Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
typodupeerror delete not in
  • Preferences

Comments: 374 + -   Canadian Theatre Chain Sued for Abusive Search on Monday July 30 2007, @11:27PM

Posted by kdawson on Monday July 30 2007, @11:27PM
from the get-a-detector dept.
court
government
media
movies
news
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."
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Canadian Theatre Chain Sued for Abusive Search 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Good Lord. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ushering05401 (1086795) on Monday July 30 2007, @11:29PM (#20052601)
    Anyone willing to watch a camcorder bootleg of a movie is not going to shell out for the product anyhow.

    I hope this lady wins.

    Regards.

    • Re:Good Lord. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by flayzernax (1060680) on Monday July 30 2007, @11:43PM (#20052749)
      The problem is she won't win VS Hollywood The oil industry already did something worse then ban camcorders in alberta http://www.brightcove.com/channel.jsp?channel=5981 99&lineup=987200225&firstVideo=0 [brightcove.com] The problem is Canadian politicians are selling out to the highest bidder, "In the name of progress"...

      • Re:Good Lord. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Curtman (556920) on Tuesday July 31 2007, @06:51AM (#20055089)

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

        The Conservative party has a long history of selling out to the Americans. It shouldn't surprise anybody anymore. Just expect it when you cast your ballot for them.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by waynelorentz (662271)

      which comes after the Canadian government caved to US pressure and enacted anti-camcording legislation."
      Geez, it only took the Canuks what... like two seconds... to blame the 'States?

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

    • Re:Good Lord. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by westlake (615356) on Tuesday July 31 2007, @01:08AM (#20053339)
      Anyone willing to watch a camcorder bootleg of a movie is not going to shell out for the product anyhow.

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

    • Re:Good Lord. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by igb (28052) on Tuesday July 31 2007, @01:28AM (#20053433)
      It's getting insane in the UK too. I don't like watching films at home, and attend a cinema most weeks. My regular companion goes several times a week (our combined ages total 97: we are not the standard demographic). Between us we probably rack up ~150 attendances a year. For a variety of not very good reasons we haven't purchased an unlimited films for twelve quid a month pass, we don't have Orange phones and we don't go on Wednesdays: we we're paying rack rate.

      The screens are rarely full. We've paid our way. And yet we're subjected, week in and week out, to endless tedious trails about the evils of piracy, the low quality of bootleg DVDs, the illegality of filming, etc, etc. We've paid out money: pretty much by definition, we're not your prime enemy for the copy trade. In the UK it's highly arguable if using a camcorder in a cinema is a criminal (rather than civil) offence, and the chances of going to gaol are approximately zero. So why hassle your audience, and piss them off?

      And anyway, no-one pirates minority films. The main trade is in big blockbusters, which have merchandise associated. The bootleg gets children buying that just as well as the cinema.

      An anecdote. I was at a folk festival, Thursday--Sunday. Most people arrived late Thursday afternoon. At a workshop on Friday, someone was able to use that `Spiderpig' thing from the Simpsons Movie as an exercise, and every child knew it. TSM opened on Thursday. Had everyone (a) as I did, attended one of the handful of cinemas that previewed it on Wednesday (b) walked in the rain into central Cambridge the previous evening or (c) seen a bootleg? Given the hideous middle-classery of the event, and the assumption the answer is (c), what does this say about the hearts and minds issue?

      • Spiderpig (Score:3, Informative)

        by jamesh (87723)
        If anyone has seen the trailer they'll know all about spiderpig. There are several clips on youtube too which are just doctored trailer footage.

    • Re:Good Lord. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2007, @01:32AM (#20053459)
      That might be the case in the US or other Zone 1 countries..

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

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

      • Re:Good Lord. (Score:5, Funny)

        by RuBLed (995686) on Tuesday July 31 2007, @01:51AM (#20053549)
        but look on the bright side, the version of simpsons the movie you just watched contains a laugh track.

          • Re:Good Lord. (Score:4, Insightful)

            by nyekulturniy (413420) on Tuesday July 31 2007, @06:45AM (#20055053)
            Why is anti-piracy "bs?" Movies cost money to make. People put time and money into making these products, and they have a right to be compensated for their services. People sink money into real estate, projectors, wages, insurance, and popcorn equipment, and they have the right to be compensated for their services. We aren't talking Brad Pitt and his $30 million for a picture; we're talking about the film technicians and the movie theater employees, neither of which are on the gravy train. Those are the ones piracy hurts.

