Canada Responsible for 50% of Movie Piracy

westcoaster004 writes "Hollywood is blaming Canada as being the source for at least 50% of of the world's pirated movies. According to an investigation by Twentieth Century Fox, most of the recording is taking place in Montreal theatres where films are released in both English and French. This has led to consideration of delaying movie releases in Canada. Their problem is that the Canadian Copyright Act, as well as the policies of local police forces, makes it difficult to come down especially hard on perpetrators. Convicting someone is apparently rather difficult, almost requiring a law officer to have a 'smoking camcorder' in the hands of the accused. Hence, the consideration of more drastic measures."

Comments

Due South

[aedan]

Benton Frasier would never do this.

Re:Due South

[Anonymous Coward]

There's also the fact they have to pay a "piracy tax" on blank media, which they quite rightly resent. Of course it backfires by leading them to think "well, I might as well get my money's worth" which *AA execs were somehow too stupid to see would happen.

Re:Due South

[PinkPanther]

The only Canadians' houses I've been in were full of pirated videos

This statement tells me nothing about "Canadian culture" as you haven't specified how many "Canadians' houses" you've been to.

It does, however, tell me a lot about the company you find yourself in the midst of.

:-)(smiley to aid the unsarcasmable).

Re:Due South

[Simon80]

This is perfectly normal, everyone in my neighborhood does it. I've even got an extra igloo behind my main one, dedicated to storing all the pirated VHS tapes I've amassed over the years..

Re:Due South

[nizo]

I've always wondered; how many VHS tapes can you fit on a typical dogsled anyway?

Re:Due South

[purpledinoz]

This is total BS. Has anyone been to any country in South East asia? I've been to Malaysia recently, and I had a hard time finding legit DVD stores. 99% of DVDs I saw were pirated DVDs. When I found a place where legit DVDs and CDs were being sold, I immediately realized why people don't buy legit movies/CDs. They're WAAAY overpriced. CDs/DVDs were being sold for the same price as in Canada. I saw a CD for 45RM (which is about $15 CDN). Which is fine for me, but the average Malaysian makes 3 to 5 times less money than an average Canadian. Imagine paying $50 for a CD. That's what it's like for a Malaysian to buy a legit CD/DVD. Of course they're going to pirate. No one can afford to buy a legit CD/DVD.

Re:Due South

[Steve Newall]

You're mistaken, the tax is not only on CD's. If you look at the Copyright Board of Canada's web site at http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/news/c20032004fs-e.html they have a list of media.

"What specific forms of blank recording media are subject to the levy? Analog Audio Cassette Tapes:

CD-R and CD-RW:

CD-R Audio and CD-RW Audio:

MiniDisc:

Non-Removable Memory Permanently Embedded in a Digital Audio Recorder:

"

So as a Canadian, I believe in getting my money's worth from the Piracy tax.

Re:Due South

[OctaviusIII]

Yeah, that's a motivation to drive to Montreal with a camcorder and record a movie, just so I can stick it to the man. I live in Canada so I know that if you ask nearly anybody about the tax they'd give you a blank stare. Canadians don't resent it and, even if they did, it wouldn't drive them to piracy in protest. That's just stupid.

Re:Due South

[Jugalator]

Coincidentally (or maybe not...), Sweden has a very similar tax and is home to a very large BT tracker...

Yeah, I don't understand the thinking behind these taxes either...

The end result? No less than:

1. People think it's more OK to copy copyrighted material, as they pay for it anyway.
2. People purchase media in bulk from neighboring countries without these taxes, where shipping charges are not a problem.

Result of #1 is increased piracy and #2 is economic losses for Swedish hardware retailers.

Re:Due South

[Tim C]

Of course it backfires by leading them to think "well, I might as well get my money's worth" which *AA execs were somehow too stupid to see would happen.

Or maybe they figured "well, everyone's going to do it anyway, we might as well claw back some of our lost profits".

Scrapping the tax won't make any appreciable difference to the amount of copyright infringement; anyone who cites the tax as a reason for their own copying is most likely using it as a convenient excuse for an activity they'd perform regardless.

Re:Due South

[Original Replica]

most movies are not pirated by a guy in the theater, but are inside jobs.

The guy I most frequntly see selling movies in the subway boasts "no shakey cameras in the back of the theater, all my movies are direct scans. $5.00, you whole family can see it for less than a large popcorn."

Re:Due South

[flyingfsck]

Do not underestimate the bandwidth of a dog sled full of DVDs, eh.

And 97% of that...

[popo]

... is pr0n

Damn your collective punishments, MIAA!

[hexadecimate]

It's all that bitch Anne Murray's fault!

South Park

[jours]

Looks like the South Park gang was right after all.

Re:South Park

[pollock]

I haven't seen it. Got a .torrent handy?

Re:South Park

[Zonk (troll)]

.cn is the People's Republic of China. The TLD for Canada is .ca.

Re:South Park

[Anonymous Coward]

TPB

Problem

[tomstdenis]

Ain't the "pirates" it's the 19th century business model they're clinging to.

Tip: Actors/Execs aren't worth the millions they're paid, and the everyday copyright infringement is proving that.

Tom

Re:Problem

[BewireNomali]

Wow, this isn't insightful at all.

