Google Glass Wearer Claims He Was Yanked Out Of Movie, Held In Office For Hours, Over Filming He Didn't Do [Updated]

from the zero-tolerance! dept

Tue, Jan 21st 2014 10:48am — Mike Masnick

Just a couple months ago, we wrote about the MPAA's insane "zero tolerance" policies that it was sending to movie theaters, telling them to be extra vigilant in stopping anyone from filming movies:

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.

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.

As we noted at the time, these kinds of policies seem more likely to piss off movie viewers than to actually stop any form of "piracy." And, indeed, as pretty much every one of you has sent in this morning, a story over at The Gadgeteer appears to show these overreaching policies in action, as a guy wearing his Google Glass (with the power off) was summarily yanked out of the theater in the middle of a movie and held in an office while a bunch of people posing as officials quizzed him about who he was recording for.

The story is a little short on some key details. For example, it's never clear who the people interrogating him actually are associated with. The article title claims "the FBI" and other reports have similarly claimed the FBI was involved, but that seems unlikely. Apparently someone claimed to be with the "federal service" which is not what anyone would say if they were actually a federal employee. Someone is claimed to be from "the Movie Association" -- which might mean the MPAA (the Motion Pictures Association of America), but that's hardly clear. It's especially odd since the person who went through the experience claims that he got the business card of this guy -- named "Bob Hope" -- from "the Movie Association" so if it was actually the MPAA, you'd think he'd look at the business card and properly state where the guy came from. Or, you know, send in a picture of the business card (perhaps with contact info redacted).

To be honest, all of those factors make me question the legitimacy of the entire story -- though there have been other similar stories in the past that we've seen involving mobile phones. And it does fit with the MPAA's guidelines on "zero tolerance."

Update: AMC has confirmed that "a guest with a potential recording device inside the auditorium was questioned at our AMC Easton 30. Another report says that the MPAA was on site and interrogated the guy and then contacted DHS, claiming they have "oversight for movie theft." I'd be curious to see where or how DHS has authority over "movie theft." I'm guessing people will claim it's an ICE issue, but that goes way beyond what ICE is supposedly working on.
Separately, the guy begged the "police" or whoever was there to look at his Google Glass and go through his private things. While that has no bearing on the legitimacy of his story, as Popehat recently reminded people, this is monumentally stupid for a whole variety of reasons.

Whether or not this turns out to be a legitimate story, this issue is going to come up again and again as Google Glass and a flood of similar products heading to market become more popular. The MPAA's "zero tolerance" attitude and its general antipathy towards any new technology it can't control or quash is going to lead to this sort of scenario playing out one way or another eventually. If the MPAA and the theaters had any vision at all, they'd be working out a better way to deal with it, but since they seem to see everything as a black and white situation, expect an even more extreme version of how they've treated mobile phones -- even to the point of (at times) requiring them to be confiscated before people can go into the theater -- thereby encouraging fewer people to actually go to the theater.

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: google glass, movie theaters, zero tolerance
Companies: amc, mpaa

88 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 21 Jan 2014 @ 10:53am

"question the legitimacy of the entire story" -- BUT instead of verifying,
you just smear the MPAA, which in NO visible way is responsible for even the alleged questioned story. It's the Techdirt way. Never let facts get in the way of attacking MPAA.

Now, if MPAA ran with a story like this, Mike and fanboys would HOWL -- well, much as ankle-biters can.
Mike Masnick on Techdirt: "its typical approach to these things: take something totally out of context, put some hysterical and inaccurate phrasing around it, dump an attention-grabbing headline on it and send it off to the press."

06:52:51[h-705-6]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David, 21 Jan 2014 @ 10:56am

Simple solution:
As long as the content industry focuses on treating their customers as prisoners and criminals, don't do business with them. Don't view movies, don't buy CDs, don't buy DVDs, don't buy MP3 files or whatever else. Use your time for other things: learn an instrument, read books (up to now, that is mostly not interpreted as implying consent for installing rootkits on your computers and making you the target of law enforcement), meditate.

Don't be caught singing, though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TasMot (profile), 21 Jan 2014 @ 11:02am

Just the thought makes me dizzy.
I realize from the quotes that the MPAA is telling theater management to be proactive with containing the pirating of movies from "in theater" videotaping of movies. However; the extremely idiotic part of the theory of videotaping a movie from Google Goggles is ludicrous in the extreme. Have they every watched a 60 second clip of a handheld homemade movie. It's enough to make everybody dizzy especially without some sort of image stabilizer in the camera. Can you imagine how dizzy somewhat would get by trying to watch a 90 minute movie that was recorded on a moving head? It would be puke fest and the local drugstore would sell out of pain killers for the headaches.

