Theaters On Prescreenings: Bring Your Firearms, But No Mobile Phones

from the priorities,-people! dept

Mon, Sep 26th 2011 12:28pm — Mike Masnick

For many years, we've heard various stories of how anyone who attends an early movie screening (i.e., before the movie has actually been widely released), should expect to be treated like a total criminal. The usual stories involve being searched carefully and being required to hand over all mobile phones, which will be held until the end of the film. Reader minerat writes in to tell us of his story, which involved going to a 7:30pm showing of Moneyball last week -- just a few hours before the movie was actually being released. Even so... same process. "Security made everyone give up their cell phones and checked all bags." And, it appears that security had their priorities straight from the MPAA:

The better part is after we gave up our phones, another security guard waves a metal detecting wand over us and we had to empty our pockets on any hits. My friend has a license to carry a firearm and was carrying - we thought this would be a problem (it's a center city Philadelphia theater), but no, he didn't care about his loaded handgun. Apparently a cameraphone is the bigger threat to a movie that will be publicly released 2 hours after we step out of the theater. Of course the DVD screener has been available on usenet for 3+ months.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: criminals, fans, guns, movies, phones, pre-screening

84 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Skeptical Cynic (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 11:47am

Yeah so?
When the MPAA get involved, logic and/or reason is required to be left at the door.

Quote from the NDA you must sign:
Watch only if will agree to the terms below which you will see after the movie is over.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 12:18pm

Re: Yeah so?
TIME PARADOX!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Skeptical Cynic (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 12:29pm

Re: Re: Yeah so?
MPAA click wrap paradox.

"Also BSA paradox on the click-wrap agreements"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2011 @ 12:33pm

guns don't kill people, phones do
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nathan F (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 12:35pm

Blast from the Past
Many years ago while I was still in college I went to a Con that was being held in the Dallas Fort Worth Airport convention center and it was connected to the airport via a skybridge. A bunch of us got hungry and decided to go visit the food court in the airport so we had to pass through security. The guards at the x-ray scanner/metal detector had no problems with my bringing a lock blade fighting knife, but pitched a fit about the plastic disposable camera.

This was way back in the late 90s so there was little in the way of modern security theater.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2011 @ 12:42pm

Standard Mike Masnick stuff here.

The gun isn't relevant to the discussion, they were not being checked for "security" issues. They were being checked for anything that can leak the movie. The gun (or lack of a gun) wouldn't matter to them.

I guess Mike your logic is they should just give up, and give away their movies for free because they are out there anyway?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2011 @ 12:44pm

I normally agree with you Mike, but I'm also a firm Second Amendment supporter. I fail to see what the gun has to do with anything. Stop fear mongering. You're better than that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AdamR (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 12:52pm

Re:
"The gun isn't relevant to the discussion, they were not being checked for "security" issues. They were being checked for anything that can leak the movie. The gun (or lack of a gun) wouldn't matter to them.+

Never heard of a gun video/camera? It's all the rage now there a hidden new feature in most guns just go to your local gun shop and pick one and point the barrel at yourself and pull the trigger.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 12:53pm

Re:
Read the article please/
"Of course the DVD screener has been available on usenet for 3+ months." - It had already been leaked.
"Apparently a cameraphone is the bigger threat to a movie that will be publicly released 2 hours after we step out of the theater" - The movie was going to be publicly released straight after the early screening, so it wouldn't have mattered if he had cammed it or not.
"The gun (or lack of a gun) wouldn't matter to them." So...what if the guy didn't have a license to carry? Or had somehow stuffed a bazooka up his ass? Are you actually saying that these "security" guards should ignore ALL weapons simply because its a movie theater?
In the future, if you disagree with Mike, please have something decent, coherent and logical to say.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A Dan (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 12:55pm

Re:
I think it's not fear mongering, it's pointing out the irony of security equipment that is normally used to screen for weapons being used to screen for video devices and not weapons (implying that the video devices are far more dangerous).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 1:00pm

Re: Re: Pen Is!`
Well, how's that go: "The pen is mightier than the sword." ...?

