just like if you were to record something to my voicemail server.
Perhaps I should change the outgoing message on my answering machine to "by leaving a message for me, you grant me unlimited rights to use your message and any intellectual property rights contained within."
You don't need to, because it is implied.
Text messages are sometimes dropped on the floor - they are not guaranteed delivery. AT&T drops them every so often in Austin.
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
Copyright exists without registration (you just can't sue until you register it and, unless you register it within some limited time, you can only sue for actual damages, not statutory damages.
The point is about ownership. Can I steal Stephen King's next work and copyright it before he does? Yes. Will my copyright survive a challenge? No. Proving ownership is vastly more easy if you have something copyrighted first before publication. That's just common sense especially if the caller did not leave her name or number or any identification of her identity on the message. Alamo may have edited out that information but from my perspective it didn't appear she did so.
You also seem to be saying that, since Alamo published it, they may own it and should benefit from infringing on her copyright.
You see at the bottom of this page where it says: "Comments are owned by the poster." Slashdot specifically disavows any ownership of comments made here. However if it was made clear that on slashdot, they own anything you post, then you have the ability not to post it. I take it you haven't called a customer complaint or support line in a while. They specifically tell you that you may be recorded and some even say that they may use your recording. Again you claim she has a copyright when she hasn't even filed for one. That's circular logic.
Yeah, why don't you suggest that one of the RIAA defendants try that argument -- "the publisher doesn't own the copyright any more because they sold me a CD and I published it"
Um, the RIAA copyrighted the work before they sold it did they not?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
The customer for disturbing the movie, and the management for not putting their money where their mouth is and giving her a refund along with a written notice that she's barred from attending again.
Well, first up, "Money where their mouth is"? Their mouth says "act like a fuckwit, we'll throw you out with no refund." Their money says the same. So they are indeed putting their money where their mouth is.
Second, I can see a glaring flaw or three in this plan.
-- "Hey, I'm bored of this movie. Let's walk out and skip the last twenty minutes."
-- "Wait, I've got a better idea. Let's act obnoxiously and get thrown out, then we get a refund!"
Or:
-- "Dude, I'm bored, there's nothing to do, and we haven't got much money."
-- "Let's go watch some dumb movie at the Drafthouse. Fifteen minutes in we can start screaming like gibbons, get thrown out, and have our money back!"
Seriously, you're proposing an *incentive* for people to ruin the movie. They may as well put up a sign saying "Don't like the film? Act like an asshole and get your money back!"
ok, the thrust of my argument is that by attaching such conditions (and especially by enforcing them) they are behaving like asshats. All you seem to have is 'everyone else does it' and 'it's ok to do it because that's what they're doing'.
There is no reason why a break clause allowing one party to unilaterally cancel a contract on grounds of unreasonable behaviour by the other should allow the cancelling party out of their obligations whilst requiring the other party to fulfill theirs.
Let's have another thought experiement: Imagine if it were possible to just withdraw a payment you've made. You call up your bank, ask them to withdraw it and whoosh, the money is back in your account. You get thrown out - you call your bank and get your money back. Why would that be wrong? Everyone is now back where they started - you haven't seen the movie, the theater hasn't got your money.
Nowehere outside small purchases, where it's not worth the cost to go to court, would anyone think this to be remotely acceptable. Imagine if you paid a builder up-front $500k to build you a house, and by the time he'd got through $150k worth of labour and materials you'd already given him 3 complete changes of the plans, he goes "screw this - you're being completely unreasonable" and just ends any further involvement in the project. Would that be cool with you? $500k spent, and no house? Even though there's $350k worth of work that he's already been paid for and not done? No, of course you wouldn't, you'd sue his ass off. If he managed to wriggle out of giving you the $350k back by using a get-out clause which wasn't thrown out he'd never get any work again - because no-one is going to do business with an asshat who works on those sorts of terms.
FGD 135
So.... your little plan is to *ban* her, eh? Exactly how is that supposed to work... Hmmmmm?
Er, you keep an eye out for her, and if she turns up you have her arrested (because trespassing is a pretty serious criminal offence).
The exact mechanism for how you 'keep an eye out' is not my problem - trespassing law is long established and every other landowner who gives direction to a specific person that they're not allowed on their property has to solve this one. Why should movie theaters be any different?
The real answer is that they don't really not want her business, and would rather keep her money, and give her the opportunity to come and give them some more.
FGD 135
Fair enough, but once she's paid for a ticket and been let in, they have accepted her as a customer.
Imagine if the ticket let you be in the theater for the specified duration of the film. Period.
If they want to now cancel that because they no longer want her as a customer, they can cancel having taken her money.
A shopkeeper can refuse service to whomsoever he will; but if, after having served you, he came running down the street and tried to cancel your transaction because he'd changed his mind about serving you, you wouldn't stand for it? would you? Now imagine if he were trying to do that AND keep your money.
Running down the street too silly? Imagine if you've bought something, and on the way out something else catches your eye. Whilst you're browsing this other item, the shopkeeper decides that he no longer wishes to serve you and tells you to leave his shop. Fine, but what if as part of not wanting to serve you, he doesn't want you to have the thing you've already bought, so he takes that from you? With, or without refund, that absolutely would not be ok.
(Note: I'm making an ethical argument, I'm fully aware of the fact that legally the shopkeeper would just be committing a clear-cut offence of theft)
FGD 135
Because I'm primarily talking about whether it's right or wrong to have a we-can-chuck-you-out-without-a-refund policy, as well as whether it's right to wrong to enforce it. (Obviously, if it's wrong to have such a policy, as I maintain, then it becomes automatically wrong to enforce it.)
FGD 135
So you admit that you didn't have to go see a movie, but you did anyway and don't see anything wrong with bothering anyone around you while you are paranoid about your kid. Ya know .. my phone vibrates differently for a text message and email than it does a phone call. One would think that if your kid got hurt, someone would CALL you. In fact, if I get a phone call and don't answer it, it vibrates for several seconds. Then, when a voice mail is left, it vibrates again. So I know if someone that just called me left a voice mail.
