Slashdot Mirror
AMC Theaters Allegedly Calls FBI to Interrogate a Google Glass Wearer
An anonymous reader writes "A Google Glass user was interrogated without legal counsel for a couple of hours under suspicion that he may have been recording a film in the AMC movie theater. Although the matter could have been cleared in minutes, federal agents insisted on interrogating the user for hours. So long for our constitutional freedoms."
Hours of being detained that could have been avoided if they had just searched his devices (which he repeatedly suggested they do): "Eventually, after a long time somebody came with a laptop and an USB cable at which point he told me it was my last chance to come clean. I repeated for the hundredth time there is nothing to come clean about and this is a big misunderstanding so the FBI guy finally connected my Glass to the computer, downloaded all my personal photos and started going though them one by one (although they are dated and it was obvious there was nothing on my Glass that was from the time period they accused me of recording). Then they went through my phone, and 5 minutes later they concluded I had done nothing wrong." Update: 01/21 21:41 GMT by U L : The Columbus Dispatch confirmed the story with the Department of Homeland Security. The ICE and not the FBI detained the Glass wearer, and there happened to be an MPAA task force at the theater that night, who then escalated the incident.
Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole!
He should have just explained that he wanted to read his texts without being shot.
Law enforcement and Government in general doesn't like when random citizens record things. It makes it harder to railroad people in courts afterwards if there is actual footage of an incident.
So anyone using Google Glass can expect to be bullied and harassed whenever it can be done with a "reasonable cause". And yes, law enforcement is not happy that just wearing something like that isn't grounds for it. But hey, do it in the movies and those Hollywood-lobbied antipiracy laws give them perfect justification...
No one likes glassholes, FBI or AMC. And to top it, this glasshole goes to watch 'Jack Ryan, Shadow Recruit'!
May be its punishment for choosing to watch that picture.
Tat Tvam Asi
This is really creepy. Imagine twenty years ago that the feds would be able to detain you in a private place and get to inspect all your private photo's, your call log, your agenda, friends, (snail) mail, basically all your private data, on suspicion of a copyright violation. What happened to 'presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law'?
> federal agents insisted on interrogating the user for hours. So long for our
> constitutional freedoms."
Didn't he have the choice of just getting up and leaving? Was he under arrest? If he's not been arrested, how's he lost a freedom. And if he has, challenge it in court. Sounds like he's missed a trick here.
Seriously, just sue the theater.
If this all really happened (really we just have a friend of a friend posting on some site) then it's a good example of why "I have nothing to hide, so what am I worried about?" type of argument is so stupid. Guy is completely innocent of any wrong doing, and they grill him for hours, and he's still shaking a day after. If you've ever been in a situation where you're being accused of wrongdoing, you know how infuriating/scary it can be, especially when you're completely innocent. Really, he should have said either charge me or I'm leaving, but how many of us would want a federal case against us, even if it would eventually get dismissed? What recourse would he have after the fact, to dissuade this sort of behavior from the police in the future? Instead, he tried to clear himself immediately, and they still grilled him for hours.
Of course, people will just say you shouldn't bring a camera into a movie theater. Nevermind we're all guilty of this - it's likely your phone has a camera as well. This one just happens to be up on his face.
It's just possible that the glass was providing viewing notes for the film, to allow him to better understand the subtle nuances, to immerse himself in the cleverly constructed character back-stories ... [what? 'Jack Ryan, Shadow Recruit'? ... oh]
Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
handmadehands.co.uk
This is one of those situations that just proves that technology just moves too fast and what really should have happened was that AMC should have had the user put a piece of plastic over the camera part of the Glass device and tell them if they see it powered on while the movie is on they will be escorted from the premises.
They can detect camera devices in theaters you know. Everyone has a damn smartphone. Hell the most recent thing I've seen in the theatre (that only had two showings) the staff threatened the audience exactly as I described above before the movie started.
So why not actually investigate by looking at the contents of the memory rather than detaining him for hours for questioning?
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
As the article states the Glass had prescription lenses;
I have been using Google Glass for about 2 months now, and about 2 weeks ago I got prescription lenses for the glasses. So in the past two weeks I was wearing Google Glass all the time.
Switching glasses can be annoying
From TFS (The Fuc... Fine Summary) :
Funny that the saying goes that "if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide", but when push-comes-to-shove and you obey that rule you get ignored. Almost as if they have too much fun with their "interrogation" and do not want to have it stopped short ...
And pardon me, hours of interrogation for an allegation of having recorded something ? I shrudder to think of how many days of interrogation I can look forward to for having been seen jaywalking ...
Which did he mean? "So MUCH for our constitutional freedoms", or "So long TO our constitutional freedoms"?
until proven innocent, right?
I'm guessing they were hoping for a confession which makes for a much stronger case than just evidense.
These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
Once you are in there they control your reality. If you try to wrest that control from them they will make you pay in some form. In my long experience (including family killed by police - unwarranted, and personally prison time), many to most cops are bullies, or grow to be so in the culture they work in. The ones that are not tend to get weeded out or self select out.
This guy should have never spoken to them. Period. Arrest me, give me a lawyer or let me walk out the door. No other words should have escaped his lips.
When you are innocent that is hard to fathom, especially without experience of this type of treatment, but unfortunately it is true. If yo notice, the cops involved slowly went through obviously non-related materials. What if he had his kids bath time photos/videos on there? An over zealous cop could have charges him with child porn charges. Oh, uploaded them to G+, that's distribution there sonny.
I know some of those still caught in the fear and slow panic the government and media feed them will attack and say that would never happen. To them, all I can say is wait till it happens to you.
Silence is a state of mime.
If you'd read the article you'd know he had perscription lenses put in them, that's why he wore them to see a film (the emphasis is on "see").
1. Lawyer
2. Warrant
Or maybe three words: Just Shut Up.
Police will continue to bully people and overstep their authority as long as we let them.
http://www.popehat.com/tag/shu...
Sounds like the guy needs to be arrested for wasting police time. How dare he be obviously not guilty of the thing he was accused of?!
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Which is why you need the two magic phrases: "Am I free to go?", "I want a lawyer".
Seriously, hours of a moron trying to "verbal" a confession out of someone when he had the whole and entire evidence in his possession. This is a perfect example, you are never helping yourself by cooperating with this crap.
Am I free to go? [No.] I want a lawyer.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
congrats.
you have become a mindless slave of your government/corporation masters and now think it is somehow wrong to do something that is perfectly OK and (still) legal.
And than you even have the audacity to talk other people down that stand up to such wrongness.
What a miserable example of a slashdot accountholder.
That's something I never understood in the U.S. justice system. It relies too much on testimony and confession and not so much on evidence. Humans err. Humans err the whole time. Wishful thinking, prejudices, wanting to have seen something that wasn't objectively to be seen, coerced testimonies and confessions cast so much doubt on them. But their words are taken as pure gold in court. Attorneys General refuse to withdraw their accusations, courts refuse to overturn convictions in light of new evidence just because there exists a confession or even just a testimony about the existance of a confession, whatever dubious the circumstances where during which it allegedly came about.
You should not have let them view your photos without a warrant. They had no right to do that. I realize it is easy for me to talk tough when I was not in the situation, but allowing cops to do this kind of thing is what allows freedoms to be degraded.
Guys like this are what gives glass a bad name. Its about what you would expect a theater to do if you pointed a camera at the screen the whole time. That said, you couldn't really record the whole movie, and even if you could, it would be jittery and not great resolution. Yet another case of misunderstood technology being foolishly abused.
Greed is the root of all evil.
OK, I know this is trolling, and I'm sorry, but I'm tired of seeing news like this, and I have to say it: You have the most fucked up legal system since Iran.
Done, I feel better now.
This is just a reminder that you live in the "Land of the Free"
What the fuck were you thinking going into a movie theater wearing your Google Glass in this time and age.
Yeah, freedom is so last millennium.
They are complete scum, they love the power trip they have and they enjoy feeling that they are in control over people.
These FBI assholes faces need to be published on the internet so that people can know that they are scumbags and to be avoided at all costs.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
It is their right to investigate. You asked for it by pointing a camera at the screen through a movie.
Yeah, this is almost as bad as running a lemonade stand without permission from the government. How horrible it is that someone might be recording a movie screen! Call the FBI!
What is funny is NONE of the illegal versions of films are done in local theaters general seating. NONE. They are done by the staff in the booth or more typically the screeners are recoded at the Studio it's self.
Only the utter crap wanna-be releases are camcorder in a theater.
But the MPAA wants us to feel like dirty criminals when we go to the theater instead of cleaning their own house like they need to.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
This.
Anyone who sits in a theatre with a camera pointed at the screen is begging to be harassed.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Unless it is a proscribed by law item like a weapon in a court I can bring any item of technology into anywhere that I want. It is the *use* of said item that can be illegal (like making a screener) not the mere physical presence.
In any case this seems to be more he wanted to test what would happen. If nothing, then he got to enjoy the film and no one would care. He got his rights violated instead which makes it news worthy.
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
Send in a FOI request regarding the cost of this operation perhaps...
That really should be charged to the theatre or movie company, IMO.
In my case if I didn't happen to have a spare pair with me it'd be equivalent to denying a person his wheelchair. Uncorrected my vision is bad enough to give me headaches such that when I don't have them on I normally close my eyes and operate blind by preference.
I don't read AC A human right
What kind of sense does that make? Even if the guy really did record the movie, simply recording a film that you already paid to see does not cause anyone any loss. If he distributed the recording, then there would be some economic loss due to lost ticket sales. But at the very worst, distributing infringing creative works should be regarded as the equivalent of stealing the money that is lost. Even if the guy really was recording, why is that a criminal offense? That should be a purely civil matter, not something law enforcement should be involved in.
Please mail me URLs of software employers.
This was made up by some crazy libertarian wanting to spread paranoia about the government.
If so, I wonder why anyone would bother? We already have the TSA, the NSA, stop-and-frisk, suspicious-less border searches, free speech zones, disgustingly draconian copyright laws, and a host of other nonsense, so what's the point? Our government is already plainly evil; no need to make up stories.
In the case of jaywalking, they just beat the shit out of you. http://nypost.com/2014/01/19/cops-beat-elderly-man-after-he-jaywalked/
Throw away copyright laws ... at least as far as individual consumers are concerned. This is the future. Pretty soon we'd have recording gadgets so small and much more inconspicuous that only a TSA-style patdown/scanning will reveal them. So why bother imposing draconian copyright laws unless they're against those ripoff "artists" who try to sell other people's works for profit?
No freedom is unlimited, fortunately. Your freedom to wear glasses in a movie theater ends when you choose to integrate a camera.
He *chooses* to integrate a camera with his glasses. There's a number of things I can imagine integrating with my glasses that would make wearing them problematic where simple glasses would be just fine. And how about he wore them in the swimming pool changing rooms during your sister's daughter's birthday party...?