I suppose in the modern age the camera/phone has replaced the pen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Henry, 26 Sep 2011 @ 1:05pm

You're missing the point
Rikuo, the little details aren't what he's trying to speak on. The point he is making is that the gun is totally irrelevant. The only issue here worth commenting on is the wackiness of caring so much about a phone being snuck in when the movie has been online--the gun was just mentioned as a strange and irrelevant point of reference.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2011 @ 1:09pm

My friend has a license to carry a firearm and was carrying - we thought this would be a problem (it's a center city Philadelphia theater), but no, he didn't care about his loaded handgun.

"Didn't care" as in, "was fine with it since the guy showed him his license", or "didn't care" as in "flat-out ignored"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
crade (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 1:09pm

Re:
Whether they give up or not is not relevent to the discussion. They are being useless bothersome asses and not doing any good. Giving up or not giving up doesn't matter.

I guess your logic is that just claiming to be fighting piracy means we should have infinite patience for uselessness, incompetence and annoyance?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Designerfx (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 1:10pm

Re:
I don't know about you, but I care a whole lot more about someone being asked to check a gun at the entrance than carrying a phone into the theatre.

meanwhile, you are correct - they should give up the movies, because they aren't even worth *seeing*, either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cowardly Anon, 26 Sep 2011 @ 1:15pm

Re:
If Mike released an article about how the sky was blue, would you post a comment trying to discredit him?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cowardly Anon, 26 Sep 2011 @ 1:17pm

Re: Re: Re: Pen Is!`
And the sword replaced with a loaded gun. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 1:21pm

Re: You're missing the point
I wouldn't call a loaded weapon irrelevant. Just to put things in context, I've never seen a real gun in my life and I'm in my 20's. They're not exactly common in my country.
What I meant was that from the article, we're told that this guy had to leave behind his phone and any/all other recording equipment, detected using equipment normally used to ferret out guns. but that quote "but no, he didn't care about his loaded handgun" implies that the guard took one quick glance at the gun and then ignored it.
Did the guard ask to see if he had a license to carry? (if only a police officer can legally ask this question, then feel free to correct me). It strikes me as being stupid and against common sense to be so dead set on making sure this guy doesn't bring in a camera, but a gun? No, that's irrelevant, let him bring it in, don't check if he's allowed...why, if he shoots up the place, just say you were told to check for cameras and cameras only.

Just to clarify: I'm not saying minerat is a maniac, but that this security should have treated a gun-carrier with a little bit of caution. Not just totally ignored the fact he was carrying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beta (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 1:27pm

Re: Re:
"So...what if the guy didn't have a license to carry? Or had somehow stuffed a bazooka up his ass?"

Are you advocating cavity searches at movie theatres? Let's try to stay serious for a moment here.

"Are you actually saying that these "security" guards should ignore ALL weapons simply because its a movie theater?"

If they see something that looks illegal they can call the police. If they see something that looks like a violation of theatre policy, they can ask the patron to leave-- but they'd better be sure they're on solid legal ground. Otherwise, yes, they should ignore it. I usually carry knife into the movie theatre (and everywhere else I go), and that really isn't the business of the staff.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 1:34pm

Re:
I guess Mike your logic is they should just give up, and give away their movies for free because they are out there anyway?

Gues you've never heard of "Locking the stable door after the horse has bolted."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2011 @ 1:36pm

Re:
Didn't care are in "it isn't relevant to the story here". It's just Mike trying to come up with a way to try to make the MPAA people look bad.

Standard stuff, really. It's FUD.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MAC, 26 Sep 2011 @ 1:47pm

Re: Re: Re:
2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I believe that this is covered by the 'and bear Arms' clause which makes in my opinion, all laws restricting carring guns illegal (conceled or otherwise).

Now, in practicality, it seems that a lot of vocal people are willing to trade Freedom for security. They deserve neither.

Freedom is not free. It is paid for in blood and if lost, will have to be paid for in blood again.

Guns have kept us more or less, Free for over 300 years.

They have their downsides as anyone who has lost someone to an idiot weilding a firearm knows but just remember this; the gun did not kill anyone, it was the person who pulled the trigger and that is not a constitutional issue, it's a criminal one.

