If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Homeland Security detains man for 3 hours after he wears Google Glasses to the movies. Feel safer, citizen?   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 255
    More: Asinine, Google Glass, Ohio, Homeland Security Investigations, Motion Picture Association of America, AMC Theatres  
•       •       •

8786 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Jan 2014 at 10:19 PM (38 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



255 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-21 07:38:17 PM  
No. fark you. This doesn't go this way. Glassbag should have been sensible enough to understand that the was pointing a recording device at the farking movie screen. HOW THE fark ELSE WAS THIS GOING TO END? If he brought a camcorder or pointed his cell phone at the screen, this goes the same way.

farking douche.
 
2014-01-21 07:52:28 PM  

Mangoose: No. fark you. This doesn't go this way. Glassbag should have been sensible enough to understand that the was pointing a recording device at the farking movie screen. HOW THE fark ELSE WAS THIS GOING TO END? If he brought a camcorder or pointed his cell phone at the screen, this goes the same way.

farking douche.


uh...pretty much. Recording the movie is a crime. He was doing something that, to any reasonable person, looked like he was recording the movie. The authorities detained him long enough to determine that he was not committing a crime. Then a representative from the theater gave him some free passes. The only really unreasonable thing that happened here is that some jackass wore Google Glass into a movie theater.
 
2014-01-21 07:57:17 PM  
the man said some 'federal service' agents snatched the glasses from his face

Bullshiat. Like the Feds are patrolling movie theaters. "Homeland Security" my ass.
 
2014-01-21 08:00:46 PM  

fusillade762: the man said some 'federal service' agents snatched the glasses from his face

Bullshiat. Like the Feds are patrolling movie theaters. "Homeland Security" my ass.


If we take the story at face value(which might be asking a lot from the Daily Mail) they suspected a piracy ring to be operating in that particular theater and they were watching for people with recording devices as part of an active investigation.
 
2014-01-21 08:00:56 PM  

Mangoose: No. fark you. This doesn't go this way. Glassbag should have been sensible enough to understand that the was pointing a recording device at the farking movie screen. HOW THE fark ELSE WAS THIS GOING TO END? If he brought a camcorder or pointed his cell phone at the screen, this goes the same way.

farking douche.


I think people are more upset at who the interrogators were.

Homeland Security should just be that, Homeland Security. What does movie piracy have to do with terrorism?
 
2014-01-21 08:02:01 PM  
Better article here
 
2014-01-21 08:02:08 PM  
The important thing is that the movie wasn't recorded and then dumped onto the internet with grainy video and crappy sound that no reasonable person would want to watch when they can just catch it at the local theater.  Because Hollywood paid good money for these stupid laws, god dammit, and they're going to see them enforced.
 
2014-01-21 08:19:39 PM  

Voiceofreason01: fusillade762: the man said some 'federal service' agents snatched the glasses from his face

Bullshiat. Like the Feds are patrolling movie theaters. "Homeland Security" my ass.

If we take the story at face value(which might be asking a lot from the Daily Mail) they suspected a piracy ring to be operating in that particular theater and they were watching for people with recording devices as part of an active investigation.


Huh, looks like it is legit.

I know ICE falls under Homeland Security but I don't think I've ever heard anyone refer to them as "Homeland Security agents".
 
2014-01-21 08:20:32 PM  
I'm sure this happened exactly the way this Google fanboi says it did.
 
2014-01-21 08:25:27 PM  

cman: Mangoose: No. fark you. This doesn't go this way. Glassbag should have been sensible enough to understand that the was pointing a recording device at the farking movie screen. HOW THE fark ELSE WAS THIS GOING TO END? If he brought a camcorder or pointed his cell phone at the screen, this goes the same way.

farking douche.

I think people are more upset at who the interrogators were.

Homeland Security should just be that, Homeland Security. What does movie piracy have to do with terrorism?


They don't want to terrorists to learn how Hollywood can keep dropping bombs on the unsuspecting public and get away with it.
 
2014-01-21 08:26:35 PM  
...the terrorists...
 
2014-01-21 08:38:26 PM  

cman: What does movie piracy have to do with terrorism?


Link
 
2014-01-21 08:42:34 PM  
On Slashdot it was reported they were FBI agents. I'm calling BS.
 
2014-01-21 08:42:47 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: The important thing is that the movie wasn't recorded and then dumped onto the internet with grainy video and crappy sound that no reasonable person would want to watch when they can just catch it at the local theater.  Because Hollywood paid good money for these stupid laws, god dammit, and they're going to see them enforced.


I've uh, heard, that most people don't even bother to torrent anything that isn't clearly marked as a hi-def Studio Screener rip.

The guy is still a farking moran.  "I walked into a movie theater with a farking video camera strapped to my head and something bad happened?!?"
 
2014-01-21 09:04:59 PM  
Marcus Aurelius:   Hollywood paid good money for these stupid laws, god dammit, and they're going to see them enforced.

Sure, the business model of charging to see just-released content in gigantic rooms is doomed.  But are you saying all copyright is stupid, or just copyright-based power grabs like CISPA?

Sending all those g-men to investigate based on so little evidence does looks stupid in hindsight.  When it is real the lens is probably a lot harder to spot than Glass.
 
2014-01-21 09:09:49 PM  
OK, he's a jackass for wearing them to the movie, but it looks like they're fitted right to his prescription glasses.

If they had merely taken a look at  the contents of the drive (although he didn't have to let them) in the first 10 minutes everybody would have been able to go on their way.
 
2014-01-21 09:17:06 PM  

Tellingthem: They don't want to terrorists to learn how Hollywood can keep dropping bombs on the unsuspecting public and get away with it.


Aaaaaaaaand we're done here.
 
2014-01-21 09:24:27 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: The important thing is that the movie wasn't recorded and then dumped onto the internet with grainy video and crappy sound that no reasonable person would want to watch when they can just catch it at the local theater.  Because Hollywood paid good money for these stupid laws, god dammit, and they're going to see them enforced.


It might be good if he's doing narration throughout, and adjusting the glasses constantly.
 
2014-01-21 09:34:06 PM  
wow, if only human people were corporate people you could get the cops to basically send a swat team for a petty theft.
 
2014-01-21 10:12:35 PM  
DHS is a joke.
 A bad one.
 
2014-01-21 10:19:07 PM  

cryinoutloud: Marcus Aurelius: The important thing is that the movie wasn't recorded and then dumped onto the internet with grainy video and crappy sound that no reasonable person would want to watch when they can just catch it at the local theater.  Because Hollywood paid good money for these stupid laws, god dammit, and they're going to see them enforced.

It might be good if he's doing narration throughout, and adjusting the glasses constantly.


Will he have few robot companions to comment with him?
 
2014-01-21 10:21:54 PM  
Can someone explain how DHS involved itself in potential a copyright issue at best?
 
2014-01-21 10:22:46 PM  
The man that 'after a long time' someone came into the office with a laptop and USB cable and searched through the photos on his glasses, which were all of his wife and dog...

...at which point they shot the laptop.

/farking pigs
 
2014-01-21 10:22:57 PM  
If DHS is busy protecting copyright then they need a BIG 'ol pruning. I think I know where we can cut some federal budget dollars next time the republicans want to hold something good hostage.
 
2014-01-21 10:23:21 PM  

styckx: Can someone explain how DHS involved itself in potential a copyright issue at best?


Security theater.
 
2014-01-21 10:23:58 PM  
Easton is my usual theater. Wish I could've been there to laugh.
 
2014-01-21 10:25:29 PM  

rkiller1: styckx: Can someone explain how DHS involved itself in potential a copyright issue at best?

Security theater.


We have a winnah!
 
2014-01-21 10:26:44 PM  

rkiller1: styckx: Can someone explain how DHS involved itself in potential a copyright issue at best?

Security theater.


Round the bases
 
2014-01-21 10:26:49 PM  
I am sure this is another accurate and completely factual article by DM.
 
2014-01-21 10:26:49 PM  

mongbiohazard: If DHS is busy protecting copyright then they need a BIG 'ol pruning. I think I know where we can cut some federal budget dollars next time the republicans want to hold something good hostage.


What are you some kind of communist?
 
2014-01-21 10:26:51 PM  
Is this the thread fark-tards try to convince themselves that if Federal Agents did this under bush they wouldn't have mentioned who the president is?
 
2014-01-21 10:27:04 PM  
<idontbelieveyou.jpg>
 
2014-01-21 10:28:49 PM  

OnlyM3: Is this the thread fark-tards try to convince themselves that if Federal Agents did this under bush they wouldn't have mentioned who the president is?


Oh, great, now they're hiding under bushes, too?

jonathanturley.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-01-21 10:30:04 PM  

cman: Mangoose: No. fark you. This doesn't go this way. Glassbag should have been sensible enough to understand that the was pointing a recording device at the farking movie screen. HOW THE fark ELSE WAS THIS GOING TO END? If he brought a camcorder or pointed his cell phone at the screen, this goes the same way.

farking douche.

I think people are more upset at who the interrogators were.

Homeland Security should just be that, Homeland Security. What does movie piracy have to do with terrorism?


The FBI is part of the Department of Homeland Security (as is the Coast Guard). There are no actual "Homeland Security" counterterrorism forces tracking down all the fictional and/or broke-ass wannabe Al Qaeda cells. What there is is crime, like movie piracy, which the FBI investigates under federal law.
 
2014-01-21 10:32:10 PM  
You wouldn't shoot a policeman, then steal his helmet, then go to the bathroom in his helmet, then send it to his grieving widow...then steal the helmet again!!!
 
2014-01-21 10:32:57 PM  

styckx: Can someone explain how DHS involved itself in potential a copyright issue at best?


Mission creep
 
2014-01-21 10:33:19 PM  

4tehsnowflakes: But are you saying all copyright is stupid, or just copyright-based power grabs like CISPA?


Having law officers enforce copyright is farking ridiculous. If I'm violating your copyright, take me to court and sue me for damages because ultimately it's a dispute between two parties - not a person and the state. Let the cops do more important work, like busting people for a gram of weed or whatever.
 
2014-01-21 10:33:22 PM  
For the people who keep asking the same stupid question over and over again:

Department of Homeland Security is broken down into a myriad of governmental agencies.  Amongst those governmental agencies is Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).  ICE is tasked with investigating criminal copyright violations.  That is why DHS is involved, it is simply the umbrella cabinet department.
 
2014-01-21 10:33:23 PM  

styckx: Can someone explain how DHS involved itself in potential a copyright issue at best?


MPAA false flag.
 
2014-01-21 10:34:33 PM  

mbillips: cman: Mangoose: No. fark you. This doesn't go this way. Glassbag should have been sensible enough to understand that the was pointing a recording device at the farking movie screen. HOW THE fark ELSE WAS THIS GOING TO END? If he brought a camcorder or pointed his cell phone at the screen, this goes the same way.

farking douche.

I think people are more upset at who the interrogators were.

Homeland Security should just be that, Homeland Security. What does movie piracy have to do with terrorism?

The FBI is part of the Department of Homeland Security (as is the Coast Guard). There are no actual "Homeland Security" counterterrorism forces tracking down all the fictional and/or broke-ass wannabe Al Qaeda cells. What there is is crime, like movie piracy, which the FBI investigates under federal law.


The FBI is an agency in the Department of Justice.
 
2014-01-21 10:34:33 PM  

jaylectricity: OK, he's a jackass for wearing them to the movie, but it looks like they're fitted right to his prescription glasses.

If they had merely taken a look at  the contents of the drive (although he didn't have to let them) in the first 10 minutes everybody would have been able to go on their way.


Unless he named the folder "movies_iam_stealing" it would be really hard to tell if he is downloading anything. Plus cloud. Don't forget cloud. Glasses has it.
 
2014-01-21 10:34:52 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-01-21 10:35:05 PM  

sprgrss: For the people who keep asking the same stupid question over and over again:

Department of Homeland Security is broken down into a myriad of governmental agencies.  Amongst those governmental agencies is Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).  ICE is tasked with investigating criminal copyright violations.  That is why DHS is involved, it is simply the umbrella cabinet department.


Since Obama is the president, this guy was technically arrested directly by Obama.
 
2014-01-21 10:35:06 PM  
Can anyone defending this Gestapo shiat show me a single example of a suspected movie bootlegger receiving similar treatment? If not, fark off.
 
2014-01-21 10:35:37 PM  
So the MPAA has not one or two federally-payrolled cops looking a patrons making bad copies but ten in one movie theater? I wonder how many shows the exotic LEOs caught, and whether their popcorn was comped?

This tale ought to be the very first movie made for Google Glass. Complete with Officer Obie and his pack of movie goers out for an evening having solved the Target data breach case and restored the 120M affected "citizens."
 
2014-01-21 10:36:03 PM  

styckx: Can someone explain how DHS involved itself in potential a copyright issue at best?


Because "Homeland Security" is a HUGE agency that pulled into one umbrella a bunch of widely disparate functions. But it is much more fun to implicitly lump the Customs Service in with the airport screeners. Especially if you are trying to get a rise out of the internet.
 
2014-01-21 10:36:09 PM  

sprgrss: Amongst those governmental agencies is Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ICE is tasked with investigating criminal copyright violations.


Well sure, I mean, it makes so much more sense that Immigration enforces copyright than Homeland Security. Thanks for clearing that up.
 
2014-01-21 10:36:14 PM  
Oh, can I also add how happy I am that a Glasshole got detained and harassed, if not for violating the privacy of everyone that he points those things at? Because that should happen more.

/Somebody wearing those looks at me in the men's room, I'm swearing out a warrant.
 
2014-01-21 10:36:42 PM  

mbillips: cman: Mangoose: No. fark you. This doesn't go this way. Glassbag should have been sensible enough to understand that the was pointing a recording device at the farking movie screen. HOW THE fark ELSE WAS THIS GOING TO END? If he brought a camcorder or pointed his cell phone at the screen, this goes the same way.

farking douche.

I think people are more upset at who the interrogators were.

Homeland Security should just be that, Homeland Security. What does movie piracy have to do with terrorism?

The FBI is part of the Department of Homeland Security (as is the Coast Guard). There are no actual "Homeland Security" counterterrorism forces tracking down all the fictional and/or broke-ass wannabe Al Qaeda cells. What there is is crime, like movie piracy, which the FBI investigates under federal law.


FBI is still under DOJ and Coast Guard is under DoD.
 
2014-01-21 10:37:46 PM  

untaken_name: sprgrss: Amongst those governmental agencies is Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ICE is tasked with investigating criminal copyright violations.

Well sure, I mean, it makes so much more sense that Immigration enforces copyright than Homeland Security. Thanks for clearing that up.


I see you ignored that Customs part.
 
2014-01-21 10:39:41 PM  

rebelyell2006: mbillips: cman: Mangoose: No. fark you. This doesn't go this way. Glassbag should have been sensible enough to understand that the was pointing a recording device at the farking movie screen. HOW THE fark ELSE WAS THIS GOING TO END? If he brought a camcorder or pointed his cell phone at the screen, this goes the same way.

farking douche.

I think people are more upset at who the interrogators were.

Homeland Security should just be that, Homeland Security. What does movie piracy have to do with terrorism?