> I don't think he was "wrongly harassed and detained". He could have manipulated the device in a way which makes it very difficult
> to see if anything has been recorded. The device could present a whitewashed view of the flash memory.
Meanwhile, outside the US, it doesn't matter the slightest bit what he could have done, but only what he actually *did*. Yes, that's that strange scary thing called "presumption of innocence".
Fallace of composition, look it up. Just because they are also glasses, does not mean they are only glasses.
Assuming the story is true...
1. The cinema guy is stupid for calling the FBI and escalating the situation way out of hand.
2. The MPAA/FBI are stupid for actually putting time and resources into fighting cam-rips. Absolutely no threat to the industry, as anybody who has tried to watch one knows. Letting pirates have their cam-rips just makes authentic cinemagoing look better.
3. The Glasshole was stupid for sitting in a cinema quite openly pointing a camera at the screen. Glass users appear to have their empathy surgically removed by Google, and are entirely oblivious to any kind of reaction anybody might have to a ubiquitous filming device. Repeating "but it isn't on" as a mantra does nothing to help. Having a face camera redefines your relations with other people and your environment, in an almost entirely negative way. You want to become a surveillance drone? Fine, deal with the social consequences.
I'm normally on the side of the little guy, and against big media throwing its weight around. Glassholes are sufficiently selfish and idiotic for me to momentarily switch sides. I've already written about what a crappy society such people would create: http://edgepenguin.com/content...
...he would have wiped the recording the moment he felt they were on to him. And then protest innocence, offer to let them search his devices, and so on. I cannot even tell whether he's guilty or not, how's a security guard supposed to know? Just put the thing in your pocket when you enter the theatre.
I'd go further. he could be planning an attack on the cinema complex. He should have been sent straight to Gitmo.
Heck, even soldiers trained to withstand torture are expected to break - the reason they are trained are to delay leaking of information.
Because if you did and then the FBI downloaded everything(with your permission like the guy in the story) you might have some stuff to explain.
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
I hate the obnoxious FBI warnings they show prior to movies now. The whole idea that crappy cell phone recordings are ruining an industry is ridiculous.
However, i just love some good glasshole schadenfreude!
remember when the fbi dropped law enforcement as a primary mission a week or so ago? http://thecable.foreignpolicy.... so now they are enforcing copyright law? oh - silly me.. not about enforcement. about being the muscle for their corporate bosses.
What the hell is wrong with this guy
The whole point of wearing google glasses is so that you have something to entertain you when life gets boring. And remember, he *was* going to a Jack Ryan movie.
Just like if your gun isn't loaded, how wrong is it to point it at someone, right?
Are you really a fucking idiot or do you just pretend to be one?
They were prescription glasses, and the wearer needed them to see. He had previously been that cinema twice wearing them with no problems, so he assumed there would not be a problem a third time.
I assume you leave your mobile phone at home when you go to the movies, then?
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
Displaying a firearm in public is an established crime. Owning a video camera and bringing it into a theatre is not. NEXT.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I do, but I don't hold it up continuously while pointing the camera at the screen. Is this how you use your phone in the theater?
Copying a movie is a federal crime, not a 'theater policy'.
Are these prescription Google Glasses? If not, he should have put his google glasses in his shirt pocket, and if they were prescription glasses he should consider getting a pair of non-google glass prescription glasses - there are many places where cameras are not allowed (movie theaters, locker rooms, some government facilities, etc.)
Ken
This is the "outrageous assault on our freedoms?"
Yes. The FBI should not be getting involved in copyright cases. Furthermore, if they didn't like it, they should have just kicked him out.
GET THE F@CK OVER YOURSELVES, Google Glass users.
Don't assume that everyone who disagrees with your nonsense is a Google Glass user.
It really says a lot about our priorities as a nation when burglaries barely interest the local cops but piracy requires the FBI.
Ok, glass, call lawyer.
Are you missing one? I thought the magic sequence was:
"I don't want to talk to you."
"Am I free to go?"
"I want a lawyer."
Doesn't matter. If a turned-off Google Glass with no recently recorded video files on it can record a movie, your phone secreted in your clothing can certainly record it through cunningly concealed gaps in your clothing.
And just why do you wear clothes to the movies when everyone knows they're the number one way of concealing illicit recording devices? What exactly have you got to hide, Mr Coward? Who are you working for? Why are you recording this movie? How much are you being paid?
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
Which is why you need the two magic phrases: "Am I free to go?", "I want a lawyer".
Seriously, hours of a moron trying to "verbal" a confession out of someone when he had the whole and entire evidence in his possession. This is a perfect example, you are never helping yourself by cooperating with this crap.
Am I free to go? [No.] I want a lawyer.
This sounds great. And maybe for some people it is. Do you have a lawyer on retainer? Then by all means, this is for you. I'm pretty sure that Joe Average Citizen does not have his own personal lawyer available at a quick call. So what happens then? Do they just assign some random lawyer to you from the public defender's office? In that case you might be better off trying to be your own lawyer. Suppose they just give you a phone and say "OK, find a lawyer to call"? Who do you call when you've never had to do that before? Yes, this sounds great, but the odds of some average guy getting Saul Goodman (Breaking Bad reference, for those who don't know) to magically fall out of the sky to defend him seem pretty remote to me.
The Simpsons: Season 25, Episode 9: Steal This Episode (5 Jan. 2014) parodied this situation showing an FBI with the majority of its resources focused on copyright enforcement.
And the *private* business can say "take of your google glasses while on our premises or leave"
Can they say "take of (sic) your _glasses_ or leave" without falling foul of disability discrimination laws ?
Why is it just "google" glasses that are the problem (especially when they are prescription) ? [there are plenty of other glasses with cameras in]
Obama is going to fix all of this Bush era abuses of power just as soon as he takes office...
the popcorn kids don't have much training and the $500 bonus is a lot when you work at min wage.
http://rt.com/usa/mpaa-camera-...
What's the point of google glass if you get a Rodney King moment and don't record!!
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
According to the article, he was told it was a voluntary interrogation. At that point, he should have just taken down the names of all the officers and movie theater staff and left.
AMC is a terrible movie theater franchise. I carry my laptop in a backpack and get asked all the time to open my bag before going into an AMC theater. I always refuse, and they always bluster and threaten, but they still let me in. I don't mind having my bag searched as long as everybody's bag is being searched. I do mind being singled out for special handling. Other movie theater chains don't do this at all.
AMC, I hope you get a ton of well-deserved bad press from this latest episode.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yeah, it does. Protect a few rich guys bonuses while allowing normal individuals to be financially broken by thieves.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Theaters were cool back decades ago when there was no alternative, but they offer nothing of value now and the entire experience is an expensive, time-consuming hassle.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
HA!
Check out "Forest Gump" on Wikipedia to get why your argument is so ridiculous. No profit no tax.
Lobbying allows plenty of representation without much taxation by getting a blind eye turned to vast amounts of fraud. You are paying for the FBI to to this, not Hollywood since their money is going to the people that are not supposed to take bribes but can take "lobby" money.
And you are comparing the total theoretical cost of all piracy everywhere to the actual damage of a single burglary. Compare millions of dollars in theoretical lost revenue to the damage of every burglary everywhere and you have a more accurate comparison.
You can compare one act of piracy to one act of burglary, or you can compare all piracy to all burglary. Don't mix and match.
People who work in places where you can't have cameras either have a phone without one, or two phones. Google Glass users are going to have to get used to doing the same.
If they're so terrible, why do you keep going back there and arguing with them about your bag?
"You guys totally suck! You don't know how to run a business! Here, take my money!!"
It's no wonder everything is going down the shitter in America these days. People just sit around on online forums and bitch and complain about stuff, but never actually do anything to force a change: they keep throwing their money at the same shitty companies, and keep voting for the same shitty politicians, and expecting things to improve somehow.
I'm having trouble coming up with too much sympathy here, except being detained for 5 hours is overkill.
Agree or not, we all know that it's illegal to record movies in the theater. We can all bring out cell phones and digital cameras with us because they make so much light when they're in use that it's apparent if someone is using one to record a film, not so with google glass. And since it's such a new technology, there are going to be a ton of people who don't understand it.
There are many other places where filming is forbidden, and some places where even bringing a camera capable device is forbidden too, so the guy should have some common sense and bring a pair of prescription glasses for yhose eventualities.
Anyone with enough money to get a glass surely has enough funds for a pair of ordinary prescription glasses.
Doesn't America have laws against Unlawful arrest and false imprisonment?
He wasn't "denied" legal representation - according to his own narrative, he never asked for it.
The FBI was involved because copying a movie in a theater, like making a copy of a copyright-protected DVD or video tape is a federal crime.
Why didn't the AMC theater usher, manager, mall cop or "federal agent" turn on his pair of Google Glasses and prove he had done no wrong? Because none of them had probably ever seen a pair of google glasses before, wasn't sure how to access them, and by attempting to do so they would most likely corrupt any evidence they might find, hence they waited for someone that knew what they were doing. As someone who paid $1,500 for his google glasses and another $600 for the prescription lenses, I would have thought he would have appreciated that they didn't risk breaking his $2,100 pair of glasses by "figuring it out" on the managers PC.
Why didn't he attempt to leave - remaining there without representation implied consent (based on my several thousand hours of watching lawyers on TV shows) - they told him he wasn't under arrest and yes, they can lie to a suspect (again, based on thousands of hours of watching lawyers on TV shows). The police are not responsible for providing a suspect with legal counsel - they are responsible for providing access to legal counsel, something this fellow didn't ask for based on his own narrative.
He really shouldn't have warn a camera into a place of business where there are signs saying the use of cameras is against the law - by bringing his (google glass) camera into the theater, he became responsible for proving that he wasn't using the camera during the movie..
Ken
There are two sentences one should know. As this is /. I've translated this into python:
print("Am I under arrest?")
if pig_input == yes:
#####print("I want to speak with my attorney")
else:
#####print("fuck off")
#####return quit
You'll need to delete the pound signs and insert tabs to avoid a syntax error.
I could probably hammer out javascript or PHP versions if you don't have python installed.
1) LWYRUP! Don't talk to them, especially if you haven't done anything wrong- you have absolutely nothing to gain by cooperating. Don't let them search anything. Swallow the microSD card. If they haven't arrested you, don't go with them in the first place. If you did go with them and they didn't arrest you, walk out of the interview. If they have arrested you, call a lawyer.
2) I guess this means all the terrorists and Wall Street crooks who threaten national security are all behind bars or dead since the FBI has time to deal with this sort of nonsense.
I don't remember the constitution saying anyone's protected for being so stupid as to bring a wearable video recording device into a theater. What an idiot. He needs to leave fantasy land and come back to reality ASAP.
Displaying a firearm in public is an established crime. Owning a video camera and bringing it into a theatre is not. NEXT.
