Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×
Movies Piracy

British Movie Theater Staff To Wear Night-Vision Goggles To Combat Movie Piracy 279

Ewan Palmer writes: Movie theater across the UK will be required to don military-style night vision goggles in order to help crack down on movie piracy ahead of the release of potential box office smashes such as Spectre and Hunger Games. The initiative is part new measures to combat piracy as in recent years, pirates have found new and inventive ways to illegally record movies while using a smartphone to film through a popcorn box. Kieron Sharp, director general of the Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT), said: "The bigger the film and the more anticipated it is, the higher-risk it is. We have staff on extra alert for that. James Bond is a big risk and we will be working with cinema operators and the distributors making sure we will keep that as tight as possible. We really don't want to see that recorded. They [cinema staff] are on alert to really drill down on who is in the auditorium and who might possibly be recording. They still do the sweeps around the auditoriums with the night vision glasses regardless of the film. But sometimes extra security is put in place for things like Bond."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

British Movie Theater Staff To Wear Night-Vision Goggles To Combat Movie Piracy

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @10:10PM (#50586965)

    and only get my movies at the pirate bay. No hassles. No real spying. God loves AMERICA! The POPE is here!

    • by Z00L00K ( 682162 ) on Thursday September 24, 2015 @01:43AM (#50587605) Homepage

      The movies pirated at theaters are usually low quality and not very interesting to watch due to all the quality issues.

      Also consider the possibility that piracy of movies at the theaters may be performed by the employees themselves whenever that happens.

      • by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Thursday September 24, 2015 @04:10AM (#50587851)
        The high quality pirated movies are shot by theater employees using a camera on a tripod in the projection room (so the screen isn't distorted from a perfect rectangle) with a direct audio feed (so you get only the movie soundtrack - no people talking or coughing).

        So basically all this will do is increase the quality of pirated movies by weeding out the poorly-shot cellphone movies, and give the theater staff some cool toys to play with while they're pirating the movie.
        • The high quality pirated movies are shot by theater employees using a camera on a tripod in the projection room (so the screen isn't distorted from a perfect rectangle) with a direct audio feed (so you get only the movie soundtrack - no people talking or coughing)..

          Where did you get this silly idea from? Sure there are movie theater employees that do this but a lot of the movies you torrent are screen copies made for reviewers in the media. Some come from the special effects houses. You can find plenty that are marked as internal studio copies (doesn't cover the screen, but is in the letter boxing if you watch on a 4:3). You can even download the movies before they hit the theater in many cases. I haven't seen a pirated movie like you're talking about since Star

          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward

            There is a major difference between CAM/TS/TC and SCREENER/WP releases that you don't seem to be aware of. Almost all popular movies have CAM releases. There are currently ~22 movies with no better release available than a CAM.

          • It's called a telesync, or TS
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
            I just checked and there's plenty of TS releases in the last week.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Feral Nerd ( 3929873 )

        The movies pirated at theaters are usually low quality and not very interesting to watch due to all the quality issues.

        Also consider the possibility that piracy of movies at the theaters may be performed by the employees themselves whenever that happens.

        I agree 100%, what kind of a miserly dork would watch a pirated movie recorded with a smartphone in a cinema. The amount of effort spent by the paranoid dickheads that seem to rule the media industry on preventing this sort of piracy is completely out of all proportion to the small amount of damage it does. It's a bit like swatting flies with a 12 gauge shotgun.

      • by Katatsumuri ( 1137173 ) on Thursday September 24, 2015 @04:50AM (#50587977)
        Exactly. Watching a screen copy is a punishment in itself. Unsatisfied viewers and the resulting bad reputation is the punishment for the person making and sharing the copy. If the movie industry were smarter, they would leave the screen copy sector be, and maybe use it as bad PR for piracy. Anyone who can be satisfied with screen copy quality is definitely not a movie theater customer anyway.
    • by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Thursday September 24, 2015 @05:15AM (#50588037) Journal
      Meh. I stopped going to the cinema when the price of two tickets became more than the price of the DVD (and that's before you add snacks / drinks). I bought a projector and a reasonable surround-sound system almost a decade ago (and have replaced the bulb once). A subscription to a DVD rental service now costs significantly less than two people going to the cinema once a month. I can have friends over to watch a film without paying any more (and they can bring food / booze), I can pause it if I need to go to the toilet (or turn on subtitles if someone is hard to understand). I can drink or eat whatever I want with the film. Oh, and unlike seemingly every cinema in the UK, I don't have the equaliser settings configured to completely destroy any sane audio balance that might have been present in the original.
      • It's worse when your local cinema have such poor image quality that it is preferable to see the movie in your home with a decent setup. Seriously, how they will make people see the movie in the theater is what you get for your ticket is a mediocre image with a distorted sound and overpriced popcorn?
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by DigiShaman ( 671371 )

      Yeah! Because theft of other peoples labor is so hip and cool!

      Hey asshole, why don't you at least take the time to, you know, actually pay for the product/service? You could always rent the movie later. It's a really neat concept in that the actors, staff, and the industry as a whole earns a profit thus growing it. It also puts food on table and keeps a roof over their family. Don't think you will would ever pay to watch a specific movie anyways? Perhaps then you shouldn't watch it either.

    • We have staff on extra alert for that. James Bond is a big risk and we will be working with cinema operators and the distributors making sure we will keep that as tight as possible.

      If SMERSH and SPECTRE couldn't deal with Bond, how are these bozos going to accomplish anything?

    • The thing that drove me out of the commercial theaters many years ago was their insistence that I sit through ad after ad before the film. Fuck that.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @10:10PM (#50586967)

    ... the pirate's cameras often rely on infrared light. Several bright "invisible to the human eye" infrared lights pointed at the audience from behind the screen or even around it ought to do the trick. Just trying to cast light on the topic.

    • by AK Marc ( 707885 ) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @10:29PM (#50587053)
      That was my fault as well, but I was thinking they should pulse them, with a frequency close to the response time of the cameras (if they are close enough to do something like this), so the camera fades in and out, like a copy of a Macrovision VHS.0
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @10:34PM (#50587075)

      What I don't get is how the cinema staff could be sure that it's a camera that is in the popcorn box. Suppose there's a man sitting there in the cinema. He has a box of popcorn on his lap, but he isn't eating any of the popcorn, and he's holding the box with one hand on each side. The cinema staff use their night vision goggles to pick him out of the crowd as a suspect. They confront the man, and ask him to open the popcorn box. He complies, and all they see is popcorn. Still convinced that he's up to no good, one of the cinema staff puts a hand into the box, and starts moving the popcorn around, searching for the camera the staff are sure is in the popcorn box. But after shifting around the popcorn, this staff member doesn't find a camera at all. Instead, all he finds is the poor cinemagoer's cock and balls, which for some inexplicable reason have been stuck through a hole in the bottom of the popcorn box. Not immediately realising what was going on, the cinema staff member's hand thoroughly fondles the poor cinemagoer's cock and balls. As you can imagine, this is a pretty awkward situation for both the cinemagoer and the cinema staff to be in!

      • Let's hope cinemagoer doesn't regret the choice of hot butter topping
      • As you can imagine, this is a pretty awkward situation for both the cinemagoer and the cinema staff to be in!

        It also explains why the popcorn is salty and sticky at the same time

    • I came to say exactly the same thing, but this AC beat me. One potential risk though is that the pirates could potentially use filters to block the IR portion of the spectrum. At least it would hinder the casual pirates.
    • by dwywit ( 1109409 )

      IR spectrum is not good for your eyes. Not as bad as UV, but still in the "not recommended" category - and especially as your pupils will be more open than when outside in daylight. If a cinema was caught doing this, there'll be a moron and his/her lawyer somewhere willing to sue. If they win, then bye-bye to IR lights behind screens.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        That's incorrect. Concentrated IR (eg a laser) will heat the internals of the eye, just like a visible laser. There would be hell to pay for everyone with an IR remote control and the Nintendo Wii/WiiU sensor bar. Non-concentrated IR is no more harmful than visible light. The ways to mess with the IR sensitivity in a camera is to make the IR light alternate between strobeing and solid from a LED bank in the ceiling pointed towards the seats at a 30 to 45 degree angle so it ruins the recording and can't just

      • It wouldn't need to shine directly into the eyes of the audience - a lower power IR laser with a rotating diffraction grating could be projected onto the screen - invisible to the naked eye, very low risk of eye damage and would wreak havoc on most digital video recording devices...
  • by gmack ( 197796 ) <{gmack} {at} {innerfire.net}> on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @10:11PM (#50586969) Homepage Journal

    If someone is so cheap that they will watch something recorded from a cell phone I'm guessing they will never be paying customers no matter what happens.

    • by Frosty Piss ( 770223 ) * on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @10:21PM (#50587021)

      This is why this phenomenon has never interested me. I mean really? A bad shaky out of focus version of a movie that I will be able to see on NetFlix in less than 6 months? Sure...

      • by gl4ss ( 559668 ) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @11:34PM (#50587285) Homepage Journal

        it's a ploy to sell night vision goggles from a specific provider.

        they found a stupid enough exec and bribed the idea to him: *boom* money.

        the exec had to be stupid enough to not know actually how the bootlegs people download were recorded.

        hint: not in the UK and if there's a direct audio feed then it's prooobably not a regular movie goer..

        • it's a ploy to sell night vision goggles from a specific provider.

          I disagree.

          It's yet another instance where the copyright cartel has made government and private industry responsible for policing copyright.

          So basically huge multinational corporations have everyone else doing their bidding and wasting their time and resources to ensure the profits for those huge multinational corporations.

          If those corporations want their copyright policed, they should be paying for it. This is just another example of how we

      • by antdude ( 79039 )

        Six months is too long to wait for some people. :P

    • Exactly. This proves that the idiots at FACT don't even understand the piracy they claim they're fighting. No-one watches stupid phone camera copies of pirated movies.
      • by jez9999 ( 618189 ) on Thursday September 24, 2015 @03:32AM (#50587775) Homepage Journal

        What did you expect? FACT were the retards who produced this [youtube.com] (it's not a spoof; it's on some of my DVDs). Not exactly the brightest lightbulbs.

      • by gl4ss ( 559668 )

        well the movie theatre owners wife & kids watch that stuff. he thinks he is so smart you see.

      • Of course they watch poor quality video. Not everyone has the time or money to catch the movie when it came out in the theatres, or when it's not released in their country yet, and many less wealthy fans of a franchise will grab and watch poor quality video because it's immediately available.

        There are even plenty of $5 DVD vendors, in chap Asian markets, who will sell them burned to DVD from carts or backbacks. It's a very real market: visit some poor neighborhoods some day to see the sales.

    • What I think is a better question is why they think anyone is doing this in the UK... Most cam copies I see are either from Slavic states near Russia or from somewhere in Asia. Most western world copies of movies tend to be screeners and other video sources and are in fact rare since companies started watermarking them. The only good use of a cam copy is pretty much deciding if the movie may be worth the hassle of a real theatre to go so or wait for a release copy.

    • I can see a movie once and then see it over and over again without further charge. It's called memory. Let the MPAA try to use night vision to find me memorizing stuff.

      • I can see a movie once and then see it over and over again without further charge. It's called memory. Let the MPAA try to use night vision to find me memorizing stuff.

        And like most of us you have a perfect photographic memory. Obvs.

  • Really necessary? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by exomondo ( 1725132 ) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @10:11PM (#50586971)
    I can't imagine that many people will eschew going to the movies for a smartphone camera recording. Maybe for screeners and Telecine rips but cam versions? Really?
  • I understand the incentive to watch a movie online but what is the incentive for someone to risk prison time to illegally record a movie
    and upload it to pirate bay? What is the uploader getting out of it? Back in the BBS there was a barter system where you could get
    credit by uploading something wanted that didn't exist yet but what incentive is there today?

    • I think in the case of cam-rips, they're usually not uploaded at all. Private trackers won't take them, and no one is going to download them on public trackers unless they're desperate. Most cam-rips, from what I understand anyway, get burned to disc and sold on the street rather than put online.

      • by adolf ( 21054 ) <flodadolf@gmail.com> on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @11:11PM (#50587201) Journal

        There seems to be a certain measure of pride amongst some folks in having the latest movies. I know people who boast about having terabytes of new movies on their hard drive, all cams.

        Myself, I find them to be unwatchable garbage -- if I wanted to see a new movie that badly, I'd go to the theater and see it. But to them, their collection of grainy cams with bad audio is a treasure.

        • Yeah I don't get that. Why get a cam when the BR rip or HDweb rip won't be that far behind it. Chances are there will be a pretty high quality copy with korean hard subs in it within a month of theatre release even for the top grossing films.

    • by TsuruchiBrian ( 2731979 ) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @11:01PM (#50587155)

      I understand the incentive to watch a movie online but what is the incentive for someone to risk prison time to illegally record a movie and upload it to pirate bay? What is the uploader getting out of it? Back in the BBS there was a barter system where you could get credit by uploading something wanted that didn't exist yet but what incentive is there today?

      Altruism?

      Why do people volunteer to do anything? Maybe it's because they get some kind of satisfaction by helping people. Maybe they like the prestige of being a notable pirate. Maybe they think the media industry is evil, and they feel like they are making the world a better place by denying profits to them.

      I suppose it doesn't make sense if you think the only compelling reason to do something is for personal monetary gain.

      But there are lots of other motivations people can have other than money.

    • Whether they pirate movies, music or software, pirates seem to be mostly driven by moral considerations. They also tend to have a strong moral code of conduct - don't attribute other group's releases to yourself, always provide the necessary cracks, add an "if you like it, buy it" clause, and so on.

      • Whether they pirate movies, music or software, pirates seem to be mostly driven by moral considerations. They also tend to have a strong moral code of conduct - don't attribute other group's releases to yourself, always provide the necessary cracks, add an "if you like it, buy it" clause, and so on.

        User name gives you away, Jim laaad.

  • So (Score:5, Insightful)

    by penguinoid ( 724646 ) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @10:20PM (#50587011) Homepage Journal

    Pirates will just switch from crappy low-res idiot-talking-on-the-phone theater recordings to high-quality pre-release torrents.

  • Everyone knows that CAMs are shit, those who do not normally see in a theater will wait for the bluray version or the HDRip...
    • by AK Marc ( 707885 )
      Some like to watch the cams to see if the movie is worth watching in the first place. Is the story and acting good? Or is it a worthless movie with lots of pretty pretty advertisements.
      • I've been in workplaces where some recent movie is the chatting subject at the water color or the cafeteria, If everybody is talking about the flick, and your budget is tight or you lack the transportation and time to catch the movie in the theatres, you can feel left out and be happy to catch a pirated copy.

        Believe me, when you have kids or expensive pastimes like family with medical expenses, movies in cinemas are a real luxury.

  • I'm sure that the there are theatre staff that record films too, but I doubt that the PR people will address that publicly. I'm sure theatre managers will be told to look at staff. But publicly, it's their customers they should come down on. Wow, way to go making people feel bad about pirating films.
  • Why? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TsuruchiBrian ( 2731979 ) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @10:51PM (#50587129)

    All it takes is for one lapse in security, not necessarily in your theater or even your country, and all the time and money spent trying to prevent that movie from leaking is wasted.

    This would be like buying a car alarm that self destructs if any car in the entire world is stolen.

  • Boy, you people in England really have to wait a long time for movies, don't you?

  • by turkeydance ( 1266624 ) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @10:56PM (#50587147)
    spoiler alert.
  • irony (Score:4, Funny)

    by roesti ( 531884 ) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @11:05PM (#50587177)

    It's ironic that you can't take high-tech spy gadgets into a James Bond film.

    What if I'm turning up in costume? Then I *have* to have them.

  • by macraig ( 621737 ) <mark DOT a DOT craig AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @11:07PM (#50587189)

    ... of disappearing night vision goggles and some very happy teenage boys.

  • I call BS (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bugs2squash ( 1132591 ) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @11:58PM (#50587367)

    1. There's lots of light in a cinema, a big bright image lights up the audiences faces. I would have thought ample light to run a regular inexpensive CCTV camera pointed away from the screen toward the audience. That not just locates offenders but provides evidence too. More light can be added in the form of IR as others have noted.

    2. NV goggles are expensive and having the staff roam around in them adds even more cost.

    3. Once the NV goggles have the sensitivity turned right down to allow for the brightness of the screen, I would have thought that would render them not much better than human eyesight.

    I imagine this is a scare tactic and nothing more, maybe there'll be a couple of sets of rented goggles moved from theater to theater and "paraded around" to scare people off.