By the by, I carry a Buck folding hunter everywhere I go and a Dan Wesson 357 mag sometimes (I have a gun totin permit). Not because I want to shoot someone or something but in today's society I don't want to regret not having it. Boy Scout motto: Be Prepared.

A few people like me would have come in handy on the flights on 911; I know I would have done something to stop them. Even if the plane did crash. I'm not going to stand by and watch some rag-top cut a stewardesses throat. I don't care what he's got, bomb, knife, gun... Do that in front of me and it's on. That goes for practically any situation and anyone.

If had more citizens that thought this way the bad guys would think twice about pulling something. And get what they deserve if they did...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DCX2, 26 Sep 2011 @ 1:53pm

Re: Yeah so?
Only neutrinos would be able to accept such terms...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2011 @ 1:54pm

Mike doesn't have to come up with stuff to make the MPAA people look bad. They readily supply all the fodder one could possibly ask for to do that themselves.

One of the problems of the MAFIAA is that they have lost touch with their customer. Used to be that CEOs were connected to the business they ran. Either they had acting backgrounds or they had music/artist backgrounds.

It showed in their ticket sales too! They called it the Heyday.

Today it's the accountants and lawyers that run these organizations. The accountants understand 'make it cheaper and sell it at a higher price'. So high as in the previous article no one is buying. The lawyers understand 'take it to court'. They don't understand customer/artist relations beyond screwing everyone that does business with them.

Between the two groups running the entertainment industry, no one has a good opinion and damn few are buying. It's a prime example of how to run a business in the ground.

Don't piss on your customer and expect him to be grateful. Do it long enough and your business will hit the skids. Any of this sound familiar with what is going on today for the trolls?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Miff (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 1:54pm

Re: Yeah so?
Wouldn't that be considered a change to the contract?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2011 @ 2:00pm

Re:
C'mon now you expect the MAFIAA to see the obvious?

They are blind they can't see anything, they also are deaf.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2011 @ 2:01pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't care what he's got, bomb, knife, gun... Do that in front of me and it's on.

Actually, the attackers on 9/11 were far more competent, thoughtful, practiced and intelligent than you are. No doubt they would disarm you easily and quickly, as would anyone who is reasonably well-trained in basic martial arts.

One of the common myths that gun-owners like to tell themselves is that they'll be able to use them for defense should the need arise. This is unlikely. What is far more likely is that attackers will prevent them from ever getting their hands on their guns. This is especially true if the attackers have the element of surprise, which of course most competent attackers know. Gun-owners, having misplaced faith in their own abilities, judgment, and reflexes, almost always fail to anticipate this and really are, in many ways, easier victims to subdue because they're reliant on a single mode of defense. They'd be far better off putting down their guns, their cheetos, and their beers, and spending 2 hours 3X a week in a basic martial arts class.

But of course...that's hard work. It takes dedication. It takes committment. It takes an admission that one is weak. It takes a willingness to do something difficult. And these are not qualities we find in gun-owners; they want the easy way, the quick fix, and they want to grandstand about "defending their rights" when in fact they're far more defenseless than they fantasize being.

Now...I know (at least) one of the gun-owner types is going to object to this and claim that they're the exception, that they'd always react quickly enough, that they'd see the attacker, etc. There is no reaching such people: their self-delusion is beyond rational thought. They will continue believing this until the moment when it's too late...which is a pity, but there's nothing to be done for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lbwmoo (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 2:08pm

I don't know the local carry ordinances for Philly, but here in Texas a surprising number of theaters have a 30.06 posted on entrances. What it boils down to is that even if one is licensed to carry concealed, for which there are checks, testing, etc, any establishment that posts ordinance 30.06 in it's full text on the entrance has legally barred the carry of concealed weapons. Generally this is found at schools, hospitals, etc, but I've been seeing them on every movie theater now that I'm looking, after seeing it on one a few years ago.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Doe, 26 Sep 2011 @ 2:16pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow, you are even more deluded than you claim the gun owners to be. Many, many gun carriers practice with their guns very often and would drop you in your tracks the instant you took a move toward them. The fight would be over before it started. Please, whatever you do, do not try to disarm someone unless you are sure your life depends on it. You will likely get yourself or someone around you shot and/or killed.

