Slashdot Mirror


Canadian Fined For Videoing Movie In Theatre

canadian_right writes "A Calgary man was fined $1,495 and banned from theaters for a year in the first conviction under a new Canadian law making recording a movie in a theater a crime. Until the new law took effect in 2007, prosecutors had to show evidence of distribution to get a conviction; now, recording without permission is sufficient. The Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association was disappointed that jail time was not given." The man was also banned for a year from possessing any video recording equipment, even a video-capable cellphone, outside of his home.

14 of 382 comments (clear)

  1. Your Movie Rights Online. by Ostracus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Am I going to be the only one who asks the obvious? Why should he be allowed to record the movie?

    --
    Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
    1. Re:Your Movie Rights Online. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Shouldn't you be able to record anything you see or hear with your own eyes, short of in cases of invasion of privacy?
      It's just on a tape instead of synapses.

      Um, you do realize that there are a few itty bitty fundamental differences between your brain and an electronic medium? Like, for example, the ability to upload the data for others to download and circumvent copyright laws, and therefore is significantly different than a brain.

      Unless of course you're a cyborg from the future, in which case I for one welcome our apparently borderline retarded, shitty-analogy-making, time traveling, Cybernetic Anonymous Coward Overlords.

    2. Re:Your Movie Rights Online. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Possibly the judge was trying to draw a hard line under the lesson for the perp and the public, without resorting to jail time -- which would be excessive for a non-violent first-time offense, immediately expensive for the public, and probably long-term expensive for the public and the perp because of the troubles he'll pick up from his time in our overcrowded prisons.

      It's an interesting sentence. It'll get more news-report column-inches and watercooler-discussion than a simple fine. I think the judge was thinking.

    3. Re:Your Movie Rights Online. by CSMatt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Let's not forget this little gem:

      The Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association was disappointed that jail time was not given.

      The fact that someone could get jail time for recording a movie is scary enough. The fact that the CMPDA wants to throw everyone caught recording a film into the slammer is just plain terrifying.

    4. Re:Your Movie Rights Online. by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well recording a movie is one of the worst things you can do. Al Qaeda record movies all the time.

    5. Re:Your Movie Rights Online. by arkhan_jg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What I find extreme is that there was the possibility of jail in the first place. He didn't use violence. He didn't threaten anyone. He's guilty of using a video camera in the wrong room.

      The worst you can accuse him of is that he was going to cause economic harm to a corporation (and even that's a stretch - how many people do you know that skip going to the cinema because some shitty rip is available? The only people I know who watch rips is because they can't physically go, and the rip is better than nothing)

      They didn't find a massive stash of recorded films and a dedicated shadowy organization ready to run off millions of DVDs and sell them across the far east, with him as the head making millions in profit. they found an unemployed builder on what appears to be his first offence. They didn't convict him of distribution or even copying.

      Yet the studios wanted to put him in jail for using a camera. That's what I find extreme.

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
  2. Fine by me by jesperhh · · Score: 5, Funny

    Fine by me, i hate cam releases!

  3. Re:jail time? by lysergic.acid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    because corporations are the new aristocracy. in the olden days committing a crime against an aristocrat was a far worse offense than the same crime committed against a commoner. ridiculously harsh sentences were there to reinforce the difference in status. if you stole from or committed any other offense against an aristocrat/noble they could pretty much do whatever they wanted with you. that was their aristocratic privilege.

    as caste systems began to fall out of favor with educated societies people began to seek a more egalitarian justice system. therefore punishments for crimes were the same regardless of the socioeconomic status of either the perpetrator or victim. but like the concept of democracy this egalitarian idealism didn't last for very long in practice. a corporate plutocracy was quickly created to replace the nobles and ruling elite of the past.

    and with corporate interests dominating the government & political system in most capitalist societies, the same double standards are again resurfacing. that is why the RIAA is allowed to bully regular citizens using the threat of costly court battles to extort money from innocent individuals, and individuals convicted to pirating music are ordered to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for "stealing" $20-30 worth of music. similarly, non-malicious hackers accused of causing financial damages to large corporations are often punished more severely than violent offenders.

  4. Re:Phones will be getting good video by ozbird · · Score: 5, Funny

    What if I txt during the movie? At what point do the house lights go up and the police barge in?

    As soon as possible, you inconsiderate clod.

  5. Re:Is this any surprise? by MrNaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That you think that jail time is remotely acceptable, such that not getting it makes him "lucky", speaks volumes about the level of brainwashing that the RIAA and its global cohorts have managed to inflict upon the public.

    In the digital age, copying a film or music track should be a misdemeanor, given that the principles of the rule of law instruct that the ease of the offense, its commonality, the view that the general public has of it and the mindset that people have when they do it all have to be taken into account.

    Assigning jail time to an action that is as socially innocuous as copying an MP3 violates all of these. It is obviously only there to protect the now-defunct business model that the recording studios live by, and has no basis as a common social conception of what is and is not morally acceptable.

    Which, when you break it down, is what the law is supposed to be; commonly accepted morality. We as a society have become so socially sick that this fundamental concept seems odd to even state.

    --
    I hate printers.
  6. Double Standard for Jail Time by CuteSteveJobs · · Score: 5, Insightful
    > "The Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association was disappointed that jail time was not given."

    That's a bit rich since the movie industry itself regularly engages in fraud to rip off movie makers and actors. Did you know the author of Forrest Gump didn't make a single cent from the movie, the smash hit My Big Fat Greek Wedding technically made a loss (so the actors were ripped off royalties) and both Rob Schneider and Spielberg and many others have both stolen movie ideas in the past and baulked at paying the creators. So why is camcording a movie a criminal offense publishable by jail but fraud isn't? and in the US why is fraud only ever settled in civil courts without the threat of jail?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
    http://www.tmz.com/2007/12/11/aussies-to-adam-you-stole-our-gay-firemen-flick/
    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=335127

  7. Re:Why not place IR floodlights around the screen? by ozphx · · Score: 5, Funny

    The problem is that IR lamps will make everyone hot. We should pick a frequency that won't heat up the body, but will stop the recording.

    A strong gamma source should do it...

    --
    3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
  8. Re:Is this any surprise? by rah1420 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nope, I'm not brainwashed. However, I am minded to reply to your comments.

    1) The ease of the offense: We're not talking Ctrl-X Ctrl-Y, we're talking about a man taking a digital camcorder into a movie theater, setting himself up in a good vantage point, taking pains to conceal the camera (he used a sock or something, IIRC, to hide the recording indicators) -- are all these easy? Would the average moviegoer do this? You tell me.

    2) Commonality. Again, the average person knows how to copy files. The average person does not bring a camcorder into the movie theaters, the last time I checked anyway.

    3) The view that the general public has. Again, I haven't polled the general public about this but even given the comments I've seen on this article on /. (duh, serves him right, etc.) I think that it's obvious that the 'general public' would consider copying a file a bit more mundane than actually bringing in equipment to record a movie.

    4) The mindset that people have when they do it. I'm not even gonna touch this one. I think we have all formed a pretty good opinion of what his mindset was - and it wasn't to make an archival copy to watch later. Although I will be the first to admit that I don't know this for a fact.

    So, in my eyes, your argument that assigning jail time to an action 'as socially innocuous as copying an MP3' appears to beg the question of whether setting up video recording equipment in a movie theater is equally socially innocuous. I would hasten to argue that it is not. These are two separate kinds of actions.

    The question of whether it 'protects the now-defunct business model' is moot.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
  9. Re:Not extreme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    For everything else, there's Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.