  • by ancientt ( 569920 ) <ancientt@yahoo.com> on Thursday September 24, 2015 @12:42AM (#50587501) Homepage Journal

    There is a conflict between the natural and inalienable rights of people and the attempts of governments to curtail the resulting actions. It's neither novel nor resolvable.

    Ones and zeros. Any series of ones and zeros can be represented as a number, understandable by human minds. It is the natural and inalienable right of humans to communicate, thereby sharing, numbers. Humanity, throughout history, has attempted to suppress the ability of others to communicate freely. Every attempt to curtail communication is a battle against the natural state of humanity's need to communicate. Attempting to suppress a natural right always, always, always results in greater suppression of rights or failure.

    Most of us appreciate the outcome of limiting sharing in order to concentrate value. We like multi-million dollar movies. What we don't like are the inevitable outcomes where people are punished in ways that seem unreasonable. The problem is that the two issues are inextricably linked.

    Possession of a number, and sharing of that number should never logically be illegal. Making sharing a number illegal goes against natural human nature. Thus we have a conflict with the historical approach to encouraging innovation and creativity and the natural law that humans must be free to share information. Technology hasn't created this problem, but has made it more obvious. Human nature is also to acquire power so we're pitting two natural human activities against either. Of course the natural right to communicate will eventually prevail over the power acquisition impulse, but not without conflict. Right now the impulse to acquire power is grounded in government enforcement, but the natural right to communicate will always find an expression, thus government censorship (copyright enforcement) is destined to fail.

    In the future, regardless of attempts to prevent it, free sharing of information is inevitable. Acquisition of power will adjust. Movies will be paid for by trailers created in order to generate pre-creation funding. You'll see trailers for movies that haven't been created yet, based on subjects you're interested in and directors you trust. If you like the trailer you see, you'll pledge money taken in escrow. If all goes well, you'll get to see the movie, but otherwise you'll get your money back with a trivial amount of interest. Everyone will get to see the movie for free if it gets made, nobody will make movies that flop and nobody will be punished for sharing numbers.

    It won't happen soon. It won't happen without conflict. Laws will come and go. People will be unfairly punished, movies will fail. Inalienable rights will eventually prevail because law cannot suppress human nature.

    Unchecking "Post Anonymously" because I've had just enough beer to stop caring if people are upset by the truth.

    • by KGIII ( 973947 )

      That's not the most logical argument. Freedoms and rights are not the same. I am free to kill you, I do not have a right to do so. Just because you're free to do so does not mean you have an inalienable right to do so. If you don't understand this then keep drinking, I've spelled it out as clearly as it can be.

      • I don't think I said rights and freedoms are the same thing.

        http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Inalienable+rights

        I'd agree that freedoms and rights aren't the same thing. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are all things that can be taken from someone, but the fact that they can be taken doesn't keep them from being rights. Freedom is a right, an inalienable right, that can be taken away. The natural state of man is to expect freedom and to rebel if deprived of it. Sure, you're free to ki

    • by Boronx ( 228853 )

      Freedom of speech means freedom to repeat speech.

    • To play devil's advocate, I assume you must be okay with me freely acquiring personal data about yourself (private correspondences, medical records, etc) and disseminating it, as long as it's digital, and therefore, a number.
    • Movies will be paid for by trailers created in order to generate pre-creation funding. You'll see trailers for movies that haven't been created yet, based on subjects you're interested in and directors you trust. If you like the trailer you see, you'll pledge money taken in escrow. If all goes well, you'll get to see the movie, but otherwise you'll get your money back with a trivial amount of interest. Everyone will get to see the movie for free if it gets made, nobody will make movies that flop and nobody will be punished for sharing numbers.

      Trailers are notoriously misleading.

      If everyone gets to see the movie for free if it gets made, why would anyone pay money up front?

      Most seriously, how would you encourage more experimental or controversial movies if they were dependent on pre-funding based on people's pre-conceived ideas of what they want to see? That is not a good basis for creating challenging works of art.

