Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: AMC calls FBI to arrest a Google Glass user

This is topic AMC calls FBI to arrest a Google Glass user in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=006944

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 01-21-2014, 08:36 AM:

AMC movie theater calls FBI to arrest a Google Glass user

LINK

I have been using Google Glass for about 2 months now, and about 2 weeks ago I got prescription lenses for the glasses. So in the past two weeks I was wearing Google Glass all the time. There were no stories to write about, until yesterday (1/18/2014).

I went to AMC (Easton Mall, Columbus, OH) to watch a movie with my wife (non- Google Glass user). It is the theater we go to every week, so it has probably been the third time I’ve been there wearing Google Glass, and the AMC employees (guy tearing tickets at the entrance, girl at the concession stand) have asked me about Glass in the past and I have told them how awesome Glass is with every occasion.

Because I don’t want Glass to distract me during the movie, I turn them off (but since my prescription lenses are on the frame, I still wear them). About an hour into the movie (Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit), a guy comes near my seat, shoves a badge that had some sort of a shield on it, yanks the Google Glass off my face and says “follow me outside immediately”. 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”.

I was surprised by this and as I was obviously just having a nice Saturday evening night out with my wife and not taping anything whether legally or illegally, I tried to explain that this is a misunderstanding. I tried to explain that he’s holding rather expensive hardware that costed me $1500 for Google Glass and over $600 for the prescription glasses. The response was that I was searched and more stuff was taken away from me (specifically my personal phone, my work phone – both of which were turned off, and my wallet). After an embarrassing 20-30 minutes outside the movie theater, me and my wife were conducted into two separate rooms in the “management” office of Easton Mall, where the guy with the badge introduced himself again and showed me a different ID. His partner introduced herself too and showed me a similar looking badge. I was by that time, too flustered to remember their names (as a matter of fact, now, over 30 hours later I am still shaking when recounting the facts).

What followed was over an hour of the “feds” telling me I am not under arrest, and that this is a “voluntary interview”, but if I choose not to cooperate bad things may happen to me (is it legal for authorities to threaten people like that?). 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. 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. Over and over and over again.

I kept telling them that I wasn’t recording anything – my Glass was off, they insisted they saw it on. I told them there would be a light coming out the little screen if Glass was on, and I could show them that, but they insisted that I cannot touch my Glass for the fear “I will erase the evidence against me that was on Glass”. I didn’t have the intuition to tell them that Glass gets really warm if it records for more than a few minutes and my glasses were not warm. They wanted to know where I got Glass and how did I came by having it. I told them I applied about 1000 times to get in the explorer program, and eventually I was selected, and I got the Glass from Google. I offered to show them receipt and Google Glass website if they would allow me to access any computer with internet. Of course, that was not an option. Then they wanted to know what does Google ask of me in exchange for Glass, how much is Google paying me, who is my boss and why am I recording the movie.

Eventually, after a long time somebody came with a laptop and an USB cable at which point he told me it was my last chance to come clean. I repeated for the hundredth time there is nothing to come clean about and this is a big misunderstanding so the FBI guy finally connected my Glass to the computer, downloaded all my personal photos and started going though them one by one (although they are dated and it was obvious there was nothing on my Glass that was from the time period they accused me of recording). Then they went through my phone, and 5 minutes later they concluded I had done nothing wrong.

I asked why didn’t they just take those five minutes at the beginning of the interrogation and they just left the room. A guy who claimed his name is Bob Hope (he gave me his business card) came in the room, and said he was with the Movie Association and they have problems with piracy at that specific theater and that specific movie. He gave me two free movie passes “so I can see the movie again”. I asked if they thought my Google Glass was such a big piracy machine, why didn’t they ask me not to wear them in the theater? I would have probably sat five or six rows closer to the screen (as I didn’t have any other pair of prescription glasses with me) and none of this would have happened. All he said was AMC called him, and he called the FBI and “here are two more passes for my troubles”. I would have been fine with “I’m sorry this happened, please accept our apologies”. Four free passes just infuriated me.

Considering it was 11:27pm when this happened, and the movie started at 7.45, I guess 3 and a half hours of my time and the scare my wife went through (who didn’t know what was going on as nobody bothered to tell her) is worth about 30 bucks in the eyes of the Movie Association and the federal militia (sorry, I cannot think of other derogatory words). I think I should sue them for this, but I don’t have the time or the energy to deal with “who is my boss – they don’t want me, they want the big guy” again, so I just spilled the beans on this forum, for other to learn from my experience.

