AMC Theaters Pouts Like A Child Because NBC Universal Proved Movie Release Windows Are Nonsense

from the take-my-ball-and-go-home dept

There's a laundry list of shoddy arguments and business structures that have been exposed as nonsense and folly during the pandemic. One of them is the traditional Hollywood film release window, which typically involves a 90 day gap between the time a move appears in theaters and its streaming or DVD release (in France this window is even more ridiculous at three years). The goal is usually to "protect the traditional film industry," though it's never been entirely clear why you'd protect traditional theaters at the cost of common sense, consumer demand, and a more efficient model. Just because?

While the industry has flirted with the idea of "day and date" releases for decades (releasing movies on home video at the same time as brick and mortar theaters) there's long been a lot of hyperventilation on the part of movie theaters and traditionalists that this sort of shift wasn't technically possible or would somehow destroy the traditional "movie experience," driving theaters out of business.

Then came the pandemic, when visiting a traditional theater suddenly became potentially fatal. Numerous studios quickly adapted, and began experimenting with much shorter release windows or in some instances, no window at all. Comcast NBC Universal, for example, offered early access to some films for $20 at home while they were still in theaters. Other films, like "Trolls World Tour," were released simultaneously on video on demand and in theaters that remained open.

Guess what: the film did very well, raking in $100 million in premium VOD rentals in its first three weeks in North America, which wasn't just profitable, but wasn't that far behind the $116 million grossed by the original Trolls film during the first three weeks it was in theaters in 2016. Excited by the success, Comcast NBC Universal CEO Jeff Shell gave a fairly innocuous statement to the Wall Street Journal:

"The results for Trolls World Tour have exceeded our expectations and demonstrated the viability of PVOD," Shell told The Wall Street Journal, which first reported the numbers. "As soon as theaters reopen, we expect to release movies on both formats."

There's really nothing wrong with that. Adaptation is a good thing. Unless apparently you're AMC Theatres chair-CEO Adam Aron, who immediately threw a temper tantrum and declared that AMC would never again show a Comcast NBC Universal picture, anywhere in the world:

"It is disappointing to us, but Jeff’s comments as to Universal’s unilateral actions and intentions have left us with no choice. Therefore, effectively immediately AMC will no longer play any Universal movies in any of our theaters in the United States, Europe or the Middle East," Aron wrote."

It's understandable that the traditional theater sector is worried, especially given the number of employees that are struggling right now. That said, Aron's comments are one of the more embarrassing "I'm taking my ball and going home" moments in modern history. Comcast was forced to adapt during a pandemic, discovered a profitable way to do so, yet this is somehow perceived as a fatal sin worthy of being blackballed worldwide. Aron proceeds to insist that his very clearly vindictive and punitive toddler moment was in no way a vindictive and punitive toddler moment:

"Incidentally, this policy is not aimed solely at Universal out of pique or to be punitive in any way, it also extends to any movie maker who unilaterally abandons current windowing practices absent good faith negotiations between us, so that they as distributor and we as exhibitor both benefit and neither are hurt from such changes. Currently, with the press comment today, Universal is the only studio contemplating a wholesale change to the status quo. Hence, this immediate communication in response."

Comcast in turn was forced to issue a counter statement blowing smoke up the traditional brick and mortar industry's posterior about how they weren't being forgotten, there's kind of a pandemic going on if you hadn't noticed, and the company remained dedicated to traditional film releases because it remains a big part of its business model and will probably remain that way for years to come.

Regardless, it's abundantly clear that such windows have outlived their usefulness, and if movie theaters want to adapt to the streaming and broadband era, they're going to need to adapt and find creative new offerings. They're going to need to embrace more innovation, and less crying like babies every time Netflix or anybody else dares to move the ball forward. Many bar/restaurant hybrid establishments have focused on making the traditional theater more enjoyable. Others, apparently, see pouting over inevitable evolution as the best path forward.