No, but attempting to record a movie in a cinema is a felony. Pointing a video camera at the screen the entire movie is like taking aim at any pedestrian that walks past from your kitchen window, gun loaded and unsecured just in case they decide to become a trespasser/home intruder. Somehow I don't think "I didn't pull the trigger" would be a sufficient excuse if anyone saw you.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I can choose to have prescription lenses attached to the viewfinder of my video camera in order to "enhance my vision" which is in effect the same thing as fitting them to a Google Glass unit.
That a theater customer wear a pair of passive spectacles is not an unreasonable expectation.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Why am I reading the term 'Glass Hole' so many times on a site that calls itself 'news for nerds'?
Of course people are going to wear Google Glass in a movie theater, while driving, etc.... It's not a desktop computer that stays at home it's a wearable device. Isn't the whole point of a wearable device that it becomes like 'a part of you'? Google Glass is just a small stepping stone anyway. Our kids and/or grandchildren aren't going to be wearing these things they are going to have implants that CAN'T be taken off. Personally I can't wait! It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that this is our feature. We are human, that is how humans work! http://www.livescience.com/966... I'm sure I have seen this here, don't you people even read the articles linked to from this site? It's funny how so many people here came out in support of Kevin Warwick and yet Glass users get called GlassHoles. I guess everything is great until someone tries to take it mainstream?
What's to be afraid of anyway? The death of the movie industry? Please... how many people who would have paid for a movie ticket (a true theatre experience) or even bought a DVD/BluRay disc are going to settle for a crappy cell cam bootleg instead? If anything the bootleg is free advertising, that's about it. I thought at least on this site we were supposed to know this already!
Worried about privacy? Why? Nobody is suggesting we allow people to come into our homes and record our private lives without an invitation! So what if someone snaps your picture in a public place and puts it online? Big deal, people have always had eyes, brains and mouths. If you do something stupid people will see it, people will remember it and people will talk. Nothing has really changed and nothing ever will. Besides... there are cameras just about EVERYWHERE now! If they aren't in people's hands or on their faces they are mounted on the wall, on a pole, etc.... Get over it, it's 2014 and that's just how it is!
Don't like people talking/texting in your presence? First of all... get over yourself! Just because you have a pet peeve doesn't mean everyone else should have to alter their behavior and certainly doesn't mean rules/laws should be passed! Nothing is new here anyway. Have you never seen two people walking down the sidewalk/isle of a store/ etc... having a conversation that you are NOT a part of? That is the exact same thing as someone on a phone, it's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS! Just go about your lives and everyone else will go about their's. This is a great thing we will be seeing with more wearable tech and what comes after. It will be less conspicuous. Busy bodies can stuff it, maybe go pay some attention to their own pathetic lives for once.
Of course there may seem to be special cases. I can understand someone taking exception to someone holding up a line because it is their turn and they won't stop talking on the phone or something like that. Again, that is no special and unique problem, it is no different than if someone held up a line because they wouldn't stop a conversation they were having with someone else in that line. Business owners should be asking people to step aside and let the line move or maybe just asking them to leave. If that doesn't happen it is a fault of our 'customer is always right', 'gotta make every customer happy' society, It's not a fault of the technology.
And I don't even have Google Glass... Anybody want to buy/give me a pair?
If they're so terrible, why do you keep going back there and arguing with them about your bag?
"You guys totally suck! You don't know how to run a business! Here, take my money!!"
It's no wonder everything is going down the shitter in America these days. People just sit around on online forums and bitch and complain about stuff, but never actually do anything to force a change: they keep throwing their money at the same shitty companies, and keep voting for the same shitty politicians, and expecting things to improve somehow.
The choice isn't between AMC and a competitor, in many markets, but often between AMC and not going to the movies. This is the ugliness of the monopoly, at work. Sure, you can live without going to the movies, but it is, for the most part, a fun thing to do.
Who did what now?
basically, if you try to record a film, the sensor picks up the watermark and stops recording/blackscreen/no audio/etc.
But the real issue is.. holy fuck. 5 hours -- over at worst a partially recorded movie? Holy fuck, going through ALL of your data, even on an unrelated device? I guess he consented to the search, but how could any sane person think that's a proportional response?
Are they his ONLY prescription glasses?
Does he understand that Google Glasses are A CAMERA, and the movie theater prohibits the use of CAMERAS in the theater?
If you read the story, you'd know he CHOSE to keep his Google Glasses on, he says had he been asked he would have taken off the glasses and sat a few rows closer to the screen (without complaint). Apparently he thought it was OK to point a camera at the screen while he watched a movie..
Ken
Never *EVER* consent to searches. The police cannot search you or your property without reasonable cause. But if you give them the freedom to search, then they can charge you for *anything* they find, even if it wasn't what they were looking for.
"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)
which can cost the film industry millions of dollars in lost revenue
It is impossible to lose money you never had and was never yours. It is, however, possible to lose tangible property that belongs to you, and that's what happens in burglaries.
The fact that you repeat this propaganda makes me believe that you think government-enforced monopolies over ideas are even remotely just, and that simply isn't the case.
No, it is not a crime to "display" a firearm in public, outside of (urban) California, New York, Florida, South Carolina, Washington DC, the City and County of Denver, Illinois, and Texas(?). Open carry is allowed in 45 states in one way or another.
If you actually point the gun at someone, then it is a felony called "brandishing" or "assault by pointing."
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Google Glass has multiple functions, and they had no proof he was recording anything. This whole situation is ridiculous.
One act of piracy would be equated to one act of burglary. But you, in your race to make the government terrorists look good, equate all the piracy occurring in the world to one small act of burglary. I think that if you actually equate the two properly you would see the several thousand dollars from a burglary compared to the $17 or so from the cost of the movie ticket. Or perhaps you should use the cost of the DVD, so $20 or $30 compared to the thousands of dollars. Yeah, I see the priorities there now. One plebe having things stolen, no big deal, but a corporation getting a few bucks taken from them, send in the special forces!
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Leave. Take your stuff (if they refuse to return it demand a receipt) and GTFO. Once you are labeled a "suspect", if you are not being detained there is no way to talking to cops is to your advantage. If they don't tell you if you're being detained, ask.
"I have been advised not to answer questions. Am I being detained?" "No, but..." "Good day." And GTFO. Or:
"I have been advised not to answer questions. Am I being detained?" "Yes." "I want to speak to my attorney." And STFU.
They will threaten you. They will lie outright. But anything you say can be used against you and nothing you say can be used to help you.
Every American needs to watch this.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Our only option is to deal with it.
The geek sees history following one path --- His path --- and not as a constellation of choices that can take the world in a new direction.
I'm a movie buff, but long ago I stopped going to theaters except for special occasions with friends. Sticky floors, that tall guy in front of me, wailing babies, people talking - and now this. For me, Netflix forever.
It really says a lot about our priorities as a nation when burglaries barely interest the local cops but piracy requires the FBI.
So you are equating "local cops" with the "FBI"? "Burglaries" with "Movie Piracy"?
Burglaries tend to involve insured losses of a few thousand dollars, movie piracy (arguably) costs movie studios millions of dollars - hardly equal.
Local cops are concerned with local crimes, the FBI is interested in crimes that cross state lines.
But yeah, next time your car is broken into and your MacBook Pro is stolen, wonder why the FBI isn't investigating it.
Ken
Another 7-figure lawsuit jointly paid by AMC and the FBI perhaps?
He was told he wasn't under arrest and he never asked for a lawyer. Both were choices he made, but doesn't want to take responsibility for it seems.
He also said in his narrative that if asked, he would have put his glasses in his pocket and moved a few rows closer to the screen - again, another choice he made (he knew his glasses were a camera, he chose to keep them on his head in the theater).
Ken
So why not actually investigate by looking at the contents of the memory rather than detaining him for hours for questioning?
Because likely no one there initially knew how to examine the google glasses for evidence without corrupting the evidence.
Imagine a defense attorney questioning the officer:
"So you hooked the defendant's glasses up to a computer - had you been trained in how to do this with google glasses?"
"No."
"So how did you know how to do it?"
"Well I just plugged a wire into the only jack it fit on the google glasses and the other end into one of the many USB ports on the laptop, and then I just sorta figured it out."
"How de we know you didn't upload the video onto the google glasses?"
"Uhm, I don't know..."
I thought America learned this lesson after the OJ Murder trial, about the "chain of evidence" (essentially, if you can prove any one of the officers that takes control of the evidence against a black defendant ever uttered the "N-word" the evidence is tainted)...
Ken
He says in his own narrative that if he had to take off the glasses he would have simply moved up a few rows and been fine.
Apparently his vision is not as bad as yours.
Also, he wore the glasses for 6 weeks WITHOUT prescription lenses, he'd only had his prescription lenses for the previous two weeks.
Ken
AMC is a de facto monopoly where I live, so I have little choice in the matter. There is still one independent movie theater operator, next to the local university, and that provides some relief.
But, you know, you do have a point. Why SHOULD I pay $12.00 for a ticket + $8.00 for $0.25 worth of popcorn, when the entertainment experience lasts only a couple of hours? I go to the movies about 2-3 times a week, which is $2,080 per year on the low side. That is a lot of money to be sure. I do love the movies, but I don't have to necessarily fund these guys.
Food for thought, food for thought.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
It really says a lot about our priorities as a nation when burglaries barely interest the local cops but piracy requires the FBI.
It says more about the geek's abysmal understanding of the American federal system.
Burglaries are prosecuted under state law.
Economic and property crimes with an interstate or foreign dimension or with other federal constitutional dimensions are prosecuted under federal law.
The first criminal provision in U.S. copyright law was added in 1897, which established a misdemeanor penalty for ''unlawful performances and representations of copyrighted dramatic and musical compositions'' if the violation had been ''willful and for profit.''
Criminal Copyright Law in the United States
No Electronic Theft Act
Confessions are something a jury understands immediately, and don't argue with.
Forensic evidence is often dismissed because it requires a basic understanding of science, and technical concepts like a chain of custody. You have to remember that a jury is made up of 12 people that weren't smart enough to figure out how to get out of jury duty.
It's been said that a good man is hard to find. Well, just try to find 12 of them in the same jurisdiction. This is why you see so many plea bargains - prosecutors know that even the most solid case based on a mountain of evidence can fall apart in a courtroom when a halfway competent defense attorney begins to poke at it.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Would a person's freedom to go to movies at all end permanently if such technology were implanted directly into their skull? While we're probably still a few years away from that becoming anything even remotely resembling merely uncommon, it's still something that many of us are liable to see happening in our lifetimes
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Not only that, you don't have to worry about some retired cop with anger-management issues getting pissed at you and shooting you dead in your home theater room.
You also don't have to worry about being annoyed by teenagers texting throughout the movie, or small children talking out loud, or suffering with shitty and overpriced concessions, etc.
The future social contract will probably evolve into something like this:
"When you go to a restaurant, leave your animals at home. Bona fide medically necessary animals like guide dogs are exempt."
"When you go to a movie or the changing rooms at the local swimming pool, turn off your cameras or at least don't point them at the screen during a movie. Bona fide medical technology used for bona fide medical reasons* is exempt."
