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.

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?

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

[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

[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

[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

Delaying releases

[Hobobo]

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

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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: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!?