Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Media Government Movies The Courts Politics News

Canadian Movie Camcording Addressed With Legislation 148

Posted by Zonk from the cameras-down dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canadian Movie Camcording Addressed With Legislation More

Canadian Movie Camcording Addressed With Legislation

Comments Filter:

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

    by davecb ( 6526 ) * <davecb@spamcop.net> on Friday June 01, 2007 @11:04AM (#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 @11:11AM (#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 @11:15AM (#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.

          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by sunwukong ( 412560 )
            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.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Mozk ( 844858 )
              Assuming they're women, yeah... Unless the said hydrant were in San Francisco. But then again, the piracy there is more of the butt kind.

              Butt pirates thailing the theven theas, as it were.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Hatta ( 162192 )
          This is even more hopeless than the War on Untaxed Drugs

          If that were the issue, they'd just tax them and be done with it. What this is is a War on Drug Users. What it comes down to is the government waging a war on its own citizens.
      • "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?
        • Does anyone wonder if controlling and restricting citizens' access to technology is the real purpose of all this parading?
          Modern technology enables access to information.
          Information is power.
          You can complete the equation...

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

      by Applekid ( 993327 ) on Friday June 01, 2007 @11:13AM (#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.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by shark72 ( 702619 )

        "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)."

        A few people have faced criminal charges as a result of leaking screeners. Here's one example [torrentfreak.com].

        It's a similar situation in the retail industry: employee theft and other "inside jobs" are a big part of the loss, yet retailers still attempt to stop shoplifting. In the movie industries, retail industr

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by linzeal ( 197905 )
      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: (Score:1)

        by maxume ( 22995 )
        Who cares? I mean, it kind of bothers me that people think this is a good use of enforcement resources, and it sucks that the cost of all the security gizmos gets built into the price of a theater ticket, but do people really live in a world view where they go to a private building, agree not to make a copy of the movie they are about to be shown, and then think that they should be able to make a copy anyway?

        • You ask the question...

          "Do people really live in a world where they go to a private building, agree not to make a copy of the movie they are about to be shown, and then think that they should be able to make a copy anyway?"

          Yes. They do. We happen to live in that same world. You can find a cam recording of any newly released movie available through multiple torrent sites, within hours of it being released. THIS would prove that people actually do live in a world where they go to a private building, pay f

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

      by ajanp ( 1083247 ) on Friday June 01, 2007 @11:28AM (#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!

    • Who watches a cam recorded movie , If I was going to watch a pirated movie I'd better wait for the dvd version comes up and captured. Pirated movies also kills the local cinemas for example there are real nice german films but they can not advertised enough.

  • Seriously (Score:2, Informative)

    by saibot834 ( 1061528 )
    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 ) * <davecb@spamcop.net> on Friday June 01, 2007 @11:09AM (#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
      • 10 dollars / ticket is damn cheap for 2 hours of entertainment if you consider that theater is alive and well when it can cost 10 times as much. The problem is that 10 dollars is ridiculous for the shit Hollywood throws up. 10 bucks for Chinatown or Once Upon a Time in the West on itunes is a bargain(last weekend), 10 bucks for Spiderman 3 is bullshit.
        Hollywood meet Vaudeville, Vaudeville meet Hollywood.
    • I'd rather buy the movie than view it in camcorder quality (or not watch it at all).


      Honestly these day I hardly watch ANY movie, period. I read RottenTomatoes though :)

    • 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 @11:06AM (#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, Insightful)

      by deadsquid ( 535515 ) <asx@de[ ]quid.com ['ads' in gap]> on Friday June 01, 2007 @11:21AM (#19352185) Homepage
      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 @11:38AM (#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.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by chill ( 34294 )
        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

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by fantomas ( 94850 )
          cheers for the context. We had a similar sort of scene on am uch smaller scale for mad art films and stuff banned in Britain (like Clockwork Orange).

