The MPAA's Plan To Piss Off Young Moviegoers And Make Them Less Interested In Going To Theaters
from the do-these-guys-never-think-anything-through? dept
Given how important teenagers and those in their 20s are to the movie industry, you'd think one day they'd learn to stop being complete assholes to that demographic. For example, you'd think that they'd realize that young folks today really, really like their smartphones, and one of the main things they do with those smartphones is snap pictures or videos of just about anything and everything and share it with their friends via whichever platform they prefer, be it SnapChat, WhatsApp, Instagram, Vine, Facebook, Twitter or whatever else they might be using. It's just what they do -- and they seem to be doing it more and more often. Yet, the MPAA wants to make sure that if kids do this, theaters should call the police to have them arrested as quickly as possible.The thing is, the MPAA should know that this is a recipe for disaster. In 2007, Jhannet Sejas went to see Transformers, and filmed 20-seconds to send to her brother to get him excited to go see the movie. The result? Police were called, she was arrested and threatened with jailtime. She was eventually pressured into pleading guilty to avoid jailtime. Samantha Tumpach wasn't quite so lucky. She, along with her sister and her friends, went out to the movies in 2009 to celebrate her sister's birthday. Since they were all having fun, she decided to film some of the group while they were watching the movie. Once again, police were called and she was arrested and spent two nights in jail. After widespread public outcry, prosecutors dropped the charges.
Given those high profile cases, combined with the fact that smartphones have become more ubiquitous, and the pastime of taking photos and videos has become ever more popular, you'd think that maybe, just maybe, someone at the MPAA would think to teach theater owners to be a bit more lenient about the kid just taking a photo or filming a couple seconds of a video. But that's not how the MPAA operates. Its goal in life seems to be to think up ways of how it must have been wronged, and its weird and stupid obsession with movies captured by people filming in the theaters is really quite ridiculous.
The MPAA has now released its latest "best practices" for theaters, and it's basically exactly what you should do if you want to piss off the demographic of folks who actually go to theaters. You can see the whole thing here if you want to see exactly what not to do.
And the MPAA is Obnoxious
The MPAA recommends that theaters adopt a Zero Tolerance policy that prohibits the video or audio recording and the taking of photographs of any portion of a movie.Even better, the MPAA reminds theaters that they should tell employees about their "TAKE ACTION! REWARD," in which employees who capture an evil pirate in action get a whopping $500. In order to get the award, one of the requirements is "immediate notification to the police." The theaters have to have posters, like the one above, on display if they want their employees to get the cash, so expect to see that kind of crap in theaters everywhere. And expect that employees seeking to cash in on that TAKE ACTION! REWARD to be calling the cops all the freaking time, because some kid raises his iPhone to take a quick picture of his buddies or something cool on screen.
Theater managers should immediately alert law enforcement authorities whenever they suspect prohibited activity is taking place. Do not assume that a cell phone or digital camera is being used to take still photographs and not a full-length video recording. Let the proper authorities determine what laws may have been violated and what enforcement action should be taken.
Theater management should determine whether a theater employee or any other competent authority is empowered to confiscate recording devices, interrupt or interfere with the camcording, and/or ask the patron to leave the auditorium.
Could the MPAA really be so out of touch and so completely oblivious that they think this is a good idea? Do they not employ anyone who has spent any time around teens and folks in their 20s? Do they honestly think that most police officers don't have better things to do than rush to the local theater every 15 minutes because some employee is trying to get his $500 and the way to do that is to turn in the kids having fun and trying to share the experience (not the movie itself)? And, most importantly, does no one at the MPAA think that maybe, just maybe, turning theater employees into complete assholes will make fewer people want to go see movies?
Of course they don't. That's because the MPAA is made up of lawyers, like this guy, who are obsessed with one thing, and one thing only: "evil pirates who must be stopped." It really seems like when the movie industry does well, it's in spite of the MPAA. What a disastrous organization, working against the industry's actual interests.
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: anti-piracy, best practices, camcording, mpaa, theaters
Companies: mpaa
Reader Comments
The First Word
“I do not care at all about the picture or video, I do on the other hand HATE those bright screens shining in my face while I try and see a movie. I paid to enjoy a movie and your little smart phone screen is taking away from that.
(and I am one of those people in their 20s by the way)
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The staff of Techdirt doesn't get out much, does it? ;)
Talk to anyone under the age of 34 (target demographic) and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who isn't pissed off at the MPAA.
The kids will just simply laugh at all this, then pirate the movie on TPB just because the MPAA were dicks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
These reminders have been around for years and never bothered anyone. Then stealing got easier so the pirates have a hissy fit anytime they're reminded that they're criminals.
Boo hoo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Maybe you should take a look at some history at what a great man said many, many years before you were even a thought in your grandfather's mind.