So NO ONE needs to check email or text messages during a movie. Tell someone if they really need to get hold of you to CALL YOU and leave a voice mail. NOW you know it's important and you can slip out, check your voice mail.
You obviously don't have kids. If you do, you are obviously not married to the woman who had them. That, or you just don't care about your kids.... or your wife. No. I think I'm gonna stick with the no kids.
Your petty, self-centered excuses (along with others on this board) only show how inconsiderate, self centered, or technologically ignorant you are.
At least if you are technologically ignorant about your phone, you can learn ....
I don't think you read the comment. When the phones vibrated, we peeked into the purse to see what the alert was. It was never anything important enough to warrant a response. The phone never came out and no one was the wiser. The wait staff may have know, but they didn't say anything about it.
As for the "phone technology", my child is over four years old. The top of the line phone back then was the Palm Centro. That's what I had. My wife had a Razor. Don't comment on things you know little about.
BTW, do you notice the irony in your quote here:
Your petty, self-centered excuses (along with others on this board) only show how inconsiderate, self centered, or technologically ignorant you are.
This coming from a guy who says I shouldn't go out because I might disturb his evening. I'm so sorry. I thought I could take my wife out for an evening out. She had worked so hard raising our kid and I had worked so hard keeping us fed and clothed and insured that I thought we could spend a little money as a thank you to each other for all we mean to each other. How selfish of us to do so knowing that there was the most slightest chance that our muffled vibrating phone in the back row by the door that people walk in and out of might catch your attention and ruin YOUR evening. I'm so sorry. That was very self-centered, and inconsiderate of us. Next time we'll just stay home as to not risk disturbing you.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
They have accepted her as long as she doesn't bother others, which is something that any movie goer knows they agree to, whether it's written or not.
She consumed part of the product she bought. It's no pro-rated.
Have you read the rest of the thread? I already answered this one.
"Don't like the film? Act like an asshole and get your money back! but don't expect to come back again"
FGD 135
Bullshit. I do as well, and you know what I do? when I go to take a piss I check my e-mail. You sound like a world class douche bag.
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
that seems rather extreme , especially without refund ,..
yes im going to play devils advocate and say 1. talking on a cell is rude while in theater totally
however i'll argue that if someone isnt loudly obnoxious screw'em its America we do or at least used
to have personal freedoms this is bordering on draconian
2. it should at least be prompted that, i dont think it should take a genius to figure to turn down the brightness on a cell phone to next to nill
cause in a dark theater its gonna be good nuff to see like an iphone without it being blindingly bright
personally i can understand ya know hey ya need to turn down the brightness or turn off the sound so it dont click warnings but a paying customer is a paying customer - i'd expect that as long as i wasnt being an obvious nuisance with loud noise clickity on the phone and bright turned down since im at least that considerate i'd be chattin in on it and i'd bet she'd would have been able to get some sorta suit on that if she hadnt done the youtube video ..
not only that but where did she sign a waiver to allow them to use her image in that clip? is she being compensated for it? i'd blasted want to be if they're gonna profit from it
The Fury Of Willy Wonka (not goatse)
An isle is a body of land surrounded by water on all sides.
An aisle is a passage between the rows of seats in a theater.
If you have a job that requires you to be available 24/7, shouldn't you actually be available and not in a theater?
They got paid first with an orgasm, well at least the father did. You don't earn anything by having children, you chose to have them the child is the reward. If looking after your own kids is such a chore you should not have had any.
Bullshit, I have waited up to three days for a text.
They also don't allow children under toddler-age into most shows (unless it's specifically a kid's movie) except for one day a week. I liked that policy even more than the no texting one. Don't know if they still do it, been a few years since I lived in Austin.
Excellent.
Now that I know the theater "company policy" is outrageous, I will chose somewhere else and be spared any potential hassle when I get texts from my mother.
There is no reason why a break clause allowing one party to unilaterally cancel a contract on grounds of unreasonable behaviour by the other should allow the cancelling party out of their obligations whilst requiring the other party to fulfill theirs.
I agree. Unfortunately for you, that's not what happened here.
Drafthouse did not "cancel the contract", the lady who bought the ticket broke the contract by doing explicitly forbidden actions. To correct your house-building analogy, if part of the contract between you and the builder was that you would stay out of their way, and instead of doing that, you were constantly literally right behind them the entire time, watching their every move, then you broke the contract. And I don't see why you think you are entitled to a refund if you broke the contract.
I live in Austin. I've been to the Alamo (too many times to count). I know the rules. They make it pretty obvious -- I mean they make PSAs on the subject where a guy talks in a movie and gets assassinated followed by a title saying if you talk during the movie, they'll take your a** out, and in parenthesis below it says "(and turn off your damn cell phone too)" -- It's been that way for years. The've even used an itchy and scratchy clip along the same lines (I believe scratchy disembowels itchy and spells out "Don't talk during the movie" using his intestines). Indeed, there is no doubt that the theater has made their point abundantly clear for over a decade now.
And all the pro-alamo comments from you guys who haven't been there. You all deserve to go. You rule, Slashdotters. Maybe you'll chance to be in Austin when they have their special showings going on where they serve all kinds of crazy stuff (like the LotR marathon where they served more courses than a hobbit could count -- or the rolling roadshow where they do things like play the Goonies in a cave.)
Be glad you weren't parents before cellphones...then you'd never be able to go anywhere.
I applaud these guys for standing up for a good movie going experience. I visited Austin last year for a few days. I went to an Alamo Drafthouse on my 2nd day there and by the time I left 2 days later I had gone again (to one of the other Alamo's in Austin). The experience was that good. These are, quite literally, the best movie theaters I've ever been to, probably the best in the country for my taste. Unlike many other "dine-and-screen" (really?) places I've been to, they actually have modern screens and sound systems, so you're not compromising the movie watching experience. Even if you don't want food or drink, it's a great place to watch a movie. They don't even cost more than a regular theater. Then on top of that they have great shorts and video clips before each movie, not the mass of advertising that most theaters play these days. Add in their talking and texting policies. And oh, did I forget a full food and drink menu, and that the food is actually pretty good? Not to mention their themed nights like for Halloween they had Sloppy Joe and Custard night while watching Dead Alive. Yeah, this place is awesome. I just wish we had one in San Francisco!