Nobody can hold their head still for 90 minutes to get a decent "pirate" copy of a movie that way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Scote, 21 Jan 2014 @ 11:03am

Don't forget the bounty
Somebody likely turned this guy in for the promised MPAA bounty. The MPAA promises $500 to theater employees who catch a movie pirate.

http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-wants-advanced-anti-piracy-measures-at-movie-theaters-131114/

...which also means theater employees have a disincentive to just tell the guy wearing Glass to take it off when they sell him a ticket or when he hands his tickets to the user in the lobby because they make nothing off of that. Instead, wait until he's in the theater and turn him in for cash - doesn't matter if he's guilty or not because the incentives only run one way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2014 @ 11:04am

gadgeteer just updated their story.

"Update #2:

I just received info from the author with regards to the agents that questioned him:

For the sake of having all the facts right.
I have been trying to find out who the agents that �interviewed� me at
AMC were, so I asked help from a guy I know at FBI. I worked with this
guy in the past when I was employed at a webhosting company. He did
some digging, and he tells me the �federal agents�
talking to me were DHS."

Looks like it was the Department of Homeland Security who interrogated him.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2014 @ 11:04am

working on the assumption that it was the FBI that was involved, it shows how stupid that organisation is for being available to interfere with customers at the drop of a hat and also how those in charge are willing to do whatever the entertainment industries say. i would have thought, indeed hoped, that the FBI and every other security agency had something more important to do, like PROTECTING THE NATION AND IT'S CITIZENS rather than fucking about over a possibility that someone is recording a friggin' movie. it wont be long before terrorists will be left to do whatever dastardly deed they have in mind because the fucking MPAA needs all security agents deployed in theaters to stop movie piracy! i ask ya!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 21 Jan 2014 @ 11:04am

Re: Simple solution:
You don't have to cut yourself off from entertainment that much, there's plenty of movies, songs and books that are available from alternative sources that have nothing to do with the parasitic middlemen/gatekeepers, and buying from those alternative sources helps everyone(that counts anyway) by supporting up and coming consumer friendly services, as well as new artists and creators, making it more likely they'll grow and eventually drive the parasites out of the business for good.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 21 Jan 2014 @ 11:07am

What puzzles me is why they did not follow standard procedure of beating him up when he denied their accusations of recording the movie?

Hopefully in the future this guy will stick to small and victimless crimes that the FBI takes no interest in, such as wrecking the global economy or running a massive ponzi scheme on wall street.

It has already been said that copyright is incompatible with free speech. I propose that as technology advances that copyright becomes incompatible with free society.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 21 Jan 2014 @ 11:13am

Re: The Cuckoo's Egg -- Clifford Stoll
In the book The Cuckoo's Egg, which describes, at that time, one of the biggest hacking events to that point, Clifford Stoll describes his first encounter with the FBI. What first put him on to the massive hacking was a seven cent accounting error. Many systems were hacked, including military systems, commercial systems, and the hacker was very sophisticated.

I am pharaphrasing... You want us to investigate over an accounting error of $0.07? We only investigate crimes that involve over a million dollars or murders, threats to the nation, etc.

It's a good thing the FBI now focuses on non-issues such as Google Glass. But doesn't focus on important things such as major white collar crime involving millions or billions of dollars.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DubzDubz, 21 Jan 2014 @ 11:14am

This is SOP
I am a former theater manager. I have had this experience before:

I was informed by another patron that someone was taking pictures in the theater. After removing the patron from the theater, he was indeed taking pictures of the movie. I had to, by the contract that I signed, call the police and inspect the capturing device (a standard consumer-grade digital camera) as the pictures were erased.

Was his intent malicious? No, definitely not. Did I feel bad for dragging him out of the theater and "banning" him? Yes. Did I regret doing the hours of paperwork afterwards? Yes, hell yes.

Though I do not like the MPAA (at all), I do understand their Zero-Tolerance with this. But this story doesn't seem truthful.

See, I HIGHLY doubt the FBI or DHS was involved in this. They should never be contacted about this kind of thing. If AMC's policy was similar to the one from my company, the highest this should go would be the local police. SOP says that after the police have been contacted, the incident has to be reported to the MPAA. At no point would the FBI or DHS even have TIME to show up! I am calling BS on that whole aspect of the story. I 100% believe he was kicked out of a theater for wearing glasses (I would have kicked him out too) but I don't believe he was interviewed by DHS/FBI at the theater.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 21 Jan 2014 @ 11:16am

Re:
Wow. So potential recording in a movie theater is a MAJOR NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE.

Got it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 21 Jan 2014 @ 11:24am

Re: Just the thought makes me dizzy.
> Nobody can hold their head still for 90 minutes to get
> a decent "pirate" copy of a movie that way.

