Cinema Regulation

[Hirota]

This gets talked about a lot on a film radio program I listen to - they compiled a list.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/5live/films/code_of_conduct.pdf

[Infected Mushroom]

This gets talked about a lot on a film radio program I listen to - they compiled a list.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/5live/films/code_of_conduct.pdf

Yes. I think its largely a matter of enforcement.

One way around it is to provide an incentive for private actors to simply report offenders to the authorities (this would trigger my proposed regulatory fine penalties).

I expect over time, the mere threat of the reports alone will be enough to encourage automatic compliance.

[Ifreann]

Holy Mother of sweet divine Jesus and all the saints in Heaven, you cannot possibly be serious

[Lordieth]

Yes, and watch cinema revenues plummet, cinemas close down, and the industry decay as people get pushed even further towards media content streaming, which would then land all the early-release contracts instead of the cinemas.

To put it politely; this is a bad idea.

[Infected Mushroom]

Yes, and watch cinema revenues plummet, cinemas close down, and the industry decay as people get pushed even further towards media content streaming, which would then land all the early-release contracts instead of the cinemas.

To put it politely; this is a bad idea.

I think that may have something to do with the interruptions in the cinemas and the disruptions

[Laanvia]

Watch things at home on Netflix for f**k sake...

[Prezelly]

It isn't really a problem. People make noise, we know this and face noise in places that aren't private, like a theater or store. No regulations should be placed

[Infected Mushroom]

It isn't really a problem. People make noise, we know this and face noise in places that aren't private, like a theater or store. No regulations should be placed

The expectations aren't the same.

You didn't pay for the silence in the store. In fact, you have no contract with the store until you enter into a sale of goods with them at the counter.

[Infected Mushroom]

Watch things at home on Netflix for f**k sake...

Why is it one or the other?

[Prezelly]

It isn't really a problem. People make noise, we know this and face noise in places that aren't private, like a theater or store. No regulations should be placed

The expectations aren't the same.

You didn't pay for the silence in the store. In fact, you have no contract with the store until you enter into a sale of goods with them at the counter.

You don't pay for silence in a theater either, you pay to see a movie, we just assume that this be done without distractions because the others want to watch the movie too

[Lordieth]

Yes, and watch cinema revenues plummet, cinemas close down, and the industry decay as people get pushed even further towards media content streaming, which would then land all the early-release contracts instead of the cinemas.

To put it politely; this is a bad idea.

I think that may have something to do with the interruptions in the cinemas and the disruptions

Yes, if you could remove interruptions, then the cinema would be a much better experience, but it's just not practical, and imposing fines and essentially policing screenings is not going to improve matters. Everyone has a different idea of what's acceptable while watching a movie, and imposing restrictions is going to put people off.

I'd much rather pay a premium to attend smaller screenings. Not only will there be less noise, but the people attending are far more likely to be there for the same reasons as me, and wish to watch the film undisturbed.

[Laanvia]

This is a stupid thread. It's one of the most pointless threads I've seen since the one about the fake story of a Man who was Killed whilst brawling with a Gorilla.

[Infected Mushroom]

The expectations aren't the same.

You didn't pay for the silence in the store. In fact, you have no contract with the store until you enter into a sale of goods with them at the counter.

You don't pay for silence in a theater either, you pay to see a movie, we just assume that this be done without distractions because the others want to watch the movie too

So you have no expectation of silence when you pay for a movie ticket?

The movie theatre-owner ISN'T in breach of contract so long as it visually shows you the movie?

It's allowed to play Justin Bieber music at max volume while you're watching the movie? That wouldn't be a breach of contract?

[Prezelly]

You don't pay for silence in a theater either, you pay to see a movie, we just assume that this be done without distractions because the others want to watch the movie too

So you have no expectation of silence when you pay for a movie ticket?

The movie theatre-owner ISN'T in breach of contract so long as it visually shows you the movie?

It's allowed to play Justin Bieber music at max volume while you're watching the movie? That wouldn't be a breach of contract?

It wouldn't, you could do that, but others in the theater would be upset and ask to remove you, given enough support they could. Its not really a breach of contract, the theater cant be responsible for what people do when they watch the movie

[Infected Mushroom]

I think that may have something to do with the interruptions in the cinemas and the disruptions

Yes, if you could remove interruptions, then the cinema would be a much better experience, but it's just not practical, and imposing fines and essentially policing screenings is not going to improve matters. Everyone has a different idea of what's acceptable while watching a movie, and imposing restrictions is going to put people off.

I'd much rather pay a premium to attend smaller screenings. Not only will there be less noise, but the people attending are far more likely to be there for the same reasons as me, and wish to watch the film undisturbed.

Again, just because there may be a lot of reports doesn't mean every single case will result in fines actually being awarded. The idea is regulatory deterrence (in fact, in the ideal situation, no one would actually be fined because they would simply take actions to avoid even that risk).

The line is subjective but like everything else, the courts will adopt a standard as the case law builds. I expect they (or more likely it will start with a regulatory tribunal) would have some discretion in interpreting the laws in a reasonable way.