*If you are blind man using a camera to see and you turn on the recording feature in the movie theater so you can upload it to the Internet later, that's not a bona fide medical reason.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
And if the untrained cop ignorantly plugged his google glasses into an FBI laptop and "found" evidence of copyright infringement, would it stand up in court? If the untrained cop didn't find evidence, would a court find that convincing? If the untrained cop broke the google glasses, what would happen then? Would the fellow have agreed that it wasn't the officer's fault because the suspect asked him to do it?
Based on his actual narrative, once an officer that knew how to access the contents of the glasses (assumed, because the narrative doesn't say he had to instruct the officer) arrived, they examined the glasses and sent him on his way.
Ken
Anybody stupid enough to go borg in a movie theater gets what they deserve.
the same applies to any kind of video-recording device (glasses, shoes, pens, phones, etc)
And therefore would apply to camera glasses connected to retinal implants for the blind, like e.g. http://www.dvice.com/2013-8-6/...
i dont see how asking people to wear regular non-video-recording glasses would be against such a law
I do, see above.
I'm musing how society deals with someone walking around videoing everything that they see. I mean *everything* ... think this through .. the bathroom, the workplace, the interview, the exam, the bedroom ....
What's the diff between google glass and someone with a video camera ? the camera is 'obvious' ... giving those recorded a chance to alter their behavior, or asking those recording them to stop. Think through a scene in a public bathroom with you with a camera recording as you're standing at a urinal ...
In swimming meets, *all* meets have a 'no cameras behind the starting blocks' rule - for obvious personal privacy reasons. In that situation, it's obvious if someone has a camera out, but not if they're wearing glass. Perv paradise.
How does society deal with glass in all these cases? does the wearer of glass have a right to have the *potential* to surreptitiously record in those cases?
I'm not smart enough to propose an answer, but this got me thinking ....
> You are lamenting a disparity between local law enforcement and the FBI, and apparently equating movie piracy
Crimes against corporations versus crimes against actual real people. You could be out a lot of money and neither the Feds nor the local PD would care about you as a victim.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Displaying a firearm in public is an established crime..
Not necessarily.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...
Unless by displaying a firearm you mean brandishing a firearm. Open carry (by which you are demonstrating that you do possess a firearm) can be quite legal.
Blacker than my baby girl's stare. Black like the veil that the muslimina wear. Black like the planet that they fear...
Except that, if you'd read the fucking article, you'd know he *needed* Glass because he was wearing them with *prescription lenses*. Taking them off would kinda make it hard to see the movie. Idiot.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Getting detained by the FBI is likely more annoying. But that's just me.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
This is obviously a hoax, based on an anonymous letter sent to a website you've never heard of before and a good example of "cut'n'paste" journalism (using the word "journalism" is the loosest of senses) that has even showed up on the Business Insider website so far...
Good luck getting "5-10 cops" plus "feds" to show up to "investigate" this; Paul Blart - Mall Cop with a Female Body Inspector badge, I'd believe...
Being held without access to counsel is just plain wrong.
The rest of the story is pretty irrelevant.
He should have given them the middle finger and told them he wanted his lawyer. He was far too accommodating.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
If this is the kind of thing the FBI has time to spend agents and hours on, we have way too many FBI agents.
Sure am proud of the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave. It's so awesome that Marathon Runners don't get injured by terrorists while dickwads at the FBI are allocating the majority of their budget to copyright infractions and seeding the web with child porn just in case anyone accidentally clicks it (or an innocuous looking page with a hidden iframe pulls it in) -- Oh wait, this is Bizaro America, nevermind.
Wow, Obama, if you're going to let the FBI drop the Law Enforcement from their charter and add National Security.... Either you're just letting them hide their existing practices behind the veil of state secrets, or National Security just means ensuring that corporate interests are maintained, and that anyone can be arrested at any time for anything (even shit that should be a civil breech of contract). IMO, it's both. There's zero verifiable evidence that the FBI and NSA have fuck-all to do with protecting any people.
If only we could stop Eisenhower from spinning in his grave long enough to hear him scream: "You're Doing Everything I Warned You Not To Do!?"
I'm sorry, were you complaining about the "rich guys" from the movie studio, or the "rich guys" who wear google glasses? Or are you suggesting that the "rich guys" that pay for 53%+ of the federal taxes shouldn't be able to use any of the federal services?
I see, so your argument is that the "poor" people who either contribute nothing to the federal coffers, or only take federal hand outs are the ones who should be able to be protected via our federal laws. Interesting concept.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The cops aren't looking for losses; they're looking for violations of the law. If you want cops to be concerned with losses, then you need to start electing legislators who pass laws which are related to losses. Right now, you (America plural, not necessarily you specifically, IgnorantMotherFucker) tell Congress "right on!" when they do things like enact DMCA, rubberstamp FISA courts, etc.
You're getting the cop behavior that you requested at the voting booth.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
movie piracy (which can cost the film industry millions of dollars in lost revenue, and potentially millions in lost tax revenues on the lost movie revenues)
Proof...?
No sig today...
Almost as if they have too much fun with their "interrogation" and do not want to have it stopped short ...
I think it's worth considering another reason anyone doing a job might wish to stretch a simple task out as long as possible: to make for a relatively easy workday. It's worse in this situation, though, because it directly inconveniences someone.
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
Some of us don't have room in our houses to put in a 50ft screen.
Besides at home you miss all the commercials before the previews. :-P
I would go there even if they striped searched me. The large leather reclining seats are perfect for my back. The assigned seating makes it so you can buy the tickets before hand and get there just before the movie starts.
Star Trek, there maybe hope.
The choice isn't between AMC and a competitor, in many markets, but often between AMC and not going to the movies.
I opted for option 2 about 7 years ago, when I realised how cheap projectors and competent 5.1 surround sound systems had got. It spent around £250 on a projector and a set of speakers, which I drove from a DVD player. My local cinemas all had really bad equalisation in their sound (far too much base, no midrange, so you got too-loud explosions and talking was hard to hear) and had so much dust in their projector lenses that I got a better quality experience at home and could sit in comfy chairs, drink beer, and pause the movie whenever I wanted. Having friends over and getting them to bring food and beer still ended up cheaper than the cinema and was more fun. Even including power and movie rental, my cost per film has been significantly less than going to the cinema, although I have watched a lot more films on the setup than I would have gone to see.
As long as you've got a room with a spare wall, it's quite easy to make something that is both cheaper and better quality than a low-end cinema. You won't be able to make an IMAX competitor (unless you've got a really huge living room), but I don't live near an IMAX so that wasn't the competitor.
I recently replaced the bulb in my projector, after 3,000 hours of life. It cost £50 for a new one, which works out at around 2p/film for bulb costs. With a newer LED projector, it's even cheaper (although the up-front costs are higher). With HD projectors coming down in price, you can get even better quality.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Two grand can get you a pretty nice sound system, big enough to fill a medium to large living room, and a 50" 1080p screen. You might have enough left over to buy an easy chair, or quite a few months of Netflix or Hulu.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
You can buy a really nice and giant LCD TV for that price. And then you won't have to be worry about being shot to death by a deranged retired cop.
insisted on interrogating the user for hours
I know it goes DEEPLY against human nature, but why don't people just sit quietly? There's no FBI 'interrogation' if the accused just remains SILENT. Just sit there. Mentally design a house in your head. Do nothing. Shut up.
That was actually Mussolini's favorite definition of fascism: the union of the corporation with the state.
This I have to see as the union of two bad ideas: the first being the indefinitely chartered corporation, the second being the idea of indefinite copyright. I stop short of saying that copyright itself was a mistake, but it didn't always exist, and if patronage was good enough for Michelangelo...
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
while I agree on principle to what you are writing, I completely disagree that this requires the sort of response being afforded to some assholes in hollywood.
If I owned a product and someone else started copying and selling it, the most protection I am afforded is a Civil lawsuit to prove I am damaged and then financial compensation is awarded against the defendant.
Yet the exact same crime done to big studios suddenly comes with a jail sentence and violation of about half a dozen civil rights. I would say that would be a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, since by way of financial discrimination, my rights are treated differently than those major studios; except that the 14th amendment only seems to tell individual states what they could do. No one had any idea of a federal police state (FBI) in 1868. So they appear to operate outside the law.
If you are closer to the screen, it doesn't have to be 50ft across. Angle of view and overall resolution/contrast ratio are what matter.
AJ Henderson
Hmm, on the flip side, if I bring a date over to watch a movie, the wife is much more likely to notice in the living room.
AJ Henderson
So long for our constitutional freedoms
Spare me, where's my right not to photographed or videoed and added to some list/website/whatever.
Glass has no business out in semi public places, (or public IMO) as usual the technophiles move ahead regardless of outcome because "it's cool", don't give any thought to the possible abuse of such a device, and never mind the allegations and violations involving the NSA and Google collaboration with said entity.
Every time someone wearing the device looks at me (and my fiends agree) it's creepy.
Fuck Glass, fuck the Glassholes, and here's hoping you get the wrong end of a game of knockout for wearing it.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Also, he wore the glasses for 6 weeks WITHOUT prescription lenses, he'd only had his prescription lenses for the previous two weeks.
Yeah, not an option for me. Makes me wonder how he spent $600 putting lenses in them if they're that light. Mine would only hit that high if you combine the high index, transitions, etc...
I don't read AC A human right
1 He should have been given the names of every "agent" present
2 Where the FRACK was his lawyer??
3 was he read his Miranda rights??
4 the AMC management should give him minimum 4 "season passes" to Some Other Chains Theater
5 The DHS (and whatever other TLA that was mixed in this) should send one of those huge EPIC FAIL Rose Bouquets (where there must be 12 DOZEN roses) to his Wife.
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
What's that supposed to mean? It doesn't take any acts of bravery or personal risk to buy from a different company (or go without), or to vote for someone different.
Do they just assign some random lawyer to you from the public defender's office? In that case you might be better off trying to be your own lawyer.
It should be noted that this commonly held belief is actually false. Public defenders are paid hourly by the state or federal government, and thus have an incentive to do as much as possible for you. Unless you're very wealthy, private criminal defense attorneys tend to be paid a set retainer up front (e.g. "$5000 to get you to trial, and we'll talk then about the next retainer if you want to go through trial") and thus have an incentive to do as little as possible, since the less time they spend on you, the more profit they make. If you can't drop $50k on your defense, then you're much better off with the public defender.
Moreover, by refusing to patronize shitty movie theaters, I have more time to spend behind the keyboard (or watching something on my home theater).
"Some government facilities"
No. All government facilities.
I will remember that the next time I go to the post office or visit the DMV.
I want my lawyer, NOW. - Say it out loud three times right now. Learn to say this if no matter what is going on, it forces law enforcement to provide us our rights. Never be afraid to speak up for yourself, especially these words. BTW This is sometimes preceded by, "Am I under arrest". If the answer is yes the next words out of your mouth should be "I want my lawyer". If the answer is no ask for your property and leave, they have no right to detain you.
