Comments on: Muvico Unrepentant Over New Moon Camming Arrest

By: anon

anon — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 09:30:04 +0000

“And Muvico is absolutely unrepentant, stating that it will continue to enforce its zero-tolerance policy,”

I’m glad I haven’t paid to see a film in over a year – finances aside.

I still pay for software because it makes my life easier… but unbutu’s looking kinda good these days and companies are paying top dollar for linux people.

Paying for information seems to be endangered.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 08:33:52 +0000

Well, I go to the movies pretty frequently, as do most people who download movies. Not even getting on the subject of the monstrous moronity of the movie industry attacking their best customers for downloading movies they never intended to rent or buy in the first place.

Anyway, there are plenty of competing theater chains in any major city that nobody really needs to go to a Muvico theater, ever again. Just go see the exact same movie at an AMC or Landmark, or something. They could dry up and die and nobody would miss them.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:18:55 +0000

There is a simple answer to their unrepented ways.

Boycott the chain! That will wipe the smirk of their face.

By: Self Helpless Movie

Self Helpless Movie — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:52:55 +0000

This is ludicrous. Obviously this is just an extreme example, but people need to find something better to obsess about than “piracy”. We are hoping tons of people will download our movie. THAT IS THE FUTURE OF MOVIE DISTRIBUTION, so get used to it. We are giving Self Helpless away on a torrent-only release platform. We are going to prove that wasting money, time, and people’s freedom fighting against people’s ability to share cool stuff is not only absurd, it is illogical.

By: Ben

Ben — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:40:25 +0000

So who actually pressed charges? The new release implies that they just pass over the citizen to the police and leave it up to them, but other reports claim is was Muvico who sought to press charges.

MPAA schlubs.

By: nurseninja

nurseninja — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 13:20:36 +0000

drmike: I’m still not sure why folks are so eager for the girl to sue, or what they think it will accomplish. She has no justifiable claim, period. It’s been eons since I’ve stepped into a theater or watched a movie of any kind, but I seem to recall large disclaimers, complete with the FBI seal or something, stating ANY unauthorized reproduction was a prohibited, punishable offense and blah blah blah. I can’t imagine fair use would apply here. Any jury that looks at the law in its current context, and does what it’s *supposed to do*, will not come back with a decision in her favor, and there’s a snowball’s chance in hell that she’s going to get a completely sympathetic jury. MPAA would probably bankroll the theater’s defense, or provide their lawyers to them, knowing that if they don’t show they have the theater’s back, other theaters might be less likely to take action. If she loses, she’s (probably) on the hook for THEIR legal fees, which will make two days in jail look like nothing. On the slim chance that she wins, they merely file an appeal, and likely win there.

By: drmike

drmike — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 20:04:23 +0000

I know it’s been said previously but I can’t wait to see that lawsuit.

By: Okay

Okay — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 16:06:14 +0000

Great- charges are dropped. Now where can the poor girl get her two days back?

By: Opaque

Opaque — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 15:17:54 +0000

“any recording of a movie, of any length”

Of any lenght? Seriously? What kind of law is that. I believed that demoing, fair-use, etc always allowed for a certain number of seconds?

By: trustnone

trustnone — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 15:03:12 +0000

Seriously thats just bull!! Two days in prison just for that