For example, bringing a screaming baby into a theatre is clearly something that can and should be fined if reported. By contrast, accidentally dropping your popcorn and letting out a loud gasp is different.

[Infected Mushroom]

So you have no expectation of silence when you pay for a movie ticket?

The movie theatre-owner ISN'T in breach of contract so long as it visually shows you the movie?

It's allowed to play Justin Bieber music at max volume while you're watching the movie? That wouldn't be a breach of contract?

It wouldn't, you could do that, but others in the theater would be upset and ask to remove you, given enough support they could. Its not really a breach of contract, the theater cant be responsible for what people do when they watch the movie

It's not just a contract to let you see the movie. It's also a contract to provide a certain atmosphere for you to be able to enjoy the movie.

That's how I would characterise it. Hence, there is an expectation of a certain degree of enforced silence.

And yes, it is possible for third party actions to lead to a breach by a contracting party's obligations if the seller made certain representations which can be construed as conditions or warranties. Again though, strictly speaking under contract law this is of little help. In the event of a breach, the buyer's recourse are to terminate the contract (leave the cinema) or sue for damages (not worth it because the value of the ticket will probably be close to the max you can recover for the lost experience); which is why it doesn't go to court.

However, if we impose a statutory duty of care with statutorily imposed high punitive damage awards (within constitutional limits), this would encourage suing. It wouldn't be suing for breach of contract against the theatre, it would be citizen to citizen. Instead of characterising it as a breach of contract or a misrepresentation, we would focus the level of analysis moviegoer-to-moviegoer. Each citizen would consistently owe each other a statutorily imposed duty of care of silence in the theatre. When it is breached, that is a cause of action in torts.

[Lordieth]

Yes, if you could remove interruptions, then the cinema would be a much better experience, but it's just not practical, and imposing fines and essentially policing screenings is not going to improve matters. Everyone has a different idea of what's acceptable while watching a movie, and imposing restrictions is going to put people off.

I'd much rather pay a premium to attend smaller screenings. Not only will there be less noise, but the people attending are far more likely to be there for the same reasons as me, and wish to watch the film undisturbed.

Again, just because there may be a lot of reports doesn't mean every single case will result in fines actually being awarded. The idea is regulatory deterrence (in fact, in the ideal situation, no one would actually be fined because they would simply take actions to avoid even that risk).

The line is subjective but like everything else, the courts will adopt a standard as the case law builds. I expect they (or more likely it will start with a regulatory tribunal) would have some discretion in interpreting the laws in a reasonable way.

For example, bringing a screaming baby into a theatre is clearly something that can and should be fined if reported. By contrast, accidentally dropping your popcorn and letting out a loud gasp is different.

Well, I agree there should be rules. I'd even go as far as saying the cinema industry could create its own code of conduct, with rules, regulations and even punishments for people causing disturbances (temporary bans, removal from the theatre, so on), but I see absolutely no reason why the government should encroach on private industry in this manner, and I don't think fines or litigation are particularly strong deterrents if they require court action.

[Gauthier]

Amazing that a classmate saying Internet movie piracy is okay because "Movies aren't real innovations" can inflict such lasting emotional scars on someone.

[Prezelly]

It wouldn't, you could do that, but others in the theater would be upset and ask to remove you, given enough support they could. Its not really a breach of contract, the theater cant be responsible for what people do when they watch the movie

It's not just a contract to let you see the movie. It's also a contract to provide a certain atmosphere for you to be able to enjoy the movie.

That's how I would characterise it. Hence, there is an expectation of a certain degree of enforced silence.

And yes, it is possible for third party actions to lead to a breach by a contracting party's obligations if the seller made certain representations which can be construed as conditions or warranties. Again though, strictly speaking under contract law this is of little help. In the event of a breach, the buyer's recourse are to terminate the contract (leave the cinema) or sue for damages (not worth it because the value of the ticket will probably be close to the max you can recover for the lost experience); which is why it doesn't go to court.

However, if we impose a statutory duty of care with statutorily imposed high punitive damage awards (within constitutional limits), this would encourage suing. It wouldn't be suing for breach of contract against the theatre, it would be citizen to citizen. Instead of characterising it as a breach of contract or a misrepresentation, we would focus the level of analysis moviegoer-to-moviegoer. Each citizen would consistently owe each other a statutorily imposed duty of care of silence in the theatre. When it is breached, that is a cause of action in torts.

I don't think that that is necessary. People have the right to make noise in a theater and deal with the consequences already in place.

[Sdaeriji]

Please re-title your thread "My proposal to increase film piracy 6000%"

[Infected Mushroom]

Again, just because there may be a lot of reports doesn't mean every single case will result in fines actually being awarded. The idea is regulatory deterrence (in fact, in the ideal situation, no one would actually be fined because they would simply take actions to avoid even that risk).

The line is subjective but like everything else, the courts will adopt a standard as the case law builds. I expect they (or more likely it will start with a regulatory tribunal) would have some discretion in interpreting the laws in a reasonable way.

For example, bringing a screaming baby into a theatre is clearly something that can and should be fined if reported. By contrast, accidentally dropping your popcorn and letting out a loud gasp is different.