The FBI is part of the Department of Homeland Security (as is the Coast Guard). There are no actual "Homeland Security" counterterrorism forces tracking down all the fictional and/or broke-ass wannabe Al Qaeda cells. What there is is crime, like movie piracy, which the FBI investigates under federal law.

The FBI is an agency in the Department of Justice.


My bad; they initially talked about putting FBI and CIA under DHS, but didn't. I forgot. Anyway, there are federal criminal investigators who work for DHS who investigate crimes not related to terrorism, because crime is a much larger threat to "the homeland" than terrorism.
 
2014-01-21 10:40:36 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: Since Obama is the president, this guy was technically arrested directly by Obama.


If Obama was going to pirate movies, that's exactly how he'd do it.
 
2014-01-21 10:40:46 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: 4tehsnowflakes: But are you saying all copyright is stupid, or just copyright-based power grabs like CISPA?

Having law officers enforce copyright is farking ridiculous. If I'm violating your copyright, take me to court and sue me for damages because ultimately it's a dispute between two parties - not a person and the state. Let the cops do more important work, like busting people for a gram of weed or whatever.


Why should the government not be involved in investigating and prosecuting economic crimes.  You are basically saying, why should the government investigate thefts since there is already the tort of conversion.
 
2014-01-21 10:41:02 PM  
It's all worthwhile because FREEDOM
 
2014-01-21 10:41:25 PM  

sprgrss: mbillips: cman: Mangoose: No. fark you. This doesn't go this way. Glassbag should have been sensible enough to understand that the was pointing a recording device at the farking movie screen. HOW THE fark ELSE WAS THIS GOING TO END? If he brought a camcorder or pointed his cell phone at the screen, this goes the same way.

farking douche.

I think people are more upset at who the interrogators were.

Homeland Security should just be that, Homeland Security. What does movie piracy have to do with terrorism?

The FBI is part of the Department of Homeland Security (as is the Coast Guard). There are no actual "Homeland Security" counterterrorism forces tracking down all the fictional and/or broke-ass wannabe Al Qaeda cells. What there is is crime, like movie piracy, which the FBI investigates under federal law.

FBI is still under DOJ and Coast Guard is under DoD.


Coast Guard is not under DoD. They were never under DoD except in wartime; they were under Treasury before DHS was created. Secret Service is under DHS as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Homeland_Se cu rity#Structure
 
2014-01-21 10:43:08 PM  

BitwiseShift: So the MPAA has not one or two federally-payrolled cops looking a patrons making bad copies but ten in one movie theater? I wonder how many shows the exotic LEOs caught, and whether their popcorn was comped?


The AMC theater at Easton is within a much larger mall complex where ten cops (or mall cops, since it's the Daily Mail) isn't an unreasonable number that would show up to the "scene of the crime," because there was nothing else going on. Most nights it's probably complete boredom of telling kids they can't be there unsupervised after ten or something.
 
2014-01-21 10:43:20 PM  

mbillips: sprgrss: mbillips: cman: Mangoose: No. fark you. This doesn't go this way. Glassbag should have been sensible enough to understand that the was pointing a recording device at the farking movie screen. HOW THE fark ELSE WAS THIS GOING TO END? If he brought a camcorder or pointed his cell phone at the screen, this goes the same way.

farking douche.

I think people are more upset at who the interrogators were.

Homeland Security should just be that, Homeland Security. What does movie piracy have to do with terrorism?

The FBI is part of the Department of Homeland Security (as is the Coast Guard). There are no actual "Homeland Security" counterterrorism forces tracking down all the fictional and/or broke-ass wannabe Al Qaeda cells. What there is is crime, like movie piracy, which the FBI investigates under federal law.

FBI is still under DOJ and Coast Guard is under DoD.

Coast Guard is not under DoD. They were never under DoD except in wartime; they were under Treasury before DHS was created. Secret Service is under DHS as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Homeland_Se cu rity#Structure


learn something new everyday.
 
2014-01-21 10:44:08 PM  

mbillips: sprgrss: mbillips: cman: Mangoose: 

Coast Guard is not under DoD. They were never under DoD except in wartime; they were under Treasury before DHS was created. Secret Service is under DHS as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Homeland_Se cu rity#Structure


D'oh. USCG was under Transportation. Secret Service was under Treasury. Both under DHS now.
 
2014-01-21 10:45:22 PM  

sprgrss: untaken_name: sprgrss: Amongst those governmental agencies is Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ICE is tasked with investigating criminal copyright violations.

Well sure, I mean, it makes so much more sense that Immigration enforces copyright than Homeland Security. Thanks for clearing that up.

I see you ignored that Customs part.


I forgot the guy was traveling internationally inside the movie theater. Sorry.
 
2014-01-21 10:46:56 PM  
They should have burned him at the stake right outside the theater, then left his charred remains as a warning to anyone else who would ever think of wearing those things.
 
2014-01-21 10:46:57 PM  

untaken_name: sprgrss: untaken_name: sprgrss: Amongst those governmental agencies is Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ICE is tasked with investigating criminal copyright violations.

Well sure, I mean, it makes so much more sense that Immigration enforces copyright than Homeland Security. Thanks for clearing that up.

I see you ignored that Customs part.

I forgot the guy was traveling internationally inside the movie theater. Sorry.


Where do you think the pirated movies mostly get sold? You don't buy $2 Hajji discs of new releases in America, you buy them in Asia and Russia.
 
2014-01-21 10:48:01 PM  

sprgrss: mbillips: cman: Mangoose: No. fark you. This doesn't go this way. Glassbag should have been sensible enough to understand that the was pointing a recording device at the farking movie screen. HOW THE fark ELSE WAS THIS GOING TO END? If he brought a camcorder or pointed his cell phone at the screen, this goes the same way.

farking douche.

I think people are more upset at who the interrogators were.

Homeland Security should just be that, Homeland Security. What does movie piracy have to do with terrorism?

The FBI is part of the Department of Homeland Security (as is the Coast Guard). There are no actual "Homeland Security" counterterrorism forces tracking down all the fictional and/or broke-ass wannabe Al Qaeda cells. What there is is crime, like movie piracy, which the FBI investigates under federal law.

FBI is still under DOJ and Coast Guard is under DoD.


No they're not.

The following agencies and/or departments are under DHS as of 2014: http://www.dhs.gov/who-joined-dhs

US Customs and Border Protection (ICE, Immigration Services)
TSA
FEMA (portions of FBI including Infrastructure Protection and National Domestic Preparedness)
Science and Technology Directorate (Biowarfare, CBRN)
US Coast Guard
US Secret Service
 
2014-01-21 10:48:26 PM  

untaken_name: sprgrss: untaken_name: sprgrss: Amongst those governmental agencies is Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ICE is tasked with investigating criminal copyright violations.

Well sure, I mean, it makes so much more sense that Immigration enforces copyright than Homeland Security. Thanks for clearing that up.

I see you ignored that Customs part.

I forgot the guy was traveling internationally inside the movie theater. Sorry.

 customs enforcement doesn't stop at the border.  quit being a neck beard.
 
2014-01-21 10:51:05 PM  

a particular individual: Can anyone defending this Gestapo shiat show me a single example of a suspected movie bootlegger receiving similar treatment? If not, fark off.


http://www.macombdaily.com/general-news/20131007/movie-bootleggers-c au ght-at-amc-star-gratiot-in-clinton-township
 
2014-01-21 10:53:06 PM  

mbillips: untaken_name: sprgrss: untaken_name: sprgrss: Amongst those governmental agencies is Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ICE is tasked with investigating criminal copyright violations.

Well sure, I mean, it makes so much more sense that Immigration enforces copyright than Homeland Security. Thanks for clearing that up.

I see you ignored that Customs part.

I forgot the guy was traveling internationally inside the movie theater. Sorry.

Where do you think the pirated movies mostly get sold? You don't buy $2 Hajji discs of new releases in America, you buy them in Asia and Russia.


Yes, and those are typically not recorded in the countries they're sold in by projectionists recording completely undetectably to the audience, they're recorded by middle-aged married guys in the audience WEARING the recording devices OPENLY. Because that kind of thinking is the true mark of an international crime organization.
 
2014-01-21 10:54:03 PM  

Mangoose: No. fark you. This doesn't go this way. Glassbag should have been sensible enough to understand that the was pointing a recording device at the farking movie screen. HOW THE fark ELSE WAS THIS GOING TO END? If he brought a camcorder or pointed his cell phone at the screen, this goes the same way.

farking douche.


Really? You can't think of any other way this could have ended?

/veteran
 
2014-01-21 10:54:06 PM  

sprgrss: customs enforcement doesn't stop at the border. quit being a neck beard.


And you keep piling nonsense on nonsense like it explains the nonsense.
 
2014-01-21 10:54:16 PM  
As long as I can still wear them in the strip club, I'm cool.
 
2014-01-21 10:55:50 PM  

cman: Mangoose: No. fark you. This doesn't go this way. Glassbag should have been sensible enough to understand that the was pointing a recording device at the farking movie screen. HOW THE fark ELSE WAS THIS GOING TO END? If he brought a camcorder or pointed his cell phone at the screen, this goes the same way.

farking douche.

I think people are more upset at who the interrogators were.

Homeland Security should just be that, Homeland Security. What does movie piracy have to do with terrorism?


Idiot!

Don't you remember that the Saudis crashed 2 copies of The Expendables into the WTC?

How quickly they forget.
 
2014-01-21 10:56:03 PM  

untaken_name: sprgrss: customs enforcement doesn't stop at the border. quit being a neck beard.

And you keep piling nonsense on nonsense like it explains the nonsense.


I'm sorry that you don't understand how the world works.

i can't wait for you to find out that ICE also enforces counterfeit goods laws.
 
2014-01-21 10:57:46 PM  

4tehsnowflakes: Marcus Aurelius:   Hollywood paid good money for these stupid laws, god dammit, and they're going to see them enforced.

Sure, the business model of charging to see just-released content in gigantic rooms is doomed.  But are you saying all copyright is stupid, or just copyright-based power grabs like CISPA?

Sending all those g-men to investigate based on so little evidence does looks stupid in hindsight.  When it is real the lens is probably a lot harder to spot than Glass.


Doomed?

http://www.the-numbers.com/market/

Revenues are huge and ticket sales are relatively constant. Its like the same people are still seeing movies but are paying double now.

I love seeing movies at the theaters. I've seen Her, Anchorman 2, The Wolf of Wall Street, and the Hobbit since about Christmas time. I think A Winter's Tale is next!

Of coure my example is purely anecdotal but I've not seen any movies alone!
 
2014-01-21 10:58:47 PM  

untaken_name: Yes, and those are typically not recorded in the countries they're sold in by projectionists recording completely undetectably to the audience, they're recorded by middle-aged married guys in the audience WEARING the recording devices OPENLY. Because that kind of thinking is the true mark of an international crime organization.


From how shiatty theater bootlegs are, they'd at least be on a tripod if they were recorded from the projectionist's booth.
 
2014-01-21 10:59:14 PM  

untaken_name: mbillips: untaken_name: sprgrss: untaken_name: sprgrss: Amongst those governmental agencies is Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ICE is tasked with investigating criminal copyright violations.

Well sure, I mean, it makes so much more sense that Immigration enforces copyright than Homeland Security. Thanks for clearing that up.

I see you ignored that Customs part.

I forgot the guy was traveling internationally inside the movie theater. Sorry.

Where do you think the pirated movies mostly get sold? You don't buy $2 Hajji discs of new releases in America, you buy them in Asia and Russia.

Yes, and those are typically not recorded in the countries they're sold in by projectionists recording completely undetectably to the audience, they're recorded by middle-aged married guys in the audience WEARING the recording devices OPENLY. Because that kind of thinking is the true mark of an international crime organization.


Well, when I was buying bootleg movies in Iraq 8 years ago, at least one of them was recorded by some guy with a camcorder in a paper bag. It's probably different now that they're mostly using digital "prints" instead of film. Anyway, a guy wearing Google Glass was harassed and bullied, so win-win.
 
2014-01-21 11:00:48 PM  

rkiller1: styckx: Can someone explain how DHS involved itself in potential a copyright issue at best?

Security theater.


You Sir, win an internet.
 
2014-01-21 11:01:46 PM  
Why wouldn't I just wait half a year and just watch the same production at half the price on my own home theatre without leaving my house and not have to hear others talk on their cell phone or munch on popcorn or light up the space around me texting while I can pause the movie to take a piss or pour myself another drink?
 
2014-01-21 11:02:58 PM  
They should have left him alone. Being a douche wearing Google Glass is punishment enough.
 
2014-01-21 11:03:18 PM  
What a great way to spend your tax dollars. These guys really don't have anything better to do?
 
2014-01-21 11:03:41 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: cman: Mangoose: No. fark you. This doesn't go this way. Glassbag should have been sensible enough to understand that the was pointing a recording device at the farking movie screen. HOW THE fark ELSE WAS THIS GOING TO END? If he brought a camcorder or pointed his cell phone at the screen, this goes the same way.

farking douche.

I think people are more upset at who the interrogators were.

Homeland Security should just be that, Homeland Security. What does movie piracy have to do with terrorism?

Idiot!

Don't you remember that the Saudis crashed 2 copies of The Expendables into the WTC?

How quickly they forget.


To be serious for a moment, DHS was created in a spasm of panic when we thought we actually had an ongoing terrorism problem in the U.S. Now that it's been completely proven that we DON'T, all those law-enforcement agencies lumped together under DHS still have to do their jobs, which is enforcing criminal law that has nothing to do with terrorism. Better they irritate one neckbeard who's being a douche than that they waste time trying to talk guys in Dearborn with 67 IQs into buying Stinger missiles.
 
2014-01-21 11:05:11 PM  

drgloryboy: Why wouldn't I just wait half a year and just watch the same production at half the price on my own home theatre without leaving my house and not have to hear others talk on their cell phone or munch on popcorn or light up the space around me texting while I can pause the movie to take a piss or pour myself another drink?


Because you don't have a 60-foot-tall screen and 3,000-watt speakers in your house? Or maybe you do, in which case can I come over and watch a movie? But NO TALKING unless you pause it first.
 
2014-01-21 11:05:18 PM  

jaylectricity: OK, he's a jackass for wearing them to the movie, but it looks like they're fitted right to his prescription glasses.

If they had merely taken a look at  the contents of the drive (although he didn't have to let them) in the first 10 minutes everybody would have been able to go on their way.


Google is competition.
 
2014-01-21 11:05:45 PM  

fusillade762: the man said some 'federal service' agents snatched the glasses from his face

Bullshiat. Like the Feds are patrolling movie theaters. "Homeland Security" my ass.


Big gorilla at the L.A. Zoo
Snatched the glasses right off my face
Took the keys to my BMW
Left me here to take his place
I wish the ape a lot of success
I'm sorry my apartment's a mess
Most of all I'm sorry if I made you blue
I'm betting the gorilla will, too
 
2014-01-21 11:09:35 PM  
imgs.xkcd.com
 
2014-01-21 11:10:05 PM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: untaken_name: Yes, and those are typically not recorded in the countries they're sold in by projectionists recording completely undetectably to the audience, they're recorded by middle-aged married guys in the audience WEARING the recording devices OPENLY. Because that kind of thinking is the true mark of an international crime organization.

From how shiatty theater bootlegs are, they'd at least be on a tripod if they were recorded from the projectionist's booth.


