Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: huge black eye for Regal

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Super Secret Squirrel Bunker, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    485

    Post imported post

    Oops...

    Regal theaters - remember them? They're the gun and self defense unfrienly, but registered sex offender friendly theater chain locally ( more than locally ) that essentially told us to stay away they didn't want business from folks who want to protect themselves - but that they didn't check for or care if sexual predators came to watch movies...



    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...080102398.html

    Check the comments. It seems that Regal in Ballston Commons went off on a woman for grabbing a cell phone clip of a movie. Evidently a class 1 misdemeanor.

    Doesn't seem to popular on the comments board for the article andI have to agree. While I understand that if it is a crime, the officers are in a tight spot, I would point out that it seems they were all to willing to cite this woman, but try and get them to cite some creep other misdemeanors that are even more dangerous some time.

    One poster pointed out that we probably do have better things to do with our enforcement than jailing people for video clips... Fines, sure, but this is just ridiculous. Law making has gotten out of hand.





  2. #2
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Mr. Y wrote:
    Oops...

    Regal theaters - remember them? They're the gun and self defense unfrienly, but registered sex offender friendly theater chain locally ( more than locally ) that essentially told us to stay away they didn't want business from folks who want to protect themselves - but that they didn't check for or care if sexual predators came to watch movies...



    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...080102398.html

    Check the comments. It seems that Regal in Ballston Commons went off on a woman for grabbing a cell phone clip of a movie. Evidently a class 1 misdemeanor.

    Doesn't seem to popular on the comments board for the article andI have to agree. While I understand that if it is a crime, the officers are in a tight spot, I would point out that it seems they were all to willing to cite this woman, but try and get them to cite some creep other misdemeanors that are even more dangerous some time.

    One poster pointed out that we probably do have better things to do with our enforcement than jailing people for video clips... Fines, sure, but this is just ridiculous. Law making has gotten out of hand.

    The digital content rights people are about the most rabid guys out there...it's an ideology at this point.

    Still, one would think that Regal could somehow manage to protect the content rights and not shoot itself in the foot public relations-wise.

    But ideology distorts things tfor its adherents. They always think they are always right. Sad, in a way.


  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Mr. Y wrote:
    Oops...

    Regal theaters - remember them? They're the gun and self defense unfrienly, but registered sex offender friendly theater chain locally ( more than locally ) that essentially told us to stay away they didn't want business from folks who want to protect themselves - but that they didn't check for or care if sexual predators came to watch movies...



    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...080102398.html

    Check the comments. It seems that Regal in Ballston Commons went off on a woman for grabbing a cell phone clip of a movie. Evidently a class 1 misdemeanor.

    Doesn't seem to popular on the comments board for the article andI have to agree. While I understand that if it is a crime, the officers are in a tight spot, I would point out that it seems they were all to willing to cite this woman, but try and get them to cite some creep other misdemeanors that are even more dangerous some time.

    One poster pointed out that we probably do have better things to do with our enforcement than jailing people for video clips... Fines, sure, but this is just ridiculous. Law making has gotten out of hand.
    She recorded 20 seconds... I say Big F-ing deal!!!!

    Like she was going to sell it or something!! They show more than that on the promo trailers to get you in the theater.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Super Secret Squirrel Bunker, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    485

    Post imported post

    Again, before this thread goes south - I don't think we can genuinely fault the cops here; maybe -- JUST-- a little... they've got a law broken and the evidence of it right in front of them ...

    The theater staff however, we can fault. That's just nutty. Makeher delete the clip!It's an easy call. It's things like this that push people more and more to TiVO

    AND as a side benefit, you get to share the movie with people of YOUR choosing with TiVO... Or any other DVR...

    I do question why they didn't tell the theater staff - 'hey, why not make her erase the recording, we'll give her a stern warning, everyone's happy, right?' - maybe they did.

    Anyway, next time you're at a theater if it's a Regal theater remember - they don't want your guns, but if you're a registered sex offender or felon, you're welcome.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Mr. Y wrote:
    Again, before this thread goes south - I don't think we can genuinely fault the cops here; maybe -- JUST-- a little... they've got a law broken and the evidence of it right in front of them ...

    The theater staff however, we can fault. That's just nutty. Makeher delete the clip!It's an easy call. It's things like this that push people more and more to TiVO

    AND as a side benefit, you get to share the movie with people of YOUR choosing with TiVO... Or any other DVR...

    I do question why they didn't tell the theater staff - 'hey, why not make her erase the recording, we'll give her a stern warning, everyone's happy, right?' - maybe they did.

    Anyway, next time you're at a theater if it's a Regal theater remember - they don't want your guns, but if you're a registered sex offender or felon, you're welcome.
    I am going to speculate that the theater staff/owner/manager pushed to have her charged.

