"The theater owner acknowledges that they can still search bags, but have to do so with much stricter rules." I left that gem out of my initial comment -- I think that if the theater owner is going to acknowledge that they can still search customers, the customers should loudly acknowledge that they can take their business elsewhere.
I for one know that the day I would refuse such a search, demand my money back, and that would be the last time I ever went to that theater. People need to stand up to this crap and start speaking with their wallets. Movies and music are a commodity, and you can afford to not do business with companies that treat you like criminals. Don't buy DRM infested music, and certainly don't go to theaters that search you upon entry. Eventually, this will hurt the **AA's bottom line enough that they will be forced to change their business practices, lest they go out of business for good (which would not be too bad either).
I keep thinking that there is no way the public discourse in this country could descend any further into the realms of inanity and then I see this... Seriously, a 2 year old has access to a knife and they blame VIDEO GAMES for the inevitable stabbing that ensues? Have these cops ever spent any time around a two year old before? If you let a two year old child get a hold of a knife, someone is gonna get stabbed, the child has nowhere near the mental faculties to understand the implications of such things and needs no outside influence to misuse them. His parents need to be locked up on criminal negligence charges.
"some bleacher seats that regularly go for $17 each varied in price from $15 to $33" -- This is my biggest gripe with variable pricing right here, the new improved variable prices range from a whopping $2 off normal ticket price, to almost double the normal price. To be fair, nothing is said of how often the ticket prices are lowered rather than raised, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the average ticket price this year will be a bit higher than it was last year.
"Variable pricing" really is quite often just a sneaky way to raise prices without raising quite as many eyebrows. The iTunes store is a perfect example of this -- they went from $0.99 a song for EVERY song in the store, to $1.29 for premium tracks and $0.69 for less in demand tracks. This sounds great on paper, until you realize that almost anything you would want to buy is going to be $1.29, so they just effectively raised their prices by very close to a third, while being able to avoid a bit of heat from the press and the loss of too many customers.
Well... it's a good thing that we live in a world with such little serious crime that the police can spend time and resources setting up an elaborate sting to keep some high school kids from (gasp!) drinking. I for one know that I will be sleeping a little more soundly tonight knowing that the police are willing to do whatever is necessary and use whatever resources are necessary in this time of economic prosperity to prevent such heinous crimes from happening in the future. After all, this really is for the children...
@Jerry -- You really think that the lawyers are blameless pawns in the current state of IP law? Lawyers are the biggest instigators of frivolous legal action in the country, they are the only ones who ever win out in these scenarios and it is their bread and butter. I certainly would not absolve the New Zealand Herald, but the lawyers certainly share a good deal of the blame.
I find it rather amusing that Mr. Belloni feels that it is a bad thing that people avoided going to see this movie because they realized what a turd it is.
I will concede that piracy probably does hurt crap entertainment, but I would also submit that this is a good thing for consumers, it lets us filter the good from the bad and makes in less profitable for the MAFIAA to keep pumping out garbage movies. The fact that Mr. Belloni would side with the multi-million dollar corporation and their right to continue to peddle swill to the unwitting consumer is very telling of the way the entertainment industry thinks of its customer base...
I'm not sure how Sweden's legal system works, but in the U.S. such a flagrant conflict of interest would surely result in the verdict being thrown out and the defendants getting a new trial -- here's hoping that common sense will prevail.
Kind of off topic, but why has Monster cable not been sued yet for their fraudulent advertising for HDMI cables, wherein they state that the more expensive cable offers a higher quality picture when this is very easily provably false? I mean for the analog cables the claim is more or less equally fraudulent, but the higher quality cable can be shown in a laboratory to preserve the signal better (albeit imperceptibly so, even to trained professionals). With HDMI, you are transmitting a digital signal, which either gets there, or it doesn't. The highest bitrate you can get off of a Blu Ray disc is still under 50 Mbps, whereas a low end HDMI cable is capable of transfers rates 100x above that, at roughly 5 Gbps. It can be provably demonstrated that you will get bit for bit exactly the same thing through a $3 cable from MonoPrice versus a Monster cable that costs 50 times more! The people at Monster CLEARLY know this, but are choosing to speak deliberate lies in their advertising. How has there not been a lawsuit over this yet? Sorry, I know it's off topic but I really think that further illustrates the kind of people we are talking about here, their wicked ways do not begin and end in the trademark realm, it is pervasive throughout their entire business strategy.