Canadian Theatre Chain Sued for Abusive Search 374
An anonymous reader writes "A Canadian theater chain has been sued for an abusive search for camcording equipment. A Montreal woman is seeking $60,000 in damages for the search, which comes after the Canadian government caved to US pressure and enacted anti-camcording legislation."
Good Lord. (Score:4, Insightful)
I hope this lady wins.
Regards.
Re:Good Lord. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good Lord. (Score:5, Interesting)
The Conservative party has a long history of selling out to the Americans. It shouldn't surprise anybody anymore. Just expect it when you cast your ballot for them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because it wasn't the Liberals who tabled Bill C-60 [wikipedia.org] (which in turn, wasn't defeated when the the Conservatives brought in a vote of non-confidence, admittedly on a completely different subject). It wasn't a Liberal MP who criticized the Harper administration for doing, and I quote, "zilch on this issue." [link [thestar.com]] and who was busy this spring crafting a private members bill that would impose stiffer penalties on bootleggers. It's all the Conservative parties faults.
Christ, some of you Liberal mouthpiec
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
On a bit of a tangent (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm also VERY interested in finding out a good digital recording set up, with high end mikes...for recording concerts live. Not for money making, but, for personal collections...share with friends..etc. It needs to be small, high end...and have long recording times...2+ hours at high fidelity.
Any suggestions?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Everything that goes wrong north of the border is the fault of people south of the border. You're starting to sound like a passive aggressive version of Arizona.
This time there's reason. (Score:3, Insightful)
Were I a Canadian I would not think very charitably of the US govt., and I would definitely blame it for the passage of this law...and for any and all unp
Re:Good Lord. (Score:5, Insightful)
What the camcorder audience wants is their free first-run media fix, quality be damned. What they want is to sound convincing when their friends begin talking about the new must-see Spiderman or Transformers.
Re:Good Lord. (Score:5, Interesting)
The screens are rarely full. We've paid our way. And yet we're subjected, week in and week out, to endless tedious trails about the evils of piracy, the low quality of bootleg DVDs, the illegality of filming, etc, etc. We've paid out money: pretty much by definition, we're not your prime enemy for the copy trade. In the UK it's highly arguable if using a camcorder in a cinema is a criminal (rather than civil) offence, and the chances of going to gaol are approximately zero. So why hassle your audience, and piss them off?
And anyway, no-one pirates minority films. The main trade is in big blockbusters, which have merchandise associated. The bootleg gets children buying that just as well as the cinema.
An anecdote. I was at a folk festival, Thursday--Sunday. Most people arrived late Thursday afternoon. At a workshop on Friday, someone was able to use that `Spiderpig' thing from the Simpsons Movie as an exercise, and every child knew it. TSM opened on Thursday. Had everyone (a) as I did, attended one of the handful of cinemas that previewed it on Wednesday (b) walked in the rain into central Cambridge the previous evening or (c) seen a bootleg? Given the hideous middle-classery of the event, and the assumption the answer is (c), what does this say about the hearts and minds issue?
Spiderpig (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"I ain't gettin me one of them there passus, heck thems more'n twenty dollers a month. We ain't gotten no vid-jo mobiles an' we don go on Wednesdays when we could get us a reeeduction. We is paying the full price."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Which points up the idiocy of the claims that `piracy' is killing cinemas: Cinema attendances are healthier than they've been since the early 1970s. There are about 35 screens within a mile of the centre of Birmingham, and a further fifty to a hundred within five miles. In the late 1970s cinemas were closing, or being converted into bingo halls and concert venues. Ever
Re:Good Lord. (Score:5, Insightful)
However, most of us in the southern hemisphere (zone 4) get to see the hype, watch the trailers etc at the same time as the US. However, the movie does not usually get released in the cinema here until well after there are DVD-rips online. It's fine to wait for a movie, but there are limits to what is reasonable.
Zoning for movies, television and games might not be the root cause of piracy, but it sure doesn't help.
Re:Good Lord. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Good Lord. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you don't like the prices a company offers for its services, you can find an alternative or do without. You don't have the right to steal the product.
Canada has had the highest number of camcorder incidents, particularly in Quebec, according to the National Association of Theater Owners. It is getting to the point where Canada might not get first released pictures unless they prevent theft of services.