No, ever since the batman terrorist shot up the theater we have federal theater marshalls and special security doors on the cockpit projection booth.
 
2014-01-21 11:10:38 PM  
The movie industry just destroyed net neutrality, essentially destroying the internet, the best thing happened to humanity in last 30 years. I would rather see the movie and recording industry completely die off than the death of Internet.Yet the opposite is happening.
 
2014-01-21 11:11:42 PM  
Hey, maybe he was only gathering metadata! That's ok, right?
 
2014-01-21 11:12:40 PM  

mbillips: Oh, can I also add how happy I am that a Glasshole got detained and harassed, if not for violating the privacy of everyone that he points those things at? Because that should happen more.

/Somebody wearing those looks at me in the men's room, I'm swearing out a warrant.


o.onionstatic.com
 
2014-01-21 11:12:56 PM  

BitwiseShift: So the MPAA has not one or two federally-payrolled cops looking a patrons making bad copies but ten in one movie theater? I wonder how many shows the exotic LEOs caught, and whether their popcorn was comped?

This tale ought to be the very first movie made for Google Glass. Complete with Officer Obie and his pack of movie goers out for an evening having solved the Target data breach case and restored the 120M affected "citizens."


I didn't even read this article but the one I read earlier listed the responding agents as FBI and basically mall cops with a smattering of MPAA rep. I responded to your comment as being the only one relevant to that point. After the feds taco'd mah sports streams awhile back, I thought it was odd the FBI would follow such trivia. Look how far we've come in such a short time. Granted, Google glass may be misused but the media Gestapo needs to tone back to six or seven.
 
2014-01-21 11:14:07 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Really? You can't think of any other way this could have ended?
/veteran


What does being a veteran have to do with it? Are veterans allowed to shoot assholes in theaters, like retired cops?
 
2014-01-21 11:15:24 PM  
There's two kinds of Google glass users: Google glass users, and Glassholes.
 
2014-01-21 11:15:59 PM  

mayIFark: The movie industry just destroyed net neutrality, essentially destroying the internet, the best thing happened to humanity in last 30 years. I would rather see the movie and recording industry completely die off than the death of Internet.Yet the opposite is happening.


when did the movie industry become internet service providers?
 
2014-01-21 11:16:20 PM  

mbillips: Oh, can I also add how happy I am that a Glasshole got detained and harassed, if not for violating the privacy of everyone that he points those things at? Because that should happen more.

/Somebody wearing those looks at me in the men's room, I'm swearing out a warrant.


You should read this book: Halting State

There are a couple of scenes that describe the characters being confused about reality versus the reality on their glasses (one to the point of getting stabbed because he thinks the knife is virtual). Considering the issues people have with just trying to text and walk at the same time? I'll pass.
 
2014-01-21 11:16:34 PM  

CygnusDarius: There's two kinds of Google glass users: Google glass users, and Glassholes.


nah, there is only one kind--Glassholes.
 
2014-01-21 11:17:28 PM  

cryinoutloud: StoPPeRmobile: Really? You can't think of any other way this could have ended?
/veteran

What does being a veteran have to do with it? Are veterans allowed to shoot assholes in theaters, like retired cops?


Hey was there a ruling on that case?
 
2014-01-21 11:18:18 PM  
From bearded clameror's link -- "It was quite embarrassing and outside of the theater there were about 5-10 cops and mall cops. Since I didn't catch his name in the dark of the theater, I asked to see his badge again and I asked what was the problem and I asked for my Glass back. The response was 'you see all these cops you know we are legit, we are with the 'federal service' and you have been caught illegally taping the movie.'"

And then the federal service officer asked him to drop his pants and bend over so that he might be properly serviced by the federal agents.
 
2014-01-21 11:19:29 PM  

mayIFark: The movie industry just destroyed net neutrality, essentially destroying the internet, the best thing happened to humanity in last 30 years. I would rather see the movie and recording industry completely die off than the death of Internet.Yet the opposite is happening.


Only if you let it...
 
2014-01-21 11:19:33 PM  
With the way they hand out screeners MONTHS in advance of the release of these movies it's a wonder anyone even bothers with cams anymore.
 
2014-01-21 11:20:11 PM  

sprgrss: mayIFark: The movie industry just destroyed net neutrality, essentially destroying the internet, the best thing happened to humanity in last 30 years. I would rather see the movie and recording industry completely die off than the death of Internet.Yet the opposite is happening.

when did the movie industry become internet service providers?


Oh, it's just the usual butthurt from the generation that grew up stealing all their entertaintment through file sharing, and now are afraid they'll have to pay for the bandwidth they use to steal that content.

/I'm in favor of net neutrality, but the Constitution doesn't guarantee a right to unlimited free movies, TV and music. You're stealing it.
 
2014-01-21 11:20:44 PM  
Ok, I know its cool to make fun of Glass users, but in all honesty if i had paid $2100 for glass, i would probably have it on most of the time to the point where I've just gotten used to having it there. It seems like an interesting alpha technology which does a whole heck of a lot more than just take pictures and videos. So its not like he "went into the movie with a video camera" he went in with a device not unlike your cell phone that also happens to have recording capability.

Frankly if it were me I would have just asked if i was being detained and if not if I was free to go. I wouldn't have offered anything beyond that and frankly he shouldn't have had to. Clearly the officers had no clue what they were dealing with as this likely would be one of the worst ways to pirate a movie. The sound would be awful and I would venture a guess that with a lens that small the quality of recording a screen would suck donkey balls.

\Not interested in Glass outside it being an alpha technology as an indicator where things are heading
\\Not an internet tough guy, working for a law firm makes you a bit more comfortable asserting your rights
 
2014-01-21 11:20:52 PM  

Voiceofreason01: Mangoose: No. fark you. This doesn't go this way. Glassbag should have been sensible enough to understand that the was pointing a recording device at the farking movie screen. HOW THE fark ELSE WAS THIS GOING TO END? If he brought a camcorder or pointed his cell phone at the screen, this goes the same way.

farking douche.

uh...pretty much. Recording the movie is a crime. He was doing something that, to any reasonable person, looked like he was recording the movie.

The authorities detained him long enough to determine that he was not committing a crime. Then a representative from the theater gave him some free passes. The only really unreasonable thing that happened here is that some jackass wore Google Glass into a movie theater.

I agree with you except for this part. They detained him much longer than it took to determine that. He is an idiot but they were idiotic as well.
 
2014-01-21 11:25:47 PM  

phlegmmo: cman: What does movie piracy have to do with terrorism?

Link


"Ogre" from Revenge of the Nerds was in that clip. Well done!
 
2014-01-21 11:26:18 PM  
farm9.staticflickr.com
 
2014-01-21 11:26:18 PM  

cman: Mangoose: No. fark you. This doesn't go this way. Glassbag should have been sensible enough to understand that the was pointing a recording device at the farking movie screen. HOW THE fark ELSE WAS THIS GOING TO END? If he brought a camcorder or pointed his cell phone at the screen, this goes the same way.

farking douche.

I think people are more upset at who the interrogators were.

Homeland Security should just be that, Homeland Security. What does movie piracy have to do with terrorism?


Movie piracy funds terrorism.
 
2014-01-21 11:28:07 PM  
Sprgrss, you are joking, right? Please don't tell me anyone can be so stupid to think that ISP's, who actually exist because of internet will want to destroy it. They are forced to comply because of the laws paid for by the MPAA anr RIAA.
 
2014-01-21 11:29:22 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Hey was there a ruling on that case?


Oh yeah, that guy's been cleared and he's now a motivational speaker urging kids to stand up against bullies, and not to text and drive. Justice is swift in the U.S of A.

www.digitaltrends.com

Oh oh. I sense a raid.
 
2014-01-21 11:33:54 PM  
Mbillips, who the fark ever said I download anything illegally? I never do and never will, but that has nothing to do with seeing corporate greed destroying Internet?Internet is literally life saver and mean of income for millions of people and if movie industry gets thwir way, there is going to be nothing left.
 
2014-01-21 11:35:46 PM  

TedCruz'sCrazyDad: a particular individual: Can anyone defending this Gestapo shiat show me a single example of a suspected movie bootlegger receiving similar treatment? If not, fark off.

http://www.macombdaily.com/general-news/20131007/movie-bootleggers-c au ght-at-amc-star-gratiot-in-clinton-township


I mean aside from the obvious "good example" that "refutes my position." Work with me here.
 
2014-01-21 11:37:13 PM  

Mangoose: No. fark you. This doesn't go this way. Glassbag should have been sensible enough to understand that the was pointing a recording device at the farking movie screen. HOW THE fark ELSE WAS THIS GOING TO END? If he brought a camcorder or pointed his cell phone at the screen, this goes the same way.

farking douche.


Voiceofreason01: Mangoose: No. fark you. This doesn't go this way. Glassbag should have been sensible enough to understand that the was pointing a recording device at the farking movie screen. HOW THE fark ELSE WAS THIS GOING TO END? If he brought a camcorder or pointed his cell phone at the screen, this goes the same way.

farking douche.

uh...pretty much. Recording the movie is a crime. He was doing something that, to any reasonable person, looked like he was recording the movie. The authorities detained him long enough to determine that he was not committing a crime. Then a representative from the theater gave him some free passes. The only really unreasonable thing that happened here is that some jackass wore Google Glass into a movie theater.


fusillade762: the man said some 'federal service' agents snatched the glasses from his face

Bullshiat. Like the Feds are patrolling movie theaters. "Homeland Security" my ass.


TA DA we have arrived at the crux of the problem. FTFA:
'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.'


NOT THE COPS NOT DHS BUT THE farkING CORPORATION POLICE.  all you "what did he expect" assholes can bite my shiny metal ass. the last thing he or you or anyone should expect is private cops dragging folks into interrogations. for anything. fark that.
 
2014-01-21 11:37:37 PM  
mbillips, you are farking your little sister. Oh wait, I don't know that. Just like you don't know if I am stealing something or not. So, don't accuse people without knowing anything. You make yourself look like a dumbass.
 
2014-01-21 11:38:16 PM  
Yep, he was right.
imgs.xkcd.com
 
2014-01-21 11:40:22 PM  

mayIFark: Sprgrss, you are joking, right? Please don't tell me anyone can be so stupid to think that ISP's, who actually exist because of internet will want to destroy it. They are forced to comply because of the laws paid for by the MPAA anr RIAA.


Why don't you look to see who the plaintiff was in the lawsuit that struck down many of the net neutrality rules passed by the FCC.  Hint, it wasn't Hollywood.

Good Jesus, you are the reason why I hate most of the people I side with on issues.  You are thoroughly ignorant of the topic, yet condescend to lecture and throw insults about.
 
2014-01-21 11:40:52 PM  
If they guy doesn't have the presence of mind to say "Am I under arrest?  Am I free to go?" over and over and over then he can cry me a river.  Cooperation with law enforcement agents should consist of nothing more than asking those questions until you're arrested (after which you get Coin) or until they confirm that you aren't under arrest and are free to go ... in which case, you farkin' GO.
 
2014-01-21 11:42:08 PM  
Curious:

NOT THE COPS NOT DHS BUT THE farkING CORPORATION POLICE.  all you "what did he expect" assholes can bite my shiny metal ass. the last thing he or you or anyone should expect is private cops dragging folks into interrogations. for anything. fark that.

MPAA Security didn't drag him for an interrogation.  Law Enforcement did after acting on a report of suspect illegality.
 
2014-01-21 11:43:17 PM  

jimhill: If they guy doesn't have the presence of mind to say "Am I under arrest?  Am I free to go?" over and over and over then he can cry me a river.  Cooperation with law enforcement agents should consist of nothing more than asking those questions until you're arrested (after which you get Coin) or until they confirm that you aren't under arrest and are free to go ... in which case, you farkin' GO.


Law enforcement can detain you without arresting you.  What you do is ask for a lawyer, not whatever online GED in law bullshiat you just put forth.
 
2014-01-21 11:44:39 PM  
Prsgrss, I am well aware of the situation and know what ISP's want. They want to maximize their profit too but they had nothing to do with SOPA or PIPA because it was too hard for tbem to enforce as well. ISP's want to control the internet, movie industry wants to destroy it.
 
2014-01-21 11:47:58 PM  

mayIFark: Prsgrss, I am well aware of the situation and know what ISP's want. They want to maximize their profit too but they had nothing to do with SOPA or PIPA because it was too hard for tbem to enforce as well. ISP's want to control the internet, movie industry wants to destroy it.


SOPA and PIPA had nothing to do with the death of net neutrality nor do those proposed laws have anything to do with net neutrality.  Quit being so ignorant.
 
2014-01-21 11:48:01 PM  

Curious: NOT THE COPS NOT DHS BUT THE farkING CORPORATION POLICE. all you "what did he expect" assholes can bite my shiny metal ass. the last thing he or you or anyone should expect is private cops dragging folks into interrogations. for anything. fark that.


As a teenager I was taken into the mall interrogation cell of this very theater because my buddies and I pounded a few beers in the parking lot before coming in. It's really no different from a store security guard detaining you for suspected shoplifting.

/technically I'm still banned for life from the mall, I think
 
2014-01-21 11:48:42 PM  
jimhill, good point in theory, but does not work in real life unless a camera is present. They won't stop you from hitting their fist with your face. The only way to be safe is to have sane copyright laws or avoid the movie theaters.
 
2014-01-21 11:49:32 PM  
You know, I was never interested in seeing "Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit ", but now I feel like downloading it just to make a symbolic "F*CK YOU!" to these goosestepping buttholes.

Welcome to the Streisand Effect, MPAA!!
 
2014-01-21 11:52:36 PM  
sprgrss, net neutrality is not just about blocking the pipeline, so to speak. Open and free Internet as it was is what at stake.
 
2014-01-21 11:53:45 PM  

Relatively Obscure: [i.imgur.com image 300x169]

img.fark.net
fc08.deviantart.net
 
2014-01-21 11:55:18 PM  

mayIFark: sprgrss, net neutrality is not just about blocking the pipeline, so to speak. Open and free Internet as it was is what at stake.


No, that is precisely what net neutrality is about.  It is about ISPs not being able to prioritize content.  it is not about unfettered access to illegal content.
 
2014-01-21 11:56:49 PM  
Biggest issue here is the guy did exactly what I'm hoping to have one day: prescription lens combined with Google Glass. It's a pain to have to take the thing on and off all the time, so why wouldn't you combine them?

I definitely feel like their reaction was a little over the top, and I've read several articles from different sources that say basically the same thing.

/4 movie tickets?
//where is the opportunistic lawyer suing?
 
2014-01-21 11:56:54 PM  

sprgrss: untaken_name: sprgrss: untaken_name: sprgrss: Amongst those governmental agencies is Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ICE is tasked with investigating criminal copyright violations.

Well sure, I mean, it makes so much more sense that Immigration enforces copyright than Homeland Security. Thanks for clearing that up.

I see you ignored that Customs part.

I forgot the guy was traveling internationally inside the movie theater. Sorry.
 customs enforcement doesn't stop at the border.  quit being a neck beard.


i.imgur.com
 
2014-01-22 12:02:21 AM  
sprgrss, let's put it this way. Illegal content over the Internet is not a problem for anyone. Several studies has shown that most people who get things illegally won't pay for them anyway. Instead it works like free advertising. There's no excuse for illegaly downloading anything. But the effect of that is so minimal that destroying the Internet because of it is nothing but pure evil.
 