I guess until people get more familiar with Google Glass and understand what they are, one should not wear them to the movies. I wish they would have said something before I went to the movies, but it may be my mistake for assuming that if I went and watched movies two times wearing Glass with no incident the third time there won’t be any incident either. As for the federal agents and their level of comprehension… I guess if they deal with petty criminals every day, everybody starts looking like a petty criminal. Again, I wish they would have listened when I told them how to verify I did nothing illegal, or at least apologize afterwards, but hey… this is the free country everybody praises. Somewhere else might be even worse.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 01-21-2014, 09:49 AM:

Well, I hope he got one of those coupons AMC gives out with tickets asking you to take a survey on your experience.

I hope this story, if true, filters up to Google and THEY take on AMC and the MPAA for him.

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 01-21-2014, 09:51 AM:

I am a little skeptical about this as there has been no coverage of this on any local media. Some of the information sounds very suspicious...I've never heard of MPAA having a person on-site if someone is camming.

In any event, I'm trying to get some more information from AMC and I'll see if any of the smaller local media have any info on this.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-21-2014, 10:24 AM:

The story sounds pretty fishy to me. A representative from the MPAA just happens to be there to sweat the suspected bootleg video guy? Yeah, right.

This is along the line of Roger Ebert's "fallacy of the predictable tree" issue in action movies. An armed bad guy is walking through the woods and stops under a tree. The hero drops out of the tree, beating the bad guy senseless. Out of all the trees in the woods, how did the hero know the bad guy would stop under that specific tree?

Out of hundreds of theater locations across the United States, how did "Bob Hope" know a Google Glasses wearing bootlegger would be at that specific movie theater and at that time?

And then one has to consider the priorities of local police. Unless they're patrolling some paradise of crime free suburbia cops are going to be busy doing more important things. Videotaping a movie inside a theater is a big offense according to the MPAA and movie industry, but it's a non-violent, small potatoes kind of thing compared to other types of crime.

I have my own opinion about people willing to waste 2 hours of their lives watching a movie sourced from a video camera taping a theater screen: idiots. The quality of those recordings is never above the level of terrible. I refuse to even watch short YouTube clips of something taped from a TV screen, never mind watching 2 hours of the same crap, hand held, at a theater screen. If someone was hell bent on watching a pirated version of a movie it shouldn't be too awful difficult to find a torrent made from a screener DVD.

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 01-21-2014, 11:10 AM:

"I think I should sue them for this, but I don’t have the time or the energy...".

It has to be BS because if it weren't he'd certainly find the energy. I know I would.

Posted by Jay Glaus (Member # 6011) on 01-21-2014, 12:04 PM:

I had Bob Hope at my theatre for 7 nights as they were attempting to catch someone recording the soundtrack of movies in their car. I don't know if whole story is exactly accurate but from my experience with the MPAA and Bob Hope I can see this happening. I believe the ones with badges are from Homeland Security as they are the ones who deal with piracy at least they did at my location.

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 01-21-2014, 12:12 PM:

The whole thing sounds a little odd to me.

Further, I doubt Google would have very much to say. This kind of thing is going to happen though as Glass and other wearable tech capable of recording becomes more and more prevalent. The problem being: how do we know it's powered down?

Though to be perfectly fair, given the environment of anti-piracy you'd be a crazy to wear anything with a camera on it, on your face, into a movie theater.

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 01-21-2014, 01:11 PM:

Looking more like this is true. A couple of websites have actually interviewed the patron.

I want to volunteer for that Homeland Security post. Easton is a luxurious shopping center with many very fine restaurants and stores. I could even spend some time playing at the Lego store. I can just sit there all day and enjoy myself waiting for someone to come by and look like they are recording a movie that has already been cammed. My expense account would get a nice workout. I'm sure they thought they really had something when they took that guy out of the theatre.

I would doubt they would be hanging out at one of the cheap independents around here...the environment would not be as enticing.

Great Job, Bob Hope...Jack Ryan is already available on the Internet.

I'll not be attending AMC in the future if they treat patrons that way.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-21-2014, 02:15 PM:

Well from this thread we have found out that Bob Hope is a real person and is also a complete failure in life. If he has kids, I'm sure they hate him. But I can't imagine anyone wanting to be intimate with him unless his spouse is super-desperate and/or blind and deaf (not to mention stupid). He should just kill himself and make the world a better place already. Nobody will miss him. Same goes for the rest of the MPAA. I wonder how they even find employees who aren't human beings.

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 01-21-2014, 02:20 PM:

AMC has confirmed via Twitter that the story is true.

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 01-21-2014, 02:26 PM:

One of the comments in link

quote:
Just called the theater.

AMC Easton Town Center 30
Address: 275 Easton Town Center, Columbus, OH 43219
Phone:(614) 428-5716

I talked to Stephany Mack who said that she didn’t know what Google Glass was then she talked to her manager who told her to tell me that she had no comment on the story. I then asked if it was OK if I can go to the theater with my google Glass and if i could wear them she said she had no comment. I told her that I was not asking for a comment on the story. I simply wanted to know if it was ok to wear my google glass while watching a movie. She reference me to a corporate number. So it appears that they are not a fan of Google Glass at the Easton Town Center 30. Thanks for your help Abby !