Re:Good Lord. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Five seconds? It's 10 to 15 seconds - in English. Then another 10 to 15 - in French. Occasionally there's another 10 to 15 in Spanish. Then a 5 second animated logo. Followed by an 8 second animated logo. Then the previews come up and you're finally allowed to skip out to the main menu. This can be a long time if you're a parent :)
And the parent post makes a very valid point. You only have to put up with this penalty if you paid for the movie. Some incentive.
And your solution is to
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Which would also presumably be illegal anyway.
Re:Good Lord. (Score:5, Insightful)
The version of Shrek 2 that I bought contained the following.
Anti-piracy advert (About a minute)
Random clips of Unversal films (about 30 seconds)
Madagascar advert. This advert was a bloody tedious interview in which Ben Stiller told us how good the film is. It lasted around 5 minutes.
Overall, that's about 5 minutes of unskippable junk, unless my DVD player breaks the rules a little by allowing this stuff to be skipped. It doesn't matter whether or not my player can bypass this stuff, it's the fact that Universal expect its customers to sit through this anytime they want to watch a film they paid for. I returned the disc.
I think it's sensible that Universal should state that the film is protected by copyright. They should do this by printing a warning on the disc and the box. They should not be forcing customers to sit through this tedium each time they watch the film.
If they continue to try to control the user experience to this extent, they can't be surprised when piracy becomes a more attractive option. Pirated products should not be superior to the original.
if you're interested in the madagascar thing, see these links. I wasn't the only one pissed off by it. Thankfully they seem to have removed the advert from later versions. I'm still not paying for Shrek or any Universal DVDs if I can avoid them.
http://www.supercalafragalistic.com/madagascarrev
http://lists.evolt.org/archive/Week-of-Mon-200704
http://www.aubreyturner.org/index.php?/orglog/200
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Good Lord. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the original intent of the copyright clause in the US constitution was to promote "useful arts and sciences" but not to guarantee anyone the right to make money.
No one guarantees you the right to anything other than freedom and personal property. Unfortunately, copyright laws are being used in order to have a planned economy of intellectual property and in a sense is no better than socialism in that these organizations use government to earn money rather than have to actually work to create new works which would promote culture and science.
Heck... I'm fine with limited times on copyright, recourse in civil suits for infringement, and the right for authors to take protective measures against piracy, but when those measures include the abuse of others freedoms and the exploitation of government to enforce their policies in order to simply make a profit at the expense of the innocent then I strongly disagree.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good Lord. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm just annoyed that the people who always chime in with "It's not theft, it's copyright infringement.", are playing the flip-side of the same card. Although "theft" may be untrue to the discussion, by oversimplification and calling upon a basic known "evil", using nothing more than the argument "But it's not theft, it's infringement" does the opposite disservice, by obscuring the argument and framing it wholly within the legal construct. Also, to simply drop in with this quip (unless the first argument consists of nothing more than "It's THEFT, dammit!") appears to strive to construct a false link of "Theft=Wrong, Not theft=Not wrong, Infringement=Not theft, so Infringement=Not wrong".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why in the hell I would like to watch a movie with hundreds of assholes I don't even know?
Possible SPOILERS follow.
Actually. I didn't like The Simpsons movie all that much. I would have preferred more "moviesque" script. It seemed like a stretched out episode. Or perhaps episode segments from three shows mashed up together. I'm not sure if it was wholly intentional, but it seemed like rehash of 3F24 (The Mysterious Voyage of Homer). The short nods at previous epis
It's nice to see (Score:2)
[/Sarcasm]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So was that poetical (sic) license or a typo?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Copyrights are an incentive that societies use to promote creative work, not an inalienable human right.
Re: (Score:2)
If you aren't using strong encryption and locked-down systems, it is your own fault anyway. And if you are managing everything like that you are getting probed 100 times a day. Sort of like living in a castle, huh?
Face it, to use the Internet i
Re: (Score:2)
However the larger problem is that you are talking about a system that is unworkable because it relies on ideal people, not real people. Communism is a similar system. It sounds so brilliant when summed up simply as "From each according to th
Search me? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Search me? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
My music tastes are similar. If you want me to buy your album, you're going to have to endanger your baby, flash your tits, or bot
Definition of Invasive (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
after paying for tickets + food + drinks + etc. and not being able to get a refund if you refuse the search.