In fact, actors and execs in the film industry are only paid what the market will bear - and what previous box office success warrants. for example, to say that peter jackson isn't worth what he's being paid for the LOTR franchise and ensuing going forward is absurd - because that franchise is verging on 5 billion, if not billions more. I'd wager that Peter's take is in the area of 250 million. I'd wager he's worth more than his take and then some.

infringement proves the opposite, actually - that the brands and content in question is of value that people are willing to take the moderate risk in STEALING IT.

and your point about sticking to a 19th century business model is moot - everyone complains about the business model but no one offers a viable alternative that won't result in a significant contraction/reshuffling of the industry.

Re:Problem

[drinkypoo]

infringement proves the opposite, actually - that the brands and content in question is of value that people are willing to take the moderate risk in STEALING IT.

That's not the opposite. These people don't really believe there's any risk that they will be busted. Therefore they are weighing only the monetary cost of illegally copied content (nothing) vs. the retail price (something) and deciding on copyright infringement. That doesn't mean they would pay for the content if they couldn't download it. There's lots of things I'll watch if they just "come on" (although I can't get broadcast TV where I live at all, so that is pretty much over until I move someplace that's not true) but I won't pay to see them.

and your point about sticking to a 19th century business model is moot - everyone complains about the business model but no one offers a viable alternative that won't result in a significant contraction/reshuffling of the industry.

Your point about a significant contraction/reshuffling of the industry is irrelevant. These people don't have a right to have a profitable business. Period.

Re:Problem

[aeryn_sunn]

To be a devil's advocate, if an artist's, actor's, author's, etc, work is being copyright infringed on a grandscale, then perhaps that actually indicates said creator is work the millions they are getting paid. If consumers go through the effort to download/obtain a creator's work without paying for it and view/listen/whatever that work, then that at least means the work holds some value and enjoyment for the consumer, else, why really waste time and effort on something that has no appeal?

Perhaps, the real question to ask is what is the "sweet spot" of price (assuming that there is adequate distribution methods) that yields the most revenue for a piece of work and that actually compels as many of those who would pirate a work to actually pay for? For instance, if 1,000,000 people will splurge say 14 bucks on Justin Timberlakes album when it first came out, how many more people would have bought it for $7? Surely, the same million that bought it at $14 would have bought it at $7, but would, say, 1.5 million more have bought it if it was half-price, including those folks that would have just downloaded the album off of bittorrent? The same goes for DVDs and even movies at the theater, i.e. paying almost $10 to go the theater does seem absurd for many of the movies out there, but if pricing were flexible, for instance, $5 for the latest Saw VII, then more people might be inclined to take a chance and go to the theater...

anyway, my whole point is if something is worth taking the trouble to obtain off of the internet for free, then at some price point, most will probably buy it... even so, if a creator's work is pirated frequently, then that at least validates somewhat that the creator is getting paid their worth.

Re:Problem

[Captain Splendid]

The reason there is such a thing as "starving artists" is the nature of the beast, not due to piracy. No matter how hard you want to act, sing, paint, whatever, there's always the chance you're either going to be perenially crap at it, or just not what the paying public wants to see. Artists choose their fields based on desire, not money, and those that do deserve to get fucked over as they're clueless twats.

Re:Problem

[tomstdenis]

Yes, but when you see a big film cost $300 million to make, most of that goes to the exec/studio and the top actors, the possibly hundreds of other actors in the film get jack squat.

Imagine if EVERYONE took a fair pay. Your $300 million dollar movie now costs say $10 million [tops] which means the ticket sales required to recoup it is much less.

Tom

Re:Problem

[neoform]

They're also implementing practices that are pissing purchasing customers off like crazy.

I see at least 1 movie in theaters per week, often two.

I pay $11 to sit through 5 tv commercials followed by 6 trailer commercials as well as about 8 studio commercials. Then i sit through a commercial telling me that piracy is illegal and that i could go to jail. This delightful process then takes up 30 minutes of my life that i PAID FOR. This isn't entertainment, this is crap that I don't want and am pissed of by it.

To top it off ushers from the movie theater then walk up and down the isles during the movie with infra-red binoculars in order to seek out pirates with video cameras, which disturbs everyone in the theater.

But hey, it's the pirates fault that the movie industry is losing profits, right? It clearly has nothing to do with the absurd practices put forth by the MPAA.

Re:Problem

[TheRaven64]

Up front payment? Look at how TV shows are produced for inspiration. First, they make a pilot; a normal episode but without most of the effects, and with some bits missing. They then pitch this to studios. Why not cut out the middle man, and pitch it directly to the public? Put the pilot on YouTube (or similar), let people share it as much as possible. If they think it's worth funding, let them put some money into an escrow fund. Once this reaches the amount required to make the feature, the money is released and filming goes ahead. Afterwards, it doesn't matter how much the film is pirated, because it's already been paid for.

Re:Problem

[BewireNomali]

how are those low budget films financed, marketed, and distributed?

Re:Problem

[DeusExMalex]

I would say that illegal copying of movies and music proves the cost of these media to be, in fact, more than the market will bear. If the market would bear these prices then there wouldn't be (many) people trying to find ways to pay less. But because the current prices are so much higher than most are willing to pay for what they are receiving, they have found a way to get the content they want at a price they feel is reasonable (nothing). This seems to imply that something is wrong with the current business model of media providers. Instead of recognizing this fact, lawmakers have been duped into believing that media providers should be guaranteed a profitable business. The market seems to disagree with both.