"I am so sensible, Sir, of the kindness with which the House has listened to me, that I will not detain you longer. I will only say this, that if the measure before us should pass, and should produce one tenth part of the evil which it is calculated to produce, and which I fully expect it to produce, there will soon be a remedy, though of a very objectionable kind. Just as the absurd acts which prohibited the sale of game were virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd revenue acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler, so will this law be virtually repealed by piratical booksellers. At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesmen of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot. On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrims Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich, for the advantage of the greatgrandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress? Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom make nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the words of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living. If I saw, Sir any probability that this bill could be so amended in the Committee that my objections might be removed I would not divide the House in this stage. But I am so fully convinced that no alteration which would not seem insupportable to my honorable and learned friend, could render his measure supportable to me, that I must move, though with regret, that this bill be read a second time this day six months."
- Thomas Babington Macaulay Speechs to House of Commons
on 5 Feb. 1841 Opposing Proposed Life + 60 Year Copyright Term
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's why.
Hollywood will shit all over you(the public) and you'll(the public again) still lap it up like the sheep they've been trained to be.
Think of somebody of average intelligence. Now realize that half of the world is dumber than that. This is what we're up against.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well,.. they can only have the warning shown of legal copies, because those dammed pirates remove it from pirated copies. Therefore It must be to make work for the pirates by giving them something to do before posting a copy.
As to why the FBI warning, they want US law to apply to the whole world.
/sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And this is why...
Hell, I don't even like to buy them on DVD anymore, because it just supports these assholes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And this is why...
That's why they won't see a penny from you.
Uh huh. Totally convincing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And this is why...
The last movie I saw on DVD was Transformers 1.
The last movie I saw period was Iron Man 2 or Fantastic Four when it was on TV over FX.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And this is why...
I quit buying music when the entertainment companies went to sue em all. I went to buying movies instead. When the entertainment companies started it too, I dropped going to the theater and buying movies too.
I want not one penny of my money to go to these greedy assholes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And this is why...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And this is why...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: And this is why...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> the phone illegal. I'm tired of nearly getting
> into fights when I have to clearly tell these
> people to Get. Off. The. Phone.
Yeah, my local theater chain in L.A. (Arclight) doesn't bother with any of this heavy-handed MPAA propaganda. Their only concern when it comes to electronic devices in the theater is that they remain off so that the rest of us aren't disturbed by the rude assholes who feel the need to text their way through a 2-hour film.
They have a pretty strict zero tolerance policy for it (one of the few instances where a zero tolerance policy makes sense) and I've seen them kick entire groups of people out of the movie mid-film because they wouldn't stop lighting up those little screens in the faces of everyone behind them.
They also prohibit infants in any film of any rating and they have special 21+ screenings every night for the more popular films where the minimum age is 21, regardless of the rating of the film, for those of us who prefer not to share a theater with hordes of giggling teenage girls and small children.
I give them all of my business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yet, the MPAA wants to make sure that if kids do this, theaters should call the police to have them arrested as quickly as possible.
This...this is a clear overreach...I don't think any theater would ever comply to that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
At least two theaters do comply with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
> sued and massively.
Why? If it's a criminal offense in that state, then the police are legitimately responding to a crime in progress.
I don't agree with such laws and think it's ridiculous for states to criminalize this sort of thing, but if the law is legitimately passed by the legislature, then there's no legal basis for suing the police for enforcing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Easy target for civil disobedience
I also wonder how this could be enforced in Canada --- if copying for fair use is a consumer right, there, then if someone records, say, 20 seconds of a movie, I don't see how they could be prosecuted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> paid for by industry groups legitimate?
That's not for the police to decide when it comes to enforcement of the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The police can certainly try to enforce a law, even one that is unconstitutional. And you can certainly challenge the legitimacy of a law, even if you've been arrested. And of course, there's always the matter of how the law is enforced. You can always sue the police for violations such as unlawful use force, even if the basis for the arrest itself was legal. That's up for a judge to decide. I never implied otherwise.
Anyway, my point was about whether laws that were passed by a corrupt legislature, against the best interest of the public, are legitimate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> if you've been arrested.
Yes, but challenging a law's constitutionality is not done by suing the police for enforcing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does the MPAA think people will keep going to the theatres if they are disturbed every 15 minutess by the police rushing in?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
YES !!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't give a shit about this, honestly - smartphones in movie theaters give off light and really CAN be annoying - but their heavyhanded overreactions are terrible. And the minute-long "DON'T PIRATE THIS MOVIE. PIRATING MOVIES IS A CRIME" message at the beginning of legally-purchased movies is just fucking stupid as hell. Every time I see one I'm very, very tempted to pirate the movie that I already own so I don't have to sit through that unskippable bullshit every time I want to watch it.