          The historical geographical bit, that's ok, I was a teenager living in the UK at the time, I remember my geography lessons. We were pretty worried in Europe at the time, we had the Soviet army a few miles away not 3000 miles away and your president was going on air and cracking jokes about declaring war and the bombs starting to drop in 5 minutes when he thoug

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by chill ( 34294 )
            Politics in Spain at the time were touchy.

            The Communist Party was still pretty big and had some clout. The way the Spanish kept 'em in check was to keep things on an even keel. There wasn't a lot of American stuff because as soon as they did, the Communists clamored for equal time.

            The Naval Base took forever to get a radio station and television station. The TV station was cable, with 2 channels and even that was a point of contention.

            Word at the time was the Communist Party was big in Spain because they

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by wfberg ( 24378 )

      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.

      This move is analogous to some singer taking out a multi-million dollar insurance on her ass.

      It's to make the asset appear more valuable than it is.

      Going to a movie theater and sitting there in person, the sound and video quality is already far inferior to a DVD. A camcorder video of that experience is
  • 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 @11:28AM (#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

        • Being asked to be searched on private property IS NOT THE SAME as random searches in public.

          How so?

          Does the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Canadian version of the Bill of Rights) no longer apply? Does that piece of land fall then into some kind of a different, foreign jurisdiction? Does the fact that someone owns that piece of land make him a king or an emperor then, one with an ability to enact arbitrary laws in his feudal fiefdom? What then if he passes a law that it is all-right for his hired goo

          • You have no right to be on private property. You *agree* to either leave or abide by their laws. Being searched by the public isn't actually illegal btw, only by the government [without due process]. For example, if you leave your bag on a bus, I can rifle through it all I want. That's perfectly legal.

            Similarly, if you walk into my store I have the right to ask to search your bag. You have the right to refuse, and I have the right to have you removed from the premises. See how that works?

            They can't *f

            • You have no right to be on private property. You *agree* to either leave or abide by their laws. Being searched by the public isn't actually illegal btw, only by the government [without due process]. For example, if you leave your bag on a bus, I can rifle through it all I want. That's perfectly legal.

              Yes, the only privilege that ownership of private property gets you is the ability to deny access to it. In this respect you are correct, that the owner's only legal option is to ask you to leave, otherwise

          • It's not so much hyperbole as it is just being totally off the mark. IANACL (Canadian), but I am not aware of any laws being broken when a customer and theater engage in a contract whereby the customer agrees to be frisked in exchange for admittance into a movie. If the customer doesn't want to be searched he is free to leave, at which point a forceful search against his will would be the only conceivable way this policy would deny him or her any of his "Rights and Freedoms". In fact, "freedom" is allowing

            • I am not aware of any laws being broken when a customer and theater engage in a contract whereby the customer agrees to be frisked in exchange for admittance into a movie. If the customer doesn't want to be searched he is free to leave, at which point a forceful search against his will would be the only conceivable way this policy would deny him or her any of his "Rights and Freedoms". In fact, "freedom" is allowing businesses and customers to make consentual agreements with each other depending on each one

    • Just because one has the right to do something does not mean it should be done. For instance, I've read your responses to some of the other comments in this thread:

      You could, you know, not bring a bag with you. Or stop being a whiny ass. It takes three seconds to open a bag to show there is no camcorder in there. If you want to bitch about anything try the low selection of quality films, or the $15 small popcorn.

      I have the right to call you an asshole. Should I?

      On another note, I carry a camera with me

      • This is why not living 20 miles from the theater is a good idea. Or just planning better. I mean when I do go to the show, it's usually after supper which means I've been home from work first.

        In my case I don't go because I hate the other patrons. Stupid annoying loud mouth teenagers with no respect for others. If I wanted to be that rudely treated I'd just go get my teacher degree and then try and teach a general level English course in a high school.