You also mention the element of surprise, that is exaclty why people carry concealed. So please, don't bring a knife, er karate to a gun fight.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cameron`, 26 Sep 2011 @ 2:24pm

So what is the problem?
What is a surprise to you the phone is more obnoxious, dangerous and annoying that a loaded handgun ever was. Also remember that you have no rite to the cell phone other than your right to private property ad the handgun is every citizens right and dare I say responsibility to carry. OK you were in Phili and maybe in that hole you are just use to the crime however protecting one's self creates a halo effect that protects us all. More responsible armed citizens, less cell phones and I think we would all be happier healthier safer and wiser, also we will just look better to the opposite sex
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 2:27pm

Hypothetical liability
Consider the following hypothetical situation.

Large dense mass of people in a dark room, distracted by movie, and they have all checked all means of communication at the door.

An unstable person with weapon(s) opens fire into the crowd in the dark room.

What kind of panic would ensue?

Would there be any liability for having taken away everyone's phones but allowing in a person with a gun?

(and yes, I do understand that some people with firearms are reasonable, stable, law abiding people who would never do or condone such a thing.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Doe, 26 Sep 2011 @ 2:27pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But of course...that's hard work. It takes dedication. It takes committment. It takes an admission that one is weak. It takes a willingness to do something difficult. And these are not qualities we find in gun-owners; they want the easy way, the quick fix, and they want to grandstand about "defending their rights" when in fact they're far more defenseless than they fantasize being

Wow, I just reread your post and just could not believe this part of it. Admitting you are weak is exactly why gun owners carry guns. It is also why they practice at the range with their guns. You come across as someone very arrogant and very sure that you will come out on top in a fight. You should definitley take your own advice here. It is the over confident that fall first and you are definitely in that category.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MondoGordo, 26 Sep 2011 @ 2:29pm

Guns OK !! Video recorders not!!
Um ... makes perfect sense ... the MPAA doesn't care about people... only about piracy ... and it's pretty much impossible to record a movie with a 9mm semi-auto.

on the other hand ... think of the market this opens up for making digital camcorders in the shape of a 1911A .45 ... those pirates will just smnap them up. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2011 @ 2:31pm

Re:
So then why does Mike seem intent on posting these pointless stories? If he is trying to make the MPAA look bad, it's not working, all he is doing is making the smarter people wonder what else he is "cooking" to make look better / worse (depending on his need).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2011 @ 2:32pm

As it takes a background check and training to get a concealed carry permit in Philadelphia I too would not worry about some one with a legal pistol, hell in Philly you can carry one openly if you wish to.
I am glad to see that it's not a problem except for the scardy cats who think someone with a pistol permit is some kind of unhinged bad guy.
After all the bad guys don't bother to get the permit to carry.
I would rather be in a room with someone with a legal gun than someone who can only take my picture as I get robbed and beaten.
So what's the point of this story.
Remember where it says "The Right Of The People" in the Bill Of Rights, that means you and I.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 2:45pm

Re: Re:
Do you even know what FUD stands for? Not every opinion you disagree with is FUD . . .
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 2:46pm

Re: Re:
If he is trying to make the MPAA look bad, it's not working
Only because they already have no credibility.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rekrul, 26 Sep 2011 @ 2:51pm

Re: Re:
I don't know about you, but I care a whole lot more about someone being asked to check a gun at the entrance than carrying a phone into the theatre.

Here's something to consider; Today, most schools prohibit anyone from carrying guns on school property, even if the person has a valid permit. Has that stopped school shootings? Or has it just insured that the victims will be unarmed?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Groove Tiger (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 2:52pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Martial arts should never be considered a weapon. So reads ancient Chinese saying: there's nothing like a good revolver.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Groove Tiger (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 2:55pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Pen Is!`
What if he had used the gun to force the manager to relinquish the movie reels?

Maybe security should screen people for hidden eyepatches instead.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Andrew, 26 Sep 2011 @ 2:57pm

Re: Blast from the Past
This wasn't Project A-Kon by any chance was is?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rekrul, 26 Sep 2011 @ 3:02pm

Re:
What it boils down to is that even if one is licensed to carry concealed, for which there are checks, testing, etc, any establishment that posts ordinance 30.06 in it's full text on the entrance has legally barred the carry of concealed weapons. Generally this is found at schools, hospitals, etc, but I've been seeing them on every movie theater now that I'm looking, after seeing it on one a few years ago.