Fuck you, MPAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Back when I used to buy movies, I would rip them as soon as I got them specifically to get rid of all that crap. It works like a charm, and as a bonus you don't have to worry about losing or damaging the expensive DVD you bought. I recommend the practice fully.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But MANY older people will return if this actually works.
Where fanboys assert that multi-billion industries are doing it all wrong!
07:14:03[i-197-3]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But MANY older people will return if this actually works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But MANY older people will return if this actually works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But MANY older people will return if this actually works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: But MANY older people will return if this actually works.
That's a serious accusation, do you have any evidence to back that up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: But MANY older people will return if this actually works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: But MANY older people will return if this actually works.
Oddly, about 10% of the bootleg movies I buy have Masnick standing up in front of someone not filming and then getting thrown out of the theater. He should probably stop doing this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: But MANY older people will return if this actually works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: But MANY older people will return if this actually works.
Ah, so YOU'RE the asshole who keeps standing up in front of the screen and blocking my view when I'm trying to watch it after legally purchasing my ticket in that theatre! I want my refund, you ignorant ass ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But MANY older people will return if this actually works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But MANY older people will return if this actually works.
I'm defending the producers whose content you so desperately want to consume that you'll commit crimes in order to do it. You're addicted to their products. They'd starve if had to rely on me, so I'm totally consistent.
My proposed tax policy (which is really return to what worked in previous good times: in the 60's, US rates went up to 90%) is to prevent them from grifting off more than reasonable and thereby prevent them from getting too much power, as is the case NOW.
Where Mike "supports copyright" but always overlooks or excuses piracy.
07:33:23[i-090-5]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: But MANY older people will return if this actually works.
Lines....
______________________________________________________________________________________ _________ _____
Lots of lines...
____________________________________________________________________________________________ ___ _____
Why?
80085
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: But MANY older people will return if this actually works.
Actually, stuff by Hollywood? I rarely if ever watch it, legally or illegally anymore. I've been to the cinema either two or three times this year and have not pirated a single US movie. So good job there on judging me a criminal without any evidence.
Also, for someone who's screaming about corporations having too much power...all this copyright expansion does nothing more than give them exactly that. Why defend it? Why defend corporations being allowed to call the police simply because I held up my phone?
"My proposed tax policy (which is really return to what worked in previous good times: in the 60's, US rates went up to 90%)"
http://qz.com/74271/income-tax-rates-since-1913/
Click $10 million and you will indeed get 90% rates in the 60's.
Congrats, you actually said something truthful. That is actually a first for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: But MANY older people will return if this actually works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: But MANY older people will return if this actually works.
Rikuo?!
I'm shocked!
That's 2-3 times more than I have in the past 6 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But MANY older people will return if this actually works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But MANY older people will return if this actually works.
but, gotta thank the internet, it keeps bad movies away from me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But MANY older people will return if this actually works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But MANY older people will return if this actually works.
That and hiding the Enterprise underwater at the start of the movie. Dumb move that was made only so we could see a "cool" Enterprise rising out of the water shot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But MANY older people will return if this actually works.
I've seen both the new Trek and Iron Man on my home setup and no one felt deprived. Still waiting for Man of Steel though. That bit (the wait) is a bit annoying but not terminally so.
Comfy seats. Cheap eats. Conveniently placed bathroom. I can sit anywhere I want and as close as I want to the screen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But MANY older people will return if this actually works.
Going to movies is something I enjoy. $5.00 (or $6.50) 2-D or $8.50 3-D isn't really much to spend for an entertaining afternoon (and I smuggle my own refreshments in).
I spent $11.50 to see "The Wizard Of Oz" in Imax 3-D and it was worth every penny. Although I have the DVD of "Wizard...", I wasn't about to pass up my chance to see it on the big screen (REALLY big screen), and in 3-D to boot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But MANY older people will return if this actually works.
Discounting film festivals (it would be cheating to count the times I see 22 movies in 5 days!), I've been to the cinema about 5 times this year. Off the top of my head - Pacific Rim, The Wolverine, World War Z, the Spanish horror/comedy Las Brujas De Zugarramurdi and Gravity.
Funny thing is though, I only watched the Hollywood stuff due to the relative lack of choice in my area and because I wanted to chill at the cinema in walking distance from my office when I finished work. If there had been a new independent movie available, I may well have seen that instead. On DVD, I'm far more likely to pick up copies of the new Arrow Video or Blue Underground release than a new blockbuster. Half the newer movies I watch are what happen to be on Netflix, and if movies don't make it there I usually don't bother.