Time to unleash the power of the internet and give them a call the manager’s name is Abby Graham.

THis is outrageous. This AMC is lucky they got off with 4 free passes for 4 hours of wasted time and more hours of frustration being vented. And even now, they don't have a coherent policy.

I am thinking of calling them too and maybe I can have a report on this too.

Also, if I were in the guy's position with the google glass and some strangersa came and yanked the glasses from me in the dark, would I be within my rights to punch one of them in the face since I have no idea who they are supposed to be and they could just be thugs stealing my google glass? Or just for being obnoxious and invading my space?

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 01-21-2014, 02:40 PM:

quote: Mark Lensenmayer
AMC has confirmed via Twitter that the story is true.

Yeah? Here is AMC's Twitter feed. I don't see anything about it.

quote: Mark Lensenmayer
A couple of websites have actually interviewed the patron.

URLs?

Posted by Kevin Fairchild (Member # 4985) on 01-21-2014, 03:27 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
Well from this thread we have found out that Bob Hope is a real person and is also a complete failure in life. If he has kids, I'm sure they hate him. But I can't imagine anyone wanting to be intimate with him unless his spouse is super-desperate and/or blind and deaf (not to mention stupid). He should just kill himself and make the world a better place already. Nobody will miss him. Same goes for the rest of the MPAA. I wonder how they even find employees who aren't human beings.

This is the most disgusting post I have ever read.

Posted by David Buckley (Member # 2600) on 01-21-2014, 03:42 PM:

Google Glass is still only in the very early adopter phase, and already there's been a court case, here is a specimen report from (random choice from Google News) the Columbus Dispatch:

quote:
SAN DIEGO — A California woman thought to be the first person cited for wearing Google Glass while driving won her case last week, but legal experts predict that it’s only the beginning of numerous court battles fought in the gap between today’s laws and fast-arriving technology.

Cecilia Abadie was found not guilty last week after being cited for wearing the computer-in-eyeglass device while driving. San Diego County Traffic Court Commissioner John Blair said there was no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the device was operating while she was driving.

But Blair stopped short of ruling that it is legal to drive while Google Glass is activated.

Abadie was cited under a code banning operation of a video or TV screen at the front of a vehicle that is moving. Blair said the code’s language is broad enough that it could also apply to Google Glass if there were evidence the device was activated while the motorist was driving.

But Abadie, who wore the device around her neck during her trial, insisted afterward that the screen is above her line of vision, its functions can be activated with her voice or a wink, and it is not a distraction even when activated.

“I’m recording a video of all this,” she told reporters outside the courthouse as she answered questions without skipping a beat. “Do you feel like I’m not paying attention to you?”

Vivek Wadhwa, a fellow at Stanford Law School, said the court ruling does not set a legal precedent but marks the start of what he expects will be a number of similar challenges.

“The fun is just starting,” he said.

Oh yes, it certainly is.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 01-21-2014, 04:27 PM:

First fun, then creepy:
Stalker Glasses for Rich People

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-21-2014, 04:38 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Out of hundreds of theater locations across the United States, how did "Bob Hope" know a Google Glasses wearing bootlegger would be at that specific movie theater and at that time?

The MPAA has a Bob Hope in a sleeper cell in any major town, just waiting to be activated.

It's now also featured on Business Insider.

Nowadays, almost everybody carries an advanced Copyright Infringement Device in their pocket. But hey, let's just threat everybody going to the movies like a potential criminal, I'm sure the problem will eventually solve itself!

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 01-21-2014, 05:02 PM:

quote: Mark Ogden
Yeah? Here is AMC's Twitter feed. I don't see anything about it.

I see it, if you click "All" and scroll down "Traci" from AMC does respond and confirm the story happened.

Try this link AMC Twitter with replies

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-21-2014, 05:10 PM:

quote: Kevin Fairchild
This is the most disgusting post I have ever read.

Knowing Joe, I suspect it to be ironic.

As David points out, "smart glasses" are in their infancy, and for that reason, combined with the general atmosphere of paranoia that tends to prevail nowadays, I have no problem believing Dennis's account. I too hope that Google has enough political clout to make it clear to the government that simply wearing their product is not acceptable grounds for this level of harrassment - and be listened to, seriously. After all, sales of their product are going to take a serious knock if it becomes clear that you're not going to be able to wear them in a public place without this sort of thing happening to you.