Stupid solution to the problem (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
qz
All I can say is.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Calm Yourselves (Score:4, Informative)
Even if C-59 was passed, which is not likely, no one would ever see jail time over it. Good luck proving an intent to distribute the recording and no judge in Canada would ever put anyone away for even a day for a non-violent offense with a maximum sentence of only 2 years.
Once again, this is simply theatre owners reacting to intense industry pressure. This is not a story about the oppressive Canadian government.
Use technology to not inconvenience her (Score:5, Funny)
I'm a big fan of a greyscale night-vision mode with an infrared filter on a sunny day at the beach myself.
If she's not so hot, someone else can search her while I record the movie on my fancy camera.
Re:Use technology to not inconvenience her (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Granted, I'd have killed for one when I was a kid. (:
And to think... (Score:3, Insightful)
beat them (Score:3, Informative)
Fuck them. start randomly patting down people WITHOUT EVEN ASKING is going to get you hurt.
Re:beat them (Score:4, Insightful)
~Pev
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
arguably therefor an attempted illegal search, and
would be free to arrest the culprit, using the minmum
force you reasonably found necessary to immoblize him
while waiting for the police.
Opening Weekends (Score:3, Interesting)
People suggest the only people who would pirate are those who wouldn't buy it in the first place, and I know that just isn't true. For many people, pirating often comes down to how easy or difficult it is. Once a process is simpler, more people do it.
I have a hefty DVD collection, but I still enjoy the theater experience on the whole. It isn't the screen or audio (I like my TV and sound system) but rather being surrounded by an excited group who have been geeking out in anticipation of a movie. As fewer people are going to the movies, prices are going up to compensate. So while others are downloading movies, I get to pay for it.
Look, go catch a matinée, or wait until there is a cheap release of the DVD. My video store down the street usually has a 3 for 25$ deal going and I load up on those. I'm not advocating searches or harassment, and I hope theaters don't actually continue such tactics. But if people weren't bringing camcorders in the first place, no one would be pushing for searches.
Re: (Score:2)
If the movie industry wants to give people an incentive to not record movies in the theatre or download them without anybody making a buck off of it, they'd better come up with a less insulting way to do it.
You can't go policing an entertainment venue like it's a state prison.</hyperbole>
And your numbers are a bit on the exaggerated side. Tens of millions of do
Re: (Score:2)
It is a Catch-22 when people say they pirate because ticket prices are high, but
Re:Opening Weekends (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll see if I can't be a little more polite than some of the other comments.
In summary, you are wrong.
In detail then . . .
As has already been pointed out, the only reviewed study of music and movie pirating via P2P has shown that there is no impact to the music or movie industries. Scroll up for the academic reference.
There are two reasons (from my experience) that theater gross receipts may be off,
The product is just plain bad. Couple a poor product with many online forums discussing the poor product, and second week receipts will be down. Some of my personal observations concerning recent movies follows.
The movie going experience is also unpleasant. The theaters are usually a mess, the staff is unpleasant to rude, and I don't even bother buying concessions. I no longer go to Regal Theaters after I was denied entry (after purchasing a ticket). I had purchased an umbrella on a sunny day. Since I was on my bike at the time, I couldn't leave the purchase in the car. The manager claimed that the umbrella could be used as a weapon and would not allow me to enter the theater with a paid ticket. They no longer get my business.
I never pay full price for movies. I attend matinee shows. Even then, many movies are not worth the $6.
I don't use P2P systems, except for updating games and getting the new version of Fedora. While I have a reasonable Internet connection, I will not waste my time, disk space, or a DVD on most commercial movies. Those few that I like, I will purchase, with the exception of Sony Pictures. I never know if a Sony product will play on my computers due to their use of DRM. Hence, they don't get my business.
Camcorder bootlegs are not something that people buy or download. I have friends in Malaysia, and they all scoff at camcorder copies. People discussing ripped movies on Usenet complain about highly compressed movies, color banding, and color bleed-over. No one is going to waste any time, disk space, or recordable media on camcorder bootlegs.