That's really Hollywood's biggest problem. Given the choice, people will often choose something else. As you've confirmed - just because people are buying their product, it doesn't mean they're actually enjoying it. I hope you take your poor experiences and put the money you would spend on the next overblown crappy sequel into viewing an original or independent movie at the cinema rather than not go there at all, however. If that's possible, that's the best way to say you're not happy with their product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: But MANY older people will return if this actually works.
No you're not. You've admitted many times you're only interested in defending $100+ million movies. You don't give a crap about independent non-corporate product. You've said this over and over.
"You're addicted to their products."
Here's a hint: if your arguments depend on claimed intimate knowledge of the tastes of someone you're never met, your argument is a lie. Stop lying.
"They'd starve if had to rely on me"
So either you're intent on defending corporations whose product you don't care for, or you're admitting to only using free sources to consume their product. Interesting philosophy either way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But MANY older people will return if this actually works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But MANY older people will return if this actually works.
Then you'd be up shit creek...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: But MANY older people will return if this actually works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: But MANY older people will return if this actually works.
Then you'd be up shit creek..."
Prove it. No, seriously, prove it. You're making 3 accusations here.
1) AC is stealing movies
2) If the MPAA stops making movies the pirates will have nothing
3) If the MPAA does that, anyone will care.
So, prove it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: But MANY older people will return if this actually works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: But MANY older people will return if this actually works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: But MANY older people will return if this actually works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: But MANY older people will return if this actually works.
But damn i hate the fact that they are doing this and making the cinema experience worse(if i am ever interrupted while watching a movie by them taking someone out i will immediately request a refund and leave) they should not be driving customers away they should be encouraging people to go to the cinema, but i have this sneaking suspicion they want to force cinema attendance down to have another argument as to why they should have the power they want to kill everyone that dares to watch something they have shared with others online.I hope someone posts this to any judge that is involved in any case regarding settlement amounts, as this proves they have more than enough income they are so rich they feel they can kick people out and make the whole experience worse for everyone even those doing nothing wrong.
I love the fact that i have legally watched every movie i have ever wanted to over the past 8 years without paying anything at all. well a few times when i went to see 3d movies a few years ago but the experience was not as good as made out to be so i gave up on it and bought a 3d tv instead and now just share 3d movies if i want to watch them.
And if they want to say i am stealing , great i would love my day in court where i can tell a judge i was sharing the files not stealing them.
They have lost me as a customer, i would rather take my wife out to the theatre instead of the cinema now, or take her bowling or ice skating or any of the hundreds of other things we can do, it is rather nice as every date is a surprise, but cinemas, never again until they stop messing with people and start respecting their customers and stop being complete assholes that are so ignorant they dont even realise they are becoming irrelevant to hundreds of millions worldwide, who will never pay them for content again, and those are people that would like me have spend thousands before on collecting dvd's or blu rays and are actively boycotting them forever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But MANY older people will return if this actually works.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___
out_of_the_blue - Techdirt's BIGGEST fanboy! (the rest of us aren't retarded, where we'd use terms like that)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ _____
And it likes lines...lots of lines...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is why they deserve to fail.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is why they deserve to fail.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair use
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Soapbox, bitches.
In all other honesty, I've all but quit going to theaters cause I'm past tired of being taken out of the movie experience by some dumb ass knuckle dragger who is either to unwilling to let the phone go untouched for 90-120 mins cause god forbid, other things are happening they could be part of OR they're too self involved to sit still and enjoy the entertainment they just plunked their(or their parents) cash down for.
Yay for my projector and huge wall to watch movies on, theaters are rapidly approaching dinosaur status cause of the above mentioned idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If childish enough to sit through the "Transformers" movie,
Also, my bet is that if that police interrupt a few times, it'll stop problems for much longer thereafter.
Now. MPAA doesn't want your help advertising by recording parts of it. -- So just do as they wish and don't help them! -- Similarly, IF as you claim, pirating actually helps movie industry income, then you should quit pirating! -- And why are you helping out the evil MPAA with your sage advice here, Mike?
[* By the way: the asterisk in my previous was because some AC noob yesterday didn't recognize "stoopid" as emphasis and mockage. ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If childish enough to sit through the "Transformers" movie,
Sure...when people stop coming to the theater at all...
______________________________________________________________________________________________ ___ ___
out_of_the_blue - Techdirt's BIGGEST fanboy! (the rest of us aren't retarded, where we'd use terms like that)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ _____
And it likes lines...lots of lines...
____________________________________________________________________________________________ ___ _____
*No one gives a shit about your asterisk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If childish enough to sit through the "Transformers" movie,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If childish enough to sit through the "Transformers" movie,
Oh, you read it and responded. That's all I can expect from YOU level zero trolls. But whether you let my comments pass without comment, or add some vulgarity, or even whether you post something on topic, you serve my purposes.