Yes, because you agreed to their TOS before you posted the material.
You have a TOS that people agree to before leaving a voicemail? Obviously, it would be up to a court to decide if there is an implied license when leaving a message on your voicemail, but I highly doubt that there is.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Your arguments don't justify a point by point rebuttal -- they all fail because copyright exists in a work (even an anonymous work) at the point that it is created. You don't have to file for copyright in order to own the copyright. That's not circular logic, it's the law since the USA adopted the Berne convention.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
If i had the funds, I'd definitely setup a movie theatre right across the street from them and put out nice big signs saying "We won't kick you out if you use your phone."
Clearly there is a market for people (at least 1 person) who might pay a premium for the right to use their phone. lol
Regards,
MBC1977,
What they NEED to do in ALL theaters is install RF shielding in the walls and ceiling to make cell phones useless. That way all this is never a problem. Holy shit, you would think there was never a time when parents or employees or whatever actually went somewhere and didn't have access to a cell phone. Worried about your kids? Go out to the lobby and use a cell phone to call home and check on them.
(Figure it out)
Yes, you can ban that asshole -- although, since you're offering financial incentives for assholery, you're going to end up with an inconveniently long blacklist -- but the world has a pretty large supply of assholes, and it only takes one to disrupt a film for the entire rest of the audience. And if your cinema is advertising "free movies for assholes", even if it's only one per asshole, you're bound to get at least one per showing.
The problem with your idea is that it requires the theatre to maintain a database of barred patrons, creating (1) overhead for them and (2) inconvenience for all the good patrons who now have to show ID just to get in to a movie. And even if you're in a state where ID has to be shown for (some) movies anyway, IDs can be forged.
Or they could just boot asshats (who carry on despite being warned of the consequences) out of the theater at the time, with no refund. This focuses the societal cost of poor decisions on those responsible, who might possibly even learn not to be asshats in future.
I know which I'd prefer.
See, we all got that, but your argument is plain wrong.
My wife and I won't go anywhere else but the Alamo, because all the other theaters suck, because all the other theaters have this self-created tension because they're trying to adhere to the policy that "the customer is always right."
Well, guess what? Not all the customers are right.
If they had given this bitch her cash back, she might have come back and bothered another theater full of patrons later. What about them? You think (if you could call it that) the theater management is behaving like asshats; I know they are just trying to help ensure a better environment for the next time that bitch decides to go to the movies.
Much simpler, puts the burden where it belongs, and (slightly) recompenses the theater for the burden of having to throw her ass out on the street.
So you are saying that if she goes to a fast food restaurant, orders food and then begins throwing it at other customers she should get a refund? She had already consumed the seat. If there were a requirement for the refund there would be a huge opportunity for sabotage. Their competitors could fill the house with people who were all disruptive and get all their money back. I am sure competitors could find homeless people for the right fee.
-rd
The contract provisions were spelled out in multiple places.
The person in question was informed verbally (warned twice) of the contract provisions.
Then the contract was enforced.
IMHO, they did her a huge favor. Many people spend orders of magnitude more than $9.00 on the simple lesson that contracts are meaningful, and here you are excoriating a business which provides this simple lesson at a bargain basement price.
Please re-read the first line of my post. Specifically the first four words.
"The exact mechanism for how you 'keep an eye out' is not my problem"
Well fuck you buddy. You want to throw out your completely impractical opinion about what someone else should be doing with their own property and then not want to back it up?
You got busted on your horseshit - but you can't back down. This has nothing to do with property rights and everything to do with you being an idiot who wishes to find fault in a business that specifically objects to behavior that you embody.
Humor from a Genetically Molested Mind
Your arguments don't justify a point by point rebuttal -- they all fail because copyright exists in a work (even an anonymous work) at the point that it is created. You don't have to file for copyright in order to own the copyright. That's not circular logic, it's the law since the USA adopted the Berne convention.
Translation: You can't rebut any of my points: Before you can own copyrights on an artwork, you first have to own it. If you don't own something, how can you possibly claim copyright? The Berne convention says that each participating country must respect the copyrights of other participating countries. On registration it says that an owner does not need to register a copyright in every country once the owner has established copyrights in one of the countries. It says nothing about establishing original ownership: that is up to the individual countries.
Again my point is who owns the copyright on Stephen King's next novel: Stephen King. If I steal his manuscript and register it with the Copyright Office, do I get the copyrights? No, I do not. If however, I establish a website where authors can post stories and novels with the full understanding that any work submitted to the website becomes my property do I get copyrights to Stephen King's novel if he posts on my site: Yes, in posting it on my web site he transferred the copyrights to me. There might be a legal battle about whether he intended or he understood he was transferring the rights, etc; however, if I made it clear that posting would transfer the rights, I would win in the end.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Perfect response. +1
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
, and the management for not putting their money where their mouth is and giving her a refund written notice that she's barred from attending again.
I'm guessing they may have started with a policy like that, but you can see that makes it that much less of a deterrent. The texter loses nothing if they get caught; they've seen half the movie, which apparently they weren't interested in anyway, and got their money back. A "written notice that she's barred from attending again" isn't much of a deterrent either; you don't have to show ID to buy a ticket. Unless she has a particularly memorable scar and met the same ushers, who'd know if she came back a few weeks later?
You seem confused between the concept of owning a copyright and owning a copy of a copyrighted work. Go ask the heirs of Martin Luther King if you can use his famous speech -- which was given very publicly and not recorded by MLK or his heirs.
Gah, how can you be so obtuse? Yes, of course if there is a TOS that transfers ownership, or grants rights on posting something then the owner of the website will gain rights from users who post (under the TOS). At most, a phone answering service might say that the conversation may be used for training, so there may be a license for use in training -- but reproducing copies to customers is clearly far outside the concept of training. I have never come across a phone service that claimed the right to reproduce to customers.