        Tom
  • Everybody knows that all the latest Hollywood releases are first released in Canadian Theaters, where they are cammed and put on torrent sites. I think this will help piracy greatly.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by davecb ( 6526 ) *

      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...

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by AnalogDiehard ( 199128 )

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

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

  • Bah. (Score:4, Funny)

    by TripMaster Monkey ( 862126 ) on Friday June 01, 2007 @11:14AM (#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
  • move industry?
    movies in general?
    intellectual property? (serious)
    Maybe I'm just of mixed opinion, but is a movie really an intellectual property? Should intellectual property be something that makes me smarter? And shouldn't intellectual property be something freely given away anyway as a way to foster increased intelligence to the masses as a whole?
    • So what? Another oxymoron. One would think after military intelligence, poltical correctness and Microsoft Works, people would be less sensitive.
  • 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 @11:21AM (#19352177)
    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.
  • This legislation will never work -- you have to nip the demand instead.

    I support legislation to kill people who think watching a camcorded movie is a great experience.

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

    by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Friday June 01, 2007 @11:23AM (#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".
    • Well I'm certainly not sure about your safety but if I'm not mistaken, isn't it illegal (in the US at least, maybe Canada) to record someone without their knowledge/permission?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by bentcd ( 690786 )
      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
    • 'For your safety'?
      Sounds like a threat to me...
      Have you reported this to the police?

  • 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 @11:26AM (#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!"
  • I applaud consumers who let producers know their product/service sucks. Movie piracy exists by the hand of the movie industry itself! If they didn't make so many crappy movies maybe the public would not feel ripped everytime they walk out of a theater.

    I can't fault anyone for pirating a movie... I'd lean more twords encouraging it, as I am personlly sick of feeling like I have had my intellectual property, my brain and an average of 2 hours of my life, stolen everytime I see a bad movie.

    Piracy minimaly a

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gsslay ( 807818 )
      Yes, that's right. Because the movies are so crappy, people actively seek out even crappier camcorded versions, so that they can waste their time watching them on crappy tiny screens at home. That'll show 'em! Yup, that makes perfect sense.

      I look forward to your proof that the public feels ripped of everytime they walk out a theatre. Or could it be your argument is a large amount of arm waving aimed at justifying what you know to be wrong?

      In your bizarre version of logic, if it's not a big budget film
  • 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 @11:35AM (#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.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by c ( 8461 )
      > This type of legislation is a cry for help on the part of the legislator.

      Nope. This legislation is 100% in response to a very intense and focused lobbying operation by the United States. We're talking about threats from the movie industry, US Senators, the freaking Ambassador to Canada, you name it. Nobody in Canada wants this silliness, and it's not going to do a damn thing. If we're lucky, it's not even going to pass into law.

      In reality, this is probably the thin edge of the wedge to try to force Can
    • Yeah, this is actually awesome. I can't wait to hear the complaints about peoples' nice relaxing moviegoing experience being totally ruined by police rushing in and apprehending some random guy sitting at the back with a camcorder (or even better, some person who doesn't even have a camcorder but rather some other kind of electronic device that the movie theatre employee thought must be some high-tech video recording device)... Woooot just another reason to make people pissed off at the movie industry - no

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

    by FreeKill ( 1020271 ) on Friday June 01, 2007 @11:44AM (#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 !

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kwandar ( 733439 )
      The theatre owners actually don't make much from ticket sales, so their real incentive to feel you up is to check your bags for snacks (where the margins are 500%). Their nice little sign is totally non-effective. Just say "NO" to searches. At worst you'll get your money back, or an opportunity to make their life painful (and win) by taking them to small claims court for breach of contract. Since Cineplex seems to be so stupid about these things, I think this could be fun. Their tickets don't limit dam

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kent_eh ( 543303 )
      Protecting the Canadian movie industry, my ass.

      Since when did Cineplex show Canadian movies on their screens?
      Movies using Canada as a set piece, sure, but an actual Canadian movie?

      anyone

      anyone

      Buhller???
    • What, are you for real? Holy fuck. I have not seen these in western Canada (Vancouver). Makes me want to go see a movie, and then ask them what the fuck law they think gives them permission to search my shit.

      Considering, just posting a random sign with tiny text that says "Oh hey guys BTW when you buy a ticket you're also giving us permission to look through your pockets/bag/purse" doesn't actually make that an even vaguely binding contract of any sort... I mean, if this was the case, they could say "By p
  • 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

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by shark72 ( 702619 )

      I've gotten refunds at the movie theatre several times... but maybe that's just in my area.

      Agreed that it would be nice if there were a law stipulating that record stores must issue unconditional refunds. Then we could all just rip, rip, rip away and build our music collections for nothing more than the time it takes to buy the CD and then return it. If human nature changes (particularly among one of the biggest music-buying segments, teenagers) and the honor system is suddenly more popular, then a law li

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by vux984 ( 928602 )
        I've gotten refunds at the movie theatre several times... but maybe that's just in my area.

        Its like anything else, people are much more willing to refund if you return the product largely un-comsumed.

        If you stay for the full 2 hour movie, your pretty much consumed what you paid for, and even if you didn't like it, they delivered what you paid for. If you decide its not worth watching after 20 minutes, I find people are pretty amenable to issuing a refund, or letting you watch one of the other shows.

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

    by MobyDisk ( 75490 ) on Friday June 01, 2007 @12:09PM (#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.
    • Yeah, but my understanding is that this makes it criminal. Copyright infringement is normally a civil matter.

  • Never Happen. (Score:5, Insightful)

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

    Minority government.

    Election coming sooner rather than later.

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

    • I love minority gov'ts. Nothing gets done! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Valacosa ( 863657 ) on Friday June 01, 2007 @01:47PM (#19354543)
      I love minority governments. Nothing gets done, and thus nothing gets fucked up!

      All praise Canada's multi-party system!

    • Minority government.

      Except that the biggest opposition party, the liberals, haven't expressed any reservations about moving towards US-style copyright legislation,

      Election coming sooner rather than later.

      Probably not, Harper no longer has the power to arbitrarily call an election after passing the fixed election terms law. The only way an election can happen now is at the expiry of the term or if the government is defeated in a confidence motion.

      The only confidence motion I see coming up before the next budget is the conservatives environmental legislation, and whi

  • Can we PLEASE (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Trevin ( 570491 )

    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.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by shark72 ( 702619 )

      "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."

      I was going to post a similar rant against metaphorical use of the concept "theft," but you stole my thunder.

      Somebody should just make some black t-shirts to sell at DEFCON and elsewhere that re

  • ...are Death Blow and Cry, Cry Again. Although the ending sort of falls apart at the end of Cry, Cry Again... there is this lone dancer who appears to be injured.

  • Finally! (Score:2, Funny)

    by JoeDuncan ( 874519 )
    It's about time. I mean seriously, who wants to download a movie only to find out it's a cam that some jerk posted?!?

    I say jail 'em all!

    That way we can be sure the movies we download are genuine DVD rips and not have to worry...
  • In Ohio (one of the United States, for those unfamiliar with the term), it's illegal to turn on a camcorder anywhere in a commercial building where movies are being shown. That includes movie theaters - even out in the lobby - and presumably retail stores where camcorders are sold alongside movies. Moreover, the store/theater/whatever workers have the right to detain you until the cops show up to arrest you.

    Local TV news crew doing an expose on the poor health code compliance of a theater's concession sta

  • Full text of the bill (Score:3, Informative)

    by Pig Hogger ( 10379 ) <pig.hogger@g[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Friday June 01, 2007 @07:09PM (#19359079) Journal
    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

    • The kicker is that nothing prevents the manager of a moviehouse to copy the film for himself, or to allow the manager to have an employee or anyone else do so...

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close