Well, I agree there should be rules. I'd even go as far as saying the cinema industry could create its own code of conduct, with rules, regulations and even punishments for people causing disturbances (temporary bans, removal from the theatre, so on), but I see absolutely no reason why the government should encroach on private industry in this manner, and I don't think fines or litigation are particularly strong deterrents if they require court action.

I don't see it as the government encroaching (ex putting additional costs on the cinemas), in fact, it would reward certain actions by cinema-owners but it actually doesn't have the power under this regime to fine or imprison cinema owners for not taking the steps.

So this would be different from some variants of environmental legislation. In that area, companies can be fined and in some cases imprisoned for violating environmental laws and regulations. Here, the regulation and penalties are against the consumers (those who misbehave). Only a carrot (no stick) is used with respect to the private actors. They are rewarded for taking certain steps, but not otherwise penalised.

The problem with leaving it to the private actors alone (leaving it to the cinemas) is that there are severe limits within the law (unless it is changed) as to what they can actually do.

For example, if they try to physically remove a movie-goer without calling the authorities, that could lead to a lawsuit in battery or assault. If they lay down rules that are too stringent, they may overstep what is allowed by the licensing regime or step unto Charter rights territory. Unless there is new legislation or a new body of regulatory authority set up to deal with this sort of thing, calling the police may be of little use (they are likely to dismiss the issue and not come).

A much more fail-safe approach is to limit the role of the cinema as indirect enforcers. They would be encouraged to warn viewers about the new laws and encouraged to report offenders while doing non-intrusive things to enforce the regulations, but they themselves would play a secondary role to the government with respect to direct enforcement.

This way, the theatre owners wouldn't expose themselves to potential litigation.

[Imperial New Vegas]

You have some truly interesting opinions, Infected.

[Infected Mushroom]

It's not just a contract to let you see the movie. It's also a contract to provide a certain atmosphere for you to be able to enjoy the movie.

That's how I would characterise it. Hence, there is an expectation of a certain degree of enforced silence.

And yes, it is possible for third party actions to lead to a breach by a contracting party's obligations if the seller made certain representations which can be construed as conditions or warranties. Again though, strictly speaking under contract law this is of little help. In the event of a breach, the buyer's recourse are to terminate the contract (leave the cinema) or sue for damages (not worth it because the value of the ticket will probably be close to the max you can recover for the lost experience); which is why it doesn't go to court.

However, if we impose a statutory duty of care with statutorily imposed high punitive damage awards (within constitutional limits), this would encourage suing. It wouldn't be suing for breach of contract against the theatre, it would be citizen to citizen. Instead of characterising it as a breach of contract or a misrepresentation, we would focus the level of analysis moviegoer-to-moviegoer. Each citizen would consistently owe each other a statutorily imposed duty of care of silence in the theatre. When it is breached, that is a cause of action in torts.

I don't think that that is necessary. People have the right to make noise in a theater and deal with the consequences already in place.

and what would you say those are at the moment?

[Prezelly]

I don't think that that is necessary. People have the right to make noise in a theater and deal with the consequences already in place.

and what would you say those are at the moment?

Removal due to request of others

[Lordieth]

Well, I agree there should be rules. I'd even go as far as saying the cinema industry could create its own code of conduct, with rules, regulations and even punishments for people causing disturbances (temporary bans, removal from the theatre, so on), but I see absolutely no reason why the government should encroach on private industry in this manner, and I don't think fines or litigation are particularly strong deterrents if they require court action.

I don't see it as the government encroaching (ex putting additional costs on the cinemas), in fact, it would reward certain actions by cinema-owners but it actually doesn't have the power under this regime to fine or imprison cinema owners for not taking the steps.

So this would be different from some variants of environmental legislation. In that area, companies can be fined and in some cases imprisoned for violating environmental laws and regulations. Here, the regulation and penalties are against the consumers (those who misbehave). Only a carrot (no stick) is used with respect to the private actors. They are rewarded for taking certain steps, but not otherwise penalised.

The problem with leaving it to the private actors alone (leaving it to the cinemas) is that there are severe limits within the law (unless it is changed) as to what they can actually do.

For example, if they try to physically remove a movie-goer without calling the authorities, that could lead to a lawsuit in battery or assault. If they lay down rules that are too stringent, they may overstep what is allowed by the licensing regime or step unto Charter rights territory.

A much more fail-safe approach is to limit the role of the cinema as indirect enforcers. They would be encouraged to warn viewers about the new laws and encouraged to report offenders while doing non-intrusive things to enforce the regulations, but they themselves would play a secondary role to the government with respect to direct enforcement.

This way, the theatre owners wouldn't expose themselves to potential litigation.

I do understand your argument, and the limitations of what private entities can and cannot enforce, however I think the sad irony is, is that increasing powers that allows cinemas to impose tougher actions on patrons could lead to an increase in disturbances, or at the very least a reluctance for cinema goers to attend in fear of an over-zealous cinema imposing fines on people for an accidental cough or sneeze.

I'm all for quieter cinemas, but I'm not sure this is the best way to deal with it.