I too had an unnerving experience, arriving into Seattle airport a couple of years ago. At that point I wasn't a permanent resident/green card holder, just a foreign visitor to the United States. The CBP officer noted that I had rather a lot of visitor entry stamps in my UK passport, and I think suspected that I was trying to live and work in the US illegally. I was sent for a secondary interview, and, very thankfully, interviewed by someone who was clearly well trained, sensible and had seen it all before, who realised quickly that I was legit and let me in. But all it would have taken was to have encounted an officer at the wrong end of a bad day, and things could have ended very differently. Nine times out of ten the system works as it should and you're OK: but when it doesn't it can be very unnerving to be on the receiving end. Very sorry that Dennis ended up having to go through this.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 01-21-2014, 05:19 PM:

If you don't care to look through the twitter feed

quote:
Mark Lensenmayer ‏@MarkLensenmayer 7h

@AMCTheatres Is the story about federal officers removing a patron from AMC Easton 30 for wearing Google Glass true?

quote:
AMC Theatres ‏@AMCTheatres

@MarkLensenmayer It is true that a guest with a potential recording device inside the auditorium was questioned at our AMC Easton 30. -Traci

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-21-2014, 06:24 PM:

The main part of the story that's disturbing is the "yanked the Glass from my face" part.

So, "agents" can now just walk into our property and put their hands on people and steal their property, before a crime is even confirmed as being committed?

I would never touch a patron in that manner. If I thought somebody had a camera I would just stand in front of them and ask them to please come with me to the lobby.

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 01-21-2014, 08:25 PM:

Exactly my point, Mike. That is why I wondered if I would be allowed to punch someone who treated me like that in a theater and use self defense or maybe justifiable reaction to being provoked as an excuse not to get put in jail.

And when the guy kept asking them to check the recording, they wouldn't and kept badgering him for a long time. THat is pure abuse of power and is a display of abuse of power more than rational smart policing of a situation. And as much as someone can make an honest mistake of identifying an innocent person as a criminal, how tough would it be to apologize sincerely for wasting his time and treating him rudely?

I experience the same crap with cops. OK, sometimes cops have to err on the side of safety. So once, everything is cleared and the cops knows I am an innocent guy, would it hurt for him to apologize? And being tough on crime does not mean a person in any kind of law enforcement has a right to be ude and a jerk until you have a good idea that you are dealing with a bad person. There is a way to be firm, no nonsense and still maintain everyone's dignity while you are scoping out the situation.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-22-2014, 01:41 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
The main part of the story that's disturbing is the "yanked the Glass from my face" part.

This is what irks me as well. The law enforcement stooge acts as if he's knocking a gun out of a shooter's hands and saving lives. There is no need to do that. It won't help make his case any stronger, it won't save the movie industry any more money by preventing a few more frames from being recorded, it's just a power play to say "Hey lookee me I big I though you be intimidated by me". Dude probably has issues with feelings of inadequacy. I'm sure his kids hate him, too. I also bet that he has a skidmark in each pair of his underwear that doesn't come out even with multiple washings.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 01-22-2014, 08:18 AM:

So, is anyone at the theatre going to try and claim the $500 bounty the MPAA offers for turning in bootleggers?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-22-2014, 08:39 AM:

If this story really is true it shows just how far the MPAA, Hollywood movie studios and the theaters themselves are taking the movie-going public for granted. They don't realize a very simple fact: the movie industry needs its customers a lot more than the customers need the movie industry.

These guys need to concrentrate on improving customer service rather than showing open contempt for customers.

If the movie industry collapsed life would go on without it. People would adjust to a world where recorded dramatic entertainment was only watched on TV. The entertainment industry would be far smaller than it is now, but life would still go on.

How many restaurants would survive if a Gestapo-like crew of police dragged customers off into a back room, badgering them for hours because they were suspected of sneaking into the kitchen to find recipe secrets?

Customers have to put up with enough negative aspects in the movie-going experience. I'm sure the sight of police-state treatment of someone wearing Google Glass wouldn't exactly make other customers very keen on returning to the movie theater, free passes in hand or not.

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 01-22-2014, 09:48 AM:

I think things changed when the Government got in on this situation. Like someone said earlier - "Jack Ryan" is already being downloaded by millions on the Internet. Why would they treat someone like this? A.M.C. will simply say they had control over it, as it was Homeland Security that was involved.

Think about that. Look how these 'agents' treated this guy. This is how our government is treating law abiding citizens. Private businesses need separation from this stuff. If it can be proven that a bootleg was made from this theatre and made available to the public - THE THEATRE ITSELF SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE - FINED OR WHATEVER.

Why in the hell would you let your customers be treated in this manner????

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 01-22-2014, 05:14 PM:

Now that it appears the story is true that guy really needs to consult an attorney and burn the hell out of the Gestapo. There is absolutely no excuse for the treatment he and his wife received and four comps is an insult! If enough people take these guys to court the behavior will stop. There is no way in hell I'd patronize such an establishment. Vote with your feet!