      I see several flaws in your plan, but at least you haven't fallen back on the "well they can always sell action figures to mak

  • Maybe I'm old and tech has improved since I last used a night vision goggle. Don't the goggles intensify brightness by like 10x?
    What happens if they look at the projector or the curtain?
  • by ruir ( 2709173 ) on Thursday September 24, 2015 @01:58AM (#50587631)
    This night googles have been used for years in the USA. So they jack you in price for sitting you in a glorified garage, already fuck the movie colours for it "not to be copied" to the point that for instance, the chromatic of several movies are definitely odd even when watching the original both on cinema and TV (Resident Evil, Chronicles of Ridick and Book of Eli comes to mind), and now they handle you as the enemy in the combat field, and teens cannot go there dating and petting without giving an hard on to the employees. I have not been in a cinema for years, and sure wont be in a near future. For me, it would be some place better than home, and not worse. A living room, they serving me lobster with me with I watched a movie, and with some naked female waiters, and I might reconsider it. Otherwise, I wont be paying to enter a glorified prison system. They are forgetting it is not your great-grandfathers time where they were awed by movies, nowadays we all have entertaining systems at home.
    • by ruir ( 2709173 )
      (english in not my first language, and I have to revise better my posts. When reading them, I am painfully aware of where are the mistakes)
      • (english in not my first language, and I have to revise better my posts. When reading them, I am painfully aware of where are the mistakes)

        Your post made more sense and contained fewer grammatical quirks than most on slashdot written by people with English as their only language, so I wouldn't worry too much.

  • In Soviet UK, movie watches you!

  • If they ever bother me about this when I just go there to relax and watch a movie I will immediately demand my money back and never visit that movie theatre again.
  • Movie theatre staff *won't* be wearing night vision goggles. It's an absurd idea. The most one can expect is that if a particular cinema has been the source of piracy in the past (identifiable from watermarks in the image / audio), then there might be undercover investigators in the audience looking out for surreptitious filming. Personally if I were pirating movies I'd vary my routine around and I'd stick the camera into a cup or popcorn bag where it would be virtually impossible to see in the dark.
    • by ruir ( 2709173 )
      Will you be arrested also from pirating the 1h of adverts they ram up your ass? They are not clear in the article. |ducks|
  • this is not new (Score:5, Informative)

    by Ginger Unicorn ( 952287 ) on Thursday September 24, 2015 @04:39AM (#50587941)

    i live in the uk and my local cineworld did this briefly about 5 years ago after a commandment from on high. The staff found it embarrasing and stupid and i remember seeing them wandering in with the goggles on and staring at us for a few seconds then walking off again. They only did it for a couple of weeks.

    This isn't new, and it isn't really a sustained procedure of audience monitoring. It's a publicity stunt to make people think they're being watched - make a giant fuss about how they're watching everyone in the dark and hopefully that will scare them into not filming the screen.

    They do it long enough to make people aware of it then stop again. Then in another 5 years make a big hoo-haa and break out the night vision goggles again for a couple of weeks.

  • The approach I take is to not bother going to the overpriced, customer-hostile and noisy cinema. There are very few films that are so amazing that I can't wait a few months until they come out on DVD/Netflix/Amazon etc.

    The bottom line is, the media companies have an over-inflated opinion of their product. I'm happy to wait a bit and then watch it in the comfort of my own home. And if this means that the cinema industry dies, then so be it. Cinemas need to attract customers, not treat them as potential crimi

    • This

    • by dcw3 ( 649211 )

      The approach I take is to not bother going to the overpriced, customer-hostile and noisy cinema.

      Agreed. But then, I go to matinees, at a theater that kicks noisy/disruptive people out. Some movies are best seen on a big (bigger than my 60") screen, with a great audio system. I'm selective about the movies we attend, so we only go a few (maybe half-dozen) times a year, treating it as a lunch date with my wife. Otherwise, I wait for it to come to cable.

  • Instead of patrolling on behalf of the movie studios they patrol on behalf of their paying customers and eject people who are on their cellphones, excessively chatty, or bring screaming kids into the theater?

    And they wonder why people have stopped going to the movies.

  • Just wait for the DVD/Blu-Ray rips to come out... way better quality, anyway.
  • Almost all of the pirated movies that I have seen were stolen at the studio, not the theater. Some of them even had the production information still on the screen. And some of them were the complete DVD/Blu-ray movie package that was yet to be released.

    The studios know their own people are stealing, but they keep blaming the general public.

Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is too dark to read.

Working...