So based on my personal experience, the experience of many people in countries where US copyrights are largely ignored, discussions on Usenet, and refereed articles you are misinformed.
Interesting, how only one side... (Score:2, Insightful)
There are far more theatres where these sorts of privacy invasions are not occurring than those where they actually are. I don't abide by what this theatre chain has decided to do, but what's happened here is the exception and not the rule what is happening in Canadian theatres. The anti-camcording law brings stiff penalties to people who record in the theatres but _DOES NOT_ authorize the theatres to search patrons. The new bill does give
Re: (Score:2)
Again
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh.... A handful of theatres within driving distance? You realize this incident happened in Montreal, right? You also realize that the theatre chain that this happened with is not even a particularly significant theatre chain in Canada, right? All the biggest ones have always just tried to keep a watch out for people recording while actually _in_ the theatre. And there's absolutely no indication that is not what they will continue to do. As I said, Bill C-59 just gives the theatres some legal backbon
But... (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:uhh....wait....what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When I go to a rock concert, I submit to not only having external bags searched, but being frisked too. That's my choice -- I could always exercise my freedom to not be searched, and take my money elsewhere. That I choose to allow the inconvenience of a search doesn't entitle me to $60,000.
Re:uhh....wait....what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
just like no one has the right to ask you to break the law, no one has the right to invade you privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Her two daughters' bags were also searched. And many people go to the cinema after a day of shopping or doing other things, they don't expect to have all their private possessions (women often have extremely personal items in their purses) and purchases spread out on a table for everyone to see.
Re:uhh....wait....what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:uhh....wait....what? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's an important principle in Ius Commune that nobody should benefit from a crime. Once you start rewarding being a victim instead of compensating real losses, you make it desirable to become a victim. That's not in society's best interest.
Re:uhh....wait....what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But, even if it had to be done, there are better ways to do it.
Re:uhh....wait....what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably an advance on the several several hundred to thousands of hours of what would otherwise be 'volunteer' time to spend fighting this case over the next several months to years.
It's an important principle in Ius Commune that nobody should benefit from a crime. Once you start rewarding being a victim instead of compensating real losses, you make it desirable to become a victim. That's not in society's best interest.
Its also a simple fact that you can't really sue someone to donate a nontrivial sum to charity (WITHOUT any tax benefits) and make a proper public apology. The system just isn't set up for that.
That said, I suspect if the movie theatre offered to settle, to donate 60k to charity in her name, and issue a public apology she'd probably consider it a win and take it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
From IMDb:
USA Gross Through July 22
Transformers $262,978,000
Harry Potter and The Order of the Phoenix $207,866,865
Ratatouille $165,519,955
Live Free or Die Hard $116,267,860
Which translates crudely to about 20 million admi
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So why would I go to a theater and pay $10 for a ticket when I can download the movie in an evening for nothing? And probably download it even before i
Re: (Score:2)
So why would I go to a theater and pay $10 for a ticket when I can download the movie
Because the theater offers value-add. They provide a huge screen with awesome sound, vivid clarity, and a good experience. A cam of the movie - well just doesn't IMO cut it. Even watching it at home - while I like my 51" TV, it still doesn't compare to the big screen.
Well, except you are completely wrong (Score:4, Informative)
I know that the media industry likes to claim that the evil pirates are killing their business, but thus far the real numbers just don't bare that out.
Re:uhh....wait....what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have tried them.
Screener/bootlegged copy have a very poor/mediocre sound quality. There are large parts of the movie which is blurred, litteraly unwatchable. It gives you headaches. Nobody truly interested by the movie will ever download such a crap.
Ripped DVDs is on the other hand is usually an acceptable quality (comparable to VHS). This by far a biggest threat. and in my case, I usually find Ripped DVDs on a torren
Re:uhh....wait....what? (Score:4, Insightful)
These "miniature cameras" you talk about don't produce an image worth downloading, let alone paying even $1 for. I've seen a bit of a bootleg once and it was PAINFUL to watch. I couldn't watch a whole movie like that unless you paid me for it.