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-22-2014, 06:20 PM:

quote:
There is absolutely no excuse for the treatment he and his wife received and four comps is an insult!

That makes me think of that scene in The Godfather where Sonny Corleone (James Caan) grabs a photographer in the driveway and smashes his camera. He peels off a few bills from his money clip and tosses them at the photographer's feet.

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 01-22-2014, 08:48 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
So, "agents" can now just walk into our property and put their hands on people and steal their property, before a crime is even confirmed as being committed?

Welcome to the real world. People who have never had a run in with law enforcement don't realize that the attitude of most officers is that you are guilty until proven innocent, not the other way around.

I've never been 'lucky' enough to have had such an experience myself, but I've had close friends/family members who have had the unfortunate distinction of getting tangled up with law enforcement. The kind of behavior described in the post is SOP and has been for years.

There are some good law enforcement officers out there, no doubt, but many are arrogant, ignorant bullies who will treat you like the dirt on the bottom of their shoes if they think you're guilty of a crime.

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 01-23-2014, 06:46 AM:

I think there may be some 4th Amendment issues here, especially since there was no obvious indication that a crime was being committed.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 01-23-2014, 03:04 PM:

Let's remember, we've only heard one side of this story, from a disgruntled patron, and those of us who have worked in this industry any amount of time know a disgruntled patron will always tell a story that make themselves look completely innocent, removing any information that might make them look bad.

I'm not denying anything happened, because every side admits something happened. I'm just skeptical that it happened exactly the way he's saying it happened.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-24-2014, 12:23 AM:

quote: Edward Havens
Let's remember, we've only heard one side of this story, from a disgruntled patron, and those of us who have worked in this industry any amount of time know a disgruntled patron will always tell a story that make themselves look completely innocent, removing any information that might make them look bad.

Well, the thing is, the other side ain't talking, they're also not denying what he is saying. Besides acknowledging that "something happened", they keep their mouths shut.

Also, The Google Glass is as of now, not capable of recording a whole feature length movie. It also gets very hot when you do record stuff for a prolonged time.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-24-2014, 01:24 AM:

quote: Edward Havens
Let's remember, we've only heard one side of this story, from a disgruntled patron, and those of us who have worked in this industry any amount of time know a disgruntled patron will always tell a story that make themselves look completely innocent, removing any information that might make them look bad.

I am glad someone on here understands that there are two sides to every story.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
Well, the thing is, the other side ain't talking, they're also not denying what he is saying. Besides acknowledging that "something happened", they keep their mouths shut

The other side (authorities) did release a statement that this individual voluntarily answered questions with authorities.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-24-2014, 02:35 AM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
The other side (authorities) did release a statement that this individual voluntarily answered questions with authorities.

Which doesn't contradict anything of what the "victim" said and I summarized to: "something happened".

Whereas the "victim" gives an in depth account of what happened, the other side does only acknowledge that there was an "incident", they do also not deny his story.

I'm actually pretty sure that what the "victim" said happened more or less the way he described it, it has been picked up by quite a lot of news outlets too. Maybe he added a little drama to it, but I don't see why he would make this story up, the consequences of doing so could also be "interesting" and this guy doesn't strike me as being generally stupid.

To me, this sounds like the classical case of a few "authority" figures getting all excited at the prospect of catching some kind of criminal or maybe even uncover some kind of big-time piracy ring. And as usually, the people involved are complete amateurs in any regard, a Google Glass is totally useless to capture a movie in a theater. Not only is it not capable of recording a whole feature, nobody is going to hold his/her head still for the entire length of a movie.

Also, in the mean time, the MPAA also forgets that the only reason they still get paid is because people actually still pay to see a movie...

Ah... and this whole "cam hunt" is all nice and dandy, but do they really still consider those people that watch some shitty recording made in a theater a lost sale?

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 01-24-2014, 07:49 AM:

I never said or suggested the gentleman was making the whole thing up. We all know there was an incident. I'm simply saying my gut, based on working in exhibition for twenty years, feels his story isn't quite 100% accurate. And I will now also say I suspect he is making suppositions based on assumptions and/or incorrect information.

I've dealt with a couple of pirating incidents in my career. Once in the heart of the second largest metropolitan area in the United States, the other at a theatre in a area not unlike the area where the incident occured, about an hour outside the sixth largest metropolitan area in the United States. Neither time did multiple members of the FBI, DHS or any other federal goverment office descend on my theatre like I just reported the spotting of a known suspected terrorist. Both times, my singular security officer escorted me in to the theatre, where I politely asked the guest in question to step in to the lobby for a moment, where the issue was dealt with calmly, rationallly and respectfully. Both times, the guest claimed they were unaware of the state and federal laws concerning what they were doing, and both times, the guests willingly deleted the materials in question without any force or coercion. Never once did I or the security guard make personal contact with the guest or their personal property. Why? Because that is how we were trained to handle situations like this. I spoken with friends and others who work for all the major exhibitors, and through all the companies they work for, not one of them has been trained to handle potential issues of piracy the way this one was handled. Which leads me to believe there are other issues at play that have not come out yet.