Re:Problem

[BlackEmperor]

Therefore they are weighing only the monetary cost of illegally copied content (nothing) vs. the retail price (something) and deciding on copyright infringement. That doesn't mean they would pay for the content if they couldn't download it. Actually I find the convenience is far more of a factor than the cost. Downloading torrents is very very convenient and quick. Torrent download sites are generally well organised and the vast majority of movie rips are fairly good quality. If I really like the movie I generally go and buy the dvd, because the quality is better - and I hardly ever go to the cinema.

I think downloading movie torrents is killing video rentals far more than big studios.

Re:Problem

[trianglman]

Its not just Canadian actors. After NAFTA, all North American movie studios, actors, directors, etc. got screwed by Hollywood. Related article on NPR.

Re:Problem

[BewireNomali]

I disagree. People will steal anything if they can get it for free, regardless of the cost. That isn't an indication of whether or not the cost is something that the market can or will bear. Nor is it necessarily an indicant of the viability of a business model.

Nothing is a reasonable price FOR EVERYTHING. Your argument in and of itself doesn't imply that the model is inaccurate. Every walmart in the world would be looted bare if there was little consequence to taking what you wanted and walking out the doors.

What implies the model is inaccurate is that content providers haven't found a way to distribute instances of media without preventing other instances from being distributed in a manner that produces no value for the producer.

quite frankly, the industry is built on those millions of instances of sales of the same content. without those instances, the industry contracts significantly.

Re:Problem

[markbt73]

"Worth" is relative.

To me, the entire LOTR franchise is worth exactly nothing, because Peter Jackson & co shat all over a cherished favorite book of mine.

But (for example), Disney's "Pirates" franchise is worth about $70 to me so far (saw the first movie twice in the theater, bought the DVD, and saw the second movie once). Hitchhiker's was worth $40 (two theater visits and a DVD). X-Men 3 is worth about $4, or a rental. And several movies are worth whatever fraction of my cable bill they represent. I don't give a rat's ass HOW much they spent to make them; they either have entertainment value for me (which I am certainly willing to pay for) or they do not.

I don't download (notice I did not say steal) movies, because 99% of them aren't worth the time or effort to bother watching.

And if the time has come to reshuffle the industry, well, nothing lasts forever.

Re:Problem

[808140]

His point is simple: if you have a previously profitable business model, and it suddenly becomes unprofitable, you are shit out of luck. For example: at one point, much of the economy of Hawaii was dependent on cane sugar. This sugar was being sold on the mainland, primarily, because let's face it, there aren't a lot of people in Hawaii, relatively speaking. It wasn't long before some enterprising farmers realised that sugar cane grows remarkably well in California, and that by producing it in California, they saved big bucks on transportation and labour costs. The result? Cheaper sugar, and they undercut the Hawaiians.

Now, this sucks big time for Hawaii: nowadays, cane sugar plantations are rare, and the industry that once held up the entire Hawaiian economy disappeared essentially overnight. Sucks to be them.

What did not happen in this scenario is, the Hawaiian sugar plantation owners didn't lobby congress to pass laws making the cultivation of sugar cane illegal in California. But if you extend this analogy to the RIAA, that's exactly what they'd like to do.

Here's the situation: DRM is unworkable, for technical reasons, for the same reason that software copy-protection has been unworkable and will continue to be so. The people have already woken up to the convenience of digital media, however, and are not going to roll back the clocks and carry around a bulky discman when an iPod or similar can hold so much more music and play for so much longer. This is simple common sense. Further, we're purchasing everything else on the internet these days, and the average consumer wants to purchase music this way too.

But because DRM is unworkable, the record companies feel that distributing music on-line is inviting copyright infringement. So they resist the migration. The result? A great demand for on-line music, already encoded in MP3 format for ease of use on the iPod and similar, and a very limited RIAA-sanctioned supply.

Well, the way the free market normally works is, I see that consumers want the media, and so I start my own business to take advantage of the high demand and low supply, and make money hand over fist. That's how business works. There's nothing stopping me from starting a CD business, for example: I can purchase a bunch of CDs in bulk and resell them. But because we're dealing with digital media, this avenue isn't open to me, at least not legally. I can't sell a bunch of Britney Spears on-line in MP3 format, because those tracks don't "belong" to me in the sense that I don't have copyright.

So the result is, illegal or questionably legal sites like allofmp3.com do it anyway, and make money hand over fist. People are willing to pay for music if the price is right; 99 cents for an AAC track with Fairplay that will only play on one particular kind of portable music player and will suddenly cease to be functional after your operating system is upgraded or re-installed 5 times, on the other hand, is unsurprisingly much less popular.

The sick thing is, the RIAA could absolutely afford to match allofmp3.com's services and prices and be just as profitable as they are -- more so, in fact, because the fact that they are legally sanctioned and don't require transactions in rubles would make the vast majority of consumers far more willing to buy, and they have the infrastructure required do the sales on a much larger, international scale.

But they won't, because they're married to their extremely high margins. It's amazing, really. They make a ton and a half of money, and the prospect they face is making less money, not no money, and so their response is luddite lobbying of legislatures around the world to somehow make their outdated business model sustainable. But this is a stopgap measure: there are songs and albums that people want to buy in CD form, and there are catchy singles and tunes that people would rather get as an MP3. Saying "no you can't" to the iPod generation isn't going to work.