I'm trying to help Mike clean up comments on the site from vulgarity and restore Techdirt as a forum where reasonable discussion can take place. It may seem that your toxic crap is winning (easy to do short-term, but can't hold readers), but in fact I've greatly suppressed vulgarity here, including not on the front page by Mike and minions. And no more bizarre off-topic sexuality by Timothy Geigner, aka Dark Helmet. I've also suppressed most of the recurring piratey notions. -- Oh, and apparently mocked "Streisand Effect" enough that the link isn't put up any more.
Anyway, thanks for your help, especially with the HIGHLY distracting lines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If childish enough to sit through the "Transformers" movie,
As did you...
______________________________________________________________________________________________ ________
out_of_the_blue - Techdirt's BIGGEST fanboy! (the rest of us aren't retarded, where we'd use terms like that)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______
And it likes lines...lots of lines...
____________________________________________________________________________________________ __________
*No one STILL gives a shit about your asterisk
____________________________________________________________________________________________ __________
And you're giving me plenty of practice drawing my lines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If childish enough to sit through the "Transformers" movie,
Blue...you are the single most despicable person who has ever posted on Techdirt. You have slung vulgarity like it was going out of style and have done as much as possible to dirty the comments, instead of cleaning them up. You have admitted to it many times, what with saying your trolling is just attention bait.
Suppressed piratey notions? WTF does that even mean? You haven't suppressed anything at all. Do you actually think that people have read your comments and then stopped illegally downloading?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: If childish enough to sit through the "Transformers" movie,
I suspect OOTB is one of two things. First, it could be a paid shill from the MPAA. Now you might argue "who would actually pay for this level of commenting?"(read:clearly delusional, and fixated on terms like fanboy, pirate, and lines)
I'd argue that given the MPAA's previous "strategies" it isn't too far fetched.
Or, it really does think it's serving a public good by what it perceives as relevant commenting.
Either way, it's scary as hell. We can only hope that it's commenting from a secure location surrounded by fences, guards, etc. Because if that goof's walking the streets, we got problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If childish enough to sit through the "Transformers" movie,
Ummm...you run like a scared rabbit or hide in your ad-hom filled hidey-hole whenever anyone tries to engage you in a "reasonable discussion", Blue.
You really need to get a grip on reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If childish enough to sit through the "Transformers" movie,
- If you think that Blue engages in "reasonable discussions" on Techdirt please press the "Report" button on this comment.
- If you think that Blue is here to troll and disrupt with his half-baked notions and comments please press the "Insightful" button on this comment.
We are going to let the community decide what it is you actually do here Blue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: If childish enough to sit through the "Transformers" movie,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BECAUSE the products are irresistible to children who'll STEAL CRAP!
It's NOT a "huge disconnect": the industry knows pretty near exactly what kind of CRAP with 'splosions and skin to put out to attract hordes of piratey FLIES.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: BECAUSE the products are irresistible to children who'll STEAL CRAP!
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______
Finally!
______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________
Must be because of my lines....
___________________________________________________________________________________________ __________
80085
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: BECAUSE the products are irresistible to children who'll STEAL CRAP!
Admit? Sonny, I've stated it numerous times, and yet for some reason that too upsets the kids who can't resist the crap.
How about you uncloak and pick a screen name to stick with instead of your anonymous and un-credited sniping? I'll give you plenty of credit.
By the way, read my recent: thanks for the lines! They sprawl across my entire browser and give Techdirt a really crappy look! ... You kids always wallow in crap, even foul your own nest. Frankly, I don't get it. Why not just try to say something of even SLIGHT substance and interest on topic, sonny?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: BECAUSE the products are irresistible to children who'll STEAL CRAP!
As soon as YOU register a profile, fanboy, I will.
__________________________________________________________________________________________ __________
80085
Just a number...after a line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: BECAUSE the products are irresistible to children who'll STEAL CRAP!
The lines are there to MOCK you. There wouldn't be lines used to mock if you hadn't started using them first. Logic, ever hear of it?
You are saying to other people to pick a screen name and use it, instead of using an anonymous account? YOU ARE USING AN ANONYMOUS ACCOUNT. Pot, meet kettle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BECAUSE the products are irresistible to children who'll STEAL CRAP!
Look who you're talking to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BECAUSE the products are irresistible to children who'll STEAL CRAP!
0284-2
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I applaud this move
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I applaud this move
TD always defending the common criminal !!!!, why is that ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I applaud this move
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I applaud this move
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I applaud this move
Please, PLEASE go forward with this plan MPAA and Theater Owners!!!
It will accelerate the demise of theaters and force more media into the 21st century faster. (Eg, redbox, netflix, etc)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
already happens, not only are they not released, they are not even made in the first place !!.
Your fucking yourselves over more than anything else, but you will brind down everyone else because of your outright greed and theft.