2014-01-22 12:07:26 AM  

mayIFark: sprgrss, let's put it this way. Illegal content over the Internet is not a problem for anyone. Several studies has shown that most people who get things illegally won't pay for them anyway. Instead it works like free advertising. There's no excuse for illegaly downloading anything. But the effect of that is so minimal that destroying the Internet because of it is nothing but pure evil.


The internet is not being destroyed.  Jesus Christ, you are melodramatic and ignorant.
 
2014-01-22 12:09:23 AM  
Hey, did anybody come in all smug and make the 'glasshole' joke yet?
 
2014-01-22 12:10:06 AM  
I feel safer, those videos recorded in the theater are never good quality, and the audio is always horrible...better waiting for a screener

/amateurs
 
2014-01-22 12:10:53 AM  
Hollywood feels safer. Unfortunately, all of the movie screens downtown are gone, so they're totally safe from me. The two closest movie screens are in two repertory theatres that mostly play foreign films and what not. And since cable crapped out, I guess I'll just have to watch what I have already bought. My backlog is massive, although I can buy the non-Hollywood stuff I like online.

Buh-bye Hollywood. It's been nice knowing you, even if you are obsessed with video games and reboots of remakes of shows based on Baby Boomer toys.
 
2014-01-22 12:10:56 AM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: sprgrss: untaken_name: sprgrss: untaken_name: sprgrss: Amongst those governmental agencies is Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ICE is tasked with investigating criminal copyright violations.

Well sure, I mean, it makes so much more sense that Immigration enforces copyright than Homeland Security. Thanks for clearing that up.

I see you ignored that Customs part.

I forgot the guy was traveling internationally inside the movie theater. Sorry.
 customs enforcement doesn't stop at the border.  quit being a neck beard.

[i.imgur.com image 702x526]


Despite living in a Constitution Free Zone, I have not been subjected to any random searches or seizures by police looking for nothing better to do than harass people.  If I didn't know any better, I'd say that is hyperbole on the part of the ACLU.
 
2014-01-22 12:11:09 AM  

enry: On Slashdot it was reported they were FBI agents. I'm calling BS.


Ya think.  It's all BS.  And a bunch of idiots buying in.
 
2014-01-22 12:11:39 AM  

mbillips: untaken_name: mbillips: untaken_name: sprgrss: untaken_name: sprgrss: Amongst those governmental agencies is Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ICE is tasked with investigating criminal copyright violations.

Well sure, I mean, it makes so much more sense that Immigration enforces copyright than Homeland Security. Thanks for clearing that up.

I see you ignored that Customs part.

I forgot the guy was traveling internationally inside the movie theater. Sorry.

Where do you think the pirated movies mostly get sold? You don't buy $2 Hajji discs of new releases in America, you buy them in Asia and Russia.

Yes, and those are typically not recorded in the countries they're sold in by projectionists recording completely undetectably to the audience, they're recorded by middle-aged married guys in the audience WEARING the recording devices OPENLY. Because that kind of thinking is the true mark of an international crime organization.

Well, when I was buying bootleg movies in Iraq 8 years ago, at least one of them was recorded by some guy with a camcorder in a paper bag. It's probably different now that they're mostly using digital "prints" instead of film. Anyway, a guy wearing Google Glass was harassed and bullied, so win-win.


Ha! Fully agree with last sentence. Sister wears them. Female dousch. :(
 
2014-01-22 12:12:00 AM  
Not being destroyed? Seriously? Either you are the one ignorant, or a paid shill.
 
2014-01-22 12:12:30 AM  
It was the screens that got small.
 
2014-01-22 12:15:32 AM  

Relatively Obscure: [you wouldn't steal a baby.jpg]


That's funny given the greenlight a bit further down where you can 3D print a model of your fetus.

/would it be creepy to U/L such a model file onto Facebook for your family?
 
2014-01-22 12:16:03 AM  

sprgrss: Curious:

NOT THE COPS NOT DHS BUT THE farkING CORPORATION POLICE.  all you "what did he expect" assholes can bite my shiny metal ass. the last thing he or you or anyone should expect is private cops dragging folks into interrogations. for anything. fark that.

MPAA Security didn't drag him for an interrogation.  Law Enforcement did after acting on a report of suspect illegality.


FTFA: On Jan. 18, special agents with ICE's Homeland Security Investigations and local authorities briefly interviewed a man

notice that ICE's statement doesn't specify which "local" authorities. the guys statement says: "The man said between five to 10 police were waiting outside for him and accused him of illegally taping the movie." again without being specific. but hey look at the shoulder patch in the picture and it's caption: "Staff at the Columbus AMC Theater are thought to have reported the man to police are suspected his Google Glasses were a special camera that he was using to pirate the movie he was seeing" and the patch says "police federal protective services"

and the google provides this:
"About the Federal Protective Service
The Federal Protective Service (FPS) is a federal law enforcement agency that provides integrated security and law enforcement services to federally owned and leased buildings, facilities, properties and other assets. that's from here: http://www.dhs.gov/about-federal-protective-service

so lets say your right and it was some kind of cops. specifically federal protective services cops. the ones who, according to the DHS website, protect buildings. you get 2/3 down the page before you come across this:
Additional Protective Services
Conducting criminal investigations

so yeah your technically right. the best kind of right. but i'll continue to maintain it was a dick move brought about at the behest of the MPAA and should never have happened.
 
2014-01-22 12:17:08 AM  
This was no accident.   This was a political statement.   He's the Rosa Parks for self important Google Glass douchebags.

It's time for the douchebags to make a stand.   Their movement has begun.    What's next?   Google glass while getting your spray tan?
 
2014-01-22 12:17:52 AM  
What crime was he supposedly committing? I thought copyright violation was a civil matter.was this supposedly a RICO type thing, where they were trying to pinch a conspiratorial group?

I would have written down id numbers and names.

I would not have answered any questions.

I would have asked if I was free to go. That way, either I'd have gotten out of there earlier, or had better ammo for a lawsuit.

_discuss
 
2014-01-22 12:19:14 AM  

mayIFark: Not being destroyed? Seriously? Either you are the one ignorant, or a paid shill.


come into the real world, ayn rand.  You are engaging in the same histrionics idiots did when laws regulating child pornography on the internet went into effect.
 
2014-01-22 12:20:03 AM  

jbrooks544: What crime was he supposedly committing? I thought copyright violation was a civil matter.was this supposedly a RICO type thing, where they were trying to pinch a conspiratorial group?

I would have written down id numbers and names.

I would not have answered any questions.

I would have asked if I was free to go. That way, either I'd have gotten out of there earlier, or had better ammo for a lawsuit.

_discuss


copyright violations can be both civil and criminal.  Just like stealing a car can be both civil and criminal.
 
2014-01-22 12:20:47 AM  

jimhill: If they guy doesn't have the presence of mind to say "Am I under arrest?  Am I free to go?" over and over and over then he can cry me a river.  Cooperation with law enforcement agents should consist of nothing more than asking those questions until you're arrested (after which you get Coin) or until they confirm that you aren't under arrest and are free to go ... in which case, you farkin' GO.


A - Farking - Men!
 
2014-01-22 12:20:47 AM  
Curious:

so yeah your technically right. the best kind of right. but i'll continue to maintain it was a dick move brought about at the behest of the MPAA and should never have happened.


why should law enforcement not investigate suspected violations of the law?
 
2014-01-22 12:20:47 AM  

UsikFark: cman: Mangoose: No. fark you. This doesn't go this way. Glassbag should have been sensible enough to understand that the was pointing a recording device at the farking movie screen. HOW THE fark ELSE WAS THIS GOING TO END? If he brought a camcorder or pointed his cell phone at the screen, this goes the same way.

farking douche.

I think people are more upset at who the interrogators were.

Homeland Security should just be that, Homeland Security. What does movie piracy have to do with terrorism?

Movie piracy funds terrorism.


You spelled "opium" and "ak-47" wrong

Movie piracy is something that is big business in China. Last time I checked there are no Chinese terrorist groups who are in an active war with us
 
2014-01-22 12:21:45 AM  
I call bullshiat. Mall cops and AMC hired thugs with fake badges. Charge the theater with kidnapping, assault, harrassment and false arrest, if only to make them look bad. Big a stink as you can manage.
 
2014-01-22 12:24:45 AM  
I don't like that federal agencies are used to protect privacy companies' profits in what should be handled in civil courts.
 
2014-01-22 12:25:01 AM  
simpler solution

Sir, I hope you enjoyed that movie, were you recording it? Do you know you are wearing a recording device? can I check the glass's to see if you were recording it?  Next time don't wear it at a movie theater please.
 
2014-01-22 12:26:41 AM  
If Google Glass can record 90 minutes of video, sign me up
 
2014-01-22 12:27:33 AM  
mayIFark: Not being destroyed? Seriously? Either you are the one ignorant, or a paid shill.come into the real world, ayn rand. You are engaging in the same histrionics idiots did when laws regulating child pornography on the internet went into effect.I must have hit the right button finally to see the shills jump to the next level of attack.
 
2014-01-22 12:27:39 AM  

Solutare: I don't like that federal agencies are used to protect privacy companies' profits in what should be handled in civil courts.


So by logical extension you also think insurance fraud and shoplifting any many myriad of laws that protect economic interests should only be handled in civil court?
 
2014-01-22 12:28:31 AM  

mayIFark: mayIFark: Not being destroyed? Seriously? Either you are the one ignorant, or a paid shill.come into the real world, ayn rand. You are engaging in the same histrionics idiots did when laws regulating child pornography on the internet went into effect.I must have hit the right button finally to see the shills jump to the next level of attack.


Yes...yes...anyone who doesn't agree with you is a shill.
 
2014-01-22 12:28:38 AM  
I feel safer. And I don't even live in the US.
 
2014-01-22 12:31:36 AM  

Solutare: I don't like that federal agencies are used to protect privacy companies' profits in what should be handled in civil courts.


Why is that?

Privacy is something that is very important to mankind
 
2014-01-22 12:33:41 AM  
Here's a thought.

Require cell phones and portable recording devices to be sensitive to a signal that can block their use.
Then theaters and other interested parties can buy jam signal broadcasters.
 
2014-01-22 12:35:42 AM  
Bootlegs filmed with a camcorder are bad enough (Er, so I've heard...) so can you imagine how terrible a bootleg recorded on a pair of Google Glasses would be? Are they saying the guy never moved his head at all for two hours?

/Of course the next generation of Google Glasses will just look like glasses, so no one will ever know someone is wearing them. Hell, if all you want to do is video stuff there are plenty of glasses already available on ebay that wouldn't get a second glance.
 
2014-01-22 12:46:33 AM  

Curious: NOT THE COPS NOT DHS BUT THE farkING CORPORATION POLICE. all you "what did he expect" assholes can bite my shiny metal ass. the last thing he or you or anyone should expect is private cops dragging folks into interrogations. for anything. fark that.


Dude, you know that if you're in a place of business, the shopkeeper usually has a right to detain you until law enforcement arrives if they have reason to believe you're stealing from them, right?  The MPAA was within its rights to hold this guy until DHS or the FBI or whomever got there and took over.

I'm firmly in the camp that wishes the MPAA and RIAA (and most of our bullshiat IP law) would die a quick and fiery death, but wearing Google Glass into a movie is just utterly inappropriate pants on head retarded.
 
2014-01-22 12:51:26 AM  

Pointy Tail of Satan: I feel safer. And I don't even live in the US.


I feel safer because I don't live in the US.
 
2014-01-22 12:52:59 AM  

sprgrss: So by logical extension you also think insurance fraud and shoplifting any many myriad of laws that protect economic interests should only be handled in civil court?


If I were a moron like you, I suppose I would think that that was a logical extension, yes.
 
2014-01-22 12:57:47 AM  

jaylectricity: OK, he's a jackass for wearing them to the movie, but it looks like they're fitted right to his prescription glasses.

If they had merely taken a look at  the contents of the drive (although he didn't have to let them) in the first 10 minutes everybody would have been able to go on their way.


And if they had done that the dumbshiat would be back next week wearing his Google Glasses to another movie.  Then they'd have to come back again.  I think they held him up and questioned him for 3 hours so that maybe next time he'll leave his Google Glasses at home and take a regular pair of glasses with him.
 
2014-01-22 12:59:40 AM  
Keep in mind that AMC is now owned 100% by the Chinese Communist Government.
 
2014-01-22 01:00:29 AM  

sprgrss: why should law enforcement not investigate suspected violations of the law?


copyright law? a civil action until the MPAA and the RIAA bought enough congress critters to make it a federal offense?

A Year In Jail For Filming 20 Seconds Of A Movie?

Woman Jailed 2 Days for Filming Movie Screen Sues Theater

the second one is the same woman and another person in a separate incidence. they also mention the $500 reward the MPAA offers for catching these villains.

so yeah this is a great use of scarce resources. i feel much safer knowing the "federal protective services" are keeping me safe from pirates.
 
2014-01-22 01:02:10 AM  

Solutare: sprgrss: So by logical extension you also think insurance fraud and shoplifting any many myriad of laws that protect economic interests should only be handled in civil court?

If I were a moron like you, I suppose I would think that that was a logical extension, yes.


So why are you fine with the law protecting these private business profits but not other private business profits?
 
2014-01-22 01:02:10 AM  

mbillips: StoPPeRmobile: cman: Mangoose: No. fark you. This doesn't go this way. Glassbag should have been sensible enough to understand that the was pointing a recording device at the farking movie screen. HOW THE fark ELSE WAS THIS GOING TO END? If he brought a camcorder or pointed his cell phone at the screen, this goes the same way.

farking douche.

I think people are more upset at who the interrogators were.

Homeland Security should just be that, Homeland Security. What does movie piracy have to do with terrorism?

Idiot!

Don't you remember that the Saudis crashed 2 copies of The Expendables into the WTC?

How quickly they forget.

To be serious for a moment, DHS was created in a spasm of panic when we thought we actually had an ongoing terrorism problem in the U.S by taking advantage of a national crisis in order to invoke new laws without serious public scrutiny. Now that it's been completely proven that we DON'T, all those law-enforcement agencies lumped together under DHS still have to do their jobs, which is enforcing criminal law that has nothing to do with terrorism. Better they irritate one neckbeard who's being a douche than that they waste time trying to talk guys in Dearborn with 67 IQs into buying Stinger missiles.


FIFY

Let's not pretend that some people who wrote those laws didn't know *exactly* what they were doing.

/still pissed
//and I was only 18 then.
 
2014-01-22 01:02:17 AM  

mbillips: untaken_name: mbillips: untaken_name: sprgrss: untaken_name: sprgrss: Amongst those governmental agencies is Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ICE is tasked with investigating criminal copyright violations.

Well sure, I mean, it makes so much more sense that Immigration enforces copyright than Homeland Security. Thanks for clearing that up.

I see you ignored that Customs part.

I forgot the guy was traveling internationally inside the movie theater. Sorry.

Where do you think the pirated movies mostly get sold? You don't buy $2 Hajji discs of new releases in America, you buy them in Asia and Russia.