All

Re:Problem

[Kelbear]

I'm in qualified agreement with the parent post.

There is demand for the media. However, this reference to demand may need a bit of explanation to clearly define to the reader of the post.

The demand for the media indicates a maximum price a consumer is willing to pay for the product. When this coincides with the price the supplier charges, a sale is made. When the price is above that consumer's demand, the demand is still there at their personal price, it just doesn't result in a sale since the two parties are not in agreement.

Piracy should be looked at as an alternative vendor of the media.

The price of piracy is how much the punishment will cost the consumer if they are caught, and this is multiplied by the probability of the consumer of being caught. So let's pick a number out of the air for the lawsuit resulting from being caught. RIAA likes to settle out of court for a lower price than they filed for so the person will accept rather than fight the case, so let's say $20,000. $20,000 x .000001, If it's a 1 in a million chance of being caught for piracy with a penalty of $20,000 means that the price of piracy is 2 cents.

Adjust this probability of being caught by the consumer's ability to accurately predict what their actual odds are, because that's how they're making this judgement, a perceived probability influences this cost. This is also why the RIAA wants to publicize how many people they hit and how heavily they're hit. The perception of a piracy crackdown prevents piracy just as well as an actual piracy crackdown as long as the consumer believes it to be real.

So compare the cost of a song to the cost of a pirated song. It's about 99 cents vs. 2 cents. This is just an example, so a conservative estimate of a 50 cent cost for piracy is safer while still making the point.

The 50 cent price of a pirated song is cheaper than the 99 cent legitimate alternative, and is within the personal price range of the pirate, and thus they pirate.

The RIAA can prevent this in two ways. Price below the 50 cent cost of piracy and sell at 49 cents. Or, increase piracy difficulty and penalty until it's risker than the 99 cent cost(this is the course of action they're taking now). Or, they can pursue both a cost reduction and an attack on piracy at the same time to get sales at a price somewhere between 50 and 99 cents. If any of these 3 possibilities are achieved, the consumer will not choose piracy (Though the piracy cost for each consumer will vary of course).

That's the economics of the situation.

Re:Problem

[Sylvak]

I think that's not a bad idea.

Another idea I could see working would be a movie service that would provide all movies downloads for like 1$ each. This system could also facilitate user feedback to track information like favorite movies, actors, directors, writers, and other people involved in movies. All the money collected could go towards the creation of new movies. As for who does what movie, we could use the collected feedback data and give first choice to the most popular people. If everyone loves a particular actor, let him decide which movie he prefers doing that year.

I see this as the basis of an engine to promote the creation of art that is freely available in the public domain.

As for people wanting to make big $$, they could just use the fame they acquired and do something imaginative with that. I'm sure they could figure it out (10000$ for special appearence at the tonight show, 50000$ for commercials, etc). Also, each movie could be available in 'platinum edition' with bonus material (posters, catalogues, extra content) at a higher price. So lets say I love the LOTR movie that I got in digital format for 1$, I could still go and buy the 40$ platinum edition. Then, the money from the platinum sales could go directly to the people involved in the movie, not the movie making body... therefore creating an incentive to making a big hit movie.

Crazy idea, I know... but it could work. Anybody else want to add/change something?

Re:Problem

[RexRhino]

I agree with you the non-movie related commercials suck, but I enjoy seeing the movie trailers. I consider it part of the whole movie experience, and I am often disapointed when there aren't enough trailers.

Re:Problem

[MrYotsuya]

"Then i sit through a commercial telling me that piracy is illegal and that i could go to jail."

Which is a pack of lies if you live in Canada (well currently, we will see what happens with future legislation). That is the most annoying and irritating thing to me. I paid to watch the movie, I am not pirating or "stealing" the movie (the adverts are "downloading is wrong..") why do you have to tell me not to, I'm there and paid for it. That's like a car salesman telling you that you should not steal cars because it is illegal before they let you take the keys to the car you just purchased .


The solution to say loudly in the theater "Holy Shit! You can download movies off the Internet!?" When the ads come on. If everyone starts saying that, the people who put the ads up will eventually have to re-think their strategy.

Delaying releases

[Hobobo]

They're going to delay movie releases to combat piracy? Brilliant!

Re:Delaying releases

[Firefly1]

Yes, 'brilliant'. Especially when one realizes that these delays represent in and of themselves a good incentive for bootleggers (I refuse to use 'pirates' to describe them).
So, let's assume Hollywood decides to delay releases in Canada... what prevents the Canadian government from saying 'okay, fine; find somewhere else for your location shoots' and explaining to their public precisely why they took such a step?

Re:Delaying releases

[tomee]

Precisely. I live in Germany, where for reasons beyond me they a movie is sometimes released 3 months after the US. For example, Saw III still isn't out here. A perfect DVD quality rip has been floating about for a long time now. This is what breeds piracy.

Re:Delaying releases

[$RANDOMLUSER]

So by that logic, if they delayed the release EVERYWHERE by two weeks, they'd stamp out piracy alltogether?

Re:Delaying releases

[iamhassi]

Don't you mean: Their current plan of releasing really shitty movies that nobody would want to waste drive space or blank DVDS hasn't worked because they underestimated how desperate people are for new releases.

Bring on the year of the sequel! The Hills Have Eyes 2, National Treasure 2, Saw IV (four?!), Alien vs Predator 2, Austin Powers 4, Daredevil 2, etc, all coming out in 2007

Just so it's clear...