I guess you are just too stupid to understand that if it is not possible to get a resealable return on their investments, it is not invested. No investment, no movie, nothing to steal.
And don't give us this bullshit that its 'free' anyway, or its some form of kiddie right to steal, its not.
But your screwing the makers and investors of movies, you steal the movies because you want to watch them, you must therefore see value in them. But because you are young, and a thief, you think its ok to steal, and limit the number of movies made in the first place.
you hate the MPAA but you JUST LOVE the products they produce, if you did not you would not want to steal them in the first place.
Common crims is not ok because you are young and stupid, or older and own a web site !!!.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Did you know that the biggest way for people to get interested in a movie or series they had never heard of before is through piracy?
Then they go out and *shock and horror* buy it.
And before you say "pirates are evil and they'll never do that", I point to you to the anime industry.
Anime was HEAVILY pirated in the late 80s and early 90s. Still is today.
However, because of said piracy, more people know of various series and go out to read and support the series/creator as much as possible.
One Piece, for example, has a VERY weird art style and most anime fans wouldn't give it a second glance.
However, people pirated One Piece, found it was good, and spread the word.
Now One Piece is one of the best selling anime and manga in the world, and THE best selling anime/manga in Japan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Piracy" is like their version of "terrorism": it's just the excuse they're using to accomplish goals the public wouldn't support.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
leaving the thief's to steal the same thin over and over again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, that's why Star Wars is still in the red. Piracy back in 1977 was so bad that even today Star Wars hasn't made back what was invested. It's just as bad now as then. $400,000,000 is nowhere near enough money to make up for the $100,000,000 investment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But even that's beside the point. If the major studios simply folded and stopped doing business at all, movies would still get made. In fact, since the best movies I've seen over the past couple of decades have mostly not been from the major studios, the best movies would still get made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"or losing people willing to invest millions of dollars because of the risk of losing revinue and not breaking even meaning the movies are not produced, and that money is invested elsewhere."
False.
Actually, it has been shown that the unexisting "thieves" you despise so much, actually spend more on entertainment
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/telecoms-research/online-copyright/d eep-dive.pdf
And actually, the box office records have been raising since the 80's to date. Why is not the other way around if piracy is really a big problem?
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/?view2=domestic&view=releasedate&p=.htm
I could spend all the afternoon debunking your baseless assertions. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[citation needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yours does not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The phonorecords in question were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" for purposes of [section] 2314. The section's language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods. Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.
-Dowling v. United states, Supreme court
Another funny thing, and one that further suggests the two are not in fact interchangeable, is that if copyright infringement were considered 'stealing', the penalties wouldn't even be nearly as insane as they currently are. If someone steals a CD from a store, depriving the store of it, and thereby causing a verifiable lost sale, the penalty is likely to be a slap on the wrist, maybe a small fine.
Download that very same CD however, and despite the fact that the original is still in place, and can still be sold/distributed, and the fines jump to potentially hundreds of thousands, or even over a million.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is a lie. It's not just false, it's not misleading, but an outright lie.
It is impossible for copyright infringement to be theft. Even actual piracy (which is selling illegal copies of intellectual property for profit, not simply making copies) is not theft. Words mean things. And "theft" means a specific action. You cannot steal something if you do not physically take it from someone else. That's not what the word means.
If it did, then every time I viewed a commercial and chose not to buy a product I would be commiting theft. After all, by not buying it I reduced their potential profits, right? This is absurd, but that's exactly the argument you're trying to make.
Stealing is not a matter of profit, or even finances. I can steal an object that is worthless or close to it. If I steal from a store, I may be cutting into their profit. If I steal from a house, the owner of the house may never plan on benefiting financially from what I stole, and may not even replace the object (and therefore lose out financially).
You cannot steal an idea, or a concept, or even a performance. The original owner still possesses it, and they have lost nothing other than theoretical sales, and even then they may have lost nothing. You cannot gain from stealing...you can gain from infringement. The only possible way I can see infringement as theft is if someone came up with a truly unique idea (something nearly impossible) and you were the only person on earth to know about it besides them...and then you killed them. Maybe that's stealing. It's almost definitely murder.
Otherwise you are lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Theft, by definition implies that the stolen object disappears, the owner does not have it anymore, when people copy a file, the original file is still there.
Only what is legally and materially OWNED can be stolen.
To OWN something you need a legal right claiming PROPERTY.
Digital files are non material "objects" that do not get destroyed when consumed (as opposed to any material object) and whose "production" does not require direct consumption of material inputs (as what economists call "services" do).
You are the moron, Darryl.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In other words, by your own admission, copyright infringement isn't theft, because when a copyright is infringed nothing is taken.