Ask Suzanna Hupp how well those laws work at protecting people;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanna_Hupp
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chosen Reject (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 3:18pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
they want to grandstand about "defending their rights" when in fact they're far more defenseless than they fantasize being.
I think you're confusing two issues here. There's defending your rights and there's defending your life. Martial arts can be used to great effect to defend your life, but is less useful when it comes to defending your rights. By all means, George Washington could only be made that much cooler if he round-house kicked King George after a long, epic, martial arts filled battle to the death atop some dangerous precipice, but alas, we are left with a far more mundane history.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Forge, 26 Sep 2011 @ 3:43pm

Re: Re:
I checked usenet. Unless it was very oddly named, it's not on there. There were some BS fakes posted a few months ago, but they follow the very obvious "RAR with a RAR and 'Get password.url' inside".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JMT (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 4:11pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Many, many gun carriers practice with their guns very often and would drop you in your tracks the instant you took a move toward them."

This right here is the "misplaced faith in their own abilities, judgement, and reflexes" that was referred to. Do those "many, many gun carriers" actually practice reacting to being attacked, or just practise shooting at paper targets? Do you really think that someone who would "drop you in your tracks the instant you took a move toward them" is a suitable person to be carrying a gun?

The huge, glaring fail in the gun self-defence argument is that very few people outside of law enforcement, military and professional security would have the training and experience to react safely and effectively to anything but the most ham-fisted of attacks. There's a very real chance that your average gun carrier will either get shot first, lose the gun to the attacker before even bringing it to bear, or will shoot an innocent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JMT (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 4:16pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is also why they practice at the range with their guns.

How many attackers stand perfectly still while you assume a steady, comfortable stance and take careful aim at the circles painted on their chest?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2011 @ 4:28pm

Re:
Awesome. Then the bad guys know they'll be the only ones armed.

If I owned a business, I'd put up signs asking people with CCW permits to PLEASE come on in. Hell I'd give em discounts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2011 @ 5:03pm

Re: Re:
For that the MPAA doesn't need Mike's help, they do a might fine job by themselves already.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2011 @ 5:09pm

Re:
So a movie leaked months before in DVD quality is trying not to have a screener that is less in quality than the DVD leak released?

That makes a lot of sense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 26 Sep 2011 @ 5:10pm

Re: Guns have kept us more or less, Free for over 300 years.
Have they, indeed? Yet they kill more of you than they do any other nation on Earth. And you traffic them to neighbouring countries, where they kill even more�are your guns keeping the Mexicans �free�, do you think?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 26 Sep 2011 @ 5:11pm

Re: Has that stopped school shootings? Or has it just insured that the victims will be unarmed?
So, before those rules were brought in, were there any successful school shootings where the pupils were able to shoot the shooter?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2011 @ 5:12pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I do remember this scene in Indiana Jones where the guy does some impressive displays in martial arts before it gets shot by Jones.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2011 @ 5:19pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm against guns, but really in close combat quarters anyone with a gun have the advantage.

Unless they are like the guys/girls on the Youtube videos firing and hitting themselves with their own guns.

Funny gun accidents.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaV629VZzzA

That is why you kill children warriors in combat zones and don't let them come close near you, because it doesn't matter how old they are or how experienced they are, they still present a credible and serious threat to your physical well being.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2011 @ 5:27pm

Re: Re: Re:
Most shootings that I know of don't happen face to face, people don't get up and close they wait a moment of distraction or when the guy has is back turned and then shoot the other guy, in that context it wouldn't matter if the guy was armed or not most of them would have died either way with some escaping death because of incompetence of the other shooter or luck which it would have happened if he was carrying a gun or not.
In gang wars all gang members carry guns it doesn't stop them from being killed by the bucket on the streets as current events in Mexico just showed to the world.