[tkrotchko]

1) Hollywood says Canada is responsible for 50% of all piracy.

2) So to "punish" the Canadians, they'll take away the legal avenue to purchase movies in Canada.

3) And this leads to....????? Profit???? Less Piracy?????

Presumably, the Canadian legislature will ask similar questions?

Re:Just so it's clear...

[gstoddart]

Presumably, the Canadian legislature will ask similar questions?

Possibly, but like everyone else's government, ours doesn't always get it either.

See, part of the problem is our copyright law incorporates fair use explicitly. Since the *AAs couldn't get that part repealed, they managed to get themselves a levy on all blank media to counter the 'theft' which they are a victim of. Now, all recordable media that gets bought causes them to get paid a cut. Nice little scam from out perspective.

Many people in Canada have basically said "fsck it, if you're gonna charge me for all of my blank media, I'm gonna use some of it to make copies of your crap -- you're already getting paid, so I'm getting me a movie".

Mostly though, I'm absolutely shocked that many people are interested in seeing a camcorder recording of a movie. When I see a movie, I want a good picture quality -- not some friggin' hand-held recording of the movie.

Oh well, the vast majority of movies coming out nowadays are dreck anyway, and the ones I'm looking forward to, I'll go to/buy as soon as they're available to me.

Cheers

Re:Just so it's clear...

[antiMStroll]

The entire article reads like one long, dissembling pack of lies meant to exert influence on upcoming changes to our copyright legislation. The claims are idiotic at face value.

- Montreal, a city of approximately 4 million, is responsible for 50% of the worlds 6.5 billion inhabitants piracy. 0.6% pirates 50%. Sure.

- Conflating the normal understanding of movie piracy as distributing movies with cams in theatres is a cheap Iraq/terrorist juxtaposition ploy

- The advantage is convenience, pirates cam both English and French for release in, of all places, Asia where the vast majority speak neither (ignoring that Quebec French is significantly different the French spoken elsewhere.)

- Finally, that somehow copyright legislation has much of any bearing on it.

How we got to a place where marketing shill non-entities of tertiary industries, such as the "chief executive of the Cineplex Entertainment theatre chain" or "president of Fox's domestic distribution", have the balls to threaten foreign countries is best left to historians but its well past time politicians put these dogs back in their place as purveyors of useless trivialities and told to STFU.

Re:Just so it's clear...

[ArtDent]

Bring it!

If they delay the release of their films in Canada, of course it will encourage illegal copying of these films here.

But, that's not all. It's not just our movie theatres that our dominated by American content. We get all their crappy entertainment media as well. So, the releases will not coincide with the media hype, no doubt leading to reduced interest in their films altogether.

Hopefully, this will result in more interest in domestic offerings. With any luck, we'll see more, and better, Canadian movies being made. Wouldn't that be fantastic?

Blame Canada..

[zyl0x]

..we're not a real country anyway.

Brrrrr....

[Otter]

...almost requiring a law officer to have a 'smoking camcorder' in the hands of the accused.

Sorry, but I just arrived from a 15 minute walk between buildings and my brain is frozen. (Which, I believe, is also Canada's fault.) Could someone please make the appropriate Sony battery-related comment?

Re:Brrrrr....

[PolR]

You got it reversed. Plan A is global warming and we just leave it to the US to do it for us. This is an unstoppable plan. There will be no need to resort to plan B.

this is serious

[scooviduvoctagon]

We're obviously going to need to declare war on Canada. This aggression will not stand.

Piracy is IP Terrorism.

Great. Now I Get To Deal With Them At the Theater

[Doug Dante]

Great. Now I'm going to have to watch a movie from behind some Canadian snow-back who slips over the border; his camcorder blocking half my view, and my only connection to the movie the flashes of the screen I get as his flopping head jib-jabbers "aboot" the militaristic nature of American culture.

Blame Canada!
Blame Canada!
It seems that everything's gone wrong,
since Canada came along!

PS: Canada is my #1 favorite foreign country, I love to meet Canadians who come to the USA, and I always enjoy visiting Canada.

So

[VEGETA_GT]

The US is the other 50%.

What 50% of world movies?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

So focussed on America, these guys dont consider rest of the world to be world. First off 50% of the world movies are not produced in America. India makes more movies.

Singapore is the piracy capital for Tamil/Telugu movies. Dubai is the palce to go to get Bollywood movies. Hongkong is the piracy portal for China and Korea. Canada is probably a distant fourth when it comes to movie piracy.

Re:What 50% of world movies?

[nitroamos]

The article probably means 50% of hollywood produced movies. Obviously hollywood could care less (and wouldn't have any statistics for) whether bollywood et al movies get pirated.

boo hoo. Hollywood needs Canada's cash.

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Canada probably doesnt give a crap if their film releases get delayed. They will see them when they're released right? Hollywood needs Canada's money more than Canada needs Hollywood's film releaes in theaters. Besides.. by releasing the films later in Canada, more Canadians will be forced to download them illegally.

Treat people like they're criminals, and they will become criminals.

I'm Canadian.

[Grey Ninja]

I'm a Canadian. I'm honestly not sure if the law applies to movies as well as music (I think it does), but in Canada, it's not copyright infringement if it's for personal use. You are free to download as much as you like if you aren't going to do anything bad with it (like sell it). If you are just going to watch it or listen to it, it's all good.