Filed Under: adam aron, covid-19, day and date, home video, jeff shell, movies, pandemic, theaters, theatrical releases, trolls world tour
Companies: amc, comcast, nbc universal

There Are Several Good Reasons To End Entertainment Industry Subsidies, But Blasphemy Isn't One Of Them

from the free-speech-doesn't-work-that-way dept

There are a lot of arguments to be made against subsidizing movie/TV studios. The best argument is this: the payouts to visiting studios rarely pay off for local taxpayers. Politicians love the side benefits -- rubbing elbows with producers, actors, and other studio personnel -- but there's nothing to be gained financially by paying a studio to film in your town. In one case, a city was promised 3,600 additional jobs. In reality, only 200 jobs materialized, all but 14 of those temporary construction work.

Then there's the argument against using public funding to prop up an out-of-town industry. If there are extra tax dollars around, they're better spent locally, where they'll do the most good. Subsidizing businesses is always problematic. It skews incentives and allows governments to play favorites using the public's money.

But the worst argument someone can make against subsidies is this one: subsidies should be content-based. Two members of the clergy and a state politician are bent out of shape because a subsidized TV series shoot resulted in the depiction of a historical figure in compromising positions.

The AMC series "Preacher" has portrayed Christ in a graphic sex scene that combines blasphemy with pornography.

The August 21 episode titled, "Dirty Little Secret," showed an actor playing the role of Jesus having sex with a married woman in an extended, graphic scene with explicit vocals. The director used shadows and silhouettes to soften the two figures as they engaged in various sexual positions, but these cinematic techniques did not disguise the pornography.

We have laws governing porn which are mostly hands-off, provided producers follow several regulations. We certainly don't have blasphemy laws, thanks to a separation of church and state. But never mind the legal details. This small collective of pearl-clutchers wants legislators to pull funding solely because the imagery in this episode may have offended some members of one religion.

We respectfully request that the Administration, and the Office of Louisiana Economic Development, reject all efforts by AMC to obtain tax credits for the series "Preacher" and the episode which blasphemed Christ. We call upon the Administration and the Louisiana Office of Economic Development to flatly reject this request for a $16.2 million tax refund check.

The op-ed notes the state of Louisiana has a law prohibiting the use of public money to fund pornography. That's all well and good, but just because the writers call the images that offended them porn doesn't make them porn. To buttress this argument with talk of blasphemy only adds to the problem, ensuring that any state legislators attempting to follow through on this dubious suggestion will engage in multiple constitutional violations.

That's not all. The authors of the op-ed -- which include state senator John Milkovich -- claim their views are universal, something that's more factually-incorrect than everything leading up to it.

Thus, the larger truth is that there is never a good time to reward production companies that trash our Louisiana values, mock our beliefs– and dishonor Christ.

The state should definitely reject the request for a $16.2 million subsidy by AMC. If AMC is so keen on shooting scenes in Louisiana (or any other state), it should pay its own way. But it shouldn't do it for any of the reasons suggested here. It should end the subsidy program completely, rather than risk looking like it's making content-based decisions about what type of speech it's willing to fund.

Filed Under: blasphemy, first amendment, louisiana, movies, preacher, subsidies, tv
Companies: amc

AMC To Charge Cable Customers $5 More To Avoid Advertisements

from the look-mom,-we're-innovating! dept

We've discussed ad nauseum how, as the Internet video revolution accelerates, the cable and broadcast industry's response has predominantly been to double down on bad ideas in the false belief that they can nurse a dying cash cow indefinitely. Netflix nibbling away at your subscriber totals? Continue to glibly impose bi-annual rate hikes. Amazon Prime Video eroding your customer base? How about we edit programs to be shorter so more ads can be shoveled into every viewing hour? By and large, the cable industry's response to the cord cutting threat has been to do more of the things that forced annoyed consumers to leave.