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

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

            • Re:Good Lord. (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Darkinspiration (901976) on Tuesday July 31 2007, @06:55AM (#20055113)
              Then why the heck do i have to suffer fbi warning, and unskippable commercials on a bought dvd movie? pirates don't have to suffer that. that's why it's called bullshit

                • Re:Good Lord. (Score:5, Insightful)

                  by MysteriousPreacher (702266) on Tuesday July 31 2007, @09:43AM (#20056611) Journal
                  You can't blame the player, it's just respecting the settings on the disc. It's the creator of the disc that is responsible. Consumers should not have to hunt around for a specific type of DVD player just so they can skip this junk.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            • Re:Good Lord. (Score:5, Insightful)

              by vertinox (846076) on Tuesday July 31 2007, @09:54AM (#20056781)
              People put time and money into making these products, and they have a right to be compensated for their services.

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

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

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

                  • Re:Good Lord. (Score:4, Insightful)

                    by FLEB (312391) on Tuesday July 31 2007, @10:54AM (#20057535) Homepage Journal
                    Yeah, but I'm not dealing with legal systems, nor am I concerned with the degrees of legal retribution.

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

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Fizzl (209397)
        Same here. I have last been into movies -92.
        Why in the hell I would like to watch a movie with hundreds of assholes I don't even know?

        Possible SPOILERS follow.

        Actually. I didn't like The Simpsons movie all that much. I would have preferred more "moviesque" script. It seemed like a stretched out episode. Or perhaps episode segments from three shows mashed up together. I'm not sure if it was wholly intentional, but it seemed like rehash of 3F24 (The Mysterious Voyage of Homer). The short nods at previous epis

  • Search me? (Score:5, Funny)

    by gooman (709147) on Monday July 30 2007, @11:37PM (#20052691) Journal
    Is that a camcorder in your pocket or are you just happy to see the movie?

  • Definition of Invasive (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Belacgod (1103921) on Monday July 30 2007, @11:54PM (#20052877)
    I'd have liked to see a definition of invasive. Did they strip-search her? Poke around in her bags? How invasive was this anyway?

  • Calm Yourselves (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2007, @12:27AM (#20053137)
    This search has nothing to do with the Canadian government but theatre owners. The infamous Bill C-59 (http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publicat ion.aspx?DocId=2993072&Language=e&Mode=1&File=24) is not law yet and gives no additional rights for anyone to search anyone for anything.

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

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

  • Use technology to not inconvenience her (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ang31us (1132361) on Tuesday July 31 2007, @12:29AM (#20053149) Homepage
    If she's hot enough, I would use infrared camera [wikipedia.org] to search her bag and see through her clothes (to make sure she's not hiding a camera, of course).

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

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

  • And to think... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DwarfGoanna (447841) on Tuesday July 31 2007, @12:38AM (#20053205)
    I saw a guy walking out with a camera bag when I was leaving The Simpsons last weekend. Clearly, we have an Invasive Search Gap with our neighbor to the north.

  • beat them (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 31 2007, @01:14AM (#20053365)
    I was ejected from a movie theatre after manhandling one of the 14 year old movie drones. he actually reached out and felt a bulge in my vest pocket! (Manitoba btw). I was shocked, first reaction was to shove him into the wall rather hard. Manager came over, got my money back, and was asked to leave.

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

    • Re:beat them (Score:4, Insightful)

      by pev (2186) on Tuesday July 31 2007, @05:49AM (#20054779) Homepage
      So... You were assaulted by a member of the staff and then meekly left when asked to leave? You could have stood your ground, asked for a refund of the fee and then watched the film with some free popcorn in return for not pressing charges. That would have been fair and a reasonable application of the law to stop over-zealous idiots...

      ~Pev

  • Opening Weekends (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Enderandrew (866215) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `werdnaredne'> on Tuesday July 31 2007, @01:27AM (#20053429) Homepage Journal
    I have never once witnessed a bag being searched going to a movie, and maybe the reason it is starting to happen in Canada is because of the number of camcorder pirates. Honestly, these guys irk me. I know plenty of people who stopped going to theaters because of how easy it is to download movies the week they open, free of charge on your computer. I think The Hulk was the first film they made a big deal about this, but there have been several cases where a film was either leaked during opening weekend, or before, and then the film makes considerably less money that weekend than was initially expected. When a company loses potentially tens of millions of dollars in a weekend because of a leak, people are going to get pissed, and at the moment it is hard to suggest that the whole thing is harmless.

    People suggest the only people who would pirate are those who wouldn't buy it in the first place, and I know that just isn't true. For many people, pirating often comes down to how easy or difficult it is. Once a process is simpler, more people do it.

    I have a hefty DVD collection, but I still enjoy the theater experience on the whole. It isn't the screen or audio (I like my TV and sound system) but rather being surrounded by an excited group who have been geeking out in anticipation of a movie. As fewer people are going to the movies, prices are going up to compensate. So while others are downloading movies, I get to pay for it.