(Of course, I need to say that I speak solely for myself and not as a representative of any company I work for. I have no knowledge of the situation outside of what I've read here and elsewhere. I just think there's a rush to judgment in part because of the lack of a complete story, as well as some personal feelings towards the company who operates the theatre where this incident happened.)

Personally, I find the whole idea of Google Glass to be silly, and some of its selling points prove against one of major arguments about this case. One of the things you can do with Google Glass is have an app on it to keep track of your golf score along with course data and accurate pin distance. Forgetting for a moment that golf is a dumb "game" that is a waste of space, golf is a "sport" that takes three to four hours to complete a proper 18 hole course. So if the unit overheats when recording or streaming too much video to the point the Glass XE12 update last month had to add an overheat warning to the OS, how is a golfer expected to play using that app on their unit if it's going to overheat their unit multiple times during play? But then, I wouldn't spend $1,500 on a teeny tiny screen near my eye that could look up recipes for me on text that can only have a sentence or two on screen at any given time.

And Terry, or Tom or whomever you really are... please don't jump on my bandwagon. Make your own points, defend your own position. I can flail just fine on my own, thank you very much.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-24-2014, 05:02 PM:

Although this whole Google Glass thing is still in it's infancy, my opinion roughly matches yours. I would also like to add that I consider those things yet another step backwards regarding privacy. But that's probably another discussion.

What you're describing sounds like a more reasonable way of dealing with those kinds of incidents and most of them will probably also be handled that way. There was most likely something special going on here.

It's just a guess, but it will probably just boil down to something rather simple:

One or more recent "high profile" leaks were traced back to this particular location via the invisible watermark in the content, or maybe they did some real forensic work. This would also match with at least one of the articles that stated that there have been previous incidents regarding piracy at this very theater.

So, this theater was probably already under close watch by both the MPAA and the FBI. Since this Jack Ryan movie was among last weeks most important releases, they probably kept an extra eye on this particular movie. They must have hoped their pirate would be stupid enough to hit again.

Once they spotted somebody with a suspect device on his head, they were quite sure they had found "their man". This would also perfectly explain that they didn't ask him to remove this device before he walked into the auditorium, which somebody must have noticed and why they only pulled them out after he had already seen half the movie, because they needed the evidence...

Just as a reminder, this is just a figment of my imagination, the truth is out there, somewhere...

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 01-24-2014, 11:13 PM:

Edward, there is one key difference between your situation and what allegedly happened to the gentleman here-you handled the situation yourself, the theater he was at apparently called the MPAA, who it seems then contacted the federal authorities.

You would be surprised what the feds get uppity about if they think the money is going to something they are not in favor of, such as terrorism-lest we forget the anti-marijuana commercials a few years back, which basically insinuated that if you smoke pot, you are helping fund terrorists.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-27-2014, 12:46 PM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
Although this whole Google Glass thing is still in it's infancy, my opinion roughly matches yours. I would also like to add that I consider those things yet another step backwards regarding privacy. But that's probably another discussion.

At the risk of going OT slightly, agreed. The broader but related point is that the last few years have seen a big growth in the use of personal recording devices (initially smartphones, but more recently worn devices such as spectacles and watches), and that the quality and length of the recordings these things can make has increased.

Along with this, I've noticed a parallel increase in attempts to prevent their use in both public and private places. Notices in museums, airports, restaurants, railway stations etc. stating that photography is not allowed are increasingly common - five years ago, they were virtually unheard of. There is even a "no photography" notice on the entrance door to my local Stater Bros. supermarket! News stories reporting police attempts to seize recording devices from people on the public street in cases where they have absolutely no legal right to do so, are also becoming more and more regular. And the issue has emerged in reverse, too: a couple of years ago there was a case in which the CCTV operator for a city council made a mashup video showing various acts of moronic driving and put it on YouTube, and shortly thereafter became the subject of a criminal complaint by one of the drivers under that country's privacy laws.

It seems to me that the fundamental problem is that both privacy/public order law regulating the use of recording devices in public places, and copyright law regulating what can and cannot be done with the resulting recordings, simply has not caught up with the reality of what this technology can now do. Recording movies in theatres is still a relatively clear-cut case (except, as in the incident which sparked this thread, when no recording was taking place at all), but the broader issue is a legal and ethical mess.