I don't like guns.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2011 @ 5:33pm

Re: Re:
Was there no people on the streets armed?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2011 @ 5:37pm

Re: So what is the problem?
What good is a gun against IED?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Doe, 26 Sep 2011 @ 5:48pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The huge, glaring fail in the gun self-defence argument is that very few people outside of law enforcement

Are these the same guys that shoot someone 19 times with no weapon? Or the ones that empty their gun at point blank range and hit nothing? I would far rather depend on a gun than my hands in a life or death situation. In the vast majority of times, no shot is ever fired. Your statements are not born out in the stats, but keep trying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Doe, 26 Sep 2011 @ 5:50pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How many attackers are going to attack you once you have a gun drawn on them? Not many. Of those, you will probably hit many of them, thus narrowing down the chance that you will miss completely or have the gun taken away to as near zero as possible. Please point to facts before you make unfounded guesses.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2011 @ 5:53pm

The gun has NOTHING to do with this "non story". I am against the mpaa and riaa tactics, but this is a totally legit course of action. If you don't like their rules, don't go see their movie.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2011 @ 6:07pm

Re: Re: Re:
It's not there. It was never there. It's BS from the person who's pissed that "phones are more dangerous than guns" even though he clearly states he had a license to carry.

Propaganda BS. Not only MAFIAA can do propaganda...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2011 @ 6:41pm

Darn it!
Now I need a hidden camera that looks like a gun.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2011 @ 8:03pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How many attackers are going to walk up right in front of you and let you draw a weapon on them?

And how many attackers are going to smack you in the back of the head or stab you without you even realizing they're hostile to you?

And how many "attackers" can you actually identify before they have a weapon in lethal range of you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 8:44pm

Re: Re:
" If he is trying to make the MPAA look bad, it's not working, all he is doing is making the smarter people wonder what else he is "cooking" to make look better / worse (depending on his need)."

Their blog sure helps them look like a bastion of sunshine doesn't it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BentFranklin (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 9:23pm

When will the government start prosecuting people for making things like Moneyball?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws.org (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 11:07pm

Re: Re:
LOL, did you actually refer to yourself as "the smarter people"? Yeah, I'm sure that's gonna fly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws.org (profile), 26 Sep 2011 @ 11:08pm

Re:
Check.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Doe, 27 Sep 2011 @ 4:37am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Everything you stated applies to the martial artist too. Most times there are warning signs though and you can decide to draw or not. Or better yet, get out of the situation as fast as possible. Contrary to anti-gunners beliefs, the overwhelming majority of gun owners don't sit around hoping to get to shoot someone. But unlike you, they are prepared if it comes to that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 27 Sep 2011 @ 5:10am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think subject to the definition of a 'militia', gun restrictions make as much sense as any other law. You don't want children, the mentially infirm, or the incurably criminal to have legal access to, and the right to carry, firearms. So there are restrictions.

Of course, most other western countries manage to maintain functional democracies without having to arm their citizens to the teeth - that was more a hallmark of the communist countries. A good democracy doesn't need guns to keep its government honest and under control. So when in the last 300 years have guns 'saved' American democracy?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
minerat (profile), 27 Sep 2011 @ 7:05am

I only mentioned the gun because it's a center city Philadelphia theater and there was a double shooting there last year (http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=7221808). I hadn't been to the theater in a while and assumed the metal detecting wand was part of their response to that incident. It was only after we saw two other people bagging up phones that we realized we had the metal detector was only being used to enforce the no phones rule. It seemed totally ridiculous given the context.

In response to a couple other comments:

The guard didn't care about the gun - I don't think my friend showed his license (as others pointed out, only law enforcement can require you to do so) and I'm not even sure he showed it to the guard - when the wand beeped I think he just said it was his legally registered and licensed firearm and that was it.

I never downloaded the movie, so I don't know for certain if the xvid screener posted to a.b.movies 3 months ago is legit, but it wasn't tagged as password protected like many other crap posts, so I assumed it was good. If not, it doesn't detract from the ridiculousness of all this effort for a movie that was publicly released 2 hours after the viewing and highly likely to be leaked via screener anyway (just like most other Oscar contenders).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2011 @ 9:15am

Re: Guns OK !! Video recorders not!!
And if there was an unstable 9mm semi-auto owner who opened fire on the audience, there would suddenly be a few less pirates to worry about. Brillant!