But we still have the CRIA ads in our theatres saying not to pirate the movies we just paid to watch. It has a tendency to piss us off. I have a friend who downloads a movie (any movie) before going to a theater to see a movie on general principles. The general consensus in Canada is that the CRIA is pure evil, and are kept on a very thin leash. We try not to give them money if we can at all help it. But we like to go to theatres, and we like our boxed DVDs, so most of us have extensive collections and go to the theatre frequently anyway.

But that being said, I'm sure that the vast majority of us pirates would be more than willing to pay a fair price for movies, if the price was fair, and the profits went to the artists instead of a cartel of gangsters.

Re:I'm Canadian.

[kebes]

in Canada, it's not copyright infringement if it's for personal use

Indeed, and that's what the U.S. movie industry so scared about. Quote from the article:

But here's the catch. Under the Copyright Act, you have to prove that an individual camcording in the theatre is doing it for distribution purposes.

Camcording a movie in Canada is not illegal (it could be for personal use). The illegal part is distributing the recording to others, but that is a completely separate event. Again from the article:

We don't want to have to prove the economic loss from distribution. We want it to be a Criminal Code activity to be caught camcording. Period.

Fantastic! Let's just assume everyone is a criminal if we even suspect that they don't support the status-quo monopoly!

Personally I don't want Canadians giving up any of their freedoms just to maintain the current distribution monopolies. All Canadians in the audience should consider signing the petition against copyright extension: http://www.digital-copyright.ca/billc60/.

Re:I'm Canadian.

[Egonis]

Agreed.
And it's also worth noting that Canada has the highest percent per capita of High-End Home Theatre Systems and DVD Sales.

I download movies, and decide whether I would like to own a copy. I own over 100 DVD's, and am not against purchasing a good movie I would like to watch again, and also to support the filmmakers who don't make typical garbage!

FYI: You can find this statistic information on Industry Canada's Site somewhere, CBC had made a report on this about 8 months ago.

Re:I'm Canadian.

[fahrbot-bot]

I download movies, and decide whether I would like to own a copy. I own over 100 DVD's, and am not against purchasing a good movie I would like to watch again...

Exactly! This is what scares the MPAA. Lost revenue because someone determined a movie was crap *before* paying to see it in a theatre or buying the DVD.

In addition to buying the DVD, there are some movies I actually want to see on the big screen for the enjoyment of the experience. Others, not so much and the DVD is fine. Still others, I'll wait for it on TBS :-)

This is a "Placed" PR piece

[davecb]

The Globe and Mail fell for this too, back on the 7th as Pirates of the Canadians

In fact, the majority of the actual copies are inside jobs, taken from "screeners" sent to reviewers and from copies made by distributors and projectionists. It's amazingly hard for a Montreal cop to catch a "camcorder" who isn't actually in the theater (;-))

Many are copied from copies destined for Quebec, as they include both the english- and french-language versions, and can be identified by watermarks as being destined for or actually sent to, for example, Cineplex Entertainment. Which may explain why Fox was threatening that particular distributor...

--dave

Incorrect facts?

[HFShadow]

Recent movies including Children of Men, Borat, Night at the Museum and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest have been made available on the Internet days after they were released.

Funny, Children of Men's release date was december 25th, whereas:
11/16/2006 2006 Children Of Men .PROPER. MAVENSSUPPLIER [xx/50]

Hardly days after they were released, more like a month before hand. This always happens around this time of year as prerelease dvd's get sent out to reviewers, so how the hell are they trying to blame us Canadians for this? Who the hell download's cams anyways? Certainly not I.

Re:Incorrect facts?

[poulbailey]

Not counting the Italian premiere in early September, Children of Men premiered in the UK and Ireland on September 22nd 2006. I have no idea what the pirate group's source was, but by the time of the release it had already premiered in plenty countries around the world:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0206634/releaseinfo

Well, if they showed the movies in Canada

[WillAffleckUW]

they wouldn't have to download them, would they?

Many films never even get shown in Canada, and since they're a very multi-ethnic society, they tend to want to watch movies from many countries that just plain aren't shown there.

It's one thing to want people to pay for a movie that shows in a nearby theater.

It's another thing to want people to pay for a movie that:
a. never showed within 100 miles of them; and
b. when it did show was in another bleeding province.

what bs

[strobe74]

I have a hard time believing Canada pirates more than places like china. I'd like to know exactly how they measure that.

I'm assuming they're using the "what unsupported accusation suits my needs best" method.

Telesync

[Anonymous Coward]

Telesync copies, IMHO are more of a "look at me, I'm l33t" kind of thing. I don't think they're very watchable. I've always been shocked that hollywood focuses on what is not the main problem.

I have a feeling the issue of telesyncs is more one of ego... it probably bugs the crap out of Hollywood execs that it's done.

Maybe that's the issue with hollywood... everything is ego driven rather than via rational analysis. If that's true, it's costing them dearly.

More lobbying lies...

[sinij]

Did you know that 75% of all statistics are made-up on a spot and remaining 25% are highly misleading when taken out of context?

Please, Canada? What about China, India or Eastern Europe where you can get movies before they released and where pirated disks openly sold on the street? Well, no, BLAME CANADA!

This is nothing more than FUD spread by *AA in effort to influence upcoming bill.