I guess your nym is accurate -- you are both unknowing and a fool!
all nice and all, but where do you draw the line? with today's phones, even checking it in your wives bag would light up the whole theater. Your situation might be a more plausible reason, but a lot of people really have not reason at all. I find mobilesphones so disturbing these days, people use them for every whim, and also get a lot more calls during work/movies/whatever and mostly it's just even rubbish why the other people called.. People are using them obsessivly which is really a bad thing..
It's not the 'escorting out' which is obnoxious, it's the 'without refund' bit.
No one else is addressing your idiocy so I will. They aren't hiding behind policy. The policy is clearly stated. I mean she probably got there and had a few drinks, went to the bathroom, and used her phone to come back in. They told her not to use her phone and she sent a message to someone about how bad these people at the Alamo treated her. If you pissed on Magic Mountain I doubt Mickey would walk you out with a free pass for your next visit.
SirDinky
I don't live in Austin, or Texas, or even the US for that matter. But this story alone has made me want to visit Austin specifically to take in a movie at the Alamo Drafthouse and by damn I'm going to do it within the next year.
I absolutely HATE going to movie theaters these days because of the ignorant, stupid, unwashed masses of people that can't stop playing with their farking phones or stop talking during the movie.
I agree, both sides are asshats. The customer for disturbing the movie, and the management for not [...] giving her a refund
That would be an absurd management policy. With this kind of policy in place people, after, say, watching the first 20 minutes of a movie, and realizing they do not like that movie could just start to text in the hope to get thrown out of the theater (or get at least some texting done) and get their money back. That would make NO sense whatsoever and would be terrible for the audience.
The word "asshole" in capital letters sounds pretty copyrighted to me :-)
I'm sorry that my job requires me to be available 24/7.
I guess that means no movies for me because some hypersensitive person might be offended.
Your job must suck. What happens if you want to go for a beer, or take a holiday? Oops, no - got to work!
I bet that must make your girlfriend feel really special, too - out for dinner? Quiet little restaurant, dinner for two? DIDIDI DEEDEEDEE DIDIDI! Oops, sorry dear, work calls and they're more important than my social life!
You need a better job. I bet you're not paid your salary pro rata for 24/7 work.
Wow. That's a lot of words you typed there.
I'm afraid all I was able to understand is that you must be a law student who's never been thrown out of a bar before you were able to finish your drink(s).
Score one for the good guys.
What good guys? Isn't posting her rant on Youtube a copyright infringement?
Copyright applies only to content that has been "fixed", which, in the terms of copyright law, basically means that it has been recorded or transcribed or otherwise put into a tangible form. So, if I make a speech out loud, there is nothing "fixed", and therefore there is no copyright. However, if I write that speech down, then there is copyright on the written speech. Alternately, if I make an audio recording of the speech, there is copyright on that audio recording.
If I make an audio recording of a speech, the copyright is mine not because I thought of the words, but because I made the recording. If somebody else made that recording of my speech, then that recording belongs to them, not to me.
Alamo Drafthouse made the recording of a speech which, I think it's reasonable to assume, the woman did not first prepare on paper before making her phone call. Therefore, Alamo Drafthouse likely holds the copyright on that recording. They definitely hold the copyright on the video (a derivative work) that they created based on that recording.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
Well, I think I spotted why you don't have any funds. Let me guess, you would ALSO create an airliner with the slogan: We love crying babies!
It seems no doubt sensible to you to offer a service to those nobody else wants to be around. Why not put up an apartment complex specially catering to people who love to drill in walls 24/7, have dogs that bark non-stop, the afore mentioned crying babies and think the window is the garbage disposal?
Guess what, the obnoxious don't like each others presence. Being obnoxious is alright for me, it is not alright for YOU!
A local computer store tried this a few years ago: They had multiple counters, most for normal service with some tech questions, a tech one with a warning that expert advice here might take a while and a note of when the best times were to get it and a checkout only.
Gosh, how many people do you think chose the correct line? They were mostly pretty good with sending customers to the right line but gave up on the whole concept when internet shopping took off and all the fast customers started to order online anyway. To many customers thinking THEIR questions where quick enough to have everyone else wait in the checkout line.
People are assholes who can't stand other assholes.
Why do think Home Cinema has taken such a flight? Because it is cheaper? Hell no. Because it is better quality? Hell no! Because I can be my own asshole without being exposed to others? YES!
I can eat my own snacks the way I want it without having to listen to you eating yours.
I got a home cinema setup and avoid regular ones like the plague.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Meet me at the Alamo Drafthouse and I will instruct you on how Texas will mess with YOU.
I agree, both sides are asshats. [...], and the management for not putting their money where their mouth is and giving her a refund along with a written notice that she's barred from attending again.
If, as someone else said, the theater doesn't WANT this particular business, they should stop hiding behind 'policy' and just reverse the transaction - she's no longer allowed to watch the movie, so they no longer keep her money. It's not the 'escorting out' which is obnoxious, it's the 'without refund' bit.
Why? If they kick you out of McDonald's they don't refund you the half finished hamburger, do they?
they should stop hiding behind 'policy' and just reverse the transaction
They aren't hiding behind the policy, they made the policy and enforced it.
She entered the movie (after it had started, BTW) and disrupted the movie for everyone else, twice, then made a commotion on the way out. Maybe it is "obnoxious" to deny a refund, to which I say GOOD. Want your money back? Don't be a shit head.
I for one will make sure to visit this theater in the future, because I know they aren't going to be a bunch of pushovers about it. Nothing pisses me off like sitting through 10 minutes of "Turn off your cellphones" preview ads, and then having to put up with a half dozen jerks who spend the entire movie texting, talking, or playing games on their phones because the theater doesn't have the balls to do anything about it.
It merely reposts OTHER PEOPLE'S news. It has to wait for REAL news organizations to find it and report it before Slashdot can ride off their coattails.