That misses the point.

There may be small segments, say up to five seconds that are perfectly watchable. That five seconds of watchable recorded content is copyright infringement.

Please do not underestimate the economic damage caused by copyright infringement. The total damage caused by Limewire alone, according to the RIAA, is $75 TRILLION. The total damages of copyright infringement is far, far greater than the entire economic output of all human activity for all human history. Please think of the artists.

Look at how little profit Hollywood makes, and look at how little it increases each year setting new records. Please consider their plight and take pity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2014 @ 11:24am

List of people who should never go to movies
A list of people who should never go to the movies to avoid being wrongly accused of piracy.

-People who wear glasses (any glasses, even prescription)
-People who wear watches (mobile devices in the form of a watch are already being worked on)
-People who wear bracelets (looks too similar to a watch)

And in the future these people will also be added to the list

-People who wear necklaces (someone will surely build a mobile device worn as a necklace)
-People who wear rings (someone will surely build a mobile device worn as a ring)
-People who wear any kind of clothing (hidden cameras and recorders can be sewn into the clothing)
-People who can see and/or hear (eventually they'll hook up your brain to a computer and the Internet)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2014 @ 11:24am

It's nice to see Depart of Homeland Security is the MPAA's whipping boy. Taking down Google Glass wearers, instead of looking for terrorists with bombs, or guys dressed up like the Joker with assault rifles.

I'm surprised they didn't do this guy Kim Dotcom style, and have a swat team repel down on the movie theater roof with a UAV drone circling overhead.

They're starting to lose their touch.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 21 Jan 2014 @ 11:25am

Re:
For the sake of having all the facts right.
I have been trying to find out who the agents that �interviewed� me at
AMC were, so I asked help from a guy I know at FBI. I worked with this
guy in the past when I was employed at a webhosting company. He did
some digging, and he tells me the �federal agents�
talking to me were DHS."

Looks like it was the Department of Homeland Security who interrogated him.

I find that equally unlikely. Claims like that need extraordinary proof of support, not just "some guy I know at the FBI." How would some FBI guy know that DHS went to a movie theater? And why would DHS be going to a movie theater over this? It has nothing to do with DHS's mandate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mr. sim (profile), 21 Jan 2014 @ 11:25am

sounds to me like the guy was wearing google glass and someone in theater decided to illegally pretend to a federal agent and illegally kidnap the man thinking he was recording the movie. not showing the card is him going to sue the theater.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DCL, 21 Jan 2014 @ 11:28am

Re: Re: Just the thought makes me dizzy.
and think of the CHILDREN!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 21 Jan 2014 @ 11:29am

Re: This is SOP
From the source article, it sounds like someone was trying to cash in on that 'bounty' the MPAA offered on 'pirates', so they called the *AA's, and the *AA's called their 'good buddies'/employees with badges to go 'bust that pirate and make an example out of him'.

Relevant quote(this is what the 'Bob Hope', MPAA reps said):
'All he said was AMC called him, and he called the FBI'

And if you don't think that the *AA's have very close ties and significant pull with government agencies, you've not been paying attention, they managed to get a military style raid on someone(Dotcom) in a foreign country over accused copyright violations, yanking a guy out of a theater is nothing comparatively.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DCL, 21 Jan 2014 @ 11:34am

Re: List of people who should never go to movies
The future of movie theaters.... charge people for a ticket... charge them for snacks... don't let them see the movie unless they are naked and don't have bionics (body scans are mandatory).

If NOBODY wearing cloths sees the movies and everybody pretends they did anyway it is an extended chapter for "The Emperor's new clothes" story.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 21 Jan 2014 @ 11:36am

Re: Re:
'It has nothing to do with DHS's mandate.

That hasn't exactly stopped them from acting as hollywood's private police force before.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120720/02530219774/homeland-security-issuing-its-own-dmca- takedowns-youtube-to-stifle-speech.shtml

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120322/17043918217/new-bi ll-seeks-to-let-dhs-agents-coordinate-more-with-private-companies-seizing-property-like-domains.shtm l

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/08225217010/breaking-news-feds-falsely-censor-popular-blo g-over-year-deny-all-due-process-hide-all-details.shtml

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110203/014 02812935/full-affidavit-latest-seizures-again-suggests-homeland-security-is-twisting-law.shtml
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Me, 21 Jan 2014 @ 11:37am

Netflix
This is why I get all my video entertainment from Netflix nowadays.

I would rather support a business that "gets it" and does so for a reasonable price, than all those who don't.

Cable tv and 400 forced channels I don't care for?

Internet bandwidth throttling? Minuscule data caps?

Overpriced movie theaters that treat customers as criminals?

DVD's that cost more than a small car and with region restrictions at that?

No thanks.

Give me $8/month Netflix and I can find the 5-10 hours a week of video entertainment I need and go about my life.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joseph, 21 Jan 2014 @ 11:39am

What a Maroon
I will go to the movies and sit there pointing my turned-off camcorder at the screen. Then I will complain and whine like a baby when I am accused of recording the movie.

Passive-aggressiveness at it's finest.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Avantare, 21 Jan 2014 @ 11:40am

Papers please.
Prove to me you're a legal LEO. If you can't or won't, I'm leaving.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2014 @ 11:41am

Re: Re:
It has nothing to do with DHS's mandate

HAHAhahahahAHAHAHA! Wait, did you just... HAHAHAHAHAHHA. OMG LOL. OK OK... so I know you have to write that, go with what's given, but in context of US agencies it sounds very funny.

Don't get me wrong, I'm as incredulous as you about the Glass rumors, but...

Just Google CIA (insurgent, Iran Contra, domestic operations, election, FBI, crack, really damn near any context will do, its all the same shiat).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 21 Jan 2014 @ 11:45am

Re: Re: Re:
Indeed, but that was ICE with a specific mandate related to ICE. The idea that they're going into movie theaters to stop guys with Google Glass? That would be a huge stretch... Maybe, but that would be quite a story if true. Goes way beyond anything they've done.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2014 @ 11:47am

Re: Re:
[1]"On March 1, 2003, DHS absorbed the Immigration and Naturalization Service and assumed its duties. In doing so, it divided the enforcement and services functions into two separate and new agencies: Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Citizenship and Immigration Services."

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is tasked with...

"[2](DHS), responsible for identifying, investigating, and dismantling vulnerabilities regarding the nation's border, economic, transportation, and infrastructure security."

The The Cyber Crimes Center (C3) is operated under ICE, and is responsible for investigating "Intellectual property rights violations (including music and software)."

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Homeland_Security

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Immigration_and_Customs_Enforcement#Cyber_Crimes

Do I know if this story is true? No I do not. It reads like the story is true. Especially the way the victim describes the interrogation techniques used against him. Trying to coax a confession out of the victim before actually reviewing the media evidence in front of him.

All I can say is this is an interesting story. Doubly so if it turns out to be true.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2014 @ 11:56am

Re: Papers please.
I hear there's a game about that...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2014 @ 11:58am

The cost alone of going to the theater has become similar to being on the wrong end of a gun by the time you work your way through the ticket booth and concession. Then you go in for your very own dose of commercials on your dime. Follow this by the sort of treatment shown from the article I read over at Torrentfreak about this and you come out with a simple equation. Being robbed with high prices for goods that are not worth that kind of money do not wind up being worth this sort of treatment.

Any time a movie goer walks away from a theater with less than satisfaction the business has lost some customer good will. I have not set foot in a theater in years over bad viewing experiences. I have no plans to ever return as all the articles I read show it continues to degrade.

Wake me up when these studios go bankrupt because they have no idea how to compete, how to treat their customers, and how to satisfy them.

Does anyone think that this guy is eyeing his free tickets he got at the end when they figured out they made a mistake going to make up for his treatment?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike, 21 Jan 2014 @ 11:58am

I Called the Theater!
True Story, Another Article! I Called the Theater they CONFIRMED by voice that it happened!
http://phandroid.com/2014/01/20/fbi-google-glass-movie/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 21 Jan 2014 @ 11:58am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
I dunno, with the combination of the 'bounty' the MPAA has offered leading to a call to someone at the *AA offices, and the MPAA likely wanting to 'make an example' of someone and show what happens to those filming movies before Glass enters the market in full force, I guess I don't see it that unlikely that they'd call a few 'friends with badges' to go 'pirate hunting' like this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dirkmaster (profile), 21 Jan 2014 @ 12:02pm

I was going to ask...
isn't ICE a division of Homeland Security? Aren't they the ones who really seem like they are the strongarm of the **AA?

Looks like that's who it was:
http://phandroid.com/2014/01/20/fbi-google-glass-movie/

Dirkmaster
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 21 Jan 2014 @ 12:03pm

Re: Re: This is SOP
> they [the **AA's) managed to get a military style raid on someone(Dotcom)
> in a foreign country over accused copyright violations,
> yanking a guy out of a theater is nothing comparatively.

Also, they managed to get a kid arrested and extradited, for linking to (but not hosting) content. And what he was doing was legal in his own country.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2014 @ 12:05pm

Re: List of people who should never go to movies
Why don't they just hire the TSA to do screenings of everyone before they go in?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 21 Jan 2014 @ 12:06pm

Re: List of people who should never go to movies
> eventually they'll hook up your brain to a computer and the Internet

When that technology exists, the MPAA / RIAA will insist that everyone be hooked up at birth so that a computer can automatically charge you whenever you see, or hear anything copyrighted.