Yeah, to bad

[Pizentios]

To bad, cause a Canadian Judge ruled that file sharing isn't illegal in Canada. See http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5182641.html for more information. The greed induced coma that record and movie studio's are in now will successfully ruin (read: has ruined) the industry. I personally don't go to the movie theaters anymore because of the following reasons:

1) I don't enjoy paying more than $10 so see a movie, and lets face it, i am too lazy to go out and get a movie rental card :-P
2) I get a far better movie experience at home anyways, i have better sound/images and no jack ass sitting in front of me talking about what he thinks is going to happen in the movie next.
3) Most of the movies that come out today are crap. Also a great deal of them are ether remakes of old movies, or sequels. I would rather watch the original version of the movie an certainly not the 3rd,4th or 5th sequels of the movie.

Maybe if the industry would actually create something good, instead of shoving more of the same tired crap down peoples necks. I am so tired of seeing some pop culture icon (like jessica simpson, etc..) get a movie part. They aren't real actors. I don't find their lack of intellgence funny or cute. All they do is re-enforce the image that women should act stupid because it's cute.

It's the same with the music industry. They have new bands every few months now, and rarely are they any good....just more of the same pop culture or indy music.

As a consumer i have a choice. I choose to not spend money on crap. If i can get free crap and have a better experience in my own home, why wouldn't i take advantage of it? Maybe it's time to change the way you do business and actually create a model that inpires trust from the customer, in a way that will make them feel comfortable about buying something of yours and make them feel like they are getting something for that money.

Please delay the releases

[thewils]

In fact, don't release some of them at all.

Re:Just delaying theatrical releases.

[Anonymous Coward]

What is really going on here is that the MPAA is threatening to delay theatrical releases. Basically, they are throwing a temper tantrum and using their shaking fists and baby behavior to be evidence of too much un-approved copying of media content by Canadians (who, btw, pay a tax on media to be able to do just that). The real goal here is to be able to have the Canadian legislature pass new law to take away the codified fair use rights of Canadian citizens. As an outsider, I will say that any Canadian legislator who falls for this is a traitor to their country.

The MPAA does not want any other countries getting any silly ideas like codifying their citizens fair use rights into law. That would be just too much to handle for the group of corporations whose business is selling movie distribution.

Yeah, if they did follow through on their threat Canadians would just get their movies from online. I guess the MPAA has really bad timing. They should not have waited until after there was a competing model of media distribution to try and reassert their control over the old way of media distribution.

I think it is time for the MPAA to fade into the sunset.

Re:FOX

[PingSpike]

Wouldn't delaying releases really screw hollywood a lot more? They'd have to spread their marketing budget over a much longer time to keep the buzz generated, otherwise people would say "I want to see that! Oh wait its not out yet..." then forget all about it before actually did come out.

Not to mention the people that it would increase the demand for bootlegs floating around online.

How about this, after they make a film, in order to prevent piracy they burn the master copy before anyone can see it. And shoot all the people involved in the production, so that they can't make another copy. Gotta catch 'em all!

Re:Canada Rules

[evil-osm]

Lets get something straight. We didn't give you Steve Nash. MDG has a good solid grip on him still, good thing too, as I'm still waiting for him to make my new PC!

This smacks of political timing

[thatguywhoiam]

Here's the deal. Bev Oda, who is our Heritage Minister (in charge of cultural things like copyright) is being hammered right now from a few different sides, mostly stirred up by her arch enemy, Ottawa copyfighter Prof. Michael Geist. She's in the pocket of all five big record labels, most of her political donations come directly from them (via CRIA). So I'm guessing this story is a plant.

I mean, this statement:
As much as 50 per cent of the world's pirated movies come from Canada, prompting the film industry to threaten to delay the release of new titles in this country.

Worldwide?! There is just no fucking way. We don't even hold a tiny candle to what goes on in Asia.

Also, as we know, the vast majority of movies leaked do not come from camcorder screeners, they are direct rips, leaked from the studios themselves by employees or connected people.

What they are really mad about is - 1. fair use is basically intrinsically stated within Canadian law, so its almost impossible to appeal, and 2. it is actually LEGAL to bring a camcorder into a theatre in Canada. The establishment can certainly bar you from doing so - its their theatre - but there is no actual law against doing this. Its basically a FUD piece.

Canada, huh.

[Nom du Keyboard]

Well Canada is only one country out of >135, and not even that big in terms of population. If half your problem is Canada alone, you should be rejoicing in the streets!

Thank you!

[kmac06]

Finally the MPAA doing something I support. This will get rid of the crappy quality bootlegs on Limewire, leaving only the high quality DVD rips.

Slashdot Got It Wrong...

[The Real Nem]

...but is it really a surprise?

In the letter, Snyder fumed that his company had discerned that, at one point during 2006, Canadian theatres were the source for nearly 50 per cent of illegal camcords across the globe.

And it even goes on to say:

"The reality is in 2005, 20 per cent of all identified camcordings occurred in Canada," says Frith. "That's a huge number. And it's growing."

20% of a type of piracy != 50% of all piracy. And another thing:

Frith says government bureaucrats try to placate him by saying that under the Copyright Act exhibitors have the ability to charge someone criminally. "But here's the catch. Under the Copyright Act, you have to prove that an individual camcording in the theatre is doing it for distribution purposes. That's almost impossible."