And when you do see a cable or broadcaster attempting to be creative on this front, there's often a degree of lacking common sense. Case in point: AMC Networks last week fancied itself creative when it unveiled a new plan to let consumers skip advertisements on its programs -- if they're willing to pay an additional $5 per month:

"Would you like to pay more for cable TV than you’re already paying? Then AMC has an offer for you: The cable programmer is going to start selling an add-on service that lets cable TV subscribers watch most AMC shows, without commercials, for an extra $5 a month. AMC, which is rolling out its new “AMC Premiere” option to Comcast pay TV subscribers, says the new service is aimed at “super-fans” of its programs like “The Walking Dead,” who have a pay TV subscription but are willing to pay more to watch live, ad-free TV.

So, several problems here. One, the offer ignores the fact that many subscribers already skip ads using their DVRs, making this kind of unnecessary and insulting to the savvy consumer. AMC's also ignoring the lessons learned about needing to compete with piracy, something that doesn't stop being true just because you're offended by piracy's existence. And with often bi-annual price hikes already driving consumers away from cable at a record rate, you'd be pretty hard pressed to find any consumer that thinks it makes sense to pay a penny more for cable television at this juncture, something the company seems fleetingly aware of:

"It’s not for everyone," said AMC president Charlie Collier. "But it’s a good choice for people who want it."

Is it really? This is, once again, the cable and broadcast industry attempting to look innovative and competitive without having to put the time and money into actually being innovative or offering lower prices. AMC "solves" a heavier ad-load problem that consumers have already managed to avoid with their DVRs, hikes up the price of expensive cable TV service even further, then pats itself on the back under the pretense that this is delivering added value to "super fans."

If the cable and broadcast industry really wanted to be innovative, it would work to respond to the rise in streaming competitors and actually compete on price and channel bundle flexibility. Until it does that, everything else is hollow lip service.

Filed Under: ads, fees, tv
Companies: amc

Pure Bullshit: AMC Threatens Huge Fan Community With Copyright Claim Over 'Spoiler' Predictions

from the argh dept

What's up, Hollywood TV people? Hey, could you do everyone a favor and maybe stop being complete assholes to your biggest fans -- and especially completely abusing copyright law to harass and bully those people? Almost exactly a month ago we wrote about HBO abusing the DMCA process to go after people who were predicting what would happen in Game of Thrones, accusing them of violating copyright law in accurately predicting what would happen in the future. As we noted, that's not at all how copyright law works, but apparently AMC took a look at what HBO was doing and said "hey, let's do that too."

A large Facebook fan group (with almost 400,000 subscribers) called "The Spoiling Dead Fans" has announced that it has received a completely bogus DMCA notice from AMC:

After two years, AMC finally reached out to us! But it wasn’t a request not to post any info about the Lucille Victim or any type of friendly attempt at compromise, it was a cease and desist and a threat of a lawsuit by AMC Holdings, LLC’s attorney, Dennis Wilson. They say we can’t make any type of prediction about the Lucille Victim. Their stance is that making such a prediction would be considered copyright infringement. AMC tells us that we made some claim somewhere that says we received “copyright protected, trade secret information about the most critical plot information in the unreleased next season of The Walking Dead” and that we announced we were going to disclose this protected information. We still aren't sure where we supposedly made this claim because they did not identify where it was.

Their stance is wrong and short-sighted. It's wrong because merely predicting what's going to happen in a show is not copyright infringement. It's short-sighted because the people making these guesses tend to be the show's biggest fans. Pissing off your shows' biggest fans not only seems monumentally assholish, but also entirely counterproductive.