Yes, and those are typically not recorded in the countries they're sold in by projectionists recording completely undetectably to the audience, they're recorded by middle-aged married guys in the audience WEARING the recording devices OPENLY. Because that kind of thinking is the true mark of an international crime organization.

Well, when I was buying bootleg movies in Iraq 8 years ago, at least one of them was recorded by some guy with a camcorder in a paper bag. It's probably different now that they're mostly using digital "prints" instead of film. Anyway, a guy wearing Google Glass was harassed and bullied, so win-win.


This. Anyone wearing Google Glass should be f*cked, broken and driven across the land.
 
2014-01-22 01:03:59 AM  

Curious: sprgrss: why should law enforcement not investigate suspected violations of the law?

copyright law? a civil action until the MPAA and the RIAA bought enough congress critters to make it a federal offense?


Copyright violations as a criminal violation predate the MPAA and the RIAA.  Originally it dealt with books and other forms of IP and was extended to movies and recordings once the technology came in to existence.
 
2014-01-22 01:04:20 AM  
If they can willing to do this, why can't they have an usher stand in each theater and ask texters and people on cell phones to get out.

They don't care about theater experience.
 
2014-01-22 01:05:34 AM  
Copyright infringement is a serious threat to the security of the homeland!
 
2014-01-22 01:06:55 AM  

cman: Mangoose: No. fark you. This doesn't go this way. Glassbag should have been sensible enough to understand that the was pointing a recording device at the farking movie screen. HOW THE fark ELSE WAS THIS GOING TO END? If he brought a camcorder or pointed his cell phone at the screen, this goes the same way.

farking douche.

I think people are more upset at who the interrogators were.

Homeland Security should just be that, Homeland Security. What does movie piracy have to do with terrorism?


good question
 
2014-01-22 01:12:18 AM  

bearded clamorer: Better article here


simply amazing
 
2014-01-22 01:14:16 AM  

Z-clipped: Dude, you know that if you're in a place of business, the shopkeeper usually has a right to detain you until law enforcement arrives if they have reason to believe you're stealing from them, right? The MPAA was within its rights to hold this guy until DHS or the FBI or whomever got there and took over.

I'm firmly in the camp that wishes the MPAA and RIAA (and most of our bullshiat IP law) would die a quick and fiery death, but wearing Google Glass into a movie is just utterly inappropriate pants on head retarded.


as to point one, fine. the article was less than clear about who actually did what. this quote is from the theater operator: "'The presence of this recording device prompted an investigation by the MPAA, which was on site. " and prompted my ire. at another point the article says the guy was jerked out of the theater by DHS. now given your shopkeeper law exception that's the theater operator or their employees. again NOT the MPAA.

we, you and i, were warned when this legislation was in the congress than letting the MPAA and the RIAA have their way meant local and federal cops would be doing the copyright enforcement for them. and no shiat here it is. to my credit i did write my congress persons but you can see how much that mattered.

and yeah google glass in a theater was dumb.
 
2014-01-22 01:16:55 AM  

mbillips: Oh, can I also add how happy I am that a Glasshole got detained and harassed, if not for violating the privacy of everyone that he points those things at? Because that should happen more.

/Somebody wearing those looks at me in the men's room, I'm swearing out a warrant.


itg much?
 
2014-01-22 01:21:51 AM  

drgloryboy: Why wouldn't I just wait half a year and just watch the same production at half the price on my own home theatre without leaving my house and not have to hear others talk on their cell phone or munch on popcorn or light up the space around me texting while I can pause the movie to take a piss or pour myself another drink?


You, too?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEqHJtzli-s
 
hej
2014-01-22 01:23:39 AM  

Relatively Obscure: [i.imgur.com image 300x169]


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-01-22 01:29:06 AM  

Without Fail: Here's a thought.

Require cell phones and portable recording devices to be sensitive to a signal that can block their use.
Then theaters and other interested parties can buy jam signal broadcasters.


Fark you.
 
2014-01-22 01:30:23 AM  

Gyrfalcon: mbillips: untaken_name: mbillips: untaken_name: sprgrss: untaken_name: sprgrss: Amongst those governmental agencies is Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ICE is tasked with investigating criminal copyright violations.

Well sure, I mean, it makes so much more sense that Immigration enforces copyright than Homeland Security. Thanks for clearing that up.

I see you ignored that Customs part.

I forgot the guy was traveling internationally inside the movie theater. Sorry.

Where do you think the pirated movies mostly get sold? You don't buy $2 Hajji discs of new releases in America, you buy them in Asia and Russia.

Yes, and those are typically not recorded in the countries they're sold in by projectionists recording completely undetectably to the audience, they're recorded by middle-aged married guys in the audience WEARING the recording devices OPENLY. Because that kind of thinking is the true mark of an international crime organization.

Well, when I was buying bootleg movies in Iraq 8 years ago, at least one of them was recorded by some guy with a camcorder in a paper bag. It's probably different now that they're mostly using digital "prints" instead of film. Anyway, a guy wearing Google Glass was harassed and bullied, so win-win.

This. Anyone wearing Google Glass should be f*cked, broken and driven across the land.


I don't have one, but I will. Why do you hate them so?
 
2014-01-22 01:32:33 AM  

hej: Relatively Obscure: [i.imgur.com image 300x169]

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 500x313]


You can download a bear?  COOL!  I'd like a mid sized brown one.
 
2014-01-22 01:35:59 AM  

Bucky Katt: drgloryboy: Why wouldn't I just wait half a year and just watch the same production at half the price on my own home theatre without leaving my house and not have to hear others talk on their cell phone or munch on popcorn or light up the space around me texting while I can pause the movie to take a piss or pour myself another drink?

You, too?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEqHJtzli-s


/Thank you for that.
 
2014-01-22 01:37:47 AM  

sprgrss: Curious: sprgrss: why should law enforcement not investigate suspected violations of the law?

copyright law? a civil action until the MPAA and the RIAA bought enough congress critters to make it a federal offense?

Copyright violations as a criminal violation predate the MPAA and the RIAA.  Originally it dealt with books and other forms of IP and was extended to movies and recordings once the technology came in to existence.


if wikipediaia to be believed it's only been since that "extended to movies and recordings ..."part that any real enforcement has been carried out. especially by the multitude of agencies that are included under DHS. and it wan't since their existence but since things like the walkman and VHS tape got popular. and with the digital age the producers went batshiat crazy trying to protect their cash cow.

keep in mind the RIAA spent years using creative accounting to steal millions from recording artists. but by jolly if you use a iPod to provide music for the lunch crowd you're in deep shiat.
 
2014-01-22 01:47:37 AM  

Curious: Z-clipped:

we, you and i, were warned when this legislation was in the congress than letting the MPAA and the RIAA have their way meant local and federal cops would be doing the copyright enforcement for them. and no shiat here it is. to my credit i did write my congress persons but you can see how much that mattered.


It's true, the copyright law was amended in 2008.  Previously, criminal liability required willful infringement and either intent to profit, or a certain threshold for sales of copies.  Added in 2008: even without intent to profit, criminal to make available online something you should know has a commercial market, specifically including the first-run movie market.
 
2014-01-22 01:55:59 AM  
I find it astonishing how little foresight people in this thread have.

Your average cell phone (including flip phones) has all the same technological components as the Google Glass- most all can record audio and video. Essentially, this guy was detained by ten federal agents for daring to have a smart phone in a movie theater.

You can think I'm crazy if you want, but texting or playing games on a phone during a movie can be construed to be just as suspicious as wearing a Glass and looking at the screen.

As to the law and the MPAA, you need to get with the times. Recording devices are literally everywhere. If you sell 100 tickets to a movie, chances are that 95 of those people have a video recording device with them. You need a better way of handling this kind of thing.
 
2014-01-22 01:59:31 AM  

cman: Mangoose: No. fark you. This doesn't go this way. Glassbag should have been sensible enough to understand that the was pointing a recording device at the farking movie screen. HOW THE fark ELSE WAS THIS GOING TO END? If he brought a camcorder or pointed his cell phone at the screen, this goes the same way.

farking douche.

I think people are more upset at who the interrogators were.

Homeland Security should just be that, Homeland Security. What does movie piracy have to do with terrorism?


None of the security and surveillance shiat you've been seeing over the past decade have anything to do with terrorism. If they catch the odd muhammad doing bad shiat here and there, great. But this is about economic and physical control of a populace.

Relevant
 
2014-01-22 02:02:57 AM  

Curious: now given your shopkeeper law exception that's the theater operator or their employees. again NOT the MPAA.


I wouldn't be surprised if the MPAA had some kind of legal partnership written into the theater contract that gives them the authority to act as the proverbial "shopkeeper".  Just sayin'.

 
2014-01-22 02:04:24 AM  

jimhill: If they guy doesn't have the presence of mind to say "Am I under arrest?  Am I free to go?" over and over and over then he can cry me a river.  Cooperation with law enforcement agents should consist of nothing more than asking those questions until you're arrested (after which you get Coin) or until they confirm that you aren't under arrest and are free to go ... in which case, you farkin' GO.


They had observed him pointing a recording device at the screen for an hour.  I think that's probable cause enough for an extended stop, if not an arrest.  I'm not sure what the state's position is on this or whether the fact it's a federal crime he's suspected of which gives them the power to do that.

What it definitely is, is probable cause for them to dick him around enough for him to regret it and not be such an idiot in the future.  Sure they could have ascertained he didn't have the recording (maybe he deleted it?) earlier, but that's a waste of THEIR valuable time caused by his idiocy.  I'm guessing they decided to extend his little stay as long as they could to teach him a lesson.
 
2014-01-22 02:10:10 AM  
Here we go:   Investigative Detention is legal for a "reasonably articulated suspicion" in California.

although the cam pointed at the screen I'd argue was probable cause for an arrest.
 
2014-01-22 02:11:05 AM  

lindseyp: They had observed him pointing a recording device at the screen for an hour.  I think that's probable cause enough for an extended stop, if not an arrest.  I'm not sure what the state's position is on this or whether the fact it's a federal crime he's suspected of which gives them the power to do that.

What it definitely is, is probable cause for them to dick him around enough for him to regret it and not be such an idiot in the future.  Sure they could have ascertained he didn't have the recording (maybe he deleted it?) earlier, but that's a waste of THEIR valuable time caused by his idiocy.  I'm guessing they decided to extend his little stay as long as they could to teach him a lesson.


But virtually every phone sold these days is a recording device. I cannot tell you how many times I've been to the theater and the teenage girls have their phones out the entire movie doing texting or whatnot, they could just as easily slip in some recording. The fact that this guy had a recording device out in a movie theater in no way marks him out as special.
 
2014-01-22 02:11:49 AM  

Fubini: Your average cell phone (including flip phones) has all the same technological components as the Google Glass- most all can record audio and video. Essentially, this guy was detained by ten federal agents for daring to have a smart phone in a movie theater.


I find it astonishing that you seem unable to differentiate between a recording device (cellphone OR glass) being "in the theater" say in your pocket vs. being pointed at the screen.

Fubini: You can think I'm crazy if you want, but texting or playing games on a phone during a movie can be construed to be just as suspicious as wearing a Glass and looking at the screen.


Texting or playing games on your cellphone during a movie is construed as worthy of an ass-beating in my book.  But if you're pointing a cellphone at the screen continuously during a movie, YES, you should expect to be hassled by someone about bootlegging. Don't be an idiot.

Fubini: Recording devices are literally everywhere. If you sell 100 tickets to a movie, chances are that 95 of those people have a video recording device with them. You need a better way of handling this kind of thing.


Better than watching for people actively trying to record the movie?  What would you suggest?  Banning all electronic devices from theaters?
 
2014-01-22 02:14:16 AM  

lindseyp: Here we go:   Investigative Detention is legal for a "reasonably articulated suspicion" in California.


It's legal, but does it make any goddamned sense?

"This person had a recording device out during a movie." is a perfectly reasonably articulated suspicion, but it applies to anyone who uses a cell phone in the theater for any reason whatsoever. Did they detain the other 20 people who had a recording device out in the theater?
 
2014-01-22 02:16:56 AM  

moike: Hey, did anybody come in all smug and make the 'glasshole' joke yet?


i forget, why do we hate google glasses?
 
2014-01-22 02:17:24 AM  

Z-clipped: Fubini: Recording devices are literally everywhere. If you sell 100 tickets to a movie, chances are that 95 of those people have a video recording device with them. You need a better way of handling this kind of thing.

Better than watching for people actively trying to record the movie?  What would you suggest?  Banning all electronic devices from theaters?


There are watchers with infra-red cameras at the front of the theatre, looking for people who are continuously pointing cameras at the screen, which this guy obviously was.  That's a far cry from merely having the phone out and switched on whilst they're texting / gaming etc...   Not many people do that whilst holding the phone steady facing the screen directly at head height.  If they did, you can bet they'd be subject to the same interrogation.

(they all deserve beatings)
((brackets,  the new slashies))
 
2014-01-22 02:19:05 AM  
He was pointing his camera directly at the screen, at head height, for over an hour.

I mean he didn't even have the courtesy to TELL the theatre he was wearing a Glass and that it was to be switched off.   He deserved all he got.
 
2014-01-22 02:19:11 AM  

mbillips: Oh, can I also add how happy I am that a Glasshole got detained and harassed, if not for violating the privacy of everyone that he points those things at? Because that should happen more.

/Somebody wearing those looks at me in the men's room, I'm swearing out a warrant.


Small dink?
 
2014-01-22 02:19:28 AM  

Flint Ironstag: Bootlegs filmed with a camcorder are bad enough (Er, so I've heard...) so can you imagine how terrible a bootleg recorded on a pair of Google Glasses would be? Are they saying the guy never moved his head at all for two hours?

/Of course the next generation of Google Glasses will just look like glasses, so no one will ever know someone is wearing them. Hell, if all you want to do is video stuff there are plenty of glasses already available on ebay that wouldn't get a second glance.


this is all i can think of. TS copies are crap enough, without all the head bobbing, and so on. what a fail way to record a movie.
 
2014-01-22 02:19:47 AM  

Fubini: "This person had a recording device out during a movie." is a perfectly reasonably articulated suspicion, but it applies to anyone who uses a cell phone in the theater for any reason whatsoever. Did they detain the other 20 people who had a recording device out in the theater?


Are you really so stupid/obtuse that you don't see that the MPAA would be less concerned with someone recording 20 seconds of a move vs. recording the entire thing?  Jesus farking christ man, get a grip.
 
2014-01-22 02:21:11 AM  

Fubini: I find it astonishing how little foresight people in this thread have.

Your average cell phone (including flip phones) has all the same technological components as the Google Glass- most all can record audio and video. Essentially, this guy was detained by ten federal agents for daring to have a smart phone in a movie theater.

You can think I'm crazy if you want, but texting or playing games on a phone during a movie can be construed to be just as suspicious as wearing a Glass and looking at the screen.

As to the law and the MPAA, you need to get with the times. Recording devices are literally everywhere. If you sell 100 tickets to a movie, chances are that 95 of those people have a video recording device with them. You need a better way of handling this kind of thing.


This is the MPAA we're talking about, so there's no farking way that will ever happen.  Ditto the RIAA.  And as long as law enforcement does their bidding... we'll stay in the Stone Age forever.

