tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338557.post4887034661271232329..comments2023-08-18T04:37:47.001-04:00Comments on Byzantium's Shores: chronicling the misadventures of an overalls-clad hippie: We could quibble all day on who shot first....Kelly Sedingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10704114189919711467noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338557.post-53974252145995628752011-07-08T15:10:55.517-04:002011-07-08T15:10:55.517-04:00That's pretty obvious, Paul. I even stated as ...That's pretty obvious, Paul. I even stated as such. What makes a "free screening" free is the lack of an admission charge to access the building. The charges for food or drinks are incidental and would be incurred by patrons there in any event, screening or no.<br /><br />I suspect that the MPAA's objections would stand even if I set up a screen in a farm field and announced a free screening of a movie on a BYOB basis.Kelly Sedingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10704114189919711467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338557.post-47644030119961048552011-07-08T14:35:44.791-04:002011-07-08T14:35:44.791-04:00To be perfectly fair to both Lucasfilm, and MPAA, ...To be perfectly fair to both Lucasfilm, and MPAA, neither situation you describe constitute "free" or "not for profit" screenings of the films. In both situations, the films are, or were to be screened in retail business locations for the purpose of attracting clientele with the hopes that they will spend money while they were there. This is the definition of "for profit."Call me Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17704646008578216859noreply@blogger.com