This whole friggin' story could have been avoided if Poindexter had taken off his stupid Google Glass in a MOVIE THEATER.
That said, if I owned the theater, I would have just kicked him out and told him his business wasn't welcome.
Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
You don't work in the tech industry do you? There's been several times I've stopped to meet up with people after work, and there's not time to ditch my computers. And I'm not leaving a $3000 machine that I have to replace in my car in any of the neighborhoods where we have theaters. There are perfectly valid reasons you could have a laptop on your person when at a theatre.
Also, my wife and I can do more than make out in our home theatre. Just saying. (Well, I suppose we could do that in a theatre too, but I don't want to have to visit all of our neighbors...)
Call the local Bar association and they will recommend a lawyer who specializes in your current situation.
I believe in karma, which is why, when I do something bad to people, I assume they deserve it.
Google glass is a lot like bluetooth earpieces: It makes you look like a complete dick but at least a tradeoff exists where you possibly might get useful information. ...I just don't get why anyone would continue to wear one when its turned off for an extended period, e.g. at the movies?
You go to the movies 2-3 times a WEEK? I'm not sure you're the guy to be complaining about the price of movie tickets.
This is a blog entry reporting something that supposedly happened to a friend of an anonymous blog reader. No effort was made by the blog site to follow up with the theater or even the FBI. This is why you should really take what blogs say with a huge dose of salt.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
I didn't realize the FBI are now henchmen for the Motion Picture Association of America.
Doesn't matter... your phone secreted in your clothing can certainly record it through cunningly concealed gaps in your clothing.
I presume you've never heard the term 'reductio ad absurdum?' Because that's a pretty good example of one.
And just why do you wear clothes to the movies
Er, because I don't want to spend a naked night in jail when I'm inevitably arrested for indecent exposure?
Look, it's really simple: A movie theater is someone else's private property. If the property owner says, "You may not have a recording device visible while in the theater," then you keep the phone/Glass/what-have-you in your pocket. Otherwise, you're violating the property owner's right to set their own rules (within reason, of course), and the property owner has the right to ask you to be removed if you refuse to leave voluntarily.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
In the future you get a brain implant that gives you total recall of everything you see and hear. Will you barred from the movies because you would remember it perfectly and would be able to "play it back" in your mind? (how will they know who has implants and who does not)
for if the ATF was involved, they would have set the building on fire and shot him as he ran out.
The most common response to "Officer, am I under arrest or am I free to go?" is some variation on "Just get out of here, asshole." If they had enough evidence to arrest you they would have by then.
OK, I'll play. I pirate a movie. They lost $1 that I would have given redbox, of which they get maybe $.50
Why are damages for this infraction set at many thousands of dollars?
Man, you really need that seminar!
I'm going to bet that the Google Glass would drain the battery trying to record a 2 hour movie.
Be seeing you...
Stepping back from the specifics of this event, the issue of inadvertently pointing recording devices at other is an important hurdle for Google Glass that will need to be addressed.
1) It makes other people uncomfortable, but more importantly:
2) It makes the wearer of Google Glass uncomfortable to be making other people uncomfortable (unless they're an inconsiderate asshole).
This severely restricts the practical uses of Google Glass to only situations where public recording devices are commonly accepted, such as school sporting events, family gatherings, and the like. It's not usable in the many situations where a smartphone is acceptable. This makes Google Glass a very tough sell to the wider public. So to that end:
Sell it with a lens cover. Make the cap a different color than the rest of the frame (preferably an accenting color for fashion, or just plain black.), so that it's obvious that there's no recording going on.
The result is that walking around with an uncapped google glass is equivalent to walking around with a smartphone camera held in front of you at face level. Walking around with a capped google glass is equivalent to walking around with a smart phone camera aimed downwards. It's giving a clear signal to others that you're not trying to record them in secrets.
I'm sure some will point out that there are stupid people who don't understand what a lens cap is and that it means they're not being recorded. To that I would say: There are always stupid people, regardless of the situation. But this solution is a cheap and easy fix to address the majority of scenarios. Hope someone at Google picks up on this early enough. (I guess Griffin might do it if Google doesn't. I bet they can't wait to sell you a ton of inane accessories for it).
As if the burglar is not going to sell the stuff he steals!
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
Absolutely agree here. After 15 minutes he should have said "enough of this harassment, arrest me now or let me go". Know your rights.
When confronted with an unknown technology, getting a confession is a lot easier to deal with post arrest. So you wear someone down, get the confession, and prosecute.
The alternative is figuring out what the device is after the fact and realizing you missed evidence collection steps.
Remember, the police are there to gather evidence against you. Not figure out the truth, because that's for the judge.
Glasser should have gone with lawyer, not answering anything, unless he just wanted to be a poster child.
They don't necessarily want to search you, but when they do they use your phrase. It is hardly unexpected for them to take a different approach in other circumstances.
So no, not funny, not ironic. Just obvious and sad.
Perhaps he doesn't want to leave his bag on the ground outside and then spend the whole movie praying it's still there when he gets back out.
Its one hour and forty minutes to get from FBI local in Cincinnati (closest location) to the Easton mall. He says that he was approached, with law enforcement in place outside waiting, and hour into the movie. He conveniently forgets the names of the agents (who ALWAYS give you their card). I don't believe him. Furthermore, nobody at the Easton mall gives 2 shits about their job, let alone AMC theaters employees.
I believe in karma, which is why, when I do something bad to people, I assume they deserve it.
Maybe he doesn't want to leave it in his car and he came from or is going somewhere besides his home?
RTFA. Yes, they were prescription. No, he didn't have any other prescription glasses available. He had worn Glass to this theater without problems before.
They also only have 30 minute battery life, so exactly what function made him wear it during a full movie? I am guessing the looking like a glass hole function.
As long as the poor are fed and looked after, they have no reason to band together and remind the right what "power in numbers" means. Keep taking from them, to the point that they are neither fed nor looked after, and see how long that lasts. Public services are just that, public; and for good reason, don't you forget.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Probably because it's the nearest movie theater to his house, and he still likes to see movies more than he dislikes the hassle.
"but often between AMC and not going to the movies."
Then don't go to the fucking movies, moron. There's thousands of other things to do starting with looking at the clouds, read a book, etc. Damn braindead babies.
argh.. typo... "right" should be "rich".
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
http://www.popehat.com/2013/05...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Don't talk to the police and don't talk to the FBI. Don't talk to law enforcement of any kind. Ask for a lawyer to protect your interests because the police aren't interested in protecting yours.
FBI involvement in movie copyright started in the1970's. Clinton's last term ended in 2000. That was one hell of a long presidency.
"That means no voting for the rest of your life, and you can't own or buy guns."
Utter bullshit. Only 3 states prohibit voting for ex-cons, and they cannot prevent you from voting in their state if you were convicted in a different state (comity clause).
I hate this oft-repeated lie. It was the main force behind trying to steal the 2012 elections by purging "felons" from voter rolls across the country. Who questions such a move when it is "common knowledge" that felons can't vote? And it makes a great talking point for the low-information voters to wring their hands over "voter fraud".
And, on the other point, felon gun ownership is complex. As a rule of thumb, no they can't. but there are many nuances to that that may be a yes for a given felon.
The word you are looking for is "reeks".
it "reeks" of corruption.
you "toe the line".
the point is "moot".
Sorry, a pet peeve of mine when people mangle common sayings like this. It bottles the mind how many people do it. ;)
Seriously, which part of "shut up" confuses you?
they can't fish, push, or work you toward anything if you
don't
fucking
talk.
You are correct but the simple fact is that as electronics in general and audio visual hardware specifically becomes more ubiquitous/miniaturized with wearable devices it just isn't going to be enforceable or even noticable for much longer. The technology is not going to stagnate and in the end people and companies are just going to have to adjust. Not that I consider that necessarily a good thing.
While in Afghanistan, the only way i could see a movie was buy the DVD (or digital copy thereof) or pirate it.
I would happily pay the theater price to watch it online. I watched netflix when it was an option, after tweaking it with browser addons so I could bypass the bandwidth sensing (forcing it to stay on low and cache sufficiently so my high latency 1400 ping 256k can handle it) and physical location barriers (my satellite was a UK company, sat exited in a German IP range).
However, that is very limited. And new movies were simply not an option except via piracy. I can wait 6 months for the DVD if I am lucky, or just watch it now and buy the DVD later if I want it.
So, I am sure most do not want a shitty copy- but some are happy to have that much.
Stepping back from the specifics of this event, the issue of inadvertently pointing recording devices at other is an important hurdle for Google Glass that will need to be addressed.
Not really; it's not a recording device, if it's not on. It's a bunch of components, and they don't become a recording device until you run appropriate software to turn them into one by connecting the input to a compressors, and the compressor to mass storage.
Even then, the things are good for at most 45 minutes of The Blair With Project quality video, without software reframing and software steadycam, which reduces the overall pixel resolution of the resulting recording.
This is why most piracy which occurs at theaters is done by theater employees using HDCP enabled hardware with an LVDS emulator in place of the flat panel, attached to one of the projectionist display outputs.
Some Restrictions Apply. Not available on Wall Street, near political elections, or Washington D.C.
Communication is definitely important, but if everyone's just going to sit around bitching, but then continue to give these companies their money, then nothing's going to change. You actually have to put your money where your mouth is. I do agree, communication is very important, and FWIW I haven't been to a theater in ages, and I'm doing my part by advocating that people not go to these places whenever stuff like this comes up. However, I don't see many like me; I just see people complaining, and then continuing to patronize these businesses, and then making up excuses in response to my anti-theater postings: "it's the only theater in town", "I can't not go to movies at a theater!" "I don't care if they do a cavity search as long as they keep the comfy seats!" etc.
If you're going to let someone continue to rape you, and you're not actually going to do anything about it, then you really have no right to complain IMO.
That's what trunks are for.
No reason to bring a laptop into a theater just because you're too lazy to stop at home first or too afraid of where the theater is. If I was that worried about the location of the theater, I wouldn't bother going to that theater at all...
argh.. typo... "right" should be "rich".
Though, politically, there seems to be an awful lot of overlap... Somehow I'm reminded of this scene. Ah, science!
:-P
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Hmm...I don't know about the looks and sounds better. Blu-Ray is great, but it's only about 2K. My local theater projects in 4K. If you have active shutter 3D, then I can't handle the flickering unless maybe it's flickering at 240Hz or above. If you have passive 3D, then you're only getting 540p vertical resolution.
At home, the sound is better (no talking; closer speakers), the lighting is better (I can go darker), and the screen is potentially sharper (but a bit smaller in my field of view).
4K TV's and content have a long way to come before a 3D 4K movie looks good at home.
Uh huh, and his having a laptop in a bag in a theater affects you how?
You assume everyone has a secure car to put things in.
Some times you don't, because you took a bus, you ride a bike (motorized ones too) or the theater is halfway between your house and work, so you happen to have a bag with a laptop in while you decide to stop in. This is a common thing to do, and it doesn't mean your going to be trying to do work while the movie is playing.