The folks who run the Facebook page note that they don't think there's a legitimate legal issue here, but they're also doing this for fun, and getting sued is no fun, so they're shutting up thanks to the assholes at AMC legal:

Basically what it all comes down to is if we post our Lucille Victim prediction and we're right, AMC says they will sue us. Whether there are grounds for it or not is not the issue, it still costs money to defend. That is the way our justice system works. Would we have defenses? Sure. But it also costs money to mount that defense. If someone brings us a potential Lucille spoiler and we confirm it and it turns out accurate we could get sued. That doesn’t mean they’re right and we’re wrong, but like so many other situations in this world, they have the money and power and we do not. So we lose. In the past two years, AMC has filed several wrongful DMCA notices against us with full knowledge that we could not file counter-notices, hired investigators to intimidate our members, and threatened our local members with arrest, among other questionable acts.

It would be nice to know more about the details of those previous wrongful DMCA notices (and I've reached out to the people who operate the page to see if they will provide them), but this appears to be a situation of pure copyright abuse by AMC to silence a Facebook group they don't like. While there were reports last year that this same group leaked a clip from an upcoming show, that's an entirely different issue. Leaking a clip is likely infringement (caveats apply, but...). Still, that doesn't appear to be what happened here at all.

The report also claims that AMC has ramped up aggressiveness here: "AMC has been harassing us for four days now by contacting our homes, our family members and our employers." Again, that seems insane.

But, of course, as you can readily predict from the paragraph quoted above, the folks behind the site don't want to take the risk and are no longer in the prediction business:

After consultation with our legal counsel, we have responded to AMC that the TSDF staff will not be posting our prediction on who gets Lucilled on any of our outlets. We will also not be answering any questions about who we think it is. If you hear a potential spoiler elsewhere and bring it to us for confirmation, we will not confirm or deny it. If you message us privately and ask who we think gets Lucilled, we will not respond. The info may find another outlet on its own, but an official prediction will not come from the TSDF staff.

I still can't figure out how or why anyone at AMC thinks this is a good idea. The copyright claim is ridiculous. Predicting what will happen in a TV show is not copyright infringement. Pissing off the people who love your show so much they want more of it seems even more ridiculous. What possible good could this serve?

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, fans, spoilers, the walking dead
Companies: amc

Theater Chains Pout, Boycott Netflix's New Movie To Protect Antiquated Release Windows

from the taking-my-ball-and-go-home dept

As part of its continued foray into film and more flexible release windows, Netflix this week announced it had acquired the Cary Fukunaga film "Beasts of No Nation." Based on the novel by Uzodinma Iweala, the movie stars Idris Elba and examines the impact of civil war on an unnamed West African country. Like the company's acquired sequel to "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," Netflix is using the opportunity to kick down the doors of antiquated release windows, pushing the film to theaters the same day it will be available on Netflix instant streaming.

Given this would challenge the aging structure of the film industry, you'll probably not be surprised to learn that the primary response to Netflix's move has been of the hissy fit variety. That home video viewing will kill theaters has been the refrain of theater owners for decades now.

So, when Netflix announced it would be offering its Crouching Tiger sequel in IMAX on the same day as streaming availability, AMC, Regal and Cinemark -- which, combined, run 247 of the 400 IMAX theaters in North America -- unsurprisingly announced they'd be boycotting the movie this summer. Similarly, those same chains have joined forces to boycott Netflix's release of "Beasts of No Nation," insisting they need to do so to protect the 90-day delay between a theatrical debut and a home entertainment release.

That inflexibility has opened the door to folks like Alamo Drafthouse CEO Tim League, who somehow grasps the immeasurably complicated idea that sometimes people like going out to the movies, and sometimes they like staying home. League shot down the idea that tinkering with release windows was a death knell for theater owners:

"I’m agnostic about this sort of thing,” said Tim League, the company’s CEO and founder. “I look at films I want to play and I play them regardless of the release strategy." League noted that Alamo Drafthouse had success showing “Snowpiercer,” even though that science-fiction adventure debuted last summer on-demand while it was still in theaters.

"I don’t look at myself as a competitor to Netflix,” said League. “I think that argument is a little bit of a red herring. I watch a lot of movies at home, but there comes a time where I want to get out of the house. I look at cinemas as one of those options that compete with restaurants or baseball games or all of those things I can’t do in my living room."

Flexibly focusing on the consumer instead of crossing your arms and making a pouty face when inevitable industry evolution occurs? Ridiculous! Somebody clearly forgot to inform League that change is always bad, and pouting like a petulant child is the only effective and profitable path forward when history and technology threaten to rattle the status quo.

Filed Under: beasts of no nation, crouching tiget, day and date, hidden dragon, movies, release windows, theaters, uzodinma iweala
Companies: alamo draft house, amc, cinemark, imax, netflix, regal

AMC Forgets Time Zones Exist, Spoils Walking Dead Midseason Finale

from the braaaaiiiins dept

When it comes to spoilers, I generally think people get entirely too worked up over them. It's not particularly difficult to keep from having shows/movies/sports spoiled for you with a minimal amount of effort. Still, sometimes there are a ton of spoilers out there that fans can accidentally come across and sometimes the producers of the show/movie do the spoiling themselves. Whichever the case, the backlash usually isn't pretty. But the reason that cable channel AMC accidentally spoiled the death of a character on The Walking Dead for a huge portion of the audience is pretty hard to stomach: people there apparently forgot that timezones exist.

What the hell is missing over at AMC that a cable television company could forget about timezones?
Brains? So, here's how it went down. During the midseason finale, that AMC zombie show that all of our significant others' find too disgusting to watch with us, killed off Beth, a main character (See? I really don't care about spoilers). As you might expect, it created quite a buzz on social media amongst the show's fans right away. AMC, being in the business of making money off of that buzz, decided to try to capitalize on it with this Facebook status update. In case you missed it, or thought that the image itself was ambiguous, the text at the bottom of the image read: "RIP Beth." That might not seem like all that big a deal, except that the network's Facebook pages put that post up immediately following the East Coast airing of the episode. Anyone who has followed AMC's larger hits knows that tagging along on its social media sites and website is something many fans do, which means that as folks were settling in to watch the show in the other timezones within these great United States, they already knew that Beth bit it. The backlash was apparently bad enough that AMC issued an apology. But the channel did at least have a little fun with it.

"We heard your feedback to last night's post, and we're sorry," the post read. "With zero negative intent, we jumped the gun and put up a spoiler. Please know we're going to work to ensure that, in the future, possible spoilers by official AMC social feeds are killed before they can infect, certainly before the West Coast (U.S.) broadcast of The Walking Dead. As always, thank you for watching, and keep the comments coming. We appreciate all of your support. #RIPSpoiler"

In the end, AMC's blunder really was rather stupid. On the other hand, if you're that upset at coming across a spoiler, just do what I do: avoid everything to do with a show until it comes out on Netflix and then binge watch the hell out of it.

Filed Under: social media, spoilers, walking dead
Companies: amc

Broadcasters And Cable Companies Trying Harder Than Ever To Annoy Paying Customers With Ugly Public Contract Disputes

from the everybody-loses dept

We've already noted how the retransmission fee disputes between cable companies and broadcasters have grown significantly more annoying over the last few years, as broadcasters seek out higher and higher rates to prop up the unsustainable current TV ecosystem. These fights have become a master class in how to piss off your (already quite annoyed) customer base during rate negotiations, with paying TV customers being bombarded with ads, TV tickers, and a bevy of lame websites by both sides trying to direct consumer outrage toward the other guy. Customers who happen to get broadband from a TV company engaged in one of these fights have also recently started to enjoy having access to online content blocked, even if they subscribe to TV services through another operator.

While broadcasters (especially sports programmers) own the lion's share of the blame for the soaring rates, neither side is blameless. Cable operators will blame broadcasters with one breath, and in the very next hit consumers with their own assortment of higher cable modem rental fees, more expensive DVR and set top rental charges, or strange and obnoxious new below the line fees. Once both sides spend a few months publicly sniping at one another and bombarding consumers with artificial concern for soaring prices, they'll strike a confidential agreement and quite happily raise consumer rates in unison. Cable TV customers get to pay for the honor of the entire experience.