    Look, go catch a matinée, or wait until there is a cheap release of the DVD. My video store down the street usually has a 3 for 25$ deal going and I load up on those. I'm not advocating searches or harassment, and I hope theaters don't actually continue such tactics. But if people weren't bringing camcorders in the first place, no one would be pushing for searches.

    • Re:Opening Weekends (Score:5, Insightful)

      by thetoastman (747937) on Tuesday July 31 2007, @04:53AM (#20054515)

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

      In summary, you are wrong.

      In detail then . . .

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

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

      1. Poor product
      2. Poor movie going experience

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Re:uhh....wait....what? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 30 2007, @11:37PM (#20052695)
      Wasn't this search voluntary?

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

        • Re:uhh....wait....what? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by sumdumass (711423) on Tuesday July 31 2007, @12:27AM (#20053131) Journal
          I don't know. Most movie theaters around here (I'm not in Canada) are in malls and most people go shopping in malls (even when catching a flick). I don't think it would be out of the ordinary to sea people with two or three bags from different vendors. If the movie was one of the later ones, the shops would probably have been closed like they are in my area.

          I wouldn't mind the search if it was up front and I was told about it when buying my tickets. But if it was inside the theater and after I went past the part where they rip the tickets in half and by some dumbass who treats you like your a shoplifter or something, I would have a serious problem with it.

          I have/had a rather large cell phone with a clip on it and after losing it several times, I turn it around to where the phone is inside my pants pocket and the clip hangs on the outside. I had some punk at a department store accuse me of shoplifting after hanging up from a call. (This was in the mid 90's). None the less, I showed him the cell phone and it should have been dropped at that but he insisted that I empty everything in my pockets then attempted to take me by force to the management's office. I turned around and started walking out of the store and an off duty cop they rented stopped me. I told him he would have to arrest me and he put me in cuffs right there in front of every one.

          Ok, long story short. I never got charged with anything because it was just my phone, about $40 and some change in my pockets and an over zealous stock boy. I guess the store gave their employees $100 plus the price of whatever was stolen if they catch a shoplifter. I sued the store for the embarrassment and hassle for $500, lawyer fees (who said I would probably lose) and the largest article in the local newspapers that they could buy to advertise an apology to me. The judge increased the the $500 to $10,000 and made them place a sign at the front of the store so everyone going in would know they messed up. I hear they did the same to someone else who got about $150,000 or so a couple years later from the same judge. I was 19 or 20 and almost lost a job paying twice as much as the normal in the area for the time because someone in management saw it happen and said they needed trust worthey employees working with them.

          If what happened in Canada is even close to what happened to me, the $60,000 could be some normal number that something like this usually carries. It could have been her attorney asking for it more then her. I guess the judges and juries, at least in America, can increase the amount asked for under some conditions like the store encouraging the behavior. I hope that if it was something like what happened to me, they throw a couple of 1's and 0' around the $60,000 and makes the theater really think twice about how they handle people.

    • Re:uhh....wait....what? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by GoodbyeBlueSky1 (176887) <.moc.liamtoh. .ta. .sknabXeoj.> on Tuesday July 31 2007, @12:19AM (#20053089)
      Okay, it's one thing when I get frisked going to a ballgame. I accept it on the slim chance it could prevent a violent person doing something stupid in a place with lots of people. I still don't like it, but I sort of understand it. But a movie theater? And a search for something as violently dangerous as a video camera? That is beyond absurd.

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

    • Depends (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Sycraft-fu (314770)
      Perhaps they didn't do a good job making it clear that it was voluntary. I've seen places that really skirt the edges of the law when it comes to private security and such. They do as much to make them look like cops as possible and try to give the impression that when they tell you something, you've no right to refuse. Thus if the theatre did that I could see how they'd be in trouble. As far as I'm concerned they should have to state something like "We want to search you and/or your belongings prior to thi

      • Re:uhh....wait....what? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by grub (11606) <slashdot@grub.net> on Monday July 30 2007, @11:38PM (#20052707) Homepage Journal
        Not excessive. In Canada privacy is taken very seriously, to the point of having a Privacy Commissioner in government. What if the woman had some meds in her bag for herpes or other potentially embarrassing problem? What if it were you? Would you want some pimply faced kid going through your personal stuff?

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Safiire Arrowny (596720)
            Why wouldn't you carry whatever you wanted in your bag, and then tell someone who wanted to look in it to piss off and leave the premises?

      • Re:uhh....wait....what? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by FreeKill (1020271) on Monday July 30 2007, @11:49PM (#20052821) Homepage
        I agree, I don't think it's excessive, the number is there to make a point. The point is, the theater chains are going WAY overboard for an issue that is only an issue by propagandizing anyway. I think we are witnessing the death of the theater. As some said over at the Michael Geist site, who wants to go to a theater and be subjected to huge lines, searches, unsanitary conditions, and unassigned seating (aka huge waits while being beat in the head with ads) to see a movie they can purchase for life for $20.00 in 4 months? As the release to DVD gap begins to close, so too will the doors of the theater chains...