    As a LEO.... I would have opted to just have her delete the clip and bounce her from the theater for doing it.

    This is NOT the crime of the century. Not like in NY where the set up a tripod and video camera to record the entire movie.

    I would have also made it known that she was suspectedof a crime and that she was not compelled to show me the clip, if any. The theater's word against her's now.


  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    206

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    She recorded 20 seconds . . . They show more than that on the promo trailers to get you in the theater.
    I definitely think this is a great point. It would be nice if the charges were dismissed before this crazy show boating case goes to trial. Perhaps the most unfortunate part about this entire situation is that the VAST majority of people won't think anything about this incident, and they'll continue to give this theater business. Only a very small minority of people will take their business elsewhere. I, for one, won't be visiting any Regal theaters (not that I do in the first place).

  7. #7
    State Researcher dng's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,290

    Post imported post

    It is the same principle as what some attorneys want to do to gun owners; make them examples. The movie and music industry is vicious about anything pirated, and as soon as they catch anyone, they will take it as far as they have to so others will not download, video tape, or anything else illegally. The big difference is that what she did IS illegal (even though it doesn't seem she was going to be able to sell a 20 second clip) and what we do is entirely LEGAL.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    http://www.newsdaily.com/TopNews/UPI...-copyright.xml
    wrote:
    Copyright warnings questioned WASHINGTON, Aug. 2 (UPI) --

    Computer and communications companies are complaining in Washington that multiple media companies are misrepresenting copyright laws to consumers.

    The Computer and Communications Industry Association, which includes Google, Microsoft and Yahoo, complained to the Federal Trade Commission that the National Football League, Major League Baseball, NBC and Universal Studios, DreamWorks, Harcourt and Penguin Group put forth copyright warnings that represent a "systematic misrepresentation of consumers' rights to use legally acquired content," The New York Times reported Thursday.

    The association said in the complaint to the Federal Trade Commission that the warnings may confuse consumers about their right to use copyrighted material.

    "It is an attempt to convince Americans that they don't have rights that they do in fact have," said Ed Black, president and chief executive of the association. "This is part of the larger context of what should be and what are proper rules for copyright in an Internet age."

    The association is asking the FTC to force the content providers to use more accurate copyright warnings and participate in programs designed to inform people of their rights.

    Copyright 2007 by United Press International. All Rights Reserved.
    http://www.defendfairuse.org/include/complaint.html

    Before the Federal Trade Commission Washington, D.C. In the Matter of Misrepresentation of Consumer Fair Use and Related Rights by National Football League, NFL Properties, Inc., NFL Enteprises LLC and Major League Baseball, Major League Baseball Properties, Inc., Major League Baseball Advanced Media, LP and NBC Universal, Inc., Universal Studios, Inc., and Morgan Creek Productions, Inc. and DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc., DreamWorks LLC, a Viacom property and Harcourt Inc. and Penguin Group (USA), Inc. Docket No. _________ REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF
    1. 1.This complaint concerns the systematic misrepresentation of consumersÄô rights to use legally acquired content by certain copyright-holding corporations. These corporations have engaged, and continue to engage in, a nationwide pattern of unfair and deceptive trade practices by misrepresenting consumer rights under copyright law, and in some cases threatening criminal and civil penalties against consumers who choose to exercise statutorily or Constitutionally guaranteed rights. These false representations violate the letter and spirit of the Federal Trade Commission ActÄôs prohibition against unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.1
    1. 2.As described further herein, pursuant to 16 C.F.R. ß 2.2(a) the Computer & Communications Industry Association requests that the Federal Trade Commission (ÄúFTCÄù or ÄúCommissionÄù) investigate these practices and order all relief that it deems appropriate.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Chester, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    451

    Post imported post

    Back in the day I whipped out my pink razr phone and recorded tons of movie scenes in cosolidateds commonwealth 20 movie theatre. lol. BUt really, screw the theatre. Too expensive and you can't defend yourself

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    13

    Post imported post

    Some of the copyright laws don't make sense. I can record a movie from cable TV, perfectly legal. I can even record a PayPerView movie, perfectly legal. But if I go down to the video store and rent that very same movie it is a criminal offense to copy it for later viewing.

    In both cases I paid for the right to view it, so what's the difference?

  11. #11
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Just a "wannabe" in Mtn. Top, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,441

    Post imported post

    I OC'd last night here in NE-PA in R/C Theatres (MD based company)
    Everyone was very polite




  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    My favorite caveat, IANAL (though some here are anile).

    You paid for the right to view it. An argument can be made that you paid for the right to view it once. You certainly did not pay for the right to reproduce it at will. The disagreement is over how far 'at will' extends.

    The theater paid for the right to display the product and not for your 'right' to record it. You purchased the right to view the product and not to record it.