/stone knives and bear skins
 
2014-01-22 02:24:18 AM  

lindseyp: Z-clipped: Fubini: Recording devices are literally everywhere. If you sell 100 tickets to a movie, chances are that 95 of those people have a video recording device with them. You need a better way of handling this kind of thing.

Better than watching for people actively trying to record the movie?  What would you suggest?  Banning all electronic devices from theaters?

There are watchers with infra-red cameras at the front of the theatre, looking for people who are continuously pointing cameras at the screen, which this guy obviously was.  That's a far cry from merely having the phone out and switched on whilst they're texting / gaming etc...   Not many people do that whilst holding the phone steady facing the screen directly at head height.  If they did, you can bet they'd be subject to the same interrogation.

(they all deserve beatings)
((brackets,  the new slashies))


www.rockpapersaddam.com

I'm sayin' Bro!
 
2014-01-22 02:25:24 AM  

Z-clipped: Texting or playing games on your cellphone during a movie is construed as worthy of an ass-beating in my book.  But if you're pointing a cellphone at the screen continuously during a movie, YES, you should expect to be hassled by someone about bootlegging. Don't be an idiot.


The scary thing here is the precedent. *ANY* videotaping of a movie in a theater is a crime, so *ANY* manipulation of a cellphone during a movie can be construed to be just as suspicious as pointing your cellphone at the screen for two hours.

Yes, it's obvious that the guy with the Glass is pointing a recording device at the screen. However, common sense did not win out this day. Common sense would say that this guy has a new piece of technology that fits a camera to his head, and that he probably has it for any one of the myriad of legal activities you can do with the Glass. Instead, the LEOs here had to ignore all the simple explanations that said he was doing nothing illegal, and instead convinced themselves that he might be doing something illegal, despite the complete lack of any indication that he was, and despite the fact that the Glass is designed to make it extremely obvious when someone is taking pictures or recording video.

The mere fact that you have the ability to do something illegal should not be construed as evidence that you *ARE* doing something illegal, particularly when much simpler explanations exist that indicate that nothing illegal is taking place. If I wanted to, I could easily construe someone fiddling with their cellphone to be just as suspicious as wearing a Google Glass.

Z-clipped: Better than watching for people actively trying to record the movie?  What would you suggest?  Banning all electronic devices from theaters?


No, I'm saying that the LEOs and the lawmakers get with the times and figure out how to do their job without being morons.
 
2014-01-22 02:30:11 AM  

lindseyp: I mean he didn't even have the courtesy to TELL the theatre he was wearing a Glass and that it was to be switched off.   He deserved all he got.


Except the Glass makes it very obvious when it is recording via the light-up display, and doing so requires speaking voice commands or manipulating the device.

Even if you think this guy is a wizard and can somehow disable these things, a simple 30 second function test by the law enforcement officers would have shown whether or not they were functioning correctly, rather than an hours-long detainment.
 
2014-01-22 02:31:47 AM  

some_beer_drinker: moike: Hey, did anybody come in all smug and make the 'glasshole' joke yet?

i forget, why do we hate google glasses?


No idea...  But every time the topic comes up this monkey cage is whipped into a shiat slinging frenzy.
 
2014-01-22 02:33:55 AM  

Z-clipped: Are you really so stupid/obtuse that you don't see that the MPAA would be less concerned with someone recording 20 seconds of a move vs. recording the entire thing?  Jesus farking christ man, get a grip.


As I pointed out twice, the concerning thing is the precedent this sets. From a legal point of view, fiddling with a cell phone is just as suspicious as wearing a Glass.

If the LEOs were willing to exercise common sense, they wouldn't have detained this guy and we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. Clearly, they lack or do not use common sense, so we the public need to shame them until they stop being so goddamned stupid.
 
2014-01-22 02:34:07 AM  

Without Fail: Here's a thought.

Require cell phones and portable recording devices to be sensitive to a signal that can block their use.
Then theaters and other interested parties can buy jam signal broadcasters.


They should do this in cars. Block all calling and texting while the vehicle is in motion. The FCC would never allow it, though.
 
2014-01-22 02:35:23 AM  

cman: UsikFark: cman: Mangoose: No. fark you. This doesn't go this way. Glassbag should have been sensible enough to understand that the was pointing a recording device at the farking movie screen. HOW THE fark ELSE WAS THIS GOING TO END? If he brought a camcorder or pointed his cell phone at the screen, this goes the same way.

farking douche.

I think people are more upset at who the interrogators were.

Homeland Security should just be that, Homeland Security. What does movie piracy have to do with terrorism?

Movie piracy funds terrorism.

You spelled "opium" and "ak-47" wrong

Movie piracy is something that is big business in China. Last time I checked there are no Chinese terrorist groups who are in an active war with us


The Chinese are their own worst enemy, if only for the unique scale of their systemic problems. I was just taking a shot in the dark with the terrorism thing, but in all seriousness a congressman or Fox News reporter is bound to 'follow the thought-experiment money' and say it out loud.
 
2014-01-22 02:36:43 AM  

Fubini: The scary thing here is the precedent. *ANY* videotaping of a movie in a theater is a crime, so *ANY* manipulation of a cellphone during a movie can be construed to be just as suspicious as pointing your cellphone at the screen for two hours.


You're borrowing trouble.  This is not the case, nor was it the case in TFA.  Again, don't be an idiot.

Fubini: If I wanted to, I could easily construe someone fiddling with their cellphone to be just as suspicious as wearing a Google Glass.


That's because you are not a reasonable person.  A reasonable person can clearly see the difference between taking out a cellphone for a few seconds in a theater (merely annoying) and deliberately and continuously pointing a recording device at the farking screen which represents a clear possibility of someone recording the entire movie for the purposes of re-distribution.

This is a common sense distinction.  It is not the slippery slope you're making it out to be.  Stop being stupid.

Fubini: No, I'm saying that the LEOs and the lawmakers get with the times and figure out how to do their job without being morons.


How about if they go on using reasonable judgement about what constitutes a real threat to copyright, and Google Glass users exercise a little common sense about where they wear their tech toys?  Like not in a goddamn theater.

/I can't believe I'm arguing on behalf of these pig-farker IP-abusing assholes.
//Look what you're making me do, man.
 
2014-01-22 02:42:39 AM  

Fubini: As I pointed out twice, the concerning thing is the precedent this sets.


I don't think you know what "precedent" means, because this doesn't set any.

Fubini: From a legal point of view, fiddling with a cell phone is just as suspicious as wearing a Glass.


No, it's not.  If you think it is, you've got a problem with your grip on reality.

Fubini: If the LEOs were willing to exercise common sense, they wouldn't have detained this guy and we wouldn't be having this discussion right now


Despite my misgivings about the MPAA, they were 100% right to detain this guy, and 100% right to hassle him along the way to discourage him from repeating his actions.  He was doing something blatantly suspicious than anyone with a shred of common sense would expect to draw the attention of law enforcement.  He deserved to be hassled.
 
2014-01-22 02:43:41 AM  

some_beer_drinker: moike: Hey, did anybody come in all smug and make the 'glasshole' joke yet?

i forget, why do we hate google glasses?


Cognitive dissonance? On one hand, we know glass owners probably are not so different from us more than any other demographic, but because they are doing this visible thing and making themselves even more visible by posting shiat our brain goes "gimme gimme gimme" and suddenly their lives seem better then ours.
 
2014-01-22 02:45:09 AM  
I still don't understand why theaters a dont just install a handful or IR LEDs behind the screen. Put a specific pattern to track ala the Eurion or enough to washout the whole thing. Invisible to people and ruins camera recording of screens. You could do it for A few hundred dollars a screen and end camming.

/95% of cams suck
//the others you know are employees doing it and have it perfected
///theatre is nice for some movies. I'd just prefer they release them all at once theatre, DVD, bluray, iTunes whatever
//// but fark ultraviolet.
 
2014-01-22 02:50:19 AM  

Z-clipped: He was doing something blatantly suspicious than anyone with a shred of common sense would expect to draw the attention of law enforcement.


So he was Black, a geek, wearing expensive technology, and sitting quietly?
 
2014-01-22 02:51:25 AM  

aseras: I still don't understand why theaters a dont just install a handful or IR LEDs behind the screen. Put a specific pattern to track ala the Eurion or enough to washout the whole thing. Invisible to people and ruins camera recording of screens. You could do it for A few hundred dollars a screen and end camming.

/95% of cams suck
//the others you know are employees doing it and have it perfected
///theatre is nice for some movies. I'd just prefer they release them all at once theatre, DVD, bluray, iTunes whatever
//// but fark ultraviolet.


IR filters are not hard to come by and are already installed in most digital cameras.
 
2014-01-22 02:56:13 AM  

UsikFark: some_beer_drinker: moike: Hey, did anybody come in all smug and make the 'glasshole' joke yet?

i forget, why do we hate google glasses?

Cognitive dissonance? On one hand, we know glass owners probably are not so different from us more than any other demographic, but because they are doing this visible thing and making themselves even more visible by posting shiat our brain goes "gimme gimme gimme" and suddenly their lives seem better then ours.


I figured it was just that people don't like the idea of being surreptitiously A/V recorded in public.  I don't even have the terrible fear of public speaking or being in front of an audience that most people have, and the idea of it irks me.  I don't mind being photographed candidly, but even then, I prefer to know approximately when I'm under surveillance.  Google glass has the potential to be incredibly annoying and intrusive.

Some aspects of its utility also represent an over-attachment to the virtual at the expense of real social interaction, which induces disdain in a lot of people.  Neal Stephenson was writing about this kind of thing (gargoyles, everyone hates them) back in the early 90s.
 
2014-01-22 02:58:52 AM  

UsikFark: Z-clipped: He was doing something blatantly suspicious than anyone with a shred of common sense would expect to draw the attention of law enforcement.

So he was Black, a geek, wearing expensive technology, and sitting quietly?


He was black, and sitting quietly in a movie theater?  Now I've seen everything.

/I keed, I keed...
 
2014-01-22 03:19:42 AM  

moike: some_beer_drinker: moike: Hey, did anybody come in all smug and make the 'glasshole' joke yet?

i forget, why do we hate google glasses?

No idea...  But every time the topic comes up this monkey cage is whipped into a shiat slinging frenzy.


yeah, i'll say. that is a perfect description of fark at the best of times. it's awesome.
 
2014-01-22 03:59:50 AM  
This theater's idea of what a professional camshot recording ring member looks like is quite different from what I would describe as professional. If he was actually going to, his method of attempted media robbery could be compared to the old blinking light in a hat method. Apparently walking into a theater with an obvious in plain sight camera mounted on your face equals mastermind involved in an apparently uncapturable theft ring.

Prescription glasses of not, he was a moron for wearing his face computer into a theater and expecting not to get hassled at some point.
 
2014-01-22 04:11:30 AM  
He should just have been shot. It happened in America, after all.
 
2014-01-22 04:26:07 AM  

cman: Mangoose: No. fark you. This doesn't go this way. Glassbag should have been sensible enough to understand that the was pointing a recording device at the farking movie screen. HOW THE fark ELSE WAS THIS GOING TO END? If he brought a camcorder or pointed his cell phone at the screen, this goes the same way.

farking douche.

I think people are more upset at who the interrogators were.

Homeland Security should just be that, Homeland Security. What does movie piracy have to do with terrorism?


A billion times THIS.
 
2014-01-22 04:51:46 AM  
Next week in The Further Adventures of Entitled Man With No Sense, our intrepid hero will visit a swimming baths with his google glasses and whine when he's hauled in by the cops on suspicion of taking pictures.
 
2014-01-22 05:20:57 AM  

BitwiseShift: So the MPAA has not one or two federally-payrolled cops looking a patrons making bad copies but ten in one movie theater? I wonder how many shows the exotic LEOs caught, and whether their popcorn was comped?


Movies are digitally watermarked and pirated content can be analysed and traced back to the cinema it was filmed in. I wouldn't be surprised if the watermarking even carries a timestamp so someone can pinpoint the exact date & time it was filmed and thus the particular showing and potentially infer who it was if they booked seats, or if they had filmed several movies from the same credit card.

But whatever the reason, the MPAA got a heads up that this particular cinema was the source of some online content and they were staking it out a new movie hoping to catch whoever it was. Then glasshole walks in with his camera on his head and the rest follows on from that. He gets arrested, the feds wait for someone to properly examine the device and eventually he's let go.

Whether it should be a federal crime to film a movie, is a highly contentious point, but given that it *is* a federal crime, and cinemas are plastered with signs and warnings not to film, it seems ever so slightly stupid to walk in wearing a camera and pointing at the screen the whole time.
 
2014-01-22 06:17:21 AM  

sprgrss: mbillips: cman: Mangoose: No. fark you. This doesn't go this way. Glassbag should have been sensible enough to understand that the was pointing a recording device at the farking movie screen. HOW THE fark ELSE WAS THIS GOING TO END? If he brought a camcorder or pointed his cell phone at the screen, this goes the same way.

farking douche.

I think people are more upset at who the interrogators were.

Homeland Security should just be that, Homeland Security. What does movie piracy have to do with terrorism?

The FBI is part of the Department of Homeland Security (as is the Coast Guard). There are no actual "Homeland Security" counterterrorism forces tracking down all the fictional and/or broke-ass wannabe Al Qaeda cells. What there is is crime, like movie piracy, which the FBI investigates under federal law.

FBI is still under DOJ and Coast Guard is under DoD.


Correct on FBI. Coast Guard, however, was moved under DHS, unless deployed to a forward theater like Iraq.
 
2014-01-22 07:20:22 AM  
".... and the laaaaaaannnnnndddddddd of the freeeeeeeeee....!!!!"


(Pause)

BWAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAAAAA....!
 
2014-01-22 08:02:09 AM  

Fubini: I find it astonishing how little foresight people in this thread have.

Your average cell phone (including flip phones) has all the same technological components as the Google Glass- most all can record audio and video. Essentially, this guy was detained by ten federal agents for daring to have a smart phone in a movie theater.

You can think I'm crazy if you want, but texting or playing games on a phone during a movie can be construed to be just as suspicious as wearing a Glass and looking at the screen.

As to the law and the MPAA, you need to get with the times. Recording devices are literally everywhere. If you sell 100 tickets to a movie, chances are that 95 of those people have a video recording device with them. You need a better way of handling this kind of thing.


grumpycatgood.jpg

/I would pay extra taxes for cops who would haul people out of theaters for texting and/or playing games on their phone during a movie.
 
2014-01-22 08:25:11 AM  

sprgrss: mayIFark: Not being destroyed? Seriously? Either you are the one ignorant, or a paid shill.

come into the real world, ayn rand.  You are engaging in the same histrionics idiots did when laws regulating child pornography on the internet went into effect.


Umm, the BS that is being put into place under the guise of protecting people from CP is actually hurting the internet.  And if you didn't care about that, it's at the very least in the early stages of wasting billions of taxpayer dollars tilting at windmills.
 
2014-01-22 08:26:00 AM  

Mangoose: Glassbag should have been sensible enough to understand that the was pointing a recording device at the farking movie screen.


Oh noes!   He pointed a recording device at a movie screen, and now all the pixels has been stolenized!  The police was looking for the pixels he stole!  And now other people can not have the pixels at the movie that he stole them from, but only the rubbery popcorns and the ju-ju-bellies!
 