AMC has recently ramped up their use of this tactic, blasting consumers with tickers and ads not only after contract negotiations break down, but months before current contracts expire. AMC repeatedly warned viewers of the latest "The Walking Dead" episode that DirecTV wasn't bowing quite deeply enough during efforts to renew a contract expiring at year's end, and therefore consumers might lose access to their favorite content:

During the Nov. 2 premiere episode of The Walking Dead, AMC began alerting DirecTV subscribers via commercials and graphic snipes that their ability to watch cable's top series, and TV's leader among persons 18 to 49, could be compromised..."DirecTV has not engaged in meaningful negotiations with us, which leaves us to doubt whether a timely renewal is possible," (a statement declares).

Because bothering you at home during your favorite shows isn't enough, Viacom recently got the great idea to take their feud with small cable operator Suddenlink on the road, hiring actors dressed up as the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles to help educate kids and parents during a Charleston-area homecoming celebration:

Viacom has enlisted Nickelodeon’s Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles to help reunite Suddenlink customers with some of the characters they might be missing since losing access to Viacom channels in early October. The turtles were scheduled to make an appearance at Capital High School’s homecoming game Friday night at University of Charleston Stadium. The move, Viacom spokesman Mark Jafar said, is intended to let area customers know the company is still thinking of them.

Because nothing quite says, "I'm thinking about you," like costumed turtles trying to offload blame for your own obnoxious prices hikes, right?

Of course this attempt to generate consumer outrage on the part of broadcasters only works if consumers actually miss your content, something that's only going to happen less as alternatives to cable expand. When DirecTV customers recently lost access to The Weather Channel during a contract dispute, it turned out that customers really didn't miss the channel all that much because the channel's quality had eroded substantially and many users had already shifted to getting their weather online. It's also worth noting that some small and mid-sized cable operators, unable to afford these endless rate hikess, are no longer offering cable TV and simply selling broadband.

Cable company executives spend a lot of time publicly wondering why younger cord cutters can't seem to see the incredible value in traditional cable television, oblivious to the fact that annoying paying customers goes a long way to explaining it. These are the same companies and executives who in a few years will stare dumbly at their shoes wondering how they failed to keep pace with evolution in Internet-based television, and these increasingly annoying and loud contract disputes are the last, sad gasps of a dying dinosaur.

Filed Under: broadcasters, cable, customers, fights, networks, retransmission, tv, walking dead
Companies: amc, viacom

ICE Takes To Twitter In Ridiculous Attempt To Defend Interrogating A Man In A Movie Theater For Wearing Google Glass

from the theft? dept

Earlier this week there was a report about a guy being yanked out of his seat in a movie theater for wearing Google Glass during the movie. Glass was turned off, and the guy kept them on because he had prescription lenses installed and wears them as his regular glasses. Both the MPAA and federal agents were called to interrogate the guy for a few hours, asking him a bunch of ridiculous questions until late in the night, before someone finally realized he hadn't done anything. Both the MPAA and ICE confirmed the incident happened, and yesterday folks at ICE -- who have recently been transitioned into the new Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) organization -- decided to take to their bizarrely named twitter account, @wwwicegov, to further "defend" these actions, by talking up how they're in charge of dealing with "movie theft." Because, apparently, Homeland Security Investigations doesn't understand the law, and doesn't realize that (1) infringement is not, and has never been, "theft" and (2) a dude wearing a powered-off Google Glass is not doing anything wrong. Here are the tweets: As you can see, there's a lot of ridiculousness there -- just the fact that they repeatedly refer to it as "theft," as mentioned above. The problem is that ICE's role as "the lead agency to combat piracy" is a joke. As ICE, it was supposed to focus on stopping counterfeit physical products from crossing the border. But with the help of Joe Biden and Hollywood, that mandate has been twisted repeatedly, so that what started as a very narrow mandate is now being treated as this broad mandate from an organization that doesn't even understand the issues. For years now, the group has made sure to conflate the very, very different issues of counterfeits at the border with copyright infringement, as it tries to expand its own mandate.