    The root of the intellectual property rights controversy is the 'producers' are disagreeing with their market's valuation of the product. The market says it's worth stealing only and of course the 'artists' disagree.

    Marx argued that a mudpie was worth the labor in the product. The 'artists' use that argument.

    This 'right' is not related to a God Given Right.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    I think she deserved to be arrested for not turning off her cellphone in a movie theatre !!!!!

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    ...SNIP
    I am going to speculate that the theater staff/owner/manager pushed to have her charged.

    As a LEO....* I would have opted to just have her delete the clip and bounce her from the theater for doing it.

    This is NOT the crime of the century. Not like in NY where the set up a tripod and video camera to record the entire movie.

    I would have also made it known that she was suspected*of a crime and that she was not compelled to show me the clip, if any. The theater's word against her's now.
    *
    You would be correct. The theater is pressing the charges, not the police. Most of the Police involved think the whole thing is stupid, but they have to pursue the complaint so long as it is lawful.

    Regal claims that there has been a lot of piracy recently in this area. Their contracts with the movie producers compel them to act if they catch someone in their theater recording any part of a movie. If they do not act, the producers can cut off their access to new releases. Essentially this would put them out of business.

    In any case the police are not the problem in this case.

    Regards
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  15. #15
    Regular Member IanB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    1,896

    Post imported post

    As I read the WP article, it says she used a Canon PowerShot which is a digital camera with the ability to record movies (limited only by how large a card has been installed in the camera). I had a similar Sony camera which could record TV quality movies, and I expect the Canon to have the same capability / capacity. One 512MB stick would allow me to record 6:02 minutes of high quality video.

    Regardless, I think it's silly to prosecute someone for recording a 20 second clip which clearly would not harm the copyright owners ability to market / sell the film.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,043

    Post imported post

    Just more reasons for me to refuse to go to movie theaters. Some time ago, I announced to my family that I refuse to attend movies at movie theaters on the basis that they rip you off and force us to disarm.

    I remember sitting in a theater a few years back...on the screen popped a small clip with Anthony Hopkins championing $1 donations for some charitable cause. According to him, the theater owner was the organizer of the charity.

    Of course, going to the movies these days costs in the neighborhood of $10 per person, not to mention the addition $10 - $15 for refreshments for 2 or 3 people. One person in the theater said out loud "Why don't you take a dollar out of the price of my ticket?!?" and the rest of the theater clapped in agreement.

    Now, don't get me wrong here. I am all about donating generously to worthy charitys. However, when a theater becomes a sponsor of a charity in this capacity, instead of scamming their customers of more of their hard earned money, why don't they offer to donate a $1 of every ticket sold to a particular movie? Ya'know? That would make me feel better about it.

    On the other hand, since I won't be going to any movies, I don't care any more. It's more money that I get to donate elsewhere.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    Besides VR they don't sell Ice cream there.
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,043

    Post imported post

    Hawkflyer wrote:
    Besides VR they don't sell Ice cream there.
    Very true!

    Maybe if they served ice cream, I'd be more apt to going

  19. #19
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Just a "wannabe" in Mtn. Top, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,441

    Post imported post

    Thurs night was the 3rd time in ten years I've been to the theatre.

    last three movies I remember going to :
    Transformers (thurs w/ my son)
    The Patriot
    The Rock.


    Before the rock I can't remember the last movie I went to. Probably not since high school :what:

    But I admit I had a good time thurs and will have to consider going to the theatre occationally



  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    As a LEO.... I would have opted to just have her delete the clip and bounce her from the theater for doing it.
    From where does the authority to do this come? If it is a crime then the evidence is destroyed. Kind'a like cops ripping film from a camera.

    The point of this thread is that copyright law is in flux. It would be nice to hear from an attorney on this cutting edge of law.

    IANAL but some here are anile.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Superstition Mountain, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    424

    Post imported post

    From where does the authority to do this come? If it is a crime then the evidence is destroyed. Kind'a like cops ripping film from a camera.
    I would think the authority comes from what LEO wrote above. She is SUSPECTED of making a recording of the movie. Since she can't be made to incriminate herself, there is no proof of that.

    Was there a memory card in the camera? Was there a battery in the camera? Had she pushed the "record" button? If you can't make her incriminate herself by showing what's on her camera, just tell her she's causing trouble and she needs to get lost.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    mzbk2l wrote:
    I would think the authority comes from what LEO wrote above.
    Does 'arrogate' mean anything to anyone?

    If the LEO can't reasonably articulate a point of law then it seems to me that he is violating some sort of discretion. Like whether or not to enforce immigration law, is there discretion?

    I wonder just how a typical policeman's commission is worded that he may enforce laws that he doesn't understand?

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •