Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Canadian Movie Camcording Addressed With Legislation

Posted by Zonk on Fri Jun 01, 2007 10:01 AM
from the cameras-down dept.
Government Media Movies The Courts Politics News
dottyslashdottydot writes "During Arnold Schwarzenegger's visit to Ottawa yesterday, it was confirmed that Prime Minister Stephen Harper will be introducing a bill to make camcording in movie theaters illegal in Canada. However, people are skeptical that this will make any difference in the amount of pirated movies available. Doug Frith, president of the Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association was quoted as saying, 'is really the first step — not only for the movie industry — where the government has shown it will seriously address the whole area of intellectual-property theft.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Entertainment: Putting Canadian Piracy in Perspective 188 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Over the past year Slashdot has pointed to many industry claims and governmental pressure over Canada piracy issues. Canadian law prof Michael Geist has produced Putting Canadian 'Piracy' in Perspective, a video that demonstrates how the claims are hugely exaggerated. For example, it shows how despite the MPAA's claim of movie piracy, Canada was the industry's fastest growing market last year. Similarly, while the recording industry says Canada is the world's top P2P country, the data shows that the Canadian music industry is experiencing record gains and that most of the decline from the major labels is due to retail pricing pressures."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Canadian Movie Camcording Addressed With Legislation 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • My comment to the CBC (Score:5, Informative)

    by davecb (6526) * on Friday June 01 2007, @10:04AM (#19351875) Homepage Journal
    Since the last major public study on movie piracy in 2003 [http://lorrie.cranor.org/pubs/drm03-tr.pdf], concluded that 77 percent of pirated movies actually come from industry insiders and movie reviewers, "camcording" is not something the Motion Picture Association of America should really be concerned with. I suspect we'll see an act making any copying of a DVD an indictable (criminal) offence rather than somthing one deals with in a lawsuit.

    • Re:My comment to the CBC (Score:5, Insightful)

      by seaturnip (1068078) on Friday June 01 2007, @10:11AM (#19352003)
      Anyway, it seems preposterous to assume anything can be done about camcording: it can only have an effect if all attempted camcordings of a given movie are prevented. A single recording provides an infinite supply of pirated copies. This is even more hopeless than the War on Drugs.

      • Re:My comment to the CBC (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Pojut (1027544) on Friday June 01 2007, @10:15AM (#19352081) Homepage
        This is even more hopeless than the War on Untaxed Drugs

        fixed.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by hackstraw (262471)

          To continue with this. What is next?

          Making it illegal to sell illegal drugs to an undercover officer wearing a bikini within 100 yards of a fire hydrant?

          My point is that copyright laws, and probably a few other ones, already makes camcording a movie illegal. Or at least the distribtion of it, which is what I would assume the law is designed to prevent.

          I'm not a fan of minutely specific laws because 99% of the time a more general law already makes the behavior illegal.

          • If the hydrant suddenly burst open, showering all nearby bikini-clad officers, I'm sure they could sell enough tickets to make up for any revenue lost due to piracy.
      • "This is even more hopeless than the War on Drugs."

        The ineffectiveness of this stuff is so painfully obvious that I often wonder if even the dense skulls in the 'content industry' aren't fully aware of it. Maybe I'm paranoid, but it seems that all these "content industry" gripes result in one or another form of technology control measures. Does anyone wonder if controlling and restricting citizens' access to technology is the real purpose of all this parading?

    • Re:My comment to the CBC (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Applekid (993327) on Friday June 01 2007, @10:13AM (#19352059)
      Except the MPAA can't summon police forces to take care of inside jobs... that would be civil infractions that wouldn't immediately carry criminal charges (maybe they can peg fraud or something, but IANAL).

      If camming is made illegal in the letter of the law, however, now they don't have to do any work though their Intenal Affairs departments. Fighting whatever percentage of priacy that comes from cams can basically become outsourced to government.
      • ...and you get to pay for it, don't forget the most important part. That's pretty much what ticks me off about pushing those "crimes" into the criminal level: That I get to pay to protect the interests of the mafiaa.
    • Haven't they start putting codes on these copies so they can figure out who leaked them? By the same token how long till those digital projectors start putting in watermarks in every single movie theater across the world?

    • Re:My comment to the CBC (Score:5, Funny)

      by ajanp (1083247) on Friday June 01 2007, @10:28AM (#19352293)

      But why look at problems within your own distribution system or try to address the larger concern of finding ways to secure the high quality DVD screeners that magically find their way to the interwebs when you can just as easily find that the real problem stems from those evil canadian bacon eating molsen drinking bastards.

      It amazes me that you've all apparently forgot those 2 magic words that should rule every aspect of both your personal and professional lives.

      BLAME CANADA!

  • I'd rather buy the movie than view it in camcorder quality (or not watch it at all).

    • Re:Seriously (Score:4, Funny)

      by davecb (6526) * on Friday June 01 2007, @10:09AM (#19351969) Homepage Journal

      It's ok, the clean copy from a screener DVD or a quality film scanner will be along in a second (;-))

      --dave

    • Not the crap from Hollywood! I wouldn't even see it if someone gave me the tickets. I would want my "free" back at the end of the movie probably. The movies I like I can either borrow from the library (classics) and yes, I am paying for them as well through taxes and I pay for the movies I support just to support them. In other words it doesn't matter if I see a movie at my friend's house and I could have a copy made, I would go an buy it just to support the artist (most of them are "indie" films, that's wh

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by prelelat (201821)
      Thats the thing most of what the scene calls good releases are not camra recordings, TS can sometimes be okay, but I think what hurts the industry more is the DVD releases that perviewers leak and such. I mean I love going to the movie, but if its not something I really really am excited about like the 300 or spider-man 3 or what ever and I can get a DVD release and watch it at home without the little kids yelling, I would prefer it.

      Thats why I rent and buy a lot of dvds and wait for video release. I don'

  • Does this really matter? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by chill (34294) on Friday June 01 2007, @10:06AM (#19351909) Journal
    How big of a deal is this, really?

    I've always found captures of camcordered movies to be of crap quality. It has never stopped me from later buying the DVD, or from even going to the theater. From me, they've never lost a dime because of this.

    Well, okay. Once when in high school, when living in Europe, the only way we got to see some movies was camcorder rips of U.S. screens. There may be one or two that I never actually paid theater tickets for. This was back in the days of VHS and 300 bps modems.

    Still, considering the amount of money being made in theatrical releases, is this really a problem or just another smokescreen?

    • This was back in the days of VHS and 300 bps modems.


      Gee, Uncle Chill, it must have taken forever to transfer those divx/xvid'ed VHSes via a 300 bps modem!!! ;)

      • Re:Does this really matter? (Score:4, Funny)

        by Your Pal Dave (33229) on Friday June 01 2007, @10:36AM (#19352417)

        This was back in the days of VHS and 300 bps modems.


        Gee, Uncle Chill, it must have taken forever to transfer those divx/xvid'ed VHSes via a 300 bps modem!!! ;)
        Nobody's sure how long it would take, the TRS-80 hasn't finished encoding the video yet.

    • It's a big deal because it's a first step to trying to bring Canadian copyright protections to a level the media companies are happy with. We have a set of laws that have a decent amount of balance between protecting the property rights holder and protecting the consumer. There's tremendous pressure from various interest groups to change our copyright laws to bring in things like provisions in the US DMCA without fair use guarantees. So while this by itself is a very small thing, it opens the door into a much bigger deal.

    • Canada is a client state (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Scrameustache (459504) on Friday June 01 2007, @10:38AM (#19352437) Homepage Journal

      How big of a deal is this, really?
      Camcorders? Not big at all.

      A foreign cartel forcing a supposedly sovereign nation to change their law according to their whims, THAT is a big deal.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Opportunist (166417)
      What's the big deal? I can tell you. If you only know the previews and ads and teasers, you might think it's a great movie.

      After you've seen the movie, in whatever crappy quality, you know that those 30 seconds of previews, ads and teasers actually were ALL the good parts of the movie. Are you gonna go watch it and pay for it?
    • "Once when in high school, when living in Europe, the only way we got to see some movies was camcorder rips of U.S. screens"

      Ah yes, Europe, that mystic medieval land in the East, where people gather together to watch glove puppet shows of an evening in the public squares by the castles...

      So what were these movies you couldn't see when you were here? you mean you have secret US only releases of the good movies and you just ship the crap over to us? Damn I knew there was a yankee conspiracy going on but I jus
      • Actually- it works both ways. You get Battlestar Galactica about 6 months to a year before us. I watched BG on the computer from europe before it came to cable.

        Likewise, lots of movies come out in the US, the months later in europe- then up to a year later (or Never!?!?) in australia.
      • Let me elaborate, as times have changed.

        It was 1983-1986, long before the Internet and DVDs. The video tape was high in popularity, and trading them was a major pastime. This was also when there was a distinct separation of Eastern and Western Europe. The Berlin Wall, Iron Curtain, Warsaw Pact, etc. was all in full force. Czechoslovakia was one country and Germany was two.

        My father was in the U.S. Navy and stationed in Spain. There was one theater and one drive in on the naval base, and movie selection
  • I have too much respect for my time to watch a cam copy. A DVD rip maybe, but a cam copy? Just why???

    Why not just search bags going into the show? It's private property, they have the right too. Personally I wouldn't mind (and yes, I carry a bag with me most places) provided they were respectful and didn't try to swipe anything.

    Tom

    • They started doing that in Toronto.. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 01 2007, @10:28AM (#19352289)
      I refuse to go to a movie theatre that searches people. I used to go 30-40 movies a year, I don't go at all anymore since they started this practice, and I've made sure they know exactly why I'm not attending.

    • Why not just search bags going into the show? It's private property, they have the right too.

      They might, in theory, have that right (though I'm not sure here in Canada).

      But, I can be fairly confident in saying that if they start subjecting their paying customers to personal searches, they willl see their movie sales decline very rapidly. People won't put up with it -- getting patted down or searched everywhere you go is way over the top.

      The first minimum wage theatre employee who asks to search my bag or f

      • You don't have to see the movie. And why for fuck sake is hyperbole standard issue nowadays? Being asked to be searched on private property IS NOT THE SAME as random searches in public. Holy christ almighty, salvation, lordy lordy, fuck.

        If you can't form a cogent argument, don't use hyperbole to try and make a point.

        And I didn't say pat down searches. Just through bags, maybe through bulky coats. Most people don't bring bags into theaters so it wouldn't be a huge problem IMHO.

        Tom
      • we're talking a knapsack. As to why I have one with me. Usually it carries loot (e.g. music books, gameboy, food, nerf guns, etc). But sometimes I use it to carry my wallet/passport/keys. I'd rather a bag over the shoulder than random shit in my pockets [which knowing my luck will fall out].

        And before anyone makes a "purse" comparison, a bag over the shoulders is easier to carry, and it can hold more. So it's not a fashion statement [in fact it's a several year old targus bag I bought on sale at Future

  • Bah. (Score:4, Funny)

    by TripMaster Monkey (862126) on Friday June 01 2007, @10:14AM (#19352075)
    Camcorder piracy is for those who don't have the technical expertise to commit proper piracy. ^_^
    • And suddenly thousands of Starwars fans dressed as Darh Maul, or LoTR fans dressed as elfs, or Harry Potter fans cosplaying... all cried and then suddenly shut up.

      Making camcorders forbidden will not only have no effect at all on proper piracy, but will piss off all users who have brought one for perfectly legal reasons. Like wanting to film all the dressed up fans queuing up on a world-wide première.

      I WANT to be able to make movie and/or pictures of friends cosplaying, even if it is only for the ridic
  • If you can have intellectual property, (and obviously the use of these words is to deliberately conflate the concept of owning ideas with the law on physical property ownership).

    Shouldn't you be held liable for any damage (whatever it is) which that property causes? After all, ideas can be dangerous and, until now, they have not been thought to be ownable...
     

  • Sigh.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by fadeaway (531137) on Friday June 01 2007, @10:21AM (#19352177) Homepage
    I would like to take this opportunuty to thank my American friends for allowing their corporate owned administration to spin so far out of control as to spill their misguided witch hunt into my country. Now not only will YOUR taxpayers money be wasted on chasing, prosecuting, and imprisoning IP "criminals", ours will too!

    I would also like to thank my own government for being such slack-jawed pansies and allowing the Governator to actually influence Canadian policy.

    I want to wretch.

  • Interestingly enough .... (Score:3, Informative)

    by gstoddart (321705) on Friday June 01 2007, @10:23AM (#19352213) Homepage
    Interestingly enough, the movie theatres here in Canada are already claiming it is illegal.

    When I went to Spiderman 3 the other week, they had a sign up in the lobby that said something like "for everyone's safety end enjoyment, we remind you that recoding devices are illegal".

    I was quite surprised by that, as I knew it wasn't yet in law.

    That, and I have no idea how my safety is affected by such things. Once again, the fear card gets played -- "OMG, we could all die if someone has a recording device".
    • That, and I have no idea how my safety is affected by such things.

      Obviously, if no one brought a recorder, they won't have to send in the SWAT team with guns blazing in order to eliminate the terrorist :-)
    • Are you kidding? OF COURSE cell cams are dangerous in a crowded theater. Just imagine:

      Someone recording the movie with his cell, and because his arm falls asleep, he drops the damn thing. Next thing you know is him going to search for it, just as his cell starts to ring, with his ringtone being some song he downloaded from the net, which happens to be in Arabic and goes along the lines of "kill all the infidels, all of them, bomb them away...", which he doesn't know 'cause he doesn't understand a word (but

  • How Hollywood Got the Movie Piracy Bill (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This Youtube video - titled the Power of Lobbying: How Hollywood Got a Canadian Movie Piracy Bill in Under Six Months [youtube.com] - pretty much says it all.

  • Already illegal in the UK (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rik Sweeney (471717) on Friday June 01 2007, @10:26AM (#19352267) Homepage
    well, you can be prosecuted if you're caught filming a movie in the cinema.

    What I've always wanted to do though is very obviously erect a camera with tripod in one of the aisles and then continuously tell people off for eating too loud / whispering / getting in the way of the shot.

    "Guys, will you keep it down! I'm trying to film this!"
  • The movie industry doesn't have a "Piracy" problem.
    They have a "Security" problem.

    How else can you explain "DVD rips" of a movie WEEKS before it comes out?

  • Great Solution (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Baavgai (598847) on Friday June 01 2007, @10:35AM (#19352393) Homepage
    For, say, 1990. Seriously, what decade are these people living in?

    Pirated copies don't come from some idiot wielding a camcorder, they come digital copies usually leaked from within the industry itself. "Review copy" only means "my kid will be torrenting this in three hours, here it comes."

    And the minimum wage salary surf shining a flashlight on people fondling each other is now a also a policeman? If a guy holding an illegal recording device looks able enough to abuse a baby seal and isn't bothering anyone, what possible incentive does a theater have to confront them?

    This type of legislation is a cry for help on the part of the legislator. It's a sign they're so out of touch it's not even funny.

  • We were already subjected to random search... (Score:5, Informative)

    by FreeKill (1020271) on Friday June 01 2007, @10:44AM (#19352523) Homepage
    We were already subjected to random search at every movie these days. Check out this flyer that now hangs ever 2 feet and above every ticket counter at every theater I've been to lately:

    http://img161.imageshack.us/my.php?image=cineplexs earchconsentwr9.jpg [imageshack.us]

    This will do nothing more then make the big theater chains more afraid and implement more ridiculous policies that in the end only make non-pirates stop going !
  • Funny how the music and movie industries want all the protection and laws they can get, yet we as customers don't get squat.

    Don't like that music CD? Sorry, most stores don't offer refunds, only a replacement for defective discs (let's not talk about copy-protected discs here, it's not the issue).

    Didn't like that movie? Sorry, you can't get a refund for that $10 movie ticket.

    Everything else in the world comes with a warranty. You can return products within a reasonable amount of time and get a refund.

    But no

  • Wasn't this already illegal? (Score:4, Informative)

    by MobyDisk (75490) on Friday June 01 2007, @11:09AM (#19352877) Homepage
    This should already have been illegal: it's copyright violation, right? Is this one of those redundant laws like it is illegal to sell illegal drugs to a minor, when selling illegal drugs is already illegal? Or it is illegal to commit a "hate" crime against someone of another race or ethnicity, but it is already illegal to commit a crime against anyone at all? More charges don't solve the problem.

  • Never Happen. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by arthurpaliden (939626) on Friday June 01 2007, @11:12AM (#19352935)

    Minority government.

    Election coming sooner rather than later.

    It will die on the order paper if it ever gets there.

  • Stop calling it "intellectual property theft"? It's copyright violation. "Property theft" implies stealing someone's tangible goods (or ideas) and passing it off as your own, which is clearly not what's going on here. It's an unauthorized reproduction (and possibly public display or sale) of an artistic work.

  • Here is the full text of the bill:

    BILL C-59

    An Act to amend the Criminal Code (unauthorized recording of a movie) R.S., c. C-46

    Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

    L.R., ch. C-46

    1. The Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after section 431.2:

    Unauthorized recording of a movie

    432. (1) A person who, without the consent of the theatre manager, records in a movie theatre a performance of a cinematographic work within the meaning of section 2 of the Copyright Act or its soundtrack
    (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or
    (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

    Unauthorized recording for purpose of sale, etc.
    (2) A person who, without the consent of the theatre manager, records in a movie theatre a performance of a cinematographic work within the meaning of section 2 of the Copyright Act or its soundtrack for the purpose of the sale, rental or other commercial distribution of a copy of the cinematographic work
    (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
    (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

    Forfeiture

    (3) In addition to any punishment that is imposed on a person who is convicted of an offence under this section, the court may order that anything that is used in the commission of the offence be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which the proceedings are taken. Anything that is forfeited may be disposed of as the Attorney General directs.

    Forfeiture -- limitation
    (4) No order may be made under subsection (3) in respect of anything that is the property of a person who is not a party to the offence.

    Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons

    • Alas, some people who ought to know better, including the Globe and Mail, have accepted this story as if it were the truth.

      Disappointing, really.

      --dave

    • Yes... Excellent... Keep focusing on the cams. They are the problem...

      *Jedi hand wave* These aren't the cams you are looking for...

    • So what? Another oxymoron. One would think after military intelligence, poltical correctness and Microsoft Works, people would be less sensitive.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.