And now that's reached the absolutely insane point of yanking people out of their movie seats for doing nothing wrong, entirely on the say so of the MPAA -- a private group which has a long history of overreacting badly to new technologies.

What comes out of this is that ICE/HSI now appears to be incredibly gullible, falling for basically every bullshit claim from the MPAA. Just imagine if ICE/HSI had been around and had this sort of broad stupid made-up power over "intellectual property theft" during the introduction of the VCR -- back when the MPAA was declaring it illegal? ICE would be out there raiding and shutting down electronics stores for selling the devices. All because the MPAA said so.

Filed Under: copyright, google glass, homeland security, hsi, ice, infringement, movie theft
Companies: amc, mpaa

MPAA & ICE Confirm They Interrogated A Guy For Wearing Google Glass During A Movie

from the insane dept

We wrote earlier about the guy who told the story of being pulled out of a theater in the middle of a movie for wearing Google Glass (turned off), which he wears all the time, because he got prescription lenses installed on the device and uses it as his regular pair of glasses. As we noted, there were some oddities in the original story, including references to the FBI and "The Movie Association," neither of which made sense. Since then, as we noted in our updated post, AMC confirmed that a customer had been detained, and since then the MPAA as well as Homeland Security have weighed in, confirming the basic story. This is insane on multiple levels, which we'll get to in a moment. But first, the quotes. Here's AMC:

Movie theft is something we take very seriously, and our theater managers contact the Motion Picture Association of America anytime it’s suspected that someone may be illegally recording content on screen. While we’re huge fans of technology and innovation, wearing a device that has the capability to record video is not appropriate at the movie theatre. At AMC Easton 30 last weekend, a guest was questioned for possible movie theft after he was identified wearing a recording device during a film. The presence of this recording device prompted an investigation by the MPAA, which was on site. The MPAA then contacted Homeland Security, which oversees movie theft. The investigation determined the guest was not recording content.

Then the MPAA:

Google Glass is an incredible innovation in the mobile sphere, and we have seen no proof that it is currently a significant threat that could result in content theft. The MPAA works closely with theaters all over the country to curb camcording and theater-originated piracy, and in this particular case, no such activity was discovered.

Finally, Homeland Security's ICE division:

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.

Okay, now onto the point. As we said in the initial post, this certainly fit with the MPAA's insane "guidelines" to theaters and their "zero tolerance" policies towards anyone possibly recording anything. However, the involvement of ICE is particularly insane. We've been particularly critical of ICE and the group's over-aggressive campaign to seize websites based entirely on Hollywood's say so.

Even so, it seemed incredible that ICE would take direction from the MPAA on something as small as a guy in a movie theater, rushing to the theater to help with the interrogation of someone there, but we underestimated the willingness of ICE to say "how high" when the MPAA says "jump." Yes, we should know better by now, but we thought we'd actually give the MPAA and DHS the benefit of the doubt here. Our mistake.

We find it difficult to believe that there aren't more important things for ICE to be doing than hassling a guy out attending a movie with his wife. Hollywood has gotten ICE into trouble in the past with its over-aggressive claims about websites. You'd think that ICE would have learned by now that the RIAA and MPAA are not exactly trustworthy when they insist someone is a "filthy pirate" who needs to be investigated. There is simply no reason for federal investigators to be involved at all, let alone called in to interrogate some guy wearing a new piece of technology that the MPAA has overreacted to.

Filed Under: dhs, google glass, ice, movies
Companies: amc, mpaa

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

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.

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