Posted by Daniel Schulz (Member # 1881) on 01-31-2014, 05:31 AM:

I have a theory about this case - pure speculation on my part, I have no specific knowledge of this incident. But, I do know that one aspect of the MPAA's anti-piracy measures is the building of a case over time - the watermarking of DCPs means that pirated audio or video can be traced to a specific auditorium. Obviously you don't know which patron did the capture, but you can identify that a sound recording or video capture was made in Auditorium 12 of Cinema XYZ. Often piracy rings use the same individual for multiple movies - so law enforcement, seeing the patterns, will "stake out" a location once they're confident they have a repeat offender - then the prosecution can show it's a case of a serial pirate deliberately making recordings for profit.

My theory is that in this case, the authorities and MPAA were on hand looking for a pirate that they knew had been there, and, thrown off by the Google Glass, nabbed the wrong guy. That would explain why the MPAA was around, and why there were so many law enforcement types on hand.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-31-2014, 08:10 AM:

That sounds like a plausable explanation, but then the people and organizations involved should have explained what happened, apologized and offered some sort of compensation to the poor guy, and they should not have threatened him at the start of the interview (assuming that the account is accurate).

I am still unclear as to why the MPAA would be involved (if they were)--they do not (presumably) own the copyright to the motion picture that was being shown in that theatre, nor do they have any legal authority to question or detain anyone.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-31-2014, 09:15 AM:

The theory makes sense. And if the theory is correct, by nabbing some guy wearing Google Glass the FBI and MPAA folks just got made. Certainly the real pirate they were stalking will probably be off to a different theater.

Again, I'm just amazed that anyone would even want to buy handheld camcorder footage of a movie theater screen. I won't waste 2 hours of my life watching that crap for free.

Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 01-31-2014, 09:45 AM:

Was this on opening night of the film? Perhaps the real pirate was in the house laughing his or her ass off.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-31-2014, 11:17 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
I'm just amazed that anyone would even want to buy handheld camcorder footage of a movie theater screen. I won't waste 2 hours of my life watching that crap for free.

Or in the case of Google Glass, neck held! Camcordered pirate videos were wobbly enough, but imagine having to sit with your head perfectly still for two hours. And if you sneeze, I guess you just have to go back and see/record the whole thing again.

Oh well, maybe Google Glass has just made the MPAA goons' job a whole lot easier. All they have to do is to loiter around the entrance lobby, waiting for a customer to walk in wearing a spinal injuries-type neck brace, and Google glasses.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 01-31-2014, 02:09 PM:

quote:
se over time - the watermarking of DCPs means that pirated audio or video can be traced to a specific auditorium. Obviously you don't know which patron did the capture, but you can identify that a sound recording or video capture was made in Auditorium 12 of Cinema XYZ.

The problems I have with this theory:
1) Watermarks wouldn't identify which screen a film is playing on. We get one DCP for the theatre, and then we put the DCP where we need it. Sometimes, we'll have the same "print" playing on every non-IMAX screen, in the case of premiere shows of movies like The Hunger Games or a Marvel movie.
2) Watermarked prints can end up in places not originally intended. I remember back in 2007, I got a call at home from my DM about our print of The Simpsons Movie already being online, even though we hadn't had our first show yet. As it turned out, the print with the watermark intended for my theatre in Los Angeles ended up back east, and that's where the copy was made.
3) Hard drives can be and are shared, sometimes between competitive theatres. I've had to borrow hard drives from my competition, when my hard drive was faulty, and I've had to loan my hard drives to my competition when theirs were faulty. If we both are using the same "print" of Captain America: The Winter Soldier and it ended up online, where did the taping actually come from?

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 01-31-2014, 02:10 PM:

Evidently, the concerns of a corporate entity supersede those of a person, regardless of whether or not a crime has actually been committed.

God Bless America.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-31-2014, 02:29 PM:

Edward, the watermarking is not in the digital file. It is done in the projection equipment for that screen. ALL hard drives are identical clones.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-31-2014, 02:38 PM:

quote: Edward Havens
Hard drives can be and are shared, sometimes between competitive theatres. I've had to borrow hard drives from my competition, when my hard drive was faulty, and I've had to loan my hard drives to my competition when theirs were faulty.

I guess the KDMs they give theaters are not hard drive specific.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-31-2014, 02:55 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
I guess the KDMs they give theaters are not hard drive specific.

KDMs are not hard drive specific, KDMs are always for the server. A KDM works for one server.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 01-31-2014, 06:04 PM:

Really? We're going over how KDM's work?

What is this? 2004?

A KDM works for one server, for one CPL, for a specified window of time. All of the stars must be in perfect alignment.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 01-31-2014, 06:11 PM:

Thank you sincerely, Brad. I was not aware of this.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-31-2014, 08:20 PM:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, the DCP is an identical set of files that is copied onto an assload of hard drives that are then distributed around various theatres all over the place, just like film prints used to be. It doesn't matter which copy you get - they're all the same. The KDM, however, is unique to each theatre, server and booking, and sent separately to that theatre. Once loaded into the server, it enables the DCP to be played during the dates of the bookings.