So you choose "fun" over "principles".
And that's fine, but you don't get to really complain about it afterwards when you contribute financially to the folks who only will be motivated by financial considerations.
Since you have a right to representation, I'd assume they'd be legally forced to wait until you've found one before continuing. Of course they can't wait forever, but if the delay is a logistic one and not stalling, then why wouldn't they be forced to wait?
and if they were prescription glasses he should consider getting a pair of non-google glass prescription glasses
Why? To satisfy some policy he never violated in the first place? He turned Glass off. That should be enough. That was enough to comply with the "do not record" policy. Prescription eyeglasses aren't cheap. You've no reason to demand he carry around Glass *and* another set of glasses with the same prescription.
You only need to look marginally further into the future to see a point where the functionality of something like Glass could be feasibly *implanted* and thus *non-removable* by the end user *by design*. What then? Do you ban implants? Good luck with trying to stop the march of technology because everyone in history who's tried has failed miserably.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
I prefer to hold onto my hard earned money, too often I've been ripped off by Hollywood.
What they show isn't worth the cash I shell out for, in that respect I tend to wait for it to come out on DVD or BR.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
On the other hand if she's into it wouldn't that work out to your benefit?
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
That's cool, just thought I'd point out some reasons others are still using theaters:
First, either the movie theater in your area is way overpriced or you get components for your home theater really cheap. I don't think I could beat even the fancy theater price for the discount theater experience.
Second, though these points might be lost on slashdotters, often you are either: out with friends, some of whom your not ready (or never will) let run amuck about your house, or in my younger days, you're out on a date and you don't think she's ready to come back to your place for a romantic movie (wink, wink). Or even through my college days, my parents would be home in both of the above cases.
Third, not everyone wants a home theater in their house. I move house quite a bit, and usually end up watching movies while on travel, anyway. I also have a girlfriend who doesn't tolerate anything reminiscent of television around the house.
And of course, if you want to watch new releases without pirating them (let's pretend we do) then you'll have to see them in theater.
Holy-moly, that's alot more reasons than I planned to write; and those are only mine...I guess movie theaters will be sticking around for some time to come. Live theater would be preferable to many in the above points, but I don't think there are any adult troupes left in my area.
I was wondering why the hell he thinks he needs to drag a laptop to a movie theater....
A motorcycle is my only transportation... are you seriously suggesting I leave my bag attached to my bike? Because if I left my tablet/notebook in it, I would guarantee it wouldn't be there when I got back. His rant isn't actually outrageous, you're just trying to make it seem that way...
Well, he's a moron himself then for integrating them.. No excuse is there for 24/7 wearing a google glass, he should have extra pair of regular glasses with him, as there will be more places google glasses will be banned..
In fact, we only need to look marginally further into the future to see a point where the functionality of something like Glass will be *undetectable* by bystanders *by design*. What then? Do you ban people? Good luck with trying to stop the march of technology because everyone in history who's tried has failed miserably.
I do have 240hz active shutter. The flickering really isn't noticeable and there is less ghosting and less distortion than at the theater. For the theaters that have gotten around to rolling out 4k, you are correct that there is more detail at the theater, but a lot of theaters are still running 2k projectors last I bothered to go to one.
AJ Henderson
No if you point your gun at people they don't have probable cause for anything, the crime has already been committed. You can bring a video camera into the movies all you want. You can even point it at the screen all you want. No crime. In civilized countries, you can even record it. They can only accuse you of a crime when you start distributing (and some even more sensible places say charging people money to see) the protected work. But America is obsessed with all this "pre-crime" nonsense. You've taken a civil transgression and turned it into a crime. OK. So now it's not the actual selling the work that's the crime, it's making the copy. OK. But now you Americans want to say that people with equipment CAPABLE OF RECORDING - are, you know, guilty of the same "crime" too?
Like the saying "tarred with the same brush". Might sound real good, but it makes for real shitty law. Or great law if you're a lawyer I guess. Police have absolutely no right to "prevent" crime. That's the job of parents, teachers, churches, philosophers, and other humans who try to impart some sort of civilized morality on their charges. The job of police is to investigate crime AFTER the fact.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Again - I'm not saying the home experience is a bad one - just not superior to the theater in every respect. I still save money going to the theater over spending to get a larger screen that makes the image as visually large as a theater screen relative to the viewing distance.
Going to a 3D movie in my area, at a decent theater with a decent sound syatem, costs around $15 to $18 a person, even before you count any food or beverages.
I am an Audio/Video professional, so I mixed select professional components that I could properly adjust with some really good value consumer components that would give a lot of bang for their buck. I realize not everyone could do it as cheaply as I, but when you figure a family of 4 with popcorn and soda would cost around $100 to $110 per movie and a typical bluray movie only costs $30 to $35. If you do a rental from Redbox, it's only $1.50 and saves you about $100 a pop. That adds up in a big hurry.
Note, I'm not saying that there aren't reasons that people want to go to theaters and I fully expect them to be around for a while yet to come, but they don't offer nearly what they once did and the outrageous prices don't help any. If I could go to a theater for $5 a person and get popcorn and a soda for $3 I would go again. I still love an occasional stop at the drive thru as well. The value proposition for theaters just isn't what it once was and the prices has gone up while giving less value rather than the other way around.
AJ Henderson
IANAL. Sticking your gun in someone's face is probably illegal wherever there are laws. The actual words may vary. I may have meant brandishing, I don't know, and honestly the point is academic.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
What is funny is NONE of the illegal versions of films are done in local theaters general seating. NONE. They are done by the staff in the booth or more typically the screeners are recoded at the Studio it's self.
Only the utter crap wanna-be releases are camcorder in a theater.
But the MPAA wants us to feel like dirty criminals when we go to the theater instead of cleaning their own house like they need to.
Winners: Security State fascists and MPAA for expanding their power at taxpayer's expense. Losers: everyone else. It's not like you're going to stop watching movies is it?
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
> If you're going to let someone continue to rape you, and you're not actually going to do anything about it, then you really have no right to complain IMO.
"You're not actually here for the movies, are you?"
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
All these people in an uproar over a story posted on a blog that was sent to a mom and pop tech blogger via a Google hangout that was originally from a 3rd party email. There are no names, dates or times on any of the claimed. At the bottom of the page are a bunch of tacked on edits. I have more concerns with the people that are taking this info as fact and their gullibility than the police state arguments they are making.
Last I checked, copyright was a federal law.
Last I checked, I never disputed that. I'm saying it's wrong and needs to change.
I was wondering why the hell he thinks he needs to drag a laptop to a movie theater....
You're a bit dim if half a dozen possible reasons don't pop into your head straight away.
So putting your face really close to a very high resolution laptop screen would be as good as IMAX?
No, it wouldn't.
And a Hi Def TV isn't as good as a cinema screen either.
There's no substitute for scale.
Sure he gets to complain afterwards. Who's to stop him?
The choice isn't between AMC and a competitor, in many markets, but often between AMC and not going to the movies.
Or waiting until it comes around On Demand, which can take many months after the film has left theaters and will still cost you around $8. Or buying it on DVD, which for some reason incurs an even longer wait from the On Demand presentations via cable and is even more expensive, around $15. Because those little plastic discs are such wow.
And these morons wonder why so many people choose to download content...
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
OK, let me rephrase:
"You don't get to complain afterwards without sounding completely disingenuous in doing so."
No laptop screen is imax resolution, but yes, if you had sufficiently high resolution it wouldn't matter. All that matters in vision is the angle of view. If you had an actual 3d display distance would matter a little, but not on a flat display. You will perceive a difference in scale but you won't see anything you would have missed on the small display.
AJ Henderson
OK, well a laptop may have a higher resolution than a HDTV. And yet even if you plug the laptop into the same sound system as the HDTV, the HDTV experience is better. Few people will argue the contrary.
Yet that's not what comes out from your idea about what math is important. Therefore, your theory is wrong.
Does he understand that Google Glasses are A CAMERA, and the movie theater prohibits the use of CAMERAS in the theater?
Emphasis mine.
It's been proven beyond a doubt that he didn't use his camera in the theatre.
Now think back a few years (5 or 10, I think), when merely having a camera in the theatre was against their rules? I think it's safe to assume that half the movie-goers today violate that now-defunct rule.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
There's no need for luggage at a movie theater
Handing them the (unlocked) phone while declaring, "You do not have my permission to search this phone" is both making it clear that they can only search it due to probable cause or a warrant, while also making it easy for them to search it.
Of course, there's also the comedy action of unlocking it for them, then switching the screen off as you hand it to them. Repeat until they realise you're taking the piss..
expect the police to up the pressure possibly including piling on the charges
Well, yes, the US justice system does appear to be missing the basic tenets of justice.
Um. Thanks. I kind of thought it was a pretty good example of a reductio ad absurdum too. One of us certainly doesn't understand the term, though, because it's a perfectly valid form of argument. If you're trying to accuse me of a logical fallacy, you might want to pick something that... well, something that actually is a logical fallacy.
You might want to try 'straw man' or 'slippery slope', though it's not really either.
And 'within reason, of course' doesn't extend to making false accusations of criminal action with no evidence.
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
Cute how you completely ignore the parts of my post that show you don't understand what property rights are, and instead choose to harp on the one aspect that is purely a matter of opinion.
Oh, wait, it's not cute at all; it's that other thing... stupid? Yea, I think stupid is a fair word for it.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Public defenders have all the billable hours they want. The number of people who need a defender vastly outnumber the defenders available. They lose nothing if they short change you.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
There's certainly an aroma of stupid around here.
I understand perfectly what property rights are. The theatre owner has the right to refuse the guy entry. What they did very clearly overstepped their rights, as the story is told here. They made very specific false allegations without evidence. I know that's hard for you to understand, but it's the issue being discussed here, so you really ought to concentrate on catching up rather than being snarky about property rights that aren't in question.
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
I'm not talking math, I'm talking the science of how vision works and if you do some basic research you will find that I am speaking the truth. It isn't a theory, it is scientifically provable fact. People prefer many things that aren't actually better. That's the job of marketing. Read up on optical acuity and then get back to me.
AJ Henderson
Unless it's your local electric or water utility, there's no requirement that you have that service.
If the only Italian restaurant in town has nasty food, I'm not going to keep going there just because it's the only one. I'll stay at home and cook my own pasta instead.
Not true, 'tho they like confessions more than evidence. Juries are made up of mostly idiots, after all.
If all you have is a confession and no evidence, evidence to the contrary, that confession is almost useless. Get a good lawyer, and that "confession" won't even exist.
No, it wouldn't, because the laptop is too close to your face. However, a smaller screen with the same resolution as the movie projector (which isn't that high-res BTW) will look just as good, as long as it's a sufficient distance that you aren't using your near-sighted vision to see it (as you would with the laptop).