If it's a criminal offence, it holds a higher burden of proof. This shouldn't be so shocking but perfectly reasonable. Maybe it's for personal viewing? But it gets better:

We don't want to have to prove the economic loss from distribution. We want it to be a Criminal Code activity to be caught camcording. Period.

Maybe because it's nowhere near the level you claim?

But in Canada, the theft of intellectual property is basically treated as a "soft crime," says CMPDA president Doug Frith. "Canada has done nothing to remedy its lack of domestic enforcement and complete absence of border enforcement."

It's, for the most part, a civil offence! Maybe it's our liberal way of thinking, but locking someone up for several years for pirating a movie just doesn't make sense. I could go on and on, there are at least a dozen or so additional laughable quotes.

On behalf...

[Cervantes]

On behalf of all Canadians...

You're welcome.

-Cerv

PS: We promise to seed more.

Look Who Has Made The "Indepth Study"!

[1mck]

Take a look at who has made this study that "50%" of all piracy comes from Canaduh...The Movie Frigging Industry!!! Where are they getting this data to back up their claims??? Yeah, out of their asses!!! I maybe one of the few people that actually loves going to the movies, and also I buy tons of DVD's! I never download "Cam" movies as it just spoils the whole experience for me. I agree with everyone that if they implement this draconian measure to delay movie releases here in the land of high taxes, and great beer, then it will even further increase piracy. The only real way to stop Cam movies is to advertise that the staff members are patrolling to see if it is happening...of course, the staff members could be doing it themselves.

What a load of effluent

[Anonymous Coward]

The only Canadians' houses I've been in were full of pirated videos

Strange. I've been in hundreds of Canadians' houses (having lived all my life in Canada) and have NEVER been in a house "full of pirated videos", which leads me to speculate that you:

1) only consort with criminals; and/or
2) have confused video stores for houses; and/or
3) just make stuff up as you go.

By the way, most of our 'ouses have more than 2 walls ("both walls").

Re:Tough DRM Because of Canada

[WED Fan]

That's "Eh" you douchebag....

Nope, the t-shirt I bought at the Nicey Nice Authorized Tourist Shop for Non-Socialist Money Grubbers in Victoria, B.C. clearly has the word "Ay" emblazened upon it's Non-Socialist, First Nation's Friendly front.

AY!

Not to be confrontational, ay.

Hugs, anyone?

Right to Profit

[shani]

I think what drinkypoo is trying to say is simply that there is no right to make money at any particular activity.

There are tons of professions and industries that have disappeared or been relegated to fringe activities... coopers, glassblowers, phrenologists, jesters, scribes; the list goes on and on and on.

Would society really be better off if we were required to use wooden barrels crafted by masters to store liquids?

Should psychologists be required to have a professional read the bumps on someone's head before making a diagnosis?

Perhaps we should all pay a "scribe tax" on every photocopy we make?

The point is, times change, and sometimes professions and entire industries just become... obsolete. It sucks for people who earn their living that way, or who have a romantic attachment (think of the mystique around "the age of sail"), but overall it's okay. Life goes on. People find new ways to live, and new ways to express themselves and interact with each other.

Digital media and the Internet may have made big production movies and TV and platinum albums a thing of the past. A pity if you like Cecil B. Demille, not such a shame if you like live jazz. :)

PROPAGANDA

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

This is to instill a 'panic' in th epress, to accelerate the lobbying/vote buying effort by the TrueEvil consortia in Canuckistan.

It has come out how the RIAA and MPAA lined the pockets of MPs and administrators, practically buying unpopular legislation. Now this "news" comes out - to distract the public from the corporate pay-for-votes aspect of the story.

'Sides, it's too cold to go to the movies, ya' hose-head!

Re:Taxes

[MurrayMD]

I'm a Canadian and I resent that tax among other things. I now live in Texas.

Actually....

[alisson]

I'm pretty sure this. is responsible for 50% of piracy. Can someone explain to the MPAA that Waterworld is not worth $20, in any possible way? It could be on a disc made of solid gold, and still not be worth money.

Obviously it's a small example, but the reason people aren't willing to part with $20 for a crappy movie is because... well, it's a crappy movie.

And what accounts for the other 50%? This. Stop punishing me for paying for movies. Every time I see this, I want to give you my money even less.

smoking

[gemada]

Camcorders are not allowed to smoke in theatres in Canada

Re:Taxes

[OverDrive33]

I'd rather have both a piracy tax AND habeas corpus instead of having neither.

Nothing but a lobbying tactic

[gorbachev]

This is nothing but a PR campaign to convince Canadian legislators to pass the new copyright bill they're considering at the moment. It's the one that would eliminate fair use from Canada.

Mod parent up

[JoeCommodore]

I agree

"Hollywood is blaming Canada as being the source for at least 50% of of the world's pirated movies..."

"Their problem is that the Canadian Copyright Act, as well as the policies of local police forces, makes it difficult to come down especially hard on perpetrators. Convicting someone is apparently rather difficult, almost requiring a law officer to have a 'smoking camcorder' in the hands of the accused. Hence, the consideration of more drastic measures."

So Canada is acting (unjustly according to Hollywood) in the notion that thier citizensa are innocent unless they are proven guilty beyond a shadow of doubt.

What a backwards country, thinking of of well being of its citizens over Corporate Revenues? Where are the lobbiests!?