Hey, you overheard the radio some guy is playing in the adjacent office -- that's gonna cost you!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike, 21 Jan 2014 @ 12:13pm

Stories Appearing EVERYWHERE
Business Insider Story
http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/21/man-wearing-google-glass-in-movie-theater-detained-interrogat ed-for-four-hours/

DailyCaller
http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/21/man-wearing-google-glass-in-movie-the ater-detained-interrogated-for-four-hours/

Phandroid
http://phandroid.com/2014/01/20/fbi-google-glass- movie/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hi Cathy!, 21 Jan 2014 @ 12:24pm

Re: "question the legitimacy of the entire story" -- BUT instead of verifying,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_A._Fitzpatrick
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2014 @ 12:27pm

Re:
There appears to be confirmation that it was the FBi. The Business insider confirms the story.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2014 @ 12:29pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're laboring under the mistaken assumption that government agencies acting as enforcers for private industry actually give a damn about their particular mandates. ICE dipped its toes in the water by taking down websites unilaterally determined by them to be infringing. That they would expand their efforts to other areas of copyright is just them wading deeper into that particular pool.

http://phandroid.com/2014/01/20/fbi-google-glass-movie/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2014 @ 12:32pm

"Update #4:

The story has been confirmed. I just received this email from the author:

Julie, Rob.

I spoke with a reporter from Columbus Dispatch, who obtained a
statement from DHS and forwarded it to me. Here it is:

From: Walls, Khaalid H [mailto:Khaalid.H.Walls@ice.dhs.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 1:16 PM
To: Allison Manning
Subject: ICE

H Ally,

Please attribute the below statement to me:

On Jan. 18, special agents with ICE�s Homeland Security Investigations
and local authorities briefly interviewed a man suspected of using an
electronic recording device to record a film at an AMC theater in
Columbus. The man, who voluntarily answered questions, confirmed to
authorities that the suspected recording device was also a pair of
prescription eye glasses in which the recording function had been
inactive. No further action was taken.

Khaalid Walls, ICE spokesman

Khaalid Walls
Public Affairs Officer
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
313-226-0726
313-215-7657(m)"

Source:
http://the-gadgeteer.com/2014/01/20/amc-movie-theater-calls- fbi-to-arrest-a-google-glass-user/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2014 @ 12:34pm

Re: Re:
I find that equally unlikely. Claims like that need extraordinary proof of support, not just "some guy I know at the FBI." How would some FBI guy know that DHS went to a movie theater? And why would DHS be going to a movie theater over this? It has nothing to do with DHS's mandate.

Not to lend legitimacy to this pile of shit, but DHS is the parent of ICE which runs the National Intellectual Property Rights Center.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
aldestrawk (profile), 21 Jan 2014 @ 12:42pm

Re: Re: "question the legitimacy of the entire story" -- BUT instead of verifying,
I think not. Prokofy Neva's writing style and strategy is to wear down critics, opponents, other trolls with a stream of seemingly never-ending verbiage that contains hints of extensive knowledge but is overall, not cohesive and often crosses the border into incoherency. You can never win playing on that field. Instead, you should counter-troll by utilizing tactics similar to when multiple photos of her real-life face were created floating in the sky above her Second Life abode.
OOTb has a couple similar characteristics but cannot approach the epic troll capability of Prokofy Neva.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2014 @ 12:48pm

Nothing like having your glasses rudely ripped off your face, humiliated in public, then offered two replacement tickets for the ones you already payed for. How's that for restitution!

I guess we're not considered a police state, because offering to refund your ticket purchase doesn't happen in police states.

I'm pretty sure this guys constitutional rights were violated. No "warrant". No "probable cause".

This is exactly like New York. If you're in a public place, your possessions can be seized and searched based on nothing more than an officer's or movie theater employee's "suspicion" of you.

Suspicion a much lower standard that probable cause. In this day and age in America, probable cause is basically dead. Hell, in some parts of Texas, police can run up in your house, and get a search warrant from the judge afterwards. And it's 100% legal!

That's what this country is coming too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mikael (profile), 21 Jan 2014 @ 12:50pm

Re: Don't forget the bounty
I worked at a Rave movie theater a number of years ago and back then I honestly would have loved to catch someone recording video to get me that $500. You have to act immediately, stop the person from recording, call the cops, and file a police report to be eligible though.