Glad we cleared that up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They call us 'EVIL' pirates, and wonder why we embrace evil then
After all, if evil is recording 20 seconds of a movie to send to a sibling, then 'good' must be collecting cash for turning them in, as well as bullying others by using figures of authority (the cops and the legal system) as your own personal police force.
I also embrace the 'evil' people who do other things like use marijuana and other illegal drugs and go to jail for it despite not harming anyone in any way, even though just like with piracy, I never use any of those drugs, nor will I ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They call us 'EVIL' pirates, and wonder why we embrace evil then
stealing moving is not harming you, or masmick, except if you think about what is not available because of this comment theft.
And that is what it is, common theft, from common people, people who cant think past their own little world.
So enjoy stealing the same old movies over and over and over again, because there will not be a lot more for you to steal. Thanks for taking away from everyone so you can be a selfish, thieving oaf.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They call us 'EVIL' pirates, and wonder why we embrace evil then
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They call us 'EVIL' pirates, and wonder why we embrace evil then
This.
Any other company operating so in the red would have gone out of business decades ago. MPAA accounting - if only the rest of us could use it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They call us 'EVIL' pirates, and wonder why we embrace evil then
And to the extent that it does impact the quality of the movie, it tends to be inversely proportional: the bigger the budget, the lower the odds are that the movie will be excellent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: They call us 'EVIL' pirates, and wonder why we embrace evil then
To give a couple of examples. Oz The Great And Powerful made $235 million at the box office domestically and $500 million worldwide. Highly profitable, huh? Not really. They threw $215 million at the production budget, which usually doesn't include marketing and distribution costs, so it most likely lost money domestically. That gross box office includes the share that the theatres take for their revenue as well, so the studio won't see a large chunk of it. Given that marketing is often the same as (if not more than) the production budget, it's unlikely that there's a significant profit in that movie as yet.
However, another movie this year was The Conjuring. That made $137 million in the US, $316 million worldwide. Not as successful as $500 million, the morons will have you believe. But, it cost just $20 million to produce. Even if the marketing and distribution costs were 5x its production budget, it's probably well in profit even after taking off the share for the theatres.
Now, of course, we don't know the real figures (for example, theatre share changes from one movie to the next), and I'm sure there will be accounting tricks for decades to pretend that none of these movies ever make a "profit". It's probably not entirely fair to compare these two movies in a sense as they're very different genres and audiences. But, whichever way you slice it, throwing $215 million at a movie instead of $20 million doesn't necessarily mean greater returns. Yet, these people seem to think that more money will always do that. They're horrible at business.
Oh, and in terms of film quality? It's subjective, but Oz gets 59% on Rotten Tomatoes while The Conjuring has 89%.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They call us 'EVIL' pirates, and wonder why we embrace evil then
/Haven't seen a movie in years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They call us 'EVIL' pirates, and wonder why we embrace evil then
http://www.mpaa.org/resources/3037b7a4-58a2-4109-8012-58fca3abdf1b.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They call us 'EVIL' pirates, and wonder why we embrace evil then
So, which delusion are you projecting here? There have been 593 movies released theatrically in the US so far this year (source: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2013&p=.htm), of which 26 have made over $100 million domestic gross. You must be saying one of the following things:
- That 593 isn't "enough" by some standard
- That all 593 movies have been produced without anyone investing in them
- That all 593 movies are bad movies
Which is it? Now, I expect you to come up with some bullshit excuse to pretend that most of these movies don't "count" by some metric, but the fact is that there have been a lot of a very good movies this year, and many movies that have been very successful (not always the same movies in both groups, of course) need a lot of explanation. That's theatrical movies alone, not counting those that have gone straight to video/cable/netflix.
So, come on. Are you honest to address the actual points, or do you have to invent strawmen to attack because you can't stand it when honest people call your kind out on your lies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Police come, police write a report take the name, and go away, person goes to court, pays $500 (for first offense), goes away.
Great idea, you first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They'd have to be found guilty of something first. And, despite the claims, taking a picture or recording video in a theater -- even of the screen -- is not actually against the law.
It's against the terms of use of the theater, which means the theater can kick you out. So long as you leave when they ask you, you're not a lawbreaker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MPAA and thinking
I have yet to read any article, posted anywhere, that would lead me to believe the MPAA does any thinking what so ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MPAA and thinking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: MPAA and thinking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This isn't going to happen
Yea, lets see someone take the wrong persons phone. I will be grabbing the popcorn and watching the fight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This isn't going to happen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Err... some actually might lol.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait.. I pay for the cops
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait.. I pay for the cops
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MPAA and cell phones in theaters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MPAA and cell phones in theaters
The only part I disagree with is the fact that the MPAA is calling for law enforcement to get involved. If such behaviours are indeed unwanted, work to change them through social pressure. Don't involve the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MPAA and cell phones in theaters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MPAA and cell phones in theaters
Yes, and other than the morons who do stuff like that, you'd probably be hard pressed to find anyone who didn't think so.