Although I admit I have a specialy issued beeper for that, I need to be available on short notice even on my free time. Yeah if it beeps in the middle of a cinema I am sorry, but there is an emergency and I need to go back to work as quick as humanely possible, live could depends on that.
That said, all the people which check eMail if tehre is no emergency (a real one with live at stake) : KICK THEM OUT.
The "without refund" is also probably also another behavioral disincentive, however, so I don't really have a problem with it.
yes, there are times when it is necessary to check any messages you may receive. For example, about six months after my wife and I had our first child, we finally got a break to go see a movie. Every time our phone vibrated, we had to check it to make sure our kid wasn't in the hospital or something.
Yes, we were paranoid.
Why was your phone vibrating that much? I'm just curious. I don't give people my sms contact unless it's very important, people don't call, etc. I don't see why people feel that everyone in the world has to be able to reach them at all times. I would go crazy if people were sending my -phone- texts all the damn time, or just dialing me up just to chat. That's fine when I get home. But if I want to go out and be social, I want it to be with the person I'm going out with, doing the activities we left the house to do.
I understand having an emergency phone/emergency contact, but it's never worth making your anytime casual contact the same thing.
We chose Alamo Draft House, enjoyed a burger and a few beers, sat on the very back row, kept our phones on silent mode and in my wife's purse so we could check by looking into the purse without actually taking the phones out.
Hey, if you can actually do it so that no one can notice, then no one needs to complain.
There is no reason why a break clause allowing one party to unilaterally cancel a contract on grounds of unreasonable behaviour by the other should allow the cancelling party out of their obligations whilst requiring the other party to fulfill theirs.
Let's have another thought experiement: Imagine if it were possible to just withdraw a payment you've made. You call up your bank, ask them to withdraw it and whoosh, the money is back in your account. You get thrown out - you call your bank and get your money back. Why would that be wrong? Everyone is now back where they started - you haven't seen the movie, the theater hasn't got your money.
But it isn't where they started -- the theater is out a seat (the movie has already started), it required a confrontation on the part of the staff, and it greatly degrades the experience of those around her, an experience they paid for.
If she were to go to a department store, grab a vase and smash it against the ground, would they be remiss in charging her for it? Or would we have to escort her out, tell her not to come back, and the cost of that vase is simply "the cost of doing business." A physical item shouldn't need to be involved, the business loses money whether it's refunding a ticket or replacing an item, both because of the customer's intentional action.
If I ever get to Austin, I'll make a point of visiting the Alamo Drafthouse - just because. You folks over there ought to try electing people like Tim League to political office, they're probably better for you and the world than others who've recently been in the news. Wish I had somebody like this to vote for.
This woman is a paranoid psychotic, it's not her mobile phone.
The purpose of existence is to make money.
Go to a screening where the rules are off. My local cinema holds at least a couple of these per week, mainly to allow parents with kids and no reliable babysitter to catch a film in the theatre but I believe the "no phones" rule is relaxed as well.
Sorry to be a prick (actually, I take that back, I'm not sorry at all), but your job is not anyone else's problem. I'm sure you are paid well enough for the inconvenience of being on call 24/7, and if you aren't then you are being seriously diddled by your employer and you need to be talking to them instead of moaning to slashdot.
Really professionally done and the script really comes across well as a transcript written from "drunkin' caller". I was actually impressed by the whole lonelygirl15 production as well, but this was moved much more quickly to the mainstream.
You seem confused between the concept of owning a copyright and owning a copy of a copyrighted work. Go ask the heirs of Martin Luther King if you can use his famous speech -- which was given very publicly and not recorded by MLK or his heirs.
My point which you don't seem to understand is that ownership of the original artwork is central aspect to a claim of copyright. The OP said that Alamo infringed on her copyrights. My point is that leaving an anonymous message makes it very hard to establish authorship and thus ownership. Also leaving the message on a company's voicemail (which may have have warnings that they own your messages) may transferred ownership.
Gah, how can you be so obtuse? Yes, of course if there is a TOS that transfers ownership, or grants rights on posting something then the owner of the website will gain rights from users who post (under the TOS). At most, a phone answering service might say that the conversation may be used for training, so there may be a license for use in training -- but reproducing copies to customers is clearly far outside the concept of training. I have never come across a phone service that claimed the right to reproduce to customers.
Because you have never come across it, it cannot exist. Is that your point?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
The lesson they are teaching is "Don't behave like a selfish bitch in our theater."
They absolutely are obligated to teach this lesson to inconsiderate idiots like her in order to keep the business of the other patrons who go to the Alamo for precisely the reason they kicked her out.
You are incredibly naive to think that she deserved, legally or ethically, a refund. There have already been a half dozen examples (which you've not responded to, but kept arguing other minor points) of analogous situation. You are completely ignoring the fact that these are the rules of patronizing this establishment, and she continuously broke them. You bring up contracts constantly ignoring the fact that there are TWO sides to the contract - One side says you can watch the movie in exchange for money AND agreeing that you will obey the rules of the establishment. This is true for any business of that charges admission. None of them will give you a refund if you blatantly and continually violate their rules, and none of them should.
There is zero question of this being legal. It absolutely is.
So they are supposed to be psychics and know she was going to ruin the experience for everyone else? They need to do psychological profiling on their customers before they sell a ticket? How the hell would that even be possible?
It's an insane notion that the ticket is an ironclad contract that allowed you to be in the theater for the specified duration of the film no matter what you do. The situation you're imagining is just that - imaginary. It does not exist in the real world, legally or ethically.
None of those other situations is anywhere close to what happened, and are not analogous in any way to this situation. She broke the clearly stated rules of the theater repeatedly and got kicked out without a refund, which is rightfully and ethically correct.
That's awesome. Their PSAs work so well that even jerks like you who had probably never heard of them before now know that you'll get chucked out on your ear for behavior you probably consider perfectly normal. I'm perfectly fine with you and your cellphone staying the hell away from the Alamo.