While I never actually caught anyone in the act, there was one time I caught a guy trying to bring in a full size video camera in a backpack. We had to search all over sized bags coming in and when I found it I gave him that "you have to be kidding me" look, and told him he couldn't bring it in. He couldn't grasp why I wouldn't let him bring it in even though he promised he wouldn't record anything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2014 @ 12:54pm

"they seem to see everything as a black and white situation"

You're being far too generous.
They see everything as a black issue. Everyone is a pirate or potential pirate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mark Murphy (profile), 21 Jan 2014 @ 12:55pm

Re: Re:
FWIW, and while I hate to cite Business Insider, AMC has confirmed the MPAA's and DHS's involvement in a statement to them:

http://www.businessinsider.com/man-interrogated-by-fbi-for-wearing-prescription-google-glass-at -the-movies-2014-1?op=1
[ link to this | view in thread ]
silverscarcat (profile), 21 Jan 2014 @ 12:56pm

Re: Re: List of people who should never go to movies
And 10 seconds later, people find ways around it so the MPAA gets a big fat zero from everyone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2014 @ 12:59pm

Re: Re: Re: "question the legitimacy of the entire story" -- BUT instead of verifying,
Yeah, I might have accepted the theory when I read it last year but on examination the two are definitely different flavors of troll/crazy. Also, Profoky Neva has a TD account (via search box in top right), which has posted as recently as this weekend (Jan 18th), whereas OOTB has refused to register.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2014 @ 1:15pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: "question the legitimacy of the entire story" -- BUT instead of verifying,
typo: Prokofy Neva (I got it right in the search box at least)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rich, 21 Jan 2014 @ 1:15pm

Re:
Not kidnap, but illegally detain.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 21 Jan 2014 @ 1:18pm

Re: Re: Re: "question the legitimacy of the entire story" -- BUT instead of verifying,
'...never-ending verbiage that contains hints of extensive knowledge but is overall, not cohesive and often crosses the border into incoherency.'

Wait, you're not suggesting AJ is this 'Catherine' person, are you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Me, 21 Jan 2014 @ 1:23pm

Wow
Those follow-up stories make it even worse. The guy was treated like crap by a company that clearly doesn't value his patronage. I'll be sure to avoid AMC especially in the future. MPAA on site? Frak that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gwiz (profile), 21 Jan 2014 @ 1:39pm

Re: Re: Re: "question the legitimacy of the entire story" -- BUT instead of verifying,
OOTb has a couple similar characteristics but cannot approach the epic troll capability of Prokofy Neva.

It's kind of funny, I was thinking about this earlier today when I stumbled across one of Prokofy Neva's comments on another article and I attempted to find some sort of writing style comparison software to compare Blue's and Cathy's writings.

My Google-foo failed me though and I got sidetracked with some actual work, so I didn't get very far.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 21 Jan 2014 @ 2:11pm

Re: Re: Re: List of people who should never go to movies
Ah, but the brain implant will detect that you are thinking bad thoughts about Copyright and you will be fined.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sunhawk (profile), 21 Jan 2014 @ 2:14pm

Re: Simple solution:
Don't view movies, don't buy CDs, don't buy DVDs, don't buy MP3 files or whatever else.

... from the members of the lobbying organizations, please; I know of a number of artists who hawk CDs and mp3s of their work directly on their youtube channels, for example.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2014 @ 2:15pm

Theater managers should immediately alert law enforcement authorities whenever they suspect prohibited activity is taking place.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize they could do anything in this clearly civil matter.

I'm sure this will result in a lot of tired officers being called down to the movie theater when someone is caught texting on their phone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sunhawk (profile), 21 Jan 2014 @ 2:22pm

Re: Re: List of people who should never go to movies
let me just leave this here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFe9wiDfb0E

And draw your attention to 1:57 :-p
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 21 Jan 2014 @ 2:25pm

Updated post
Updated the post with the comments from AMC...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sunhawk (profile), 21 Jan 2014 @ 2:34pm

Re: Papers please.
My process if I get in this kind of situation...

First question - "Am I being detained?"

If the answer is yes, skip down to third question.

If the answer is no, then second question - "Am I free to go?"

If the answer is yes, then get up and leave; ignore whatever "... but BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN TO YOU" is going to be added on. If those bad things can legitimately be done to you, they will be regardless of what you do; if they are law enforcement, they are indeed quite free to make empty promises to get some kind of confession.

If the answer is no, then third question - "Under what authority are you detaining me?" or "Specifically what agency are you working for?"

If the answer is not an agency with law enforcement powers, attempt to leave. If barred, note that preventing you from leaving constitutes false imprisonment. In some jurisdictions, if they forcibly move you to a different location (such as an office), then that can technically count as kidnapping*. False imprisonment can generally result in both criminal and civil complaints.