However, is it 'call the police and have them arrested' annoying?
Not even close, and it takes someone as stupid as the MPAA to suggest that the cops should be called for something so minor, rather than just asking the person to leave, and not only that, but offer a freakin' bounty to encourage theater employees to call for the police.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MPAA and cell phones in theaters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MPAA and cell phones in theaters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MPAA and cameras in theaters
Even if they demand that people take them off, some people will have prescription glass in their Google Glasses. Taking them off may mean not being able to see the movie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MPAA and cameras in theaters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
20-seconds
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"zero tolerance" policy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I do not care at all about the picture or video, I do on the other hand HATE those bright screens shining in my face while I try and see a movie. I paid to enjoy a movie and your little smart phone screen is taking away from that.
(and I am one of those people in their 20s by the way)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
don't really give a shit about people recording a few seconds of the movie, BUT inconsiderate aholes who fire up their cellyphones in the theatre are no-class, selfish, arrogant jerkwads...
they don't deserve to be arrested, but they do deserve to be thrown out without a refund...
one major reason why i HATE going to movies...
rude children -no matter their age- is what they are...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Preview
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cops
- call the cops
- profit
- cops come in with autorecording camera on their chest
- call the cops
- profit
- repeat until movie is over or there is no more cops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do Not Surrender Your Property!
That being said, the theater is private property and if they ask you to leave you should without making a scene. The police likewise cannot conficate your property unless they are arresting you, so attempt to reason with them if this case arises.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The police have already said...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Camcorded movies are not a threat
And as uploaders quickly get "downvoted" because of their crappy camcorded copy, they'll stop uploading. And if there's no market for camcorded movies, why do it at all?
There we go- the "problem" of camcording movies has solved itself.
Until the MPAA cracks down on the leaks from their screeners (or leaks of the studio's own master copy), then I don't want to hear about the "evils" of camcording.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Theaters
You guys are such pricks to EVERYONE that could possibly enjoy some entertainment, much less pay for some, that it is utterly astonishing that you continue to exist.
You tap the shit out of theaters and dictate what, where, when and for how long that it costs US 20.00 for a popcorn and a pepsi so they can pay rent. A theater employee could probably even lease a car if they had no other debts. Yeah, they're paid that well, you should probably pinch another 10% points off of THEIR work.
I hate saying this but ... your product deserves to be pillaged with reckless abandon. It needs to be wrested from your absolute control more than you could possibly IMAGINE. (Clearly you have no imaginations so that's no great leap I suppose.)
MPAA/RIAA et al must die and COPYRIGHT, if for no other reason than that, demands change. Now. That should probably be dealt with. It's clear that you don't like how it's being dealt with on the consumer side and the feeling appears to be mostly mutual.
And so:
We, the public, who are being savagely assaulted from all quarters, on all sides, by these (pause for effect) people (pause for slightly less effect) are right in the middle of the charge. These poeple, the middle men, whose principals lead the charge in the assault on the principles of democracy, liberty, freedoms, business, free markets, privacy, politics and justice... ladies and gentlemen, I give you Legacy Big Entertainment, Big Movies and Big Music (more pause) The Middle Men! (cheer loudly)
Versus (pause)
Team NSA! (The entire team. Back in line, DOJ. Cheeky servants.)
TONIGHT! (more pause) We bring to you a depiction of "The Inglorious Battle of Nevermore"! The first conflict in "The Great Battle of Thieves"!
TONIGHT! (yet more pause) They fight! (cheer loudly, whistle, bang on things)
They fight! (absolutely no pausing here)
To the DEATH! (cheer wildly, faint)
GLADIATORS! (pause solemnly) I SALUTE YOU! (silence, pick up smartphones and enable flashlight app, point smartphones at the sky, pause three seconds, switch smartphone app to video and record the field of battle, cheer wildly and appropriately, spittle a little, share)
(Now that's what I call entertainment.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Solution to mobile/cell phones in cinemas
Of course, there will still be other annoyances like popcorn throwing, seat kickers, etc. So you can't win 'emmaul.
Lunch done, lawns calling, scale to kill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not the source of bootlegs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not the source of bootlegs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amazing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who is worse?
And I fail to see how using your phone AT ALL in a theater is alright. If you NEED to check the time, or have an emergency (in which case you should leave the theater ASAP in order to focus on that and not annoy anyone), I can understand looking at your phone. Otherwise, you're at the movies, not the fucking Grand Canyon. Turn your phone off or silence it for two hours and leave it alone.
I also fail to see how the MPAA are bigger dicks than the dicks using their phones during movies, simply for offering some (admittedly silly) advice to theaters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GOOD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]