I don't know whether your ineducable or merely ignorant, but there are costs, not just direct costs, but stress and the possibility of violence, for theater employees to actually do the right thing and kick disruptive patrons out.
It is perfectly reasonable to try to assign as much of these costs to the perpetrators as possible. While it is difficult (though not impossible) to sue them for breach of contract, it is plenty easy to just not give them their money back and have them try to sue you.
I'd love to be on that jury...
The origin of the meme "the customer is always right" is not your completely unthoughtful notion that the customer needs to be on a higher footing than the business for some unknown humanitarian/communist reason. No, the origin of that meme is that the business wants to do everything possible to make the customer happy so the customer comes back.
But what if you actually don't want a customer back?
You have proposed the idea of a ban, which others have repeatedly pointed out is completely unworkable. Have you ever actually been to a busy theater? Do you know how many employees it takes to actually take tickets, etc.? Do you know how hard it would be to keep a violator out?
Why should the theater waste time and money on this "ban", when it already did the customer a huge favor by not having her arrested for disruptive behavior, and when simply keeping her money will actually have positive benefits for her behavior in the future?
I certainly hope you don't have any kids, or that the little monsters stay far, far away from me and my family. In fact, it's probably best for all concerned if you stay completely away from Texas. If you think this theater is obnoxious for not tolerating bad behavior, you haven't seen anything yet.
It would be pretty to think so, but there is no reason to believe it is anything but a publicity stunt.
I live in Austin. I have been going to the Alamo for over a decade. This has been their policy for as long as texting has been a possibility, and they have thrown many patrons out for violating the policy. This is just the first time it's gotten such national attention.
The PSAs at Alamo have included former governors of Texas, major film stars/directors, locals who made good PSAs for fun, etc. This is just the latest way to make sure people know what is acceptable social behavior at the Alamo. It isn't a completely public space. It is a shared space, with rules of decorum, and the Alamo and its staff work hard to make sure that as many people as possible have a good shared experience at the theaters. Some customers are not fit company for that space and they get tossed out. Honestly, anyone who refuses to follow the simple basics of No Talking & No Texting that the Alamo demands probably has little respect for any form of shared spaces. They're probably the same ones who get banned from chat channels and blocked by spam filters. :-)
When I see someone using a cell phone for texting or talk in a public forum, I want to throttle them. But, I would expect such behavior from Americans, a country of rubes. Truthfully, I would like to see some type of scrambling device in certain venues. I believe the FCC should allow such activity. Oh, I am sorry. I forgot the FCC are the morality police ever vigilant for wardrobe violations.
You obviously aren't familiar with the Drafthouse culture. The day they complain this is on YouTube is the day humanity fails.
Last night I was a volunteer at a 3 hour long dance recital held at a theater (you know, a building with a stage down front, seats, and darkness...) Parents were told in writing, at rehearsals, and at the beginning of the performance - no electronics. No phones, iPads, Nooks, Nintendo, MP3 players, DVD players, etc, etc, etc. In fact, they were told that if a small child needed electronics to be entertained, they child should be left at home with, gasp, a baby sitter. And, of course, there were countless people who ignored the rules, including parents trying to keep small children quiet by using small DVD players. And, when I politely asked them to turn off their devices, they gave me crap.
The problem more universally is that people no longer know how to behave, and no matter how well the rules are promulgated, they believe the rules surely apply to everyone else, but not to them.
What in the hell are you smoking? Management never said they give customers refunds for customer behavior. As a matter of fact, the explicitly say "we'll kick you out". Not "we'll kick you out and then give you paperwork to process your refund".
This is a business I can finally get behind. "Inconsiderate Assholes not welcome here. You have been warned". Bravo, Drafthouse.
The fundamental agreement is that the customer pays their money, and watches the movie - any attempt to include a clause which allows one party to declare unreasonable conduct on the part of the other and then, not just cancel the contract, but get themselves out of performing their obligations under it whilst requiring the other party still to perform theirs is just plain wrong.
Somebody has daddy issues.
The power of locally owned business is that it's easy to spot this douchebag woman the next time she shows up and tell her to buzz off.
I have little good to say about Texas and most things in it, but The Alamo Draft House chain is not one of them. They are my new hero and will receive all of the money I spend on my movie habit from now on.
You sir/ma'am, are an idiot. If you fly to Austin, I'll personally take you to a movie at the Drafthouse. If you don't like it, you can fly back to whatever shitty place you come from and you are welcomed to take your small-minded attitude back with you.
The worst thing about Austin is we are surrounded by Texas (I kid, I kid).
This Easter the bottom of my phone's text list was appended with a message from my brother wishing me a good holiday from the previous August; we were both away from our home country when he sent it, if that makes a difference.
I have also been in a room when a colleague's received an email 3 months late regarding a job interview. She had queried some small part of the process, the reply was very positive, but she heard nothing, nor did the employers so they both assumed something was wrong somewhere. Looked at the headers and all could see was it going into a 192.168 in March and coming out in June
I used to think kids weren't allowed at Alamo Drafthouse because beer is served. I was pleasantly surprised to find out they aren't allowed because the owners realize most people can't control their children and this bothers the other patrons. Plus, there are no unchaperoned teenagers to ruin the experience, because you have to be 18 (I think), regardless of the movie's rating.
They aren't anti-kid though. They have specific viewings FOR families with kids. The expectations at those viewings are far different.
I am distracted by the popcorn, the cokes, the patrons trying to get refills, the people talking on the phone, the cleaning staff that comes in immediately as the credits roll.
Which is why we love Alamo Drafthouse. None of this happens.
texting is not a problem. Here is why I think theaters hate texting. It kills bad films the first weekend, and kills ticket and concessions sales. Everyone tweets how bad the movie is and by the 9 o'clock showing everyone is going to a movie that does not suck. There could be better movies, but instead they continue to make boring movies that do not entertain so everyone texts how much is sucks instead.
That is the most asinine string of text in this entire thread.