I don't think this is quite right. The main difference between the IMAX-res laptop and the normal IMAX screen is that the laptop is too close to your face, forcing you to use near-sighted vision. For larger screens (like an 80" LCD screen in your home theater room), this effect shouldn't be so significant.
Wait, is there seriously a law on the books that makes it illegal to merely point a video camera at a theater screen? I'm used to Hollywood and other corporations getting ridiculous superfluous laws on the books, but that seems hard for even a cynical motherfucker like me to believe. Please, do cite sources.
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
This is the second legal story this week -- actually it's the second Google Glass legal story this week -- in which Slashdot has got many of the key facts embarrassingly wrong.
Does Slashdot want to be taken seriously, or respected, as a media outlet? Then do fact checking.
In the context of a legal story this means having the story reviewed by someone with formal legal training.
And his bag in a movie theater affects you how? You haven't answered. In fact, there's nothing rational in anything you've said in this sub-thread.
The burglar isn't able to make thousands of copies of what he stole.
It's worse than that, at least where I used to live. Theaters in an area will conspire together to make ensure that they're all showing different movies - theater one will show movies A, B, and C, while theater two, ostensibly a competitor, will show movies D, E, and F. You may have the option to avoid AMC and still go to the movies, but not necessarily to the movie that you want to see.
Disclaimer: I get this information from an old friend of mine who used to be a projectionist. I don't know whether it's the theaters that conspire together, or the movie studios who make this happen.
I don't think there is a significant impact of angular visual acuity based on how far away something is. If someone has nearsighted or farsighted problems, they may have reduced acuity due to lack of ability to focus at a particular distance, but for someone with normal vision, it shouldn't make a difference from anything I've heard before or could find just now when I was looking.
AJ Henderson
It's not that you can't see it, but you have to strain your iris muscles to focus on things close-up, whereas you can relax them when you're looking at things farther away. That equates to eyestrain, plus it's a semi-conscious thing and affects your perception. In an IMAX dome theater, for instance, because the movie takes up your whole field-of-view, it can give you motion sickness or make you feel like you're moving; that's probably not going to happen the same way with a high-res laptop screen (even a really wide curved one) because subconsciously you know you're looking at something close-up so it can't be real.
But I can already make "thousands of copies" of a movie I purchase legally.
We need to realize that stealing an item is a different and seperate crime from illegal duplication or resale of copyrighted material. Punish them seperatley.
Illegally obtaining a movie through digital means (downloading, ripping, filming, etc) should carry an identical punishment as shoplifting a DVD or returning an empty case to Netflix or Redbox.
This signature is false.
Ah yes, on that we agree. There is a slight perceptual difference though which is a better experience (at least big screen tv vs imax) Is subjective. My point was just that visually you aren't missing anything.
AJ Henderson
I understand perfectly what property rights are. The theatre owner has the right to refuse the guy entry.
He also had the right to tell the man to leave the property, as well as a right to report the potential felony he witnessed to the proper authorities; I don't know if it applies to copyright law, but in certain circumstances you are legally obligated to report a witnessed crime, or risk being charged as an accessory. So there's a possible CYA motive you're too emotionally involved to notice.
What they did very clearly overstepped their rights, as the story is told here.
From what I understand, at no point was the gentleman so much as detained; he chose to stay and be interviewed by the FBI, as well as gave them access to the contents of the device, all of his own free will. So what right, pray tell, was violated?
They made very specific false allegations without evidence
Such as? He was sitting in a movie theater with a recording device on his face. Logically speaking, that's no different that sitting there with a VHS camcorder on your shoulder - "dur, I'm not recording anything" is not a very convincing argument.
There's certainly an aroma of stupid around here.
Yea, that's probably coming from your upper lip.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
If he's not copying (not even that, if he's not distributing), he's not doing anything wrong. And you or I, FBI or anyone else have no business telling him when to take off his glasses or not. This isn't an army barracks or a prison.
If you point a recording device at the screen but then just say "Oh it wasn't on, you'll get a lot of well-deserved harassment from the police regardless."
It varies from state to state but you can be held for around 48 to 72 hours without any charge or reasonable suspicion. Police tend to not abuse this capability too much for fear of having the courts rescind it but there are documented cases of individuals being held the full "legal" detainment period for no reason other than an officers "gut feeling".
I believe there still needs to be a reason to hold them. Often it is to confirm identity of indigent people with no ID (or an ID that clearly was not theirs, which is fairly common), but most of my experience is with the Public Defender's office (I used to work there in IT). At least in Florida, there were attorneys would happily go after and get released people who didn't have a clear reason to be held. IANAL, I just know they could get them released on the basis of no substantiated reason to hold them, and "gut feeling" would probably not suffice.
If you AAL, feel free to correct me; I'm uncertain about this, but it does fit what I've seen in practice in criminal situations.
Of course, we also dealt with a fair amount of abuse by law enforcement as well, including physical beatings. The butt of radios was a favored (and ruled unreasonable) weapon. I printed a number of large posters with photos of people's faces bearing the very distinct marks of their use: rectangles with charger dots.
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
Google Glass has multiple functions, and they had no proof he was recording anything. This whole situation is ridiculous.
Google Glass is a recording device. Expect people wearing it to face all the same hurdles that someone holding a video camera all the time would face.
Luggage has no place in a theater. No reason for anything excess in a movie theater,
Well, speaking as the one who can read and knows what a reductio ad absurdum is (as well as what makes a good analogy and what makes a weak and shoddy one) I'll leave you to wallow in your own stupid here. If your view is that a pair of glasses that could also record if it were turned on is entirely analogous to a recording device that has recording as its sole purpose then you're too far gone to help. The mobile phone analogy is a better one - it's a device that can record (and can do from a position of concealment), but has a perfectly reasonable alternative use. It's not one that's required in a cinema, obviously, but it's one that's clearly enough that people aren't stripped of their phones on entering the building and the FBI aren't called if anyone's seen using their phone or with their phone potentially recording from a concealed position in their clothes. With Google Glass in this case the device has a primary use that is required in a cinema - being able to see the screen properly. Your comparison to a video camera that has no need to be in a cinema in the first place and that has no other purpose in being pointed at a screen than to record it is either caused by a complete lack of wits or a complete lack of intellectual integrity. Though I suppose we need to give you credit and assume it might well be both.
My original point was this: vast numbers of people carry high-definition video recording devices into movie theatres every day. The vast majority of these people have those high-definition video recording devices concealed in such a way that they could potentially be recording the screen, or at least have the potential for concealing them in such a way. If we're going to make the assumption that anyone who could potentially be recording the screen is recording it - which is exactly the wrong assumption that was made here by both the theatre owners and the FBI, neither of whom attempted at any point to verify that assumption before things had been escalated to a ridiculous level - then we're going to have to start turning away a lot of people who turn up to watch a movie with a mobile phone and clothes.
There were ways to deal with this situation sensibly. Both parties could have avoided the issue - the customer by wearing standard prescription glasses, the theatre owner and the FBI by not being complete arses and making an assumption of guilt and escalating things way beyond where they needed to be.
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
Google Glass doesn't have to record anything.
Second of it, it's just sad that people have been brainwashed by the copyright cartel's propaganda to such a degree that they believe it's justified to harass people because they might be recording a movie screen (Oh, no!).
It seems like these people who support our totalitarian regime will go to any length to justify their positions. It just becomes ridiculous how much they have to twist their logic.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
Not moving goalposts - just clarifying whether the issue was specifically with google glasses or with any (camera) glasses. Since you say it is with the latter, then there are going to be issues with aids for visually disabled people whether they are registered blind or just can't see the screen well enough without their glasses - better that this guy gets those issues out in the open now.
The choice isn't between AMC and a competitor, in many markets, but often between AMC and not going to the movies.
I opted for option 2 about 7 years ago, when I realised how cheap projectors and competent 5.1 surround sound systems had got. It spent around £250 on a projector and a set of speakers, which I drove from a DVD player. My local cinemas all had really bad equalisation in their sound (far too much base, no midrange, so you got too-loud explosions and talking was hard to hear) and had so much dust in their projector lenses that I got a better quality experience at home and could sit in comfy chairs, drink beer, and pause the movie whenever I wanted.
I have gotten more "do it at home" oriented too, mainly because AMC sucks and in my area are one of the only choices for first-run movies. I could go to a different (almost as shitty) chain if I am willing to drive 35-40 minutes downtown, but that's annoying, and really mucks up the dynamics of "This is too crowded, let's leave, get a refund, and come back some other time when we can find a seat" into "I drove 40 mintues, I'll be damned if I'm leaving without seeing a movie!"
As I walk through all of this I'm beginning to see the benefits of abandoning ship on the movie theaters forever... But my living room is a somewhat awkward shape for theater purposes... Ah well, maybe when we move...
Who did what now?
Well, the article did state that he had prescription lenses. And from my own personal experience with glasses, I have to assume that you either do not wear glasses, or if you do, you have a rather weak prescription. I have a rather strong prescription and if I change glasses, it causes me mild disorientation. In fact, when I change prescription, I will not wear my new glasses until the morning after I get them. Switching in the middle of the day is just too much eye strain. I also at one point in time purchases two identical pair of glasses with on tinted and the other clear (couldn't use autogray lenses since at the time I was working in NDI and the ultraviolet light would have caused autogray lenses to darken which would have been bad for inspections). Even though both glasses used the same prescription and had the same frame style, there was enough difference that switching glasses still caused some mild problems for me. So the comment about a "non-google glass prescription glasses" is rather short sighted of you. Some of use really can't simply swap glasses mid day without problems.
Because when you downloaded it, you also shared it with 10,000, people who also shared it with 10,000 people, etc... All of those people were going to watch that movie at the theater, and buy popcorn and a drink, and buy the special edition DVD, so about say 150$ times oh lets say 2 iterations to be reasonable (we're not monsters!), that's 10,000 x 10,000 which equals 100,000,000 times 150$ a pop, or about 15 Billion dollars.
If you consider we tried to sue a service for 60 Trillion dollars, which is more than the GDP of the entire world, you will get an idea of where their head space is, or how stupid the lobby/politics/courts are in the US.
For example the damages in Canada are very limited by comparison (for now anyway).
Sorry, but I've fed your trolling enough for one week.
You go right ahead and keep thinking that the law doesn't apply to you because you disagree with how things are defined; I'm sure Dick Cheney will be glad to take your custom (he owns a chain of prisons, you see).
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I'm betting that his reason is quite simply that there are no other theaters in his locality.
Quite possibly, but that's no excuse. With some businesses, you really don't have much choice. You can't very well go without electricity or water or sewer service. It's also pretty hard to go far in society now without internet service (which is why this should be regulated as a utility) or a phone. However, this doesn't apply to theaters. You don't need to go to a theater. It's a luxury, nothing more, and an expensive one at that. If the only theater in town might subject you to humiliating interrogations, then you simply don't go there any more.
If you like Italian food and the only Italian restaurant in your town has nasty food with dead flies in it, are you going to keep going there? I wouldn't; I'd stay home and cook my own pasta (and start looking to move elsewhere...). Or I'd go to a different non-Italian restaurant.