Does the DCP/KDM combination cause the server or projector to generate unique visual watermarks that can then be picked up from a camcordered pirate and used to determine the precise auditorium (or even, if the system allows, an individual screening, say, the 6.20pm show on January 31, 2014) in which the recording took place?

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-31-2014, 08:21 PM:

Note...the KDM can "check" the entire "Trusted Device List" which can include the projector, server, sound processor (the CP850 has to be a trusted device since it gets to "see" the raw data). At any point, the studios could force a match up on all TDLs though they would be really stupid to! But that won't stop them...they put KDMs on movies that are long on home video in High Def BluRay form! It makes zero sense! Heck it all but encourages exhibitors to "make their own DCPs" from BluRays to avoid the hassle.

But yes, the projector and server are actively watermarking the image and, in some cases sound such that a bootleg can be traced to the theatre, screen and time of day.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-31-2014, 08:38 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
I'm just amazed that anyone would even want to buy handheld camcorder footage of a movie theater screen.

I don't think that people do. I mean why would you if you can torrent the same shitty footage for free? I've never heard of stuff like that being for sale unless it's from China somehow. Maybe there's part of piracy I don't know about where this stuff actually sells to incredibly stupid people.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 01-31-2014, 09:36 PM:

I'm really curious as to how that watermarking is done, since I just can't figure it out. In the days of film I used to see the occasional "sparkle" on a few prints, and assumed that this was some sort of watermarking, but I've never seen anything like that on a DCP.

Do they do the subliminal message thing and just mark a single frame once in a while? And how in the world do you watermark sound? Play a high pitched tone that you can't hear?

I have received the odd key that says "watermark off". I've never noticed any difference between a "watermark off" movie and anything else.

I understand that the objective of watermarking is to do it in a way that you don't notice it, but I still don't understand how it works. Watermarking would be pointless if the mark wasn't captured by the bad-guy when he records the film on his low-resolution camera and sound rig, so it can't be that well hidden, can it?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-31-2014, 09:58 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
I don't think that people do. I mean why would you if you can torrent the same shitty footage for free? I've never heard of stuff like that being for sale unless it's from China somehow. Maybe there's part of piracy I don't know about where this stuff actually sells to incredibly stupid people.

The FBI and MPAA are acting like bootleg camcorder footage of theater screens is a multi-billion dollar business. Some of this crappy handheld video does wind up on DVDs and passed around in flea markets or out of the trunk of someone's car. The suckers paying for the discs are buying the content sight unseen.

From what I've seen of this stuff, it appears most of these camcorder bootleggers are doing the sneaking around and posting torrents all for bragging rights. I think it's pretty stupid to waste two hours of watching handheld footage of a movie screen. But it's even more stupid to tape the content and then get nothing out of it other than getting an ego stroked.

In movie piracy the ultimate coup is getting hold of a screener DVD or Blu-ray disc before the movie is released in theaters. That's what has real monetary value. It's worth replicating on disc at a mass scale. It's what anyone searching for torrents of pirated movies wants to download. The FBI has at least made some efforts at busting illegal disc sales operations. The MPAA acts like screener discs are not a problem at all.

Posted by Harold Hallikainen (Member # 5405) on 01-31-2014, 10:55 PM:

They do seem to be chasing down screener piracy. I remember one in the news a few years ago. Then there's also this recent story.

On watermarking, here are a couple patents.
Patent 8452971 - Watermarking based on average luminance.
Patent 8428299 - Describes methods of placing marks on copied video that are not visible on the original video playback. Based on color or luminance variation frame to frame such that the eye averages the color or luminance to the correct value while a comcorder does not. This patent is an improvement on these techniques to minimize the possibility that the mark is visible to a legal viewer.

Harold

Edited to fix broken link

[ 01-31-2014, 11:45 PM: Message edited by: Brad Miller ]

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 02-18-2014, 06:09 PM:

And now, Google has updated its Glass site with some friendly DOs and DON'Ts, including "Don't be a Glasshole."

"In places where cell phone cameras aren’t allowed, the same rules will apply to Glass. If you’re asked to turn your phone off, turn Glass off as well. Breaking the rules or being rude will not get businesses excited about Glass and will ruin it for other Explorers."

Google Glass

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-18-2014, 10:01 PM:

That's kind of funny, they expect Glass to become a mainstream device and they also expect people to be polite. HAHAHAHA! Like that is ever going to happen.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 02-18-2014, 11:42 PM:

What happens when people start walking into public bathrooms wearing Google glass?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-19-2014, 01:50 AM:

I guess that would also "ruin it for other Explorers."