(and yes, I do understand that most people with firearms are reasonable, stable, law abiding people who would never do or condone such a thing.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeff Rife, 27 Sep 2011 @ 12:10pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Simply put, if someone is threatening my life enough for me to draw a weapon, about 3 seconds after I tell them to get on the ground, if they have done anything threatening (like moving in any direction other than away from me), they have bullets flying at them.

Unless the attacker also has a gun, they aren't threatening me until they are within about 5 yards. Since I can easily hit small moving targets at 20 yards, I don't think a hitting a person is much of a challenge. Some of us do practice snap shots and hitting moving targets.

So, how many attackers will be able to move out of the way before the bullet hits them? Based on Mythbusters testing, the answer is none.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chosen Reject (profile), 27 Sep 2011 @ 3:16pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So when in the last 300 years have guns 'saved' American democracy?
I hate to appear like I'm going after the low hanging fruit here, but how about the American Revolution? That happened less than 300 years ago.

Also, asking whether or not guns have been used is missing the point. The founders of America, who had just recently used guns to overthrow their government, realized that someday the same thing might need to happen again. It's not a matter of has it happened (it has, btw, in the American Revolution), it's a matter of when will it happen again.

Arguments can be made that peaceful revolutions can occur (see Gandhi), or that overbearing governments can be fixed without the need for guns. I'm a believer in the four boxes of liberty. If you can defend your liberty without resorting to guns, more power to you. But I don't see any reason to remove the final option just because others are more preferable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rekrul, 27 Sep 2011 @ 7:13pm

Re: Re: Has that stopped school shootings? Or has it just insured that the victims will be unarmed?
So, before those rules were brought in, were there any successful school shootings where the pupils were able to shoot the shooter?

I recall reading about an incident a few years ago. Unfortunately, I don't remember the details (can anyone help?) where a student brought a gun to school and started shooting people. Instead of the dozen of so victims that most school shootings have, this one only had 2-3 victims because one of the staff members happened to be armed and shot the student not long after hearing the shooting start. The twist was that since the school was a "gun free zone", the DA was pressing charges against the staff member for carrying his (legal) gun on school property, despite the fact that he saved lives. I never heard how the case eventually turned out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 9:06pm

Re: So what is the problem?
Also remember that you have no rite to the cell phone other than your right to private property

In other words, you have every right to the cell phone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2011 @ 11:35pm

OOH! MOMMY! IT'S A STRAW MAN! Can I keep it?
Wow. This has to be the BIGGEST straw man argument I've seen in my life. You guys are bitching about guns instead of the real point of the article. But hey. This IS techdirt we're talking about after all.

It is TOTALLY reasonable for a theater to ask that people check in phones and any other recording device...if you don't like it, thank all the dumb fucks that decided they were gonna bring their flip camera or whatever and record the entire movie, then upload it onto some file sharing site later. If you were the one that worked your ass off for a year to produce a movie, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want it leaked before the official release either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 7 Nov 2011 @ 6:41am

Re: OOH! MOMMY! IT'S A STRAW MAN! Can I keep it?
It is TOTALLY reasonable for a theater to ask that people check in phones and any other recording device...if you don't like it, thank all the dumb fucks that decided they were gonna bring their flip camera or whatever and record the entire movie, then upload it onto some file sharing site later.

As long as the studios and theaters don't complain if people stop going to theaters. But of course they will.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 2:33pm

Re: Re: OOH! MOMMY! IT'S A STRAW MAN! Can I keep it?
"As long as the studios and theaters don't complain if people stop going to theaters. But of course they will."

They have every right to complain if a bunch of people don't see their movie because some moron leaked it onto the internet before the official release date. It seems people these days want everything for nothing, but that's not how it works. Especially when huge teams of people and a good amount of money have to be spent producing a lot of the things we consume.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 7 Nov 2011 @ 3:31pm

Re: Re: Re: OOH! MOMMY! IT'S A STRAW MAN! Can I keep it?
They have every right to complain if a bunch of people don't see their movie because some moron leaked it onto the internet before the official release date.