*I am not a lawyer, so this is my layman's understanding.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike, 21 Jan 2014 @ 2:43pm

Interrogated Movie Goer Hometown Paper Interview
Homeland Security and AMC say the man was " Held Briefly" for a "Few Minutes" of questioning. Man claims over two hours until after 11pm at night in Hometown Newspaper interview http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/01/21/google-glass-at-easton-theater.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 21 Jan 2014 @ 2:44pm

Re: Re:
From how he tells the story, it's not an illegal detention. It sounds like he didn't try to leave, even though he was informed (in the most intimidating way possible) that he could:

What followed was over an hour of the �feds� telling me I am not under arrest, and that this is a �voluntary interview�, but if I choose not to cooperate bad things may happen to me

As soon as the words "voluntary interview" came out of the "feds", he should have replied "I do not consent to this interview" and got up and left.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2014 @ 2:44pm

Unbelievable. I'm convinced this story is true now. American homeland security would be better served if taxpayer resources were deployed to go after real criminals hurting America's economy. Such as the corrupt banksters who received billions of dollars in taxpayer bailouts. All while average citizen's 401k plans tanked like a rock.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 21 Jan 2014 @ 2:46pm

Re: What a Maroon
Not passive-aggressive at all. What he did is not like bringing in a video camera and pointing at the screen -- that would be a deliberately provocative act. What he did was wear his prescription glasses.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
crade (profile), 21 Jan 2014 @ 2:52pm

lol, love their terminology.. like everyone in the place wasn't a "guy with a potential recording device"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mason Wheeler (profile), 21 Jan 2014 @ 3:16pm

Re: Simple solution:
I was going to take the opposite tack: Everyone go watch a movie... while wearing a deactivated Google Glass unit. Make sure that there is, in the unit's memory, a digital recording of one or more movies that you have purchased legally. When the inevitable stupidity occurs, sue them out of existence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2014 @ 3:25pm

What do you think a police officer would do to this guy's Google Glasses, if he's wearing them while being arrested? I bet they'd either be smashed or totally erased "if" he were to get them back.

Didn't Florida recently pass legislation, stating it's illegal to record a crime, because of those kids doing the "Knock Out" game.

Keep that in mind while wearing Google Glasses in Florida. Additional charges will almost certainly be added if you accidentally record on-duty police officers with your glasses.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
slick8086, 21 Jan 2014 @ 3:38pm

Re: Simple solution:
As long as the content industry focuses on treating their customers as prisoners and criminals, don't do business with them. Don't view movies, don't buy CDs, don't buy DVDs, don't buy MP3 files or whatever else.

Sorry, this approach doesn't work and will never work.

You are basically saying, "As long as the content industry keeps trying to hold our culture hostage we should just avoid participating in our culture until they get bored and go away."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
silverscarcat (profile), 21 Jan 2014 @ 3:40pm

Re:
Hey, blue, guess what?

The MPAA CONFIRMED what was reported here.

How do you like your humble pie? With or without crow?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2014 @ 4:25pm

you want to watch your lying, people might stop listening to you if you keep making shit up Mr Masnick...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2014 @ 4:29pm

Re:
darryl just hates it when due process is enforced.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2014 @ 4:38pm

Re:
don't worry if Masnick had of thought of it, he would have included a good beat down.

next time he will.. he will probably also include the phrase "beat his face with the butt of a tazer". Anything for effect, and to keep the fans happy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BeeAitch (profile), 21 Jan 2014 @ 5:20pm

Re: Re: Re:
As soon as the words "voluntary interview" came out of the "feds", he should have replied "I do not consent to this interview" and got up and attempted to leave.

FTFY

Excellent advice, but real life is sometimes different. I really doubt that he would've been able to just walk out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BeeAitch (profile), 21 Jan 2014 @ 5:23pm

Re: Re: Papers please.
Exactly. This.

More people need to understand their rights and exercise them.

Politely, but resolutely.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Clownius, 21 Jan 2014 @ 8:05pm

Re:
Giving someone free tickets for next time is not the same as a refund. They kept his money and said here come back for more we dare you.....

If someone dragged me out of a theater for questioning mid movie i sure as shit wouldn't be going back for more.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Androgynous Cowherd, 21 Jan 2014 @ 8:12pm

Business card
Why would you redact contact info when posting a photo of a business card? It's a business card. Any contact info on a business card is deliberately being made public by whoever is listed on the card. It's not private or confidential at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 21 Jan 2014 @ 8:13pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe not, but it would make it absolutely clear that you were being detained, despite what they might claim otherwise, and as long as you got a decent judge I don't imagine wrongful detainment/arrest would go over too well should the case go to court.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 21 Jan 2014 @ 10:38pm

Re: Business card
Why would you redact contact info when posting a photo of a business card? It's a business card. Any contact info on a business card is deliberately being made public by whoever is listed on the card. It's not private or confidential at all.