2014-01-22 08:31:02 AM  

Z-clipped: Fubini: As I pointed out twice, the concerning thing is the precedent this sets.

I don't think you know what "precedent" means, because this doesn't set any.

Fubini: From a legal point of view, fiddling with a cell phone is just as suspicious as wearing a Glass.

No, it's not.  If you think it is, you've got a problem with your grip on reality.

Fubini: If the LEOs were willing to exercise common sense, they wouldn't have detained this guy and we wouldn't be having this discussion right now

Despite my misgivings about the MPAA, they were 100% right to detain this guy, and 100% right to hassle him along the way to discourage him from repeating his actions.  He was doing something blatantly suspicious than anyone with a shred of common sense would expect to draw the attention of law enforcement.  He deserved to be hassled.


Don't you have to go measure someone's lawn with a ruler or check the serial numbers on trashcans in case someone is using an unapproved model?
 
2014-01-22 08:40:12 AM  

lindseyp: What it definitely is, is probable cause for them to dick him around enough for him to regret it and not be such an idiot in the future. Sure they could have ascertained he didn't have the recording (maybe he deleted it?) earlier, but that's a waste of THEIR valuable time caused by his idiocy. I'm guessing they decided to extend his little stay as long as they could to teach him a lesson.


Wasting THEIR valuable time?  They are sitting around a movie theater trying to catch camcorder bootleggers.  Their time is less valuable than that of the guy who picks up my trash each week.  At least the trashman is providing an essential service.

If these idiots knew enough about their jobs to make themselves valuable, they would have realized that google glass is probably the worst 'movie recording device' that you could possibly choose.  Worse than a $10 pinhole camera.  So the only valuable time they wasted was the time of the guy they harassed for doing nothing wrong.
 
2014-01-22 08:41:42 AM  

Z-clipped: He was black, and sitting quietly in a movie theater?  Now I've seen everything.


You sound like a grumpy old racist.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the Google Glass is designed to make it extremely obvious when it is recording something. If you weren't such a luddite, you'd realize how silly your argument is.
 
2014-01-22 09:21:55 AM  
Recording in a theater should not be illegal. If the owners do not want to allow recording devices to be used that's fine but it shouldn't be a legal matter until they have someone who refuses to leave after being asked.
 
2014-01-22 09:22:30 AM  

Z-clipped: Despite my misgivings about the MPAA, they were 100% right to detain this guy, and 100% right to hassle him along the way to discourage him from repeating his actions.  He was doing something blatantly suspicious than anyone with a shred of common sense would expect to draw the attention of law enforcement.  He deserved to be hassled.


It might have been 100% legal for them to detain this guy, but it was not in any way morally right.  Those are two very, very different things.

First, let's suppose he was recording the movie.  Who cares?   There were already 100 bootleg versions of "James Reacher Ryan the Spy Guy" on every corner of every third world city and on every pirate site on the internet.  Suppose he really is making one more?   Who cares?  Seriously, who cares at all?   There might be one more jittery bad transfer available on some streetcorner in Dubai, which some Filipino slave might buy on her way back from the market?  That's terrible.

Second, let's suppose he wasn't recording the movie.  Again, who cares?   If there were 30 people watching that movie, then there were probably 35 recording devices in the theater already.  Every single person who walked in the theater that day, from nightly cleaning crew to the youngest patron who cried through the move, probably owns a recording device of some kind.   And cameras that will fit on your regular glasses (or a thousand other hiding places) are 1/10th the price of google glasses, and unlike google glasses are completely hidden.   If it's reasonable to hassle anyone who might be recording a movie, they should just get rid of the theater entirely and simply take anyone who buys a ticket straight to the police station for interrogation.  (Maybe that's a little harsh; perhaps the system should be setup so that people can buy overpriced popcorn and soda before they are taken to jail, so the theaters can continue to make a profit.)

This is just a stupid, misguided overreaction that does nothing but increase resentment and lower ticket sales, while doing nothing to solve the actual problem they want to solve.
 
2014-01-22 09:52:16 AM  
Leave these guys alone! Here are my points:

1. CAM copies suck, the video is bad, often not properly aligned and the Audio is probably worse. A CAM copy is Nothing that you want to keep in your library
2. At Best someone seeing a CAM will think "I really want to go and See that movie!" or "I'll buy that the minute it comes out on Blu-Ray or DVD!"
3. At Worst someone seeing a CAM will think "I sure am glad I Didn't Pay to go see that POS!".
4. So Who is Stealing from Who from someone making a CAM copy?
 
2014-01-22 10:06:50 AM  

Lapdance: So Who is Stealing from Who from someone making a CAM copy?


NO!   Every single person in the whole world would have gone to see "Jack Ryan:  Oops!  Sorry about the Ben Affleck Last Time!", but the googlez and the glassez made the MPAA have a sadz!
 
2014-01-22 10:07:58 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: The important thing is that the movie wasn't recorded and then dumped onto the internet with grainy video and crappy sound that no reasonable person would want to watch when they can just catch it at the local theater.


My roomate's jobless boyfriend is always bringing shiatty pirated movies to the house and doesn't undertstand why I don't want to watch them. Because they are laggy, they jump around like they were filmed by Michael J Fox after 10 Redbulls, have people's heads in the way, and you can hear people talking on them, that's why. Even the DVD copies are grainy.

I have Netflix, I can watch movies that are much better quality. Either that or black friday Blurays from 7-9 bucks.
 
2014-01-22 10:36:39 AM  

fusillade762: the man said some 'federal service' agents snatched the glasses from his face

Bullshiat. Like the Feds are patrolling movie theaters. "Homeland Security" my ass.


Actually, somehow, piracy has ended up in the DHS's purview.So you better believe it, because it's happening.

/we told you people this shiat wouldn't stop at "fighting terrorism" when all these laws passed after 9/11.
//but did you listen?
///nooooooooooooooooo, of course not.
 
2014-01-22 11:24:31 AM  

sprgrss: mbillips: cman: Mangoose: No. fark you. This doesn't go this way. Glassbag should have been sensible enough to understand that the was pointing a recording device at the farking movie screen. HOW THE fark ELSE WAS THIS GOING TO END? If he brought a camcorder or pointed his cell phone at the screen, this goes the same way.

farking douche.

I think people are more upset at who the interrogators were.

Homeland Security should just be that, Homeland Security. What does movie piracy have to do with terrorism?

The FBI is part of the Department of Homeland Security (as is the Coast Guard). There are no actual "Homeland Security" counterterrorism forces tracking down all the fictional and/or broke-ass wannabe Al Qaeda cells. What there is is crime, like movie piracy, which the FBI investigates under federal law.

FBI is still under DOJ and Coast Guard is under DoD.


USCG is under DHS, but during time if war they can move to DoD. Currently, they're under DHS
 
2014-01-22 11:46:09 AM  

Fubini: You seem to be ignoring the fact that the Google Glass is designed to make it extremely obvious when it is recording something. If you weren't such a luddite, you'd realize how silly your argument is.


*facepalm*

This is true of basically all video cameras. It doesn't stop people from poking out the light so they can record movies in the theater surreptitiously.

Look kid, I know you think Glass is cool. It's hella expensive and sophisticated, and carries additional nerd cred on top of that since Google has to basically choose you to own one.  I know you think wearable computing, augmented reality, and direct interface are the future, and that someday we'll all be wearing these things.

Guess what?  There will always be places where wearing a camera on your face (on or not) will get you hassled by police, and movie theaters, locker rooms and children's playgrounds will always be among them.  Your mission, should you choose to back up your ridiculous position, is to go to three of the next high-budget blockbuster new release films at the same theater, hold up a camcorder (turned off, if you like) pointed at the screen through the entire film, and report back with your experiences.

The Larch: It might have been 100% legal for them to detain this guy, but it was not in any way morally right. Those are two very, very different things.


Don't confuse my position.  I don't side with the MPAA on anything.  I torrent the ever-loving fark out of movies, books and music. I think most IP law is corporation-fellating bullshiat and despise any big company that's willing to use money to get laws written in an attempt to preserve the viability of a business model that should be allowed to die.

But given the actual state of the world today, I'm still not stupid enough to wear a device on my face that's generally vaguely understood to be a surreptitious recording device into a movie theater, and I'm not naive enough to argue that people should have a right to do so without being approached by the pig-farkers who are desperately trying to keep their copyrighted material off the internet.

The Larch: First, let's suppose he was recording the movie. Who cares?


The MPAA cares, numbnuts.  And they have enough money to pay law enforcement (via political donations) to care on their behalf.  Is it right? No.  But attempting at this late date to draw the line of principle at "wearing Google Glass in a movie theater" is farking moronic.

It's like saying "I should have the right to walk into a store that sells $50K fur coats holding two open cans of spray paint in my hands, as long as I'm not actually spraying paint, "  and then getting all huffy because when you tried to walk out, the store owner detained you long enough to check for damage to his merchandise.  Is recording a movie the same as damaging a fur coat?  No. But that's pretty much the way the law is written, and pretending otherwise because you think getting picked by Google to test their face-computer makes you special is going to land you in trouble.

The Larch: This is just a stupid, misguided overreaction that does nothing but increase resentment and lower ticket sales, while doing nothing to solve the actual problem they want to solve.


It doesn't look like many people in this thread resent the fact that a Glasshole (their word, not mine) wore his camera someplace inappropriate and got investigated for it.  It's bad enough that 90% of people are selfish un-self-aware jitbags who can't even grasp simple cellphone etiquette.  Wearable cameras open up an entirely new arena for people to use tech in a way that should end with them being beaten with sticks.  This guy was an idiot, and got exactly what any sane person would expect, given what he did.
 
2014-01-22 12:00:03 PM  

Z-clipped: This guy was an idiot, and got exactly what any sane person would expect, given what he did.


Why couldn't the manger just tell the guy that they don't allow recording devices to be worn in the theater? Why investigate or search the guy?
 
2014-01-22 12:08:14 PM  

Z-clipped: they were 100% right to detain this guy


Z-clipped: Is it right? No.


Go home, z-clipped.   You're drunk.
 
2014-01-22 12:15:15 PM  

Torok: Z-clipped: This guy was an idiot, and got exactly what any sane person would expect, given what he did.

Why couldn't the manger just tell the guy that they don't allow recording devices to be worn in the theater? Why investigate or search the guy?


He certainly could have, and I would prefer that he had.  However, the current legal climate regarding piracy is such that some governments and law enforcement agencies are whipped into a frenzy trying desperately to break up bootlegging rings.  They're following the same pattern as they do with drug enforcement: grab the little guy, get him to give up the guy above him in the chain, repeat.  And that's not a secret.  We all know it's going on, and anyone tech-savvy enough to get themselves a Glass DEFINITELY knows.

It's a crappy situation that our judicial system has sided with big corporations over the rest of us, but that's the way it is.  And given that, you'd have to be really, really stupid not to know that you need to put away a recording device while watching a blockbuster movie in a theater.  Seriously, it's not like Glass users are unaware of the controversy that Glass has created...  That they make people uncomfortable, create privacy issues, and that many businesses are banning them completely.  Movie theaters are kind of a no-brainer on that score, don't you think?
 
2014-01-22 12:17:20 PM  

The Larch: Z-clipped: they were 100% right to detain this guy


I should have said, "within their rights".  Congratulations, you won a point on semantics.  It doesn't change the fact that you're arguing a moronic position.
 
2014-01-22 12:27:13 PM  

Voiceofreason01: Mangoose: No. fark you. This doesn't go this way. Glassbag should have been sensible enough to understand that the was pointing a recording device at the farking movie screen. HOW THE fark ELSE WAS THIS GOING TO END? If he brought a camcorder or pointed his cell phone at the screen, this goes the same way.

farking douche.

uh...pretty much. Recording the movie is a crime. He was doing something that, to any reasonable person, looked like he was recording the movie. The authorities detained him long enough to determine that he was not committing a crime. Then a representative from the theater gave him some free passes. The only really unreasonable thing that happened here is that some jackass wore Google Glass into a movie theater.


Umm... no, they didn't. FTFA: "I kept telling them that Glass has a USB port and not only did I allow them, I actually insist they connect to it and see that there was nothing but personal photos with my wife and my dog on it," the man wrote to Gadgeteer.
"I also insisted they look at my phone too and clear things out, but they wanted to talk first.
They wanted to know who I am, where I live, where I work, how much I'm making, how many computers I have at home, why am I recording the movie, who am I going to give the recording to, why don't I just give up the guy up the chain, 'cause they are not interested in me." They repeated this "Over and over".

The man said that after a long time someone came into the office with a laptop and USB cable and searched through the photos on his glasses, which were all of his wife and dog.
"I asked why didn't they just take those five minutes at the beginning of the interrogation and they just left the room," he wrote.

This is textbook Authoritarian harassment, and he was ignored when he offered a clear means to identify if he was telling the truth. I'd say that due process was violated here, as well as unreasonable search and seizure (the snatching of his PRESCRIPTION  glasses). He can (and should) sue the piss out of Homeland Security, as well as the theater owner. Just because an accessory or tool CAN be used for something doesn't mean it is being used for something. Can homeland security confiscate anyone's phones now, because they "Might have recorded copy written material" with it? How about confiscating two-way radios? After all, you can use them to signal your terrorist cohorts! While we are at it, let's confiscate your car too! You could have robbed a bank with it! See the problem here?

/Enough of this precrime bullshiat.
 
2014-01-22 12:51:03 PM  

washington-babylon: Umm... no, they didn't.


I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that pointing a camera at the screen continuously for the duration of the film was enough to give them probable cause, at which point they have quite a bit of leeway to conduct their investigation, including arresting the guy and asking him those questions in a police station.

It's also quite possible that it took some time to hunt down a laptop to corroborate the guy's story, and they decided to act as if they didn't have that option until somebody found one.

Any way you cut it, the guy was an idiot for wearing his Glass into a theater.  He just happened to be doing so in a particular theater where there is allegedly a lot of suspected bootlegging going on, so he got treated with a lot of suspicion.  It sucks, but next time I'm sure he'll be more apt to consider whether his surroundings are an appropriate place to wear that particular piece of tech, which is a good thing.
 
2014-01-22 01:01:52 PM  
So a thing with a camera and little screen that connects the the internet and goes with you everywhere is a terrible thing that automatically makes the owner a douchebag.  Am I getting that right?

jsp2897: In my mind, I see a vast, featurelees plain. Stretching across this plain, from horizon to horizon, is a masive wall of glass. It stands high as a mountain, and so deep that the eye vanishes into its green-blue depths. and it is ever so slowly, but inexorably, gliding forward.
Before the wall, gesticulating and screaming, stands a small, angry ape. He is screaming and hooting in rage, jumping up and down, and occasionally stopping to grap a handfull of shiat from the considerable pile that has accumulated behind him, and fling it angrily at the wall.
From time to time, he must stop, gather up his little pile of shiat, and retreat from the ever-advancing wall.

With each mighty hurl, a hefty glob of shiat hits the wall with a resounding splat!, and then slowly runs down onto the ground and into the dust, leave the smooth, flat, featureless surface as unbesmirched as it was before.
This seems to only stimulate the ape's rage, and he screams ever loud, hopping around ever more frenetically, and flinging handfull after handfull of shiat, harder and harder - but accomplishing nothing, and ever retreating.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the Modern Conservative
 Google Glass hater.