There is another thing that some may not know. This theater is running a major promotion trying to establish itself as the pretentious alternative theater. This will work in Austin where they have an overabundance of wanna be pretentious people and a shortage of pretentious movie houses, but in other urban parts of texas we already have high quality pretentious movie theaters with overpriced bad food and drinks either in the theater or near it. The texting thing is being pumped for publicity so that all the pretentious people who are too good to see a popular movie in a normal theater will be attracted to it. Therefore, this has nothing to do with values but is merely a cheap publicity stunt.
Oops, I spoke too soon. THAT is the most asinine string of text in this thread. Dude, you have serious projection issues. Drafthouse is alternative to the point that it isn't a shitty Cinemark Megaplex overrun by unruly, unsupervised pre-teens. Your own post shows the mainstream list of movies they show. It's hard to be pretentious when your feature film is Kung Fu Panda 2.
What is pretentious about a good idea like showing movies and serving REAL food and beer at restaurant prices instead of charging $5.00 for a medium coke and $7 for a large bucket of day old popcorn?
Until YOU open your own theater and it becomes the primary venue for a major film festival, your silly projections come off as the little insecure whines that they are.
And the non-refunded ticket price is called the cost of being an inconsiderate bitch to all the other patrons.
Your vision of an "ethical" world is one in which the rights of one asshole trumps the rights of the hundred or so other patrons of the theater and the rights of the theater itself. I would never want to live in that world, neither would pretty much everyone else on this thread.
If you break the clearly stated and posted rules that state you will be kicked out without a refund if you violate them, you are not entitled to a refund. There is no real ethical argument here. You're just arguing a point that is wrong by any rational method. Contracts? You've got that totally wrong, she violated the contract and forfeited her money. It's not "just plain wrong," it isn't even slightly wrong, it's the way contracts work.
I could imagine monkeys flew out her butt, it's not what the issue is here any more than your imaginary situations. The principles are not the same, or even relatively close.
What you are calling unreasonable is completely reasonable and rational, your proposed solution has consequences that would suck for everybody but the assholes.
our country is packed with numb-skulls. it will be our undoing.
she's no longer allowed to watch the movie, so they no longer keep her money. It's not the 'escorting out' which is obnoxious, it's the 'without refund' bit.
Umm... except she didn't just pay to watch the movie. She paid for a seat to sit in and watch the movie. Sure, most movies aren't completely full except on opening night, but the fact is that she bought a seat that was then unavailable to other customers, thereby potentially costing the theater revenue if it was a sold-out show.
Same thing would go if you bought a reserved ticket for a bus or train or whatever. If you then show up drunk and disorderly enough that you make the bus driver unable to concentrate (for example), you could be thrown off. And If you are thrown off (in violation of a pre-existing contract), the bus company has no obligation to refund the ticket, since (a) you violated the contract and have no legal basis if those were the terms, and (b) you already cost them money because they couldn't sell your ticket to someone else.
If your job requires you to be on call, YES THAT MEANS YOU CAN'T GO TO A MOVIE THEATER! Holy shit, how could you possibly think otherwise?
You cannot have both.
This is not a reasonable position, either. Some people have to be on-call, at least for emergencies -- some of them are doctors... one of them might be the surgeon who might save your life.
The reasonable answer is that the patron puts his/her device on vibrate, informs employers that he/she is available only for absolute emergencies during that time, and if the device vibrates, he/she exits the theater temporarily in an unobtrusive manner to check and see what the emergency is.
Everybody wins.
Your shopkeeper argument does not make any sense in this situation. A much better metaphor is going to a psychiatrist. When a patient makes a booking with a psychiatrist and then does not turn up, they will be charged for the appointment. A patient has the responsibility to notify the psychiatrist a reasonable time before the appointment's date. If the patient does not do this then the psychiatrist may not be able to make an appointment with someone else, denying another patient of an appointment, and denying the psychiatrist income. Similarly with the theater example, if someone is ruining the movie experience for other people then it causes harm to the other people and the theater itself. The theater clearly has the right to escort the person out as it is in their policy which is made clear to the customers. Denying a refund for this is not being an asshat. The sociopath shouldn't be issued a refund because the have denied the theater of selling the seat to another customer and have caused a disturbance to other patrons.
Again I state that your shopkeeper argument is just loopy. A more accurate picture would be a customer that buys a chocolate bar, eats half of it, and then goes around harassing the other patrons of the store. The shopkeeper then asks the customer to leave. The customer the hands the half-eaten chocolate to the shopkeeper and asks for a refund. The shopkeeper refuses to issue a refund for the half-eaten chocolate bar. The customer then makes a phone call stating that the shopkeeper is an asshole. The end. Note that this still does not quite represent the theater situation, but that is because a regular shop with physical items cannot explain the situation in the theater very well.
Expecting there to be a refund is like a murderer going to jail and then expecting to be given a massive amount of money because they were not able to live out their life as normal for the years they were in jail. There is personal responsibility that must be shown by people who are well functioning enough to be able to join the activities that people in society participate in. Someone should not be allowed to hurt other people and then expect there to be no repercussions for it. If the theater did give a refund then the theater and the other people would have been harmed by the sociopath and the sociopath would have lost nothing. Is that what you want? Because I for one, would not want them to be stuffing around with my life with no corrective action being taken. Although if there was a way that they could be helped from their destructive behaviour and live a better life I would support it.
wonder how well that will work out
Maybe the Alamo is different, but around here even local theaters has constantly rotating staff. So, what do you do? Keep mugshots to train new staff?
Institutional memory at a business with constant turnover does not exist.
It is just a stupid and unworkable idea. What the theater does cannot be improved upon.
Humor from a Genetically Molested Mind
...compared to what I got to experience yesterday while seeing Super 8. Here's some woman's idea of acceptable moviegoing footwear for her young, hyperactive daughter: Flip flops with blindingly bright red, white and blue LEDs that began strobing at the slightest movement. Fucking idiot.