No, the professionals don't do that sort of crap, as it'd be unprofitable. Professionals do one of these:
Option A: They copy your original DVD, remove crap from it (CSS, skip restrictions, etc), stamp it, and sell for a fraction of the original price, providing a better product overall. Not only it's cheaper, but it's less annoying to play as well as it won't be region locked and play on anything.
They're friendly too. I saw this in Russia years ago (I think it's not as balant now). They had a HUGE market where you could get lost easily. The seller will gladly tell you their opinion on the movie, will change your disc if it doesn't play (warranty!), and will even find something for you if you ask. They provide good service, unlike what you get when buying legally.
Option B: They get somebody with the access to the film and with a projection booth, and do a professional setup, filming the movie without an audience in the way, and with an exact copy of the audio.
How to solve this problem? My suggestions:
1. Drop the anti-piracy crap. No CSS, no region locking, no unskippable sections
2. I bought/paid to see the damn movie, I don't want to hear a word about anti-piracy moralizing.
3. I don't want to see any ads in the cinema, nor on the DVD. Only possible exception is optional trailers that you must specifically play, related to what the disk contains (eg, trailers of Miyazaki's anime, on the Nausicaa DVD)
4. Sell it cheaper, especially the music. Why can the soundtrack have the same price as the movie? It makes no sense.
Re: (Score:2)
I think we are witnessing the death of the theater. As some said over at the Michael Geist site, who wants to go to a theater and be subjected to huge lines, searches, unsanitary conditions, and unassigned seating (aka huge waits while being beat in the head with ads) to see a movie they can purchase for life for $20.00 in 4 months?
Death of the theater? Doubtful.
I find the audio high-quality and louder than I'm allowed to turn up my home stereo with neighbors.
I find the screen far larger than any I could afford, or even have room for.
I enjoy the stadium seating, it's no lazy-boy but it's quite nice for public seating.
It allows me to do something I would do at home, but feel like I'm actually _doing_ something. I'm actively leaving the house and getting cleaned up to do so.
It's great for dates.
Some movies are designed for the big-scre
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So your basic freedom, privacy is worth about a movie ticket? I know movie tickets are quite pricey nowadays, but I'd ask a bit more for basically blaming that I'm going to commit "a crime" and for unjustified personal search. But hey, you name your price. I'm happy there still exists people who do understand long term coincidences of not objecting
Re: (Score:2)
Heck, I'd think it was fair if she were compensated for an hour or two of her time. $50'ish maybe. Then again, if the point is to make the chain stop doing it, they have to be hit hard in the wallet.
Mmm if it were up to me, I'd suggest in cases like these that the 'winnings' go back to the community. Punitive damages would go towards the local
Re: (Score:2)
its why we dont have million dollar lawsuits for burglars who slip on a loose board in someones house they're robbing.
Re:uhh....wait....what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Shame that the sociopaths that run the place have decided that human decency is voluntary.
Re: (Score:2)
Claiming $60,000 for this smells. If you bring more than one bag into a movie theatre, you must realise that it can raise suspicion. Especially so when the theatre has a posted policy of reserving the right to search bags. It wouldn't surprise me if she did this on purpose with a lawsuit in mind, hoping that the bags would be searched.
Re:uhh....wait....what? (Score:5, Interesting)
I wouldn't mind the search if it was up front and I was told about it when buying my tickets. But if it was inside the theater and after I went past the part where they rip the tickets in half and by some dumbass who treats you like your a shoplifter or something, I would have a serious problem with it.
I have/had a rather large cell phone with a clip on it and after losing it several times, I turn it around to where the phone is inside my pants pocket and the clip hangs on the outside. I had some punk at a department store accuse me of shoplifting after hanging up from a call. (This was in the mid 90's). None the less, I showed him the cell phone and it should have been dropped at that but he insisted that I empty everything in my pockets then attempted to take me by force to the management's office. I turned around and started walking out of the store and an off duty cop they rented stopped me. I told him he would have to arrest me and he put me in cuffs right there in front of every one.