Any theater owner who thinks customers are staying home to watch cam rips doesn't understand his business. People are staying home because of high prices for tickets, ridiculous prices for food, unpleasant atmosphere, unfriendly staff, being treated like a criminal, inconvenience, a generally uncompelling experience, and because they don't care all that much about whether they see Thor tonight in the theater or in six weeks at home.

Making people check their cell phones solves none of those problems, and makes one of them worse.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2011 @ 8:34pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: OOH! MOMMY! IT'S A STRAW MAN! Can I keep it?
"People are staying home because of high prices for tickets, ridiculous prices for food, unpleasant atmosphere, unfriendly staff, being treated like a criminal, inconvenience, a generally uncompelling experience"

Wow. Theaters in your area must really suck. I agree with the stupid ticket and food prices (although that's your own damn fault tbh...I sneak in candy or a snack and usually only get nachos or a slurpee.) but I've really never met rude workers at any of the ones I've been to. But some of those cam rips actually aren't terrible quality...so you have to admit that at least SOME people choose that over seeing it in the movies. But as for the stupid prices though, I'm pretty sure the owner of the theater doesn't have much say...the company sets prices.

"Making people check their cell phones solves none of those problems, and makes one of them worse."

At a regular screening of a movie, yes. At a pre-screening before the official release date, you shouldn't expect to NOT be asked to check in cameras or phones. Can you blame them? I wouldn't want my new work leaked either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 8 Nov 2011 @ 6:27am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OOH! MOMMY! IT'S A STRAW MAN! Can I keep it?
Wow. Theaters in your area must really suck.

From what I've heard on the net they're above average. If you re-read my comment, you'll notice I didn't say that's why *I* don't go to movies.

I agree with the stupid ticket and food prices (although that's your own damn fault tbh...I sneak in candy or a snack and usually only get nachos or a slurpee.)

I shouldn't have to *sneak* food in. Unless I'm there with my kids, I just skip it.

so you have to admit that at least SOME people choose that over seeing it in the movies.

Of course, but even if you completely eliminate cam rips, the theaters' problems would not go away, and would probably diminish very little.

But as for the stupid prices though, I'm pretty sure the owner of the theater doesn't have much say...the company sets prices.

I don't care, and neither does any other potential customer. That's for them to work out, and for me to ignore.

At a pre-screening before the official release date, you shouldn't expect to NOT be asked to check in cameras or phones. Can you blame them?

It's probably already on the net by then, so yeah I can blame them. It's stupid. Would I ask someone to check a high quality camcorder and a tripod? Sure. A cell phone? No. And yes, I have seen the quality of video an iPhone can take.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Nov 2011 @ 4:56pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OOH! MOMMY! IT'S A STRAW MAN! Can I keep it?
"I don't care, and neither does any other potential customer. That's for them to work out, and for me to ignore."

Of course...I was just pointing that out so people didn't go all "omg greedy business owner!"

"It's probably already on the net by then, so yeah I can blame them. It's stupid. Would I ask someone to check a high quality camcorder and a tripod? Sure. A cell phone? No. And yes, I have seen the quality of video an iPhone can take."

If they aren't gonna check phones, then they should at least have someone posted inside to check for people filming. But then people would probably bitch about 1st amendment rights. Because filming a movie on your phone then uploading it is TOTALLY what the 1st amendment was intended for.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 8 Nov 2011 @ 7:02pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OOH! MOMMY! IT'S A STRAW MAN! Can I keep it?
If they aren't gonna check phones, then they should at least have someone posted inside to check for people filming.

That would be reasonable, though I wouldn't pounce on someone as soon as they look like they're filming. If someone wants to take a few seconds of video as a "hey look I'm at the pre-screening" souvenier let them. If they sit there and keep filming it, then sure go ask them to stop.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bluebird theater denver, 6 Jan 2012 @ 3:28am

advance screening
There will be another free advance screening of the film in Denver, through Gofobo, just enter in this RSVP code,7PBRXTTQ, in the box you�ll see at at the top � right of their homepage. You�ll need to set up a free account at Gofobo to claim the free tickets.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Drugs Test, 17 Jan 2012 @ 11:49pm

Holy Crap....
Both the firearm and cameras or even cellphone should not be allowed to get inside the theater. But such guards allowing a firearm to be inside the theater? Holy crap.
[ link to this | view in thread ]