        • Re:uhh....wait....what? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by arth1 (260657) on Monday July 30 2007, @11:55PM (#20052883) Homepage Journal
          If the point is to punish the theatre, wouldn't a fine work just as well? What has this woman done to deserve $60,000?

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

          • Re:uhh....wait....what? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by FreeKill (1020271) on Monday July 30 2007, @11:57PM (#20052907) Homepage
            The problem is that the government isn't doing anything about this stuff, so the lawsuit is the independent citizen version of a fine.

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by Anonymous McCartneyf (1037584)
              The problem is,it's a government mandate that had the theater chain even consider doing this stuff!
              But, even if it had to be done, there are better ways to do it.

          • Re:uhh....wait....what? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by vux984 (928602) on Tuesday July 31 2007, @12:22AM (#20053099)
            What has this woman done to deserve $60,000?

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

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

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

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

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by cdrguru (88047)
          Problem is, DVD's are pirated. Nobody gets any money from those and it shouldn't be too much longer until P2P usage exceeds the capability of WalMart to distribute DVDs to the masses. Sure, it will take faster download speeds than most people have today, but it is certainly coming. And there is no stopping it because the materials will be stored offshore.

          So why would I go to a theater and pay $10 for a ticket when I can download the movie in an evening for nothing? And probably download it even before i

          • Well, except you are completely wrong (Score:4, Informative)

            by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Tuesday July 31 2007, @02:40AM (#20053847)
            DVD sales have long ago surpassed theatre sales for where the money is made. Many movies lose at the box office but make it into the back after going out to DVD. Some never get a chance in the theatre but become successful on video all the same (Boondock Saints). Thus far the numbers do NOT bear out that P2P is hurting legit sales. In fact the one and only proper, scientific, peer reviewed study shows no impact (http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_Marc h2004.pdf). This seems to be supported by the fact that despite their crying about rampant piracy, media companies are not only not going out of business, they are posting healthy profits.

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

          • Re:uhh....wait....what? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Isotopian (942850) on Tuesday July 31 2007, @02:47AM (#20053879)
            As a manager of a large movie theatre, I participate in the annual NATO [natoonline.org] (National Association of Theatre Owners) meetings, and I can tell you legitimately that the industry heads are not particularly worried about downloaders. What they ARE worried about, are the sophisticated rings of people who record a movie with state of the art miniaturized cameras, upload it to DVD fab plants in Malasia, and press literally millions of bootleg DVDs in a matter of a night or two, and have them shipped back out and on street corners by the end of the film's opening weekend. Downloaders are a different demographic and situation entirely from bootleggers. In general, a sold bootleg DVD is a loss of sale for a theatre, while a downloaded movie is kind of breaking even - either the person will like the movie and go see it, like it but be too cheap to go see it, or not like it and not go see it. You don't hear much about the MPAA suing everyone they can get their hands on - mostly because they learn from their impetuous brother the RIAA, and realized that you won't improve your business via suing, you actually have to accept some losses, fight the ones you can, and do your damndest to make movie going an enjoyable experience.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by oliderid (710055)
              Well personnally I don't understand how these craps can be so worried for the industry.

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

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

            • Re:uhh....wait....what? (Score:4, Insightful)

              by vadim_t (324782) on Tuesday July 31 2007, @06:55AM (#20055119) Homepage
              What bullshit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by TheRaven64 (641858)
            I already rarely go to the cinema due to the obscene prices, offensive FACT adverts, and excessive number of other ads, but if they started doing this kind of thing in the UK, rarely would turn into never. Then, the movie industry would blame falling cinema attendance on piracy. In a way, they'd be right, but only in that it was caused by their responses to perceived piracy.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by stinerman (812158)
        Indeed. Take it from "Adult film producer" -- there is usually a contract involved with inserting any bodily part into a woman's vagina.

      • Re:uhh....wait....what? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by xero314 (722674) on Tuesday July 31 2007, @12:55AM (#20053293)

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

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

        • Re:uhh....wait....what? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by florescent_beige (608235) on Tuesday July 31 2007, @02:57AM (#20053937) Journal

          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)

            by xero314 (722674) on Tuesday July 31 2007, @04:37AM (#20054429)

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

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

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

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Brian Gordon (987471)
        hacker ethic applied to government = anarchy by the way... everyone's favorite form of government until they realize that nobody else has to obey any stupid rules either and suddenly it's back to living in castles and giving up a couple freedoms for safety, and etc etc you get the picture

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mark-t (151149)

        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

Search
If the path be beautiful, let us not ask where it leads. -- Anatole France

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.