Ok, long story short. I never got charged with anything because it was just my phone, about $40 and some change in my pockets and an over zealous stock boy. I guess the store gave their employees $100 plus the price of whatever was stolen if they catch a shoplifter. I sued the store for the embarrassment and hassle for $500, lawyer fees (who said I would probably lose) and the largest article in the local newspapers that they could buy to advertise an apology to me. The judge increased the the $500 to $10,000 and made them place a sign at the front of the store so everyone going in would know they messed up. I hear they did the same to someone else who got about $150,000 or so a couple years later from the same judge. I was 19 or 20 and almost lost a job paying twice as much as the normal in the area for the time because someone in management saw it happen and said they needed trust worthey employees working with them.
If what happened in Canada is even close to what happened to me, the $60,000 could be some normal number that something like this usually carries. It could have been her attorney asking for it more then her. I guess the judges and juries, at least in America, can increase the amount asked for under some conditions like the store encouraging the behavior. I hope that if it was something like what happened to me, they throw a couple of 1's and 0' around the $60,000 and makes the theater really think twice about how they handle people.
Re:uhh....wait....what? (Score:5, Insightful)
If people like her *don't* win cases like this, I shudder to think of how we'll all be treated in 20 years when trying to enjoy *any* kind of entertainment.
Re: (Score:2)
Won't that be great? When every where we go we can expect to be searched by ever more invasive techniques? Until one day in order to buy a pack of gum at the Quik-E-Mart you have to provide 3 pieces of ID, authorize a credit evalutation, and get padded down by Brutus -- And you can't complain... you don't have to shop there, its totally voluntary.
And besides it beats the cavity search and
Re:uhh....wait....what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Having work a short time in music promotions I know a number of venues that require searches upon entry and personally never felt there was a problem with it. If you don't like to policies of a place, like a private club that doesn't all women or something like that, don't sue the place, just don't go there, or open your own venue that meets your interests. Besides, only an idiot takes an audio recorder to a concert and only an even bigger idiot takes a video recorder to a movie.
Re:uhh....wait....what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Many businesses are built around catering to social activities. That is, people just naturally like doing certain things. The way a big light shining on a dark wall can fake us into thinking it's a portal into another world is one example. People like to gather together and admire this phenomenon. People like to dissect how the artist achieves the illusion. People like to see it with their friends and share it. People like to make out in the back.
Movie chains did not invent this social activity, they merely use it. Movie chains do not determine how we like to socialize, they merely take advantage of the fact that we do.
Movies are a cultural activity. Why then only apply economic theory to movie theaters? Instead of just saying, private enterprise has the right to do what it wants, why not say, people in general have the right to do what they want?
The standard answer would be, economic theory, capitalism specifically, has been shown to provide efficient solutions to economic problems. Which is a non-sequitur, because that wasn't the question. The question was, why shouldn't people be allowed to socialize as they want, unfettered? If movie chains want to cater to that fine, but by what social thinking are movie chains allowed to dictate how we socialize? Being subject to a non-safety search probably affects the social aspect of the experience.
Realistically, this is the way things are right now, there's not much we can do. But I disagree that the application of market theory to cultural activities makes any sense. Saying that customers can vote with their feet misses the point, people don't want to go do something else. It's just that, there's no way to quantify how that aggravation compares to the theaters' profits.
Re:uhh....wait....what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Depends (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:If you let them search you,you LET them search (Score:2)
They have been doing this for eons for concerts. A lady friend asked me how get her camera into a concert. I told her to put it in her bra. She was gifted by nature to pull it off.
Another friend used to sneak recording devices in concerts under his GFs short skirt taped to her legs. There are some places that are not to be touched by a man or
Public humiliation is the core of the suit. (Score:2)
Either she wanted to see whatever movie so badly that she subjected herself to it, or she just wanted a reason to sue someone for $60k.
This is about humiliation. The first part was being tricked - there was no posting outside, you just got the choice to be searched or lose your tickets. Second, options are humiliating. Searches are usually reserved for people caught red handed committing a crime. "Show us the Maxi Pads or leave, lady." How nice. The attendant might have been rude.
$60,000 is littl
Re:If you let them search you,you LET them search (Score:2)
It is like a country club having a dress code that specifically excludes the garments minorities commonly wear and then claiming to be open to the public. Maybe the theater knows that people with herpes medication in their pack or sex toys purchased at a local shop in the same mall or whatever else, will not come inside and t
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
On the other hand, they can make the search a condition of entry. Private property and all that.