Public defenders have all the billable hours they want. The number of people who need a defender vastly outnumber the defenders available. They lose nothing if they short change you.
They also gain nothing if they short change you. Since the state pays them by the hour, with no limit, there's no reason for them to only work 50 hours on your case and work 50 on another case rather than 100 hours on your case. They get paid the exact same amount either way.
No, they'd just have to resort to hip, modern cinemas and avoid the national chains.
The good news is, these new-fangled places serve beer, European style.
I was complaining about 'rich guys' who can afford to make large campaign contributions and send lobyists to Washington (such as movie companes do) getting federal laws passed that apply specifically to stealing from them so that the FBI will harass some guy who didn't even do anything for hours because he 'might' have made a really crappy recording of their movie vs a regular person getting their home broken into and all the local police do is write down a little information and drop the matter.
I didn't say anything about taxes, handouts or any of that crap you just brought up.
This is bait. How much does MAFIAA pay you per post?
Besides, piracy and burglary aren't nearly the same. Imagine if I stole your car last night and you woke up and it was still where you left it. All I did was make 10,000 exact duplicates and freely distributed them. That's Piracy.
Millions in lost revenue? Really? I don't believe that people who settle for downloading a crappy bootleg copy of a movie recorded using a cell camera in a theatre were ever going to pay for a movie ticket and/or a DVD anyway.
I don't doubt that many people will download it. Mostly that is going to be either to see it before the studio releases it in a certain area or because they are too cheap and/or unable to pay for it anyway.
The difference in quality is just too much. I don't think any level of advanced technology is going to change this either. Even with a gazillion megapxels, how do you keep a camera perfectly still without puting it on a tripod where it will be REALLY obvious to everyone what you are doing? How do you get multi-channel audio from one seat in a theatre? How do you filter out people's heads that block part of the screen, people getting up in the middle of the movie to use the bathroom, all the other noises in the room, etc.....
Actually I take it all back... You said millions lost to the industry. Yeah, the industry as a whole (not one movie) probably does lose millions to piracy. That's an industry that makes BILLIONS! Am I saying it is ok to steal from them just because they have so much? No. But things happen (good or bad) in percentages. Anything having any affect on an industry moving billions of dollars is probably going to change that amount by millions. Similarly, if you are making 10s of thousands of dollars per year yourself bad and good things totalling up to 1,000s of dollars are likely to happen to you each year. If the movie industry is loosing millions then big deal. That's probably 50 cents here, $1 there all multiplied and spread out into a whole lot of places. They probably make or lose billions every time a cricket farts or a butterfly flaps it's wings in Hollywood.
Covered losses? Have you ever actually owned a home?
You make it sound like a burglary victim is unharmed. First off, there are deductibles, usually at least 1 or 2 thousand dollars. Second, make a claim on your insurance and it will go up. If the company doesn't just drop you that is. Usually, unless your home is completely stripped you are better off in the long run just repairing the damage yourself and going without whatever the thief took until you can afford to replace it yourself.
Yes... I've been there. It sucks.
the choice becomes more and more to live in a hut in the wild, or do business with jerks.
I'm sorry, but avoiding movie theaters is not similar to living in a hut in the wild. There's a lot more social activities to do besides this, and watching a movie in a theater isn't very social anyway since you can't talk to your companion there anyway (without being rude and having people telling you to STFU and maybe getting kicked out if the theater does a decent job with ushering). All in all, going to a theater really kinda sucks as an activity to do with a date when you think about it: you can't talk to him/her, you can't pause it to go to the bathroom or discuss the movie, you might have to deal with rude people who text or talk during the movie, you can't rewind to figure out what someone said, the food is shitty and horrendously overpriced and you don't get much of a choice with it (how many theaters serve sushi or wine?), etc. If you want to watch a movie, you're better off doing it at home. If you want to go somewhere outside the house with a date, there's far better options, such as a walk at your local park, which is free.
Are there still just six companies who are the major info deliverers? Or is it fewer now?
Nothing's stopping me from browsing to bbc.co.uk, rt.com, or aljazeera.com, or countless other blogs and independent news sites. There's more info deliverers now than ever before. Just because most Americans continue to only watch Fox News and CNN doesn't mean those are the only choices, it just further illustrates my point: Americans sit and and bitch and complain, and then continue to patronize the same shitty mega-businesses, even though good alternatives do exist.
If you were talking about ISPs or cellular providers, you'd have a good point: these things are pretty important for modern life (and employment in any kind of decent job or career path). But with movie theaters and news outlets? There only seems to be little choice because people refuse to explore alternatives.
And his bag in a movie theater affects you how? You haven't answered. Again, you haven't answered. Fsckin troll.
How about this, dipshit: he doesn't have a car... He uses the subway (or bus, or taxi, or bike, or...) and has no other place to put it.
It isn't that hard to figure out a valid reason, making your dimwitted statement invalid.
Supply an answer rather than just spouting the same bullshit.
Fuck you. Movie theaters seats are for people, not backpacks.
Go home before you come to the theater and drop your crap off.
If you live in a city, move around by public transit, and go to a movie as part of your day (an after-work visit for example) rather than as a special trip from home, what you carry into the theater is whatever you carry around for your day. You can't leave the laptop in your car because you don't have one.
I'm talking the science of how vision works and if you do some basic research you will find that I am speaking the truth.
But you're not. You're assuming that so long as the angle is the same, the display is equivalent for the eye. Yet it's not. The eye has depth perception, both binocular and by focus. People can tell the difference between a small screen close up and a large screen far away. And that fact isn't figuring in your concept of what's happening here.
It's nothing to do with marketing, and everything to do with the two being quite different experiences.
As to visual acuity, you may have noticed that opticians with small consulting rooms use a mirror through which the patient views the chart, in order to increase the distance. They don't simply use a chart that is half the size. By your theory, these two approaches would be identical. And yet they aren't. And that's just the focus part of the difference.
I'm not talking depth perception or focus, I'm talking visual acuity. Focal problems for people occur at different depths, which is why the eye chart has to be at different lengths (to detect near and far sighted issues). Properly functioning eyes will have nearly the same, if not exactly the same, visual acuity in angular resolution at any distance. We can certainly tell how large the thing we are looking at is, but we will see the same amount of information. It may not "feel as big" but there isn't any difference in what details you see.
AJ Henderson
You're stupid. It isn't worth your hard earned cash, so you'll wait and give them your hard earned cash any fucking way?
He's not giving them nearly as much, and, if he just gets them on Netflix or Redbox, he's not giving them much at all, maybe $1 or even less. (Don't forget, if he has several people in the family who watch it together, they only pay that price once, rather than per-person as they would at a theater.) Sure, it's more than nothing, but you can't seriously think that isn't going to affect their finances when more and more people refuse to watch movies in theaters, and just wait for them to come out on video. If a movie hasn't made back its initial investment at the first-run theaters, it's usually considered a "flop"; only low-budget movies are expected to finance themselves entirely by rentals and DVD sales.
I was wondering why the hell he thinks he needs to drag a laptop to a movie theater....
Hopefully it gets hit by a flying coke... (although that'd be very expensive with the ridiculous concession prices)
Why...
Consider the lack of security in parking lots.
Smash and grab... there it goes.
Many vehicles do not even have a trunk. Further
the act of opening a trunk can be seen from 440 yards
and the vehicle targeted as ripe.
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
The only way they pay that 53% of Federal Tax is if they're honest. The fact that so many companies and, gasp, rich people have been sending their money out of the US to avoid paying said taxes should damn well tell you something. Let's also not forget that they can hire accountants to hide their money and use loopholes to get tax breaks whereas a poor person at best can attempt to work under the table or refuse to pay, and end up in prison as a result in either case. Stop defending the fat cats.
If they're so terrible, why do you keep going back there and arguing with them about your bag?
"You guys totally suck! You don't know how to run a business! Here, take my money!!"
It's no wonder everything is going down the shitter in America these days. People just sit around on online forums and bitch and complain about stuff, but never actually do anything to force a change: they keep throwing their money at the same shitty companies, and keep voting for the same shitty politicians, and expecting things to improve somehow.
Agreed. Few bother to do anything except sound-off. We are a bunch of whiners.
Oh yeah!!
I would actually detain and interrogate everybody wearing glasses, Hitler-haircut and groomed beard (that's the latest hipster trend here). Or better than interrogate them just use them as landfill.
-- 29A the number of the Beast
sorry my shortcoming in the English language, but what or who is a Buthcer ?
-- 29A the number of the Beast
Stop being ignorant and filling your head with Internet lies and find the truth yourself. The top 5% pay for 57-60% of all the money the Feds collect through income tax every year. Source:IRS
If you have trouble with being able to google stuff yourself, or you can't work a calculator, here are the numbers for you in a nice simple table broken down by year: http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/...
Wedding is the dream of every girl. Every girl wants to look beautiful in her marriage. Wedding is the time of joy, happiness. There are many types of dresses such as short, unique, winter, summer; flower girl’s wedding dresses etc.
It may not "feel as big"
And there you have it. You accept there's a difference.
However, a smaller screen with the same resolution as the movie projector (which isn't that high-res BTW) will look just as good
And yet it doesn't.
Google Glass doesn't have to record anything.
If you can't tell if it's recording or not from a distance, then you have to assume it is.
Again, if I'm holding a video camera... but it's off, yes, I'll get into trouble.
Second of it, it's just sad that people have been brainwashed by the copyright cartel's propaganda to such a degree that they believe it's justified to harass people because they might be recording a movie screen (Oh, no!).
Sorry, no brainwashing is necessary to think that recording a movie screen in a theater is something we should just let slide, no problem.
If you can't tell if it's recording or not from a distance, then you have to assume it is.
I don't have to assume anything.
Again, if I'm holding a video camera... but it's off, yes, I'll get into trouble.
I don't have to assume anything.
Sorry, no brainwashing is necessary to think that recording a movie screen in a theater is something we should just let slide, no problem.
For people to respond to this in such a way that their response suggests that they think recording a movie screen is a heinous crime and we can't even allow the mere possibility of it happening without calling the FBI does suggest gullibility and brainwashing.
But for people who aren't brainwashed and think that this sort of response is appropriate: You're all insufferable idiots who are making our society worse.
Don't like movie cameras/Google Glass? Kick people who are doing things you don't like off your private property; that simple. But don't call the fucking FBI because someone might be recording a movie screen.
But for people who aren't brainwashed and think that this sort of response is appropriate: You're all insufferable idiots who are making our society worse.
Don't like movie cameras/Google Glass? Kick people who are doing things you don't like off your private property; that simple. But don't call the fucking FBI because someone might be recording a movie screen.
Hey! We agree on something, calling the FBI was overkill.
And how about he wore them in the swimming pool changing rooms during your sister's daughter's birthday party...?
Does your sister encourage the males in attendance at her daughter's birthday party to share a changing room with her (the daughter)? And you are only concerned about potential video recording?