Contact information can absolutely be private. If he gave the business card to one person that doesn't mean he meant for it to be public.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pragmatic, 22 Jan 2014 @ 2:07am

Re: Re: Re: Re: "question the legitimacy of the entire story" -- BUT instead of verifying,
AJ is a different person and as far as I know is not into weird pseudo-anarchist politics for [the children] copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pragmatic, 22 Jan 2014 @ 3:04am

Re: Re: Re: Re: "question the legitimacy of the entire story" -- BUT instead of verifying,
It's all about the hatred of communal/collective ANYTHING, fear of OS and the alleged piracy that goes with it, and a visceral hatred of pirates and due process. I was working off her blog ravings (she used to recommend we read it where I tangled with her) rather than this Second Life persona or whatever it is.

The "Commie" rant was the giveaway. I've never heard of Prokofy Neva but I think that's more of a persona. Remember, when you're anonymous, more cats get out of the bag.

As for the incoherency, that's in nearly every post.

Finally, the blog is all about teh copyright and how anything other than uttermost maximalism is piracy and offenders should be extradited for it, etc.

Oh, and Cathy hates Google with a passion, per her blog posts.

In short:

1. barely coherent anti-"leftist/commie/collective/OS" rants
2. irrational fixation on copyright maximalism as a common law right
3. pretends to hate "the Rich" and corporations, but seems to think the **AAs are the second coming
4. is convinced that selling copies of works is the only way to make a living as a creative
5. considers all who disagree with her position on anything to be the enemy and treats them as such
6. doubles down on her argument's position when proven wrong
7. changes the subject when owned instead of admitting to being wrong
8. arbitrary standards of right and wrong
9. dismissal of the value of due process where copyright is concerned
10. irrational hatred of Google while continuing to use it. I've pointed that out many times, then she's gone on to admit to using it despite being told there are alternatives

She hates Google more than Mike, and her Mike-hate thing is more of an envious pseudo-libertarian thing than a personal one. I hadn't noticed much of the pseudo-libertarian/Alex Jones rants on her blog because I was more focused on the toxic copyright protectionism and hatred of alleged pirates, but I guess it's in there somewhere.

Hey, I could be wrong, but if you manage to unmask OOTB and prove it, I'll be the first to admit to being wrong. It's just that the arguments we have with her here are arguments I've had with her elsewhere. We're just repeating ourselves because we have to because she can't admit to being wrong and is unwilling to learn anything that doesn't mesh with her opinions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 22 Jan 2014 @ 5:03am

Re:
Well, they got bored of looking for all the terrorists with bombs that aren't there, or even cooking up their own fake plots, so they obviously have to do something, or someone might decide they are 'non-essential' next furlough!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
preciousillusion, 22 Jan 2014 @ 9:20am

Yesterday's headline:
Cop defends gunning down unarmed man in a theatre."BUT IT LOOKED LIKE A GUN!!"

Tomorrow's headline:
Cop defends gunning down unarmed man in a theatre. "BUT IT LOOKED LIKE A SMARTPHONE!!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Androgynous Cowherd, 22 Jan 2014 @ 9:21am

Re: Re: Business card
In my experience you don't give a business card to "one person". You get batches of them made, because you have a business or business role that you're making public. They're supposed to be a form of advertisement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sunhawk (profile), 22 Jan 2014 @ 10:22am

Re: Re: Re: Papers please.
Definitely politely; rudeness simply cannot help, and is liable to get them personally invested in inconveniencing you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 22 Jan 2014 @ 1:28pm

Re: Re: Re: Business card
Most of the time, yes. But not always.

When I ran my own business, I had several different business cards, each aimed at a specific audience. To salesmen, I was the receptionist, to developers, I was the developer, etc. One of my cards was a "private" one that had back-channel contact information. Private email, cell phone, etc. This was absolutely not meant to be publicly available.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Androgynous Cowherd, 23 Jan 2014 @ 8:22am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Business card
Then why did you print them? Who were they for?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 23 Jan 2014 @ 8:59am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Business card
They were used for pretty much the same thing as old-timey calling cards. They were for people who I wanted to be able to contact me personally (home phone, personal email, etc.). It was a convenience so I didn't have to write all that stuff down. I could just hand them a card. (This was before smartphones existed.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Androgynous Cowherd, 24 Jan 2014 @ 11:05am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Business card
Sounds like those weren't business cards, then, but ... I guess you could call them personal cards.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2014 @ 10:02am

Re: List of people who should never go to movies
Exactly!
Best response of the day...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Blue Sweater (profile), 20 Feb 2014 @ 10:47am

Re: Re: Re: List of people who should never go to movies
Is it just me or did it sound like totalbiscuit narrating that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]