And it wouldn't hurt to take a lesson in etiquette from the Japanese. There was a comment on slashdot on a cell phone jamming article a while back where someone mentioned that in his time he spent in Japan, it was remarkable that he didn't hear a cell phone ring *once*. Also, dozens of people on public transportation would talk in a whisper on their cell phones at the same time, because they understood that the technology was good enough to reduce noise and amplify their voice.
Why can't we have that here in America? Why doesn't everyone keep their cell phone on vibrate by default? Is it really necessary to hear some insipid pop garbage every time someone gets a text or phone call? I attribute it to the egotistical culture of "ME ME ME". Maybe unapologetic attention seeking whores would like to spend an hour in the stocks? Maybe that would satisfy their craving for attention.
Nathan's blog
do they believe those chewing-popcorn-with-my-mouth-open sounds do not "pull you out of the movie experience"?
Stupid people + txt = ruin movies, driving, walking down the sidewalk
Teh boot = :-D
Well, I think I spotted why you don't have any funds
It could work. Just set up a cinema for people who can use their cellphones, sell tickets for $5, but never actually play a movie. Just play trailers for 90 minutes. The phone users will be so engrossed twittering, emailing, FBing, etc, they'll never notice. After 90 minutes, bring the lights up and close the curtains.
When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
Putting the rantings of a half drunk, angry patron on the movie screen speaks for itself.
Why would I want to go to a theater where I have to listen to the whinings of its drunk former patrons on screen?
Here is what is playig at the theater. Brides mainds, kung fu panda. x-men, etc. Not a high end theater like landmark or Dundance where the films require a little more attention.
Also playing this month: Taxi Driver, Black Orpheus, Salesman, Midnight in Paris... and they have a regular silent film series with live musical score. (Battleship Potemkin was a couple weeks ago.)
Are you upset that they don't show "high brow" films exclusively?
This woman obviously didn't get it. We are all better off without her in the theater.
I wonder if she has spoken up, admitted to all her friends that it is her voicemail now getting nation-wide attention?
This just makes me even more likely to go back to Alamo Drafthouse whenever I am near one (there are multiple locations) even if I didn't have a specific movie in mind. The food is good, the service is excellent, beer is cold, the seats are comfortable, the theater is clean, and best of all, they have and enforce rules about disrupting the movie.
FYI, if you want to text during a film, go to one of the "Heckle Vision" events, and your texts can be shown on the screen.
She cost them money by making the experience worse for other patrons
That's called a cost of doing business. If they want to end the disruption sooner than the end of the movie, they can stump up to refund what she paid them to be allowed to be there. Legally, maybe the 'rules' get incorporated into the contract with the patron, but it's still pathetic and still wrong. The fundamental agreement is that the customer pays their money, and watches the movie - any attempt to include a clause which allows one party to declare unreasonable conduct on the part of the other and then, not just cancel the contract, but get themselves out of performing their obligations under it whilst requiring the other party still to perform theirs is just plain wrong. Imagine if you paid on your way out of the theater, rather than on the way in - and on management escorting someone out they expected them to stop at the cash-desk and pay for the movie they were being escorted out of. It would be both insane and unenforceable. This is exactly the same principle, it's just that people have paid up-front.
Why is the fact that ballpark operators are equally unreasonable an argument against what I said, or remotely relevant?
When they sold her the ticket, that meant they couldn't sell someone else the ticket the seat is filled. They can't resell it once the movie starts, and they are under no obligation to buy the ticket back from her, when SHE breaks the contract/agreement regarding what the ticket confers. If they kicked her out without a reason, i.e. they didn't like her, they wanted the seat for someone else, etc., then she might have some argument for getting a refund, but they kicked her out so that she wouldn't be disturbing the other patrons i.e. reducing the value they receive in exchange for the money they paid. Maybe if she had left after the first warning and demanded a refund, the moral argument could be different, but as it is she has no valid argument to expect a refund.
This very quote shows how self-centered and inconsiderate you are. You feel no shame in bothering other people for YOUR time, no matter whether if it's even one person. A considerate person won't bother even one. No matter how much they feel they deserve it. I wouldn't have said a word if you were next to me checking your phone. Except all the way home, telling my wife how the asshat next to me had his cell phone going off every 10 minutes and he had to check it, lighting up his whole face (you can't read the screen without looking at it idiot). And then tomorrow at work, we would have a good time laughing at your expense. And you wouldn't even know it.
.. if no one can see your phone, then no one will kick you out of the theater.
Maybe you have the magical way of looking at your phone without disturbing someone. Now if you can tell the other morons that can't, I'd appreciate it. But consider this
So I guess you have nothing to worry about then, do you. Go ahead and go with the confidence that you won't bother anyone.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
If you change your mind after something is built, you don't get a refund on the parts they have to demolish.
This isn't a fucking job, they won't evaluate her during an internship. They accept her as a customer based on her implied agreement to certain behavior during that time. Once they sell her the seat, they can't resell it. The fact that she couldn't keep up her end of the arrangement does not mean the theater should be out the money.
I understand this perfectly. There is no question about ownership. The person who left the message is identified and even if the person who left the message was not identified, that would still not transfer copyrights. Do you mean ownership of a copy? If so, then ownership of a copy certainly does not affect ownership of the copyrights. You seem to be very clue-resistent on this point. Go buy one-off painting and then try to make a copy -- unless you get permission, you are likely to be sued. I note that you failed to address my comment about MLK's speech, in which I pointed to a specific example that contradicts your claims. You have not given any specific examples to back your claims.
No. It can't. Copyright transfers have to be made in writing. That's what US law says. There is no way that leaving such a message can transfer copyright ownership.
Of course it can exist. Does it in this case? Highly unlikely. You are down to suggesting very unlikely circumstances in a vain and failed attempt to show that I am wrong.
I guess that means no movies for me because some hypersensitive person might be offended.
If by "hypersensitive" you mean "normal", then yeah, pretty much.
The theatre's transcript of her voice mail is wrong in one critical location. They have her quoted as referring to the "Magnited States of America." Since she'd likely been drinking at that point, I think that error is attributable to her accent and slurring, but it's clear that she meant to refer to the "Maglighted Stated of America" instead.