Who would have thought something from the politics tab would fit here so well?
 
2014-01-22 01:02:55 PM  

Z-clipped: washington-babylon: Umm... no, they didn't.

I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that pointing a camera at the screen continuously for the duration of the film was enough to give them probable cause, at which point they have quite a bit of leeway to conduct their investigation, including arresting the guy and asking him those questions in a police station.

It's also quite possible that it took some time to hunt down a laptop to corroborate the guy's story, and they decided to act as if they didn't have that option until somebody found one.

Any way you cut it, the guy was an idiot for wearing his Glass into a theater.  He just happened to be doing so in a particular theater where there is allegedly a lot of suspected bootlegging going on, so he got treated with a lot of suspicion.  It sucks, but next time I'm sure he'll be more apt to consider whether his surroundings are an appropriate place to wear that particular piece of tech, which is a good thing.


The law of common sense does not apply.   Its a waste of money to check for piracy at the movies.  Also only cheap bastards watch shiatty cam copies and its mainly to see if the film is shiat that way they dont waste their money on a shiatty product.  Perhaps the movie industry should change its model of content delivery and while they are at it they should also not release crap movies.  I know every time a good movie is released and then bootlegged.  The people that watched the crappy cam copy usually will go see it at the theater.   If its a crap film they wont bother wasting their time or money.    The way I see it is the movie and record industries slowed progression by trying to horde content instead of evolving like every other industry does with the times and the technological advances.  Remember when they threw a fit because of VHS could record tv?  Now we have TiVo and DVR.   Imagine if they got their way it they had blocked VHS from being able to be purchased.    I enjoy  my Netflix.  Its at a responsible price with all the content you want to watch when you want to watch it.  Netfilx is a prime example of progression with in the film industry.
 
2014-01-22 01:10:31 PM  

Z-clipped: This is true of basically all video cameras. It doesn't stop people from poking out the light so they can record movies in the theater surreptitiously.


The "light" on the Google Glass is the HUD display. If you "take out" the recording light then your $2100 techno gadget will no longer work. In the picture below, it's the one on the right (that is an actual photo of the Glass in recording mode).

You are getting super upset over something that you have no clue about. You just go ahead being angry at the world, or something.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-01-22 01:34:30 PM  

scroufus: Its a waste of money to check for piracy at the movies.


Agreed.  But that doesn't change the fact that they're doing it, and everyone knows that.  The security checks at airports are mostly a waste of time and money too, but I don't go trying to bring banned materials onto airplanes, just because they're cool, and Google gave them to me.

scroufus: lso only cheap bastards watch shiatty cam copies and its mainly to see if the film is shiat that way they dont waste their money on a shiatty product. Perhaps the movie industry should change its model of content delivery and while they are at it they should also not release crap movies. I know every time a good movie is released and then bootlegged. The people that watched the crappy cam copy usually will go see it at the theater. If its a crap film they wont bother wasting their time or money. The way I see it is the movie and record industries slowed progression by trying to horde content instead of evolving like every other industry does with the times and the technological advances. Remember when they threw a fit because of VHS could record tv? Now we have TiVo and DVR. Imagine if they got their way it they had blocked VHS from being able to be purchased. I enjoy my Netflix. Its at a responsible price with all the content you want to watch when you want to watch it. Netfilx is a prime example of progression with in the film industry.


You'll get no argument from me on any of this.  It also has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

Fubini: The "light" on the Google Glass is the HUD display. If you "take out" the recording light then your $2100 techno gadget will no longer work. In the picture below, it's the one on the right (that is an actual photo of the Glass in recording mode).


I know how Glass works.  But there are only 10,000 of these things in circulation, and most people, including the average cop probably doesn't know.  You can't expect every new piece of alpha tech to be instantly understood by everyone.  In the meantime, it's up to Glass users to be cognizant of their surroundings and refrain from wearing the device in situations where it might cause issues.  That includes blatantly obvious situations where the use of cameras is a major legal concern, like movie theaters.

The fact that this guy apparently had his Glass permanently affixed to his only pair of prescription glasses shows that he expects to be able to wear them anywhere, anytime which is completely unreasonable. I'm not surprised he eventually ran afoul of law enforcement in some way, being either that oblivious or that entitled.
 
2014-01-22 01:37:51 PM  

Z-clipped: It also has nothing to do with what I'm saying.


I think what you're say can be boiled down to:

Wow, what they are doing is really damned stupid.    But I'll gladly argue with anyone who gripes about it on the internet, because I'm very bored today.


Does that about cover your position, or Have I missed any of the nuance and subtlety of your position?
 
2014-01-22 01:50:50 PM  

Watubi: If Google Glass can record 90 minutes of video, sign me up


wait until they port Gandhicam to it, then tether it to your phone with 3G connectivity.
 
2014-01-22 02:00:50 PM  

The Larch: Does that about cover your position


No.  My position is that, given the current legal climate and the obvious commonplace restrictions on recording the screen during a movie, any idiot should know that wearing Google Glass into at theater is going to attract the attention of law enforcement eventually.

Is that too difficult?  Do I need to use smaller words?

Various people seem to be arguing that:
a) there was no reason this guy should have known wearing Glass in a theater would be a problem
b) people should be allowed to wear Glass anywhere, anytime, in any situation
c) wearing a camera on your face is the same as having a cellphone in your pocket
d) that the entire structure of IP law is farked, and therefore people should be allowed to bootleg movies in the theater
e) the cops in this case acted with undue suspicion and held the guy too long

Points a, b, and c are patently stupid, and point d is a complete failure of logic regardless of the veracity of its conclusion.

Point e is debatable, given that the LEOs were allegedly on high alert at this particular theater, they were within their rights to do everything they did, and no harm came to the Glass dude, or any of his possessions.  Could the issue have been resolved more quickly?  Perhaps, if they had a laptop readily available, which they may or may not have.  Was it their prerogative to thoroughly question this guy about continuously holding a camera up to the screen?  Absolutely.

What isn't debatable is that if Glass dude had removed the camera from his face before watching a movie as any reasonable person would know to do, he wouldn't have lost three hours of his time, and we wouldn't be arguing about it.
 
2014-01-22 02:02:13 PM  

some_beer_drinker: moike: Hey, did anybody come in all smug and make the 'glasshole' joke yet?

i forget, why do we hate google glasses?


nobody-is-right-everyone-is-wrong.png?subject="Google Glass"
 
2014-01-22 02:18:06 PM  

Z-clipped: No.  My position is that, given the current legal climate and the obvious commonplace restrictions on recording the screen during a movie, any idiot should know that wearing Google Glass into at theater is going to attract the attention of law enforcement eventually.

Is that too difficult?  Do I need to use smaller words?


No, I think you've made yourself very clear.  You're not constantly switching positions to whatever is most convenient for an argument because your ideas are evolving or because you believe there's some subtle nuance that needs to be sharpened to a point.  You're just arguing because you're bored and you don't have anything better to do.  That makes sense; I'm glad you cleared that up for me.
 
2014-01-22 02:39:58 PM  

Lapdance: Leave these guys alone! Here are my points:

1. CAM copies suck, the video is bad, often not properly aligned and the Audio is probably worse. A CAM copy is Nothing that you want to keep in your library
2. At Best someone seeing a CAM will think "I really want to go and See that movie!" or "I'll buy that the minute it comes out on Blu-Ray or DVD!"
3. At Worst someone seeing a CAM will think "I sure am glad I Didn't Pay to go see that POS!".
4. So Who is Stealing from Who from someone making a CAM copy?


Feds are just pissed that they aren't getting their piece of the action, learned it from the Mafia.
 
2014-01-22 02:59:30 PM  
Remember when people annoyed others in movies theatres with cellphones? Those were the days.
 
2014-01-22 03:23:07 PM  

Haoie: Remember when people annoyed others in movies theatres with cellphones? Those were the days.


I would rather sit in a theatre full of Glassholes than be distracted by even one blinding cell phone screen.
 
2014-01-22 04:02:31 PM  

Z-clipped: washington-babylon: Umm... no, they didn't.

I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that pointing a camera at the screen continuously for the duration of the film was enough to give them probable cause, at which point they have quite a bit of leeway to conduct their investigation, including arresting the guy and asking him those questions in a police station.

It's also quite possible that it took some time to hunt down a laptop to corroborate the guy's story, and they decided to act as if they didn't have that option until somebody found one.

Any way you cut it, the guy was an idiot for wearing his Glass into a theater.  He just happened to be doing so in a particular theater where there is allegedly a lot of suspected bootlegging going on, so he got treated with a lot of suspicion.  It sucks, but next time I'm sure he'll be more apt to consider whether his surroundings are an appropriate place to wear that particular piece of tech, which is a good thing.


If its only purpose was as a camera, then you would have a valid point. Except that Google Glasses  are like cell phones: Sure, they have a camera on them but that is ancillary to their main function as a device (which is to project data). In this case, it is even worse because they also serve as corrective lenses which are required by law for you to legally drive in most states if your vision is bad. I too dislike glassholes (about like I dislike applefappers), but strictly legally speaking this instance of federal jack booted thuggery was explicitly illegal and a gross abuse of authority. In order for your argument to hold any standing they would have had to prove he was recording the film with the glasses, which they obviously could not. If they do not want to allow Google Glass in theaters, they should have placards plainly posted stating so, just like when a theater wishes to disallow concealed carry.
 
2014-01-22 04:12:08 PM  

The Larch: Z-clipped: No.  My position is that, given the current legal climate and the obvious commonplace restrictions on recording the screen during a movie, any idiot should know that wearing Google Glass into at theater is going to attract the attention of law enforcement eventually.

Is that too difficult?  Do I need to use smaller words?

No, I think you've made yourself very clear.  You're not constantly switching positions to whatever is most convenient for an argument because your ideas are evolving or because you believe there's some subtle nuance that needs to be sharpened to a point.  You're just arguing because you're bored and you don't have anything better to do.  That makes sense; I'm glad you cleared that up for me.


You're right. I have nothing better to do. And clearly neither do you. Welcome to Fark.
 
2014-01-22 04:18:31 PM  

Z-clipped: scroufus: Its a waste of money to check for piracy at the movies.

Agreed.  But that doesn't change the fact that they're doing it, and everyone knows that.  The security checks at airports are mostly a waste of time and money too, but I don't go trying to bring banned materials onto airplanes, just because they're cool, and Google gave them to me.


You really cant compare Airport safety with possibly trying to record a movie.  One cant not hurt anyone and the other might be able to hurt others.   Agreed on TSA being a huge waste of money.

scroufus: lso only cheap bastards watch shiatty cam copies and its mainly to see if the film is shiat that way they dont waste their money on a shiatty product. Perhaps the movie industry should change its model of content delivery and while they are at it they should also not release crap movies. I know every time a good movie is released and then bootlegged. The people that watched the crappy cam copy usually will go see it at the theater. If its a crap film they wont bother wasting their time or money. The way I see it is the movie and record industries slowed progression by trying to horde content instead of evolving like every other industry does with the times and the technological advances. Remember when they threw a fit because of VHS could record tv? Now we have TiVo and DVR. Imagine if they got their way it they had blocked VHS from being able to be purchased. I enjoy my Netflix. Its at a responsible price with all the content you want to watch when you want to watch it. Netfilx is a prime example of progression with in the film industry.

You'll get no argument from me on any of this.  It also has nothing to do with what I'm saying.


Yup it did have nothing to do with what you are saying. Just putting my 2cents out there on the ridiculousness of the MPAA and how much of a pull they have on the government.
 
2014-01-22 04:23:48 PM  

washington-babylon: Z-clipped: washington-babylon: Umm... no, they didn't.

I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that pointing a camera at the screen continuously for the duration of the film was enough to give them probable cause, at which point they have quite a bit of leeway to conduct their investigation, including arresting the guy and asking him those questions in a police station.

It's also quite possible that it took some time to hunt down a laptop to corroborate the guy's story, and they decided to act as if they didn't have that option until somebody found one.

Any way you cut it, the guy was an idiot for wearing his Glass into a theater.  He just happened to be doing so in a particular theater where there is allegedly a lot of suspected bootlegging going on, so he got treated with a lot of suspicion.  It sucks, but next time I'm sure he'll be more apt to consider whether his surroundings are an appropriate place to wear that particular piece of tech, which is a good thing.

If its only purpose was as a camera, then you would have a valid point. Except that Google Glasses  are like cell phones: Sure, they have a camera on them but that is ancillary to their main function as a device (which is to project data). In this case, it is even worse because they also serve as corrective lenses which are required by law for you to legally drive in most states if your vision is bad. I too dislike glassholes (about like I dislike applefappers), but strictly legally speaking this instance of federal jack booted thuggery was explicitly illegal and a gross abuse of authority. In order for your argument to hold any standing they would have had to prove he was recording the film with the glasses, which they obviously could not. If they do not want to allow Google Glass in theaters, they should have placards plainly posted stating so, just like when a theater wishes to disallow concealed carry.


I don't think they need to specifically disallow every piece of tech with an individual placard. I think it's reasonable to expect people to use common sense, and not point recording devices at movie screens.

And your analogy about "primary intended use" actually hurts your point. Continuously pointing a cellphone at the screen would have ALSO given them probable cause to investigate. If Glass is like a cellphone, it can be treated the same way.

You also seem confused about due process. They don't need proof that you were recording to investigate. Only to charge you with a crime, which this guy wasn't. They asked him some questions, checked his files, and let him go. Given what he was doing, I fail to see a huge problem here.
 
2014-01-22 04:32:40 PM  

scroufus: You really cant compare Airport safety with possibly trying to record a movie. One cant not hurt anyone and the other might be able to hurt others.


They aren't morally comparable, but they're certainly legally comparable.  As far as I understand, both are felonies, and fall under the same general rules for due process.  (Which sucks, I agree.)
 
2014-01-22 04:59:23 PM  

bearded clamorer: Better article here


Great find.

Now what the fark is homeland security doing investigating movie pirating? This just screams 'using taxpayer money to further the interests of Big Business.' Maybe if they released movies so you could watch them at home while they aired in the theater instead of waiting months, it wouldn't be so much of a farking problem.
 
2014-01-22 07:43:35 PM  

Z-clipped: They asked him some questions,

needlessly kept him in custody for a few hours, until they finally checked his files, something he offered to let them do in the first 5 minutes , and finally let him go. Given what he was doing, I fail to see a huge problem here.

How about now that I've FTFY?
 
2014-01-22 10:24:54 PM  

fredklein: Z-clipped: They asked him some questions, needlessly cruelly, horribly, awfully kept him in custody for a few hours, until they finally at long last, with a murderous totalitarian glare checked his files, something he offered to let them do in the first 5 minutes , and finally at long last after his tortuous ordeal let him go. Given what he was doing, I fail to see a huge problem here.

How about now that I've FTFY?


Meh, If you're going to use adverbs to bias the discussion, you may as well go whole hog.  But as I said, given what he was doing, and how suspicious it was, I don't really see much of an issue with them asking him some questions.  It's not like they locked him up, charged him, kept his stuff or injured him.

Also, here's the follow-up.

"Wearing a device that has the capability to record video is not appropriate at the movie theatre"
- AMC cinema Rick Romero
 
Displayed 255 of 255 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report